What agricultural systems yield the best long-term solutions for

sustainable food production?

Christine Howe

Senior Project Advisor: Steve Smith

The implementation and continued investment in current conventional, industrial agriculture is

not sustainable long-term; learning about alternative food production options is critical to ensure
the survival of the human race and our planet. In this paper, I explore and compare industrial and
regenerative agriculture to understand which agricultural systems yield the best long-term
solutions for sustainable food production. I have drawn information from academic journals and
papers published over the past 20 years, as well as credible articles and additional primary
sources. Research found significant economic and health benefits from regenerative agriculture,
as well as lasting impacts reducing the advancement of climate change and ecological
desertification. These effects are derived from regenerative practices such as promoting
biodiversity and holistic planned grazing of livestock, among others. However, it also revealed
the role that industrial agriculture has played in the continued advancement and development of
society. Based on these findings, regenerative agriculture systems should be implemented on a
mainstream level to ensure human, animal, and planetary health, without a complete reduction of
industrial methods. Further research on the economic and social implications of increased levels
of regenerative agriculture is recommended.

12th Grade Humanities

Animas High School
04 April 2022
 Part 1: Introduction

In our ceaseless quest for novelty and ease, humanity has prioritized luxury and

convenience over sustainability and health in the last century. Systems that are essential to our

survival have become manipulated to serve this goal of comfort and simplicity; perhaps the most

important of these is the agriculture industry. Integration of this mindset into our food-systems

has resulted in the rise of Industrial Agriculture, a method of food production that has many

negative effects on economics, human and animal health, and above all, the environment. Why

has it succeeded in remaining the dominant method for feeding the globe? What agricultural

systems yield the best long-term solutions for sustainable food production?

Regenerative agriculture is defined as “an approach to farming that uses soil conservation

as the entry point to regenerate and contribute to multiple provisioning, regulating and

supporting services, with the objective that this will enhance not only the environmental, but also

the social and economic dimensions of sustainable food production” (Schreefel, L., et al., 6).

Because of its focus on emulating and working with nature’s systems, it is crucial to the

rehabilitation, preservation, and productivity of land utilized for food production around the

world. However, it is important to note that industrial agriculture has allowed for the mass

production and distribution of food-stuffs, and has been essential to maintaining some level of

food security. Despite this, negative environmental side effects must be taken into consideration,

such as the problem of its dependence on high inputs of fossil fuels. While industrial agriculture

has been important for feeding the world’s population, it is not environmentally sustainable long

term; therefore regenerative agriculture systems should be implemented on a mainstream level to

ensure human, animal, and planetary health.

 Part II: Historical Context/Background Knowledge

Industrial agriculture ( IA) is an agricultural method that is “largely dependent on fossil

fuels for the production of food by way of machinery and mechanization, agrichemicals,

transportation, food processing, food packaging, assimilating waste, etc.” (NRDC).

When corn became a widely grown crop because of its efficiency and high yield in the

1950-60s, it became cheaper to raise livestock and poultry in feedlots, referred to by Michael

Pollan in his book The Omnivore’s Dilemma as the urbanization of America’s livestock (67).

This resulted in further movement away from more natural methods and systems of farming;

grazing and roaming animals were taken off of large fields and grasslands where they could

consume their natural foods and were placed in confined areas, eating whatever fuel would bring

them to the most profitable weight the fastest.

Feedlots, also known as CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) are a form of

IA that relies on monoculture, the practice of growing one type of animal or crop in a given area

(Dictionary.com). Most large farms implement this method with the idea that by growing large

amounts of one crop or animal, their operation gains efficiency because they don’t require the

additional tools and machinery for growing and harvesting different kinds of plants.

In contrast to monocultural farming is polyculture, the practice of cultivating multiple

species of plants and animals simultaneously on a given piece of land (Dictionary.com).

