Exploring smallholder motivations and agroecological options to manage their organic farms A case study in –

Daniela Potocnjak Rivas

Supervisors: dr. ir. Jeroen Groot – Farming System Ecology Group dr. Stephen Sherwood - Knowledge Technology and Innovation Group

MSc Thesis Farming System Ecology (FSE-80436) August 2014

Farming Systems Ecology Group Droevendaalsesteeg 1 – 6708 PB Wageningen - The Netherlands

Exploring smallholder motivations and agroecological options to manage their organic farms A case study in Los Lagos Region – Chile

August 2014 MSc Thesis Farming System Ecology

Daniela Potocnjak Rivas Student-Nr. 790425668110 [email protected] MSc Organic Agriculture

Supervisors dr. ir. Jeroen Groot, Farming System Ecology Group dr. Stephen Sherwood, Knowledge Technology and Innovation Group

Examiner prof. dr. ir. Pablo Tittonell, Farming System Ecology Group

ii Preface and acknowledgements This thesis arises from my interest in applying the knowledge my studies in Organic Agriculture at Wageningen University in my home country, Chile. I had the idea to do a research which could take into account social and agronomic aspects with smallholders but in a topic which could be useful to farmers. This idea was accepted by my supervisors Jeroen Groot (FSE group) and Stephen Sherwood (KTI group). However, Chilean organic agriculture context was required. Then and after talking with friends related to organic , ideas like the following ones started to appear: What kind of organic agriculture are organic smallholders in Chile carrying out, input substitution or agroecological approach?, How organic smallholders farms perform in socio-economic and environmental aspects? and Why organic smallholders practice organic farming? At that moment the topic was almost complete but the organic smallholders willing to receive me and to follow my idea were missing. Some friends helped me to achieve the support of one of the ecological farmer organization recognized by SAG: Red de Productores Orgánicos Décima Región A.G (Organic Producers Network Tenth Region). Thereby, many people helped me in each step of this thesis and each one was very important throughout this thesis period. Firstly, in the proposal steps, Virginia Zenteno, Ligio Alarma, Claudia Ríos, Mariela Ramírez, Carlos Ovalle, Cecilia Céspedes, Carol Ramírez, Francisca Alvear, Claudio Cárdenas. In the fieldwork, the organic farmers’ organization members who received me in their farms to answer my questionnaire, to share a piece of their daily farmer job and for offering me bed and food: Claudio Maldonado, Flor Cárdenas, Rosa Gallardo, María Oriana Gallardo, María Deogracia Molina, Barbara Heinze, Guisela Cárdenas, Matthias Lischka, Teresita Fernández, Ana Fuentes, Carlos Soto, Ximena Burgos, Reinaldo Troncoso, Juan Ignacio Fogliatti and Cecilia Guineo. An special acknowledgment to Patricio Arriagada for believing in this idea and for helping me to organize my visits to the famers, Valeska Kalher, Andrea Soto, Antonieta Uribe, Katrin Runge and their families for receiving me twice in their homes and giving me transport and the opportunity to share with you and your families in a deeper way. To Erla Silva and Ronald Surber who also helped me in the fieldwork giving me some advises. In the survey elaboration and analysis, my childhood friend Mireya Valdebenito. In the exploration of new farms configurations with “R - technology”, Stéphanie Álvarez. To English corrections, Javier Potocnjak, my daddy! Special thanks to my supervisor Jeroen Groot to answer my endless questions and for his advises and to Steve Sherwood for his support from abroad. To FSE group, especially the students in the MSc room for their daily, Saturdays and Sundays included, support. Thanks to my Wageningen’s and Chilean’s unconditional friends and my family who is supporting me from far and specially to Juan Carlos to be patient, for loving me, support me and waiting for me. This work was funded by the CONICYT BECAS CHILE/MAGISTER 73120236 Daniela Potocnjak Rivas Wageningen, August 2014

iii Table of Contents List of Figures ...... vi List of Tables ...... ix Abstract ...... xi Resumen ...... xii 1 Introduction ...... 1 2 Materials and Methods ...... 6 2.1 Study region ...... 6 2.2 Methodological framework ...... 9 2.2.1 Diagnosis step – collecting and analyzing farmers/farms data: ...... 10 2.2.2 Exploration step - exploring agroecological options and farm configurations: ...... 17 2.2.3 Re-design step – the set of farm configuration: ...... 17 3 Results and Discussion ...... 18 3.1 Diagnosis ...... 18 3.1.1 Farmers/Farms overview ...... 18 3.1.2 Agroecological practices analysis ...... 20 3.1.3 Analysis of motivations ...... 23 3.1.4 Relationship between motivation and agroecological practices ...... 24 3.1.5 Detailed selected farm analysis ...... 26 3.1.6 Farmer objectives and current performance ...... 40 3.2 Exploration ...... 47 3.2.1 Agroecological basket of technologies ...... 47 3.2.3 Constraints ...... 49 3.2.4 Decision variables ...... 50 3.2.5 Farms Configurations – Clouds of solutions ...... 55 3.2.6 Exploring: Agroecological basket of technologies in clouds of solutions ...... 56 3.3 Re-design ...... 77 4 Conclusions ...... 78 5 Recommendations for further research ...... 79 References ...... 80

iv Appendices ...... 87 Appendix I – Questionnaire ...... 88 Appendix II – Qualitative farmers/farm characterization – Plant and Animals production ...... 96 Appendix III – FarmDesign Data...... 116

v List of Figures Figure 1: Farm system diagram. Overview of different farming system component, farming system boundaries and the relation of farm system with the external environment/ecosystem...... 3 Figure 2: Thesis location a) Los Lagos Region; b) Los Lagos Region topography: to the West; Intermediate Depression and Andean Mountains to the East; c) Administrative division, four and Llanquihue in the North and Chiloé and Palena in the South...... 7 Figure 3: Los Lagos Region climate map based on Köppen climate classification (adapted from Rioseco & Tesser, n.d.). a) Oceanic climate variations and how they are distributed in the Region; b) Mean annual temperature and annual latitudinal precipitation gradient following the continent East side of the Region; c) Mean annual temperature and annual latitudinal precipitation gradient following the insular West side of the Region. b) and c) show how annual precipitations decrease in the Intermediate Depression (Osorno) and they are higher in the Coast Range ( and Castro) and in the (Futaleufú) and how increase to the South. About mean annual temperatures, these decrease from East to West and North to South...... 8 Figure 4: Thesis methodological framework (based on modified learning cycle (Groot & Rossing, 2011; Kolb, 1984). Purple box includes the three steps that are the thesis scope...... 9 Figure 5: Participant farmer’s distribution in Los Lagos Region. Each pin, blue and red is a farmer/farm unit. Red pins show the farms analyzed in detail...... 10 Figure 6: Relationship between initial and current motivations to practice organic agriculture according to farm groups. A: Always organic farmer; C: Converted to organic farmer; F: Fully organic farm; P: Partly organic farm ...... 23 Figure 7: Relationship between current motivations to practice organic agriculture and motivation to belong to an ecological farmer organization according to farms groups. A: Always organic farmer; C: Converted to organic farmer; F: Fully organic farm; P: Partly organic farm ...... 25 Figure 8: Relationship between current motivations to practice organic agriculture and agroecological practices carried out by farmers according to farm groups. A: Always organic farmer; C: Converted to organic farmer; F: Fully organic farm; P: Partly organic farm...... 25 Figure 9: Location of selected farms...... 26 Figure 10: El Putrán farm: In blue, the total family area (3 ha). In orange, area managed by farmer and her mother and her sister (2,4 ha)...... 29 Figure 11: El Putrán farm, current crops area and their allocation...... 30 Figure 12: La Poza farm, 30 ha. In colors current crops area and their allocation: ...... 34 Figure 13: Praderas del Sur farm. In orange, total farm area (14,5 ha); in blue lent area (2,4 ha)...... 37 Figure 14: Praderas del Sur farm, Natural permanent pasture distribution (10,46 ha). Forest area (3,38 ha estimated)...... 38

vi Figure 15: Farms current Nitrogen cycle. In black El Putrán; in black in brackets El Putrán 2; in blue La Poza and in red Praderas del Sur. Red circles represent the N-losses. Only one number means that is the same number for the three farms. The amounts of N are in kg/ha/year...... 44 Figure 16: Current farms configuration ...... 46 Figure 17: Clouds of solutions and their performance according to different objectives combination to three farms...... 56 Figure 18: El Putrán. Selection of new farms configuration that performs in Faba bean and Lupine as agroecological basket of technologies in socio-economic (SE – operating profit and regular labor balance) and environmental (En – organic matter balance and total N-losses) objectives. Red lines in Faba bean- Lupine chart represent the first range explored and green line represents the second range explored. Red lines in SE and En charts represent the current farm configuration...... 58 Figure 19: El Putrán. Selection of new farms configuration that performs in Limestone and Vegetable garden (VG) residues (res.) as green manure (GM) agroecological basket of technologies in the socio- economic (SE – operating profit and regular labor balance) and environmental (En – organic matter balance and total N-losses). Red lines in Limestone and Rock Phosphate chart represent the first rage explored and green lines the second one. Red lines in SE and En charts represent the current farm configuration and green lines represent the new parameters established...... 58 Figure 20: El Putrán. Twelve new farms configurations that performed in Faba bean – Lupine (8) and in Limestone- Vegetable garden residues as green manure (4) tested in different pairs of decision variables. Pasture and Crops: a) Faba bean area- Lupine area; b) Faba bean area-Elephant garlic area; c) Faba bean area-Vegetable garden; d) Faba bean-Pasture; e) Potato area-Elephant garlic area. Crop residues as green manure: f) Vegetable garden residues fraction-Potato residues fraction-. Livestock: g) Sheep stocking rate-Pasture; h) Poultry-Piglet. External inputs-Feed and Bedding: i) Off-farm grain-Straw (set of farms to Re-design was found); j) Off farm Oat grain- Off-farm Wheat grain. External inputs- Fertilizers and soil conditioners: k) Triple superphosphate (TSP)-Potassium saltpeter; l) Sulpomag- Limestone; m) Supermagro-Firewood ash and n) Limestone- vegetable garden residues as green manure. Red lines represent the current farm configuration and in case of Limestone represents the minimum amount to use (8000 kg)...... 60 Figure 21: La Poza. Selection of new farms configuration that performs in Faba bean and Lupine as agroecological basket of technologies, in the socio-economic (SE – operating profit and regular labor balance) and environmental (En – organic matter balance and total N-losses). Red lines in Faba bean- Lupine chart represent the first range explored and green line represents the second range one. Red lines in SE and En charts represent the current farm configuration...... 62 Figure 22: La Poza. Selection of new farms configuration that performs in Limestone and Rock Phosphate agroecological basket of technologies and in the socio-economic (SE – operating profit and regular labor balance) and environmental (En – organic matter balance and total N-losses). Red lines in Limestone and Rock Phosphate chart represent the first range explored, green lines represents the second and blue line the third one. Red lines in SE and En charts represent the current farm configuration...... 62 Figure 23: La Poza. Forty two new farms configurations that performed in Faba bean – Lupine (39) and in Limestone-Rock Phosphate (3) tested in different pairs of decision variables. Pasture and Crops: a) Faba

vii bean area-Lupine area; b) Faba bean area-Vegetable garden area; c) Faba bean area-Wheat area; d) Potato area-Wheat area; e) Pasture area-Wheat area (set of farms to Re-design was found); f) Pasture area –Potato area; m) Faba area-Potato area and n) Faba bean-Pasture. Crop residues as green manure: g) Vegetable garden (VG) residues (res.) fraction-Potato residues fraction; h) Wheat stubble fraction- Wheat area. Livestock: i) Poultry- Off-farm wheat grain; j) Sheep stocking rate-Pasture: External inputs- Feed and Bedding: k) Off-farm wheat grain-Wheat area (first farm to Re-design found); l) Off-farm hay for feeding – Off-farm hay for bedding. External inputs-Fertilizers and soil conditioners: o) Red guano – Supermagro; p) Rock phosphate- Limestone. Red lines represent the current farm configuration. Green line in stocking rate represents the stocking rate allowed...... 65 Figure 24: Praderas del Sur. a) Selection of new farms configuration that performs in Oat and Lupine as agroecological basket of technologies and in the socio-economic (SE – operating profit and regular labor balance) and environmental (En – organic matter balance and total N-losses). Red lines in Oat-Lupine chart represent the first the range explored and green line represents the second range explored. b). Selection of new farms configuration that performs in Limestone and Rock Phosphate agroecological basket of technologies and in the socio-economic (SE – operating profit and regular labor balance) and environmental (En - organic matter balance and total N-losses). Red lines in Limestone and Rock Phosphate chart represent the first range explored and blue lines represents the second one. a) and b) Red lines in SE and En charts represent the current farm configuration...... 67 Figure 25: Praderas del Sur. Twenty one new farms configurations that performed in Lupine area –Oat area (39) and Limestone-Rock Phosphate (3) tested in different pairs of decision variables. Pasture and Crops: a) Lupine area-Oat area; b) Lupine area-Pasture area and c) Oat area- Pasture area. Crop residues as green manure: d) Oat area-Oat straw as green manure. Livestock: e) Goat stocking rate-Pasture (set of farms to Re-design was found); f) Goat stocking rate-Poultry. External inputs-Feed and Bedding: g) Off- farm oat grain-Poultry; h) Oat area- Off-farm oat grain; i) Off-farm straw- Off-farm oat grain. External inputs-Fertilizers and soil conditioners: j) Rock phosphate- Limestone. Red lines represent the current farm configuration. Blue line in stocking rate represents the stocking rate allowed...... 69 Figure 26: Set of farms selected to re-design step and their performance according to different objectives combination to three farms...... 77

viii List of Tables Table 1: Basic component of sustainable agroecosystem showed such as sustainable aim and agroecological practices to achieve each one...... 11 Table 2: Agroecological practices rating. Based on farmer’s answers and on the basic characteristics an agroecological farming system has to meet, described by Altieri & Rosset (1996); Altieri (1995) and Rosset & Altieri (1997)...... 13 Table 3: Farmers' statements about initial motivations to produce organically and about current motivations to continue produce organically , rated according to level of motivations described by Ryan & Deci (2000a, 2000b)...... 14 Table 4: Farmers' statements about to belong to Red de Productores Orgánicos de la X Región (EFO), rated according to collectivism level...... 15 Table 5: General overview of farmers/farms surveyed belonging to ecological farmer organization...... 19 Table 6: Agroecological practices rating results in farm groups and normalized value per farm. Based on farmer’s answers and on the basic characteristics an agroecological farming system has to meet, described by Altieri & Rosset (1996); Altieri (1995) and Rosset & Altieri (1997) (Table 2)...... 21 Table 7: Physical and chemical farm’s soil characteristics. Based on farm soil analysis and Chilean soils studies (CIREN, 2003; Rodríguez, 1993). The bold values were used in FarmDesign model...... 27 Table 8: Climate farm’s characteristics. Based on information from the weather station closer to each farm...... 27 Table 9: Nutrient deposition values calculates to be used in FarmDesign model based on Alfaro et al. (2009) season 2004...... 28 Table 10: Nutrient run-off (erosion) values calculated to be used in FarmDesign model based Alfaro & Salazar (2007) and Alfaro et al. (2008) seasons 2004-2005...... 28 Table 11: Fertilizers and soil conditioners, external and on-farm produced, applied in El Putrán farm, distinguishing crops where were applied, amount and if are allowed by the Chilean organic agriculture legislation...... 31 Table 12: El Putrán livestock characterization: main feed source, products and destination ...... 32 Table 13: Fertilizers and soil conditioners, external and on-farm produced, applied in La Poza farm, distinguishing crops where were applied, amount and if are allowed by the Chilean organic agriculture legislation...... 35 Table 14: La Poza livestock characterization: main feed source, products and destination...... 36 Table 15: Praderas del Sur livestock characterization: main feed sources, products and destination...... 39 Table 16: Farmers’ wishes and agroecological approach interpretation as objectives to multi-objective optimization (FarmDesign model) ...... 41

ix Table 17: Farms current regular labor balance. Total amount of labor required per hectare per farm to facilitate comparisons among them is showed...... 42 Table 18: Farms current operating profit ...... 43 Table 19: Farms current organic matter balance per hectare...... 44 Table 20: Crop rotation suggested to El Putrán ...... 48 Table 21: Crop rotation suggested to La Poza ...... 48 Table 22: Crop rotation suggested to Praderas del Sur ...... 48 Table 23: Objectives and constraints defined per farm. In red constraints based on Chilean organic agriculture legislation and in green based on agroecological approach...... 52 Table 24: Decision variables defined per farm. In red constraints based on Chilean organic agriculture legislation; in green based on agroecological approach and in blue based on farmer’s wishes...... 53 Table 25: El Putrán. Set of farms to re-design objectives and decision variables...... 71 Table 26: El Poza. Set of farms to re-design objectives and decision variables...... 73 Table 27: Praderas del Sur. Set of farms to re-design objectives and decision variables ...... 76

x Abstract In the search for agricultural systems that are more sustainable than conventional or green revolution agriculture, organic agriculture has arisen as a viable alternative. However, in many cases organic agriculture is based on input substitution whereby forbidden products are replaced by allowed alternatives, which is possible without practicing sustainable farming. In this context agroecology appears as a sustainable, holistic and integrative alternative to produce food that considers the farm as a system, while taking into account the internal elements and their interactions and how the system is related to the surrounding ecosystem. To understand how a farm system functions it is important to have insight in farmer motivations. The concepts of agroecology, systems analysis and farmer motivations, and their implementation by organic farmers in Chile were analyzed a case study with 20 farmers. These farmers were active members of ecological farmer organization (EFO): Red de agricultures orgánicos de la Décima Región A.G. Most farmers realized an organic agriculture based on the agroecological approach and were intrinsically motivated for organic farming and to belong to an EFO. Then, I assessed the socio-economic and environmental performance of three selected farms and proposed some new agroecological management options. Three methodological steps were taken: farm diagnosis, exploration of sets of agroecological options and finally selecting promising farm configurations for re-design. The analysis was based on whole-farm model: FarmDesign. The three farms had a different current farm configuration, where the amount of N-losses (from 32 kg N/ha to 10 kg N/ha) operating profit (from 13,6 million CLP to 4,2 million CLP) and regular labor balance (from 1950 h to 228 h ) were different. An agroecological basket of technologies were identified and explored in each farm according the farmer’s wishes, agroecological approach and Chilean organic legislation. A set of new farms configurations was found per each farm being more sustainable than the current configuration. Key words: Organic Agriculture, Agroecology, Intrinsic Motivations, Organic Farmers Organization, agroecological approach

xi Resumen

En la búsqueda de sistemas agrícolas más sustentables que la agricultura convencional - o “Revolución Verde”-, la agricultura orgánica surge como una alternativa viable. Sin embargo, en algunos casos la agricultura orgánica se basa en la sustitución de insumos, reemplazando productos prohibidos por alternativas permitidas, lo cual se traduce en una agricultura no necesariamente sustentable. En este contexto, la agroecología aparece como una opción sustentable, holística e integradora, que considera la granja como un sistema, el cual toma en cuenta sus elementos internos y sus interacciones, y cómo este se relaciona con el ecosistema circundante. De este modo, para entender cómo funciona una granja como sistema es importante conocer las motivaciones de los agricultores. En este trabajo, los conceptos de agroecología y su aplicación por agricultores orgánicos en Chile, el análisis de la granja como sistema y las motivaciones de los agricultores, se analizaron en un estudio de caso con 20 pequeños productores, todos miembros activos de la organización de agricultores ecológicos (OAE): Red de agricultores orgánicos de la Décima Región A.G. La mayoría de los agricultores participantes practican la agricultura orgánica basada en un enfoque agroecológico y están intrínsecamente motivados en producir de manera orgánica y de pertenecer a una OAE. Una vez realizado este análisis, se seleccionaron tres granjas, se evaluó el desempeño socio-económico y medio ambiental, proponiéndose nuevas opciones de manejo agroecológico. La metodología utilizada se basó en tres pasos metodológicos: diagnóstico de las granjas, exploración de sets de opciones de manejo agroecológico para, finalmente, seleccionar las prometedoras configuraciones de las granjas para el re-diseño. El análisis se basó en el modelo FarmDesign, el cual considera a todos los elementos de la granja, permitiendo el análisis y la optimización multi-objetivo. Las tres granjas analizadas presentaron diferentes configuraciones al momento de la toma de los datos. En términos medio ambientales, las pérdidas de Nitrógeno observadas fueron desde 32 kg N/ha a 10 kg N/ha; en términos económicos, las ganancias fueron desde $13,6 millones a $4,2 millones; y finalmente, en términos sociales, el balance de la mano de obra contratada y familiar fue de 1950 a 228 horas anuales. De acuerdo con los deseos de los agricultores, al enfoque agroecológico y la legislación chilena que regula la agricultura orgánica, se identificó y exploró un conjunto de tecnologías agroecológicas para las granjas analizadas. De este modo, para cada granja analizada, se encontraron distintas configuraciones más sustentables que las utilizadas actualmente.

Palabras claves: Agricultura Orgánica, Agroecología, Motivaciones Intrínsecas, Organización de Agricultores Ecológicos, Enfoque Agroecológico.

xii 1 Introduction IFOAM (2008) defines organic agriculture as “a production system that sustains the health of soils, ecosystems and people. It relies on ecological processes, biodiversity and cycles adapted to local conditions, rather than the use of inputs with adverse effects. Organic agriculture combines tradition, innovation and science to benefit the shared environment and promote fair relationships and a good quality of life for all involved”. Consistent with Rosset & Altieri (1997), organic agriculture has been suggested as a more sustainable alternative to conventional agriculture (green revolution-based). The definition of organic agriculture is open to interpretation, however, with some farmers practicing an expression of organic agriculture based on the same way of thinking of conventional giving solutions to reduce the symptoms of the negative impacts (limiting factor approach), instead of understanding the ecological unbalances that lie at the roots of the problematic features of conventional agriculture (e.g., continued nutrient deficiencies). Thereby, according to this product-based, external input approach to organic agriculture, when a new problem appears, a new product is introduced to solve it, but that product must meet organic agriculture regulatory standards. This model of organic agriculture is based on input substitution, consistent with the externally based knowledge and technology that underlies conventional agriculture (e.g., dependence on agrochemicals, such as synthetic pesticides and fertilizers as well as machines to supplant family labor), without necessarily achieving the sustainability aim, despite complying with the organic production legislations (e.g., EC 834/07 in European Union, NOP in USA or JAS in Japan). In contrast with the input substitution approach, agroecology appears as a real sustainable alternative to conventional agriculture. Agroecology, is defined as the “application of ecological concepts and principles1 to the study, design and management of sustainable agroecosystems2” (Gliessman, 1998) and “provides a framework to assess the complexity of agroecosystems” (Altieri, 1995). Thus, agroecology is a holistic approach to understand agroecosystems focused on productive and environmental/ecological aspects with “cultural sensibility, socially just and economically viable” (Altieri & Rosset, 1996; Altieri, 1995, 2002; Rosset & Altieri, 1997). Thereby, agroecology takes into account human’s knowledge and needs and ecological process influencing agroecosystems to improve production in a sustainable way, reducing negative environmental and social impacts and external inputs (Altieri & Rosset, 1996; Altieri, 1995, 2005; Gliessman, 1998). Until now, it is possible to state that organic agriculture and agroecology pursue sustainability aims, however organic agriculture, as defined here in the Chilean context, is market-oriented and guided by formally established regulatory controls based on organic agriculture legislation (specifying which inputs

1 (1) Enhance recycling of biomass and optimizing nutrient availability and balancing nutrient flow; (2). Securing favorable soil conditions for plant growth, particularly by managing organic matter and enhancing soil biotic activity; (3) Minimizing losses due to flows of solar radiation, air and water by way of microclimate management, water harvesting and soil management through increased soil cover; (4). Species and genetic diversification of the agroecosystem in time and space; (5) Enhance beneficial biological interactions and synergisms among agrobiodiversity components thus resulting in the promotion of key ecological processes and services (Altieri, 2002, 2005; Reijntjes, Haverkort, & Waters Bayer, 1992). 2 Agroecosystems: are communities of plants and animals interacting with their physical and chemical environments that have been modified by people to produce food, fiber, fuel and other products for human consumption and processing (Altieri, 2002; Reijntjes et al., 1992).

1 are allowed or not) for selling their products as organic. As a consequence, due to high certification and management (e.g., cultural controls, such as hand weeding) costs, the organic products are usually more expensive than conventional and their consumption could be only possible for a portion of the population (social justice is affected). In contrast to this reality and according to Altieri & Rojas (1999), agroecology is easy to adopt in small scale, management intensive systems such as those commonly managed by family farmers3 (Via Campesina, 2010), whereas it can more difficult for large-industrial farming. In this context, the agroecological approach could be considered as a philosophy which is able to help organic farmers to advance a number of sustainability aims complying with the organic legislation, decrease reliance on costly externally based inputs, taking into account the local knowledge (Altieri & Rosset, 1996) and increasing farmers’ participation. Now, in order to understand the organic farm complexity according to the agroecological approach, it is needed to recognize a farm as a system. Therefore, when the boundaries are defined, it is possible to characterize, describe and analyze the whole-farm elements, explore their interactions and asses how the system interacts with the external ecosystem elements (Figure 1). Thus, according to Altieri & Rosset (1996), Altieri, (1995) and Rosset & Altieri (1997), an agroecological farming system necessarily must: (1) Reduce energy and resource use and regulate the overall input so that output: input ratio is high; (2) Reduce nutrient losses by effectively containing leaching, run-off and erosion, and improve nutrient recycling through the use of legumes, organic manure and compost, and other effective recycling mechanisms; (3) Encourage local production of food items adapted to the natural and socioeconomic setting; (4) Sustain desired net output by preserving natural resources (by minimizing soil degradation) and (5) Reduce costs and increase the efficiency and economic viability of small and medium-sized farms, thereby promoting a diverse, potentially resilient agricultural system. On the other hand, once a farm is recognized as a system, and the boundaries and elements which belong to this farm have been identified along with environmental conditions (soil and climate, mainly) and socio-economic contexts (e.g., market access and legislations) are defined (Figure 1), the system can be modeled (Groot, Oomen, & Rossing, 2012; Rossing et al., 2007), which in turn be useful for systematically studying strengths and weakness as well as making suggestions for re-design. In this way, it is possible to diagnose and re-design a farming system taking into account the whole-farm performance in socio-economic and environmental terms. Thus, based on farmer’s objectives (multi- objective-oriented analysis) it is possible to obtaining several farms configurations and to choose, with farmers, the best farm performance according to farmer’s objectives defined before (Groot et al., 2012; Groot & Rossing, 2011).

3 Family farming involves all agricultural activities, which are the basic family livelihood, and the farm activities are carried mainly out by family labor (FAO, 2014a; IICA, INDAP, ODEPA, & MUCECH, 2006)

2 As said earlier, agroecological relies heavily on local knowledge. Thereby, when we want to explore agroecological options to manage an organic farm, it is essential to consider farmers’ life and family contexts and associated challenges, their knowledge and experiences, motivations, their ties to private and public institutions, as an input of the whole-farm analysis. Consequently, the farmers’ commitment and participation is fundamental to understand their local context (as an input) because they are part of the solutions, on one hand, with regard to their experiences (Groot & Rossing, 2011) and, on the other hand, engaging farmers in agroecological practices and the application of new knowledge (Bruges & Smith, 2007).

Inputs Outputs

Animals

Crops Manure

Impact on farm FARM Impact on ecosystem SYSTEM

Soil

ECOSYSTEM Figure 1: Farm system diagram. Overview of different farming system component, farming

system boundaries and the relation of farm system with the external environment/ecosystem.

