## 3 Results - Discussion

The two-step statistical classification among the 1382 farms involved in vegetable production resulted in 6 sub-groups of farms: unstable land tenure farms (306 farms), livestock farms (337), banana and sugarcane farms (96), pure vegetable farms (392), fallows farms (162), and orchards farms (89). We interviewed 80 farmers dispatched among 4 subgroups involved in vegetable production: the banana or sugarcane subgroup, livestock, orchards and pure vegetable farms. Farms with unstable land tenure and farms with fallows were not interviewed as they were assumed as non-adopters from the participatory approach. 80% of the farmers interviewed are willing to test improved fallows. Two models display the econometric results. A total of 12 explanatory variables were selected from the 47 initial variables (Model 1).

<table><caption>Table 1. Random-coefficient Logit Parameter Estimates with an elastic net penalization.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Model 1<br>including 47 variables</th><th>Econometric model : Model 2<br>including 12 variables</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Mean of error rates of prediction</td><td>9.45 %</td><td>8.65 %</td></tr><tr><td>Std. of error rates of prediction</td><td>1.65 %</td><td>1.56 %</td></tr><tr><td>(Intercept)</td><td>-3.1149</td><td>-3.3150</td></tr><tr><td>PRACTICING CURRENTFALLOWS</td><td>3.2476</td><td>3.3450</td></tr><tr><td>MULCHING INTEREST</td><td>1.7563</td><td>1.8243</td></tr><tr><td>FIELD SUITED FOR MECHANIZ.</td><td>1.0992</td><td>1.1964</td></tr><tr><td>ADITIONAL WORK</td><td>-0.8063</td><td>-0.8437</td></tr><tr><td>IMPLEMENTATION_COST</td><td>-0.7227</td><td>-0.8243</td></tr><tr><td>N.E. DISTRICTS</td><td>-0.7507</td><td>-0.7985</td></tr><tr><td>TILLAGE REQUIREMENT</td><td>-0.6602</td><td>-0.7061</td></tr><tr><td>TRAINING_LEVEL</td><td>0.5911</td><td>0.6545</td></tr><tr><td>NEMATICIDE INTEREST</td><td>-0.4166</td><td>-0.5219</td></tr><tr><td>DEPLETED FERTILITY</td><td>0.3403</td><td>0.4353</td></tr><tr><td>LABOUR AVAILABILITY</td><td>0.1676</td><td>0.1924</td></tr><tr><td>FERTILITY INTEREST</td><td>0.0530</td><td>0.0839</td></tr></tbody></table>

Notes. Std. is the standard deviation. For the Model 1, the selected parameters are $\alpha$ = 0.99 and $\lambda$ = 0.0345. For the Model 2, the selected parameters are $\alpha$ = 0.99 and $\lambda$ = 0.0315.

The explanatory variables for the willingness to test improved fallows show the importance of already practicing current fallows on the farm (FALLOWS) as well as other additional agronomic benefits (MULCHING, TILLAGE, FERTILITY, etc.) and farm characteristics (FIELD SUITED FOR MECHANIZATION for example). Spatial considerations (N.E. DISTRICT) confirm the geographical constraints of agro-ecological innovations. Economic considerations are also confirmed. Fieldwork revealed that the pure vegetable farm group was also interested in improved fallows, in contradiction with an assumption of the participatory approach.

## 4 Conclusions

Scaling up agro-ecological innovations is possible with the access of an agricultural census and a quota sampling procedure as it reduces the investigation costs and the error margins. Farmer's knowledge of the underlying agronomic principles of agro-ecological innovations is crucial in the willingness to test them. The participatory approaches are necessary but they need to be tested on the field as their assumptions can be contradicted (in our case, the total cultivated land area threshold). The fact that agro-ecological innovations may spread among various farming systems also highlighted the risk of exclusion of farms unsuited to their implementation.

*Acknowledgements.* This work was financially supported by the Comité Interministériel pour l'Outre Mer (CIOM) and the Fonds européen agricole pour le développement rural (FEADER). The authors would like to thank the farmers and the other participants of the following institutions: the Chambred'Agriculture; the Institut Technique Tropical (IT2); and the farmer groups.

## References

* Agreste. (2011). Données Martinique premières tendances. Direction de l'alimentation de l'agriculture et de la forêt de la Martinique. Service de l'information statistique économique et prospective.

* Agreste. (2013). Mémento de la statistique agricole 2013. Agreste Martinique. Direction de l'alimentation de l'agriculture et de la forêt de la Martinique. Service de l'information statistique économique et prospective.

* Fernandes, P., Temple, L., Crance J., Minatchi, S. (2009). Innovations agroécologiques en Martinique : freins et leviers organisationnels, institutionnels, techniques et économiques. Innovations agronomiques, 4 : 457-466.

* Tibshirani, R. (1996). Regression shrinkage and selection via the LASSO. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B-Methodological 58(1), 267-288.
# A participatory approach to design and assess integrated crop-livestock systems at territory level

Marc Moraine *±1, Michel Duru <fnref n="1" />, Clément Murgue <fnref n="1" />, Julie Ryschawy <fnref n="1" /> & Olivier Therond <fnref n="1" />‡

## 1 Introduction

Due to strong specialization trends in Western Europe, cropping systems and livestock systems are always more simple and more concentrated, resulting in high input levels and sustainability issues. Integrated Crop-Livestock Systems, through interactions between crops, grasslands and animals, can achieve self-sufficiency, high efficiency and sustainable practices (Bonaudo *et al.*, 2013). They are often seen as archetypes of agroecological systems. Given that it will be difficult to reintroduce animals in farms in which they disappeared, crop-livestock interactions could be developed at territory level (Wilkins, 2008). Few studies already exist on such Territorial Crop-Livestock Systems (TCLS). This article presents the methodology used to design and assess TCLS in South-Western France. Designing TCLS raises three methodological issues: (i) its intrinsic “ill-defined” character, (ii) the coordination among local agriculture stakeholders; (iii) the uncertainty regarding interactions between technical practices and key ecosystem services (e.g. biological regulation, soil fertility maintenance). Furthermore, dealing with knowledge management when designing such agroecological systems require methodological engineering and situated research (Francis *et al.*, 2011). To tackle these different issues and challenges, we built a participatory methodology to design and assess TCLS. As in Concept-Knowledge (C-K) theory of innovative design (Hatchuel & Weil, 2009), it is based on the common development of creative ideas and elements of knowledge to assess options of change. It was applied in two case studies for supporting stakeholders’ groups in the design of TCLS adapted to their context specificities.

## 2 Materials and Methods

The two case studies are situated in the Averyon River watershed, in South-West France. The first case study focused on designing cropping systems (CS) in specialized crop farming systems located downstream in the watershed that would answer feed requirements of upstream livestock systems (LS) and local sustainability issues (mainly water deficit due to irrigation). The second case study is a group of organic livestock and crop farmers voluntary to develop direct exchanges. The methodology follows six steps (Fig. 1), adapted for the two case studies. It is supported by two key intermediary objects: (i) a conceptual model of crop-livestock integration structuring analysis of Crops, Animals and Grasslands interactions and associated flows of products and key ecosystem services and (ii) a multicriteria assessment grid (used in step E. Both were built a priori upon a review of literature on TCLS and adapted during the field work. Iterations are made between workshops and laboratory to adapt tools to stakeholders’ objectives and local issues (Moraine *et al.*, 2014).

<figure><img src="image_167.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Generic methodology of territory crop-livestock system design</figcaption></figure>

## 3 Results – Discussion

Table 1 presents the main outcomes of the two case studies. In the first case study, called “Territory supply chain”, dealing with large geographical extent implied design of standardized options for change. The current CS are maize monoculture and sunflower – wheat rotations. Stakeholders proposed to introduce alfalfa in rotations for three years. It

<footnote n="1">¹ UMR 1248 AGIR, INRA</footnote>

<footnote>* Speaker</footnote>

<footnote>‡ Corresponding author: marc.moraine@gmail.com, olivier.therond@toulouse.inra.fr</footnote>
would allow reducing N fertilizers (no N fertilization for alfalfa and less during the two following years) and also cutting some pesticide application. Harvest, processing and marketing of alfalfa would be managed by a local cooperative. According to the assessment step (E), the alternative CS show improved efficiency of inputs and surfaces, enhanced ecosystem services and better or at least unchanged socioeconomic performances (work and profitability).

In the second case study, “Organic farmers exchanges”, options for change are built on the basis of farm diagnosis and collection of ideas and expectations of farmers. Assessment of these options was done at farm level and aggregated at the group level. The exchanges of alfalfa, cereal-legume mixtures, straw and animal manure may improve the self-sufficiency at the group level and also farmers decision autonomy, adaptive capacity and stability of economic performances.

At territory level, the two case studies present different strengths and drawbacks. The *Territory supply chain* allows designing diversified cropping systems on a large scale, through technical changes that were estimated acceptable by farmers and resulting in a significant reduction of irrigation water withdrawals at the watershed level. The limits in this case study are the important dependency on local cooperatives to develop new practices, resulting in low farmers' autonomy. Moreover, the designed TCLS is built on standardized changes in archetypal systems, on-farm adaptation may be necessary to implement adapted changes. The case study *Organic farmers exchanges* produced a TCLS scenario finely adapted to investigated farms, although farmers actually look for developing local trials of new practices (mainly feeding systems) and governance rules for exchanges in order to reduce the perceived risk associated to the options for change. The impact of this TCLS on local sustainability issues would be quite low because it concerns only a small group of farms already with low inputs systems. However the development of local direct exchanges of products between CS and LS could still reinforce those farms and associate other farms in exchanges (possibly supporting the settlement of young farmers) and act as a “sociotechnical niche of innovation” (Geels, 2004).

<table><caption>Table 1. Main outcomes of the methodology (CS: crop farming system, LS: Livestock farming system)</caption><thead><tr><th>Case study</th><th>A</th><th>B</th><th>C</th><th>D</th><th>E</th><th>F</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Territory supply chain</td><td>Intensive specialized systems on large scale</td><td>Stability of supply of LS Diversification of CS</td><td>Typology of CS and LS</td><td>Alternative CS with alfalfa Organization of the supply chain</td><td>Estimated performances of alternative CS Spatial distribution of alternative CS</td><td>Opportunity to develop a new supply chain Investments</td></tr><tr><td>Organic farmers exchanges</td><td>Network of alternative farms</td><td>Self-sufficiency at group level, technical exchanges Local origin of products</td><td>Individual diagnosis of farms</td><td>Alternative CS with alfalfa and crop-legume mixtures Organization forms of exchanges of products</td><td>Estimated performances of options for change on individual CS, LS and at group level</td><td>Transition phases to develop structured exchanges and governance</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 4 Conclusions

We designed TCLS in two contrasted case studies, presenting different objectives, constraints and issues related to crop-livestock integration at territory level. The case study *Territory supply chain* was conducted using local expert knowledge, concerned intensive conventional farming systems and resulted in a scenario of development of standardized but more sustainable cropping systems. The case study “Organic farmers exchanges” was conducted in a small number of farms but takes into account the specific constraints and objectives of each farm. Both are interesting to enhance sustainability of local farming systems. Due the ill-defined character of TCLS and the specificities of investigated case study, methods and tools used to design TCLS were continuously adapted. Accordingly, the two case studies contributed to develop generic tools with outscaling capacities. Furthermore, our work is an original contribution to the development of design methodologies dealing with natural resources management, technical systems analysis and stakeholders' coordination at territory level. It allows producing contextualized knowledge on TCLS and support changes towards more sustainable farming systems.

*Acknowledgements.* The work presented here was performed within the European project CANTOGETHER (FP7, Grant agreement No. 289328) and with the support of the TATA Box project (ANR-13-AGRO-0006). The authors thank the farmers and technical experts who participated in the workshops and interviews conducted during this work and the Master students, Juliette Grimaldi and Pauline Melac, who participated in field work.

## References

* Bonaudo, T., Bendahan, A.B., Sabatier, R., Ryschawy, J., Bellon, S., Leger, F., Magda, D. & Tichit, M. (2013). Agroecological principles for the redesign of integrated crop-livestock systems. *European Journal of Agronomy*, **57**, 43-51.

* Francis, C.A., Jordan, N., Porter, P., Breland, T.A., Lieblein, G., Salomonsson, L., Sriskandarajah, N., Wiedenhoeft, M., DeHaan, R., Braden, I. & Langer, V. (2011). Innovative Education in Agroecology: Experiential Learning for a Sustainable Agriculture. *Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences*, **30**, 226-237.

* Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (2009). C-K design theory: an advanced formulation. *Research in Engineering Design*, **19**, 4, 181-192.

* Moraine, M., Grimaldi, J., Murgue, C., Duru, M. & Therond, O. (2014). Integrating crop and livestock activities at territorial level in the watershed of Aveyron river: from current issues to collective innovative solutions. *Proceedings of 11th European IFSA Symposium*, 1-4 April 2014, Berlin, Germany. 1371-1384.

* Wilkins, R.J. (2008). Eco-efficient approaches to land management: a case for increased integration of crop and animal production systems. *Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Biological Sciences*, **363**, 517-525.
# Designing a livestock rearing system with stakeholders in Thailand highlands: Companion modelling for integrating knowledge and strengthening the adaptive capacity of herders and foresters

Dumrongrojwatthana Pongchai<sup>1</sup>, Le Page Christophe<sup>2</sup> & Trébuil Guy<sup>*3</sup>

## 1 Introduction

Farming systems design with stakeholders is context specific and requests participatory methods to reconcile the field, farm and watershed levels while integrating different knowledge systems. Rapid ecological and socio-economic changes in northern Thailand highlands have created land use conflicts between extensive cattle rearing systems and foresters in "protected forest" and replantation areas following past extended deforestation. Key stakeholders bearing different interest, agro-ecosystem management objectives and strategies, and operating at different scales of the system hierarchy, had conflicting perceptions on the effects of cattle grazing on vegetation dynamics at the field scale. Suitable communication platforms do not exist for stakeholders to communicate and most of the concerned Hmong herders did not receive formal education. A multi-level collaborative modelling and simulation methodology was tested to mitigate the land use conflict between local herders and public foresters.

## 2 Materials and methods

Main successive phases and their key characteristics

1. Combined on-farm diagnostic surveys were carried out at the field (to understand biomass dynamics), farm (to assess the diversity of types of production systems and their respective importance of the cattle rearing sub-system), and landscape (to assess heterogeneity and recent change in land use) levels. This information was used to initiate a Companion modelling (ComMod) process (Barnaud *et al.* 2008).

2. Interactive diagrammatic conceptual modelling with pictograms to facilitate knowledge integration was used to produce a key vegetation state transition diagram describing vegetation dynamics influenced by human activities. 3. The conceptual model was implemented as a role-playing game (RPG): gaming board conceived as an abstract output of the land use change analysis; two gaming sessions played with stakeholders to enrich and validate the model, calibrate the RPG, and facilitate communication between herders and foresters.

4. Identification of stakeholders preferred land use scenario for both technical improvement of cattle rearing and tree plantation. Implementation of a computer agent-based model (ABM) "playing the game" *in silico* to simulate these proposed management options. Participatory simulations of options by this ABM and results were used to feed the negotiation between the two parties. Integration of new stakeholders and kinds of knowledge (technical expert, administrators) was needed to design a joint action plan and to build trust.

5. Out-scaling of lessons learned by participating herders to the whole village community with the co-designed ABM tool. Participatory use of the ABM for herder to herder training to share lessons learned.

7. Use of a monitoring-evaluation system based on a log book (xls file) to assess (including quantitatively) the process effects on communication, knowledge sharing, stakeholders' creativity and adaptive capacity.

## 3 Results and discussion

The first phase of the process focusing on co-constructing a representation of the agro-ecosystem facilitated knowledge (empirical, expert and scientific) elicitation and integration about vegetation cover dynamics influenced by cattle grazing: new pictograms of key vegetation states were added to the diagram proposed by the research team (Dumrongrojwatthana *et al.* 2011a) at the request of stakeholders.

The second round of gaming sessions was witnessed by new stakeholders (officials, technical support from the livestock extensionist) to build trust. A new livestock rearing system was designed based on *Brachiaruziziensis* artificial pastures planted on land provided by foresters (figure 1). It included a collective management of grazing cattle (provided by herders) as suggested by the results of participatory ABM simulations used to quantitative ly assess the effects of various options on animal husbandry and economic indicators chosen with the participants.

<footnote n="1"><sup>1</sup> Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330, Thailand</footnote>

<footnote n="2"><sup>2</sup> CIRAD, UR Green, 34398 Montpellier Cedex 5, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3"><sup>3</sup> CIRAD, UMR Innovation, 34398 Montpellier Cedex 5, France</footnote>

<footnote>* Speaker</footnote>

<footnote>± Corresponding author:</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_168.png" /><figcaption>**Fig.1.** Stakeholders' interaction in the second round of gaming session and example of the ABM interface during a simulation displaying the land use heterogeneity and cattle grazing on *Brachiaruziziensis* pastures.</figcaption></figure>

Herder to herder training supported by the computer ABM was used to out-scale the process, to facilitate the transfer of experience acquired by the participating herders, to promote a shared understanding of the proposed innovation, and to stimulate a collective engagement to respect the agreed-upon experimental protocol for the intensification of cattle rearing at the village scale. Trust building among stakeholders was an important outcome of the process, as well as procedures for out- and up-scaling such processes relying on the ABM tool. Figure 2 shows the intensity of exchanges among the different categories of participating stakeholders in the process. More than 40% of the time was used to elicit and share empirical knowledge (Dumrongrojwatthana et al. 2011b).

<figure><img src="image_169.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2.** Social network diagram displaying the communication and the kinds of knowledge shared among the participants during the whole process.</figcaption></figure>

## 4 Conclusions

The lack of formal education among herders was not an obstacle to their participation because this constraint was well-taken into account when designing the collaborative modelling methodology. For such a process to succeed, a supporting policy environment is crucial to facilitate successful bottom-up design of farming systems and their subsequent experimentation in the field.

## References

* Barnaud C., Trébuil G., Dumrongrojwatthana P., Marie J. 2008. Area Study Prior to Companion Modelling to Integrate Multiple Interests in Upper Watershed Management of Northern Thailand. In: Southeast Asian Studies, 45 (4): 559-585.

* Dumrongrojwatthana P., Le Page C., Gajaseni N., Trébuil G. 2011a. Co-constructing an agent-based model to mediate land use conflict between herders and foresters in northern Thailand. In: Journal of Land Use Science, 6 (2): 101-120. doi: 10.1080/1747423X.2011.558596

* Dumrongrojwatthana, P. and Trébuil G. 2011b. Gaming and simulation for co-learning and collective action; companion modelling for collaborative landscape management between herders and foresters. In: van Paassen A., van den Berg J., Steinggrover E., Werkman R. & Pedroli B. (eds). *Knowledge in action: The search for collaborative research for sustainable landscape development*. Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands. 191-219.
# Improving the livelihood of rural communities and natural resource management in the mountains of the Maghreb countries of Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia

Mohamed Moussaoui*±<fnref n="1" />, Mohammed Elmourid<fnref n="2" /> Salah Chouaki<fnref n="3" />, Rachid Mrabet<fnref n="4" />, Rachidi Youssef Lalaoui<fnref n="5" /> & Mohamed Elloumi<fnref n="6" />

## 1 Introduction

Mountain regions in the Maghreb countries of Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia cover about 25 million ha and have a significant share of the populations in those countries (20%, 30%, and 10%, respectively) (ICARDA et al., 2003). Yet, despite their social and economic importance, those regions have lagged behind lowland areas, both in terms of appropriate development and research as well. It is only after International Year of the Mountains was celebrated in 2002 that some efforts were deployed by national and international institutions. It was clearly understood that increasing the yields of low-value subsistence crops was not to raise the incomes of small-farmer families sufficiently to lift them out of poverty. Instead, efforts must be deployed to introduce higher-value products in the farming systems, harness local knowledge and product attributes to provide mountain inhabitants with a diversified suite of options and an economic competitive advantage. To address these issues, the national agricultural research systems (NARSs) of Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia joined hands with ICARDA (International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas) and SDC (Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation) to develop and implement a 3-year SDC-Maghreb Mountains (SDC-MM) Project, titled "Improving the Livelihoods of Rural Communities and Natural Resource Management in the Mountains of the Maghreb Countries of Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia". The Project therefore sought to identify and generate technical, institutional and policy options to improve agricultural production systems in mountainous regions with the ultimate goal of alleviating poverty, while preserving the natural resources in those areas. ICARDA coordinated the Project throughout the 3-year period of 2004-2006 (ICARDA et al., 2007).

