Preindustrial agriculture versus organic agriculture

J

PT

Ga

b

a

ARRA

KLEOL

I

outbiuua(M

soepicas

(

0d

ARTICLE IN PRESSG ModelLUP-694; No. of Pages 9

Land Use Policy xxx (2008) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate / landusepol

reindustrial agriculture versus organic agriculturehe land cost of sustainability

.I. Guzmán Casadoa,∗, M. González de Molinab,1

Centro de Investigación y Formación de Agricultura Ecológica y Desarrollo Rural de Granada, Apdo. de correos: 113. 18.320, Santa Fe (Granada-Espana), SpainUniversidad Pablo Olavide, Sevilla, Spain

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 20 September 2007eceived in revised form 9 July 2008ccepted 10 July 2008

a b s t r a c t

The study of traditional agrarian systems can provide useful knowledge for improving the sustainabilityof present-day agriculture. Nonetheless, with the loss of traditional agro-ecosystems and the rationalethat guides them, as has happened in Europe, an historical research approach can have a decisive role

eywords:and usenvironmental historyrganic agriculture

to play in recapturing this knowledge. In this article we study the evolution of a typical Mediterraneanagro-ecosystem during the last 250 years, supporting the claim that high diversity and the internalizationof energy flows and nutrient cycles found in traditional agriculture, are not only characteristics of thegreatest sustainability of such systems, but are based in the need for additional land in production. Thisclaim requires the dedication of land to diverse and complementary uses that leave a footprint on the

lturel degr

sta

wfoaEtrsotrvav

and cost landscape. Organic agricuorder to improve its actua

ntroduction

Organic agriculture (OA) aspires to return to more closed cyclesf energy and materials, maximise re-use, employ rotation systems,se nutrients of organic origin and renewable energy sources, etc. Inhis sense it should be similar in character to traditional agricultureased on solar energy. For this reason, the study of the function-

ng and management of past agro-ecosystems can provide us withseful knowledge for improving the sustainability of OA, partic-larly in cases where renewable energy sources and fertilizers ofnimal origin were used. The past can help us to plan for the futureGerbens-Leenes and Nonhebel, 2002; Antrop, 2005; González de

olina and Guzmán Casado, 2006).As we shall see below, the study of agricultural systems based on

olar energy demonstrates that the more biodiverse and dependentn flows of renewable energy and recyclable materials an agro-cosystem is, the most land it occupies. As Conforti and Giampietrooint out (1997, p. 241), a drop in the external energy consumed

Please cite this article in press as: Guzmán Casado, G.I., González de MoliPolicy (2008), doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.07.004

n the production of foodstuffs brings with it certain biophysicalosts. To this extent, OA has to “pay a price” which conventionalgriculture does not, since the territorial demands involved in theearch for sustainability are difficult to avoid. In fact, this land cost

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 958 513195; fax: +34 958 513196.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (G.I. Guzmán Casado), [email protected]

M. González de Molina).1 Tel.: +34 95 4349099.

omrfc

twsf

264-8377/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.oi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.07.004

needs to consider this “land cost”, meanwhile trying to minimize it inee of sustainability.

© 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

erves as a good indicator of the degree of sustainability attainedhrough organic production. This conclusion is reached followingn analysis of traditional agriculture based on solar energy.

This analysis is based on the methodology of social metabolism,hich was recently put forward as a good way to understand dif-

erent forms of production and social relationships through flowsf energy and materials (Fischer-Kowalski, 1998; Fischer-Kowalskind Hüttler, 1999; González de Molina and Guzmán Casado, 2006).very form of organization of social metabolism which has existedhroughout the ages has left its own distinctive footprint on the ter-itory, shaping specific landscapes. In other words, every metabolicolution has an associated land cost according to the origin and qualityf the energy and material flows which allow it to function. However,his cost may materialize either fully or only partially in the ter-itory. For this reason it is important to distinguish between theisible footprint which any agricultural metabolism makes in thegro-ecosystem and the hidden footprint, which refers to the (oftenery distant) part of the territory from which natural resourcesr environmental functions essential to the functioning of theetabolism under study originate. Whilst the visible footprint cor-

esponds to what is conventionally termed landscape, the hiddenootprint coincides more closely with the ecological footprint con-ept put forward by Wackernegel and Rees (2001).

na, M., Preindustrial agriculture versus organic agriculture. Land Use

Consequently, this study will show the different landscape solu-ions for the two main forms of organization of social metabolismhich have existed since the mid 18th century, dependent on the

oil or subsoil, according to whether they use solar energy or fossiluels as their main source of supply. The evolution of a specific agro-

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.07.004

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02648377

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


ARTICLE IN PRESSG ModelJLUP-694; No. of Pages 9

2 G.I. Guzmán Casado, M. González de Molina / Land Use Policy xxx (2008) xxx–xxx

e in S

ephatfin(w

ccTwodtiHgi

da

A

tcmaoi

ta

atfltgaMfpfwt

aaetaetboaf

w

lzlt

Fig. 1. Evolution of land us

cosystem in the south of Spain has been studied for four differentoints in time from whose comparison the main lines of changeave been extracted. The dates have been chosen to show the situ-tion previous to the changes brought about by Liberalism (1752),he consequences of these changes (1856) and the effects of then-de-siècle crisis (1904), which historians identify as the begin-ings of the “modernization” of Andalusian and Spanish agriculturePujol et al., 2001). The last date (1997), is the most recent date forhich homogenous data are available.

The study area is located in the municipality of Santa Fe, in theentre of the region of La Vega de Granada, some 12 km west of theity of Granada (Fig. 1) in the southeast of the Iberian Peninsula.his area has great agricultural potential, being an agro-ecosystemith a high response to green revolution technologies. Some 85.59%

f the municipality’s land has a slope of less than 3% (AMA, 1991),eep soils with potentially high production. These mainly fall intohe category of Xerofluvents, except for those in the extreme southn sloped areas which belong to the Great Group Xerochrepts.owever, this potential is only fulfilled when access to water isuaranteed through irrigation; this is key given that annual rainfalls only around 390 mm.

