SPECIAL PAPERS

BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRODUCERS, PROCESSORS AND DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS IN THE ORGANIC BEEF SECTOR - FRANCESCO ANSALONI

INTRODUCTION

The factors for the successful development of the organic animal breeding field follow the same basic lines as those of the traditional agriculture and animal breeding sectors in the various areas of Italy.

Professional preparation is extremely important at the production level to improve product quality and farm efficiency. In addition, professional preparation stimulates market organization and precisely, product geographical concentration and personal and professional initiatives to increase contract negotiation strengths.

As far as processors are concerned, the major success factor is the availability of infrastructures to assist personnel to achieve product quality. The Italian agricultural market would do well to create a distinct competitive advantage by concentrating on quality products and traditional Italian products.

It is the task of institutions to protect and ensure producers' income since agricultural workers produce basic raw materials for daily consumption and maintain our national land.

Institutions must also offer technical and business formation to improve product quality and assist agricultural enterprises to become market oriented.

OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT IN PROGRESS

The research objectives are to identify organizational innovations to develop business relationships capable of increasing income and guaranteeing the product quality level demanded by consumers.

Research methods include a survey to be performed in the Marches. Person to person interviews will be carried out with the individual farm owners or production managers (those responsible for organic beef production, transformation and distribution). Data includes information about farm structure, production methods, type of farm and what makes up the total farm income, relationship with the market where the product is sold and the contractual market. The latter includes type of contract, sales terms, pricing policy, ability of organic producer to set a higher sale price, various types of commercial distribution channels, final consumers, cooperative organizations between farms to enhance their offer and finally any business or commercial problems that the farm owners or managers encounter.

The following are the criteria for selecting the sampling:

- market orientation;
- organic animal breeding is the main activity;
- main product is a typical beef product from the area in question.

This is a two year project funded by the Regione Marche, Programma Operativo - Reg. Cee 2081/93 Ob. 5b, Azione 5b Progetti di Ricerca e Sperimentazione, Aiuti previsti dal Reg. CEE 2061/93.

BRIEF ASSESSMENT OF THE POTENTIAL OF THE METHODOLOGY PROPOSED

This type of research was selected because it seems the most suitable, given our limited human and economic resources, to highlight the major critical points in the existing business relationships in a rather limited area.

One of the more positive aspects of this research is the direct involvement of the farmers with their processing associations and the organic farming certifying agencies (Associazione Marchigiana Agricoltura Biologica - AMAB).

CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSALS

Organic animal breeding, especially if the animals are set to pasture, represents a viable production method. Organic animal breeding meets demands imposed by standards of efficient use of resources, need to create income for the farm worker and the social responsibility of agricultural workers.

This production technique is environment-friendly when applied extensively, uses natural and unused feeding grounds (pastures, hilly and mountain regions) and helps maintain the vitality of the rural communities. In addition organic animal breeding improves product quality by responding to consumer demands for quality guarantees.

To improve organic animal breeders' income, it is necessary to work on the commercial aspects and the overall business organization which brings the product to market and not merely concentrate on improving breeding techniques.

REFERENCES

Ansaloni, F. and Salghetti, A. (1996) “Latte biologico e derivati: l’organizzazione della filiera”, in Economia Agro-Alimentare,Anno I, n.1, novembre.

Ansaloni, F. and De Roest, K. (1997) “Use of resources and development and organic livestock farming in Italy: first results of an on-going study”, 3^rd ENOF Workshop “Resource Use in Organic Farming”, Ancona, 5-6 June 1997.

Ansaloni, A. (1997) “Factors in the application of organic farming methods to Parmigiano-Reggiano cheese production: A research case”, Newsletter of The European Network for Scientific Research Coordination in Organic Farming (ENOF), No.6, December.

Ansaloni, F. and Sarti, D. (1998) “Fattori di sviluppo della zootecnia biologica”, Seminario di Studio Ce.Se.T, Cansiglio, 29 maggio 1998.

Ansaloni, F. (1998) “Rapporti commerciali delle imprese zootecniche bio”, Mediterraneo, Anno 2, n.6, AMAB Senigallia (AN).

Ansaloni, F. (1998) “Organic livestock production in Northern Italy: an overview of some economic research projects”, FAO - REU ESCORENA - SREN “Research Methodologies in Organic Farming”, FiBL, Frick, Switzerland.

INTAKE OF TRACE ELEMENTS IN RELATION TO INDIVIDUAL SOMATIC CELL COUNTS IN HEIFERS - A PARTICIPATORY STUDY TO IMPROVE ANIMAL HEALTH IN ORGANIC FARMING - T. BAARS AND A. OPDAM

INTRODUCTION

Controlling mastitis is a tenacious problem in organic dairy farming. There is insufficient knowledge about adapted prevention strategies for clinical mastitis and how to reduce bulk milk somatic cell counts (BMSCC). High cell counts are particularly attributed to Staphylococcus aureus.

Next to such measures as routine checks of milking machinery, the stringent and efficient culling of infected animals, proper milking techniques and hygiene (one cow, one cloth), organic farmers rely strongly on measures to increase animals’ resistance to infection. Various scientific publications have shown that nutritive factors can both positively and negatively affect resistance.

STUDY PROCEDURE

We examined the relationship between nutrition and animal health at the mixed biodynamic farm, Zonnehoeve. On this farm, the animals are scheduled to calve between mid-September and mid-November. The herd’s diet consists almost exclusively of a grass/red clover/lucerne mixture from biannual temporary leys.

The study was prompted by extremely high urea levels in bulk milk. In the absence of high-energy concentrates and roughage, urea levels may exceed 50 by the end of the grazing period. Over the last few years, the farmer of the farm in question has experienced a range of small problems with his stock: a raised cell count in bulk milk, afterbirth problems and mastitis directly after calving, even in heifers. A comparison of calving age showed that heifers which calved at around three years experienced much fewer problems than heifers which calved at just over two years. Serum analysis (10 September 1997) showed that copper and selenium levels in pregnant young stock and heifers were too low. Low selenium levels also occurred in older dairy cows. Zinc values in the herd were in the normal range.

In consultation with the farmer, an experiment was carried out in the first year in which half of the cows were fed a daily energy supplement in the form of wheatmeal (3 kg/cow/day). However, no improvements in animal health could be registered (Baars and Barkema, 1997), perhaps because the study was launched too late in the season. In the next year, the herd was split into two groups based on expected calving date. Half of the animals received a slow-release bolus containing trace elements (brandname Ferti-240).

The boluses were inserted on 15 September 1997. Each month, milk yield, fat and protein content and individual somatic cell counts (ISCC) were registered during the milk inspection. The farmer registered all health problems in the herd. Data was collected for the entire herd, not just the heifers.

Six pairs of animals from the heifer group were studied from the time of calving onwards. The average calving date of these animals was 6 September 1997. Data up to April 1998 has been processed.

RESULTS

Serum samples taken on 17 March 1998 showed large variations in selenium levels, with levels in the bolus group in some cases exceeding the standard maximum. Copper levels are fairly consistent and fall within the normal range for both groups.

Table 1. Selenium (GSH-pX) and copper in heifer serum

The mean calving age and calving date are the same in both groups. On average, the ISCC in the control group were almost twice as high as in the bolus group. In one of the control animals, one teat was taken out of operation in March 1998 due to chronic mastitis. There were two cases of clinical mastitis in the bolus group, compared to three in the control group. Milk yields in the two groups were comparable.

Boluses were inserted about ten days before the first milk inspection (25 September 1997). Excluding the months of November and December, cell counts in the bolus group were fairly constant at around 120 to 130. Cell counts had much greater variation in the control group. The reduced cell count in the control group in March was due (partly) to the fact that one teat was made disfunctional in a chronically infected animal.

