farming styles and landscape conservation: case study
TRANSCRIPT
Farming styles and landscape conservation: Case study research on beef cattle and dairy production
in Galicia, Spain
Name student(s): Amanda Onofa Torres Year: 2016 Farming Systems Ecology Group Droevendaalsesteeg 1 – 6708 PB Wageningen - The Netherlands ___________________________________________________________________________
ii
Farming styles and landscape conservation: Case study research on beef cattle and dairy production
in Galicia, Spain
Name student(s): Amanda Onofa Torres Registration number student: 850107621090 Code number: FSE-80436 Supervisor(s): Jeroen Groot (Farming Systems Ecology) and Henk Oostindie (Rural Sociology) Professor/Examiner: Felix Bianchi
iii
Table of contents
Preface .................................................................................................................. iv
Summary .................................................................................................................. v
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Farming styles................................................................................................................................................. 2 1.2 Landscape and ecosystem services ........................................................................................................ 4 1.3 Case study research and the application of Q-methodology among Galician farmers ..... 7 1.4 Objectives and hypotheses ........................................................................................................................ 8 2. Materials and methods ................................................................................... 10 2.1 The case study area .................................................................................................................................... 10 2.3 Applying Q methodology .......................................................................................................................... 12
2.3.1 The Q sort ........................................................................................................................................................ 12 2.3.2 The sample ..................................................................................................................................................... 13 2.3.3 Data collection ............................................................................................................................................. 14 2.3.4 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................................ 15
2.4 Interviews ....................................................................................................................................................... 16 3. Results .............................................................................................................. 17 3.1 General characteristics of beef cattle and dairy farmers ............................................................ 17 3.2 Q Methodology.............................................................................................................................................. 18
3.2.1 Factor Interpretations .............................................................................................................................. 19 3.3 Analysis of the interview transcripts .................................................................................................. 28
3.3.1 Landscape ....................................................................................................................................................... 28 3.3.2 Ecosystem Services related to beef cattle and dairy production .......................................... 33
4. Discussion .......................................................................................................... 36
6. Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 39
6. References.......................................................................................................... 42
7. Appendices ....................................................................................................... 46
iv
Preface During one of my regular courses, I was impressed by the ability of one of my professors
to explain complex sociological concepts by using one photograph. Although, I needed to
spent a lot of time reading about farming styles to completely understand it. I was curious
to learn more about it. So, I started the search for a thesis topic that involved the concept
of farming styles, organic agriculture and at the same time allows me to have a closer look
into the European farming. Thus, I had the opportunity to develop the fieldwork of my
thesis in Galicia, Spain. My research included beef cattle and dairy farmers.
This thesis research is made as part of the master programme in Organic Agriculture at
Wageningen University, The Netherlands.
I would like to thank my supervisors Jeroen Groot and Henk Oostindie for all the valuable
inputs and support during this time. I would like to express my gratitude to Paul
Swagemakers who gave the opportunity to develop my research in Galicia, many thanks,
for all the support and supervision during the fieldwork, for the inputs, advices and
inspirational conversations. Also, I would like to thank Maria Dolores Dominguez who was
organized and coordinate the logistics for the interviews with the farmers all around
Galicia. Thank you both for all the hospitality, advices and time invested in this research.
Furthermore, many thanks to the farmers that participate in this study, I really
appreciated the time they have invested to answer my questions.
Finally, I would like to thank Philipp for encouraging, supporting and for not letting me
give up in the difficult moments. Many thanks to my beloved family that despite the
distance and time difference is always ready for helping and supporting me. This has been
an incredible personal experience that somehow you lived it as much as I did.
v
Summary
Agricultural modernization has increased the productivity and production efficiency of
food production in Europe. As a result of this modernization in agriculture the food supply
has been effectively ensured. However, these agricultural activities make use of less
sustainable practices and are depleting the natural resources. This has resulted in a three-
fold crisis of the modern agriculture crisis. First, an economic crisis where the production
costs at farm level is increasing while the revenues are declining. Second, the ecological
crisis that refers to the intensive use of pesticides and chemical fertilizer. They are
polluting the environment and depleting biodiversity. Third, the socio-cultural crisis due
to consumers does not belief in the food system and request rural space for leisure rather
than an industrialized countryside. In this context, two opposed paradigms are trying to
give a solution to this problem. On one hand, the agro-industrial paradigm encourages the
diffusion of industrialized technologies provided by external agents, and supports process
of change leading by external mechanism, examples of these mechanism are policies and
programmes designed for a different context that not fulfil the real needs of the rural
areas. On the other hand, the territorial agro-food paradigm supports technologies
constructed with local knowledge that are skill-oriented, so this paradigm is trying to find
a balance between production systems and ecosystems. Thus, the territorial agro-food
paradigm can be considered as a model that might offer a solution for the threefold
aspects of the modern agriculture crisis: economic, ecological and socio-cultural. Since this
approach combines agricultural food production with other rural functions (biodiversity,
nature, leisure quality production and food short supply chains).
Within this framework, the concept of farming styles delineates a way to understand the
heterogeneity in farm practices and outcomes. It offers the possibility of encounter the
diverse pathways for different types of farmers. Farming styles are defined as the
“distinctive patterns through agricultural production is organized and developed”, each
style reflects “a specific pattern for tying together land, labour, machines, networks,
knowledge, expectation and activities, this is done in a coherent way” (Van der Ploeg and
Ventura, 2014).
The aim of the study was to identify farming styles among organic and conventional beef
cattle and dairy farmers in Galicia (Spain) and to explore the interrelations between these
styles and the landscape and the provision of ecosystem services. Would some styles, from
internal farm optimisation logic, reproduce certain services better than other farming
styles?
vi
In the case study research farming style analysis in combination with Q methodology was
applied in order to identify perceptions and attitudes among beef cattle breeders and
dairy farmers in Galicia. Furthermore, Q methodology was used as a complement to the
farming styles research. Additionally, interviews were conducted to obtain more material
for further exploration of the connections between different styles, landscape
preservation and the provision of ecosystem services
Thus, four groups of farming styles were identified Ecological, Conventional,
Entrepreneur, and Life style farmers. The four faming styles identified in the study are
providing ecosystem service (provisioning, regulating and socio-cultural). Ecological
farmers are better producing provisioning and socio-cultural services due to their
practices are more oriented to the protection of the natural resources, as well as they
appreciate differently some elements of the landscape.
Finally, the conclusions of this study make reference to the limitations of the Q
methodology. This method was useful to determine the farmers’ values and goals that
Nevertheless, to relate these ideas in relevant differences in practices is difficult to grasp
with this method. Hence, it is important to use interviews as a complementation.
Regarding to ecosystem services Ecological farmers practices are looking to find a balance
between the natural resources and farming activities. So, they value the landscape
elements more than the other styles. These characteristics determine that ecological style
group is generating and supporting ecosystem services better than the other styles,
especially in the case of socio-cultural services.
1
1. Introduction In Europe, since the 1950s agricultural modernization has increased the productivity and
production efficiency of food production in Europe. On the one hand, this effectively
assures food supply (Tracy 1989; Brouwer and Lowe 1998 cited in Swagemakers and
Wiskerke, 2006); on the other hand this resulted in less sustainable use of the local
natural resources (Swagemakers and Wiskerke 2011). Agricultural production is in a
three-fold crisis (Van der Ploeg, 2003): an economic crisis, i.e. the production costs at farm
level are increasing while the revenues are declining; an ecological crisis where the
intensive use of pesticides and artificial fertilizer are polluting the environment and
destroying the natural habitats as well as depleting biodiversity; and a socio-cultural crisis
since consumers do not trust the food system any longer and request rural space for
leisure rather than an industrialized countryside (Swagemakers and Wiskerke, 2005;
Swagemakers et al., 2014).
As a response to this crisis, debates about the future of Europe’s agriculture and rural
areas started (Marsden et al., 2001), which focused in two important but opposing
paradigms (Marsden, 2003; Wiskerke, 2009).
The agro-industrial paradigm supports the application of innovative industrial
technologies that are externally provided, and sees processes of change driven by external
mechanisms and drastic system innovations. This favours scale enlargement in the
production sphere, and can modify the natural environment, including landscape aspects.
In contrast, the territorial agro-food paradigm emphasizes that technologies must be
supported and based on the local knowledge and specially skilled-oriented. In terms of the
natural environment this paradigm aims to find the balance between the production
system and the ecosystem. Such balance must be achieved by boosting the processes of
change based in local knowledge (Swagemakers et al., 2012; Barham, 2003 cited in
Swagemakers et al., 2012). In earlier work Marsden (2003) called this the sustainable
rural development paradigm, in which agriculture relates to nature, biodiversity, leisure,
and aesthetic impacts (on the landscape).
Van der Ploeg et al. (2002) claim that the territorial agro-food model (rural development
model) offers an answer to the economic, ecological and socio-cultural crises of modern
agriculture. The approach combines agricultural food production with other rural
functions for example biodiversity, nature, leisure as well as quality production and food
short supply chains (Van der Ploeg et al., 2000). Hence farmers are able to improve their
income and at the same time this approach will help farmers to improve their livelihoods
2
(Ventura and Milone, 2000; Knickel, 2001). Moreover, it creates coherence and synergies
between for example nature preservation, landscape, and quality production. Therefore,
the alignment between the elements of the territorial rural development paradigm is
considered as an important asset of the model (Brunori and Rossi, 2000). This provision of
a wider range of functions and its relation to a diversification of the rural economy calls
for a research methodology that enables to understand the heterogeneity in farm
practices, which serves as departure point for rural development. The concept and
methodology for researching farming styles aim to structure this heterogeneity and to
support the development of different development pathways for different types of farm
practices. Likewise it contributes to understand the interactions of landscape and the
resulting ecosystem services that the heterogeneity of farming can involve.
1.1 Farming styles
Hofstee (1946) created the concept of styles of farming with the aim to get to descriptions
of the way farming practices perform, which makes a style of farming a complex and
integrated set of notions which entails knowledge, experiences and norms. Whilst Hofstee
elaborated this concept in the context of interregional diversity of Dutch farming (Van der
Ploeg, 2012) the concept was re-introduced by van der Ploeg who used it to explain the
intraregional diversity of Dutch farming (Wiskerke, 2004 cited in Domínguez, 2007).
Nowadays the concept of farming styles is in use to help to better understand the
heterogeneity of farming. Farming styles delineate different realities as well as different
development trajectories that are assumed to be the “outcome of often highly contrasting
underlying patterns” (Van der Ploeg, 2010; Van der Ploeg and Ventura, 2014). Hence,
farming styles are defined as the “distinctive patterns through which agricultural
production is organized and developed” (Van der Ploeg and Ventura, 2014), in which each
style reflects” a specific pattern for tying together land, labour, machines, networks,
knowledge, expectation and activities, this is done in a coherent way” (Van der Ploeg,
2010).
These farming styles entail mutually interdependent levels: the level of notions or ideas
about how to farm, the farming practices itself, and the network in which the farm is
embedded. First, a style should be considered as “the coherent set of strategic notions
about the way in which farming should be practiced” (Van der Ploeg, 2003 p.111). From
this viewpoint a style reflects the drivers and motivations for farming according to
farmers’ reality and needs and the cultural believes. Consequently it is the starting point to
comprehend how the farm unfolds. Second, a farming style “appears as a particular
3
practice: as an internally consistent, congruous, way of farming” (Van der Ploeg, 2003
p.111). This implies that a current practice is the expression of the strategic actions of an
actor influenced by the cultural believes, and results into a certain development pattern
(Domínguez, 2007). Third, a farming style is “a particular set of relations i.e. a socio-
technical network” (Van der Ploeg, 2003 p. 111). This involves different kinds of internal
and external relationships, for instance the relation with the market, technology, and
administrative and policy frameworks.
Since the interrelations between these levels explain how a farm unfolds and farmers
differently optimise their farm, distinguishing farming styles (different farm practices and
their relations with markets, technology and policy frames) also implies different
relationships to and diverse ways in which they affect the components of the agro-
ecosystems: how a farmer feeds its animals, whether he buys fodder at the market or
grows this at the farm, how these are grown, how the soil is fertilised, how a farmer
balances crop and grassland production, the use of water etc. All these components are
strongly interlinked in for instance milk production. The use of concentrates may increase
the productivity but also will increase the cost while it sometimes may reduce the farm
profit (Domínguez, 2007). Improved understanding of the different farming styles and
their internal optimisation trajectories results in organizing support to a further unfolding
of farming styles that might enhance a more sustainable agricultural development and
sustain food production on the long term (Van der Ploeg and Ventura, 2014). The
translation of farm optimization strategies into farming styles grounds in the on-going
adaptations and improvements in farm practices, i.e. the differentiation and
transformation of the farm practice in time (Van der Ploeg, 2010). Thereby a farming style
can be interpreted as the characteristic way of equilibrating the many balances that link
farming, the farm family and the outside world (Van der Ploeg and Ventura, 2014).
