Abstract
In this chapter, we provide an in-depth analysis of a potentially sustainable local food system located in the Czech Republic , a small-scale organic family farm , involved in the Community Supported Agriculture scheme, with a traditional integrated farm structure combining cropland , grassland, and woodland, and a highly localised mode of both production, consumption and distribution. Both the biophysical and monetary profile of the farm is provided, and the biophysical characteristics benchmarked with pre-industrial era (1840’) and current average data on organic and conventional Czech agriculture. The results show an interesting combination of traditional systems’ characteristics (no artificial fertiliser inputs, significant human labour inputs, a significant level of closed internal material loops), and modern/industrialised features (input of fossil fuels related to mechanisation , prevalent market orientation and dependence on external, although mainly local markets). The concept of food localisation is employed to discuss the complex issues of sustainability on the farm level, and the nexus of Food-Feed-Fuel-Fibre production as discussed in the literature is extended to also include the aspect of Finance, too often neglected in current socio-metabolic studies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
- 1.
There are exceptions to this localness and close-loopness of traditional organic systems related to early processes of industrialisation and increased urbanisation. The imports of guano from Chile are one example, as well as the rural-urban relationships in pre-industrial Austrian agriculture. (Gizicki-Neundlinger and Guldner 2017).
- 2.
Although neither being sustainable by definition (Gomiero 2011b), nor being homologous to the pre-industrial forms as characterised above, it shares a few important characteristics with it. The use of artificial fertilisers and biocides is not allowed and although using mostly fossil-fuel based machinery and electricity, a significant portion of external fossil energy inputs is spared from its metabolism. Leguminous plants, crop residues (re-ploughed or composted) and manure are used as alternatives, along with labour-intensive activities of weed and pest control. Finally, albeit not explicitly checked with the certification process, the achievement of a closer system of nutrient and energy flows inspires organic farming (Gomiero 2011b). Biodynamic agriculture and permaculture can also be expected to prove advantageous in these aspects, however there is not much scientific evidence available (Gomiero et al. 2011b).
- 3.
Or even merging the two roles through active participation of consumers in the production process, creating the role of a prosumer (PROducer+conSUMER). According to the European CSA Research Group (Urgenci 2016), CSA is based on the following principles: mutual assistance and solidarity (direct connections and shared risks between the farmers and those eating their food), agroecological farming methods, biodiversity and no GMOs, high quality food at prices fair both to producers and consumers, education on the realities of farming, and continual improvement (Urgenci 2016: 5).
- 4.
The use of the intensive, or flow/fund indicators (such as GJ/ha or MJ/worked hour), enables one to maintain the reference to a fund, and thus the intensity of the flow is defined. Intensive indicators are not only useful for comparing flows related to agroecosystems with different areas, but also for the historical comparison of the same agroecosystem, particularly when the composition of a fund has changed over time (i.e. changes in the composition of cropland, pastureland and woodland with respect to total farmland). For further argumentation on the issue please see Fraňková and Cattaneo (2017) and Chap. 3 in this volume.
- 5.
Mathematically, the LM3 value is always between 1 and 3, LM3 = 1 indicating a complete immediate “leakage” of the money from the local economy, and LM3 = 3 the other extreme—a fully closed system where all the money keeps circulating within the defined area. Neither of the two extremes occur in real systems in the context of the Global North, as there are always some suppliers (typically of energy and fossil fuels, machinery, and services) who are distant.
- 6.
Following the recommended methodology (NEF 2002), five of the most important suppliers in the 30 km radius (representing 48% of total supplier expenditures) out of more than 40 were selected and asked to fill in the questionnaire, data from two of them (representing 34% of all supplier expenditures) were obtained; for the 50 km radius, six of the most important suppliers (representing 49% of expenditures) out of more than 60 were selected, data from three of them were obtained (27% of expenditures). Regarding employees, all three permanent ones (representing 94% of all employee expenditures) filled in the questionnaire (both for the radius of 30 and 50 km), seasonal workers were not included. We calculated average ratios of local expenditures for both the suppliers and the employees (for the 30 and 50 km radius separately), and these values were then extrapolated to all relevant employee and supplier expenditures.
- 7.
Though a more significant rise in livestock numbers did not occur before the half of the 19th century, see Grešlová et al. (2015: 28).
- 8.