## 2 Materials and Methods

SDC-MM Project adopted a community-based participatory approach where stakeholders are involved in the planning, implementation and monitoring of the project versus a top down, commodity/product approach. While initially conceived based on the 'sustainable intensification' concept, the project was implemented according to the 'sustainable livelihood approach' (SLA), which is centered on people, and on the poor in particular, as promoted by the Department for International Development (DFID, 1999) and improved, later on, by international Fund for Agricultural Development (Hamilton-Peach & Townsley, 2005) and other organizations.

During the first year, work teams from the three countries identified 4 pilot mountain sites, one in Algeria at the community of Ighil Ali, near Bejaia in northwestern Algeria, two in Morocco one of which at the community of Anougal in High Atlas in the vicinity of Marrakech and the other at the community of Ait Bazza in the Middle Atlas near Fès, and the fourth site at the community of Ouled Helal, near Ain Draham, in northwestern Tunisia. National and regional workshops were held to bring together all stakeholders with involvement or interest in mountain issues and development including communities, government institutions, local institutions, NGOs, national development projects in the target areas, along with research and development (R&D) teams. In addition to informing the communities and other stakeholders of the nature and objectives of the SDC-MM Project, the R&D teams validated the pilot site identification with the communities, and proceeded and completed the diagnosis work, in full participation with the communities and other stakeholders, using SLA tools learned through a training workshop specifically organized for this purpose. A complete database was built that included all required information on the target mountain sites, encompassing geography, natural resources status and use, agricultural systems, and socio-economical features of households and communities. The information was processed, analyzed and discussed with the communities and other stakeholders during the second year of the project, following which an action plan was drafted, restituted to the community and validated for implementation during the third and final year of the project. Although the communities' expectations were broader, only a selected number of options could be tested during that year, leaving the investigations of more complex - yet very important - options to an anticipated second phase of the project. The community-validated

<footnote n="1">¹ Agricultural economist consultant, International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), Rabat, Morocco</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Mohammed El Mourid, Regional Coordinator North Africa, ICARDA, Tunis, Tunisia</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Département d'Agronomie, Institut National de Recherche Agronomique d'Algérie (INRAA), El-Harrach, Algérie</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Division scientifique, Institut National de Recherche Agronomique (INRA), Rabat, Morocco</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ Service de Recherche et Développement, Institut National de Recherche Agronomique (INRA), Centre de Marrakech, Morocco</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ Département de Socio-économie, Institut National de Recherche Agronomique de Tunisie (INRAT), Tunis, Tunisia</footnote>

<footnote>* Speaker</footnote>

<footnote>± Corresponding author: moussaouim90@yahoo.fr</footnote>
action plan included investigations on policies and household economics, sustainable intensification of mountain agricultural systems, and) promotion of agricultural mountain products.

## 3 Results - Discussion

Despite the rather short span of the project, significant achievements were to notice that helped identifying diverse potential entry points to livelihood enhancement and diversification. First of all was the huge amount of critical background knowledge and empirical information that was collected relative to natural resources characteristics (soil & water, and medicinal & herbal plants), local genetic resources, farming systems dynamics and potential and limits of conventional agriculture intensification processes.

Practical assessments revealed promising options to improve communities and households productive assets. These options were (i) diversification into high value and labeled products (Moussaoui & El Mourid, 2005) such as fresh vegetables (green peas & beans, potatoes) and special products (Saffron: Crocus), (ii) promoting livestock products processing and transformation (dairy in bee keeping, wool handicrafts) and (iii) adoption of interesting technological innovation packages in micro irrigation systems and in fruit trees production management (nutrition, plant protection, improved trimming techniques).

On the contrary, there were many technical, organizational and institutional constraints to improving local products marketing chains such as highly atomistic productions, lack of farmers organization, poor road infrastructure (in the case of Anougal site) and quasi absence of any significant channel, all of which result in high level of marketing transaction costs and middlemen and retailers market power (Buerli & al., 2006). However, on the social side, the Project underlined existing potential to benefit from the effective role of local enabling organizations and development projects, which requires improvement and capacity building in various aspects: visioning skills, strategic planning and project management capacity, democratic representation and empowerment. Good progress in this instance will help also in implementing identified paths for women economic empowerment (handicrafts; home-based paprika processing). Finally, findings emphasized the critical contribution of deliberate public intervention to reducing context vulnerability (severe destructive floods), improving road infrastructures to reduce currently high transaction costs, enabling effective access to micro-credit and market opportunities and assisting in devising appropriate new technologies.

## 4 Conclusions

The adoption of SLA proved efficient, as a set of ‘high-yielding methodologies’, in better integrating and targeting project objectives and in getting higher involvement of local communities as full partners in the design and implementation and evaluation of negotiated R&D action plans.

Project results highlight the contribution of SDC-MM in identifying appropriate entry points to promoting mountain agricultural production systems that alleviate poverty while preserving the limited natural resource base. Yet, the testing and validation of identified technical, institutional, and policy options - some of which have been tested one year but others have not - required more years to enable drawing sound and verifiable conclusions, that would lead to assuring the communities of a comfortable level of self reliance and wellbeing. Fortunately, later on and at present, many of the field work outputs have been introduced into several development projects as was the case of two newer IFAD Projects in Morocco (Royaume du Maroc, 2011, 2014).

*Acknowledgements.* Authors are willing to thank all team members of the SDC-MM Project as well as associated community farmers in the four study sites of Ighil Ali (Algeria), Ait Bazza and Anougal (Morocco) and Ouled Helal (Tunsia). Efforts deployed by ICARDA scientific committee and SDC contribution are also acknowledged as well as national development agencies high involvement.

## References

Buerli, M., Aw-Hassan, A. &. Lalaoui, R.Y. (2006). Institutions compensate for lack of infrastructure to access markets: Evidence from the Moroccan High Atlas. International Symposium “Towards sustainable livelihoods and ecosystems in mountainous regions”, 7-9 March 2006, Chiang Mai, Thailand.

DFID. Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. DFID (1999), London. www.livelihoods.org/info/info_guidancesheets.html#6.

Hamilton-Peach, J., & Townsley, P. (2005) An IFAD sustainable livelihoods approach. http://ifad.org/sla/frameWORK/index.htm.

ICARDA, INRA-Morocco, INRA Algeria & INRA Tunisia. (2007). Terminal Report of the Project on "Improving the Livelihoods of Rural Communities and Natural Resource Management in the Mountains of the Maghreb Countries of Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia".

Moussaoui M. & El Mourid M. (2005). La valorisation des produits de montagne entre les signes de qualité et la marque commerciale. Communication, Séminaire ‘Développement durable des zones de montagne’. Rabat, 1-2 Décembre 2005.

Royaume du Maroc (2011). Projet de développement de filières agricoles dans les zones montagneuses de la province d'AL-Haouz (PDFAZMA) Rapport Principal, FIDA, Rome.

Royaume du Maroc (2014) Projet de développement rural dans le Moyen Atlas Oriental (PDRMO), FIDA, Rapport de supervision – Mission du 2 au 15 mars 2014.
# To mulch or to munch? Modelling the benefits and trade offs in the use of crop residues in Kenya

D Rodriguez *±1*, P deVoil <fnref n="1" />, M Herrero <fnref n="2" />, M. Odendos <fnref n="3" />, B Power <fnref n="2" />, M Rufino <fnref n="4" /> & MT van Wijk <fnref n="5" />

## 1 Introduction

In low-income countries from Sub Saharan Africa crop residues are a valuable household resource i.e. livestock feed, energy source, or sold in the market. Quantifying the benefits and trade-offs from these alternative uses has been high in the agenda of those interested in the sustainability and food security of smallholder farming. However, so far the existing diversity in farmers levels of endowment and sources of livelihoods, and the lack of dynamic and integrative analysis tools to quantify benefits and trade-offs from alternative farming systems designs, made answering what practices, tactics and strategies?, suit what situation?, a rather cumbersome exercise. Here we present the results from simulations with a new whole farm model (APSFarm-LivSim) used to quantify the benefits and trade-offs from the alternative uses of crop residues across the diversity of households from eastern and western Kenya. Interfacing the model with a database of a household survey allowed us to parameterise and simulate each of the 600 households in the survey. This is a significant methodological improvement over previous attempts that only modelled single case study farms instead of populations of households and their representativeness across a whole country.

## 2 Materials and Methods

We used data from an extensive and homogeneous household survey collected by theSIMLESAprogram (http://aciar.gov.au/page/simlesa-program), across two contrasting agro-ecologies in Kenya to (i) describe the diversity of levels of resource endowment among farmers, and (ii) parameterise a newly developed whole farm model to quantify the benefits and trade-offs from alternative managements of crop residues in mixed cropping and livestock smallholder farms. The whole farm model was derived from linking the APSFarm (Rodriguez et al., 2011) and LivSim (Rufino et al., 2009) models. Multivariate statistics were used to classify households into household typologies. Then the APSFarm- LivSim model was used to simulate all 600 households in the household survey (Fig. 1) over 30 years of available climate records. The model was run on a 200-core computer cluster for two simple treatments i.e. present residue management as in the baseline survey, and keeping crop residues as mulch on maize crops. Model outputs included measures of livestock and crop production as well as indicators of environmental impact. Changes from adopting residue retention practices were represented as changes in livestock bodyweight and soil erosion. Modelled results are presented for all the farms in each region, and for different household types.

<figure><img src="image_170.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Map of the distribution of the surveyed farms in western and eastern Kenya (n=600), on a map showing a food insecurity index. The size of the circles indicates the number of households surveyed per village.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_171.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** Heat map showing the diversity of household socio-economic characteristics across eastern (clusters E1, E2 and E3) and western (clusters W1, W2 and W3) Kenya. The intensity of red indicates the relative distribution of values for each characteristic. Groups of typologies were named according to their relative concentration of</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="1">¹ Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation (QAAFII), The University of Queensland, Australia</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² CSIRO, Brisbane Australia</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Kenyan Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), Kakamega, Kenya</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ CIFOR, Indonesia</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ ILRI, Costa Rica</footnote>

<footnote>* Speaker</footnote>

<footnote>± Corresponding author: d.rodriguez@uq.edu.au</footnote>
## 3 Results – Discussion

Three types of households were identified in each region based on the diversity in levels of endowment and sources of livelihood (Fig. 2). Most of the differences between household types shown in Fig. 2 were statistically significant, indicating large diversity in household levels of endowment and sources of livelihoods. Density plots (Figure 3) showed a large diversity of simulated responses across regions and household types. When all the farms in the survey are plotted together (Figure 3a in Western and Eastern Kenya), keeping crop residues as mulch on maize crops reduced soil erosion by up to -20 and -10%, in Western and Eastern Kenya, respectively. Livestock body weight varied from +10 to -30%, both in Western and Eastern Kenya, respectively. Though most farms i.e. the highest concentration of households in the density plot (green areas), had a -10% and -5% reduction in soil erosion in the wetter (Western) and drier (Eastern) regions, respectively, and no trade-off or bodyweight loss was observed. In the wetter Western Kenya region no trade-offs were observed across the different household types. For the drier Eastern Kenya region, differences were evident between poorly and better endowed households. In the better-endowed households where livestock keeping was an important component of the farming system i.e. TLU>3 (Figure 1c and d in Eastern Africa) showed larger trade-offs between reductions in soil erosion and bodyweight change.

<figure><img src="image_172.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Density plots of simulated trade-offs between livestock bodyweights and soil erosion for each farm from western Kenya and eastern Kenya when crop residues were kept as mulch on maize fields. Simulations are shown for all the farms in each region (a), and when households were grouped according to an analysis of household typologies (b to d). TLU indicates the mean number of tropical livestock units in each household type. The colour scale indicates the density of household i.e. green (blue) showing the highest (lowest) concentration of households.</figcaption></figure>

## 4 Conclusions

We conclude that (i) due to the large diversity in farmers levels of endowment and sources of livelihoods it is highly unlikely that single interventions will suit the large diversity of constraints and opportunities; (ii) as shown in the example above the use of crop residues as mulches in maize cropping is likely to affect differently households from different agro-ecologies and households having different levels of specialization in livestock keeping; and (iii) that the integration of socio-economic and biophysical approaches provides the opportunity to quantify benefits and trade-offs from alternative interventions and farming systems designs in agriculture development programs.

*Acknowledgements.* This research is part of the Sustainable Intensification of Maize and Legume cropping Systems in Eastern and Southern Africa (SIMESA) funded by the Australian Centre for International Agriculture Research (ACIAR)

## References

Dorward A., Anderson S., Nava Bernal Y., Sanchez Vera E., Rushton J., Pattison J., Paz R. (2009) Hanging in, stepping up and stepping out: livelihood aspirations and strategies of the poor. Dev. in Practice, 19,2, 240-247.

Rodriguez D., deVoil P., Power B., Crimp S., Meinke H. (2011). The intrinsic plasticity of farm businesses and their resilience to change. Field Crops Research 124, 157-170

Rufino M.C., Herrero M., Van Wijk M. T., Hemerik L., De Ridder N., Giller K.E. (2009) Lifetime productivity of dairy cows in smallholder farming systems of the Central highlands of Kenya. Animal 3:7, 1044–1056.
# VALORIZATION OF SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN THE FARM BASED SMALL ECONOMY

Katharina E. Diehl *±<fnref n="1" />*, Bettina König <fnref n="2" /> & Shadi K. Hamadeh <fnref n="3" />

## 1 Introduction

The interplay of market development, sector strategies, local natural conditions, and political frameworks in agriculture has led to farm management practices that in sum exceed the limits of global natural resources capacities (Knudsen et al., 2006; Rockström et al., 2009). Producers and processors in the agriculture and food sectors are increasingly sensitive to these unintended side effects. Approaches for sustainability-led changes in production, however, often fail to appropriate the value created for a long term establishment in the market. Previous studies building on resource based theories suggest that competitive advantage in changing environments is determined by employing dynamic and entrepreneurial capabilities rather than by valuable, rare or inimitable resources (Newbert, 2007; Alvarez & Busenitz, 2001; Porter, 1985). An assessment of resources combinations for responsible innovations in small and medium enterprises shows a need for new business models that source from collaboration in multi-actor networks (Halme & Korpela, 2013). The objective of this study is to compare land conservation and product oriented strategies by analyzing entrepreneurial approaches in two agricultural production systems with distinct elements of production and processing as well as impacts on social and environmental welfare. Based on a literature review and an analysis of stakeholder heuristics we propose a methodology for a resources-based evaluation of production changes for sustainable land management at farm level.

## 2 Materials and Methods

Two case studies were selected for analysis and case comparison: 1. extensive pasture management, and 2. Dual purpose poultry production. Both case studies were selected for their introduction of changes in agricultural production via innovative management measures. These included the use of biomass from extensive pastures for small-scale thermal production, and the use of traditional breeds for mixed and ethical production of meat and eggs in poultry. For each case study we conducted an on-site inspection with local stakeholders in Brandenburg, Germany. This was followed by a transdisciplinary focus group workshop with experts from practice, and a workshop for reflection with researchers from different fields of sustainability science. Expertise included process and production management, impact assessment, perception analysis, governance, knowledge management, marketing, and business analysis.

In Fig. 1 we propose an analytical frame to link the resources-based perspective with farm performance and impact assessment for an analysis of valorisation strategies for innovative sustainable land management practices. In order to assess farm performance and the underlying factors of competitive advantage we translated a set of theoretical conditions from Alvarez & Busenitz (2001) into practice-oriented aspects that were compared across case studies. An overview is included in table 1 in the results section.

<figure><img src="image_173.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1.** Analytical frame for assessing valorisation strategies for sustainable land management</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="1">¹ Institute of Socio-Economics, Leibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF)</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Albrecht Daniel Thaer-Institut für Agrar- und Gartenbauwissenschaften, Humboldt University of Berlin (HUB)</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Department of Agriculture, Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences, American University of Beirut (AUB)</footnote>

<footnote>* Speaker</footnote>

<footnote>± Corresponding author: diehl@zalf.de</footnote>
## 3 Results – Discussion

Valorisation of innovative sustainable land management practices was found to be challenged by quantity effects in the implementation of new measures as well as in production and marketing. Positive impacts at a landscape level depend on coordinated and overlapping strategies (e.g. in value creation or marketing), exploitation of existing structures (e.g. value chains or management plans), and interaction between stakeholder groups previously unrelated in production practice. This in turn requires cooperations that’s a feguard synergies and intangible assets, as well as access and use rights of bio-physical or other tangible resources. In the case of extensive pasture management, loss of agricultural land area due to trade-offs between sectors posed one main challenge at farm level. In the case of poultry production, quantity effects due to economies of scale in implementation, production and marketing hindered optimal valorisation (« too big to ignore, too small to be »). Table 1 gives an overview of both cases.

<table><caption>Table 1. Comparison of valorisation strategies following a land conservation approach and a product oriented approach</caption><thead><tr><td>Theoretical condition</td><td>Practice-oriented aspect</td><td>Extensive pasture management</td><td>Dual purpose poultry production</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Sustainable business practice</td><td>Described change in production management as manifestation of the sustainable product</td><td>Use of biomass for on-farm thermal power production</td><td>Use of traditional breeds for mixed ethical production</td></tr><tr><td>Entrepreneurial recognition</td><td>Underlying information, motivation or understanding that triggered the change in production</td><td>Site-adequate management is phased out in the absence of profitable utilization of traditional cultivation practices.</td><td>An increase of large-scale entities has led to a specialization in meat or egg production. Coupled production considers ethical and breed diversity issues.</td></tr><tr><td>Process of combining and organising resources</td><td>Activities or knowledge integrated in order to achieve a new combination of resources</td><td>Coordination between stakeholders from agriculture, tourism and nature conservation to prevent loss of surface area for sectoral valorization of land use</td><td>Coordination between stakeholders along the value chain to prevent failure due to economies of scale</td></tr><tr><td>Resource heterogeneity</td><td>Type of resources necessary to achieve the change</td><td>Coordinated management of land ownership and use rights</td><td>Synergies with other existing value chains</td></tr><tr><td>Ex post limits to competition</td><td>Activities or external factors that achieve competitive advantage as compared to similar products</td><td>Achievement of a region-specific unique selling proposition that is recognized by tourists and visitors</td><td>Achievement of a sector niche that is recognized by consumers</td></tr><tr><td>Imperfect resource mobility</td><td>Activities that support safeguarding of resources for the production process</td><td>Additional external funding for conservation management based on public regional development strategies</td><td>Fixed prices and purchase obligations based on contractual arrangements with a strategic marketing partner</td></tr><tr><td>Ex ante limits to competition</td><td>Activities or external factors that can sustain competitive advantage</td><td>Pooling of land is linked with regional development plans and nature conservation strategies</td><td>A set of production criteria that is based on organic farming practices</td></tr></tbody></table>

Previous tools for assessing the sustainability of farming systems have differentiated between farm-focused sustainability and extended sustainability to capture relevant environmental, economic and social aspects of sustainable management practices in agriculture (Terrier et al., 2013; Ghadban et al., 2013). The resources-based perspective applied in this study was tested to incorporate the entrepreneurial perspective of the stakeholders involved.

## 4 Conclusions

Entrepreneurial stakeholders encounter different challenges in their strategic approaches. Both the land conservation approach and the product-oriented approach, however, required interaction between stakeholders in order to overcome characteristic resources-based limitations to achieving competitive advantage.

*Acknowledgements.* This study was part of the «Transdisciplinary innovation groups for developing and implementing innovative system solutions for sustainable land management». Financial support was provided by the German Ministry for Education and Research within the programme «Research for Sustainability» (No. 033L145AN). We thank all project partners for the stimulating discussion and for sharing insight from practice.

## References

Alvarez, S.A. & L.W. Busenitz (2001). The entrepreneurship of the resource-based theory. *Journal of Management* 27, 755-775.