Fairweather (1999) provided an overview of motivations to practice organic agriculture: philosophical factors, healthy alternative and personally satisfying (personal motivations), because of detrimental effects of synthetic chemicals, decline in soil fertility, pollutions of water and soils (environmental motivations), costs of fuel, fertilizers and biocides, potential decreasing of premiums, profitable alternative and market demands. However, what motivations means? According to Ryan & Deci, (2000a) “to be motivated means to be moved to do something”. Thus, someone who is animated to achieve an end is motivated. Then, it is possible to distinguish between how much motivation a person has (level of motivation) to do something and what kind of motivation that person has to do something and why he/she is doing that (orientation of motivation). The Self-Determination Theory (SDT), developed by Ryan & Deci in 1985, works on the orientation of the motivation, recognizing the reasons which a person is moved to achieve a goal (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). Thus, SDT Ryan & Deci (2000a, 2000b) propose a differentiation between intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Intrinsic motivation is described as

3 an innate interest to do something and enjoy it without external pressures (e.g., social pressures) or rewards, having a strong link with the needs of autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). In contrast, extrinsic motivation is influenced by external pressures limiting the degree of autonomy to carry something out. Thus, persons do different activities which are not interested to do, but they have to do (e.g, you have to buy food even you do not like to go to the supermarket) and persons are taking different responsibilities even whether they do not want to that activity (Ryan & Deci, 2000a, 2000b). Based on internalization (taking in a value or regulation) and integration (transformation process of the value or regulation in their own) concepts, Ryan & Deci (2000a, 2000b) explain the extrinsic human motivation as a continuum as far as increasing internalization, and then self-determination and autonomy will also increase. Thereby, the extrinsic motivation continuum is as spectrum from external regulation to integrated regulations. Amotivation and Intrinsic Motivation are the extreme positions of the extrinsic motivation continuum. The motivations levels could be explained such as: (0) Amotivation: is the state where the intention to act does not exist; (1) External regulation: person act only because of obtain a reward or to avoid a punishment; (2) Introjected regulations: person act mainly to avoid guilty or anxiety feelings or to reinforce self-esteem; (3) Identified regulations: person act because of feels identified with that regulation or value, being more self-determinate; (4) Integrated regulations: person act because has regulations or values completely integrated and assimilated to the self. This is the most autonomous extrinsic motivation. (5) Intrinsic motivation: someone who act intrinsically motivated is because of do not feel pressures and is interested or enjoyment. In this case, internalization is not needed (Stobbelaar, Groot, Bishop, Hall, & Pretty, 2009) SDT will be used in this thesis to explore organic smallholders’ initial and current motivations to be organic farmers and to belong an organic farmer organization. In the Chilean context, organic agriculture began to develop by smallholders in late 1970s that moment, organic agriculture put focus on social aspects regarding it as an alternative for depressed rural sectors to survive and to improve their quality life (O´Ryan, 2005). Under this context it is possible to say that the beginnings of organic agriculture in Chile were based on agroecological approach. Nonetheless, nowadays the focus of organic agriculture has changed. Now, the Chilean organic agriculture is characterized by: (1) being mainly carried out by medium-scale farmers (FAO/ITC/CTA, 2001) and entrepreneurial (O´Ryan, 2005) farmers focused on large-scale production of fruits and wine grapes (Eguillor, 2013a) who supply the external markets demands (USA and European Union, mainly) (Eguillor, 2013b; Willer, Lernoud, & Kilcher, 2013); (2) being practiced mainly based on input substitution and on off-farms inputs (FAO/ITC/CTA, 2001), 2001); (3) having, since 2006, a legislation (Law No. 20.089)4 that established the conditions for selling products as organic, biological or ecological and considers third- party certification by certifying bodies5, and first-party certification by ecological farmer organizations6

4 National Certification System for Agricultural Organic Products (Law No. 20.089), its regulation (Decree No. 36, 2006) and the technical standard (Decree No. 17, 2007 modified in 2011) (SAG, 2011) 5 Certifying body is could be a national or foreign, public or private entity which has to achieve with the requirements and technical and professional protocols to fulfill with its certifications functions (SAG, 2011).

4 supervised directly by the competent authority (SAG -Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero/Agriculture and Livestock Service7) (SAG, 2011); (4) increasing development of domestic demand (P. Arriagada, personal communication, November 19, 2013) and the direct sale points managed by ecological farmer organizations (SAG, 2011) (e.g., Organic farmers of Aconcagua Valley, Tierra Viva, Organic Producers Network of Tenth Region (SAG, 2014b)) and (5) having little research carried out by NGOs, universities and research institutions (FAO/ITC/CTA, 2001). This last point, the research with farmers and education, must be more developed in terms of giving tools to small and medium-sized farmers to understand which farm practices are beneficial or which ones are detrimental to their farms performance in environmental, productive and economic terms; to policy makers to improve legislations according to the actual organic farmers reality and to consumers to understand, at least, the difference between conventional and organic products. Under this context, organic agriculture in Chile provides an opportunity to develop different types of research at different scales and concerning different topics. In this thesis, the focus will be on organic smallholders, as a social entity, to find out which are their motivations to practice organic agriculture and to belong an organic farmer organization, how their farms, as a biophysical entity, are being managed (input substitution or agroecological approach) and explore options to do those managements more sustainable using an agroecological approach. Thus, the Research Objective of this thesis is: To explore motivations and practices/management carried out by organic smallholders in Los Lagos Region (Chile) and to search for agroecological management options to manage their organic farms taking into account the socio-economic and environmental farm performance, legislation constraints and farmers wishes. Research specific objectives are: 1. To assess whether the organic agriculture techniques (or practices) carried out by organic smallholder (farmers) are based on agroecological practices or on input substitution. 2. To explore the intrinsic farmers’ motivations to practice organic agriculture farmers and to belong to an ecological farmer organization, and to relate these characteristics to the different practices carried out by farmers. 3. To analyze the organic farms performance in socio-economic and environmental terms, using quantitative whole-farm model. 4. To explore, based on agroecological approach, legislation constraints and farmers’ wishes, agroecological options to manage organic farms and farm configurations. 5. To propose re-design alternatives of organic farms based on farmers’ wishes, complying with agroecological approach and regulations’ constraints.

6 Ecological farmer organizations can be constituted by small farmers, families, peasants and/or indigenous which should have legal status and do not sell more than 25.000 UF (€838.570) per year (SAG, 2011) and can only sell their organic products directly to consumers in free markets, specialized shops, by home delivery or to restaurants. The exportation is not allowed (SAG, 2011) UF=Unidad de Fomento, value $CLP 23.300 € 33.28 approx. 7 Public service belonging to the Chilean Department of Agriculture

5 And the research questions are: 1. Are the agricultural techniques practiced by organic smallholders based on agroecological or on input substitution approach? 2. Are the farmers intrinsically motivated to be organic farmers and to belong an ecological farmer organization? Is the level of motivation related with their agroecological management practices? 3. Which is the current socio-economic and environmental farms performance? 4. Which are the agroecological options to manage an organic farm and different farms configurations that can be exploring based on agroecological approach, legislation constraints and farmers’ wishes? 5. What re-design alternatives would be proposed to organic smallholders to manage their organic farms based farmers’ wishes, complying with agroecological approach and regulations’ constraints?

2 Materials and Methods

2.1 Study region This thesis involved twenty organic smallholders-family farmers who are active members of Organic Producers Network Tenth Region (Red de Productores Orgánicos Décima Región A.G.). This trade association which was created in 2006 by smallholders-family farmers8 supported by INDAP9 (Instituto de Desarrollo Agropecuario/Agricultural Development Institute) and in 2010 was recognized as an ecological farmer organization by the Chilean organic agriculture competent authority - SAG (SAG, 2014b), is located in Los Lagos Region10 in south of Chile (Figure 2 a). Los Lagos Region11 (40°12’-44°3’ S, 74°49’-71°34’ W), administratively is divided in four provinces: Osorno, Llanquihue, Chiloé and Palena (Figure 2 c) (the farmers who participated in this study belong to the three first provinces). In geographic terms and due to ice and volcanic activities in the past, it is possible to divide the region in two sectors: North which includes the Osorno and LLanquihue provinces and South composed by Chiloé and Palena provinces (Figure 2 b). The northern sector is formed by an Intermediate Depression (ID) between Chilean Coast Range (West) and Andean Mountains (East) (Figure 3b). The ID is characterized by a lacustrine zone. In the southern region sector, the ID disappears under the sea creating islands and channels, thus the Chiloé Archipelago (Chiloé ) appears to the West, formed by a Chilean Coast Range and characterized by gently hills and in the continent, which is formed by Andean Mountain (GORE Los Lagos, n.d.; Nacional, n.d.)

8 According to MINAGRI (1983), smallholder farmer is who works less than 12 hectares with basic irrigation area, whose assets are less than 3500UF, their main income is from agriculture activities and he/she works the land directly either is his/her tenure. To this thesis the assets were not considered. Family farming is characterized, besides of INDAP definition, by the labor is mainly from family members (FAO, 2014a; IICA et al., 2006) 9 Public service belonging to the Chilean Department of Agriculture 10 Tenth Region and Los Lagos Region can be used as a synonym. 11 Los Lagos Region: 48584,5 km2 - Netherlands: 41500 km2 - 50°45’-53°52’ N, 3°21’-7°13’ E.

6

Intermediate

Depression

Mountains

Chilean Coast Range Coast Chilean

Andean Andean

b) c)

Figure 2: Thesis location a) Los Lagos Region; b) Los Lagos Region topography: Chilean coast range to the West; Intermediate Depression and Andean Mountains to the East; c) Administrative division, four provinces Osorno and Llanquihue in the a) North and Chiloé and Palena in the South.

According to climate Köppen classification (Peel, Finlayson, & McMahon, 2007; Rioseco & Tesser, a) n.d.), Los Lagos Region is characterized by Oceanic climate (Cf and Cw) (Figure 3 a). However, due to the topography, some climate variations can be appreciate. From West to East and North to South, climate in Coast Range is temperate oceanic (Cfb), without dry season and warm summer, into the ID there is a transition to Mediterranean influence with dry summer (Cfbs). Then, in the Andean foothills the climate is similar but temperature decreases (Cfc) and in the Andes, climate is tundra in highlands, where the temperature in summer is more than zero (Peel et al., 2007). Therefore, mean annual temperature decrease latitudinal (N to S) (Osorno 10,5°C, 10,2°C) and longitudinally (W to E) (Castro 10,2°C, Futaleufú 9°C). Precipitation increases latitudinally, with high annual precipitation rates in the Coast Range (Valdivia 1871mm, Castro 1880 mm) and Andes (Futaleufú 2011mm), and lower rainfall rates in the ID (Osorno 1331mm) (Figure 3 b and c)12.

12 Valdivia does not belong to Los Lagos Region, it is taken as a Coastal reference.

7

a)

b)

c)

Figure 3: Los Lagos Region climate map based on Köppen climate classification (adapted from

Rioseco & Tesser, n.d.). a) Oceanic climate variations and how they are distributed in the Region; b) Mean annual temperature and annual latitudinal precipitation gradient following the continent East side of the Region; c) Mean annual temperature and annual latitudinal precipitation gradient

following the insular West side of the Region. b) and c) show how annual precipitations decrease in the Intermediate Depression (Osorno) and they are higher in the Coast Range (Valdivia and Castro) and in the Andes (Futaleufú) and how increase to the South. About mean annual temperatures, these decrease from East to West and North to South.

Soils in Los Lagos Region are characterized to be volcanic ash-derived (CIREN, 2003) such as Andisols from modern ash (Trumao and Ñadi13) mainly present in Intermediate Depression and Ultisols from old ash (Rojo Arcilloso) close to the coast (Borie & Rubio, 2003; INIA, 1985). In general, these soils present low pH, high organic matter content (Alfaro & Salazar, 2007; Borie & Rubio, 2003; Escudey et al., 2001), and a high P-adsorption capacity that reduce the P-availability. Thus, the most important limiting factors of this soils are low pH and P-availability. About agricultural production and according to INE (2007), Los Lagos Region is the most important in dairy and cattle production in the country (28,16% of national cattle) and is the second one

13 Ñadi soils have the same Trumao’s characteristics but it presents an iron oxide pan which impedes drainage.

8 in ovine production (8,1% of national ovine). In terms of crops production the most important in the region are to feed (46, 8% of crop land), cereals (13, 5%) and legumes and tubers (7, 7%), being the more attractive the native potato or Chiloé’s potato cropping mainly in Chiloé Archipelago.

2.2 Methodological framework The thesis methodological framework was based on a simplification of Kolb’s experimental learning cycle (Kolb, 1984) and the steps described by Groot & Rossing (2011). The learning cycle steps are: (0) Problem definition as a starting point, in this case is the research objectives and research questions (1 Introduction) set out for this thesis, (1) Diagnosis, (2) Exploration, (3) Re-Design, (4) Implementation and (5) Evaluation. However, the scope of this thesis has only taken as a methodology framework the first three steps (Figure 4). Each step gives feedback to the next one. The Diagnosis step assesses farmer/farm context of twenty Organic Producers Network Tenth Region’s active members, focused on farmers/farm characterization (fully or partly organic farm, crops, animals, labor, etc), the farmers’ motivations to practice organic farming and to belong to an ecological farmers organization (EFO) and, after to select three farms, to know which is the current farms’ performance in socio- economic and environmental terms. This information permits to Explore new agroecological managements options and new farm configurations based on farmers’ wishes, agroecological approach and Chilean organic agriculture legislation restrictions. Finally, the Re-design step was conducted whereby it is possible to propone a set of farm configurations (to discuss with farmers) which achieves the farmers’ wishes, complying with agroecological approach and regulations’ constraints.

Diagnosis

Exploration Evaluation

Re-Design Implementation

Figure 4: Thesis methodological framework (based on modified learning cycle (Groot & Rossing, 2011; Kolb, 1984). Purple box includes the three steps that are the thesis scope.

9 2.2.1 Diagnosis step – collecting and analyzing farmers/farms data: The step aimed to answer the first three research questions. To this, the step was divided in two parts, the first one based on twenty farmers/farms who’s the characterization (motivations and practices) was made. The second one, based on three selected farms who were analyzed in detail (farm performance). 1 Farmer/Farm characterization - Motivations for organic farming and organization membership and agroecological practices: In order to answer the two first research questions, I developed and implemented a survey among 20 farmers, who were organization members located around the Los Lagos Region (Figure 5), using a questionnaire (Appendix I – Questionnaire). The farmers’ selection was carried out by the organization board. The farmers were visited at their farms in December 2013 and January 2014. Each visit started asking the questionnaire to farmer and finished walking with the farmer around the farm, specifically in areas organically managed. The questionnaire was developed with different types of questions and divided in four sections: (I) General Information; (II) Motivations; (III) Agricultural Practices and (IV) Additional information. The questions, in general, were closed-ended and some of them with alternatives. Specifically, in section II (Motivations: to begin producing organically, to continue produce organically and to belong Red de Productores Figure 5: Participant farmer’s Orgánicos de la X Región) were open-ended questions. distribution in Los Lagos Region. Each In the case of agricultural practices questions in section III, these pin, blue and red is a farmer/farm were elaborated based on the basic components of sustainable unit. Red pins show the farms agroecosystems proposed by Altieri & Rosset, 1996 and Altieri, analyzed in detail. 1995 as Table 1 shows. These components of sustainable agroecosystem were the base to analyze the agricultural practices carried out by visited farmers. These questions were applied only on field that farmer considered as organic.

The questionnaire data were analyzed in several ways: (1) Farmers/farm overview: In order to know general farmers/farms participants features, in terms of farmer´s gender, age, farms localization, educational level, the main livelihood, organic farm area, crops and livestock that farmers manage, contingency table analysis using SPSS statistics, were made. Based on this information and to facilitate the analysis of agroecological practices and motivation, the farms/farmers were grouped according to organic farm area (fully or partly organic) and whether farmer has been always organic farmer or she/he was converted to organic farmer.

10 Table 1: Basic component of sustainable agroecosystem showed such as sustainable aim and agroecological practices to achieve each one.

Sustainable aim Agroecological practices Soil and water Maintain vegetative cover using: conserving Cover crops Mulch No till practices (minimum) Fallow Stubble management Promote soil biotic Increasing organic matter in soil using: activity Compost Manure Nutrient recycling Based on: Crop Rotations Crop/Livestock farm system based on legumes Biological pest control Enhance biological controllers activity: Increasing biodiversity and natural enemies Modified of Altieri & Rosset (1996) and Altieri (1995)

(2) Agroecological practices analysis: As Table 2 shows, the agroecological practices were analyzed based on methodology developed in Guthman (2000), rating each practice between 0 to 1. One point is given whether YES, farmer uses or applies that practice and zero point is assigned when farmer does NO use the practice. However, some practices that are used by a farmer (YES) could give half a point whether the practice is used with some specific characteristics (Table 2). For instance, if compost is elaborated on-farm 1 point was given and 0,5 if it is bought. Now, if it compost is made on-farm with organic inputs (off farm or on farm) 1 point was given and 0,5 if is made with conventional inputs or raw materials. Not applicable option sometimes gives half a point because the specific practice it is not possible to implement in that farm and farmer are aware of this fact. Then, the points per farm were added (12 points maximum) and normalized (values from 0 to 1) to make them comparable. The way to give more or less importance to one or other practice was mainly inspired on the basic characteristics an agroecological farming system has to meet, described by Altieri & Rosset (1996); Altieri (1995) and Rosset & Altieri (1997) (1 Introduction). In this case it is important to remark that, although the questions about practices were based only on field which farmer considered as organic, in some cases (specifically on partly organic farms) farmers use some of this practices (e.g., Crop Rotation, Fallow, Stubble management, mixed crop-livestock farm) in conventional fields. In these cases the agroecological practice gave it punctuation.

(3) Analysis of motivations: This analysis was carried out based on methodology applied by Stobbelaar et al. (2009). To analyze whether farmers are intrinsically motivated to begin producing organically (initial motivations) and to continue producing organically (current motivations) the answers to these questions (statements) were rated 1 to 5 according extrinsic motivation continuum proposed by Ryan & Deci, (2000a, 2000b) where 1 to 4 represent the extrinsic motivation continuum (1 Introduction) and 5 is

11 the intrinsic motivation itself. Amotivation (0) was not considered because all participating farmers have the intention to produce organically. In case of farmers who considered him/herself that he/she has always been an organic farmer, the current motivations were considered as the same that initial motivations. Once the motivations statements were rated (Table 3), they were average per each farm and then normalized (values from 0 to 1) to make them comparable. To analyze farmers’ motivations to belong to Red de Productores Orgánicos de la X Región (EFO), the statements were rated from individualistic to collectivistic from 1 to 5 (Table 4). Then, they were average per each farm and then normalized (values from 0 to 1) to make them comparable.

12 Table 2: Agroecological practices rating. Based on farmer’s answers and on the basic characteristics an agroecological farming system has to meet, described by Altieri & Rosset (1996); Altieri (1995) and Rosset & Altieri (1997). Agroecological Mulch No till Fallow Stubble Compost Manure Crop Mixed Legumes Increase Other Own practices practice manage Rotation farm biodiversity pest seeds (minimum ment control Farmers’ tillage) answers Yes 1 1 1 1 1 Organic 1 Conventional/ 1 0,5 Organic Made on farm14 On/Off farm 1 1 organic15 On/Off farm 0,5 0,5 conventional Bought16 0,5 0,5 Incorporation – 1 Retention For animals17 0,5 Compost- 0,5 Vermiculture Associated- 1 Rotation For sale 0,5 No 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Not applicable18 0,5 0,5

14 Only to compost and other preparations 15 Off farm origin should be less punctuated than on farm origin. In this case organic raw material is considered more important. 16 Only to compost and other preparations 17 As feed and/or bedding 18 Some practices are not applicable when the organic plant production is based on perennial species (medicinal plants, orchard)

13 Table 3: Farmers' statements about initial motivations to produce organically and about current motivations to continue produce organically , rated according to level of motivations described by Ryan & Deci (2000a, 2000b).

Motivations to begin producing organically Level of Motivations to continue producing organically Level of (Initial motivations) motivation (Current motivations) motivation

It is cheaper to produce - I can use what I have on farm 1 It is cheaper to produce - I can use what I have on farm 1 Economic reasons - Good price - Promote sale 1 To use what we had - We had the land, an opportunity 2 To use what we had - We had the land, an opportunity 2 The products are better, more lifespan 3 Do family 3 Produce healthier products for family, people and 4 community Produce healthier products for family and society 4 Healthy eating, healthy eating for children 4 Healthy eating, healthy eating for children 4 People health (family, employees, environment) 4 People health (family, employees, environment) 4 It is part for my culture, family tradition, antecessors 4 It is part for my culture, family tradition, antecessors 4 It lets take care and be environmentally conscious 4 It lets take care and be environmentally conscious 4 Environmental friendly - Resource conservation 4 More sustainable 4 Not destroy the planet 4 Decontaminate the planet - not destroy 4 Decontaminate the planet 4 Flora-Fauna and environment friendly 4 More sustainable 4 Soil improving 4 More natural - it reduces chemical use 4 More natural - it reduces chemical use 4 Soil improving 4 It is a philosophy, a life style 5 Challenge and commitment to the farm 4 Disassociate of what we learnt before 5 To learn every day 4 Establishing new production ways 5 It is a philosophy, a life style 5 I like to produce in this way 5 Disassociate of what we learnt before 5 Establishing new production ways 5

14 Table 4: Farmers' statements about to belong to Red de Productores Orgánicos de la X Región (EFO), rated according to collectivism level.

Motivations to belong to Red de Productores Orgánicos de la X Región (EFO) Level of collectivism To know about new projects 1 SAG organic certification 1 Associative certification 1 Facilitate products commercialization 1 Feeling supported, belonging sense 2 Recognitions as consolidated association. The organic association of the region 2 Learn new techniques, know how. 2 Demonstrate to society and authorities the organic agriculture importance and 3 benefits. Exert political pressure Meet peers - Do not feel freaky 3 Make friends, meet new people 3 Share experiences and knowledge among members 4 Exchange experiences, culture, knowledge (seeds) - Share 4 Together we can achieve more things 5

(4) Relationship between motivation and practices: Once the farmer’s motivations and agroeocological practices were normalized and analyzed, the analyses of relationship between current motivation and agreocological practices was done. Because of in this thesis the farmer’s motivations were explored and data set is small (20), no statistical analysis was performed.

2 Detailed selected farms analysis: In order to answer the third research question, three farms were selected to analyze their performance in detail. The farms selection criteria was based on 3 aspects: (1) fully or partly organic farm, (2) mixed crop-livestock farm, based on pasture-ruminants system, mainly (see Table 5 in 3 Results and Discussion) and (3) farmers willingness, this is an the unmeasurable and subjective criteria but it is one of the most important. Once farmers/farms were selected (and when they accepted to continue in the process), I visited and interviewed them once more in February 2014, in order to provide farm data19 to the whole-farm model, FarmDesign (Groot et al., 2012) and to know farmer’s wishes. Thus, a farm characterization and current situation analysis, in socio-economic and environmental terms, was made. The data collected during the farmers/farms’ visits (provided by farmers or by on-farm observations) mainly were in terms of crops, crops rotations, crops areas, animals, amount of animals, products (feed and food), products destination, sale prices, labor required (family and hired), fertilizers and the amount

19 Pasture-crops, crop- rotation, animals, products, prices, yields, labor required (farm, herd and family), fertilizers used, buildings, machinery, biophysical environment and socio-economic setting.

15 applied, off-farm inputs, buildings and machinery data. The data that could not possible to be collected, such as: N fixation, effective organic matter20, dry matter, N, P, K and ash content in products (feed and food), some pasture and proposed crops yields, some product prices, feed value and animal requirements21 were collected from different sources such as handbook, scientific references and expert knowledge (Appendix III). The main criteria to looking for missing data was started with local (Chilean) sources and if they were not found, to include regional sources (neighboring countries and then Latin- American countries) and, at the end, around the world sources. In order to check each farm area and plots areas per farm, Google Earth website was used. FarmDesign model FarmDesign is a static farm balance modeling tool which is able to optimize multi-objectives (e.g., trade- offs between environmental and economic objectives) based on Differential Evolution algorithm and Pareto-based selection (Groot et al., 2012). This model works on annual farm balances, taking into account three farm sustainable aspects: social, economic and environmental. Thus, labor, profit, organic matter and nutrients (N, P and K) balance are present. This farm tool could be used as from farm Diagnosis (e.g., organic matter balance), Explore (e.g., trade-off among multi-objectives) and Re-Design a farm. To Re-design, researcher/advisor in discussion with farmers choose the best farm configuration alternative according with the objectives, constraints and decision variables specified beforehand (Groot et al., 2012). In case of this thesis, FarmDesign version 4.2.4.0 was used to Diagnosis, Exploration and Re- Design. About objectives, constraints and decision variables: Objectives are related to what we want to analyze about the farm and whether we want to maximize or minimize them. The objectives could be social as minimize regular labor balance; economic as maximize operating profit and environmental as minimize N-volatilization or N-soil losses; constraints are restrictions which define minimum and maximum of farm aspects as total farm area, feed balance, nutrients inputs and outputs. These can be based on legislation restrictions, for instance; and decision variables give the allowed range of animals’ number and crop areas to create different farms configurations. In order to facilitate the current farm analysis (socio-economic and environmental), the objectives were determined based on farmers’ wishes and agroecological approach (2.2.2 Exploration step). Then, farms were compared in terms of their objectives.

20 Organic Matter remaining from crop residues after 1 year of their application 21 To this thesis Dutch system feed evaluation (Intake unit: Saturation value; Energy: Net energy in VEM – net energy for lactations and Protein in DVE (g) – Intestinally degradable protein) was used.

16 2.2.2 Exploration step - exploring agroecological options and farm configurations: This step was aimed to answer the fourth research question. Once the diagnosis of the three selected diagnosis was finished, it was possible to explore agroecological options to manage these farms and to find different farms configurations, using FarmDesign whole-farm model. To start the exploration, an agreocological basket of technologies were proposed and farm constraints and decision variables were specified. These aspects were based on Chilean organic agriculture legislation restrictions (SAG, 2011) and agroecological approach (in this thesis, it was based on the basic characteristics an agroecological farming system has to meet and on basic component of sustainable agroecosystem both developed in Altieri & Rosset (1996) and Altieri (1995)). Then, constraints and decisions variables were decided as follows: (1) Chilean organic agriculture legislation’s (SAG, 2011) restrictions, in these specific aspects: - Max 170 kg N/ha/year (Article 13); - Stocking rate according to table in Article 23-5 (Sheep and goats: 13,3 animals/ha; Cattle, to this thesis 2 animals/ha were considered; Poultry: 580 birds/ha) - For farms which using not allow inputs, which are not in the list of allowed inputs and in the visa list neither (SAG, 2014a) (2) Agroecological approach according to: - OUTPUT/INPUT ratio - Decrease nutrient losses, run-off, erosion - Use organic matter, manure to promote soil activity - Increase efficiency and economic ability - Crop rotation - Green manure, stubble (incorporation-retention), cover crops, intercropping, legumes Once agroecological basket of technologies, constraints and decision variables were specified and implemented in FarmDesign, the clouds of solutions or solutions area with all new farms configurations per farm were generated and explored. The exploration consisted of testing the performance of the new farm configurations in different agroecological basket of technologies combinations. Then, the farms configuration that performed the new technology was checked in the socio-economic (regular labor balance and operating profit) and environmental (organic matter balance and total N-losses) objectives. Then, these farms configurations were tested in pairs of decision variables, in order to choose a set of farms configurations to Re-design step. The explorations was done with software R version 3.1.1 (http://www.r-project.org/).

2.2.3 Re-design step – the set of farm configuration: The step was aimed to answer the fifth research question. Based on the set of farms defined in the exploration step, it is possible to propone different farm configurations, to discuss with farmers, achieving their wishes, complying with agroecological approach and regulations’ constraints.

17 3 Results and Discussion

3.1 Diagnosis

3.1.1 Farmers/Farms overview Twenty farmers were surveyed. The main findings were (Table 5): The percentage of female farmers was high at 70% (14) of whom nine were household heads and the others were shared household heads with their husbands. In terms of age, 50% of participants were below 49 years of age and the other 50% was older than 50 years, while only two participants were younger than 40 years. This could mean that young people were not informed about organic agriculture or they are not interested in participating in these kind of organizations. About of locality, most of farmers (55%) lives in mainly (35%) in Municipality, then 30% in and 15% in Chiloé. Only 35% based their family livelihood on organic agriculture and all of them complemented the organic farming with other agricultural activity such as educative farm, machinery services and conventional livestock. On the other hand, for the other 65% of the farmers for whom organic agriculture was not their main livelihood, only 15% of them lived from other non-agricultural activities, 13% combined agricultural activities (conventional livestock and crops) with non-agricultural, 27% was working on aspects related to agriculture such as land consultancy and 30% the main livelihood is from conventional crops such as garlic, potatoes and pasture and conventional livestock. In this case, it is possible to think that farmers, who their livelihood do not depend of organic agriculture, could feel more free or less pressured and could have more opportunities to experiment or test different crops or vegetable on their farms. Related to organic plant and animal production, in general the 20 farmers/farm could be grouped according to total farm’s area and identify the organic area of the total farm area (organic farm area % - Table 5). Thus, 55% of the farms were considered as fully organic. In general, the farm production was based on livestock (dairy and beef cows, meat sheep, dairy goats and poultry), pasture, crops such as potato (native and/or improved varieties), wheat, garlic and oat, vegetable gardens and greenhouse vegetables. On farms that were only partly organic (45% of farms), livestock was managed in a conventional way and as a consequence, the pasture was also considered by farmers as conventional, although the pasture could be organic. Farmers did not consider pasture as a crop and they are taking into account only livestock or for them the organic agriculture it is only applied in vegetable gardens and greenhouses. This situation is very common in this group, generally the female and organization member manage greenhouses and vegetable garden as organic, but their husbands manage livestock in a conventional way. This is an interested point to further gender researchers.

