Local protein sources in animal feed - Perceptions among arctic sheep farmers

Journal of Rural Studies 59 (2018) 98–110

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rural Studies journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jrurstud

Local protein sources in animal feed - Perceptions among arctic sheep farmers

T

Ingrid Bay-Larsen∗, Camilla Risvoll, Ingebjørg Vestrum, Hilde Bjørkhaug Nordland Research Institute, Postbox 1490, 8049 Bodø, Norway

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Farmers' perceptions Local protein sources Animal feed Arctic sheep Sustainability

Structural change and efficacy measurements have made Norwegian livestock farming dependent on imported protein-rich components in feed concentrate. The increasing global demand and competition for stable protein sources has spurred a new debate on food security and utilization of local resources. Certain local species have been identified as promising alternatives to imported sources because of their high level of proteins, such as legumes and seaweed. In Norway, the use of seaweed as both food and feed has historical roots reaching back to the Viking age. To replace or reintroduce local protein sources requires substantial and long-term investments in both competence, technology and market mechanisms. At the same time, the unstable situation in global markets for protein rich feed components, makes the vision of sustainable local protein sources difficult to refuse. Little is known, however, about large scale and sustainable manufacturing and distribution of concentrate based on these local resources, nor of farmers' willingness or ability to make use of these resources. This paper seeks to identify and explain sheep farmer's perceptions towards the vision of increasing the use of local protein sources in arctic sheep farming. Based on indepth interviews with active and retired sheep farmers in coastal and inland Northern Norway, we have explored the dynamic relationship between biophysical and political conditions for farming, and the farmers' willingness and capacity to adapt to new and alternative sustainable practises. Through narrative analyses of farmers' storylines four archetypes were co-constructed, that each explain critical dimensions to farmers' perceptions towards increased use of local protein sources. Building upon insights from adaptive capacity literature and social embeddedness theory, the study shows how farmers' meet these limiting conditions through proactive or reactive responses. The archetypes can inform the wider debate on sustainable feeding regimes at various scales, by revealing context-dependent and endogenous factors that shape farmers responses to change.

1. The need to change To gain sufficient animal feed is a growing challenge for global food security and production, both marine and terrestrial (Verbeke et al 2015). Costs on protein and fat acids are expected to increase substantially on the global market, because of the limited availability of conventional feed resources such as soymeal and fishmeal, ongoing climatic changes and food–feed–fuel competition (Makkar et al., 2014). European meat production is increasingly dependent on imported protein sources for concentrate feed, such as soya from Brazil (Leonardus et al., 2014; Mølstre, 2016). As a response to this, a renewed interest in locally produced feedstuff has emerged. In Norway, several rationales for increasing locally produced feed exist. One rationale is nationally framed as a need for strengthening Norway's food security, food sovereignty and self-sufficiency by securing its potential to produce more food using domestic resources (Bjørkhaug et al., 2012; Vinge, 2015). Globally connected rationales such as climate change and ∗

unsettled financial global markets (Brobakk and Almås, 2012) and socio-ecological sustainability at the local level (Marsden, 2012) have also been raised as reasons to change practices. At the same time, novel proteins require the development of new value chains, which leads the attention to issues such as production costs, scalability and consumer acceptance (Henchion et al., 2017).. To be able to facilitate changes in farmers' feeding regime and practices, the policy makers need to understand which factors that influence the farmers' perception and response to change. People's perceptions and local contexts have the potential of determining their behaviour toward carrying out adaptation. These factors are therefore critical in planning phases and the implementation of adaptation measures that are suitable for the farming communities at the local level (Pyhälä et al., 2016). This paper seeks to inform this debate by exploring how farmers in Norwegian arctic communities perceive and respond to ideas of replacing imported soya with locally produced protein sources. Farmers' perceptions, attitudes and practices are

Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (I. Bay-Larsen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.02.004 Received 19 May 2017; Received in revised form 8 February 2018; Accepted 10 February 2018 0743-0167/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Journal of Rural Studies 59 (2018) 98–110

I. Bay-Larsen et al.

made from red clover and lotus may also contain high levels of true protein. While protein levels have been proved high in both legumes and seaweed, varying with species and seasons, multiple challenges remain to be solved to achieve efficient and economically viable processing of these proteins into digestible feed. These challenges need to be solved if these local species are to become substitutes for imported protein sources. Changing a key component, like protein sources, in feeding regimes may influence sheep farming in multiple ways, such as economics, animal welfare and growth, and vulnerability of protein supply. It is therefore necessary to see farmers’ ability and willingness to adapt, as an interaction among different drivers of change.

