Integrating agroecology and landscape multifunctionality in

15 Pages·2010·1.55 MB·English

AgriculturalSystems103(2010)327–341
ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect
Agricultural Systems
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy
Integrating agroecology and landscape multifunctionality in Vermont: An
evolving framework to evaluate the design of agroecosystems
Sarah Taylor Lovella,*, S’ra DeSantisb, Chloe A. Nathanb, Meryl Breton Olsonb, V. Ernesto Méndezb,
Hisashi C. Kominamib, Daniel L. Ericksonb, Katlyn S. Morrisb, William B. Morrisb
aDepartmentofCropSciences,1009PlantScienceLaboratory,UniversityofIllinois,Urbana,IL61801,USA
bPlantandSoilScienceDepartment,HillsAgriculturalScienceBuilding,105CarriganDrive,UniversityofVermont,Burlington,VT05405,USA
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Articlehistory: Agroecosystemscovervastareasoflandworldwideandareknowntohavealargeimpactontheenvi-
Received7July2009 ronment,yetthesehighlymodifiedlandscapesarerarelyconsideredascandidatesforlandscapedesign.
Receivedinrevisedform26February2010 Whileintentionally-designedagriculturallandscapescouldservemanydifferentfunctions,fewresources
Accepted11March2010
existforevaluatingthedesignofthesecomplexlandscapes,particularlyatthescaleofthewhole-farm.
Availableonline3April2010
Theobjectiveofthispaperistointroduceanevolvingframeworkforevaluatingthedesignofagroeco-
systems based on a critical review of the literature on landscape multifunctionality and agroecology.
Keywords:
Weconsiderhowagroecosystemsmightbedesignedtoincorporateadditionalfunctionswhileadhering
Multifunctionalagriculture
toagroecologyprinciplesformanagingthelandscape.Theframeworkincludesanassessmenttoolfor
Landscapemultifunctionality
evaluatingfarmdesignbasedontheextentoffine-scalelandusefeaturesandtheirspecificfunctions,
Ecosystemservices
Ecologicaldesign toconsiderthepresentstateofthefarm,toplanforfutureconditions,ortocomparealternativefutures
Foodsystems forthedesignofthefarm.WeapplythisframeworktotwofarmsinVermontthatarerecognizedlocally
Ruralplanning assuccessful,multifunctionallandscapes.TheIntervaleCenter,anagriculturallandscapelocatedwithin
thecitylimits,servesasanincubatorfornewfarmstartupsandprovidesuniqueculturalfunctionsthat
benefitthelocalcommunity.ButterworksFarm,aprivateoperationproducingorganicyogurtandother
food products, achieves important ecological functions through an integrated crop-livestock system.
ThesefarmsandmanyothersinVermontserveasmodelsofaframeworkthatintegrateslandscapemul-
tifunctionalityandagroecologyinthedesignofthelandscape.Inthediscussionsection,wedrawfrom
theliteratureandourworktoproposeasetofimportantthemesthatmightbeconsideredforfuture
research.
(cid:2)2010ElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved.
1.Introduction abilityoflargewaterresources,biodiversityconservation,andcar-
bonsequestration(ScherrandMcNeely,2008).Researchonvarious
Thepercentageofterrestriallandcoveredbyagriculture(crop- agriculturalmanagementpracticesinawiderangeofcropsandre-
landandpasture)hassteadilyincreasedtoapproximately50%of gionsthroughouttheworldisvastandcontinuingtogrow,includ-
thehabitablelandonearth(Tilmanetal.,2002;Clay,2004).Asa ing many studies that focus on sustainable agricultural practices
result,wemustfacetherealitythat‘‘agriculturalistsaretheprin- thatintegrateecologicalprinciples.Muchlessattention,however,
cipal managers of global useable lands and will shape, perhaps hasbeendirectedtowardtheextentandarrangementofindividual
irreversibly, the surface of Earth in the coming decades” (Tilman spatialfeaturesintheagriculturallandscape–inotherwords,the
et al., 2002). Agricultural activities influence the environment designoftheagriculturallandscape.
andecosystemservices(benefitshumansderivefromecosystems) In an effort to address an issue that spans several disciplines,
at many scales (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; somecommontermsmustbedefinedbasedonthecontextofthis
Tscharntkeetal.,2005).Atthelocalscale,individualfarmsaffect work.Forthepurposesofthisdiscussion,‘‘landscapes”aredefined
nearbywaterquality,nutrientcycling,micro-climatecontrol,and as ‘‘the visible features of an area of land, including physical
visual quality of the landscape. At the regional and global scales, elements such as landforms, living elements of flora and fauna,
agriculturecanhavefar-reachingimpactsonthequalityandavail- abstract elements such as lighting and weather conditions, and
humanelementssuchashumanactivityorthebuiltenvironment”
(Sustainable Sites Initiative, 2007, p. 1). The term ‘‘design”, as
* Correspondingauthor.Tel.:[phone];fax:[phone].
E-mailaddress:[email protected](S.T.Lovell). appliedtothe landscape,can beusedas either a noun ora verb.
0308-521X/$-seefrontmatter(cid:2)2010ElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved.
doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2010.03.003
328 S.T.Lovelletal./AgriculturalSystems103(2010)327–341
Theverb‘‘design”referstotheintentionaltransformationormod- 2004), tocompare differentalternativesfor the designof a given
ificationoflandscapefeaturesforagivenareaexpressedasagra- area(BergerandBolte,2004;Santelmannetal.,2006),ortoiden-
phic representation, conceptual description, and/or physical tify appropriate locations for establishing new patches of native
manifestation. As a noun, we use ‘‘design” to refer to the spatial vegetation(LafortezzaandBrown,2004).
arrangementoflandscapefeaturesresultingfromthedesign(verb) Theprimaryobjectiveofthispaperistointroduceanevolving
process,eitherintheexistingstateorproposedfuturestate(s).An frameworkfordesigningagroecosystemsbasedonacriticalreview
agroecosystemcanbedefinedas‘‘...aninteractivegroupofbiotic oftheliteratureinrelatedfields,particularlyagroecologyandland-
andabioticcomponents,someofwhichareunderhumancontrol, scapemultifunctionality.Theframeworkincludesamultifunction-
thatformsaunifiedwhole(ecosystem)forthepurposeofproduc- alityassessmenttooltoevaluatethefarmdesignbasedonspecific
ingfoodandfiber”(ElliottandCole,1989,p.1598). functions and spatial contributions of individual landscape fea-
Inthispaper,wefocusonthescaleofthewhole-farm,including tures.Wepresenttwocasestudiesoffarmswhichexemplifyagri-
all parcels owned and managed by an individual farmer or farm culturallandscapesdesignednotonlytomaximizeproductionbut
businessunit.Wechosethisscaleofanalysisbecauseitisatthis alsotoprovideecologicalandculturalfunctions.Thefarmsarelo-
levelwheremostlanduseandmanagementdecisionsoccur.Sme- cated in Northern Vermont where agriculture is a major compo-
ding and Joenje (1999) state that the integration of farming and nent of both the landscape and the cultural heritage, in spite of
natureshouldconsiderboththelandscapescaleandthefarmscale. the region’s challenging mountainous terrain and cold climate.
