IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i21p9428-d1778119.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Adapting the Cool Farm Tool for Achieving Net-Zero Emissions in Agriculture in Atlantic Canada

Author

Listed:
  • Mackenzie Tapp

    (Faculty of Computer Science, Dalhousie University, 6050 University Avenue, Halifax, NS B3H 4R2, Canada)

  • Mayuri Kate

    (Faculty of Computer Science, Dalhousie University, 6050 University Avenue, Halifax, NS B3H 4R2, Canada)

  • Shuqiang Zhang

    (Faculty of Computer Science, Dalhousie University, 6050 University Avenue, Halifax, NS B3H 4R2, Canada)

  • Kashfia Sailunaz

    (Faculty of Computer Science, Dalhousie University, 6050 University Avenue, Halifax, NS B3H 4R2, Canada)

  • Suresh Neethirajan

    (Faculty of Computer Science, Dalhousie University, 6050 University Avenue, Halifax, NS B3H 4R2, Canada
    Faculty of Agriculture, Agricultural Campus, Dalhousie University, P.O. Box 550, Truro, NS B2N 5E3, Canada)

Abstract

Agriculture is responsible for nearly one-quarter of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, with livestock and poultry systems contributing significantly through methane (CH 4 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ). Achieving net-zero agriculture demands tools that not only quantify emissions but also guide management decisions and foster behavioral change. The Cool Farm Tool (CFT)—a science-based calculator for farm-level carbon footprints, water use, and biodiversity—has been widely adopted across Europe and parts of the United States. Yet, despite its proven potential, no Canadian studies have tested or adapted CFT, leaving a major gap in the country’s progress toward climate-smart farming. This paper addresses that gap by presenting the first surveys of poultry and dairy producers in Atlantic Canada as a foundation for tailoring and localizing CFT. Our mixed-methods surveys examined farm practices, feed, manure, energy use, waste management, sustainability perceptions, and openness to digital tools. Results on 23 responses (20 for poultry, 3 for dairy) revealed limited awareness but moderate interest in emission tracking: dairy farmers, already accustomed to digital systems such as robotic milking and herd software, were receptive and confident about adopting CFT. Poultry farmers, by contrast, voiced greater concerns over cost, complexity, and uncertain benefits, signaling higher adoption barriers in this sector. These findings highlight both the opportunity and the challenge: while dairy farms appear ready for rapid uptake, poultry requires stronger incentives, clearer value demonstration, and sector-specific customization. We conclude that adapting CFT with regionally relevant data, AI-driven decision support, and supportive policy frameworks could make it a cornerstone for achieving net-zero agriculture in Atlantic Canada.