embedded both in the biophysical and social worlds (Feola et al., 2015; Ahnström et al 2009), including access to pastures and cultivated land, farming practices, cognition and networks, both in present time and across generations (Erickson, 1988). With a focus on farmers' adaptive capacity to change, we seek to understand their perceptions as derived from both their ability and willingness to change, that is from both etic and emic perspectives. The results build upon qualitative interviews with sheep farmers in four arctic communities in Northern Norway; two in coastal areas and two in inland areas. Farmers living in the coastal areas have traditionally fed their animals with seaweeds, especially during lean feed seasons, and there are stories dating all the way back to the Viking age about using seaweed as food and feed. Free-range ruminants have been observed to willingly graze on beach-cast seaweeds. Legumes also used to be more commonly used on farms, both in the coastal and mountain areas, in combination with grass production. In the following section, the potential for using local-produced seaweeds and legumes as alternative protein-sources is presented, before the methodological approach is outlined. Then we present our narrative methodologic approach and four co-constructed archetypes reflecting the farmers’ perceptions as derived from their feeding regime and practices. Finally, conclusions and implications for further research are outlined.

2. Investigating farmer's response to change This study has a theoretical point of departure in the literature that position farmers' perceptions and practices as deeply embedded in both their biophysical and social relations (Lerner et al., 2015). While part of the literature to explain farmers' behaviour assume models of rational action drawn from economic theory, their critics claim that such reductionist behavioural models tend to result in a “technical fix” approach when translated into policy, involving informational, technological or economic measures only (Lerner et al. 2015). In this study we position farmers, their actions and perceptions as embedded in agricultural systems. Social-ecological systems and resilience theory see such agricultural systems as subject to continuous change and fluctuation (Aldunce et al., 2016; Cambell et al 2012). For example, are climate change and predator populations fundamental structures in mountainous social-ecological systems, including sheep farming (Risvoll, 2015). Also, changing agricultural policies and subsidy regimes represent structures towards which Norwegian farmers operate within. Together, these interacting processes shape farmers’ livelihood, practices, access to resources, social organizations, settlements as well as preferences, perceptions and priorities (Nelson et al., 2008). A second point of departure in this article is the perspectives demonstrating how farming requires adaptive or even transformative responses (Folke et al., 2010; Risvoll, 2015; Rybråten and Hovelsrud, 2010) to ongoing processes of change. Adaptive capacity literature is valuable for understanding the dynamics and interactions of intertwined human relations with nature, and mechanisms that support responses to change (Lockwood et al., 2015; Plummer and Armitage, 2010). This encompasses studies on farmers' ability to succeed while facing changing conditions and uncertainties (Dannevig et al., 2015; Kvalvik et al., 2011; Patt and Weber, 2014). Determinants of adaptive capacity represent the multiple assets that are available to actors of northern communities and nature based industries; for instance, natural, social, human, cultural, financial capital, as well as infrastructure (Kofinas et al., 2013). Natural capital of sheep farmers refers to biophysical conditions, for instance pastures with palatable grasses and herbs, and access to land. Social, human and cultural capital reflects the network, cognition and practices through which shared understandings and perceptions also evolve. This resonate with social embeddedness theory and how the perceptions of one individual are connected to the perceptions of others through social networks. Farmers are embedded in structures and relationships within farming communities of northern Norway, reflected in common norms, trust and reciprocity (Dacin et al., 1999). There are expectations on conformity to ethics of “good farming” (e.g. Burton, 2004) in shared expectations. This also means that the concentrate feed regime represents a structure within which practices and perceptions are embedded. Granovetter (1985:504) states that “most behaviour is closely embedded in networks of interpersonal relations”. Such embeddedness can take form as relational (trust, reciprocity, and common norms) (Simsek et al., 2003; Uzzi, 1997), structural (closure, density, connectivity and hierarchy) or cognitive/ cultural embeddedness (symbolic representations, frameworks of meaning and shared understandings among actors) (Dacin et al., 1999).

