Schematic description of the farm-landscapes

54 R. Rossi, D. Nota Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 2000 53–64 The tables of criteria and parameters used for the exercise see Tables 1–6 draw upon the third ver- sion of the list of parameters November 1995, re- sulting from meetings in Denmark and Spain in the summer of 1995. The Tables 3–6. economy, soci- ology [ g -type disciplines], psychology and physiog- nomycultural geography [ a -type disciplines] have been used without any change; whereas some varia- tions are proposed for the Tables 1 and 2 environment and ecology, the b -type disciplines. The assessment of the farm-landscape values, as reported on here, has been carried out by a ‘reduced’ team of two b scientists: a physical geographer and an agronomist. No measurements have been taken for any of the criteria and parameters, which have been considered as points of reference in a rapid evaluation by experts. In Tables 1 to 6 some notes refer to remarks regarding the parameters listed in Section 3, and values are assigned to parameters and criteria as explained in Section 4.

2. Schematic description of the farm-landscapes

For the evaluation see Tables 1 to 7, two organic farms, which were already described in a former pa- per presented in the second plenary meeting of the concerted action Rossi et al., 1997, have been con- sidered. The landscapes of the organic farms are com- pared to the landscapes of their non-organically man- aged surroundings; not to specific non-organic farms. Here only schematic descriptions of the La Selva farm and Poggio Antico farm are given. In Rossi et al., 1997 they are presented in more detail. 2.1. La Selva farm La Selva farm is an organic farm located in the land- scape system of the Coastal Plains, in the Province of Grosseto, in southern Tuscany Fig. 1. The land- scape subsystem where the farm is located is formed by recent and terraced alluvial deposits and old eo- lian dune deposits. The area is subject to moderate phenomena of soil and higher water-table salinization hazard partly due to over-exploitation of deep ground water for irrigating. La Selva farm is a 100 biological farm Natur- land with a high level of capital input, which has been active for 12 years. The total surface is 95 ha; the uti- lized agricultural surface is 90 ha. The land use of La Selva farm consists of a rota- tion of fodder crops 40–42 ha, cereals 20–21 ha, vegetables rotating summer and winter vegetables and medicinal plants: 20–21 ha; vineyards, orchards and olive groves totally 8 ha; woodland coppice, 3.5 ha; unproductive land buildings, farm yards, roads, hedgerows, ponds, etc., 1.5 ha. Hedgerows are sufficiently present, specially as windbreaks. Cows and sheep are specifically kept for the production of manure. In the farm there are artesian wells, with problems of salinization of ground water; 25–30 ha are irrigated each year in rotation with drip irrigation and low and high intensity sprinkler irrigation. For the fertilization there is the use of manure and green manure; there is also the complete re-utilization of by-products by means of pressing all plant remains for the production of manure. There is a high level of mechanization and minimum tillage is adopted without turning the clods. In the surroundings, differently from La Selva farm, there is mainly a monoculture of annual crops, virtu- ally without any woods and hedgerows and no live- stock is raised. Besides, in the area, mechanization and the use of chemical fertilization is high and soil conservation practices are almost absent. 2.2. Poggio Antico farm Poggio Antico farm is an organic farm located in the landscape system of the Pliocene Hills, in the Province of Florence, in central Tuscany Fig. 1. The landscape subsystem where the farm is located is mainly formed by hills where Pliocene sands cover Pliocene clays. The area is characterized by a certain degree of erosion hazard and by off-site phenomena of siltation of canals and water courses, and of floodings. The landscape of Poggio Antico farm and its sur- roundings are characterized by settlements on crests, dominance of tree crops on crests and higher parts of slopes, coppice woodland and shrubland mainly on slopes, lower part of slopes and valley-bottoms mainly covered with herbaceous and fodder crops, stream corridors in valley-bottoms. In the surrounding land- scapes wider valley-bottoms without stream-corridors are also