Months with excess of water are non-existent, causing a strongeficit during the summer and early autumn (González de Molinand Guzmán Casado, 2006).

n agro-ecosystem in land uses equilibrium

In the mid-18th century the agro-ecosystem was largely gearedowards agricultural production. A certain level of specializationould already be seen and some products were destined for outsidearkets. Alongside wheat for human consumption and barley for

nimal feed, flax and (to a lesser extent) hemp for the fabrication


f sails and rigging for the Royal Navy constituted the major part ofrrigated cultivation.

The main source of energy was solar, which meant that throughhe management of biological converters, all the fuel, foodstuffsnd fibres, along with the feed needed to maintain draft animals

aoitp

anta Fe from 1752 to 1997.

nd revenue livestock, had to be obtained from the land. In general,he best land was given over to the production of quality foodstuffsor humans, whilst livestock or forestry production took place oness suitable land. In this way, there was less competition betweenhe different land uses and virtually all the land could be put toood use. However, the edaphic and climatic conditions of the areand more generally in the Southern Iberian Peninsula (González deolina, 2002), did not make multiple uses of the same plot of land

easible, obliging people instead to dedicate extensive areas to theroduction of timber and firewood, pasture for livestock or humanoodstuffs. Nevertheless, the inhabitants of Santa Fe had adaptedell to these limitations, striving to make the best possible use of

he agro-ecosystem.Their organization tended toward a balance between the diverse

grarian uses of the land: each portion of territory was devoted toparticular use and could satisfy the needs generated by the oth-

rs. The inhabitants of Santa Fe had only appropriated the part ofhe territory which they were able to cultivate with their avail-ble workforce and level of technology. Poplar and (to a far lesserxtent) ash were planted along the river crossing through the terri-ory, mainly in order to defend the arable land from frequent floods,ut also to provide timber and firewood. Offcuts from the pruningf olive trees and firewood from some mulberry and walnut treeslso added to these resources, but this was not enough to meet theuel requirements of the inhabitants.

Firewood and timber had to be imported from neighbouringooded areas.

Fodder and forage requirements for cattle were provided byand which remained unfarmed: thickets and meadows in the floodone, whose production was short-lived, but above all with theand situated in the highest part of the municipality dominated byhyme (Thymus sp.) and esparto grasses (Stipa tenacissima), known


s “dehesa boyal” (lit. ox meadow) (366 ha, see Fig. 1). The scarcityf pasture produced on open Mediterranean hillside also forcednhabitants to devote a substantial part of cropland to the produc-ion of grains to complement livestock feed. This meant that cerealroduction for revenue livestock was competing with cereal pro-



G.I. Guzmán Casado, M. González de Molina / Land Use Policy xxx (2008) xxx–xxx 3

Table 1Physical data for agricultural production in Santa Fe, 1754–1997

Concept 1754 1856 1904 1997

Net agricultural production (t) 1,737 3,991 26,524 32,444Net livestock production (t) 346 127 164 2,881

Human foodstuffs (t) 1,253 2,896 10,654 17,505Industrial crops (t) 68 249 (2) 14,106 1,200Animal feed (t) (1) 385 678 1,291 4,828Forestry production (t) (3) 30 168 472 8,910

Heads of cattle 2,609 1,683 3,050 4,220Traction requirements (heads) 77 107 113 (4) 4,156Draft livestock (heads) 122 193 225 (5) 8,780Feed demand (t) (1) 388 703 770 –

Production of useful manure (t) (6) 2,593 2,980 3,552 20,935Net demand (t of manure) (7) 1,667 9,371 22,751 79,991Deficit – 6,391 19,199 (8) 59,056

Labour demand (UALs – unit of agricultural labour) 548 892 1,286 453Active agrarian population (UALs) 550 1,216 1,675 600

Source: Authors’ own data.

(1) Only grain for draft livestock has been taken into consideration; the total cereal by-products produced by the agro-ecosystem is enough to satisfy the requirements ofthis type of livestock.

(2) Includes sugar beet (crop destined for sugar factories).(3) Refers to the cultivation of poplars for timber.(4) Represents the equivalent horsepower required for tasks involving tractors, cultivators or combine harvesters.(5) Power installed in equivalent horsepower.(6) Excluding, except for 1997, manure from sheep and goats due to difficulties in collecting this from animals not kept in stables.(7) The calculation for demand was performed via a balance of nutrients (crop extractions – inputs) to standardize the calculations, and to avoid the variations and

( l to th

dbb

stpswsgbf

patcprttsfwnttffocog

olctpp

T

taesig

p

tir

tab

vp

approximations of historical sources.8) Manure is no longer used for fertilization, meaning that the real deficit is equa

hidden footprint.

uction for human consumption. Nevertheless, an equilibrium hadeen reached based on the use of draft livestock which satisfiedoth traction and fertilization needs.

This relative equilibrium in the mid-18th century can be demon-trated with a simple appraisal of the agro-ecosystem’s capacityo replace nutrients exported from each harvest. Annual manureroduction from livestock in 1752 (see Table 1) was sufficient toatisfy the demands of the lands under constant irrigation (theseere regularly fertilized). On lands which were watered on an occa-

ional basis (referred to henceforth as semi-irrigated), olives andrapevines were grown in association, and above all, wheat andarley, on a one year sown/one year fallow regime (these were notertilized).

