Assessing the socio-economic effects of MIXED farming
A new report from the MIXED project identifies that the socio-economic benefits of mixed farming on productivity, efficiency, and riskiness of the production are lower than literature suggests.
Mixed farming and agroforestry systems (MiFAS) integrate farming activities aiming at creating synergies that provide economic and environmental benefits compared to more specialised farming systems. Yet, evidence on the economic benefits is mostly based on single case-studies. Therefore, several literature gaps arise.
Unfolding the knowledge gaps
The new report unfolds three relevant knowledge gaps. The first gap is that a systematic overview of the economic implications of MiFAS is missing, particularly considering value-chain partners of farms. Considering value chains is important because promoting the benefits of mixed systems and receiving higher prices is crucial for the success of such systems.
The second gap is that systematic quantitative evidence on the socio-economic impacts of switching from specialised to mixed farming and agroforestry is missing. That is, using representative socio-economic farm data from before and after a farm switches and statistically estimating the consequences of such switches compared to farms that remain specialised.
The third gap is that quantitative evidence on the resilience of mixed farming and agroforestry systems to shocks particularly those of value chain partners of farms, is lacking.
Bridging the gaps
The report finds that the economic benefits of mixed farming are far more moderate than literature suggests, and that the Europe-wide quantitative assessment of switching to mixed farming and agroforestry shows that farms, which switch from specialised to mixed crop-livestock mostly do so by downsizing livestock production and only slightly increasing crop production. Last, mixed and agroforestry farms are said to be more resilient to external shocks due to diversified income streams that come from different products. However, it has been neglected so far that downstream value chain partners, which process only single products of these farms further, are dependent on a steady supply. Therefore, supply chain partners, which specialise and label their products to show the benefits of mixed farming, can be exposed to substantial input risk.
The overall conclusion of the report is that the socio-economic benefits of mixed farming on productivity, efficiency, and riskiness of the production are lower than literature suggests, and while this might be a reason for the so far low uptake of mixed systems in Europe, this suggests potential pathways for policy makers to support the adoption if the ecological benefits outweigh the costs of this support.