18 Table 5: General overview of farmers/farms surveyed belonging to ecological farmer organization.

Sex Municipality Province Age Head of OA main Total Organic Organic Farm sized Always Main organic Farmer household household area area farm based on organic production livelihood (ha) (ha) area (%) thesis farmer classification Plant** Livestock *’ 1 F Osorno 43 Yes Yes 15,6 15,6 100 Medium Yes 1-3-4 2-5 2 F Rio Negro Osorno 56 Yes Yes 30 30 100 Large No 1-3-4- 4-1-5 2-5 3 M Calbuco Llanquihue 32 Yes Yes 4 4 100 Medium No 3-4-5- 5-6 1-2 4 F Calbuco Llanquihue 49 Yes No 6 1 17 Small No 4-3 - 5 F Calbuco Llanquihue 58 No No 2,4 0,123 5 Small No 4-3-1-5 - 6 F Calbuco Llanquihue 58 No No 14 1 7 Small No 4-3 - 7 F Calbuco Llanquihue 55 Shared No 10,5 0,375 4 Small No 3 - 8 F Calbuco Llanquihue 44 No No 2,5 0,75 30 Small No 3-2-1-5 - 9 F Calbuco Llanquihue 65 Shared No 0,88 0,162 18 Small No 4-3-5 - 10 F San Pablo Osorno 63 Yes Yes 15 1 7 Small No 5-1 - 11 F Purranque Osorno 41 Shared No 0,25 0,25 100 Small No 4-3 5 12 M Purranque Osorno 42 Yes No 0,2 0,2 100 Small Yes 3 5 13 M Puerto Osorno 46 Yes No 164 164 100 Large Yes 2-3-1 4-3-1 Octay 14 F Llanquihue 65 Yes Yes 3 0,25 8 Small Yes 5-1 - 15 F Frutillar Llanquihue 50 No No 258 0,1 0 Small Yes 3-5 - 16 M Fresia Llanquihue 43 Yes Yes 60 60 100 Large Yes 1-2-3 3 17 F Puerto Llanquihue 54 Shared No 10 10 100 Medium Yes 5-4-3-1 4-5 Montt 18 M Chiloé 60 Shared No 9,5 9,5 100 Medium Yes 5-1 - 19 M Ancud Chiloé 36 Yes No 20 20 100 Medium No 3-5-1 4-5 20 F Ancud Chiloé 48 Shared Yes 60 60 100 Large Yes 2-3-4-1 1 *Shared: Shared the head of household with her husband; ** 1: Pasture; 2: Crops (potato, garlic, wheat, oat); 3: vegetable garden; 4: greenhouse; 5: Perennial (orchard, medicinal plants). *’ 1: Dairy cows; 2: Dairy goats; 3: Beef cattle; 4: Meat sheep; 5: Poultry; 6: Ox team. All in importance order according to farmer. More details, Appendix II.

19 In contrast to the organic area of the total farm area (55% of farms partly organic), when were asked about when they begin to practice organic farming, 45% considered themselves as always has been organic farmer and 55% were conventional farmers and converted to an organic farmer (Table 5). This situation confirm, that when organic and conventional farm area are managed separately for instance, organic area by female-wife association member and conventional area by male-husband, the female- wife member could has been always organic farmer. To facilitate agricultural practices and motivations analysis, the farmers/farms were grouped according to organic farm area (fully - F or partly – P organic) and whether farmer has been always organic (A) or she/he was converted (C) to one. The farm size was not considered to this analysis, because the most of small farms were partly organic and all medium and large were fully organic.

3.1.2 Agroecological practices analysis As Table 6 shows the point per each practice were assigned, averaged and normalized. The maximum score possible was 12 and the maximum obtained was 11,5 and the minimum was 8. The least common practice applied by farmers was mulching, basically because they do not know the utility of this practice or because it did not yield the expected results in terms of water conserving or weed control. The most common practices were increasing biodiversity, other pest control and minimum tillage. Increasing biodiversity and other pest control were applied in vegetable gardens and greenhouses mainly. Increasing biodiversity consists of incorporating medicinal plants and other crops which could repel pest and/or attract natural enemies. In some farms they plant trees. However, the concept of natural enemies is not well understood by all farmers. Other pest control was related to the use of some natural preparations (e.g., with medicinal plants), which farmers prepare and apply to plants as a preventive pest control. Regarding minimum tillage, all farmers try to reduce tillage in their farms, it is not zero, but is reduced. This fact could be related to stubble management where only 3 (15%) farms incorporate or maintain it on the soil, other use it as feed or to produce compost or vermiculture. About mixed crop-livestock farm, only one farmer did not rear livestock and collect manure from neighbor pastures (farm 18 in Table 6). The 95% of farmers reared livestock and this explain the on-farm manure origin. All farms that are partly organic “import” manure from the conventional farm area to use in their compost or directly in crops or pasture. In general, this is the main reason why partly organic farms obtained a lower score than fully organic farms. In this way it is remarkable that fully organic farm group (AF and CF - Table 6) had a higher total average score (10,28 and 10,62) than partly organic farm group (AP and CP) (8,5 and 9,21). Even inside the partly organic farm group, the always organic farmers obtained lower score. On the other hand, farms who crop (farms 10, 14 and 18) perennial plants such as orchards and medicinal plants, also obtained a lower score because of some practices cannot be carried out such as crop rotation and fallow. Since the difference between the minimum and maximum scores was about only 3 points (small), the understanding that a low score is due to main organic crop in the farms was perennial and based on the total maximum score obtained was the 81,6% of the potential maximum score (whether each farm obtain 12 points, the total maximum score is 240), I conclude that the organic agriculture carried out organic farmers is based on agroecological practices instead of input substitution.

20 Table 6: Agroecological practices rating results in farm groups and normalized value per farm. Based on farmer’s answers and on the basic characteristics an agroecological farming system has to meet, described by Altieri & Rosset (1996); Altieri (1995) and Rosset & Altieri (1997) (Table 2). Farm Agroecological Mulch No till Fallow Stubble Compost Manure Crop Mixed Legu Increas Other Own Sum Norm group* practices practice manage Rotation farm mes e pest seeds alized (minimum ment biodive control value tillage) rsity Farm AF 1 0 1 0,5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10,5 0,714 12 1 1 0 0,5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10,5 0,714 13 0 1 1 0,5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10,5 0,714 16 1 1 0 0,5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10,5 0,714 17 0 1 1 0,5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10,5 0,714 18 1 1 0,5 0,5 1 0,5 0,5 0 1 1 1 1 9 0,286

20 0 1 1 0,5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10,5 0,714 Sum 3 7 4 4 7 6,5 6,5 6 7 7 7 7 72 Avera 0,43 1 0,57 0,57 1 0,93 0,85 1 1 1 1 1 10,28 ge AP 14 0 1 0,5 0,5 1 0,5 0,5 0,5 1 1 1 0,5 8 0 15 0 1 0,5 1 0,5 0,5 1 0,5 1 1 1 1 9 0,286 Sum 0 2 1 1,5 1,5 1 1,5 1 2 2 2 1,5 17 Avera 0 1 0,5 0,75 0,75 0,5 0,75 0,5 1 1 1 0,75 8,5 ge CF 2 1 1 1 0,5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11,5 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 0,5 1 1 1 1 1 1 11,5 1 11 0 1 1 0,5 0,5 0,5 1 1 0,5 1 1 1 9 0,286 19 1 1 1 0,5 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10,5 0,808 Sum 3 4 4 2,5 2,5 3 4 4 3,5 4 4 4 42,5 Avera 0,75 1 1 0,63 0,63 0,75 1 1 0,88 1 1 1 10,62 ge CP 4 0 1 1 0,5 1 0,5 1 0,5 1 1 1 1 9,5 0,429 5 0 1 0,5 0,5 1 0,5 1 0,5 1 1 1 1 9 0,286 6 1 1 0 0,5 1 0,5 1 0,5 1 1 1 1 9,5 0,429

21 Farm Agroecological Mulch No till Fallow Stubble Compost Manure Crop Mixed Legu Increas Other Own Sum Norm group* practices practice manage Rotation farm mes e pest seeds alized (minimum ment biodive control value tillage) rsity Farm 7 0 1 1 1 0,5 0,5 1 0,5 0,5 1 1 1 9 0,286 8 0 1 1 1 1 0,5 1 0,5 1 1 1 1 10 0,571 9 0 1 1 0,5 1 0,5 1 0,5 0,5 1 1 1 9 0,286 10 1 1 0,5 0,5 1 0,5 0,5 0,5 0 1 1 1 8,5 0,143 Sum 2 7 5 4,5 6,5 3,5 6,5 3,5 5 7 7 7 64,5 Avera 0,29 1 0,71 0,64 0,93 0,5 0,93 0,5 0,71 1 1 1 9,21 ge Total 8 20 14 12,5 17,5 14 18,5 14,5 17,5 20 20 19,5 196 General average 0,4 1 0,7 0,63 0,87 0,7 0,93 0,73 0,88 1 1 0,98 9,8 MAX 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 MIN 0 0 0 0,5 0 0,5 0,5 0 0 1 1 0,5 * A: Always organic farmer; C: Converted to organic farmer; F: Fully organic farm; P: Partly organic farm.

22 3.1.3 Analysis of motivations The motivations of farmers to produce organically were analyzed in terms of the continuum of extrinsic and intrinsic motivations (Ryan & Deci, 2000a, 2000b) (Table 3 and Table 4). The external regulations are related basically to economic reasons such as “cheaper to produce” and “good price”. This external regulation was more common for initial motivation than for current ones. Introjected and identified regulations were less common motivations to farmers and each one was represented by one statement in initial and current motivations: Introjected by “take the opportunity to use the land available” and Identified by “create family” (initial motivations) and “organic products have more lifespan” (current motivations). Integrated regulations were the most mentioned by farmers. Both in initial and current motivations integrated motivations were related to producing healthy, protecting the environment and maintaining family traditions. Intrinsic motivations were also present in both initial and current motivations as expressed in statements about organic agriculture as “life philosophy”, “life style”, “disassociate what was learnt before and establishing new production ways”. Figure 6 shows that there was a strong positive relationship between farmer’s initial and current motivations to practice organic agriculture. The most of the farmers were intrinsically motivated independently if they were always organic farmer or converted one and whether the farm is partly or full organic. These farmers also kept the high initial motivation nowadays. This means that this specific farmers group has been intrinsically motivated from the beginning. In contrast, there were a group of farmers who were not intrinsically motivated at all and it is remarkable that in this group there were fully organic farms.

Figure 6: Relationship between initial and current motivations to practice organic agriculture according to farm groups. A: Always organic farmer; C: Converted to organic farmer; F: Fully organic farm; P: Partly organic farm

23 The motivations of farmers for membership of an Ecological Farmer Organization (EFO) (Red de Productores Orgánicos de la X Región) were analyzed according to collectivism level (Stobbelaar et al., 2009). As Table 4 shows, the farmers’ statements were rated from individualistic to collectivistic. The most individualistic statements were related to participation in certification and products commercialization; the collectivistic ones were related to making friends and to sharing experiences and knowledge. As Figure 7 shows, most farmers were currently intrinsically motivated to produce organically and to belong to an organic farmer association. It is remarkable that most of the famers presented a high and specific (around 0,6) level of current intrinsic motivation and form that point on farmers presented different levels of the motivation to belong to EFO. Therefore, the motivations to belong to EFO changed at same intrinsic motivations level. Except for the AP group, it was not possible to detect a specific group that had a higher motivation to produce organically and to belong to EFO. In contrast in the study carried out by Stobbelaar et al. (2009) in Northern Friesian Woodlands, The Netherlands, they could detect an specific group who showed high internal motivation and connectedness level. Consequently, and according to the Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000a) the intrinsically motivated people are able to internalize and integrate different regulations and consistent with Stobbelaar et al. (2009) these results would anticipate that the intrinsically motivated farmers (e.g. current motivations values higher than 0,6 in this case) will be able to internalize and integrate policies, related to organic farming and agroecology. This would be an interesting starting point to take into account the organic farmers when police makers want to implement any changes in the Chilean organic legislation. Except for the always organic farmer and partly organic farm group (AP), who performs always with low values in initial, current motivations to produce organically and to belong to EFO, most of the farmers/farms who participate in this thesis were intrinsic motivated (to produce and to belong) independently whether they were always organic famer or had a fully o partly organic farm.

3.1.4 Relationship between motivation and agroecological practices Then to analyze agroecological practices and the intrinsic motivation to produce organically, the relationship between them was made. As Figure 8 shows, in this case it is possible to identify as the most of fully organic farms (converted and always organic producers) had the highest values in agroecological practices. There were other group, mostly converted farmers and partly organic farm which had lower agroecological practices score, but they were intrinsic motivated. This means, that those farms could be limited (to this thesis) because their perennial crops, for example or because there are imported manure from the conventional part of the farm. However, because they are intrinsically motivated and according to self-determination theory, they have the potential to implement or improve the agroecological practices carried out than others that were not motivated. This is the case of the AP farm group farm who were not intrinsically motivated at all and probably would be more difficult to internalize other or more agroecological practices. Answering the second research question, I conclude, on one hand, that except for two farms, who performs always with low values in initial, current motivations to produce organically and to belong to EFO, the most of the farmers/farms who participate in this thesis were intrinsic motivated to produce organically and to belong to EFO independently whether they were always organic famer or had a fully o partly organic farm. On the other hand, in the most of fully organic farms, high values in agroecological

24 practices are related to intrinsic motivated farmers. The low scores in agroecological practices were not related to high intrinsic motivated farmers and it was related to partly organic farms, which explain in part, why the motivated farmers did not obtain higher scores in agroecological practices.

Figure 7: Relationship between current motivations to practice organic agriculture and motivation to belong to an ecological farmer organization according to farms groups. A: Always organic farmer; C: Converted to organic farmer; F: Fully organic farm; P: Partly

organic farm.

Figure 8: Relationship between current motivations to practice organic agriculture and agroecological practices carried out by farmers according to farm groups. A: Always organic farmer; C: Converted to organic farmer; F: Fully organic farm; P: Partly organic farm.

25 3.1.5 Detailed selected farm analysis Based on the selection criteria, (1) fully or partly organic farm, (2) mixed crop-livestock farm, based on pasture-ruminants system and (3) farmers willingness, the farms Praderas del Sur, La Poza and El Putrán (farms 1, 2 and 5 in Table 5 and Table 6) were selected for detailed analysis (Figure 9). Each farm belong to one of the groups defined before. Praderas del Sur is a fully organic farm and the farmer has been always organic farmer. La Poza is a fully organic farm and the farmer was converted to organic farmer. El Putrán is a partly organic farm and the farmer was converted to organic farmer. Each farm was described in detail (biophysical environment, socio-economic settings, crops, fertilizers and livestock characterization), objectives per farm were determined (2.2 Methodological framework) and the current situation analysis (FarmDesign) was done comparing farmers’ objectives.

Because the biophysical and environmental conditions of the Figure 9: Location of selected farms. farms were similar, these will be described first.

Farms’ Biophysical environment characterization According to Table 7 and as was earlier indicated in Section 2.1 Study region, the soils are characterized by low pH in the range between strongly and moderate acid (INIA - Remehue, 2000), high organic matter content, high P-retention (CIREN, 2003) and low P-availability. In this case particularly La Poza and Praderas del Sur farms were in the low range of P-availability (between 5,1 and 10 P Olsen (INIA - Remehue, 2000)). In contrast, El Putrán farm presents high amount of P Olsen. This situation could be explained as a result of the continuous P-fertilizers application (Table 11). In terms of texture, these farms present loam texture and dark color, due to high amount of organic matter (CIREN, 2003). In FarmDesign model, soil texture is represented as a correction factor (texture factor) (Groot et al., 2012) which is part of a function which correct organic matter degradation or mineralization (Eq. 1). According to Groot et al. (2012) and Groot & Oomen (2012), for sandy soil the texture factor is 1,2; 1,0 for loam soil and 0,9 for clay. In this case, to La Poza and el Putrán the factor used was 1 and to Praderas del Sur was 0,9 because the clay presences. The climate, as it was explained in 2.1 Study region section, is characterized by low temperatures and high precipitations. In this case, El Putrán is the southern farm and close to the sea (Figure 9), that explain why the mean temperature and annual precipitation (period with pF<3,5) are higher than La Poza and Praderas del Sur farm which are in the North and in the Intermediate Depression. The period with pF<3,5 is smaller than 365 days and represent the days with permanent moisture in the soil when the mineralization of organic matter is carried out (Groot et al., 2012; Groot & Oomen, 2012). In this case the period was calculates based on months having higher precipitations (Table 8).

26 Table 7: Physical and chemical farm’s soil characteristics. Based on farm soil analysis and Chilean soils studies (CIREN, 2003; Rodríguez, 1993). The bold values were used in FarmDesign model. Soil characteristics Farm El Putrán La Poza Praderas del Sur Soil Serie* Puerto Montt Osorno Corte Alto (Andisol – Trumao) Texture* (texture factor) Loam (1) Loamy silt (1) Silty clay loam (0,9) Soil Deep (m) 0,2 ** 0,2** 0,18* Bulk density* (m3/ha) 500 660 860 P Olsen (ppm) 27,9** 5** 6*’ (27,9 kg/ha) (6,6kg/ha) (9,3kg/ha) K (cmol+/kg) 0,4** 0,36** 1,4* (156 kg/ha) (185 kg/ha) (845 kg/ha) pH 5,8** 5,5** 5,6* OM % 20,5% 15,6**’ 11,8**’ P-retention (%)* 98 98 89 *CIREN, 2003; **Farm soil analysis; *’Estimated medium-low value according to INIA - Remehue (2000); **’Average according to Rodríguez (1993)

Eq. 1

Table 8: Climate farm’s characteristics. Based on information from the weather station closer to each farm. Climate* Farm El Putrán La Poza and Praderas del Sur Mean temperature (°C) 7,75 7,25 Period with pF<3,5 320 305 (days) Annual average 10,1 10,5 temperatura (°C) Annual precipitation 1802,5 1331,8 (mm) *Based on Rioseco & Tesser (n.d.) ; El Putrán data is from Puerto Montt weather station and La Poza and Praderas del Sur data from Osorno weather station.

The Eq. 1 represents the function used by FarmDesign to correct organic matter mineralization on-farm (Groot et al., 2012; Groot & Oomen, 2012) which take into account the environmental factor that affect organic matter mineralization. In 3.1.6 Farmer objectives and current performance section (Table 19), will be possible to realize, and as Mora et al. (2005) said, that organic matter in these soils has a low mineralization rate due to low mean temperature, high precipitation , low bulk density and intermediate soil texture, mainly loam.

27 In terms of nutrient deposition (Table 9) and soil erosion - organic N, P and K surface run-off data (Table 10), these were calculated from information available from 2004 (Alfaro et al., 2009) and 2004-2005 (Alfaro & Salazar, 2007; Alfaro et al., 2008), respectively. Due to lack of information of these topics in the region, these values were used in the three farms. In terms of erosion (run-off), the values obtained were very low. According to Alfaro et al. (2008) this situation is explained because the low soil bulk density in the topsoil and the vertical infiltration capacity decrease the surface run-off trend.

Table 9: Nutrient deposition values calculates to be used in FarmDesign model based on Alfaro et al. (2009) season 2004.

Deposition (kg/ha/year) N 3 P 0,4 K 1* *based on Arc en Ciel farm (dairy farm in Pays de la Lore - France)

Table 10: Nutrient run-off (erosion) values calculated to be used in FarmDesign model based Alfaro & Salazar (2007) and Alfaro et al. (2008) seasons 2004-2005.

Run-off

Soil (mm) 0,19 N 0,0012 (% of soil eroded) P 0 (% of soil eroded) K 0,008 (% of soil eroded) Organic matter 0,15 (% of soil eroded)

28 a.- El Putrán El Putrán farm is a small family conventional/organic mixed farm located in El Rosario, Municipality of Calbuco, 50 kilometers from Puerto Montt the Region capital city. Belonging to the continental part of Calbuco22 and close to the beach, this farm has 3 ha (Figure 10) in total which, and due to father’s family inheritance, has been divided in five equal parts (among mother, two sisters and two brothers) 0,6 ha each one. However, the association member (58) together with her mother (85) and sister (48) manages 2,4 ha (their own parts and one brother part who does not live in the farm) of the land (Figure 10). The detailed analysis of El Putrán has been focused on 1,9 ha (of 2,4 ha in total) of area available to crops, natural pasture, and animals. In addition, 0,2 ha of natural pasture that does not belong to farmer’s area is used by animals for grazing (Figure 11). Therefore, the area analyzed was 2,05 ha.

Figure 10: El Putrán farm: In blue, the total family area (3 ha). In orange, area managed by farmer and her mother and her sister (2,4 ha).

Crops and fertilizers description The most important crops in el Putrán are potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) with native varieties (such as Azul, Miñuque blanca, Guicaña, Bruja pintada and Mantequilla) and improved varieties (such as Desiree and Pukara both developed by INIA-Instituto de Investigación Agropecuaria ) and elephant garlic or ajo chilote o blandino (Allium ampeloprasum L. var. ampeloprasum). These crops are managed under conventional agriculture, because of external inorganic fertilizers such as Triple superphosphate, Potassium saltpeter and Sulpomag23 are applied. Farm Yard Manure (FYM) from the sheep stable is applied on potato crop (Table 11). Limestone24 is applied as external soil conditioner to increase soil pH (allowed by organic agriculture legislation in Chile (SAG, 2014a)). The main crop destination is to sale; 100% of elephant garlic production and 50% of potato (43% to home consumption and to save seed potatoes; 7% to feed pigs).

22 Municipality of Calbuco is formed by islands (archipelago) and a continental part. 23 Sulpomag: is langbeinita or potassium magnesium sulfate (Mosaic, 2014) 24 Limestone is calcium carbonate applied such as Magnecal 15 (INACESA, n.d.) or Cal Agrícola (Soprocal, n.d.)

29

Figure 11: El Putrán farm, current crops area and their allocation. Potato (0,31 ha); Elephant garlic (0,12 ha); Natural permanent pasture (1,3 ha); Vegetable

Gardens (0,06 ha); Greenhouses (0,06 ha); Natural permanent pasture used by animals for grazing. (0,2 ha).

Natural pasture is the main feed to sheep, ox team and geese by grazing and mowing (0,24 ha is left during spring without animals to mow and produce hay) or considered as organic because it is only fertilized with pasture manure from farm livestock and limestone to increase pH (Table 11). The greenhouses and vegetable garden could be considered as the 100% organic part of the farm. Different vegetable species are cropping such as tomato, lettuce, coriander, beans, snow pea, quinoa, medicinal some tobacco plants as insects repellent, elephant garlic, chard, strawberries and golden berries. Here external fertilizers are not used; only on-farm fertilizer preparations are applied, such as supermagro, bokashi and vermiculture (Table 11). The destination of the vegetable garden and greenhouses products is home consumption, however a part of are sold in the Puerto Montt’s municipality market such as snow pea and lettuce. Snow pea and lettuce were taken into account as the vegetable garden and greenhouse representative species, respectively. In contrast to crops and natural pasture management, where agroecological approach is not carried at all out (basically chemical inputs and scarce crop-rotation), greenhouses and vegetable gardens are managed practicing crop rotation with legumes, using on-farm resources (e.g., manure, medicinal plants, vermiculture) to elaborate, mainly, fertilizers preparations. However, agroecological practices such as green manures, cover crops or stubble incorporation or retention are not used, crop residues are used such as livestock feed.

30 Table 11: Fertilizers and soil conditioners, external and on-farm produced, applied in El Putrán farm, distinguishing crops where were applied, amount and if are allowed by the Chilean organic agriculture legislation. Fertilizer or soil External/On-farm Crop Area Amount Allowed by conditioner produced (ha) (kg) OA Chilean applied legislation** Triple External Potato 0,31 150 No superphosphate Elephant garlic 0,12 100 Potassium External Potato 0,31 75 No saltpeter Elephant garlic 0,12 100 Sulpomag External Elephant garlic 0,12 100 No Limestone - External Potato 0,06 500 Yes calcium Elephant garlic 0,12 1500 carbonate Natural pasture 0,23 500 Supermagro External or On- Greenhouses 0,06 2,4 Yes*** farm produced Firewood ash On-farm Potato 0,31 75 Yes produced Elephant garlic 0,12 50 Farm Yard On-farm Potato 0,31 1777* Yes Manure produced Pasture Manure On-farm Natural pasture 1,50 887* Yes produced Yard Manure (as On-farm Greenhouses 0,06 171* Yes Bokashi produced ingredient) Vermiculture On-farm Greenhouses 0,06 n.a. Yes produced Vegetable 0,06 n.a. Garden Medicinal herbs On-farm Vegetable 0,06 n.a. Yes preparations produced Garden Source: Prepared based on information from first (survey-questionnaire) and second visit (detailed farm questions) to the farm. *FarmDesign calculations; ** Annex A Lists 1, 2 (SAG, 2011) and input visa (SAG, 2014a); *** as a trace minerals; n.a. unknown amount.

Livestock and feed description The farm’s livestock consists of ox team, sheep, pigs and poultry. Poultry are roughly composed of chickens, geese and turkey (Table 12). Poultry and pigs are considered as conventional, since part of the feed is not produced under organic standard (SAG, 2011) (conventional potatoes produced on-farm to pigs and off-farm grain inputs as oat, maize and wheat bran to poultry). Sheep and ox team graze pasture and feed hay during stable season (rainy season in winter); mothers breastfeed its lambs during all lactation period (3 month (FIA & UACH, 2007)). They could be considered as organic because 100% of their feed originated from the natural pasture is on-farm managed as organic (only limestone application) (SAG, 2011). The destination of livestock is, mainly, home consumption (Table 12). As bedding 900 kg DM of straw is imported per year.

31 It is important to remark that the sheep stocking rate in El Putrán exceed the amount of 13,3 animals per hectare25 determined by Chilean organic legislation (SAG, 2011). Therefore, the stocking rate was reduced to comply with the legislation (Table 12). Thus, El Putrán 2 was the current configuration taken into account to 3.2 Exploration step (Table 23 and Table 24). However, both current configurations, El Putrán and El Putrán 2, are showed.

Table 12: El Putrán livestock characterization: main feed source, products and destination Livestock Amount Main feed Animal Products product destination Sheep 26 (9 ewe; 1 ram; 16 Pasture and milk Meat* 58% sale-42% HC lambs) (lambs until 3 Milk 100% lamb feed 18 (7 ewe; 1 ram; month) Wool** 100% HC 11 lambs) Ox team 1 (2 oxen) Pasture and hay Work - Poultry Geese 7 (1 gander; 2 Pasture and oat Meat 100% HC goose; 4 goslings) Chickens 47 (30 hens; 3 Oat and maize Meat 5% HC rooster; 14 Eggs 45% sale-55% HC chickens) Turkey 20 (4 turkey hen; 3 Oat and maize Meat 40% sale-60% HC tom; 13 turkeylings) Pig 2 Boiled potato and Meat 100% HC wheat bran Source: Prepared based on information from first (survey-questionnaire) and second visit (detailed farm questions) to the farm. El Putrán 2 new sheep herd HC=home consumption. *only lamb meat; ** only ram and sheep wool

Socio-economic characterization The regular labor is composed by family labor. In this case 3 persons work on the farm, between 3 and 4 h/day per 365 days/year. Thus, 3832 h family labor are available to manage the farm. Labor requirement to manage herd is 928 h/year, to open and close the sheep housing, to feed poultry and to prepare pig feed. For farm maintenance 356 h/year is needed, and 2768 h/year for crop management. Garlic and potato are the most labor demanding crops, because these crops are harvested manually. The regular labor is valorized in $CLP 1250/h. Some casual labor is needed in garlic crop, quantified in 8 h/year ($CLP 1000/h) (Table 17). Although, tractor services to prepare soil are contracted, 3 h in total, $CLP 19000/h, El Putrán has two power tillers to soil preparation in small areas.