It is worth considering, however, whether it would have beenossible to increase the numbers of livestock, especially the draftnimals, which had a greater capacity for producing organic fer-ilizer. In fact, the number of heads per hectare was very low inomparison with the north of the Peninsula and with other Euro-ean countries (Wrigley, 1993, pp. 55–56). The type of plants grownequired a lot of manual labour and relatively little in terms of trac-ion, but even so, the available livestock barely covered needs inhe months of September, October and November during harvest,oil preparation and sowing. Livestock could have been brought inrom elsewhere, but there was a golden rule of transport in this erahere communications networks were severely restricted: it wasot worth investing more energy in the haulage of a product thanhe energetic content of the product itself (Sieferle, 2001). Underhese circumstances, an increase in draft livestock would haveorced inhabitants to devote more land to the production of animal


eeds and forage, reducing the area dedicated to the productionf human foodstuffs and raw materials. Table 1 shows the pre-arious equilibrium reached between the nutritional requirementsf the livestock and the production of hay and most importantly,rains, the mainstay of their diet. The maintenance of draft livestock

gkfgw

e demand; however, this quantity will be taken into consideration to calculate the

bliged farmers to devote most of their non-irrigated lands to bar-ey, and even to sow it on irrigated land and include forage plants orereals-fodder such as broad beans, millet and maize in their rota-ions. The area dedicated to producing wheat for bread-making orlants for use in industry, all of which were more marketable androfitable, was restricted.

he land cost of an unbalanced agro-ecosystem

In the aftermath of the epidemic crises and the price crashes ofhe first third of the 19th century, a new expansion in agriculturalctivity began which would permanently upset the establishedquilibrium. The institutional reforms of Liberalism stimulated aignificant expansion of arable land. Population and market growthn the city of Granada meant growing demand for wheat, winerapes, oil and to a lesser degree pulses and vegetables.

The agro-ecosystem specialized even more intensively in theroduction of cereals.

In 1856, arable land had increased by 10% (2982 ha, 77.3% ofhe total surface area) at the expense of non-arable land, whichncluded some sections recovered from the river Genil and someesulting from the drying out of part of the marshlands.

A large part of the dehesa was also ploughed. The new cul-ure was centred on the production of barley on non-irrigated landnd wheat on irrigated land. Poplar groves for timber supplies hadegun to occupy agricultural land.

However, the most important transformation was the con-ersion of semi-irrigated land into constantly irrigated land. Theroduction of vegetables, although marginal, saw a significant


rowth linked to local levels of consumption and the Granada mar-et. The focus shifted from more traditional legumes to a preferenceor maize, chickpeas and melons on sown fallow lands. Olives andrapevines, which had previously been cultivated in association,ere now grown as monocultures in separate areas, an unmis-


IN PRESSG ModelJ

4 olina / Land Use Policy xxx (2008) xxx–xxx

tciBplwiid

afcdt

ci

aApayfdlft

sgfsofiwcBd

tip

aftdiotbenpmo

t(

Table 2Land requirements for agricultural production in Santa Fe, 1754–1997

Surface area devoted to 1754 1856 1904 1997

Human foodstuffs (ha) 764 1391 1518 2287Industrial crops (ha) 223 384 353 300Animal feed (ha) 2076 1354 1258 332Forestry uses (ha) 3 19 53 (1) 650

Useful agricultural area (UAA) (ha) (2) 3066 3148 3182 3569

Additional area to meet fertilizationrequirements (ha) (3)

0 1230 3316 11367

Total area required (ha) 3066 4378 6498 14936Total area required/UAA 1 1.4 2.0 4.2

Total human labour demand (UALs) 548 892 1286 453Active agrarian population 550 1216 1675 600

Source: Authors’ own data.

(1) Includes 210 ha of pine forest resulting from the reforestation of the formerdehesa.

(2) The total surface area of the municipality is 3860 ha.(3) We calculated the number of mules required to cover the fertilization deficit of

the agro-ecosystem for each point in time. We then calculated the feed demandfor these mules, subsequently subtracting the leftover grains-fodder, when anyexisted, from the Santa Fe harvest, after having fed its real herd each year. Theresult of this subtraction was then translated into hectares. For this calculation,yields of barley and broad beans were taken into consideration on a one yearsown/one year fallow regime; the annual yield was then divided by two to takethe fallow year into account. Maize was not taken into consideration as this was

apE

T

sbrtaccit

dbTteldti

ARTICLELUP-694; No. of Pages 9

G.I. Guzmán Casado, M. González de M

akable sign of more intensive farming. This occurred in the 19thentury from the 1830s onwards. But the biggest crop growth seenn the central decades of the 19th century was that of the potato.etween 1851 and 1867 its production quadrupled, driven by theopulation increase in Granada and its surrounding towns and vil-

ages. Its price went up by 66%, a far greater rise than those seenith other crops, even wheat (40%) and barley (15%). As it was eas-

ly adapted to traditional crop rotations, it began to substitute thendustrial plants, flax and hemp, whose profitability had started toecline.

As could be foreseen, the demand for labour grew significantlynd the population grew along with it. In just 15 years it grewrom 3135 inhabitants in 1836, shortly after one of the frequentholera epidemics (1834), to 4710 in 1851. The population almostoubled in just over a hundred years from 1752 to 1856, mainly dueo immigration.

There was some increase in the physical volume of production,limbing to 129%, which was why there was no significant increasen work productivity.

A new rotation became widespread, based on alternating sixnnual crops: broad beans, hemp, wheat, wheat, flax and wheat.ccording to the historical sources available, manure requirementser hectare had increased with respect to 1752, to between 57,000nd 68,400 kg every six years (between 9500 and 11,400 kg/ha perear). Furthermore, the number of fertilized hectares increasedrom 288 to 1204. Total fertilizer requirements for intensive pro-uction are calculated at between 11,438 and 13,725 t per year.2 The

ivestock, however, had difficulty in meeting such a high demandor manure (see Table 1). The expansion of arable land had upsethe fragile equilibrium reached in the mid-18th century.

The increase in constantly irrigated land and the overall expan-ion of the arable area allowed farmers to mitigate the loss ofrazing land and moreover to increase production of grains and hayor livestock (especially maize, millet and broad beans). All in all, theize and composition of the herds underwent significant changes inrder to adapt to the new circumstances. More and better irrigatedarming land multiplied traction and transport requirements, forc-ng farmers to increase their draft herd by approximately 50%. Thisas done at the cost of revenue livestock, whose numbers fell to

oincide with the loss of grazing land in the dehesa and floodplains.ovine stock, most commonly used for drawing vehicles in the past,iminished in favour of horses.

