Expanding recognition and inclusion of animal-free organic agriculture in the sustainable agriculture movement

Abstract

Animal-free organic agriculture resides at the margins of sustainable agriculture discourse, practice, and imaginaries, which center animal-based forms of farming. However, the concerns and goals of sustainable agriculture are overwhelmingly consistent with those of many forms of animal-free organic agriculture (AFOA), described as organic farming sans animal production, labor, and byproducts. Despite this sidelining, AFOA has great potential to contribute to a more robust sustainable agriculture movement. In order to emphasize the continuities between animal-based and animal-free sustainable agriculture, this Perspective identifies a number of key similarities between animal-free and animal-based sustainable farming, including mutual foci on soil health and shared opposition to intensive animal agriculture. It contends that beyond being compatible with sustainable agriculture, AFOA holds answers to some of the difficult questions currently and potentially confronting animal-based agriculture, such as projected impacts of climate change on animal agriculture and stability of supply chains for animal-based soil amendments. Barriers to greater inclusion of AFOA into the sustainable agriculture movement exist as well; this piece suggests potential ways to address some of these challenges, including the integration of AFOA into formal sustainable agriculture education.

Full text

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 01 frontiersin.org
Expanding recognition and
inclusion of animal-free organic
agriculture in the sustainable
agriculture movement
MonaSeymour *
Department of Urban and Environmental Studies, Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, CA,
United States
Animal-free organic agriculture resides at the margins of sustainable agriculture
discourse, practice, and imaginaries, which center animal-based forms of farming.
However, the concerns and goals of sustainable agriculture are overwhelmingly
consistent with those of many forms of animal-free organic agriculture (AFOA),
described as organic farming sans animal production, labor, and byproducts.
Despite this sidelining, AFOA has great potential to contribute to a more robust
sustainable agriculture movement. In order to emphasize the continuities
between animal-based and animal-free sustainable agriculture, this Perspective
identifies a number of key similarities between animal-free and animal-based
sustainable farming, including mutual foci on soil health and shared opposition
to intensive animal agriculture. It contends that beyond being compatible with
sustainable agriculture, AFOA holds answers to some of the dicult questions
currently and potentially confronting animal-based agriculture, such as projected
impacts of climate change on animal agriculture and stability of supply chains
for animal-based soil amendments. Barriers to greater inclusion of AFOA into
the sustainable agriculture movement exist as well; this piece suggests potential
ways to address some of these challenges, including the integration of AFOA into
formal sustainable agriculture education.
KEYWORDS
sustainable agriculture, animal-free agriculture, stockfree organic, biocyclic vegan,
vegan organic, veganic
1 Introduction
Calls for agriculture to abate the climate crisis, conserve natural resources, reduce
agricultural pollution, ensure access to healthy aordable food, improve farmer livelihoods, and
generally respond to the deleterious ecological and social impacts of industrial agriculture, are
answered by a diversity of forms of sustainable agriculture. Agroecology, organic agriculture,
regenerative agriculture, permaculture, conservation agriculture, and sustainable intensication
are among these forms, in their concerns for environmental, social, and economic viability
(Gomiero etal., 2011; Oberč and Arroyo Schnell, 2020; Kassam A. and Kassam L., 2021). While
there are both key similarities and marked dierences between these and additional sustainable
agriculture approaches, one notable commonality is the normativity of domesticated or farmed
animals. Farmed animals are enmeshed in sustainable farming systems in a multiplicity of ways,
including as food animals (e.g., dairy cows and broiler chickens); as sources of ber and skin
(e.g., goose down and sheep wool); as sources of fertility for crops (e.g., manure and feather
meal); as providers of ecosystem services (e.g., sheep and cattle in rotational grazing systems);
as labor (e.g., oxen and dra horses); as attractions (e.g., heritage livestock breeds in agritourism
OPEN ACCESS
EDITED BY
Amar Razzaq,
Huanggang Normal University, China
REVIEWED BY
Moataz Eliw,
Al-Azhar University, Egypt
*CORRESPONDENCE
Mona Seymour
mona.seymour@lmu.edu
RECEIVED 12 September 2023
ACCEPTED 14 November 2023
PUBLISHED 06 December 2023
CITATION
Seymour M (2023) Expanding recognition and
inclusion of animal-free organic agriculture in
the sustainable agriculture movement.
Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 7:1293261.
doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2023.1293261
COPYRIGHT
© 2023 Seymour. This is an open-access
article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).
The use, distribution or reproduction in other
forums is permitted, provided the original
author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are
credited and that the original publication in this
journal is cited, in accordance with accepted
academic practice. No use, distribution or
reproduction is permitted which does not
comply with these terms.
TYPE Perspective
PUBLISHED 06 December 2023
DOI 10.3389/fsufs.2023.1293261

Seymour 10.3389/fsufs.2023.1293261
Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 02 frontiersin.org
experiences); and as consumers of farm products (e.g., straw bedding
and corn-based feed).
