1. Introduction
Since the late Middle Ages, and to an increasing degree through the modern era
up to the present day, livestock farming has been an important component of the
economic, social and environmental balance in various Alpine areas. The
relative importance of the various production factors in this sector has
shifted considerably over time in response to institutional and market changes
(Head-König, 2014; Mathieu, 2001; Panjek & Beguš, 2014). The aim of the research reported here is to present an analysis of
these dynamics in a mountainous area of eastern Trentino (Valli del Leno; see
Fig. 1) from the 19th century, with the additional objective of proposing a useful approach for
drawing comparisons with other Alpine areas. In this regard, the technology of
grazing in the Alps has undergone little modification compared to other forms
of land use. Nevertheless, the analysis carried out highlights how the role of
the various production factors has profoundly changed over time. While there
was a relative lack of technical innovations, there were important changes in
organizational models, induced by changes in the relative importance of the
labour and capital production factors. On the basis of the analyses carried out
in this study, it can be stated that, when the most important production factor
is labour, the pasture is integrated with the farms in the bottom of the
valley. By contrast, when capital is predominant, pastures serve as a
complement to companies located on the –relatively– distant plain. Finally, once again, this article confirms the fact that the
mere availability of local natural resources is not able to trigger development
processes on its own.
FIGURE 1
Pasubio and Campogrosso summer pastures
(south-eastern part of Province of Trento, Northern Italy)
Source: LIDAR, Ufficio Sistemi Informativi, Provincia Autonoma di Trento; elab.
I. Salvador.
2. A HISTORICAL-GEOGRAPHICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1. Changes in the pasture-forest relationship
In the Alpine and Prealpine region, forest and pasture have been inextricably
linked to human activity since prehistoric times. At present, there is no
agreement among various scholars on the period when Alpine communities began
taking their flocks and herds to the high mountains to graze on pastures,
either natural or obtained from forest clearances (Walsh et al., 2007; Herbert & Mandl, 2009; Maggi, 2002; Carrer, 2013). Important phases of forest floor
clearance to increase the areas of pastures –with intervening periods of the reverse trend– are documented from at least the 4th-3rd millennium BC (Corti, 2006b). The
appearance of herbaceous Plantaginaceae species (plantains) in the pollen series from the eastern Prealpine mountain
region, normally associated with the presence of ovine herds, would seem to
offer confirmation of important phases of forest-floor clearance to make way
for new grazing areas between the 1st century BC and the early centuries AD
(Tinner & Vescovi, 2007; Filippi et al., 2005). The subsequent medieval period is marked by a generalised reduction in
tree taxa (up to 90%), which gave way to anthropogenic herbaceous plants,
including the afore-mentioned plantains (Plantago lanceolata, Plantago media), linked to a renewed increase in grazing alongside rye and buckwheat
cultivation (Arpenti & Filippi, 2007).
This relationship between humans and forest is also typical of the Pasubio and
the Piccole Dolomiti, located at the south-eastern extremity of present-day
Province of Trento and bordering the provinces of Vicenza and Verona. Here, use
of the mountains for grazing cattle is documented from at least the middle of
the 15th century (Avanzini & Salvador, 2014a; Carrer, 2012). In the 16th century, an increased need for forage for livestock raised locally or in
neighbouring areas of the plain led to the opening of large clearings below the
vegetation line to create new spaces for summer grazing and livestock raising.
As a result, lands that once played a marginal role became vital for local
communities (Salvador & Avanzini, 2014).
The expansion of pasture at the expense of mountain forests, common to the
entire pre-Alpine region (Sitzia, 2009), came to a halt in the 17th century
1, so that in the early 1800s the shepherds [...] found themselves in a situation very similar to that of a century before, with
few pastures open in the areas below an altitude of 1800 metres (Avanzini & Salvador, 2014a, 2014b).
From the second half of the 18th century, following the specialisation of dairy production and a marked growth
in the population (Salvador & Avanzini, 2014), communities began drawing up land improvement plans for the malgas or summer mountain pastures
2, which included cutting down shrubs and trees to increase the area of pasture,
thereby making it possible to increase the load of grazing livestock (Salvador & Avanzini, 2015).
Contraction of the forests due to coppicing, on the one hand, and to the
requirements of cattle, sheep and goat pasturing on the other, reached its peak
in the middle of the 19th century. There was now a pressing need for lumber and new local laws were
introduced to prevent theft and illegal activities
3, which curtailed further extension of the pastures (Salvador & Avanzini, 2015).
The First World War had devastating effects on the forests and pastures in the
Pasubio. The construction of trenches and fortifications, intense bombardment
and the need for lumber led to the clearing of entire mountainsides and the
disintegration of hectares of grasslands (Salvador & Avanzini, 2015).
In the post-war period, work was focussed mainly on reconstructing buildings,
while the pastures and forests remained strewn with remnants of the war for
decades. It was only in the aftermath of the Second World War that measures for
land improvement and full restoration of the former war zones were
incentivised. Improvements to the pastures began in the 1950s, which included
the removal of stones and uprooting of invasive weeds and bushes. The coppices
on the mountainsides were recovering naturally, but the fir, spruce and larch
forests that once alternated with the pastures in the mountains still had
difficulty in growing back. Massive reforestation efforts were therefore made
in the areas most damaged by the war in order to restore not only the areas
given over to livestock raising, but also those dedicated to silviculture
(Salvador & Avanzini, 2015). The idea was to revive the mountain economy, beginning with
the sectors that had always been the most profitable, even though it was
entering another era and another type of economy.
2.2. The livestock
The type of grazing livestock also changed over time. The available archive data
for the Pasubio show that, from the 15th century, the high pastures were used to graze flocks of many thousands of sheep
and goats that came from the plains of the Veneto or Lombardy. From the 17th century, cattle joined the smaller livestock and gradually replaced them almost
completely (Salvador & Avanzini, 2014; see also Corti, 2004: 133). Between 1869 and 1900, the number
of cattle in the District of Rovereto, which also encompassed the lands under
consideration here, increased by 11.48% to a total of 12,280 heads, while the
number of sheep fell by 74.18% (2,953 heads) and goats increased by 14.83%
(4,263 heads) (Zaninelli, 1978: 211-12).
