Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Transitions to agroecological farming systems in the Mississippi River Basin: toward an integrated socioecological analysis

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Industrial agriculture has extensive environmental and social costs, and efforts to create alternative farming systems are widespread if not yet widely successful. This study explored how a set of grain farmers and rotational graziers in Iowa transitioned to agroecological management practices. Our focus on the resources and strategies that farmers mobilized to develop opportunities for, and overcome barriers to, transitioning to alternative practices allows us to go beyond the existing literature focused on why farmers transition. We attend to both the ecological and socioeconomic context of innovation by comparing processes of technical change in two contrasting regions of Iowa. Farmers cultivated farm-level biodiversity and enterprise diversity, developed new cognitive and psychological competencies, and overcame barriers to innovation by developing external network linkages with peers, knowledge organizations, and federal policies. Our research provides insights into how biophysical, cognitive, structural and market considerations can be integrated into research efforts that aim to make sense of innovation toward sustainable agriculture.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Nutrient management based on ecological theory emphasizes reducing nitrogen inputs and relying on internal soil nitrogen cycling to manage soil fertility. This approach is premised on “(re)coupling” carbon and nitrogen cycles in farm fields (Drinkwater and Snapp 2007; Blesh and Drinkwater 2013), which means enhancing the ability for nitrogen and carbon to flow together as they do in natural ecosystems. Practices such as diversifying crop rotations through addition of cover crops or perennials, or expanding reliance on organic nitrogen sources, increase the microbial and plant reservoirs that retain nitrogen and reduce nitrogen losses from agriculture.

  2. While recognizing that identifying a category ‘transitioned’ may invite binary thinking, we emphasize transition as a process; uneven, multi-level, reversible and non-deterministic.

References

  • Allaire, G., and S. Wolf. 2004. Cognitive representations and institutional hybridity in agrofood innovation. Science, Technology and Human Values 29: 431–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, P. 2004. Together at the table: Sustainability and sustenance in the American agrifood system. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altieri, M., and C. Nicholls. 2008. Scaling up agroecological approaches for food sovereignty in Latin America. Development 51: 472–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Araghi, F. 1995. Global depeasantization: 1945–1990. Sociological Quarterly 36: 337–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, M. 2004. Farming for us all: Practical agriculture & the cultivation of sustainability. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blesh, J., and L. Drinkwater. 2013. The impact of nitrogen source and crop rotation on nitrogen mass balances in the Mississippi River Basin. Ecological Applications 23: 1017–1035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boström, M., and M. Klintman. 2008. Eco-standards, product labelling and green consumerism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Buttel, F.H., O. Larson, and G. Gillespie. 1990. The sociology of agriculture. Connecticut: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, H. 2009. Breaking new ground in food regime theory: Corporate environmentalism, ecological feedbacks and the ‘food from somewhere’ regime? Agriculture and Human Values 26: 309–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carolan, M.S. 2006. Social change and the adoption and adaptation of knowledge claims: Whose truth do you trust in regard to sustainable agriculture? Agriculture and Human Values 23: 325–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Centonze, A.L. 2010. Transitional cluster development: A case study from the New York wine industry. Economic Development Quarterly 24: 251–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. 2003. Grounded theory: objectivist and constructivist methods. In Strategies of qualitative inquiry, ed. N.K. Denzin, and Y.S. Lincoln, 249–291. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darnhofer, I., W. Schneeberger, and B. Freyer. 2005. Converting or not converting to organic farming in Austria: Farmer types and their rationale. Agriculture and Human Values 22: 39–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • David, M.B., L.E. Drinkwater, and G.F. McIsaac. 2010. Sources of nitrate yields in the Mississippi River Basin. Journal of Environmental Quality 39: 1657–1667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drinkwater, L.E., and S.S. Snapp. 2007. Nutrients in agroecosystems: Rethinking the management paradigm. Advances in Agronomy 92: 163–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EWG [Environmental Working Group]. 2013. Farm subsidy database. http://farm.ewg.org. Accessed 20 October 2013.

  • EPA SAB [Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board]. 2007. Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: an update by the EPA Science Advisory Board. EPA-SAB-08-004. EPA, Washington, D.C., USA.

  • Fairweather, J.R. 1999. Understanding how farmers choose between organic and conventional production: Results from New Zealand and policy implications. Agriculture and Human Values 16: 51–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geels, F.W. 2004. From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research Policy 33: 897–920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geels, F.W. 2011. The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 1: 24–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glenna, L.L., and R.A. Jussaume. 2007. Organic and conventional Washington State farmers’ opinions on GM crops and marketing strategies. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 22: 118–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gliessman, S.R. 2007. Agroecology: The ecology of sustainable food systems. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glover, J.D., et al. 2010. Increased food and ecosystem security via perennial grains. Science 328: 1638–1639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, D., B. Sorj, and J. Wilkinson. 1987. From farming to biotechnology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, C., and A. Kremen. 2003. U.S. organic farming in 2000–2001. Agricultural Information Bulletin Number 780. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

  • Guthman, J. 2004. The trouble with ‘organic lite’ in California: A rejoinder to the ‘conventionalisation’ debate. Sociologia Ruralis 44: 301–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hassanein, N. 1999. Changing the way America farms: Knowledge and community in the sustainable agriculture movement. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinrichs, C.C. 2003. The practice and politics of food system localization. Journal of Rural Studies 19: 33–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IAASTD [International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development]. 2008. http://www.agassessment.org/. Accessed 15 May 2010.