Forms of animal-based agriculture are centered in sustainable
agriculture discourse and practice. Meanwhile, approaches to
sustainable agriculture that are exclusive of farmed animals sit at the
margins of conversations about sustainable agriculture futures—
despite their actual and potential roles in sustainable agrifood systems
(Hagemann and Potthast, 2015; Kassam L. and Kassam A., 2021;
Hirth, 2022). Nobari (2021) recently observed that “From First-World
urban gardening enthusiasts to indigenous movements, the push for
a more sustainable way of growing food—one that works with
ecosystems instead of against them—comes from a diverse set of
voices. Within this diversity, one common denominator is the
validation of small-scale, traditional forms of animal agriculture. is
ranges from implicit to explicit. Even where not a central focus, animal
husbandry is usually accepted as default in a sustainable agricultural
system” (p.381). ey further assert that, “As awareness spreads that
industrialized corporate agriculture is the problem, so does the notion
that animal-based agriculture is the only possible alternative. When
presented with the idea of veganic [an approach to organic agriculture
that involves no farmed animals or animal byproducts], it’s like it can’t
possibly bedone” (p.382). e status of animal-based agriculture as
an unquestioned or a vital component of sustainable agrifood
alternatives to industrial agriculture likely stems from a combination
of factors, including European colonial legacies; community norms
around animal husbandry; societal norms around meat and animal
product consumption; the “logic of the larder;” and a general lack of
knowledge around alternatives to animal-based fertility (Arcari, 2017;
Weis and Ellis, 2020; Nobari, 2021).
Despite the marginal position of animal-free agriculture in
sustainable agriculture discourse, practice, and imaginaries, animal-
free organic agriculture (AFOA) is a set of approaches that evinces
clear alignment with sustainable agriculture, and that is positioned to
contribute meaningfully to the broader sustainable agriculture
movement. As used in this piece, AFOA refers to organic plant
agriculture systems that exclude domesticated or farmed animal
bodies and byproducts (e.g., manure, blood meal, bedding litter) from
the production of food, ber, and fuel, instead using plant- and rock-
based materials to enhance soil fertility. ree forms of AFOA have
been codied as agricultural standards. In the following section, the
Stockfree Organic Standards (based in the UnitedKingdom), the
Biocyclic Vegan Standard (based in Germany), and the Veganic
Standard (based in Canada) are used as touchstones for brief
observations about continuities between AFOA and animal-based
sustainable agriculture. Next, the piece outlines some of the challenges
that animal-based agriculture may face in the near and midterm
future, to which AFOA can respond. Finally, Iidentify some possible
paths to eecting a more wholesale inclusion of AFOA in the
sustainable agriculture movement. e intent of this Perspective is to
draw greater attention to the existence and value of AFOA, with an eye
to strengthening the sustainable agriculture movement.
2 Similarities between AFOA and
animal-based sustainable agriculture
e three codied approaches to AFOA share numerous values,
practices, and perspectives with forms of animal-based sustainable
agriculture. Acknowledging similarities that span the animal-based/
animal-free divide is a useful way to counteract a narrow and divisive
focus on the outstanding dierence of the place of animals and animal
byproducts in the respective forms of sustainable agriculture. e
continuities outlined below are illustrative, not exhaustive.
A deep concern for soil health is perhaps the most fundamental
shared value, even as this may manifest through dierent sets of
practices (i.e., relative to the use of animals and animal byproducts).
For instance, the Veganic Standard recognizes soils as “the essence of
all life,” and emphasizes the importance of monitoring and building
soil organic matter (NAVCS, n.d.), as does organic agriculture (Rodale
Institute, n.d.-a). Improved soil health is foundational to the Biocyclic
Vegan Standard, given that “… soil fertility is the basis of any
sustainable and successful economic activity. All production
techniques used in agriculture should therefore serve the aim of
creation and maintenance of a diverse and active soil life …” (Adolph
Hoops Society, 2020), just as it is the most common desired outcome
among regenerative agriculture practitioner organizations (Newton
etal., 2020). Viewing agriculture as an instrument of climate change
mitigation is another common value. e Biocyclic Vegan Standard,
for instance, emphasizes the possibility for transformation of farmland
into carbon sinks based in the application of carbon-heavy humus soil
(Adolph Hoops Society, 2020). Meanwhile, over two-thirds of
regenerative agriculture practitioner organizations view increased
carbon sequestration as a desirable outcome of regenerative
agriculture (Newton etal., 2020).
Practically speaking, commitments to growing without chemicals
and genetically modied organisms (GMOs) articulated in the three
sets of AFOA standards (Adolph Hoops Society, 2020; NAVCS, n.d.;
Stockfree Organic Services, n.d.-a) are also common to many forms
of animal-based sustainable agriculture. Cover cropping, minimal
tillage, and crop rotations are other techniques implemented by some
animal-free and some animal-based sustainable agriculture forms.