Table 2. Characteristics of two group of heifers

* FPCM/day: Fat and protein corrected milk/day in kg

Most remarkable were the high cell counts in heifers which calved at the age of two (calving date 26.8.1998). Cell counts were too high for all three heifers in this group.

Table 3. Development of ISCC after calving in three groups of heifers (N=6, 6 and 3, respectively)

The development of the geometric cell count (the mean of three successive counts) shows a rising cell count in the control group and an initial drop in the bolus group. As stated above, the cell count drop in the control group in March can be attributed to the three-teat cow.

DISCUSSION

Schukken et al. (not published) showed that selenium shortages in high yield herds (>9 000 kg milk/cow) could result in similar problems as at the Zonnehoeve. Such problems can crop up despite the intake of supplementary minerals and trace elements through concentrates. Apparently, an equilibrium between mineral intake and output is essential at every level of production. Both the Zonnehoeve and the high production farm in Schukken et al. are situated on young seaclay, not a soil type where dietary mineral supply problems are typically expected.

Boehncke (1997) describes the current preoccupation with different vitamins and trace elements as a passing fad. However, in view of the shortages found on closed circuit, self-sufficient farms in particular, we wonder whether this characterization does justice to the problem. Farms on sandy soils are typically vulnerable, but farms on other soil types should also be studied. The use of trace elements through boluses is not permitted in biodynamic farming systems. Both in the Netherlands and abroad, administering boluses is considered as medical treatment. For the organic dairy sector, other solutions must be found to raise the level of trace elements in feed to a sufficient level. The most obvious approach would be to provide herbal supplements.

CONCLUSIONS

• Administering trace elements to dairy cows which feed exclusively on grass/clover/lucerne helps to bring down the cell count. It is assumed that a selenium shortage, among others, negatively affects the animals’ resistance to disease.
• Heifers which calve at two years are more vulnerable to infection than heifers which calve at 2.9 years, when trace element uptake in the diet is too low.
• In the organic dairy sector, alternative mineral, vitamin and trace element supplements must be developed, to be administered next to regular feed. At a first glance, herbs appear the most likely answer to this problem.

GUIDE FOR ON-FARM EXPERIMENTS BY ORGANIC FARMERS^[3] - JOHANN BACHINGER, KARIN STEIN-BACHINGER, RUDOLF VÖGEL AND ARMIN WERNER

Agricultural operations in organic farming demand a high quality of information and knowledge concerning local conditions and cultivation techniques to optimize agricultural production. This knowledge is often not sufficiently available. A change or adaptation of cultivation methods is also a requirement of environmental and nature protection regulations.

The demand for improved information is inadequately supplied by traditional field experiments performed at designated experimental locations. The unique complexity of each agricultural site limits the degree to which traditional field experiment results can be effectively transferred. This is particularly the case for organic farming. Other considerations for the implementation of field experiment results are the study of phenomena which must be investigated on larger tracts as well as the reluctance of farmers to accept data obtained from small university field station plots which are harvested by hand or by special machinery (Lockeretz, 1987, Rosmann, 1994).

“On-farm Experiments” presents an innovative solution approach. There is a large potential for the development of organic farming systems through a high farmer involvement in the research work. The farmer, or a group of farmers, should for the most part be able to independently identify and address agricultural problems through “On-farm Experiments” which are self-designed and implemented. Of special emphasis is that “On-farm Experiments” is incorporated into practical operations, applying the farmer’s own equipment.

Reasons for the development of the Guide for “On-farm Experiments” (Stein-Bachinger et al., 1999) for farmers and consultants are:

- lack of site and farm specific knowledge for developing and optimizing cultivation techniques and crop management systems;

- problems with the transferability of results from scientific plot experiments caused by smaller scale, higher technical intensity and the unique complexity of each agricultural site;

- lack of knowledge on how to plan, implement and evaluate "On-farm Experiments" to systemize independent planning and implementation of agricultural experiments.

METHODOLOGY

The following tools and methods are included in the Guide:

- instructions for problem identification and the formulation of relevant experimental questions which may be realized under the conditions or restrictions of “On-farm Experiments”;

- a decision-support tool to determine what kind of questions can be investigated within the actual farm situation with consideration of available farm-equipment and time;

- a selection of factors to be tested at various treatment levels, an explanation of the basic principles for the implementation of experiments and examples for the experimental design with illustrations as well as data evaluation, documentation and interpretation;

- the Guide will be published as a loose-leaf collection for continual up-dating.

Of special interest to the farmer is the effect of any cultivation method on yield and product quality. With special harvesting technology (e.g. grain flow meter for the combine harvester) and corresponding trail designs, replications of the tested treatments in the field (one or two factor trials) can be performed, which allow for statistical calculations.

If replications cannot be achieved on a farm site, they can be obtained if a number of farms apply the same treatments used on other farms. Also without yield measurements, experiments could be designed to test the effects of harrowing on weed growth or the impact of certain pest control products on plant diseases through “window trial” experiments.

For farmers, the time expenditure for the implementation of trials plays a decisive role in the installation, care and estimation techniques, as well as in the yield measurement. The peak in work during the harvest does not allow for a long delay. Information to support these decisions will be offered in the Guide.

CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSALS

In comparison to traditional agricultural research approaches, “On-farm Experiments” offers the following advantages:

- new techniques can be tested in realistic conditions of actual operating farms;

- operation-related questions may be tracked over several years with the potential for direct application of promising solutions;

- farmers are given new skills and then confidence in problem-solving is enhanced;

- results from randomized block designs in other regions can be tested under local farming conditions;

- greater involvement of farmers in all stages of the project is conducive to improving communication and cooperation with agricultural researchers, consultants and nature protectors;

- there is great potential for building up a network between farmers, consultants and scientific institutions to increase the accessibility of data and would help to create a broad and more comprehensive information source.

The Guide will be overworked based on observations and experiences of chosen users to ensure a broad as possible practical relevance. Experiments which have already been implemented to address various questions cover the diversity of possibilities which result through that kind of approach for practice and advising.

REFERENCES

Lockeretz, W. (1987) Establishing the proper role for on-farm research. Am. J. of Altern. Agric., Vol. II, No 3, 132-136 pp.

Rosmann, R.L. (1994) Farmer initiated On-farm Research. Am. J. of altern. Agric., Vol. 9, No 1 and 2, 34-37 pp.

Stein-Bachinger, K., Bachinger, J., Vögel, R., Pauly, J. and Werner, A. (1999) Leitfaden zur selbständigen Planung und Durchführung produktionsbezogener Experimente für ökologisch wirtschaftende Betriebe. In: Beiträge zur 5. Wissenschaftstagung zum Ökologischen Landbau, Verlag Mr Köster, Berlin, 10-13 pp.

STRATEGIES FOR INCREASING SUSTAINABILITY IN MEDITERRANEAN CROPPING SYSTEMS WITH SELF-RESEEDING ANNUAL LEGUMES - F. CAPORALI AND E. CAMPIGLIA

INTRODUCTION

Agriculture in industrialized countries is based on specialized agroecosystems, where high yields are obtained from sequences of annual crops (cash crops) with large inputs of machinery and chemicals. In the arable hilly land of Central Italy, the most usual cash-crop sequence is constituted by the two-year rotation between a rain-fed winter cereal (wheat or barley) and a summer crop, either a rain-fed sunflower or an irrigated maize. This rotation is largely supplied with N fertilizers, chemical weeding and frequent tillage practices (Caporali and Onnis, 1992) and therefore, it is energy-intensive, costly and environmentally risky. In search of strategies for increasing cropping diversity and sustainability, we have been focusing for ten years on the use of alternative plant resources, such as the self-reseeding winter annual legumes (Trifolium and Medicago spp.) native to the Mediterranean environment. The main steps and achievements of our research are summarized, starting from the screening of the self-reseeding legumes species and cultivars and ending up with the implementation and performance assessment of the whole alternative cropping system (winter cereal-summer crop rotation).