1.1. The potential of legumes and seaweed An increasing interest in locally produced feedstuff for ruminants is the background for the project “Legumes and seaweed as alternative protein sources for sheep” that was launched in 2014. This project is carried out by researchers from Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, and Spain, and the main goal of the project is to identify locally produced legumes and seaweed that can replace imported soya. This study is a result of one part of the project, that aimed to increase the understanding of farmers’ attitudes related to using local protein sources. After the foot and mouth disease, the animal feed industry is constantly looking for new sources of high quality protein, in order to reduce imports and ensure sustainable and environmentally-friendly animal production systems. Current feeding regimes are closely interlinked with global trade regimes, Norwegian regulation, and Brazilian management regimes regarding GMOs and exports. Norway does not allow for GMOs in feed or food and presently has agreements with non-GMO soya growers in Brazil and Canada. Concentrate feed is blended by Norwegian feed suppliers who buy the ingredients from both domestic production (mainly grains and rapeseed) and foreign suppliers (both sources of carbohydrates and proteins). According to Felleskjøpet,1 proteins from soya make up about ten percent of the concentrate blend to livestock feed. Legumes and seaweed may prove to be a viable alternative for locallysourced protein (Stévant et al., 2017). Protein is the most critical component contributing to the nutritional value of the feed. Generally, the crude protein concentration is high in red and green seaweed (10–47% of the dry weight) compared to that of brown seaweed (3–15% of the dry weight) (Arasaki and Arasaki, 1983; Tayyab et al., 2016). Forage legumes such as white clover (Trifolium repens) and red clover (Trifolium pratense), lucerne (Medicago sativa) and birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus) can give relatively high yields of crude protein (Wilkins and Jones, 2000). These forage crops are characterized by inducing high feed intake (Fraser et al., 1999), and Harris et al. (1997) demonstrated higher intakes and milk yields for silage made from white clover, red clover and lucerne than from grass silage (Dewhurst et al 2003). There are major differences between these forage crops. On the one hand, white clover and lucerne may have many of the disadvantages of grass silage with low concentrations of water soluble carbohydrates and extensive proteolysis resulting in feed with low levels of true protein (Wilkins and Jones, 2000). On the other hand, silage 1

The major farmer owned feed supply company and farm input cooperative.

99

Journal of Rural Studies 59 (2018) 98–110

I. Bay-Larsen et al.

Fig. 1. Conceptualization of the dynamic and reflexive relationship between objective and subjective dimensions to adaptive capacity (edited from Bay-Larsen and Hovelsrud, 2017), showing how farmers' adaptive capacities are determined by external realities like available resources/capital, formal institutions, while at the same time endogenous (subjective) dimensions that enable farmers to expand window of opportunities. This dynamic may reveal reactive versus proactive processes of adaptation.

The idea of a domestic substitute for Brazilian soya is a hypothetical vision that may be difficult for many farmers to grasp or adhere to. For the farmers, as for other human beings, it is difficult to express perceptions towards an ideal future vision. Multiple uncertainties and unknown unknowns as to the practical, ethical, technological, scientific, and economic dimensions of this vision complicate the investigation of farmers' perceptions towards this change. Asking direct questions about perceptions towards future livestock feed may cause a bias towards an ideal situation. We therefore sought for holistic and site-specific accounts of their everyday practices and interaction with landscapes, pastures, animals and their networks. To assess and understand this unit of analysis, we therefore decided to investigate their perceptions as embedded in livelihood, farming practices, history, and their current capacity to adapt to changing farming conditions. A narrative approach was chosen to gain insights about farmers' perceptions towards a shift in feeding regimes. Narrative analyses allow us to explain how perceptions are constructed in networks and shared stories and practices. We sought for perceptions embedded in farmers’ socialecological systems, knowledge and practices, across generations. In narrative analyses, the researcher is not viewed as an observant studying an objective situation from outside. Rather, the researcher structures and shapes the narration and should be perceived as a participant that is engaged in a joint construction of meaning (Paschen and Ison, 2014). Narrative analyses are then perceived as both a method and a theoretical approach taking account of diverse voices from the community.

Earlier studies have focused on how farmers are attached to their land, occupation and culture, and how this also shape farmers' adaptive capacities towards multiple drivers of change (Risvoll, 2015; Marshall et al., 2012). By connecting adaptive capacity to worldviews, meaning and interpretations of the need to adapt, to what, by whom and in what ways (Jasanoff, 2004; Hulme, 2008; O'Brien and Wolf, 2010), multiple perceptions towards change in feeding regimes may be revealed (Amundsen, 2012). A growing literature differentiate between these objective and subjective dimensions to the processes of adaptation (see Fig. 1), as well as emic versus etic methodologies for scientific scrutiny (Nilsson et al., 2017; Grothmann and Patt, 2005; Lorenzoni et al., 2007; O'Brien and Wolf, 2010; Wolf et al., 2013). While the objective resources refer to infrastructure, financial, natural and certain parts of social capital (networks), subjective dimensions to adaptive capacity includes immaterial resources like human capital, cognitive resources, self-efficacy, meaning, perceptions, values and worldviews. This enables analyses of farmers' perception of change and adaptive capacity as depending on the institutional and biophysical conditions (e.g. access to resources and capital) on the one hand, and their perceptions, motivation, values, meanings and agency to initiate action on the other. In this article, we further explore the dynamic relationship between objective and subjective determinants for adaptive capacity. The objective and biophysical conditions for adaptation clearly determines how opportunities and challenges to change can be addressed by individual farmers and farming communities. On the other hand, the ways in which farmers perceive change (as opportunity or constraint), determines access to resources, social networks and other forms of capital. This differentiation is critical for analysing adaptation as a proactive or reactive process (Nilsson et al., 2017; Brown et al., 2017). A proactive or planned adaptation “denotes actions undertaken to reduce the risks and capitalize on the opportunities associated with global climate change” (Fussel, 2007, p.265). This contrasts with reactive adaptation that is undertaken in response to events at the time that they occur. Exploring these structures and farming practices might illuminate potential endogenous limits to adaptation, that may emerge from certain understandings, social networks or practices (Adger et al., 2009). It may also reveal how the objective determinants for adaptive capacities are not fixed, but possible to alter within certain limits. Brown et al. (2017) addresses this as windows of opportunity that can be extended, depending on proactive actors and their agency. While Brown et al. (2017) denotes proactive adaptation to government-led activities and procedures that are put in place prior to a perceived hazard event or climate change, we apply proactive adaptation also to individuals or local networks that can identify and use windows of opportunity following the dynamic processes of arctic farming.