Green manure application, an integral part of the Stockfree Organic
and Biocyclic Vegan Standards, is a notable commonality, with
animal-based plant agriculture also oen implementing this plant-
based technique to improve the soil. e UnitedStates Department of
Agriculture (USDA) guidelines for organic crop producers, for
instance, discuss green manuring as one of the primary soil-building
activities on certied organic farms (Coleman, 2012). e integration
or creation of natural landscape elements in and around farm
ecosystems is another practice common across the animal-free/
animal-based sustainable farming spectrum. Hall and Tolhurst (2007)
detail numerous landscape design techniques that Stockfree Organic-
certied farmers can implement to enhance biodiversity; attract
predatory insects and mammals; and reduce wind speed and erosion.
Similarly, Wezel etal. (2014) describe the agroecological practice of
(re)integrating elements like vegetation strips and hedges as conferring
benets including habitat for pollinators; protection against erosion;
and biodiversity conservation.
Finally, the problematization of intensive livestock production is
common across almost all animal-free and animal-based sustainable
agriculture approaches, though of course ultimately the proposed
solutions dier. Intensive livestock farming is recognized in the Biocyclic
Vegan Standard as a leading cause of greenhouse gas emissions (Adolph
Hoops Society, 2020). While materials associated with the Stockfree
Organic Standards tend not to focus on intensive production in
particular, charges such as livestock production’s contributions to food

Seymour 10.3389/fsufs.2023.1293261
Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 03 frontiersin.org
insecurity, greenhouse gas emissions, fossil fuel dependence, and
waterway pollution apply (e.g., Hall and Tolhurst, 2007; Stockfree
Organic Services, n.d.-b). From an agroecological perspective, Gliessman
(2007) emphasizes that conventional animal husbandry techniques
contribute heavily to the unsustainability of conventional agriculture,
including via air and water pollution from conned animal feeding
operations; monopolization of arable land by feed production; and risks
to human health from zoonotic diseases and diets high in animal fat. e
Soil Association connects intensive production of various types of
livestock to animal welfare violations, antibiotics resistance, farmworker
health, and ecological challenges (e.g., Soil Association, n.d.-a,n.d.-b).
ese similarities are perhaps not surprising, given the importance
of organic and/or regenerative agriculture as bases for the three AFOA
standards. ey demonstrate that in many important ways, AFOA and
animal-based sustainable agriculture proponents are “on the same
team.” ey also oer common ground on which deeper
understandings of AFOA could be built, as a step toward greater
acceptance of AFOA approaches in the broader sustainable agriculture
community, which would beto its benet.
3 AFOA as an asset to the broader
sustainable agriculture movement
AFOA is positioned to make a key contribution to the sustainable
agriculture movement, in oering a more diversied path forward in
the face of numerous environmental, scientic, and social shis that
could present substantial challenges to animal-based plant agriculture
and animal agriculture (both industrial and alternative varieties) at
various sites and scales. e developments described below suggest
the vulnerabilities of a heavily or exclusively animal-based sustainable
agriculture movement. In the worst cases, they may entail steep
challenges to obtaining animal-based fertility for crops, and may
render animal husbandry untenable or undesirable.
Animal-based approaches to plant agriculture rely on soil
amendments such as manures, blood meals, and feather meals. ese
wastes and waste products originate from sources including industrial
animal agriculture, small local farms, and on-site in mixed crop-
livestock operations. As various threats to animal agriculture arise and
escalate, including those outlined below, there is reason to expect that
the reliability of access to animal-based inputs will destabilize.
e intensication of climate change is expected to yield
considerable impacts on livestock production. Reduced and variable
feed quantity and quality; diminishing water availability; shiing
disease dynamics; and the eects of heat stress on animal reproduction,
health, and mortality are among the ways in which climate change is
expected to increasingly aect animal agriculture (Nardone etal.,
2010; Rojas-Downing et al., 2017; Bernabucci, 2019). Livestock
producers may need to prepare to implement appropriate adaptation
strategies or to consider alternative livelihoods, and the scaling down
or termination of vulnerable operations will have implications for
growers dependent upon animal wastes or waste products from
those sources.
e numerous environmental and social impacts of animal
agriculture and animal-based foods have led to a growing scientic
consensus that the production and consumption of animal-based
foods must be substantially reduced. Impacts including the
contribution of livestock production to global greenhouse gas
emissions; the vast resource requirements of livestock production,
including land and water; and the relationship between intensive
animal agriculture and potential zoonotic pandemics are o-cited in
these discussions (e.g., IPCC, 2019; Willett etal., 2019; Ripple etal.,
2020). Relatedly, food security strategies that rely heavily on plant-
based foods are emerging in discussion and design, typically with an
eye either to peak meat production or to scaling back animal
agriculture (e.g., Day, 2013; Sabaté and Soret, 2014; Jimenez-Lopez
et al., 2020). ese discourses all put pressure on livestock-based
industries and animal farmers, raising serious questions about the
environmental and social sustainability of animal agriculture. Farmer
transitions out of animal production due to these developments will
likely have downstream impacts on animal byproduct supplies.