Suggested Citation

  • Mackenzie Tapp & Mayuri Kate & Shuqiang Zhang & Kashfia Sailunaz & Suresh Neethirajan, 2025. "Adapting the Cool Farm Tool for Achieving Net-Zero Emissions in Agriculture in Atlantic Canada," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-37, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:21:p:9428-:d:1778119
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/21/9428/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/21/9428/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eliana Lima & Thomas Hopkins & Emma Gurney & Orla Shortall & Fiona Lovatt & Peers Davies & George Williamson & Jasmeet Kaler, 2018. "Drivers for precision livestock technology adoption: A study of factors associated with adoption of electronic identification technology by commercial sheep farmers in England and Wales," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-17, January.
    2. Sellars, Sarah C. & Schnitkey, Gary D. & Gentry, Laura F., 2023. "Cover Crops on Illinois Farms," Journal of the ASFMRA, American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, vol. 2023, January.
    3. Kayatz, Benjamin & Baroni, Gabriele & Hillier, Jon & Lüdtke, Stefan & Freese, Dirk & Wattenbach, Martin, 2024. "Supporting decision-making in agricultural water management under data scarcity using global datasets – chances, limits and potential improvements," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 296(C).
    4. Evangelos Alexandropoulos & Vasileios Anestis & Federico Dragoni & Anja Hansen & Saoirse Cummins & Donal O’Brien & Barbara Amon & Thomas Bartzanas, 2023. "Decision Support Systems Based on Gaseous Emissions and Their Impact on the Sustainability Assessment at the Livestock Farm Level: An Evaluation from the User’s Side," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-29, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:plo:pone00:0213855 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Di Liu & Pan Wang, 2023. "WeChat E-Commerce, Social Connections, and Smallholder Agriculture Sales Performance: A Survey of Orange Farmers in Hubei Province, China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-14, October.
    3. Mona F. Giersberg & Franck L. B. Meijboom, 2023. "As if you were hiring a new employee: on pig veterinarians’ perceptions of professional roles and relationships in the context of smart sensing technologies in pig husbandry in the Netherlands and Ger," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(4), pages 1513-1526, December.
    4. Shang, Linmei & Heckelei, Thomas & Gerullis, Maria K. & Börner, Jan & Rasch, Sebastian, 2021. "Adoption and diffusion of digital farming technologies - integrating farm-level evidence and system interaction," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    5. Gary D. Schnitkey & Sarah C. Sellars & Laura F. Gentry, 2024. "Cover crops, farm economics, and policy," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 46(2), pages 595-608, June.
    6. Grothkopf, Carina & Schulze, Holger, "undated". "Empirische Analyse der Einflussfaktoren auf die Digitalisierung der Milchviehhaltung," 61st Annual Conference, Berlin, Germany, September 22-24, 2021 317061, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    7. Cuiping He & Huicheng Hao & Yanhui Su & Jiaxuan Yang, 2024. "A Study on Factors Influencing Farmers’ Adoption of E-Commerce for Agricultural Products: A Case Study of Wuchang City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-22, October.
    8. Dongkai Lin & Bingsheng Fu & Kexiao Xie & Wanhe Zheng & Linjie Chang & Jinke Lin, 2023. "Research on the Improvement of Digital Literacy for Moderately Scaled Tea Farmers under the Background of Digital Intelligence Empowerment," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-26, September.
    9. Parra-López, Carlos & Reina-Usuga, Liliana & Garcia-Garcia, Guillermo & Carmona-Torres, Carmen, 2024. "Designing policies to promote the adoption of digital phytosanitation towards sustainability: The case of the olive sector in Andalusia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    10. Barnes, Andrew P. & Thomson, Steven G. & Ferreira, Joana, 2020. "Disadvantage and economic viability: characterising vulnerabilities and resilience in upland farming systems," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    11. Alexandros Theodoridis & Sotiria Vouraki & Emmanuel Morin & Georgia Koutouzidou & Georgios Arsenos, 2022. "Efficiency Analysis and Identification of Best Practices and Innovations in Dairy Sheep Farming," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-12, October.
    12. Yari Vecchio & Marcello De Rosa & Gregorio Pauselli & Margherita Masi & Felice Adinolfi, 2022. "The leading role of perception: the FACOPA model to comprehend innovation adoption," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 10(1), pages 1-19, December.
    13. Dana Cătălina Popa & Yolanda Laurent & Răzvan Alexandru Popa & Adrian Pasat & Mihaela Bălănescu & Ekaterina Svertoka & Elena Narcisa Pogurschi & Livia Vidu & Monica Paula Marin, 2023. "A Platform for GHG Emissions Management in Mixed Farms," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-25, December.
    14. Monde Rapiya & Mthunzi Mndela & Abel Ramoelo, 2025. "Sustainable Food Systems Through Livestock–Pasture Integration," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-17, April.
    15. Xiaoxue Feng & Suhaiza Zailani, 2024. "The Antecedents of the Willingness to Adopt and Pay for Climate-Smart Agricultural Technology Among Cooperatives in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-31, December.
    16. Piotr Goliński & Patrycja Sobolewska & Barbara Stefańska & Barbara Golińska, 2022. "Virtual Fencing Technology for Cattle Management in the Pasture Feeding System—A Review," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-14, December.
    17. Ohashi, Takumi & Saijo, Miki & Suzuki, Kento & Arafuka, Shinsuke, 2024. "From conservatism to innovation: The sequential and iterative process of smart livestock technology adoption in Japanese small-farm systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    18. Paulus, Michael & Pfaff, Sara Anna, 2022. "Factors Affecting the Diffusion of Digital Farming Towards More Resilient Farming Systems - Empirical Evidence from Baden-Württemberg," 62nd Annual Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, September 7-9, 2022 329597, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    19. Sayed Abdul Majid Gilani & Abigail Copiaco & Liza Gernal & Naveed Yasin & Gayatri Nair & Imran Anwar, 2023. "Savior or Distraction for Survival: Examining the Applicability of Machine Learning for Rural Family Farms in the United Arab Emirates," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-23, February.
    20. Barnes, A.P. & Soto, I. & Eory, V. & Beck, B. & Balafoutis, A. & Sánchez, B. & Vangeyte, J. & Fountas, S. & van der Wal, T. & Gómez-Barbero, M., 2019. "Exploring the adoption of precision agricultural technologies: A cross regional study of EU farmers," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 163-174.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:21:p:9428-:d:1778119. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.