It is interesting to explore and analyse farmers perceptions about the decisions they take
in their farm management, as a similar decision can be realised by farmers that have
different sets of values (Brodt et al., 2006). With the objective of identifying management
styles, researches like Fairweather and Keating (1994) have combined farmers’ goals and
values within the economic, social and lifestyles spheres. They explained that management
styles could be interpreted as the combination of diverse goal orientations and different
farmers’ strategies in order to achieve their goals. In this sense, to reach their goals
farmers consider the existing physical and human resources as well as the attitudes
regarding family life, agricultural development, landscape preservation, environmental
protection and biodiversity conservation.
4
At last, it is important to emphasise the significance of farming styles approach for policy,
intervention and programmes (Van der Ploeg, 2010). In this sense this approach is an
important tool since it offers understanding of the farmers agricultural world and how
farmers experience it from inside (Van Averbeke and Mohamed, 2006). Moreover it
provides the possibility of using the different styles as a “set of design principles” that is
better aligning with policy practice relations. Thus, these could be the start point to
elaborate new more inclusive policies as well as development programmes based on the
different dynamics that the agricultural sector might involve. (Van der Ploeg, 2010).
1.2 Landscape and ecosystem services
Landscape can be defined as the area shaped by the actions, interactions of natural and
human factors. Thus, people perceive its aesthetic qualities individually. Landscapes
manifest closer interactions between people and their natural environments. Its
contribution to human wellbeing and to the consolidation of identities makes it important
to the formation of local cultures (European Council 2000). Departing from the above
definition, there is a connection between the landscape and farming styles.
"People’s interactions with and impact on the landscape are affected by their values,
practices and social relations. Therefore, it is hypothesised that different farming styles
lead to coherent and recognisable patterns of interactions with landscapes, which shape
their appearance, biodiversity and the provisioning of ecosystem services." The coherent
and recognisable patterns of interactions entail different levels: the distribution and
presentation of plots, grassland composition, architecture of the buildings, presentation of
the yard, in general the design of the farm (Van der Ploeg, 2003). There are many
landscape components and structures that generate values, services and functions. These
values, functions and services are conceptualised and categorised through the concept of
ecosystem services.
According to Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005, ecosystem services are "the
benefits people obtain from ecosystems” (van Koppen and Spaargaren, 2014). TEEB
Foundations 2010, gave another definition in which explains that ecosystem services are
the direct and indirect contributions of ecosystem to human well-being. Figure 1
illustrates such contributions. There are three types of services directly affecting people:
Provisioning services: products or goods obtained from ecosystems (e.g. food, fresh water,
5
fibre). These services are especially for human consumption and are generated in
agricultural landscapes (Sandhu et al., 2010).
Regulating services: the benefits obtained from ecosystem’s control of natural processes
(e.g. climate regulation, water purification, erosion prevention). In the context of
agricultural activities this services mainly control fluctuations in water provision and
temperature (Sandhu et al., 2010).
Socio-cultural services: nonmaterial benefits obtained from ecosystems (e.g. educational,
recreational, community building, aesthetic qualities). These services supports human
health and well-being since they can provide education, recreation and aesthetics (Sandhu
et al., 2010).
These three types of ecosystem services are maintained by a fourth: supporting services,
which are considered as the natural processes that maintain the other ecosystem services
(e.g. photosynthesis, nutrient cycling) (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).
Likewise, figure 1 depicts the flow of ecosystem services from left to right, the diagram
highlight the different components of ecosystem concept and human well-being. In
consequence, the width of the arrows shows the significance of the connections between
the elements located in both sides of the figure. (Braat and De Groot, 2012).
6
Figure 1. Diagram where the relations between ecosystems services and human well-
being are explained (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).
Agriculture activities are a generator and a consumer of ecosystem services (Sandhu et al.,
2010). Therefore, the interrelations between agricultural activities and ecosystem services
consist in: first, provide beneficial ecosystem services like food production, aesthetics and
soil retention. Second, the agroecosystem get beneficial ecosystems services from
pollination (non-agricultural ecosystems). Third the ecosystem services derived from non-
agricultural activities might be impacted by the agricultural practices (Dale and Polasky,
2007).
Supporting, provisioning, regulating and socio-cultural services are differently reproduced
in farming styles. Braat and De Groot (2012 p. 8) developed the premise that in ‘the real
world, provisioning and cultural ecosystem services are only delivered (and subsequently
beneficial and of value) to humans with some investment of energy, e.g. labour, by
humans’. Since farming styles entail a unique ordering of the agricultural production
process the impact in a range of key issues such as biodiversity, productivity resource use
efficiency and landscape involve the different styles. It indicates how different farming
styles have shaped landscapes for example in Mexico and Austria focusing on both birds
and wildlife (Gerritsen, 2002; Schmitzberger, 2005 cited in Van der Ploeg and Ventura,
2014). Therefore, it is important to understand the relations or possible connections that
farmers have developed with the landscape and their farming strategies.
Beef cattle breeders and dairy farmers utilize and influence diverse ecosystem services.
For instance, a farmers who observed that cows take branches from the hedgerows
around the field instead of just graze the fields starts to pay attention to the landscape
elements and the specific flora and fauna in order to recognize the influence of such
elements in the cows’ diet (Swagemakers and Wiskerke, 2011). In Galicia farming styles in
beef cattle and dairy production reproduce differently the sets of ecosystem services
accordingly to their drivers of production and motivations. The ecosystem services result
from the ecological processes that are shaped and influenced in farm practice. Since
drivers of production and motivation differ among farmers (that is: farm practices differ,
there are different farming styles) also the provisioning of ecosystem services differs
among farmers.
This resulted in the idea to research how farmers perceive (value) ecosystem services in
relation to the production and services they can derive from the natural environment
(what they can get from the agroecosystem). The research aim is to identify farming styles
among beef cattle and dairy farmers in relation to landscape preservation and the
7
provision of ecosystem services in Galicia. The research question relates to how farming
styles affect the provisioning of ecosystem services. Would some styles, from internal farm
optimisation logic, reproduce certain set of services better than other farming styles?
1.3 Case study research and the application of Q-methodology among Galician farmers A case study investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth, it combines different
data collection techniques like literature review, observation, interviews and analysis of
stakeholders in this way it provides context dependent knowledge (Yin, 2014). Farming
systems case studies offer in depth details of the management strategies of farmers as well
as the main drivers for the development of agricultural sector. In this case study research I
apply farming styles analysis and combine this with Q-methodology in order to identify
perceptions and attitudes among beef cattle breeders and dairy farmers in Galicia, Spain. I
test how farming styles can be identified through the application of Q-methodology, a
method developed by Stephenson in 1953 in the Psychology subject. This method merges
quantitative and qualitative techniques for the analysis of subjectivity, “viewpoints” or
“discourse” of people regarding a specific matter (Brown, 1980; McKeown and Thomas,
1988; Stephenson, 1953 cited in Frantzi et al., 2009). The quantitative characteristic is
reflected in the use of statistics and mathematical techniques to collect the data as well as
for the analysis. Likewise the qualitative characteristic is given by obtaining qualitative,
subjective data from the respondents about certain values and believes; yet there is no
need for a large population sample only a few participants and Q sorts, could give the
study a statistical significance because of the variety of implicit discourses uncovered thus
every Q sort of the participants offers a very large amount of information (Barry and
Proops, 1999). Furthermore smaller number of participants supports an emphasis on
quality so, pattern and consistency could be perceived among the data (Watts and Stenner,
2005). Participants place a selection of statements in an order on a scale from “strongly
agree” to “strongly disagree” (Brodt et al., 2006). The array of statements is called a Q sort.
Q sorts from the participants in the study are correlated and subjected to factor analysis to
produce groups of people that have ordered the statements in a similar way (Fairweather
and Keating, 1990). In my study, the role of Q methodology is exclusively used to
determine farming styles among beef cattle and dairy farmers in Galicia.
In the remainder of my MSc thesis I aim to exhibit how styles relate to the provision of
ecosystem services. Therefore I apply the theoretical framework on farming styles to the
study of farmers’ perceptions of landscape and ecosystem services. These patterns I
8
describe more detail in the result section. Additionally, I gathered interview materials,
which I transcribed and used for the further exploration of the connections between
different styles, landscape preservation and the provision of ecosystem services. This
included elements like native trees, valados (stone walls) and the disposition of the plots.
This additional information derived from the interviews helped me to describe the local
landscape whilst it also contributed to explore the relation between farming styles and the
provision of provisioning, supporting, regulating and socio cultural ecosystem services.
Finally, I discuss my findings on farming styles, landscape conservation and ecosystem
services in Galicia. Farmers have different values and goals that result in the constitutions
of different practices. These practices, each developing in relation to ideas and motivation
of the farmer and the linkages of the farm practice to markets, technology and
administration and policy frameworks, can be classified in farming styles. The styles
among the beef cattle and dairy farmers relate differently to the provision of ecosystem
services, especially regarding the provision of socio-cultural services.
1.4 Objectives and hypotheses
The main objective of this thesis is to identify farming styles among beef cattle and dairy
farmers likewise, how these farming styles affect the provisioning of ecosystem services in
Galicia.
The sub-objectives are:
1. To identify farmers’ values and motivation that result in different farming
practices.
2. To define the farming styles underlying the farming practices of beef cattle and
dairy farmers in Galicia.
3. To explore the connections between farming styles, landscape conservation and
the provision of ecosystem services.
The hypotheses are:
1. Beef cattle breeders and dairy farmers have different values and goals when
farming. The result of values and goals involve different practices and strategies
that are linked to markets, technology and administration and policy frameworks.
Theses practices and strategies as well as the linkages are considered farming
styles. Thus, these farmers have implemented cost reduction strategies such as
reducing the external inputs, fertilizer, concentrates and forage. These strategies
9
allow farmers to be more independent from the external inputs and the external
changes that negatively influence the prices.
2. Beef cattle breeders and dairy farmers have different farming practices that can be
translated into farming styles. Throughout these practices the farmers perceive,
value and use differently the elements in the agroecosystem. Therefore, these
styles among the beef cattle and dairy farmers relate differently to the provision of
ecosystem services, especially regarding the provision of socio-cultural services.
10
2. Materials and methods For the purpose of this research different methods were applied. This included document
analysis and interviews with key-informants for the description of the context of beef
cattle and dairy farmers in Galicia, the application of Q Methodology in order to identify
farming styles among beef cattle and dairy, and in-depth interviews with farmers in order
to get a better understanding of the differences in landscape elements and in ecosystem
services provisioning, between farming styles. The ecosystem services to take into account
are provisioning, regulating and socio-cultural, since supporting services function is to
maintain the other three services, it will not be explored in this research.
2.1 The case study area
Figure 2. Map of Galicia and its location in Spain. In the right a close up image of Galicia,
red circles indicate the area where the farms included in the study were located. Adapted
from Concellos y Comarcas de Galicia, 2016.
Galicia is an autonomous region of Spain, located in the northwest of the Iberian Peninsula
(Figure 2). Characteristic for the Galician agrarian sector are its small-scaled farms and the
high number of (again small) and scattered plots per farm. This characteristic generates a
constraint for further development of a land-based fodder input strategy in the Galician
beef and dairy sector (Domínguez, 2007) because farmers have to walk the herd for long
11
distances to the next plot in order to graze. For this research farmers were identified in
the areas that represent the typical Galician landscape. These areas are characterized by a
relatively rugged topography; the altitude is ranging from 400 to 1800 meters, there are
narrow valleys and large elevation close to each other. This characteristic combined with
mountain weather has hampered the development of agriculture and livestock activities
as well as the communication with other areas.
