The smaller key actors, including BPM, also noted the problem of uncertainty, but this wasn’t the main issue for them; unfair value chains was the important problem to them within the distributive frame. Mapping key actor narratives to the just transition frames highlights the mismatch in how beef farmers and key actors assess the current situation of beef farming. In short, the most powerful actors, Government and the IFA, are not addressing the issues that beef farmers consider most important: unfair power asymmetries leading to inadequate prices and general lack of support for small farmers. Key actors blame problems within the market as the reasons for the poor viability of beef farming. Even as protests, centred on issues of recognition and power differentials in the sector, blocked Ireland’s capital on multiple occasions, the government did not mention these issues in its assessment of the sector. This is a form of misrecognition, whereby beef farmers do not participate as equal partners in, and their concerns are excluded from policy deliberations. In framing the main challenge facing the sector as a distributive matters and market-focused, key actors leave hidden the situated and embedded power structures and relations that determine whose voices are heard and what factors should be considered. As social status and cultural loss are not monetised commodities, their loss is not acknowledged. In their study of government strategic framing regarding closures of coal plants in Australia, Weller found that top-down framing of the closures as a ‘market-issue’ led to serious misrepresentation, side-lining of local interests and exacerbated inequality in affected communities. It should also be questioned how the market fixes proposed by the most powerful key actors in the Irish beef sector could lead to improved distributive outcomes for beef farmers without underlying power differentials first being addressed.

From a Schlosbergian perspective, if recognition is a precondition for distributive justice, and participation is central to the legitimacy of the deliberative process, then distributive decisions that ignore or leave hidden key concerns and key voices are likely to be resisted and rejected. Historically,flower pot beef processors have a disproportionately higher amount of power and profits, while beef farmers rely heavily on subsidies. This system is also linked to overexploitation of natural resources, producing externalities including climate change and biodiversity loss . Under the current pressures, there are indications that this system is producing additional externalities such as loss of social status and cultural heritage, all of which contribute to a breakdown in social cohesion and rising discontent. Thus, it is in the political interest of powerful actors to acknowledge the non-market based, non-material effects of this transition. If the transition is to be just, it must move from a single-axis analysis of economic variables to a multi-dimensional examination of social, environmental, and cultural factors. As Fraser and Schlosberg argue, recognition is a precondition for other elements of justice. A key issue of recognition here is that the act of beef farming is intrinsically linked to identity for farmers, specifically male, rural, inheritors of the land, something raised repeatedly throughout interviews, yet not mentioned by key actors. This issue of recognition has been found in numerous studies on farming and identity . Burton and Wilson found that many British farmers hold production-oriented identities in line with conventional Western farming, similar to many interviewees in this study. This raises questions about how well-received initiatives for retraining, whether to a different type of farming or new profession, would be. This is important given the focus on retraining and alternative livelihoods within just transition approaches . There is currently a stark mismatch between abstract commitments to the ideals of a just transition in the plans of the government and other powerful key actors, and the experiences of beef-farmers living through a period of substantial change. Distribution focusses on the ‘what’ of injustice and inequity intending to treat the symptoms of the poor state of beef farming, poor prices for producers, as dictated by the prevailing unequal system. Recognition and participation focus on the ‘who’, ‘how’ and ‘why’ of injustice and inequity, and question the underlying social, institutional, and cultural causes that lead to distributive injustices. The poor viability of beef farming and the discontentment of beef farmers will not be remedied with only distributive fixes.

Underlying issues of recognition and increased opportunities for participation should be addressed simultaneously. Recognition is an often-neglected element of justice, and it is largely absent in key actors’ frames. Climate change is forcing mankind to change current management practices in many fields, including agricultural production. Mitigation and adaptation are crucial to sustaining food security for future generations . There is increased interest in the sequestration of atmospheric CO2 as carbon into degraded agricultural soils as a tool for climate change mitigation . Moreover, soil organic carbon is vital for climate change adaptation as it is linked to soil structure formation that is crucial for water infiltration and storage, besides erosion control . Various management strategies are discussed for SOC sequestration. Crop rotations and residue return , additional cover crops and organic inputs have been shown to sustain or even increase SOC stocks. Organic farming as a system approach includes those practices. A global meta-analysis on studies of mainly temperate regions found that organic farming increased SOC stocks in in the topsoil on average by 3.5 Mg C ha− 1 or 0.45 Mg C ha− 1 yr− 1 compared to non-organic management . Conversion of deep soil inversion by ploughing to a no-till management redistributes SOC within the soil profile with SOC enrichment in the surface layer . NT has been promoted to sequester carbon for years . Yet, meta-analyses show only a small and insignificant overall increase in total SOC stocks by NT over CT and there is evidence that soil types and climatic conditions impact the sequestration strength . Since meta-analyses report several shortcomings of original studies they are based on, e.g. sampling depth or data reporting quality , the real effect of NT or in general of conservation tillage on SOC sequestration is still not evident. Assuming that conservation tillage has a positive effect on SOC stocks, integration of NT into organic farming may be a step forward towards an agricultural system with a high SOC sequestration potential and other beneficial effects, e.g. biodiversity . However, successful NT that is continuously applied over the years is only possible due to herbicides use as weed control measure. Consequently, research in organic farming has mainly focused on reduced tillage , where tillage is still applied for weed control . RT is less clearly defined than NT since a variety of machines are commonly used.