Whilewemightconsiderthelandscapescaletobemoreofaregio- Thesecasestudiesillustratesomeoftheon-farminnovationthat
nal planning directive, requiring coordination of different land isoccurringintheUS,workinginconcertwithexistinglandscape
ownersandinstitutionsthroughpolicy,thefarmscalewouldrely features and ecosystems, as well as incorporating historical and
upon a landscape design approach developed at least in part by culturalconsiderationsinfarmdesign.WhileVermontisanideal
individualland owners or users. In considering the sustainability place to consider this approach, we expect that this framework
of agriculture and its contribution to the provision of ecosystem couldbeadaptedforagriculturallandscapesinotherregions.
services, few published studies have focused on the farm scale
(Rigbyetal.,2001;Lowranceetal.,2007).Awhole-farmapproach
2.Literaturereview
to design would offer many benefits, including opportunities to
managenutrientflowsatornearthesource(e.g.manureforfertil-
Thissectionincludesareviewoftheliteratureondifferentap-
ity), to customize strategies for managing ecosystem services to
proachestostudysustainableagriculturalsystems,withaspecific
match the specific farm situation, and to consider the farm and
focusontheircontributionsandlimitationsrelatedtoourunder-
farmertypeastheyrelatetospatialattributesoflanduse.
standingofthedesignofagroecosystems.Theprimaryapproaches
Currently, few resources are available to evaluate or design a
selectedforthisanalysisareagroecologyandlandscapemultifunc-
multifunctional landscape at the whole-farm scale. As a result,
tionalitybecausetheyhavebeenparticularlyinfluentialinthedis-
thespatialarrangementoflandscapefeatureshasprimarilybeen
cussionofsustainableagricultureinrecentyears,oftenpromoting
aresultoflandusepatternsestablishedbycurrentandpastland
similarprinciplesbutemployingdistinctstrategiesappropriatefor
owners to support agricultural production, often strongly influ-
differentscales(Altieri,2004a;Rentingetal.,2009).Foreachap-
encedbybiophysicallandscapefeaturesthatdeterminelandsuit-
proach,wesummarizetheguidingprinciples,highlightthecontri-
ability for certain agricultural functions. In most cases, however,
butionstolandscapedesign,andconsiderthepotentiallimitations
multiplealternativesexistforthetypesofcropsandmanagement
whentheapproachisusedaloneinevaluatingfarmdesign.
practices,aswellasthearrangementoffieldsandsupportiveinfra-
structureinthelandscape.Farmersregularlymakedecisionsabout
changes to the farm landscape through activities such as the 2.1.Agroecology
creationandremovaloflandscapeelements(hedgerows,woodlots,
etc.) and conversion of fields to alternative perennial crops The field of agroecology developed as an alternative to indus-
(Kristensenetal.,2004).Someevidencesuggeststhatthesedeci- trial,highexternalinputagricultureandusesecologicalprinciples
sionsaboutthedesignoftheagriculturallandscapecanbestrongly to guide the design and management of agroecosystems (Altieri,
impactedbyfactorsbeyondbiophysicallandscapefeaturesorprof- 1987;Gliessman,1990).Agroecosystemdesignhasbeenanimpor-
itmaximization.Thesefactorscanincludefarmers’values(Busck, tant part of agroecological conceptualization and practice (Ewel,
2002), individual preferences (Deuffic and Candau, 2006), farm 1986; Altieri, 1995). The design dimension in agroecology draws
function, and landscape context (Deffontaines et al., 1995). fromtwomainsourcesofknowledge:(1)naturalecosystemsand
Anotherimportantconsiderationinthedesignofagroecosystems (2) traditional, pre-industrial agroecosystems (Gliessman et al.,
is the common use of the farm as the homestead of the farmer, 1981;Ewel,1986;Altieri,2004b).Agroecologistshaverecognized
suggestingdecisionsmaybebasedonmorethanproductionalone theinfluenceofsocialandculturalfactorsinthe developmentof
andmightincludeconsiderationofaesthetics,culturaltraditions, traditionalagriculture,butecologicalsciencehasbeenthedriving
andrecreationalamenities(Primdahl,1999). principle for agroecosystem design. In agroecology, design
Fortunately,advancesintheuseofGeographicInformationSys- approaches have usually focused on the plot or field scale, with
tems(GIS),GoogleEarth™,andothermappingandspatialanalysis the guiding principle that agroecosystems should bear a greater
tools offer new opportunities to evaluate and design agroecosys- resemblance to natural ecosystems (Soule and Piper, 1992;
tems.Ecologicalinventorieshavebeenusedtocharacterizeexist- Gliessman,2007).
ing landscape features and assess the suitability of areas for Animportantstrengthofagroecologyisitsemphasisontradi-
differentfunctionsusinglayersonamaptoindicatetherelation- tional practices, frequently employed by indigenous peoples, as
ships between natural and man-made resources (McHarg, 1969). they might inform the design of sustainable agroecosystems. For
GIS is now used regularly to map and assess existing land use, example,inconsideringacacao(Theobromacacao)productionsys-
topography,hydrology,soils,sociodemographicfactors,andmany tem in Talamanca, Costa Rica, Altieri (2004a) suggests that farm
otherspatialdataastheymightinformthedesignofthelandscape designshouldpromotesynergiesandintegrationsothatdifferent
(Lovell and Johnston, 2009). From the field of landscape ecology, parts of the agroecosystem support each other, while promoting
landscapepatternindicessuchashabitatproportion,connectivity, biodiversity conservation, food production, and other income-
and heterogeneity have been used to assess landscapes (Corry, generating activities. These design principles are exemplified in
S.T.Lovelletal./AgriculturalSystems103(2010)327–341 329
tropicalhomegardens,typicallydesignedandmanagedbyhouse- ecosystemswithintentionally designedagroecosystems,research
holdstoincludeavarietyofcomponentssuchastrees,herbaceous and design examples are needed from a variety of climates and
crops, and animals, in order to meet a variety of needs (Méndez environments.
et al., 2001). Such agroecosystems not only provide products for
consumptionorsale,buttheyalsosupportculturalfunctionsand 2.2.Landscapemultifunctionality
conserveecosystemservices(KumarandNair,2006).