Polyculture has been generally less dominant in the agriculture industry since the Industrial

Revolution, and is more recently closely associated with regenerative agriculture (RA). Because

polycultural agroecosystems have multiple plants and animals cultivated together, they are

inherently more biodiverse. The term biodiversity is generally used to acknowledge the wide

variety of life on Earth; it is sometimes referred to as agrobiodiversity in agriculture, and

describes the interactions and range of a multitude of species and microorganisms working

together to create healthy soil and a balanced ecosystem (Unit).

In recent years, using the term sustainability in relation to food production has become

increasingly popular. Merriam-Webster’s technical definition of sustainability is when something

is “capable of being sustained” or “a method of harvesting or using a resource so that the

resource is not depleted or permanently damaged” over time (Sustainable). Agricultural food

production requires the use of abundant natural resources, especially soil and water. These

resources are finite to begin with, and become even more so when they are relied upon to provide

food not only for the natural community, but also a human population of over 7 billion

consumers. When these resources are not managed properly, they become increasingly depleted

and the land becomes less resilient. Resilience is imperative for land productivity and long term

health, and it also means that if the limits of these things are pushed without proper regeneration,

the whole system becomes more vulnerable to problems like climate change.

Regenerative agriculture (RA) combines polyculture, intercropping (planting multiple

different types of crops all together), biodiversity, and soil health to embody a method of food

production that is sustainable over the long-term, striving to maintain resilience, productivity,

and health of agricultural land.

Part III: Research and Analysis

Industrial Agriculture

Since its rise post-Industrial Revolution, IA has had many beneficial impacts on society.

“Industrial Agriculture Pros and Cons” quotes the United States Department of Agriculture,

disclosing that from 1950 to 2017, global production of cereal grains increased 1700%, from half
a billion tons to 9 billion tons. Not only did this allow for a significant exponential increase in

global population, but it also opened many new job opportunities in the growing industry

(Industrial). Additional benefits include faster market readiness of products, lower consumer

costs, innovation, broadened palates and balanced diets of consumers, higher work efficiency,

and flexibility of location (Industrial). In The Omnivore's Dilemma, Michael Pollan quotes

Massimo Montanari, contending that “the fresh, local, and seasonal food we prize today was for

most of human history ‘a form of slavery’, since it left us utterly at the mercy of the local

vicissitudes of nature” (91). The invention of IA allowed us to become the slave-masters,

reducing food scarcity globally and giving humanity the opportunity to grow, especially

technologically and scientifically. When IA took over, the average citizen did not have to spend

their days growing and preparing food; this societal shift gave the majority of the population

time for other pursuits, including invention, research, and even leisure. Despite these advantages,

this method of agriculture has significant drawbacks.

CAFOs and other Monoculture Practices

Perhaps the most well known current form of conventional IA are feedlots, or CAFOs.

While feedlots have supported the widespread availability of cheap bovine, pork, and poultry

among other things, they have many negative impacts on the immediate surrounding landscape

and the ecosystem at large (Notaras). In his book The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan

concedes that:

The economic logic of gathering so many animals together to feed them cheap

corn in CAFOs is hard to argue with; it has made meat [cheap and

abundant]....Not so compelling is the biological logic behind this cheap meat.

 Already in their short history CAFOs have produced more than their share of

environmental and health problems: polluted water and air, toxic wastes, novel

and deadly pathogens. (67)

A study observing CAFOs found a connection between the rising number of these facilities and

decreased surface water quality; specifically, the

level of phosphorus rises past a natural level. The

study determined that relative to predicted natural

levels, adding one CAFO per HUC 8 region

increases average total phosphorus by 1.5% in

that region (Raff, Zach, and Meyer, Andrew).

High levels of phosphorus in surface water lead

to eutrophication, which is the increased growth

of algae and aquatic plants in a body of water.

This decreases the amount of dissolved oxygen in

the water, which can have harmful ripple effects

throughout an ecosystem or an agroecosystem.

Additionally, it can lead to algae blooms that produce toxins that are pernicious to animals and

humans (Indicators: Phosphorus). Notice in Figure 1 how the algae has taken over, leaving no

room for other life to thrive (Indicators: Phosphorus).