Animal husbandry and vegetable crop production are the main land-use activities of the
farm families who participated in this study. Beef cattle and dairy production generate
income and vegetable crop production is only for family consumption. Farms are not so
large in terms of number of animals. The average number of animals is around 15, except
for specific cases where the farm is very large. There are a relative small number of
families that have an average of 60 animals (Vazquez, 2012). The use of indigenous
genotypes adapted to the natural environment is common. These breeds use natural
resources efficiently through grazing (Acero, 2009). The breeds commonly used for milk
are Frisian (Frisona), Brown Swiss (Parda Alpina) and cross-breeds (Gutierrez, 2009).
Although these breeds do not originate from Galicia, people consider them as indigenous.
The breeds have been in the area for a long time, and experienced processes of intense
cross-breed with breeds from the area for adaptation. For beef cattle: Cachena, Rubia
Gallega, Vianesa, Limia, Pirenaica, Asturiana and cross-breeds (Acero, 2009). Also the
production process is based on protected designation of origin 'Ternera Gallega' (PDO),
which is an accreditation for agricultural products and foodstuffs from a defined
geographical area (European Commission, Agriculture and Rural Development, 2015). In
this case calves and cows under this accreditation need to be from a particular breed that
is provided a healthy environment, so the meat is highly prized for its quality (Vazquez,
2012).
Another characteristic of this area is the presence of Monte, understood as the traditional
area covered by trees, scrub, bushes and not in use for arable farming (Domínguez, 2007;
Soto, 2006 cited in Swagemakers et al., 2014). In the Galician context this area has been
essential to support farming practices, as it is consider the resource base (Swagemakers et
al., 2014). ). Next to private and state owned areas, in many areas Monte also is collective
property under the control of specific neighbourhood associations. This entailed rights to
use the land, but not to inherit or sell it (Domínguez, 2007). This particular mode of
organization originated from the 19th century however under the dictatorship of Franco
these rights were not recognized so a lot of land was expropriated. After the dictatorship
ended these lands were returned to the communal mode of administration and
management.
12
Finally, the characteristics of the aging population and the high emigration rate that have
led to a decrease of agricultural activities, results in an abandonment of agrarian activities,
of the use of Monte, and sometimes of entire rural areas. Land became in use then for
forestry, which included plantations with foreign species. In this abandoned areas in
which mono-forestry activities take place biomass accumulation relates to forest fires that
are difficult to prevent and/or stop. As a consequence of the abandonment, land that
before related to agricultural production lost its productive use. Landscape fragmentation
increased, hence economic, cultural and environmental values were lost (Villada, 2008).
The regional autonomous government of Galicia (Xunta de Galicia) implements projects
that aim to restore the function of agrarian abandoned land and the natural landscape for
instance in projects that support agro-forestry and programs on the recovery of
abandoned meadows and fencing (Villada, 2008).
Since, the Q methodology demands statements on land-use these characteristics and
information about the main features of the Galicia farming sector are crucial in the design
stage of the research. The statements were build upon the knowledge gathered in a first
stage of the field research, in which interviews with key-informants, the participation in a
regional event on the future of the rural areas in Galicia, and desk study provided me as a
researcher with information to write the statements.
2.3 Applying Q methodology In this study Q methodology helped to bring out farmers’ goals and management
strategies, especially focusing on the farmers’ approaches to management (Fairweather
and Keating, 1994), which led to defining farming styles.
2.3.1 The Q sort
In order to start with the application of this methodology, it was necessary to develop the
array of statements that constitute the Q-sort. The list of statements contained
information about farmers’ goals and management strategies, which were based on
previous studies within this theme, for instance conducted in New Zealand (Fairweather
and Keating, 1990; 1994) and in California (Brodt et al., 2006). A preliminary list of
possible statements was taken from these studies. Statements were translated to Spanish
and then adjusted to the Galician context. Information from the literature review about the
beef cattle and dairy production in Galicia was combined with important material from the
dissertation of Dr Maria Dolores Domínguez as well as agricultural magazines
13
(Cooperacion Galega), online documents (Foro Economico de Galicia), recorded interviews
with farmers, and a local workshop (“Rural Imaxinado do presente ao futuro porvir”)
organized by ReVolta, an academic expert network consisting of researchers of the
University the Compostela and the University of Vigo. Likewise key information was given
in informal conversations with academics in the workshop. Additionally more detailed
information about the Cooperative Biocoop was obtained from the president Jose Luis Vaz
in an interview that lasted for around three hours, and through informative material
(brochures, booklets) about the cooperative and its philosophy.
The range and formulation of the statements have been checked among Galician scientists,
and in an interview situation with a farmer. This however did not result in feedback on the
statements other then they were perceived as complete and valid. It did result in the
reduction of the number of statements. Thus, a draft list of 53 statements was reduced to
49 statements. This list of statements included economic elements that contain the
production objectives like business, development, independence and lifestyle elements
that contain conservation, animal welfare and lifestyle. The final list of statements used in
the application of Q methodology is based on 49 statements.
2.3.2 The sample
The beef cattle breeders that participated in the study were selected among the members
of two cooperatives in Galicia. Jose Luis Vas, president of Biocoop assisted, to make a first
contact with the farmers in order to check their availability to participate in the research.
Likewise Roman Besteiro, manager of A Carqueixa, assisted to contact the farmers in this
cooperative. In addition, dairy farmers were included as suggested by representatives of
the regional government and researchers of the University of Santiago de Compostela. The
sample represented a diverse as possible selection of farmers who some more than others
already adapt their farm practice along the lines of inclusion of the protection of the local
natural environment. In this aspect, the technologies applied by these farmers are based
on local knowledge and skilled oriented. Likewise there are some other farmers that rely
upon innovative industrial technologies that are externally provided. In this way scale
enlargement in the production sphere could be achieve not necessarily including the idea
of natural environment protection.
Biocoop is located in Ourense province. It includes 30 members among organic beef cattle
and organic dairy. This cooperative is dedicated to promote the use of endangered
indigenous breeds (Cachena, Rubia Gallega, Vianesa, Limia) and crossbreeding. Biocoop is
14
in charge of the processing and distribution stages of organic beef production; an
additional role of the cooperative is to distribute the fodder and other agriculture supplies
offering better prices than the normal market as well as assistance to obtain the organic
certification.
A Carqueixa is headquartered in San Román de Cervantes, the capital of the municipality in
the county of Os Ancares at the east of the province of Lugo. It groups around 190 beef
cattle farmers. Breeds like Rubia Gallega and Asturiana are commonly used in this group.
Similar to the other cooperative, it is in charge of the processing and distribution stages of
beef production and offers the farmers better prices for agriculture supplies and fodder.
The dairy farmers were located in the area of Arzúa, but not restricted to this area. In the
sample were also dairy farmers from the area of A Pastoriza and Meira, and the area of
Riós. Some of the dairy farmers were just delivering milk to the industries, others with a
differentiation in the quality (Omega-3, organic), and others processed milk into cheese or
had plans to build a small on-farm cheese factory.
The area of Arzúa is characterised as the ‘tierra del queso’ (land of the cheese). In this area
individual farmers had the best value added strategy in comparison to mainstream dairy
farming through linking the landscape in combination with organic milk production as a
selling ‘asset’ (value) to the processing and distribution of cheese with a ‘local identity’.
Among beef farmers Biocoop members had the best deal in terms of added value but were
rather marketing organic meat were possible from autochthonous breeds but so much
marketing the landscape.
The sample was selected with the aim to obtain a divers group of farmers. In total 24
famers performed the ranking for the Q methodology and participated in the interview.
The sample included 5 organic dairy farmers (DO), 6 organic beef cattle farmers (BO), 4
conventional dairy farmers (DC) and 9 conventional beef cattle farmers (BC).
2.3.3 Data collection
On-farm visits were organised in order to interview farmers face to face, so there was the
opportunity of making observations in situ. Farmers were free to introduce themselves
and explain about the farm, their jobs, their family, the environment, etc. for around one
hour, sometimes siting in a room and sometimes walking around the farm. Next to getting
an idea about the motivation, past, present and future orientations of the farmer, in this
interview also farm data were gathered on farm size and number of animals, etc.
Afterwards the Q methodology exercise was presented to farmers with a short explanation
of how it worked. Then farmers were asked to organize the Q-sort in three simple piles
15
agree, neutral and disagree. Next farmers scored the statements in the grid scale where -5
was the strongly disagree and +5 was the strongly agree, scores around zero meant that
farmers were unconcerned to that statement (Figure 3). The duration of the exercise was
not strict however an average time of 45-50 minutes was measured. Finally, once the
exercise was completed farmers briefly explained why they selected certain statements in
-5/+5.
Figure 3. The grid scale used in the study. It indicates the number of the statements
assigned to the ranking (-5) most disagree to (+5) most agree. The number below the grid
denotes the number of statements assigned to the rank, 49 statements were
accommodated in this distribution.
2.3.4 Data Analysis
In this phase of the study PQMethod software version 2.35, which is exclusively designed
for the analysis of the Q-sorts, was used. The software is available for free on the web page
http://schmolck.userweb.mwn.de/qmethod/.
The ranked Q-sorts from the 24 farmers were first translated into English and afterwards
the information of the Q sorts was entered in the PQMethod software. The software
calculated intercorrelations among Q sorts. Next, the intercorrelation matrix was
subjected to factor analysis with Principal Components Analysis (PCA) and then the
results are rotated using Varimax rotation. The default analysis produced eight unrotated
factors, so in order to select the number of factors to be rotated the protocols of Q
methodology was followed: an eigenvalue of more than 1.0 is needed to be statistically
significant, as well as at least two of the Q sorts had to load significantly on that factor
(Watts and Stenner, 2005)
16
Thereafter the solution suggested five factors to rotate due to it had an eigenvalue of more
than 1.0 however it had not two Q sorts loading in factor five so this solution was rejected
because it did not comply with the criteria. Therefore four factor were select due to it
complied with the Q method protocols.
2.4 Interviews
As already mentioned, in addition to the Q methodology interviews were performed
during the on-farm visits to add more valuable information about the farmers’ opinion
regarding landscape elements and ecosystem services, as well as to have a closer view of
the farms; therefore, all the interviews and conversation with the farmers were recorded
and transcribed. During the interviews landscape and ecosystem services were addressed,
in this way it was possible to discover elements from the landscape such as native trees,
stone walls, grazing meadows and some other elements that could have direct connection
with provisioning, regulating, supporting and socio-cultural services. Thereby once the
results of Q methodology were ready it could be possible to explore the perceptions
regarding landscape and ecosystem services, from an individual point of view and then
combining them into the characteristic of the farming styles.
So, for the landscape every farmer’s transcript from the interview was analysed to compile
a list of elements that were considered to be part of the landscape as well as its function in
the production context.
Regarding ecosystem services, (provisioning, regulating and socio-cultural) farmers were
asked what could they get from the agroecosystem? Based on these answers, elements
from the landscape were identified in the transcripts from the interviews. Next, a
compilation of such elements were created, this list included the functions. In this way, it
was possible to have a better understanding of the value that farmers had to these
elements. Afterwards these elements and their functions were analysed in order to meet
ecosystem services theories and schemes (Vilardi et al., 2012; De Groot et al., 2002).
In total 24 interviews were recorded and transcribed in Spanish so only the related parts
of the interviews were translated to English for completing the analysis.
17
3. Results
3.1 General characteristics of beef cattle and dairy farmers Table 1 describes general information from the 24 farmers that participated in the study.
Farmers were classified by type of farm. Thus, as mentioned in the case study description,
one of the characteristics of the rural Galicia is its aging population, which is reflected in
the average age of farmers, which was 47 years. Young farmers were not so common,
except for two specific cases that farmers were in the late twenties. These farmers were
participating in the government program for the continuation of agriculture activities in
Galicia. Organic beef cattle farmers had the largest farms size, since this type included
farmers with collective property.
Table 1. General characteristics per farm.
Dairy organic
Dairy conventional
Beef organic
Beef conventional
DO DC BO BC Number of farms of type 5 4 6 9 Average age (years) 38 57 52 44 Average farm size (ha) 59 42 142 91 Average number of animals 83 70 76 82 Other activities (number of farmers involved) Milk packaging and distribution
3 0 0 0
Cheese production 2 0 0 0 Yogurt production 1 0 0 0 Crops for fodder 1 0 1 0 Horticulture production (number of farmers involved)
− Family consumption 0 2 0 4 − For market 1 0 0 0
School Visits 1 0 0 0 Agro-tourism 1 0 0 0 Honey production 0 0 0 1 Chestnuts 0 2 1 0 Other Jobs 0 0 3 1
Since the farmers that participated in the study did not have an intensive production they
are considered as small farmers. Regarding the inputs for production, both organic and
18
conventional farmers were dependent on external fodder that they bought from the
cooperative. Conventional farmers were also dependent on chemical fertilizers.