  • IPCC. 2007. Mitigation of climate change: contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. In Climate change 2007, ed. B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, and L.A. Meyer. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockeretz, W., and P. Madden. 1987. Midwestern organic farming: A ten-year follow-up. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 2: 57–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R., and P. Sunley. 2003. Deconstructing clusters: Chaotic concept or policy panacea? Journal of Economic Geography 3: 5–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matson, P.A., W.J. Parton, A.G. Power, and M.J. Swift. 1997. Agricultural intensification and ecosystem properties. Science 277: 504–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMichael, P. 2009. A food regime genealogy. The Journal of Peasant Studies 36: 139–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, B. 1995. Pasture management to sustain agriculture. In Agroecology: The science of sustainable agriculture, ed. M.A. Altieri, 321–348. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC [National Research Council]. 2010. Toward sustainable agricultural systems in the 21 st century. Washington, D.C.: Natl. Acad. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padel, S. 2001. Conversion to organic farming: A typical example of the diffusion of an innovation? Sociologia Ruralis 41: 40–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padel, S. 2008. Values of organic producers converting at different times: Results of a focus group study in five European countries. International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology 7: 63–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patel, R. 2007. Stuffed and starved. Markets, power and the hidden battle over the World’s Food System. London: Portobello Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M.Q. 2001. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perfecto, I., J. Vandermeer, and A. Wright. 2009. Nature’s matrix: Linking agriculture, conservation and food sovereignty. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, J. 2009. Incorporation and resistance: Analytical issues in the conventionalization debate and alternative food chains. Journal of Agrarian Change 9: 155–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ragin, C. 1987. The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raynolds, L. 2000. Re-embedding global agriculture: The international organic and fair trade movements. Agriculture and Human Values 17: 297–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosmann, R.L. 1994. Farmer initiated on-farm research. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 9: 34–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savory, A. 2008. Holistic management: Embracing complexity in managing rangelands. Grassroots: Newsletter of the Grassland Society of Southern. Africa 8: 11–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, D., and S. Gillon. 2013. Scaling up to address new challenges to conservation on US farmland. Land Use Policy 31: 223–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swenson, D. 2011. Measuring the economic impacts of increased fresh fruit and vegetable production in Iowa considering metropolitan demand. A Technical Report Submitted to the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture.

  • Tomich, T.P., S. Brodt, H. Ferris, R. Galt, W.R. Horwath, E. Kebreab, J.H.J. Leveau, D. Liptzin, M. Lubell, P. Merel, R. Michelmore, T. Rosenstock, K. Scow, J. Six, N. Williams, and L. Yang. 2011. Agroecology: A review from a global-change perspective. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 36: 193–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, R.E., and N.N. Rabalais. 2003. Linking landscape and water quality in the Mississippi River Basin for 200 years. BioScience 53: 563–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USDA [U.S. Department of Agriculture]. 1980. Report and recommendations on organic farming. Washington, D.C.: USDA.

    Google Scholar 

  • USDA. 2007. National Agricultural Statistics Service. Census of agriculture. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/index.php. Accessed 20 October 2013.

  • USDA. 2008a. Economic Research Service. Organic production. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Organic/. Accessed 17 August 2010. USDA. 2008b. National Agricultural Statistics Service State and County data. Available at http://www.nass.usda.gov (verified October 2013). USDA–NASS, Washington, DC.

  • van der Ploeg, J.D. 2010. The peasantries of the twenty-first century: The commoditization debate revisited. Journal of Peasant Studies 37: 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanloqueren, G., and P.V. Baret. 2009. How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations. Research Policy 38: 971–983.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, B., S. Gradwell, and R. Yoder. 1999. Growing food, growing community: community supported agriculture in rural Iowa. Community Development Journal 34: 38–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. 1999. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, S. 1995. Cropping systems and conservation policy: The roles of agrichemical dealers and independent crop consultants. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 50: 263–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, S., and P. Nowak. 1995. Development of information intensive agrichemical management services in Wisconsin. Environmental Management 19: 371–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, S., and A. Bonanno (Eds). Forthcoming. The neoliberal regime in agri-food: Crisis, resilience and restructuring. London: Routledge/Earthscan.

  • Wolf, S., and F. Buttel. 1996. The political economy of precision farming. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78: 1269–1274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, S., and E. Primmer. 2006. Between incentives and action: A pilot study of biodiversity conservation competencies for multifunctional forest management in Finland. Society and Natural Resources 19: 845–861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, E.O. 2010. Envisioning real utopias. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Laurie Drinkwater, Stefanie Hufnagl-Eichiner, Ryan Galt, and Sara Keene for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. We thank Mark David for providing the map of MRB counties for Figure 1. We especially thank the farmers who shared their time to participate in the study. This research was supported by NSF Biocomplexity in the Environment-CHN (Project Number 0508028; L.E. Drinkwater and others).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, 440 Church St., Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA

    Jennifer Blesh

  2. Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA

    Steven A. Wolf

Authors
  1. Jennifer Blesh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Steven A. Wolf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer Blesh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Blesh, J., Wolf, S.A. Transitions to agroecological farming systems in the Mississippi River Basin: toward an integrated socioecological analysis. Agric Hum Values 31, 621–635 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-014-9517-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-014-9517-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation