Putting agricultural ethics into practice

Many farmers are passionate about stewardship of the land. But they’re paid by the bushel, pound, or other unit of production. How do we fix that disconnect? 

That question is at the heart of a recent article by Kate A. Congreves published in the journal npj Sustainable Agriculture. Congreves, a professor in the Department of Plant Sciences at the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada, argues that agriculture needs more than new technologies and best management practices to solve sustainability problems. It also needs a clearer ethical foundation.

Congreves asks agricultural professionals to examine the values underneath the industry’s decisions. What counts as “good” agriculture? Is it only high yield and efficiency, or should it also include care for soil, water, plants, animals, rural communities, future generations, and the ecological processes that make farming possible?

Congreves notes that agricultural sustainability is usually approached through a technical lens. Advisers and farmers may ask which practice, product, or policy, will increase agricultural sustainability. 

Philosophy offers a new approach by helping people examine the assumptions that shape decisions, what we value and why, and how to balance competing values. Congreves argues that this kind of thinking is useful because few people are trained in both agricultural science and philosophy.

Environmental ethics has influenced conservation and environmental policy. But those ideas do not always fit agriculture well because farming requires direct interaction with soil, water, plants, animals, and landscapes. Farmers are producing food, feed, fiber, and fuel within the environment.

Agriculture is “inextricably a part of the environment and biosphere,” writes Congreves. “Agriculture is not separate from the environment—it is within it, as are we.”

So an agricultural environmental ethic should simultaneously recognize the responsibility to produce food and other agricultural products and the responsibility to protect the ecosystems that make production possible.

The limits of a production-first ethic

Congreves explains that a utilitarian ethic shapes much of modern agriculture, focusing on “the greatest common good for the greatest number of people.” This approach supports efficiency, productivity, food availability, economic value, and the moral goals of preventing hunger and supporting human well-being.

Sinclair’s practical definition of sustainability begins with whether the next generation can successfully take over the farm. If a conservation or regenerative practice threatens the long-term viability of the farm business, it is unlikely to be sustainable.

That is an important point for CCAs. A recommendation framed only as “the right thing to do” may not be persuasive. A recommendation framed around protecting nutrients already paid for, reducing erosion, solving a wet area problem, lowering risk, or increasing resilience is more likely to connect ethics with on-farm reality.

Regenerative agriculture is more than a list of practices

Congreves proposes regenerative agriculture as a possible framework for agricultural environmental ethics. Rather than defining it only through practices such as cover crops, reduced tillage, livestock integration, diverse rotations, and reduced inputs, she defines regenerative agriculture as “an ecological approach and ethic for our agricultural system that involves reciprocity with the land, to support ecosystem processes with the goal of nurturing the environment.”

The word “regenerative” implies improvement over time. It suggests that agriculture should repair or strengthen ecological processes rather than merely avoid further damage or maintain the status quo. That raises practical questions: What is being regenerated? Soil structure? Nutrient cycling? Water movement? Farm resilience?

This approach does not mean that every farm should use the same practices. Philosophical principles can guide decisions, but they do not require a universal prescription. A practice that is regenerative in one setting may not be the right fit in another. The deeper question is whether the practice supports the ecological processes that keep the agroecosystem functioning.

Aaron Breimer, a CCA with 25 years of experience and chair of the International Certified Crop Advisers board, emphasizes this point. He offers a practical definition: “Regenerative ag is any practice that improves what you are currently doing.”

Depending on the particular farm’s needs, improvement may mean using variable-rate nitrogen, precise phosphorus placement, more representative soil sampling, cover cropping, a riparian buffer, or a small no-till experiment.

For CCAs, this framing is useful because it moves the conversation away from labels and toward outcomes, such as: What problem are we trying to solve? What risk are we introducing? What benefit can we measure? What is the next practical step?

Regional fit matters

A major theme in Breimer’s response is regional specificity. Responsible agriculture does not look the same everywhere.

Where he lives in Ontario, one major concern is phosphorus movement into Lake Erie causing algal blooms. In Iowa, a major concern is nitrogen in drinking water and rivers. A practice that makes sense in one region may not address the main problem in another.

Sinclair makes a similar point about risk. She says farmers should not be expected to carry the whole cost of environmental improvement. If society wants more sustainable agriculture, we have to confront the true cost of agricultural products. So products produced with certain environmental benefits may require cost-share programs or consumers paying more.

This creates a thorny ethical question. Many people want sustainable agriculture, but not everyone can afford higher food prices. 

Ask better questions

One of the clearest takeaways from Congreves, Sinclair, and Breimer is that ethics begins with better questions.

Congreves argues that philosophy helps uncover assumptions we may not have questioned before. Why do we grow the crops and use the practices we do? How do we define success? Why? Why do we count some costs but not others? 

Breimer suggests that CCAs show up to their clients “with an open mind, wanting to understand the why.” Why is a certain fertilizer rate used? Why is a field managed this way? Why is a client interested in trying a new practice, or not? The goal of asking questions is not to trap the farmer or prove them wrong, but to understand the reasoning behind the decision. And if the answer is because that’s the way Dad did it, or this is what the neighbors do, maybe further exploration is needed to determine whether there’s now a better way. 

This also works in the other direction. Farmers can ask why society, companies, or advisers suggest a certain change. What problem does the change address? What evidence supports making the change? How much will it cost? Who benefits from the change? Who bears the risk?

What CCAs can learn

Congreves’s article challenges CCAs to think more deeply about agriculture’s ethical foundation. Sinclair and Breimer give suggestions for making that challenge practical.

For CCAs, the main lesson is to recognize that agronomic recommendations contain built-in values and tradeoffs. A nutrient recommendation may affect profit, water quality, and greenhouse gas emissions. A conservation recommendation may affect soil health, cash flow, labor, and risk. The CCA’s role is to help bring all those factors into one conversation.

Agricultural ethics can help CCAs and farmers collaboratively ask better questions, evaluate tradeoffs, and make changes that support both farm viability and environmental stewardship.