CONCEIVING AN ALTERNATIVE CROPPING SYSTEM

In the Mediterranean environment, legumes have evolved well-adapted biological forms (therophytes), which are able to grow during the moist, cold season and set fruits before the dry, hot season, which they overcome as seeds on/in the ground. As they are able to regenerate after autumn rainfall, when a new life cycle starts, self-reseeding annual legumes are annuals biologically but in practice, behave like polyannuals.

When compared to the conventional two-year rotation, their life cycle just overlaps the winter cereal growing season in the first year and after autumn reseeding, the fallow period before the summer crop establishment in the second year. In the alternative cropping system that we have conceived, the establishment and use of an annual legume occur as a living mulch in the winter cereal and after reseeding, as either a green manure or a dry mulch from a sod strip intercropping system for the succeeding summer crop (Figure 1). This alternative cropping system has proved to have the potential to induce a significant shift towards a less energy-intensive and a more environmentally-friendly management type, while maintaining the same sequence of cash crops of the conventional one and providing more innovative and flexible patterns of cover cropping (Caporali et al., 1993). For the alternative cropping system to function successfully, three main requirements should be met by the legume: a) the ability to perform as a living mulch in winter cereals; b) the ability to regenerate abundantly after the cereal harvest; c) the ability to cover the ground during winter and to furnish sufficient biomass to be used either as a green manure or a dry mulch for the succeeding summer crop.

SCREENING OF LEGUME SPECIES AND CULTIVARS

While several of the tested subterranean clover species and cultivars were able to grow sufficiently as a living mulch in the winter cereal, without severely reducing the cereal grain yield and to regenerate, annual medics completely failed to re-establish, revealing themselves unsuitable for the alternative cropping system. Seedling density in T. subterraneum cultivars ranged from 145 to 310 seedlings m²; that range of values is considered appropriate for stand establishment as a winter cover crop (Evers et al., 1988). Particularly good was the performance of T. subterraneum cv. Mount Barker, which showed a re-establishment ratio of 1.20 (310/258 seedlings m²), therefore most of our further research on the alternative cropping system was carried out by using this cultivar.

PRACTICAL PERFORMANCE OF THE ALTERNATIVE CROPPING SYSTEM

a) Problems with the winter crop component

The tillering capacity of the winter cereal turned out to be a crucial element to grain yield performance. Differences in grain yield between wheat with a living mulch and wheat in pure stand were more severe with increasing availability of water (in wet years) and nitrogen fertilizer, i.e. with factors which favour tillering capacity. Unfortunately, modern wheat varieties are characterized by poor tillering capacity, as they have been selected to grow in high-density pure stands. This suggests that modern breeding trends are depriving both intercropping research and practice of their necessary genotype basis.

b) Subclover as a green manure for sunflower

A subclover living mulch proved able to regenerate and to provide the succeeding crop with abundant and nitrogen-rich residues. A positive correlation between the amount of subclover biomass ploughed in and the vegetative and productive characteristics of sunflower was found in both dry and wet years. Subclover green manuring was so effective that sunflower yield in the alternative system was higher than that of the conventional one fertilized with 130 kg ha^-1 of inorganic N. Subclover green manuring also affected biomass and composition of the weed community in the sunflower crop.

c) Perspectives for implementation at farm level

At present, the innovative cropping system (two-year rotation between a durum wheat/subclover intercropping and sunflower) has been chosen as the base for a mixed farming system by a 402 ha-large farm located at Bomarzo, in the upper valley of the river Tevere (Central Italy) (Barberi et al., 1998). The farm is composed of two separate entities, one of which (70 ha) is run as a conventional farming system and the other (332 ha) as an organic farming system, according to the principles of EU Reg. No. 2092/91. The organic part of the farm is composed of 35 ha of vineyard, 37 ha of hazel grove, 100 ha of woodland and 160 ha of cropland. About 10 percent of organically-grown durum wheat is currently intercropped with subclover cv. Mount Barker. The organic crops are fertilized with poultry manure obtained by mixing home-grown wheat straw with chicken slurry coming from nearby poultry farms. When the innovative cropping system followed a lucerne meadow, the wheat grain yield of the best performing cultivars ranged between 4 and 4.5 t/ha even without any organic fertilizer, which was more than the yield obtained from the wheat in the conventional part of the farm.

REFERENCES

Barberi, P., Caporali, F., Campiglia, E. and Mancinelli, R. (1998) Weed community composition in a mixed farming system in Central Italy. Workshop Proc., Dronten, The Netherlands. 25-28 May 79-83 pp. Landbouuniversiteit, Wageningen.

Caporali, F. and Onnis, A. (1992) Validity of rotation as an effective agroecological principle for a sustainable agriculture. Agri. Ecosyst. Environm. 41, 101-113 pp.

Caporali, F., Campiglia, E. and Paolini, R. (1993) Prospects for more sustainable cropping systems in Central Italy based on subterranean clover as a cover crop. XXVII Intern. Grassland Congr. Proc. 2197-2198, Rockhampton, Australia.

Evers, G.W., Smith, G.R. and Beale, P.E. (1988) Subterranean clover reseeding. Agron J. 80, 855-859 pp.

Figure 1. Cropping pattern comparison, precipitation and temperature regime at Viterbo (Central Italy)

EFFECTS OF CLIMATIC CHANGES ON WEED FLORA IN ECOLOGICAL FARMING SYSTEMS - M. GLEMNITZ, J. HOFFMANN, R. RADICS AND G. CZIMBER

PROBLEM STATEMENT

Modified growing conditions, due to climate change, will influence the occurrence and dominance of plant species and biodiversity. At first most of the species with a low frequency and marginal occurrence may disappear. Unfortunately a lot of endangered species or ecologically valuable species belong in this group. At the same time new species with different climate requirements will be able to immigrate into the current biotops. This group is characterized by competitive invader plants and some C4-plants (Hoffmann, 1994). Both processes together, the disappearance of rare species and the immigration of invader species, may substantially change the character of biocenosis.

The biotops will not be influenced with the same intensity by changing climatic changes. Most of the biotop types must be regarded as relatively stable against the invasion of new species or changes in dominance structure of vegetation. Changes must be expected firstly in biotops with a high share of pioneer or rural vegetation. This kind of biotop is characterized by relatively low competition pressure and periods of uncovered soil surface. These are factors which encourage the occurrence of new invaders in the vegetation and favour rapid changes in the dominance structure. Pioneer or rural vegetation can be found mainly on arable fields with their weed flora, on all types of disturbed areas with rural flora and on fallow land.

Intensive land use or frequent disturbance of vegetation must be regarded as a factor which may encourage changes in vegetation promoted by a changing climate. Equalizing of growing structures, reduction of crop rotation, intensive fertilization and plant protection are accompanying effects of changing land use practices caused by the globalizing market in Europe. Intensive or unified management practices accelerate both the disappearance of species with low frequency and the immigration of new species from other climate regions.

On the basis of this knowledge, the estimation of possible effects of climatic changes on weed flora in ecological farming (in comparison to conventional farming) in different climatic regions of Europe, is important for future strategies of land use systems.

GENERAL PROJECT OBJECTIVES

• Comparative studies of the current weed flora in different regions along a climatic transect in Europe on areas with ecological and conventional farming.
• Improvement of knowledge on possible changes in ecosystems being used agriculturally due to climatic changes.
• Detection of main differences in ecosystem structure of arable ecosystems currently in different climatic conditions.
• Characterization of the specific regional values of weed flora and their vulnerability, necessity of conservation and restoration efforts.
• Summarizing the experience in different European countries on the evaluation of weed flora according to their contribution to regional biodiversity.

