Assessing the Implementation of Sustainable Agriculture at Rosenhill farm in Ekerö, Sweden

INOM

EXAMENSARBETE TEKNIK, GRUNDNIVÅ, 15 HP

STOCKHOLM SVERIGE 2020 ,

Assessing the Implementation of Sustainable Agriculture at

Rosenhill farm in Ekerö, Sweden

MIKAEL CARLSSON JOHN MAGEED

KTH

SKOLAN FÖR ARKITEKTUR OCH SAMHÄLLSBYGGNAD

Abstract

This project is a Bachelor’s thesis conducted by two students at KTH Royal Institute of Technology.

The report aims to assess the implementation of sustainable agriculture at the farm Rosenhill, in the Stockholm region in Sweden, and provide potential agroecological solutions. The assessment of the farm functioned as a case study to explore possible ways to improve sustainable practices in agriculture. The method used for assessing agricultural practices in this thesis was drawn from the existing methods IDEA and complemented with the intent to find agroecological approaches . The data gathering was conducted through interviews and observations at the farm, as well as receiving complementing documents from the farm. The data from the interviews and observation was then compiled into a document and divided up into categories, corresponding to the indicators chosen for the analysis. Each individual indicator was first examined individually and, on this ground, conclud- ing comments on the overall implementation of sustainable agriculture were drawn. Results show that the farm is implementing sustainable agriculture effectively, however, areas of improvement were also identified. The following agroecological practices were further discussed as potential solu- tions to problems identified at the farm: Intercropping and/or Companion Planting, Cover-cropping and Reduced Tillage, and Agroforestry.

Keywords: sustainable agriculture, sustainability assessment, agroecology, RISE, intercropping, soil degradation, biodiversity, organic farming

Sammanfattning

Detta projekt ¨ar ett kandidatexamensarbete skriven av tv˚a studenter p˚a Kungliga Tekniska H¨ogskolan (KTH). Rapporten har som syfte att bed¨oma implementeringen av h˚allbart jorbruk p˚a odlingen Rosenhill, i Stockholmsregionen, och ge potentiella agroekologiska l¨osningar. Bed¨omningen av odlingen fungerade som en fallstudie f¨or att utforska m¨ojliga s¨att att f¨orb¨attra h˚allbara till¨amp- ningar inom jordbruk. Metoden som anv¨andes i detta arbete f¨or att bed¨oma till¨ampningen av jord- bruk h¨amtades fr˚an de existerande metoderna IDEA och RISE och komplementerad med avsikten att hitta agroekologiska angreppss¨att. Insamlingen av data gjordes genom intervjuer och observationer, samt dokument fr˚an odlingen. Data fr˚an intervjuer och observationer sattes samman i ett dokument och delades in i kategorier, motsvarande indikatorer valda f¨or analys. Varje individuell indikator analyserades enskilt f¨orst och baserat p˚a detta drogs det avslutande kommentarer p˚a den ¨overgri- pande implementeringen av h˚allbart jordbruk. Resultaten visar att odlingen implementerar h˚allbart jordbruk v¨al, dock kunde f¨orb¨attringsomr˚aden identifieras. F¨oljande till¨ampningar av agroekologi diskuterades som potentiella l¨osningar till problem som identifierades p˚a odlingen: Samodling av l¨ampliga gr¨odor, T¨ackningsgr¨odor och reducerad jordbearbetning och Skogsjordbruk.

Nyckelord: h˚allbart jordbruk, h˚allbarhetsbed¨omning, agroekologi, RISE, samodling, jorddegrader-

ing, biodiversitet, ekologisk odling

Acknowledgements

Several people have contributed to make this thesis possible and we extend our deepest gratitude

to all of them. To our ni-Vanuatu friend, Damien Hophand, whom we unfortunately did not get the

chance to meet and work with because of the pandemic, but provided us with a lot of help for the

intitial thesis plan. To our supervisor Rebecka Milestad for her guidance and support throughout the

writing process. To our examiner Monika Olsson for always being ready to answer questions and

understanding the difficulties that arose. To the author of the book Agro-ecological Approaches to

Pest Management for Sustainable Agriculture, Dr. P. Parvatha Reddy, for compiling a comprehensive

and useful overview of agroecology that was the basis for inspiration to this thesis. To the friendly

people at the farm Rosenhill for letting us use their farm as our unit of analysis and providing us

with as much data as was available at their disposal. To a dear friend Arianna Vettorazzi, for her

linguistic and emotional support throughout the writing process.

Word list

Topography - The study of the shape and features of land surfaces.

Ley - Arable land used temporarily for hay or grazing

Fodder - A type of animal feed, is any agricultural foodstuff used specifically to feed domesticated livestock, such as cattle, rabbits, sheep, horses, chickens and pigs.

Forage - A plant material (mainly plant leaves and stems) eaten by grazing livestock

Perennial - A perennial plant or simply perennial is a plant that lives more than two years. The term (per- + -ennial, ”through the years”) is often used to differentiate a plant from shorter-lived annuals (one year) and biennials (two years).

Precautionary Principle - The Precautionary Principle is a strategy to cope with possible risks where scientific understanding is yet incomplete, such as the risks of nano technology, genetically modified organisms and systemic insecticides.

Cider/Juice Factory - In this text it refers to a place that makes the drink Must

Must - From the Latin vinum mustum, ”young wine”, is a freshly crushed fruit juice that contains the skins, seeds, and stems of the fruit.

Intercropping - A multiple cropping practice involving growing two or more crops in proximity.

In other words, intercropping is the cultivation of two or more crops simultaneously on the same field.

Ecosystem services - Outputs, conditions, or processes of natural systems that directly or indi- rectly benefit humans or enhance social welfare.

Biotic - of, relating to, or caused by living organisms Biota - The flora and fauna of a region

Seedling - A plant grown for a short period in a plant school, e.g. in a place where it’s subject to

less harsh conditions, for the purpose of being transplanted into a crop.