Ghadban, E., Talhouk, S., Chedid, M. & S.K. Hamadeh (2013). Adapting a European sustainability model to a local context in semi-arid areas of Lebanon. In: Marta-Costa, A.A. & E. Silva (eds.) (2013). Methods and Procedures for Building Sustainable Farming Systems. Springer, 2013.

Halme, M. & M. Korpela (2013). Responsible innovation toward sustainable development in small and medium-sized enterprises: a resource perspective. *Business Strategy and the Environment* 23 (8), 547-566.

Knudsen, M.T., Halberg, N., Oleson, J.E., Byrne, J., Iyer, V. & N. Toly (2006). Global trends in agriculture and food systems. In: Halberg, N., Alrøe, H.F., Knudsen, M.T., & E.S. Kristensen (eds.): Global development of organic agriculture: Challenges and prospects. CABI Publishing, 1-48.

Newbert, S.L. (2007). Empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm: an assessment and suggestions for future research. *Strategic Management Journal* 28, 121-146.

Porter, M.E. (1985). Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. The Free Press, New York, 1985. Rockström, J. et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. *Nature* 461, 472-475.

Terrier, M., Gasselin, P. and Le Blanc J. (2013). Assessing the Sustainability of Activity Systems to Support Households' Farming Projects. In: Marta-Costa, A.A. & E. Silva (eds.) (2013). Methods and Procedures for Building Sustainable Farming Systems. Springer, 2013.
# Innovation, knowledge management and researchers' postures: exploring their linkages for improving the performance of innovation platforms

Aurélie Toillier *$^{±1,2}$, Bernard Triomphe $^{1}$, Der Dabire $^{2}$, Syndhia Mathé $^{1}$, Francois Ruf $^{1}$, Koutou Mahamoudou $^{2}$ & Ludovic Temple $^{1}$

## 1 Introduction

Multistake holders innovation platforms (IPs) are increasingly used by research and development (R&D) initiatives to actively facilitate social and economic changes in developing countries. In the agricultural innovation systems thinking (Klerkks et al. 2012), IPs aim at strengthening the capacity to innovate throughout the agricultural production and marketing system thanks to the creation of spaces where to share and discuss ideas, listen and learn, think and talk, and collaborate. Knowledge and learning issues are central to IPs. However, scientists often wear multiple hats when intervening in IPs, such as facilitators, coordinators, experts or even evaluators. This raises questions about their legitimacy, skills and efficiency in being able to perform such diverse roles and functions, and about the possibility for them to produce generic and useful knowledge for supporting the learning processes that underlie innovation. While much has been discussed on how best to organize IP, choose stakeholders, distribute roles and tasks and plan each step (Kilelu et al., 2013), less is known about how and why learning processes and knowledge should be managed. Hall & Andriani (2003) showed that depending on the nature of innovation, knowledge gaps to be filled differ. And this in turn influences the nature of the knowledge transformation processes to be managed. Lopez-Nicolas & Merono-Cerdán (2011) showed that knowledge management (KM) strategies affect innovation and performance through an increase of stakeholders' innovation capability. But these relationships are not well-understood yet. In this paper, we propose to explore these relationships, between innovation and knowledge management, in order to propose a knowledge-based view of the performance of IPs, with a particular emphasis on the ability of researchers to face KM challenges.

## 2 Materials and Methods

This paper synthesizes a comparative analysis of six IPs set up at different times between 2000 and nowadays in West Africa (CORAF OID, ABACO, CCV ferti, CARBAP), Meso America (ASOSID) and the Mediterranean area (Aquamed MSHP). The six case studies represent a wide diversity of IPs with regards to their general aim (e.g. improve productivity and competitiveness, transfer and adaptation of agricultural technologies, improve the innovation system itself), the main drivers of innovation (e.g. solution-driven, value chains approach-based, issue-driven), scales of intervention (local, regional, national) and researchers' roles. Each case study was described regarding i) main innovation features and knowledge gaps; ii) types of learning processes that were supported and the knowledge management strategies used to overcome knowledge gaps; iii) researchers' posture and implication in the knowledge management process. We developed a comprehensive framework that integrates three research streams: learning, knowledge management and innovation to test the relationships between IPs functioning, knowledge management and researchers' postures. Data for this analysis included reports, publications and other outputs from IPs, as well as personal experience and reflexive analysis. Analyses were carried out at the aggregate level (not individuals) in order to highlight pervasive features and common issues between case studies.

## 3 Results – Discussion

We distinguished four roles for KM, associated to different key perspectives of “knowledge” seen either as a process grounded in learning cycles, a tool to structure stakeholders gathering, or a commodity to be transferred (tab.1). The role given to KM and the way researchers involved in the IPs functioning conceptualized the relationships between knowledge system and innovation process appears to be well correlated (fig.1). No links exist however with the features of targeted innovation or knowledge gaps to be filled. Researchers’ postures changed overtime, as a consequence of the growing awareness of the role of multiple knowledge sources in innovation processes, the importance of situated learning for the production of useful knowledge and the existence of distributed knowledge systems. In practice it led researchers to ensure a growing responsibility in the support of innovation process and a stronger commitment to stakeholders to achieve the expected results. Nevertheless, the principles of complexity and emergence remained difficult to put into practice, apparently because of increasing tensions due to the multiple hats researchers wear. Different KM strategies co-existed within some innovation platform, reflecting difficulties to effectively switch from a KM perspective (knowledge as commodities) to another (knowledge as a process embedded in organizational

<footnote n="1">1 UMR Innovation, CIRAD, Institute, Faculty, University</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2 UR-PAN, CIRDES</footnote>

<footnote>* Speaker</footnote>

<footnote>± Corresponding author: aurelie.toillier@cirad.fr</footnote>
processes). For instance, decision-support tools are still widely used in the different IPs, reflecting an eagerness to disseminate knowledge possessed by researchers with an epistemology of commodification of knowledge. Some authors suggest that the lack of tools dedicated to the facilitation of learning processes could explain gaps between intention and action in IPs. Our results did not give insights into the influence of KM strategies on innovation. They raised question on the capacity of researchers to operationalise KM concepts for agricultural innovation, so that their approaches and methods become more in line with innovation features, knowledge gaps to be filled in each situation and stakeholders' learning needs.

<table><caption>**Table 1.** Knowledge management approaches, learning issues and researchers' postures associated to innovation processes in innovation platforms</caption><thead><tr><th>Role of KM</th><th>Key perspective</th><th>Learning issues</th><th>Researchers 'postures</th><th>Drawbacks</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Structure stakeholders gathering and strengthen communication processes that would result into new practices, standards, knowledge</td><td>Knowledge sharing between organizations</td><td>Create a shared vision and knowledge on innovation issues</td><td><strong>Translator-researcher</strong><br>Involved in the mobilization and enrolment of stakeholders in order to create a network able to support innovation process</td><td>Role of « safeguard », responsible for IP functioning and innovation outcomes<br>Strong commitment to stakeholders</td></tr><tr><td>Achieve learning cycles (knowledge explicitation, conceptualization, socialization, practice)</td><td>Knowledge process embedded in organizational processes<br>People centric and Practice-based Co-learning</td><td>Transform stakeholders know-how, routines, or perspectives</td><td><strong>Entrepreneur-researcher</strong> Posture of partner and co-designer of the innovations, which requires capacities to stimulate a demand, make the understanding of innovation issues evolve, influence strategies of the innovation stakeholders</td><td>Difficulties to produce generic knowledge due to controversies on legitimate knowledge to be used for action.<br>Risk to produce knowledge to justify the action itself</td></tr><tr><td>Knowledge creation and dissemination</td><td rowspan="2">Knowledge as commodities</td><td rowspan="2">Produce standard knowledge aiming at minimizing risks and uncertainties</td><td rowspan="2"><strong>Expert-researcher</strong><br>Posture of knowledge producer</td><td rowspan="2">Unfocused or useless knowledge due to incomplete vision of the innovation processes and stakeholders' learning needs<br>Risk to produce knowledge to justify the action itself<br>Space for individual values and ideology.</td></tr><tr><td>Knowledge dissemination and application</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_174.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1.** Correlation between the evolution of the understanding of AKIS (agricultural knowledge and innovation system) and the dominant role given to knowledge management in innovation platforms.</figcaption></figure>

## 4 Conclusions

While IPs are very diverse in practice with respect to their structure or their objectives, knowledge and learning issues are at the heart of their functioning in multiple ways. Taking into account KM issues associated with innovation could help IP stakeholders to better define research needs and researchers' roles and could contribute to increase the performance of IPs. For this to happen, more attention should be paid to the development of R&D projects which test the efficiency of different KM approaches on innovation processes.

## References

* Hall R. & Andriani P. 2003. Managing knowledge associated with innovation. *Journal of Business Research* 56 (2003) 145-152

* Klerkx, L., van Mierlo, B., Leeuwis, C., 2012. Evolution of systems approaches to agricultural innovation: concepts, analysis and interventions, in Darnhofer, I., Gibbon D., and B. Dedieu (eds.), *Farming Systems Research into the 21st Century: The New Dynamic*, Springer Science, Dordrecht

* Kilelu C. Klerkks L., Leeuwis C. (2013) Unravelling the role of innovation platforms in supporting co-evolution of innovation: Contributions and tensions in a smallholder dairy development programme. *Agricultural Systems* 118 (2013) 65-77

* López-Nicolás C., Merono-Cerdán A.L., 2011. Strategic knowledge management, innovation and performance. *International Journal of Information Management* 31 (2011) 502-509
# An innovative approach to simulating household adaptation and investment

David Parsons ±<fnref n="1" />, Arthur Masson <fnref n="2" />, Caroline Mohammed <fnref n="1" /> & Rohan Nelson <fnref n="1" />

## 1 Introduction

Facilitating transformational change in agricultural systems in response to high-uncertainty change is difficult. It requires a shift from a 'transfer of knowledge' approach to tools that emphasize collective learning, are co-designed with stakeholders, and are applied flexibly to assist the decision making process.

A small number of process-based simulation models have been developed to address questions at the whole farm scale (e.g. Rodriguez *et al.* 2006, Parsons *et al.* 2011, van Wijk *et al.* 2009, Lisson *et al.* 2010). These models can be used to simulate productivity and natural resource management outcomes, and to evaluate trade-offs between cropping and farming system options that affect profitability and productivity in the short and long term. However, while they provide detailed insights for the farming systems that they are parameterised for, parameterisation for new farming systems and applications is slow and costly. This is a characteristic of their bottom-up design, which represents whole-farm systems as aggregations of often field-scale components.

The current emphasis on detailed bottom-up design creates a niche for simulation models more readily adaptable to new applications at the whole-farm scale. The aim of this research was to develop models readily adaptable to the whole-farm trade-offs involved in intensifying agriculture through an expansion of irrigation in the midlands of Tasmania, Australia.

## 2 Materials and Methods

For application to agricultural intensification under irrigation we built a prototype model capable of simulating whole-farm trade-offs relating surrounding capital investment in irrigation equipment and the necessary transformational changes in farm management that accompany a shift to irrigation. Initially, a prototype modelling framework was developed as a desktop exercise, to assess whether a model of sufficient flexibility but adequate simulation utility could be built. This prototype modelling framework was then tested and further developed through a participatory process with stakeholders including farmers, agricultural advisors, and extension professionals. Both the desktop and participatory development stages involved identifying and describing model boundaries, decision points, feedbacks, and indicators that define the system.

The model building process focused on development of a simulation model at the whole-farm scale capable of analysing the impact of management options on the biophysical and economic trade-offs. Later stages of model development for new applications are expected to be participatory and iterative processes. For the prototyping process, stakeholders were consulted in order to understand how they perceived the farming system (and sub-sets of the system) to work. The modellers then built the model according to the information from the stakeholders, and presented it back to them for their testing and comment, stimulating further model development. The model was built in Vensim, an icon-based software package using differential equations.

## 3 Results – Discussion

The function of the model is centred around the consequences of enterprise choice and capital investment (Fig. 1). The model does not attempt to simulate household decision making. Instead, at a set of decision points the user of the model assesses information generated through the evolution of model variables (e.g. economic outputs). The user decides on enterprise and capital investment decisions (bolded in Fig. 1). Decisions interact with the current condition of the land, and with exogenous climatic and economic driving variables (italicised in Fig. 1).

Switches can be used to turn on/off system shocks (e.g. drought or price decline) and other model features (e.g. distributions of exogenous variables).

<footnote n="1">¹ School of Land and Food and Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture, University of Tasmania</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Ecole Nationale Supérieure d'Agronomie et des Industries Alimentaires</footnote>

<footnote>* Speaker</footnote>

<footnote>± Corresponding author: dparsons@utas.edu.au</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_175.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Model summary diagram</figcaption></figure>

## 4 Conclusions

The model is designed to be used to facilitate workshops to support discussion by farmers of management strategies for emerging issues. The initial model scenario concerns decision making in irrigated systems in the Tasmanian midlands, amidst potentially competing objectives. Questions will include 'How much additional investment should I make in irrigation, and what are the financial risks?' The focus is on the consequences of strategic decisions (e.g. investing in another pivot irrigator) rather than tactical decisions (e.g. timing of irrigation).

The model is a platform for joint learning among stakeholders and scientists about simulation models as tools for assisting farmers and key stakeholders in adapting to change. The prototype model has been developed and will be further refined through interactions with stakeholders. Through this process, stakeholders will explore the model and allow researchers to better incorporate farmer decision-making context and needs, and understand their capacity to respond to change.

*Acknowledgements*. Thanks to the stakeholders who contributed their time and understanding to contribute to model development and testing.

## References

Lisson, S., MacLeod, N., McDonald, C., Corfield, J., Pengelly, B., Wirajaswadi, L., Rahman, R., Bahar, S., Padjung, R., Razak, N., Puspadi, K., Dahlnuddin, Sutaryono, Y., Saenong, S., Panjaitan, T., Hadiawati, L., Ash, A., Brennan, L. (2010). A participatory, farming systems research approach to improving Bali cattle production in the smallholder crop-livestock systems of Eastern Indonesia. *Agricultural Systems* **103**, 486–497.

Parsons, D., Nicholson, C.F., Blake, R.W., Ketterings, Q.M., Ramírez-Aviles, L., Fox, D.G., Tedeschi, L.O., & Cherney, J.H. (2011). Development and evaluation of an integrated simulation model for assessing smallholder crop-livestock production in Yucatán, Mexico. *Agricultural Systems*, **104**(1), 1-12.

Rodriguez, D., DeVoil, P., Cox, H., Chudleigh, F., Conway, M., & Routley, R. (2006). APSFARM: a whole farm systems analysis of economic and environmental indicators of contrasting farm business strategies in Central Queensland. In *Proceedings 13th of the Australian Agronomy Conference*.

van Wijk, M.T., Tittonell, P., Rufino, M.C., Herrero, M., Pacini, C., de Ridder, N., & Giller, K.E. (2009). Identifying key entry-points for strategic management of smallholder farming systems in sub-Saharan Africa using the dynamic farm-scale simulation model NUANCES-FARMSIM. *Agricultural Systems*, **102**(1), 89-101.
# Small farm viability in Central America – can tools for smallholder decision-making play a key role?

Charles Staver *±1, Sandrine Freguin 2, Falguni Guharay 3, Martin Mena 3, Pablo Siles 3, Marie Turmel 1 & Rein van der Hoek 3

## 1 Introduction – Can small farm agroecological and business management be improved?

Traditionally small farms have faced complex resource allocation decisions of their scarce land, labor and financial capital to meet home consumption and income aspirations constrained by incomplete information access, including prices, and dependent on ecosystem services. With globalization and climate change, farm households also face stricter quality control and value chain certification, increasing environmental and business regulations, product and input price volatility, declining natural resource quality and increasing frequency of extreme weather events. Research and development organizations primarily address these decision challenges with single factor field-scale solutions – new varieties, agroforestry, crop diversification, IPM packages, value chain linkages, etc. In our own recent work on mixed crop – livestock – tree systems, we developed decision tools for coffee and banana pests, light partitioning in multi-strata systems and dry season feeding (e.g. Staver et al. 2014, Guharay et al. 2000). Farm households, each with their own array of resources and livelihood goals, face the challenge to evaluate alternatives from us and others and to decide how to reallocate resources to improve their farm enterprise. While diverse aspects of farm decision making have been studied (Kimi and Cameron 2013), whole enterprise management has seldom been the focus for small farm intensification (Alsos et al. 2011). When extension services address farmer management skills, they commonly focus on the improvement of input-output relations of specific production systems, a craftsman approach (Lans, Seuneke, Klerkx 2013) rather than on entrepreneurial decision tools for integrated farm intensification. Through the CGIAR Consortium Research Program Humid tropics which has a focus on integrated systems intensification, we began an initiative in Central Northern Nicaragua to develop small farm management tools applicable in three land use systems – coffee, cocoa and mixed annual food crops with cattle as a component of all three systems. We hypothesize that farm management and investment decisions can be improved through timely observation, recordkeeping, analysis and learning. This hypothesis is backed by studies from industry suggesting that management is a key element in business performance (Bloom, Sadun and Van Reenen 2012), although Barret, Carter and Timmer (2010) identify numerous external factors which affect farm household resource optimization in a complex and uncertain decision making environment with multiple livelihood goals and Pannell (2006) argues that response curves are relative flat in such an environment making gains from improved decision making minor. We propose that management tools should draw on three perspectives: 1) the farm as agroecosystemic structure and function organized in energy flows, nutrient and water cycles, food webs and biodiversity, 2) the farm as a livelihood system reflecting the interests, resources and social relations of household members and 3) the farm as a competitive enterprise in the market. In this paper we describe the approach and initial progress of a multi-phase effort with research and development partners and farmer organizations to prototype whole farm management tools for smallholders aimed toward integrated intensification.

## 2 Materials and Methods

Working in three different land use systems in Central Northern Nicaragua oriented towards either cocoa production (Waslala/Rancho Grande), coffee production (Jinotega/El Cua) or a mixed staple food crops and cattle (Esteli), we have initiated the following year by year approach to build a whole farm integrated management toolbox beginning with single field management tools:

1. Through learning alliances of rural development organizations, grower associations and research and education institutes in each land use zone, identify a small working group to assemble from experience and technical publications existing farmer-oriented observation and decision tools with a crop and cropping system approach;

2. With the small group, rework existing tools into a crop phase-based schedule of observation, scouting and monitoring taking into account soil and field conditions, crop density and vigor, presence of pest, disease and natural control mechanisms, labor and input use, involvement of household members in practices and decision-making, soil and weather conditions, etc. For each crop phase, key decisions in crop planning and practices are identified to be addressed with structured observations contributing to decisions to be made. Sampling strategies focusing on only a single aspect of production management such as pest scouting, nutrient status or fruit load were converted into a single sampling routine addressing the diverse aspects of integrated crop, pest and soil management

<footnote n="1">1. Bioversity International, Montpellier, France and Turrialba, Costa Rica</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2. CIRAD/Nitlapan, Managua, Nicaragua</footnote>

<footnote n="3">3. CIAT, Managua, Nicaragua</footnote>

<footnote>* Speaker</footnote>

<footnote>± Corresponding author: c.staver@cgiar.org</footnote>
and costs for input and labor use. Pretesting of the observation routine was completed by the small working group.

3. Testing by farmers and field organizations of the observation and decision-making routine over a full crop cycle with regular meetings among farmers and field technicians to analyze functionality of sampling routines, quality of data and contribution to decision-making and patterns by production system status across multiple fields;

4. Once the field observational routine was underway, design of data entry, storage and access system to make data available in real time both to each farm household and as big data to the participating field organizations;

5. In parallel to field testing, studies to map whole farm agroecosystem structure and related livelihoods of household members to farm and off-farm enterprises, information intended to guide a shift from a field to farm perspective;

6. Evaluation workshop of results of year one and planning for multi-field sampling by each household in year two responding to question whether the observation-for-decisions approach can be applied beyond a single field;

7. Testing by farm household and field organization in year two of proposed observation and decision-making routine with regular meeting to analyze functionality of sampling routines, quality of data and contribution to decision- making and factors in production system status across multiple fields;

8. Evaluation workshop of results of year two and planning for household scale framework combining 3-5 production enterprise formats complemented with data annotation and analysis of food security, income flows, off-farm ecosystem service flows and trade-offs and synergies in decisions on the use of scarce resources;

9. Year three prototyping by farm household and field organization of proposed observation and decision-making routine focusing on whole farm;

10. Based on three years of data from 50 fields by production enterprise, development of scenarios on extreme weather events, pest and disease outbreaks and input and crop price fluctuations and the potential for reduced risk and greater livelihood resilience through modifications in the combinations and management of farm enterprises;

11. Based on farm scale data base with household member livelihoods mapped to farm and off-farm enterprises and follow up studies on hired labor livelihood strategies, analysis of potential for gender transformational alternatives in allocation of farm resources and the impacts of farm intensification on livelihoods of hired farm labor.