In Europe, RT can include ploughing or non-inversion tillage to shallow soil depths or superficial tillage with pulled or power take-off driven machinery if they are less intensive than traditional mouldboard ploughing.RT is also defined concerning residues left on the soil surface after sowing the next crop, with RT having a residue cover of 15–30% . A first meta-analysis compiling 184 pairwise comparisons gathered under organic farming conditions globally showed that RT in comparison to CT increased SOC stocks in the 0–30 cm soil layer by 1.4 Mg C ha− 1 . Yet, subsoils were not included, and the distribution of carbon within the soil profile was not assessed. The aim of this study was, therefore, to gain insights into the potential of RT to sequester carbon in organic farming. The comparison of RT with NT would have been helpful to detect which system performs better as a climate change mitigation measure, but to our knowledge, only one field trial exists with such a design . Regarding scientifically sound SOC stock determination, there are several technical issues to address: Blanco-Canqui et al. emphasise that sampling deep is crucial to assess tillage system effects on total SOC thoroughly. Another ongoing discussion concerns equivalent soil masses in contrast to a fixed depth sampling approach for SOC stock determination . Von Haden et al. argues that the ESM approach is advantageous for tillage system comparisons and should be used onwards. This study thus focused on generating SOC stock data to 100 cm sampling depth in nine long-term field trials that assess RT and CT under organic farming conditions. According to an internal standardised protocol, the same sampling preparation and collection was performed, and chemical analysis in the same lab assured data comparability. As trials were running from 8 to 21 years at the time of sampling, mid to long term effects of tillage systems on SOC stocks were evaluated. We hypothesised that under organic farming conditions,berry pots reduced tillage in contrast to ploughing i) will redistribute SOC stocks with an enrichment in the topsoil layer, but ii) will not significantly increase total SOC stocks. We also aimed to assess the ESM in contrast to the fixed depth approach for SOC stock determination. Nine sites situated in Switzerland, Germany, France and the Netherlands with a range of soil textures in the same climatic zone with field trials older than eight years were chosen for the common sampling. All trials were managed according to organic farming standards . This means that no synthetic pesticides or fertilisers were used. A ploughed reference was compared with a reduced tillage treatment in all experiments.

Basic trial information, including the varying tillage implements used for RT, crop rotations and pedoclimatic conditions, are listed in Table 1. In Switzerland, the Farming System and Tillage experiment  of Agroscope was initiated in 2009. It compares farming systems , tillage systems and cover crops as factors in a completely randomised split-plot design with four spatial and two temporal replications . The Cambisol has a sandy, loamy texture and a moderate plant available depth . Plots of the organic system with cover crops and the first temporal replication were included in this study. The Research Institute of Organic Agriculture maintains the Aesch trial on a silt loam of Loess deposits, a Luvisol, since 2010. Factors were fertilisation nested in tillage with four spatial replicates in an incomplete block design. Plots fertilised with slurry at recommended rates were included for sampling. The Frick trial was started in 2002 with three factors: biodynamic preparations nested in fertilisation nested in tillage, also in an incomplete block design with four replicates . This trial was based on clay loam, a vertic Cambisol, on the bottom of a valley. The clay sedimented from the surrounding Jurassic hills with limestone bedrock. Plots with slurry application and without biodynamic preparations were sampled. In Germany, Justus Liebig University of Gießen manages the organic arable farming experiment Gladbacherhof since 1998. On a haplic Luvisol with silt loam texture, the two-factorial experiment encompassed the factors farming systems and four tillage treatments in a split plot design with four replicates . Plots of the mixed arable farming system with livestock were chosen for this study. The Bavarian State Research Centre for Agriculture runs the Neuhof trial and the Puch trial since 1997 with different tillage systems and cover crops in a complete randomised design with three replicates. Both trials were converted to organic farming standards in 2012. They differ in climate and soils, with a stagnic Luvisol on silt clay in Neuhof and a Cambisol on silt loam in Puch. Plots without cover crops were included in the sampling. The University of Hohenheim started the KH6 trial in 1999 on a haplic Luvisol with clay loam texture from Loess. A stubble tillage factor was nested in tillage systems with a split plot design and four replications . Plots without additional stubble tillage were considered for sampling. In France, ISARA Lyon maintains the Thil trial since 2004 with several tillage systems completely randomised with three replications . The sandy loam soil, a calcareous Fluvisol, ended at 70 cm depth on river sediments. The shallowest tillage management was chosen for the reduced tillage system in this study. In the Netherlands, Wageningen University & Research manages the BASIS trial since 2009 on reclaimed land since 1957. The sandy loam of marine origin was classified as a Fluvisol.