Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T06:04:53.692Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Castile—La Mancha: A once traditional and integrated cereal—sheep farming system under change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Rafael Caballero
Affiliation:
Agronomist, Agroecology Department, Centro de Ciencias Medioambientales (CCMA, CSIC), Serrano 115 dpdo, 28006 Madrid, Spain; [email protected].
Get access

Abstract

Farming systems are often complex elaborations of the human societies to which they belong, with many traditional and social implications. Untangling the main social and structural constraints may improve productivity without an increase in environmental costs. Integration of cereal and sheep farming throughout the Mediterranean basin has been traditional. Mutually beneficial relationships between the sheep industry and cereal farming, and the vital role of forage legumes in meeting the modest needs of sheep for nitrogen, are stressed. This agropastoral system, however, is endangered in central Spain mainly because the pastoralist (sheep owner) is land-less, while the cultivator (land owner) has little interest in enforcing the law; fees for grazing rights are very low. Farmers, particularly young farmers, reject the current sheep operation because of the harsh working conditions. Restructuring of the grazing system would require a new policy scenario that would link European Union farm subsidies to structural reforms and would stress cooperative behavior.

Type
Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Bahhady, F., and Robbins, M.. 1998. Twins and triplets in Tarhin. ICARDA Caravan 8:14–15,23. International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas, Aleppo, Syria.Google Scholar
2.Beaufoy, G., Baldock, D., and Clark, J.. 1994. The Nature of Farming. Institute for European Enviromental Policy, London.Google Scholar
3.Beekerman, W. 1995. Small is Stupid: Blowing the Whistle on the Greens. Duckworth, London.Google Scholar
4.Caballero, R. 1993. An experts' survey on the role of forage legumes in arable cropping systems of the Mediterranean area. J. Sustainable Agric. 3(3/4):133154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Caballero, R. 1998. Cultivator—pastoralist relationships in the cereal—sheep system of Castile—La Mancha. Selection of a land-based structure for analysis and modeling. First Progress Report. EU FAIR Programme, Project CT96/1893. Dept. of Agricultual Economics, Agriculture University of Athens, Greece.Google Scholar
6.Caballero, R., Rioperez, J., Fernandez, E., Arauzo, M., and Hernaiz, P.J.. 1992. Performance of Manchega ewes grazing cereal stubbles and cultivated pastures. Small Ruminant Res. 7:315329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Dasgupta, P., and Mäler, K.G.. 1990. The Environment and Emerging Development Issues. Proc. Annual Conf. Development Economics. World Bank, Washington, DC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.DPFRN. 1997. Dryland Pasture, Forage and Range Network News 14. International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas, Aleppo, Syria.Google Scholar
9.Duram, L.A. 1998. Taking a pragmatic behavioral approach to alternative agriculture research. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 13:9095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Guessous, F., Kabbali, A., and Narjisse, H.. 1992. Livestock in the Mediterranean Cereal Production System. Pudoc International, Wageningen, Netherlands.Google Scholar
11.ICARDA. 1997. Annual Report 1996. International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas, Aleppo, Syria.Google Scholar
12.ICARDA. 1998. Annual Report 1997. International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas, Aleppo, Syria.Google Scholar
13.Klein, J. 1990. La Mesta. Alianza Editorial. Madrid, Spain.Google Scholar
14.Lacasta, C. 1995. Investigaciones sobre el secano en Castilla—La Mancha. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas. Madrid, Spain.Google Scholar
15.Mansvelt, J.D. van 1997. An interdisciplinary approach to integrate a range of agro-landscape values as proposed by representatives of various disciplines. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 63:233250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Mott, G.O. 1974. Nutrient recycling in pastures. In Mays, D.A. (ed.). Forage Fertilization. American Society of Agronomy. Madison, WI. p. 323339.Google Scholar
17.Norman, D., and Douglas, M.. 1994. Farming Systems Development and Soil Conservation. FAO Farm Systems Management 7. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.Google Scholar
18.Olson, M. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Parker, C.F. 1990. Role of animals in sustainable agriculture. In Edwards, C.A., Lai, R., Madden, P., Miller, R.H., and House, G. (eds.). Sustainable Agricultural Systems. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, IA. p. 238245.Google Scholar
20.Pearce, D.W. 1993. Economic Values and the Natural World. Earthscan, London.Google Scholar
21.Pearce, D.W., Markandya, A., and Barbier, E.. 1989. Blueprint for a Green Economy. Earthscan, London.Google Scholar
22.Redjel, N., Boukheloua, J., and Malki, M.. 1997. The pastoral society education as a warranty for the sustainability of rangeland development in Algeria. Dryland Pasture, Forage and Range Network News 14:56. International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas, Aleppo, Syria.Google Scholar
23.Roman, R. 1996. A model to estimate the aquifers recharge through climatic data and hydraulic soil characteristics. ESRA—96. L'Eau Souterraine en Région Agricole. Poitiers, France, p. (S5):3740.Google Scholar
24.Schlegel, A.J., and Havlin, J.L.. 1997. Green fallow for the central Great Plains. Agronomy J. 89:762767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Weizsäcker, E.U. von, Lovins, A., and Lovins, H.. 1997. Factor Four: Doubling Wealth, Halving Resource Use. Earthscan, London.Google Scholar