Small farms under 20 ha of size represented almost 85% of the total number of farms, though only 38% of agricultural land; farms above 100 ha represented only 0.3% in numbers, but the same share of land as small farms in the second half of the 19th century (Grešlová et al. 2015: 25).
- 9.
It is not possible to quantify the volume of traded goods based on the historical data available, however, it seems that only in years with above-average yields was a tradable surplus generated. In any case, the distribution was probably very much local (Třebíč is 27 km away from Holubí Zhoř).
- 10.
Most notably the socialist period of 1948–1989, which (re-)created the structure of large farm units (co-called, but not authentic, cooperatives) as a result of massive collectivisation; this structure prevails to a large extent even after the fall of the communist regime (Doucha and Foltýn 2006 in Grešlová et al. 2015: 24). However, the period of independent Czechoslovakia between 1918 and 1937 is also very interesting, with a strong agrarian political representation and advanced structure of both production, trading and consumption cooperatives (Feyerabend 1952/2007).
- 11.
Reliable data on energy consumption are still missing. The lower estimate is calculated from financial costs of the fuel, while the Ministry of Environment offers an estimate of twice as much.
- 12.
According to the LM3 methodology (see Sect. 7.3 for details), the official registered residential place (both for individuals and companies) is decisive for defining if they are local or not. In the case of the non-local worker—officially his place of residence was 170 km from the farm, however, for most of the season he was accommodated, and also fed, at the farmhouse, and thus practically can be considered local, even though not accounted as such within the LM3 analysis.
- 13.
As Schnell (2013) argues, it is very hard to provide some “average” comparable data on food miles that would be methodologically sound, only very partial data for specific cases, e.g. average food miles per ton of fresh produce delivered to one specific (Chicago Terminal Produce) market in the US exists—there, the average value was 1500 food miles (Pirog et al. 2001). For an “average food item” the value is supposedly significantly higher, however, sound data e.g. on the national level are not available (Schnell 2013).
- 14.
Whereas for most of the farm distribution channels (the CSA, other farmers, organic shops and the rest of the small ones) we can assume that no additional significant distribution is involved (i.e. the farm ensures the distribution to the final consumer, and e.g. the CSA members do pick up their vegetables predominantly by foot, bicycle or public transport), the 17.4% of the farm produce sold at the farm gate and its distribution costs (in energy, time and financial terms) are not included in the farm system metabolism. However, we can assume that all the indirect costs and embodied energy related to the complex distribution chains of the global distribution system are similarly not accounted for.
- 15.
If we further extend the “local radius”, the farm incomes become even more significantly localised, 82.2% of incomes are local within a 100 km radius, 83.5% within 150 km, and 99.9% within 200 km (83.8% if we consider agricultural subsidies as coming from Brussels and not Prague). The Czech Republic is 493 km long and 278 km wide, i.e. the 200 km radius can be still seen as a sub-national scale; if defined by national borders, all incomes are national (or 84% if we consider agricultural subsidies as coming from Brussels and not Prague).
- 16.
If we extend the “local” radius again, 45% of expenditures are made within a 100 km area, 60.2% within 150 km, and 77.4% within 200 km. Regarding the national scale, 89.8% of expenditures are made within the Czech Republic, the only foreign transaction being the second-hand purchase of the harvester from Schorndorf, Germany (622 km).
- 17.
35 cents (“hellers”) means 35/100 of one Czech crown.
- 18.
As explained in footnote 6, this value is based on extrapolation of the average proportions of local expenditures by employees and suppliers as obtained from a limited number of respondents (esp. regarding the suppliers). If we include only the third round of spending of the suppliers that actually filled in the questionnaire and provided their data (designated as “actual” expenditures in Fig. 8.4), i.e. without the extrapolation to all suppliers and to seasonal workers, the size of the multiplication effect would be a bit smaller, but comparable: for LM330actual = 1.35, and the LM350actual = 1.42.
- 19.
In the broad category of “Farm production, operation and maintenance” we see the big importance of Brno—whereas within the 30 km radius only e.g. 17.1 and 16.8% of expenditures in categories “Other farming expenditures” and “Farmhouse maintenance” are local, within 50 km distance (including Brno), significantly more (54.1 and 66.5%) expenditures qualify as local. With the “Animal production” and “Seeds and seedlings” categories we see the same trend.