Overall, the majority of the farmers were experienced in this activity since they have been
farming for at least fifteen years, while only the young farmers were in charge of the farm
for less than four years.
3.2 Q Methodology
The outcome of the factor analysis using PCA and subsequent Varimax rotation is
presented in Table 2. Four outcome factors represented 63% of the total variance and
accounted for 21 of the 24 participants. The organic farmers (types DO and BO) were
classified under Factor A, which also contained conventional farmers. Other conventional
farmers were distributed among factors B, C and D. Thus, there was no strict matching of
farm types with any of the factors.
Table 2. Four factor solution obtained from rotation. DO: organic dairy farmers; BO:
organic beef cattle farmers; DC: conventional dairy farmers; BC: conventional beef cattle
farmers.
Farms Allocation of farms to factors Unclassified
A B C D
DO 5
BO 5 1
DC 3 1
BC 1 1 3 2 2
Total 14 2 3 2 3
Variance
explained (%) 32 10 12 9
Eigenvalue 9,4776 2,9143 1,4550 1,3093
Table 3 shows complementary information and basic descriptive data by factor. Thus,
three women participated in this study and were included in factor A. The rest of
participants included 21 men that were distributed among all factors. The average farm
size was 64 hectares. Additionally, most of the farmers were full-time farmers except for 3
farmers that combined farming activities with an office job. Only one farmer from the
overall participants diversified the activities on the farm. The farmer was dedicated to
19
horticulture production (potatoes, onion, tomatoes) as well as processing the milk to make
cheese. Other dairy farmers were processing milk for yogurt and cheese production or for
packing and distribution. Besides these activities, farmers organized on-farm visits for
schools and promoted agro-tourism. As it was mentioned before farmers’ activities were
not intensive this is explained by the fact that sample was not randomly selected, so the
very intensive farmers were not included in the study. Only three farmers in the fourth
factor had an undergrad in Agriculture, and two of these farmers are part-time farmers.
The other 18 farmers learned this activity by managing the farm.
Table 3. Descriptive data organized by factors and include all the farmers. Factors* A B C D Unclassified Total Gender Male 11 2 3 2 3 21 Female 3 3 14 2 3 2 3 24 Average Age (years) 45 58 45 47 48 48 Average farm size (hectares) 93 44 158 25 87 64 Average number of animals 71 61 154 43 98 85 Other farm activities Milk packaging and distribution
3 0 0 0 0 3
Cheese production 2 0 0 0 0 2 Yogurt production 1 0 0 0 0 1 Crops for fodder 2 0 0 0 0 2 Horticulture production Family consumption 0 2 1 1 1 5 For market 1 0 0 0 0 1 School Visits 1 0 0 0 0 1 Agro-tourism 1 0 0 0 0 1 Honey production 0 0 0 1 0 1 Chestnuts 2 1 0 0 0 3 Off farm activities 3 0 0 1 0 4
3.2.1 Factor Interpretations
Each factor represents a number of farmers that sorted the statements in a similar way.
The PQ-Method software used to analyse the data, forms arrays of statements that best
20
characterises the group of farmers included in that factor. As is explained in the
methodology part, farmers score the statements in a scale where, -5 represents strongly
disagree and +5 strongly agree. Scores near zero mean that farmers give no importance to
these statements or are not concerned about them (Figure 3; Table 4).
The statements included information about the production objectives, for instance
economic, lifestyle and conservation interests, within these categories business,
development, animal welfare, independence are included (Table 4).
Results of factors A and D were correlated at 0.5; nonetheless these two factors are not
correlated to factor B. This means, in the first case that there are similarities between the
factor arrays, so this two factors had a closer viewpoint, which can also be interpreted as
one point of view. However, literature in Q methodology affirmed that factor arrays will
always intercorrelate to some extent and it is up to the researcher to consider the
interpretation as a single factor or as a different one. So in this case, this factor was taken
into account for the analysis since it complies with the mentioned protocol of Q method
and also highlights valuable information.
The interpretation of the factors was made considering the distribution of the statements
within the scale (Figure 3). Thus, the five positions of the statements on each side of the
grid and distinguishing statements (Table 4) were used for the interpretation. Table 4 is
showing the statements with the scores on each factor. Factors have been arranged in
terms of the correlations.
Table 4. Statements with scores on the factors. No. Statement A D C B
38** Organic farmers feel more satisfaction knowing that he/she is doing the things right.
5 -1 0 -1
35** My long-term goal is to learn how to manage resources in cooperation with nature.
3 2 2 -2
37** A good farmer considers three levels: Physique level, biologic level, social level, in order to maintain healthy animals.
4 1 -2 1
43 A good farmer gives the animals a proper care considering them as living beings part of the nature.
3 1 0 -2
4 I use whatever fertilizers and pesticides are necessary to get the maximum profitability.
-5 -5 -1 1
45** I am doing everything I can do be environmentally aware and conserve the land I farm.
5 3 2 0
14 As a farmer I always have to bear in mind how any decision I make will affect my farm and my family.
3 1 5 0
34 Farm works need to be done but there is not great joy in it. -3 0 -5 -1 5 I am not willing to sacrifice farm profitability to conserve water or other
resources -4 -1 -3 1
44 Farmers today must be sensitive to the environment by reducing the use of agricultural chemicals on their farms.
4 0 -1 4
7 My goal is to increase the number of animals and therefore increase my productivity and profitability.
-3 -2 2 3
6 I farm to make money. -4 -2 -2 -4 8** I strive to increase the production of the farm. (Milk/meat). -3 -1 1 3
21
32 I am a farmer because I like this activity. 4 3 1 5 3 I am not willing to use more sustainable technics if it means to sacrifice the
farm’s yield. -4 -4 1 3
36** I consider important to maintain a basic relationship between animals and human being.
3 2 4 -4
49** I do not know the effects of pesticides can have in my farm. -3 1 -3 -5 40 The cattle stay all the time in the stable. -5 -5 -3 -4
29** My goal is to reduce my workload and improve the quality life of my family. 2 5 0 1 28 I consider very important and helpful the government loans and subsidies. -1 3 -1 0 41 Calves are free in the paddocks as well as the cows therefore they are able to it
as much as they want. 1 3 1 2
48** I want to increase biodiversity on my farm even if it takes land out of production
2 -3 1 0
39** Farm tasks must come before family time. -2 -4 0 0 15 My goal is to expand the farming area, by renting land or buying land. -1 -3 0 1
42** I prefer to have an extensive farm. 2 4 3 -1 30** A good farmer concentrates the energies on the farm and is not side tracked
by interests or activities outside the farm. -2 -3 3 -1
1 Planning and financial management are the most important parts of running the farm
0 4 5 -1
46** Working close to the nature is difficult and unrewarding 0 4 -1 -3 21** I am not interesting in having a big farm, neither to increase my production. 2 -3 -4 -3 24 The land I have has been divided in little plots, which are distributed far away
from the main farm, this increase the workload at the farm, so I am not considering augmenting the number of animals.
-2 -3 -4 -3
13** My income mainly comes from the activities on the farm. 0 5 4 4 9** I rent at the Cooperative of producers some of the machinery. -1 -4 -4 -5
10** My goal is to increase the production of the farm as well as increase my income.
-2 2 4 4
12 I want to have specialized production, by producing just meat or milk. -2 -1 3 2 19 I am satisfied with the present level of development on my farm however I do
intend to develop it further by renting some more land. -1 -1 -3 1
22** The land I own is enough to produce, therefore I do not need to rent more land.
0 -1 -5 -3
23 The land I have is not enough to produce therefore I rent most of the land and have some concessions.
0 -2 3 1
47** I consider a decrease in pesticide use one-way to improve living and working conditions on the farm.
2 1 -2 5
16** I intensify my production milk/meat only with the resources I already have. -1 0 -2 3 20 I am satisfied with the amount of land I have to farm now; since land is very
scarce in the area there is nobody to rent it neither to sell it. -1 2 1 0
25 I produce the fodder in my farm. 1 2 0 -2 2 My goal is to diversify my assets by having on farm and off farm investments. -1 -2 0 -2
31 The best part of farming is having your family working alongside you. 1 1 2 -1 17 By improving the fertility of my cattle I will improve the quality of the
milk/meat and my income also increase. 1 0 2 2
27 Family members work and collaborate with the tasks in the farm; they are the main labour force.
1 0 -2 -2
11 I want better prices for the milk/meat I produce; therefore I try to negotiate the prices.
1 0 -1 2
18 I better improve the quality of my pastures, in order to raise the milk quality therefore, my income may increase.
1 -1 1 2
33 I am a farmer because is the family tradition, the family owned the farm for many generations already.
0 1 -1 0
26 I have off farm employees from time to time. 0 -1 -1 -1
** P < .01=significance level, statistically distinguished from the other factors.
22
Factor A (Ecological Farmers)
Five organic dairy farmers, 5 organic beef cattle farmers, 3 conventional dairy farmers and
1 conventional cattle farmer composed the group of the Ecological farmers. Mostly this
group top-ranked statement 45 that expressed a concern for the environment and the land
they are farming (Table 4). Likewise farmers expressed that producing in organic gives
them more satisfaction. (S38)
“True happiness is to be in contact with the Earth and the soil (…) it should be
obligatory to produce organic (…) as well as using more sustainable practices to
maintain the planet and the natural resources for the next generations” (BO12).
“I believe that our type of production is more oriented to improving our quality of life
as well as the quality of life of our animals; hence we enhance the relation with the
Nature” (BO12).
“My vocation always was being a famer, and my philosophy of production is organic”
(DO4).
Farmers in this group agreed that reducing the use of chemicals in agriculture could help
the Environment (S44).
“I like to use more sustainable practices because I am aware of the environment”
(DO4).
“I have to take care of the land that my family has cared for years, so the next
generations will have a livelihood and can produce with this land. Can you imagine
what could be the fertility of the land after the chemicals they have been using? Using
chemicals it is not healthy either for the people or the soil” (DO2).
This group highlighted that farming is not just a job they enjoy to be a farmer and consider
the activity as a style of life. (S32)
“Being a farmer is a style of life it is not just a profession (…) I do not farm just
because I want to make money, I am a farmer because I love what I do” (DO4).
23
“I am passionate for what I am doing, being in contact with the nature as well as
doing something sustainable thus I would be able to leave something for the next
generations in good conditions much better than when I found it” (DO3).
This group considered themselves as a good farmers due to the close relationship with the
cattle by managing the social, biological and physical environment thus this reinforce the
idea of “doing things right” (Table 4), (S37).
“Working with living beings is a huge responsibility. You could not compare it to
work with inert things. In this activity it is essential to give the animals proper
conditions to live as well as to take into account animal welfare” (DO2).
This group completely disagreed with the idea of boosting the farm with chemicals in
order to maximise the profitability (S4). Likewise, the farmers in this group opposed to
retaining the animals all day long in the stable (S40). Therefore, this statement logically
supports the idea of managing the animals taking into account the social, biological and
physical environment (S37). This group of farmers disagreed with S3 and S5 (Table 4),
which indicated that these farmers are farming in a more sustainable way trying to
conserve the natural resources instead of strictly focusing on making money (S6).
Another feature to highlight in this group is that they are indifferent to statement S13
since, in this group there are farmers combining farming activities with tourism and
educational activities.
The distinguishing statements in this group reinforced the general idea of farming taking
into account the natural resources and natural environment of the animals. Therefore,
statement S43 pointed out the importance of giving the animals proper conditions.
Statement S14 is indicating the importance of the decision-making and its influence in the
farm and family. Statement S13 appeared as a neutral statement but also as distinguishing
statement meaning that farmers were not interested in having a large farm. Statements S9,
S10, S7 and S8 were ranked at less important in this group, which showed that farmers
were focused more into sustainable practices.
The resulting strategies of production in ecological farmers were to reduce the use of
chemical fertilizer in their farms, to get closer to the animals they were farming in order to
better understand the behaviour of the cattle. So, in this way farmers were capable to
provide appropriate conditions. This group was usually using indigenous genotypes.
Moreover, especially dairy farmers in this group sought to diversify the activities on the
farm. Since, they were dependant on external drivers that set the prices for the milk. So,
24
the alternative was to add value to their milk by elaborating cheese, yogurt and in parallel
produce vegetables. Farmers in this group were very keen on promote Agro-tourism on
the farm.