3. Sample Four rural communities in the county of Nordland, northern Norway, were chosen to gain and co-produce data about farmers’ perceptions and adaptive strategies (see Fig. 2). To improve the opportunity for clustering and comparing the individual narratives, we limited the sample to sheep farmers in these rural communities. Two coastal farming communities were chosen to represent sheep farming communities with pastures along the coastal zone. Two inland farming communities represent farming communities with pastures including legumes. The multiple and divergent landscapes and social networks increase the possibility of identifying a wide range of feeding regimes. The coastal farming communities enjoyed good agricultural services and both a tradition and current practice of using seaweeds. The inland farming communities had colder winters and warmer summers than the coastal farming communities, enabling the cultivation of different types of species, including legumes. They also had various ways of utilizing protein-rich natural feed, such as grass and seaweed. 3.1. Coastal farming communities Røst (67oN) is located on the outskirts of the Lofoten archipelago in Nordland county surrounded by the North Sea and Vestfjord basin. Røst is constituted of 365 islands and its rocks, including mountains, lowlands, marshes and shrubs, which have been used for pastures throughout the centuries. The coastal climate, with mild winters and cold summers, combined with marine-terrestrial nutrient flow (seabird population, macroalgae, salt spray etc), have provided nutritious pastures for farming. Earlier, the Røst islands hosted more than 1000

2.1. A narrative approach This article adds to the literature that seeks to understand farmer's perception of change as well as their adaptive capacity as context dependent, embedded in both social and biophysical worlds. Moreover, we approach their ability, including motivation, to respond to such change in a proactive or reactive way. Such a conceptual framework requires both emic and etic approaches to data collection and analyses. 100

Journal of Rural Studies 59 (2018) 98–110

I. Bay-Larsen et al.

Fig. 2. Map of case locations in Norway.

Fig. 3. Sheep feeding on seaweed on the beach, Røst Oct 2014. Photo: nn).

people that based their living on combined fisheries and farming, the so-called fisherfarmers (fiskarbønder). Today, about 550 people live on the islands. Structural changes in farming have led to a shift toward larger units over the last years (Jørgensrud, 2014:49) and today four sheep farmers represent the agricultural sector at Røst. All farmers are, or have been, fishermen so the practices and profession of fisherfarming is still valid. The total number of four sheep farmers, were interviewed

(See Fig. 3). Vestvågøy (68oN) is one of the largest farming municipalities in northern Norway, with 85 sheep farmers hosting more than totally 7770 sheep in 2014 (Statistics Norway, 2017). The landscape and farming conditions are, like Røst, characterized by the coastal climate, although winter in Vestvågøy is much cooler. About 11 000 people live in the municipality. Despite a reduction in the number of farms, from

101

Journal of Rural Studies 59 (2018) 98–110

I. Bay-Larsen et al.

3.4. Analyzing data and co-constructing archetypes

225 in 1999 to 161 in 2010 (Statistics Norway, 2017), the area used for agricultural production has been relatively stable: 13962 ha in 1999 and 12950 ha in 2010 (Statistics Norway, 2017). Of this area, almost 50% was rented in 2014 (Hovelsrud et al. in preparation). In Vestvågøy, agricultural extension services employ five people to initiate and organize joint projects for developing and testing new measures and strategies in feeding, pastures, animal welfare, marketing and agritourism.

