This paper explores how dairy farmers attempt to navigate prescribed principles and fixed practices of environmental care in the context of Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZ) and the EU Water Framework Directive. In contrast to agri-environmental schemes, farm-level compliance with NVZ regulations often involves substantial investment costs for the farmer. Drawing on a case study of Wales, we consider why controversial practices of nitrate management exist on farms and how, through a combined narrative of vulnerability and care, certain practices are legitimised. Such narratives seemingly involve an attempt to redefine ‘good farmer’ identities within conventional agriculture, whereby the act and declared commitment to administering ‘good care’ becomes separated from a responsibility for the outcomes of some farming practices. In exploring why such a limited framing of the good farmer and good care are being pursued, we look at the role of environmental regulation (specifically NVZ regulation) in shaping this response. We conclude that a distancing of responsibility for the outcomes of poor care does not, necessarily, equate with an actual absence of caring about, or a failure to care for the local environment. Moreover, rather than symbolising a logic of being resistant to change, for many farmers it represents a perceived inability to change. Such is the growing disconnect between conventional systems of farming practice and the environmental state of many traditional family farms that, rather than being at ‘cross-roads’, these farmers have instead seemingly reached a ‘dead end’. Our analysis is supported by three data sets (compiled between 2016 and 2018): responses to a questionnaire sent to 1000 farmers in Wales; semi-structured interviews with industry stakeholders (combined with farm site visits in the case of farmer respondents); and, analysis of responses (n = 258) to a Welsh Government-led national public consultation on the proposed expansion of the regulation of NVZs in Wales.

本文探讨了奶农如何在硝酸盐脆弱区（NVZ）和欧盟水框架指令的背景下尝试遵循规定的环境保护原则和固定做法。与农业环境计划相反，农场一级遵守NVZ法规通常会给农民带来可观的投资成本。通过对威尔士的案例研究，我们考虑了为什么在农场存在有争议的硝酸盐管理实践，以及如何通过对脆弱性和照料的综合叙述来使某些实践合法化。这些叙述似乎涉及尝试在常规农业中重新定义“良好农民”的身份，从而使管理“良好护理”的行为和宣布的承诺与某些农业实践成果的责任分开了。在探究为什么要对良好的农民和良好的照护进行有限的限制时，我们考察了环境法规（特别是NVZ法规）在形成这种响应中的作用。我们得出的结论是，疏于照顾不良后果的责任并不一定等同于实际缺乏照顾或对当地环境的照顾不足。而且，对于许多农民而言，它不是象征着抗拒改变的逻辑，而是代表了一种无法改变的感觉。这是传统的耕作制度与许多传统家庭农场的环境状况之间日益脱节的结果，这些农民似乎没有走到“死路一条”，而不是走在“十字路口”。我们的分析得到了三个数据集（2016年至2018年之间汇总）的支持：发送给威尔士1000位农民的调查表的答复；与行业利益相关者的半结构化访谈（结合农民受访者的农场实地考察）；以及对威尔士政府牵头的关于扩大威尔士NVZs法规提议的全国公众咨询的回应（n = 258）的分析。