A Methodology to Compare Specialized and Mixed Farming Systems
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
ISARA-Lyon Plant Research International 23 rue Jean Baldassini Postbox 616 69364 Lyon CEDEX 07, France 6700 AP Wageningen A methodology to compare specialized and mixed farming systems. Case studies, in the Netherlands and France. Master thesis 4th Cohort (2010-2012) DONZALLAZ Guillaume Date: 17-09-2012 ISARA tutor: Christoph Davide - [email protected] External tutor ENSAT: Magali Willaume - [email protected] UMB tutor: Tor Arvide Breland - [email protected] Plant Research International tutor: Hein Korevaar – [email protected] Acknowledgments I would like to thanks Hein Korevaar for the continuous and careful attention he gave to my thesis and for all constructive time we spent together. I have learned with him how to do research and nothing would have been possible without him. From administrative details to technical questions, Hein was always present to help me and he made my stay in the Netherlands a success! A special thanks to Benjamin Nowak and Thomas Nesme for welcoming me at INRA-Bordeaux, share their information and explore the Ribéracois during my field trip. Thanks to Magali Willaume for her punctual and precious guidance and for the nice meeting we had at INRA-Toulouse with Marc Moraine. Thanks to all people I met during my research and especially persons from the CANTOGETHER project with whom I had interesting discussions and even pleasant evenings. Thanks to all colleagues at PRI for welcoming me during my thesis and helped me from time to time to keep me on track. Also, I will never forget my time among you at the Radix building. Thanks to UMB and my agroecology teachers for the great opportunities this master gave me to explore Europe, learn more about myself and others and find my way through the mess of science. Abstract This master thesis was carried out at Plant Research International in Wageningen, the Netherlands, within the framework of the double degree in Agroecology between ISARA-Lyon in France and UMB in Norway. The study was part of the CANTOGETHER project. Standing for Crops and ANimals TOGETHER, this European project aims at promoting innovative mixed farming systems in several case studies of Europe. In this thesis, the aim was to create a methodology, composed of a set of economic, social and environmental indicators, in order to compare mixed and specialized farming system and to test the methodology in two case studies in the Netherlands and in France. The analysis relies on two farm typologies based on the concepts of representative and typical farms. Accordingly, the two-scale methodology uses the farm accountancy data network (FADN) to compare farming systems over large areas and agri-environmental data collected on-farm to design innovative farming systems. The results are a first step towards understanding up scaling procedure of innovative mixed farming systems at district level. While the municipality of Winterswijk shows a higher potential to develop between-farm mixing, the Ribéracois however presents better possibilities to develop diversified on-farm mixing. Very heterogeneous areas of Europe render difficult to set up a harmonized methodology. The data heterogeneity of case studies and the importance to make good use of existing information and specificities of each case study prevails on harmonizing the set of indicators. The scientific soundness and efficacy of the methodology is empirically verified but further study is needed to validate all indicators. Additionally, a selection of a primary set of information that is required by all work packages and all case studies is necessary to have a common basis for work. • Mixed farming systems • Specialized farming systems • Methodology • Indicators • Farm Accountancy Data Network • Agri-environmental data • CANTOGETHER TABLE OF CONTENT INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1. FROM HISTORY TO CURRENT CHALLENGES ............................................................................ 5 1.1. HISTORY OF AGRICULTURE IN EUROPE ................................................................................................... 5 1.1.1. The evolution of agriculture in Europe ............................................................................................... 5 1.1.2. The advent of sustainability ................................................................................................................ 6 1.1.3. Current challenges facing European Union ....................................................................................... 6 1.2. IDENTIFICATION OF CURRENT ISSUES AND KNOWLEDGE GAPS IN AGRICULTURE ..................................... 7 1.2.1. The relationship between man and nature .......................................................................................... 7 1.2.2. Issues linked to sustainability ............................................................................................................. 8 1.2.3. Challenges to farming systems ............................................................................................................ 9 1.3. RESEARCH QUESTION, SCOPE AND CONSTRAINTS .................................................................................. 11 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS ......................................................................................................... 12 2.1. SEVERAL DATABASES FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSES .................................................................................. 12 2.2. CASE STUDIES ....................................................................................................................................... 15 2.2.1. The Netherlands, Gelderland and Winterswijk ................................................................................. 17 2.2.2. Aquitaine, Dordogne and The Ribéracois ......................................................................................... 20 2.3. DEFINITION AND OBJECTIVES OF TYPICAL AND REPRESENTATIVE FARMS ............................................. 23 2.4. USING INDICATORS: CLASSIFICATION, SOURCES AND INTERPRETATION ................................................ 25 2.5. BASING THE METHODOLOGY ON INDICATORS: SCALES, OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIONS .......................... 29 3. RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................ 32 3.1. FROM OBJECTIVES TO INDICATORS ........................................................................................................ 32 3.2. SETTING REFERENCE VALUES ................................................................................................................ 35 3.3. DESCRIPTIONS OF TYPICAL FARMS ........................................................................................................ 37 3.4. COMPARISON BETWEEN SPECIALIZED AND MIXED FARMS IN WINTERSWIJK .......................................... 39 3.4.1. Comparison based on FADN database: The Netherlands ................................................................ 39 3.4.2. Comparison based on local data: Winterswijk ................................................................................. 44 3.5. COMPARISON BETWEEN SPECIALIZED AND MIXED FARMS IN THE RIBÉRACOIS ...................................... 47 3.5.1. Comparison based on FADN database: Aquitaine ........................................................................... 47 3.5.2. Comparison based on local data: The Ribéracois ............................................................................ 52 4. INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION ......................................................................................... 56 4.1. INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS IN WINTERSWIJK.................................................................................... 56 4.2. INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS IN THE RIBÉACOIS .................................................................................. 58 4.3. LESSONS LEARNED FROM TWO CASE STUDIES ....................................................................................... 60 4.4. FARMING SYSTEMS TYPOLOGIES ........................................................................................................... 62 4.5. DEFINITIONS OF MIXED FARMS .............................................................................................................. 65 4.6. SELECTION, VALIDATION AND INTERPRETATION OF INDICATORS .......................................................... 65 4.7. FROM FARM TO DISTRICT LEVEL ........................................................................................................... 68 4.8. PERSPECTIVES FOR THE METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 70 4.9. REMARKS CONCERNING THE CANTOGEHTER PROJECT ..................................................................... 72 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................. 73 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................................... 76 ANNEXES ..................................................................................................................................................... 81 Annex 1: Detailed description of the Work Packages within the CANTOGETHER