present. R. Rossi, D. Nota Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 2000 53–64 55 Table 1 Tentative evaluation of farm-landscape performance of two organic farms as compared to their non-organically managed surroundings a Criteria and parameters b La Selva La Selva Poggio P. Antico 1. Environment farm surroundings Antico farm surroundings landscape c landscape c landscape c landscape c Clean environment: + − + −? Fertile soil conservations ++ − − ++ − −? Manure quality:cn ratio ++? − −? ++? − −? Soil erosion: 1 ++ − + − − Actual erosion traces on the farm rills and gullies, ++ − + − − soil deposition in slower parts of fields Silting up of rivers and canals on-site and off-site + − − + − − Floodings off-site ± − ± − Other types of soil degradation: 2 + − + ±? Loss of structure of topsoil increase of bulk density; crusts formation ++ −? + ±? Soil salinity soilwater conductivity ±? −? Clean water conservation 3 ±? −? +? ±? Ground water quality 4 ±? −? +? +? Ground water × mg nl ? ? ? ? Ground water salinity conductivity; s.a.r. Sodium adsorbtion ratio 5 −? −? Surface water quality 4 ± −? +? −? Nitrate levels in surface water 6 ? ? ? ? Phosphate levels in surface water 6 ? −? ? ? Surface water salinity conductivity; s.a.r. 5 ±? ±? Unpolluted air conservation ++ −? ++ ±? Pesticide output ++ −? ++ −? Ammonia output ++? −? ++? −? Smell ++ +? ++ ++? Presence of indicator lichens and plant species 7 ? ? ? ? Wild-fire prevention 8 Fire-resistant species ± ±? Adoption of fire-control practices ± ±? Foodfiber sufficiency on farm or local level and quality ++ ±? ++ +? Minimally per countries’ regional level of food production ++ ++? ++ ++? Absence of health-stressing additives ++ − − ++ ±? Taste 9 ++ + ++ ++? Carrying capacity ++ − − ++ − −? Balanced soil organic matter for the total crop rotation ++ − −? ++ − −? Ratio annual crops areapolyannual crops area 10 + − − ++ − −? Ratio nitrogen input areaarable area nitrogen input area = + − − + − − area where nitrogen-fixing crops are cultivated 10 Reproduction of vegetationland unit indicator species ? ? ? ? for overgrazing and undergrazing 11 Resource efficiency ++? − −? ++? –? Nutrient balance on farm level ++ − −? ++ − −? Nutrient balance on field level and indicator species ellenberg 12 ? ? ? ? Internal recycling of external inputs nutrient andor chemicals ++? − −? ++? − −? Idem for energy inputbiomass output +? − −? ++ − −? Efficient water management + −? + ±? Site adapted production system ++ −? ++ −? Plant species +? ? ++? +? Crops ++ ±? + ±? Husbandry ++ ++? Other plantings ++ ? ++ ? Tillage types of, timing ++ −? ++ − −? Manuring amounts, timing ++ −? ++ −? a Refers to main aspects of the Environment using the 1995 version of the Table. b The numbers in brackets refer to the text in Section 3. c Relative scoring: ++ very positive; + positive; ± neutralintermediate; − negative; − − very negative; subtotal per criterium, averaged over the parameters of that criterium. 56 R. Rossi, D. Nota Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 2000 53–64 Table 2 Tentative evaluation of farm-landscape performance of two organic farms as compared to their non-organically managed surroundings a Criteria and parameters b La Selva La Selva Poggio Antico P. Antico 2. Ecology farm surroundings farm surroundings landscape c landscape c landscape c landscape c Biodiversity + − −? ++ +? Speciesflorafauna, with minimal population ? ? ? ? Minimal standards for species diversity per biotope 13 ? ? ? ? Elected taxa land use-type dependent 14 ? ? ? ? Biotopes + − −? ++ +? Minimal standards for biotopes per farmtype ? ? ? ? in relation to potential-cultural-vegetation 13 Number 14 + − −? ++ +? Ecosystems, with minimal functioning 15 ? ? ? ? Ecological coherence: +? − −? ++? ±? On site, vertical coherence ? ? ? ? Site-related indicator species ? ? ? ? In the landscape, horizontal coherence + − −? ++ +? Connectivity within speciesbiotopes-webbing + − −? ++ +? In time, cyclical coherences +? − −? ++? +? Self reproduction of species and biotopes full lifecycles ±? − − +? ±? Season compliancy 16 ++ ±? ++ ++? Appropriate decomposition is organised not to destroy ? ? ? ? the system’s vital functions 17 Appropriate succession is organised: ecosystems are ? ? ? ? allowed to ‘grow’ accumulation of ecocapital 17 Eco-regulation ++ − −? ++ −? Ecological pest and disease control: degree of presence of ++ − −? ++ −? pests and diseases without chemical intervention and degree of activity of