## 3 Results – Discussion

To date in year one with three working groups, the process of assembling dispersed tools into a crop-based observation and decision making routine has been completed for three crop enterprises - coffee, cocoa, maize-bean annual crop rotation - and grazed cattle. For coffee, the integrated tool addresses a mixed multi-strata coffee system intercropped with bananas building on two major sources of tools (Guharay et al. 2000; Staver et al. 2014). Key decision moments during the annual crop cycle were identified, existing tools were reviewed and diverse scouting approaches were reworked into overlapping and multi-purpose formats. Data are noted onto paper formats, summed in the field and then later entered into a data base. For cocoa, the integrated tool draws on a thematic toolkit which has been converted into six observation moments (http://programs.lwr.org/cocoatoolkit/resources) during the annual crop cycle for an established plantation. Diverse aspects of shade, cocoa phenology and pest and disease status are noted during a single scouting procedure and entered into a hand-carried tablet. Collaborating growers (50 for each crop) and technicians (5 for each crop) from their growers' associations have planned a year-long routine of field visits and meetings to test the tool. A subsample of these same households will be surveyed to characterize the whole farm context as an agroecosystem and map livelihoods to diverse farm and off-farm activities.

## 4 Conclusions

The process of visioning and assembling an integrated observation and decision-making tool for single field management has provided insights into the potential for small farm intensification. Initial lessons suggest that the process serves as a platform to integrate the experience and perspectives of field organizations, researchers and value chain actors. Challenges in year one are anticipated around the compilation and analysis of data in real time and the documentation of insights into the whole farm context that appear in single field management. A rich exchange is anticipated through the learning alliances based on the parallel experiences generated in the three land use contexts.

## References

Alsos, G., Carter, S., Ljunggren, E., & Welter, F. (2011). Introduction. In The handbook of research on entrepreneurship in agriculture and rural development. Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar.

Barret, C., Carter, M., & Timmer, C. (2010). A century-long perspective of agricultural development. *American Journal of Agricultural Economics, **92*** (2), 447-468.

Bloom, N., Sadun, R., & Van Reenen, J. (2012). Does management really work?. *Harvard business review*, **90** (11), 76-82.

Guharay, F., Monterrey, J., Staver, C., & Monterroso, D. (2000). Manejo Integrado de Plagas en el Cultivo del Café. CATIE. Manuel Técnico No 44. Lans, T., Seuneke, P., & Klerkx, L. (2013). Agricultural Entrepreneurship. *Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship*. pp. 44-49.

Kimi, J., & Cameron, D. (2013). Typology of farm management decision-making research. *International Journal of Agricultural Management, **2*** (2), 81-90.

Pannell, D. (2006). Flat earth economics: The far-reaching consequences of flat payoff functions in economic decision making. *Review of Agricultural Economics, **28*** (4), 553-566.

Staver, C., Siles, P., Bustamente, O., Cerdan, C., Garming, H., Castellon, N., & Burkhardt, J. (2014). Can science contribute to smallholder management of complex systems? Lessons from agroecological intensification of multi-strata coffee with banana. Tropentag 2014 "Bridging the gap between the increasing knowledge and decreasing resources" 17-19 September, Prague, Czech Republic.
# OPENING THE BLACK BOX: INNOVATION PROCESS AND LOGICS OF FONCTIONING OF PEASANT FARMING SYSTEMS

Gonzalo Bravo *±1

## 1 Introduction

Goat milk production and cheese making is an activity typically linked to small family farms of Valles Calchaquíes (NW Argentine). These farming systems operate in isolated territories with a poor infrastructure and they are characterized by a low productivity, difficulties to access to productive resources, environmental fragility and limited bargaining capability (Piccolo et al., 2008). Groups of researchers and rural development agents work in the generation, adaptation and diffusion of different technologies aiming at improve goat milk productivity and its quality and in this way to contribute to enhance the sustainability of peasant farming systems. Research questions regarding the impact of innovations arise; that is: is innovation improving poor people wellbeing in a way that it is sustainable and it enhances the environment? The objectives of this study are to understand how the logics of functioning of peasant farming systems contribute in determining innovation processes and to think about the contribution of interdisciplinary research practices used to address this complexity (Boix Mansilla, 2006).

## 2 Materials and Methods

Information to characterize the diversity of peasant functioning logics of rural systems was collected by a survey to 54 farmers of three communities of Valles Calchaquíes: La Aguadita, Punta de Agua and Amblayo. The survey was structured in five principal axes: characteristics of the family group, characteristics of the production unit, productive process organization, family income composition and local networks insertion (Bravo, 1994). Statistical factorial correspondence analysis (ITCF, 1991) was applied to processed survey data. Interviews to actors (peasant farmers, development agents, researchers) included in the innovation process were made to know how they take part in the construction of this process. Participatory observation was used for understanding the research practices of interdisciplinary group (Beaud and Weber, 1998; Becker, 2011).

## 3 Results – Discussion

Three principal logics of functioning of peasant rural systems were identified: Type A: young peasant family in domestic phase of expansion, high consumption pressure; the accumulation strategy is based on the growth of the goatish sheepfold and the specialization on dairy production. The strategy of peasant reproduction unit is complemented with family labor outside the farm and/or the receiving of subsidies and pensions. Type B: peasant farmers in middle age and family phase of maturity. To reduce the consumption pressure, some family members emigrate and live outside the rural community. The strategy of peasant reproduction system is based on the dairy production and the family labor outside the farm. This strategy is verified when the family succession perspective is certain and the continuity of peasant production unit is assured (B1). Nonexistence of successor or vague succession process contributes to uncertainty on the family project and on the long term viability of the production unit (B2). Type C: peasant farmers advanced in years and family phase of regression. The size of the domestic group decreases, therefore the consumption pressure on production system is reduced. In case of successor's absence (C1), the prevailing strategy is a gradual leaving of cattle activity, especially for the distressing labor that this activity implies. Great portion of family income becomes from public subsidies and allowances. When succession perspective is confirmed (C2), a dynamic accumulation strategy is observed by the increase of sheepfold size and of dairy production participation in peasant income.

Nutrition goatish sheepfolds practices are based on natural pastures. Pastures provide good grazing in the rainy season (later spring and summer) but by mid to late March production slows to a stop. Consequently these pastures have null capacity to provide animal nutrition in winter season. Peasants attempt supplementary forage using alfalfa hay, barley, oats and corn but this practice is revealed insufficiently to cover nutritional requirements of sheepfolds. In consequence dairy production falls down.

<footnote n="1">¹ Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Salta, Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria</footnote>

<footnote>* Speaker</footnote>

<footnote>± Corresponding author: bravo.gonzalo@inta.gob.ar</footnote>
The animal production research team proposes the introduction of corn silage to improve goat nutritional status. The construction of the frame of functioning (Flichy, 1995) of small scale corn silage implied the adjustment of silage corn machine, the experimentation of different silage types and the modification of crop corn management. Researchers are the main actor playing in the technical objet conception and development. They exchange with peasants who act as the first users. This early interaction experiences generate a process of negotiation and the progressive stabilization of the technical artifact: collective management of silage machine, changes in cropping maize system, management of the silage quality and feeding practices of sheepfolds.

At the same time of the construction of the functioning frame of corn silage, the frame of use of this innovation is conformed. Development agents and social local nets catalyze the interesting of potential users (Callon, 1986). The construction of sociotechnical knowledge reveals that the introduction of corn silage generates changes in the organization and functioning of the rural systems: major requirements of family workforce, expanded needs of maize surface, reduction of the sheepfold size and major use of external inputs. The innovation implies an intensification of the milk production process, a specialization in the orientation of the system towards the milk production (minor diversification of cultures) and a major productive risk (minor diversification, increase of dependence of external inputs).

Peasant farmers give different meanings to the innovation according to the diversity of productive situations and family reproduction strategies. Farmers types A adhere to the introduction of corn silage in the production unit. The strategy of accumulation is based on dairy specialization. The innovation needs major employment of workforce and can compete in the cases at which family members are employed out of the farm. Peasants type B have two sociotechnical positions with regards to the innovation. Peasants Type B1 think that the dairy intensification is compatible with the strategy of assuring the continuity of the production system. Peasants B2 want to support without modifications the current way of management and to minimize the risk. They are not ready to intensify the dairy production. Among the peasants in phase of regression, those of the type C1 do not identify the corn silage as a strategic component to incorporate in the production system. They are in stage of slow abandon of the productive activity and do not want to assume a major load of work (gradual reduction of sheepfold size, major participation of the pensions and familiar remittances in the composition of familiar income). Peasants of type C2, where the presence of a successor assures the continuity of the unit of production, have begun to introduce the corn silage and to introduce adjustments in the animal feeding system. They are favorable to the intensification of the dairy production and to introducing improvements in the production process to increase familiar income.

The group of animal production researchers, development agents and social science researchers designed and used the survey to relieve information about peasant rural systems. They integrated social and agronomic perspectives (Dewulf et al., 2004; Lungeanu et al., 2014; Messer, 2012). Then the group analyzed and interpreted the data looking for the interactions among domestic situations and managing practices of production system. Different positions arose with regard to the relations among peasant logics and innovation design and possibilities of diversification the innovation paths.

## 4 Conclusions

The different logics of reproduction of the peasant agricultural systems give different meanings to the processes of innovation that are conceived by researchers and development agents. These logics, partly determined by the phase of familiar cycle of the domestic units, define differential insertion in the construction of sociotechnical frame of the innovation. Interdisciplinary research is useful to know how peasant logics influence the innovation path of dairy production.

## References

- Beaud, S. & Weber, F. (1998). Guide de l'enquête de terrain. Éditions La Découverte, Paris

- Becker, H. (2011). Trucos del oficio. Cómo conducir su investigación en ciencias sociales. Siglo XXI Editores, Buenos Aires.

- Boix Mansilla, V. (2006). Assessing expert interdisciplinary work at the frontier: an empirical exploration. *Research Evaluation* **15**, 17-29.

- Bravo, G. (1994). Elementos metodológicos para el análisis de la diversidad de explotaciones agropecuarias en una perspectiva de desarrollo. *Seminario Resultados de Enfoques Sistémicos Aplicados al Estudio de la Diversidad Agropecuaria*. INTA-INRA, 225-240.

- Dewulf, A., Craps, M. & Dercon, G. (2004). How Issues Get Framed and Reframed When Different Communities Meet: A Multi-level Analysis of a Collaborative Soil Conservation Initiative in the Ecuadorian Andes. *Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology* **14**, 177-192.

- Flichy, P. (1995). L'innovation technique. Récents développements en sciences socials. Vers une nouvelle théorie de l'innovation. Éditions La Découverte, Paris.

- Institut Technique des Cereales et des Fourrages (1991). STAT-ITCF. Manuel d'utilisation. ITCF, Paris

- Lungeanu, A., Huang, Y. & Contractor, N. (2014). Understanding the assembly of interdisciplinary teams and its impact on performance. *Journal of Informetrics* **8**, 59-70.

- Messer, J. (2012). Practicing interdisciplinarity. In TEXT: Beyond Practice-led Research. Eds. Paul Magee & Scott Brook. Special Issue **14**, 1-11.
- Piccolo, A., Giorgetti, M. & Chavez, D. (2008). Zonas Agroeconómicas Homogéneas Salta-Jujuy. Ediciones Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria, Buenos Aires.
# Participative design of conservation agriculture cropping systems in organic agriculture

Marion Casagrande ±<fnref n="1" />, Vincent Lefèvre <fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />, Mathieu Capitaine <fnref n="2" /> & Joséphine Peigné <fnref n="1" />

## 1 Introduction

New forms of agriculture have emerged aiming at addressing challenges such as improving food production, while minimizing environmental impacts and maintaining economic viability. Among them, organic farming bans the use of synthetic inputs and emphasizes the conservation of soil fertility based on closed farming systems including plants and animals to recycle nutrients. Nevertheless, the number of stockless organic farms specialized in crop production is increasing in Europe. In order to cope with soil fertility problems, some organic farmers are interested in conservation agriculture practices. Conservation agriculture (CA) aims at addressing the problems of soil degradation by improving soil organic matter content, limiting soil erosion, and improving soil structure and fertility. It relies on three principles: minimum or no soil disturbance, permanent soil cover, and diversified crop rotation. Organic farmers are facing technical constraints to combine organic farming and conservation agriculture (e.g. weed infestation that cannot be controlled by herbicides, delay in spring mineralization, or lower yield) and factor-based experimental studies are still insufficient to explore the range of possible solutions and conclude on the possible implementation of conservation agriculture on organic farms (Peigné et al., 2015). Designing organic cropping systems including conservation practices is thus very challenging. Prototyping methods (Vereijken, 1997) have been proved to be efficient to design innovative cropping systems based on limited and dispersed knowledge. Two studies used participative workshops to design organic cropping systems including conservation practices. Lefèvre et al. (2013) involved French farmers in a prototyping process to design cropping systems tailored to the local conditions of the participant farms. On the other hand, researchers of the TILMAN-org project (www.tilman.net) designed cropping systems for five pedoclimatic conditions in Europe. The objective of the present study is to analyze the two co-design processes. What are the characteristics of the designed prototypes? What is the impact of the prototyping method and participants on the designed prototypes?

## 2 Materials and Methods

We compare two methods respectively developed in (i) Lefèvre et al. (2013) and (ii) TILMAN-org project that are summarized in Table 1. In case of Lefèvre et al. (2013), existing knowledge and data on innovative situations were presented and discussed between step 2 and 3. In case of TILMAN-org project, results from a European farmers' survey (Peigné et al., 2015) were presented during the first workshop to pick the objectives of the prototypes among the ones of the farmers (step 1).

<table><caption>Table 1. Comparison of the two methods</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Lefèvre et al. (2013)</th><th>TILMAN-org Project</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Location of the design</td><td>France</td><td>Europe</td></tr><tr><td>Facilitation</td><td>2 pedoclimatic zones</td><td>5 pedoclimatic zones<fnref n="1" /></td></tr><tr><td>Participants</td><td>3 researchers</td><td>2 researchers</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>14 French farmers</td><td>17 European researchers</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Step 1</strong></td><td colspan="2"><strong>Defining and ranking objectives (collective workshop)</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Step 2</strong></td><td colspan="2"><strong>Designing prototypes (collective workshop)</strong></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>7 exploratory prototypes (no constraints)</td><td>5 prototypes tailored to the 5 zones</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Step 3</strong></td><td colspan="2"><strong>Designing prototypes with constraints (collective and individual workshops)</strong></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>14 prototypes tailored to the 14 farms</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Step 4</strong></td><td colspan="2"><strong>Assessing the prototypes (MASC 2.0.)</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Step 5</strong></td><td colspan="2"><strong>Redesigning the prototypes</strong></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>14 prototypes</td><td>5 prototypes</td></tr></tbody></table>

As the prototypes were designed to follow conservation principles, we compared the characteristics of the prototypes with regard to (i) soil cover, and (ii) soil disturbance (Fig. 1.). Soil cover depends on (i) ley management (1: all cuts are exported, 2: some cuts are exported other are returned to the field, 3: all cuts are returned) and (ii) cover crops (1: occasional or frequent, 2: systematic, 3: permanent). Soil disturbance depends on: (i) soil tillage (1: reduced tillage and

<footnote n="1">¹ Agroecology and Environment Department, ISARA Lyon, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² UMR Métafort, VetAgro Sup Clermont-Ferrand, France</footnote>

<footnote>* Speaker</footnote>

<footnote>± Corresponding author: mcasagrande@isara.fr</footnote>

<footnote n="1">¹Northern, Nordic, Western, Atlantic, and Mediterranean zones.</footnote>
# The institutional innovation in INTA for approaching the territories' complexity of the Argentinean farmland

Eduardo Daniel Cittadini *±1, Sandra Elizabeth Ledesma 2 & Erika Zain El Din 3

## 1 Introduction

Recently, INTA<fnref n="1" /> has started a review of its strategy for approaching the Argentinean rural sector, redirecting its main focus from value chain to territorial complexity. The main novelty of the present projects' portfolio is the Regional Projects with Territorial Focus<fnref n="2" /> (geographical basis), which are thematically supported through National Programs, that link and organize the institutional capabilities distributed in the whole country around specific themes. In this framework, in May 2014 the National Program for Development and Sustainability of the Territories<fnref n="3" /> was launched.

## 2 Epistemological framework and strategy of the National Program

This Program is one of the instruments of INTA and integrates⁹ projects. Its epistemological framework involves the collective construction of knowledge, the paradigm of complexity and integration of thought and action (Fig. 1), considering that to build a complex approach of the territory is unavoidable recognize it and address it as a social construction, as a web of social relations within which conflicts occur. The production of knowledge from the epistemology of complexity and as a tool for transformation, involves strengthening the capabilities for both the production of knowledge and for acting. Therefore, the approach is participatory, interagency and interdisciplinary, promoting technological and organizational innovation from the integration of research and technological development, extension, institutional relations and technological linkages (Fig. 2). The Program identified major problems in Argentina: social and productive imbalances and inequalities; insufficient and/or inadequate policies to promote regional development; weakness in governance for access, use and management of natural resources, common environmental goods and services; asymmetries and fragmentation in the different processes of innovation; improper marketing of goods and services; and lack of systemic and integrated understanding of territorial processes.

<figure><img src="image_176.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Epistemological axis, functions and activities based on the objectives of the National Program.</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="1">¹ INTA-EEA Chubut, 25 de Mayo 4870, (9100) Trelew (ARGENTINA)</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² INTA-AER Cruz del Eje</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ INTA-Centro Regional Tucumán-Santiago del Estero</footnote>

<footnote>* Speaker</footnote>

<footnote>± Corresponding author: cittadini.eduardo@inta.gob.ar</footnote>
The objective of the program is "to understand the territorial changes and innovation processes and strengthen the skills to manage the development and sustainability of the territory, emphasizing on social subjects and processes". Based on territorial claims, the agenda for research, to prioritize training processes and to develop methodological and conceptual approaches arises. But also, it provides an integrative and multi-scale vision of territorial issues; identification of emerging issues at different scales; development -and analysis of- observatories of territorial practices; and means for generating policies to encourage/facilitate the process of sustainable development of territories.

<figure><img src="image_177.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. Schematic representation of complexity as approached by the PNDST.</figcaption></figure>

**3 Integrating specific views around strategic themes**

The strategy for strengthening an integral approach of the National Program was to link the different (and specific) views from the 9 national projects around main themes. After the first year of implementation, two themes were defined: (1) Observatories of territorial practices (OTP) (Dubois, 2006), as a tool to contribute to sustainable development of territories and performance of production systems. The process of building the OTP started with admission of INTA technicians to France (October 2014) and subsequently the organization in Argentina of the First International Seminar/Workshop for Motivation/Sensitization on Observatories (December, 2014). For 2015 a Seminar/Workshop for sharing experiences on Observatories of South America was planned for April, and in May three training workshops on implementing OTP will be organized at regional level of Argentina (North East, North West and Patagonia). (2) The second integrative theme is the “Federal Program for Support of Sustainable Rural Development” (ProFeder)<fnref n="4" />. This program involves a number of institutional instruments (some of them with more than 20 years of implementation) for intervention in the territories and long-term statistics are available. The PNDST will investigate the dynamics of different instruments of ProFeder and its impact in the sustainable development of the territories. Other integrative themes will be defined in participatory workshops during 2015.

