Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Moving beyond production: community narratives for good farming

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

Abstract

With a vast majority of the land in the Driftless Region of the Midwestern United States dedicated to agricultural production, the future of farming has significant economic, social, recreational, agricultural, and ecological implications. An important literature stream has developed on ways agriculture can change to impact both human and ecological communities positively. In this study, we examine the processes and extent to which community narratives assert and inform regional identities that shape the meaning of being a good farmer. Using a mixed methods approach, we examine what farmers consider good farming and how they utilize community narratives to assert their perspective of good farming. Employing a correlational analysis, we examined the relative importance of the four dimensions of good farming (productivist, conservationist, civic-minded, and naturalist). In addition, we used narrative analysis to explore the development of community narratives that assert a multi-dimensional view of good farming. Data for this study was collected through 21 semi-structured interviews with farmers, two focus groups of farmers, and a survey of farmers with 82 survey participants. The mean scores for conservationist, civic-minded, and naturalist dimensions were significantly higher than those for productivists. There was no significant correlation between the productivists dimension and the three other dimensions of good farming. Through analysis of transcripts, we identified a community narrative that actively problematized a dominant cultural narrative centered on production agriculture. Collectively, a community narrative is emerging in the Driftless Region that sought to normalize agricultural practices that promote profitable farms, vibrant communities, and a wide array of ecosystem services.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

IL:

Illinois

WI:

Wisconsin

USDA:

United States Department of Agriculture

NASS:

National Agriculture Statistics Service

References

  • Allred, S.B., and A. Ross-Davis. 2011. The drop-off and pick-up method: An approach to reduce nonresponse bias in natural resource surveys. Small-Scale Forestry 10: 305–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arbuckle, J.G., and C. Kast. 2012. Quality of life on the agricultural treadmill: Individual and community determinants of farm family well being. Journal of Rural Social Sciences 27 (1): 84–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashwood, L., D. Diamond, and K. Thu. 2014. Where’s the farmer? Limiting liability in Midwestern industrial hog production. Rural Sociology 79 (1): 2–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashwood, L., A. Pilnny, J. Canfield, M. Jamila, and R. Thomson. 2022. From big ag to big finance: A market network approach to power in agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values 39 (4): 1421–1434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azzam, A., C. Walters, and T. Kaus. 2021. Does subsidized crop insurance affect farm industry structure? Lessons from the U.S. Journal of Policy Modeling 43: 1167–1180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, S. 2020. Milk prices are so low Wisconsin is losing two dairy farms a day. Chicago Tribune. Published January 23, 2020. https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-wisconsin-dairy-crisis-20200123-at3qxm2olvfk7nk2fu6d4vy3ka-story.html. Accessed  20 May 2022

  • Bishara, A.J., and J.B. Hittner. 2017. Confidence intervals for correlations when data are not normal. Behavior Research Methods 49 (1): 294–309.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bland, W.L., and M.M. Bell. 2007. A Holon approach to agroecology. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 5 (4): 280–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. 1998. Practical reason: On the theory of action. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, G. 2018. Dirt to soil: One family’s journey into regenerative agriculture. London, UK: Chelsea Green Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, A., and K. Charmaz. 2007. The SAGE handbook of grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, R.J.F. 2004. Seeing through the “good farmer’s” eyes: Towards developing an understanding of the social symbolic value of “productivist” behaviour. Sociologia Ruralis 44 (2): 195–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J.T., T.M. Koontz, and J.E. Bonnell. 2011. Does collaboration promote grass-roots behavior change? Farmer adoption of best management practices in two watersheds. Society and Natural Resources 24 (11): 1127–1141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Church, S.P., and L.S. Prokopy. 2017. The influence of social criteria in mobilizing watershed conservation efforts: A case study of a successful watershed in the Midwestern U.S. Land Use Policy 61: 353–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cortina, J.M. 1993. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology 78 (1): 98–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell, T. 1992. In place-out of place: Geography, ideology, and transgression. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell, T. 2013. Geographic thought: A critical introduction. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crews, T.E., W. Carton, and L. Olsson. 2018. Is the future of agriculture perennial? Imperatives and opportunities to reinvent agriculture by shifting from annual monocultures to perennial polycultures. Global Sustainability 1: 1–18.