With the increase in output from dairy production, the summer mountain pastures
turned to also raising pigs, which could be fed on whey, a by-product of milk
processing. This activity was a sizeable source of income, especially from the
mid 19th century onwards.
In the post-war period, measures to improve Alpine pasturing included an attempt
to bring the numbers of cattle back to the levels preceding the two world wars
by incentivising pig raising
4, as well as restricting transhumance of sheep and goats to pastures where there
was no risk of damage to the forests
5 and where shepherds traditionally brought their flocks.
As the practice of summer grazing of animals on mountain pastures was gradually
abandoned from the 1970s, the pastures (especially those below the vegetation
line) gradually receded as a result of natural reforestation. The dry meadows
above 1750 meters have, instead, been occupied in recent decades by transhumant
flocks from the plain, which has helped slow down the expansion of newly-formed
shrub-lands.
2.3. Ownership of pastures
Considerable variations can also be found in pasture ownership. In the Middle
Ages, the resource was controlled by various entities operating within the
feudal system (Corti, 2004: 161). When the lands under consideration in this
survey were occupied by the Republic of Venice in 1439, the pastures that
belonged to the local lords of Lizzana (nearby Rovereto) were auctioned and
were bought in large part by noble families from the urban areas of the Vicenza
region and in part by the local communities
6 (Salvador & Avanzini, 2014).
Over the centuries, the noble families lost interest in these lands, which
allowed the district councils to buy large portions of their own territory,
thereby gaining control of larger areas of pasture
7. From the 17th century, therefore, the local communities were able to decide how to make the
best use of the environmental resources that they now had and to control their
use through apposite rental contracts (Salvador & Avanzini, 2014). In the mid-19th century, the pastures and summer mountain pastures in the Trentino area were
largely in the hands of local councils (Perini, 1852: I, 664). The inclusion of
pastures among the communal assets allowed mountain communities not only to
draw a profit from them by leasing them to the highest bidder, but also to make
a series of long-term investments that, despite having limited scope, would
have an impact on the income from the summer mountain pastures. Around the end
of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century, in particular, roads were improved, new watering holes were built and
improvements were made to the buildings, which were enlarged although they were
still made of wood (Salvador & Avanzini, 2012). In the mid-19th century the first stone constructions began to appear. These were the casera, buildings where the dairy products were stored during the summer mountain
grazing period. Initially they were very small with thatched roofs; later they
were enlarged and roofed with stone slabs and metal sheets (Salvador & Avanzini, 2012).
More substantial refurbishment of the infrastructure of the summer mountain
pastures was to take place between the 1920s and 1950s. The baito, the building where the milk was processed and which until the beginning of the
20th century was a mobile wooden structure
8, was now built of stone with sanitation and had a room on the upper floor for
the shepherds and cheese-makers, whose quarters had previously been close to
the cheese vat. In addition to the casera and baito, the first barns were built, generally one for sick cattle and one for the
pigs. Roads were also under continual improvement, while attention was
increasingly focused on water supply. In addition to the summer pasture
watering holes, which were needed because of the scarcity of springs in the
mountains, aqueducts were built from the second half of the 20th century to the beginning of the 21st century to ensure a supply of water not only for the animals, but also to meet
the growing needs of human consumption, whether for the shepherds or for those
summer pastures that have in recent years been converted for tourism.
3. EVOLUTION OF THE PASTURES AND ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS
In assessing the evolution of the pastures, we need to distinguish between
transhumance and what is known as monticazione. The latter takes place within the same agri-zootechnical system as that of the permanent
pastures where men and animals spend the winter (Corti, 2004: 168). Transhumance, on the other hand, involves the grazing of
livestock from distant locations and owned by non-local farmers. It goes
without saying that monticazione (which we shall refer to hereinafter as summer mountain grazing or simply summer grazing) and transhumance have very different consequences for local development.
There are many reasons for the expansion and contraction of Alpine and Prealpine
pastures and they assume varying levels of importance in different periods of
history (Corti, 2004; Head-König, 2014; Mathieu, 2001; Pascolini, 2001). The most important factors include:
a) the evolution of anthropic pressure; b) changes in the availability of
feedstuffs from the nearby plains or the meadows in the valley bottom for
livestock during the winter months; c) the relationships between the price of
animal products and the price of timber; d) the development of dairy technology
and climate trends; e) social and economic factors on a supra-regional scale.
Analysis of the factors determining the evolution of the pastures is interesting
from an economic point of view because they are a natural resource whose role
in the production process has changed relatively little over the last few
centuries. It is, therefore, less difficult than with other natural resources
to uncover the role played by the various production factors (natural
resources, capital, labour) in the production process over time.
The vast pasture lands in the Alps and the Prealps, such as those under study
here, are used extensively and therefore their yield per unit of labour can be
high, given that there is less need for capital for investments. Over time,
however, increasingly larger investments have become necessary in order to
incorporate the natural capital of “pasture” into the productive cycle. There has, in fact, been a move away from using
natural open spaces to creating new clearings through deforestation (including
the removal of tree stumps
9), while roads, increasingly important buildings, and water systems and service
infrastructures need to be built. As a result, the relationships between the
three production factors (labour, natural capital and anthropic capital) have
profoundly changed, especially since the beginning of the 19th century, and have led to pastures evolving in different ways, even when they are
within the same geographical area.
The intention of these remarks is to highlight the relative importance of the
three above-mentioned factors in explaining how the pastures in the
Pasubio-Piccole Dolomiti area have evolved over the last two centuries.