e market for animal-based food products is changing,
sometimes in ways unfavorable to animal agriculture. For instance,
per-capita cow’s milk consumption has been declining in the
UnitedStates for decades, and consumer demand for plant-based
milks is now a contributor to the decline in sales of cow’s milk in the
U.S. (Stewart etal., 2020). Cellular agriculture is another sector to
consider. If lab-based animal agriculture scales up in coming years,
production costs will drop, consumer interest in multiple
“traditionally-produced” animal products may decrease, and
challenges may arise for feed producers and “traditional” livestock and
dairy producers (Burton, 2019; Saavoss, 2019; Newton and Blaustein-
Rejto, 2021). As these pressures lead to some farmers exiting the meat,
dairy, and other industries, operations that once fed the animal
agricultural byproduct supply chain will cease to do so.
ese and additional factors that threaten animal husbandry will
not manifest uniformly around the world, and the degree to which
they impact animal agriculture in any given region or place will
be dependent upon complex congurations of industry, climate,
geography, culture, and policy. As they do emerge or intensify, though,
a trickle-down eect of diminished supplies of animal-based soil
amendments might beexpected to result from altered and reduced
livestock production. e degradation of animal byproduct supply
chains would create instability for growers reliant on inputs from
impacted regions and economies. Sustainability-minded farmers will
need to beaware of and open to animal-free avenues in the face of
potential shortages of animal agricultural byproducts.1,2
ere is also the question of the desirability of animal-based
fertility sources, in addition to that of availability. Recognition of the
potential transfer of pathogens from animal waste materials to organic
plants such as berries and vegetables drives concerns about food safety
in animal-based organic crop production systems (Sorensen and
orup-Kristensen, 2011; Alsanius etal., 2019). In Europe, the place
in organic agriculture of animal-based inputs specically from
1 The organic transition in some parts of Europe similarly necessitated
implementation of plant-based fertility systems, particularly in certain arable
regions that were managed sans livestock and thus lacked access to animal
manure (Hall and Tolhurst, 2007; Løes etal., 2011). This situation eventually
informed the development of the Stockfree Organic Standards in the
UnitedKingdom.
2 Of course, some farmers may opt to use synthetic fertilizers to replace
animal-based fertilizers; this would beconsistent with approaches such as
conservation agriculture.

Seymour 10.3389/fsufs.2023.1293261
Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 04 frontiersin.org
conventional agriculture has been a topic of ongoing discussion
(Schmutz etal., 2020). For instance, the decision that Danish organic
farmers must eliminate conventional manures and straw from their
systems was made to better align organic agriculture with the ideal of
an agricultural system with minimal negative eects on environment,
animals, and society; and in order to prevent importing manures
containing residue from GMO feeds (Oelofse etal., 2013). In addition
to calling into question the desirability of animal-based inputs, these
considerations serve as a reminder that farming practices are to some
degree constrained by regulations and standards, which can shi
toward limiting animal inputs into plant agriculture. AFOA represents
a way around contamination concerns as well as tightened regulations.
Furthermore, as previously noted, the climatic, environmental,
social and marketing challenges to animal agriculture described above
may entice or force livestock farmers to consider alternative means of
supporting themselves. ese farmers may consider paths including
leaving agriculture altogether, diversifying their household incomes
or their farming operations, or making a full transition to plant
agriculture. AFOA approaches represent a promising alternative for
farmers wishing to pursue partial or full transitions to plant
agriculture, in their ability to circumvent potential shortages in
animal-based soil amendments that may transpire. Additionally,
dicult emotions related to acknowledgment of animal sentience and
concern about the environmental impacts of livestock production can
lead to changes of heart about animal production among farmers and
ranchers (Hirth, 2021; Salliou, 2023). AFOA approaches allow growers
to avoid reliance on products from livestock industries or operations
that they nd environmentally irresponsible or morally reprehensible.
3
AFOA, including and beyond the three codied approaches
introduced above, is a viable (e.g., Pimentel etal., 2005; Cormack, 2006;
Eisenbach etal., 2019; Kakabouki etal., 2021; Kanisziewski etal., 2021;
Hefner etal., 2022; Niether etal., 2023), less resource-intensive (Hirth,
2022) path forward in the face of numerous changes that may make
animal-based plant agriculture and animal agriculture more tenuous or
less enticing enterprises. e AFOA standards provide sets of
agricultural principles and practices that sidestep these issues,
particularly including methods for building soil fertility that do not rely
on animal inputs. Other AFOA-compatible approaches, such as Shumei
Natural Agriculture and the Grow Biointensive method, similarly oer
soil-building techniques with no or minimal animal-based
amendments. As such, they are valuable assets to a heavily animal-based
sustainable agriculture movement. How, then, to move forward, toward
a sustainable agriculture movement more inclusive to AFOA?
4 Toward fuller inclusion of AFOA in
the sustainable agriculture movement
An embrace of AFOA faces numerous barriers. Firstly, AFOA will
face challenges similar to some of those identied above for animal
agriculture, which may invite skepticism. For instance, climate change
threatens not only livestock production but also crop yields in some
regions (Kang etal., 2009; Lobell and Gourdji, 2012), and animal-free
3 Seymour and Utter (2021) report on a wider range of additional reasons
for farmer adoption of AFOA.
sustainable farming is not a silver bullet for this. Supply chain
disruptions for plant-based inputs such as soybean meal could feasibly
arise due to phenomena such as major weather events and shiing trade
agreements, creating a parallel situation to that suggested for animal-
based plant agriculture. ese and other limitations do not diminish the
overall value of AFOA to the sustainable agriculture movement, though.