25 In this thesis, the pasture area was used to calculate the stocking rate.

32 Farmer’s wishes The main farmer wish is: “I want to have time to clean and tidy the farm up”

b.- La Poza La Poza farm is a organic mixed family farm located in Chifín Bajo, Municipality of Osorno. This farm has 30 ha (Figure 12) and it is managed by the association member (56) and her husband (53). The detailed analysis will be focused on 25,65 ha. El Poza farm produces different organic products such as: vegetables, potatoes, wheat to bake bread, lambs and cow milk to make cheese, yoghurt and butter.

Crops and fertilizers description Natural permanent pasture occupies 24 ha of the farm area. It is the main cows and sheep feed, who graze it during the year. In spring, approximately 7,8 ha are left without animals, to produce hay as winter or stable feed (rainy season). Crop area is 1 ha, 0,75 ha to wheat (Triticum sp.) and 0,25 ha to potato (Solanum tuberosum). As El Putrán farm, native and improved potato varieties are cropping and its main destination is home consumption and saving seeds (80%) and to sell it (40%). The wheat cropped is an ancient variety with bread quality, adapted to the region and the destination is to feed chickens and to make organic bread on farm to sale and home consumption. However, this seasons the grain yield was not enough to made bread and 100% of the production will be26 to feed chickens. Vegetables such as different beans species, carrots, pumpkins, beet, leek, ancient varieties of maize, snow peas are cropped and rotated in vegetable gardens (there are two vegetable garden areas, see (Figure 12) (there is a small greenhouse but it was not taken into in this study). The main vegetable productions destination is home consumption-saving seeds (50%) and sold (50%) in the association’s sale point in Puerto Montt. To this thesis snow pea was taken into account as the vegetable garden representative specie. The natural pasture fertilization is based on pasture manure and FYM from cows and sheep stable (Table

13) and pastures can be considered as 100% organic. Red Guano, a natural phosphorus source (13% P2O5) from seabirds manure fossilized in the North of Chile (BambergChile, n.d.), is allowed by Chilean organic legislation (SAG, 2014a) and is applied on wheat, potato and vegetable garden. Limestone as pH corrector is applied only in wheat area. Composted yard manure and a small amount of FYM are used on vegetable gardens. The crops residues (potato and vegetable garden species) are used as livestock feed after harvest and in wheat case the stubble are baled to livestock winter feed.

26 Wheat was harvested after February 2014. This information was given by farmer in May 2014.

33

Figure 12: La Poza farm, 30 ha. In colors current crops area and their allocation: Potato (0,25 ha); Wheat (0,7 5ha); Natural permanent pasture (24 ha); Actual Vegetable Garden (0,15 ha); Potential Vegetable Garden (0,13 ha). Forest area (0,5 ha estimated)

According to Chilean organic agriculture legislation (SAG, 2011) crops and natural pasture are 100% organic. Under agroecological terms, the most of practices described by Altieri & Rosset, 1996; Altieri, 1995; Rosset & Altieri, 1997 (See 1 Introduction and 2 Materials and Methods) are carried out in La Poza farm, the only missing aspect is keeping the crop residues on the field or incorporate it and green manure crops. These practices promote soil and water conserving better than their nutritional composition to feed farm livestock. La Poza has around a half hectare of forest. Each two years a woodcutter is contracted to chop (casual labor) around 40m3 of fire wood27.

27 One m3 of fire wood is equivalent to 800kg of wood (Gómez-Lobo, 2005)

34 Table 13: Fertilizers and soil conditioners, external and on-farm produced, applied in La Poza farm, distinguishing crops where were applied, amount and if are allowed by the Chilean organic agriculture legislation. Fertilizer or soil External/ Crop Area Amount Allowed by conditioner On-farm (ha) (kg) OA Chilean applied produced legislation** Limestone - External Wheat 0,75 200 Yes calcium carbonate Supermagro External Vegetable garden 0,15 0,75 Yes*** Red Guano External Wheat 0,75 800 Yes Potato 0,25 200 Vegetable garden 0,15 40 Farm Yard On-farm Natural pasture 24 10333* Yes Manure produced Vegetable garden 0,15 n.a. Pasture Manure On-farm Natural pasture 1,50 9006* Yes produced Yard Manure On-farm Vegetable garden 0,06 99* Yes (composted) produced Source: Prepared based on information from first (survey-questionnaire) and second visit (detailed farm questions) to the farm; *FarmDesign calculations; ** Annex A Lists 1, 2 (SAG, 2011) and input visa (SAG, 2014a); ***as a trace minerals; n.a. unknown amount.

Livestock and feed description As said before, La Poza farm are breeding milk cows, sheep and chickens. The cattle and sheep stocking rate concurs with the herd stocking rate determined by Chilean organic legislation (SAG, 2011). Thus, the current farm situation does not change for the 3.2 Exploration step (Table 23 and Table 24). Table 14 shows that cows and sheep graze the pasture and feed hay produce on-farm. This season, due to drought the amount of hay in bales produced was fewer than precedents season (4660 kg DM/ha28 to 605 kg DM/ha29) off-farm hay bales (8290 kg DM) were made on the neighbor farm pasture. 16% (1290 kg DM) of this hay will be used as livestock bedding. According to the farmer, drought and the consequent low pasture yield quality have decreased the milk production to around 5 L/day/cow (lactation period, 10 month), and for this reason the main milk destination has been to breastfeed heifers and calves.

28 Calculated based on farmer information. Normal season hay yield=180bale/ha 5400 kg/ha. Hay dry matter =86,28%(Bravo, 2006). 29 Calculated based on a 7,8ha pasture to produce hay during spring (51% pasture production (Goic & Matzner, 1977), 86,28% dry matter content (Bravo, 2006) and 3660 kg DM/ha of pasture (INIA - Remehue, n.d.)

35 Table 14: La Poza livestock characterization: main feed source, products and destination. Livestock Amount Main feed Animal Products product destination Cows Dairy cows 9 Pasture and hay Milk 60% heifers- on and off-farm calves feed 32% sale fresh 8% HC Dry cows 16 Pasture and hay Meat* 12,5% sale* Bull 1 on and off-farm - - Heifers < 1year 5 Pasture and milk Meat 60% HC (until 6 month) 40% sale*’ Calves < 1 year 4 Meat 100% sale* Sheeps 72 (40 ewe; 2 ram; Pasture, milk Meat** 85% sale-15% HC 30 lambs) (lambs until 3 Milk 100% lamb feed month) and hay Wool*** 100% HC on and off-farm Chickens 56 (40 hens; 3 rooster; Wheat grain on Meat**’ 26% sale-74%HC 14 chickens) and off-farm Eggs 47% sale-53% HC

Source: Prepared based on information from first (survey-questionnaire) and second visit (detailed farm questions) to the farm. HC=home consumption. *sold alive (old cows and calves) *’sold alive to reduce herd **only lamb meat; ***only ram and sheep wool **’ only chickens meat

In case of chickens, it is not possible to be considered as organic, because of more than 20% (SAG, 2011) of their feed is non-organic. In this season, wheat produced on-farm only will be enough to feed chickens for two month and the rest has to be bought. Lambs are sold on-farm; heifers, calves and old cows in livestock market and chicken meat and eggs in association’s sale point in Puerto Montt.

Socio-economic characterization As a family farm, the main regular labor is composed by family labor. In this case 2 persons work on the farm, between 4 h/day throughout the year. Thus, 2920 h of family labor is available to manage La Poza farm. To manage the herd 963 h/year are needed to open and close sheep and cow stable, milking cows, sheep shearing and to feed poultry. For farm maintenance 1460 h/year and 772 h/year to crop management (vegetable garden is the most demanding labor crop, due to machinery is only used to soil preparation). The regular labor is valorized in $CLP 1250/h. Casual labor is needed to chop wood, 24 h/year quantified in $CLP 6000/h (Table 17). Due to La Poza has different agricultural machineries, external services are not needed.

36 Farmer’s wishes The main farmer wishes are: “I want to plan better the farm activities” “I want to increase natural pasture yield” Vegetable garden, Is it too large? Could be nice increase wheat crop area?

c.- Praderas del Sur Praderas del Sur farm is an organic family mixed farm located in Corte Alto, Purranque Municipality. The total farm area is 14,5 ha of which 2,4 ha are lent to the farmer (Figure 13). The detailed analysis will be focused on 13,84 ha. The farm is managed by the association member (43) and her children. The main product made in Praderas del Sur farm is organic goat cheese. Thus, the most important livestock are goats, its main product is goat milk and natural permanent pasture (10,46 ha, see Figure 14) the main crop.

Figure 13: Praderas del Sur farm. In orange, total farm area (14,5 ha); in blue lent area (2,4 ha).

Crops and fertilizers Natural permanent pasture is the most important crop in this farm and it is the main goat feed. Vegetables are also produced in vegetable garden and greenhouse, however these areas are small and it was not considered in this analysis. Goats graze the natural pastures throughout the year. However, from November to January, 7 ha is left without animals to produce hay as winter or stable feed.

37

Figure 14: Praderas del Sur farm, Natural permanent pasture distribution (10,46 ha). Forest area (3,38 ha estimated). In terms of fertilization, pasture and yard manure (1263 and 1982 kg/year, respectively according to FarmDesign calculations) are the main fertilizers for grazing areas and, Farm Yard Manure (8588 kg/year according to FarmDesign calculations) in area left to be mowed. In some previous seasons, rock phosphate was applied in farm yard manure to improve the soil P-availability, however in the studied season was not used. Under this context, natural permanent pasture can be considered organic and agroecologically produced encouraging the internal nutrients recycling used on-farm resources (manure, this case) promoting the soil activity. Praderas del Sur has 3 hectares of forest. A woodcutter is contracted to chop (casual labor) around 20m3 of fire wood30 per year.

Livestock and feed description Goats are the most important livestock in the farm, but poultry and a horse are also present in the farm (Table 15). The horse is not used for specific work on the farm, and grazes pasture during the whole year. Goats graze pasture and feed hay; mothers breastfeed female and male kids about 2 months. During the lactation period (8 month-September to April) dairy goats are also fed with external non-organic oat grains that represent 8% of the total feed which is less than 10% of non-organic feed to ruminants

30 1 m3 of fire wood is equivalent to 800kg of wood (Gómez-Lobo, 2005)

38 allowed by Chilean legislation (SAG, 2011). Thus, goat meat, milk and cheese are 100% organic. In poultry case, the main feed is oat grain and secondary pasture. Here it is possible to said that poultry is not 100% organic because of the non-organic feed is more than 20% allowed to non-ruminants (SAG, 2011). As bedding 750 kg DM of straw is imported per year. The cheese is sold in specialized markets. In this farm, the goat stocking rate concurs with the herd stocking rate determined by Chilean organic legislation (SAG, 2011). Thus, the current farm situation does not change for 3.2 Exploration step (Table 23 and Table 24).

Table 15: Praderas del Sur livestock characterization: main feed sources, products and destination Livestock Amount Main feed Animal Products product destination Goats 133 Dairy goats 69 Pasture, hay and oat Milk 11,4% kids feed grain 2,8% sale fresh 85% cheese to sale 0,8% HC Whey 100% goat feed Meat 14,5% sale* Dry goats 24 Pasture and hay Meat 0,48% sale* Billy 2 Pasture and hay - - Female kids 33 Milk 100% replacement Male kids 5 (until 2 month) Meat 100% sale* Horse 1 Pasture - - Poultry Geese 11 (1 gander; 1 goose; 9 Pasture and oat Meat*** 100% sale goslings) Chickens 76 (20 hens; 2 rooster; 40 Oat Meat 5% HC chickens; 14 broilers) Eggs 45% sale-55% HC Source: Prepared based on information from first (survey-questionnaire) and second visit (detailed farm questions) to the farm. HC=home consumption. *sold alive (goats are sold as replacement); ***only gosling meat;

Socio-economic characterization Praderas del Sur is a family farm, which is managed completely by the farmer and children help her in some activities. Thus, regular labor is composed 1 person who works on the farm, 6 h/day throughout the year and 2 sons who works half an hour per day per year (totaling 2555 h/year). To manage herd, the activity which demands more labor is caring goats when they are grazing (1640 h/year), milked and to feed poultry, and cheese maker 3775 h/year are needed. To farm maintenance 730 h/year and crop management regular labor is not required because services such as bailing and manure management are

39 contracted externally (Table 17). The regular labor is valorized in $CLP 5000/h. Casual labor is needed to chop wood, 81 h/year quantified in $CLP 2200/h). In contrast to La Poza farm, Praderas del Sur farm does not have any agricultural machineries, and external services are always needed.

Farmer’s wishes The main farmer wishes are: “I would like to increase the hay amount produced” “I would like to contract a milker” Farmer shows concern about oat grain conventional origin. She wants to buy organic oat grain, but she does not find an organic producer into the association or an external one.

3.1.6 Farmer objectives and current performance The definition of objectives was based on the interpretation of farmers’ wishes and agroecological approach (Table 16). (1) Farmers’ wishes: The wishes of the farmers were interpreted as farm objective (from left to central part of Table 16). Most of the farmers’ wishes are related to reducing labor input (minimize regular labor balance objective), in order to have more time for planning, to put the farm in order, and to contract regular labor to have more time to do other things in the farm. Other objectives were to maximize organic matter balance and operating profit, these have been determined responding indirectly to farmer´s wishes. On one hand, maximizing organic matter together to other farm managements, it is possible to increase natural pasture and, as a consequence, hay yield (La Poza and El Putrán Farm); on the other hand, to increase or not wheat crop area will depend on its economic viability (maximize operational profit, La Poza farm). The Praderas del Sur farmer’s wish about oat grain conventional origin, it was not interpreted as objective, but it will be taken into account in 3.2 Exploration step. (2) Agroecological approach: In this case objectives put focus on environmental and economic objectives and the selection were based on, three agroecological aspects: Use of organic matter; decrease nutrient losses and increase efficiency and economic ability (right to central part of Table 16). Being the first two as environmental objectives and the second as an economic one. In case of decrease nutrient losses, the objective puts focus on N-total losses.

40 Table 16: Farmers’ wishes and agroecological approach interpretation as objectives to multi-objective optimization (FarmDesign model)

Farm Farmers’ wishes Interpretation and objectives definition per farm Agroecological approach Social Economic Environmental El Putrán “I want to have time to clean Regular labor and tidy the farm up” MINIMIZE Organic Matter Use organic matter MAXIMIZE Operating profit Increase efficiency and economic MAXIMIZE ability N-total losses Decrease nutrient losses MINIMIZE La Poza “I want to plan better the farm Regular labor activities” MINIMIZE “I want to increase natural Organic Matter Use organic matter pasture yield” MAXIMIZE Could be nice increase wheat Operating profit Increase efficiency and economic crop area? MAXIMIZE ability Vegetable garden, Is it too Regular labor large? MINIMIZE N-total losses Decrease nutrient losses MINIMIZE Praderas “I would like to increase the hay Organic Matter Use organic matter del Sur amount produced” MAXIMAZE “I would like to contract a Regular labor milker” MINIMIZE Oat grain conventional origin. - - - - - Operating profit - Increase efficiency and economic MAXIMIZE ability N-total losses Decrease nutrient losses MINIMIZE

41 The current farms performance was analyzed in terms of the objectives defined before and other considerations. (1) Social objective: This is to MINIMIZE regular labor balance. As Table 17 shows, the three farms have a positive regular labor balance. This means that they need more labor to carry out the farm’s activities they have, so labor should be hired. In this context, it is possible to see that El Putrán farm (1 and 2; the smallest analyzed farm, 2,05 ha) requires more labor per hectare being the most intensive of the three farms. In contrasts, La Poza farm (the biggest one, 25,65 ha) requires less labor per hectare being the most extensive farm. Praderas del Sur is the intermediate intensive farm, however it is the most demanding labor farm in total, due to the time needed to spend to care goats whilst they are grazing.

Table 17: Farms current regular labor balance. Total amount of labor required per hectare per farm to facilitate comparisons among them is showed. Farm Farm labor (h/year) Management Regular - Balance Casual Total Farm Labor labor Family (A-B) Labor Required area required/ha (crop, herb, labor (B) (C) labor (ha) farm) (A) (A+C) El Putrán 4061 3832 228 8 4069 2,05 1985 El Putrán 2 4056 3832 223 8 4064 2,05 1982 La Poza 3195 2920 275 24 3219 25,65 125,5 Praderas del Sur 4505 2555 1950 81 4586 13,84 331,36 Source: Prepared based on information from second visit (detailed farm questions) to the farm and FarmDesign calculations.

(2) Economic objective: This is to MAXIMAZE operating profit. One of the characteristic of agroecological farming system is: Reduce costs and increase the efficiency and economic viability of small and medium-sized farms, thereby promoting a diverse, potentially resilient agricultural system (Altieri & Rosset, 1996; Altieri, 1995; Rosset & Altieri, 1997). Thus, maximize operating profit is good way to express this characteristic. In the current situation El Putrán farm (1 and 2) has the highest operating per hectare compared to Praderas del Sur and La Poza farm (Table 18). Praderas del Sur and La Poza base their gross margin on animal products (cheese goat by Praderas de Sur and cow milk and lamb, calves and heifers meat) and El Putrán on crops products (vegetables and crops such as potatoes and elephant garlic) La Poza has the lowest operating profit, as farm and per hectare, the main reasons for this situation are the high assets costs and the low gross margin. The high asset cost is due to the amount of machineries31 and buildings32 in the farm. This amount of machinery is huge compared to Praderas

31 Two tractors (45 and 55 HP), potato planter, front loader, spiked-chain harrow, cereal seed drill, moldboard plow, ridging plow, wheat thresher, baler, bale picker, trailer farm, wheat cleaner, disc harrow, goosefoot harrow, roller, limestone spreader, grain grinder, sprayer. Milking parlor and cheese factory instruments. 32 Farmer’s house, cows and sheep’s stable, clave’s stable, milking parlor, cheese factory (bus)

42 del Sur which has only the machineries to make cheese and milk goats and it contract the external services. Similar situation was observed in El Putrán where there are only two power tiller and soil preparation is an external service. The low gross margin in La Poza is due to low milk production is low (5 L/day) and the low yield of some crops such as wheat33. In Praderas del Sur, the animal gross margin is the biggest and, in contrast the crop gross margin is negative. This situation helps to understand that the focus of Praderas del Sur is on animal production (goat cheese) and crop, in this case pasture only, is simply to feed goats and horse. In this farm, it is remarkable, that has the biggest costs in regular labor hired. This could also be explained due to goat cheese production which requires to hire a cheese maker and external services to bale hay and to remove, turn over and spread farm yard manure on the pasture.

Table 18: Farms current operating profit Operating profit (million $CLP) Farm Gross Margin (A) Costs (B) Operating profit (A-B) Crops Animals Manure Assets General Land Hired Hired Farm ha casual regular labor labor El Putrán 6,52 0,79 0,4 1,1 0,5 0 8*103 0,28 5,03 2,4 El Putrán 2 6,52 0,92 0,4 1,1 0,5 0 8*103 0,27 5,2 2,5 La Poza 1,05 13,04 0,3 8,4 0,4 0,2 0,14 0,3 4,2 0,16 Praderas del -0,45 27,35 0 1,8 0,8 0,8 0,17 9,7 13,6 0,98 Sur Source: Source: Prepared based on information from second visit (detailed farm questions) to the farm and FarmDesign calculations.

(3) Environmental objectives: These are MAXIMIZE organic matter balance and MINIMIZE total N-losses. Maximize organic matter is formulated in order to avoid soil degradation, to increase soil fertility, to promote biotic soil activities and to maintain soil structure. As said before (Table 7) these farms have high organic matter levels (Table 19) due to low temperatures (Table 8) has a low degradation or mineralization rate (Mora et al., 2005), low bulk density and a favorable soil texture (mainly loam) that helps to slow the organic matter mineralization down. Nonetheless, it is important to keep a high labile organic matter fraction (applying manure), because this soils are formed by allophanic clay which attract P-labile and also due to microorganisms activity P has a high interaction to humic fraction of organic matter forming humate-Al-phosphate complex, reducing P-availability (Borie & Rubio, 2003 and Borie & Zunino, 1983). As it was mentioned, the P-availability and low pH are the most important limiting factor in this Region. Thereby, it is important to consider these limiting factors when alternatives managements are explored.

33 Based on the farmer appreciation in term of wheat and pasture yield, these were low. Thereby, the wheat yield was estimated in 347 DM kg/ha (86,73% DM (Bravo, 2006))

43 Table 19: Farms current organic matter balance per hectare. Organic matter balance (kg/ha) Farm Inputs (A) Outputs (B) Balance (A-B) Crop Own Imported Green Manure SOM Erosion residues Manure manure manure degradation degradation losses El Putrán 1661 1277 30 0 550 311 4 2104 El Putrán 2 1661 1193 30 0 513 311 4 2057 La Poza 2116 689 5 0 241 377 4 2189 Praderas 2141 783 0 0 246 398 4 2276 del Sur Source: Source: Prepared based on information from second visit (detailed farm questions) to the farm, literature review and FarmDesign calculations.

10 0 18 0 (16) (19) 64 9 10 64 47 11 15 (102) (97) (86) Feed: 60 53 Feed: 60

(27) 5 5 1 (80) 0 46 38 47 43

1 4 (5)

Figure 15: Farms current Nitrogen cycle. In black El Putrán; in black in brackets El Putrán 2; in blue La Poza and in red Praderas del Sur. Red circles represent the N-losses. Only one number means that is the same number for the three farms. The amounts of N are in kg/ha/year.

44 Minimizing total N-losses is the second environmental objective, in order to reduce the amount of N- volatized and N-leached, to prevent potential groundwater table and air contamination. Figure 15 shows the farms N-cycle. EL Putrán is the farm that more N-losses presents (32 and 24 kg N/ha/year) and La Poza (10 kg N/ha/year) has the lowest N-total losses. The highest N-losses in El Putrán are explained because of importation of off-farm N, such as fertilizers (manure) crops to feed animals and it has more animals per pasture hectare (17,3 sheep per pasture ha and 2 ox) This situation is possible to check when the amount of animal and off-farm crops are reduced in El Putrán 2 (12,66 sheep per pasture ha and 2 ox), the N-losses decrease. Similar situation is seen in La Poza and Praderas del Sur, whilst Praderas del Sur does not import fertilizers and import the same amount of N off-farm animal feed than La Poza, its N-losses are higher than La Poza since the amount of animals per pasture hectare in Praderas del Sur (12,5 goats per pasture ha and a horse) is higher than animals in La Poza (3 sheep and 1,45 cows per pasture hectare). In Table 19 and Figure 15, it is also possible to see that none of farms incorporate green manure to the soil, the implementation of this practice would be useful to decrease N-losses, specifically leaching and increase soil organic matter, however their implementation could be not easy since the timeliness of cultivation. (Briggs, 2008). In 3.2 Exploration step some green manure will be explored in each farm. Although of P-availability in the soil is not an objective, however it is important to pay attention on their losses, because probably we are not taking into account the P-retention in the soil, because FarmDesign does not have a manner to quantify it. In these farms the P-losses (kg/ha/year) are: El Putrán, 59; El Putrán 2, 57; La Poza, 5 and Praderas del Sur, (-1). In case of El Putrán these losses could be explained by the amount of external phosphorus fertilized applied (e.g., TSP and Potassium saltpeter, Table 11). In contrast, Praderas del Sur presents negative P-losses, probably because a phosphorus sources were not applied. According to Weller & Bowling (2007) negative P and K balances is common in self-reliance farms with minimal off-farms feed and/or straw, because nutrients are been exported from the farm and Alfaro et al. (2009) explained that P and N negative balance (e.g., Praderas del Sur: N: 14; P: -1) can be eluded whether some amount of N and P fertilizers are applied and recycling is practiced. This situation is an interesting starting point to explore agroecological options to manage these farms. In general terms the farmers’ wishes were focused on social objectives, as reducing labor input, in order to have more time for planning, to put the farm in order, and to contract regular labor to have more time to do other things in the farm, instead of economic and environmental objectives. That does not means that farmer were not interested in those topics but the lack of time and the labor scarcity is and will be an important issue for farmers. In contrast, a study carried out by Mandryk, Reidsma, Kanellopoulos, Groot, & van Ittersum (2014) in six conventional arable farms in Flevoland, The Netherlands the most important objective was economic results. However, in this study the high economics results were attained with low N-balance. Nonetheless, it is important to take into account that N-application is rigorously regulated in The Netherlands. This situation it is not clear in this thesis. In farms current situation (Figure 16) the low N-losses are not related to more operating profit and in Chile the amount of N-application is regulated by organic legislation and it has to be less than 170KgN/ha/year (SAG, 2011).

45 a)

b) c)

d) e) f)

Figure 16: Current farms configuration Some relations are possible to be analyzed, for instance: a higher regular labor balance is associated with higher organic matter balance (Figure 16c) and smaller regular labor balance is associated with smaller operating profit (Figure 16a). However, this relations are not really clear due to Praderas del Sur has outstanding values in operating profit, organic matter balance and regular labor balance. So, it is not possible to have definitive conclusions based on this current situations. In 3.2 Exploration will be possible to check the different farms configurations which achieve the four objectives analyzed and their tendency (Figure 17). It is important to underline the reduction of N-losses by leaching (54% - Figure 15) when El Putrán reduces its herd size in 30,76% (El Putrán 2) proving that the amount of animals per hectare is related to N-losses, specifically N-leached. This reduction has other positive consequences such as a small increase in operating profit (3,3%) and small decrease in regular labor balance (2,2%) and a negative one, reducing in 2,23% the amount of organic matter due to less manure produced. However, compared to the N-losses, El Putrán 2 is a better starting farm configuration achieving the agroecological approach and meeting Chilean organic legislation.

46 3.2 Exploration After defining the objectives, the first step to explore possibilities for improvement compared to the current farm performance is to explore and define a basket of technologies consisting of the components that can be incorporated in the farm (crops, animals, manures, etc.). These technologies include the current activities, but can also innovative components. To further parameterize the exploration of options, we have to indicate the ranges of the crop areas, product use, animal numbers, etc., which are capture in decision variables. Moreover, various aspects of farm performance need to be constrained within given limits, for instance regarding the feed balance, available farm area and acceptable nutrient losses or mining.

3.2.1 Agroecological basket of technologies Crops – Green manure In order to achieve the agroecological approach common management are proposed to three farms. To increase biodiversity, to promote internal nutrients recycling (N-fixation and P-availability), to increase soil organic matter, to reduce the amount of external inputs, such as fertilizers in El Putrán. Two legumes species are being explored to be incorporated in farms crop rotation as green manure. One of them is Faba bean (Vicia faba) (FIA, 2003; Manterola, Cerda, & Mira, 1999), which is a crop known by farmers and; Lupine (Lupinus sp.), due to its capacity to be associated to mycorrhizas (Arbuscular mycorrhizal plant – AM) that help to increase P-availability to the plants (Borie & Zunino, 1983) in acid soils (FIA, 2003; Riffo Pozas, 2006; SAG, 2013; Soto, n.d.). One of the wishes of the Praderas del Sur farmer was to obtain organic oat grains to feed to their goats. As an alternative it is proposed to incorporate oat into the farm, in order to produce organic oat reducing off- farm inputs (Table 24). The crops explored were incorporated to each farm according to labor and machinery available. Thereby, the same crop, Lupine and Faba bean in different farm will have different regular labor and machinery demand. On one hand, El Putrán and Praderas del Sur increased their contract services value and, on the other hand, La Poza increased the regular labor to use machinery available in the farm. Crops yields were estimated based on Chilean experiences on literature (Appendix III). Based on the incorporation of the new crops as green manure, new crop rotation per farm are suggested. Crop Rotations: Based on farmers’ information and sow-harvest dates (mainly in Agronomía - Universidad de Chile, n.d.) to each farm a crop rotation was proposed. In general, the rotation was thought in a field that can change the place into the farm. This is because in the three farms the natural permanent pasture occupies the most part of the farm and it is the main feed source to animals. The ideas is also to intersperse different crops families to avoid diseases and intersperse soil depleting crops such as potato; soil conserving crops as wheat and oat and faba bean-lupine as soil building crops. These crops alternation (wheat or oat included) were possible in La Poza (Table 21) and in Praderas del Sur (Table 22) because farmers are interested in these crops but in El Putrán (Table 20) farmer is not interested in crops such as Poaceae family. Nevertheless, this is a proposal and exploration in FarmDesign model will indicate how feasible will be these crops as green manure and oat in Praderas del Sur.