4. PASTURES IN THE PASUBIO-PICCOLE DOLOMITI AREA: MORPHOLOGICAL, ECOLOGICAL AND
SOCIO-ECONOMIC ELEMENTS
As already mentioned in the introductory section, the pastures under study are
located in the Veneto/Trentino Prealps in Trento province, at altitudes between
1,300 and 2,200 metres, and are the property of the municipalities of
Trambileno, Terragnolo and Vallarsa. The summer mountain pastures investigated
are located in the area of Passo di Campogrosso
10 and the vast mountain plateau at the summit of Monte Pasubio. These areas have
shallow limestone soils characterised by very slow pedogenetic processes, so
the configuration of the soil following deforestation is still visible today
(Sauro, 1977). The pastures extend over small level terraces and more gentle
slopes, and are broken up by woodlands or rocky outcrops that occupy the
steepest slopes. There is little in the way of springs and surface running
water in the area, although rainfall is relatively high, even in summer.
The number of summer pastures in the study region has not been constant. There
were five in the late Middle Ages (Salvador & Avanzini, 2014). Later, with the division of these five large, late-medieval
pastures and the opening of new clearings below the vegetation line, the number
of summer pastures gradually increased until the end of the 19th century when they peaked at 32 distributed over the area of the Pasubio and the
Piccole Dolomiti. During this phase, the animal products found an important
outlet in the market of the nearby town of Rovereto
11. Incorporations and subdivisions occur in response to changing needs and
variations in anthropic pressure, and take account of subsequent enlargements
and reductions in the grazing areas. With the gradual abandonment of pastoral
activities, many of these pastures, some of which were open for only a few
decades at the end of the 19th century when the population was at the highest ever recorded in these valleys,
were quickly closed. This study was carried out on 26 summer mountain pastures
operating traditional practices.
5. AVAILABLE DATA
Using archive sources
12, and analysis of historical aerial photographs
13 and orthophotogrammes
14 (for more recent times), we were able to obtain three different types of data
covering the period under consideration
15: a) the number of head of livestock that can theoretically be grazed; b) the
pasture land surface; c) the income from leasing the pastures.
This information is drawn from different archive sources and, in many cases,
refers to different years, or if it refers to the same year, it concerns
different summer mountain pastures. Given that these data cannot be used
together in appropriate econometric models, mutually complementary analyses
need to be carried out for the different points of view that emerge from the
available data.
5.1. Numbers of head of livestock grazed or that can be grazed on summer
pastures
In the area under study, there are five periods for which we have attempted to
calculate for a large number of summer mountain pastures the theoretical number
of cattle that could be grazed on the mountain pastures. These are 1792
16, 1853
17, 1913
18, 1947
19 and 2011
20, and for those years we estimated the so-called paghe for the various summer mountain pastures. This term refers to a unit of measure
that in modern language is the LSU, i.e., livestock unit. In other words, the paghe are the number of adult head of cattle (LSU) that could theoretically be grazed
on the mountain pastures
21. This figure depends on the size and fertility of the pasture and the
nutritional needs of the livestock. As far as pasture fertility is concerned,
we can assume from the absence of substantial improvements that it remained
unchanged for long periods of time
22. On the other hand, the nutritional needs of the livestock are related to their
size and productivity
23. The number of paghe was also important because it was the basis for calculating the reserve price
when auctioning the summer mountain pastures
24. The observations available for the various years regard summer pastures with
mountain grazing plots incorporated in different ways
25. We have data for 20 summer mountain pastures for 1792, 14 for 1853, 13 for
1913, 14 for 1947
26 and 13 for 2011.
The number of adult cattle that could grazed on the mountain pastures increased
27 between 1792 and 1853 and decreased
28 thereafter.
5.2. The grazing lands (1859, 1954, 1974, 1994, 2011)
29
The data for 1859 come from the land registry surveys carried out in that year,
where each summer mountain pasture is defined as a single land unit comprising
pasture in the strict sense and potential pasture, with trees.
On the other hand, in analysing the vegetation cover of the high mountain
pastures over the last 60 years conducted at 20-year intervals (vectorization
of Alpine meadows by aerial photos taken in 1954 and orthophotos taken in 1973,
1994 and 2011; see Fig. 2), only grazing areas in the strict sense are computed
(wooded areas therefore being excluded from the calculation).
FIGURE 2
The vegetation cover of the high mountain pastures (black-coloured) in the
Pasubio Massif over the last 60 years
Source: LIDAR, Ufficio Sistemi Informativi,Provincia Autonoma di Trento;
vectorization of Alpine meadows by aerial photos taken in 1954 and orthophotos taken in 1973, 1994 and 2011 by I. Salvador.
Compared with the surface areas determined by aerial photogrammetric analysis
30 for subsequent years, the 1859 figure is probably overestimated. It is true,
however, that the years around the mid 1800s were those when the grazing areas
were at their maximum, and therefore this figure, despite being less precise
than the later ones, also provides a sufficiently reliable characterization of
the land on which to base an analysis of diachronic variation.
If we compare the data, we can see that during the period in question the
grazing lands in the study area
31 were reduced to about ¼ of their original size, as shown in the following table:
Table 1
Areas destined for pasture on summer pastures
in the municipalities of the Valli del Leno, 1859-2011 (hectares)
| 1859 | 1954 | 1974 | 1994 | 2011 |
| Pastures | 2989.94 | 1343.29 | 1095.66 | 837.21 | 738.28 |
Source: see notes 13, 14 and 16.
5.3. Data on the rental value of the pastures (1792, 1853, 1913, 1947, 2011)
In the years for which data on paghe are available, that is, 1792, 1853, 1913, 1947 and 2011, the annual rental
values of the same summer mountain pastures are also available. These summer
pastures were leased to applicants for a period of five years by an auction
held the year before the start of lease (see also Perini, 1852: I, 664;
Zaninelli, 1978: 40).
6. EVOLUTION OF THE THEORETICAL LOAD OF LIVESTOCK THAT CAN BE GRAZED
The number of livestock that can be grazed on the mountain pastures may be
considered an indicator, albeit an approximate one, of the value of the natural
capital of pasture
32. An increase in the number of these LSU (paghe) is a consequence of higher grass production. Since, as we have seen, grass
production per unit of surface area has not been significantly influenced by
regular anthropic improvements over time, we may hypothesise that variations in
theoretical LSU for a given summer mountain pasture are highly correlated with
variations in the surface area of that same pasture
33.
In this respect, the coefficients of correlation between the LSU that can be
grazed in the three periods under examination are high, as the following table
shows:
Table 2
Correlations between the paghe (LSU that can be grazed)
for the same summer mountain pasture in various periods
| 1792 | 1853 | 1913 | 1947 | 2011 |
| 1792 | 1.00 | 0.59 | 0.85 | 0.71 | 0.34 |
| 1853 | | 1.00 | 0.82 | 0.86 | 0.46 |
| 1913 | | | 1.00 | 0.47 | 0.18 |
| 1947 | | | | 1.00 | 0.79 |
| 2011 | | | | | 1.00 |
Source: see notes 12 and 16-20.
Despite the limitations imposed by the lack of complete homogeneity in the data,
given the likely diversity in the assessments of an adult animal’s nutritional needs at different times, we can see that between the end of the
18th century and the mid-19th century there was a sharp increase in the theoretically permitted load,
particularly for the summer pastures at lower altitudes (Table 3).
This increase can be easily recognised as encroachment on woodland areas (see
also Perini, 1852: I, 670). After 1853, there was a reduction in the number of
LSU that could theoretically be grazed in the mountains, which appears to have
been greater for the summer pastures at lower altitudes. The reduction in LSU
is, however, lower than the reduction in grazing areas, which may be explained
by the reluctance of owners to see their tax base lowered.
Table 3
Change between studied period of the theoretical numbers of LSU
that can be grazed on summer mountain pastures (in percentage)
34
| Period | All summer pastures | Low summer pastures | High summer pastures |
| 1792-1853 | +31% | +51% | +0.5% |
| 1853-1913 | -7% | -8% | +0.2% |
| 1913-1947 | -22% | -27% | +18% |
| 1947-2011 | -26% | -34% | -11% |
Source: see Tables 1 and 2.
The number of LSU/ha has constantly decreased over time, while the differences
in livestock can be theoretically grazed in the different pastures have been
reduced. In fact, by performing the calculations on the seven pastures for
which there is information on the period considered, in the mid-nineteenth
century there was an average of 1.21 LSU/ha (σ2 = 0.278); in around 1950 an average of 0.91 LSU/ha (σ2 = 0.21)
35, in 2011 an average of 0.71 LSU/ha (σ2 = 0.04). The increase in grazing area per LSU is particularly evident on the
summer pastures at high altitude but is hardly noticeable on those at low
altitude. This trend is to be understood also in light of the increased
nutritional needs of livestock, which are larger in size and produce more milk.
Several factors explain this change. In around 1850 the climatic phase was
still unfavourable, while from 1950 onwards the low pastures were treated with
chemical fertilizers with a consequent increase in the production of grass;
again in the low pastures there are cases of integration of the feed with
quantities (albeit modest) of feedstuff. Later this practice was abandoned
because of a reduction in livestock and for ecological reasons.
7. DETERMINANTS OF THE EVOLUTION OF THE PASTURE LANDS
A primary reason behind the evolution of pasture lands can be traced to the
number of animals grazed in the mountains. An excessive number drives grazing
to the more marginal areas and forces the extension of pastures, wherever
possible, at the expense of the forest. If the animal load is too high over
several seasons there may be a sharp deterioration in the grassy turf, so that
the pasture becomes less productive. Conversely, if the animal load is lower
than optimal levels, some pasture areas will not be used and as a consequence
will be encroached upon by weeds and bushes, thereby reducing the grazing land
36. The consequences of overloading or underloading may, and almost always are,
accentuated by the behaviour of the shepherds, in that they may manage grazing
in a more or less rational way and may or may not take small measures to
contain the advance of trees and shrubs.
Aside from these general issues, which are, moreover, difficult to translate
into numeric values, particularly when, as in this case, the long-term
evolution is under examination, there are four factors that may be investigated
from a more analytical perspective: altitude, fertility, income and
investments.
7.1. Altitude
Looking more closely at the evolution of the grazing areas, we can see that the
sharp contraction that took place between 1859 and 1954 is more pronounced for
high altitude pastures. Between 1954 and 2011 the trend was reversed, with a
greater reduction in the areas of pasture at lower altitudes, while contraction
stabilised in those at higher altitudes.
TabLE 4
Extent of pastures above and below 1700 metres above sea level
(index number 1859 = 100)
| 1954 | 1974 | 1994 | 2011 |
| Constant | +0.163 | +0.110* | +0.181* | +0.201** |
| LSU/ha 1853 | +0.467*** | +0.375** | +0.100** | +0.015 |
| R2 | 0.48 | 0.39 | 0.02 | 0.00 |
Source: see notes 13, 14 and 16.
It should be reiterated that the diversity of techniques used to define pasture
(land registry measures in 1859, aerial photogrammetry thereafter) may explain
part of the reduction in grazing lands between 1859 and 1954. At the same time,
an important role in the reduction in pasture lands on high-altitude summer
mountain pastures may in part be attributed to the First World War. As we have
already seen, fighting in the area during the war caused disruption to the
land, and in these high-altitude areas the pasture has still not, after many
years, recovered the area once occupied by trenches and fortifications or
covered with stones as a result of intense bombardments.
7.2. Fertility (grass production)
As outlined in section 5, grass production per unit of surface area has not been
significantly affected by substantial improvements to the grassy turf over
time. Grass productivity is therefore mainly connected with overall variation
in the grazing areas of each summer mountain pasture, which in turn have been
influenced by the contraction or expansion of the forest at intermediate and
low altitudes, and by the less significant, but not negligible, expansion or
contraction of shrubs (rhododendron, juniper, etc.) at high altitudes. In both
cases, overloading leads to an increase in the grazable area, while underuse
leads to contraction.
In this framework, it is interesting to take the number of LSU that can be
grazed on a given summer mountain pasture in a given year as a predictor of the
evolution of the pasture land in subsequent years. So, for example, using the
LSU/ha calculated for 1853 we can try to estimate the ability of this indicator
to explain the evolution of the grazing areas in later periods. More
specifically, by comparing the grazing area present in a given year with the
area present in 1859 as measured by the number of LSU/ha in the mid-19th century
37, we arrive at the following equations:
Table 5
Relation between grazing surface area in different years and LSU/ha, 1853
| | 1859 | 1954 | 1974 | 1994 | 2011 |
| Summer pastures< 1700 m asl | Without investments | 100 | 60 | 37 | 21 | 16 |
| With investments | 100 | 79 | 64 | 47 | 42 |
| Summer mountain pastures> 1700 m asl | Without investments | 100 | 31 | 28 | 24 | 21 |
| With investments | 100 | 32 | 32 | 31 | 29 |
Source: see notes 13, 14 and 16.
Hence in 1954, the amount of usable pasture land increased compared to 1859 as a
function of the estimated potential load per hectare for 1853. In other words,
the percentage of pastures maintained as such was higher where these were
fertile, that is to say, the pastures where productivity was higher in the
mid-19th century. This connection, which was still significant until 1974, later tended
to lose any meaning.
This is confirmed by analysis of the evolution of the grazing areas from the
mid-1900s as a function of the number of LSU/ha in 1950. Estimation of the
equations relative to these periods does not reveal any statistically reliable
relationships
38.
We can therefore affirm that usages that were influenced by the same variables
that were important in the previous century, persisted until 1954, and to a
lesser degree until 1974, after which, the determining variables began to
change. The summit areas above the tree limit remained as pasture –or rather they underwent minor contractions. Other variables became crucial for
the lowest summer mountain pastures, as it will be shown later.
7.3. Income
A partially alternative indicator and, from a different perspective, one that is
complementary to the number of LSU/ha, is that of the LSU/rent ratio, which
takes into account the overall conditions on the summer mountain pasture. The
number of LSU that can be grazed being equal, a summer mountain pasture that
requires minor interventions on the part of the lessee, has easier access and a
sufficient water supply and buildings to meet the needs of that particular
period, may have a higher rent per head of grazing livestock than a summer
mountain pasture where these conditions are not adequately met. At the same
time, there may be an incentive to offer a higher price at auction, if, in
addition to the estimated theoretical load, the potential lessee estimates that
he can increase the number of animals that can effectively be grazed over and
above the official specification. This is, of course, only the case when the
increased load is achievable through relatively simple and inexpensive
operations, for example by cutting down a few trees and expanding the pasture a
little, as has often happened during the 18th and 19th centuries.
Using this information we can correlate the percentage of the pasture land in
use in 1859 that is still in use in a given year with the value of the rent per
hectare in the various years.
The only equation that can be formulated with parameters having some statistical
validity is as follows:
Pasture lands 1859/1954 0.348 + 0.045X3 R2 = 0.28
** **
where X3 = rental value/ha in 1859. In this and following equations ***=significance>99%; **=significance>95%; *=significance> 90%.
The rental value per hectare, therefore, has a lower predictive capacity than
LSU/ha. This is because the former value is influenced by several factors, some
of which have had a highly variable evolution over time.
7.4. Investments
An additional determinant that may explain the more or less marked contraction
of pasture lands is the presence or absence of substantial investments
(buildings, roads, aqueducts). The impact of investment in infrastructure
differs according to the altitude of the summer mountain pasture. In effect, we
can see that on the high altitude pastures livestock are farmed extensively,
particularly in recent decades, which does not require any particular fixed
investment. Dry cows and/or sheep do not, in fact, require specific
infrastructures. At the same time, underuse resulting from a less than optimal
number of animals being grazed or from inadequate maintenance of the pasture
has relatively few consequences –at least in the medium-long term– in terms of the evolution of the habitat.
In contrast, it is usually dairy cattle that have been grazed on summer pastures
below the tree line in recent decades. This is a practice that requires the
provision of suitable infrastructures and in this context underuse triggers a
vicious cycle where there is rapid expansion of the forest leading to a
reduction in the grazeable land in a relatively short time. As a result, the
number of animals gradually decreases to such low levels that the only thing to
do is abandon the pasture. The decision to intervene with substantial
investments is only partially linked to the physical characteristics of the
pasture and depends to a large extent on the owners adopting a different
strategy.
Overall, the evolution of the grazing land in relation to altitude and to the
situation after 1970 where substantial investments (in buildings and roads, in
particular) were made in some cases and not in others, is shown in the
following table.
Table 6
Grazing lands and investments in summer mountain pastures
above and below 1700 m asl (index number 1859 = 100)
39
| 1798 | 1854 | 1913 | 1950 | 2011 |
| All summer pastures | 100 | 56 | 61 | 72 | 130 |
| Summer pastures > 1700 m asl | 80 | 33 | 56 | 61 | 163 |
Sources: see notes 13, 14 and 16.
Analysis of the data provides confirmation that investments are particularly
important for summer mountain pastures at lower altitudes. It is these that are
inclined to be abandoned when no suitable infrastructures are provided.
8. CAUSES OF THE DIFFERENT EVOLUTIONS OF THE PASTURES: A TENTATIVE SYNTHESIS
In order to examine as a whole the various possible reasons already mentioned
that have led to differences in the evolutions of the pastures, we will now
take a look at the relationship among the various production factors of natural
resource, capital and labour.
To this end, the first production factor we will examine is the natural resource
of pasture. An approximate estimate of the revenue of this resource within the
mountain summer pasture production function may be obtained from the rental
value per LSU. In order to be able to compare monetary values with respect to
this variable, which in the various years under examination are expressed in
different currencies, we have translated, for purely comparative purposes, the
cost of summer grazing per LSU into kilograms of butter. The results for the
evolution of this measurement in the summer mountain pastures under study are
summarised in the following table.
Table 7
Rent per LSU in kg of butter (index number 1798 all summer pastures = 100)
40
| 1798 | 1854 | 1913 | 1950 | 2011 |
| All summer pastures | 100 | 56 | 61 | 72 | 130 |
| Summer pastures > 1700 m asl | 80 | 33 | 56 | 61 | 163 |
Source: see note 12.
In summary, it is clear that the natural resource of pasture noticeably
decreased initially, then exhibited a decisive increase in the last period
under examination, when the increase in the rental value per LSU in real terms
is to be linked to the amount of EU support. Given that this support is linked
with size, it turns out to have a more significant impact on the high pastures,
which are larger, and not just in the study area, than those at lower
altitudes, and require less labour and fewer investments given the type of
usage.
Regarding the relationships between the costs of the production factors, we were
able to draw up the following table, which relates the rental cost for grazing
one LSU (equivalent to the income of the natural resource of pasture) for one
shepherd for the summer mountain grazing period with: a) the value of a dairy
cow (agricultural capital)
41; b) the salary of the shepherd for the summer mountain grazing period
42; and c) the cost of investment in the summer mountain pasture buildings
(capital cost)
43.
Table 8
Relationship between the costs of production factors and grazing quotas
to graze one LSU (equivalent to the income of the natural resource of pasture)
for one shepherd for the summer mountain grazing period, 1798-2011
44
| 1798 | 1854 | 1913 | 1950 | 2011 |
| With the value of one cow (= rental value per LSU) | 8.7 | 14.9 | 12.1 | 26.0 | 17.5 |
| With the value of a salary (= rental value per LSU) | 7.5 | 12.5 | 8.1 | 25.0 | 76.4 |
| With the annual value of depreciation of buildings (= rental value per LSU) | 7.4 | 8.2 | 12.8 | 33.0 | 278.7 |
Sources: see notes 40-42.
Within the summer mountain grazing production process, the relative importance
of the various production factors varies over time. The value of the natural
resource has tended to decrease, the agricultural capital value (livestock) saw
a moderate rise until 1950 and then declined, and the value of labour has
increased consistently since 1950, although its relative importance has
decreased compared with investments, which have come to play a more significant
role over the latest period examined. These variations entail changes in
business objectives and management, and, consequently, profound changes in the
use of the natural resource. Paradoxically, this resource has lost importance
just when the role of grazing in producing positive externalities (e.g. relative to the value of the landscape) has increased (Gios et al., 2006).
9. SOME FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
The overall analysis of the evolution of pastures in the study area reveals,
first of all, that the phases of expansion and contraction of the areas used
for grazing follow the general trend that various authors have identified for
the Alps and Prealps.
From a theoretical point of view, this evolution can be explained by recourse to
a variant of the Ricardian theory of rent. The pastures that are used first are
the highest ones (over 1,700 metres above sea level), which are natural meadows
and can form part of the livestock raising cycle without any special
investment. As Mathieu points out, using the summer mountain pastures meant consuming space but saving work, with a favourable cost-to-income ratio (Mathieu, 2000: 57). The highest summer mountain pastures were initially grazed
by sheep, which may also have come from distant winter pastures (Morard, 1984),
as happened in the case under study (Salvador & Avanzini, 2014). In this model, the ability of the ecosystem to regenerate is
essentially guaranteed (Bovolenta, Pasut & Dovier, 2008)
45, while the investments required are very small. In other words, out of the
three production factors that classical economists were concerned with, “land”
46 is the most important.
Later on, the increase in anthropic pressure led to exploitation of the lower
areas through the creation of clearings in the woods. This expansion was
accompanied by an increase in the use of cattle
47, the result of which was a prevalence of short- and medium-range transfers
(Corti, 2006b). This can only happen where there are substantial investments in
labour. Labour for deforestation and the removal of tree stumps, but also in
order to move from an emphasis on wool and meat production to an emphasis on
dairy products (Mocarelli, 2013). While this transformation was taking place,
as everywhere in the Alpine regions, in the study area grasslands previously
owned by noblemen living in urban areas were purchased by local communities
with the aid also of proceeds from forest felling. The pastures became places
where the work and economic activities of the valley bottom became integrated
and were incorporated into the seasonal activities of the inhabitants of the
valley villages. The geographical proximity of inhabited settlements to the
pastures they owned facilitated control of the grazing lands and the ability to
comply with –and enforce– regulations governing the use of the pastures, which were becoming increasingly
detailed and complex. In a first phase, from the 15th to the 17th centuries, pastures continued to be rented to lessees from the plains,
sometimes via middlemen. With the passing of time, however, the mountain
pastures were increasingly used by local livestock farmers. Fixed investments
decreased, the buildings themselves were simple baito that lasted a few years and were then rebuilt by the lessee. The new pastures
thus obtained were, unlike the Ricardian example of wheat, more fertile than
the previous ones. More fertile but less in equilibrium with the ecosystem,
given that in striving to obtain maximum returns for the summer mountain
pasture no heed is taken of the protracted length of time needed to restore the
natural conditions in the mountains nor of the ecological systems’ capacity for self-repair.
After the interruption represented by the First World War, and in spite of the
attempt to encourage a return to the mountains, particularly in the second
post-war period, which included the founding of local Mountain Pasture
Consortia
48, the reductions in cattle being grazed on mountain pastures (underloading)
having become less economically viable, resulted in contractions of the grazing
areas as a consequence of the advancement of the forest. The production factor
of land thus lost importance to labour.