  • Darnhofer, I. 2021. Farming resilience: From maintaining states toward shaping transformative change processes. Sustainability 13 (6).

  • Day, C., and S. Cramer. 2022. Transforming to a regenerative U.S. agriculture: The role of policy, process, and education. Sustainability Science 17: 585–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLonge, M., & A. Basche. 2017. Leveraging agroecology for solutions in food, energy, and water. Elementa Science of the Antropocene 5(6).

  • Dentzman, K., and J.R. Goldberger. 2020. Plastic scraps: Biodegradable mulch films and the aesthetics of “good farming” in US specialty crop production. Agriculture and Human Values 37: 83–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N.K., and Y.S. Lincoln. 2011. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duerden, M.D., P.A. Witt, and S. Taniguchi. 2012. The impact of postprogram reflection on recreation program outcome. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration 30 (1): 36–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, E., S. Rotz, A. Magnan, and K. Bronson. 2022. Discipling land through data: The role of agriculture technologies in farmland assetisation. Sociologia Ruralis 62: 231–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egli, D.B. 2008. Comparison of corn and soybean yields in the United States: Historical trends and future prospects. Agronomy Journal 100: S79–S88.

  • Enloe, S.K., L.A. Schulte, and J.C. Tyndall. 2014. Toward a collaborative approach to watershed management: Lessons learned from the Boone River Watershed, Iowa. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 69 (5): 149A-153A.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, B.H. 1979. Some problems of inference from chain data. Sociological Methodology 10: 276–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etikan, I., S.A. Musa, and R.S. Alkassim. 2016. Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics 5 (1): 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fazey, I., N. Schäpke, G. Caniglia, A. Hodgson, I. Kendrick, C. Lyon, G. Page, J. Patterson, C. Riedy, T. Strasser, S. Verveen, D. Adams, B. Goldstein, M. Klaes, G. Leicester, A. Linyard, A. McCurdy, P. Ryan, B. Sharpe, and H.R. Young. 2020. Transforming knowledge systems for life on Earth: Visions of future systems and how to get there. Energy Research & Social Science 70: 101724.

  • Fernández, R.J. 2016. How to be a more effective environmental scientist in management and policy contexts. Environmental Science and Policy 64: 171–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Floress, K., L.S. Prokopy, and S.B. Allred. 2011. It’s who you know: Social capital, social networks, and watershed groups. Society and Natural Resources 24 (9): 871–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franks, J.R., and S.B. Emery. 2013. Incentivising collaborative conservation: Lessons from existing environmental stewardship scheme options. Land Use Policy 30 (1): 847–862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glesne, C. 2016. Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Upper Saddle River, NJ. Pearson.

  • Glover, T.D. 2003. The story of the queen Anne memorial garden: Resisting a dominant cultural narrative. Journal of Leisure Research 35 (2): 190–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gosnell, H., N. Gill, and M. Voyer. 2019. Transformational adaptation on the farm: Processes of change and persistence in transitions to “climate-smart” regenerative agriculture. Global Environmental Change 59: 101965.

  • Gosnell, H.S., S. Charnley, & P. Stanley. 2020a. Climate change mitigation as a co-benefit of regenerative ranching: Insights from Australia and the United States. Interface Focus 10 (5).

  • Gosnell, H., K. Grimm, and B.E. Goldstein. 2020b. A half century of holistic management: What does the evidence reveal? Agriculture and Human Values 37: 849–867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, K.A., D.N. Pellow, D.N., and A. Schnaiberg. 2004. Interrogating the treadmill of production: Everything you wanted to know about the treadmill but were afraid to ask. Organization & Environment 17(3): 296-316.

  • Gratton, C., N. Jordan, J. Strauser, R.D. Jackson. In review. In Review. Agroecological innovation: An integrated approach to innovation and scaling in animal agriculture. Environmental Research: Food Systems.