Agroecologyalsoemphasizestheimportanceoffarmdesignin Whilethefieldofagroecologyhashistoricallyfocusedonfield-
pest management. For example, there is evidence that densities scale management and design, the landscape multifunctionality
ofherbivorouspestsandtheirnaturalenemieswithinagricultural approach considers the functions of the larger landscape. In the
fields are influenced by the landscape features adjacent to those context of agroecosystems, multifunctionality suggests that agri-
fields including field margins, riparian buffers, and forest edges culture can provide numerous commodity and non-commodity
(NichollsandAltieri,2001).Thisimpliestheimportanceofconsid- outputs,some of which benefit the public without compensating
ering the spatial layout of buffers and margins when designing the farmer. Non-commodity outputs (public services) provided
agroecosystems.ResearchinorganicvineyardsinnorthernCalifor- byfarmsincludebothecologicalfunctions(e.g.biodiversity,nutri-
niashowedthatincorporatingcorridorsofnaturalvegetationinto entcycling,andcarbonsequestration)andculturalfunctions(e.g.
crop fields may encourage beneficial insects from nearby forests recreation,culturalheritage,andvisualquality).Theideaofland-
intothecenteroffields,reducingpestpressurenear thecorridor scape ‘‘functions” is consistent with the popular ‘‘ecosystem ser-
(Altieri et al., 2005). Another example comes from the long-term vices” framework, where the provisioning, regulating, and
re-design of strawberry (Fragaria sp.) production in California. cultural services are provided by different ecosystems or land-
ResearchersimprovedecologicalmanagementbyintegratingBras- scapes(Madureiraetal.,2007).The1997bookentitled‘‘Nature’s
sica crops to control disease, improve nutrient management, and Services – Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems” contains
reducerunoff.Theincorporationoftrapcropsaroundstrawberry entries from many authors that have been pivotal in developing
fields, as well as insectary crops between strawberry rows, pro- a shared understanding of ecosystem services as they contribute
videdhabitatforpredators(Gliessman,2007).Whileitcouldbear- to landscape multifunctionality (Daily, 1997). In applying these
gued that these approaches deal primarily with field-scale concepts to agroecosystems, the multifunctional landscape ap-
management,usingelementssuchastrapcropsmayrequireinten- proach suggests that overall performance of the agricultural sys-
tionaldesignbeyondthefieldboundariesinordertoachievethe tem can be improved by combining or stacking multiple
correctspatialarrangementtodrawpestsawayfromtheprimary functionsinthelandscape(offeringadditionalecosystemservices),
crop. asopposedtoafocusconstrainedbyproductionfunctions(Lovell
Until recently, agroecological approaches tended to focus andJohnston,2009;JordanandWarner,2010).
mainlyontheecologyofagriculturalproductionandmanagement. Landscapemultifunctionalityhasbeenpromotedthroughagri-
However, a group of agroecologists in Spain have focused their cultural policy in some regions. In Europe, multifunctionality of
work on better integrating social and political perspectives of agroecosystems is supported by public funds through agri-envi-
agroecology(Guzmán-Casadoetal.,1999;Sevilla-Guzmán,2006). ronmentalschemes(Wadeetal.,2008),whichseektoalignbiodi-
Thisworkwasfurtherstrengthenedin2003,whenagroupofrec- versity conservation with other public benefits such as water
ognized agroecologists redefined the field as the ‘‘the integrative quality,carbonsequestration,andruraltourism,bypayingfarmers
studyoftheecologyoftheentirefoodsystem,encompassingeco- forthepublicbenefitstheyprovide(Sutherland,2004).Whilemul-
logical, economic and social dimensions” (Francis et al., 2003, tifunctionality has been explored and supported in Europe and
p.100),placingagreateremphasisonsocialandculturalconsider- Asia,theUShasbeenslowtoadoptpoliciesthatsupportfunctions
ations, as well as food systems, as integral in agroecological re- beyondcommodityproductionforagriculturallandscapes(Boody
search and implementation. This shift is relevant to farm design et al., 2005; Groenfeldt, 2006). Since 1985, the United States
becausethesocialandeconomicsystemsinwhichfarmerspartic- DepartmentofAgriculture(USDA)hasadministeredtheConserva-
ipatewillinfluencehowtheydesigntheirfarms.Theseincludere- tion Reserve Program (CRP), which takes land out of agricultural
gional and global market venues, research, extension and social production,butthistypicallyresultsinaseparationbetweenagri-
networks(Gliessman,2007;Warner,2007). Otherrecentworkin cultureandconservationandoffersverylittleconsiderationofcul-
agroecologyhasalsoprovidedsupportforfarmerstoconnectwith turalfunctions. Recently, however,the UnitedStates Department
alternative farmer networks using participatory research ap- of Agriculture (USDA) has developed new directives prioritizing
proaches(Méndez,2010). multifunctionality as a research initiative (http://www.csrees.us-
Therearesomelimitationsinusingagroecologyaloneasabasis da.gov/fo/managedecosystemsnri.cfm). These initiatives suggest
for farm design. While agroecologists acknowledge the role and interest in this approach is growing, and farmers will need new
influence of agroecosystems at the landscape scale (Wojkowski, tools to re-design landscapes to address the goals set forth. One
2004; Gliessman, 2007), and several researchers have integrated step in this direction is the development of extension materials,
agroecological concepts to analyze agricultural landscapes in a such as those published by Hansen and Francis (2007) to share
diversityofsettings(Ellis,2000;Méndezetal.,2007),theapplica- landscape multifunctionality concepts with planners, extension
tions in research and practice are limited (Dalgaard et al., 2003). boards,andotheragriculturalexpertswhocouldworkwithfarm-
Dalgaard et al. (2003) state that when defining agroecology as a ersonsuchstrategies.
