Sustainable Protein Transitions or Transformations: Contested Agrifood Frames Across “No Cow” and “Clean Cow” Futures

The pursuit of sustainable protein is underway. This debate is often framed as a choice between two competing agrifood futures: the “no cow” and “clean cow” perspectives. The former comes from alternative protein advocates, while the latter aims to support practices, discourses, and livelihoods associated with regenerative ranching. The findings presented reveal greater nuance than what this simplistic dichotomy suggests. This paper utilizes data collected from fifty-eight individuals in California and Colorado (USA). Participants in the sample were identified by their attendance at various events focused on sustainability in protein production and includes a subsample of regenerative farmers who self-identified as persons of color, disabled or differently abled, and/or part of the LGBTQIA+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/Questioning, Intersex, Asexual) community. The sample features a range of viewpoints associated with regenerative livestock and non-livestock protein production. The data support arguments aligned with “clean cow” framings, as determined by the anticipated scope of sustainable protein transformations. However, the paper cautions against solely relying on this frame without further interrogating its contours. It particularly notes that the values of specific “clean cow” actors and networks mirror key aspects of “no cow” perspectives. These similarities are especially evident among upstream actors like investors, corporate interests, and government sponsors. For these individuals and networks, the “no” versus “clean” distinction—despite suggesting radically different agrifood futures—overshadows underlying shared concerns that align with core elements of the status quo. A case is also made for greater reflexivity and, thus, inclusivity as we think about who is included in these debates, as the data tell us that this shapes how we frame what is at stake.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Sustainability
Published
2025-03-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062637
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Agriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.83

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Sustainable Protein Transitions or Transformations: Contested Agrifood Frames Across “No Cow” and “Clean Cow” Futures

Michael Carolan
1 citations
Sustainability
Agriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
4.83
article

Sustainable Protein Transitions or Transformations: Contested Agrifood Frames Across “No Cow” and “Clean Cow” Futures

Michael Carolan
article en
1 citations

Abstract

The pursuit of sustainable protein is underway. This debate is often framed as a choice between two competing agrifood futures: the “no cow” and “clean cow” perspectives. The former comes from alternative protein advocates, while the latter aims to support practices, discourses, and livelihoods associated with regenerative ranching. The findings presented reveal greater nuance than what this simplistic dichotomy suggests. This paper utilizes data collected from fifty-eight individuals in California and Colorado (USA). Participants in the sample were identified by their attendance at various events focused on sustainability in protein production and includes a subsample of regenerative farmers who self-identified as persons of color, disabled or differently abled, and/or part of the LGBTQIA+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/Questioning, Intersex, Asexual) community. The sample features a range of viewpoints associated with regenerative livestock and non-livestock protein production. The data support arguments aligned with “clean cow” framings, as determined by the anticipated scope of sustainable protein transformations. However, the paper cautions against solely relying on this frame without further interrogating its contours. It particularly notes that the values of specific “clean cow” actors and networks mirror key aspects of “no cow” perspectives. These similarities are especially evident among upstream actors like investors, corporate interests, and government sponsors. For these individuals and networks, the “no” versus “clean” distinction—despite suggesting radically different agrifood futures—overshadows underlying shared concerns that align with core elements of the status quo. A case is also made for greater reflexivity and, thus, inclusivity as we think about who is included in these debates, as the data tell us that this shapes how we frame what is at stake.

SustainabilityVol. 17(6)
Colorado State University (US)
Svenska Forskningsrådet Formas, National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Agriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
4.83
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.