  • Green, B., and K. Jones. 2018. Place and large landscape conservation along the Susquehanna River. Society and Natural Resources 31 (2): 183–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J.C. 2007. Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass Publishers.

  • Hackfort, S. 2021. Patterns of inequalities in digital agriculture: A systematic literature review. Sustainability 13 (22): 12345.

  • Heley, J., and L. Jones. 2012. Relational rurals: Some thoughts on relating things and theory in rural studies. Journal of Rural Studies 28 (3): 208–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hennink, M., and B.N. Kaiser. 2022. Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests. Social Science & Medicine 292: 114523.

  • Houser, M., and D. Stuart. 2020. An accelerating treadmill and an overlooked contradiction in industrial agriculture: Climate change and nitrogen fertilizer. Journal of Agrarian Change 20 (2): 215–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, R. 1990. Re-thinking regions: Some preliminary considerations on regions and social change. Eds. R.J. Johnston, J. Hauer, & G.A. Hoeckvald. Pages 67–84. New York, NY. Routledge.

  • Jonas, A.E.G. 2012. Region and place: Regionalism in question. Progress in Human Geography 36 (2): 263–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M. 2022. For a ‘new new regional geography’: Plastic regions and more-than-relational regionality. Geografiska Annaler, Series B: Human Geography. 104 (1): 43–58.

  • Jones, M., and G. Macleod. 2004. Regional spaces, spaces of regionalism: Territory, insurgent politics and the English question. Transaction of the Institute of British Geographers 29 (4): 433–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, N., L.A. Schulte, C. Williams, D. Mulla, D. Pitt, C.S. Slotterback, R.D. Jackson, D. Landis, B. Dale, D. Becker, M. Rickenbach, M. Helmers, and B. Bringi. 2013. Landlabs: An integrated approach to creating agricultural enterprises that meet the triple bottom line. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 17 (4): 175–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, D.R., J. Ulrich-Schad, T. Wang, B.H. Dunn, S.A. Clay, S.A. Bruggeman, and D.E. Clay. 2019. Grassland retention in the North America Midwest after periods of high commodity prices and climate variability. Soil Science Society of American Journal 83 (5): 1290–1298.

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Kammin, L.A., P.D. Hubert, R.E. Warner, and P.C. Mankin. 2009. Private lands programs and lessons learned in Illinois. The Journal of Wildlife Management 73 (6): 973–979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, R.B. 2023. Maladaptation in food systems and ways to avoid it. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 61: 101269.

  • Kirschenmann, F., G.W. Stevenson, F. Buttle, T.A. Lyson, & M. Duffy. 2008. Why worry about the agriculture of the middle? In Food and the mid-level farm: Renewing an agriculture of the middle, Eds. T.A. Lyson, M. Hendrickson, G.W. Stevenson, R. Welsh, F. Kirschenmann, F. Buttel, M. Duffy, K.A. Dahlber, T.W. Gray, & A. Guptill. Boston, MA. MIT Press.

  • Klandermans, B. 1988. The formation and mobilization of consensus. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klerkz, L., and D. Rose. 2020. Dealing with the game-changing technologies of agriculture 4.0: How do we manage diversity and responsibility in food system transition pathways? Global. Food Security 24: 100347.

  • Kuehne, G. 2013. My decision to sell the family farm. Agriculture and Human Values 30 (2): 203–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leitschuh, B., W.P. Stewart, and C.J. van Riper. 2022. Place-making in the Corn Belt: The productivist landscapes of the “good farmer.” Journal of Rural Studies 92: 415–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lobao, L., and C.W. Stofferahn. 2008. The community effects of industrialized farming: Social science research and challenges to corporate farming laws. Agriculture and Human Values 25 (2): 219–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margerum, R.D., and C.J. Robinson. 2015. Collaborative partnerships and the challenges for sustainable water management. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 12: 53–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, J., L.W. Morton, and A.D. Cast. 2013. Reconstructing the good farmer identity: Shifts in farmer identities and farm management practices to improve water quality. Agriculture and Human Values 30 (1): 57–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montenegro de Wit, M., and M. Canfield. 2023. “Feeding the world, byte by byte”: Emergent imaginaries of data productivism. The Journal of Peasant Studies 1–40.