Most of the grain from cereals and legumes, and most impor-antly hay, became the mainstay of the equine livestock’s diet. Thencrease in this type of livestock was therefore consistent with therocess of agriculturalization described.

Competition between the production of human foodstuffs andnimal feed continued, limiting the size of the draft herd andertilization capacity. Draft livestock was sufficient to meet trac-ion demands, but not fertilizer requirements, generating a higheficit in manure, which had to be brought in from surround-

ng villages. The progression of arable land and the destructionf the agrosilvopastoral equilibrium which had previously charac-erized agricultural production in the mid-18th century, revealedy an almost complete predominance of the cropland, can only bexplained by the importation of large quantities of nutrients from


earby agro-ecosystems, transferring to these the territorial foot-rint (see Tables 1 and 2), in this case hidden, of their agriculturaletabolism, whether via the maintenance of abundant grazing land

r via the preferential devotion of large expanses of land barley

2 Calculations for fertilizer requirements based on documentary evidence fromhis period are slightly higher than those calculated from the balance of nutrientsTable 3), but this in no way affects the conclusions reached in this study.

mpihtrbc

a second harvest and the area it required was already included in the sum of theother two areas (broad beans and barley). Lastly, we verified that this area alsosatisfied animal feed requirements.

nd hay production, as occurred, for example, in the neighbouringopulations of Colomera, Deifontes, Moclín or Iznalloz (Calderónspinosa, 2002).

he disequilibrium of an “advanced solar economy”

The fin-de-siècle crisis paved the way for the introduction ofugar beet during the 1880s. Despite its peaks and troughs, it woulde the predominant crop for the next 40 years. Within a newotation which included wheat and, in some cases, potatoes, its cul-ivation spread until it occupied no less than 86% of the irrigatedrea, giving rise to a heretofore unseen level of productive spe-ialization. Traditional crops for personal consumption went intoonsiderable and almost permanent decline. As a consequence, thenhabitants of Santa Fe increasingly had to import foodstuffs forhemselves and feed for their animals from other areas.

It would seem that production of feed for livestock had almostoubled compared to 1856. This increase, however, was due to theroad beans crop, which formed part of the sugar beet rotation.he drop in barley prices made its cultivation decline significantlyo practically half the previous levels. As is common knowl-dge, broad beans are no good as the main source of food forivestock, particularly in the case of horses, who are highly depen-ent on barley. In real terms, the capacity of the agro-ecosystemo feed the livestock diminished as the farming became morentensive.

The sugar beet crop represented an increase in nutrient require-ents. Three-year rotation (broad beans–sugar beet–wheat or

otato) shortened the previous rotation by a half and moreoverncreased the doses of manure used. The average annual dose would


ave been between 13 and 15,600 kg/ha per year. Four-year rota-ion meant an average dose of 12,750 kg/ha per year. To cover theseequirements solely with manure, supplies would need to be dou-led, rendering it impossible to take on the consequent increase inosts.



G.I. Guzmán Casado, M. González de Molina / Land Use Policy xxx (2008) xxx–xxx 5

Table 3Relevant data for the agricultural metabolism of Santa Fe, 1752–1997

Data 1752 1856 1904 1997

Population (no. of inhabitants) 2384 4866 7228 12387Farms (no.) 314 439 633 405a

Active agrarian population (no.) 550 1216 1675 600Population density (inhab/km2) 61.7 126.0 187.2 338.2Average size of farms (arable ha) 8.6 6.8 4.9 8.8Land available per inhabitant (ha) 1.28 0.64 0.53 0.29Arable land available per inhabitant (ha) 1.13 0.61 0.43 0.27

Productivity in pesetas in 1904Final agricultural production (FAP) 700018 817578 1667166 5771681FAP (active worker) 1276 917 1296 12749FAP (ha) 228 260 524 1617FAP (inhabitant) 294 168 231 466

Energy flowsDomestic extraction (GJ/inhab) 30.3 14.9 20.0 25.0Import (GJ/inhab) 0.9 1.2 1.2 10.2Imported hidden flows (GJ/inhab) 0.08 0.5 0.2 1.41Direct input (GJ/inhab) 31.3 16.1 21.2 35.2Export (GJ/inhab) 2.6 1.6 7.1 10.3Domestic consumption (GJ/inhab) 28.7 14.5 14.1 24.9Import on D I (%) 3.0 7.4 5.5 29.0Export on D I (%) 8.3 9.6 33.3 29.4

Domestic extraction (GJ/ha) 18.7 18.8 37.5 80.1Import (GJ/ha) 0.6 1.5 2.2 32.8Imported hidden flows (GJ/ha) 0.05 0.6 0.4 4.5Direct input (GJ/ha) 19.3 20.3 39.7 112.9Export (GJ/ha) 1.6 2.0 13.3 33.1D

S

wo1mdw

Fwpccofsabiht

hatrtefpoaep

At

iltisauluctwpfttste

tatca

omestic consumption (GJ/ha) 17.7

ource: Authors’ own data.a Agrarian Census 1999.

In fact this expense was already 24% of total costs; if the doseas doubled then the expense would also double, making it halff the total costs of cultivation and reducing profits from 21 to.7%. The balance between livestock and fertilizer requirements toaintain rotation, and between livestock and fodder production,

emonstrate the material impossibility of doubling costs in thisay.

All in all, specializing in sugar beet increased the nutrient deficit.rom 1750 to 1885, the price of wheat became 2.5 times higher,hilst the price of manure became five times higher and its trans-ort costs doubled. Under these circumstances, substitution withhemical fertilizers was becoming advisable not only from an agri-ultural perspective, but also from a financial one. In fact, the spreadf sugar beet was made possible by this non-organic input, allowingarmers to reduce “land costs” in the agro-ecosystem. From the out-et, its introduction was accompanied by a new intensification ofgricultural use of the land. The constantly irrigated area increasedy 10% at the cost of semi-irrigated land, which generated a signif-cant shortfall in terms of labour. In this way, intensive productionad now come to represent more than a third of the total municipalerritory.

