Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38914996›Full record

ReviewBMC biology2024

Opportunities to produce food from substantially less land.

H Charles J Godfray, Joseph Poore, Hannah Ritchie

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

H Charles J GodfrayOxford Martin School, Oxford University, 34 Broad St, Oxford, OX1 3BD, UK. charles.godfray@oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk.
Joseph PooreDepartment of Biology, Oxford University, 11a Mansfield Rd, Oxford, OX1 3SZ, UK.
Hannah RitchieOur World in Data, Oxford University, 34 Broad St, Oxford, OX1 3BD, UK.

Funding

Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford FoF2Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 205212/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The vast majority of the food we eat comes from land-based agriculture, but recent technological advances in agriculture and food technology offer the prospect of producing food using substantially less or even virtually no land. For example, indoor vertical farming can achieve very high yields of certain crops with a very small area footprint, and some foods can be synthesized from inorganic precursors in industrial facilities. Animal-based foods require substantial land per unit of protein or per calorie and switching to alternatives could reduce demand for some types of agricultural land. Plant-based meat substitutes and those produced through fermentation are widely available and becoming more sophisticated while in the future cellular agricultural may become technically and economical viable at scale. We review the state of play of these potentially disruptive technologies and explore how they may interact with other factors, both endogenous and exogenous to the food system, to affect future demand for land.

Indexed as

AgricultureCrops, AgriculturalAnimalsFood SupplyFood TechnologyCellular agricultureFermentationFood processingFood systemMeat substitutesVertical farming

Identifiers

PMID38914996
PMCPMC11197333

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.