- 20.
As apparent from the time use analysis, the farm lady who works at the farm “full time” actually works about 170% of the “normal” full time (40 h per week in the Czech Republic) throughout the year (i.e. almost double the normal full time workload within the high farming season). Her husband works “only” about 100% of the normal fulltime at the farm, however, he has a parallel part-time job as a carpenter, mostly during the winter (when there are less farming activities). Moreover, the work performed by the farming family is only partially paid (see details further in the section), as its amount is enormous and if fully accounted for in the price of the products, they won´t be salable, even in the context of the “premium prices” of the local and/or organic products.
- 21.
The FEROI is calculated as the ratio between Final Product (FP) (i.e. External Output of agricultural products), and the sum of External Inputs (EI) and Biomass Reused (BR): FEROI = FP/(EI + BR). For further explanation of the importance and implications of this variable see Tello et al. (2016) and Chap. 2 in this volume.
- 22.
See Fraňková and Cattaneo (2017) for a detailed comparison of the energy balances of the present case study farm and of the past village.
- 23.
It should be noted though that 2012 was the first CSA season for the case study farm, hence the conditions for both the producers and consumers were a trial. In the following season, the price went up a bit and the amount of delivered vegetables went down, partly because of lower overall vegetable production due to climatic conditions (a very dry season), and partly as a result of optimisation by the farmers.
- 24.
Although biocides and industrial fertilisers had not been applied in significant amounts since 1993, the organic certification was only gained in 2006.
- 25.
E.g. the farm lady was growing one specific variety of cabbage for a single customer that wanted it, and the farm lady did not want to “disappoint” her; another example being the limited consumption of own produce (see Sect. 7.4.3 for details): although generally motivated by getting the most possible income from the organic produce, and purchasing much cheaper food from conventional sources, for specific favourite articles of food this does not apply, own consumption thus being a combination of own lower-quality vegetables (but mostly in terms of visual or mechanical imperfection), and own “luxurious” products such as honey, pig fat or poppy seeds of excellent quality that could be marketed with a high-added value, but are consumed by the farming family in significant amounts as favourites for which the food quality cannot be compromised.
- 26.
And also by other activities related to ecosystem and landscape management, e.g. planting an orchard to protect soil from erosion, besides its production role.
- 27.
In many aspects, the farmers´ approach is close to ideals of food sovereignty as expressed e.g. in the Nyéléni declaration (Nyéléni 2007). For argumentation on the importance of including multiple criteria in discussing sustainability of LFS, but also multiple viewpoints (of consumers, farmers, policy makers, academics etc.) see also Chap. 3 in this volume.
References
Altieri, M.A. (2009). Agroecology, small farms, and food sovereignty. Monthly Review, 61 (3).
Aguilera, E., Guzmán, G. I., Infante-Amate, J., Soto, D., García-Ruiz, R., Herrera, A., et al. (2015). Embodied energy in agricultural inputs. Incorporating a historical perspective. DT-SEHA n.1507. http://repositori.uji.es/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10234/141278/DT-SEHA%201507.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed May 20, 2016.
Bennet, C. F. (2009). Reevaluating the community-building potential of community supported agriculture (CSA): A case study of the Washington State University CSA Program. Master thesis of science in environmental science. Washington State University: School of Earth and Environmental Science.
Beranová, M., & Kubačák, A. (2010). Dějiny zemědělství v Čechách, na Moravě a ve Slezsku. Praha: Libri.
Bičík, I., et al. (2015). Land use changes in the Czech Republic 1845–2010. Cham: Springer International Publishing AG.
Bouwman, L., Goldewijk, K. K., Van Der Hoek, K. W., Beusen, A. H. W., Van Vuuren, D. P., Willems, J., et al. (2013). Exploring global changes in nitrogen and phosphorus cycles in agriculture induced by livestock production over the 1900–2050 period. PNAS, 110(52), 20882–20887. doi:10.1073/pnas.1012878108.
Cordell, D., & White, S. (2014). Life’s bottleneck: Sustaining the world’s phosphorus for a food secure future. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 39, 161–188. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-010213-113300.
Cramer, W., et al. (2017). Biodiversity and food security: from trade-offs to synergies. Regional Environmental Change, 17, 1257–1259. doi:10.1007/s10113-017-1147-z.