Such a notable increase in production and yield would notave been possible without recourse to chemical fertilizers, whosective ingredients came from outside Granada and even outsidehe country (Algeria and the United States, according to the 1921eport of the Junta Consultiva Agronómica (lit. Agronomic Consul-ancy Board)). The deepening disequilibrium of the advanced solarconomy, still limited by the availability of land, made the searchor soil or nutrient substitutes ever more pressing. The spread of


lants for industry and wheat led to soil importation in the formf manure and barley in the first instance and later of nutrientsnd fossil fuels from relatively distant ecosystems. Santa Fe’s agro-cosystem was now unable to maintain this intensity of biomassroduction without the support of non-local input.

ftsmT

18.3 26.4 79.8

gricultural production partially decoupled from itserritory

The industrialization of Spanish agriculture began to take rootn the 1950s and even more so in the 1960s (Naredo, 1986). Arableand increased by 8.7% from 1904 to 1997. But the most significantransformation was the disappearance of lands classified as semi-rrigated and the increase of constantly irrigated land to 60%. Waterhortfalls in the summer were compensated by water drawn fromreservoir (Los Bermejales) and by wells drilled by private individ-als and irrigation communities. The expansion of non-irrigated

and, which had not stopped since the 18th century, aided by pop-lation growth and the demands of local livestock and the nationalereal market, came to a permanent halt, reducing its surface areao 63% of that of 1904. The part of this surface at lowest altitudeas reconverted into irrigated land and the rest, now freed of anyecuniary or nutritional obligations, was repopulated with pineorest. The mechanization of many agricultural tasks and an endo restrictions on the use of chemical fertilizers allowed farmerso devote the remaining part of dry land to alternative uses. Theelf-sufficiency which agriculture in Santa Fe had within its ownerritory and which was characteristic of agriculture based on solarnergy, had disintegrated once and for all.

Mechanization and the mass spread of fertilizers therefore madehe segregation of land uses possible and paved the way for thelmost complete predominance of cropland over the rest. The struc-ure of production radically changed direction, now focusing onommercial crops which could be sown on irrigated land. Cere-ls, tobacco, garlic and onions, among the other vegetables and


ruit trees, were crops which played a leading role in the indus-rialization of agriculture in Santa Fe. Crops for local consumptionuch as wine grapes disappeared, or completely changed their com-ercial focus, as is the case with olive groves over recent decades.

here was no longer a place for legumes either, which by 1997 had



6 G.I. Guzmán Casado, M. González de Molina / Land Use Policy xxx (2008) xxx–xxx

Table 4Relative proportion of each community within the landscape

Communities 1752 1856 1904 1997

Ha % Ha % Ha % Ha %

Constantly irrigated 288 7.6 1204 31.8 1333 35.2 2134 59.8Semi-irrigated 1281 34.0 534 14.1 464 12.3 0 00.0D 25P 19D 66W 40

ssnloded

il

cwiesa

pipmdiatcGficiaesi

B

crtpito

fcmo

tbstai

lat“sasgola

ogsiabpmtpietssddp

bpcbtotltss

ry farming land 1128 30.0 12oplar groves 3 0.1ehesa/pastures 366 9.7 1et pastureland and gallery woods 700 18.6 6

topped being grown in combination with cereals, an irrefutableign of the abandonment of traditional rotation techniques. Theumber of draft animals continued to dwindle and stabled revenue

ivestock began to consume compound feeds supplied in part fromutside the agro-ecosystem. The depletion of livestock, particularlyraft animals, favoured in turn the abandonment of manure and thexclusive use of chemical fertilizers, a decisive phenomenon in theynamics of the agro-ecosystem.

From a strictly ecological perspective, the complete commercial-zation of the production process represented the disintegration ofocal energy and nutrient cycles.

Reusing waste products and by-products (everything fromereal stubble to poplar firewood, including of course manure)as no longer common practice. Santa Fe’s agriculture became

ntegrated into a considerably wider nutrient cycle. The agro-cosystem’s self-sufficiency was now circumscribed only to waterupply and the territory itself, which contributed less and less togricultural activity.

But with time, the farmers of Santa Fe had to face up to therogressive loss of profitability as a consequence of the sustained

ncrease in intermediate inputs and the progressive fall in perceivedrices. Loss of income was a constant problem which has becomeore acute in recent decades, attenuated only by substantial subsi-

ies from the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy). This has lead to twomportant changes: the slow but steady increase in building landnd the devotion of a considerable portion of the best farming lando poplar plantations. The construction of housing and commer-ial premises on flat terrain surrounding the metropolitan area ofranada and land demands for industry and services have offered

ar more substantial profits in the short term than agricultural activ-ties. The loss of prestige in farming, and farmers growing old orhanging profession, have converted the sale of their land as build-ng plots into a type of “compensation” for the cessation of theirctivities. What is more, the pressure for building land has nowased off, forcing the price of farming land higher due to marketpeculation and greatly hindering the incorporation of new farmersnto the system.

iodiversity and territory

Seen in perspective, the evolution of the agro-ecosystem can beharacterized by a steady expansion of cropland, counteracted inecent times by urban growth and poplar cultivation. Furthermore,he tendency within farmed lands has been toward a structural sim-lification of the agro-ecosystem via the expansion of permanent

rrigation networks and the introduction of new technologies (pes-icides and more homogenous varieties), whose damaging effectsn biodiversity are well-known.