REFERENCES

Hoffmann, J. (1994) Spontan wachsende C4-Pflanzen in Deutschland und Schweden - eine Übersicht unter Berücksichtigung möglicher Klimaänderungen. Angew. Botanik 68: 65-70 pp.

Hoffmann, J. (1998) Assessing the effects of environmental changes in a landscape by means of ecological characteristics of plant species. Landscape and Urban Planning 41: 239-248 pp.

Hoffmann, J., Kretschmer, H. and Pfeffer, H. (1999) Effects of Current Landscape Patterns on Biodiversity. -In: Tenhunen, J.D., R. Lenz und R.E. Hantschel (Hrsg.): Ecosystem properties and landscape function in Central Europe. Ecological Studies. Springer, im Druck.

Kretschmer, H., Pfeffer, H., Hoffmann, J., Schrödl, G. and Fux, I. (1995) Strukturelemente in Agrarlandschaften Ostdeutschlands - Bedeutung für den Biotop- und Artenschutz. ZALF-Bericht 19, Selbstverlag ZALF, Müncheberg: 164 S.

Kretschmer, H., Hoffmann, J. and Wenkel, K.-O. (1997) Einfluß der landwirtschaftlichen Flächen-utzung auf Artenvielfalt und Artenzusammensetzung. Schriftenreihe BML Angewandte Wissenschaft 465, Biologische Vielfalt in Ökosystemen: 266-280 pp.

EFFECTS OF ECOLOGICAL FARMING ON BIODIVERSITY - J. HOFFMANN

PROBLEM STATEMENT

Biodiversity within natural landscapes without human impact is determined by variations in site and climate conditions as well as historical events affecting the distribution of species groups. Different types of land use have altered site conditions, thus having an impact on both individual species and species groups. As a consequence, a global decline of species is observed in response to increasing intensity of land use and destruction of natural and semi-natural habitats.

Most Central European agricultural landscapes have a high proportion of intensively farmed land with high anthropogenic impact and extensive areas with low species diversity. In these areas, species diversity is mainly determined by remnants of semi-natural habitats. The quantitative analysis of species diversity at specific agricultural sites demonstrated a strong influence of habitat structures on non-arable portions of the land on species number (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Number of species as a function of the proportion of non-arable land with habitat structures promoting species diversity. Observations for each group (area 100 ha) are joined by dashed lines for presentation clarity (Kretschmer et al., 1995, Hoffmann et al., 1999)

A high proportion of semi-natural habitats does not guarantee a high species diversity, the quality of habitat, the spatial distribution of differing elements and the type of land use system are other important determinates (Kretschmer et al., 1997). Currently, the situation in most conventional farming areas is that non-arable habitats are elongated and narrow in shape (hedgerows, grassy margins), or small islands, which are highly eutrophied from the adjacent farmland. On the other hand, on the arable areas the weed flora has become impoverished, many typical weed species are endangered or threatened by extinction and only some problematic (e.g. herbicide tolerant) weed species dominated.

In relation to these facts, ecological farming is a good possibility for positive and sustainable development of typical biodiversity in agricultural landscapes in different parts of Europe.

GENERAL PROJECT OBJECTIVES

• Improvement of knowledge on effects of ecological farming on the biodiversity of arable lands and agricultural landscapes.
• Development of a methodology for the assessment of the impact of ecological farming on biodiversity in different regions of Europe (e.g. unique methodology of evaluation, comparison with conventional land use systems).

PARTNER FARMS: A PARTICIPATORY APPROACH TO COLLABORATION BETWEEN SPECIALIZED ORGANIC FARMS - W.J. NAUTA, G.J. V/D BUFGT AND T. BAARS

Mixed farming systems are the systems of choice in organic agriculture for several reasons. Firstly, a mixed production cycle better retains mineral inputs (N, P, K) and organic matter. Secondly, nutrient uptake is more efficient, reducing the need for external inputs such as concentrates, chemical fertilizers and biocides. Finally, the manpower available on a farm is employed more effectively in mixed farming systems. The sum result is a more sustainable production system that is less dependent on external circumstances.

In many developed countries, however, agricultural production has become highly specialized in response to market forces and technological developments. This applies equally to organic and conventional agriculture (Baars, 1998). Specialization is also determined by local conditions (soil type, water table), which may be more suitable for one type of production. Dairy farming is predominant in regions with peat soils, sandy soils and heavy clay soils, which are really only suitable for pasturage. Lighter clay soils and loam soil, on the other hand, are easier to work and are therefore ideal for arable production. Specialization, however, has its price. High-energy (concentrate) feed may be in low supply on dairy farms depending on the ratio of clover to grass in the sward, so that farmers must buy concentrates. Arable or horticultural farms have no choice but to buy farmyard manure and include cereals and cover crops in their crop rotation to maintain soil fertility.

We cannot simply turn back the clock on specialized farms. Besides, specialized production has its advantages, too. Farmers today must participate in quality assurance systems and satisfy environmental regulations and this demands a high level of specific expertise. The Partner Farm concept is aimed at establishing intensive collaboration between specialized farms, so that they may reap the benefits of a mixed system while retaining their autonomy (Baars, 1998). The concept is being developed in practice with nine highly specialized farms. Intensive consultation on our part is necessary to achieve the desired degree of synergy between the farms for a truly “mixed” situation.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

Partner farms

The partner farm concept is implemented in the Project “Development and Demonstration of Partner Farms” in the province of Noord-Holland. The Project comprises five dairy farms with a total of 260 ha of grassland and 1.7×10⁶ kg milk and four arable farms with a total of 130 ha. The dairy farms participating in the Project do not really have suitable soil for growing fodder crops or improving the sward (peat soils and clay on peat), while the four arable farms have ideal soil for all sorts of crops. The distance between the dairy and arable farms is approximately 50 km.

PARTICIPATORY APPROACH

The objective of the Project is to achieve sustainable collaboration between the farms such that they form a “mixed system at one remove”. Incorporating the mixed farm principle into a daily farming practice will require major changes to farm management on each farm. The farmers will have to learn to “think mixed”, such that they automatically consider the other specialization when making their annual management plans. To this end, researchers from the Louis Bolk Institute provide consultation and extension according to participatory principles (Baars and De Vries, 1998 and 1999). This includes group extension sessions during which farmers compare their farm situations and learn to see the different perspectives of arable and dairy production. Computer models such as FARM and NDCEA extrapolate data to predict future situations. In addition, the Project Team proposes and initiates changes and product exchanges. Financial support is available to farmers during the first three years of the Project to compensate for any risks or additional costs resulting from the collaboration.

RESULTS

Farm analyses

There are many differences between the nine farms. The dairy farms, for example, range from a small farm on clayey soil with twenty cows in a traditional tied-up barn to a farm on peat soil with 120 dairy cows, cubicle housing and an automated milking system. The arable farms, too, vary from fairly traditional requiring only part-time labour to highly enterprising, processing their own produce and selling them around the world. The arable farms are all situated on either heavy or light clay soil.

The dairy farms have been thoroughly analysed. A fodder specialist has analysed the farms’ feed balance. Farm structure, grassland management and grassland quality have also been assessed. The first priority for these farms was to realize improvements in farm management and to optimize the utilization of inputs. Our analyses of the dairy farms focused on fodder production and fodder intake but also extended to related matters such as fertilizer regime, milk production and minerals and organic matter contents in soil. We found that all the dairy farms had structural roughage surpluses and deficits in energy-rich feed and protein, which could be alleviated by increasing clover in the sward. In addition, we found that they would benefit from reducing their applications of farmyard manure, as grassland is capable of maintaining high organic matter and potassium levels and of supplying its own nitrogen, provided there is sufficient clover in the sward. Applications of natural phosphate fertilizer would help prevent phosphate deficiency. This more efficient fertilizer regime has the added advantage of leaving more farmyard manure for arable farms.