An interpretive approach like this study involves the co-production of narratives between the researchers and the farmers (Paschen and Ison et al. 2014). While the farmers and interviewees provide their storylines, the external researchers provide theoretical frames and interpret the storylines according to the research questions and key theoretical concepts. The storylines about annual cycles in feeding practices were recorded during the interviews. Rich description and summaries were written during and immediately after each interview. The researchers circulated the notes between them, and complemented and corrected the descriptions. In cases of uncertainty and quoting, the audio-files were revisited. The analyses of data were validated in multiple ways. NVivo was used for coding across the interviews from each farm. Researchers performed independent coding that later was assessed for interpreter reliability (x-coefficient) adjusted accordingly, and translated the selected quotes to english. On the basis of nodes derived from farmers’ relations to feeding regimes, their motivation and perceptions towards using new feedstuffs were derived from rationales and explanations of adaptive capacity. No hypothesis existed in advance and all archetypes were emerging from the storylines. Two archetypical stories were induced from our what we perceived as the key dimensions to feeding regime; annual cycles and different feed components (pasture, concentrate, grass/silage). The fourth archetype was induced by coastal farmers today, of which many happened to be elderly. they still used the beaches today, and explained the shifts in feeding regimes and practices throughout time. The Lofotlam become a node already when doing fieldwork, as many farmers encircled this as a key factor for their farming strategy, including feeding regime and annual cycles. The farmers were given new names when quoted to secure their anonymity.

3.2. Inland farming communities Saltdal (67oN) is a large municipality geographically, (2213 km2) with 4700 inhabitants, and consists of a large valley that starts from the bottom of a fjord (Saltdalsfjorden) and spans south toward the mountain plateau named Saltfjellet. The Saltdal valley is relatively wide, with cultivated farming areas dispersed throughout the whole valley. The Saltdal River runs through the Saltdal valley, with large sediment provisions in the lower parts of the valley that make this land area very fertile. Saltdal has a dry inland climate with warm summers and cold winters, and the eastern part of the valley is one of the driest places in Norway (Saltdal Tourist Center, 2015). Agriculture has long traditions in Saltdal and plays an important role. However, most farms are small and many farmers have additional income besides farming. The cultivated area is approximately 4047 ha and is used mainly for silage production, although some farmers grow vegetables. Sheep farming is the main farming activity, with approximately 6500 sheep grazing in outfield pastures in Saltdal during summer. This particular region faces major challenges in regard to coexistence between pastoralists and large carnivores, and farmers perceive their livelihoods as being dramatically challenged by the increasing numbers of carnivores in the outfields (Risvoll et al., 2016). (See Fig. 4) Beiarn (67oN) municipality is situated along the river Beiarelva, including the valley Beiardalen, nearby smaller valleys and surrounding areas in the Saltfjellet mountains. Farms are dispersed along the 60 km long river Beiarelva, and in the lower parts of the valley where the river runs into the fjord, a highly fertile delta exists with very favourable farming conditions. Beiarn is approximately half the size of Saltdal with its 1226 km2 and has a population of about 1100 people (Beiarn kommune 2017). Around 14% of the municipality's total land area is productive forests. Around 1% of the municipality's total land is cultivated land and pastures. Approximately 3950 sheep grazes on outfield pastures in Beiarn. Other livestock enterprises in Beiarn are dairy and goats.

4. Four archetypical stories on sheep feeding regimes The practice of sheep farming in northern Norway varies across farms, as do the feeding regimes, although some general patterns are prevalent. In general, sheep in the arctic graze on mountain pastures for four months during summer, and on lowland pastures during spring and autumn. In wintertime, the animals are kept indoors and fed grass silage and concentrate. Two main strategies for replacing soya protein are considered in this study: 1) to increase the amount of proteins from pasture/silage or seaweed, that is, to alter the balance between concentrate and other feed, or 2) replace the protein in the concentrate product (pellets). A combination of these is also possible. Through analysing the information gathered from in-depth interviews and visits at sheep farms in northern Norway, we discovered four archetypical stories, that each explores the perceptions towards the goal of replacing soya by one of these strategies or a combination of both. Three of the stories are told across the coastal and inland communities and connected to possible changes in protein input through legumes. The fourth archetype explores the farmers’ perceptions and practices related to the use of seaweed feed, mostly from before concentrate was introduced to Norwegian farming in the 1950s.