scientificdiscipline,‘‘scalingisaproblembecauseresultsofagro- Landscape multifunctionality is an appropriate approach for
ecological research are typically generated at small spatial scales designing farms for many reasons; the first is its focus on larger
whereasapplicationsarefrequentlyimplementedatlarger,admin- spatialscalessuchasthewhole-farmoranentireruralregion.Wil-
istrativeunits”(p.133).Furthermore,whendesigningagroecosys- son(2007,2008,2009)andHolmes(2006)offercompellingargu-
tems in a cool, humid inner-continental climate such as in mentsforusingtheconceptofmultifunctionalityasmorethana
northern Vermont, there are few examples from which to draw. policy-based initiative, instead considering multifunctionality as
Most examples in the agroecology literature come from tropical anormativeprocesstodescribewhatishappeningontheground
or coastal areas such as Central America, California, and Spain. atthefarmlevel.Asecondbenefitofintegratinglandscapemulti-
Naturalecosystemsareextremelycomplex,andtheyvarygreatly functionality is the inherent focus on cultural functions provided
in regional and climatic conditions. If we are to mimic natural by agricultural landscapes. By incorporating cultural functions
330 S.T.Lovelletal./AgriculturalSystems103(2010)327–341
suchasvisualquality,recreation,andhistoricpreservation,multi- influencethefarmers’landusedecisionsandimpactthesurround-
functionallandscapescancontributetopreservationoflandscape ing environment. Cultural functions might be supported by pre-
history and public enjoyment of the rural environment (Carey serving historic features on the farm (e.g. barns and stone walls)
etal.,2003).InsomecountriessuchasTheNetherlands,themul- andincorporatingnewfeaturessuchasrecreationaltrails,demon-
tifunctionalityapproachhasbeenusedtosupportsustainablerural strationplots,andoutdoorart.Aheterogeneouslandscapepattern
development, considering social and economic benefits provided includingamixofforestandpasturewillalsocontributetothevi-
byrurallandscapes(Oostindieetal.,2006). sualqualityofthefarm(deValetal.,2006;Dramstadetal.,2006).
Athirdadvantageoflandscapemultifunctionalityisanembed- Asnotedearlier,agroecologymakesanimportantcontribution
dedframeworkforevaluatingthesuccessofthelandscapedesign. tothedesignofagroecosystems,thoughitfocusesprimarilyonthe
Unlike the more ambiguous term ‘‘sustainability”, the concept of field scale and its immediate surroundings. In designing or rede-
multifunctionality suggests an opportunity to develop specific signinganentirefarm,itmightnotbepracticaltoprescribespe-
goals or targets for ecological, production, and cultural functions cific crops and management strategies, but rather to consider
toimprovelandscapeperformance.Performanceofthelandscape integrating perennial features such as field margins and wind-
mightbeconsideredbasedonthetotalvalueofdifferentfunctions breaks.Thesefeatureswouldofferbenefitsformanycroppingsys-
and on the balance across a range of functions (Sal and Garcia, tems by providing habitat for natural enemies, reducing erosion,
2007; Lovell and Johnston, 2009). Alternatively, multifunctional and capturing excess nutrients. Agroecology also suggests that
performancecanbecomparedbasedonmonetaryvaluesapplied agroecosystemsshouldbedesignedtomimicthenaturalenviron-
to the ecosystem services provided by the landscape, including ment,withadiversityofspecies.Inregionswhereforestsarethe
bothdirectmarketvaluesforcommodityoutputsandindirectval- dominant habitat, for example, greater emphasis on productive
uationofnon-commodityoutputs(Farberetal.,2006).Finally,the agroforestry systems might be considered in the design of the
landscape multifunctionality approach offers an advantage in its farm, while herbaceous perennial polycultures would be more
flexibility,inthatitcanbeappliedtounconventionalagroecosys- appropriate for regions that were once prairie systems (Sala and
tems.Inadaptingthisapproachtolandscapedesignandplanning, Paruelo,1997;SouleandPiper,1992).Fig.1showshowagroecol-
theopportunityexiststoconsidernotonlyaddingecologicaland ogyandlandscapemultifunctionalitycontributetoadesignframe-
culturalfunctionstoproductivelandscapes,butalsoincorporating work,actingatdifferentscales.
agriculture into settings that typically do not include production We developed an agroecosystem design assessment tool to
functions (e.g. private yards, urban parks, school campuses, or facilitatetheprocessofcharacterizingandanalyzingwhole-farms,
othermunicipallyownedland). inordertomakemoreinformeddecisionsaboutlanduse.Thetool
While landscape multifunctionality strongly contributes to a accounts for the spatial contribution and multiple functions of a
framework for designing agroecosystems, some limitations and landscapeincludinglandscapefeaturesorunits,areaoflandinthat
constraints must be considered. For one, we must recognize that feature/unit,andratingsfortheattributesofdifferentfunctions.In
trade-offsbetweenfunctionscanexistonfarms.Whenprofitmax- orderto rate the attributes, a reference point is needed to deter-
imization is the primary goal, some cultural and ecological func- minewhatthelandscapefeaturesarebeingcomparedto.Areliable
tions will most likely be sacrificed to increase production, unless reference land use would be the agricultural system that is most
alternative markets are identified for non-commodity outputs prominent in the area (i.e. conventional pasture systems in Ver-
(Farber et al., 2006). Complicating the issue further, is the chal- mont). For theoretical purposes, we have proposed a set of attri-
lenge in evaluating landscape performance when multiple inter- butes appropriate for Vermont farms, but these could (and
acting commodity and non-commodity functions are considered arguably,should)beadaptedforotherregionsincooperationwith
simultaneously(Madureiraetal.,2007).Thecomplexityresulting local farmers, stakeholders, and experts (Van Calker et al., 2005).
from aggregation of indicators and integration of multiple objec- The scale of the area of assessment, and even the level of detail
tives at different scales has probably limited the applications of in features, remain flexible. A finer-scale approach could include
these strategies (Zander et al., 2007). Constraints on farmers’ fi- eachecotopeasaseparatepolygon,recognizingthatspatialloca-
nances and time also limit their ability to incorporate additional tion and specific management practices can impact functions
functionsonthefarm(Jongeneeletal.,2008).Thisleadstoanother (e.g.individualfields,separatevegetativebuffers,etc.).