**4 Main challenges**

The agenda of the National Program is built from the local demands expressed by multiple actors of the geographical areas in which the Regional Projects with Territorial Focus (PRET) are acting and from the strategic, prospective and long term visions of senior specialists and policy makers (in both cases through participatory methodologies). The main challenge is to scale-up from local demands (usually very specific) to strategic and broad research lines, and to evolve from disciplinary to inter-disciplinary approaches, with the long-term goal of developing a transdisciplinary perspective for approaching the territorial complexity of the Argentinean rural sector.

*Acknowledgements:* This work has been carried out under the National Program for Development and Sustainability of the Territories (INTA, Argentina).

**References**

Elverdin, J., Ledesma, S.E., Zain El Din, E. & Cittadini, E. (2014). *Programa Nacional para el Desarrollo y la Sustentabilidad de los Territorios: Documento base y estructura organizativa*. Ediciones INTA, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Dubois, E. (2006). Observatoires de pratiques agricoles et enjeux territoriaux: élaboration d'une typologie, INRA SAD, Rapport de Maîtrise des Sciences et Techniques en Aménagement et Environnement, Version 2, 70 p.

<footnote n="1">¹ Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (Argentina).</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Proyectos Regionales con Enfoque Territorial (PRET).</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Programa Nacional para el Desarrollo y la Sustentabilidad de los Territorios (in Spanish; PNDST).</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ ProFeder (*Programa Federal de Apoyo al Desarrollo Rural Sustentable*). The goal of this program, launched in 2003, is to strengthen development with social inclusion, to integrate regional and local economies into internal and international markets and to generate working opportunities and income. This Program involves different instruments for specific audiences: *Cambio Rural, Pro-Huerta, Proyectos de Apoyo al Desarrollo Local, Minifundio, Profam* and *Proyectos Integrados*. All of them are based on a strategy of participative action for support of territorial development and the implementation is performed through group projects and plans.</footnote>
# Adaptation of the Open Innovation Approach for Knowledge and Technology Transfer in an Intensive Agricultural Landscape

Stéphane Gariépy*±1, Julie Ruiz<fnref n="2" />, Samuel Comtois<fnref n="3" /> & Virginie Zingraff<fnref n="4" />

## 1 Introduction

As a public sector organization, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) has the mission of producing knowledge and technology (K&T) relevant for various categories of producers and agro-ecological zones. AAFC has to structure, plan and manage research-transfer linkages in order to respond in an effective way to farmers' technical and economic needs while incorporating ecological considerations. The classic linear approach to innovation involves a sequence of phases, for example: research, development, transfer, adoption. Whereas this top-down logic could be operative for the transfer of hard and marketable technologies or products, it appears less adequate for open knowledge, management practices and environmental technologies. Innovation in modern agriculture is rather characterized by a non-linear model, which involves intense communication among stakeholders and interaction and retroaction between each phase of the innovation process. In search for an approach that would make the non-linear model a reality for its transfer mandate, in 2014 AAFC K&T Transfer Office for Quebec region has joined a local partnership called L'Acadie-Lab. L'Acadie-Lab aims to rehabilitate ecosystem functions in an intensive agricultural landscape, namely the L'Acadie river watershed. The initiative relies on a living lab approach, which provides an experiential and learning environment where users and scientists co-create solutions to agricultural, environmental and social issues.

## 2 L'Acadie River watershed

L'Acadie River flows northerly over 82 km in Montérégie Region, on the south shore of St. Lawrence River, Province of Quebec, Canada. Its source is located near Hemmingford Village (45.038N/73.558W). It runs north through Napierville and L'Acadie to its mouth at Chambly Basin (45.476N/73.287W). It is the main tributary of Richelieu River, which is home to more than fifty species of fish, some of them being considered threatened or endangered as copper redhorse, river redhorse and lake sturgeon. Besides passing through some villages, L'Acadie River flows through agricultural and forest environments (Fig. 1). Its drainage basin covers an area of 41 336 ha, including 30 884 ha (75%) under cultivation, mainly grain corn, soybean and vegetables. More than 10 000 ha are cropped under the supervision of local agri-environmental advisory clubs. An AAFC experimental farm is also in operation in the watershed. The area features major issues pertaining to surface and subsurface water quality, soil conservation as well as habitat rehabilitation. Considering its land use, its intense anthropic activity and the farmers' commitment toward agricultural beneficial management practices (BMPs), the L'Acadie River watershed offers a suitable frame for the implementation of a living-lab aiming to improve knowledge and technology development and adoption.

<figure><img src="image_178.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. L'Acadie watershed land use and number of farms per category of production.</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="1">¹Science and Technology Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Quebec City, Québec, Canada</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Département des sciences de l'environnement, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Trois-Rivières, Québec, Canada</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³PleineTerre, Club Techno-Champ 2000, Napierville, Québec, Canada</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴Umvelt Service Design, Montreal, Québec, Canada</footnote>

<footnote>* Speaker</footnote>

<footnote>± Corresponding author: stephane.gariepy@agr.gc.ca</footnote>
## 3 Living lab concept

The technology and innovation strategy of the Government of Canada (2014) recognises that R&D produces ideas and inventions which, however radical or creative, are not innovation unless they are put in use. The Canadian strategy declares that innovation involves experimenting with different practices, methods and processes, and though it sometimes comes directly from advances in science and technology, innovation can also stem from other sources. The living lab concept takes precisely advantage of pools of creative talent, socio-cultural diversity, and the inventiveness of end-users to enable the development of new useful services and products. First proposed by William J. Mitchell of the MIT Media Lab and School of Architecture and City Planning, the living lab approach represents a user-centric research methodology for sensing, prototyping, validating and refining complex solutions in multiple and evolving real life contexts (Bergvall-Kåreborn *et al.*, 2010). Its process, which integrates both user-centered research and open innovation, relies on four main activities: co-creation, which brings together technology push and application pull; exploration that engages all stakeholders for discovering emerging scenarios, usages and behaviours; experimentation, to experience live scenarios with users; evaluation, to assess new ideas and innovative concepts as well as related technological aspects and to make observations on the potentiality of a viral adoption of new concepts. Some benefits attributed to the approach are (Dubé *et al.*, 2014): from development to adoption cycle reduction; better product and practice uptake by the user; improved knowledge transfer between all stakeholders; enrichment of basic and applied research through new research questions and perspectives.

## 4 L'Acadie Lab

Veeckman *et al.* (2013) propose a comprehensive framework that links the "building blocks" of a living lab and its effect on outcomes (Fig. 2). According to this model, L'Acadie-Lab's main outcome would be the rehabilitation of ecosystems functions in the L'Acadie River watershed in order to create attractive living environments. With this end in view, the L'Acadie-Lab initiative will provide building blocks both at the living lab environment level (material, immaterial, and contextual elements) and on a project level (i.e., the methodological aspect of the living lab approach).

<figure><img src="image_179.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2.** The triangulation between environment, approach, and outcome in living labs (Veeckman *et al.*, 2013).</figcaption></figure>

The L'Acadie-Lab's overarching element is the founding of an innovation platform that will bring together stakeholders from each part of the agro-environment value-chain. The creation of this platform began in 2014 and will continue in 2015-2016. An important outcome will be the co-creation of models, practices and tools tailored to the environmental and social issues of the watershed and their transfer to the farmers. L'Acadie-Lab will thus provide the real life environment required to identify and build prototypes, and to evaluate multiple solutions. During winter 2014, the lab already identified a set of technologies to be improved or developed, and transferred to end users. Whereas technical support is brought to the lab by agricultural advisors from local and scientists from R&D centres, the knowhow in open innovation methodology and land management comes from experts from the private and academic sector.

## References

* Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., Ihlström Eriksson, C., Ståhlbröst, A. & Svensson, J. (2009). A milieu for innovation: defining living labs, *Proceedings of the 2nd ISPIM innovation symposium*. Huizingh, K., Conn, S., Torkkeli, M. & Bitran, I. (red.). 12 s.

* Dubé, P., Sarrailh, J., Bilebaud, C., Grillet, C., Zingraff, V. & Kostecki, I. (2014). Qu'est-ce qu'un Living Lab. Le Livre Blanc des Living Labs. Montréal In Vivo & Umvelt, Première Édition, Montréal, 131 p.

* Government of Canada (2014). Seizing Canada's Moment. Moving Forward in Science, Technology and Innovation 2014. Industry Canada, Ottawa, . Cat. No. Iu37-4/1-2014E-PDF, 68 p.

* De Magdala Pinto, M. & Peduzzi Fonseca, L. (2013). Using system analysis to deepen the understanding of open and user-driven innovation initiatives. *Strategic Design Research Journal*, 6(3): 105-115.

* Veeckman, C., Schuurman, D., Leminen, S. & Westerlund, M. (2013). Linking Living Lab Characteristics and Their Outcomes: Towards a Conceptual Framework. Technology Innovation Management Review December 2013.
# URUGUAY FAMILY FARMING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

Virginia Porcile ±¹¹, Raúl Gómez Miller <fnref n="1" />, Alfredo Albín <fnref n="1" /> & Trevor Jackson <fnref n="2" />

## 1 Introduction

While the agricultural sector in Uruguay has achieved a significant growth over the past decade, it has been uneven with a large small farmer sector lagging behind. The Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries (MGAP) estimates that 63% of Uruguayan farms are family farms (FF) occupying 15% of the country's land under agriculture and livestock production but productivity is well below national average. Uruguayan family FF are mainly dedicated to beef and sheep production. The World Bank (2010) considered that "there is considerable scope to improve the long-term profitability and sustainability of family agriculture by improving management of the natural resource base and incorporating technical knowledge alongside increased physical investments".

Evidence of significant differences in productivity reflects the existence of important technological gaps between FF and large-scale producers being one of the principal causes the limited generation and access to technologies suited to address FF needs. The project goal is to improve the profitability and viability of FF without compromising the environment, focusing on three major themes: Profitable and resilient farm systems; Productive and persistent forage systems and Effective rural networks. With the aim of strengthening relationship between organizations and promote local institutions integration as well capacity building, through this combination of themes AgResearch will assist INIA (research organization) and Instituto Plan Agropecuario (IPA: extension organization) in farm systems design and implementation, development and transfer of new technologies, and extension of appropriate farm business practices for the benefit of farming communities. The project period is between 2014 and 2017.

## 2 Materials and Methods

Activities target at three levels: on farm, farmer organizations and national institutions (research, extension and government). During project first year, 24 Focus Farms (FF) have been selected following criteria agreed by partners involved, either by proposition from local farmers organizations or through regional extension officers. Around each FF, a group between 8 to 15 neighbour farmers (including some rural professionals) has been invited to take part of discussion groups held every season in the FF promoting "farmer to farmer learning". Each FF is monitored monthly by a Facilitator (Technician) whose main tasks are: the completion of a whole farm system diagnostic (social, productive, financial and environmental) in conjunction with the farmer, provide support to Focus farmer to elaborate a Farm Business Plan (FBP) for the project period based on long term goals, prepare and facilitate farmer group meetings and monitor progress. The methodology is based on the coinnovation approach.

The project aims to promote implementation of low cost management practices and technologies which will raise beef production by 100 kg/ha/yr over the current baseline. It has also been designed to meet specific, quantified, targets for uptake and extension by the end of the project (2017) which include: Farmers implementing and validating technologies on MFs (15), Farmers influenced by programme (250), Researchers upskilled for technology development and evaluation (20), Technicians trained for project implementation (100), Networks formed and trained (5). Technologies developed and staff trained within the programme will contribute to INIA and IPA's ongoing initiatives to develop the beef family farming sector and it is anticipated that these advances will be demonstrated on 900 family farms within five years of project end (2022).

In terms on setting up an environmental baseline and considering 74% of the area occupied by FF is based on native pastures, a Native Grasslands Conservation Index (ICP) evaluation will be carried out in the 24 FF at the beginning and also at the end of project to identify any changes may occur. In order to identify rural networks, surveys to FF farmers and groups will be conducted to set the baseline and discover key influencers, sources of information and also monitor farmer behaviour change.

## 3 Results – Discussion

Uruguayan family farms growing beef and sheep have received less attention than their large scale counterparts. Under naturally restricted farming conditions and with limited support, farmers have farmed to minimise risk and losses rather than maximise profit. The end result has been low productivity on the family farms, and low family income. During the last decade the small farm sector has come under government attention for development to both alleviate rural

<footnote n="1">¹ INIA, National Agriculture Research Institute, Uruguay</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² AgResearch, New Zealand</footnote>

<footnote>* Speaker</footnote>

<footnote>± Corresponding author: vporcile@inia.org.uy</footnote>
poverty and raise national productivity. Based on this diagnostic, the key problem areas identified for the project to focus on are:

a) Lack of knowledge of productivity and process: little research has been carried out within the small farm sector and consequently opportunities for advancement and potential problems are poorly understood. For this reason INIA and IPA are working in a Family Farming programme to address technology, social and environmental issues at the farm level and the project will align to these.

b) Low pasture quantity and quality resulting in low animal performance: much of the limited forage available is used simply to maintain animal body weights rather than contribute to weight gain. Native grassland grazing management practices, regeneration of degraded areas and establishment of new, high-producing pastures appears to be options, but persistence of new pastures is poor in Uruguay and the reasons remain unclear.

c) Lack of access to appropriate technologies and technical assistance: there has been a lack of on-farm research and technological support which, in addition to lack of credit, has limited farmer uptake of appropriate technologies. In addition, technical support for system redesign and adjustment of low cost animal and pasture management practices could have a major benefit for small farmers.

d) Lack of farm management business decision making skills: currently farmers are making business decisions based on their experience, their needs and the state of the market. There are a number of implications of which they will be unaware. In this aspect, recording and information analysis as a tool for decision making will be a current practice to be experienced on MF group meetings.

e) Limited connected extension activity and integrated knowledge transfer: the World Bank (2010) report noted that extension services to the family farm sector were limited. However, there is a potentially large source of support available if seed suppliers, meat processors, rural lenders, veterinarians, scientists, extension agents, educational institutes, and industry organisations, are included. At present this support system is fragmented and disjointed. If farmers are to acquire new knowledge and skills through demonstration, training, mentoring, etc., then the knowledge of those to whom they turn for support will also need to be appropriate and connected. The traditional approach of simply up skilling individual extension workers to work with farmers will not be sufficient so that we are initiating the process of capability integration from different organisations (e.g. SUL, MGAP, rural professionals).

f) Balancing profit and environmental outcomes: the relationship between the dual outcomes of productivity and reduced environmental footprint are not well articulated as to date there has been little evidence of local community concern about the impact of farming on the environment. A key to increasing productivity will be increasing resource efficiency and this will have environmental co-benefits including less nutrient and GHG emissions to water and air, persistent and resilient natural grassland biodiversity and efficient use of water.

With the objective of setting up a baseline, collecting information for on farm decision making and monitoring progress, electronic tools have been developed: Integral Farm Management tool (GPI), Feed Budget tool (PPF) and an electronic library with national livestock farming research information (Technology Management Guide). During the project these tools will be proved by Facilitators and evaluated as resources to be expanded to MGAP nationwide technicians responsible for designing and monitoring government Rural Development programmes focused on Family Farming sector.

## 4 Conclusions

After first year of project implementation, the integration of local organizations with same approach towards the family farming sector it is recognised as a significant achievement. Also, the complementarities of inter-institutional teams for designing, implementing activities, develop tools and review progress strengths the relationship between organizations. The interaction and training from New Zealand expertise to Facilitators and counterpart organizations technical staff is seen as a major capacity building phase at this stage crucial to promote farmer to farmer learning. There is general agreement between the counterparts of the need for aligning the family farming sector approach into the research, extension and government policies strategies. The focus, as it is in this project, is to achieve outcomes on farm, and in industry.

*Acknowledgements*. This project is moving forward thanks to the support and commitment of Farmers, Facilitators, INIA and IPA teams, AgResearch team, MGAP and MFAT.

## References

* The World Bank (2010). Uruguay. Family agriculture development. Report No.5522 0 –UY.116, 33-99.

* Parera, A. y E. Carriquiry (2014). Manual de Prácticas Rurales asociadas al Índice de Conservación de Pastizales Naturales (ICP). Publicación realizada por Aves Uruguay para el Proyecto de Incentivos a la Conservación de Pastizales Naturales del Cono Sur, 204 pp.
# W1. Animal-based systems and crop-livestock interactions at farm and territory level

Chair: Charles-Henri Moulin, Montpellier SupAgro

Co-chair: Amandine Lurette, INRA
# USING THE VIABILITY THEORY TO ASSES THE TRADE-OFFS BETWEEN PRODUCTION, ADAPTABILITY AND ROBUSTNESS OF A GRASSLAND AGROECOSYSTEM

Rodolphe Sabatier ±<fnref n="1" />, Lawrence G. Oates <fnref n="2" /> & Randall D. Jackson <fnref n="2" />

## 1 Introduction

Negative consequences of the post-WWII conventional model of agriculture has led to renewed interest for grazing-based livestock farming systems (Hassanein and Kloppenburg 1995). However, in such systems farmers have to face high unpredictability of resource availability and weather uncertainty (Lyon et al. 2011). Two contrasting strategies can be followed to cope with this uncertainty: resistance or flexibility (sensu Ten Napel et al. 2011). Resistance is the ability of a grazing sequence to remain viable for a wide range of environmental conditions. A farmer using a strategy based on resistance will choose a grazing sequence that makes it possible to feed livestock irrespective of those environmental conditions. Flexibility is the ability of a grazing sequence to be modified (adapted) in response to the environmental conditions encountered. A farmer using a flexible strategy will choose a grazing sequence that can be adapted throughout the year as information on environmental conditions becomes known. Based on a modeling approach, the aim of this study was to quantify both resistance and flexibility of a grazed grassland and to assess the trade-offs between production, flexibility and resistance of different grazing strategies.

## 2 Materials and Methods

To quantify resistance and flexibility of management strategies, we built a dynamic model of grazed grasslands under the mathematical framework of viability theory (Aubin 1991) as applied to stochastic systems (Doyen and de Lara, 2010). Viability theory makes it possible to look for the set of grazing management strategies that ensure the maintenance of a dynamic system within a defined set of constraints through time. Once viable management strategies are found, we can characterize their properties with respect to production, resistance and flexibility. In this study, management strategies corresponded to grazing sequences and constraints were defined to ensure the sustainability of the system such that the level of performance remained above a minimum threshold and that overgrazing did not occur. In this model, grass growth follows a logistic curve (Voisin 1957) in which the key parameters depend on time so as to reflect the seasonality of grass dynamics and the effects of biomass intake by livestock. The model is parameterized to represent a temperate grassland agroecosystem calibrated on cool-season grasslands of south central Wisconsin, USA. Model calibration was based on datasets from Brink et al. (2013) and Oates et al. (2011). For full details on model calibration see Sabatier et al. (2015).

We ran simulations for a set of 4519 grazing sequences under 500 stochastic climatic scenarios and computed 4 indicators: Production, Resistance, Adaptations and Flexibility. Production from a grazing sequence was defined as the number of animal days livestock could be fed averaged over the 500 stochastic climatic scenarios. Resistance of a grazing sequence was the proportion of climatic scenarios for which the grazing sequence did not lead to overgrazing (i.e. for which it is possible to feed the animals everyday) without modifying this grazing sequence. Adaptation of a grazing sequence was the number of modifications that a farmer had to make to the given sequence to avoid overgrazing. Flexibility of a grazing sequence is a proxy for its potential of adaptation that was a measure of the number of modifications that a farmer could make to a sequence while avoiding overgrazing.

## 3 Results – Discussion

Resistance and flexibility showed a negative relationship with production (Fig 1.a and 1.b), i.e., the most productive grazing sequences were the least flexible and the least resistant. Conversely, adaptating the grazing sequence showed a positive relationship with production (Fig 1.c), i.e., the most productive grazing sequences were also the ones for which the farmer had to make the most changes to adapt to climatic uncertainty. Overall, these results show that grazing sequences ranged from resistant and flexible with corresponding low production, to more productive sequences associated with both low flexibility and low resistance that required constant adaptations to cope with environmental variability. The extremes of this gradient of grazing sequences correspond to two major ways of dealing with uncertainty in livestock farming systems as defined by Nozieres et al. (2011): overcapacity (pushing the system in sub-optimal situations) and adaptive management (in the sense of Holling (1978)–adjusting management in the face uncertainty).