In more recent times, the new economic context and different needs of the
livestock being raised require growing investment with anthropogenic capital in
order to maintain viability of usage and conserve the pasture land. Without
adequate buildings, roads, and water and electricity supplies, it is not
possible to graze dairy cattle in the mountains, and even keeping dry cattle
and sheep on the pastures becomes more difficult. The value of infrastructure
investments exceeds, in most cases, the theoretical value of the grazing lands
and, in some cases, leads to considerable environmental changes. The most
important production factor becomes capital.
In a relatively short period of time (less than two centuries) the relative
importance of the various production factors (land, capital, labour) has
changed profoundly as a result of changes in the production process and in the
socio-economic system of which it is a part. From the point of view of the
production cycle, there was a move away from raising predominantly sheep and
goats with long-distance transhumance, to mainly cattle farming with shorter
transfers of livestock, until, ultimately, the focus was again on sheep. This
evolution is also reflected in the changing role of the summer mountain pasture
in the local economic system: from being a source of monetary income connected
to rent, it has become pivotal in a livestock raising system that constitutes
the main nucleus of the region’s economy, and ultimately a provider of non-market ecosystem services
49. The pasture lands that currently remain are those in the highest mountain
areas or where the infrastructures (buildings, roads, aqueducts) have been
modernised, sometimes with substantial changes to the obtainable products (the
introduction of forms of agri-tourism)
50.
High mountain pastures and summer pastures at lower altitudes, however, respond
to tendentially different economic logics. Forms of extensive usage based on
exploitation of the natural capital are found in the high mountains, while the
low summer mountain pastures need a supply of increasing amounts of
anthropogenic capital, so that the quality of the natural capital gradually
becomes less important. The low summer pastures, when not abandoned, replicate
in the mountains the business models of the valley bottom or the plains. The
period of use tends to widen and livestock are no longer fed only on grass,
which instead is integrated with feed from other sources.
At the same time, and also as a consequence of the socio-economic evolution, the
value of the positive externalities produced by the pastures below the tree
line increases. Furthermore, the support arrangements provided by the EU’s common agricultural policy weaken the links between the pastures and the farms
lower down on the same mountain. The pastures, especially those in the high
mountains, are used with increasing frequency by farms on the –relatively– distant plain. In this respect, a pattern of use once prevalent in previous
centuries is re-establishing itself. Ultimately, the natural resource of
pasture becomes less and less important both overall and as a paradigm for
models of development based on the use of local resources. We may, therefore,
conjecture that the future evolution will be conditioned by at least three
factors: the characteristics of EU policy, the possibility of transforming
positive externalities, at least in part, into income, and identification of
appropriate organisational management models.
acknowledgements
We thank the two anonymous reviewers for their comments. We are also grateful to
Eva Fernández, and Miguel Martín-Retortillo (editor and editorial assistant of Historia Agraria) for the careful editing of the text.
REFERENCES
Arpenti, E. & Filippi, M. L. (2007). Evoluzione della vegetazione nei pressi del Lago di Lavarone (TN) negli
ultimi 2200 anni. Studi Trentini di Scienze Naturali, Acta Geologica, (82), 317-24.
Avanzini, M. & Salvador, I. (2014a). L’uso di un luogo tra vincoli fisici e culturali: Malga Campobiso (Pasubio,
Trento) tra xv e xix secolo. In M. Avanzini & I. Salvador (Eds.), Antichi pastori: Sopravvivenze, tradizione orale, storia, tracce nel paesaggio e
archeologia: Atti della tavola rotonda (Bosco Chiesanuova, 26-27 ottobre 2013) (pp. 79-116). Trento: Museo delle Scienze.
Avanzini, M. & Salvador, I. (2014b). Variazioni climatiche e antropizzazione delle terre alte tra xvii e xix secolo nelle Prealpi trentine (Pasubio, Trento). In M. Avanzini & I. Salvador (Eds.), Antichi pastori: Sopravvivenze, tradizione orale, storia, tracce nel paesaggio e
archeologia: Atti della tavola rotonda (Bosco Chiesanuova, 26-27 ottobre 2013) (pp. 117-33). Trento: Museo delle Scienze.
Bovolenta, S., Pasut, D. & Dovier, S. (2008). L’allevamento in montagna: Sistemi tradizionali e tendenze attuali. Quaderni SoZooAlp, (5), 22-9.
Carrer, F. (2013). Archeologia della pastorizia nelle Alpi: Nuovi dati e vecchi dubbi. Preistoria alpina, (47), 49-56.
Casari, M. (2007). Emergence of Endogenous Legal Institutions: Property Rights and
Community Governance in the Italian Alps. Journal of Economic History, 67 (1), 191-226.
Corti, M. (2004). L’alpeggio nelle alpi lombarde tra passato e presente. SM Annali di San Michele, (17), 31-155.
Corti, M. (2006a). Evoluzione delle forme di colonizzazione pastorale nell’area alpina lombarda. Workshop: Il popolamento della montagna tra Sesia e Oglio: 1 aprile 2006.
[Last consulted 24/04/2017].
Corti, M. (2006b). I “bergamini” un profilo dei protagonisti della transumanza bovina lombarda. Studi sulla transumanza e l’alpeggio, (1). [Last consulted
24/04/2017].
Filippi, M. L., Heiri, O., Arpenti, E., Angeli, N., Bortolotti, M., Lotter, A.
F. & Van der Borg, K. (2005). Evoluzione paleoambientale dal Tardoglaciale a oggi ricostruita
attraverso lo studio dei sedimenti del Lago di Lavarone (Altopiano di Folgaria
e Lavarone, Trentino). Studi Trentini di Scienze Naturali, Acta Geologica, (82), 279-98.
Gios, G., Goio, I., Notaro, S. & Raffaelli, R. (2006). The Value of Natural Resources for Tourism: A Case Study of the Italian
Alps. International Journal of Tourism Research, 8 (2), 77-85.