limitationofthisapproach–thelackofattentiongiventotheim- Thistoolisnotintendedtoreplaceorcompetewithotherap-
pactsofmultifunctionalityonfarmerlivelihoodsatthehousehold proachesthatassessfarmsustainabilitybasedonaspecificsetof
level, except to recognize that public funds may be necessary to non-spatial indicators or attributes. There are many examples of
incentivizeecologicalandculturalfunctions. casesinwhichsuchapproacheshavebeensuccessfullyusedwith-
in the fields of agroecology and landscape multifunctionality
(Bockstaller et al., 1997; Halberg et al., 2005; Payraudeau and
3.Frameworkfordesigningagroecosystems van der Werf, 2005; van Calker et al., 2005; Makowski et al.,
2009). Instead, the proposed tool could complement these more
For designingagroecosystems, we propose an evolving frame- dataintensiveapproaches,manyofwhichcanonlyberealistically
workthatincorporatesdifferentaspectsofagroecologyandland- undertaken as part of expert-based research projects. Our ap-
scape multifunctionality as described above, while also proach is unique in its attempt to achieve some balance across
recognizing contributions from otherfields suchas permaculture functionalareasandoptimizationofmultipleattributesfordiffer-
(Mollison,1997;Jacke and Toensmeier, 2005), agroforestry(Long entlandusetypesbasedontheproportionoflandtheycover.Un-
and Nair, 1999), and ecoagriculture (McNeely and Scherr, 2002; likemostotherstrategies,ourapproachalsofocusesonthespatial
Bucketal.,2006).Thelandscapemultifunctionalitymodelprovides extentofindividuallandscapefeaturesorunits,essentiallyweight-
astructurefordesigningatthewhole-farmscaleconsideringcul- ingthefeaturesbasedontheproportionoflandtheycover,similar
tural, ecological, and production functions. These landscape fea- to the approach by Bockstaller et al. (1997), in which indicators
tures can be intentionally designed into the landscape and were weighted by field size. This tool, however, is not proposed
arranged to optimize the benefits they provide. The recognition asastand-aloneassessment,butratheronethatcouldbeusedin
ofthevalueofculturalfunctionsisimportant,andthesemightin- combinationwithotherstrategiessuchaslifecycleanalysis,envi-
cludevisualquality,culturalheritage,historicpreservation,artistic ronmental impact assessment, and agro-environmental indicator
expression, and recreation – all of which have the potential to evaluation(PayraudeauandvanderWerf,2005).Toillustratethe
S.T.Lovelletal./AgriculturalSystems103(2010)327–341 331
Fig.1. Conceptualdiagramofproposedframeworkfordesigningagroecosystemsintegratingagroecologyandlandscapemultifunctionality.
applicationofourframework,weusetheassessmenttooltoeval- land (and is also an author on this paper) at the Intervale. Inter-
uatethedesignoftwoVermontfarmsrecognizedlocallyasmulti- viewsdocumentedfarmingpractices,historyofthefarm,andim-
functionallandscapes. pacts of the surrounding landscape. Questions were open-ended,
allowing for informal conversation. Informal interviews with the
managersoftheIntervaleCenterFarmsProgramandtheIntervale
4.Methods
Compost Project were conducted to complement information on
theIntervaleCenter.
4.1.Studysite
With its agricultural heritage, heterogeneous landscape, and 4.3.Agroecosystemdesignassessmenttool
growingsupportforlocal,organic,anddiversifiedfoodproduction,
Vermont is an ideal place to consider strategies for integrating The agroecosystem design assessment tool was developed to
agroecology and multifunctional landscapes (Center for Rural evaluate the design of farms using input on boundaries of farm
Studies, 2008). Land cover in Vermont is dominated by forest parcels, type and extent of landscape features or units, and
(approximately75%),butagriculturealsocontributessignificantly ratings for the attributes of production, cultural, and ecological
tothelandscape,makingupapproximately15%ofthelandcover functions. For Butterworks Farm, the area of interest included
(NOAA,2006).Topagriculturalproductsinthestateincludedairy, the home farm and the clusters of remote parcels operated as
beef, fruits and vegetables, and maple syrup. Vermont’s agricul- partofthefarm.ThesewereidentifiedusingFarmServiceAgency
turaloutputwas$758millionin2007(USDAEconomicResearch (FSA) Common Land Unit (CLU) parcels, where CLUs are defined
Center,2008a),whichisapproximately4%ofGrossStateProduct. as ‘‘the smallest unit of land that has a permanent, contiguous
Thelandscapealsosupportsathrivingtourismindustry(including boundary, a common land cover and land management, a com-
agri- and eco-tourism) which accounts for another $1.63 billion mon owner and a common producer” (USDA Farm Service
(8.4%)ofVermontGSP(VermontDepartmentofTourismandMar- Agency, 2009). The total area included within these boundaries
keting,2002).However,fewstudieshavebeenundertakentohigh- was just over 480ha, distributed among ten discrete groupings
lighttheagriculturaldesignandmultifunctionalityoftheVermont of parcels in the towns of Westfield and Troy. In the case of the
agriculturallandscape.Twowell-known,multifunctionalfarmsin Intervale Center, the area of interest was defined as land owned
northern Vermont were chosen to apply the framework. Both ormanagedbythecenter,whichwasdelineatedusingtaxparcel
farmsarediversified,sellspecializedproducts,aremanagedorgan- maps in consultation with Intervale Center staff. Unlike Butter-
ically,andhosteducationalandrecreationalactivities.Butterworks works,thelandownedbytheIntervaleexistedinonecontiguous
Farmisaprivatedairyfarm,whiletheIntervaleCenterisanon- parcel.