Contents

1 Introduction 6

1.1 Background . . . . 6

1.1.1 Sustainable Agriculture . . . . 6

1.1.2 Pesticide Problem . . . . 6

1.1.3 Agroecology . . . . 7

1.1.4 Agriculture in Sweden . . . . 7

1.1.5 Organic Farming . . . . 8

1.2 Objective and goals . . . . 9

1.3 Further Background . . . . 9

1.3.1 Rosenhill . . . . 9

1.3.2 Sustainable Development Goals . . . . 9

1.3.3 IDEA Method . . . . 10

1.3.4 RISE Method . . . . 10

2 Method 11 2.1 Adaptation of field study . . . . 11

2.2 Data Gathering . . . . 11

2.3 Interviews . . . . 12

2.4 Observations . . . . 12

2.5 Visit at field site . . . . 12

2.6 Data Analysis . . . . 13

2.7 Analytical Framework . . . . 13

2.7.1 Certification . . . . 14

2.7.2 Work-Related Risks . . . . 15

2.7.3 Profitability and economic stability . . . . 15

2.7.4 Diversified Economy . . . . 15

2.7.5 Energy Usage . . . . 15

2.7.6 Biodiversity . . . . 16

2.7.7 Animal Husbandry . . . . 16

2.7.8 Agro-Forestry . . . . 17

2.7.9 Quality of soil . . . . 17

2.7.10 Waste Management . . . . 17

2.7.11 Water . . . . 18

2.7.12 Plastic Usage . . . . 18

2.7.13 Pesticide Usage . . . . 18

2.7.14 Weed Management . . . . 18

2.7.15 Cultivar Mixtures . . . . 18

2.7.16 Agroecology and Cultural Practices . . . . 18

2.7.17 Intercropping . . . . 19

2.7.18 Crop Rotation . . . . 19

2.7.19 Habitat Management . . . . 19

2.7.20 Planting Density . . . . 19

2.7.21 Crop Sanitation . . . . 19

2.7.22 Crop Residue Mulching . . . . 20

2.7.23 Timing of seeding, planting, and harvest . . . . 20

3 Results 20

3.1 Certification . . . . 20

3.2 Work-Related Risks . . . . 20

3.3 Profitability and economic stability . . . . 20

3.3.1 Diversified Economy . . . . 21

3.4 Energy Usage . . . . 21

3.5 Biodiversity . . . . 21

3.6 Animal Husbandry . . . . 21

3.7 Agro-Forestry . . . . 21

3.8 Quality of soil . . . . 23

3.9 Waste Management . . . . 23

3.10 Water . . . . 23

3.11 Plant Protection . . . . 26

3.11.1 Pesticide Usage . . . . 26

3.11.2 Weed Management . . . . 26

3.12 Cultivar Mixtures . . . . 26

3.13 Agroecology and cultural practices . . . . 26

3.13.1 Intercropping . . . . 26

3.13.2 Crop rotation . . . . 26

3.13.3 Habitat Management . . . . 26

3.13.4 Planting Density . . . . 27

3.13.5 Crop Sanitation . . . . 27

3.13.6 Timing of seeding, planting, and harvest . . . . 27

4 Discussion 29 4.1 Certification . . . . 29

4.2 Work-Related Risks . . . . 30

4.3 Profitability and economic stability . . . . 30

4.3.1 Diversified Economy . . . . 30

4.4 Energy Usage . . . . 30

4.5 Biodiversity . . . . 30

4.6 Animal Husbandry . . . . 30

4.7 Agro-forestry . . . . 31

4.8 Quality of Soil . . . . 31

4.9 Waste Management . . . . 32

4.10 Water . . . . 33

4.11 Plant protection . . . . 33

4.11.1 Pesticide usage . . . . 33

4.11.2 Weed management . . . . 33

4.12 Cultivar Mixtures . . . . 33

4.13 Agroecology and Cultural Practices . . . . 34

4.13.1 Intercropping . . . . 34

4.13.2 Timing of seeding, planting, and harvest . . . . 34

4.14 Concluding comments . . . . 34

4.14.1 Implementation of Sustainable Agriculture . . . . 34

4.14.2 Organic farming vs agroecology . . . . 34

4.14.3 Assessment frameworks . . . . 34

4.15 Agroecological solutions . . . . 35

4.15.1 Intercropping and/or Companion Planting . . . . 35

4.15.2 Cover-cropping and Reduced Tillage . . . . 36

4.15.3 Agroforestry . . . . 36 4.16 Suggestions for Further Research . . . . 36

5 Conclusions 37

6 References 38

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

1.1.1 Sustainable Agriculture

The overall goal of Sustainable Agriculture is defined as meeting society’s food and textile needs in the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (UN, n.d.). There are plenty of ways to contribute to making agriculture more sustainable. These include for example promoting the health of the soil, using minimal water, and lowering pollution. A wide variety of disciplines are often required when researching this topic and it combines a collection of practice when implemented (University of California, Davis, n.d.).

There are a few reasons for the need to grow crops in a more sustainable way. A drawback of conventional agriculture is its impact on soil health. Tillage, and the burning of crop residues is common practice in conventional farming, and such practice is a causing factor in soil erosion and degradation (Farooq & Siddique, 2015). With a globally increasing population, combined with the fact that 52% of arable land is affected by soil degradation, that 12 million hectares are lost to desertification, and that soil degradation is a contributing factor to 74% of people living in poverty globally, the resulting soil quality losses of conventional agriculture pose a threat to global food security (UN, n.d.). There is no serious threat of desertification in Sweden, however there can still be negative effects that arise from tillage. The effects of tilling include eutrophication due to the worsened soil structure allowing run-off of nutrients with water, pesticide pollution through water run-off, greenhouse gas emissions due to the usage of motorized tilling etc. (Holland, 2014, cited in Rehman et al., 2015, p. 260). Moreover, soil compaction due to heavy machinery putting pressure on the soil reduces the ability of the soil to absorb water and hinders plants roots from reaching deeper into the soil. This will, in turn, hinder optimal water and nutrient uptake (Farooq & Siddique, 2015).

Additionally, the soil biota is disturbed, which could change the ecology such that the crops are affected by different pests and disturb the development of beneficial soil organisms (Reddy, 2017, pp. 13-26). There exists however farming practices that try to prevent the negative impacts on soil health, and conservation agriculture is a discipline in farming in which such practices are to be used (Farooq & Siddique, 2015). In the book Conservation Agriculture, by Ibid. (2015, ch. 1) it is argued that conservation agriculture is needed to achieve sustainable agriculture.

1.1.2 Pesticide Problem

The use of different pesticides can have detrimental effects on areas linked to the cultivation of crops.

If the US is taken as an example, looking at pesticide use through an economic standpoint shows that even while seemingly profitable in agriculture, it does not always decrease crop losses. Between 1945 and 2000, the usage of insecticides increased more than ten times and the total losses that were due to insect damage nearly doubled in percentage (Pimentel, 2005). In the previous century a rapid rise in new agricultural technologies in order to eliminate world hunger came about, called the

”Green Revolution”. It managed to increase the output for a lot of agricultural systems around the

world and achieve a decline in global hunger. However, it relied largely on mono-culture as well as

heavy inputs such as pesticides and inorganic fertilizers. Despite the new technologies that came

about as a result of the Green Revolution, nearly 800 million people still suffer from hunger and

malnutrition around the world (Reddy, 2017, p.2). One significant issue is that the economic ben-

efits of pesticides are usually calculated directly and in the short term, as well as not taking into

account the indirect economic costs. It is important to acknowledge and understand that chronic

pesticide exposure could have several extra costs such as health costs (“cancers, diabetes, depres-

sion, neurological deficits, respiratory diseases, fertility problems, cutaneous effects, effects on the

unborn embryo, blindness, polyneuropathy”) and environmental impacts that eventually contribute

to hidden economic losses (Bourguet & Guillemaud, 2016, p.67).

1.1.3 Agroecology

In light of the above, the need for an ecological approach is thus present. To this end, agroecological solutions have emerged, such as using microorganisms to promote healthy plant growth and pest re- sistance, i.e. using Soil Suppressiveness (McKee, 2019), or putting other plants into the crop to repel insects and attract them to unneeded crops, i.e. The Push-Pull strategy (Rajarao, 2019). The above- mentioned ecological approach, which is also called “Agroecological Pest Management”, consists in minimizing the inputs used in farming and instead uses natures own plant defense mechanisms as pest management (Reddy, 2017). One of the recent methods for farming that has recently shown a lot of potential is agroecology. In this field, the main idea is to use the already existing ecological principles and natural defense mechanisms of plants to get a good harvest without bringing harm to the surrounding environment. So far some kinds of agroecological farming methods are adopted in around 10% of all farmlands in the world and research is showing the likelihood of the economic value brought about from ecosystem services are exceeding costs of pesticides and fertilizers (Reddy, 2017. p.2).