The arable farms in the Project buy all their farmyard manure, much of it from conventional farms for bargain prices. With regulations for organic production allowing for the use of conventional manure, price is the key factor in farmers’ decision-making. Our other analyses was of the four arable farms concentrated on current crop rotation schemes. The farmers recognize the importance of soil fertility and this is reflected in their crop rotation schemes, which include biennial alfalfa or a grass-red clover mixture. The total area under wheat has declined in recent years in favour of field vegetables which bring a better price on the market, but which are more taxing for the soil. Cover crops such as clover and alfalfa fix nitrogen and can reduce a farm’s dependency on farmyard manure. They also help reduce weeds (grass-clover and alfalfa) and improve soil structure (wheat and alfalfa).

The cover crops which arable farmers grow to maintain soil fertility (wheat, alfalfa, grass-clover) could be sold to dairy farmers as high-energy organic fodder. This would greatly enhance the crop’s value and ensure its place in crop rotation schemes in the future. However, here too, all depends strongly on whether farmers think the price is right.

Product Exchanges

One of the first steps towards collaboration was to set up a system of input exchanges, i.e. manure, straw and fodder. The results presented here apply to the nine farms in the Project and two demonstration farms. The specific problems posed by partner farming have been discussed at length during extension sessions with the participating farmers. The farmers requested special attention to the valuation of the various products to be exchanged. Clearly, products produced in a mixed organic system have more than just an economic value, however, the farmers would like to know more about alternative methods of product valuation and assessment.

Manure

Table 1 depicts the total production of and demand for manure, straw, wheat and alfalfa. In theory, the five dairy farms produce enough manure to cover the arable farms’ requirements. However, at the beginning of the Project, dairy farmers were only selling 240 t of manure a year. Our own experience in farm consultation is that reducing manure applications on grassland is beneficial to clover production. This is backed up by scientific literature (Baars and Younie, 1998). Dairy farmers in the Project were therefore encouraged to use less and sell more manure, so that 500 t a year is now available for the arable farmers. The arable farmers in turn have agreed to buy this volume of manure, although they may require financial compensation to cover the price difference between organic manure and conventional manure.

Table 1. Production and use of farmyard manure, straw, wheat and alfalfa in the Partner Farm Project (tonnes per year)

Straw and Wheat

Fifty percent of the demand for straw can be supplied by the farms in the Project. However, of the 162 t produced, only 54 t are currently sold within the Partner Farm Project; the remaining quantity is kept by farmers for their own use, for example in the culture of bulbs. Most of the wheat is winter wheat of bread-making or brewery quality. The relatively high cash value of these crops makes them unsuitable as fodder.

Legumes: Alfalfa and Clover

Alfalfa is abundantly available. By coincidence, a drying plant is situated in the vicinity of the arable farms, so that growing alfalfa is quite lucrative for these farmers. The suitability of alfalfa as an ingredient in organic concentrate (in addition to wheat) is being studied. In the winter of 1998-1999, 35 t of alfalfa-wheat concentrate (a 50-50 mix) were produced and experimentally used on the five dairy farms. The alfalfa is currently grown as horse fodder, with a maximum dry matter content and harvested three times a year when it is not yet in full flower. When harvested at this stage, the energy content of alfalfa is low: 781 VEM (1 VEM = 6.9 MJ) per kg dry matter. Thanks to the addition of wheat, our alfalfa-wheat concentrate contained 847 VEM/kg. As conventional concentrates contain 960 VEM/kg, this caused a slight drop in milk yield per cow (0.5 kg/day) as well as a slightly lower percentage of milk fat (on average, 0.2 percent less). We had, however, expected lower yields.

Another batch of alfalfa-wheat concentrate was made in the spring of 1999. The alfalfa was now harvested at a younger stage, following the recommendations of Van der Schans, (PAV-Lelystad) (maximum length 50 cm and no more than 50 percent green buds). We expect that this will result in a feed value of 900 VEM/kg for alfalfa alone and 940 VEM/kg for alfalfa-wheat concentrate.

Baars (1998) stated that the key to successful partner farming is optimal use of clover on both dairy and arable farms. Clover reduces the need for nitrogen inputs in both systems, so that product exchanges can be directed at satisfying other mineral and organic matter requirements (Ca, P, K and Mg). On dairy farms, a higher clover content in the sward would reduce the need for protein inputs, i.e. concentrates, thus increasing farm income. Currently, the dairy farms in the Project have too little clover in the sward. On peat soils with a pH of about 5, however, maintaining clover is a real challenge. These farms will always be dependent on manure and peat mineralization for nitrogen and will also continue to be dependent on arable farms to cover a part of their protein need.

DISCUSSION

The advantages of mixed farming systems for both conventional and organic production have been described in detail in the literature. There are different ways of achieving a mixed system, however. In this Project, we wish to respect the autonomy of specialized farms but encourage them to mimic a mixed system through intensive collaboration (Partner Farm Concept). This innovative approach is well suited for the Netherlands where arable and dairy farms are often within close range and where soil type and a tradition of specialization often do not allow conversion to mixed farming. The Project described here is still on-going; the presented results are provisional and our only aim at present is to give an idea of what we hope to achieve with the Project.

Trying to achieve collaboration between farms unearths several practical problems: what valuation method could be used to give exchanged products a value that expresses more than just their economic worth? How can farmers acquire new knowledge of specific management measures as well as of each other’s production system? How can the economic interests of individual farms be simultaneously addressed? How should transportation costs be settled? and so on. These problems can be solved through a process of learning and raising awareness (Baars and De Vries, 1998). They cannot be solved on paper; it is necessary to actually confront participants with the problems as they arise in practice, so that they can feel which changes are necessary and are forced to think about their farm in a more holistic context. Ultimately, they must learn to think from the perspective of a mixed system.

In the early stages of the Partner Farm Project, we were careful to take small steps which do not require sweeping changes in the farms’ production systems. Thus, farmers readily agreed to the production of concentrates because alfalfa was already being grown in ample quantities on the arable farms and because dairy farmers did not have to change their feed system. Later, we realized that additional changes had to be made: the quality of the alfalfa had to be improved, arable farmers had to adjust their crop management to meet dairy farmers’ needs and arable farmers were asked to consider growing fodder wheat as well. This last point, however, has proven difficult as the soil is particularly suited for growing bread wheat, which brings a better price on the market. Trading in some of the area under alfalfa for a greater area under wheat does not change this hard fact. Currently, therefore, fodder wheat for alfalfa-wheat concentrate is being bought from farms elsewhere in the Netherlands. The only reason for arable farmers in the Project to switch to growing fodder wheat is an idealistic one and it would only be reasonable to expect them to act idealistically if it was economically possible.

More wheat production in the system also means more straw. However, the stable with sloping floors in the Project required more straw (12 kg/cow/day) than could ever be produced within the Partner Farm System. Supplementary straw will always have to be bought from elsewhere. In view of this, we wonder about the feasibility of deep litter housing in the Netherlands, where wheat is a relatively minor crop.

In an optimal mixed system, nitrogen fixation by legumes is required in both parts of the system (Baars, 1997). The three dairy farms on peat soil in our Project, however, have great difficulties maintaining clover in the sward (low pH, mineralization of nitrogen and slug problems). This soil is also unsuitable for the production of whole plant silage from wheat or fodder wheat, so that these farms will always be dependent on arable farms for high-energy whole plant silage, nitrogen and protein from concentrates. Therefore, in a Partner Farm situation, the limitations of this soil type will always cause higher nitrogen losses for the total system.

Another interesting question raised in this Project concerns the optimal ratio of arable land to grassland. The ratio is 260:130 or 2:1 for all nine farms participating. Livestock density plays an important role in determining which ratio is optimal. The dairy farms in this Project have an average livestock density of 1.3 Livestock Units (LU) per hectare (low by Dutch standards); or 0.87 LU/ha when the total land area of all nine farms is considered. This is well within the optimal range of livestock density on organic mixed farms, which has been shown to be between 0.8 and 1.0 LU/ha. However, considering that the sum situation of the nine farms is a roughage surplus and a manure deficit, there is still scope to increase livestock density.