  • Moore, E.A., and T.M. Koontz. 2003. A typology of collaborative watershed groups: Citizen- based, agency-based, and mixed partnerships. Society and Natural Resources 16 (5): 451–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, R.H., J.S. Parker, and M. Weaver. 2008. Agricultural sustainability, water pollution, and governmental regulations: Lessons for the Sugar Creek Farmers in Ohio. Culture & Agriculture 30 (1–2): 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, D. 1997. Focus groups as qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Morse, J.M. 2015. Data were saturated… Qualitative Health Research 25(5): 587–588.

  • Mortensen, D.A. 2012. Navigating a critical juncture for sustainable weed management. BioScience 62 (1): 75–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Agricultural Statistics Service. (NASS). 2017. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). https://www.nass.usda.gov

  • National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS). 2023. Wisconsin Milk production per cow. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Wisconsin/Publications/Dairy/Historical/. Accessed 17 Nov 2023.

  • Newell, P., and O. Taylor. 2018. Contested landscapes: The global political economy of climate- smart agriculture. The Journal of Peasant Studies 45 (1): 108–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paasi, A. 2002. Place and region: Regional worlds and words. Progress in Human Geography 26 (6): 802–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paasi, A. 2004. Place and region: Looking through the prism of scale. Progress in Human Geography 28 (4): 536–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paasi, A. 2022. Examining the persistence of bounded spaces: Remarks on regions, territories, and the practices of bordering. Geografiska Annaler, Series B: Human Geography 104 (1): 9–26.

  • Paasi, A., J. Harrison, & M. Jones. 2018. New consolidated regional geographies. In Handbook of the geographies of regions and territories, Eds. A. Paasi, A. Harrison, & M. Jones. Cheltenham, UK. Edward Elgar Publishing.

  • Patton, M. 2015. Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, J., D.G. Martin, and J.T. Murphy. 2011. Relational place-making: The networked politics of place. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. 36 (1): 54–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, P.A., R.B. Mitchell, and K.J. Moore. 2015. Reducing hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico: Reimagining a more resilient agricultural landscape in the Mississippi River Watershed. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 70 (3): 63A-68A.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prokopy, L.S., B.M. Gramig, A. Bower, S.P. Church, B. Ellison, P.W. Gassman, K. Genskow, D. Gucker, S.G. Hallett, J. Hill, N. Hunt, K.A. Johnson, I. Kaplan, J.P. Kelleher, H. Kok, M. Komp, P. Lammers, S. LaRose, M. Liebman, and J.D. Ulrich-Schad. 2020. The urgency of transforming the Midwestern U.S. landscape into more than corn and soybean. Agriculture and Human Values 37: 537–539.

  • Reimer, A., J.E. Doll, T.J. Boring, and T. Zimnicki. 2021. Scaling up conservation agriculture: An exploration of challenges and opportunities through a stakeholder engagement process. Journal of Environmental Quality 52 (3): 465–275.

  • Reimer, A., A. Thompson, L.S. Prokopy, J.G. Arbuckle, K. Genskow, D. Jackson-Smith, G. Lynne, L. McCann, L.W. Morton, and P. Nowak. 2014. People, place, behavior, and context: A research agenda for expanding our understanding of what motivates farmers’ conservation behaviors. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 69 (2): 57–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riley, M. 2016. Still being the “good farmer”: (non-) retirement and the preservation of farming identities in older age. Sociologia Ruralis 56 (1): 96–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riley, M., H. Sangster, H. Smith, R. Chiverrell, and J. Boyle. 2018. Will farmers work together for conservation? The potential limits of farmers’ cooperation in Agri-environment measures. Land Use Policy 70: 635–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie, J., J. Lewis, & G. Elam. 2003. Designing and selecting amples. In Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers, eds. J. Ritchie & J. Lewis, 77–108. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage.