profitorganizationthatleaseslandtoseveralindependentorganic Individual landscape features were identified in ArcGIS 9.3
vegetable,fruit,andflowerfarmers. using both automated classification and manual delineation
processes. One-meter resolution aerial imagery from the visible
4.2.Semi-structuredinterviews and near-infrared spectra (USDA National Agricultural Imagery
Program from 2008) was extracted for the area of interest. This
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with one of the imagery was pre-processed via a principal components transfor-
owners of Butterworks Farm and one of the farmers who leases mation.Trainingpolygonsrepresentingforested,openfield,built/
332 S.T.Lovelletal./AgriculturalSystems103(2010)327–341
imperviousandsurfacewaterlandcovertypesweredelineatedon 5.2.Casestudy1:theIntervale
theimagery,andamaximumlikelihoodalgorithmsupervisedclas-
sificationwasthenperformed.Amajorityfilterwasthenappliedto 5.2.1.Overviewandsitehistory
this surface to remove all groupings of pixels smaller than 0.05 TheIntervale,a280hasegmentoffloodplain,isadiverseagri-
acres, and the result was converted to vector polygon format for culturallandscapethathasevolvedintoamultifunctionalsite,in
editing. In the case of Butterworks Farm, all open field polygons partduetoitsuniquelocation.Thewidevarietyoffunctionsand
wereintersectedwiththeCLUparcellayertoacquirefieldbound- landscapefeaturesarerepresentedinthemapinFig.2.TheInter-
ariesandcropinformation.Polygonswerethenmanuallyclassified vale is situated mostly within the city limits of Burlington, Ver-
intothefollowing15landscapefeaturetypesusingvisualassess- mont (population approximately 40,000), which functions as a
mentoftheaerialimageryandinputfromfarmers:cultivatedfield, center for commerce and tourism. Located on rich alluvial soils
fallowfield,pasture/hay,forest,hedgerow(definedastreedareas where the Winooski River meets Lake Champlain, the Intervale
lessthan55mwidewithlengthatleastfourtimeswidth),riparian has been a working agricultural landscape for more than
buffer (defined as treed areas within 30m of a river or stream), 10,000years.TheAbenaki(atribeofNativeAmericanandFirstNa-
water, wetland, built infrastructure, greenhouse, compost pile, tionspeople)firstcultivatedthisfertileagriculturallandmorethan
orchard, roads/trails, community gardens, and native plant 1000years ago. AsEuropeansettlementprogressedthroughNew
nursery. England, the Intervale became the location for the homestead of
Theratingsforeachoftheproduction,ecological,andcultural EthanAllen,afounderofthestateofVermont.Subsequently,ten-
attributes were determined through a combination of landowner antfarmersservingEthanAllenandhisbrotherIradisplacedthe
input and expert knowledge. Farmers were asked the extent to Abenakiatthesite.Wheatandryefieldsdominatedthelandscape
whicheachoftheselandscapefeaturesimpactedorenhancedeach until1866whentheCentralVTrailroadmadeitpossibletobring
functionalattributeontheirfarms.Eachlandscapefeaturewasas- in cheaper crops from the Midwest. By the 1900s, the land was
signedascorerangingfrom2to(cid:2)2,where2=stronglyimproves usedtoraiselivestock.ThelastIntervaledairyfarmstoppedpro-
functional attribute, 1=slightly improves functional attribute, ductionin1991.
0=neutral or no impact, (cid:2)1=slightly negative impact on func- TheIntervaleCenter(IC),formerlyknownastheIntervaleFoun-
tionalattribute,and(cid:2)2=strongnegativeimpact.Thescores,based dation,wasformallylaunchedin1988asanagriculturalnon-profit
on the descriptions provided by the farmers, were ultimately organizationtopromotesustainablelanduse,agriculturaleduca-
determinedby two of theauthors in orderto ensure consistency tion, and financially successful small-scale farms. Agroecology-
acrossthetwocasestudies.Summingscoresforeachcategoryof based principles have been encouraged in the farm management
functions, the highest score a landscape feature could receive from the beginning. The IC currently manages approximately
was 10 and the lowest (cid:2)10, for a total possible score of 30 for 180haoffarmlandandrunsseveralprojectsincludingtheFarms
thethreefunctionalareas.Theoutputoftheagroecosystemdesign Program, which leases land to thirteen organic farms through an
assessmenttoolisabarchartindicatingthecontributionsofeach incubator program. This program supports the establishment of
landscapefeaturetotheoverallmultifunctionalityofthefarm.The newfarmingoperationsbyprovidingadiscountonlandrentand
heightofthebarscorrespondstothetotalscoreofeachlandscape other fees, access to shared equipment, and technical assistance
feature,andthewidthofthebarsrepresentsthepercentageareaof frommentorfarms.Throughtheyears,theIChashelpedtoincu-
thatfeatureinthefarmlandscape.Weshouldnotethatforthese bateover30farms.Throughacooperativemodel,eachnewfarm
examples,theoutputbarchartissetto1%increments,sofeatures has access to necessary infrastructure without incurring heavy
coveringlessthan1%ofthearea(whenrounded),donotshowup debt loads. The Intervale also houses a community garden man-
on the chart, although the information is still retained in the agedbythecitywith150gardenplotsforBurlingtonresidents.
worksheet.
5.2.2.Productionfunctions
TheFarmsProgramattheICstartedin1990,andcurrentlysup-
5.Results ports13independentfarms,whicharerequiredtoutilizeorganic
practices,althoughsomearenotUSDAcertified.Ofthe50haunder
5.1.RegionalcharacterizationandcontextofVermontagricultural cultivation, the majority is managed for vegetable and fruit pro-
landscape duction, much of which is marketed locally. Over 250,000kg of
produce are grown and distributed annually, providing approxi-
Animportantstepindesigningfarmsorevaluatingthefarmde- mately 6% of total consumption of fresh produce in Burlington
signistocharacterizethelandscapeandhistoricalcontextofthe and $500,000 in revenue to the local economy (Intervale Center,
farm,inthiscase,consideringtheuniquequalitiesofthestateof 2009). Other products generated at the Intervale include eggs,
Vermont. Many Vermont farms incorporate ecological principles chickens,honey,flowers,jam,nativetreesforriparianrestoration,
andasocialmissionalongwithagriculturalproduction.Notonly compost, and other soil products. Most of the items produced in
isVermontaleaderinorganicagriculture,withtheseventhhighest theIntervalearedistributedwithinChittendenCounty(whereBur-
numberofcertifiedorganicoperationsinthecountry(USDAEco- lingtonislocated)throughwholesaleaccounts,farmers markets’,
nomic Research Service, 2008b), but the state also has a strong pick-your-own operations, and community supported agriculture
movementforlocalagriculture(UVMCenterforSustainableAgri- (CSA)shares.