As complementary information, farmers were cultivating in their farms part of the fodder
for cattle. Mainly they cultivated cereals like maize, wheat, rye and barley. In this way they
reduced costs of external inputs.
Factor B (Conventional Farmers)
This group included a beef cattle farmer and a dairy farmer both using a conventional
production approach. They agreed that to reduce pesticides is a good way to improve
living and working conditions (S47; Table 4) to the extent that pesticides could cause
health problems, and reduced pesticide use would result in a less polluted environment.
Nevertheless, they focused on farm productivity since their income mainly comes from the
production of the farm (S13). Thus, Conventional farmers presented a strong link between
economic management goal, lifestyle management goals and a subtle link to the
environment (Table 4).
Both farmers very much enjoyed being cattlemen (S32) yet did not consider it important
to have a closer relationship with the animals (S36). In contrast, with the statement 47
farmers in this group admit to know the effects of pesticides (S49), in fact farmer DC8 had
already problems with contaminated pasture. “Cows get very sick when they eat pasture
sprayed with pesticides” however “it is not profitable to convert to organic production”. For
this farmer it is more important to maintain production and his income. Farmer BC17
expressed that “a reduction in chemicals use would be better for the human health and the
animals, but in this area you need a lot of chemical fertilizer in order to produce enough
fodder, we spend so much money in chemical fertilizer, since manure it is not enough to
fertilize all the plots because the cows are permanently in the paddocks, so there is no chance
to collect the manure”.
Another characteristic of the group is that they are self–sufficient regarding machinery,
because both farmers had a large collection of tractors and implements (S9).
Similar to the other groups they also disagreed with the idea of keeping cattle all the time
in the stable (S40). However, in the case of farmer DC8 the calves always stayed in the
stable. They disagreed with the idea of farming just to make money (S6). They enjoyed
farming (S32) yet, they wanted to have more profit due to the farm is the main source of
income (S5; Table 4).
25
They were neutral to the statements that clearly stated concerns about the environment
and biodiversity like S49 (distinguish statement) and S45; as well as to the statement that
implied any sacrifice in the farm profit (S5).
Distinguishing statements not mentioned yet in the factor interpretation of this group
were: S8 and S16 both showed less agreement to work hard in order to increase the
production with the resources they had. Likewise statement S42 showed disagreement to
have an intensive farm. Statement S35 denoted less importance to learn how to manage
farming activities in cooperation with nature.
Summing up, farmers in this group were aware of the effects of chemical pesticides and
the problems they might cause both for human health and animals. Yet, they were not
applying any specific strategy to reduce the use of chemicals.
In this group farmers did not reduce costs for external inputs by producing part of the
fodder in the farm. They have silage and grass but the cereals that were part of the mix
ratio in the fodder. They bought them from the cooperative or the normal market.
Regarding to the animal genotype farmers selected the most productive within their
indigenous genotypes.
Factor C (Entrepreneur Farmers)
Three farmers from conventional beef cattle production are included in this group, they
principally agreed on statements belonging to the economic management goals. For
instance, statements S1, S10 and S14 (Table 4) are more oriented to produce as a business
activity. Farmers in this group manifested that they carefully think about decisions
regarding the farm.
“I would not like to regret to sell cattle that I would probably need tomorrow”
(BC16).
“It is important to re-invest in the farm the money you get.” (BC20)
Planning and financial management are vital too
“If you have a good income but do not know how to manage it then the farm will
have financial problems, so it will collapse” (BC19).
Although, this group is more business oriented they bear in mind to some extent that a
good relations with animals could benefit the animal performance.
26
“In my experience it is better to treat the animals good, to get along with them that is
the best way to work with them” (BC19)
In contrast to the other groups, this group highlights an important characteristic of the
Galicia farming context: the scattered and small sized plots, which is consider a constraint
for producing. Thus, entrepreneur farmers strongly disagree with the statements S22 and
S24 (Table 4) given that they would like to have more land but there is not available land
either for renting or for buying.
“We have too many cows but not enough land to maintain them”. Hence we have to
rent more land for the cattle, so we rent land in an area nearby to Leon, it is around
eight hours from here by foot”. “We called it Las Brañas. I take the cattle over there
from the end of April until the end of November” (BC16).
I used to take the cattle to Las Brañas, but I consider it too far and also too much
work, so I started to look land nearby my farm to rent it so, I do not need take the
cattle there anymore” (BC19).
“We have 145-150 hectares some of them are ours and other we have to rent in order
to increase the livestock” (…) (BC20).
Neutral statements communicate essential information as well. So, farmers are indifferent
to the statement related to organic production (S38) as well as statement S43
considerations about animal welfare.
Distinguishing statements in this group pointed out that farmers considered it important
being dedicated full time to farm activities (S30). The farmers of this type disagreed on a
less extent to statements S37 and S47, which included care of the animals in a holistic way,
and to decrease the use of pesticides.
This group is not focused on any strategies that involve cost reductions by decreasing the
use of external inputs (fertilizers, fodder, animal medication). Instead, they are more
interested in getting more space for the animals more land to produce silage, as well as
more space for grazing. The farmers in this group they have selected Rubia gallega, which
gain the best weight market compared to the other indigenous genotypes. Therefore, they
are able to make more profit.
27
Factor D (Life Style Farmers)
Group D included two farmers. Both are conventional beef cattle farmers who have ranked
a wide range of factors, for instance the top rated statement made reference to reducing
the workload and having more time for another activities (S29) in Table 4. Supporting this
finding is farmer BC22 who expressed the preference for the `Vianesa’ breed genotype
because “they are very strong for the monte, they survive better in our conditions, they do
not get sick and do not need much attentions or extra work” thus “we do not have so much
workload everyday”. Despite, that they had other occupations the livestock activity was the
principal source of income (S13). Farmer BC18 used to be a worker in the construction
sector and working part-time in the farm. Nowadays, he is completely dedicated to farm
activities. Farmer BC22 dedicated more time to the farm. However, there are some other
jobs. Farmers believed that working close to nature is difficult and unrewarding (S46).
One of the reasons might be that the requirements for participating in nature conservation
projects were too strict and the money from subsidies was not enough. This group
preferred to have an extensive farm. Thus, by being extensive it is possible to have the
animals free all the time in fields, which meant a bit less work for them. They agreed to
statement S1 (Table 4), indicating that planning and financial matters are important in
order to maintain production as well as the household.
They strongly disagreed to the idea of using pesticides to get the maximum profitability
(S4)
“I try not to use pesticides unless is something indispensable, this pesticides are not
good for the environment, health nor the animals (BC22).
Consequently they disagreed to statement 3 (Table 4).
”I prefer to lose one potato rather than to eat it with sulphates, in the case of animals
it is a bit different, if they are sick I prefer to give them the antibiotic instead of let the
animal die”(BC22).
In this group family meant a lot, always in first place therefore they strongly disagreed on
statement S39.
“If they have to sell all the animals in order to take care of one family member they
will” (BC22).
28
Distinguishing statements ranked to less importance in this group were S28 that
expressed the importance of subsidies in the farming sector. Likewise, S49 were ranked to
less importance due to this group is aware of the effects that pesticides had in their farms.
On the other side of the scale statement S7 demonstrated their disagreement on increase
the number of animals. S23 indicated that farmers in this group did not have enough land
to farm. Farmers give less importance to the statement S48.
Overall, this group of farmers had a less intensive production. Therefore they have
selected a very easy breed to work with but at the same time this breed can produce
enough to sustain the household.
In contrast, to the other groups lifestyle farmers were not diversifying farm activities.
They were focused in produce with the resources they already had. Lifestyle group always
prioritized the welfare of the family as a final goal.
3.3 Analysis of the interview transcripts
In this part the interview transcripts were analysed to find the farmers’ opinion of the
landscape as well as the description of its elements. Based on the description of these
elements then, they were related to ecosystem services. Next, it was possible to find
relations and connection between farming styles and ecosystem services in order to
determine styles that supported better such ecosystem services.
3.3.1 Landscape
Table 5 was created from the farmers’ descriptions of the landscape elements during the
interviews. In this way, it is possible to appreciate the different views and the elements
farmers considered as part of their own landscape, as well as the description of the
function that such elements had for each farmer. Not all farmers gave a very detailed
description of their landscape, since the concept of landscape it is not well understood yet
in Galicia compared with other places for instance, with Netherlands. Moreover, it has
been included in the table the styles of farming each farmer belong to.
Table 5. Descriptions of the Galician landscape elements according to beef cattle and dairy
farmers.
Farmer
Code
Element Function Farming Style
DO2 Valados (stone walls Delimit meadows, and farms Ecological
Farmers Forest Refuge for cattle in summer
29
100 years old meadows Fodder for young animals
Meadow Grazing
Water In the meadows for animal
consumption
DO3 Valados (stone walls) Delimit meadows, and farms Ecological
Farmers Forest (Oaks) Heritage more than 500 years old.
There is less probability of fires in a
plot with oak.
Eucalyptus For paper industry
50-60 years old meadows More biodiversity
Meadows More biodiversity due to very old
meadows
Soil Need to have fallow time in order to
have the subside from CAP
Old houses, old buildings Increase self-esteem in the rural
area
Agro-tourism Added value to the farm and
complements the income
Indigenous breed Complements the natural and
traditional landscape. Aesthetic
value
Diverse flora Complements the natural and
traditional landscape. Aesthetic
value
DO4 Forest- Pine For paper industry Ecological
Farmers Meadows Grazing
Crops For cattle fodder
Water For cattle consumption
DC6 Forest For timber and paper industry Ecological
Farmers Meadows Grazing
DC7 Meadows Grazing Ecological
Farmers Chestnut tree Seasonal Income
DC8 Meadows Grazing Conventional
Farmers Chestnut tree Seasonal Income
DC9 Hedges As a fence Ecological
Farmers Trees (forest) Refuge for cattle, protection from
the wind, produce microclimate
BO10 Forest Refuge for cattle Ecological
Farmers Meadows Silage production and grazing
30
Indigenous breeds Meat Production
BO11 Forest Refuge for animals Ecological
Farmers Meadows Grazing
Natural meadows Grazing
Crops Fodder
Indigenous breeds Meat Production
BO12 Meadows Grazing Ecological
Farmers Chestnut tree Seasonal Income
Indigenous breeds Meat Production
BO13 Meadows Grazing Ecological
Farmers Forests (Pine) For grazing, and selling wood
BO15 Meadows Grazing Ecological
Farmers Valados (stone walls) Delimit meadows
Forest: Pine, Eucalyptus
Electric fence Protection of the herd from wild
animals
Water For cattle consumption
BC16 Meadows Grazing Entrepreneur
Producer Forest For timber industry
BC17 Meadows Grazing Conventional
Farmers Forest For timber industry
BC18 Forest Honey production Life Style Farmers
BC19 Meadows Grazing Entrepreneur
Producer
BC20 Meadows Grazing Entrepreneur
Producer
BC22 Meadows Grazing Life Style Farmers
The forest is the element that farmers mentioned and recognise the most. Fifteen farmers
stated that forest had several purposes or functions. From these fifteen farmers, eleven
farmers included in ecological producer mentioned this element. So, farmers from the
ecological group recognise it as refuge for the cattle. It contains chestnuts, which are
consider as an important seasonal income and it also had species for timber and paper
industry. Farmers included in the Conventional style mentioned the forest two times
regarding to chestnut collection, which is also a seasonal income for this group. They
mentioned as well as the ecological group timber extraction. Entrepreneur farmers mainly
mentioned the forest one time for timber industry. Life Style farmers mentioned the forest
once for honey production.
31
Meadows are the second element that the farmers mentioned. Sixteen farmers said that
meadows are used for grazing and making silage. Ecological mentioned ten times,
conventional mentioned two times, entrepreneur three times and life style one time.
Especially, farmers included in Ecological farmers seemed to give an extra value. Since,
they recognised the use of very old meadows in both cases for grazing and for biodiversity.
The rest of the groups mentioned it merely for grazing activities.
Four farmers all of them included in Ecological farmers mentioned indigenous breeds that
besides, the adaptability to rough conditions of Monte, cold weather, slopes and bushes,
had the function of complementing the natural and traditional landscape.
Water even though, it does not exist in all the plots was essential for animals and hence
considered pivotal to find it in the plots. So, three farmers stated this element and all
farmers belong to Ecological farmers.