  • Roesch-McNally, G., J.G. Arbuckle, and J.C. Tyndall. 2018. Soil as social-ecological feedback: Examining the “ethic” of soil stewardship among Corn Belt farmers. Rural Sociology 83 (1): 145–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauder, D.C., and C.E. DeMars. 2019. An updated recommendation for multiple comparisons. Association of Psychological Science 2 (1): 26–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seamon, D. 2018. Life takes place: Phenomenology, lifeworlds, and place making. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Seymour, M., and S. Connelly. 2023. Regenerative agriculture and a more-than-human ethic of care: A relational approach to understanding transformation. Agriculture and Human Values 40: 231–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, G. 2017. Pros and cons of different sampling techniques. International Journal of Applied Research 3 (7): 749–752.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Shipley, N.J., W.P. Stewart, and C.J. van Riper. 2022. Negotiating agricultural change in the Midwestern US: Seeking compatibility between farmer narratives of efficiency and legacy. Agriculture and Human Values 39: 1465–1476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soil Health Principles- Ray Archuleta. 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uMPuF5oCPA. Accessed 7 Feb 2024.

  • Spratt, E., J. Jordan, J. Winsten, P. Huff, C. van Schaik, J.G. Jewett, M. Filbert, J. Luhman, E. Meier, and L. Paine. 2021. Accelerating regenerative grazing to tackle farm, environmental, and societal challenges in the upper Midwest. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 76 (1): 15A-23A.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanton, R.L., C.A. Morrissey, and R.G. Clark. 2018. Analysis of trends and agricultural drivers of farmland bird declines in North America: A review. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 254: 244–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, W.P., P.H. Gobster, A. Rigolon, J. Strauser, D.A. Williams, and C.J. van Riper. 2019. Resident-led beautification of vacant lots that connects place to community. Landscape and Urban Planning 185: 200–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauser, J., W.P. Stewart, and B. Leitschuh. 2022. Producing regions: Connecting place-making with farming practices. Society and Natural Resources 35 (9): 1012–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, D., & M. Houser. 2018. Producing compliant polluters: Seed companies and Nitrogen fertilizer application in U.S. Corn agriculture. Rural Sociology 83(4): 857–881.

  • Sullivan, S. 2023. Ag-tech, agroecology, and the politics of alternative farming futures: The challenges of bringing together diverse agricultural epistemologies. Agriculture and Human Values 40: 913–928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland, L.A., and R.J.F. Burton. 2011. Good farmers, good neighbours? The role of cultural capital in social capital development in a Scottish farming community. Sociologia Ruralis 51 (3): 238–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland, L.A., and I. Darnhofer. 2012. Of organic farmers and “good farmers”: Changing habitus in rural England. Journal of Rural Studies 67: 111–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • USDA. 2017. Grant County Wisconsin, county profile. USDA. 2017b. Jo Daviess County Illinois, county profile.

  • Watkins, D. & D. Gioia. 2015. Mixed methods research. Oxford, UK: Oxford Press. Who is understanding AG? 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxw-4Q9Z9Io

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the assistance of the following people in developing this manuscript: Stanley (Jay) Solomon, Alex Burbach, Randall Jackson, Claudio Gratton, and Ellen Barczak. Throughout the research, they assisted in community outreach and provided advice that shaped our thoughts. Their guidance and friendship were foundational to the development of the ideas herein. We would also like to thank the people of Jo Daviess (IL) and Grant Counties (WI). The people of these communities were beyond generous, and this research has led to sustained relationships focused on working toward highly functioning ecosystems, vibrant farms, and prosperous communities.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Plant and Agroecosystems, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1575 Linden Drive, Madison, WI, 53703, USA

    John Strauser

  2. Department of Recreation Sport and Tourism, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1206 S. 4th Street, Champaign, IL, 61820, USA

    William P. Stewart

Authors
  1. John Strauser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. William P. Stewart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Strauser.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Strauser, J., Stewart, W.P. Moving beyond production: community narratives for good farming. Agric Hum Values (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-024-10550-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-024-10550-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation