Evaluación de antibiosis por bacteriocinas

• Farm planning was initiated in early- 1 930s United States as a tool to control erosion on individual

properties.

Land survey and classification were integral to early farm planning. Efficient procedures actually made widespread application of f arm planning possible.

• Initiatives likely to have contributed to the design of land survey/classification systems used in farm planning include thefractional code method and the unit area method. Likewise, early erosion surveys have been regarded as the 'philosophical predecessors' to land classification systems used in farm planning.

Four-factor (soil, slope, land use & erosion) land survey systems for farm planning were first used in 1 933. A nine class capability classification was developed soon after as a means to link factual survey information to the practicalities of farm management. Classifications and recommended land use practices were derived in collaboration with farmers and specialists, typically on a Conservation District basis.

Widespread application of the survey and classification system resulted in discrepancies between district and regional classifications. Attempts to promote uniformity resulted in the development of the Land Capability

Classification in the I 940s. The Classification was refined to 8 classes, and expanded to a three-tier system

including limitation subclasses ( 1 947) and class units ( 1 949). Increasing sophistication in the pursuit of

national uniformity would lessen the LCC 's flexibility and utility away from its original purpose -the

assessment of individual properties for farm planning.

Rapid and widespread application of the LCC system in the 1 950s would conflict with the progress and philosophies of those responsible for surveying and mapping soils. Revision of the LCC in 1 96 1 resulted in the adoption of a four-tier system based on the 'soil mapping unit' .

A 1 940's American farm planning exercise involved four overlapping steps, including a soil conservation survey to collect facts about the land; a land capability classification to determine land use suitabilities; formulation of recommendations concerning appropriate management and conservation treatments; and bringing it all together as the farm conservation plan. Emphasis throughout was on working with the farmer, usability, presentation in an understandable form, and conservation farming to simultaneously enhance soil & water conservation and socio-economic goals.

The format of an early American farm plan would at least involve two maps and a list of recommendations and instructions. Maps would include a combined survey and land capability classification map, alongside a ' land use map' depicting agreed land and land-use modifications.

• Farm sustainability is an implicit feature of early American farm plans, particularly in regard to ideas of land capability and conservation farming. The central idea was to match a socio-economically sustainable system of land use, to the land's inherent and modified ability to sustain that system in a 'wise use' utilitarian context.

5.4. 1 0 _{LAND SURVEY AND CAPABILITY CLASSIFICATION IN} NZ

• Soil conservation was official1y recognised in Z with the passing of the 1 94 1 Soil Conservation & Rivers

Control Act, leading to the formation of the national SCRC Council and catchment authorities. Initial efforts to develop a national soil conservation programme were impaired until the late 1 940s.

• Various survey and classification systems were applied and evaluated during the 1 940s, including erosion

surveys, land utilisation surveys, and Cumberland's adaptation of the unit area method.

• The SCRC Council initiated several trial soil conservation surveys in the late 1 940s and early 1 950s,

according to the systems then being developed in the US. The Pohangina Conservation Survey used a four­ factor inventory and an initial five-class capability classification.

Rapid development of survey techniques in the US quickly dated NZ's early soil conservation surveys, leading to the official adoption of the US eight-class LCC system in 1 952. Delayed development and release of detailed official NZ standards resulted in wide differences in surveys and classifications undertaken between 1 952 & 1 969.

Application of soil conservation survey accelerated rapidly through the 1 960s, with 7.7-9.3 mil1ion hectares having been mapped at catchment and farm scales by 1 968. Provisional national land use capability maps depicting land capability for NZ at a general scale were presented in 1 962 (but not published). The SRCC Council began publishing Land Use Capability Bul1etins in 1 966.

Evolution of the US LCC into a 4-tier system in 1 96 1 was not adopted by Z. This marks a point where NZ's own development of land capability survey and classification diverges markedly from that of the US. Official national standards for undertaking Land Resource Inventory (LRl) survey, Land Use Capability (LUC) Classification, and Potential & Recommended Land Use (PRLU) Classification were published in

1 969. Prior to this, catchment board conservators had to rely on unofficial publications and interaction with government conservators to maintain standards.