47 Table 20: Crop rotation suggested to El Putrán Sow to Harvest September/October May to November May to to February/March October/November to April January Crop POTATO LUPINE/FABA BEAN FALLOW ELEPHANT (green manure) GARLIC

Table 21: Crop rotation suggested to La Poza Sow to Harvest September to May to November May  March October/November to April Crop WHEAT LUPINE/FABA BEAN POTATO LUPINE/FABA (green manure) BEAN (green manure) or PASTURE

Table 22: Crop rotation suggested to Praderas del Sur Sow to Harvest  June/August to May to Nov  January/February October/November Crop PASTURE OAT LUPINE (green PASTURE manure)

As Briggs (2008), Weller & Bowling (2007) and other authors remark the incorporation of legume-based fertility requires to think in the nutrients synchronization between suppliers and demanding crops to avoid nutrients losses. In this case, the nutrients synchronization was not the main topic to choose the species. However, a research could be carried out to know whether the nutrients, specifically nitrogen is been well used by crops or whether this is being leached.

Fertilizers and soil conditioners According to INIA - Remehue (2000) the optimum pH range to increase P-availability is between 6,5 and 7,5. This is because in that pH range, P-Al –solubility increase (Rojas, n.d.). Based on this fact, the soil conditioner application as Limestone (allowed to Chilean organic agriculture (SAG, 2014a) (kg) is proposed (also proposed in (Briggs, 2008; Weller & Bowling, 2007). Based on formula given by Rojas (n.d.) (Eq. 2) and buffer soil capacity 0,12 pH/ton limestone (Pinochet T., Ramírez R., & Suárez F., 2005) to Trumao soil, the limestone (ton CaCO3/ha) doses per farm was calculated:

48 Eq. 2

(ton CaCO3 /ha)

In Eq.2, Calcium Carbonate Equivalent – CCE, is the percentage of CaCO3 in the limestone used. In this case Calcium carbonate equivalent is 0,95 (based on MAGNECAL 15 (INACESA, n.d.)). Then, according to pH values per farm in Table 7 and expecting to achieve 6,5 as final pH. El Putrán requires 6140 kg CaCO3/ha; La Poza 8780 kg CaCO3/ha and Praderas del Sur 7800 kg CaCO3/ha (Table 24). The total amount per farms was calculated based on pasture, crops and vegetable garden-greenhouse area. Forest was not taken into account. However, according to Briggs (2008) it is not possible to raise the pH in more than half point in one application. Thus, the limestone amount calculated before was taken as a maximum value. In exploration the amount to rise until half point of pH was taken into account: 9000 kg in El Putrán; 110300 kg in La Poza and 45900 kg in Praderas del Sur (Table 24). On the other hand, the basal doses of phosphorus was calculated. Based on Rock phosphate (kg), as allowed P-source (SAG, 2014a), Trumao buffer soil capacity (12 kg P/ppm P-Olsen) and formula given by Rojas (n.d.) (Eq. 3), to elevate P-Olsen until a medium level, 6 ppm P-Olsen (INIA - Remehue, 2000). The current P-Olsen is based on information in Table 7.

Eq. 3 (kg /ha)

In Eq. 3, the value 0,309 represents the percentage P2O5 percentage content in Rock phosphate. The doses of Rock phosphate was only calculated to La Poza and Praderas del Sur farm, because El Putrán presented a high P-Olsen level (Table 7). Thus, the total amount of rock phosphate required to La Poza was 1089034kg and Praderas del Sur 3770 kg (Table 24).

3.2.3 Constraints As constraints were set farm area, total nitrogen manure nitrogen, import manure (N, P, and K), total nutrients losses (N, P and K) and grazing and stable feed balance (Table 23). Farm area In general, the farm areas taken into account were crops and pasture area, the buildings area was not considered. Specifically in El Putrán, the minimum area was that the farmer (and her mother and sister) is owner and the maximum is the actual area managed by farmer. In this case is not possible to increase the farm area. In La Poza and Praderas del Sur case, the farm area minimum value was determined by

34 The total amount of P required is 1509 kg P. Red Guano applied provides 59 kg of Phosphorus. The difference is covered by the amount of Phosphate Rock indicated. Red Guano: 13% P2O5 (BambergChile, n.d.).

49 the current area and the maximum around 2 ha more. These area could be achieved whether farmers cut the forest down. Total Nitrogen application (Total Nitrogen manure) According to the Chilean organic legislation the total amount of nitrogen applied has to be less than 170 kg N/ha/year. Therefore, the minimum and maximum values for the three farms were established between 0 and 170 kg N/ha/year. Total nutrients losses and imports (Import manure) To be consistent with the agroecological approach about output/input ratio and decrease nutrients losses, nutrients imports (imports manure in FarmDesign) and total nutrients losses were constrained. In the three farms the N, P and K losses were constrained in a range (minimum and maximum) based on the real values on each farm and Alfaro et al. (2008) who measured the NPK losses by leaching in Osorno soil serie with 5 steer per ha. The results of that study were: 11 to 70 kg N/ha/year; 2 to 30 gr P/ha and 3 to 5 kg K/ha. Due to El Putrán is the only one farm using external fertilizers, the nutrients imports were constrained to this farm from 0 as minimum and the real value as maximum. The external fertilizer were not eliminated at all, because the idea is to create a transition and give more possibilities to FarmDesign to search different farms configurations according to objectives specified before. Feed balance In order to prevent livestock health problems and nutritional disorders, the feed ration in stable and grazing period has to be balanced. The dry matter supply cannot be higher than the animal intake capacity and energy and protein has to be equilibrated to the livestock requirements. Thereby, the deviation of animal intake capacity, protein and energy content were constrained according to the animal.

3.2.4 Decision variables In order to allocate the farm crops areas, use of crop residues as green manure, amount of animals, feed fraction used in stable period, external inputs such as feed, bedding and fertilizers and soil conditioners a minimum and maximum value per each was determined (Table 24). Pasture and Crops In the three farms, the crops and pasture areas that already exists were determined between 0 and the maximum farm crop area. The new crops: faba bean, lupine and oat were assigned between 0 and 2 hectares in La Poza and Praderas del Sur thinking in the potencial area that could be reduced from pasture area. In the case of El Putrán, faba bean and lupine were asigned between 0 and the maximum farm crop area; vegetable garden is fixed between 0 and 0,12 ha, because this area is the maximum vegetable garden area in the farm. Greenhouse area was not taken into account as a decision variable because the area is determined by greenhouses dimensions and that is not possible to change.

50 In La Poza, the wheat area were fixed from current area until 2 ha and vegetable garden from 0 until the current area, this situation was established in this way in orden to help to achieve the farmer wishes: “Vegetable garden, Is it too large?” and “Could be nice increase wheat crop area?” Crop residues as green manure In El Putrán and La Poza current situation, 100% (1 in fraction) of crops residues are used as feed or bedding to animals. In this case, and following the agroecological approach and in order to increase soil organic matter, as decision variable to crop residues as green manure, values between 0 and 9 (90%) were determined, leaving a 10% of them to livestock. In Praderas del Sur, the straw that would be generated by oat crop was fixed on 10% as green manure with decision variable between 0 and 9 and 10% to bedding. Livestock According to Chilean organic agriculture legislation (SAG, 2011) stocking rate should be controlled. In this case, this was not implemented as a constraints, but it is taking into account once different farm configurations were known. In case of goats and sheep are acceptable 13,3 animals/ha; bovines 2 animals/ha35 and poultry 580 birds/ha. As said earlier in a.- El Putrán - 3.1.5 Detailed selected farm analysis section, only this farm exceed the amount of animal per hectare allowed by Chilean organic legislation and the new configurations should meet the allowed amount of animals. Therefore, a new current farm configuration that comply with the legislation was done: El Putrán 2 In general, for the three farms the animals’ decision variable range was fixed between 1 and the double of current amount. The exception were broilers in Praderas del Sur, because they are bought by farmer. External inputs In general, the external input to feed and bedding decision variables range was determined between 0 and an amount higher than the current one. Although the agroecological approach said that external inputs should be decrease, a wide range is better than a narrow one to see how the new farms configurations perform. The only one exception to this is the maximum oat grain importation in Praderas del Sur. That is the same as the current imported amount, because the idea is to check whether the new configurations take or not the self-oat production and how the imported amount decrease. In the case of fertilizers and soil conditioners, as it was mentioned before (3.2.3 Constraints) in El Putrán are using three chemicals fertilizers which are not allowed by Chilean organic legislation (SAG, 2011). In this case, the decision variable range was fixed between 0 and the current amount, because the idea is to create a transition and give more possibilities to FarmDesign to search different farms configurations according to objectives specified. To the allowed fertilizers, Supermagro, firewood ash and red guano, the same criteria was applied. To limestone and rock phosphate the range determined was between 0 or current kilograms applied and the amount calculated in 3.2.1 Agroecological basket of technologies.

35 Legislation makes a difference among bovine ages but in this thesis 2animals/ha were considered.

51 Table 23: Objectives and constraints defined per farm. In red constraints based on Chilean organic agriculture legislation and in green based on agroecological approach.

Objectives Description Direction EL PUTRÁN 2 (original) LA POZA PRADERAS DEL SUR Regular Labor Balance (h/year) Minimize 223 (228) 275 1950 Organic matter balance (kg/ha) Maximize 2057 (2104) 2189 2276 Operating Profit (million CLP) Maximize 5,17 (5,03) 4,2 13,58 Total N-Losses (kg/ha) Minimize 24 (32) 9,65 14,19

Constraints EL PUTRÁN 2 (original) LA POZA PRADERAS DEL SUR Description Min Max Value Min Max Value Min Max Value Farm Area (ha) 1,9 (1,9) 2,05 (2,05) 2,05 (2,05) 25,65 27 25,65 13,84 15 13,84 Total Manure N (kg/ha) 0 (0) 170 (170) 79,52 (86,38) 0 170 38,45 0 170 43,49 Import Manure N (kg/ha) 0 (0) 30 (30) 13,11 (13,11) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Import Manure P (kg/ha) 0 (0) 75 (75) 56,25(56,25) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Import Manure K (kg/ha) 0 (0) 40 (40) 25,59 (25,59) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Total N-Losses (kg/ha) 10 (10) 70 (70) 23,97 (32,39) 9 70 9,65 10 70 14,19 Total P-Losses (kg/ha) 0 (0) 59 (59) 56,88 (58,88) 0 10 5,2 -2 10 -1,02 Total K-Losses (kg/ha) 0 (0) 15 (15) 6,75 (9,94) 0 5 2,72 -2 5 -0,44 Deviation in feed balance intake -999 (-999) 0 (0) -55,89 (-52,31) -999 0 -20,79 -999 0 -55,05 grazing period (%) Deviation in feed balance energy -5 (-5) 5 (5) -4,99 (0,56) -5 5 -0,29 -5 5 -4,62 grazing period (%) Deviation in feed balance protein 0 (0) 69,45 (67,46) 69,44 (67,45) 0 55,73 55,72 0 30 29,94 grazing period (%) Deviation in feed balance intake -999 (-999) 0 (0) -55,51 (-66,16) -999 0 -33,87 -999 0 -53,79 stable period (%) Deviation in feed balance energy -5 (-5) 5 (5) -3,16 (-5) -5 5,25 5,24 -5 5 -0,09 stable period (%) Deviation in feed balance protein 0 (0) 30 (30) 17,69 (15,87) -0,14 30 -0,13 0 30 18,49 stable period (%)

Chilean organic agriculture legislation Agroecological approach

52 Table 24: Decision variables defined per farm. In red constraints based on Chilean organic agriculture legislation; in green based on agroecological approach and in blue based on farmer’s wishes.

EL PUTRÁN 2 (original) LA POZA PRADERAS DEL SUR Description Min Max Value Description Min Max Value Description Min Max Value Pasture and Crops area (ha) NP Pasture 0 (0) 1,93 (1,93) 1,5 (1,5) NP Pasture 0 27 24 NP Pasture 0 12 10,46 Potato 0 (0) 1,73 (1,73) 0,31 (0,31) Potato 0 2 0,25 Oat 0 2 0 Elephant garlic 0 (0) 1,73 (1,73) 0,12 (0,12) Wheat 0,75 2 0,75 Lupine 0 2 0 Vegetable garden 0 (0) 0,12 (0,12) 0,06 (0,06) VG 0 0,15 0,15 (VG) Faba bean 0 (0) 1,73 (1,73) 0 (0) Faba bean 0 2 0 Lupine 0 (0) 1,73 (1,73) 0 (0) Lupine 0 2 0 Crop residues to soil as green manure (fraction) Potato Residues 0 (0) 9 (9) 0 (0) Potato 0 9 0 Oat straw 0 9 1 residues VG - residues 0 (0) 9 (9) 0 (0) VG - residues 0 9 0 (green manure) Wheat 0 9 0 stubble Animals (number) Sheep 1 (1) 14 (18) 7 (9) Dairy Cows 1 18 9 Dairy Goats 1 136 69 Ram 1 (1) 2 (2) 1 (1) Dry Cows 1 32 16 Dry Goats 1 48 24 Lambs 1 (1) 22 (32) 11 (16) Bull 1 2 1 Billy 1 4 2 Goose 1 (1) 4 (4) 2 (2) Calves <1 1 8 4 Female Kids 1 66 33 Gander 1 (1) 3 (3) 1 (1) Heifers <1 1 10 5 Male Kids 1 10 5 Gosling 1 (1) 10 (10) 4 (4) Sheep 1 80 40 Hens 1 40 20 Turkey hen 1 (1) 10 (10) 4 (4) Ram 1 4 2 Rooster 1 4 2 Tom (Gobbler) 1 (1) 6 (6) 3 (3) Lambs 1 60 30 Chickens 1 80 40 Turkeylings 1 (1) 26 (26) 13 (13) Hens 1 80 40 Broiler 0 30 14 Hens 1 (1) 60 (60) 30 (30) Rooster 1 6 3 Goose 1 2 1 Rooster 1 (1) 6 (6) 3 (3) Chickens 1 30 14 Gander 1 2 1

53 EL PUTRÁN 2 (original) LA POZA PRADERAS DEL SUR Description Min Max Value Description Min Max Value Description Min Max Value Chickens 1 (1) 28 (28) 14 (14) Gosling 1 18 9 Piglet 1 (1) 4 (4) 2 (2)

Feed fraction used in stable period Extensive grazing 0 (0) 1 (1) 0,28 (0,5) Extensive 0 1 0,02 Extensive 0 1 0,56 grazing grazing Extensive hay 0 (0) 1 (1) 1 (1) Extensive hay 0 1 1 Extensive hay 0 1 1 External Inputs - Feed and Bedding (kg) Oat grain (F) 0 (0) 2500 (2500) 1286 (1929) Wheat grain 0 1200 863 Oat grain (F) 0 3755 3755 (F) Maize grain (F) 0 (0) 1200 (1200) 518 (725) Hay (F) 0 7200 7000 Straw (B) 0 1000 745 Wheat bran (F) 0 (0) 1500 (1500) 836 (1150) Hay (B) 0 1400 1294 Straw (B) 0 (0) 1100 (1100) 903 (903) External Inputs – Fertilizes and soil conditioners (kg) Limestone 2500 12600 (12600) 2500 (2500) Limestone 200 220600 200 Limestone 0 82600 0 (2500) Supermagro 0 (0) 3 (3) 2,4 (2,4) Supermagro 0 0,75 0,75 Rock 0 3770 0 phosphate Firewood ash 0 (0) 125 (125) 125 (125) Rock 0 10890 0 phosphate Triple 0 (0) 250 (250) 250 (250) Red Guano 0 1040 1040 Superphosphate Potassium saltpeter 0 (0) 175 (175) 175 (175) Sulpomag 0 (0) 100 (100) 100 (100)

Chilean organic agriculture legislation Agroecological approach Farmer wish

54 3.2.5 Farms Configurations – Clouds of solutions Once the objectives, constraints and decision variables were determined, the new farms configurations or cloud of solutions were found per farm. Figure 17 shows the new farms configurations which perform better than the current farm configuration in the four objectives established. Each cloud of solutions has some similar tendencies. For instance, in socio-economic objectives combination, operating profit and regular labor balance, El Putrán and Praderas del Sur (Figure 17 a) present a positive slope between operating and regular labor balance. Nonetheless, La Poza does not show that positive slope, the regular labor balance trends to a specific low level, however it is possible to check some tendency similar to the other farms. In environmental objectives combination (Figure 17 f), organic matter balance and total N- losses, the three farms present the same tendency to positive slope: a higher organic matter balance, total N-losses are also high. The general tendencies are a larger operating profit often has smaller organic matter (Figure 17 b) (except in Praderas del Sur) and total-N losses (Figure 17 d); and higher total N-losses has lower regular labor balance (Figure 17 e) (except in Praderas del Sur). This tendencies are similar to that found in mixed organic farm, Ter Linde, The Netherlands by Groot et al. (2012). Although, the three farms has a similar tendencies of trade-off among different objectives combinations, Praderas del Sur has a contrasting perform when the objectives such as organic matter balance and regular labor are involved. This situation could be explained due to oat area incorporation. On one hand, the labor hired increase and, as a consequence, regular labor balance also increase; the same situation is performed by operating profit. Instead of decrease when regular labor increase, operating profit tend to increase. On the other hand, there is a positive relation between oat area and organic matter balance. According to this general tendencies, now it is possible to confirm that these farms had a similar tendency as was described by Mandryk et al. (2014) happens: high economics results were attained with low N-balance. However, as organic matter is positively related to N-losses. Therefore, high operating profit are attained with low organic matter, then we have to take into account the equilibrium among maximize organic matter, minimize N-losses and maximize profit.

55 a)

b) c)

d) e) f)

Figure 17: Clouds of solutions and their performance according to different objectives combination to three farms.

3.2.6 Exploring: Agroecological basket of technologies in clouds of solutions Once of clouds of solutions with all new farms configurations per farm was established, it was possible to check how agroecological basket of technologies proposed in 3.2.1 Agroecological basket of technologies, performed in socio-economic (regular labor balance and operating profit) and environmental (organic matter balance and total N-losses) objectives combination (Figure 17 a and f). Then, in order to find the best farms configurations to Re-design step, the farms configurations chosen were tested in different pairs of decision variables according to each farm. In general, crops-green manure (e.g., Faba bean-Lupine) were tested first and then fertilizers and soil conditioners (e.g., Limestone – Rock phosphate). The criteria was trying to meet the farms configuration with higher values (ha or kg) in the basket of technologies proposed. The results were per farm.

56 a. El Putrán Crops-Green manure: In this farm Faba bean and Lupine areas were related (Figure 18). First, the new farm configurations with highest values for Faba bean and Lupine were chosen (Faba bean higher than or equal to 0,15 ha and Lupine higher than or equal to 0.0025 ha) and 9 farms were in the range. However, these 9 farms were not perform to maximize operating profit and to minimize total N- losses. Therefore, a larger range was selected: Faba bean higher than or equal to 0 ha and Lupine higher than or equal to 0.0025 ha. Under this new range, 27 farms configurations were found. Eight of them performed in socio-economic and environmental objectives (Figure 18). Fertilizers and soil conditioners: Due to Rock phosphate was not required in this farm, limestone was related to vegetable garden residues as green manure (Figure 19). According to amount of limestone calculated in 3.2.1 Agroecological basket of technologies, the minimum amount required to increase half pH point was 9000 kg. Therefore, this was the amount selected (higher than or equal to 9000 kg). About vegetable garden residues, 4 was the fraction selected (higher than or equal to 4). In this case, 9 farms were in the range. However, none perform with maximize the operating profit and only 6 perform with minimize total N-losses. Hence, the searched range had to change. 8000 kg of limestone as upper limit was chosen and the vegetable garden residues fraction were decreased until 0,185 farms performed in this range, however none were according to socio-economic and environmental objectives (Figure 19). In this case, in order to meet farms configuration to these parameters, the current operating profit, regular labor balance and organic matter balance values were modified. Operating profit, organic matter balance were reduced to 5 million CLP and 2020 kg/ha, respectively, and regular labor balance was increased to 230 h/year. Now, 4 farms configurations performed in socio-economic and environmental objectives. Then, the 12 farms configuration, that performed in Faba bean-Lupine (8) and in Limestone-Vegetable garden residues as green manure (4) were tested in different pairs of decision variables. Decision variables pairs: The pairs were selected according to decision variables groups explained in 3.2.4 Decision variables. Pasture and Crops: In this case, the 12 farms selected were tested in: Faba bean area- Lupine area; Faba bean area-Elephant garlic area; Faba bean area-Vegetable garden area; Faba bean-Pasture and Potato area-Elephant garlic area. In Figure 20 (d and e), it is possible to see that potato and natural permanent pasture had not changes. Elephant garlic and vegetable garden area had the most important variations (Figure 20 b, c and d). Vegetable garden almost disappear and elephant garlic area decreased in order to cede area to Faba bean in particular (Figure 20 b and c), but to faba and lupine in general. In Faba area-lupine area pair shows how the 3 farms from limestone-vegetable garden residues as green manure did not perform in the Faba bean area-Lupine area conditions (Figure 20 a). In these pairs of decision variables, the 12 farms were very similar and it was not possible to use as a criteria to choose the set of farms to re-design step. Crop residues as green manure: Potato residues fraction and vegetable garden residues fraction as green manure were related (Figure 20 f). The fraction of potato residues used as green manure was insignificant. In this case the new farms configurations continue using these residues as animal feed.

57

Figure 18: El Putrán. Selection of new farms configuration that performs in Faba bean and Lupine as agroecological basket of technologies in socio-economic (SE – operating profit and regular labor

balance) and environmental (En – organic matter balance and total N-losses) objectives. Red lines in Faba bean-Lupine chart represent the first range explored and green line represents the second range explored. Red lines in SE and En charts represent the current farm configuration.

Figure 19: El Putrán. Selection of new farms configuration that performs in Limestone and Vegetable garden (VG) residues (res.) as green manure (GM) agroecological basket of technologies in the socio- economic (SE – operating profit and regular labor balance) and environmental (En – organic matter balance and total N-losses). Red lines in Limestone and Rock Phosphate chart represent the first rage explored and green lines the second one. Red lines in SE and En charts represent the current farm configuration and green lines represent the new parameters established.

58 In the case of vegetable garden residues the range of fraction is bigger from 0 to 8, however the 12 farms performed from 0 to 3,3. Then, this pair was not possible to use as a criteria to choose the set of farms to re-design step. Livestock: The sheep stocking rate was calculated and related to natural permanent pasture area (Figure 20 g); the amount of geese, chickens and turkeys were added as poultry and related to the amount of piglet (Figure 20 h). The sheep stoking rate range is according to Chilean organic legislation (until 13,3 sheep/ha) pasture, as it said earlier, had not changes. This situation is explained because pasture area does not decrease by incorporating Faba bean and as a consequence the stocking rate is stable within an allowed range. About, piglets and poultry (Figure 20 h) these had a special distribution where the most of farms configurations increase both amount of animals. In this case the 12 farms perform with high amount of poultry and piglets. So, these pairs were not useful to choose the set of farms. External inputs – Feed and Bedding: The pairs were off-farm maize grain- off farm straw (Figure 20 i) and off-farm oat grain- off-farm wheat grain (Figure 20 j). According to agroecological approach, the inputs should be reduced. Although in this farm it was not possible to reduce at all the amount of off-farm feed, because it is not possible to produce on-farm, some farms configurations performed in lower (than current farm configuration) amount of external feed (Figure 20 i) such as off-farm maize and bedding material as straw. About the 12 farms, all of them performed in higher amount oat and wheat grains (Figure 20 j). However, in the pair maize grain and straw, 7 farms performed with lower maize grain and straw values. Then, this pair was useful to choose the set of farms.

External inputs – Fertilizers and soil conditioners: Here the pairs were Triple superphosphate- Potassium saltpeter (Figure 20 k) Sulpomag-Limestone (Figure 20 l); Supermagro-Firewood ash (Figure 20 m) and Vegetable garden residues as green manure- Limestone (vegetable garden residues is not an external inputs, but was one of the starting points) (Figure 20 n). In terms of fertilizer which are not allowed by Chilean organic legislation, the most of farms performed reducing the amount of this fertilizer, especially triple superphosphate and potassium saltpeter. However, the most of the farms configurations kept the amount of sulpomag relatively stable on the original amount. The allowed fertilizers had more variability in their amount per farm, however the 11 farms performed in lower level than current farm. One farm use more supermagro, but that is not a problem in this case. In vegetable garden residues as green manure-Limestone pair shows how the 8 farms from Faba bean area-Lupine area did not perform in vegetable garden residues as green manure-Limestone. Then, the pair which was possible to define which set of farms to Re-design set was maize grain and straw, reducing the amount of these off-farm inputs. Then, 7 farms conform the set of farms to re- design step.

59

a) b) c) d) e)

f) g) h) i) j)

k) l) m) n)

Figure 20: El Putrán. Twelve new farms configurations that performed in Faba bean – Lupine (8) and in Limestone- Vegetable garden residues as green manure (4) tested in different pairs of decision variables. Pasture and Crops: a) Faba bean area- Lupine area; b) Faba bean area-Elephant garlic area; c) Faba bean area-Vegetable garden; d) Faba bean-Pasture; e) Potato area-Elephant garlic area. Crop residues as green manure: f) Vegetable garden residues fraction-Potato residues fraction-. Livestock: g) Sheep stocking rate-Pasture; h) Poultry-Piglet. External inputs-Feed and Bedding: i) Off-farm Maize grain-Straw (set of farms to Re-design was found); j) Off farm Oat grain- Off-farm Wheat grain. External inputs-Fertilizers and soil conditioners: k) Triple superphosphate (TSP)-Potassium saltpeter; l) Sulpomag-Limestone; m) Supermagro-Firewood ash and n) Limestone- vegetable garden residues as green manure. Red lines represent the current farm configuration and in case of Limestone represents the minimum amount to use (8000 kg).

60 b.- La Poza Crops-Green manure: In this farm Faba bean and Lupine areas were related (Figure 21). First, the new farm configurations with highest values for Faba bean and Lupine were chosen (Faba bean higher than or equal to 1,5 ha and Lupine higher than or equal to 0,005 ha) and 51 farms were in the range and 18 farms performed in to maximize operating profit and to minimize regular labor balance. However, none perform in environmental objectives compared to the current farm situation, due to total N-losses were higher than 18 kg N/ha (current losses are 9,65 kg N/ha). Therefore, a large range was selected: Faba bean higher than or equal to 0 ha and Lupine higher than or equal to 0.005 ha. Under this new range, 218 farms configurations were found; 147 performed in socio-economic objectives according to minimize regular labor balance and maximize operating profit. Then, 39 farms performed in environmental objectives (maximizing organic matter balance and minimizing total N-losses). Therefore, 39 farms performed in socio-economic and environmental objectives (Figure 21). Fertilizers and soil conditioners: In this case Rock phosphate and Limestone were related (Figure 22). According to amount of limestone calculated in 3.2.1 Agroecological basket of technologies, the minimum amount required to increase half pH point was 110300 kg and the amount of Rock phosphate required was 10890 kg. However, the maximum values calculated by FarmDesign to both of soil conditioners were: Limestone: 43557 kg and Rock phosphate: 346kg. Then, maximum values were searched. First, the highest values for Limestone (higher than or equal to 40000 kg ) and Rock Phosphate (higher than or equal to 340 kg) were chosen, but none farm achieved these parameter (Figure 22 – Red lines). Then, the possible highest values were chosen: to Limestone, higher than or equal to 19000 kg and to Rock phosphate was higher than or equal to 300 kg. (Figure 22 – Green lines). In this case, 4 farms were in the range. However, none performed maximizing the operating profit and with minimum total N- losses. Hence, a new range was selected and Rock phosphate limit was changed until 0 kg (Figure 22 – Blue line). Under this new range, 188 farms configurations were found; 13 performed in socio-economic objectives and then 4 in environmental objectives. Therefore, 4 farms performed in socio-economic and environmental objectives (Figure 22). Then, the 42 farms configuration, that performed in Faba bean-Lupine (39) and in Limestone-Rock phosphate (3) were tested in different pairs of decision variables. Decision variables pairs: The pairs were selected according to decision variables groups explained in 3.2.4 Decision variables. Pasture and Crops: In this case, the 42 farms selected were tested in: Faba bean area-Lupine area; Faba bean area-Vegetable garden area; Faba bean area-Wheat area; Potato area-Wheat area; Pasture area-Wheat area; Pasture area – Potato area; Faba area-Potato area and Faba bean-pasture. Figure 23 shows how the 42 farms performed in the different crops area combination. In Faba area- lupine (Figure 23 a) area pair shows how the 3 farms from limestone-rock phosphate did not perform in the Faba bean area-Lupine area conditions, taking into account even smaller lupine area. Due to the insignificant lupine area showed by new farms configuration, the analyses was based on Faba bean area.