CSO. (2015). Statistical Yearbook of the Czech Republic 2015. Czech Statistical Office. https://www.czso.cz/csu/czso/statistical-yearbook-of-the-czech-republic-2015. Accessed 26 April 2016.
Cunfer, G., & Krausmann, F. (2009). Sustaining soil fertility: Agricultural practice in the old and new worlds. Global Environment, 2(4), 8–47. doi:10.3197/ge.2009.020402.
ČÚZK. (2016). Souhrnné přehledy o půdním fondu z údajů katastru nemovitostí ČR [Summary data on land use from the Land Register of the Czech Republic, data from 31.12.2015]. Český úřad zeměměřičský a katastrální, Praha. http://www.cuzk.cz/Periodika-a-publikace/Statisticke-udaje/Souhrne-prehledy-pudniho-fondu/Rocenka_pudniho_fondu_2016.aspx. Accessed 4 October 2017.
Davis, S. J., Peters, G. P., & Caldeira, K. (2011). The supply chain of CO2 emissions. PNAS, 108(45), 18554–18559. doi:10.1073/pnas.1107409108.
Demeter. (2016). Production standards: For the use of Demeter, biodynamic and related trademarks. Demeter-International e.V. http://www.demeter.net/sites/default/files/di_production_stds_demeter_biodynamic_16-e.pdf.
Desai, P.‚ & Riddlestone, S. (2002). Bioregional solutions for living on one planet. Schumacher Briefing No. 8, Bristol: Schumacher Society. Dartington, Devon: Green Books.
Dietz, R.‚ & O’Neil, D. (2013). Enough is enough. Building a sustainable economy in a world of finite resources. Routledge, London.
Douthwaite, R. (1996). Short circuit: Strengthening local economies for security in an unstable world. Dublin: Lilliput Press. doi:10.1604/9781874675600.
Edelman, M., Weis, T., Baviskar, A., Borras, S. M., Jr., Holt-Giménez, E., Kandiyoti, D., et al. (2014). Introduction: Critical perspectives on food sovereignty. Journal of Peasant Studies, 41, 911–931. doi:10.1080/03066150.2014.963568.
Erb, K. H., Lauk, Ch., Kastner, T., Mayer, A., Theurl, M. C., & Haberl, H. (2016). Exploring the biophysical option space for feeding the world without deforestation. Nature Communications, 7, 11382. doi:10.1038/ncomms11382.
Fedoroff, N. V., et al. (2010). Radically rethinking agriculture for the 21st century. Science, 327, 833–834. doi:10.1126/science.1186834.
Feenstra, G. W. (1997). Local food systems and sustainable communities. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 12(1), 28–36. doi:10.1017/S0889189300007165.
Fernando, A. L., Duarte, M. P., Almeida, J., Boléo, S., & Mendes, B. (2010). Environmental impact assessment of energy crops cultivation in Europe. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 4(6), 594–604.
Fischer-Kowalski, M., & Haberl, H. (Eds.). (2007) Socioecological transitions and global change: Trajectories of social metabolism and land use. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. doi:10.4337/9781847209436.
Fischer-Kowalski, M., Singh, S. J., Lauk, C., Remesch, A., Ringhofer, L., & Grünbühel, C. M. (2011). Sociometabolic transitions in subsistence communities: Boserup revisited in four comparative case studies. Human Ecology Review, 18(2), 147–158.
Foley, J. A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. A., Cassidy, E. S., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M., et al. (2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature, 478, 337–342. doi:10.1038/nature10452.
Fraňková, E., & Cattaneo, C. (2017). Organic farming in the past and today: Sociometabolic perspective on a Central European case study. Regional Environmental Change. doi:10.1007/s10113-016-1099-8.
Fraňková, E., & Johanisová, N. (2012). Economic localization revisited. Environmental Policy and Governance, 22(5), 307–321. doi:10.1002/eet.1593. John Wiley & Sons and ERP Environment.
Galt, R. E. (2013). Placing Food Systems in first world political ecology: A review and research agenda. Geography Compass, 7(9), 637–658. doi:10.1111/gec3.12070.
Gerber, P., Vellinga, T., Opio, C., & Steinfeld, H. (2011). Productivity gains and greenhouse gas emissions intensity in dairy systems. Livestock Science, 139, 100–108. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2011.03.012.