The production of alfalfa-wheat concentrate within the Partner Farm would significantly reduce the required N input, but it should be kept in mind that reducing the area under alfalfa would also reduce the total fixed nitrogen. Total N losses in the Partner Farm scenario would be half that of the current sum situation of the two farms. However, a total N loss of only 30 kg/ha may not prove feasible in practice. Due to the inefficient distribution and delayed availability of fixed nitrogen, optimal crop production can only be achieved with a moderate surplus of nitrogen.

Nitrogen fixed by alfalfa might also be better distributed and used if the alfalfa is composted or if the last second-year cut is ploughed under. The volume of nitrogen leaving the farm would be greatly reduced and N losses on the farm in the Partner Farm scenario would increase to 55 kg/ha.

REFERENCES

Baars, T. (1991) Mineralenbeheersing in de biologische melkveehouderij. Louis Bolk Instituut, Driebergen.

Baars, T. (1998) Modern solutions for mixed systems in organic farming. In: Keulen, H. van, E.A. Lantinga and H.H. van Laar (eds.), 1998. Proceedings of an International Workshop on mixed farming systems in Europe, Dronten, Wageningen, the Netherlands, 25-28 May 1998. Ir. A.P. Minderhoudhoeve-series no. 2. 23-29 pp.

Baars, T. and Younie, D. (1998) Grassland and the development of sustainability. FAO-meeting for lowland pastures and sustainable systems. La Coruna, Spain. FAO REU Technical Series.

Baars, T. and de Vries, A. (1998) Scientific knowledge and practical choices: forging a link between the way of the researcher/extensionist and the way of the farmer. In: R. Zanoli (ed.) Research Methodologies in Organic Farming. FAO Workshop in Frick, Oberwill (CH), October 1998.

Baars, T. and de Vries, A. (eds) (1999) De Boer als ervaringswetenschapper, Elsevier, Doetinchem.

PROSPECTS AND LIMITATIONS OF ORGANIC AGRICULTURE IN SELECTED THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES - LUDWIG PÜLSCHEN

BACKGROUND

Organic agriculture is a rather new movement; in Europe research in the past two decades has led to fine-tuned relatively high-output organic systems; this is opposite to many systems in third world countries, where farmers have relied on conventional systems for the past four to six decades, where methods in traditional farming fell into oblivion and where eco-farmers today are highly in need of information on farming practices adapted to their specific environment (example: see table below). Uncertainty on producer level refers to agronomic practices including crop rotation, varieties, fertilization (nutrient management), plant protection and to animal husbandry in conjunction with plant production, but also refers to the socio-economic environment, like questions of labour-input, market volume of organic produce, local and export markets, inspection and certification, etc.

COUNTRIES INVOLVED AND FOCAL POINTS OF THE STUDY (PRELIMINARY)

Lebanon: Prospects of organic agriculture in conflict areas between nature preserves and production sites.

Panama: Prospects of sustainable land-use systems in highly intensive vegetable cropping regions in the Highlands of Panama.

Costa Rica: The critical transformation period towards organic farming with special reference to animal husbandry and marketing.

Egypt: Agronomic and socio-economic conditions of organic agriculture and its potential in selected districts in Egypt.

METHODS

Participative on-farm research in selected third world countries of different agro-ecological zones, covering agronomic and socio-economic subjects; agronomic subject: inquiries and simple field data collection (measurements, selected laboratory analyses) on yield levels, yield stability and quality, production intensity, cropping patterns, rotations, tillage, integration of livestock, manure treatment, fertilizer value, calculation of nutrient balances, nutrient flows, selection of varieties, control of weeds, pests and diseases; socio-economic subject: mainly inquiries and literature research on motivation, incentives of producers to farm organic crops; opinions on organic farming on producer and consumer levels; gender aspects, role of women; data on production costs, risks of production during transformation from conventional to organic farming; subsidies, macroeconomic level, premiums for produce on inland/export market, etc.

ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL OF METHODOLOGY

Depends mainly on expectations; the aim of this study is to identify the main limitations in organic farming and progress in participative research.

CONCLUSION

Methods will be adapted to the local needs and the expected results are the basis for further fine-tuned studies

Example of a (misconcepted) rotational pattern of an organic farm with cotton as a main crop, West Turkey (42.7 ha; seven fields, 20 milk cows, certified-organic since 1993); abbreviations: Co: cotton, W: wheat, L: lentils, M: maize, V: vegetable; manuring only in 1992/93: approximately 50 percent of the fields have been green manured (vetch), the rest has been fertilized with cattle manure.

SYNTHESIS OF A METHODOLOGY TO PROTOTYPE ECOLOGICAL (ORGANIC) AGROSYSTEMS ELABORATED BY AN EU RESEARCH NETWORK ON LOW INPUT AGRICULTURE - ENRICO RASO AND CONCETTA VAZZANA^[4]

INTRODUCTION

The authors presented a synthesis of a five step methodology for prototyping an Ecological (Organic) Farming System. The methodology has been elaborated and tested by an European Network of more then 20 research teams (the authors represented Italy - one team) and were sponsored by the European Union (AIR-concerted action) and were coordinated by Mr P. Vereijeken (the Netherlands). The synthesis derived from the methodology is set out in four Progress Reports of the above-mentioned EU Research Network (Vereijken, 1994, 1995,1996, 1998). In order to assist the explanation of points one to four of the methodology, the authors utilized results obtained from an experimental ecological (organic) microfarm located in Montepaldi (S. Casciano Val di Pesa, Tuscany, Italy) and established in 1992 (Vazzana, Raso, Pieri, 1997).

METHODOLOGY

The methodology elaborated by the EU Network of Research Teams for prototyping low impact agrosystems comprised the following five consecutive steps (Vereijken, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998): 1) drawing up a hierarchy of general and specific objectives; 2) transforming the top ten objectives into multi-objective parameters to quantify them and establishing the multi-objective farming methods needed to achieve those quantified objectives; 3) designing a theoretical prototype by linking parameters to farming methods and designing these methods until they are ready for initial testing; 4) testing and improving the prototype in general and the farming methods in particular, until the objectives as quantified in the set of parameters have been achieved; 5) disseminating the prototype by pilot groups, regional networks and finally by national networks with a gradual shift in supervision from researchers to extensionists. The authors, due to a limited number of pages available to explain the five points of the methodology, decided to show its most important steps in tables one to four. For detailed information about the methodology see Vereijken, 1994, 1995,1996, 1998 and Vazzana, Raso, Pieri, 1997.

CONCLUSION

The authors' considerations on the methodology are: 1) easy application and interesting results obtained in the agro-pedoclimatic conditions of Montepaldi in the management of a productive system based on field crops. It is possible to see, as a matter of fact, making a comparison between the characteristics of the system at the beginning (1992/93) and the average data (1992/93-1996/97), the positive results obtained in the ecological (organic) experimental agrosystem which had reach or improved the aimed values for many agronomical, ecological, energetical and economical parameters; 2) the possibility to apply this methodology for the management of mixed agricultural systems too.

REFERENCES

Vereijken, P. (Coordinator) (1994) Designing Prototypes. Progress Report 1 of the Research Network on Integrated and Ecological Arable Farming System for EU and associated countries. April 1994, AB-DLO Wageningen, the Netherlands, 87 pp.

Vereijken, P. (Coordinator) (1995) Designing and Testing Prototypes. Progress Report 2 of the Research Network on Integrated and Ecological Arable Farming System for EU and associated countries. August 1995, AB-DLO Wageningen, the Netherlands, 90 pp.