culture, 2009). There are more than 65 Community Supported
Agriculture (CSA) programs in Vermont (NOFA Vermont, 2007), 5.2.3.Ecologicalfunctions
enablingconsumerstobuyfooddirectlyfromfarmers.Thenumber The ecological functions identified in the study are supported
offarmers’marketsinVermonthasmorethantripledinthepast through agricultural management practices, such as organic crop
twodecades,andasof2006,therewerefarmers’marketsinmore production.Inaddition,allfarmsarerequiredtoplantcovercrops
than 50 communities with gross sales of $3.7 million. The local on at least one-third of their annual fields to allow the fields to
foods movement has been motivated by the desire for fresh and regenerate, and they are encouraged to sow a winter cover crop
nutritiousfoods, tosupportlocal farmersand theVermontecon- onallland.Farmersarerequiredtorotatecropstoincreasesoilfer-
omy,increasefoodsecurity,andreducetheenvironmentalimpacts tilityandreducediseaseinthefields.Theseagriculturalpractices,
offoodtransportation(Timmons,2006). whichhaveabasisinagroecology,canhelpmaintainsomeofthe
S.T.Lovelletal./AgriculturalSystems103(2010)327–341 333
Fig.2. MapoflanduseandlandscapefeaturesoftheIntervaleCenter,usedasinputintheagroecosystemdesignassessmenttool.
‘‘regulating” ecosystem functions (such as nutrient cycling) in heterogeneityofthelandscape,improvingthequalityoftheagri-
cultivated fields. Non-crop habitats are also retained within the culturalmatrix(Bentonetal.,2003).
agricultural landscape to reduce erosion, conserve biodiversity,
supportnativespecies(Freemarketal.,2002),andprovidehabitat 5.2.4.Culturalfunctions
forwildlife.Landscapefeaturessuchashedgerows,riparianareas, The Intervale supports multiple cultural functions including
and forested areas are integrated throughout the site. Plants in historic preservation, recreation, education, and visual quality.
windbreaksandhedgerowsalsoencouragenaturalenemypopula- TherichcombinationofdiversehabitattypesattheIntervaleen-
tions of herbivore pests, making crops less susceptible to insect hancesthevisualqualityoftheregion.Educationissupportedby
infestation (Altieri, 1999). These non-crop features increase the a number of programs including Healthy City, a non-profit farm
334 S.T.Lovelletal./AgriculturalSystems103(2010)327–341
thatteachesat-riskyouthhowtogrowandmarketfood,providing Thehighestratedlandscapefeaturewasthenativeplantnurs-
teenagerswithapositivewaytointeractwiththecommunityand erywithanoverallscoreof20(outofapossible30),thoughitonly
gainskillsforfuturework.TheIChoststheGleaningProjectwhere occupies 0.3% of the land area. This feature provides ecological
volunteer community members harvest produce from the fields functionsoveramuchlargerareabyprovidingnearly35species
that the farmers cannot sell and redistributes this food to over of ecologically grown trees and shrubs for conservation projects
tensocialserviceorganizationsintheBurlingtonarea.Severalhis- throughout Vermont. It also provides production functions, and
toricbuildingshavebeenpreservedforuseasadministrativeoffi- cultural functions including education. The community gardens
cesandcommunityevents.RecreationalactivitiesofferedbytheIC arealsohighlymultifunctionalduetotheproductiveandcultural
includetrailsforhiking,biking,andcross-countryskiing.Tosup- functions they serve for community members who rent garden
portfoodsystemseducation,theIChostsweeklysummerevents plotseveryyear,buttheyalsocoveronlyasmallareaofthesite
withmusic,food,andpresentationsaboutgardeningoraboutthe (1.1%).Thesefunctionsareinhighdemand,asthenumberofres-
culturalheritageofthesite.TheICalsohostsseveralagriculturere- identsseekinggardenplotsexceedsthenumberofavailableplots
latedworkshopseachyearandprovidestoursforschoolanduni- everyyear,demonstratingthatanexpansionofthesemightbean
versitygroups. appropriate consideration. These non-traditional landscape fea-
tures suggest the Intervale is a landscape uniquely positioned to
supportmultifunctionalactivities.
5.2.5.Multifunctionallandscapeassessment
SeveralfeaturesattheIntervalewereassignednegativescores
Thediversityofcrops,organicmanagementpractices,andfood
forecologicalfunctionalattributes.Theseincludecultivatedfields,
systems approach through local marketing make the Intervale a
composting facility, built infrastructure, greenhouses, and roads
good example of agroecology-based production functions. The
andtrails.WhileallofthefarmersattheIntervalepracticeorganic
agroecosystem design assessment tool was used to evaluate the
agriculture, which has less of a negative ecological impact than
multifunctionalityofthesite,usingtheareaoflandscapefeatures
industrialized, high-input agriculture, even these activities de-
fromthemap(Fig.2)asinputsintotheworksheet(Fig.3),todevel-
creaseecologicalfunctionswhencomparedwithanaturalecosys-
optheoutput(Fig.4).Thetotallandareais187ha,withmostof
tem.Thecompostfacilityreceivedanegativeecologicalscoredue
the land use in cultivated fields (27%), forest (19%), fallow fields
toitscloseproximitytotheWinooskiRiverandanegativecultural
(16%), and vegetative buffers (16%). The total treed habitat is
score due to its location on Abenaki archeological remains. Built
64.5ha,encompassing34.6%ofthesite.Greenhouses,builtinfra-
infrastructureandgreenhousesattheIntervalereceivednegative
structure, and the native plant nursery make up less than 1% of
ecologicalscoresduetothehighenergyinputsrequiredfortheir
the land use and thus were not included in the output of the
operation.Becauseroadsandtrailsdonotallowforplantbiodiver-
assessmenttool.Cultivatedfieldsandcommunitygardensscored
sity,waterconservation,orsoilconservation,theyalsoreceiveda
thehighest forthe productionfunction(bothrating 9outof10).
negativeecologicalscore.
Forested areas and vegetative buffers (hedgerows and riparian
Whiletheassessmenttoolhighlightsthemultifunctionalityof
areas) scored the highest for the ecological function with
thesite,someconflictsortrade-offsdoexist,particularlybetween
scores of 10 and 9, respectively. Built infrastructure scored the
culturalandproductionfunctions.Forexample,theAgencyofHis-
highestfortheculturalfunctions(9),followedbythecommunity
toricPreservationhasdesignatedcertainareasintheIntervaleoff
gardens(6).
Fig.3. Intervaleagroecosystemdesignassessmentworksheetbasedonlanduseandlandscapefeatures.