Quoting Weldon and Hornbuckle, the same study shows that this rise in phosphorus and

other pollutants such as fecal coliform, ammonia, and nitrates is the result of runoff from large

amounts of animal waste collected within CAFOs. Not only does this waste leach into water,

affecting its quality, but it also affects the lives of the animals that reside within them.
 Because of health complications derived from standing in large amounts of feces on a

daily basis, as well as problems created by feeding animals food they are not evolved to digest,

residents of CAFOs and similar feedlots require consistent use of antibiotics. For example, cattle

in CAFOs are fed corn because it is high in calories and cheap; however, cows are ruminants and

therefore not evolved to digest this grain. This causes a variety of health problems, which CAFO

operators and vets combat with heavy use of antibiotics (Pollan, 78 and 79).This allows for the

development of antibiotic resistant bacteria, which are harder to treat than those that are

nonresistant (Thesunshineisours). Furthermore, this can have detrimental effects on human

health: by weeding out the weak bacteria in an attempt to maintain the health of the livestock, the

antibiotic-filled meat we consume with our meals transfers the stronger bacteria into our own

bodies. This can cause “higher medical costs, prolonged hospital stays, and increased mortality”

among factory-farmed-meat consumers (Antibiotic). Among these bacteria is Escherichia coli

O157:H7, commonly known as E. coli. It is found in 40% of feedlot cattle, and when consumed

by humans the bacteria produces a toxin that is detrimental to the kidneys (Pollan 82).

Pollan goes on to mention that “one fifth of America’s petroleum consumption goes to

producing and transporting our food” because of the fuel it takes to mass produce crops,

transport animals and feed while they are alive, and finally transport them to the market (83).

The nature of fossil fuels as a finite resource demands that this be changed. Reliance on a

resource that is not infinite is NOT beneficial in the long-term. Fossil fuels also release large

amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, which contributes to large-scale climate

change, and use of them should be reduced.

With their confined spaces, mechanized methods requiring large amounts of fossil fuels,

abundant and ever increasing amounts of fecal matter, and unnatural livestock fattening
strategies, these feedlots/CAFOs have extreme implications for the quality of life and health of

the animals produced within them, humans that consume their products, and the planet they draw

resources from.

Biodiversity

Similar to the idea of growing one type of livestock in a small, concentrated area is the

practice of monocropping, or monoculture farming, where only one type of crop is grown on a

given field (Monoculture). Regenerative agriculture calls for an end to this practice which

spawns “ecological deserts” in agroecosystems, and the reintegration of biodiversity (Listen

Again: Migration). As mentioned above, biodiversity is the quality of soil that is rich with a wide

variety of nutrients, insects, microorganisms, and plants among a multitude of others (Unit).

According to speakers in the documentary The Biggest Little Farm, the goal of integrating

biodiversity into an agroecosystem is to “establish equilibrium” throughout the system so that it

can be “self perpetuating and self regulating”.

Biodiversity is essential to soil health, the basis of a productive and healthy system.

Sherwood and Uphoff quote R.G. Downes, 1982, reminding readers that:

In the natural state, land has a dynamic equilibrium. The trend of the interaction

and the resulting succession of different species of plants and animals is towards a

maximum sustainable biological productivity attainable from the available array

of species. (3)

This insinuates that by promoting biodiversity on agricultural land with an “array of species”,

farmers and ranchers can emulate this natural equilibrium. For example, Holistic Planned

Grazing is an RA method designed by Allan Savory that ensures that biodiversity and
equilibrium is upheld by incorporating cover-cropping, polyculture, and the managed movement

of livestock across the land. In his TED Talk, he details the importance of global adoption of

holistic planned grazing and management in order to “fight desertification and reverse climate

change” (Savory). The integration of livestock into the system adds to the biodiversity,

benefiting the soil in multiple ways. In Figure 2, notice how the land that has been holistically

managed using the rotation of livestock on the left has is more biodiverse and productive than its

counterpart on the right, which has not seen planned grazing and holistic management.