Systematic mapping of Z was initiated in 1 970 with the national mapping programme. Land resource surveys were upgraded or undertaken at a standardised scale of I :63,360, wh ich would form the basis of three national maps (LUC, 'recommended soil & water management', and erosion) to be presented at a

I :250,000 scale.

• Focus shifted away from the three national maps in 1 974, and onto the publication of the underlying

inventory data at a I :63,360 scale. These became the first-edition New Zealand Land Resource Inventory (NZLRl) Worksheets first published in 1 975. All 330 Work sheets for NZ coverage were completed by 1 979. The national survey was undertaken on a regional basis, resulting in regionally distinct classifications. Twelve regions were eventually used, eight of which are represented by published Regional Bulletins. Correlation of the North Island's regional classifications began in 1 975 and was completed in 1 985.

• A five-yearly revision to update the more dynamic inventory factors of the NZLRl Worksheets (namely

erosion, land use and vegetation) was initially envisaged. The first revision (2nd edition Worksheets)

involved nationwide conversion from the imperial I :63,360 to the metric I :50,000 scale. 1 980s political and

organisational changes resulted in only 5 of the 1 2 LUC regions being revised between 1 979-1999.

• Today the NZLRI is used mostly as a digital database (as a Land Information System), containing over 1 00,000 vector polygons that range in area from 7723ha down to 4ha. Some claim the NZLRI is now used more for scientific purposes rather than the planning purpose for which it was originally designed. Limited revisions and updates means the NZLRI is outdated for many parts of the country, particularly in relation to erosion type, erosion extent, and vegetation cover.

5.4. 1 1

_{HISTORICAL FARM PLANNING IN NZ}

• Adoption of farm planning for soil conservation purposes was suggested as part of the SCRC's national soil

conservation policy and programme in 1 948.

Principles of conservation farming developed in the US had little relevance to NZ hill country. NZ relevant

conservation farming guidelines were developed through Soil Conservation Reserves between 1 946 and 1 955. Guidelines and soil conservation techniques were applied to privately owned 'cooperative demonstration farms' for extension purposes through farm conservation schemes. These schemes were

precursory towards conservation farm plans.

• Explicit farm plans began to emerge in the late 1 940s and early 1 950s as pilots undertaken through the

SCRC Council, or independently as catchment board initiatives. One of the first was undertaken by the Manawatu Catchment Board and SCRC Council as a component of the 1 949- 1 95 1 Pohangina Conservation Survey (the Tew's Conservation Farm Plan, 1 95 1 ). This emphasised principles of US farm planning, particularly the reconcil iation of socio-economic goals with soil conservation goals. Land capability was taken directly from the I : 1 5,840 scale Survey, and used as a basis for a report and 'future land use map'. Subsidised works were a particular feature.

• Conservation farm planning was officially adopted by the SCRC Council in 1 956.

• The Manawatu Catchment Board's first official conservation farm plan was prepared in 1 956. This included

a succinct 7-page report describing farm characteristics, land capability, and a 5yr programme of works. A single map depicted land capability, present land use, and the works programme on a year-by-year basis. Relative to the Tew's example, recommendations concerning production improvements were notably minor.

• Farm plan numbers rose dramatically in the 1 960s, eventually totalling 1 277 plans nationwide by the end of

the decade. Farm plans became the fundamental base unit of soil conservation.

1 960s techniques for preparing farm plans were significantly different between the North and South Islands. The Otago Catchment Board adhered strongly to US principles, particularly with the preparation of land inventory as an activity separate from land capability classification, and the integrated and participatory manner through-which farm plans were prepared. Waitaki Catchment Commission used similar methods, albeit according to their own un ique inventory and classification system. In contrast, directly inferring land capability in the field without a standalone land inventory appears to have become the norm for many North Island catchment authorities.

• Recognised 1 960s variations on farm plans included run plans for extensive high country holdings, shelter

plans for wind erosion control, and land-use particular variations as orchard and dairy farm-plans.

• Farm plans as the unit of catchment control schemes provided concerted integration of soil and water

Conservation farm plans were renamed Soil and Water Conservation Plans as a result of an increased emphasis on water management afforded through the 1 967 Water and Soil Conservation Act. However, this change in farm planning appears to have been in name only.

Farm plans represent a communication tool (between farmers, soil conservators, other specialists, and the SCRC Council), and a framework for allocating subsidies. Inclusion of a Land Improvement Agreement bound farmers to a long-term maintenance programme for subsidised works. General subsidy was one-for­ one (e.g. £ 1 subsidy for every £ 1 invested by the farmer), and up to three-for-one for special works. Soil conservation subsidies ceased in 1988.

Approximately 473 1 conservation farm plans had been prepared nationally by 1 989. Added to 1 326 shelter plans, this represents a total of 6057 farm plans prepared over the 33 year period between 1 956 & 1 989. The general criteria of farm plans changed little through the 1 960s to 1 980s (due to specifications laid down by the SCRC), although many catchment authorities expressed these criteria according to their own

distinctive formats. These range from simple plans reported on three double-sided pieces of loose leaf paper, through to comprehensive and bound reports of 50 pages or more suitable for general publication.

• The general structure for a representative farm plan example involves a physical resource section followed by a conservation works section. This would include a list of recommendations, a 5yr works schedule (reduced to annual programmes), technical specifications, and a financial breakdown of costs and subsidy eligibility. Two maps were included: a property LUC map and a works programme map depicting fence lines and other physical features. Works by year were portrayed by colour coded symbols.

Otago Catchment Board used a very distinctive farm plan format, involving three maps using aerial photo bases. The third map was a detailed land resource inventory.

5.4. 1 2

_{FARM PLAN INITIATIVES POST} 1 99 1

Farm planning was n o longer an official component of resource management after the late 1 980s political and organisational reforms. While some regional authorities retained farm planning, others abandoned the practice altogether. Some 1 990s attempts to modernise farm planning according to sustainability principles introduced by the RMA has resulted in a diversity of farm plan models.

A comprehensive farm planning model for Taranaki hill country was developed and applied between 1 990 and 1 996. This used a novel land classification based on landforms and previous erosion studies, along with computer modelling and (economic) evaluation of alternative land use scenarios. The Taranaki Regional Council prepared approximately 1 00 SLM Plans based on this model, but it was phased-out in 1 996 due in part to limitations with the classification system.

Wellington Regional Council developed a comprehensive farm plan model in 1 993 as a four-module

decision-support package. Particular features include: a landform-based classification; linking land

productivity with landform classes as a basis for identifYing alternative land use scenarios; computer modelling and economic evaluation of scenarios; and an environmental assessment of erosion, runoff and water quality. This model represents one of the most (if not the most) comprehensive and complete land evaluation frameworks used in NZ for assessing the sustainability of pastoral hill-country farms. It is currently used by the WRC for the preparation of Sustainable Land Use Plans.

Hawkes Bay Regional Council developed their concept of whole farm planning in the early 1 990s, as a means to reduce costs associated with traditional farm planning, and to improve effectiveness for promoting SLM. Several variations were developed, including a model using a 'train ing course approach' to the preparatory phase of farm planning. Although early trials appeared to be successful, whole farm planning was

discontinued by the Council in the mid- 1 990s.

• A comprehensive pastoral land-evaluation framework was developed and applied over 1 995-1 998 as the

Gwavas and Westview Sustainable Land Management Project. Principal features include very detailed land assessment through soil and LUC survey; high community input; environmental monitoring; and economic evaluation of alternative land use scenarios through computer software. Although the model was not

extended as a discrete form of farm planning, principles were later used as a basis for the Soils Underpinning Business Success programme (which uses group-based approach to land/soil assessment and land use evaluation).

• Auckland briefly experimented with a dairy farm-plan based on a model then being used by the NSW Soil Conservation service. Northland piloted environmentalfarm plans in the late 1 990s based on Otago's

Enviro-Agfarm plans, but discarded them as being inappropriate for the Northland situation at the time. Bay of Plenty developed property environmental plans in response to a 1 993 Federated Farmers proposal, and have continued to evolve them into their contemporary environmental programmes in use today.

• Late 1990s farmer concerns regarding implied restrictions in Nelson City Council's Resource Management

Plan, resulted in the design of a farm plan model that packaged both regulatory and non-regulatory considerations for individual properties. In short, a long-term consent process (resulting in 'consent bundles') was integrated with more conventional farm planning models. Subsequent lack of farmer-support resulted in the model being shelved, and no pilot was ever undertaken.

• Rabbit prone high-country landholders in the South Island were required to prepare property management

plans as a condition of inclusion in the Rabbit & Land Management Programme ( 1 990- 1 995). Property

management plans were based on former soil and water conservation plans, but differed through having a principal focus on long-term rabbit control through integrated management. Ninety-seven plans were prepared.

• Development of a farm plan model far-removed from traditional SWCPs was initiated when the North Otago Sustainable Land Management Group redefined it's purpose in 1 996. In collaboration with the Otago Regional Council, this model evolved through a series of 1 990s developments, eventually emerging as

Enviro-Ag farm plans. This model is distinguished through the use of an all-encompassing environmental

SPECIFIC DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS

Historical literature frequently describes the ideal conceptual application of traditional farm planning (pre- 1 98 8). This commonly involves comprehensive land evaluation of individual properties, including an inventory and capability assessment at the farm scale. However, an idealised procedure may not always be applied in practice, particularly when the process is expedited for reasons of efficiency or competition (e.g. in pursuit of Campbell 's soil conservation targets). The difference between farm planning theory and practice has implications for the two specific objectives of this chapter.

5.4. 1 3 FARM _{PLANS AS A SOURCE OF CONTEM PORARY RESOURCE INFORMATION}

A total of 473 1 soil conservation farm plans were prepared between 1 956 and 1 989, which represents an area I coverage of more than 50% of the land farmed in New Zealand. If each plan was prepared from a basis of land resource survey and/or land capability classification as recommended according to literature and official guidelines, then New Zealand's historical collection of farm plans represents an extensive source of farm-scale land resource information available for contemporary purposes. Unfortunately this can only be true in some cases.

The standard adopted by most catchment authorities for farm plan preparation appears to have involved direct in­

the-field inference of land capability without an explicitly standalone assessment and recording of ' facts about the

land' as a physical inventory. Hence, most NZ farm plans are based around interpretive land-resource information

bias towards soil conservation (e.g. LUC), such that the user is required to backwards-interpret in order to obtain

meaningful descriptive land resource information (typically through discussion within the report or from regional classifications). Problems with this are fourfold:

Supporting information for backwards-interpretation can be limiting. Firstly, resource description sections in farm plans vary widely from mechanically brief paragraphs, through to several pages of comprehensive detail. Secondly, for regions without Regional Bulletins, generic supporting information is limited to the

brief descriptions of LUC units provided within Worksheet Extended Legends.

There has been an historical assumption that regionally derived LUC units will correlate well with those found at farm-scales. This is not always the case. As a result, some farm-scale classifications may have been misinterpreted to conform to the rigidity and uniformity of regional classifications.

Pre- 1 969 farm plans may not be linked to a regional classification.

The LUC system may not be understood by those who stand to gain the most benefit from the use of land resource information (farmers).

Otago Catchment Board was the only authority identified to include detailed land resource inventory as a separate component of farm planning. However, even inventory information has it's limitations:

Only information concerning soil, geology, topography and erosion character remains relevant over long periods of time.

• Soil information may be of dubious quality if not originally collected by a person with strong pedological skills. Inventory soil information was typically inferred from published soil maps, often at scales considerably smaller than the farm-scale. However, this may be less of a limitation for parts of the South Island where landforms are extensive and consistently exhibit soil associations with low spatial variability. Chapter 5: New Zealand Farm Plans and Land Capability Classification - Historical Review Page 390

Perhaps the greatest limitation is the accessibility and management of land resource information contained in farm plans. Firstly, most regional councils have archived or stored their historical farm plans away from their day-to­ day information management systems. Secondly, some councils have completely discarded their historical farm plans (e.g. Taranaki). Thirdly, having extensive spatial information distributed through numerous individual