S.T.Lovelletal./AgriculturalSystems103(2010)327–341 335
Fig.4. Intervaleagroecosystemdesignassessmentoutputindicatingthespatialextentoffunctionsprovidedbylandscapefeatures.
limitsforanytypeofagriculturalusesbecausearcheologicaldigs theroad,butstillclosetothebarn.Thewindmillwaslocatedon
have uncovered many Abenaki artifacts. The use of the Intervale thewindiestspot,withcloseproximitytoapower-lineandaroad
road by bicyclists represents another conflict, as the movement formaintenanceaccess.Landusedecisionsforindividualfieldsare
oflargefarmingequipmentposesasafetyhazardforrecreational influenced by proximity to the barn and homestead, flooding re-
users.ThelocationoftheIntervaleina100-yearfloodplaindemon- gime, micro-climate, soil quality, and other factors. For example,
stratesatradeoffbetweenecologicalandproductionfunctions.The fields near the barn have been devoted to pasture, providing the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has enforced an cows with easy access to the barn. Farmers, with their intimate
arduous permitting process for farmers who want to improve or knowledge of their land, can often take advantage of biophysical
build any infrastructure such as hoophouses, greenhouses, or conditionstodesignformaximumlandscapemultifunctionality.
sheds. The purpose of this restriction is to minimize water dis-
placement by built infrastructure in the floodplain. The Intervale 5.3.2.Productionfunctions
casestudydemonstratesthatconflictsandtrade-offsareimportant Dairyproducts,mainlyyogurtandcream,arethebackboneof
considerations in designing agroecosystems, although they may theButterworksoperation,butthefarmalsoproducesdrybeans,
notbefullycapturedintheassessmentofthelandscape. cornmeal,sunflower(HelianthusannuusL.)oilandwheat(Triticum
aestivum)flourforhumanconsumption,andcorn,oats(Avenasati-
5.3.Casestudy2:ButterworksFarm va), barley(Hordeum vulgare), soybeans(Glycine max), and alfalfa
(Medicagosativa)forthecows.Thegrossannualsalesofthefarm
5.3.1.Overviewandsitehistory exceedonemilliondollars.Thefamilyalsoproduceseggs,chicken,
ButterworksFarm,ownedbyAnneandJackLazor,islocatedin pork, cheese, fruits, and vegetables for their own consumption,
NortheasternVermont,lessthan15kmfromtheCanadianborder meeting 85% of their own year-round food needs. Much of these
and95kmfromBurlington.Butterworksisanorganically-certified, non-commercial products are shared with employees and used
diversified farm with a value-added dairy as the economic back- elsewhere to barter for products and services. While Vermont
bone of its operation. The Lazors and their employees cultivate wasonceconsideredthe‘‘bread-basketofAmerica,”thestatehas
more than 120ha of land located on ten parcels, located within producedlittleofitsownoilsandgrainssincethe1840s(JackLa-
an 18km radius of the home farm (Fig. 5). The Lazors own zor,personalcommunication).Now,Butterworksisoneofthefew
135ha of land, 46ha of which are forested. The remaining culti- oil and grain producers in the state, and thanks to the growing
vatedlandisrentedbothfromprivatelandownersandfromapub- interest in foods produced locally, demand for these products is
liclandowner,thenearbytownofNorthTroy.Therecordedhistory sohighthatthesupplyrunsoutearlyeachseason.
ofthehomefarmpropertyextendsbacktothelate1830swhenan
EnglishsettlernamedThomasTrumpassestablishedafarmonthe 5.3.3.Ecologicalfunctions
site (Jack Lazor, personal communication). The Lazors arrived in TheLazorsstrivetosupportecologicalfunctionsinthemanage-
1976and,withthemilkofthreecows,begansellingdairyproducts mentofthefarm,withagroecologyprinciplesprovidingthebasis
fromtheirkitchentoneighboringfamilies.Sincethen,themilking fortheirintegratedcrop-livestocksystem.Theyhavebeenfarming
herdhasgrownto45cowsandthebusinessislicensedbytheVer- organically since 1976 (certified since 1987). They use intensive
mont Department of Agriculture to produce dairy products in an rotationalgrazingandarealmostcompletelyself-sufficient,grow-
on-farm processing facility. Today, Butterworks products are dis- ing all the food consumed by their cows. In 2001, they built a
tributedthroughoutVermontandtheNortheast. greenhousepack-barninwhichmanureandbeddingaccumulate,
The design of Butterworks Farm is determined by many vari- providingahighqualitycompostingmaterialusedtofertilizethe
ables,someofwhicharerelatedtotheuseofthefarmasaresi- crops.Thecultivatedfieldsaremanagedinastandard3yearrota-
dence for the farmers. The siting of the original homestead, tiondesignedtobuildandmaintainsoilhealth,andthisrotationis
roads, fields and hedgerows, are strongly influenced by the land adjustedwhennecessaryinresponsetoweedpressures,flooding
useoftheoriginalcolonialsettlers,whilenewerfeatureswerelo- regimes,andotherfactors.Whilethecultivatedfieldsrequirereg-
catedbasedontheLazor’sownanalysisofthelandscape.Thehome ular management, forest and wetland portions of the ownedand
sitewasselectedtobeprotectedfromthewindandsetbackfrom leased land are left mostly untouched except for occasional
336 S.T.Lovelletal./AgriculturalSystems103(2010)327–341
Fig.5. MapoflanduseandlandscapefeaturesoftheButterworksFarm,usedasinputintheagroecosystemdesignassessmenttool.
firewoodortimberharvests.TheLazorsalsoparticipateinanum- 5.3.4.Culturalfunctions
ber of conservation programs through the Natural Resource Con- Besides supporting the local rural economy by providing
servation Service (NRCS), and all but 23ha of their land are employmentforthreefull-timeandninepart-timestaff,bothAnne
underaconservationeasementtoprotectfromdevelopment.They andJackLazorprovideculturalservicesasleadersintheagricul-
are committed to sustainable energy, using a windmill on the tural community, especially in the organic and localvore move-
home farm to provide 35% of the annual energy needs. Recently, ments. Jack regularly lectures at conferences and other events,
the farm was awarded a research grant to explore the feasibility andbothAnneandJackserveonstate-wideagriculturalcommit-
of installing a biomass burning boiler to provide the remainder tees.Anneisalocalexpertonhomeopathictreatmentforanimals,
oftheirenergy. providingsupporttootherfarms.Additionally,Butterworkshosts