Giampietro, M. (2003). Multi-scale integrated analysis of agroecosystems. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Giampietro, M., & Mayumi, K. (2015). The biofuels delusion: The fallacy of large-scale agro-biofuel production. London: Routledge.
Giampietro, M., Mayumi, K., & Sorman, A. H. (2013). Energy analysis for a sustainable future: Multi-scale integrated analysis of societal and ecosystem metabolism. London: Routledge.
Gingrich, S., Haidvogl, G., Krausmann, F., Preis, S., & Garcia-Ruiz, R. (2015). Providing food while sustaining soil fertility in two pre-industrial Alpine agroecosystems. Hum Ecol, 43, 395–410. doi:10.1007/s10745-015-9754-0.
Gingrich, S., Theurl, M. C., Erb, K., & Krausmann, F. (2017). Regional specialization and market integration: Agroecosystem energy transitions in Upper Austria. Regional Environmental Change, 46, 1–14. doi:10.1007/s10113-017-1145-1.
Gizicki-Neundlinger and Guldner. (2017). Surplus, scarcity and soil fertility in pre-industrial austrian agriculture—The sustainability costs of inequality. Sustainability, 9, 265. doi:10.3390/su9020265.
Gliessman, S. R. (2015). Agroecology. The ecology of sustainable food systems (3rd ed.). Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Gomiero, T., Giampietro, M., & Mayumi, K. (2006). Facing complexity on agro-ecosystems: A new approach to farming system analysis. International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, 5, 116–144. doi:10.1504/IJARGE.2006.009160.
Gomiero, T., Pimentel, D., & Paoletti, M. G. (2011a). Is there a need for a more sustainable agriculture? Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 30, 6–23. doi:10.1080/07352689.2011.553515.
Gomiero, T., Pimentel, D., & Paoletti, M. G. (2011b). Environmental impact of different agricultural management practices: Conventional vs. Organic agriculture. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 30, 95–124. doi:10.1080/07352689.2011.554355.
González De Molina, M., & Toledo, V.M. (2014). The social metabolism: A socio-ecological theory of historical change. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-06358-4.
Grešlová-Kušková, P. (2013). A case study of the Czech agriculture since 1918 in a socio-metabolic perspective. From land reform through nationalisation to privatisation. Land Use Policy, 30, 592–603. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.05.009.
Grešlová, P., Gingrich, S., Krausmann, F., Chromý, P., & Jančák, V. (2015). Social metabolism of Czech agriculture in the period 1830–2010. AUC GEOGRAPHICA, 50, 23–35. doi:10.14712/23361980.2015.84.
Guzmán, G. I., & González de Molina, M. (2009). Preindustrial agriculture versus organic agriculture: The land cost of sustainability. Land Use Policy, 26, 502–510. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.07.004.
Guzmán, G. I., & González de Molina, M. (2016). Energy in agroecosystems: A tool for assessing sustainability. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Guzmán, G. I., Aguilera, E., Soto, D., Cid, A., Infante, J., García Ruiz, R., et al. (2014). Methodology and conversion factors to estimate the net primary productivity of historical and contemporary 4 agroecosystems. DT-SEHA n.1407. http://repositori.uji.es/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10234/91670/DT-SEHA%201407.pdf?sequence=3. Accessed 26 May 2016.
Haas, W., & Krausmann, F. (2015). Transition-related changes in the metabolic profile of an Austrian rural village. Working paper Social Ecology, 153 (Vienna: IFF Social Ecology).
Haberl, H., Fischer-Kowalski, M., Krausmann, F., & Winiwarter, V. (Eds.). (2016). Social ecology: Society-nature relations across time and space. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-33326-7.
Haberl, H., & Krausmann, F. (2007). The local base of the historical agrarian-industrial transition, and the interaction between scales. In M. Fischer-Kowalski & H. Haberl (Eds.), Socio-ecological transitions and global change: Trajectories of social metabolism and land use (pp. 116–138). Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, USA: Edward Elgar. doi:10.4337/9781847209436.00012.
Hathaway, M. D. (2016). Agroecology and permaculture: addressing key ecological problems by rethinking and redesigning agricultural systems. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 6(2), 239–250. doi:10.1007/s13412-015-0254-8.