The driving forces behind this evolution are the commercialocus of production, which over the course of time has imposedhanges in crops and varieties according to the demands of thearket, and population growth. Indeed, the progressive extension

f arable land and the impact of its style of management have been

o

H

32.3 1239 32.8 785 22.00.5 53 1.4 440 12.34.4 93 2.5 210 5.9

16.9 600 15.9 0 00.0

he main factors influencing the severe depletion of wild flora. Arief study of Table 4 will clearly shows the advance of cultivatedpaces, whether for use of farming or forestry, to the extent thathere are hardly any areas left today with wild vegetation. Withoutdoubt, riparian vegetation has suffered the most, to a point where

t has now almost completely disappeared.In a recent study (Salazar Mendías, 1995) up to 191 species were

isted which should form part of the riparian communities of therea, including nitrophilous species originating from nearby cul-ivation. Their contributions to the agro-ecosystem are evident:their ecological value, acting as bio-geographical islands whichhelter scarce and rare plant species requiring a lot of water, as wells offering an environment and food to support numerous animalpecies also seeking shelter in these privileged zones within ourenerally dry surroundings”. It should also be added that the banksf the rivers Genil and Salado, the irrigation channels and marsh-ands, where this type of vegetation thrived, would have constitutedmagnificent shelter for natural enemies of agricultural pests.

The challenge of producing indexes to measure the degreef impact which all these changes have had on biodiversity,reatly affecting phytogenetic and zoogenetic resources, wild plantpecies and fauna, as well as their associated ecosystems, presentsmmense difficulties. Normally, the biodiversity indexes used botht a single community level and also between communities, areased on a quantification of the number of species present or on theroportional distribution of the importance value of each specieseasured as biomass, coverage, etc., which requires practical iden-

ification field work at an individual species level, which in thisarticular case is clearly impossible. However, given the current

mportance attributed to biodiversity in relation to the stability ofcosystems and, as a result, of agro-ecosystems, we have opted hereo explore diversity at community level, since a community repre-ents a group of interrelated species coexisting in a determinedpace and time. Therefore, both diversity at community level andiversity of species can be analyzed in terms of richness (number ofistinct communities present in a landscape) or of structure (pro-ortion of each community within a landscape) (Moreno, 2001).

Note that this requires an acceptance in our case that there haveeen no changes over the course of time within each communityresent in Santa Fe. However, we clearly know this not to be thease, as all the communities present have been depleted due tooth the use of agrichemicals in the case of cultivated spaces, andhe transformation of less artificial spaces into other less biodiversenes, such as the dehesa into pine forest. Hence the acceptance thathe communities present are similar mainly casts overly beneficialight on the year 1997. Even so, we have opted for this approxima-ion as it is the only possible method in these circumstances. Inhort, we have used Shannon–Wiener’s index to analyze the diver-ity of communities in the municipality of Santa Fe over the course


f time.This index is calculated using the following formula:

′ = −∑

pi ln pi


ARTICLE ING ModelJLUP-694; No. of Pages 9

G.I. Guzmán Casado, M. González de Molina

Table 5Shannon–Wiener’s index for Santa Fe for the different dates studied

1

1

wtat

hsstnwahbgt

bhhGeoaosblgc

D

r

et(owbgyefptbtc

ftrhpiiilbftewl(C

pametabolism (see Tables 2 and 3) via a reduction in the territo-

752 1856 1904 1997

.47 1.47 1.43 1.07

here pi is the relative proportion (area) of each community withinhe landscape (Moreno, 2001). The results of applying the formulare displayed in Table 5, whilst Table 4 shows the base data used inhe calculation.

Diversity at community level remained stable until the secondalf of the 20th century, when the elimination of two types of space-emi-irrigated and floodable areas with gallery woods-lead to aignificant reduction in the heterogeneity of the landscape. Thesewo communities are without doubt of great interest where rich-ess of species is concerned. The latter, a singular space in areasith a Mediterranean climate, shelters numerous species of flora

nd fauna (both stable and migratory). Semi-irrigated land may alsoave been a key space for many species, as it was a transition areaetween two clearly differentiated communities-permanently irri-ated land and non-irrigated land, farmed divided into thirds on ahree-year rotation.

Despite being unable to estimate loss of biodiversity causedy changes in land management in quantitative terms, we canowever do so in qualitative terms. The chart in Fig. 2 showsow intensively certain agricultural strategies, which according toliessman had a favourable impact on biodiversity (1997), weremployed at the four points of time analyzed, showing the progressf the simplification process in qualitative terms. Whilst in 1752ll the strategies were present, including mixed farming wherelives and wine grapes were grown in association, in 1997 thecarce sources of diversity were severely depleted, representedy the presence of 210 ha of pine forest, the subsistence of someivestock farming with traditional breeds (stabled Granada-Murciaoats) and the use of short rotations governed more by economiconsiderations than by agricultural ones.


iscussion

During the 18th and a large part of the 19th century, the ter-itorial dependency of the agricultural metabolism based on solar

rceg

Fig. 2. Agricultural management strategies employed at the different poin

PRESS/ Land Use Policy xxx (2008) xxx–xxx 7

nergy obliged farmers to maintain very strict land use equilibrium,o begin with on a local scale (1752) and later on a regional scale1856). A considerable amount of land had to remain “uncultivated”r be devoted to feed livestock. Over that time the system conservedide spatial heterogeneity and great biological diversity. However,

oth small-scale and large-scale farmers shifted their focus towardsrowing crops with the highest market value and increasing theield for each unit of surface area. This production focus requiredver-increasing amounts of space for farming, shorter rotations,ewer varieties and types of crop and, of course, more water. Theirroductive efforts upset the balance of energy and nutrients inhe agro-ecosystem, particularly with the introduction of sugareet, forcing them to import fertilizers and labour from outsidehe system. The growth in imported energy flow shows this directorrelation (see Table 3).

