The possibility to support the farm economy with returns generated by other farm-based activities might positively influence the ability to maintain land management. The inquiry concerning diversification of the farm economy on land use farms (for the Observational Guide, in Swedish, see Appendix III) shows that farmers rarely engage in anything other than those activities that immediately deal with cropping and animal husbandry. Moreover, the crop choices tend to be ‘traditional’ in that only rarely do these farmers start growing new crops. The findings concerning non-farming activities and crop choices on land use farms are discussed in the first part of this chapter.
Furthermore, the farm projects are influenced by what I have come to call invasions into the farming spaces, which necessitate adjustments in the farmers’ land use activities. Arriving at one’s goal depends on oneself, but also on others, one’s own movement and others’ movements.
Farmers engaged in farming for their livelihood depend on the land as a resource, and attempt to organize the farm space to promote output and farm-income. Arable land as an asset in agriculture appears however a sensitive factor as the land lies open, rendering it vulnerable to influences the farmer cannot control. The changeability of the weather is the classic
‘invader’; in this regard, I have observed the rather similar effect of wild boars, and also an invasion of mental and economical kind, namely the frequent comparisons of their levels of yield and farm returns with other places, which I take as induced by the global open market situation.
These findings are discussed in the second part of this chapter.
New Activities in the Farm Timespace?
In all the land use farm interviews, I inquired about new projects on the farms, such as further processing of agricultural produce, tourism or visitor activities, renting out stabling space, and so forth (see Appendix III, Observational Guide, land use farms). The meagre result is stabling for horses on two farms: on one of these farms, stabling has been hired out continuously, with a recent expansion in this business; on the other farm, stabling was offered in the past. On a third farm, rooms have been let for visitors. In addition, canoeing activities are offered on one farm by the son, and by one farmer among the additional farmer contacts. The farmers do not engage in a variety of projects on their farms, but appear to ‘focus’ on those land use activities that serve the goal of feeding farm animals. The interview findings correspond with the ‘study circle’ results concerning application of strategies for enhancing the economic viability in farming.
The farmers, choosing among pre-given alternatives those applied on their farms, predominantly reported that they had ‘increased production in existing branches of business’ and
‘increased the efficiency of farm management’.
Several farmers have stopped keeping pigs and/or growing cereals thus applying the strategy
‘quitting part of production’, whereas the rest of strategies listed (‘increasing labour input’,
‘starting a new business’, or ‘collaborating with other landholders’) had been scarcely applied on their farms. One full-time farmer collaborates with a colleague from the neighbouring parish, and another full-time farmer receives some help
with practical matters from a retired neighbour.
Annual crop choices can from an activity perspective be seen reasonably steered by previous lines of management. Continuing on the same path – i.e. leaving the timespatial allocation scheme of the daily incoming time resource more or less unchanged – is less demanding than including new activities (occupation packages) and/or upholding a variety of engagements.
I also inquired about crop choices on the farms, asking about both traditional and newer, less usual crops, offering examples such as hemp, reed canary grass, maize, or even willow, which are often discussed as options for farm-based biomass production. However, implementing new crops seemed to be far from the top of the agenda on the farms studied. A retired full-time farmer now engaged part-time in farming reports that the crops on the farm were hay and straw for farm animals: he had not thought of introducing any new crops:
“No, I've never seen any point in that. Things like that aren't relevant here; nobody round here has those kinds of crops. I haven't even looked into any options” (farmer interview).
Some ‘innovative’ planting choices were encountered on the forestry side, with farmers who have planted larch or aspen. The crop choices on the land use farms appear based on the farmers’ explanations also during the ‘study circle’ to have much to do with what is perceived as suitable or traditional – namely animal husbandry and fodder crops (the statement ‘in this region, it is a tradition to have hay on the fields’ received broad support). Such ‘tradition’
last to the 1970’s, in the decades before that the crops grown in the area included not only cereals, but also potatoes and sugar beet on large scale. In the future, canary grass or hemp might win terrain. A ‘traditional’ crop choice obviously
has a social dimension, as crop choices made by neighbours were mentioned as a factor in reluctance to branch out into anything new.
In one of the interviews, I received an identity-related, detailed explanation as answer on my questions about ventures such as running a farm shop for farm produce, thus providing more insight into the ‘reluctance’ of farmers to engage in various farm-based activities other than farming:
“That kind of thing isn't anything for us, I don’t want [to run] a farm shop or [have] guest rooms, that isn’t why I'm a farmer. Being a farmer is a profession, (...) Calling it a profession is nothing negative, what I mean is you live with it all the time, it's a way of life” (farmer interview).