Herrero, M., Thornton, P. K., Notenbaert, A. M., Wood, S., Msangi, S., Freeman, H. A., et al. (2010). Smart investments in sustainable food production: revisiting mixed crop-livestock systems. Science, 327(5967), 822–825. doi:10.1126/science.1183725.
Hinrichs, C. C. (2003). The practice and politics of food system localization. Journal of Rural Studies, 19(1), 33–45.
Hitschmann, H. H. (1891). Vademecum für den Landwirth, M. Perles.
Holt-Giménez, E., & Altieri, M. A. (2013). Agroecology, food sovereignty, and the new Green revolution. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 37, 90–102. doi:10.1080/10440046.2012.716388.
Krausmann, F. (2004). Milk, manure, and muscle power. Livestock and the transformation of preindustrial agriculture in Central Europe. Human Ecology, 32, 735–772. doi:10.1007/s10745-004-6834-y.
Krausmann, F., Fischer-Kowalski, M., Schandl, H., & Eisenmenger, N. (2008). The global sociometabolic transition: Past and present metabolic profiles and their future trajectories. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 12, 637–656. doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2008.00065.x.
Krausmann, F., Heberl, H., Schulz, N. B., Erb, K.-H., Darge, E., & Gaube, V. (2003). Land-use change and socio-economic metabolism in Austria—Part I: Driving forces of land-use change: 1950–1995. Land Use Policy, 20, 1–20. doi:10.1016/S0264-8377(02)00048-0.
Krčmářová, J., & Arnold, M. (2016). Traditional Agriculture as Cultural Heritage. Forgotten Agroforestry Practices Recorded in Textual Part of Nineteenth Century Tax Records. In M. Agnoletti, F. Emanueli (Eds.), Biocultural Diversity in Europe, Environmental History Series (pp. 211–231). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Kušková, P., Gingrich, S., & Krausmann, F. (2008). Long term changes in social metabolism and land use in Czechoslovakia, 1830–2000: An energy transition under changing political regimes. Ecological Economics, 68, 394–407. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.04.006.
La Trobe, H. L., & Acott, T. G. (2000). Localising the global food system. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 7(4), 309–320.
Lang, T. (2010). From value-for-money to values-for-money: Ethical food and policy in Europe. Environment and Planning A, 42(8), 1814–1832. doi:10.1068/a4258.
Lokoč, R., & Ulčák, Z. (2009). Are the present agricultural policy instruments contradictory to their goals? The case of the Czech countryside (Vol. 4, No. 1). Review on Agriculture and Rural Development, Hódmezövásárhely: University of Szeged.
Lynch, D. H., MacRae, R., & Martin, R. C. (2011). The carbon and global warming potential impacts of organic farming: Does it have a significant role in an energy constrained world? Sustainability, 3(2), 322–362. doi:10.3390/su3020322.
Martinez, S., Hand, M. S., Da Pra, M., Pollack, S., Ralston, K., Smith, T. et al. (2010). Local food systems: Concepts, impacts, and issues. ERR-97, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR97/ERR97.pdf. Accessed 12 June 2012.
Mayer, A., Schaffartzik, A., Haas, W., & Sepulveda, A.R. (2015). Patterns of global biomass trade and the implications for food sovereignty and socio-environmental conflict. EJOLT Report, No. 20. doi:10.13140/2.1.1442.5128.
McDonald, S. (2005). Studying actions in context: a qualitative shadowing method for organizational research. Qualitative research, 5(4), 455–473.
McMichael, P. (2009). A food regime genealogy. Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(1), 139–170. doi:10.1080/03066150902820354.
MoA. (2013). Organic Farming in the Czech Republic. Yearbook 2012. [in Czech with English summary] Ministry of Agriculture, Prague. http://eagri.cz/public/web/file/533348/rocenka_EZ_2013_web.pdf. Accessed 4 October 2017.
MoA. (2015). Organic Farming in the Czech Republic. Yearbook 2014. [in Czech with English summary] Ministry of Agriculture, Prague. http://eagri.cz/public/web/file/533356/Roc_enka_EZ_2015_www_komplet.pdf. Accessed 4 October 2017.
MoE. (2005). Report on the Environment of the Czech Republic 2005. Ministry of Environment, Prague. https://www.mzp.cz/en/state_of_the_environment_reports_documents. Accessed 4 October 2017.