Valados, are the old stone walls, which the principal function is delimiting the plots and
farms (as a fence), it also have an aesthetic value. These elements were not present in all
farms and were mostly mentioned by three farmers from ecological style. Particularly,
farmer DO3 expressed the invaluable assets he posses with this valados:
“Our farm has an important landscape value, it is always beautiful to walk in a
pathway where you can find walls made of stones (valados), old oak trees instead of
one where you can just find monoculture and naked meadows so if we can support
this landscape with our production system we do”. “Another factor I consider part of
the local aesthetics is the Frisona and the Brown Swiss breeds since they are more
rustic they suit better with the surrounds so the people like to watch them” (DO3).
“In this farm we use every resource, the stone walls (valados) to divide the plots,
there are a lot of plots delimited by this stone walls in this farm, if we don’t have them
we need to use the wire fences” (…) “I believe you can take advantages of these
valados; there are so many people who believe those are a problem because the
machines do not have enough space to work there as well if the plot has many trees,
or it has too much water”. “ For me, in my ecologic system this characteristics are
fantastic; there are trees therefore we have refuge for the cows, there is water, we do
not have to carry water there for the animals and if the plot is very small I just reduce
the number of animals to graze there” (DO2).
32
Crops were mentioned for two farmers included in Ecological style, the main function of
these elements were to obtain products such as maize, wheat, rye and barley for animal
consumption as well as vegetables for family subsistence.
Two farmers included in ecological producer mentioned hedges and trees; they usually
use these elements as a fence or for delimiting plots and these elements can also provide
refuge to the animals during the summer time.
“Hedges and trees are delimiting the plots and restricting the access of the cattle to
other areas. It functions as a natural fence, besides they are protecting the cattle
from the wind and creating microclimates” (DC9).
One farmer belonging to ecological style gave a special value to traditional architecture of
the country houses.
“I want to make the most of the different dynamics that I could have in my farm. I
have made the effort to restore and maintain the old houses and buildings within the
farm. In this way, I am contributing to recover the village, which was abandoned. I
added value to the landscape. Consequently, I am able to offer agro tourism activities,
which helps to improve my income” (DO3).
As it is appreciated in Table 5, there are different ways that farmers value the landscape
and its elements for agricultural activities. Conventional, Entrepreneur and Lifestyle
farmers perceive the landscape elements mainly through the use of meadows for grazing
purposes. Besides the fact that meadows need to be maintained in order to avoid fires. In
contrast, Ecological farmers perceive elements differently. The farmers recognize the
value and use of traditional elements such as the valados and old buildings as a
complement of the landscape (aesthetics). Likewise, farmers value the forest for other
functions more than timber extraction. They used the forest for grazing as well as a refuge
for the animals in the summer time. The farmers included in this group also recognized
the function of old meadows in terms of increasing biodiversity while the other groups
just considered meadows for grazing purposes.
33
3.3.2 Ecosystem Services related to beef cattle and dairy production
Table 5 in the previous section already compiled the farmers’ descriptions of the elements
and their functions. Therefore, it is the standpoint to establish the relationship among
ecosystem services and farming styles. Figure 4 depicts the relations encountered
between ecosystem services and farming styles. The arrows in the figure are indicating the
relationship between the ecosystem services and the encountered farming styles in
Galicia. The more width the arrows are, the stronger is the relationship among ecosystem
services and farming styles. The less width the arrows are the weaker is the relationship
among ecosystem services and farming styles. In order to establish the relations in Figure
4 descriptions of the functions of the elements were arranged in terms of the ecosystem
services.
Figure 4. Relationships between Ecosystem services and Farming styles found in Galicia.
(Adapted from Sandhu et al., 2010)
Socio-Cultural Recreational Ecotourism, aesthetics Educational Education Identity Heritage
l
Supporting Nutrient cycling Soil fertility Soil erosion Soil formation Nitrogen fixation Carbon accumulation Biological control
Provisioning Food Agriculture, Livestock production Forestry products Fruits, natural extract, timber
Regulation Cycles Soil conservation
Ecosystem Services
Entrepreneur producer
Life Style producer
Ecological producer
Traditional producer
Farming Styles in Galicia
34
In general, the four groups Ecological, Conventional, Entrepreneurs and Life style
provision ecosystem services. Especially, provisioning services (food, forestry products)
had a strong linkage with these groups (Figure 4). In this case the four styles are
provisioning food hence, contributing to food supply in Galicia.
Nonetheless, the linkages and relationship of Ecological farmers with regulating and socio-
cultural services are to some extent stronger than for the other three groups. These
differences in the relations could be explained by the ideas and motivation behind the
farming practices. Thus, Ecological farmers are characterized by the idea of farming taking
into account the natural resources and to find a balance between the production, nature
and human well being.
Farmer DO2 expressed: “In my ecologic system I have fantastic characteristics.
There are trees therefore; we have refuge for the cows. There is water we do not have
to carry water there for animal consumption”.
Farmer DC9 expressed: “Hedges and trees are delimiting the plots and restricting
the access of the cattle to other areas”.
It is possible to deduce the importance of the trees, forest and hedges in their farms and
therefore, related to regulating services. The presences of trees might improve water
infiltration; reduce surface runoff as well as contributes for the presence of water in the
plots. Likewise, hedges add the possibility of increase biodiversity in the farms, since it
contains multiple species of plants.
Farmers in this group also mentioned the importance of cropping maize. It had a double
purpose in their production. First, maize is the perfect diet complement for the cattle
nutrition and second, it is an important element for the crop rotation system in the farm.
“Here we have a bit of everything, there are plots for grazing, there are plots used for
making the silage. We also have crops, maize is the perfect complement to the diet of
the animals in terms of energy”(…) “Besides this use, maize is part of our crop
rotation system”. “We do not sow maize in the same plot two years in a row”. “The
crop rotation with maize helps to control the weeds and if a meadow needs to be
renovated we plough it and then we sow the maize. Once we harvest the maize, we
sow again grass” (DO2).
35
Hence, this quote denotes the importance for the farmer to maintain the soil quality
(regulating services) by using a crop rotation. In this way, it is beneficial in the long term
for the soil, the quality of the pasture and for the cattle.
Moreover, farmers in this group recognized the value of some specific elements of
landscape like old buildings, houses, and valados (stone walls). Besides, they recognize the
importance of the local agricultural traditions.
“I believe you can take advantages of these valados”(…) “to divide the plots, there are
a lot of plots delimited by this stone walls in this farm” (DO2).
“It is always beautiful to walk in a pathway where you can find walls made of stones
(valados), old oak trees” (…) (DO3).
“My personal passion is to promote the cultural knowledge (cultura del
conocimiento) by organizing visits to the farm for students and public in general, in
this way they are able to know my daily routine of activities on the farm, including
making cheese. I am proud of the elements I have in the farm” (DO3).
These quotes are directly related to socio-cultural services since they are making use of
the old elements like valados and mentioning the importance of these elements for their
farming activities. Likewise, the farmers included in this group are interesting in
promoting their activities.
Farmers in this group have found the way of combining the farming practices in order to
maintain such elements that are considered important. Consequently, support and
reproduce better the ecosystem services that involved these elements.
As it is indicated in Figure 4 the relation Conventional, Entrepreneur and Life style
farmers with regulating and socio-cultural services is weaker compared with the
Ecological style. Farmers included in these three styles did not mention any especial
function for the elements in their landscape. Therefore, the relations are considered
weaker. This is explained by the different production orientations within these groups. So,
these orientations are reflected in the farming practices.
Conventional farmers mentioned (…) “In this area you need a lot of chemical
fertilizer in order to produce enough fodder, we spend so much money in chemical
36
fertilizer, since manure it is not enough to fertilize all the plots because the cows are
permanently in the paddocks, so there is no chance to collect the manure ” (BC17).
Entrepreneur farmers mentioned: “If you have a good income but do not know how
to manage it then the farm will have financial problems, so it will collapse” (BC19).
Life style farmers mentioned: ”I prefer to lose one potato rather than to eat it with
sulphates, in the case of animals it is a bit different, if they are sick I prefer to give
them the antibiotic instead of let the animal die”(BC22).
These quotes denoted the different interest farmers had to produce. Hence they did not
mention a strict relation with ecosystem services. Thus, it is possible to imply that these
three styles valued differently the elements in the agroecosystem. Therefore, generated
regulating and socio-cultural services but did not reproduce these services in the same
way ecological farmers did.
4. Discussion Q methodology allows identifying the combination of farmers’ goals and values that can be
translated into different farming styles among beef cattle and dairy farmers in Galicia. In
comparison to traditional farming style research the application of Q-methodology is
focused on the first level in farming style analysis: the level of ideas and motivations. For
the analysis of this level, the points of view of farmers as well as the insider view of their
production are pivotal in order to construct the farming styles. In this stage of the research
Q methodology allows to explore this field in an assertive way.
The Q methodology needs especial attention to the formulation of the statements, which
are part of the Q- sort. In this study the range and formulation of such statements have
been reviewed among Galician scientist and in an interview with a key farmer. The
feedback received on this matter point out that the statements are complete and valid.
Nevertheless, during the fieldwork some farmers struggled to understand completely the
sense of the statements, this led to confusion and misunderstandings when some farmers
performed the exercise. One explanation to this misunderstandings perhaps, is due to the
Q-sort was designed in Spanish, which is not the first language of Galician people so, some
details get lost in the translation.
Regarding to the size of the study sample, it is important to mention that even though Q
methodology does not need a large number of participants as is explained in the
37
introductory part of this study. This research is applied to a limited cluster of participants
chosen by a pre-selection. Hence, all strategies in beef and dairy production are not
included in this research, for instance intensive producer without land were not included.
For studying the interrelation between the provisioning of ecosystem services and
farming styles it is important that farmers relate farm production (commodity products as
milk and meat) to ‘non-valorised’ services (non-commodity products). Since intensive
farmers are not expected to relate to land-use (in extreme situations they buy feed and
fodder at the market and do not have excess to land) and do not score on such
interrelations they were excluded from this research. Next, since the statements were
constructed based on desk studies and interviews with key-informants the link to
landscape was difficult to make.
The inclusion of intensive farmers would include a preliminary research stage of in-depth
interviews among farmers and the identification of the complete range of farming styles,
after which further research on the provisioning of ecosystem services can be
extrapolated. In a future research design the interrelations between intensive farmers and
the production of ecosystem services can be tested by the inclusion of this type of farmers.
The application of Q methodology in my research differs from other studies that are using
the same method Brodt et al. (2006) and Fairweather and Keating (1990; 1994). In this
thesis research Q methodology was used to identify values and goals and to contribute to
the first level in the farming style analysis, instead in the studies of Brodt et al. (2006) and
Fairweather and Keating (1990; 1994) it represent the core of the research which aimed
to study goals of farmers and then try to integrate them to management styles.
One of the big limitations of the Q methodology has been encountered in this research:
there is no objective method to determine the most appropriate number of factors to be
interpreted. This step requires exclusively the researcher judgment so this involves some
trade-off concerning the variance obtained and a consistent set of farmers’ type. Even
though that the factors were quite correlated (A, B, C and D) in this study, the selected
combination of four factors remain as the most consistent one compared to the other
options offered by the PQ method program.
As outlined in my conceptual framework, and building upon Braat and De Groot (2012),
farming styles in beef cattle and dairy production in Galicia reproduce differently the sets
of ecosystem services accordingly to their drivers of production and motivations. The
ecosystem services result from the ecological processes that are shaped and influenced in
farm practice. Thus, if drivers of production and motivations differ among farmers means
38
that farm practices differ and the result of these differences are farming styles. In
consequence, the provisioning of ecosystem services differs among farmers too.
Beef cattle and dairy farmers generated provisioning, regulating and socio-cultural
services. Provisioning services that includes food and forestry products is generated by
the four styles and have a strong linkage with the mentioned styles. This is explained by
the fact that no matter what farm practices are behind their products, farmers are
generating a commodity. In this case, meat and milk corresponding to food that belongs to
the provisioning services. So farmers are contributing to food supply in Galicia.
Regulating services, are generated better by ecological farmers since throughout their
practices this group can support this service. The fact that these farmers value and
conserve elements like hedges and forest contributes to the maintenance of the cycles in
the ecosystem. In contrast, conventional, entrepreneur and life style farmers barely value
these elements. So, the farm practices are oriented to produce including the use of
chemical fertilizers, which in a long term could deplete the soil quality and therefore,
affect the natural cycles. For this reason, it is consider that the link between this service
and conventional, entrepreneur and life style farmers is weaker.