The overall goal of agroecological farming is to invest on preventative strategies instead of re- active ones (Ibid, p.7). In this way, farmers do not wait until the soil loses nutrients and then add external fertilizers or risk a potential pest infestation and feeling pressured to resort to pesticide usage. Instead the crops should function together with their surroundings in order to keep the soil healthy and be prepared for when an infestation comes. Moreover, there are also supplemental op- tions in case one can not rely solely on preventative measures. These include, for instance, releasing certain pests or predators, irrigating, managing certain weeds that can host pests etc. (Ibid, p.8).

The benefits of implementing an agroecological approach to farming mainly has to do with not only limiting harm done to the environment, but also strengthening the local ecosystem at the farm and increasing ecosystem services. Moreover agroecological farming should also provide an economic benefit by cutting costs associated with conventional farming and potentially increasing yields (Ibid, p.9). That being said there are also a few limitations that can make it difficult to implement such an approach. For example; there are no agroecological approaches yet identified for severe pests and in such cases chemical pesicides will be used. It can also take time before the pest management starts to show and might not always be as effective as one had hoped it would be. Lastly, as opposed to conventional farming, an agroecological approach requires a lot of knowledge and understanding of the agrocological production system, which can make it difficult to implement (Ibid, p.10).

1.1.4 Agriculture in Sweden

Sweden has a unique topography that affects the outcome of farming and agriculture Most of the land is forested and severely affects the ability of the population in northern Sweden’s ability to farm.

Therefore about 60% of the arable land is found on the fertile plains of southern Sweden (Anon., 2019, p.28). The crop production is mostly made up of cereal and leys, which is the case because animal husbandry is a dominant line of production. It is, therefore, clear that the dairy production plays a central role in Swedish agriculture still to this day. Be that as it may, the number of dairy farms has steadily been on decline (Ibid., p.29).

There is heavy criticism in Sweden against the agricultural sector and its impact on both the climate as well as causing eutrification in the Baltic Sea. In 2008 conclusions were drawn that the agricultural sector was responsible for 50% of all emissions of nitrogen and phosphorous (Verners- son, 2008). The climate in Scandinavia has a lot of precipitation, which means that added minerals from fertilizers leak out more easily into the sea (Jordbruksverket, 2020). Due to the increase in the global average temperature, an increased level of preciitation will arise. The effects of eutrophica- tion will, therefore, need to be kept in mind. This will in turn create a bigger demand for a better drainage system for the fields (Rydberg, et al., 2019, p. 20).

What we choose to eat and how that food is produced impacts the amount of eutrophication.

For instance, this is the case for meat and dairy production which gives off a higher plant growth

nutrient loss per kilo produced grocery than plant production (Jordbruksverket, 2020). Moreover, the agricultural sector has been divided up into several different specialised parts. Sweden has among the most strict animal protective laws in the world, where cattle farmers are obligated to take the catlle out to graze for an extended period of time each summer (Ibid, n.d.). However, animals that are not a part of organic farms are not always being priorotised to go out grazing, they eat fodder, usually made from imported soybeans, rather than forage (Naturskyddsf¨oreningen, n.d.). Most of the food is also consumed in the cities which means that waste in the form of garbage and sewage sludge that holds a lot of the nitrogen and phosphorous taken out of the farms is not being brought back. This leads to the cycle being broken (Jordbruksverket, 2020).

Despite the effects of eutrophication being one of the main challenges facing the Swedish agricul- tural sector, a report published in 2012 by the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences in regards to how effective the measurements to decrease leaching of nutrients from agricultural lands have been showed that ”there are strong indications that the measures […] have had the intended effect.”

(F¨olster et al., 2012, p.5). This is further explained as being due to the nutrient transport of Nitrogen and Phosphorous, both central to eutrophication, having decreased in the last 20 years. However, a report by the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management investigating eutrophication found that Sweden is not on track to defeat eutrophication with the current measures put in place (Havs- och vattenmyndigheten, 2019, p.10). It is evident that a lot of work needs to be done in this area still.

Climate change will bring about a lot of changes to the methods and abilities to grow food all over the globe. When it comes to Northern Europe, the increase in the global average temperature could in general produce a higher agricultural productivity due to a longer growing season and a prolonged frost-free period. (EEA, 2015). It is estimated that by the turn of the next century the growing season in southern Sweden could get prolonged by three months and in northern Sweden by one month. That would mean that the average temperature around the Stockholm area (M¨alardalen) would be the same as in northern Germany. (Rydberg, et al., 2019, p. 11). This will, in time, force farmers in Sweden to adapt the type of crops that they grow, as well as the timing of when to plant or sow. For example, oil plants are currently dominated by autumn crops and they will play an even larger role as longer growing seasons and milder winters will work in favor of the autumn crops (Ibid, p.21).

1.1.5 Organic Farming

According to the European Commission, organic farming is defined as “an agricultural method that aims to produce food using natural substances and processes” (n.d.). Furthermore, the European Commission goes on to state that organic farming encourages responsible use of energy and nat- ural resources, maintenance of biodiversity, enhancement of soil fertility etc. (Ibid). Considering all the potential side-effects to traditional use of pesticides, further expansion and improvement of organic agriculture is beneficial. The main body for organic agriculture in Sweden is the one called KRAV. Their main vision is that all food production should be sustainable, in terms of both socioe- conomic factors and environmental ones. The goal of certifying, by following the KRAV outline, is to integrate the whole farming system and identify how it can be more environmentally sound.

Social responsibility is given an emphasis as well. The Precautionary Principle is also implemented to avoid potential risks with, for example, GMOs. KRAV follows a framework that suits both the requirements for organic farming in the European Union and the Swedish national ones, albeit more strict (KRAV, 2019).

In 2016 KRAV declared that they would be working intensively to reach a goal of having a 20%

of the market share for groceries by 2020. This would not only bring more organic products to

the market, but also create more farmer jobs (Lunneryd, Lindvall, & Nellmer, 2016). This intention

has been met with heavy criticism as it is not entirely clear if an increased marketshare of organic

farming will be better for the environment (Eriksson, 2016). In particular, lower yields will mean that production has to be increased, which could lead to Sweden relying more heavily on imports that in turn come with its own emissions (Ibid, 2016). If agricultural practices decrease in Sweden it could lead to the same problems being transported abroad (Jordbruksverket, 2020). This is because eating habits would not change, only the place where crops are grown. If these places grow in a conventional farming manner, the same issues will stand. In addition, there is the further the issue of organic farming in Sweden relying heavily on subsidies. It might be the case that demand is not high enough to make it competitive on the market by itself without support from the government (Eriksson, 2016).

1.2 Objective and goals

The objective of the project is to assess the current implementation of sustainable agriculture at Rosenhill and additionally finding areas of improvement.

Goals:

Devising and applying a functioning method for the assessment of sustainable agriculture.

Exploring agroecological solutions and evaluating their potential for the site.