AFOA approaches are simply several of many forms of sustainable
agriculture, optimal in some contexts and not in others. Indeed, neither
animal-based nor animal-free approaches are appropriate for every
circumstance, and neither should berecommended or defaulted to
without consideration of relevant conditions, from the macro (e.g.,
climate) to the micro (e.g., a farmer’s nancial resources).
e fundamental dierence in position on animal production,
byproducts, and labor is another glaring barrier. Proponents of
animal-based sustainable agriculture may hold deep-seated beliefs
about the value and necessity of livestock to sustainable agriculture,
bemembers of communities in which animal husbandry is a normal
and desirable practice, and lack familiarity with animal-free
sustainable methods (Weis and Ellis, 2020; Nobari, 2021). AFOA
challenges these cultural beliefs and community norms, and
information about animal-free organic farming systems is not nearly
as widely available as is information about animal-based systems. One
way in which this scarcity of information manifests is in the
inadequacy of resources available to farmers who might wish
implement AFOA. ere is support available on behalf of the
organizations oering the three agricultural standards for AFOA, as
well as from other grassroots actors. However, in the US for instance,
there appear to beno opportunities for students enrolled in sustainable
agriculture majors, minors, graduate degree programs, certicate
programs, and farmer training programs to learn the principles and
practices associated with various forms of animal-free farming
(Seymour and Utter, 2021). e situation is likely similar in other
world regions. New and experienced farmers interested in adopting
AFOA must seek out information and instruction, sometimes
internationally, from grassroots organizations and other farmers; this
can betime-consuming and burdensome. is is a practical issue that
absolutely must beresolved in order for AFOA to become a viable
approach for more farmers, and for AFOA to betaken more seriously
by the movement. ere are a number of actions that may betaken in
response to the knowledge-based and cultural barriers to lay a
foundation for a broader sustainable agriculture movement.
First and foremost, better support for AFOA will becritical for
expanding acceptance of AFOA in the sustainable agriculture
movement and for rendering AFOA a more realistic pursuit for new and
transitioning farmers. e integration of animal-free organic approaches
into formal sustainable agriculture education is one key path forward.
Expanding the agricultural curricula of two- and four-year colleges and
universities, as well as of education-oriented agricultural non-prot
organizations, to include AFOA would entail structural or programmatic
changes that might be hard-won and challenging to implement.
Cultivating institutional will and easing the burden of implementation
might require investment on behalf of grassroots AFOA organizations,
perhaps in terms of building relationships with sustainable agriculture
program faculty and administrators, or even supplying funding or
instruction for pilot courses. Some precedent for this exists. Glyndwr
(now Wrexham) University in Wales once integrated the Stockfree
Organic Standards into its organic horticulture management degree
with involvement of the Vegan Organic Network (VON), the originator

Seymour 10.3389/fsufs.2023.1293261
Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 05 frontiersin.org
of the standards (VON, 2010). Generally though, this sort of work is
dicult to suggest, given the limited resources of even the most
prominent AFOA-oriented organizations. Challenges aside, this would
be a deeply meaningful shi, in providing platforms for raising
awareness about the existence and viability of AFOA approaches in the
minds of future sustainable agriculture practitioners and leaders, and in
giving them the practical tools to farm animal-free.
Another productive form of support for AFOA is expanded research,
particularly into soil fertility systems. While there is a small research
literature on plant-based fertility, more extensive coverage of fertilizers,
crops, and soil types would facilitate more comprehensive and precise
formal education on AFOA. It would also assist farmers who are starting
out or transitioning outside of the support oered by AFOA certifying
organizations, as there is reportedly a strong element of experimentation
with soil fertility as part of the AFOA learning curve (Seymour and Utter,
2021). An interesting research example, focused on a variety of
management practices and outcomes including and beyond fertility, is
the US-based Rodale Institute’s Farming Systems Trial (FST). e FST
incorporates both organic manure systems, fertilized by leguminous
cover crops and composted manure, and organic legume systems,
fertilized only by leguminous cover crops (Rodale Institute, n.d.-b). e
FST is conceptually signicant in its positioning of sustainable animal-
based and animal-free systems contra a conventional, synthetically-
fertilized system. In doing so, it points to some of the common ground
between animal-based and animal-free agriculture, and is perhaps a
model for research that could increase collaboration and understanding
across the animal-based / animal-free divide. It is also signicant that the
Rodale Institute, a respected organization in organic agriculture, has
incorporated AFOA into its FST; this is an important signal of the value
of AFOA to the sustainable agriculture movement.