This process only intensified over the course of the 20th century,orming an agricultural metabolism of a typically industrial charac-er, highly dependent on external resources for its functioning andeproduction. The expansion of agriculture and of crops with theighest commercial value has lead to an increase in relationships ofhysical exchange, through the market and the importation of ever-

ncreasing quantities of materials and energy. To be precise, themportation of energy per hectare was now 55 times greater thann 1752 (see Table 3). All this has shaped an ever more homogenousandscape with less biological diversity. Basic functions performedy the land in the past (production of fuels, food for livestock, basicoodstuffs for the Santa Fe population, etc.), to which a large por-ion of it was dedicated, gradually disappeared to give way to anssentially and almost exclusively agricultural landscape, dottedith buildings and areas devoted to urban-industrial uses. Simi-

ar changes have been reported in such diverse places as the UKSchandl and Schultz, 2002), Austria (Krausmann et al., 2003) andatalonia (Cussó et al., 2006).

Population growth, specialization and the constant growth ofroductivity of agriculture in Santa Fe have consequently broughtbout an increase in the territory appropriated by the agricultural


ial footprint per capita of this metabolism; also, however, via theorrelative growth of the hidden footprint. Production (“domesticxtraction” per hectare in Table 3) in energy terms was 4.3 timesreater, whilst the real amount of land appropriated just to pro-

ts in time analyzed which contribute to strengthening biodiversity.


ING ModelJ

8 olina

vihe

dtplbesiatsioabdooa1Ooc

gatasFtouasatedisooiclc

hlfDS

etarc

amprirbpte

ttactfdaootomsamgiotoeficc

R

A

A

A

C



ide the nutrients also increased by a factor of 4.2 (Table 2). So thencrease in physical production of the agro-ecosystem in Santa Feas taken place at the same rate as land has been “imported” fromlsewhere, simplifying the landscape and its biodiversity.

It is against this historical backdrop that certified OA has beeneveloping in the past two decades in Spain, heavily lumbered withhe legacy created by industrialized agriculture – that of its “decou-ling” from its corresponding agro-ecosystems. In fact, there is a

ong way to go before cycles of materials (nutrients) and energy cane internalized on a local scale, a point which detracts from OA’sffective contribution to sustainable development, although this istill greater than with other methods of production. Widespreadmplementation of organic agriculture would require returning tometabolism based mainly (although not exclusively) on domes-

ic extractions and the consequent redefinition of land uses. Inhort, OA has to deal with far more extensive territorial demandsn order to become more sustainable.3 These land costs come notnly from the direct requirements derived from the closing of cyclesnd the employment of local resources (of energy and materials),4

ut also from efforts to maintain optimum levels of biodiversity,evoting part of the land, for example, to diverse alternative usesther than farming. Obviously these land demands represent costsn an economic, social and institutional level which may presentn obstacle for the growth of OA. It is not possible to return to752, nor even to 1904. The question, then, is the following: CanA reduce these land costs? To what extent and by what meth-ds can it do so without compromising sustainability? This is thehallenge.

From this perspective, an increase in the area devoted to OA musto hand in hand with an increase in composting and local reuse ofgricultural, forestry, agroindustrial and urban by-products. This ishe way to reduce the loss of nutrients from the agro-ecosystem,gainst a backdrop of growing competition from industry for theseame energy sources with the aim of reducing CO2 emissions.urthermore, research should be focused on improving the effec-iveness of fixing and transferring nitrogen into the crops, andn organic fertilization in general, incorporating strategies whichntil now have not been studied in depth, such as intercroppingnd the use of green manure. Intercropping was used exten-ively in the Vega de Granada following the Spanish Civil Wars an effective way of saving land space or, which amounts tohe same, improving efficiency when using fertilizers, which werextremely scarce (González & Guzmán, 2006). These practices haveemonstrated their effectiveness in substituting chemical fertil-

zers without affecting the intensity of farming or doing so onlylightly, or improving effectiveness in the use of nutrients throughrganic fertirrigation adapted to the needs of the plants through-ut their cycle. It is also important to recover agrosilvopastoral


ntegration in public areas, protected by the appropriate forms ofontrol, taking advantage of certain resources that are currentlyost. These and other measures will contribute to reducing the landost demanded by OA.

3 The land cost for this case study has been calculated in Table 2 and would meanaving to increase the land needed by a factor of 4.2 in order to overcome the main

imiting factor – the nutrient deficit. Other methods for calculating this cost can beound in Cowell and Parkinson (2003). On this subject, see the controversy betweenirk Zoebl and Mäder et al. on Organic Farming and Energy Efficiency published incience (2002).

4 Such costs can be attenuated considerably with recourse to importation ofnergy and materials; that is, assigning the land cost to another agro-ecosystem viahe importation of, for example, animal feeds or organic materials. This flow shouldlso be analyzed in terms of sustainability, not only with regard to the exchangeelationship but also with regard to whether or not the territory supporting suchosts also endangers sustainability.

C

C

C

C

F

F

G

G

G

PRESS/ Land Use Policy xxx (2008) xxx–xxx

Energy flows required to carry out mechanical labour shouldlso be given equal weight in our considerations. These tasks whichainly fell to draft animals in the past are now performed by

etrol-run motorized machinery. Having ruled out the option ofeinstating the role of draft livestock, the question is whether theres any alternative way in which farming can once again take on thisesponsibility. The answer is yes, through the production and use ofiofuels to run the motorized machinery. However, exploring thisossibility requires an adequate legislative framework, wherebyhe production, refinement and use of this type of fuel is madeconomically viable on a local scale.