Socio-cultural services, similar to the former service is generated and supported better by
the ecological farmers, these farmers value especial elements like the valados, old
buildings and traditions in Galicia. Consequently, adapt their farms and practice to
maintain such elements. Furthermore, they believe that including these elements in the
dynamics of the farm allow them to have more opportunities of diversify their activities
and their income.
This is not the case for the other group of farmers, conventional, entrepreneur and life
style. They do not value nor mention these elements and within the analysis of landscape
elements related to the ecosystem services was very difficult to relate elements involved
in socio-cultural services to these farming styles.
Supporting services, has not been taking into account for my research, as I explained in the
theoretical framework this service is complementing and strengthening the other services,
therefore the study focused in the services that farmers are able to recognise.
Thus, this analysis suggest that provisioning, regulating and socio-cultural services might
have stronger and weaker relations with differences in farming styles in Galicia, however
an additional research is needed to scrutinize these relations in more detail.
39
The outcomes of this research contribute to understand the heterogeneity of farming in
Galicia. In this way, the identification of farming styles become an important tool that
helps to highlight the different realities that farmers are currently facing. Furthermore, to
understand the way, in which farmers are facing this reality. The relevance of this
information relies on, the fact that this knowledge could be take into account by the local
authorities at the moment to implement new regulations, new policies, or release new
programs. In this way, policy makers and the decision making sphere would create public
policies adjusted to the realities of the farmers. For example, by emphasising the identity
of the region to the natural environment, which results in added value to the farmers.
Despite the groups have their distinctive characteristic it is pivotal to consider the fact that
all farmers are business oriented to some extent, and that the ecological practices can be
driven not only by commitment with nature conservation and sustainability but, also
because governmental subsidies. They play a decisive role at the moment that farmers
decide, which production pathway to follow.
6. Conclusion
This research provides insights into beef cattle and dairy production in Galicia by
identifying farming styles and related them to the provisioning of ecosystem services.
Q methodology was used to define farmers’ values and goals. The outcome of this helped
in the further construction of farming styles. The stage of Q methodology was supported
by the information from the interviews that supplied materials for the understanding of
the different strategies in each style. The case study research provided understanding of
the situation of beef cattle and dairy farmers in Galicia. The combination of all the
information allowed the analysis of the interrelations between farming styles and
ecosystem services provisioning.
The output of Q methodology allowed the distinction of four factors, which were combined
with the information of the interviews resulting in the interpretation of four farming styles
among beef cattle and dairy farmers: Ecological, Conventional, Entrepreneur and Life
style.
Q methodology was a useful method to determine the farmers’ values and goals (that is:
their differences in ideas). Whether these ideas could be understand in relevant
differences in practices is more much difficult to grasp with this method. Therefore, the
method needs some complementary tools such as interviews. Moreover, there are some
other limitations regarding to the selection of the appropriated number of factors to
40
interpret. The protocol of the methodology was not strict in this sense. It allowed an open
judgement to select such factors, which involved decisions of including or excluding
farmers in the interpretation. Furthermore, the factors presented quite high correlations
that resulted in not very sharp distinctions in terms of statistics. Although, the distinction
between these four groups of farmers is not sharp, it was possible to identify the
difference in motivations and ideas and translated them into practices that characterized
the farming styles.
The styles among the beef cattle and dairy farmers relate differently to the provision of
ecosystem services, especially regarding the provision of socio-cultural services.
According to the analysis made in this study ecosystem services like provisioning,
regulating and socio-cultural were better supported and to some extent better reproduced
by farmers included in the Ecological farmers. Especially, farmers in this group value and
perceived socio- cultural services as important. Farmers found important to share
traditional values from rural Galicia. In this way, combine more sustainable practices in
order to maintain and preserve elements of the traditional Galicia. Thus, farmers could
add value to their products and had the possibility to access new niche markets.
In contrast, Conventional, Entrepreneur and Lifestyle farmers generate ecosystem
services, especially provisioning and regulating services. These groups less support these
two services compared to ecological farmers so, the relation is weaker. This is explained
by the difference in farm practices. Regarding to socio cultural-services the farmers
included in this groups did not relate their ideas of farming to the elements that support
the provision of socio-cultural services, hence the relation is consider weaker.
A more clear definition of the Galician landscape is needed in terms of defining the
Galician landscape. Likewise, to understand the provision of the different types of
ecosystem services existing behind the different farming styles in a quantitative way.
The combination of knowledge about farming styles and the interrelation of these styles to
the landscape and provision of ecosystem services would be an important tool to design
public policies in accordance to the realities of farmers. Such policies then will support
farmers to farm in one hand, more conscious about their natural environment. In the other
hand encourage them to produce under normative that fits their current situation in terms
of resources. Thus, farmers will be supported in the idea of emphasising the identity of the
region to the natural environment. In this way, adding value to the products and
commodities that farmers are generating.
41
In general, the limitation of the overall findings is related to the sample. Intensive farmers
were not included in the research. This is explained by the idea that for studying the
interrelation between the provisioning of ecosystem services and farming styles it is
important that farmers relate farm production, which means their commodity products
such as milk and meat to ‘non-valorised’ services, the non-commodity products. In this
case intensive farmers are not expected to relate such aspects. Therefore, are not included.
Moreover, the statements were constructed based on desk studies and interviews with
key-informants hence, the link to landscape was difficult to establish.
42
6. References Acero, P. (2009). Planificación y manejo de la explotación de Vacuno (1st ed., pp. 12-20). Castilla: Servicio de Formación Agraria e Iniciativas. Junta de Castilla y León. Retrieved from: http://www.jcyl.es/web/jcyl/AgriculturaGanaderia/es/Plantilla100Detalle/1131977209076/_/1248677988960/Redaccion Braat, L. C. and R. de Groot (2012). The ecosystem services agenda: bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosystem Services 1 (1), 4-15. Brodt, S., Klonsky, K. and Tourte, L. (2006). Farmer goals and management styles: Implications for advancing biologically based agriculture. Agricultural Systems, 89(1), 90-105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2005.08.005 Barry, J., Proops, J. (1999). Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology. Ecological Economics 28 (3), 337e345.
Brunori, G. and Rossi, A. (2000). Synergy and coherence through collective action: some insights from wine routes in Tuscany. Sociologia Ruralis, 40 (4), 409- 423,544. Dale, V. and Polasky, S. (2007). Measures of the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 64(2), 286-296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.05.009 Domínguez García, M. D. (2007). The way you do, it matters: A case study: Farming economically in Galician dairy agro ecosystems in the context of a co-operative (Doctoral dissertation). Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands. European Commission, Agriculture and Rural Development. (2015). Geographical indications and traditional specialties, Agriculture and rural development. Retrieved 26 February 2016, from http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/quality/schemes/index_en.htm Europe Commission. (2000). European landscape convention. In Report and Convention Fairweather, J., and Klonsky, K. (2009). Response to Vanclay et al. on Farming Styles: Q Methodology for Identifying Styles and its Relevance to Extension. Sociologia Ruralis, 49(2), 189-198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2009.00482.x Fairweather, J., and Keating, N. (1994). Goals and management styles of New Zealand farmers. Agricultural Systems, 44(2), 181-200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0308-521x( 94) 90160-h Fairweather, J. and Keating, N. (1990). Management styles of Canterbury farmers: a study of goals and success from the farmers' point of view (AERU Research Report No. 205). Lincoln University, New Zealand.
43
Frantzi, S., Carter, N., and Lovett, J. (2009). Exploring discourses on international environmental regime effectiveness with Q methodology: A case study of the Mediterranean Action Plan. Journal Of Environmental Management, 90(1), 177-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.08.013 de Groot, R., Wilson, M., and Boumans, R. (2002). A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics, 41(3), 393-408. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0921-8009(02)00089-7 Gutierrez, P. (2009). Manual práctico de manejo de una explotación de vacuno lechero (1st ed., pp. 7-10). Valladolid: Servicio de Formacion Agraria e Iniciativas. Junta de Castilla y Leon. Retrieved from http://www.jcyl.es/web/jcyl/AgriculturaGanaderia/es/Plantilla100Detalle/1131977209076/_/1250170548860/Redaccion Lopez, E. (2015). O complexo lácteo en Galicia: diagnóstico e estratexias de futuro. Foro economico de Galicia. Retrieved 16 November 2015, from http://www.foroeconomicodegalicia.es/documentos/o-leite-galego-o-40-da-producion-lactea-espanola/ Marsden, T. (2003). The condition of rural sustainability. Van Gorcum, Assen. Marsden, T., Banks, J., Renting, H., et al., (2001). The road towards sustainable agricultural and rural development: issues of theory, policy and research practice. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 3 (2), 75-83. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC. Sandhu, H., Wratten, S., and Cullen, R. (2010). Organic agriculture and ecosystem services. Environmental Science & Policy, 13(1), 1-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2009.11.002 Schmolck, P. (2002). PQMethod (version 2.11). [Computer software]. Available at www.rz.unibw-muenchen.de/ /p41bsmk/qmethod [last accessed: 28 October 2004]. Swagemakers, P., Copena, D., Domínguez, M.,and Simón, X. (2014). Fighting for a future: an actor-oriented planning approach to landscape preservation in Galicia. Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal Of Geography, 114(2), 109-118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00167223.2013.876206 Swagemakers, P., Jongerden, J., and Wiskerke, J. (2014). Urban green infrastructures in Europe: new architectural orientations for finding a way out of the dead-end road of industrialized modernity. Spanish Journal Of Rural Development, 1-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5261/2014.esp1.01
44
Swagemakers, P., Domınguez Garcıa, M. D., Simon Fernandez, X., Wiskerke, J. S. C. (2012). Unfolding farm practices: Working towards sustainable food production in the Netherlands and Spain. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development. Advance online publication. Swagemakers, P., and Wiskerke, J.S. C. (2011). Revitalizing ecological capital. Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal Of Geography, 111(2), 149-167.  Swagemakers, P. and Wiskerke, J. S. C. (2005). Integrating nature conservation and landscape management in farming systems in the Friesian Woodlands (The Netherlands) B. Tress, G. Tress, G. Fry, & P. Opdam (Eds.), from landscape research to landscape planning (pp. 321–334). Dordrecht: Springer. TEEB Foundations, 2010. In: Kumar, P. (Ed.), TEEB-The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB): Ecological and Economic Foundations. Earthscan, London.
Van Averbeke, W. and Mohamed, S. (2006). Smallholder farming styles and development
policy in South Africa: The case of Dzindi Irrigation Scheme. Agrekon, 45(2), 136-157.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03031853.2006.9523739
Van Koppen CSA. and Spaargaren G. (2014). Environment and society: An introduction to
the social dimensions of environmental change. Wageningen: Environmental Policy Group,
Wageningen University.
Van der Ploeg, J.D. (2012). The Genesis and Further Unfolding of Farming Styles Research. Historische Anthropologie, 20(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.7788/ha.2012.20.3.427 Van der Ploeg, J.D. (2010). Farming styles research: The state of the art. In Keynote lecture for the Workshop on ‘Historicising Farming Styles’, Melk, Austria (pp. 21-23). Van der Ploeg, J.D. (2003). The virtual farmer: past, present, and future of the Dutch peasantry. Van Gorcum, Assen. Van der Ploeg, J., Renting, H., Brunori, G., Knickel, K., Mannion, J., & Marsden, T. et al. (2000). Rural Development: From Practices and Policies towards Theory. Sociologia Ruralis, 40(4), 391-408. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9523.00156 Van der Ploeg, J.D., Laurent, C., Blondeau, F., and Bonnafous, P. (2009). Farm diversity, classification schemes and multifunctionality. Journal Of Environmental Management, 90, S124-S131. Van der Ploeg, J.D. and Ventura F. (2014). Heterogeneity reconsidered. Environmental Sustainability, 8: 23-28.