MoE. (2014). Report on the Environment of the Czech Republic 2014. Ministry of Environment, Prague. https://www.mzp.cz/C125750E003B698B/en/state_of_the_environment_reports_documents/$FILE/SOPSZP-environment_report-20160502.pdf. Accessed 4 October 2017.
Mouysset, L. (2017). Reconciling agriculture and biodiversity in European public policies: a bio-economic perspective. Regional Environmental Change, 17, 1421–1428. doi:10.1007/s10113-016-1023-2.
MPAB. (2016). Zhorz Holuby. Catastral Schätzungs Operat, signature 715, filing (“Karton”) 280, file (“značka”) D8, fund “Stable cadastre—Schätzungoperaten”. [Archive material] Moravian Provincial Archives in Brno, Czech Republic.
NEF. (2002). The money trail. Measuring your impact on the local economy using LM3. London: New Economics Foundation.
Norberg-Hodge, H., Merrifield, T., & Gorelick, S. (2002). Bringing the food economy home: Local alternatives to global agribusiness. London: ZED Books.
Nyéléni, (2007). Declaration of Nyéléni. Declaration of the Forum for Food Sovereignty. Available at https://nyeleni.org/IMG/pdf/DeclNyeleni-en.pdf Accessed June 7, 2017.
Pacini, C., Wossink, A., Giesen, G., Vazzana, C., & Huirne, R. (2003). Evaluation of sustainability of organic, integrated and conventional farming systems: A farm and field-scale analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 95, 273–288. doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(02)00091-9.
Pelletier, N., Audsley, E., Brodt, S., Garnett, T., Henriksson, P., Kendall, A., et al. (2011). Energy intensity of agriculture and food systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 36, 223–246. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-081710-161014.
Picková, A., & Vilhelm, V. (2009). Aspekty energetické náročnosti v zemědělství. Ekonomika a management, 4, 239–254.
Pimentel, D., & Pimentel, M. (2008). Food, energy, and society (3d ed.). Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Pimentel, D., Hepperly, P., Hanson, J., Douds, D., & Seidel, R. (2005). Environmental energetic and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. BioScience, 55(7), 573–582.
Pirog, R. S., Timothy, V. P., Kamyar, E., & Ellen, C. (2001). Food, Fuel, and Freeways: An Iowa perspective on how far food travels, fuel usage, and greenhouse gas emissions. Leopold Center Pubs and Papers 3.http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=leopold_pubspapers. Accessed 4 October 2017.
Renting, H., Rossing, W. A. H., Groot, J. C. J., Van der Ploeg, J. D., Laurent, C., Perraud, D., et al. (2009). Exploring multifunctional agriculture. A review of conceptual approaches and prospects for an integrative transitional Framework. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 112–123.
Rossing, W. A. H., Zander, P., Josien, E., Groot, J. C. J., Meyer, B. C., & Knierim, A. (2007). Integrative modelling approaches for analysis of impact of multifunctional agriculture: A review for France, Germany and The Netherlands. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 120, 41–57. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2006.05.031.
Ščasný, M., Kovanda, J., & Hák, T. (2003). Material flow accounts, balances and derived indicators for the Czech Republic during the 1990s: Results and recommendations for methodological improvements. Ecological Economics, 45(1), 41–57.
Schaschl, E. (2007). Rekonstruktion der Arbeitszeit in der Landwirtschaft im 19. Jahrhundert am Beispiel von Theyern in Niederösterreich. Social Ecology Working Paper 96 (pp. 1–174). Vienna: Institute of Social Ecology, IFF—Faculty for Interdisciplinary Studies, Klagenfurt University.
Scheidel, A., Farrell, K. N., Ramos-Marin, J., Giampietro, M., & Mayumi, K. (2014). Land poverty and emerging ruralities in Cambodia: Insights from Kampot province. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 16(4), 823–840. doi:10.1007/s10668-014-9529-6.
Schnell, S. M. (2013). Food miles, local eating, and community supported agriculture: Putting local food in its place. Agriculture and Human Values, 30(4), 615–628.
Schrivastava, A., & Kothari, A. (2012). Churning the earth: The making of global India. New Delhi: Viking/Penguin Global.
Serrano-Tovar, T., & Giampietro, M. (2014). Multi-scale integrated analysis of rural Laos: Studying metabolic patterns of land uses across different levels and scales. Land Use Policy, 36, 155–170. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.08.003.