<footnote n="1">¹ INRA UMR 1048 SADAPT, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin, USA</footnote>

<footnote>* Speaker</footnote>

<footnote>± Corresponding author: rodolphe.sabatier@agroparistech.fr</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_180.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1.Trade-offs between production and resistance (a), flexibility (b) or adaptations (c). Each dot corresponds to one grazing sequence</figcaption></figure>

From an applied point of view, these results illustrate strong differences in the way grass-based livestock farming systems relate to uncertainty when compared to controlled confinement systems. The aim of a confinement feeding system is to control environmental unpredictability as much as possible, i.e., minimize environmental variability and the uncertainty of forage availability (although economic unpredictability remains a major issue). By confining the system, farming indoors transforms uncertainty into a known variable. Once variability is known, it can be used to the farmer's advantage with adaptation of farming practices (review in Puillet 2010). Variability is also a characteristic of pasture-based systems from which farmers often benefit (e.g. Andrieu et al. 2007; Martin et al. 2009a; 2009b). However uncertainty is generally high in these systems and it is generally not possible to adapt a priori a management strategy to environmental conditions. To maximize the number of days possible to feed livestock, adaptations need to be made when environmental conditions become known (i.e. when uncertainty has been transformed into variability). Instead of suffering a loss in production, adaptive management (Holling 1978) makes it possible to adjust management to capitalize on unpredictable environmental conditions.

## 4 Conclusions

These results illustrate the central role played by uncertainty in grassland-based livestock farming systems and the importance for research to focus not only on optimum production in controlled conditions, but also to consider new dimensions of performance such as flexibility and resistance.

## References

* Andrieu, N., E. Josien, and M. Duru. 2007. Relationships between diversity of grassland vegetation, field characteristics and land use management practices assessed at the farm level. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 120(2-4): 359-369. Aubin, J. 1991.

* Viability Theory, Birkhauser Boston.

* Brink, G.E., R.D. Jackson, and N.B. Alber. 2013. Residual Sward Height Effects on Growth

* Doyen, L., and M. De Lara. 2010. Stochastic viability and dynamic programming. Systems & Control Letters 59(10): 629-634.

* Hassanein, N., and J.R. Kloppenburg. 1995. Where the grass grows again: Knowledge exchange in the sustainable agriculture movement. Rural Sociol. 60(4): 721-740.

* Holling, C.S. 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. xviii + 377.

* Lyon, A., M.M. Bell, C. Gratton, and R. Jackson. 2011. Farming without a recipe: Wisconsin graziers and new directions for agricultural science.

* Journal of Rural Studies 27(4): 384-393.

* Martin, G., P. Cruz, J.P. Theau, C. Jouany, P. Fleury, S. Granger, R. Faivre, G. Balent, S. Lavorel, and M. Duru. 2009a. A multi-site study to classify semi-natural grassland types. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 129(4): 508-515.

* Martin, G., L. Hossard, J.P. Theau, O. Therond, E. Josien, P. Cruz, J.P. Rellier, R. Martin-Clouaire, and M. Duru. 2009b. Characterizing potential flexibility in grassland use. Application to the French Aubrac area. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 29(2): 381-389.

* Nozières, M.O., C.H. Moulin, and B. Dedieu. 2011. The herd, a source of flexibility for livestock farming systems faced with uncertainties? Animal 5(09): 1442-1457.

* Oates, L.G., D.J. Undersander, C. Gratton, M.M. Bell, and R.D. Jackson. 2011. Management-intensive rotational grazing enhances forage production and quality of subhumid cool-season pastures. Crop Science 51(2): 892.

* Puillet, L. 2010. Modéliser la variabilité biologique en réponse aux pratiques de conduite. Application au troupeau caprin laitier. Available at http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/pastel-00619406/ (verified 28 August 2014).

* Sabatier, R., L.G. Oates, G.E. Brink, J.S. Blier, and R.D. Jackson. (2015). Grazing in an uncertain environment: modeling the trade-off between production and robustness. Agronomy Journal. doi:10.2134/agronj14.0357

* Ten Napel, J., A.A. van der Veen, S.J. Oosting, and P.W.G.G. Koerkamp. 2011. A conceptual approach to design livestock production systems for robustness to enhance sustainability. Livestock Science 139(1-2): 150-160.
# Between social cohesion and rural management: the “Real Employment” calculation as a useful tool of analysis

Anna Roca Torrent *±1 & Cristina Tous de Sousa <fnref n="2" />

## 1 Introduction

The agricultural activity provides food and organizes a complex socio-economic networking that plays a key role in the social cohesion on rural areas and, at the same time, it encourages regional economy. Reality on the agricultural production processes change over the agrifood chain. Some steps need to outsource several activities and services and it takes an important employment related to the agrifood production chain. Most of the employment is easy to identify and to calculate, for example the labour tied down to the farms or to the material and animals transport and logistic services, but there is another one intangible that is related to the retail distribution sector or the promotion of agricultural products to society. This complex agrifood system and its socio-territorial links requires an in-depth discussion to include new tools and methods to characterize and to manage the new model of agriculture that plays a strategic role in the provision of environmental public goods and services.

The goal of this communication is to provide new knowledge about the variable "labour" within the agrifood system. It is the core of social cohesion of the agricultural economy of the agroforestry mosaic. The idea is to analyse the socio-labour reality around agriculture. For this reason, Agroterritori starts to study "Real Employment" in the pig sector, dairy farming, wine and fruit sector. The results should help to improve the management of labour and to design plans in accordance with social and environmental perspectives.

## 2 Materials and Methods

To calculate "Real Employment" (total employment: direct, indirect and induced labour and disguised employment) it is defined a transversal methodology in order to estimate with maximum reliability all the tasks carried out by the labour involved along the agrifood value chain. This method requires to study each professional profiles involved in: production, processing, distribution and trade, whatever their origin, participation or function in the agrifood system. This "Real Employment" methodology has a threefold objective: 1) to characterize and to quantify the socio-labour reality of the different sectors; 2) to develop strategic programmes to improve the employment in agricultural and in other related sectors; and 3) to design a model on employment and professional profiles along agrifood chain. At this point it is essential to identify collaborations between different stakeholders involved. It is also important to have a look on the implementation of dynamic, flexible and resilient soci-labour models. We are aware that of the participative weakness of farmers in the added value of the agrifood chain. So, this study is focus on the analysis of their social and strategic role in the rural territory.

The calculation of "Real Employment" requires an exhaustive fieldwork and a simplified system to collect and manage all the information. It is classified as direct labour (involves the employees that develop daily tasks on farms) and indirect labour (involves individuals who support those processes on farms. They develop punctual or specialized tasks in accordance with its non-agricultural professional profile, for example, animal transport or technical advice or support). The study also aims to bring out the disguised employment, it means, all these activities close to the family unit or to the informal economy that are not accounted in the direct or indirect labour. The sum of these labour typologies embodies a specific methodology that it is easy to export to any agricultural sector. It quantifies and integrates variables such as the number of persons, hours of work on different tasks or the total amount of annual hours worked in agriculture (agricultural work unit, AWU). In a second step, through individual interviews with stakeholders and experts on agriculture, the study contrast the statistical information and existing studies of officials sources. This allows indicators of each type of employment: part-time, full time, eventually, fixed, fixed discontinuous, etc.

## 3 Results - Discussion

"Real Employment" is a successful methodological tool applied in different regional scale in Catalonia (Spain) to have a picture of pig sector (in the Province of Girona), wine sector (in Alt Penedès region), dairy farming (in the peri-urban area of the city of Girona) and fruit sector (in Empordà region). The results show the dominance of wide-ranging and innovative agro-economy. The relationships across the regional scale, even beyond the national borders. It is visible the deployment of a strong bottom-up organization. It is very interesting the networking between regional and supra-regional companies involved in the manufacture of machinery or equipment and technology. This means that all of them are essential in a complex agrifood system that articulates activities from all economics sectors: agriculture, industry and especially services.

<footnote n="1">¹ Technical-Scientific Committee, Agroterritori Foundation.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Research Department, Agroterritori Foundation.</footnote>

<footnote>* Speaker</footnote>

<footnote>± Corresponding author: aroca@agroterritori.org</footnote>
A good example to develop on this communication is the analysis of the dairy farming. In its milk production phase (without taken into consideration the processing or marketing) there are an important range of labour requirements and professional profiles, and also a high amount of annual hours worked. Most of the agricultural and livestock tasks are usually performed in collective work (often as cooperatives): milk collection from farms, livestock waste management or treatment, animal food procurement, animal genetic selection procurement, etc. At the same time, dairy farming unfolds around many jobs in the service sector and in the public administration: essentially on transport, and also on animal health, on animal breeding, on waste recycling, on technical advice, etc. It is extremely difficult to analyse all professional profiles and networking around the dairy sector chain. For this reason, the study does not take into account other activities such as cattle fattening and rearing, rural and agritourism and farm direct selling.

The study is developed on the dairy farming of the peri-urban agricultural area of the south of the city of Girona (northeast Spain) and it takes four case studies clearly representative of the 68 dairy farms: one small size dairy farm ($≤500$ tonnes of milk quota), two medium size ($>500≤1.000$ tn of milk quota, both with similar quota but a significant difference in agricultural land) and one big size ($>500$ tn of milk quota). The analysis reveals that the direct labour (the head of the holding, family labour force and salaried employee) increases proportionately to the milk quota, and agricultural land (Fig. 1). It is a perfect example of an economy of scale to reduce production costs (as is stated in Rémy, 2009). Family labour force works long hours at the farm, around 2825 annual hours, way beyond of 1780 annual hours that conform 1 AWU (Observatori del boví de llet i de carn, 2013). The graphic shows that direct labour and direct AWU run in parallel with the exception of the big size dairy farm. In this last case, direct AWU are a little higher because these dairy farms have to deal with important amount of work and some eventually employees and external services are needed. In the second graphic, indirect labour is detached from physical parameters of the dairy farm. The tasks and the requirements of labour are almost the same in all case studies.

<figure><img src="image_181.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. "Real Employment" in dairy farming, just on milk production stage.</figcaption></figure>

The results of these four case studies are clear, this dairy farms of the peri-urban area close to the city of Girona generates a "Real Employment" (direct and indirect) between 45 and 69 persons and between 1.9 and 28.5 AWU. If these data are extrapolated to the 68 dairy farms of the area it amounts to 442 direct employees and 3949 indirect employees (Roca *et al.*, 2014). These figures underline the importance of the dairy farm in the area and its key role.

## 4 Conclusions

Agricultural holding mobilizes direct labour and an important indirect labour necessary to develop the activity, which plays a fundamental role in terms of social and territorial cohesion. Therefore it stimulates rural economy and improves the quality of life in rural areas that often turns them back on the agrarian economy. Agriculture increase interdependence between the economics sectors on rural areas. All the employment over the agrifood chain is essential to maintain alive rural areas, in terms of economy and of deep roots of the population in the production areas.

Farmers shares tasks, agricultural machinery, infrastructures and equipment, and they are also organized in associations to reduce costs and labour. The dairy farming sector of the peri-urban area close to Girona is a good example of an organization to work together in innovation projects. It is directly involved in entrepreneurial projects and in research.

The future of agriculture depends on the complicity of all the stakeholders (from farmers to public administration and researchers) to take action and make policy decisions in terms of employment and environmental management.

Moreover, the role of the agricultural holdings as managers of the agricultural landscape and natural resources, opens the door to new occupational dynamics (Kroon & Paauwe, 2014) to a society that demands high-quality, local and multifunctional agriculture and the preservation of agricultural and rural landscapes for present and future generations.

## References

* Observatori del boví de llet i de carn. (2013). Dades i resultats de la gestió econòmica. *Informe Anual 2012*. DAAM. Generalitat de Catalunya.

* Kroon B. & Paauwe J. (2014). Structuration of precarious employment in economically constrained firms: the case of Dutch agriculture. *Human Resource Management Journal*, 24, pages 19-37.

* Rémy, J. (2009). Une agriculture post-familiale? At: Hervieu, B., *et al*. (Eds). Les mondes agricoles en politique. De la fin des paysans au retour de la question agricole. *Sciencies Po. Les Presses. Paris*.

* Roca, A., Tous, C., & Xifra, M. (2014). Ocupación Real y cohesión territorial en el espacio agrario periurbano de Girona (Catalunya). At: XVII Coloquio de Geografia Rural, 3-6 Septembre 2014. Universitat de Girona.
# Labour profiles and Electronic Identification (EID) technology: assessing different management approaches on extensive sheep farming systems

Claire Morgan-Davies ±<fnref n="1" />, Nicola Lambe <fnref n="2" />, Ann McLaren <fnref n="1" />, Harriet Wishart <fnref n="1" />, Tony Waterhouse <fnref n="1" />& Davy McCracken <fnref n="1" />

## 1 Introduction

Extensive sheep farming systems in marginal areas suffer from climatic and production handicaps (Morgan-Davies et al., 2012). These systems play an important role by providing a source of local skilled labour, even if it is very seasonal (Waterhouse, 1996), and they also have a higher labour requirement in proportion to their total gross margin. The farming population in these areas is also an ageing one, with succession problems and not enough attraction to retain the next generation of farm labour (Madelrieux & Dedieu, 2008). Implementing new technologies on such systems could help rationalise labour requirements and improve farm performance (Olaizola et al., 2008). However, labour data at farm-task level are often not measured, or only assessed on a yearly basis (e.g. Nix, 2014), which does not reflect the seasonal variation of the workload. Assessing labour across the whole sheep production year at task level, and taking into account the variation between different farms, is paramount. This paper presents results from research undertaken on an extensive sheep farm in western Scotland, where yearly labour profiles at task level have been measured and compared for two different sheep management systems, one using Electronic Identification (EID) technology, the other following a more conventional approach. Data obtained through questionnaires completed by extensive sheep farmers were also used.

## 2 Materials and Methods

The research was conducted on a 2200 ha extensive sheep farm in western Scotland. A 900 ewe flock was divided between two systems; with two half-flocks sharing the same pastures, the difference being the use of technology at key handling times to allocate animals to different feeding groups or health treatments. Half of the flock (~450 ewes) was managed using automatic identification, weighing and recording technology (TEC), with each animal identified using Electronic Identification (EID) ear-tags. The other half relied on a more conventional approach (CON), where individuals were identified, weighed and recorded manually. More details of the management systems are available in Umstatter et al. (2013) and Morgan-Davies et al. (2014). Yearly labour profiles were created by measuring the time spent doing each task within the two systems. Measurements were carried out using a combination of direct recording (stop-watch and hand-held device for continuous recording (The Observer XT, version 9.0, Noldus Information Technology)) and videos. The individual tasks being measured followed the sheep year calendar and encompassed pre-mating (Nov), post-mating (Jan), scanning/pre-lambing (Mar), marking (Jun), shearing (Jul), weaning (Aug), post-weaning (Sep), ewe stock draw (Oct) and lamb selection for sales (Oct). For this particular study, labour recording during lambing was deliberately not included. Additionally, a comparison of labour required to do the tasks involved in more typical extensive low-input sheep management systems, with (Trad-TEC) or without automated technology (Trad-CON) was carried out. These two labour profiles were created using questionnaire answers from 17 extensive farmers who attended a farm open day. The farmers were asked to select which pre-defined tasks they used on their farms. The resulting labour profiles (Trad-CON and Trad-TEC) were quantified by task using the proportion of farmers that selected those different tasks. Results (labour in second/animal for each task) were first compiled and scaled up for 100 breeding ewes and 100 lambs, then for a typical large extensive sheep farm, with 1200 ewes and 1000 lambs.

## 3 Discussion

The four labour profiles showed differences during the sheep year (Fig. 1). The most time-consuming periods across the four profiles were in June (marking), July (shearing) and October (lamb sales). These periods represented times when all animals were handled (e.g. shearing), or when the tasks needing to be undertaken were numerous (e.g. marking). Selecting lambs for sale was also time-consuming, as animals were handled more than once; generally weighed fortnightly, to check which animals had reached their target weight for sale to an abattoir or market. Conversely, other handling periods, such as October stock draw of the ewes, required minimal handling (just weighing or condition scoring). However, there were differences between the profiles. The labour profiles with technology (TEC and Trad-TEC) were more labour-efficient than those without (CON and Trad-CON). For 100 breeding ewes, yearly labour use was more in CON than TEC by 35 hours 50 minutes. The Trad-TEC profile was also more labour-efficient (12 hours 23

<footnote n="1">¹ Hill & Mountain Research Centre, Future Farming Systems, Scotland's Rural College</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Animal & Veterinary Science, Scotland's Rural College</footnote>

<footnote>* Speaker</footnote>

<footnote>± Corresponding author: Claire.morgan-davies@sruc.ac.uk</footnote>
minutes) than the Trad-CON one.

<figure><img src="image_182.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1.** Yearly labour use (in seconds/animal) for the TEC, CON, Trad-CON and Trad-TEC labour profiles</figcaption></figure>

For a large extensive sheep farm with typically 1200 ewes and 1000 lambs, this equated to labour savings of 15 days (or 46 working days at 8 hours/day) for a TEC over a CON profile, and of 5 days (or 15 working days) for a Trad-TEC over a Trad-CON profile. Both TEC profiles were more labour-efficient due to the automatic weighing, sorting and recording of the animals, compared to the other two profiles where all handlings were done manually. Moreover, the TEC profiles encompassed the selected use of anthelmintic treatment of lambs (Targeted Selective Treatment; Morgan-Davies *et al.*, 2014; Kenyon *et al.*, 2009) in July, August and September. This method, based on individual weight performance of lambs, avoided a blanket treatment approach to anthelmintic use, which, in practice, resulted in less animals being treated, thus saving labour (and anthelmintic costs).

Although the Traditional profiles (Trad-TEC and Trad-CON) were created based on similar individual task measurements, they were less labour-consuming than the CON and TEC profiles. Indeed, farmers in the sample were undertaking fewer tasks at the different time periods. Whilst the CON and TEC profiles were designed to directly compare and benchmark the effect of using technology on an extensive research farm, with a relatively high input management, the Traditional profiles were designed to further represent the inherent variation in husbandry practices within the extensive farmers’ population (Morgan-Davies *et al.*, 2012) and to compare the effect of introducing technology on relatively lower input management sheep farms.

## 4 Conclusions

This research has therefore shown that designing a farming system that incorporates the use of technology could bring potential benefits in terms of labour efficiency, even when the variation in farmers’ practices (high input management or low input management) are taken into account. Provided the initial costs of the associated technology can be met, in addition to potential for improved animal welfare and performance, new technology can help make extensive farming systems more labour efficient and resilient.

*Acknowledgements.* SRUC receives financial support from the Scottish Government's Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division (RESAS), as part of Programme 1: Environment and Programme 2: Food

## References

Kenyon, F., Greer, A.W., Coles, G.C., Cringoli, G., Papadopoulos, E., Cabaret, J., Berrag, B., Varady, M., Van Wyk, J.A., Thomas, E., Vercruysse, J. & Jackson, F. (2009) The role of targeted selective treatments in the development of refugia-based approaches to the control of gastrointestinal nematodes of small ruminants. *Veterinary Parasitology*, **164**, 3-11.

Madelrieux, S. & Dedieu, B. (2008) Qualification and assessment of work organisation in livestock farms. *Animal*, **2**, 435-446.

Morgan-Davies, C., Waterhouse, A. & Wilson, R. (2012) Characterisation of farmers' responses to policy reforms in Scottish hill farming areas. *Small Ruminant Research*, **102**, 96-107.

Morgan-Davies, C., Wishart, H., Lambe, N., McLaren, A., Kenyon, F., McBean, D., Waterhouse, A. & Umstatter, C. (2014) Improving efficiency in hill ewes for a better climate. In: McCracken, K. (ed.) *Agriculture and the Environment X, Delivering Multiple Benefits from our Land: Sustainable Development in Practice*. Edinburgh, UK, 241-244.

Nix, J. (2014) Farm management pocketbook 45th edition. Agro Business Consultants Ltd, Melton Mowbray.

Olaizola, A.M., Chertouh, T. & Manrique, E. (2008) Adoption of a new feeding technology in Mediterranean sheep farming systems: Implications and economic evaluation. *Small Ruminant Research*, **79**, 137-145.