First, the

movement of the

herds tramples the

grass. In nature,

large herds are

continuously moved

across vast areas by

predators and in

search of better

forage and water. Because of this, they never stay in one place over an extended period. If they

did, said area would become overgrazed by the large amounts of animals that need the food to

survive. In agriculture, herds are often confined to one area by fences. Without constant

movement to allow the land they leave behind a long break from consumption and tramping, it

will quickly desertify.

When livestock is managed to mimic natural movement across the plains, usually by

changing the positioning of fences to allow animals to migrate, the plants and cover crops are
trampled just enough to cover any bare soil that may exist (Savory). Once the animals move on,

it is given ample time to recover. This is extremely important because it prevents the soil from

eroding, protects it from weather, hold and absorb water effectively, and even plays a key role in

carbon sequestration.

This cycle of planned grazing has another benefit: the utilization of natural fertilizer. As

the livestock rotates across the area, they urinate and defecate. Their movement and disturbance

integrate this into the soil. This adds to the biodiversity of the soil with the waste’s nutrients and

bacteria, and ensures the regrowth of that land after the livestock have moved on. Sarah Gleason,

a regenerative bison rancher in Hesperus, Colorado, compared this method to compost in an

interview, saying, “It’s just like composting, except that you can do it on a much larger scale. It’s

hard to distribute compost over 10,000 acres, but when you have roaming animals to do it for

you, you’ve solved the problem” (Gleason). Organic inputs continue to be integrated into the

land through these methods, which ensures the health of the land and soil, and secures the

possibility of continued cultivation on the land.

IA introduced a chemical substitute for organic inputs with the widespread use of

agrichemicals like fertilizers and pesticides. In the aftermath of World War II in 1947, it was

discovered that ammonium nitrate could be used not only for munitions, but also as fertilizer for

plants (Pollan, 41). Farmers discovered that they could increase their yield by spraying extra

nutrients and synthetic nitrogen onto their crops. However, much of this nitrogen is not taken up

by the plants it is intended for. Some of it evaporates, where it becomes acid rain and contributes

to climate change. The rest of it runs off into the water table. Some towns near IA hotspots must

“issue ‘blue baby alerts’, warning parents it is unsafe to give children water from the tap. The

nitrates in the water convert to nitrite, which binds to hemoglobin, compromising the blood’s
ability to carry oxygen to the brain” (Pollan 47). Aside from these human health impacts, this

excess nitrogen also has additional effects on the health of the planet. Eventually, some of the run

off makes its way to the ocean, from inland down to the coast, where it stimulates the growth of

algal blooms; similar to the ones created by excess phosphorus in the water table, these blooms

drain oxygen from the water, creating massive dead zones in the sea where fish cannot survive.

Pollan’s epiphany from this knowledge is that “By fertilizing the world, we alter the planet’s

composition of species and shrink its biodiversity” (47). Does this not ultimately go against the

goals of humanity? To survive? By killing the thing and the resources relied on for food, water,

and a home, when looking into the future we cannot see sustainability and longevity, because

there is none when our planet is continuously exploited, degraded, and destroyed by synthetic

things like agrichemicals, designed as a short term facilitator of comfort and abundance.

Economics (Profit, Revenue, Costs)

Economics are obviously a concern when a major shift to a market is proposed, and so

there is an imperative for an analysis of the results of these changes, especially in relation to the

profitability of RA methods compared to IA methods. In Regenerative agriculture: merging

farming and natural resource conservation, the authors find that, using monocrop corn fields as a

case study, “Regenerative fields had 29% lower grain production but 78% higher profits over

transitional corn production systems. Profit was positively correlated with the particulate organic

matter of the soil, not yield” (Abstract). They also found that “The relative profitability in the

two systems was driven by the high seed and fertilizer costs that conventional farms incurred

