Matthew
Ask different scientists what “sustainable agriculture” means, and you’ll get different answers.
Underneath those answers is something we don’t always say out loud. It’s our different values and assumptions about what good farming even is.
I recently read a paper that clarified this for me.
Five researchers at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, each from different disciplines, put two of the most influential scientific approaches under the microscope. Sustainable intensification and agroecology. And what they found surprised me.
At TABLE, we’ve covered both of these approaches extensively before, but not compared them in this way.
These approaches don’t just recommend different solutions. They often start from different problem definitions—and in the academic literature, they rarely even engage each other.
And this matters beyond the university, because these frames shape what research gets funded, what technologies are deployed, and which agricultural futures are advanced.
Welcome to Feed, a food systems podcast presented by TABLE. I’m Matthew Kessler. Lately we’ve been asking how change happens in food systems. Today, we flip the question around: what keeps change from happening—when even the science is talking past itself?
To understand that, I want to take you inside a very specific interdisciplinary experiment.
Riccardo
What we’re doing here is an analysis of how scientists think about the future of agriculture. This is focused on the academic discussions.
Matthew
That’s the ecologist in this interdisciplinary collaboration.
Riccardo
My name is Ricardo Bommarco, and I'm an ecologist and agronomist at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
Matthew
The five of them met weekly over the course of a year to review the most cited academic literature on Agroecology and Sustainable Intensification.
Riccardo
Usually when you as a natural scientists read a paper you go for: what are the methods, main conclusions and results? But here we asked a lot of other questions. How do they formulate the problem? What do they propose in terms of solution? What kind of knowledge development do they base their research on? What are the underpinning assumptions that they depart from that are often not sort of very explicit? And what is missing?
Helena
But for me… what are the hidden assumptions? What are the values behind? Is a starting question I have as an ethicist. And when we came to discuss that, I felt that it was a moment that I’m getting understood.
Matthew
And that’s the ethicist, Helena Rocklinsberg.
Helena
My name is Helen Rocklinsberg. I'm an associate professor in animal ethics, here at SLU.
Matthew
Today I’ve got them both in the studio in Uppsala to talk about the process of writing their paper—Progress towards sustainable agriculture hampered by siloed scientific discourses. We talk about what they found, and why it matters beyond academia.
Coming from different disciplines and worldviews, they started to notice the same pattern showing up again and again in the scientific articles they were reading.
Helena
One of the main things we came to discuss, as one of the hidden things, is that the problem formulation was different for the different discourses. They formulate the question in different ways, and therefore of course they answer it in different ways, have different methodologies, have different literature, etc.
Matthew
This really struck a chord with us at TABLE. We’re especially interested in moments like this—when people come into a room in good faith, but carry very different instincts about what counts as a good question, what counts as evidence, and what’s worth paying attention to in the first place.
Once you start paying attention to that, it gives you a clearer read of what’s actually happening.
And that’s exactly what these researchers did in their analysis of agroecology and sustainable intensification — two approaches that both claim to point the way forward for agriculture. This is what they found each were being described as, in highly cited scientific journal articles.
Riccardo
Well, both of them depart from the same problem, and that is that today's agriculture is not sustainable. So both see big problems. It's too leaky, biodiversity decline, pollution.
Matthew
But beyond that shared starting point, they don’t actually see the problem they’re trying to solve in the same way.
Riccardo
So sustainable intensification focuses a lot on that we need to produce more because we have a growing population. That is a baseline premise that they depart from. Whereas agroecology does not talk a lot about yield in general. But more about the unsustainability, both social and environmental and unsustainable forms of agriculture today, especially with what they denote as industrial agriculture, something that they often do not then specify exactly what they mean by that.
Matthew
And once the problem is framed differently, the solutions start to diverge—pretty sharply too.
Riccardo
So in sustainable intensification, there's a lot about how technology and improvement of current agricultural systems, large scale agriculture, for instance, how that can be improved and to decrease the leakage and increase the efficiency and increase also production. Whereas agroecology is focusing on-
Helena
The small scale farming,
Riccardo
Yes, but also on they're skeptical to these sort of technologies linked to monoculture farming, and they mean that it's the diverse forms of smallholder and traditional forms of agriculture that are more sustainable and that that is what we should learn from and develop. So there is much more behind those two envisioned futures of agriculture, but these are sort of the general trends in the thinking,
Helena
In addition, sustainable intensification sees that the large scale industrial will solve the problem of lack of food or insecurity. That will be solved by more of this, of what we're already doing, and agroecology, is saying exactly that will be a problem. So they’re - they both want to feed the world, but they see these different solutions, and to what extent the farmers are included in that process, or their voice is included, etc., they have different views on what is important to take into account.