1.3 Further Background

1.3.1 Rosenhill

One organic farm that is operating in the Stockholm area is the farm Rosenhill. It was founded around a century ago as a garden with apple trees and previously supplied Stockholm with things like vegetables, fruits, and berries. Then slowly but steadily the business expanded to include the juice factory, restaurant/caf´e, party events along with the gardening practices. The farm is both organic and biodynamic, as well as KRAV-certified, done by a certification body working on behalf of KRAV. The farm has both full time employees and volunteers that are there temporarily via a cooperation with the organisation World Wide Opportunities on Organic Farms, also known as

”WWOOF” (WWOOF Sweden, n.d.1.; Rosenhill, n.d.).

One type of organic farming, that is being implemented at the farm (Rosenhill, n.d.), is what is referred to as biodynamic farming. Biodynamic farming was introduced around the first part of the 20th century. At the time, some farmers were noticing problems in obtaining the desired yields, despite their use of chemical fertilisers. They turned to a prominent philosopher and esoterist at the time, by the name of Rudolf Steiner. He formulated the idea of a new biodynamic style of farming, mixing elements of science and spiritual elements into agriculture. This marked the beginning of a more organic, sustainable and holistic approach to farming that did not rely on external inputs and functioned as an enclosed system. In particular, since the farm is considered to have its own life-force there are certain ways in which one can stimulate the force inside of a farm. These involve timed planting of for example cow horns or homeopathic preparations of composts. Biodynamic farming is still practiced in many places around the world. Nowadays, to be certified as a biodynamic farm one must first be certified as an organic one (Trimarchi, n.d.).

1.3.2 Sustainable Development Goals

As the present project is dealing with sustainability it is first necessary to have an idea of which

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are being dealt with. According to the UN website the goals

are a blueprint for achieving sustainability and are all interconnected (n.d.). Even though the focus

of one’s work in any field concerning sustainable development can lie on one goal, they all still easily

overlap. In particular, the project of this thesis is focused on the SDGs 2 and 12. In goal number

Figure 1: Illustration of an IDEA or RISE assessment.

2 it is stated that “Investments in agriculture are crucial to increasing the capacity for agricultural productivity and sustainable food production systems are necessary to help alleviate the perils of hunger” (Ibid). In goal number 12 “sustainable consumption and production aims at “doing more and better with less,” net welfare gains from economic activities can increase by reducing resource use, degradation and pollution along the whole life cycle, while increasing quality of life” (Ibid).

1.3.3 IDEA Method

To begin assessing the situation and handle the issues, the IDEA (Indicateurs de Durabilit´e des Ex- ploitations Agricoles) method for research on sustainable farming can be useful (Zahm, et al., 2008).

This method is based on three essential functions: Producing goods and services, managing the landscape, and playing a role in the rural world. These functions are derived from the definition by Landais that a sustainable farm is “a farm that is viable, livable, transferable and reproducible”

(1998, p.7). The IDEA method was developed based on French multi-disciplinary research to design a self-assessment framework for farmers. The method uses 41 indicators for Sustainable Agriculture.

These are divided up into three areas, or sustainability scales: Agroecological, Socio-territorial and Economic. Each area is divided up into indicators and components that together add up to 100 points, which is the maximum value for each area. For example, the indicator crop patterns can be assigned a maximum of 10 points and belongs to the component organisation of space, which is made up of several indicators put together, and can be assigned a maximum of 33 points when all indicators are combined . This component belongs to the agroecological sustainability scale that can then be assigned a maximum of 100 points after all components are added. The points can then be used to compare how well a farm is doing in relation to others and to visualise where improvements need to be made. To perform an assessment based on the IDEA method, a number of indicators should be chosen in accordance to available data, timescope, and relevance to the local situation. More than 1500 assessments on farms in France have been conducted since 1996 (Zahm et al., 2008, pp.271-280).

The results of an IDEA assessment come in a polygon shape with one corner for each over-arching category of indicators. As illustrated in figure 1, the state of how well each over-arching category is on a scale of lowest towards the middle and highest towards the outside. Each dot represents an over-arching category in the assessment.

1.3.4 RISE Method

One other useful tool for measuring the sustainability of a farm is called ”Response-Inducing Sus-

tainability Evaluation” (RISE) (Grenz, et al., 2009). The tool takes a holistic approach to sustainabil-

ity and is system-oriented. The assessment is done collecting information from farmers, through a questionnaire- based interview covering ecological, social, and economic aspects for a one year agricultural production. The model uses 12 different indicators, whereby each individual indicator is divided into ”State” (S) and a ”Driving Force” (D) parameters. The S refers to the current condi- tion of the farm and a higher value is more desirable. The D measures the estimated pressures on the farming system and lower values will be more desirable. This is due to the equation taking the number of S and the subtracting the number from D to give a final result. For example, one indicator in the RISE model is Biodiversity. The S parameter for biodiversity is Biodiversity-promoting Prac- tices and gets assigned a number between 0-100, depending on how well the farm is doing in this regard. The D parameters are Proportion of intensively used agricultural land, Plot size, and Weed control. Together they provide a number for D between 0-100, depending on to what extent the farm is implementing these practices that could be detrimental for achieving sustainability. After the subtraction a value between -100 to +100 can be assigned for each indicator, where the goal is to achieve a number that is as close to +100 as possible. The main goals of the tool RISE is to provide an easy and verifiable instrument that can be applied on a diversity of farm types and locations, as well as giving a clear visualisation of how the entire farm system is impacted by individual measures. The tool ”has been successfully tested on very different farm types under variable conditions in Brazil, China and Switzerland (H¨ani, et al., 2003, p.88). For example, it has for example already been used to identify and tackle key constraints to a more sustainable agriculture in Armenia (Grenz, et al., 2009. p.7). The results of a RISE assessment are usually presented in the same way as illustrated in figure 1.

2 Method

2.1 Adaptation of field study

Initially the project was meant to be conducted through the organisation The Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA). A scholarship was provided to conduct a field study in the country of Vanuatu for a duration of minimum two months. The project would be carried out by observing and assessing the sustainability of farming practices on the island Malekula and po- tentially providing the local people with a strategy on how to improve the sustainability of their agricutural practices. Due to the spreading of the COVID-19 pandemic in early March 2020 and the following travel restrictions, the project had to be adapted accordingly. The authors desired to keep the core idea of the project, which was assessing, evaluating, and providing potential improvements to the implementation of sustainable agriculture. A farm around the Stockholm area was contacted and permissions to conduct a field study and interviews was received. A field study conducted in this manner would be less comprehensive than the original one. However, it would have the capability to be carried out with respect to the COVID-19 pandemic.

2.2 Data Gathering

Data gathering was conducted in a variety of ways. This was through interviews, observations and

documents received by the farm. The documents were a KRAV social sustainability check-list, and

the progress report of Rosenhill farm for the year 2019. Before visiting the farm, preparations were

made by reading up on agroecology to get a better understanding of what it consists of, why it is

needed and what the common problems in regards to it are. Furthermore, the methods IDEA and

RISE, used for measuring sustainability on farms, were researched to get a better understanding of

which indicators are important to look for and possible ways to gather data. The questions for the

interviews were then formulated. They were first based on RISE indicators and then complemented

with questions formulated with the specific intent to address the agroecological practices at the

farm. The questions, after having been inspired by both the IDEA and RISE methods, were created and compiled by what would be the most relevant for the purposes and scope of this study. The interview and observation techniques were taken from the book The Essential Guide to Doing Your Research Project by Zina O’leary (2014), as provided by KTH. After having read up on the different methods for interviewing and observing in a scientific manner it was decided that the following ways of interviewing and observing were to be used.