3.3. Qualitative interviews Qualitative interviews about feeding regimes were carried out in the four communities. We visited nineteen farms, which also allowed the researchers to perceive the narrators’ sense of place and surroundings. Through the farms visits, we also got information about the farming facilities, such as animals, barn (sheep shed), feed applications, feed production, pastures, as well as information about the rural community. We used a semi-structured interview guide with open-ended questions. The respondents were asked to tell their stories about feeding practices during the year. The interviews lasted 1–2.5 h, including open discussions. Informants were selected based on farm location, whether they were active farmers, and their age (to allow for variety). Representatives from agricultural authorities and agronomic services were also selected. Both individual and group interviews were carried out to allow for safety and comfort of the informants. All in all, twenty farmers were interviewed. To get knowledge about earlier practices of using seaweed and legumes, nine elderly people were interviewed, of which six were interviewed as a group at an elderly centre. Five representatives from local agricultural authorities and agronomic services were interviewed (Table 1).

4.1. Archetype 1: Biophysical and socio-economic limitations In sheep farming, the feeding regime is based on a balance between outfield pastures, cultivated grasslands and concentrates. Feed used during winter mainly consists of grass silage harvested once or twice (mid and late summer) on cultivated pastures in proximity to the farms. Most farmers use a seed mixture purchased from Felleskjøpet for cultivation. This mixture contains meadow fescue (Festuca pratensis Huds.), timothy-grass (Phleum pratense) and red clover (Trifolium pratense). Red and white (Trifolium repens) clovers, in addition to Bird's-foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus) are native in northern Norway. The balancing of outfield pastures, cultivated grasslands, hay 102

Journal of Rural Studies 59 (2018) 98–110

I. Bay-Larsen et al.

Fig. 4. Sheep feeding outdoors in Vestvågøy, January 2015. Photo:nn.

farmers ability to gain protein rich feed from multiple sources, through the annual cycle. First, the farmers stress the challenges connected to growing legumes in a northern climate, with a short growing season and small margins. Peter, an organic farmer living in an inland community pointed out:

Table 1 Number of informants in case each site.

Farmers Elderly (group at the elderly center) Authorities Agronomic/extension services Total

Røst

Vestvågøy

Beiarn

Saltdal

4 6

5 1

6

5 2

1 1 12

1 1 8

1 7

The available seed mixes are adapted to southern Norway. The organic seed mixes are not appropriate for the climatic conditions in our region.

7

Peter was eager to improve the grass quality and acknowledged the negative aspects with using concentrates. He expressed: (including harvest timing), silage and concentrates are all factors determining winter feed quality and thus the growth and health of the production animals. The first archetypical story demonstrates at least three salient issues for farmers’ ability to balance between silage, grasslands and outfield pastures. These are all closely connected to biophysical conditions of farming practices in the arctic, and the

We see it from other countries such as the US and Great Britain – that people want grass-fed meat, meat from animals that are not fed pellets. I believe this will become more and more important for Norwegians as well. Another farmer from a coastal community noted that she would like 103

Journal of Rural Studies 59 (2018) 98–110

I. Bay-Larsen et al.

but also in the designated conservation areas in the country overall due to loss of grazing livestock to carnivores. The increasing number of carnivores reduces the farmers’ access to and possibility of utilizing the outfields as pastures, which in turn leads to an increased dependence on supplementary feeding. Jan. an elderly small-scale farmer from the inland area noted:

to use more peas, but peas are difficult to grow under the climatic conditions in this region. The potential of cultivating and growing protein rich legumes involves extensive soil preparation and techniques. Much of the cultivated land is drained bogs, containing soil that is not necessarily beneficial for legumes. The species are also vulnerable to trampling by animals kept on cultivated pastures, with the consequence that farmers need to seed frequently to maintain legumes in the meadows. This again requires heavy machines on the soil, which might create damage on bogs and sandy soils. To increase local protein-rich species in grass production is therefore challenging within the biophysical conditions, since the arctic climate and farming conditions does not allow for protein-rich species to be cultivated in a cost-effective manner within today's economic and political frames of sheep farming. The capacity of farmers to increase the amount of local protein through cultivation species, was rather limited. Hence, several farmers perceived their production as being at “the edge” of climatic and economic sustainability, whereby their flexibility to diversify feeding practices is rather limited. The awareness and shared understanding among the interviewed farmers differs regarding the amount and significance of these protein sources. Farmers' stories about feed practices varied greatly, and for instance some farmers stressed the importance of sheep always having available roughage (grass or grass silage) during autumn, winter and spring. With such regime, the sheep can select the best possible food and leave the less nutritional grass behind. This strategy differed significantly to those farmers that wait for the sheep to eat up all the silage before they feed new silage. The farmers that maintain their sheep with free access at all times note that their sheep select the best quality silage and leave some behind. According to some farmers, this method allows the farmers to feed the sheep with less concentrates as the sheep utilize the high-quality silage well. Some sheep can also move freely in and out of the barn during winter. The differences in farming practices might reflect that opportunities for local protein sources have not yet been addressed systematically in daily social networks, by agricultural extension officers or through more formalised innovation programs. Few proactive strategies have been applied at the individual or collective level, hence no ‘best practice’ has been identified. At the same time, it seems evident that farmers have different practices depending on contextual factors such as available grassland for silage production, and also based on own experiences and ‘learning by doing’ over the years. A second option for local protein rich species are the mountain pastures. In Norway, vast mountainous pastures are utilized in the summer season and early-to mid-autumn. All the interviewed farmers pointed to great quality pastures in the mountains and it was emphasized that the richness in these pastures often makes the lambs ready for slaughter without additional feeding when they are mustered from the mountains in the autumn. Sheep farming therefore depends heavily on the outfield mountain and beach pastures in addition to cultivated crops. An elderly full-time farmer from the inland region pointed out that the outfield pastures comprise a major part of the farm, and constitute approximately 60% of the sheep feed for one year. Outfields in the Salten region are particularly valuable due to high soil fertility and a combination of high altitude and topography, where slowly thawing snow and ice creates continuous access to green shoots throughout the summer season (Risvoll, 2015). Although, relatively few farmers knew many names of plants in the outfields pastures, they emphasized the value of the variety of grasses, herbs and bushes (leaves and bark) that the sheep feed on. The elderly full-time farmer noted that if the sheep have access to heathland and herbs from the outfields they do not need concentrates or supplement feeding. In the inland communities, farmers stressed the good quality feed in the outfields until October–November. They therefore strive to keep the sheep out on the range as long as possible in order to optimize the use of this resource. At the same time, these practices conflict with the large carnivore pressure that exists in this region. This causes frustration and a high level of conflict, not only on a local scale or in the arctic region,