Matthew
The paper goes deeper than this. And it has some great images. And you can check those out in a link in our show notes. There’s a table showing the most cited concepts for each discourse. Diversity shows up again and again in agroecology, while crop yield dominates in sustainable intensification. This in a way reflects how they’re interacting with different scientific communities. For some agroecologists, the word intensification itself is in conflict with sustainability. And there’s other perceived differences too.
Helena
The sustainable intensification approach is, at least on the surface. It looks more scientific, because it's looking at what can be measurable and how to increase that, and how to measure the inputs and outputs and and somehow to make numbers out of the agriculture to improve, of course, and to produce whatever it's giving most output. So if we can produce in a country where the conditions are at best, then we do that, and then we transfer it to the rest of the globe, whereas the agroecology thinks on total much more local.
So even if it would be more efficient, from whatever point of view, to produce it in other parts of the world, that is not efficient, because we need to produce where people are, and people should be allowed to produce what they traditionally have grown and what is in their diets and what they require and what they want and what they are skilled to do.
So it looks a little bit more unscientific as well. But of course, it has to be done in a way where you get the yield that you can get, but then you do it in a small scale with totally different measurements and totally different values behind saying that's important, that the family can be sustainable, or that we can keep the animals that we need for on the small farm. So, so it's, it's a total value, different value perspective on what, what is important to achieve.
Riccardo
I wouldn't call agroecology less scientific–
Helena
I did say that can be regarded as–
Riccardo
Yeah, it could be regarded as that because what we often think about in science is reductionism. You reduce, you try to understand the pieces, and then you piece together pieces and then you have the whole, sort of reductionist approach. And this is more emphasized in sustainable intensification, whereas in agroecology, the science is more holistic and relational generally.
But they both use the same methods in terms of experimenting and measurement. They just measure different things, work at different spatial scales, and design experiments in different ways. In sustainable intensification, you might separate out the pieces more than in agroecology.
Helena
And that's what's so interesting, because that reveals the values behind, that sort of comes into how, which method you use to prove your point. So the values are behind in all steps.
Matthew
Another memorable figure in the paper looks at how the concepts that each discourse relies on relate to one another.
In agroecology, ideas like diversity, systems, and management tend to cluster together. In sustainable intensification, among the dominant concepts are crop yield, efficiency, and greenhouse gases.
When those concepts are mapped, you see two clusters of ideas that barely overlap. They show different ways of describing problems, priorities and solutions, even though they’re both talking about sustainable agriculture.
So I asked Riccardo what that actually looks like in practice—and whether those separate worlds can still learn from each other.
Riccardo
Our analysis shows how they can meet. I mean it, by first you have to analyze, what do they do? And then one can see, what can kind of potential exchange mean? We don't think that they, people adhere to these different discourses necessarily have to agree with each other. But I think that one can learn from each other.
And I think that, for instance, agroecologists have a lot to learn from the kind of research that has been done in the Green Revolution and also the sustainable intensification and vice versa. Because when you do this analysis, you mean you see what each of the parties are sort of missing out on, on which one party is stronger than the other. That doesn't mean that you have to embrace the whole philosophy of your counterpart if you wish.
But then I also think that there's a lot of people who maybe do not want to be in one of the two camps, but can move between them and and I think that's why I think this might be an interesting reflection for younger researchers that are working with agriculture and the future of agriculture. I mean, one thing that sort of comes out from these highly cited papers is, for instance, that you get the impression that for sustainable intensification, the solution is in the Global North and the problems in the Global South. And for agroecology, sort of the reverse, that it's the solutions that is in the south and the problems are caused by the Global North.
Matthew
I find this distinction and framing really interesting. It also resonates with what we’ve heard from previous guests we’ve had on the podcast. And I can sympathize with both points of view. Finding solutions from high industrialized countries, with a laser-focus on yields makes sense. Both for farmers and a global scale. And then agroecologists come back and tell me that record yields haven’t solved widespread hunger or malnutrition.