Events designed to bring together animal-based and animal-free
practitioners and advocates can raise the visibility of AFOA to
animal-based communities of practice and oer opportunities to
identify and discuss common ground in practices, values, critiques,
and goals. An example of this occurred in 2022, when the UK-based
charity Viva! organized a panel of experts to speak to the question “Is
the future of sustainable farming animal-free?” Animal agriculture
supporters and vegan farming advocates engaged in a respectful
discussion on the topic, identifying meaningful similarities and
dierences between animal-based and animal-free agriculture as they
spoke to their respective concerns, goals, experiences, and visions for
agrifood futures (Viva!, 2022). Conferences can befruitful grounds
for exchanges as well. For instance, Soil Not Oil, an annual grassroots
gathering in the US around organic, regenerative, and agroecological
farming, has been welcoming veganic agriculture activists, academics,
and practitioners. is has allowed AFOA proponents valuable
opportunities to both inform and learn from conference participants
who align with animal-based production yet share the larger goal of
a sustainable agrifood system.
Finally, highlighting the nancial prospects for organic produce
grown without animal byproducts may enhance acceptance of AFOA
in the sustainable agriculture movement. Vegan and vegetarian
consumers in Germany, for instance, have been found to express interest
in stockfree organic products based on animal welfare attitudes
(Jürkenbeck and Spiller, 2020), and US veganic farmers have reported
enthusiastic responses to their produce from vegan customers (Seymour
and Utter, 2021). is suggests that there may be nearly-untapped
marketing opportunities for farmers who decide to adopt AFOA.
5 Conclusion
ough AFOA is indisputably aligned with sustainable
agriculture and shares many practical similarities, values, and goals
with animal-based forms of sustainable agriculture, it resides on
the sidelines of the sustainable agriculture movement. Approaches
to animal-free organic plant agriculture represent opportunities to
address how farmers and other stakeholders might navigate in a
sustainable manner the range of challenges that may aect livestock
farming, mixed crop-livestock farming, and animal-based plant
agriculture now and in the coming decades. A more prominent
position in the array of sustainable agriculture approaches is
therefore suitable for AFOA, and its current marginal status is a
disservice to the strength and future of sustainable agriculture. As
McGreevy etal. (2022) recently observed, “We no longer have the
luxury of ignoring viable, successful options when it comes to
agrifood system sustainability .. While there might be strong
positions held for or against certain types of solutions, the
challenges of sustainability in general and agrifood systems
sustainability in particular are so complex and urgent that all types
of solutions with real potential .. are needed” (p.1015). Indeed, it
is time to open discursive and material spaces in the sustainable
agriculture movement to a currently-marginal(ized) set of
perspectives, practices, and participants, and to think beyond
normative practices, values, and visions relative to farmed animals
in order to work earnestly and vigorously toward sustainable
agrifood systems.
Data availability statement
e original contributions presented in the study are included in
the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can bedirected
to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
MS: Conceptualization, Writing – original dra, Writing – review
& editing.
Funding
e author(s) declare that no nancial support was received for
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Acknowledgments
ank you to the reviewer for their constructive comments.
Conflict of interest
e author declares that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or nancial relationships that could
beconstrued as a potential conict of interest.

Seymour 10.3389/fsufs.2023.1293261
Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 06 frontiersin.org
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors
and do not necessarily represent those of their aliated
organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the
reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim
that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed
by the publisher.
References
Adolph Hoops Society. (2020). e biocyclic vegan standard. Available at: https://www.
biocyclic-vegan.org/partners/the-biocyclic-vegan-standard/ (Accessed July 28, 2022).
Alsanius, B. W., von Essen, E., Hartmann, R., Vågsholm, I., Doyle, O., Schmutz, U.,
et al. (2019). e “one health”-concept and organic production of vegetables and fruits.
Acta Hortic. 1242, 1–14. doi: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2019.1242.1
Arcari, P. (2017). Normalised, human-centric discourses of meat and animals in
climate change, sustainability and food security literature. Agric. Hum. Values 34, 69–86.
doi: 10.1007/s10460-016-9697-0
Bernabucci, U. (2019). Climate change: impact on livestock and how can weadapt.
Anim. Front. 9, 3–5. doi: 10.1093/af/vfy039
Burton, R. J. F. (2019). e potential impact of synthetic animal protein on livestock
production: the new “war against agriculture”? J. Rural. Stud. 68, 33–45. doi: 10.1016/j.
jrurstud.2019.03.002
Coleman, P. (2012). Guide for organic crop producers. USDA. Available at: https://
www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/les/media/CropProducersGuide.pdf
Cormack, W. F. (2006). Crop performance in a stockless arable organic rotation in
eastern England. Biol. Agric. Hortic. 24, 1–20. doi: 10.1080/01448765.2006.9755005
Day, L. (2013). Proteins from land plants—potential resources for human nutrition
and food security. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 32, 25–42. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2013.05.005
Eisenbach, L. D., Folina, A., Zisi, C., Roussis, I., Tabaxi, I., Papastylianou, P., et al.
(2019). Eect of biocyclic humus soil on yield and quality parameters of processing
tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum mill.). Bulletin UASVM Horticulture 76, 47–52.