I am considering keeping the sheep in yards throughout the summer next year. I have lost too many over the years, and this year was terrible with great losses, both economically but also in regard to breeding. Several farmers have pointed out that it is a waste of money and effort in breeding high quality sheep, because carnivores attack many of their lambs, and as such often ruin their breeding program. Peter, the organic farmer, pointed out that: In Norway, we don't realise what a fantastic product the outfield pastures really are for food production. The pay for lambs fed on concentrates should have been a lot less, as the quality is very different than the lambs pasturing in the outfields. Today, access to pastures is at large determined by carnivore policies and the growing populations of large carnivores. To further exploit the sources of local proteins in the mountains, one must therefore see this in relation to nature protection and use, including different knowledge systems about what is needed for sustainable pastoral livelihoods. This was particularly salient among inland farmers, although the farmers at Røst had experienced shortage of hay due to drought. Thus, in short, the rapidly changing context of new policy objectives for rural industries and rising carnivore populations tend to reduce the ability of livestock owners and rural communities to handle other pressing challenges such as land use change and climate change (Risvoll, 2015). The farmers noted that they become extremely dependent on other factors such as access to enough lowland grassland and concentrates when access to outfield pastures is reduced. With an increased focus on global food security, one may argue that critical barriers for increasing the production based on local feed should be addressed. This includes access to more cultivated land, mountain and beach pastures, as well as better knowledge on how to produce silage with higher nutrient values and protein rich feed. Finally, today's property regime's extensive leasing practices impose significant constraints on farmers' ability to run their farms effectively. Farmers stressed how their ability to keep animals depends on land ownership and access to cultivated pastures. Often more than half of the grass is harvested on land rented from neighbouring farms, which creates uncertainty for the farmer [who is leasing] in terms of long-term planning. Aron, a small scale, inland farmer that also works almost fulltime outside the farm to make a living, noted that he has to feed with more concentrates than he prefers to, as compensation for limited access to grassland. Eivind, another farmer from the same village as Aron, and who was close to retirement expressed: In general, there is an increase in the size of farms in terms of number of animals. This has to do with today's political regime, and the large operations squeeze out the smaller ones. What happens is that the operation increases but not the available grassland, with the consequence of increased use of concentrates to compensate for limited grassland access. The first archetype clearly demonstrates how sheep farming in the north continuously adapt to seasonal variation and access to high quality pastures and cultivated fields. It also reflects a strong-shared perception of certain biophysical and political dimensions as strongly constraining farming practices and flexibility, narrowing down windows of opportunity, forcing the farmers strategies to become reactive. Farmers’ reluctant perceptions towards increasing amount of local protein may therefore be explained by their limited capacity to access these local protein sources today, due to biodiversity policies, spatial 104