(32% of gross income went into these inputs on conventional fields, versus only 12% in

regenerative fields), and the higher revenue generated from grain and other products produced
(e.g., meat production) on the regenerative corn fields” (5). This shows that while RA fields had

less linear production than IA fields, they generated more revenue/profit because there was

higher organic matter in the soil, and money was not used in the beginning of the process for the

purchase of external inputs like fertilizer. This is important to note because it shows that while

traditional yield may be lower on RA fields, this does not inherently suggest that profit will also

be lower, and that when costs, revenue, and other variables are taken into account, regenerative

operations are able to generate more profit than an industrial model. Additionally, the authors

mention that profit was “positively correlated with particulate organic matter in the soil, not

yield”, confirming, as mentioned in above paragraphs, that biodiversity is essential to increased

profit within an agroecosystem (LaCanne, Claire E., and Jonathan G. Lundgren). It also suggests

that farmers using RA methods generate more revenue because of the market for sustainably

farmed products. Because they can ask more from the consumers, they generate more profit.

However, the partner of profit in any market is productivity, which Phillip Woodhouse

addresses in Beyond Industrial Agriculture? Some Questions about Farm Size, Productivity, and

Sustainability. He notes that industrial farms spend less time and money on labour because

“where capital has been available, this higher labour demand has been subsequently reduced by

mechanization (Hossain et al. 2007), resulting in much higher labour productivity” (443).

Regenerative methods generally stray away from mechanized farming, because of the

implications such as tilling, fertilization, and other methods that damage the land and soil.

Woodhouse argues that this decreases productivity in those situations, because mechanization

allows money and time to be saved on planting, harvesting, and a multitude of other practices.

So, industrial models are considered more productive in terms of labor efficiency. It could be

argued that this positive productivity would lend itself to fill in the gaps created by negative
profitability on industrial operations. However, he also contends that “higher density of

settlement, on more productive land, [could] imply a reverse causality: higher productivity

causes smaller farm size” (which can apply to regenerative) (442). A “higher density of

settlement” refers to the number of plants, crops, and livestock in a given area; having more of

these things in the right balance leads to an increase in soil organic matter, which, as mentioned

above, increases biodiversity and therefore productivity, so it can confidently be concluded that

regenerative methods are more productive in terms of product as well as profit.

Monopoly

In the early 1900s, industrialists known as robber barons were dominant throughout the

USA. Their goal was to infiltrate all the big industries, including the meat industry, by buying up

all the smaller companies to consolidate the wealth, resulting in a transformation of the

American economy and major monopolization. This was great for them–they got all the profit

for a particular market in the country–but it came at the expense of small-scale operators trying

to make a living in said industry. In the case of the meat processing industry, which has become a

major form of IA today, the robber barons created giant meat packing factories; there were only

five dominant ones in the whole country. Because they had almost complete control over the

market, they were able to control the terms, and to some extent the regulations, of that market.

This resulted in horrifying conditions inside the plants, not to mention extreme consequences for

all the ranchers and small business meat packers (Who Do You Want Controlling Your Food?).

In response, the Packers and Stockyards Act was implemented in 1921, which “regulates

meatpacking, livestock dealers, market agencies, live poultry dealers, and swine contractors to

prohibit unfair or deceptive practices, giving undue preferences, apportioning supply,

manipulating prices, or creating a monopoly” (Wikipedia). When this came into effect, it leveled

the playing field of the market. But now, this is happening all over again, and it makes it really

challenging for ranchers, especially cow-calf operations, to break even after the expenses of each

year. Because the packing industry is monopolistic, they can control who can sell meat for

ranchers (grocery stores, etc.), and since they bought all the small packing operations the

ranchers don’t have any choice of who they can sell their meat to every year. This gives them the

ability to give the ranchers basically nothing for the meat, so they cannot break even. When

ranchers try to sell directly to consumers, the big companies can deny them that ability because

they control everything. This example shows that monopoly is an economic tribulation for

small-scale ranchers and business owners, and makes conditions in big meat packing plants

unsafe.