61

Figure 21: La Poza. Selection of new farms configuration that performs in Faba bean and Lupine as agroecological basket of technologies, in the socio-economic (SE – operating profit and regular labor balance) and environmental (En – organic matter balance and total N-losses). Red lines in Faba bean- Lupine chart represent the first range explored and green line represents the second range one. Red lines in SE and En charts represent the current farm configuration.

Figure 22: La Poza. Selection of new farms configuration that performs in Limestone and Rock Phosphate agroecological basket of technologies and in the socio-economic (SE – operating profit and regular labor balance) and environmental (En – organic matter balance and total N-losses). Red lines in Limestone and Rock Phosphate chart represent the first range explored, green lines

represents the second and blue line the third one. Red lines in SE and En charts represent the current farm configuration.

62 In general, higher Faba bean area was related to decreasing vegetable garden area (Figure 23 b), potato area (Figure 23 m) and pasture area (Figure 23 n). In contrast, the higher Faba bean area values was concentrated in higher wheat area (Figure 23 c). This pair could be used as criteria to choose the set of farms to re-design step, because it is possible to achieve two aspects: increase wheat area, achieving one wish of the farmer (“Could be nice increase wheat crop area?”) and incorporate Faba bean area as part of the agroecological basket of technologies proposed. The pair potato area-wheat area (Figure 23 d) and pasture area-potato area (Figure 23 b) show the tendency to decrease the potato area in both cases, except for two peaks in potato area in two pasture area levels. This pair could be used as criteria to select the set of farms to re-design step but they are not used, because the potato area is not a main aspect that it wanted to be explored. The pair pasture-wheat (Figure 23 e), it is interesting because shows two different groups of farms: those where higher wheat area values was related to smaller pasture area and those that smaller wheat area values are related to higher pasture values. The 42 farms are divided between both groups. Now, the farms which performs in the higher wheat area values could be used as criteria to choose the set of farms to re-design step, because it was achieving the highest wheat area although the pasture area decrease around 1 ha and, as a consequence, the stocking rate was increased (Figure 23 j) to levels higher than the stocking rate accepted by the Chilean organic legislation (more than 2 animals/ha) Until now, it has not been possible to choose a definitive criteria to choose the set of farms to re-design step. Crop residues as green manure: In this case there are two pairs: vegetable garden residues – potato residues (Figure 23 g) and wheat stubble as green manure-wheat area (Figure 23 h). In the first pair, the new farms configurations are distributed in whole alternative range given to both variables, and the 42 farms are distributed in the same way. Then, this pair is not a possible criteria to choose the set of farms to re-design step. The second pair shows a clear tendency to any wheat area, the wheat stubble fraction that could be incorporated to the soil is stable in 20% (fraction 2) and, as a consequence, the 80% is used to feed livestock. The 42 farms were divided in two groups, such as in pasture area-wheat area, potato area-wheat area, showing the same general tendency as the cloud of solution in general. Then, it was not possible use it as criteria to set of farms to re-design. Livestock: Due to La Poza has sheep and cattle, the stocking rate was calculated merging them. Based on the stoking rate allowed by Chilean organic legislation, 13,3 sheep/ha and 2 cows/ha, the number of sheep was assimilated to cows, added and divided by the 24 ha of pasture. As Figure 23 j shows, the cloud of solutions presented 4 groups, where high stocking rate is related to lower pasture area values. The 42 farms were distributed around the highest stocking rate values, which are not allowed by the Chilean legislation. This was a problem because any criteria used to choose the set of farms was not fulfill with the legislation complaints. The amount of chickens, hens and rooters were added as poultry and related to off-farm wheat grain (Figure 23 i) and the distribution of new farms configuration did not have a special tendency, all of them are distributed in the center. The 42 farms followed a similar shape. Some farms (14) decrease the amount wheat grain imported.

63 Until here, the criteria which performs better to choose the set of farms to re-design step would be one that combine stocking rate between 2 and 2,05 and the farms which decreased the amount external wheat grain. In this case 8 farms would be selected and they would be only farms that performed in the Faba bean-Lupine. In order to select farms that performs in both aspects: Faba bean-Lupine and Limestone-Rock phosphate, this selection criterion was not taken into account. External inputs – Feed and Bedding: The pairs explored were hay for feeding - hay for bedding (Figure 23 l) and off-farm wheat grain-wheat area (Figure 23 k). In the first pair, the cloud of solution performed in the highest values for both imported hay and the 42 farms performed in the same way. This is not a good situation in terms of decrease external inputs. Then, this is not a good criteria to choose the set of farms to re-design step. In the second pair, off-farm wheat grain-wheat area. The idea was to decrease the external wheat grain, producing it into the farm. Thus, a higher wheat area values (greater than 1,8 ha - achieving the farmer wish) and lower amount of grain imported, it was a good option. Then, this pair was useful to choose the set of farms. However, only one farm perform under this criteria (Figure 23 k). To increase the amount of farms, the criteria based on the pair pasture-wheat (Figure 23 e) was applied. External inputs - Fertilizers and soil conditioners: The pairs tested were Red Guano-Supermagro (Figure 23 o) and Limestone-Rock Phosphate (Figure 23 p). In the first pair, the cloud of solutions performed decreasing the amount of both allowed fertilizers, probably because the price of then and the amount used. In Limestone- Rock phosphate pair shows how the 39 farms from Faba bean area-Lupine area did not perform in this pair.

Then, the pair which was possible to define which set of farms to Re-design set was wheat grain-wheat area (Figure 23 k) combined to pasture area – wheat area (Figure 23 e), reducing the amount of wheat grain as off-farm inputs, increasing the wheat area, and as a consequence the on-farm wheat grain production. However, to increase wheat area, the pasture are decrease and the stocking rate increase to levels not allowed to Chilean organic legislation. Therefore, 9 farms conform the set of farms to re- design step.

64 a) b) c) d) e) f)

g) h) i) j) k) l)

m) n) o) p) Figure 23: La Poza. Forty two new farms configurations that performed in Faba bean – Lupine (39) and in Limestone-Rock Phosphate (3) tested in different pairs of decision variables. Pasture and Crops: a) Faba bean area-Lupine area; b) Faba bean area-Vegetable garden area; c) Faba bean area-Wheat area; d) Potato area-Wheat area; e) Pasture area-Wheat area (set of farms to Re-design was found); f) Pasture area –Potato area; m) Faba area-Potato area and n) Faba bean-Pasture. Crop residues as green manure: g) Vegetable garden (VG) residues (res.) fraction-Potato residues fraction; h) Wheat stubble fraction-Wheat area. Livestock: i) Poultry- Off-farm wheat grain; j) Sheep stocking rate-Pasture: External inputs-Feed and Bedding: k) Off-farm wheat grain-Wheat area (first farm to Re-design found); l) Off-farm hay for feeding – Off-farm hay for bedding. External inputs-Fertilizers and soil conditioners: o) Red guano – Supermagro; p) Rock phosphate- Limestone. Red lines represent the current farm configuration. Green line in stocking rate represents the stocking rate allowed.

65 c.- Praderas del Sur: In general, the cloud of solutions in this farm performed well in socio-economic and environmental objectives (Figure 24). This situation is due to the cloud of solutions achieve the objectives conditions (minimize, total N-losses and regular labor balance; maximize operating profit and organic matter balance) improving the current form configuration. Crops-Green manure: In this farm Lupine and Oat areas were related (Figure 24). Cropping oat area is in order to produce oat grain instead of importing. The current amount of oat grain imported is 3755 kg DM. According to Bravo (2006) and INIA - Carillanca (2000), the oat grain yield per hectare is 4674 kg DM. Then, to compensate the amount of oat grain imported one hectare to crop oat is required, at least. Thereby, the highest oat value was higher than or equal to 1 ha. About Lupine, the new farms configurations considered a small Lupine area. The highest value was higher than or equal to 0,03 ha. Under this range 18 farms configurations were found and all of them performed in socio- economic and environmental objectives (Figure 24 a) Fertilizers and soil conditioners: In this case Rock phosphate and Limestone were related (Figure 24 b) According to amount of limestone calculated in 3.2.1 Agroecological basket of technologies, the minimum amount required to increase half pH point was 45900 kg and the amount of Rock phosphate required was 3770 kg. However, the maximum values calculated by FarmDesign to both of soil conditioners were: Limestone: 334,9 kg and Rock phosphate: 104,9. Then, maximum values were searched. First, the highest values for Limestone (higher than or equal to 300 kg) and Rock Phosphate (higher than or equal to 100 kg) were chosen, but none farm achieved these parameter (Figure 24 b - Red lines). Then, the possible highest values were chosen, the Limestone value was kept (higher than or equal to 300 kg) and to Rock phosphate was higher than or equal to 30 kg (Figure 24 - Blue lines). In this case, 1 farm was in the range and performed in socio-economic and environmental objectives. However, one farm is a small number. Then, in order to increase the amount of farms to test and to choose higher values of Rock phosphate, the 3 farms between Rock phosphate higher than 100 kg and Limestone lower than 150 kg were tested. However, one farm did not perform in socio-economic objectives. At the end, 3 farms performed in socio-economic and environmental objectives (Figure 24 b). In total, the 21 farms configuration, that performed in Oat-Lupine (18) and in Limestone-Rock phosphate (3) were tested in different pairs of decision variables.

66

a)

b )

Figure 24: Praderas del Sur. a) Selection of new farms configuration that performs in Oat and Lupine as agroecological basket of technologies and in the socio-economic (SE – operating profit and

regular labor balance) and environmental (En – organic matter balance and total N-losses). Red lines in Oat-Lupine chart represent the first the range explored and green line represents the second range explored. b). Selection of new farms configuration that performs in Limestone and Rock Phosphate agroecological basket of technologies and in the socio-economic (SE – operating profit

and regular labor balance) and environmental (En - organic matter balance and total N-losses). Red lines in Limestone and Rock Phosphate chart represent the first range explored and blue lines represents the second one. a) and b) Red lines in SE and En charts represent the current farm

configuration.

Decision variables pairs: The pairs were selected according to decision variables groups explained in 3.2.4 Decision variables. Pasture and Crops: The 21 farms selected were tested in: Lupine area-Oat area (Figure 25 a); Lupine area-Pasture (Figure 25 b) area and Oat area-Pasture area (Figure 25 c). In Lupine area - Oat area pair shows how the 3 farms from Rock-phosphate did not perform in the Lupine area - Oat area conditions. In Lupine are-Pasture area pair, the cloud of solutions was distributed in whole possible range of Lupine and Pasture area. The 21 farms selected continued separately, showing that the highest lupine area values are related to highest pasture area values and to highest oat area values; the farms which performs in Limestone-Rock phosphate, presented the same perform in oat area than in pasture area. However, this situation change when oat area was related to pasture area (Figure 25 b), because

67 the oat area was negatively related to pasture area. This means that, whilst oat area increases, the pasture have to decrease. The 20 farms performed in highest oat area values (greater than 1 ha), decreasing pasture areas and increasing stocking rate (Figure 25 e) and only one with less oat area (around 0,5 ha) and higher pasture area. In this case, these pairs of decision variables are not enough criteria to choose the set farms to re-design step. Crop residues as green manure: In this case only pair was Oat area-Oat straw as green manure (Figure 25 d). In this situation low values of oat straw were related to different levels of oat area. This means that more than 50% of oat straw will be used as bedding material. Once again, 20 farms performed in the highest oat area values and the same farm, from Rock phosphate - Limestone starting point, was the performed in the lower oat area (around 0,5). Thereby, this pair was useful as a criteria to choose the set of farms to re-design step. Livestock: The goat stocking rate was calculated and related to pasture area (Figure 25 e) and to poultry (amount of geese and chickens added) (Figure 25 f). As it was seen in La Poza, when the pasture area decrease, the stocking rate trends to increase. In Praderas del Sur, the same situation happened. Although, the initial stocking rate was lower than the allowed by Chilean organic legislation (12,71 goats/ha), when the pasture area was reduced to increase the oat area, the stocking rate went up and the legislation was not fulfilled. In this case, three farms performed fulfilling the allowed stocking rate increasing the oat area. Then, this pair was useful to choose the set of farms. About poultry-stocking rate, the number of poultry animals decreased independently of the goats stocking rate. External inputs– Feed and Bedding: The pairs explored were off-farm straw-off-farm oat grain (Figure 25 i); oat area-off-farm oat grain (Figure 25 h); and off-farm grain-poultry (Figure 25 g) The last pair was explained before, there is no relation between them and the 21 farms performed in whole off- farm oat grain range. In the oat area-off-farm oat grain there is a positive relation. This situation was not that I was expected because the idea was to increase the oat area in order to decrease the amount of oat grain imported, as it happened in El Putrán farm between wheat grain-wheat area. The last pair was off-farm straw-off-farm oat grain (Figure 25 i), the cloud of solutions was distributed in whole their possible range. 19 of 21 selected farms performed decreasing the imported amount of straw and oat grain. The 3 farms chosen as set of farms to re-design step are part of this 19 farms. In general, these pairs of decision variables are not enough criteria to choose the set farms to re-design step.

External inputs - Fertilizers and soil conditioners: In this case there was only the proposed pair of Rock phosphate – Limestone pair (Figure 25 j) shows how the 18 farms from Lupine area-Oat area did not perform in this pair. Then, the pair which was possible to define which set of farms to Re-design set was stocking rate-pasture area, increasing the oat area, meeting an allowed stocking rate and reducing the amount of off-farm inputs (oat and straw). Then, 3 farms conform the set of farms to re-design step.

68 d) a) b) c)

e) f) g) h)

i) j)

Figure 25: Praderas del Sur. Twenty one new farms configurations that performed in Lupine area –Oat area (39) and Limestone-Rock Phosphate (3) tested in different pairs of decision variables. Pasture and Crops: a) Lupine area-Oat area; b) Lupine area-Pasture area and c) Oat area- Pasture area. Crop residues as green manure: d) Oat area-Oat straw as green manure. Livestock: e) Goat stocking rate-Pasture (set of farms to Re-design was found); f) Goat stocking rate-Poultry. External inputs-Feed and Bedding: g) Off-farm oat grain-Poultry; h) Oat area- Off-farm oat grain; i) Off-farm straw- Off-farm oat grain. External inputs-Fertilizers and soil conditioners: j) Rock phosphate- Limestone. Red lines represent the current farm configuration. Blue line in stocking rate represents the stocking rate allowed.

In general, the three clouds of solution integrated the agroecological basket of technologies in different ways. El Putrán was the farm that performs with intermediate amount of limestone, a small Faba bean area, decreasing Elephant garlic area and vegetable garden, because these crops demand more labor than pasture, potato and Faba bean as green manure. The stocking rate is stable as consequence of the pasture did not have variations. The amount of vegetable garden residues as green manure increase. The amount of poultry and pigs increase and this could be the reason because off-farm grains also increase. However, the farms selected performs in low values of off-arm maize and straw. The amount of not-

69 allowed fertilizers was also decreased, expect by Sulpomag which performed also with the same amount that in the current situation. Thus, the gradient to decrease the external not-allowed fertilizers start to be possible (Table 25: El Putrán. Set of farms to re-design objectives and decision variables.Table 25). Nevertheless, to select a broad range of farms was needed to do some minimum changes in the objectives was needed to do, decreasing the current operating profit from 5,17 million CLP to 5; the organic matter balance from 2056 kg/ha to 2020 kg/ha and increasing the regular labor balance from 223 h to 230 h. These situation was mainly because there is a negative relation between operating profit and limestone. Thereby, if more limestone it is needed, less operating profit was obtained. Something similar happened between total N-losses and limestone, but in this case most of the farms in the clouds of solution performs in low limestone amount in different total-N losses levels. Probably because the trade-off between operating profit and total N-losses. There is other important positive relation between Faba bean area and total N-losses, more Faba bean area, more total N-losses. This situation explains why higher Faba bean area values did not perform in the objective to minimize total N-losses and confirm that the nutrients synchronization (Briggs (2008) and Weller & Bowling (2007)) has to be taken into account. Some similar situations happed in La Poza. On one hand, the same negative relation between limestone and operating profit; limestone and total N-losses was showed. Due to the similar trade-offs between operating profit and total N-losses that performs El Putrán and La Poza, the amount of limestone was clearly limited by operating profit. On the other hand, La Poza also presented a tight positive relation between Faba bean are and total N-losses and as a consequence with organic matter balance. Again, this situation notified that the nutrients synchronization is a topic to take into account. In terms of the performance of cloud of solutions, La Poza is now different to El Putrán and more similar to Praderas del Sur. The amount of limestone and rock phosphate were lower than the minimum required (Table 26 and Table 27). This situation could be why the reason explained before, although rock phosphate were related to decreasing operating profit and increase total N-losses. Wheat area was included as was expected, however the pasture area was decreased and the aggregated stocking rate increase upper of the allowed by Chilean organic legislation. However, some farms configurations that performs with higher wheat area also decrease the amount of off-farm wheat grain, as it was expected. In general the corps residues performed as green manure in different ways. Vegetable garden residues and potato residues perform in the best way than wheat stubble which was used as bedding. Poultry kept their range close the current situation (Table 26). Praderas del Sur’s clouds of solutions performs similarly as La Poza. The oat crop was incorporated, decreasing the pasture area and increasing the goat stocking rate. However, in contrast to La Poza, the selected farms performs in stocking rates values are in the range accepted by the legislation. In general, the oat residues were not perform as green manure at all, poultry decrease and off-farm straw and oat grain tend to decrease. Nevertheless, the off-farm oat grain was positive related to oat area, in contrast that was expected. Lupine area, as other farms, was not enough (Table 27). In contrast to El Putrán and Praderas del Sur, the amount of limestone and profit; Lupine, in this case, and total N-losses did not present a tight negative and positive relation, respectively. Then, it was not a reason to decrease the amount of limestone and lupine area. It is possible to suppose that this is because there is a positive tendency between organic matter balance -regular labor balance and organic

70 Table 25: El Putrán. Set of farms to re-design objectives and decision variables.

El Putrán Objectives Description Current New 1 Prop.1 New 2 Prop .2 New 3 Prop. 3 New 4 Prop. 4 New 5 Prop. 5 New 6 Prop. 6 New 7 Prop.7 Regular Labor Balance (h/year) 223,47 -123,53 -0,55 -148,13 -0,66 -15,17 -0,07 -179,41 -0,80 -110,93 -0,50 -214,00 -0,96 -193,00 -0,86 Organic matter balance (kg/ha) 2056,70 2024,60 0,98 2093,90 1,02 2092,79 1,02 2185,57 1,06 2052,23 1,00 2170,40 1,06 2035,91 0,99 Total N-Losses (kg/ha) 23,97 11,39 0,48 14,90 0,62 18,88 0,79 22,69 0,95 11,10 0,46 22,15 0,92 11,55 0,48 Operating Profit (million CLP) 5,17 5,15 1,00 5,57 1,08 5,87 1,14 5,47 1,06 5,17 1,00 5,42 1,05 5,03 0,97

Decision variables Description Pasture and Crops area (ha) NP Pasture 1,50 1,50 1,00 1,50 1,00 1,50 1,00 1,50 1,00 1,50 1,00 1,50 1,00 1,50 1,00 Potato 0,31 0,31 1,00 0,31 1,00 0,31 1,00 0,31 1,00 0,31 1,00 0,31 1,00 0,31 1,00 Elephant garlic 0,12 0,09 0,72 0,06 0,53 0,08 0,70 0,06 0,49 0,07 0,58 0,05 0,45 0,08 0,63 Vegetable garden 0,06 0,00 0,02 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,01 0,00 0,02 Faba bean 0,00 0,00 -! 0,02 -! 0,06 -! 0,09 -! 0,02 -! 0,10 -! 0,00 -! Lupine 0,00 0,00 -! 0,00 -! 0,00 -! 0,00 -! 0,00 -! 0,00 -! 0,00 -! Crop residues to soil as green manure (fraction) Potato Residues 0,00 0,00 -! 0,00 -! 0,00 -! 0,00 -! 0,00 -! 0,00 -! 0,00 -! VG - residues 0,00 1,06 -! 2,22 -! 0,63 -! 2,34 -! 0,51 -! 2,20 -! 0,49 -! Animals (number) Sheep total 19,00 19,10 1,01 18,92 1,00 19,59 1,03 18,98 1,00 19,23 1,01 18,93 1,00 19,08 1,00 Stocking rate 12,67 12,73 1,01 12,61 1,00 13,06 1,03 12,65 1,00 12,82 1,01 12,62 1,00 12,72 1,00 Poultry total 74,00 102,79 1,39 117,33 1,59 112,92 1,53 116,36 1,57 108,44 1,47 116,45 1,57 105,59 1,43

71 El Putrán Current New 1 Prop.1 New 2 Prop .2 New 3 Prop. 3 New 4 Prop. 4 New 5 Prop. 5 New 6 Prop. 6 New 7 Prop.7 Piglet 2,00 3,28 1,64 3,53 1,77 3,79 1,90 3,72 1,86 3,98 1,99 3,54 1,77 3,15 1,57 External Inputs - Feed and Bedding (kg) Oat grain (F) 1286,00 1684,37 1,31 2029,32 1,58 1936,07 1,51 1951,29 1,52 1795,24 1,40 1950,82 1,52 1673,81 1,30 Maize grain (F) 518,00 513,52 0,99 469,48 0,91 494,00 0,95 465,81 0,90 473,33 0,91 465,70 0,90 513,23 0,99 Wheat bran (F) 836,00 1237,13 1,48 1379,37 1,65 1462,33 1,75 1406,65 1,68 1279,61 1,53 1375,31 1,65 1251,78 1,50 Straw (B) 903,20 136,94 0,15 190,49 0,21 75,30 0,08 380,32 0,42 91,79 0,10 242,91 0,27 136,37 0,15 External Inputs – Fertilizes and soil conditioners (kg) Limestone 2499,98 8161,19 3,26 2576,22 1,03 2947,94 1,18 2681,82 1,07 8644,67 3,46 2588,74 1,04 8164,04 3,27 Supermagro 2,40 1,44 0,60 1,74 0,73 1,79 0,75 1,64 0,68 2,52 1,05 1,75 0,73 1,39 0,58 Firewood ash 125,02 109,92 0,88 113,07 0,90 115,68 0,93 112,32 0,90 108,99 0,87 112,09 0,90 110,78 0,89 Triple Superphosphate. 250,04 2,33 0,01 16,37 0,07 3,09 0,01 15,17 0,06 5,79 0,02 16,18 0,06 2,12 0,01 Potassium saltpetre 175,02 22,15 0,13 7,33 0,04 12,72 0,07 8,86 0,05 10,95 0,06 5,41 0,03 23,72 0,14 Sulpomag 100,00 99,03 0,99 98,29 0,98 94,67 0,95 98,50 0,99 98,74 0,99 98,38 0,98 99,05 0,99

72 Table 26: El Poza. Set of farms to re-design objectives and decision variables.

La Poza Objectives Description Current New 1 Prop 1 New 2 Prop 2 New 3 Prop. 3 New 4 Prop 4 New 5 Prop 5 New 6 Prop 6 Regular Labor Balance (h/year) 274,83 -308,86 -1,12 161,96 0,59 -59,52 -0,22 -304,49 -1,11 156,89 0,57 -31,72 -0,12 Organic matter balance (kg/ha) 2188,58 2296,08 1,05 2268,62 1,04 2255,96 1,03 2292,33 1,05 2270,93 1,04 2292,93 1,05 Total N-Losses (kg/ha) 9,65 9,24 0,96 9,12 0,95 9,00 0,93 9,18 0,95 9,15 0,95 9,59 0,99 Operating Profit (million CLP) 4,21 4,72 1,12 8,32 1,98 6,00 1,43 4,75 1,13 8,28 1,97 7,69 1,83

Decision variables Description Pasture and Crops area (ha) NP Pasture 24,00 23,59 0,98 23,33 0,97 23,29 0,97 23,34 0,97 23,28 0,97 23,29 0,97 Potato 0,25 0,01 0,05 0,56 2,24 0,72 2,89 0,16 0,63 0,52 2,07 0,06 0,26 Wheat 0,75 1,98 2,64 1,99 2,66 1,80 2,40 2,00 2,66 1,99 2,65 1,93 2,57 Vegetable garden 0,15 0,00 0,00 0,11 0,77 0,06 0,39 0,00 0,01 0,11 0,76 0,07 0,47 Faba bean 0,00 0,46 -! 0,48 -! 0,51 -! 0,48 -! 0,48 -! 0,49 -! Lupine 0,00 0,00 -! 0,01 -! 0,00 -! 0,00 -! 0,01 -! 0,01 -! Crop residues to soil as green manure (fraction) Potato Residues 0,00 4,86 -! 2,90 -! 1,05 -! 0,87 -! 2,70 -! 3,31 -! VG - residues 0,00 0,22 -! 1,18 -! 4,09 -! 3,64 -! 2,67 -! 3,79 -! Wheat stubble 0,00 0,45 -! 1,22 -! 0,05 -! 0,10 -! 0,43 -! 0,23 -! Animals (number) Sheep total 72,00 72,37 1,01 72,31 1,00 72,24 1,00 71,94 1,00 72,38 1,01 72,14 1,00 Cow total 35,00 39,38 1,13 39,10 1,12 38,47 1,10 38,96 1,11 39,86 1,14 39,03 1,12 Sheep to cow 10,83 10,88 1,01 10,87 1,00 10,86 1,00 10,82 1,00 10,88 1,01 10,85 1,00 Ruminant total 45,83 50,26 1,10 49,98 1,09 49,33 1,08 49,78 1,09 50,74 1,11 49,87 1,09 Stocking rate 1,91 2,13 1,12 2,14 1,12 2,12 1,11 2,13 1,12 2,18 1,14 2,14 1,12 Poultry total 57,00 57,47 1,01 57,42 1,01 57,39 1,01 57,14 1,00 57,83 1,01 58,51 1,03

73 La Poza Current New 1 Prop 1 New 2 Prop 2 New 3 Prop. 3 New 4 Prop 4 New 5 Prop 5 New 6 Prop 6 External Inputs - Feed and Bedding (kg) Wheat grain (F) 863,30 854,87 0,99 885,47 1,03 880,64 1,02 873,94 1,01 865,48 1,00 878,42 1,02 Hay (F) 7000,00 7131,92 1,02 7129,61 1,02 7177,07 1,03 7193,84 1,03 7123,88 1,02 7177,56 1,03 Hay (B) 1294,20 1367,97 1,06 1375,81 1,06 1377,87 1,06 1350,35 1,04 1369,08 1,06 1303,60 1,01 External Inputs – Fertilizes and soil conditioners (kg) Limestone 200,00 33837,97 169,19 311,26 1,56 32490,00 162,45 36025,96 180,13 202,47 1,01 316,99 1,58 Red Guano 1040,00 19,62 0,02 7,27 0,01 83,79 0,08 55,43 0,05 29,89 0,03 79,69 0,08 Rock phosphate 0,00 21,26 -! 48,78 -! 87,21 -! 16,83 -! 21,46 -! 14,29 -! Supermagro 0,75 0,64 0,85 0,59 0,79 0,21 0,29 0,58 0,78 0,36 0,48 0,24 0,32

Table 26: El Poza. Set of farms to re-design objectives and decision variables - continuation

La Poza Objectives Description Current New 7 Prop 7 New 8 Prop 8 New 9 Prop 9 Regular Labor Balance (h/year) 274,83 -159,98 -0,58 156,47 0,57 151,22 0,55 Organic matter balance (kg/ha) 2188,58 2295,56 1,05 2270,43 1,04 2269,40 1,04 Total N-Losses (kg/ha) 9,65 9,15 0,95 9,11 0,94 9,21 0,95 Operating Profit (million CLP) 4,21 5,45 1,30 8,27 1,97 8,28 1,97

Decision variables Description Pasture and Crops area (ha) NP Pasture 24,00 23,25 0,97 23,31 0,97 23,31 0,97 Potato 0,25 0,03 0,13 0,51 2,06 0,56 2,26 Wheat 0,75 1,99 2,66 1,99 2,65 1,99 2,66 Vegetable garden 0,15 0,04 0,26 0,11 0,76 0,11 0,75 Faba bean 0,00 0,44 -! 0,48 -! 0,49 -! Lupine 0,00 0,01 -! 0,01 -! 0,01 -!