2.3 Interviews

It was agreed that the interviews were to be initially conducted in a formal manner, while at the same time leaving room for the interviews to develop into a more informal one, if it better suited the circumstances. It was also done in a semi-structured way, where questions were prepared be- forehand but there was room for a more natural flow of the conversation where the interviews could deviate from the prepared questions and then come back to them where it would be best suited. The interviews were conducted in a one-to-one manner, where the first person was interviewed and then the next, with the possibility for interviewing the same person twice if additional information was needed. During the interviews a smartphone was held by the person who was interviewing, so as to record the conversation for future reference and go through what was said at a later point. At the same time, the other person was taking quick notes on what was being said in the interview, as well as writing down potential useful observations.

The interviews were conducted at Rosenhill farm on 2020.05.22 and on 2020.06.12. Three people were interviewed. The head farmer, for their knowledge of the farms agricultural practices, the farm responsible person at Rosenhill, for more broadly encompassing data such as waste management and economy, and a lawn maintenance worker, for supplemental data on farming practices.

2.4 Observations

After the interview technique was agreed upon and structured in this way, it was decided that the observations should be gathered as a beneficial complement to the interviews to get a hold of as much data and as qualitative a data as possible. The observation technique was decided to be non- participatory, since the time spent on the farm was limited. If circumstances had been optimal, the research would have been preferably carried out with a participatory approach. However, there was no opportunity to do so, therefore the approach was ultimately kept as a non-participatory one.

This meant that minimal time would be spent together with the farmers and no engagement in the farming practices would be done. The observations were conducted in a candid way, which means that the purpose of study was fully disclosed. The reason for this is that the study’s goal included providing solutions to potential problems at the farm with the hope that the farm might implement them in the future. The observations were also made in an unstructured manner, since there was no way of predicting how the farm would operate and there was no expertise to decide beforehand what observations would be relevant. In the end, the observations were written down either during the visit, as things were witnessed, or after the visit, as an observation that could be relevant came to mind at a later point. Pictures were also taken to get a better visual understanding of how the farm looks like and operates.

2.5 Visit at field site

The initial plan was to visit the farm once, see how much data could be gathered from one visit

and then decide how many further visits would be needed. After the first visit, it was decided

that data was still lacking. This was due to a limitation in time which lead to the questions not

being answered fully and important observations not having been done. A second visit along with

additional information received by email, which was provided by the person responsible at the farm in the form of official documents, was enough to get the information needed for the scope of the project. Additional documents regarding which type of plants are planted in the farm, the total amount of them and the timing for planting could not be attained, since it was handwritten and the scanned documents were not sent via email, as it was promised. This limited the ability of providing a more accurate potential agroecological solution as different crops require different agroecological solutions in order to be grown effectively.

2.6 Data Analysis

After all the data had been gathered, it was compiled into a document that divided up answers to specific questions asked, other useful information gathered during the interviews, and observations into their relevant categories. These categories were based on the indicators used for the analysis.

In this way, it was easier to find the right data for the analysis. Then indicators for the analysis were chosen based on how IDEA and RISE were formulated. After formulating the indicators, each individual indicator was analysed, with overlaps between them occurring often. In order to decide how well the farm was doing in each category, online research was conducted. Search engines like DuckDuckGo, searx, and data bases like KTH Primo were used to get a better understanding of what constitutes a sustainable practice in each category. To find information about, for instance, soil acidification from fertilizer usage, the Wikipedia page for soil acidification was consulted and the cited sources were checked. In a related manner, if an information source is already known beforehand, its site is consulted in order to find information, for example, the UN site for the SDG’s was navigated to in order to find information regarding the relations between soil health, agriculture, and impacts on society. After reading external research, assumptions were made based on what others immersed in the different fields have said on the topics in general in combination with what was said in the interviews and observed.

Search terms in KTH Primo include: ”sustainable agriculture water”, “horse manure nutrients”, “wa- terlogging agriculture”, ”soil degradation sweden” ”Animal Husbandry Agroecology”

Search terms in DuckDuckGo include: ”H¨astn¨aring” ”Social Security”

Search terms in searx include: ”heavy metals ferilizer”

2.7 Analytical Framework

The decision in regards to which indicators would be included in the method for assessment was

done in an adjustable manner. First, the RISE method was studied to get a good understanding

on what could be important to look into. Parameters from RISE that were chosen had to have a

feasibility of sound data gathered in relation to it and be relevant for a Swedish context. As can be

seen in table 1 on page 14, which is a list of indicators and parameters used in RISE, checkmarks

were added to the ones that were to be investigated. Questions in relation to the parameters chosen

were complied. Afterwards, additional remaining indicators from IDEA were added, in the form

of questions, as a complement to what was taken from RISE. Animal husbandry was inspired by

IDEA, as well as the importance of labour intensity in our solution to weed management. Then it

was decided further information gathered from Agro-ecological Approaches to Pest Management

for Sustainable Agriculture (Reddy, 2017) should be added to what was attained from IDEA & RISE

to form the complete set of questions. An overview of available and used approaches can be seen in

table 2 on page 15. After the interviews and observations had been conducted at the farm and the

documents had been received, indicators were ultimately chosen based on the data that was able to be gathered. In the end, the IDEA method did not add a lot to what was already developed via RISE.

The following indicators were chosen for assessment:

Table 1: Indicators from RISE, the ones used in the analysis are marked with a checkmark (X)

Indicators State Parameters Driving Force Parameters

Energy X • Environmental effects of energy carriers used • Energy input per unit agricultural land

• Energy input per unit workforce Water X • Water quantity and stability of the quantity X

• Water quality and stability of the quality

• Water quantity and productivity (crop & ani- mal production) X

• Risks to water quality (manure, silage leach- ate, wastewater,…)

Soil X • Soil pH, salinisation, waterlogging, soil sampling X

• Erosion index

• Pollution by pesticides, acidifying fertilisers X&

fertilisers containing heavy metals X

• Tillage-related risks X

• Salinisation risk

• Nutrient mining X Biodiversity X • Biodiversity-promoting practices X

• Proportion of intensively used agricultural land • Plot size

• Weed control X

N&P emission potential X • N & P balance X • Manure storage and application X • N & P from organic & inorganic fertilisers X (imports / exports)

Plant protection X • Quality of the application X

• Eco- & human-toxicological risks • Crop husbandry X

• Crop rotation X

Waste X • Environmental hazard

• Methods of waste disposal X • Type and quantity of waste X Economic stability X

• Net debt service over change in owner’s equity

& interest paid

• Equity ratio

• Gross investment X

• Cash flow/raw performance rate

• Dynamic gearing

• Condition of machines, buildings &

perennial crops X Economic efficiency X • Return on assets X

• Return on equity

• Total earned income • Productivity X

Local economy • Share of regional workforce & salaries

• Lowest salary on farm compared to average

regional salary • Raw performance per unit agricultural land

Working conditions X

• Emergency/medical care

• Provision of potable water

• Accommodation & sanitary equipment

• Working hours

• Wage discrimination

• Child labour

• Forced labour

• Gender

• Continuing education

• Encumbering work

• Working conditions

• Income disparity

• Working time to reach minimum salary

Social security • Social security

• Means of subsistence

• Potentially payable salary

• Farm succession plan

• Legality & documentation of employment

2.7.1 Certification

An important aspect for a farm that aims to be a sustainable and an organic one is having a third

party examining the validity of such claims.