Vereijken, P. (Coordinator) (1996) Testing and Improving Prototypes. Progress Report 3 of the Research Network on Integrated and Ecological Arable Farming System for EU and associated countries. December 1996, AB-DLO Wageningen, the Netherlands, 68 pp.

Vereijken, P. (Coordinator) (1998) Improving and Disseminating Prototypes. Progress Report 4 of the Research Network on Integrated and Ecological Arable Farming Systems for EU and associated countries. March 1998, AB-DLO Wageningen, the Netherlands, 55 pp.

Vazzana, C., Raso, E. and Pieri, S. (1997) Una nuova metodologia per la progettazione e gestione di agrosistemi integrati ed ecologici. Rivista di Agronomia, 2, anno XXXI, 423-440 pp.

Table 1. The ten top specific objectives for the experimental Ecological (Organic) Arable Farming System: Team I1, Montepaldi, Tuscany, Italy

Table 2. Values of the European and local parameters proposed for the Ecological (Organic) Farming System: Team I1, Montepaldi, Tuscany, Italy

Table 3. The seven methods chosen for the experimental ecological (organic) arable Farming Team I1, Montepaldi, Tuscany, Italy

Tab. 4 - State of the art of the experimental Ecological (Organic) Arable Farming System, Montepaldi, Tuscany, Italy, Team I1: 1992/93 and 1992/93-1996/97 average .

(Method) = shortfalls indirectly linked to the method: e.g. bad weather conditions at sowing and at harvest time; loss of yield to birds; low organization in marketing; etc. .PNL* = average 1995/96 -1996/97.

ORGANIC PILOT FARMS IN SWITZERLAND - EVALUATION AND DEVELOPMENT CENTRES FOR ORGANIC FARMING - OTTO SCHMIDT AND SIEGFRIED HARTNAGEL

INTRODUCTION

The selection of farms for on-farm research is often done very pragmatically, although it is well known that the results and conclusions are very dependent on the farms and regions which were selected. Reasons for this kind of selection are: near distance to the farm, existing relationship, willingness of the farmer to participate, etc. The criteria representativity of the local situation of the farm and the representativity of the farm type are very often not taken enough into consideration. There is a lack of typical reference farms. Adequate comparisons between farms are often not possible or do not make sense. Harmonization or links with other on-going research activities on other farms on a regional or national scale do not take place often. Potential synergy effects between the different investigations or on-farm experiments are not used in a sufficient way. An adequate evaluation of the technical and economic relevance of the results is only done exceptionally and a combination with participative approaches and extension-oriented ways of implementation are consequently, not made often enough.

In a number of countries pilot farm projects were built up (Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and Norway, etc.). Experiences on how pilot farms can be established, working groups built up, demonstration plots installed and modelling of farms developed (Schenke and Köpke, 1998, et. al), are available. What is missing in most projects are clear criteria on the representativity of the selected farms related to climatic regions. This would be important in order to make recommendations for other regions or for measurements on a national level.

OVERVIEW ON THE PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGIES USED

The overall aim of the organic pilot farm project in Switzerland, which started in 1998, is to build up regional evaluations and development centres for organic farming which are based on 50-60 selected pilot farms, monitored in close collaboration between researchers, extension workers and other interested farmers. The project has been developed by a research group of the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture in Switzerland (Hartnagel et. al., 1999).

The main objectives of the project are the evaluation of:

- sustainability indicators; and
- the socio-economic performance of organic farming.

The methodology is based on a participative approach and on-farm research within a farm or region. Research questions will be formulated by the involved partners. The implementation of research results is primarily done in the regional context through decentralized demonstration and extension opportunities.

The selection of farms is based on the most common farming types (arable, beef, milk, etc.) and on climatic regions. Groups of four to eight farms per farm type are chosen. The pilot farms should come from yield-homogenous regions. In Switzerland there were about 12 climatic regions identified for farms, which have agronomic relevance (Pfefferli, 1987).

Other selection criteria are that the farm groups belong to one type of farm, are not too far from each other and if possible, in a region where this type of farm has a high representativity (Hartnagel et. al., 1999).

In collaboration with the regional organic extension service and agricultural schools, the definitive selection is made based on specific criteria such as minimum time organic cultivation, etc. The preference is for farms above the average size, which can play a promoter role in the region. After the selection of the farms, regional working groups are established with pilot farmers, involved researchers, regional administrators and extension workers. Within these working groups a participatory process starts, discussing research priorities, research design, results and implementation strategies (Hartnagel et. al., 1999).

POTENTIAL OF THE METHODOLOGY USED

On the farms the investigations will be based on standard investigations, which will go on for a longer time, e.g. economic and ecological key figures.

A special detailed investigation for particular purposes such as nitrate losses, quality of the ecological diversified area, feeding strategies, especially the evaluation of the ecological performance based on evaluation systems such as Eco-balances and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) needs, which is planned in Switzerland on approximately 12 of the pilot organic farms (two farms per farm type) very much needs an approach based on climatic regions to be able to make comparisons which make sense for the farmers. The same applies for in-depth studies e.g. about labour requirements or economic in-depth studies.

Based on these data specific regional model farms can be developed and model calculations for one or more regions can be made as a basis for future scenario-techniques or policy recommendations (see concept in Annex).

CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSALS

It might be interesting to see if such an approach with climatic regions is also feasible in other countries. In some countries the differences between the different climatic subregions might be less important but soil properties or even sociological/cultural differences might be of more importance to define comparative groups of farms.

In an European network of pilot farms, more emphasis should be placed on the selection criteria for farms for on-farm research, especially if conclusions for a whole region, the whole country or even the EU are made. In many cases it is not enough only to focus on farm-structures alone to make comparisons between farms.

REFERENCES

Balmann, A., Lotze, H. and Noleppa, S. (1998) Agrarsektormodellierung auf der Basis "typischer Betriebe". In: Agrarwirtschaft 47, Heft 5, Braunschweig.

Dhamotharan, M. and Gerber, A. (1997) Das bäuerliche und das wissenschaftliche Wissenssystem im Ökologischen Landbau: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen einer Verständigung. In: Beiträge zur 4. Wissenschaftstagung zum Ökologischen Landbau, Hrsg.: Köpke, U. und Eisele, J.-A., Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, Bonn, 537-543 pp.

FAT (1998) Ökologische und produktionstechnische Entwicklung landwirtschaftlicher Pilotbetriebe 1991-1996. Eidg. Forschungsanstalt für Agrarwirtschaft und Landtechnik (FAT), Sektion Agrarwirtschaft, CH-8356 Tänikon.

FAT (1997) Berechnung von Standardroherträgen 1993-1995 zur Abgrenzung von Spezialbetrieben gemäss Typologie nach "Grüner Kommission" (ZA-Typologie) - interner Arbeitsbericht. Eidg. Forschungsanstalt für Agrarwirtschaft und Landtechnik (FAT), Sektion Agrarwirtschaft, CH-8356 Tänikon.

Hartnagel, S., Freyer, B., Lobsiger, M. and Schmid, O. (1999) Leitbetriebe - Evaluations- und Entwicklungszentren im biologischen Landbau in der Schweiz. Tagungsband an der 5. Wissenschaftstagung zum Ökologischen Landbau "Vom Rand zur Mitte" vom 23. - 25. Februar 1999 in Berlin, Berlin, 14-17 pp.

Hostettler, K. and Hilfiker, J. (1983) Der Einfluss des Standortes auf die Naturalerträge. Betriebswirtschaftliche Informationstagung. Schriftenreihe der FAT. Eidg. Forschungsanstalt für Agrarwirtschaft und Landtechnik (FAT), Sektion Agrarwirtschaft, CH-8356 Tänikon.

Köpke, U. (1993) Forschungsinhalte und -konzepte des ökologischen Landbaus, Projekt "Ökologische Leitbetriebe in Nordrhein-Westfalen". In: Ökologie + Landbau, Heft 87, 12-16 pp.