Umstatter, C., Morgan-Davies, C., Stevens, H., Kenyon, F., McBean, D., Lambe, N. & Waterhouse, A. (2013) Integrating Electronic Identification into Hill Sheep Management. In: Berckmans, D. and Vandermeulen, J. (ed.), *Precision Livestock Farming '13*. Leuven, Belgium, 412-420.

Waterhouse, A. (1996) Animal welfare and sustainability of production under extensive conditions – a European perspective. *Applied Animal Behaviour Science*, **49**, 29-40.
# Bio-economic assessments of the CAP reform and feed self-sufficiency scenarios on dairy farms in Piedmont, Italy

Stefano Gaudino ±<fnref n="1" />, Pytrik Reidsma<fnref n="2" />, Argyris Kanellopoulos<fnref n="3" />, Dario Sacco *<fnref n="1" /> & Martin van Ittersum<fnref n="2" />

## 1 Introduction

Sustainable intensification is a challenge for specialised dairy farms that must be competitive and respect environmental constraints. A tighter integration of cropping and livestock systems, both in terms of feed and manure flows, can be beneficial for the farm economy and for the environment. In addition, the greening of the direct payments introduced in the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) can stimulate the transition towards more sustainable systems. The aim of this study was to quantitatively assess, through indicators, the impacts of CAP-greening policies and scenarios of feed self-sufficiency on three representative dairy farms in Piedmont, Italy.

## 2 Materials and methods

The Piemonte Region is located in the western Po Plain (NW Italy). As stocking rate is the determining indicator of a farm's intensification level (Gaudino et al., 2014), one farm with a high ('Intensive') and one with a low ('Extensive') stocking rate was selected for this analysis. In addition, an 'Organic' farm was included. Activities provided to the model were those in current situation plus specific alternative crops.

FSSIM (Louhichi et al., 2010; Belhouchette et al., 2011), an optimisation model that maximizes the farm's gross margin subject to relevant resource and policy constraints, was used to evaluate three alternative scenarios. Initially, we optimized the model for gross margin. Then, we simulated three scenarios. Firstly, the feed self-sufficiency scenario (FSS), representative of a tight integration of cropping and livestock systems, evaluated the consequences of minimizing the purchased feed inputs. Secondly, the greening scenario (greening) focused on evaluating the consequences of the greening measures as proposed by the CAP reform 2013-2020. Greening measures include diversification of crop cultivation, maintenance of permanent grassland, and maintenance of an "ecological focus area". The combination of both scenarios represents the third scenario (combi) which explored possible interactions between the effects of the FSS and greening scenarios.

The economic and environmental performance of the three farms under the different scenarios was evaluated and compared to the current situation through eight indicators, related to economic, environmental, and production efficiency aspects. A sensitivity analysis was carried out to explore the sensitivity of the farm gross margin, cropping system organization and ration composition to the degree of farm FSS.

## 3 Results

In general, silage maize is important in the current systems for animal feeding, results show that on-farm protein production combined with grain maize and hay from mixed grassland are pivotal in offering profitable and environmental friendly solutions.

The number of animals bred in the farm is highly correlated with the farm gross margin. Sensitivity analysis suggests that 90% feed self-sufficiency is difficult to reach without reducing animal numbers and consequently gross margin for farms with a high stocking rate, and/or medium or low cropping system yields.

Indicator results are reported in Table 1. The first two columns represent economic indicators. With the exception of the organic farm, Cropping System Production (CSP) was, on average, higher in the different scenarios than in the current situation. Farm management improvements originated mainly from the adoption of alternative crops, or from the substitution of winter cereals with more profitable crops, such as grain maize, soybean, grassland and lucerne. In extensive and organic farms, the FSS scenario limited CSP more than the greening scenario.

With regard to Milk production, as far as the animal number was kept constant, it was also unchanged. Instead the strong limitation to purchase feed for livestock in the FSS scenario, as expected reduced the livestock number with an important consequence for milk production. This occurred most on the intensive farm where it is more difficult to adapt already efficient cropping systems to livestock system requirements.

<footnote n="1">¹ Department of Agriculture, Forest and Food Sciences - University of Turin- via L. Da Vinci 44, 10095 Grugliasco (TO) - Italy.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Plant Production Systems Group, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 430, 6700 AK Wageningen, The Netherlands.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Operations Research and Logistics Group, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6708 KN Wageningen, The Netherlands.</footnote>

<footnote>* Speaker</footnote>

<footnote>± Corresponding author: stefano.gaudino@unito.it</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 1.** Indicator results of the Extensive, Intensive and Organic farm types.</caption><thead><tr><th>Farms</th><th>Scenarios</th><th>Cropping System<br>Production (€ ha<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>Milk production<br>(€ ha<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>Gross N<br>Balance<br>(kg N ha<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>Gross P<br>Balance<br>(kg P ha<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>GHG TOTAL<br>(kg CO<sub>2</sub> eq ha<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>NH<sub>3</sub> TOTAL<br>(kg CO<sub>2</sub> eq ha<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>Eco efficiency<br>(kg milk kg N<br>surplus<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>Carbon Credit<br>(kg milk kg GHG<sup>-1</sup>)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">Extensive</td><td>Current Situation</td><td>1708</td><td>3937</td><td>151</td><td>26</td><td>7846</td><td>91</td><td>65</td><td>1.25</td></tr><tr><td>Gross Margin</td><td>2063</td><td>3937</td><td>150</td><td>19</td><td>8082</td><td>86</td><td>66</td><td>1.25</td></tr><tr><td>FSS</td><td>1867</td><td>3760</td><td>124</td><td>16</td><td>7214</td><td>78</td><td>76</td><td>1.30</td></tr><tr><td>Greening</td><td>2174</td><td>3937</td><td>167</td><td>21</td><td>8134</td><td>89</td><td>59</td><td>1.21</td></tr><tr><td>Combi</td><td>1890</td><td>3764</td><td>133</td><td>16</td><td>7380</td><td>79</td><td>71</td><td>1.28</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Intensive</td><td>Current Situation</td><td>1575</td><td>8840</td><td>275</td><td>25</td><td>16176</td><td>185</td><td>80</td><td>1.37</td></tr><tr><td>Gross Margin</td><td>1701</td><td>8840</td><td>205</td><td>30</td><td>15889</td><td>173</td><td>108</td><td>1.39</td></tr><tr><td>FSS</td><td>2160</td><td>5137</td><td>94</td><td>7</td><td>9575</td><td>84</td><td>137</td><td>1.34</td></tr><tr><td>Greening</td><td>1701</td><td>8840</td><td>205</td><td>30</td><td>15889</td><td>173</td><td>108</td><td>1.39</td></tr><tr><td>Combi</td><td>2145</td><td>5110</td><td>99</td><td>6</td><td>9589</td><td>95</td><td>129</td><td>1.33</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Organic</td><td>Current Situation</td><td>4355</td><td>8287</td><td>164</td><td>9</td><td>15263</td><td>184</td><td>107</td><td>1.16</td></tr><tr><td>Gross Margin</td><td>4090</td><td>8287</td><td>29</td><td>12</td><td>15169</td><td>177</td><td>-</td><td>1.16</td></tr><tr><td>FSS</td><td>3674</td><td>8287</td><td>20</td><td>16</td><td>15403</td><td>177</td><td>867</td><td>1.14</td></tr><tr><td>Greening</td><td>4084</td><td>8287</td><td>12</td><td>21</td><td>15212</td><td>177</td><td>-</td><td>1.16</td></tr><tr><td>Combi</td><td>3759</td><td>8287</td><td>23</td><td>16</td><td>15098</td><td>177</td><td>776</td><td>1.17</td></tr></tbody></table>

Environmental indicators (column three to six in Table 1) take advantage from gross margin maximisation compared to current situation, except the P balance for the intensive and organic farm. FSS scenario decreased farm gate N (GNB) and P balances (GPB) due to the reduction in animal numbers, which also caused the emissions indicators (GHG total and NH₃ total) to decrease.

In the greening scenario, N balance and GHG emissions increased marginally. The N surplus was caused by the increased permanent grassland area and the related biologically-fixed N by the legume species. The increased GHG emissions were caused by an increased grain maize surface area that emitted more CO₂ compared to the other crops.

The production efficiency indicators (last two columns in Table 1) represent the amount of milk produced for unit of N surplus or GHG emission. Values were not calculated for the organic farm because extremely low N surpluses. In general N eco-efficiency is affected by total N inputs, while carbon credits are affected only by cropping system management and animal number. The gross margin maximisation scenario increased or maintained efficiency at the current level in all situations. FSS scenario had always a positive effect on N eco-efficiency due to N input reduction while its effect was slightly negative on Carbon Credits both in Intensive and Organic farms due to a larger share of arable crops. Greening scenario had a different effect depending on the farm type.

It is interesting to note that the organic farm reached very high values for N eco-efficiency in all scenarios due to its high milk production and very low N surplus. Low surpluses were justified by a better manure management.

## 4 Discussion and conclusion

We found that the current situation of the analysed farms could be improved in terms of gross margin. Moreover the application of policies aimed at reducing environmental impact does not necessarily reduce farm profit.

In general there is large possibility to increase gross margin in the analysed farms. The most profitable activity in the farm is milk production, then gross margin maximisation can be obtained reducing or excluding cash crop production and investing all farm area in feed production.

In intensive farm the value obtained for N eco-efficiency indicator equalled 80 kg of milk per kg of N surplus, which was identified as the target for conventional dairy farming systems by De Simone *et al.* (1997).

As to greening policies, it appeared that extensive and organic farms already largely comply with the greening constraints, and therefore the extra subsidy is a bonus, while the intensive farm is likely to sacrifice the subsidy as adapting the farm plan will substantially reduce profit. Introduction of N-fixing crops in Ecological Focus Areas was the easiest greening strategy to adopt for all three farms and led to an increase in the protein feed self-sufficiency.

## References

* Belhouchette H, Louhichi K., Therond O., Mouratiadou I., Wery J., Van Ittersum M., Flichman G. (2011). Assessing the impact of the Nitrate Directive on farming systems using a bio-economic modelling chain. Agricultural Systems 104, 135–145.

* De Simone, L.D. and Popoff, F. (1997). Eco-efficiency. The Business Link to Sustainable Development. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge, UK, p. 280.

* Gaudino S., Goia I., Grignani C., Monaco S., Sacco D. (2014). Assessing agro-environmental performance of dairy farms in northwest Italy based on aggregated results from indicators. Journal of Environmental Management. Accepted on 06 March 2014

* Louhichi, K., Kanellopoulos, A., Janssen, S., Flichman, G., Blanco, M., Hengsdijk, H., Heckelei, T., Berentsen, P., Oude, Lansink, P., Van Ittersum, M. (2010). FSSIM, a bio-economic farm model for simulating the response of EU farming systems to agricultural and environmental policies. Agricultural Systems 103 (8), 585–597.
# Improving the performances of a pastoral system: simulation results against field data

Magali Jouven <fnref n="1" />*±, Marielle Roulenc <fnref n="2" />, Fabien Carriere <fnref n="3" />, Sébastien Douls <fnref n="3" />, Frédéric Vezinet <fnref n="3" />, Didier Foulquier <fnref n="3" /> & Marc Benoît <fnref n="2" />

## 1 Introduction

The global context of an increasing demand for agricultural products, associated with an increasing concern about the environmental footprint of human activities, triggers changes in agricultural systems. In the perspective of a shift towards agro-ecology, farming systems should rely more on alternative feed resources such as agricultural / agro-industrial by-products or rangelands (Dumont et al., 2013). In Mediterranean areas, rangelands have become a secondary feed resource, often grazed only by animals with low feed requirements in periods of low forage availability (summer or winter) (Jouven et al., 2010). The issue today is to design sustainable rangeland-based farming systems, which display technical, economical and environmental performances equal or higher than traditional systems.

The INRA experimental station of La Fage includes a meat sheep farming system, where prolific *Romane* sheep are reared full outdoors on the rangeland (Molénat et al., 2005). In 2010, a modelling study was undertaken to identify means to reduce inputs and increase the reliance of the feeding system on rangeland vegetation (Jouven et al., 2011). Changes in the management practices were implemented in 2011. The objective of this paper is to analyze the similarities and differences between model predictions and field observations, based on technical and economic indicators. The analysis is based on four campaigns (2011-2014), and puts into perspective both the technical issues associated with rangeland-based feeding and the potential contribution of modelling studies to farming system design.

## 2 Materials and Methods

The meat sheep flock in the La Fage experimental farm is bred mainly to study the genetic part of animal adaptation to a harsh environment. In order to obtain high animal productivity in a constrained environment, a prolific breed (*Romane* breed, 67.5 kg, prolificacy >240%) is raised full outdoors on the rangeland, with a single lambing period in spring. Biomass production, feeding management and animal performance have been monitored for more than 30 years, thus producing a valuable database to support modelling studies. Though, due to the experimental issues, a number of technical parameters differ from that of a “normal” farm (e.g. high replacement rate, genetic inheritance instead of performance as criteria for selection, experimental animals excluded from pasture during [short] experimental periods, all lambs fattened for carcass analysis, artificial insemination). In 2007-8, an analysis of the feeding system suggested that rangelands could be used more efficiently and provide up to 75% of animal requirements (Jouven et al., 2009).

In 2010, a re-design of the farming system was discussed with the La Fage staff and a modelling study was undertaken to assess the potential performance of the new system. Such study considered a virtual farm, similar to La Fage but free from experimental constraints and thus more representative of the local agricultural context. The virtual farm comprised 13 ha of arable land, 18 ha of fertilized rangeland and 260 ha of poor rangeland. Its flock counted 330 females (adults + young replacement); due to the high prolificacy, only 87.5% of the lambs suckled their mother, the other being fed artificially, indoors. Among the lambs not kept for replacement, 20% were sold just after weaning and the others were fattened. A simple model on an excel file calculating the consumption of grazed forage and supplementation was associated with the OSTRAL model (Benoît, 1998; Benoit et al., 2014) for the simulations. The main changes tested were: a) delaying the 1st lambing at 2 years (=> more unproductive females, but slower growth rate and less concentrate required); b) aligning the lambing period with grass growth on the fertilized rangeland; c) increasing the contribution of rangelands to the diet by specializing paddocks for a given season and type of animal and aiming a total consumption of the available biomass; d) reducing the need to buy concentrate by fattening lambs on grass and e) growing cereals on 2.8 ha. More details on model and simulation parameters are available in Jouven et al. (2011).

Given the predicted improvement of multiple system performances (technical: rangeland use and feed self-sufficiency; economic: gross margin and income; environmental: non-renewable energy consumption), the “real” system was re-designed in 2010. In the last four years (2011-2014), the changes simulated were effectively implemented, apart for the fattening of lambs on grass. Compared to the virtual system, the new system still displayed peculiarities due to its experimental activities (see above).

<footnote n="1">¹ UMR SELMET, dept. MPRS, Montpellier SupAgro, F-34060 Montpellier</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² UMRH, dept. SAE2, INRA, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Chamanelle</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Domaine de La Fage, dept. GA, INRA, F-12250 Saint-Jean-et-Saint-Paul</footnote>

<footnote>* Speaker</footnote>

<footnote>± Corresponding author: magali.jouven@supagro.fr</footnote>
## 3 Results – Discussion

The climatic conditions in La Fage are typical of the southern Massif Central (alt. 800m): annual precipitations around 900-1000mm with a dryer period in summer and an average daily temperature of 9-10°C with a cold winter. The period considered in our study (2006-2014) was reputed quite favorable in terms of forage availability at pasture.

Strategic indicators of technical and economic performance are presented in Table 1. In line with model predictions, the average prolificacy of the flock increased, although the average values observed were lower than the simulations. Lamb mortality was higher than expected; it increased in 2011-2014 compared to the base situation. A number of factors can explain these two figures: 1) in the former system, female lambs were mated earlier, thus the primiparous females were allowed to suckle only 1 lamb (in the re-designed system: 2 lambs), which made it easier for the mother to care for its offspring. 2) in the former system, lambing took place a fortnight earlier, in a small paddock where sheep were fed conserved forage and concentrate, thus during their first two weeks of life the lambs were protected from predation. In 2014, the paddocks grazed in early spring were fenced with electrified nets, and mortality (assessed based on the number of lambs found dead or not found at all) dropped to 22%. 3) in 2013, due to a great forage availability at pasture (quantity + quality) during the former mating period, prolificacy exploded (272%) and, as a direct (small, fragile lambs) and indirect (more predation) consequence, lamb mortality too (42%). Overall productivity, when expressed per female > 12 months, was thus reduced by almost 30% between 2006-2009 and 2011-2014.

<table><caption>**Table 1.** A few indicators of performance for the simulations and the real system</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Indicator</th><th colspan="2">Simulations (virtual farm)</th><th colspan="2">Observations (experimental farm, average ± s.d.)</th></tr><tr><th>Base situation</th><th>Re-designed system</th><th>Base situation(2006-9)</th><th>New system (2011-14)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Flock size* (nb)</td><td>280</td><td>280</td><td>274 ±10</td><td>271 ±10</td></tr><tr><td>Femalesmated (nb)</td><td>330</td><td>280</td><td>334 ±17</td><td>238 ±19</td></tr><tr><td>Replacement (nb)</td><td>50</td><td>50+50 (2 generations)</td><td>149±11</td><td>162±5 (2 generations)</td></tr><tr><td>Prolificacy (%)</td><td>242</td><td>250</td><td>220 ±7</td><td>237 ±27</td></tr><tr><td>Mortality (%)</td><td>19.2</td><td>19.2</td><td>20 ±5</td><td>30 ±8</td></tr><tr><td>Productivity* (%)</td><td>196</td><td>184</td><td>196 ±28</td><td>138 ±13</td></tr><tr><td>Concentrate * (kg)</td><td>171</td><td>86</td><td>206±10</td><td>95±4</td></tr><tr><td>Feed self-sufficiency (%)</td><td>73</td><td>93</td><td>75 ±4</td><td>90 ±2</td></tr><tr><td>Gross product* (€)</td><td>152</td><td>143</td><td>190 ±25</td><td>149 ±13</td></tr><tr><td>Gross margin* (€)</td><td>81</td><td>97</td><td>86 ±29</td><td>73 ±15</td></tr></tbody></table>

figures are expressed per female > 12 months of age

Consistently with simulation results, the re-design of the system enabled to reduce by half concentrate consumption and increase feed self-sufficiency to reach 90% of flock requirements. The number of females mated in the “real” re-designed system was reduced by 29% instead than by 15% in the simulations. As a consequence, with the increase of lamb mortality, the gross product dropped by more than 20% compared to the base situation. Conversely to simulations, the new system displayed a lower gross margin than the former one. The main reasons explaining this counter-performance are the decrease in productivity more pronounced than expected and the perturbations associated with experimental activities, both in terms of costs and in terms of loss of earnings.

## 4 Conclusions

Consistently with simulation results, re-organizing reproduction and the feeding system has enabled to increase substantially the reliance on grazed forage and feed self-sufficiency. The economic indicators are difficult to analyse per se, due to the costs associated with experimental activities in La Fage. Though, our results suggest that grazing management during the first weeks after lambing and during mating require special attention, in order to control the two main parameters of ewe productivity which are prolificacy and lamb mortality. Delaying the 1st lambing at 2 years also penalizes systems with high numbers of unproductive animals. Our models did not consider predation and feeding effect on reproductive performance, which appear to be determinant for the performance of pastoral systems. Thus, the modelling approach served to identify the strategic component of system management, but overall performance requires the implementation of “precision” day-to-day management based upon a close observation of the local conditions.

*Acknowledgements.* The authors are grateful to all the research and technical staff who produced the data on which the modelling study was based.

## References

* Benoit M. (1998) Un outil de simulation du fonctionnement du troupeau ovin allaitant et de ses résultats économiques : une aide pour l'adaptation des contextes nouveaux. INRA Productions Animales, **11**, 199-209.

* Benoit M., Tournadre H., Laignel G., Hostiou N., Thomas Y., Prache S., 2014. La modélisation pour concevoir et évaluer des expérimentations système ». Exemple du modèle Ostral en production ovine allaitante. *Rencontres Recherche Ruminants*, **21**, 375-378.