Table 2: Indicators based on Agro-ecological Approaches to Pest Management for Sustainable Agriculture (Reddy, 2017), the ones used in the analysis are marked with a checkmark (X).

Agroecological approach Used

Conservation Tillage X

Crop Residue Management X

Biofumigation

Fertilizer Management X

Agro-Forestry X

Cover Cropping X

Green Manure Cropping X

Stimulo-Deterrent Diversion Strategy

Cultural Practices X

Selection of Site

Crop Isolation X

Planting Density X

Intercropping X

Companion Planting X

Trap Cropping Barrier Crops

Habitat Management X

Pruning, Defoliation, and Topping X

Crop Sanitation X

Weed Manipulation X

Crop Rotation X

Plant Breeding

Cultivar Mixtures X

Allelopathy

Precision Agriculture

2.7.2 Work-Related Risks

After having studied the KRAV check-list and what was asked for in the document, it became ap- parent that work-related risks are beneficial to look into when investigating social sustainability. It was therefore added as an extra indicator for this assessment.

2.7.3 Profitability and economic stability

There are plenty of aspects relating to the economic practices at a farm. Both RISE & IDEA included parameters that could be difficult to get a hold of and fully understand. The indicator Profitability and Economic Stability was chosen as a general indicator for a monetary assessment of the farm as a whole.

2.7.4 Diversified Economy

If there is a diversified economy, that means that if one area fails to produce the desired revenue, the risk of filing for bankruptcy or having to lay off the people who are employed decreases. This is important for building a strong economy, even at a farm. It is important to have a diversified and adaptable business so as to be prepared for the unexpected. For a farm this is usually not having a large enough harvest of certain crops.

2.7.5 Energy Usage

As perhaps increasingly common knowledge in recent times, fossil fuel usage, which is though

combustion, causes not only greenhouse gas emissions, but also nitrous oxide (NO

) emissions.

Such emissions pose risks to human, animal, and plant health due to DNA damage (Depayras et al., 2018), as well as due to the formation of troposheric ozone (Naturv˚ardsverket, 2006). It is further divulged in Naturv˚ardsverket (2006) that NO

causes eutrophication, and acidification of lakes and forests.

2.7.6 Biodiversity

If two, or more, crops are grown in close proximity to one another, this will lead to an ”increase[d]

diversity in an agri-cultural ecosystem” (Reddy 2017 p.109). A polyculture will most likely lead to an increase in natural enemies for pests, making pest management easier and shows an increase in biodiversity. (Ibid, p.111). Furthermore, agroforestry intercropping has also shown to contribute to biodiversity (Ibid, p.77). Growing plants that are beneficial to bees will help local bee popula- tions and, by extension, other pollinators (Ibid, p.170). When looking at wild bee diversity it has been found that although biodiversity is influenced by several environmental factors, increasing the floral richness on a farm had the greatest effect, as opposed to increasing semi-natural habitats. Nev- ertheless, both contribute to an increase in the biodiversity (Rollin, O. et al. 2019). Since biologists fear the loss of pollinators, due to habitat loss and pesticide use for instance, it is always a good idea to support pollinators by adding pollinator-friendly plants at the farm (USDA, n.d.). As mentioned above, pesticides are harmful both to the environment and to humans. As seen in the article How to control invasive pests while protecting pollinators and other beneficial insects by Smitely et al.

(2019) ”[p]esticides should never be applied unless they are necessary to maintain plant health.”. This is further explained as being due to the harmful effects pesticides have on biodiversity. Furthermore, biodiversity is an entire complex system which involves looking at several trophic groups, which include not only insects, birds and mammals, but also the microbes and worms living in the soil.

They can play just as an important role and it is crucial to protect and stimulate them as well. (Swift et al., 2004; US Forest Service, n.d.). As previously mentioned, tilling practices could disturb the ecology of the soil, potentially leading to a loss of biodiversity, or at least a shift in in the soil biota from a beneficial or neutral to a less beneficial composition. It is very difficult for farmers to assess the biodiversity in and around the farms. Many methods for measuring biodiversity are incomplete and using different ones can provide different answers. This can make it challenging to know how effective the biodiversity promoting practices that the farmers employ are (Gabel, V. et al. 2018).

In the paper Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Agricultural Landscapes - Are We Asking the Right Questions? by Swift et al. (2004) it is stated that local biodiversity is a dynamic process, in the sense that species are in a constant state of co-evolving with respect to each other and the envi- ronment around them. This leads to farmers having a dominant role in selecting which organisms should be present by modifying the biotic factors, such as weeds, pests etc., and abiotic factors, such as added fertilizers or the reshaping of the land. It is important to note that ”[t]he diversity of any system is not adequately represented simply by the number of species (or genotypes) present, but by the relationships between them in space and time” (Ibid, p.116).

2.7.7 Animal Husbandry

In order to better understand the importance of a well implemented animal husbandry, one can

look at the insightful comment by Gliessman: “[t]he problems lie not so much with the animals

themselves or their use as food as they do with the ways the animals are incorporated into today’s

agroecosystems and food systems. Animals can play many beneficial roles in agroecosystems, and

therefore make strong contributions to sustainability.” (2007 cited in Soussana et al., 2015, p.228).

2.7.8 Agro-Forestry

Agro-forestry, as the name implies, refers to an intentional combination of trees (woody perennials) together with agricultural lands, pastures, and/or livestock. This contributes to a more sustainable farming since this type of farming is closely linked with biodiversity conservation, improved soil fertility , increased crop production, a diversified income etc. Moreover, ”in general, the higher abundances of natural enemies and lower abundances of pests are brought about by agro-forestry practices” (Reddy, 2017, p.77), with ”pests” being in reference to weeds, insects, diseases, and ne- matodes. Many ecosystem services that were once destroyed by deforestation and agricultural in- tensification can be reversed by restoring the tree-cover with agro-forestry (De Schutter, 2010, p.7).

Agro-forestry can be beneficial in a lot of ways, but if it’s done incorrectly it can also be damaging.

Researchers in China found that soil moisture and light were the main factors affecting crop yields, when trees and crops were intercropped. They also found that certain crops were more effective when grown together with apple trees as opposed to others and factors such as distance between crops and tree rows, pruning, additional irrigation etc. should be considered (Gao et al., 2013, p.1).

2.7.9 Quality of soil

The soil indicator of the RISE assessment tool includes the following factors: soil pH, salinisation, waterlogging, soil sampling, pollution by pesticides, acidifying fertilisers & fertilisers containing heavy metals, tillage-related risks, salinisation risk, and nutrient mining.

Dagar & Sharma (2016) define waterlogged soil, as degraded soil, usually caused by over-irrigation.

Considering that waterlogging is reported as rare and only caused by heavy rainfall, it could be con- cluded that waterlogging is not a threat to the soil health of the farm.