74 La Poza Current New 7 Prop 7 New 8 Prop 8 New 9 Prop 9 Crop residues to soil as green manure (fraction) Potato Residues 0,00 2,32 -! 2,55 -! 2,28 -! VG - residues 0,00 3,40 -! 5,34 -! 2,40 -! Wheat stubble 0,00 0,16 -! 0,43 -! 0,35 -! Animals (number) Sheep total 72,00 72,52 1,01 72,49 1,01 72,15 1,00 Cow total 35,00 38,87 1,11 39,99 1,14 39,19 1,12 Sheep to cow 10,83 10,91 1,01 10,90 1,01 10,85 1,00 Ruminant total 45,83 49,77 1,09 50,89 1,11 50,04 1,09 Stocking rate 1,91 2,14 1,12 2,18 1,14 2,15 1,12 Poultry total 57,00 56,66 0,99 57,69 1,01 57,30 1,01 External Inputs - Feed and Bedding (kg) Wheat grain (F) 863,30 896,56 1,04 864,92 1,00 887,08 1,03 Hay (F) 7000,00 7170,58 1,02 7123,46 1,02 7129,43 1,02 Hay (B) 1294,20 1365,55 1,06 1368,91 1,06 1380,57 1,07 External Inputs – Fertilizes and soil conditioners (kg) Limestone 200,00 26310,20 131,55 242,97 1,21 1038,26 5,19 Red Guano 1040,00 41,23 0,04 24,17 0,02 19,31 0,02 Rock phosphate 0,00 51,15 -! 20,16 -! 18,31 -! Supermagro 0,75 0,64 0,86 0,35 0,47 0,59 0,79

75 Table 27: Praderas del Sur. Set of farms to re-design objectives and decision variables

Praderas del Sur Objectives

Description Current New 1 Prop. 1 New 2 Prop. 2 New 3 Prop. 3 Regular Labor Balance (h/year) 1949,88 1564,76 0,80 1496,76 0,77 1573,05 0,81 Organic matter balance (kg/ha) 2276,32 2540,54 1,12 2377,03 1,04 2533,6 1,11 Total N-Losses (kg/ha) 14,19 10,08 0,71 10,01 0,71 10,08 0,71 Operating Profit (million CLP) 13,58 16,61 1,22 14,79 1,09 16,56 1,22

Decision variables Description Pasture and Crops area (ha) NP Pasture 10,46 9,29 0,89 9,92 0,95 9,32 0,89 Oat 0,00 1,22 -! 0,56 -! 1,19 -! Lupine 0,00 0,03 -! 0,01 -! 0,03 -! Crop residues to soil as green manure (fraction) Oat straw (green manure) 1,00 0,03 0,03 0,05 0,05 0,04 0,04 Animals (number) Goat total 133,00 120,75 0,91 116,07 0,87 122,04 0,92 Stocking rate 12,72 12,77 1,00 11,50 0,90 12,87 1,01 Poultry total 87,00 10,85 0,12 9,91 0,11 10,57 0,12 External Inputs - Feed and Bedding (kg) Oat grain (F) 3755,00 1113,00 0,30 113,80 0,03 1065,83 0,28 Straw (B) 745,14 365,46 0,49 533,05 0,72 354,97 0,48 External Inputs – Fertilizes and soil conditioners (kg) Rock Phosphate 0,00 4,80 -! 32,98 -! 2,18 -! Limestone 0,00 84,32 -! 334,98 -! 72,54 -!

76 matter balance-operating profit, as was explained earlier, and also due to total N-losses performs lower values in any level of operating profit, regular labor balance and organic matter balance.

3.3 Re-design The set of farms selected in the 3.2.6 Exploring: Agroecological basket of technologies in clouds of solutions, is showed in Figure 26 and detailed in Table 25, Table 26 and Table 27. Almost all farms configuration performs better than the current farm situation, except to El Putrán which had to change the upper limit of objectives. The idea now, is present these set of farms to each farmer for discussing what they think about, if they agree or not. Maybe it will be needed to come back to exploration step and incorporate new agroecological alternatives or fix some objectives and then, explore a new clouds of solutions until find the best one according to each farmer.

Figure 26: Set of farms selected to re-design step and their performance according to different objectives combination to three farms.

77 The set of farms, as was explained before did not achieve with conditions proposed but opened the range of alternatives of farms configuration but open a wide range of possibilities to discuss with farmers.

4 Conclusions Based on the methodology applied and the results obtained and the analyses carried out, it is possible to answer the research questions (research specific objectives) set out at the beginning of this thesis. About the question if the agricultural techniques or practices carried out by the smallholders to belong to EFO Red de Productores Orgánicos Décima Región A.G, is it possible to affirm and based on the methodology applied, the organic agriculture is mainly based on agroecological approach than inputs substitution. Although some farmers obtained lower scores than others, this is understandable because the main organic crop in that farms was perennial or import manure from the conventional part of the farm (partly organic farms), and under the methodology used, both situation obtain low punctuation. In general, most of the farmers/farms were intrinsically motivated to produce organically and to belong to EFO independently whether they were always organic famer or had a fully or partly organic farm. On the other hand, in most of fully organic farms, high values in agroecological practices were related to intrinsic motivated farmers. The low scores in agroecological practices were not related to high intrinsic motivated farmers and it was related to partly organic farms, which explain in part why the motivated farmers did not obtain higher scores in agroecological practices The three selected farms to detailed analysis represented the three most important farmers groups (AF, CF and CP). Their current performance, analyzed based on the objectives defined (socio-economic and environmental) show the differences among of them, but in general they performed in sustainable way, but with some important differences. Praderas del Sur is the farm with the highest operating profit, regular labor and organic matter and intermediate total N-losses. In contrast, La Poza had the lowest operating profit, regular labor balance and N-losses and the intermediate organic matter balance El Putrán required intermediate regular labor (close to La Poza) and perform the highest total N-losses and organic matter balance. The agroecological basket of technologies such as Faba bean-Lupine as green manure crops and Limestone-Rock phosphate as soil conditioner, incorporation of crop residues as green manure, decrease the off-farm feed, incorporation of new cash corps were explored and included as decision variables in FarmDesign. However, it did not perform as was expected (lower areas and lower amount). Although, most of the farms in the set selected to re-design step fulfilled the socio-economic and environmental objectives proposed and achieved different agroecological practices proposed, each farm: El Putrán, La Poza and Praderas del Sur had to trade some aspects off for finding the set of farms. El Putrán decreased their current operating profit and organic matter balance and increased the regular labor balance; La Poza exceeded the allowed stocking rate and Praderas del Sur implemented the oat area but without decreasing the off-farm oat grain. At the end the set of farms to re-design per farm was found, however without the farmers feedback could not be possible to know which farm configuration they will select or whether they want to come back to the exploring to fix other variables or include other objectives.

78 5 Recommendations for further research In terms of model FarmDesign:

 It would be interesting include a manner to quantify the percentage of P-retention in soils such as Andisols in the south of Chile where this thesis was carried out.

 It would be interesting to try to incorporate volunteer labor as an item into the farm labor. Because the farms are accepting volunteer labor each year and now it is not possible to include into de model.

 It could be useful to incorporate into the exploration excel sheet the constraints data for the new farms configurations (cloud of solutions).

In terms of nutrient food, feed, animals composition would be useful used real values from the farms (it will be so expensive)

In terms of organic farmer intrinsic motivations and agroecological practices, could be interesting realized a similar research in other EFOs in Chile and then to compare among farmers and, at the end, describe or establish the organic smallholders motivations to produce organically and to belong to EFO.

Other possible studies:  Gender study, mainly based on women from partly organic farms (mainly in Calbuco farms). She works on organic way and her husband in conventional way.

 Nutrients synchronization, green manure as a supplier and main crop as demanding, in Los Lagos Region in Chile.

 Mycorrhiza role in P-fixation in Los Lagos Region

79 References

Agronomía - Universidad de Chile. (n.d.). Rotaciones (p. 8). Santiago. Retrieved from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:- T351sJqqe4J:www.agronomia.uchile.cl/web/ximena_lopez/documentos/fichas%2520cultivos.doc+ &cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=cl

AGV. (1989). Handboek voor de Akkerbouw en de Groenteteelt in de Vollegrond.

Alfaro, M. A. & Salazar, F. J. (2007). Phosphorus losses in surface run-off from grazed permanent pastures on a volcanic soil from Chile. Soil Use and Management, 23(3), 323–327. doi:10.1111/j.1475-2743.2007.00086.x

Alfaro, M., Salazar, F., Iraira, S., Teuber, N., Villarroel, D. & Ramírez, L. (2008). Nitrogen , phosphorus and potassium losses in a grazing system with different stocking rates in a volcanic SOIL. Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research, 68, 146–154.

Alfaro, M., Salazar, F. S., Oenema, O., Iraira, S., Teuber, N., Ramirez, L. & Villarroel, D. (2009). Nutrients balances in beef cattle production systems and their implications for the environment. Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 9(1), 40–54.

Altieri, M. A. (1995). Agroecology: the science of sustainable agriculture. (p. 433). Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Altieri, M. A. (2002). Agroecology: the science of natural resource management for poor farmers in marginal environments. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 93(1-3), 1–24. doi:10.1016/S0167- 8809(02)00085-3

Altieri, M. A. (2005). Agroecology: principles and strategies for designing sustainable farming systems. Agroecology in Action. Retrieved June 04, 2014, from http://nature.berkeley.edu/~miguel- alt/principles_and_strategies.html

Altieri, M. A. & Rojas, A. (1999). Ecological impacts of chile ’ s neoliberal policies , with special emphasis on agroecosystems. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1, 55–72.

Altieri, M. A. & Rosset, P. M. (1996). Agroecology and the conversion of large-scale conventional systems to sustainable management. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 50, 165–185.

Anagra. (n.d.). Superfosfato triple - ficha técnica y hoja de seguridad. Retrieved from http://www.jpolanco.cl/panel_admin/documentos/FICHAS_TECNICAS/20101103074111.pdf

BambergChile. (n.d.). Ficha Técnica Guano Rojo Bamberg (p. 2).

Barriga, P. (1974). Indice de cosecha en trigo de primavera. Agro Sur, 2(1), 17–20.

Borie, F. & Rubio, R. (2003). Total and organic phosphorus in chilean volcanic soils fosforo total y fosforo organico en suelos volcánicos de chile. Gayana Botanica, 60(1), 69–78.

80 Borie, F. & Zunino, H. (1983). Organic matter-phosphorus associations as a sink in P-fixation processes in allophanic soils of Chile. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 15(5), 599–603. doi:10.1016/0038- 0717(83)90056-1

Bravo Alt, J. A. (2006). Caracterización nutricional de forrajes verdes, forrajes secos, concentrados y subproductos agroindustriales para la alimentcion del ganado en la zona sur. Universidad Austral de Chile.

Briggs, S. (2008). Organic Cereal and Pulse Production: A Complete Guide (p. 432). Ramsbury: Crowood Press, Limited. Retrieved from http://books.google.nl/books?id=txASPQAACAAJ

Bruges, M. & Smith, W. (2007). Participatory approaches for sustainable agriculture: A contradiction in terms? Agriculture and Human Values, 25(1), 13–23. doi:10.1007/s10460-007-9058-0

Caro, W., Olivares, A. & Araya, E. (1999). Relación entre el peso de sacrificio y composición de la canal de corderos Suffolk. Agro Sur, 27(2), 6–10.

CIREN. (2003). Estudio Agrológico X Región, Descripciones de suelos, materiales y símbolos (p. Publicación 123).

CTSyC, C. T. de S. y C. (2007). Supermagro CET Bio-Bio - Análisis químico. Linares.

CVB. (2008). CVB Table Booklet Feeding of Ruminants: Feeding Standards, Feeding Advices and Nutritional Values of Feed Ingredients (p. 68). Den Haag: CVB, Product Board Animal Feed. Retrieved from http://books.google.nl/books?id=CBcjPwAACAAJ

Eguillor, P. (2013a). Agricultura Orgánica Temporada 2011-2012. ODEPA - Oficina de Estudios y Políticas Agrarias. Retrieved November 11, 2013, from http://www.odepa.cl/odepaweb/publicaciones/doc/10186.pdf

Eguillor, P. (2013b). Productos Orgánicos: exportación e importación 2012-2013. ODEPA - Oficina de Estudios y Políticas Agrarias. Retrieved November 11, 2013, from http://www.odepa.cl/wp- content/files_mf/13896459831379348978ProductosProductos_organicos_exportación_e_importac ión_20122013.pdf.pdf

Escudey, M., Galindo, G., Förster, J. E., Briceño, M., Diaz, P. & Chang, A. (2001). Chemical Forms of Phosphorus of Volcanic Ash-Derived Soils in Chile. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 32(5&6), 601–616. doi:10.1081/CSS-100103895

Estándar Certificación Leña | Sistema Nacional de Certificación de Leña. (n.d.). Retrieved May 13, 2014, from http://www.lena.cl/certificacion-de-lena/

Fairweather, J. R. (1999). Understanding how farmers choose between organic and conventional production : Results from New Zealand and policy implications, 16, 51–63.

FAO. (2014a). 2014 International Year of Family Farming - What is family farming? Retrieved June 01, 2014, from http://www.fao.org/family-farming-2014/home/what-is-family-farming/en/

81 FAO. (2014b). Búsqueda de alimentos. Retrieved from http://www.rlc.fao.org/es/conozca-fao/que-hace- fao/estadisticas/composicion-alimentos/busqueda/

FAO/ITC/CTA. (2001). World Market of Organic Fruit and Vegetables – Opportunities for Developing Countries in the Production and Export of Organic Horticultural Products. Retrieved November 07, 2013, from http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/Y1669E/y1669e0j.htm#bm19

FIA. (2003). Hortalizas orgánicas evaluadas en Chile: Resultados de proyectos impulsados por FIA (p. 181). Santiago.

FIA. (2007). Resultados y Lecciones en Lupino dulce. Proyectos de Innovacion en IX Región de la Araucanía (p. 31). Santiago. Retrieved from http://aplicaciones.fia.cl/valorizacion/docs%5C4_3_Libro_LupinoDulce.pdf

FIA. (2008). Resultados y Lecciones en Arvejas Sugar Snap. Proyecto de Innovacion en IX Región de La Araucanía. (p. 28).

FIA & UACH. (2007). Producción ovina: desde el suelo a la gestión. (M. Hervé Allamand, Ed.) (p. 106). Santiago.

Gliessman, S. R. (1998). Agroecology: ecological processes in sustainable agriculture. (E. Engels, Ed.) (p. 357). Chelsea: Ann Arbor Press.

Goic, L. & Matzner, M. (1977). Distribución de la producción de materia seca y características de tres regiones de la zona de las lluvias. Avances En Producción Animal, 2, 23–31.

Gómez-Lobo, A. (2005). El consumo de leña en el sur de Chile: ¿por qué nos debe preocupar y qué se puede hacer? Revista Ambiente Y Desarrollo, 21(3), 43–47.

GORE Los Lagos. (n.d.). Información de la Región - Antecedentes de la Región. Retrieved March 10, 2014, from http://www.goreloslagos.cl/region_lagos/antecedentes_region.html

Groot, J. C. J., Oomen, G. J. M. & Rossing, W. a. H. (2012). Multi-objective optimization and design of farming systems. Agricultural Systems, 110, 63–77. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2012.03.012

Groot, J. C. J., & Rossing, W. A. H. (2011). Model-aided learning for adaptive management of natural resources: an evolutionary design perspective. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 2(6), 643–650. doi:10.1111/j.2041-210X.2011.00114.x

Groot, J. & Oomen, G. (2012). Farm DESIGN Manual - Version 3.6 (pp. 1–47). Wageningen.

Guthman, J. (2000). Raising organic : An agro-ecological assessment of grower practices in California. Agriculture and Human Values, 17, 257–266.

IFOAM. (2008). Definition of Organic Agriculture | IFOAM. Retrieved November 13, 2013, from http://www.ifoam.org/en/organic-landmarks/definition-organic-agriculture

82 IICA, INDAP, ODEPA & MUCECH. (2006). Pequeña Agricultura en Chile - Rasgos socioproductivos, institucionalidad y clasificación territorial para la innovación. (A. Apey & A. Barril, Eds.) (p. 141).

INACESA. (n.d.). Ficha Técnica MAGNECAL 7/ MAGNECAL 15. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/Daniela/Downloads/719490_FICHA magnecal.p (2).pdf

INE. (2007). Censo Agropecuario y Forestal 2007. Retrieved June 02, 2014, from http://www.ine.cl/canales/chile_estadistico/censos_agropecuarios/censo_agropecuario_07_comu nas.php

INIA. (1985). Suelos Volcánicos de Chile - Mapas Geológicos y Carta de Suelos.

INIA - Carillanca. (2000). Variedades de avena y su utilización en Producción Animal e Industrial. (O. Romero & E. Beratto, Eds.) (p. 91). Temuco.

INIA - Quilamapu. (2001). Producción de Cabras Lecheras. (P. Cofré, Ed.) (p. 134). Chillán. Retrieved from http://www2.inia.cl/medios/biblioteca/boletines/NR28591.pdf

INIA - Remehue. (n.d.). Seminario Praderas: Hacia un nuevo estilo productivo. (L. Opazo, A. Torres, & E. Siebald, Eds.) (p. 68). Osorno.

INIA - Remehue. (2000). Seminario Taller para Productores “Técnicas de Diagnósitco de Fertilidad del Suelo, Fertilizacion y Mejoramiento de Praderas.” (R. Bernier & G. Bortolameolli, Eds.) (p. 71).

INRA - CIRAD - FAO. (2013). Feedipedia: An on-line encyclopedia of animal feeds | Feedipedia - Animal Feed Resources Information System. Retrieved from http://www.feedipedia.org/

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Retrieved from https://is.muni.cz/www/346396/kolb.pdf?lang=en

Mandryk, M., Reidsma, P., Kanellopoulos, A., Groot, J. C. J., & van Ittersum, M. K. (2014). The role of farmers’ objectives in current farm practices and adaptation preferences: a case study in Flevoland, the Netherlands. Regional Environmental Change, 14(4), 1463–1478. doi:10.1007/s10113-014- 0589-9

Manterola, H., Cerda, D. & Mira, J. (1999). Los Residuos Agrícolas y su uso en la alimentación de rumiantes (p. 220). Santiago.

Mejías, J. H., Alfaro, M. & Harsh, J. (2013). Approaching environmental phosphorus limits on a volcanic soil of . Geoderma, 207-208(1), 49–57.

MINAGRI. Sustituye Ley Orgánica del Instituto de Desarrollo Agropecuario (1983). Chile. Retrieved from http://www.indap.gob.cl/sites/default/files/documentos_relacionados/ley_18910_0.pdf

Minera Formas. (n.d.). CERRIFOS - Natural Phosphate Rock. Santiago: iInera Formas. Retrieved from http://www.mineraformas.cl/Pdfs/310105 Ficha Cerrifos Ingles.pdf

83 Monje, M. (2003). Elaboración y Conservación de pasta de Ajo Blandino ( Allium ampeloprasum L .). Universidad Austral de Chile.

Montesinos, F. B. (2011). Producción de forraje y calidad nutritiva de praderas mejoradas por diferentes métodos , en la zona sur de Chile. Universidad AUstral de Chile.

Mora, M. L., Shene, C., Violante, A., Demanet, R., Bolan, N. S. & Huang, P. M. (2005). The effect of organic matter and soil chemical properties on sulfate sorption in Chilean volcanic soils. In P. M. Huang, A. Violante, J. M. Bollag, & P. Vityakon (Eds.), Soil Abiotic- and Biotic Interactions and the Impact on the Ecosystem and Human Welfare (pp. 223–244). Enfield, USA - Plymouth, UK: Science Publishers, Inc.

Mosaic. (2014). SULPOMAG. Retrieved May 13, 2014, from http://www.mosaicfertilizantes.cl/Default.aspx?wcmp=382

Nacional, B. del C. (n.d.). Décima Región - Región de los Lagos. Retrieved June 01, 2014, from http://siit2.bcn.cl/nuestropais/region10

National Research Council. (1994). Nutrient Requirements of Poultry (Ninth., p. 157). Washington D.C.: National Academies Press. Retrieved from http_//www.nap.edu/catalog/2114.htm

National Research Council. (2012). Nutrients Requirements of Swine (Eleventh.). Washington D.C.: National Academies Press.

O´Ryan, J. (2005). Agricultura Orgánica en Chile. In M. S. Garrido, I. Aguirre, T. E. León, C. Nogueroles, & J. R. Díaz (Eds.), Recomendaciones y Estrategias para Desarrollar la Agricultura Ecológica en Iberoamérica. Proyecto XIX.4 de CYTED sobre “Normativas de Agricultura Orgánica para Iberoamérica” (p. 228).

Peel, M. C., Finlayson, B. L. & McMahon, T. A. (2007). Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 11, 1633–1644.

Pinochet T., D., Ramírez R., F. & Suárez F., D. (2005). Variación de la capacita tampón en suelos derivados de cenizas volcánicas. Agricultura Técnica, 65(1), 55–64. doi:10.4067/S0365-28072005000100006

Prenzlau, A. (2000). Comparacion entre Gansos Criollos y Gansos Mezöhek en produccion semi-intensiva. Universidad Austral de Chile.

Reijntjes, C., Haverkort, B. & Waters Bayer, A. (1992). Farming for the future: an introduction to low- external-input and sustainable agriculture. (p. 520). The MacMillan press.

Riffo Pozas, M. E. (2006). Caracterización y tipificación del sector proveedor de lupino blanco ( Lupinus albus L .) de la empresa “ Productos Nutritivos AVELUP Ltda .” Chile IX Región , estudio de caso. Universidad Austral de Chile. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/Daniela/Documents/THESIS/tesis lupino.pdf

84 Rioseco, R. & Tesser, C. (n.d.). Cartografía interactiva de los climas de Chile. Instituto de Geografía - Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. Retrieved June 01, 2014, from http://www7.uc.cl/sw_educ/geografia/cartografiainteractiva/

Rodríguez, J. (1993). La fertilización de los cultivos: Un método racional. Santiago. Santiago: Colección Agricultura, Facultad de Agronomía. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile.

Rojas, C. (n.d.). Interpretación de la disponibilidad de Fósforo en los suelos de Chile. INIA (pp. 24–43). Retrieved from http://www2.inia.cl/medios/biblioteca/serieactas/NR33852.pdf

Rosset, P. M. & Altieri, M. a. (1997). Agroecology versus input substitution: A fundamental contradiction of sustainable agriculture. Society & Natural Resources, 10(3), 283–295. doi:10.1080/08941929709381027

Rossing, W. A. H., Zander, P., Josien, E., Groot, J. C. J., Meyer, B. C. & Knierim, A. (2007). Integrative modelling approaches for analysis of impact of multifunctional agriculture: A review for France, Germany and The Netherlands. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 120(1), 41–57. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2006.05.031

Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020

Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000b). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. The American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11392867

SAG, S. A. y G. (2011). Sistema Nacional de Certificación de Productos Orgánicos Agrícolas - Ley N° 20.089 (División d., p. 110). Santiago. Retrieved from http://www.sag.cl/sites/default/files/Ley_reglamento_version_dic2011.pdf

SAG, S. A. y G. (2013). AGRICULTURA ORGÁNICA NACIONAL Bases Técnicas y Situación Actual (División d., p. 156). Santiago. Retrieved from http://www.sag.cl/sites/default/files/agricultura_org._nacional_bases_tecnicas_y_situacion_actual _2013.pdf

SAG, S. A. y G. (2014a). Insumos visados para uso en agricultura organica nacional, de acuerdo a las modificaciones del ds 17/2007, 10.09.2011. Subdepartamento (vol. 2014, p. 27).

SAG, S. A. y G. (2014b). Registro del Sistema Nacional de Certificación Orgánica (p. 1). Santiago. Retrieved from http://www.sag.cl/ambitos-de-accion/certificacion-de-productos-organicos- agricolas/132/registros

Schmidt-Hebbel, H., Pennacchiotti, I., Masson, L. & Mella, M. A. (1992). Tabla de Composición Química de los Alimentos Chilenos. Retrieved from http://mazinger.sisib.uchile.cl/repositorio/lb/ciencias_quimicas_y_farmaceuticas/schmidth03/inde x.html

85 Sierra, C., Santos, J. & Kalazich, J. (2002). Manual fertilización del Cultivo de la Papa en la Zona Sur de Chile. (INIA - Remehue, Ed.) (p. 104). Santiago.

Solla-Gullón, F., Rodríguez-Soalleiro, R. & Merino, A. (2001). Evaluación del aporte de cenizas de madera como fertilizante de un suelo ácido mediante un ensayo en laboratorio. Investigación Agraria: Producción Y Protección Vegetal, 16(3), 8.

Soprocal. (n.d.). Cal Agrícola. Retrieved May 27, 2014, from http://www.soprocal.cl/soprocal/index.php?mod=catalogo&codigo=26

Soto, P. (n.d.). Forrajes suplementarios de invierno y verano. In INIA (Ed.), (p. 29).

SQMC. (n.d.). Qrop® Potasik. Retrieved May 13, 2014, from http://www.sqm.com/comercial/Productos/ProductosGranulares/Qrop/QropPotasik.aspx#tabs-2

Stobbelaar, D. J., Groot, J. C. J., Bishop, C., Hall, J., & Pretty, J. (2009). Internalization of agri- environmental policies and the role of institutions. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, S175–S184. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.11.019

Urzúa, H. (2005). Beneficios de la Fijación Simbiótica de Nitrógeno en Chile. Ciencia E Investigación Agraria, 32(2), 133–150.

USDA. (n.d.). Foods List. Retrieved from http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search/list?format=&count=&max=25&sort=&fg=&man=&lfacet=&ql ookup=&offset=150#

Via Campesina. (2010). Peasant and Family Farm-based Sustainable Agriculture Can Feed the World. Via Campesina Views, 6, 15. Retrieved from http://viacampesina.org/downloads/pdf/en/paper6-EN.pdf

Weller, R. F., & Bowling, P. J. (2007). The importance of nutrient balance , cropping strategy and quality of dairy cow diets in sustainable organic systems. Journal of Science of Food and Agriculture, 87(December 2006), 2768–2773. doi:10.1002/jsfa

Willer, H., Lernoud, J., & Kilcher, L. (2013). The World of Organic Agriculture: Statistics and Emerging Trends 2013: Frick. Switzerland: Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) & Bonn: International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) (p. 340).

86

Appendices

87 Appendix I – Questionnaire ca I.- General Information

1.- Name of farmer member

2.- Address Municipality Province Region

3.- Age

4.- Are you the head of yes no Does not household? answer

5.- What is the last grade that you achieve? 5.1.- Educational topic 1. Finished 2. Unfinished 1. Does not have 0 studies 2. Primary school 1 2 3.Secundary school 1 2 4.Technical studies 1 2 CFT: Centro de Formación (CFT, IP) técnica; IP: Instituto Profesional 5.University studies 1 2 99. Does not 99 answer 6.- How many people are part of your household and live n° with you?

88 7.- Is organic Yes No Which is you It is complemented with production the main other productive activities main livelihood of household on-farm (e.g., tourism) or your household? livelihood? off-farm? Which?

8.- Other activities Household Activity carried out by member household members?

9.- Total area in ha Own ha Rented ha Other production

10.- Area in organic ha Own ha Rented ha Transition? ha production

11- The farm labor is Family member Which activity? (sowing, harvest, Total farm formed by: (daughter, son, etc.) labor uncle, aunt, wife, days/year etc.) and hours/day Family member unremunerated

Family member remunerated

External labor contracted

89 12.- Machinery used (To Own Rented Specific activity (sowing, name below) harvest, etc) or entire season (days/year and hours/day)

13.- Related to organic production of the 2012-2013 (2013-14) season. Which was the main crop? How much area did you devote to it? Did you cultivate other crops? Which? What type of irrigation system did you use? Yield? Destination, sale of point? Estimated income?

Organic production Crop Area (ha) Yield (kg/ha) Irrigation Transition? Months Destination (self- Income from sale ($/ha) system consumption; sale? ($/kg) ($/bale) where?)