Helena
I'm coming back to the values. Of course they could meet, but as you say, there are really different spheres or different universes based on different values. And if you come back to how perhaps they will describe perception of science. Sustainable intensification is sort of optimistic bits and pieces put together to a whole, and agroecology is talking about the practice-giving knowledge, and that is sort of a real gap between that. And if you have those who focus on the differences, it's understandable that why should I listen to someone who's building the research on or the world view on looking at people, how they work, instead of measuring things just to make it a bit blunt, then it's understandable. That's no real point to be listening, because it's no it's not relevant for how we think we should do things. And somehow it's human and understandable that we are so busy in solving problems. I mean, they're really trying to solve a global problem. So I honor that without doubt.
And then, time is scarce. So ‘I really believe in this. I have my values in this. Why should I change to do something that I don't really think will help solving the problem?’ I think that would be sort of a bit psychological take on it, but I think it's understandable not to spend time on something you really, doesn't hold the values that you think are important to solve a huge problem.
Matthew
We're talking about scientific papers, but the findings bleed out into the real world. Like this has impacts on who gets funding dollars and supports, on what types of technologies are seen as viable and scaling? In terms of what futures even feel possible.
Riccardo
Well, I think that it also has to do with, you could call it a generational question. I mean, the ones that are highly cited are often researchers that are well established and have come from strong traditions that were very strongly opposed to each other, also back in the day. And I think that we are more - there's more and more gray area, if you will, between these two discourses that are emerging. There is a discussions around regenerative agriculture.
We get back to this joint problem, which is that today's agriculture is not sustainable. It leads to too much biodiversity loss. If there is pollution, all these things are happening. And so I think that that they are increasingly talking to each other, at least, this is what my experience in my career that this is happening.
Matthew
So what changes when they actually start to talk to each other?
Riccardo
I think that you sort of bring in elements of the others, way of looking at things, methods, approaches, values. You, you know if we going to solve like, for instance, just, To make a more concrete examples: there is an ambition to reduce pesticide use in agriculture. So we can do that in different ways. We can do it with being more efficient in our application of these pesticides. But we can also start changing the cropping system, redesigning the cropping system, then you need to have a more systemic view of what you're doing, of your change. And you will also apply techniques that you will find in agroecology, for instance, and in other forms of agriculture, organic farming, for instance, and you would integrate that to what is called conventional farming. So you have to open your minds, because you have to protect your crops. And now, we have an ambition in society to decrease risk and use of pesticides, but they are also - you have a development of resistance, so the number of pesticides available to the farmer is diminishing, so you just have to find new ways. And then you have the climate change challenge, which is enormous, which means that we need to develop not only single crops and to be more resilient to climate change, but whole cropping systems and whole food systems. And that means that you need to change approach to how you develop, and you can not only focus on the efficiency of the of the single crop. You have to look at the systemic point of view. And the agroecologist may have to think a little bit more about yield actually, even if people are starving, maybe today, because due to distributional issues. There is also this actually problem in at least locally, with actual access to food. So there the yield question comes in, and maybe should be focused more on.
Matthew
These two discourses, or approaches, show two different confident pictures of a future food system. Riccardo points out what he sees as blindspots in each of them.
Riccardo
Sustainable intensification basically departs from the view that what we have today is a very good cropping system. We just have to make it a little bit more efficient with resource use efficient, or efficient in general, with technologies. And I think that there is an increasing awareness that that will not hold. We will need to change the cropping systems also on that side. And then the other question, if you go to the other side, on the agroecological side, is, how, what role does technology have in an agroecological system?
Helena
My understanding is that the sustainable intensification technology is very much for large scale and industrialized production, whereas the agroecology technology that could be implemented. That is another scale, a smaller scale, another way of thinking behind so how would they meet on what kind I get the impression that the technology already developed? You can't move that to the hills somewhere where it's stony and, you know, different conditions for growing.
Matthew
That gets at another tension. Questions of autonomy, ownership, and who benefits from technology. This is something that agroecologists have repeatedly told me. They’re not necessarily allergic to technology, they just want to see the benefits distributed to the food producers.
Of course, if a company is investing in or inventing a technology, they also would like to see it be profitable, so they can scale it, and there’s more of a market in large-scale operations.