Our case study has shown the effects of the expansion ofhe market and of private property on the environment andhe organization of the land-in other words, the extension of

new institutional framework. This is a well-documented pro-ess (Worster, 1979; Grigg, 1982; Cronon, 1983; Netting, 1993). Inhis sense, the potential of organic food markets to bring aboutundamental changes in the agri-food system is currently underiscussion. Can green consumption make farming more sustain-ble? In our case, can the market internalize the land costs ofrganic agriculture? As Allen and Kovach point out (2000), therganic farming model based on the substitution of inputs appearso be favoured by the market. This is due to the ease with whichne can externalize land costs with recourse to the organic inputsarket. However, a model based on an agro-ecological focus must

upport greater land costs. To avoid this hindering the growth ofn organic farming model, the support of the State and of socialovements is essential. Without them it is impossible to direct the

rowth in the organic market down the route towards sustainabil-ty, or to reverse the previously described process of simplificationf the landscape or agriculturalization since the mid 18th cen-ury. The reduction of the land costs of OA is the responsibilityf the market but also of governments. Agricultural policy shouldmploy landscape planning techniques and/or take the necessarynancial and fiscal measures in order to provide incentives and toompensate (i.e. remunerate environmental services) for such landosts.

eferences

gencia de Medio Ambiente (AMA), 1991. Informe general sobre el medio ambiente,1990. Agencia de Medio Ambiente, Sevilla.

llen, P., Kovach, M., 2000. The capitalist composition of organic: the potential ofmarkets in fulfilling the promise of organic agriculture. Agriculture and HumanValues 17, 221–232.

ntrop, M., 2005. Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landscapeand Urban Planning 70, 21–34.

alderón Espinosa, E., 2002. Manejos tradicionales del olivar en la Comarca de losMontes Orientales (Granada). Tesis de Maestría en Agroecología y DesarrolloRural Sostenible, Universidad Internacional de Andalucía.

onforti, P., Giampietro, M., 1997. Fossil energy use in agriculture: an internationalcomparison. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 62, 231–243.

owell, S.J., Parkinson, S., 2003. Localisation of UK food production: an analysis usingland area and energy as indicators. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 94(2), 221–236.

ronon, W., 1983. Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of NewEngland. Hill and Wang, New York.

ussó, J., Garrabou, R., Tello, E., 2006. Social metabolism in agrarian region of Catalo-nia (Spain) in 1860-70: flows, energy balance and land use. Ecological Economics58, 49–65.

ischer-Kowalski, M., Hüttler, W., 1999. Society’s metabolism: the intellectual historyof materials flow analysis, part II, 1970–1998. Journal of Industrial Ecology 2,107–129.

ischer-Kowalski, M., 1998. Society’s metabolism: the intellectual history of mate-rials flow analysis, part I, 1860–1970. Journal of Industrial Ecology 2, 61–77.


erbens-Leenes, P.W., Nonhebel, S., 2002. Consumption patterns and their effectson land required for food. Ecological Economics 42, 185–199.

liessman, S., 1997. Agroecology. Ecological Processes in Sustainable Agriculture.Ann Arbor press, Chelsea, MI.

onzález de Molina, M., 2002. Environmental constraints on agricultural growth in19th century Granada (Southern Spain). Ecological Economics 41, 257–270.


ING ModelJ

olina

G

G

G

J

K

M

N

N

P

S

S

S

W

Worster, D., 1979. The Dust Bowl: The Southern Plains in the 1930s. Oxford University



onzález de Molina, M., Guzmán Casado, G., 2006. Tras los pasos de la insustentabi-lidad. Agricultura y medio ambiente en perspectiva histórica (siglo XVIII-XX).Icaria, Barcelona.

onzález Lera, R., Guzmán Casado, G., 2006. Los policultivos en la agricultura tradi-cional de la vega de Granada. VII Congreso Sociedad Espanola de AgriculturaEcológica. Zaragoza, 18–23 de Septiembre de 2006. Documento N◦ 21. Ed: enCD.

rigg, D., 1982. The Dynamics of Agricultural Change. The Historical Experience.Hutchinson, London.

unta Consultiva Agronómica, 1921. Materias fertilizantes en la agricultura. Resumenhecho por la Junta Consultiva Agronómica de las Memorias de 1919 remitidas porlos ingenieros del Servicio Agronómico Provincial. Imprenta de M. G. Hernández,Madrid.

rausmann, F., Haberl, H., Schulz, N.B., Erbe, K.H., Darge, E., Gaube, V., 2003. Landuse and socioeconomic metabolism in Austria-Part I: driving forces of land-usechange: 1950–1995. Land Use Policy 20, 1–20.


oreno, C.E., 2001. Métodos para medir la biodiversidad. vol. 1. M&T-Manuales yTesis SEA Zaragoza.

aredo, J.M., 1986. La evolución de la agricultura en Espana. Editorial Universitaria(4a ed.), Granada.

etting, R.M., 1993. Smallholder, Householder; Farm Families and the Ecology ofIntensive, Sustainable Agriculture. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

W

Z

PRESS/ Land Use Policy xxx (2008) xxx–xxx 9

ujol, J., González de Molina, M., Fernández Prieto, L., Gallego, D., Garrabou, R., 2001.El pozo de todos los males. Sobre el atraso de la agricultura espanola. Crítica,Barcelona.

alazar Mendías, C., 1995. Estudio de la vegetación y flora de riberas en elárea metropolitana de Granada. In: Valle Tendero, F. (Ed.), Restauración de lavegetación natural dentro de la aglomeración urbana de Granada. Estudios com-plementarios. Universidad de Granada, Granada.

chandl, H., Schultz, N., 2002. Changes in the United Kingdom’s natural relationin term of society’s metabolism and land-use from 1850 to the present day.Ecological Economics 41, 203–221.

ieferle, P., 2001. Qué es la Historia Ecológica. In: González de Molina, M., MartínezAlier, J. (Eds.), Naturaleza Transformada. Estudios de Historia Ambiental enEspana. Icaria, Barcelona.

ackernegel, M., Rees, W., 2001. Nuestra huella ecológica. Reduciendo el impactohumano sobre la Tierra. LOM editores, Santiago de Chile.


Press, New York.rigley, E.A., 1993. Continuidad, cambio y azar. Carácter de la revolución industrial

en Inglaterra. Crítica, Barcelona.oebl, D., 2002. Organic farming and energy efficiency (letter), and response by

Mäder at al. Science 298 (5600), 1890–1891.


Preindustrial agriculture versus organic agriculture

Documents

Transcript of Preindustrial agriculture versus organic agriculture