Regarding horse manure, Keskinen et al. (2017) divulge that horse manure has a high carbon (C) to nitrogen (N) ratio, and that a significant amount of said N is consumed by the microorganisms in the manure. As a result, horse manure does not provide a very worthwhile amount of N to the plants. It is, however, concluded by Sweeten and Mathers (1985, cited in Keskinen et al., 2017) that horse manure is good for soil health due to its “effects on soil structure and C content”.

In Agro-ecological Approaches to Pest Management for Sustainable Agriculture (Reddy, 2017, ch. 15), crop rotation is defined as the sequential growing of plants from different families in the same land. It is further defined in Ibid. that green manure cropping as the growing of plants that will in one way or another add nutrients to the soil, with the most prominent example being legumes, for their N fixing properties.

The acidifying fertilizers factor was a little more difficult to assess due to scarce information in the present literature. To get a hint, The New South Wales Department of Primary Industries (n.d.) lists different forms of N and how acidifying they are. The paper lists composted poultry manure as not acidifying.

Another factor which became difficult to assess was the heavy metal containing fertilizer usage, due to, as previously, scarce information. Dharma-wardana (2018) divulges that phosphate fertilizers commonly contain Cadmium (Cd).

It is argued in Conservation Agriculture (Farooq & Siddique, 2015, ch. 1) that a permanent soil cover, be it by mulch or plant residues, improves water infiltration into the soil and hinders water evaporation and soil erosion.

2.7.10 Waste Management

The importance of waste management stems from the question of whether or not the waste poses a

risk to the environment as well as reducing the need for further material use through recycling.

2.7.11 Water

In Garc´ıa-Tejero et al. (2011) sustainable water usage in agriculture is covered, and a key factor stands out; water volume. The text lists several reasons for why minimal water usage should be sought for in order for a farm to be regarded as sustainable, and among them are the drying out of water resources, salinization of the soil, and nutrient run-off. As such, minimizing water usage is of importance to minimize water usage, with efficiency and accuracy being key factors.

2.7.12 Plastic Usage

As plastics easily shed smaller particles through natural weathering, which eventually become mi- croplastics (Conkle, B´aez Del Valle, & Turner, 2017), the environment in which plastics lie will get exposed to microplastics. Part of the issue is the additives to plastics, which follow with the smaller particles (Browne, M.A. et al., 2013). Both parts of the issue are considered pollutants, and several negative impacts are listed, including loss of biodiversity and ecotoxicity.

2.7.13 Pesticide Usage

The use of pesticides will have an impact on the surrounding environment and the consequences could be devastating. However, it is still widely used for its assumed benefits in terms of how large the yield will be in comparison to no pesticides. Many feel pressured to use pesticides as they fear losses that are too big to sustain in case their usage is stopped or decreased. If one grows crops in the same way as many conventional farms, where monocropping and growing the same crop on the same land over and over again are common practices, one will most likely suffer heavy losses if pesticides are no longer used. Hence the need for effective implementation of agroecological practices (Reddy, 2017). Pesticide usage is one of the most difficult issues to solve in regards to sustainability as it has socio-economic effects, as well as environmental ones. If one wants to have a sustainable usage of pesticides one should use them as little as possible, while implementing effective agroecological strategies to avoid the issue of a potential heavy crop loss.

2.7.14 Weed Management

As weed management often means use of herbicides and tilling, the inclusion of it in the assessment is of importance.

2.7.15 Cultivar Mixtures

The practice of using different cultivars when growing a crop is brought forth in Reddy (2017, pp.

259-269) as an agroecological approach. Aside from it being a biodiversity promoting practice by virtue of using plants of different genetics, it provides weather conditions protection due to the fact that plants of different genetics have differing tolerance to weather conditions. It is further disclosed in Ibid. that growing multiple cultivars also provides pest management in terms of diseases, weeds and insect pests through several mechanisms of action, with the key factor being genetic diversity.

Additionally, it is commented that the practice provides economic stability.

2.7.16 Agroecology and Cultural Practices

Beside the use of pesticides, there are several practices that can be used in crop management to

protect the crops and their yield. Such practices are collectively called cultural practices, and are an

integral part of agroecology (Reddy, 2017, p. 202), and thus in sustainable agriculture. A selection

of cultural practices includes intercropping, planting density, timing of seeding and planting, tim- ing of harvest, crop rotation, habitat management, pruning, defoliation, and topping, crop residue mulching, and crop sanitation.

2.7.17 Intercropping

The benefits of intercropping come from several factors, depending on the intercrop. A significant factor is the fact that the crop stops being a monocrop, which promotes biodiversity. One main reason for and benefit of intercropping is the nitrogen fixing properties of legumes, allowing for re- duced or completely forgone need for the usage of nitrogen containing synthetic fertilizers. Another reason is microclimate manipulation in that the intercrops could provide physical protection from wind or sun. Furthermore, the intercrops could provide protection against pests including through the release of chemicals that harm or repel pests, also known as plant allelopathy (Reddy, 2017, p.

127), and through habitat management, attracting predators and parasites (Ibid., p. 110). The prac- tice could thus reduce the need for pesticides and fertilizers in addition to the ecological benefits it provides.

2.7.18 Crop Rotation

The practice of crop rotation implies several benefits to the crop, due to multiple factors. One key factor is the fact that the environment for various pests, including weeds, insects, diseases, and nematodes, gets disrupted when the plant they are a pest to disappears, as they usually specialize to specific crops. This means that the new crop won’t be affected by established pests, instead, new pests will need to establish from scratch, which reduces the need for pesticides (Reddy, 2017, pp.

229-232). Other factors include improved soil health due to nutrient allocations into the soil after a long period of crop rotations, and if plants of certain root system are grown, e.g. plants with roots capable of reaching new depths makes that part of the soil a part of the crop soil, which improves structure and gives access to more water and nutrients. Crop rotation is additionally a biodiversity promoting practice by virtue of its definition as well as a way to increase income by growing what’s in market demand.

2.7.19 Habitat Management

In Agro-ecological Approaches to Pest Management for Sustainable Agriculture, (Reddy, 2017, p.

165) habitat management could be summarized as the manipulation or use of plants to attract or promote organisms which would be beneficial to the yield of the crop, including through pest man- agement and pollination. Another approach of interest is the use of hedgerows, which attract preda- tory birds for pest management.

2.7.20 Planting Density

Reddy (2017, pp. 204-205) divulges that the practice of managing plant spacing optimally would reduce incidence of crop disease, insect infestations, as well as increasing crop yield.

2.7.21 Crop Sanitation

Crop sanitation is described by Reddy (2017, ch. 13) as the careful removal of pest-affected plant

parts as well as the practice of preventing plant infection or infestation, which helps stop the spread

of pest and thus halts yield losses, as well as prevents disease or infestations.

2.7.22 Crop Residue Mulching

Crop residue mulching is described as the use of crop residues as mulch, which brings such benefits as the release of chemicals harmful or repellent to pests, suppressing weeds due to physically block- ing them out, adding nutrients to the soil, and strengthening the pest resistance and quality of the soil by regulating the moisture and temperature (Reddy, 2017, p.29).