Main crop

Secondary crop 1

Secondary crop 2

Secondary crop 3

Secondary crop 4

Other

90 14.- Do you have any livestock in your farm unde organic management? How many head of livestock do you have each of them? Yield? Destination, sale of point? Estimated income?

Livestock under Head of livestock Total area Yield (kg o Main feed Destination (meat, dairy, Sale? Where? Income from sale ($/kg) organic lt/ha) resource (Is wool, eggs) ($/lt)($/dozen) management it bought or produced?)

15.- Since what year is member of the Red de Productores Orgánicos de la X Región?

16.- Have you been Yes No Which INDAP user during program(s)? 2012-13 (2013-14) season? 17.- Have you gotten yes no Which? (public some training in or private) organic production? Crops and/or animals?

18.- Have you had some yes no Which? consultancy in When? organic production?

II.- Motivations

19.- Have you always been an organic yes no farmer?

91 20.- How did you hear about the possibility of INDAP Studies (MBA, courses) producing organic?

SERCOTEC Own initiative (FOSIS - PROCHILE) Producers Other, Which? associations and federations Customers or clients

21.- What were your motivations to begin producing organically? (do not read alternatives and mark if the farmer mentions them) What are the three most important? (Write in the order of importance).

Ranking Higher income (I can sell my products at a higher price) It is in fashion, customers request it Easier to produce Cheaper to produce I do not have money for buying off-farm inputs (e.g., fertilizers) I prefer to use the on-farm inputs It is more sustainable It lets take care and be environmentally aware In the long-term, I can keep the resources (water, soil) It is a philosophy of life It is good for society It is part of my culture Other Which?

92

22.- Why are you continue being an organic farmer? (do not read alternatives and mark if the ). farmer mentions them) What are the three most important? (to write the order of importance). Ranking Higher income (I can sell my products at a higher price) It is in fashion, customers request it Easier to produce Cheaper to produce I do not have money for buying off-farm inputs (e.g., fertilizers) I prefer to use the on-farm inputs It is more sustainable It lets take care and be environmentally aware In the long-term, I can keep the resources (water, soil) It is a philosophy of life It is good for society It is part of my culture Other Which?

23.- Why do you belong to the Red de Productores Orgánicos de la X Región? (do not read alternatives and mark if the farmer mentions them) What are the three most important? (write the order of importance). Ranking It helps the products commercialization It is cheaper than contract a certifying body The inspections are fairer It is possible to share experiences with other members Together we can achieve more objectives We can increase the legislation demand

93 I feel supported by the organization Other Which?

24.- Do you have some No Yes Which? position in the association?

III.- Agricultural practices

30.- Did you use these No Yes Which is the In which Do you make it or/and buy? Do you exchange it? practices? aim of using crop?/How Materials origin? e.g., with other this practice? is it used?/ association member?

Crop rotation

Legumes (in associations, in rotation, only to sale) Compost

Manure Mulch Stubble management Fallow Minimal tillage Increase biodiversity (hedges) Natural enemies Seeds (only if keep them)36

36 This option was incorporated during the questionnaire application.

94

31. - If is NO

Fertilization?

Weed control

Pests and diseases control?

IV. Additional information yes no

32.- Are you available in January and February? 33.- Do you have records according to the legislation?

34.- Soil analysis?

35.- Costs?

36.- Do you need to make some investments? Which? 37.- Are you interested in the certification? Why?

This information was not encoded

95

Appendix II – Qualitative farmers/farm characterization – Plant and Animals production

Part 1

Farmer - Sex 2.- Locality Municipality Province 3.- Age 4.- Are 5.- Educational Level Topic 6.- Childre 7.- Is OA member you the 1 Does not have Family n the main head of studies member household househ 2 Primary school s who livelihood old? 3 Secondary school live with ? 4 Technical studies you 5 University studies (farmer a Finished included b Unfinished ) 1 F Corte Alto Purranque Osorno 43 Yes 5a Preschooler 4 3 Yes Teacher 2 F Chifín bajo Rio Negro Osorno 56 Yes 4a Agricultural 2 - Yes Expert 3 M Huito Calbuco Llanquihue 32 Yes 3a Agricultural 4 2 Yes Technician 4 F Huito Calbuco Llanquihue 49 Yes 2a n/a 4 1 No 5 F El Rosario Calbuco Llanquihue 58 No 4b Foreign 5 2 No Trade 6 F El Rosario Calbuco Llanquihue 58 No 2b n/a 3 - No Alto 7 F Isla Puluqui Calbuco Llanquihue 55 SHARED 2b n/a 2 - No 8 F Calbuco Calbuco Llanquihue 44 No 3a Agricultural 5 3 No Technician 9 F El Rosario Calbuco Llanquihue 65 SHARED 2b n/a 3 - No

10 F Hueleco San Pablo Osorno 63 Yes 4a Technical 1 - Yes draftswoma n 11 F Purranque Purranque Osorno 41 SHARED 5a Aquaculture 5 2 No Engineer

96 Farmer - Sex 2.- Locality Municipality Province 3.- Age 4.- Are 5.- Educational Level Topic 6.- Childre 7.- Is OA member you the 1 Does not have Family n the main head of studies member household househ 2 Primary school s who livelihood old? 3 Secondary school live with ? 4 Technical studies you 5 University studies (farmer a Finished included b Unfinished ) 12 M Coñico Purranque Osorno 42 Yes 4a and 5a Agricultural 4 2 No Technician and Agricultural Execution Engineer 13 M Quilanto Osorno 46 Yes 5a Veterinarian 5 3 No

14 F Colonia La Frutillar Llanquihue 65 Yes 2b n/a 4 2 Yes Radio 15 F Villa Alegre Frutillar Llanquihue 50 No 4a Secretary 4 2 No 16 M Polizone Fresia Llanquihue 43 Yes 5a Agricultural 1 - Yes Engineer 17 F Lagunitas Puerto Montt Llanquihue 54 SHARED 4a Accountant 4 - No

18 M Pilluco Ancud Chiloé 60 SHARED 5a Agronomist 2 - No 19 M Fundo Ancud Chiloé 36 Yes 5a Agronomist 6 4 No Lechagua 20 F Coipomó Ancud Chiloé 48 SHARED 3a n/a 3 1 Yes

SHARED between member and his wife or her husband

97 Part 2

Farmer - Other activity? Main (if is ¿Which is it? 9.- Total INDAP Osorno Smallholder 10.- Organic Main organic Sale point member No) or Complementary (if area (ha) (0,16), farmer management product is Yes)? Llanquihue according to area (ha) 0 No (0,145)Central INDAP 1 Agricultural Valley. Chiloé 2 Related to agriculture West Ruta 5 3 Other (0,064) 1 2 Educative farm 15.6 2.496 Smallholder 15.6 Goat milk farmer (cheese). Lettuce and chard could be sold if there are more than the family can eat. 2 2 Provide agricultural 30 4.8 Smallholder 30 Cow milk (sub Association’ machinery services farmer products: s sale point (Husband) cheese, in Puerto caramel, Montt and butter, etc), some calves, houses in vegetables Osorno 3 2 Sometimes he gives 4 0.58 Smallholder 4 Vegetables - talks about organic farmer Chard, Faba agriculture beans, Peas, Squash, Zucchini, Shallot, Cherry tomato

98 Farmer - Other activity? Main (if is ¿Which is it? 9.- Total INDAP Osorno Smallholder 10.- Organic Main organic Sale point member No) or Complementary (if area (ha) (0,16), farmer management product is Yes)? Llanquihue according to area (ha) 0 No (0,145)Central INDAP 1 Agricultural Valley. Chiloé 2 Related to agriculture West Ruta 5 3 Other (0,064) 4 3 ; 1 Husband is a cook 6 0.87 Smallholder 1 Chard, parsley, in a boat; Potatoes, potato garlic, grassland, ovine (sheep and lambs), bovine (calves and ox team) and poultry (hens and chicklets) CONVENCIONAL 5 3 ; 1 Boat and her 2.4 0.348 Smallholder 0.123 Lettuce, mother's pension; coriander, garlic, potatoes, garlic grassland, porcine, (greenhouse) ovine (sheep) and poultry (ducks, turkeys, chickens, chicklets and hens) CONVENTIONAL 6 1 Garlic, Potatoes, 14 2.03 Smallholder 1 Lettuce, grassland, bovine coriander, (cows, calves and chard. ox team), ovine (sheep) and poultry (hens) CONVENCIONAL 7 1 Potatoes, 10.5 1.5225 Smallholder 0.375 Lettuce, chard, grassland, bovine coriander (steers and an ox team) and poultry (hens) CONVENTIONAL

99 Farmer - Other activity? Main (if is ¿Which is it? 9.- Total INDAP Osorno Smallholder 10.- Organic Main organic Sale point member No) or Complementary (if area (ha) (0,16), farmer management product is Yes)? Llanquihue according to area (ha) 0 No (0,145)Central INDAP 1 Agricultural Valley. Chiloé 2 Related to agriculture West Ruta 5 3 Other (0,064) 8 2 Land consultancy 2.5 0.3625 Smallholder 0.75 Potato, Native (She and her potato, Carrot, husband). Raspberry. Grassland (probably organic), bovine (cows and calves), ovine (sheep) and porcine CONVENTIONAL 9 1 Garlic, Potatoes, 0.88 0.1276 Smallholder 0.162 Coriander, grassland and ovine Lettuce, Chard, (sheep and lambs) CONVENCIONAL 10 1 ; 2 Grassland, bovine 15 2.4 Smallholder 1 Common Sage, (calf raising and St John's wort, wet-nurse cows) Thyme, Mint CONVENCIONAL; varieties. Granja Educativa 11 2 ; 3 She and her 0.25 0.04 Smallholder 0.25 Lettuce, husband sell coriander, vegetables in a free parsley, faba market. They beans, cherry complement their tomato, peas own vegetables (sin hila) production buying vegetables to other local no-organic producers in the Osorno Province; He drives his own

100 Farmer - Other activity? Main (if is ¿Which is it? 9.- Total INDAP Osorno Smallholder 10.- Organic Main organic Sale point member No) or Complementary (if area (ha) (0,16), farmer management product is Yes)? Llanquihue according to area (ha) 0 No (0,145)Central INDAP 1 Agricultural Valley. Chiloé 2 Related to agriculture West Ruta 5 3 Other (0,064) taxi. Poultry (hens) CONVENCIONAL 12 2 Local Development 0.2 0.032 Smallholder 0.2 Lettuce, Program cauliflower, (PRODESAL) in green beans Purranque's Municipality

13 3 Restaurant 164 26.24 No 164 Wheat, oat, smallholder potato (in rotation with grasslands). Vegetable garden: lettuce, carrots, peas, cherry tomato (greenhouse) 14 3; 1 Grill shed to rent. 3 0.435 Smallholder 0.25 Raspberry, Ovine (sheep) and grocellas, poultry (hens and zarzaparrilla, chicklets) cherry tree CONVENTIONAL 15 1 Cow milk (Dairy 258 37.41 No 0.1 Lettuce, chard, farm) smallholder carrot, peas CONVENTIONAL 16 2 Tames horses 60 8.7 Smallholder 60 Venta de ganado vacuno para carne

101 Farmer - Other activity? Main (if is ¿Which is it? 9.- Total INDAP Osorno Smallholder 10.- Organic Main organic Sale point member No) or Complementary (if area (ha) (0,16), farmer management product is Yes)? Llanquihue according to area (ha) 0 No (0,145)Central INDAP 1 Agricultural Valley. Chiloé 2 Related to agriculture West Ruta 5 3 Other (0,064) 17 3 Flower therapy 10 1.45 Smallholder 10 Wheat, barley, oat. Medicinal plants in general, lentil, peas, chickpea, lettuce (different varieties) 18 2 Land consultancy 9.5 0.608 Smallholder 9.5 Apples, different varieties adapted to the region. 19 2 Selling of ecological 20 1.28 Smallholder 20 parcels and firewood 20 2 Educative farm 60 3.84 Smallholder 60

Bold letters indicate main livelihood activity Educative farm = they receive people who wants to know the farm and explain what they do there.

102 Part 3

Farmer - 13.- 14.- Organic Production this season member Activities 1 2 Dairy 3a Meat farm 4 Ox 5 Poultry 6 Crops 7 8 Vegetable 9 Fruit summar Pasture farm (a (a beef; team (a hens, b (a Wheat; b Greenhouses garden trees y cows; b sheep) chickens; Maize; b goats) c turkey; c Oat; d goose; d Potato; e ducks) e Garlic) C-1 1; 2b; 5a; 13 ha 2b a and b, eggs 80m2 80m2 Different 5b; 7; 8 clover, 96 adults (self- Different vegetables. Self- perennial and 40 consumption) vegetables. consumption ryegrass, young and d Self- Marsh consumption Bird's- foot Trefoil C-2 1; 2; 3a; 25 ha 2a 26 dairy 3a calves a and b, eggs 6a 0,75 ha to 70 m2 Mainly 0,15 ha Cherry 3b; 5a; cows and 1 (sale) (self- make flour lettuce and Vegetables in tree and 5b; 6a; bull 3b 40 consumption (self- tomato. Self- general: Peas, others 6b; 7; 8; "mothers" and sale) consumption consumption carrots, leek, around 9; 10; 12 (wood for and sale) beet, etc. Self- the farm self- 6b ancient consumption and consumption) variety in sale and 30 yerling vegetable sheep (self- garden (self- consumption consumption, and sale) sale and seed - in vegetable garden) 6d 0,25ha Potato and native potato

103 Farmer - 13.- 14.- Organic Production this season member Activities 1 2 Dairy 3a Meat farm 4 Ox 5 Poultry 6 Crops 7 8 Vegetable 9 Fruit summar Pasture farm (a (a beef; team (a hens, b (a Wheat; b Greenhouses garden trees y cows; b sheep) chickens; Maize; b goats) c turkey; c Oat; d goose; d Potato; e ducks) e Garlic) C-3 1; 4; 6b; 3,5 ha One 5a eggs (self- 6a Some m2 The same species in both, the area Apples 7; 8; 9; consumption) ancient variety is shared. 100m2 per each:Chad, tree 10 5e biological 6d 250 m2 Faba bean, Peas. 50m2 Shallot. (pasture control Potato and 10m2 per each: Squash, Zucchini. below!) as native potato 40m2 Cherry tomato and agroforest (self- Cucumber. 20m2 topinambour ry) and consumption (sunroot). Lettuce, soon Oregano. cherry and sale) Mainly self-consumption and sale tree such a border C-4 7; 8; 9; 0,4 ha chard Carrot Apples 10 and parsley tree (sale and self- consumption) 60m potato (sale). Pea, faba bean, brussels sprout (self- consumption) Bulb Flowers

104 Farmer - 13.- 14.- Organic Production this season member Activities 1 2 Dairy 3a Meat farm 4 Ox 5 Poultry 6 Crops 7 8 Vegetable 9 Fruit summar Pasture farm (a (a beef; team (a hens, b (a Wheat; b Greenhouses garden trees y cows; b sheep) chickens; Maize; b goats) c turkey; c Oat; d goose; d Potato; e ducks) e Garlic) C-5 7; 8; 9; 120m2 250 m2 Carrot, Apple 10; 13 Lettuce, 45m2 shallot, pea, trees coriander bean, cauliflower, 45m2 garlic coriander, (Self- artichoke, bulb consumption flowers (self- and sale) consumption) Chard, quinoa, cherry tomato, broccoli, etc (self- consumption)

C-6 7; 8; 10 300m2 per 0,25 ha garlic each: Lettuce, coriander and chard. 50m2 per each: Strawberry, Parsley (sale and self- consumption). Pepper, tomato, thyme, etc (self- consumption)

105 Farmer - 13.- 14.- Organic Production this season member Activities 1 2 Dairy 3a Meat farm 4 Ox 5 Poultry 6 Crops 7 8 Vegetable 9 Fruit summar Pasture farm (a (a beef; team (a hens, b (a Wheat; b Greenhouses garden trees y cows; b sheep) chickens; Maize; b goats) c turkey; c Oat; d goose; d Potato; e ducks) e Garlic) C-7 8; 10 Lettuce, chard, parsley, coriander (self-consumption and sale). Garlic, faba bean, pea, cabbage, strawberry, carrot, medicinal plants and flowers C-8 8; 10 6d 0,15ha 60m2 carrot, normal 6c 50m2 native 0.,14ha potato, 10m2 per each: parsley, radish, cabbage, beet, cauliflower, broccoli, bean, faba bean, garlic, onion, leek. Medicinal plants. (Self- consumption)

106 Farmer - 13.- 14.- Organic Production this season member Activities 1 2 Dairy 3a Meat farm 4 Ox 5 Poultry 6 Crops 7 8 Vegetable 9 Fruit summar Pasture farm (a (a beef; team (a hens, b (a Wheat; b Greenhouses garden trees y cows; b sheep) chickens; Maize; b goats) c turkey; c Oat; d goose; d Potato; e ducks) e Garlic) C-9 7; 8; 9; 320m Oregano, chives, Apple 10 coriander, ciboulette, tree, Plum 60m chard, 20 ruibarbo tree, m lettuce Cherry (self- tree. (jam consumption and and sale). liqueur, Squash, self- cucumber, consumpti beet, tomato, on and celery, sale) medicinal plants, strawberry, gooseberry, goldenberry (self- consumption) C-10 11; 13 Based on medicinal plants

107 Farmer - 13.- 14.- Organic Production this season member Activities 1 2 Dairy 3a Meat farm 4 Ox 5 Poultry 6 Crops 7 8 Vegetable 9 Fruit summar Pasture farm (a (a beef; team (a hens, b (a Wheat; b Greenhouses garden trees y cows; b sheep) chickens; Maize; b goats) c turkey; c Oat; d goose; d Potato; e ducks) e Garlic) C-11 7; 8; 10 50m2 lettuce, 50m2 lettuce, 40m2 cherry 50m2 coriander, tomato, 15m2 45m2 faba bean, parsley. (Sale 15 m2 green bean and self- (sin hilo), 15 m2 consumption) pea (sin hilo), 4m2 salad rocket. Raspberry, topinambour (sunroot). (Sale and self- consumption) C-12 5a; 8 5a 80m2 10 Lettuce, zucchini, hens --> eggs coriander, (Self- cabbage, broccoli, consumption green beans, and sale) brussels sprout, potato, chard, parsley, faba beans, peas. Strawberries

108 Farmer - 13.- 14.- Organic Production this season member Activities 1 2 Dairy 3a Meat farm 4 Ox 5 Poultry 6 Crops 7 8 Vegetable 9 Fruit summar Pasture farm (a (a beef; team (a hens, b (a Wheat; b Greenhouses garden trees y cows; b sheep) chickens; Maize; b goats) c turkey; c Oat; d goose; d Potato; e ducks) e Garlic) C-13 1; 2a; 3a; 160 ha 2a 10 dairy 3a 287 6a 1,25 ha Summer: 2ha carrot, beet, 3b; 6a; cows calves+heifers (flour bread in tomato squash, pea, faba 6b; 6c; 7; (restaurant) and restaurant Winter: bean, lettuce, 8; 10; 13 replacement (maybe to lettuce cabbage, native heifers; sale) (restaurant) potato, garlic, 3b 500 sheep 6c 1,5 ha (to shallot, onion. (restaurant) sheep) Raspberries, 6d 1ha blueberries (restaurant (restaurant and and sale) sale) C-14 1; 9; 10 Cherry tree, plum tree, peach tree, quince tree C-15 8; 10 Lettuce, chard, Apple carrot, pea, faba trees bean, potato corn, green bean, bean pallar, parsley, coriander, cabbage. (self- consumption)

109 Farmer - 13.- 14.- Organic Production this season member Activities 1 2 Dairy 3a Meat farm 4 Ox 5 Poultry 6 Crops 7 8 Vegetable 9 Fruit summar Pasture farm (a (a beef; team (a hens, b (a Wheat; b Greenhouses garden trees y cows; b sheep) chickens; Maize; b goats) c turkey; c Oat; d goose; d Potato; e ducks) e Garlic) C-16 1; 3a; 8 55 ha 3a 3 bulls, 87 6d 0,5ha 0,2 ha total 50 cows potato native m2 pea (2 (mothers), 42 (4 varieties) varieties), 75m2 calves and 37 green beans and heifers. (Only bean (granado) (5 calves sale) varieties), 10m2 faba bean (2 varieties), 75m2 cabbage (self- consumption and seed exchange) C-17 1; 3b; 5a; 3 ha 3b 1 ram and 5a and 5b With see note see note 5b; 7;8; 8 sheep(meat (eggs and medicinal 9; 10; 11; and wood meat self- plants 12; 13 self- consumption) consumption) C-18 1; 9; 13 3 ha 0,5 ha Apple orchard

110 Farmer - 13.- 14.- Organic Production this season member Activities 1 2 Dairy 3a Meat farm 4 Ox 5 Poultry 6 Crops 7 8 Vegetable 9 Fruit summar Pasture farm (a (a beef; team (a hens, b (a Wheat; b Greenhouses garden trees y cows; b sheep) chickens; Maize; b goats) c turkey; c Oat; d goose; d Potato; e ducks) e Garlic) C-19 1; 3b; 5a; 10 ha 3b 1 ram and 5a and 5b 0,5 ha squash, 5b, 5c; 8; 10 sheep (eggs and potato, purple 10; 13 (meat and meat self- faba bean, pea (2 wood self- consumption), varieties), bean consumption 5c self- (pallar), zucchini, and sale) consumption maize, garlic, topinambour (sunroot). Blackberries, bulb flowers. (mainly self-consumption and seed sale) C-20 1; 2a; 7; 28 ha 2a 28 dairy 6e 0,5ha (sale Coriander, Bean, onion, 8; 13 cows (milk to lettuce, chard, strawberry, sale to supermarket) tomato, carrot, cabbage, SOPROLE) rocket , faba bean, etc squash, etc (self- (self- consumption) consumption)

111 Part 4

Farmer - 13.- 14.- Organic Production this season 19.- Have you Notes member been always organic farmer 10 Fruit 11 Medicinal 12 Honey 13 Native 0 Other shrub plants production forest 1 Some in Horse Si greenhouses and vegetable garden 2 Raspberries Some in No They have a lot of old agricultural machinery. greenhouses and vegetable garden 3 Some in No greenhouses and vegetable garden 4 Strawberry Some in Eucaliptus No The manure used is from conventional animals. It (greenhouse). greenhouses is composted before its used in organic Wild and vegetable agriculture areas. Gooseberry garden (jam, self- consumption and sale) 5 Gooseberry Some in No In general species in greenhouses are shared (vegetable greenhouses among 6 greenhouses. The manure used is from garden); and vegetable conventional animals. It is composted before its strawberry garden used in organic agriculture areas. She is willing to and test potato without fertilizers goldenberry (greenhouse) (Self- consumption)

112 6 Strawberry Some in No The manure used is from conventional animals. It (greenhouse). greenhouses is composted before its used in organic and vegetable agriculture areas. garden 7 Strawberry in Some in Around No The manure used is from conventional animals. It vegetable vegetable the farm is composted before its used in organic garden garden agriculture areas. 8 Raspberry 15 varieties in No Animals are not organic due to they use medicines and vegetable not allowed by the regulation. Grassland probably strawberry garden is conventional because they use chemicals (self- fertilizers. Agricultural activities are only for self- consumption) consumption. The manure used is from conventional animals. It is composted before its used in organic agriculture areas. This is a kind of urban garden C-9 strawberry, Some in No Sheeps are for self-consumption. The manure gooseberry, greenhouses used is from conventional animals. It is goldenberry composted before its used in organic agriculture in areas. greenhouse 10 200 m2 per Differet No Animals are not organic due to they buy each: Common natives conventional fodder. She buy herbs in the north Sage and St species to complete her medicinal herbs stock. John's wort. 50m2 per each: Thyme and wormwood and others. Eucalyptus 11 Raspberries Some in No Hens are not organic because they buy in vegetable greenhouses conventional feed. It is a urban garden. Horse garden manure from a neighbor horse farm (probably conventional farm), this is composted before its used in organic agriculture areas. 12 Strawberry Si PRODESAL is a program which support to rural (vegetable families to reinforce their agricultural and forestry garden) activities. SOME NFORMATION IS MISSING!

113 13 Raspberries Some in Wind Some Si The vegetables, potatoes and meat cooked in the and vegetable break goats, restaurant are produced by the farm (and blueberries in garden donkey, vegetable garden). vegetable llama, garden alpaca and wild boar (this is to restaurant) 14 30m2 Si Animals are not organic due to they buy raspberries, conventional fodder. gooseberries, zarzaparrilla, elm leaf blackberry, 15 Strawberries Calendula Si The manure used is from conventional animals. It in vegetable is composted before its used in organic garden agriculture areas. 16 Forest 1 Colt 1 Si and Mare pond! 17 see note see note At least 3 mare Si Medicinal plants are the raw material to elaborate 50% of and 2 filly different medicinal preparations. She has a lot of the area plants varieties. In attached file will be the detail. 18 At least Si 75% of the area

C-19 2ha Mint in Different wild boar No Blueberries. vegetable natives not Blackberries, garden species organic gooseberry, (antibiotics raspberries. not allowed) wheat to animals?

114 C-20 Some in Different Si She is a native potato breeder. She is an studied vegetable natives example of organic agriculture in Chiloé garden species http://www.bioculturaldiversityandterritory.org/d ocumenti/12_300000176_sistematizacin_coipom _red.pdf

115 Appendix III – FarmDesign Data

General Data Legumes N-fixation: Urzúa (2005) and SAG (2013) Effective organic matter: AGV (1989) Dry matter, N, P, K and ash content: Feed: Bravo (2006) and feedipedia.org (INRA - CIRAD - FAO, 2013) Food and animal: FAO (2014b); Schmidt-Hebbel, Pennacchiotti, Masson, & Mella (1992) and USDA (n.d.)

Pasture and Crops data Pasture: The yield of pasture was based on the range for natural pastures without fertilizations explained by INIA - Remehue (n.d.) between 3000 and 5000 kgDM/ha/year and by Montesinos (2011) in 7000 kgDM/ha. Pasture production or yield of pasture distribution was based on Goic & Matzner, 1977:

Season % of production Spring 51% Summer 28% Fall 16% Winter 5% Crops Species Cultivation costs Yield Dry matter, N, P, K, ash (kg content seed/ha*$CLP/kg)) Potato Farmer Harvest index based on Tuber and Residue: INRA - Sierra, Santos, & Kalazich CIRAD - FAO, (2013) (2002) Elephant Farmer Monje (2003); Schmidt-Hebbel garlic et al. (1992) Snow pea Farmer and FIA (2008) FIA (2008). Pod: USDA (n.d.) Harvest index based on Residue: INRA - CIRAD - FAO, Sierra et al. (2002) (2013) Faba bean FIA (2003) FIA (2003); Manterola et al. Zaniewicz-Bajkowska, Rosa, (1999) Kosterna, & Franczuk (2013) and feedipedia.org (INRA - CIRAD - FAO, 2013) Lupine FIA (2003 & 2007) FIA (2007). feedipedia.org (INRA - CIRAD - Harvest index based on FAO, 2013)

116 Species Cultivation costs Yield Dry matter, N, P, K, ash (kg content seed/ha*$CLP/kg)) Barriga (1974) Wood Farmer Gómez-Lobo (2005) Estándar Certificación Leña | Sistema Nacional de Certificación de Leña (n.d.) Wheat Farmer Farmer. Harvest index Grain and straw: Bravo (2006) based on Barriga (1974) and feedipedia.org (INRA - CIRAD - FAO, 2013)

Animals data Based on Dutch system: Saturation, Structure, VEM and DVE values from CVB (2008) Poultry data: Information from farmer; Prenzlau (2000) (goose) and National Research Council (1994) (turkey and chickens). Pig data: Information from farmer and National Research Council, (2012) Sheep data: Information from farmer; FIA & UACH (2007); Groot & Oomen (2012) and Caro, Olivares & Araya (1999) Cow data: Information from farmer and Groot & Oomen (2012) Goat data: Information from farmer; INIA - Quilamapu (2001) and Groot & Oomen (2012)

Fertilizers and soil conditioners data Limestone: based on MAGNECAL 15 (INACESA, n.d.) Rock phosphate: based on CERRIFOS (Minera Formas, n.d.) Supermagro: CTSyC (2007) Red Guano: BambergChile (n.d.) Firewood ash: Solla-Gullón, Rodríguez-Soalleiro, & Merino (2001) Sulpomag: Mosaic (2014) Triple superphosphate: Anagra (n.d.) Potassium saltpeter: SQMC (n.d.)

117