Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.

Let me give you an example: Paragraph: "Although the story didn't cite the cost of appendectomy emergency or urgent surgery and we wish it had, we nonetheless will give it a satisfactory score because it at least cited what the editorial writer wrote, ""A secondary benefit is the savings to the hospital generated by minimizing staff and anesthesiologist presence late in the evening and during the wee hours of the morning."" As with our harms score above, although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Despite running less than 300 words, this story did an adequate job in explaining the quality of the evidence, including pointing out limitations. No disease-mongering here. The story meets the bare minimum requirement for this criterion in that it at least cited what an editorial stated. The focus of the story was on a study comparing emergency appendectomy with surgery done up to 12 hours later or beyond. This is the whole focus of the story and one we applaud when it begins: ""Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be."" There were no claims made about the novelty of this research, and we may have wished for a bit more context on this. Nonetheless, the potential for guiding future care decisions was made clear. Not applicable. Given that the story only pulled excerpts from the journal article and the accompanying editorial, and didn't include any fresh quotes from interviews, we can't be sure of the extent to which it may have been influenced by a news release.". Claim: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
The answer to this example can be: We really don't understand why only a handful of mainstream news organizations reported this story. (At least in what we found.) The most common emergency surgery in the world. Rushing to emergency surgery may not carry any benefit. Waiting a few hours may be safer and less expensive. Why is that not a story? We applaud USA Today for finding time and space and clearly it didn't need to free up much space to do a good job telling the story. The story explains that as many as 300,0 appendectomies are done each year in the US. That figure alone explains why this is an important study to report.
Here is why: The output is an analysis of the claim while considering the paragraph as a reference. The output highlights the key features presented in the paragraph and explains the claim accordingly.

OK. solve this:
Paragraph: The Soil & Water Outcomes Fund, a partnership with the Iowa Soybean Association and third-party verification company Quantified Ventures, will then sell the environmental credits created to polluters such as cities and companies, including Cargill itself, Ryan Sirolli, Director of Row Crop Sustainability at Cargill, told Reuters. The program is a welcome source of farm revenue as the price of crops such as corn and soybeans hovers near the lowest in several years after the bruising trade war between the United States and China and, now, the coronavirus pandemic that has kneecapped the global economy. It also follows rising criticism of intensive farming practices and the companies that rely on them. Environmentalists criticized Cargill last year for delaying a self-stated goal of ridding its supply chain of crops produced on deforested land. Farmers in Iowa have enrolled almost 10,000 acres in a pilot program this spring, but the group is aiming to expand the program next season and broaden it beyond Iowa, Sirolli said. Farmer Lance Lillibridge of Vinton, Iowa, enrolled about 300 acres in the program this season and expects to get at least $35 an acre, which will offset some of his planting costs. "For a farmer, our margins are really small. In fact, right now there's no margin at all ... This is the first time that we are rewarded for our sustainability efforts," Lillibridge said. Funded by grants from Cargill and the Walton Family Foundation, the Soil & Water Outcomes Fund will pay farmers $30 to $45 per acre this season, depending on what environmental results are confirmed, said Adam Kiel, director of conservation for the Iowa Soybean Association. "We've got ambitions to go more broadly beyond Iowa in future years," Kiel said. "Farmers view this as another revenue source on their farm that's not a government payment." Cargill estimates the practices would prevent runoff of 100,000 pounds of nitrogen and 10,000 pounds of phosphorus this year and sequester 7,500 tons of carbon in soils, equivalent to taking 1,480 cars off the road. The fund is among the first of its kind to seek to verify and monetize the environmental benefits of farming practices such as no-till farming and planting cover crops like grass to prevent erosion. Historically, conservation schemes have paid farmers for more environmentally friendly practices but have not verified their benefits. "We're seeing a big shift in terms of the way we look at sustainability and how the industry is looking at it," Cargill's Sirolli said. Claim: Cargill-led fund to pay U.S. farmers for carbon capture, exchange credits.
Answer:
Global commodities trader Cargill Inc [CARG.UL] starting this spring will pay American farmers for capturing carbon in their field soils and cutting fertilizer runoff, an executive said.