Pfefferli, S. (1987) Produktionssysteme für die schweizerische Rindviehhaltung. Eidg. Forschungsanstalt für Agrarwirtschaft und Landtechnik (FAT), Sektion Agrarwirtschaft, CH-8356 Tänikon.

Schenke, H. and Köpke, U. (1998) Leitbetriebe Ökologischer Landbau in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Web-Site des Institutes für Organischen Landbau. Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn.

Table 1. Organic farm types in Switzerland

OA = open arable field, GVE = Animal unit, RGVE = cattle animal unit

Figure 1. Climatic zones based on climatic maps for agriculture (1977)

Summary of the agronomic relevant climatic zones (based on Pfefferli, 1987)

A1 - H: agronomic relevant climatic zones in Switzerland

ANNEX 1: Organic Pilot farms in Switzerland - Research and Extension Approach

Siegfried Hartnagel and Otto Schmid

Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, Ackerstrasse, 5070 Frick

Reasons for the project

• Unsatisfactory representativity of chosen farm types and research regions
• Unsatisfactory use of potential synergies of different on-farm research trials
• Unsatisfactory implementation of research results in practise
• Lack of typical regional reference farms
• Need of a more participatory and better coordinated approach.

Objectives

• Evaluation of sustainability indicators of organic farming on all levels: - farm - region - Switzerland
• Evaluation of the economic performance on representative farms
• Linking of research, extension work and practise.

Methods

• Investigation and summarizing of research questions on pilot farms
• Development of research questions through farmers (participatory approach)
• Decentralized demonstration and extension opportunities.

Research concept

• Development of action plan
• Standard investigations
• Detailed investigations.

Standard investigations

(selection of criteria of particular interest)

Selection of the regions

• Selection of the most common farming types (milk farms mountain/non-mountain area, mixed farms, arable farms, etc.)
• Development of yield-homogenous regions (mainly based on a specific geographical climate map, including where necessary soil properties)
• Determination of specific focus regions
• Selection of specific focus regions within the "climate regions"
• Determination of "pilot farm regions"

→ per farming type if possible two to three "pilot farm regions", which represents typical climatic (and soil) conditions.

Selection of pilot farms

• Organic farming statistics (1997: 4 500 farms)
• Pre-selection based on criteria list
  • Size of farm > regional Ø
  • Minimum of four years organic farming
  • Full time farmer
  • Representative for a particular farming type

• Definitive selection

• Representative for their regional climatic area
• Motivated farm manager (family)
• Detailed investigation already available
• Willing to participate in more detailed specific investigations

• Aim: ten regions with five to six farms.

Selected pilot farm regions

→ For each farming type a typical climatic area is selected

(if possible same criteria as for non-organic farms)

Strengths and weaknesses

• Representativity of the pilot farm region is considered
• Intensive collaboration between practise, extension work and research is possible
• Solutions which are specific for regions can be outlined
• Learning by being involved in the research questions (participative approach)
• High acceptance of the research results
• Detailed information about the farm and intensive advice
• Good documented farms for different purposes
• High engagement of farm managers and extension workers
• Parcel size is adapted to the mechanization of the pilot project
• Distance to the researcher
• Costs (climate station, mechanization, rented land)
• Research activities highly dependent of farm manager.

Outlook

Work already done in 1999:

- pre-selection of approximately 20 farms;
- discussion with organic farm advisers.

Planned activities from Autumn 1999 to End 2000

- selection of seven farming types in seven climatic regions for "Eco-balancing" (two farms);

- analysis of economic performance (key figures in book-keeping) in selected regions (approximately 20 farms);

- selection and test of a few existing systems to evaluate the ecological performance on some of the farms.

Selection of more farms in cooperation with regional organic advisory services (altogether approximately 50-60 farms).

PRODUCT FLOW MODELLING: TAILOR-MADE DECISION SUPPORT FOR FARMERS - JACQUES WOLFERT AND ERIC A. GOEWIE

INTRODUCTION

This short communication describes a PhD project in progress that deals with developing new concepts for supporting whole farm management and must result in a prototype decision support system (Wolfert et al., 1996). The focus is on mixed (integration of crop and animal production) organic farming. In contrast to specialized farming, mixed farming links many processes in order to produce several end products; often these processes also have a cyclic character. Management of organic farming systems is based on control of complex, dynamic ecological processes and in contrast to conventional farming, an organic farmer has no quick-acting instruments like fertilizers, pesticides, etc. at his disposal, but has to rely on more complex, often long-term ones.

At the moment there are not many systems that support whole farm management but usually one or a few aspects are supported (e.g. specific disease management, financial or nutrient management). Furthermore, these systems were usually developed for specialized, conventional farming, so they will probably not account for the aforementioned basics of mixed organic farming. Hence, a new approach, called product flow modelling (Udink ten Cate et al., 1994), was taken and further developed and will be briefly described in the following section.

METHODOLOGY

The methodology can be divided into three steps:

1. Product flow instantiation - the generic product flow model, that is shown above, is filled in for a specific farm. The whole farm is split up into production units between which products flow (e.g. silage feed, manure) and finally end products (e.g. milk, potatoes) flow to external resources that are markets. Internal and (in less proportion) external resources form the basis for production. Emission flows restore internal resources, but must not exceed certain limits to prevent pollution. Beside physical components, by-products are defined as immaterial side-effects of production (e.g. animal welfare, labour conditions).

2. Sustainability mapping - sustainability for the specific farm is defined in terms of goals or indicators. This is supported by multi-faceted structured entity modelling.

3. Process informatics development - sustainability goals are connected with the product flow model. This means that units and flows get properties (e.g. nitrogen contents, prices, welfare scores, etc.) attached that are aggregated and/or integrated so that goals can be evaluated properly.

The result of these steps is combined in one software system that provides the right environment, with different structured views on the real farming system, that enables the farmer to optimize decision-making. This means that critical success factors and accompanying relations must be identified. The next step describes per process (sowing, ploughing, milking, etc.) how these factors and relations can be positively influenced. This results in a farm management handbook that is farm- and farmer-specific.

Furthermore, it is possible to develop a farm-specific simulation model that enables the farmer to carry out what-if analyses, although one should be very careful with this because of the unpredictable influences and complex ecological relationships that are involved.

In this project, a first prototype will be developed for the APMinderhoudhoeve, an experimental farm of the Wageningen University and Research Centre. At the moment Step 2 is almost finished.

CONCLUSIONS AND POTENTIALS

The described approach is in the first place meant for on-farm research by the farmer himself. The software system provides a basis for theoretical ‘thought’ experiments and also a good environment for set-up and evaluation of practical experiments and how feedback to management could take place.

For farm management it is mostly enough to identify and work with black-box-relationships. However, because the system registers many data on the farm and their management, it could be used for scientific research to clarify biological mechanisms. Then this knowledge can indirectly be used in farm management; a deductive approach.

Another possibility is that these data are exchanged with other farmers and discussed, for example, in study groups. As data is available in electronic format, internet could play an important role in this.

REFERENCES

Udink ten Cate, A.J., Beers, G. and Donkers, H.W.J. (1994) Restructuring farming in terms of product flow management in agricultural chains and corresponding process informatics architecture. In: Supplementary note of the Dina Workshop on Informatics in Agriculture, 8-9 December 1994, Dina Notat No. 28, DINA, Frederiksberg-Tjele, Denmark, 11 pp.

Wolfert, J., Goewie, E.A. and Beulens, A.J.M. (1997) Dynamic product flow model for a mixed ecological farm. In: (H. Kure, I. Thysen and A.R. Kristensen (Eds.)) Proceedings of the First European Conference for Information Technology in Agriculture, 15-18 June 1997. The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen, Denmark, 199-204 pp.