Part IV: Discussions and Conclusions

The function of our society currently relies on getting food fast, in large quantities; the

implications of transforming our current system of food production should be acknowledged and

explored at great depth. How would it affect other social systems? Would food scarcity and

inequality grow? How would it affect people living in inner cities compared to suburbia, rural

towns, etc? What other socioeconomic effects should be considered? Would individuals have to

spend more time on self-provided food production, leaving less time for other activities and

occupations? How would an increase in “sustainable” goods affect the market and price of

organic and local products?

Moreover, it is crucial to acknowledge the role industrial agriculture has played in

promoting humanity, most importantly in increasing the human population. With the current
global population standing around 7.7 billion as of 2020 (Worldometer), it is not plausible that

that many people could be supported on regenerative agriculture alone. There is simply not

enough open land and resources. A majority of the population resides in urban areas, far from

rural farms and ranches. Transporting fresh foods from sustainable facilities creates numerous

problems. Additionally, there are not immediate results when creating regenerated land from

highly degraded land because of the time it takes to reintegrate biodiversity, livestock, and other

practices. There is also economic risk to an endeavor of this nature, which requires sponsors,

time, and commitment.

Despite these possible ramifications and challenges, based on extensive research it is

obvious that the best long-term solution for sustainable food production is RA. There is a

veritable plethora of evidence supporting this claim; first among these is the multitude of benefits

that come from the biodiversity afforded by widespread regenerative practices. Current

agricultural methods, classified as industrial by the use of mechanization and consolidation of

large amounts of a singular crop or livestock, inherently eliminate biodiversity in the utilized

land. This can lead to intense problems such as land degradation, water eutrophication, and

human, animal, and planetary health implications (including greenhouse gas emission and

contribution to large scale climate change). Additionally, biodiversity increases the nutrient

content in soil, increasing its long-term health and fertility.

This has great economic advantages, as its higher fertility and nutrient content increase

the yield a given area of land can produce. This is a great advantage for the farmer: not only can

they rely on the land to produce high quality food, they also know that this production will

continue as long as they maintain biodiversity. They can also generate higher revenue for their

products because they will be listed and sold as “sustainable goods”, which are sold at higher
prices. Farmers also save money in the process of regeneration, as they no longer need to spend

unnecessarily on external costs such as fertilizers and pesticides; the biodiversity of the land

creates a balance that eradicates this need. Moreover, regenerative practices are more reliable for

the small-scale farmer, because they provide protection from large companies and organizations

that seek to monopolize food production for their own gain.

Industrial agriculture should continue on a smaller scale in order to continue to support

the growing human population. Long-term sustainability in food production and agriculture can

be maintained with implementation of regenerative agriculture at an increased level than is

currently practiced. By finding a balance between these two systems, as stewards and citizens of

the natural global ecosystem, we can ensure the survival of humanity and the Earth.
 Works Cited

“Antibiotic Resistance.” World Health Organization, World Health Organization,

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/antibiotic-resistance.

Blasiak, Robert. “Reversing Desertification with Livestock.” Our World, United Nations

University, 30 May 2012,

https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/reversing-desertification-with-livestock.

“Current World Population.” Worldometer, Worldometer,

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/.

Gleason, Sarah. Personal interview. 14 January 2022.

“Indicators: Phosphorus.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, 7 July 2021,

https://www.epa.gov/national-aquatic-resource-surveys/indicators-phosphorus#:~:text=Too

%20much%20phosphorus%20can%20cause,to%20human%20and%20animal%20health.

“Industrial Agriculture Pros and Cons.” Farming Base, 22 May 2021,

https://farmingbase.com/industrial-agriculture-pros-and-cons/.

James, Dan and Becca James. Personal interview. 8 January 2022.

January 31, 2020 NRDC. “Industrial Agriculture 101.” NRDC, 1 Dec. 2021,

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/industrial-agriculture-101.