Helena
Another part of possible response to that question that you had on finding solutions together, I think that would also be again, to discuss the assumptions, to discuss what they respectively think as the core problem, and see the overlaps, but also to decide on what level are we discussing?
Are we solving the global problem in one solution, one size fits all, or are we looking at smaller scale, Sweden, Västergötland, whatever part county of the world that will, I would say, have a large impact on how the discussion is performed, or what bits and pieces are brought together. And they do have different scales in their respective thinking.
So that would be the first discussion, where to start, or what scale should we discuss on. And also what time frame? Because it's easy to set something far away, but what can we do tomorrow? You will have different levels of stress in the system.
Matthew
This would be a good TABLE-y place to end this episode. How we frame problems, in scientific articles, and in society, really matters. Helena emphasizes what you can learn from interdisciplinary collaboration.
Helena
I learned through this how important it is to listen to different people - or I increase my insight on that - different people’s description of the same phenomenon. That again and always is so important to see that your description is one one thing of the same phenomenon and someone else from natural science would describe it in another way.
Matthew
But since we at TABLE just put out a report based on our Reckoning with Regeneration project, I had one final follow up question, asking if it’s better to focus on shared solutions instead of on different problems.
You mentioned regenerative agriculture before. And I find that a really interesting camp and development. It doesn't carry the same baggage that either of these two do, right? People are kind of bringing their own meaning to it, although there's evidence that it started as more of a farmers’ movement, and then it's been adopted or argued to be co-opted by different groups. But one of the things that I find interesting is, if you want to get around - your papers is around these siloed discourses, one way to get around that is to agree on, what are the solutions? And there's, there's research that shows that if you agree on the solutions, then you might actually start to agree on the problems in a different way. And so I wonder what you think - what type of solution sets they might share, because we could say regenerative agriculture, but again, that might not mean the same thing to different people. So if we were to kind of get more practice based.
Riccardo
Regenerative agriculture is not something that is discussed much in academia. It's different actors in society who are, I would say, fighting about what they should mean. And you have all these different conservation agriculture, organic farming, etc, But I agree with you that when you talk with farmers, you can independently of what they would want to label themselves as, you can focus on the actual practices. What is the problem? How can we solve the problems that we have or become more efficient, become more productive? A lot of these different camps or discourses are actually promoting similar practices.
Matthew
For example?
Riccardo
So for instance, agroecology is not a huge thing in Sweden, but when you go to farmers, they often implement what you would call agroecological practices, and they can be conventional farmers. I mean, like crop rotation, like different tillage techniques, different ways of integrating animal and crop production, different ways of enhancing biodiversity in the field and in the landscape, biodiversity that has a positive effect on production, for instance, pollinators. So there's a lot of farmers who have a great interest in these things, without calling themselves agroecologists, but these are what I would call agroecological practices.
And that is the transformation that I think a lot of research now is focusing on, without sort of necessarily linking that research to one of these discourses. But I think this discourse analysis, for me, is that here we asked, you know, like the premises, and all these things, all these questions, really, you know, made me reflect about, what are my points of departure when I do my natural science research. What kind of knowledge do I think is important, and so forth?
Matthew
It's a good place to end it. Helena Rocklinsberg, Ricardo Bommarco, thank you so much for speaking with us today.
A big thanks to my guests today and to you for listening. Whether you recently joined us or have been listening for the past 6 years. We’ve got a backlog of almost 100 episodes to check out. If you liked this one, episode 10 with data scientist Vicent Ricciardi on challenging assumptions is a great one. As is Klara Fischer and Martin van Ittersum’s conversation on narrowing the yield gap in Sub-Saharan Africa. Klara Fischer was also the lead author of the paper this conversation was based on alongside Giulia Vico and Hans Liljenström.
If you’ve been enjoying Feed, please leave us a review or a comment on Apple Podcast, Spotify or wherever you listen. And you’re always welcome to write your thoughts on episodes or guest suggestions to podcast@tabledebates.org We will get back to you!
TABLE is a collaboration of the University of Oxford, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Wageningen University in the Netherlands, University of the Andes in Colombia, and National Autonomous University of Mexico.
This episode was edited and produced by Matthew Kessler. Music by Blue dot sessions.