Gliessman, S.R. (2007). Agroecology: e ecology of sustainable food systems 2nd. Boca
Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Gomiero, T., Pimentel, D., and Paoletti, M. G. (2011). Is there a need for a more
sustainable agriculture? Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 30, 6–23. doi: 10.1080/07352689.2011.553515
Hagemann, N., and Potthast, T. (2015). “Necessary new approaches towards
sustainable agriculture—innovations for organic agriculture” in Know your food: Food
ethics and innovation. eds. D. E. Dumitras, I. M. Jitea and S. Aerts (Wageningen, NL:
Wageningen Academic Publishers).
Hall, J., and Tolhurst, I. (2007). Growing Green. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea
Green Publishing.
Hefner, M., Sorensen, J. N., de Visser, R., and Kristensen, H. L. (2022). Sustainable
intensication through double-cropping and plant-based fertilization: production and
plant-soil nitrogen interactions in a 5-year crop rotation of organic vegetables. Agroecol.
Sustain. Food Syst. 46, 1118–1144. doi: 10.1080/21683565.2022.2104419
Hirth, S. (2021). Food that matters: boundary work and the case for vegan food
practices. Sociol. Rural. 61, 234–254. doi: 10.1111/soru.12317
Hirth, S. (2022). “Stockfree’s short shadow: shiing food systems towards sustainability
by re-thinking veganism as a performative practice of production” in e Oxford
handbook of animal organization studies. eds. L. Tallberg and L. Hamilton (Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press).
IPCC. (2019). Climate change and land: An IPCC special report on climate change,
desertication, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and
greenhouse gas uxes in terrestrial ecosystems. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/
Jimenez-Lopez, J. C., Singh, K. B., Clemente, A., Nelson, M. N., Ochatt, S., and
Smith, P. M. C. (2020). L egumes for global food security. Front. Plant Sci. 11:e00926. doi:
10.3389/fpls.2020.00926
Jürkenbeck, K., and Spiller, A. (2020). Consumers’ evaluation of stockfree- organic
agriculture—a segmentation approach. Sustainability. 12:4230. doi: 10.3390/su12104230
Kakabouki, I., Folina, A., Ehimiadou, A., Karydogianni, S., Zisi, C., Kouneli, V., et al.
(2021). Evaluation of processing tomato pomace aer composting on soil properties,
yield, and quality of processing tomato in Greece. Agronomy. 11:88. doi: 10.3390/
agronomy11010088
Kang, Y., Khan, S., and Ma, X. (2009). Climate change impacts on crop yield, crop
water productivity and food security – a review. Prog. Nat. Sci. 19, 1665–1674. doi:
10.1016/j.pnsc.2009.08.001
Kanisziewski, S., Stępowska, A., and Sikorska-Zimny, K. (2021). Eect of a plant-based
fertilizer and red clover mulch on some soil properties and the yield and quality of sweet
pepper. J. Elem. 26, 661–670. doi: 10.5601/jelem.2021.26.3.2061
Kassam, A., and Kassam, L. (2021). “Paradigms of agriculture” in Rethinking food and
agriculture: New ways forward. eds. A. Kassam and L. Kassam (Duxford, UK:
Woodhead Publishing).
Kassam, L., and Kassam, A. (2021). “Toward inclusive responsibility” in Rethinking
food and agriculture: New ways forward. eds. A. Kassam and L. Kassam (Duxford, UK:
Woodhead Publishing).
Lobell, D. B., and Gourdji, S. M. (2012). e inuence of climate change on global crop
productivity. Plant Physiol. 160, 1686–1697. doi: 10.1104/pp.112.208298
Løes, A. K., Henriksen, T. M., Eltun, R., and Sjursen, H. (2011). Repeated use of green-
manure catch crops in organic cereal production – grain yields and nitrogen supply. Acta
Agriculturae Scandinavica Section B – Soil and Plant Science 61, 164–175. doi:
10.1080/09064711003655509
McGreevy, S. R., Rupprecht, C. D. D., Niles, D., Wlek, A., Carolan, M., Kallis, G., et al.
(2022). Sustainable agrifood systems for a post-growth world. Nature Sustainability 5,
1011–1017. doi: 10.1038/s41893-022-00933-5
Nardone, A., Ronchi, B., Lacetera, N., Ranieri, M. S., and Bernabucci, U. (2010).
Eects of climate changes on animal production and sustainability of livestock systems.
Livest. Sci. 130, 57–69. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2010.02.011
NAVCS. (n.d.). Veganic standard. Available at: https://certiedveganic.org/veganic-
standard/ (Accessed February 28, 2023).
Newton, P., and Blaustein-Rejto, D. (2021). Social and economic opportunities and
challenges of plant-based and cultured meat for rural producers in the US. Front.
Sustain. Food Syst. 5:624270. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2021.624270
Newton, P., Civita, N., Frankel-Goldwater, L., Bartel, K., and Johns, C. (2020). What
is regenerative agriculture? A review of scholar and practitioner denitions based on
processes and outcomes. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 5:e577723. doi: 10.3389/
fsufs.2020.577723
Niether, W., Macholdt, J., Schulz, F., and Gattinger, A. (2023). Yield dynamics of crop
rotations respond to farming type and tillage intensity in an organic agricultural long-
term experiment over 24 years. Field Crop Res. 303:109131. doi: 10.1016/j.
fcr.2023.109131
Nobari, N. (2021). “Social movements in the transformation of food and agriculture
systems” in Rethinking food and agriculture: New ways forward. eds. A. Kassam and L.
