Agriculture and Human Values

Abstract Although digital technologies often receive the bulk of media and academic attention, there is another crucial aspect of the data revolution in agriculture: governance frameworks for collecting and analyzing data. Metrics are increasingly being used to facilitate the collection of data and convert it into useful forms. While there is growing interest in using metrics and data to enhance the sustainability of food and agriculture, there is a lack of research on how metrics are put into practice and to what degree their use leads to improved sustainability. To address this knowledge gap, this article examines the implementation of sustainability metrics in produce agriculture in the United States. Specifically, the focus is on the processes of on-farm metrics use– data generation, data analysis, and data-based decision-making. We find that implementing metrics involves several tensions for farmers, including metrics’ ability to capture the complexity of produce agriculture, how metrics align with farmers’ tacit and experiential knowledge, and the impact of metrics on farmer autonomy. Our findings suggest that for the use of metrics to improve sustainability it is crucial to understand how social, cultural, and material conditions intersect with metrics. To better account for such conditions, farmers need more voice in how metrics are implemented and data is used.

Abstract Around the world, practitioners and academics are engaging in the rise of regenerative farming. On the margins of the predominant farming system, and often with little support and acknowledgement, regenerative farming is surprisingly persistent and represents a radical response to industrialization, ecological crises and alienation. This study uses feminist theories to grasp farmers’ regenerative experiences and explores how dialogical methodologies can create collective thinking among farmers and between academia and practice. The study is based on dialogues and iterative writing between three female researchers and two female regenerative farmers in Denmark in which we explore regenerative farming practices, female perspectives, feminist (more-than-human) care, and the sustainability crises we are facing today and in the future. The exchange of thoughts provides insights into what it is to be human in farming, including more-than-human relationships, as well as reflections on composting as a reproductive practice, and the (quiet) revolutionary potential of regenerative farming. Thus, we experience how creating collective thinking about common concerns across academia and practice can entail feelings of being part of a community as well as involve actual consequences and risks. Finally, it reminds us that sharing fragility by laying bare our work (and thoughts) as both researchers and practitioners allows for careful dialogues and valuable insights.

Abstract Geographies of food are not only shaped by political economic forces but also by individuals who resist dominant ways of subjectivation. Based on ethnographic research on forty-seven agroecological farms in Switzerland and Morocco, this article proposes a philosophical reconsideration of the role of utopia, hope and enchantment in shaping people’s actions. It contributes to the understanding of the emotional, spiritual and embodied experiences that lead farmers to engage in alternative agricultures at the margins of state planning and agro-industry. The adoption of an etic research approach to ‘alternativity’ allows me to capture ‘quiet alternativities’, or farming experiences with beneficial socio-ecological outcomes but which are not represented as alternative or disruptive by the farmers themselves. This is especially important for Swiss and Moroccan farmers who do not always identify with a social movement or express any explicit opposition to agricultural policies and the dominant agri-food system, although their practices may effectively incorporate an alternative experience from where to envision different agri-cultures. Drawing from diverse conceptions of utopia, hope and enchantment, I unravel different manifestations of utopia as mental creations of ‘no-where’ and as embodied experiences of ‘no-when’. This enables me to attend to ‘quiet expressions’ of hope manifested not in speech but in daily practices and to discuss farmers’ motives to engage in alternative agricultures, despite a sometimes bleak outlook. I theorise these multiple experiences as ‘glimpses of utopias’ to explore the embodied and embedded dimensions of utopia to broaden what utopia can mean beyond purely speculative thinking.

Abstract As the term regenerative agriculture caught fire in public discourse around 2019, it was promptly labelled a buzzword. While the buzzword accusation tends to be regarded as negative, these widely used terms also reflect an important area of growing public interest. Exploring a buzzword can thus help us understand our current moment and offer insights to paths forward. In this study, we explored how and why different individuals and groups adopt certain key terms or buzzwords, in this case the term “regenerative agriculture”. We used an interpretivist approach to understand how “regenerative agriculture” is being constructed, interpreted, understood, and employed, drawing from 19 semi-structured interviews conducted with farmers, researchers, private companies, and NGO/nonprofits. Several interviewees felt that regenerative agriculture is making an important societal shift in thinking towards addressing major issues like climate change and parity in our food and agricultural systems. However, farmers in particular felt that the term is being greenwashed, coopting the work they do, and even diluting the meaning. We also found that regenerative agriculture is being advanced as mobilizing “win-wins”—for farmers, for consumers, for society—but that this discourse may be veiling the political and economic agendas of the big companies using the term. Our findings further illustrated the debates over standardizing the term regenerative agriculture, with some contending that there should be room for “continuous improvement” but others felt it is meaningless without a definition.