12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Green rebranding: Regenerative agriculture, future‐pasts, and the naturalisation of livestock

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Anxieties around the relationship between livestock agriculture and the environmental crisis are driving sustained discussions about the place of beef and dairy farming in a sustainable food system. Proposed solutions range from ‘clean‐cow’ sustainable intensification to ‘no‐cow’, animal free futures, both of which encourage a disruptive break with past practice. This paper reviews the alternative proposition of regenerative agriculture that naturalises beef and dairy production by invoking the past to justify future, nature‐based solutions. Drawing on fieldwork in the UK, it first introduces two of the most prominent strands to this green rebranding of cattle: the naturalisation of ruminant methane emissions and the optimisation of soil carbon sequestration via the use of ruminant grazing animals. Subsequent thematic analysis outlines the three political strategies of post‐pastoral storytelling, political ecological baselining and a probiotic model of bovine biopolitics that perform this naturalisation. The conclusion assesses the potential and the risks of this approach to grounding the geographies and the temporalities of agricultural transition in the Anthropocene: an epoch in which time is out of joint and natures are multiple and non‐analogue, such that they provide slippery and contested grounds for political solutions.

          Abstract

          Anxieties around the relationship between livestock agriculture and the environmental crisis are driving profound and contentious discussions about the place of beef and dairy farming in sustainable food systems. This paper analyses efforts being made to reposition livestock animals as environmental allies. Under the regenerative agricultural banner, they are framed soil ecosystem engineers whose greenhouse gas emissions are natural and unproblematic.

          Related collections

          Most cited references135

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers

            Food's environmental impacts are created by millions of diverse producers. To identify solutions that are effective under this heterogeneity, we consolidated data covering five environmental indicators; 38,700 farms; and 1600 processors, packaging types, and retailers. Impact can vary 50-fold among producers of the same product, creating substantial mitigation opportunities. However, mitigation is complicated by trade-offs, multiple ways for producers to achieve low impacts, and interactions throughout the supply chain. Producers have limits on how far they can reduce impacts. Most strikingly, impacts of the lowest-impact animal products typically exceed those of vegetable substitutes, providing new evidence for the importance of dietary change. Cumulatively, our findings support an approach where producers monitor their own impacts, flexibly meet environmental targets by choosing from multiple practices, and communicate their impacts to consumers.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Farming and the fate of wild nature.

              World food demand is expected to more than double by 2050. Decisions about how to meet this challenge will have profound effects on wild species and habitats. We show that farming is already the greatest extinction threat to birds (the best known taxon), and its adverse impacts look set to increase, especially in developing countries. Two competing solutions have been proposed: wildlife-friendly farming (which boosts densities of wild populations on farmland but may decrease agricultural yields) and land sparing (which minimizes demand for farmland by increasing yield). We present a model that identifies how to resolve the trade-off between these approaches. This shows that the best type of farming for species persistence depends on the demand for agricultural products and on how the population densities of different species on farmland change with agricultural yield. Empirical data on such density-yield functions are sparse, but evidence from a range of taxa in developing countries suggests that high-yield farming may allow more species to persist.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                george.cusworth@zoo.ox.ac.uk
                Journal
                Trans Inst Br Geogr
                Trans Inst Br Geogr
                10.1111/(ISSN)1475-5661
                TRAN
                Transactions
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                0020-2754
                1475-5661
                08 July 2022
                December 2022
                : 47
                : 4 ( doiID: 10.1111/tran.v47.4 )
                : 1009-1027
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food, Oxford Martin School University of Oxford Oxford UK
                [ 2 ] Hertford College University of Oxford Oxford UK
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                George Cusworth, Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food, Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

                Email: george.cusworth@ 123456zoo.ox.ac.uk

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7623-938X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4369-0884
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8117-7128
                Article
                TRAN12555 TIBG-RP-Dec-2021-0143.R1
                10.1111/tran.12555
                9796824
                36618006
                b9ffea8f-d8ed-4a14-8474-56bbae3e73dc
                The information, practices and views in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Royal Geographical Society (with IBG). © 2022 The Authors. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers).

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 11 March 2022
                : 03 December 2021
                : 25 May 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 6, Tables: 0, Pages: 19, Words: 12942
                Funding
                Funded by: Wellcome Trust , doi 10.13039/100010269;
                Award ID: 205212/Z/16/Z
                Categories
                Article
                Articles
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                December 2022
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.2.3 mode:remove_FC converted:28.12.2022

                Comments

                Comment on this article