Head-König, A. L. (2014). Les ressources et les systèmes pastoraux dans les Préalpes et Alpes suisses. Histoire des Alpes – Storia delle Alpi – Geschichte der Alpen, (19), 13-32.
Herbert, B. & Mandl, F. (Eds.) (2009). Almen im Visier: Dachsteingebirge, Totes Gebirge, Silvretta: Festschrift: 30
Jahre ANISA. Haus im Ennstal: Verein für alpine Forschung. (Forschungsberichte der ANISA, 2).
Maggi, R. (2002). Pastori, miniere, metallurgia nella transizione fra Neolitico ed età del Rame: Nuovi dati dalla Liguria. In A. Ferrari & P. Visentini (Eds.), Il declino del mondo neolitico: Ricerche in Italia centro-settentrionale fra
aspetti peninsulari, occidentali e nord-alpini (pp. 437-40). Pordenone: Museo Archeologico del Friuli Occidentale. (Quaderni
del Museo Archeologico del Friuli Occidentale, 4).
Mathieu, J. (2000). Storia delle Alpi 1500-1900: Ambiente, sviluppo e società. Bellinzona: Casagrande.
Mathieu, J. (2001). Ovini, bovini, caprini: Cambiamento nell’allevamento alpino dal xvi al xix secolo. La ricerca folklorica, (43), 17-25.
Mocarelli, L. (2013). Spazi e diritti collettivi nelle aree montane: Qualche riflessione su
Alpi e Appennini in età moderna. Proposte e ricerche, (70), 173-202.
Morard, N. (1984). L’élevage dans les Alpes fribourgeoises: Des ovins aux bovins (1350-1550). In G. Fournier (Dir.), L’élevage et la vie pastorale dans les montagnes de l’Europe au moyen âge et à l’époque moderne (pp. 15-26). Clermont-Ferrand: Institut d’Études du Massif Central.
Nequirito, M. (2010). La montagna condivisa: L’utilizzo collettivo dei boschi e dei pascoli in Trentino dalle riforme
settecentesche al primo Novecento. Milano: Giuffrè.
Panjek, A. & Beguš, I. (2014). Matajur e Colovrat: Ordinamento e sostenibilità del pascolo: Un confronto tra i versanti veneto e asburgico nelle Alpi Giulie
in età moderna. Histoire des Alpes – Storia delle Alpi – Geschichte der Alpen, (19), 35-55.
Pascolini, M. (2001). L’alpeggio nelle Alpi orientali: Modelli storici e situazione attuale: Una
prospettiva geografica. La ricerca folklorica, (43), 3-11.
Perini, A. (1852). Statistica del Trentino. 2 vols. Trento: Perini.
Salvador, I. & Avanzini, M. (2012). Uomo e pietra: L’evoluzione dei depositi caseari tradizionali in Pasubio tra architettura montana
e identità alpina. Studi trentini di scienze naturali, (92), 71-83.
Salvador, I. & Avanzini, M. (2014). Costruire il paesaggio: L’alpeggio dal tardo medioevo alle soglie della Grande Guerra in un settore del
Trentino meridionale. Studi Trentini. Storia, (93), 79-114.
Salvador, I. & Avanzini, M. (2015). I boschi delle Valli del Leno (Trentino meridionale): Evoluzione
storica del rapporto tra ambiente naturale ed attività antropica. Dendronatura, (1), 55-72.
Sauro, U. (1977). Aspects de la morphogenèse anthropique dans le milieu karstique Alti Lessini. Norois, (95bis), 149-63.
Sauro, U. (2014). Le ricerche sui pastori negli Alti Lessini: Bilancio e prospettive. In M. Avanzini & I. Salvador (Eds.), Antichi pastori: Sopravvivenze, tradizione orale, storia, tracce nel paesaggio e
archeologia: Atti della tavola rotonda (Bosco Chiesanuova, 26-27 ottobre 2013) (pp. 217-28). Trento: Museo delle Scienze.
Sitzia, T. (2009). Ecologia e gestione dei boschi di neoformazione nel paesaggio trentino. Trento: Provincia Autonoma di Trento, Servizio Foreste e Fauna.
Tinner, W. & Vescovi, E. (2007). Ecologia e oscillazioni del limite degli alberi nelle Alpi dal
Pleniglaciale al presente. In S. Frisia, M. L. Filippi & A. Borsato (Eds.), Cambiamenti climatici e ambientali in Trentino: Dal passato prospettive per il
futuro (pp. 7-14). Trento: Studi trentini di scienze naturali.
Viazzo, P. P. & Woolf, S. (2001). L’alpeggio e il mercato: Qualche osservazione introduttiva. La ricerca folklorica, (43), 3-11.
Walsh, K. J., Mocci, F. & Palet-Martínez, J. (2007). Nine Thousand Years of Human/Landscape Dynamics in a High Altitude Zone
in the Southern French Alps (Parc National des Ecrins, Hautes-Alpes). Preistoria alpina, (42), 9-22.
Zaninelli, S. (1978). Una agricoltura di montagna nell’Ottocento: Il Trentino. Trento: Società di studi trentini di scienze storiche.
NOTAS A PIE DE PÁGINA / FOOTNOTES
26. Occasionally, we calculated the number of
paghe
also in years other than those mentioned. However, given that only 16
observations were available for a period of about 200 years and that these
refer to 12 different summer pastures, these observations are practically
unusable, at least in the context of this study.
Pasture lands 1854/1959 = 0.378 + 0.130X
2
;
R
2
= 0.13
** *
Pasture lands 1974/1954 = 0.813 - 0.05X
2
;
R
2
= 0.002
*** -
Pasture lands 1994/1954 = 0.650 - 0.033X
2
;
R
2
= 0.03
*** -
Pasture lands 2011/1954 = 0.558 - 0.008 X
2
;
R
2
= 0.002
*** -
where X
2
= LSU/ha in 1950
In this and following equations ***=significance>99%; **=significance>95%; *=significance> 90%.