Farming and engagement in agriculture are career choices amongst other career choices that combine livelihood with a rural lifestyle. Indeed, as it would be peculiar to suggest to a teacher that they might earn extra income by offering their colleagues or the pupils’ parents gardening advice, or to suggest that a surgeon could open a flower stand at the hospital entrance – so why should farmers embark upon ‘all sorts’ of other things on their farms?! Uthardt (2009) concludes in his study of Finnish contemporary farms that
“[i]t is necessary for the farmers to be recognised by the community as independent professionals in their own field of knowledge” (Uthardt 2009:267) – apparently a kind of suggestion that the interviewed farmer was hinting at.
When trying to understand this ‘reluctance’ to engage in farm-based activities other than farming, the routinesation of land use activities shows itself linked with identity and tradition, i.e. previous paths of action are the ones which are known and socially comprehensible.
However time as a factor of importance in its own right makes a resource in farming, i.e. the carrying-out of land use activities; therefore I
suggest that when the farmer is already committed to running the current set of tasks connected to the farm project, there might not be enough time to engage in new tasks, demanding time amongst the existing activities.
This means that new farm-based projects simply might not find ‘space’. Availability of time connects to strength, since, if one has time (including time to take breaks and to partition the work in small packages) many things could be accomplished. Here, clarification is offered by a farmer on a clearance farm who explains the hesitation she and her husband felt before incorporating a new project in their daily business:
“Considering how much there is to do [already], before taking a decision on something new you have to assess whether you’ll have the time and strength to go through with everything that that decision would lead to” (farmer interview).
Before new initiatives become routine with a designated place in the temporal order of activities, they will slow down the farmer's doings (i.e. make him/her less efficient):
“It takes time for new routines to fall into place”
(farmer interview).
This farmer has been developing a new, farm-based source of income: guided tours over the fields focusing on the natural and cultural values present in the landscape. On this farm, pig husbandry was given up and only cattle retained in order to manage the open land, while off-farm income also comes in, and the guided tours part is expanding. Another farmer described the implementation of a new milking system by saying “the humans on the farm took years to get used to the automatic milking equipment, whereas the cows got used to the new situation after two weeks” (farmer interview).
In addition, farmers with external commitments correspondingly lack time and energy to embark
on any farm-based non-farming project in their spare time. A farmer with the current farm project supported by external full-time income cannot imagine catering for weekend tourists on the farm during his scarce leisure time, nor does he feel he has the time to establish and market any such new farm business, even though the preconditions at this particular farm would be optimal as ‘landscaping’ has already been carried out to create an enjoyable rural environment.
One of the farmers interviewed has however succeeded in making ‘use’ of the rural surroundings on her farm by offering guided tours focusing on the natural and cultural values present in the landscape. The idea originated from the farmer's pondering on the attractive surroundings:
“It’s very beautiful here, but that fact doesn't exactly help me make a living from farming… But I got to wondering how I could get something out of it?” (farmer interview).
On the crop side, the only new departure in terms of farm crops was one farmer's plan to try maize in the coming season, and this would be part of the already running dairy project. The time, but also the knowledge and implements, needed to run the trial will in the main be bought in: almost the entire sequence of activities associated with growing maize were to be taken care of by a contractor with experience of maize projects, who also owns the implements needed for working with the crop. The time budgets of both the farmer and his wife are already allocated to activities connected to other projects on the farm. In this project the resources time, expertise and technology appear to me inseparably intertwined, and prompt the farmer to hire a contractor. If maize works out well, the farmer hopes for an increase in milk production of approximately 10% within a couple of years.
However, the new crop's place on the farm is insecure: the successful inclusion of the maize in
the dairy project on long-term “depends on how I manage it – so it's a bit exciting (…). It's an expensive crop when you take everything into account: the machinery, seeds, and fertiliser, so obviously I'm hoping the project will be a success”
(farmer interview).
Wild Boars and the Open Market
Two examples of disruptive invasions in the farm spaces are wild boars on arable fields, operating as material entities without respect of ownership borders, and the presence of market comparisons in the minds of the farmers, i.e. the recurringly referred to comparison of the productivity of the own lands with the productivity of lands in distant places. Such invasions ‘deconstruct’ the meaning of ‘farm territory’ as a space controlled by the landholder agency.
In the region in which the land use farms are located, there is since recently a significant presence of wild boars, which cause major damage to the farms' arable fields. Three farmers told me that to their mind, the wild boars are the single biggest change in land use to have occurred over the past twenty years, and a fourth farmer, helping me to classify on the map a particular field on their lands, suggested calling it a wild boar pasture:
“And then we have a piece here, where we compete with wild boars. It’s absolutely hopeless, we don't apply for hay subsidy on that patch, because it's all too damaged – the wild boars churn it up something terrible with their snouts, it’s not worth sowing anything on it..." INTERVIEWER: "Hmm, how should we classify that one then?" FARMER:
"Write ‘pasture for wild boars’" (farmer interview).
Mention is made of increased damage on arable fields in five interviews. One farmer, talking about the damage caused by wild boar to hay
fields, told that he has stopped leaving oats in to ripen fully. He said:
“It's become a great concern; they can wreck a whole field in just a few hours when they come in herds of twenty to forty boars” (farmer interview).
Another farmer starts the crop rotation cycle
“where the boars have started” (farmer interview) and reports that fields need repair after the second season. Another farmer reports having brought in a contractor with a special implement to repair fields, maintaining that properly managed fields are the farmer’s responsibility (which reflects the fact that farm payments are an important source of income on this farm – a fact referred to repeatedly by the farmer, for whom it is therefore important to remain eligible for payments). Farmers also mention in this context that it is expensive to renew hayfields and that electric fencing is costly. Others report having fenced the fields immediately adjacent to the farmstead. Concerning the fencing, another farmer maintains that electric fencing does not keep boars off. Nightly hunting sessions or fencing are not realistic options for a full-time farmer, as “just the fencing by itself would be a full-time occupation, as the fields are so small and spread-out” (farmer interview). This farmer goes on to argue that “we small landholders don't have enough land to rent out for wild boar hunting to make a load of money from” (farmer interview).
The ‘pasture activities’ of wild boars modify the crop projects on the farms. Farmers adjust mentally and by taking extra measures, which has consequences both on their returns – as produce is destroyed or land taken out from subsidy – and on their time budgets.50
50 Concerning wild boars, a recent report shown on Swedish Television confirms, together with other sources, that wild boars are a large-scale problem in southern Sweden. Three
The second disruptive invasion enters the farm spaces via the minds of the farmers. One farmer for example explains that with his small parcels, he has double the workload of his brother who farms on the plains, and that his yield is only half of what his brother achieves. Given the price levels for cereals and the time input required for tilling small fields compared to large fields, farmers contend, growing cereals is ridiculous, or at least non-viable. Thus the farmers on the land use farms describe their ‘small’ (small-sized) lots and ‘poor’ yields as constraints and hindrances that prevent them from engaging in certain farming practices. Although the quality of the produce might be good, cereals production has become an impossible option in the minds of the farmers, the same goes for animal husbandry, especially for keeping pigs. A problem several farmers touched upon with regard to both calves and pigs is about when the lorry from the abattoir does not show up, or does so at other times than agreed, which the farmers interpret as that they will not come to fetch just a few animals. One farmer described it as a “disaster” if the transporter did not turn up (at the time she was engaged in pig husbandry). Concerning the cereals, the comparisons take in the large, level fields and top quality soils on the southern plains of Skåne, and concerning the animal production the price levels of produce from Ireland, Argentina and Brazil. Comparing local production capacities with places at a greater or lesser distance around the globe may for example make cereals appear a ridiculous choice, despite their having been among the staple crops during
decades ago, the wild boar was nearly extinct in Sweden.
Since then there has been a dramatic increase in their numbers, and major damage on agricultural enterprises caused by the wild boars (Permell 2013).
previous decades, and despite the fact that the soils are actually well suited to growing cereals.
Thinking of these problems via the concept of invasion helps to illuminate the observation that a phenomenon that is felt locally may, and often does, connect to distant places or events (Mitchell 2008; Lambin et al 2001). In this way, the farmers are pushed either to adjust and repair the damage or to quit farming, as it is rarely possible for them to maintain several farming-based sources of income.
In one way or another, the material landscape is perceived as a hindrance in itself – though the question then remains as to why farmers do not set about clearing the land, removing as it were the things that are in the way for viable farming.
The question appears multi-faceted.