* Dumont B. Fortun-Lamothe L., Jouven M., Thomas M., Tichit M. (2013) Prospects from agroecology in the 21st century, *Animal*, **7**, 1028-1043. Jouven M., Lapeyronie P., Moulin C-H., Bocquier F. (2010) Rangeland utilization in Mediterranean farming systems, *Animal*, **4**, 1746-1757.

* Jouven M., Foulquié D., Autran P., Moulin C-H. (2009) Le parcours, un élément de base du système d'alimentation ? Résultats et perspectives pour l'élevage ovin allaitant au Domaine INRA de La Fage. *Rencontres Recherche Ruminants*, **16**, 379.

* Jouven M., Foulquié D., Benoît M. (2011) Grazerangelands to improvefarm performance; example for an extensive meatsheepfarming system, *Options Méditerranéennes Série A.*, **100**, 249-254.
# Division of labour in dairy farming – a way to increase income and reduce environmental impact?

Silvia M.R.R. Marton ±1,2, Albert Zimmermann 3 & Gérard Gaillard 1

## 1 Introduction

The efficiency of agricultural production depends on many naturally given factors such as climate, topography, or soil structure, and therefore some regions are considered disadvantaged over others. In Switzerland, this is the case for the mountain region, where the vegetation period is shorter and slopes are steeper, both factors impeding competitive crop production. Even for cattle production, which is performed by most mountain farmers, the disadvantage compared to lowland farmers is large. This is reflected by a lower income of mountain dairy farms (Mouron & Schmid, 2011). It is also observed that mountain farms often have a higher environmental impact per product unit (Alig et al., 2011).

In an environmental context, most studies focus on absolute advantages to identify the best region for the production of a given product (Edwards-Jones, 2010), and thus fail to identify products that would be suitable for disadvantaged regions. However, the economic concept of comparative advantage states that a division of labour between two regions can be beneficial for both parties, even if one of the two has an absolute disadvantage in every production activity (Ricardo, 1817). The aim of our study is to test if the concept is applicable in an environmental context by comparing collaborative and non-collaborative dairy production systems.

## 2 Materials and Methods

**Modelled farms and scenarios:** Dairy farms from the lowlands and mountains are modelled based on data from the Swiss Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN, Mouron & Schmid, 2011). The base line (BL) scenario represents typical Swiss dairy production without collaboration. Lowland and mountain BL farms are specialised dairy farms that keep their own young stock of replacement animals. The ratio between farms from the two regions used for calculating average Swiss milk production is based on Swiss dairy statistics (TSM, 2013). In two scenarios a collaboration of mountain and lowland farms is modelled, where milk production is concentrated in the lowlands and mountain farm-skeep the young stock. When outsourcing the young stock to a mountain farm, the lowland farmer can either increase the number of dairy cows on his farm, or increase the cropping area. The two options are represented in scenarios C1 and C2, respectively. The ratio between mountain and lowland farms is defined by the lowland farmers' demand of restocking animals.

**Socio-Economic assessment:** The collaborative systems have an effect on farmers' income as well as on their work load. We consider the marginal return and the associated work load of the changes on farm level based on data from Boessinger et al. (2013). The effect of a complete switch from BL to C1 or C2 in Switzerland is estimated based on farm data from Swiss dairy statistics and the ratio between lowland and farmers in the compared scenarios.

**Life cycle assessment:** The calculation of the life cycle assessment is performed with the method SALCA (Swiss Agricultural Life Cycle Assessment, Nemecek et al., 2010). Changes of the dairy production system affect the crop production on the farm, e.g. through changed availability of manure, as well as the amount of crops and the co-product meat produced within the system. To generate systems with the same function, i.e. the same outputs, system expansion is applied. The functional unit (FU) is defined as 1 kg fat and protein corrected milk (FPCM) plus the respective amount of crops and meat. Table 1 shows the composition of the FU for the comparison of BL and C2.

Results are displayed for the total farm as well as for the different farming activities, and for the following impact categories: cumulative non-renewable energy demand, aquatic eutrophication N, and terrestrial ecotoxicity.

<table><caption>**Table 1.** Composite functional unit (FU) for the comparison of baseline (BL) scenario C2.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="3">Baseline</th><th colspan="3">Scenario C2</th><th rowspan="2">composition of FU</th></tr><tr><th>Lowland</th><th>Mountain</th><th>System exp.</th><th>Lowland</th><th>Mountain</th><th>System exp.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Milk (kg FPCM)</td><td>0.680</td><td>0.320</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1.000</td></tr><tr><td>Beef (kg LW)</td><td>0.026</td><td>0.014</td><td>-</td><td>0.037</td><td>0.001</td><td>0.002</td><td>0.040</td></tr><tr><td>Crops (kg DM)</td><td>0.030</td><td>0.002</td><td>0.126</td><td>0.157</td><td>0.001</td><td>-</td><td>0.158</td></tr></tbody></table>

FPCM: fat and protein corrected milk; LW: live weight; DM: dry matter; System exp.: System expansion

<footnote n="1">¹ Life Cycle Assessment, Institute for Sustainability Sciences, Agroscope, 8046 Zurich, Switzerland</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² ETH Zurich, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Socioeconomics, Institute for Sustainability Sciences, Agroscope, 8356 Ettenhausen, Switzerland</footnote>

<footnote>* Speaker</footnote>

<footnote>± Corresponding author: silvia.marton@agroscope.admin.ch</footnote>
## 3 Results and Discussion

**Socio-Economic effects of collaborative dairy production:** For an average lowland dairy farm the collaboration in C1 is cost-neutral, while work load is reduced slightly. Income increases for farms that generate an above-average income per cow, e.g. if they can sell milk for cheese production where higher prices are paid. In C2, lowland farmers' income is reduced. However, as cropping is less labour intensive, 530 working hours per year are saved. If a monetary value based on opportunity costs is attributed to the saved working hours, C2 farmers benefit from collaboration. For mountain farms the financial success depends on the intensity of rearing. With an age of 30 month at first calving a decrease in income is expected, with a younger age an increase is possible.

Currently, the ratio between mountain and lowland dairy farmers is 1:1.2 (TSM, 2013). Based on the demand of heifers by lowland farms, the ratio for the scenarios C1 and C2 would be 1:2.7 and 1:3.3, respectively. If all milk would be produced collaboratively, additional suitable farming systems for mountain farms must be identified to fill the gap.

**Environmental benefits of collaboration:** Collaboration reduces the environmental impact of dairy farming in both collaborative scenarios, and for all studied impact categories. Results for non-renewable energy demand are illustrated in Fig. 1. Total reduction of non-renewable energy demand of C1 is -9 % and of C2 -7 %. Eutrophication is reduced by -5 % and -8 %, and ecotoxicity by -11 % and -8 % in the collaborative scenarios. The impact of keeping the young stock increases, due to the lower efficiency on mountain farms, but this increase is overcompensated by an impact reduction for milk production (dairy cows), thus resulting in a reduced impact of the total dairy system. In C1, collaboration also has a positive side-effect on cropping activities for energy demand and ecotoxicity, in C2 a positive side-effect for cropping is observed for all three impact categories.

The reduction of the environmental impact in the collaborative systems C1 and C2 is caused by two effects: (1) the comparative advantage effect due to the collaboration, (2) the relocation of production effect, as the ratio between mountain and lowland farms involved in dairy production changes. The comparative advantage effect is responsible for 47 and 33 % of the reduction in non-renewable energy demand in C1 and C2, for 19 and 47 % of the reduction in eutrophication and for 54 and 52 % of the reduction in ecotoxicity, respectively.

<figure><img src="image_183.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1.** Differences in non-renewable energy demand between baseline (BL) and collaborative scenarios C1 and C2</figcaption></figure>

## 4 Conclusions

Division of labour between advantaged lowland and disadvantaged mountain farms in dairy production can help to reduce the environmental impact of milk production compared to non-collaborative dairy production, as mountain farmers have a comparative environmental advantage for keeping young stock while lowland farmers have one for milk production. From the socio-economic perspective, the lowland farmers' benefit from collaboration is higher.

*Acknowledgements.* This work has been funded under the EU seventh Framework Programme by the CANTOGETHER project N°289328: Crops and ANimals TOGETHER. The views expressed in this work are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessary reflect the views of the European Commission.

## References

Alig, M., Mieleitner, J. & Baumgartner, D.U. (2011). Umweltwirkung der Milchproduktion. In: Hersener J., Baumgartner D.U., Dux D. (Eds.): *Zentrale Auswertung von Ökobilanzen landwirtschaftlicher Betriebe (ZA-ÖB)*. Forschungsanstalt Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon ART, Zürich/Ettenhausen.

Boessinger, M., Buchmann, M., Chassot A., Chollet, R., Dietiker, D., Droz, P., Dugon, J., Graf, S., Hanhart, J., Hauser, S., Künzler, R., Müller, M., Python, P., Schoch, H., Sutter, F., Vonnez, J.-F., Böhler, D., Dierauer, H., Früh, B., Häsli, A., Lévite, D., Lichtenhahn, M., Meili, E., Suter, F., Werne, S. (2013). Deckungsbeitragskatalog Ausgabe 2013. AGRIDEA, Lindau ZH, Switzerland.

Edwards-Jones, G. (2010). Does eating local food reduce the environmental impact of food production and enhance consumer healt? *Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 69*, 582-591

Mouron, P. & Schmid, D. (2011). Zentrale Auswertung von Buchhaltungsdaten – Grundlagenbericht 2010. Agroscope, Ettenhausen, Switzerland.

Nemecek, T., Freiermuth Knuchel, R., Alig, M. & Gaillard, G. (2010). The advantages of generic LCA tools for agriculture: examples SALCAcrop and SALCAfarm. In: Proc. 7th Int. Conf. on LCA in the Agri-Food Sector, Bari, Italy, 433-438.

Ricardo, D. (1817). On the principles of political economy, and taxation. John Murrar, London.

TSM. (2013). Milchstatistik 2012. Schweizerischer Bauernverband, TSM Treuhand GmbH, Schweizer Milchprodzenten, Switzerland. Cheese Marketing AG, Bern, Switzerland.
# Improving Nutrient Use Efficiency By Reconnecting Crops And Livestock

Christine A Watson*±<fnref n="1" />, Geoff Squire<fnref n="2" />, Graham Begg<fnref n="2" />, Cairistiona F E Topp<fnref n="1" /> & Anthony C Edwards<fnref n="1" />

## 1 Introduction

On a global scale there is an increasing disconnection between crop and livestock production, partly fuelled by human dietary change with increased consumption of animal protein and the associated trade of protein crops (Lassaletta *et al.* 2014). This intensification of agriculture has been accompanied by significant changes in resource use and adverse environmental impacts (Foley *et al.* 2005). Historically in the UK, livestock production was part of an integrated system where a large proportion of the feed and bedding was homegrown and manure returned nutrients directly to crops on-farm. The reasons for increased specialisation in agriculture are complex but one of the possible reasons is that cheap resources lead to specialisation where restricted ones lead to mixed crop and livestock enterprises. The total area of agricultural land in Scotland has remained relatively stable over the last century but there have been some major changes, for example, barley now accounts for ~75% of the grain growing area compared with a high production of oats in the 1950s, the decline in the oat crop coincides with a reduction in horses for agricultural purposes. Declining reliance on manures in arable systems to provide the nutrients may help to explain the reported declines in soil fertility in arable farming systems (Heikkinen *et al.* 2013).

A large scale return to traditional mixed farming is perhaps unlikely but there are interesting questions around the appropriate geographical scale at which the reintegration of crops and livestock might be most useful from a resource perspective. Some argue that the farm is the appropriate scale e.g. Wilson (2009) but others that ecosystem services are produced at the landscape scale (Smith, 2010). There are a range of possibilities for reintegration including an “expanded” nutrient cycle where byproducts from crops harvested and processed for human consumption are returned to livestock farms as feed and manures are reapplied to arable land. Here we explore some of the crop area and farm structural changes which are a precursor to developing nutrient budgets for Scottish regions illustrating how specialized and integrated crop livestock systems could change nutrient use efficiency.

## 2 Materials and Methods

National changes in cropping areas were assessed from the June census data for Scotland (http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Agriculture-Fisheries/PubFinalResultsJuneCensus). To understand regional change in cropping patterns, ten geographical areas were selected which cover the main farming areas in Eastern Scotland from Berwick in the south-east to the Black-Isle in the north-east. June census data for each of the ten geographical areas for the 24 years from 1982 to 2005 inclusive were obtained from the Scottish Executive. The parish data was aggregated and delivered as summed totals for each geographical area (Parish group). The average size of a geographical area was 11,300 ha with 165 holdings. Data on the total number of dairy cows in Scotland for the period was extracted also extracted from the June census data and data on number of dairy holdings and average herd size was obtained from DairyCo (http://www.dairyco.org.uk/). Nationally available data on nitrogen fertiliser applications and excreta produced per animal type (IPCC, 2006) has been extracted to assess the balance between manure available N and crop requirements.

<figure><img src="image_184.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Change in areas of wheat and barley production in Scotland 1982-2005</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="1">1 Scotland's Rural College, West Mains Rd, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2 The James Hutton Institute, Invergowrie, Dundee, DD2 5DA, UK</footnote>

<footnote>* Speaker</footnote>

<footnote>± Corresponding author: Christine.watson@sruc.ac.uk</footnote>
**3 Results - Discussion**

There was an overall decline in the total area of wheat and barley grown in Scotland between 1982 and 2005 (Fig. 1) with a slight increase in wheat and a decline in both spring and winter barley. Concomitantly the area of oilseed rape grown increased from 1600 ha to 35, 591 ha. However, these national statistics mask regional level changes in cropping area. Fig. 2 shows that in Area A there was a much smaller shift from Spring barley to wheat that in Area B. Area A is close to the traditional centre of the whisky industry in the North East and Area B closer to the English market in the South East. In relation to dairy farming in Scotland, the total dairy herd declined from 282000 to 197000 in the period 1982-2005. More recent data shows that there are major changes in farm structure as DairyCo report that average dairy herd size in Scotland grew from 125 cows in 2003 to 153 in 2013. Over the same period (2003-2103) the number of holdings with dairy cows fell from 1590 to 894. The inability of currently estimated available nitrogen in animal excreta to match the required N for Scottish crop production at recommended levels is shown in Fig. 3.

<figure><img src="image_185.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2.** Change in percentage of the agricultural land area sown to spring barley and wheat in 4 separate Parish groups (1982-2005). Each line represents one Parish group. The ellipse shapes are indicative of the data points for each group.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_186.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3.** Available N from excreta N (Avail N) and Fertiliser (Fert) N requirements</figcaption></figure>

**4 Conclusions**

While reintegrating crops and livestock may bring benefits from a resource use perspective they will only be taken up in practice if they are economically viable. It is important to understand how resource use, and other ecosystem services would be influenced at the farm level but also in the context of the wider farmed landscape and hence take into account the linkages between farms and farming systems. We also need to consider what lessons we can take from the past success of mixed crop and livestock systems and apply to future farming.

*Acknowledgements*. This work is part of the Scottish Government Strategic Research Programme.

**References**

Foley, J.A., De Fries, R., Asner, G.P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S.R., Chapin, F.S., Coe, M.T., Daily, G.C., Gibbs, H.K., Helkowski, J.H., Holloway, T., Howard, E.A., Kucharik, C.J., Monfreda, C., Patz, J.A., Prentice, I.C., Ramankutty, N. & Synder, P.K. (2005). Global consequences of land use. *Science*, **309**,570–574.

Heikkinen, J., Ketoja, E., Nuutinen, V. & Regina, K. (2013). Declining trend of carbon in Finnish cropland soils in 1974–2009. *Global Change Biology*, **19**, 1456–1469.

Lassaletta, L., Billen, G., Grizzetti, B., Garnier, J., Leach, A.M. & Galloway, J.N. (2014). Food and feed trade as a factor in the global nitrogen cycle: 50 year trends. *Biogeochemistry* **118**, 225–41.

Smith, H.G. (2010). Ecosystem services in sustainable agriculture. *Formas Focus* **17**, 23-33. Formas, Stockholm.

Wilson, G.A. (2009). The spatiality of multifunctional agriculture: A human geography perspective. *Geoforum*, **40**, 269–280.
# Co-innovation of family farm systems: developing sustainable livestock production systems based on natural grasslands

Verónica Aguerre *±<fnref n="1" />, Andrea Ruggia *<fnref n="1" />, Santiago Scarlato <fnref n="1" /> & Maria Marta Albicette <fnref n="1" />

## 1 Introduction

In Uruguay, during the last decades the number of farms has decreased significantly being the family farms the most affected ones. Between 2000 and 2011, 21% of the farms disappeared. However, Uruguay has 26.480 livestock farms in 11.7 million of hectares, most of them family farming systems based on natural grasslands. In those systems, the level of technology applied is low, which in turn, determines low productive efficiency and high output variability across time. Although several technological alternatives have been generated by research, farmers didn't use them, so significant improvement in sustainability of livestock farmers was not obtained. The technology transfer approach was not successful to promote learning and changes leading to innovation. We proposed that at the farm level there are opportunities to improve the productive and economic results through an adequate selection and orientation of the productive activities and applying the adequate technologies, but in a modality in which researchers and farmers are closely involved in that co-design process. A co-innovation approach implemented in the horticulture systems in Uruguay successfully contributed to improve their sustainability. Proposals for improvement were discussed between farms and scientists considering farmer's objectives and resources (Dogliotti et al., 2014). At the regional level there are opportunities to coordinate activities to enhance family's quality of life. The objective of the project was to evaluate the impact of strategic changes (re-design) in the sustainability of farming systems and to scale up the results to a regional level, using the "co-innovation" approach in the east region of Uruguay.

## 2 Materials and Methods

The research was conducted in Rocha-Uruguay, between 2012 and 2015. We applied a participative learning and action research approach known as co-innovation (Rossing et. al., 2010). The work was carried out at two scales, the farm and the regional level, with interconnected activities at specific instances, where results were exchanged and discussed. At the farm level the project involved 7 livestock family farms based on natural grasslands that were monthly visited, following three steps (Dogliotti et al., 2014): (i) characterization and diagnosis, (ii) re-design and (iii) implementation, monitoring and evaluation. At the regional level the project has emphasized the strengthening of an inter-institutional network with regular workshops involving the participation of farmers, researchers, technicians and other local actors. In order to evaluate the processes, we used an Indicator-based Framework for Evaluating the Sustainability of Natural Resource Management Systems (Masera et al., 2000) at the farm level, and the framework for planning, monitoring and evaluation called Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis (Alvarez et al., 2010) served at the regional level.

## 3 Results – Discussion

Results from the initial situation are presented in Table 1. We found that the weakest point of the farms was associated with low physical and economic productivity and with natural resources degradation. The main point to be addressed to improve farm sustainability was an imbalance between animal requirements and nutrient offer. Historically farmers managed their farms with high stocking rate and high sheep to cattle ratio, resulting in other problems such as low reproductive efficiency, low cattle sale weights and low productivity of natural grasslands.

The main strategy of the redesign process was working with more grass. The first step was the adjustment (reduce) in stocking rate and sheep to cattle ratio, and pasture allocation according biomass height and animal category; which was complemented by low cost breeding practices.

The proposals elaborated with farmers have two years of implementation and have led to significant improvements in farm sustainability (Table 1). Compared to the initial situation, meat production increased by 24% and net income increased by 40%, explained by an increase in gross income while maintaining the same costs. The amount of standing spring biomass of natural grassland increased in 60%. All farmers mentioned a better organization of labor with "less workload and task simplification". They learnt and started to use adequate techniques. Also they started to plan in the medium and long term which has enabled them "to make better decisions, visualize and anticipate future problems".

At the regional level the implementation of six workshops allowed the development of an inter-institutional network related to the project that also addressed issues linked to rural development. It included an extension institute, local government, Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, University of the Republic, national and local farmers' organizations, farmers involved in the project, researchers and other new actors that were invited as the project

<footnote n="1">¹ National Institute of Agricultural Research, Uruguay.</footnote>

<footnote>* Speaker</footnote>

<footnote>± Corresponding author: vaguerre@inia.org.uy</footnote>