the farmer for the ecological control 18 Per crop and pest minimal two predators present in the system 19 ? ? ? ? Animal welfare husbandry 20 + ++ Shelter against the adverse weather sun, wind, rain 21 + ++ Room for natural behaviour 21 ++ ++ a Refers to main aspects of the Ecology using the 1995 version of the Table. b The numbers in brackets refer to the text in Section 3. c Relative scoring: ++ very positive; + positive; ± neutralintermediate; − negative;− − very negative; subtotal per criterium, averaged over the parameters of that criterium. Poggio Antico farm is a cooperative 100 biody- namic farm Demeter that has been active for about 12 years and in which the members of the cooperative farm live in community. The total surface is 102 ha; the utilized agricultural surface is 71 ha. The land use of Poggio Antico farm consists of: arable crops and fodder crops in rotation 45 ha in to- tal; olive groves 17 ha; vineyards 9 ha; woodland coppice, 26 ha; shrubland broom, 3 ha; unproduc- tive land buildings, farm yards, roads, hedgerows, ponds, etc., 2 ha. Livestock is represented by 40 cows dairy breed, 20 sheep for wool, 12 horses draught and riding horses. One well, located in the upper part of the farm land, is used for human and animal consumption; there are also two very small artificial ponds, in the lower part. For the fertilization, there is a complete re-utilization of by-products: composted manure; stubble preserv- ing, with the addition of liquid manure; green manure. There is a moderate level of mechanization, using animal traction too, and minimum tillage is adopted without turning the clods. In the surroundings, differently from Poggio An- tico farm, there are mainly vineyards and olive groves in the higher more sandy parts of the landscape and there is practically a monoculture of annual crops in the lower clayey parts of the slopes and in the R. Rossi, D. Nota Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 2000 53–64 57 Table 3 Tentative evaluation of farm-landscape performance of two organic farms as compared to their non-organically managed surroundings a Criteria and parameters b La Selva La Selva Poggio Antico P. Antico 3. Economy farm surroundings farm surroundings landscape c landscape c landscape c landscape c Subsistence on material level welfare ++? +? +? +? Family survival cash incomeyear—minimum income of region ++ +? + +? year—minimum income of regionyear—year’s full labour Return of invested capital ++? ? +? ? Own capital as from total farm investment ++? ? +? ? Of farm income paid to banks ? ? ? ? Number of people earning income per 100 ha of the farm surface 22 + ? +? ? Agricultural income per 100 ha 22 ++ +? + +? Targetobjective of the farm’s income who takes the profitcarries The losses ? ? ? ? Direct eu-type of incomes 23 +? ? +? ? Unpaid income food, fuel, housing, ... + ? + ? Overflow of urbanindustrial profits to rural-area-support preferred over vice versa ? ? ? ? Green economy 24 ? ? ? ? Social costs unpaid for by the farmer should be low ? ? ? ? Polluter payments farmer payed, can help to compensate for Social costs ? ? ? ? Social benefits unpaid for by the society; to be rewarded by direct payments ? ? ? ? under conditions preventing contra-productivitymisuse Economic base in agriculture andor forestry +? ? +? ? Financial contribution to regional econo‘my buying and selling commodities and services +? +? +? +? Costs invested to make profit =agric. income; aim for cost-efficiency, ? ? ? ? to be specified per region soil pricequality, infrastructure, etc. Income diversification on farm elevation, processing, adding value on the farm +? ? +? ? can increase profitability Number of people living on the farm and earning money in the region more +? ? +? ? people living in the rural area a Refers to main aspects of the Economy using the 1995 version of the Table. b The numbers in brackets refer to the text in Section 3. c Relative scoring: ++ very positive; + positive; ± neutralintermediate; − negative; − − very negative; subtotal per criterium, averaged over the parameters of that criterium. valley-bottoms. Croplands here are mixed to wood- land and shrubland as in Poggio Antico farm, but no livestock is raised. Furthermore, the mechanization is high and soil conservation practices are almost ab- sent. The use of chemical fertilization and pesticides is moderate on the hills and high in the valley-bottoms.

3. Comments about the proposed criteria and parameters