A growing world population and increases in food and energy consumption have placed production agriculture in a difficult situation. The rapid growth in food production through specialized operations such as monoculture cropping systems has aligned to satisfy increases in demand for food and fiber. However, its adverse impacts on natural resources pose huge challenges for the sustainability of food production. The situation is direr for developing countries or rural regions of the world due to the limited resources available to farming communities in these regions. To avoid production agriculture being at the proverbial crossroads we suggest an alternate approach. One that involves the sustainable use of natural resources without adverse environmental impacts by relying less on production inputs whether it be agrochemicals or machineries. We examined the extent to which regenerative agriculture, permaculture, and smart technology have evolved in response to sustainable agricultural production, agricultural decision support system, and overall global food security. Collectively, regenerative agriculture and permaculture are semi‐closed holistic systems approach designed to reduce or eliminate dependence on external inputs (e.g., chemicals) which restores and maintains natural systems (e.g., soil quality, biodiversity, and ecosystem services). We suggest that fully embracing modern regenerative agriculture as well as integrated permaculture will improve soil health, ecosystem biodiversity, land and resource conservation, agricultural sustainability, and food security. Identifying and implementing practices towards regenerative agriculture, integrated permaculture, digital agriculture, and sustainable agricultural management utilizing modern agricultural technologies infused with data science (artificial intelligence [AI] or machine learning [ML]) is critical.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are highly persistent synthetic organic contaminants that can cause serious human health concerns such as obesity, liver damage, kidney cancer, hypertension, immunotoxicity and other human health issues. Integrated crop–livestock systems combine agricultural crop production with milk and/or meat production and processing. Key sources of PFAS in these systems include firefighting foams near military bases, wastewater sludge and industrial discharge. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances regularly move from soils to nearby surface water and/or groundwater because of their high mobility and persistence. Irrigating crops or managing livestock for milk and meat production using adjacent waters can be detrimental to human health. The presence of PFAS in both groundwater and milk have been reported in dairy production states (e.g., Wisconsin and New Mexico) across the United States. Although there is a limit of 70 parts per trillion of PFAS in drinking water by the U.S. EPA, there are not yet regional screening guidelines for conducting risk assessments of livestock watering as well as the soil and plant matrix. This systematic review includes (i) the sources, impacts and challenges of PFAS in integrated crop–livestock systems, (ii) safety measures and protocols for sampling soil, water and plants for determining PFAS concentration in exposed integrated crop–livestock systems and (iii) the assessment, measurement and evaluation of human health risks related to PFAS exposure.

The utilization of reclaimed wastewater is a suitable and sustainable approach to agriculture production in water-scarce regions. However, even though the wastewater is treated to reduce nutrient concentration such as phosphorus, the 10,600 to 14,006 m³ of water applied ha⁻¹ year⁻¹ on grass and alfalfa hay crops in Nevada can lead to soil phosphorus buildup over an extended period. This study evaluated the effectiveness of forage systems (FS) of monoculture grass, monoculture legume, and their mixtures on herbage accumulation, tissue phosphorus concentration, and quantity of phosphorus removed from a grassland under wastewater irrigation. The study was carried out at the Main Station Field laboratory in Reno, Nevada, USA. A total of 23 FS using tall fescue (Schedonorus arundinaceus (Schreb.) Dumort), alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.), red clover (Trifolium pratense L.) and white clover (Trifolium repens L.) in monocultures or grass–legume mixtures (25:75, 50:50, and 75:25) based on seeding rate were used. The response variables were herbage accumulation (HA), tissue phosphorus concentration, and phosphorus removal. Forage systems means were considered different P ≤ 0.05. Herbage accumulation, tissue phosphorus concentration, and phosphorus removal differed among FS and year. Herbage accumulation was similar for the grass monocultures (10.5 Mg ha⁻¹; SE = 1.1) and the majority of the grass–legume mixtures (9.0 Mg ha⁻¹; SE = 1.1) but both systems had greater HA than legumes monoculture (4.3 Mg ha⁻¹; SE = 1.1). The legume monocultures of alfalfa and white clover had the greatest phosphorus concentrations (10.9 g kg⁻¹ dry matter; SE = 0.44) among all FS. Total phosphorus removed was least among legume monocultures (34.0 kg P ha⁻¹; SE = 6.2) in this study and generally similar for grass monocultures (67.4 kg P ha⁻¹; SE = 6.2) and grass–legume mixtures of 75:25 (61.7 kg P ha⁻¹; SE = 6.2). Based on the response variables, agronomic, and environmental considerations a grass–legume mixture that includes 75:25 or even a 50:50 seeding rate ratio will be suitable options for phosphorus removal from phosphorus enriched grasslands in semiarid ecosystems that utilized wastewater for irrigation.