Seyfang, G. (2007). Cultivating carrots and community: Local organic food and sustainable consumption. Environmental Values, 16, 105–123. doi:10.3197/096327107780160346.
Sieferle, R. P. (1997). Rückblick auf die Natur. Eine Geschichte des Menschen und seiner Umwelt. München: Luchterhand.
Singh, S. J., Haberl, H., Chertow, M., Mirtl, M., & Schmid, M. (Eds.). (2013). Long term socio-ecological research: Studies in society-nature interactions across spatial and temporal scales. Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-1177-8.
Smil, V. (2013). Harvesting the biosphere. What we have taken from nature. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. doi:10.1111/j.1728-4457.2013.00617.x.
Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., & De Haan, C. (2006). Livestock’s long shadow: Environmental issues and options. Rome: FAO.
Svobodová, K. (2010). Stav pěstování zemědělských plodin a chovu hospodářských zvířat na jižní a jihovýchodní Moravě v polovině 19. století ve světle stabilního katastru [The state of the growing of the agricultural plants and of the farm animals breeding on the south and south-east Moravia in the half of the 19th century in the light of the stable land-registry]. [Dissertation (in Czech)]. Department of History, Faculty of Arts, Masaryk University in Brno, Czech Republic. https://is.muni.cz/th/8274/ff_d?furl=%2Fth%2F8274%2Fff_d;so=nx;lang=en. Accessed April 18, 2016.
Tello, E., Garrabou, R., Cussó, X., Ramón Olarieta, J., & Galán, E. (2012). Fertilizing methods and nutrient balance at the end of traditional organic agriculture in the Mediterranean bioregion: Catalonia (Spain) in the 1860s. Human Ecology, 40, 369–383. doi:10.1007/s10745-012-9485-4.
Tello, E., Galán, E., Sacristán, V., Cunfer, G., Guzmán, G. I., González de Molina, M., et al. (2016). Opening the black box of energy throughputs in farm systems: A decomposition analysis between the energy returns to external inputs, internal biomass reuses and total inputs consumed (the Vallès County, Catalonia, c.1860 and 1999). Ecological Economics, 121, 160–174.
Tscharntke, T., Clough, Y., Wanger, T. C., Jackson, L., Motzke, I., Perfecto, I., et al. (2012). Global food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural intensification. Biological Conservation, 151(1), 53–59. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2012.01.068.
Urgenci. (2016). Overview of Community supported agriculture in Europe. European CSA Research Group. http://urgenci.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Overview-of-Community-Supported-Agriculture-in-Europe.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2017.
ÚZEI. (2015). Statistická šetření ekologického zemědělství. Základní statistické údaje (2014) [Statistical analysis of organic agriculture. Basic statistics (2014)]. Ústav zemědělské ekonomiky a informací, Brno. http://eagri.cz/public/web/file/533363/Statisticka_setreni_ekologickeho_zemedelstvi_2014_finalverze.pdf. Accessed 4 October 2017.
Van der Ploeg, J. D., & Roep, D. (2003). Multifunctionality and rural development: the actual situation in Europe. In G. van Huylenbroeck & G. Durand (Eds.), Multifunctional agriculture; A new paradigm for European agriculture and rural development (pp. 37–53). Hampshire, England: Ashgate.
Weber, C. L., & Matthews, H. S. (2008). Quantifying the global and distributional aspects of American household carbon footprint. Ecological Economics, 66, 379–391. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.09.021.
Weis, T. (2010). The accelerating biophysical contradictions of industrial capitalist agriculture. Journal of Agrarian Change, 10, 315–341. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0366.2010.00273.x.
West, P. C., Gibbs, H. K., Monfresa, C., Wagner, J., Barford, C. C., Carpenter, S. R., et al. (2010). Trading carbon for food. PNAS, 107(46), 19645–19648.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fraňková, E., Cattaneo, C. (2017). Food, Feed, Fuel, Fibre and Finance: Looking for Sustainability Halfway Between Traditional Organic and Industrialised Agriculture in the Czech Republic. In: Fraňková, E., Haas, W., Singh, S. (eds) Socio-Metabolic Perspectives on the Sustainability of Local Food Systems. Human-Environment Interactions, vol 7. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69236-4_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69236-4_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-69235-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-69236-4
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)