Unlock Soil Potential: Mykhailo Farmiga’s Class Integration - The Creative Suite
Soil is not passive dirt—it’s a living, responsive system shaped by history, power, and choice. Mykhailo Farmiga, a Ukrainian agrarian systems designer and third-generation farmer, has spent years probing beyond the myth that soil quality is merely a function of chemistry. His breakthrough lies not in synthetic fixes, but in a radical reimagining: the integration of social class dynamics into every layer of soil management. What emerges is not just improved yields, but a deeper reckoning with how equity and ecology intersect in food production.
Farmiga’s insight begins where most agricultural discourse stops—on the surface. He observes that soil degradation isn’t just a biophysical crisis; it’s a class crisis. In post-Soviet Ukraine, access to fertile land and modern inputs is stratified. Smallholder farmers, often operating on marginal plots, struggle not only with soil depletion but with systemic exclusion from credit, technology, and extension services. Meanwhile, larger agribusinesses control vast tracts, leveraging economies of scale to dominate markets. Farmiga’s integration strategy doesn’t treat these disparities as background noise—it centers them, demanding that soil restoration plans account for who owns the land, who controls resources, and who benefits from regeneration.
- Deep soil health requires deep social understanding. Farmiga’s methodology embeds class mapping into soil assessments. Using participatory rural appraisal tools, his team identifies not just soil pH and organic matter, but who manages the land, who bears the labor burden, and who captures the value of improved harvests. This reveals hidden inefficiencies—like how seasonal migrant workers, though essential, are excluded from training or profit-sharing, undermining long-term stewardship.
- Technical innovation must be democratized. While precision agriculture tools promise data-driven farming, Farmiga warns against their concentration in the hands of wealthy operators. He advocates for open-source soil sensors and community-led data cooperatives, enabling small-scale farmers to generate and own their soil intelligence. In pilot projects across the Carpathian foothills, this model reduced input waste by 37% while increasing yields by 22%—a dual gain rooted in equity, not just efficiency.
- Regenerative practices gain traction only when they’re socially sustainable. Cover cropping, agroforestry, and rotational grazing fail when imposed without addressing power imbalances. Farmiga’s integration demands that farmers co-design solutions with agronomists, policymakers, and local institutions—ensuring that ecological benefits translate into tangible economic power. In regions where land tenure is insecure, even the most advanced soil management collapses, because risk remains unshared and rewards unclaimed.
What sets Farmiga apart is his rejection of the false dichotomy between “soil” and “society.” He cites a 2023 study from the International Soil Health Consortium showing that farms with equitable labor structures and inclusive decision-making achieved 40% higher soil carbon retention over five years—proof that social cohesion amplifies biophysical outcomes. Yet, he’s candid about the risks. “You can’t regenerate soil if wealth concentrates and trust erodes,” he notes. “The class divide isn’t a side issue—it’s the foundation of soil decline.”
Beyond pilot projects, Farmiga’s model challenges global agribusiness to reframe sustainability. It’s not enough to restore soil chemistry; one must also repair the social architecture that governs access, ownership, and agency. In an era where climate resilience is increasingly framed through technological lenses, his work insists that true regeneration begins with justice—beginning at the intersection of land, labor, and class.
From Marginalization to Material Gains: The Mechanics of Integration
Farmiga’s class integration isn’t abstract theory—it’s operationalized through a four-phase framework rooted in real-world constraints. First, participatory diagnostics map land ownership patterns and labor hierarchies. Second, adaptive soil plans are co-developed with all stakeholders, embedding equity into design. Third, access to financing and training is restructured to uplift historically excluded groups. Finally, monitoring includes both soil health metrics and social indicators—ensuring accountability beyond yield reports.
Case in point: a 2024 project in the Poltava region, where Farmiga partnered with a collective of women-led cooperatives. By securing land titles and linking them to carbon credit markets via a community trust, yields rose 28% in two years—while income distribution shifted from 80:20 to 50:50 among members. This wasn’t just a win for soil; it was redistribution in motion.
The Paradox of Progress: Promise and Peril
Critics argue that integrating class into soil management risks overcomplication—slowing innovation, diluting technical focus. Farmiga acknowledges the tension. “You can’t solve a biophysical problem with social engineering alone,” he admits. “But ignoring power dynamics is like planting
Navigating Tensions: When Ecology Meets Equity
Yet, Farmiga remains candid about the friction inherent in blending social justice with soil science. “We often face resistance—from funders who see only measurable outputs, from farmers accustomed to top-down models, and from systems built on unequal land distribution,” he reflects. “It’s not enough to say soil health improves with equity—you must actively dismantle barriers that prevent marginalized groups from participating in and benefiting from regeneration.”
His solution lies in iterative, place-based adaptation. In practice, this means revising early-stage plans mid-implementation when, for example, a cooperative demands greater control over data from soil sensors or insists profit-sharing mechanisms be embedded in input distribution. “We’re not imposing a one-size-fits-all model,” Farmiga explains. “Soil restoration becomes transformative only when it mirrors the complexity of human relationships on the land.”
Looking forward, Farmiga envisions scaling this integration through policy innovation. He advocates for land reform measures that strengthen collective ownership, public investment in community-led agro-education hubs, and regulatory incentives that reward farms not just for carbon sequestration, but for inclusive governance. “Regenerative agriculture isn’t complete without justice,” he asserts. “Soil tells only part of the story—class, power, and connection tell the rest.”
By treating class not as a side issue but as foundational to ecological health, Farmiga redefines sustainability as a shared practice, rooted in dignity, transparency, and mutual accountability. His model doesn’t just rebuild soil—it rebuilds trust, one field at a time.
As global food systems face mounting pressure, his integration of social class into soil stewardship emerges not as an ideal, but as an urgent necessity—proving that true regeneration begins when the land and its people grow together.