Kremen, Claire, and Albie Miles. “Ecosystem Services in Biologically Diversified versus

Conventional Farming Systems: Benefits, Externalities, and Trade-Offs.” Ecology and

Society, vol. 17, no. 4, Dec. 2012, https://doi.org/10.5751/es-05035-170440.

LaCanne, Claire E., and Jonathan G. Lundgren. “Regenerative Agriculture: Merging Farming

and Natural Resource Conservation Profitably.” PeerJ, vol. 6, 26 Feb. 2018,

https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4428.

“Listen Again: Migration”. Ted Radio Hour from NPR, 4 March 2022,

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/02/1083988617/listen-again-migration#:~:text=Listen%20A

gain%3A%20Migration%20%3A%20TED%20Radio%20Hour%20Original%20broadcas

t%20date%3A,culture%2C%20countries%2C%20and%20species.

Lusk, Jayson. “Why Industrial Farms Are Good for the Environment.” The New York Times, The

New York Times, 23 Sept. 2016,

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/opinion/sunday/why-industrial-farms-are-good-for-t

he-environment.html.

“Monoculture Definition & Meaning.” Dictionary.com, Dictionary.com,

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/monoculture.

Notaras, Mark. “The Shame of Concentrated Animal Feedlots.” Our World, The United Nations

University , 24 Nov. 2010,

https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/the-shame-of-concentrated-animal-feedlots.

Pollan, Michael. The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. Penguin Books,

2016.

“Polyculture Definition & Meaning.” Dictionary.com, Dictionary.com,

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/polyculture.
Raff, Zach, and Andrew Meyer. CAFOs and Surface Water Quality: Evidence from the

Proliferation of Large Farms in Wisconsin. SSRN Electronic Journal , Jan. 2019,

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Zach-Raff-2/publication/333128758_CAFOs_and_Sur

face_Water_Quality_Evidence_from_the_Proliferation_of_Large_Farms_in_Wisconsin/lin

ks/5d780d73299bf1cb80980fe0/CAFOs-and-Surface-Water-Quality-Evidence-from-the-Pr

oliferation-of-Large-Farms-in-Wisconsin.pdf.

Renand, Gilles, et al. “Methane and Carbon Dioxide Emission of Beef Heifers in Relation with

Growth and Feed Efficiency.” Animals, vol. 9, no. 12, 12 Dec. 2019, p. 1136.,

https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9121136.

Rhodes, Christopher J. “The Imperative for Regenerative Agriculture.” Science Progress, vol.

100, no. 1, 2017, pp. 80–129., https://doi.org/10.3184/003685017x14876775256165.

Schreefel, L., et al. “Regenerative Agriculture – the Soil Is the Base.” Global Food Security, vol.

26, 6 Aug. 2020, p. 100404., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100404.

Sherwood, Stephen, and Norman Uphoff. “Soil Health: Research, Practice and Policy for a More

Regenerative Agriculture.” Applied Soil Ecology, vol. 15, no. 1, 2000, pp. 85–97.,

https://doi.org/10.1016/s0929-1393(00)00074-3.

“Sustainable Definition & Meaning.” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster,

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sustainable.

Thesunshineisours. “The Dangers of Industrial Agriculture.” ECOSYSTEMS UNITED,

ECOSYSTEMS UNITED, 30 Oct. 2019,

https://ecosystemsunited.com/2019/03/01/the-dangers-of-industrial-agriculture/.
Unit, Biosafety. “What Is Agricultural Biodiversity?” Convention on Biological Diversity,

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 23 Apr. 2008,

https://www.cbd.int/agro/whatis.shtml.

“Who Do You Want Controlling Your Food?” The Daily from NPR, 28 January 2022,

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/who-do-you-want-controlling-your-food/id120036

1736?i=1000549267317

WOODHOUSE, PHILIP. “Beyond Industrial Agriculture? Some Questions about Farm Size,

Productivity and Sustainability.” Journal of Agrarian Change, vol. 10, no. 3, 21 July

2010, pp. 437–453., https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0366.2010.00278.x.