2.7.23 Timing of seeding, planting, and harvest

The practice of managing the timing of seeding, planting, and harvest to prevent yield losses caused by weather conditions is brought forth as an agroecological cultural practice by ibid (2017, ch. 13), such management could additionally be used to avoid yield losses from pests by knowing when they attack the crops.

3 Results

The results will be approached with administrative and social factors first, continuing on to economic factors, further onto energy use, and finally onto the agricultural practices.

3.1 Certification

The responsible body for certifying Rosenhill as an organic farm is a certification body working on behalf of KRAV, although we have no data on which specific one it is. The checklist that KRAV used for looking at the social responsibility at the farm shows how the process is done. A series of questions are provided that are then answered by a person responsible at the farm. For some important questions, documents are to be provided as a supplemental proof of said statements. Fur- thermore, from data collected during the interview with the farm responsible person, it is evident that the certification body responsible for the farm cares mostly about paperwork and they rarely check themselves the status of the farm, by observations or testing. As a general rule, they come once a year to the farm and book their arrival date long in advance.

3.2 Work-Related Risks

In regards to machines and tools, it is stated in the KRAV check-list document that before one uses a tool a quick briefing is done. The person responsible at the farm is in close contact with the people there everyday and if someone identifies a risk, the necessary actions are taken. No documentations are given as proof, but it is assumed that the answers are truthful.

3.3 Profitability and economic stability

From the interview with the farm responsible person it was gathered that the main investments went towards a new greenhouse, a kitchen and some other investments such as machines, if needed. It was not directly calculated how fast the return on investments are and the greenhouse was estimated to take a few years to be built. Instead, for some minor things it was seen in terms of spiritual returns on investments rather that purely in economic terms. The investments are continuous and whenever there is a surplus, this gets put into investments to continually expand the establishment.

When asked about profitability it was mentioned that last year (2019) was not as profitable as

the year before and that there was a difference of 2 million SEK, which can be further confirmed by

the progress report for 2019. No reason was given is to why this was the case. The crops grown do

not contribute to any significant surplus and are directly made into food for the workers/restaurant

or made into juice. As can be seen in the progress report, the caf´e and juice factory make up the largest portion of the revenue.

3.3.1 Diversified Economy

The economy of the farm is divided up into several different areas. These include the garden where the crops are grown, the restaurant and the juice factory.

3.4 Energy Usage

To make a full assessment on energy usage, data on how much energy is used would be needed, which isn’t available to us. What is available is which energy carriers are used. The farm reportedly, and corroborated by observation, uses gasoline to run their weed cutter. Gasoline is also used for the tractors and generators. While the greenhouses use electricity for heating during the winter. It wasn’t specified what portion of electricity comes from the gasoline generators.

3.5 Biodiversity

Looking at the topic of Biodiversity, or rather Biodiversity promoting practices, by virtue of inter- views with the head farmer and observations conducted, it is evident that such practices are taking place at the farm. Through observations it was gathered that not only are there several different kinds of plants grown together out in the open, but also that bushes, flowers, grass, vegetables, trees etc. are all grown around the farm. This contributes to a wide diversity of plants that are grown and will contribute to an indirect increase in the biodiversity of the surrounding wildlife. There is a conscious effort on the farmers’ side to promote local biodiversity by means of growing plants beneficial to bees. These include green manures, flowers and buckwheat.

3.6 Animal Husbandry

When it comes to the topic of Animal Husbandry, it is evident that such practices are not central to the farm. That being said, there are a few animals being kept in and around the farm.

It was gathered from the interviews with the farm responsible person and the head farmer that there are three privately owned pigs that are sometimes put inside the farms to graze. This is done by putting up temporary fences in and around the premises of the farm. They also get fed the leftover food from the restaurants. The fact that they are privately owned means that they are not officially part of the farm. This is explained as being due, in part, to KRAV having strict rules in regards to animal husbandry. Around the center of the farm, there is also a cage that is open during the day in which there are chickens and ducks (fig 2). Outside there is a sign telling passersby to not disturb or feed the animals. They are also privately owned, but can sometimes serve a function for the crop production. For example, this is the case when it comes to feeding on the snails, which are a pest to certain crops that are grown at the farm.

3.7 Agro-Forestry

One of the main sources of income at Rosenhill is through their juice factory. From observing the

farm in fact, it is evident that apple trees are abundant. In some places they are more concentrated

in one area, whereas in others they are grown in close proximity to the crops (fig 3). When asked if

there was any agro-forestral intent, it was only answered that it provides a good structure for the

farm.

Figure 2: Ducks in a cage at Rosenhill.

Figure 3: Agroforestry and deep tillage at Rosenhill.

There is no planned position for the apple trees with respect to the crops at the farm. However, cultural practices like pruning are being implemented. This is done by a neighbour who holds a class in pruning.

3.8 Quality of soil

As per the results of data gathering from the site at Rosenhill, there are gaps in data which makes evaluating all the soil related factors impossible. The factors which can’t be evaluated through the gathered data are: soil pH, salinisation, and soil sampling.

The farm responsible person reported that soil samples had been done before and that the soil had become more nutrient-rich. We were however unable to get any data from the samples.

It was reported by the farm responsible person that the soil only sometimes becomes water- logged, and in such cases the cause is heavy rainfall.

As for pollution by pesticides, the interviews with the farm responsible person and the head farmer at Rosenhill concluded no use of pesticides on any crop, corroborated by no observation of such use.

The farm responsible person reported that they had no explicit soil nutrient management.

The only reported (by the head farmer and farm responsible person) fertilizers used at Rosenhill are horse manure compost, green manure cropping, and compost.

The green manure cropping at Rosenhill is done by growing buckwheat, a mix of clovers and grass, and various legumes, which are rotated. Per the interviews with the head farmer, clovers, grass, and various legumes are grown for their N fixing properties. Furthermore, rye is grown to incorporate nutrients into the soil by mixing the entire plant matter into the soil.

Looking at soil management, before sowing seeds or seedlings, the farm reportedly (by the head farmer) prepares the soil by either shallowly tilling it with tools such as rakes. They could also use a tractor to more deeply till it (fig 3), followed by a machine tool that finely grinds the topmost layer of the soil(fig 4). The only reported (by the head farmer) soil cover used by the farm is straw mulch in the greenhouses, and occasional sawdust mulch around the trees and bushes. The reason given was that mulch is hard to come by and that no cereals are grown.

3.9 Waste Management

The only types of waste reported by the farm responsible person and head farmer are crop residues and plastics. Crop residues are used as mulch if mold-free, or get put into the compost otherwise.

There was however no comment regarding the handling of plastic waste.

3.10 Water

The farm irrigates the crops with drip irrigation through hoses with small holes in them. It was also

reported by the head farmer that water sprinklers are used (fig 7), but that they sometimes aren’t

used due to too low water pressure. It was however unclear which method was used more. By

observation, the hoses appeared to be made of plastic, which is a sound assumption given that it

is the standard material used for hoses. To make a full assessment on water usage, we would need

data on water quantities. It was however reported that the quantities vary depending on the amount

of rainfall. As reported by the farm responsible person, the farm uses water pumped up from the

lake nearby, with the help of a farmers’ union that distributes water from the lake to several farms

nearby. We were however not provided with any information on what the union is called or it’s

detailed operations and policies.