MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413014570 · doi:10.1139/er-2024-0146

Carbon footprint of primary production of cacao: a meta-analytical review

2025· review· en· W4413014570 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jonathan Cornelius, Célia A. Harvey

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Reviews · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCocoa and Sweet Potato Agronomy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJames Cook UniversityRainforest Alliance
KeywordsCarbon sequestrationCarbon footprintGreenhouse gasEnvironmental scienceProduction (economics)AgronomyDeforestation (computer science)AgricultureAgroforestryCarbon dioxideBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cacao production occupies ≈120 000 km2 globally. Cacao beans are the most valuable agricultural export of four African countries and of importance in several other tropical countries. Greenhouse-gas emissions from cacao production are therefore of interest, as is the potential of the crop for mitigation of emissions by carbon sequestration. We present a global review of carbon footprints and CO2 removal rates in primary production of cacao. We aim to characterize typical overall values, identify determinants of footprints and removal rates, compare cropping systems, and suggest ways of reducing carbon footprints and increasing CO2 removal rates. The median ± interquartile range carbon footprints of cacao production, excluding any associated deforestation, were 732 ± 1318.5 kg CO2e ha−1 (area carbon footprint, ACF) and 1.55 ± 2.703 kg CO2e kg−1 dry beans (product carbon footprint, PCF). The typical ranges of ACF and PCF, defined as those from the first to the eighth decile, were 26–1691 kg CO2e ha−1 year−1 and 0.05–3.74 kg CO2e kg−1 dry beans, respectively. Nitrogenous fertilizers and harvest residues were the most important emissions sources. The ACF of agroforestry production was significantly lower than that of unshaded production, as were yields. The PCF of agroforestry systems did not differ significantly from unshaded systems. The mean ACF and PCFs of organic production were significantly lower than those of nonorganic production. CO2 removal rates were considerably larger than carbon emissions (ACF values), particularly for agroforestry production (median ± interquartile range of 3445 ± 1952 kg CO2 ha−1 year−1 and 10 237 ± 4178 kg CO2 ha−1 year−1 for unshaded and agroforestry production, respectively). CO2 removal rates in organic and nonorganic production did not differ significantly. We present a generalized approach for reducing the overall global-warming effect of cacao production, consisting of 12 specific intervention options within an overarching principle of zero deforestation. Improved management of harvest residues, wider use of agroforestry production, and use of organic nitrogen sources are central to enhancing the interventions. Implementation of interventions will also require the building of enabling frameworks that allow farmers to meet climate-change mitigation goals without sacrificing productivity or profitability.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.021
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.187 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental ReviewsSame topicCocoa and Sweet Potato AgronomyFrench-language works237,207