Kassam (Duxford, UK: Woodhead Publishing).
Oberč, B.P., and Arroyo Schnell, A. (2020). Approaches to sustainable agriculture:
Exploring the pathways towards the future of farming. Rue Mauverney: International
Union for Conservation of Nature.
Oelofse, M., Jensen, L. S., and Magid, J. (2013). e implications of phasing out
conventional nutrient supply in organic agriculture: Denmark as a case. Org. Agric. 3,
41–55. doi: 10.1007/s13165-013-0045-z
Pimentel, D., Hepperly, P., Hanson, J., Douds, D., and Seidel, R. (2005).
Environmental, energetic, and economic comparisons of organic and conventional
farming systems. Bioscience 55, 573–582. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0573:EE
AECO]2.0.CO;2
Ripple, W. J., Wolf, C., Newsome, T. M., Barnard, P., and Moomaw, W. R. (2020).
World scientists’ warning of a climate emergency. Bioscience 70, 100–112. doi: 10.1093/
biosci/biz152
Rodale Institute. (n.d.-a). Soil health. Available at: https://rodaleinstitute.
org/why-organic/organic-farming-practices/soil-health/ (Accessed February 28,
2023).
Rodale Institute. (n.d.-b). Farming systems trial. Available at: https://rodaleinstitute.
org/science/farming-systems-trial/ (Accessed March 16, 2023).
Rojas-Downing, M. M., Nejadhashemi, A. P., Harrigan, T., and Woznicki, S. A. (2017).
Climate change and livestock: impacts, adaptation, and mitigation. Clim. Risk Manag.
16, 145–163. doi: 10.1016/j.crm.2017.02.001
Saavoss, M. (2019). How might cellular agriculture impact the livestock, dairy, and
poultry industries? Choices 34, 1–6.
Sabaté, J., and Soret, S. (2014). Sustainability of plant-based diets: Back to the future.
Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 100, 476S–482S. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.113.071522
Salliou, N. (2023). Quitting livestock farming: Transfarmation pathways and factors
of change from post-livestock farmers’ accounts. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 7:992. doi:
10.3389/fsufs.2023.1122992
Schmutz, U., Rayns, F., Nikolaos Katsoulas, N., Løes, A. K., De Marchi, M., Grøn
Sørensen, C., et al. (2020). Phasing out contentious inputs in organic and non-organic
horticulture – organic-PLUS. Acta Hortic. 1286, 211–218. doi: 10.17660/
ActaHortic.2020.1286.30

Seymour 10.3389/fsufs.2023.1293261
Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 07 frontiersin.org
Seymour, M., and Utter, A. (2021). Veganic farming in the UnitedStates: farmer
perceptions, motivations, and experiences. Agric. Hum. Values 38, 1139–1159. doi:
10.1007/s10460-021-10225-x
Soil Association. (n.d.-a). Fighting the Foston mega-farm. Available at: https://www.
soilassociation.org/causes-campaigns/not-in-my-banger-ghting-the-foston-mega-
farm/ (Accessed July 27, 2022).
Soil Association. (n.d.-b). Why are wecalling for peak poultry?. Available at: https://
www.soilassociation.org/causes-campaigns/peak-poultry/ (Accessed July 27, 2022).
Sorensen, J. N., and orup-Kristensen, K. (2011). Plant-based fertilizers for organic
vegetable production. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 174, 321–332. doi: 10.1002/jpln.200900321
Stewart, H., Kuchler, F., Cessna, J., and Hahn, W. (2020). Are plant-based analogues
replacing cow’s milk in the American diet? J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 52, 562–579. doi:
10.1017/aae.2020.16
Stockfree Organic Services. (n.d.-a). e Stockfree organic standard. Available at: https://
stockfreeorganic.net/stockfree-organic-services#standard (Accessed March 15, 2023).
Stockfree Organic Services. (n.d.-b). Other aspects of stockfree organic. Available at:
https://stockfreeorganic.net/other-aspects (Accessed March 14, 2023).
Viva! (2022). Viva! Farming launch panel discussion [Video]. YouTube. Available at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScsjKi7poCM
VON (2010). Growing the growers. Grow. Green Int. 25:9.
Weis, T., and Ellis, R. (2020). “Animal functionality and interspecies relations in
regenerative agriculture: considering necessity and the possibilities of non-violence” in
Routledge handbook of sustainable and regenerative food systems. eds. J. Duncan, M.
Carolan and J. S. C. Wiskerke (London, UK: Routledge)
Wezel, A., Casagrande, M., Celette, F., Vian, J. F., Ferrer, A., and Peigné, J. (2014).
Agroecological practices for sustainable agriculture. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 34,
1–20. doi: 10.1007/s13593-013-0180-7
Willett, W., Rockström, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S., et al.
(2019). Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-lancet commission on health diets from
sustainable food systems. Lancet 393, 447–492. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4