45
Vazquez, J. (2012). Una experiencia cooperativa de desarrollo rural en las montañas de Galicia. LEISA, Revista De Agroecologia, (28, 3), 23, 24. Retrieved from http://www.leisa-al.org/web/index.php/volumen-28-numero-3 Ventura, F. and Milone, P. (2000). Theory and practice of multi-product farms: farm butcheries in Umbria. Sociologia Ruralis, 40 (4), 452-465,545. Vilardy, S. P., González, J. A., Martín-López, B. and Oteros-Rozas, E. (2012). Los servicios de los ecosistemas de la Reserva de Biosfera Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta. Revibec: revista iberoamericana de economía ecológica, 19, 66-83. Villada, E. (2008). Xestion de Recursos Pacedeiros Extensivos. Revista Cooperacion Galega, (90). Retrieved from http://www.agaca.coop/docs/CUADERNILLO%2090%20baja.pdf Wiskerke, J.S.C. (2009). On places lost and places regained: reflections on the alternative food geography and sustainable regional development. International Planning Studies 14 (4), 369-387 Walter, G. (1997). Images of success: how Illinois farmers define the successful farmer. Rural Soc. 62, 48– 68. Warnaals, M., and Pradel, W. (2007). A comparative Study of the perceptions of Urban and rural Farmer Field School Participants in Peru. Urban Harvest Working Paper Series, No. 4. International Potato Center, Lima, Peru
Watts, S., and Stenner, P. (2005). Doing Q methodology: theory, method and
interpretation. Qualitative Research in Psychology 2 (1), 67-91.
Yin, R. (2014). Case study Research: Design and Methods, 5nd ed. SAGE, USA.
46
7. Appendices
A. LIST OF STATEMENTS (SPANISH VERSION)
1. Lo mas importante en el funcionamiento de mi granja es la administración
financiera y planear las actividades.
2. Mi objetivo es diversificar mis bienes invirtiendo en mi granja, pero también fuera
de ella.
3. No usaría técnicas mas sostenibles en mi granja si esto significa sacrificar los
rendimientos (carne/leche) de mi producción.
4. Utilizo los que sea necesario (fertilizantes y pesticidas) con tal que mi granja me dé
el mayor rendimiento posible.
5. No estoy dispuesto a sacrificar los rendimientos de mi granja para conservar el
agua y otros recursos.
6. Me dedico a esta actividad solo porque quiero un ingreso económico.
7. Mi objetivo es incrementar el número de animales porque quiero producir más
leche/carne y aumentar mi productividad.
8. Mi objetivo principal es incrementar la producción de leche/carne.
9. Alquilo la maquinaria en la Cooperativa así no tengo que comprarla.
10. Mi meta es incrementar la producción total de la finca, y mejorar mis ingresos.
11. Trato de negociar el precio al que vendo la leche para mejorarlo.
12. Prefiero que mi granja tenga producción especializada, y se dedique solo a
producción de leche o carne.
13. El mayor porcentaje de mis ingresos viene de mis actividades en la granja.
14. Como productor siempre tengo que tomar en cuenta cómo mis decisiones pueden
afectar a mi granja y mi familia.
15. Mi objetivo es incrementa el área de mi granja, ya sea arrendando o comprando
tierras.
16. Intensifico mi producción de carne/leche con lo medios que tengo.
17. Mejoro la fertilidad de mis vacas esto ayuda a mejorar la calidad de la leche/carne,
y mejoran mis ingresos.
18. Mejoro mis pastos con lo cual la calidad de la leche/carne incrementa y mis
ingresos aumentan.
19. Estoy satisfecho con el nivel de desarrollo que he logrado en mi granja y esta en
mis planes expandirme mas arrendando mas tierras
47
20. Yo me limito a producir con la cantidad de hectáreas que tengo, porque conseguir
más tierras es muy difícil ya que son caras, además en el área nadie está dispuesto
a vender sus tierras.
21. No estoy interesado en tener una producción grande, ni en incrementar mucho mi
producción.
22. Tenemos suficientes tierras para producir, no necesito arrendar mas.
23. El área de terreno que tengo no es suficiente para producir, así que arriendo (me
han cedido) la mayoría de las tierras en las que produzco.
24. El tamaño de mi granja es muy pequeño y las parcelas están muy dispersas, esto
incrementa el volumen de mi trabajo; por lo tanto no me compensa tener mas
animales
25. Produzco el alimento para mis animales en mi granja.
26. Utilizo de vez en cuando mano de obra externa.
27. Los miembros de la familia colaboran con las tareas en la finca, son la fuerza
laboral de la granja.
28. Para mi son importante y de gran ayuda los prestamos subvencionados
29. Mi objetivo es reducir la carga de trabajo familiar y mejorar la calidad de vida
familiar.
30. Un buen agricultor concentra todos sus esfuerzos en la granja y no se distrae con
actividades afuera de su granja.
31. Lo mejor de practicar la agricultura es que puede ser un trabajo familiar.
32. Me dedico a esta actividad porque me gusta
33. Me dedico a esta actividad porque en mi familia siempre hemos sido agricultores,
la finca ha estado por varias generaciones en la familia y es la tradición
34. Realizo las tareas necesarias en mi granja, pero no estoy contento con estas
actividades.
35. Mi objetivo a largo plazo es aprender a manejar mis recursos en armonía con la
naturaleza.
36. Para mi es importante volver a la relación básica entre el animal y el hombre.
37. Un buen ganadero debe moverse sobre estos tres niveles, medio físico
(instalaciones adecuadas), medio biológico (alimentación, fertilidad, etc.) y medio
social (estructura del rebaño) si se quieren obtener animales saludables.
38. Producir ecológicamente genera en el ganadero una gran autoestima y satisfacción
por saber que se están haciendo las cosas debidamente.
39. La tareas de la granja ocupan un lugar prioritario en mis actividades, luego está mi
familia.
48
40. Mis animales permanecen en el establo todo del tiempo.
41. Los terneros están libres en el campo, las vacas salen a pastorear y consumen
comida tantas veces quieran.
42. Prefiere que mis animales estén en su propio medio en rebaños en extensivo
43. Para mi es importante reconocer a los animales como seres vivos que son parte de
la naturaleza.
44. En estos tiempos, los agricultores deben ser más consecuentes con el medio
ambiente, reduciendo el uso de productos químicos en su granja.
45. Hago lo que puedo para producir en forma más amigable con el ambiente y
conservar las tierras en las que produzco. Me preocupa que mi granja contamine el
medio ambiente.
46. Trabajar en armonía con la naturaleza es una tarea muy difícil y no esta bien
remunerada.
47. Considero que reducir el uso de pesticidas es una forma de mejorar mi vida.
48. Quiero incrementar la biodiversidad en mi granja, aún cuando esto signifique dejar
que descansen mis tierras.
49. No se como podría afectar el uso de pesticidas, tampoco qué efectos tienen estos
pesticidas en el ganado.
49
B. LIST OF STATEMENTS (ENGLISH VERSION)
1. Planning and financial management are the most important parts of running the
farm
2. My goal is to diversify my assets by having on farm and off farm investments.
3. I am not willing to use more sustainable technics if it means to sacrifice the farm’s
yield.
4. I use whatever fertilizers and pesticides are necessary to get the maximum
profitability.
5. I am not willing to sacrifice farm profitability to conserve water or other resources
6. I farm to make money.
7. My goal is to increase the number of animals and therefore increase my
productivity and profitability.
8. I strive to increase the production of the farm. (Milk/meat).
9. I rent at the Cooperative of producers some of the machinery.
10. My goal is to increase the production of the farm as well as increase my income.
11. I want better prices for the milk I produce; therefore I try to negotiate the prices.
12. I want to have specialized production, by producing just meat or milk.
13. My income mainly comes from the activities on the farm.
14. As a farmer I always have to bear in mind how any decision I make will affect my
farm and my family.
15. My goal is to expand the farming area, by renting land or buying land.
16. I intensify my production milk/meat only with the resources I already have.
17. By improving the fertility of my cattle I will improve the quality of the milk/meat
and my income also increase.
18. I better improve the quality of my pastures, in order to raise the milk quality
therefore, my income may increase.
19. I am satisfied with the present level of development on my farm and I do intend to
develop it further by renting some more land.
20. I am satisfied with the amount of land I have to farm now; since land is very scarce
in the area there is nobody to rent it neither to sell it.
21. I am not interesting in having a big farm, neither to increase my production.
22. The land I own is enough to produce, therefore I do not need to rent more land.
23. The land I have is not enough to produce therefore I rent most of the land and have
some concessions.
50
24. The land I have has been divided in little plots, which are distributed far away from
the main farm, this increase the workload at the farm, so I am not considering
augmenting the number of animals.
25. I produce the fodder in my farm.
26. I have off farm employees from time to time.
27. Family members work and collaborate with the tasks in the farm; they are the
main labor force.
28. I consider very important and helpful the government loans and subsidies.
29. My goal is to reduce my workload and improve the quality life of my family.
30. A good farmer concentrates the energies on the farm and is not sidetracked by
interests or activities outside the farm.
31. The best part of farming is having your family working alongside you.
32. I am a farmer because I like this activity.
33. I am a farmer because is the family tradition, the family owned the farm for many
generations already.
34. Farm works need to be done but there is not great joy in it.
35. My long-term goal is to learn how to manage resources in cooperation with nature.
36. I consider important to maintain a basic relationship between animals and human
being.
37. A good farmer considers three levels: Physique level, biologic level, social level, in
order to maintain healthy animals.
38. Organic farmers feel more satisfaction knowing that he/she is doing the things
right.
39. Farm tasks must come before family time.
40. The cattle stay all the time in the stable.
41. Calves are free in the paddocks as well as the cows therefore they are able to it as
much as they want.
42. I prefer to have an extensive farm.
43. A good farmer gives the animals a proper care considering them as living beings
part of the nature.
44. Farmers today must be sensitive to the environment by reducing the use of
agricultural chemicals on their farms.
45. I am doing everything I can do be environmentally aware and conserve the land I
farm.
46. Working close to the nature is difficult and unrewarding
51
47. I consider a decrease in pesticide use one-way to improve living and working
conditions on the farm.
48. I want to increase biodiversity on my farm even if it takes land out of production
49. I do not know the effects of pesticides can have in my farm.
52
C. PQ-METHOD SOFTWARE OUTCOMES
Table 1. Factor matrix resulting from Varimax rotation with an “x” indicating an associated participant for the factors
QSORT * A B C D
1 FMKO_1 0.7287X 0.3283 0.0538 0.3823
2 FMKO_2 0.7709X -0.2263 0.2496 0.2207
3 FMKO_3 0.8988X -0.0337 0.0521 -0.0137
4 FMKO_4 0.7655X 0.1952 -0.0583 0.1805
5 FMKO_5 0.6308X 0.0871 -0.1047 0.5294
6 FMKT_6 0.7072X -0.1182 -0.0953 0.0350
7 FMKT_7 0.4925X 0.1391 0.0691 0.4031
8 FMKT_8 0.1506 0.6433X 0.2144 0.0461
9 FMKT_9 0.6705X -0.1443 0.0907 0.4013
10 FMO_10 0.5551X 0.2757 0.3271 0.1226
11 FMO_11 0.6507X 0.1772 0.4402 0.0005
12 FMO_12 0.7800X -0.1425 0.2160 0.2037
13 FMO_13 0.5896X 0.1143 0.5723 -0.0819
14 FMO_14 -0.7079 -0.0704 -0.1192 -0.3082
15 FMO_15 0.6714X 0.2640 0.1821 -0.0350
16 FMT_16 0.0024 -0.0265 0.6968X 0.1978
17 FMT_17 -0.0698 0.8445X 0.0687 0.0969
18 FMT_18 0.1231 0.3150 0.2434 0.5912X
19 FMT_19 0.0646 0.1584 0.6799X 0.1738
20 FMT_20 0.1173 0.4379 0.6591X -0.0928
21 FMT_21 -0.2763 0.4456 0.3697 0.3400
22 FMT_22 0.3102 -0.0152 0.1957 0.7955X
23 FMT_23 0.5926 0.1672 0.5685 0.2175
24 FMT_24 0.5932X 0.4999 0.0751 0.1613
Percentage
explained variance
32 10 12 9
53
Table 2. Correlations between factor scores
D. PQ-METHOD SOFTWARE RAW OUTCOME (PDF FILE)
E. TRANSCRIPTS OF THE INTERVIEWS (PDF FILE)
Eigenvalues 9,4776 2,9143 1,4550 1,3093
1 2 3 4 1 1,0000 0.1059 0.2628 0.5048 2 0.1059 1,0000 0.3739 0.1796 3 0.2628 0.3739 1,0000 0.3395 4 0.5048 0.1796 0.3395 1,0000