Journal of Rural Studies 59 (2018) 98–110

I. Bay-Larsen et al.

relevant and promising by the farmers, at an individual level. In other works, whether their adaptive capacity derives from natural resources, or financial capital, as illustrated by John and Ola's different strategies. The individual farmers' reasoning was also apparent when the farmers explained how concentrates in relation to mating would influence the number of lambs. Some farmers fed concentrates in November before mating to make the sheep show oestrus, others did not feed concentrates until some months before lambing, regardless of whether the sheep were well fed or not. Most farmers had experienced that much feed in the period before and after mating would lead to more lambs. However, the farmer Adrian explained that he had experienced the opposite result. He lived on the outside of Vestvågøy near the ocean, and his sheep grazed on the beaches and in the mountains during the summer and fall:

planning and property regimes. This shared understanding existed across the agricultural extension services and other formal cognitive and cultural networks, and the farmers' adaptive capacity and actions are as such recurrently being reshaped through this socio-economic context at different levels. 4.2. Archetype 2: Individual strategies for concentrate feeding The second story explores how the farmers’ perceptions and practices are formed by their dependence on concentrates that has evolved over many decades. A common practice among most farmers was to give some concentrate to ewes, from the mating time in November until lambing in May, since they need more energy for the foetus to grow. Most of the farmers also feed extra concentrates to the ewes before lambing. The timing varied between January to April. The farmers increased the amount of concentrates provided towards lambing in April and May, and continued to feed concentrates after lambing until the grass was green and they could send the sheep to the pastures. In general, concentrates were mainly used to gain enough protein during winter. Little concentrate was used during summer when most animals are out on mountain pastures. One exception is the “bottle-lambs” that stay in proximity to the farm throughout summer. One intriguing observation across all communities is that the use of concentrates varied a lot between the farmers. As explained above, the use of concentrate including future local protein is balanced against other feed products and varies between the seasons. One reason for the different practices in feeding concentrates was that the farmers had different access to good grass. In addition, the quality of the grass differs between years, due to differences in weather conditions. 'John', was a retired local politician but worked still as a farmer with 50 winter fed sheep. He had high quality grass and explained:

“I did a trial. When I stopped giving concentrates […], the sheep had more lambs. My neighbour didn't believe me. He thought that the more concentrates you give, the more [lambs] you will have. […]. Then my neighbour did a trial one year. He split his sheep [in two groups] and gave concentrates to half of them and not on the other half. And then we scanned and he said to me that I had proven right; he had more lambs with the sheep that got no concentrates than the sheep that had gotten concentrates”. Thus, there were different practices and perceptions related to farmers feeding concentrates to their sheep, and how much concentrate they gave. One farmer did not give concentrates at all, despite having lambs with low slaughter weight. Another group of farmers say they have always used concentrates because the sheep need it and they do not see any other possibilities. This vast difference in feeding regimes and reasoning about animal health and growth indicates a fragmented, rather than shared, perceptions, knowledge and experiences on the topic. This again might indicate that farmers do not hold shared perceptions towards concentrates and feeding regimes as such. That these practices are not embedded in social farming networks, although the farmers refer to standards from Felleskjøpet and discussions with the extension service. On the other hand, several farmers shared what can be described as a virtue not to use a lot of concentrates. This ideal seems to be associated to both normative ideals for sheep farming, as well as with keeping economic costs down, as concentrate is one of the major costs for farmers. Several farmers stressed that sheep, as ruminants, should eat predominantly grass and not concentrates. This might be explained by farmers interconnectedness with traditional farming from the time before concentrates were introduced in the 1950ies, during childhood for many of the older farmers. Lamb meat is a natural product from animals that first and most are feed on mountain pastures. As reflected in the next archetype, the soya feed does not fit with the locally and arctic product many farmers seek to produce and provide to the market. This brings us back to how the biophysical conditions determine not only the access to local protein. It also reflects how local natural resources are an ideal for farmers in the arctic, producing lamb meat based on clean natural resources, including local proteins. When asked about replacing the imported soya in concentrates that are being used today, all interviewed farmers said they would be happy to try out local protein components. Certain preconditions were identified however. First, the concentrate must hold the quality needed for the sheep to gain enough weight and obtain meat quality as required by the Norwegian meat cooperative, NORTURA.2 The new product must have the same quality as existing concentrates and produce the same effect on the sheep. It should also taste good, as this is important for the sheep's intake.

“The best way of getting good weights on the lambs in the autumn is having good grass. […]. The longer time the sheep are inside, the more feed is needed, and the more concentrates are needed. It is about economizing, how much you have left, because concentrates are not cheap. […]. It is important to get the sheep onto grass early in order to be cost efficient”. The farmer considered how well fed the sheep were, and would feed more concentrates to sheep that had been foraging on innutritious grass. It was also likely that the sheep kept in the barn during the winter needed more concentrates than the sheep that had access to also outdoor grazing in winter (on the islands). The amount of concentrates could also vary given the litter size. For instance, if an ewe had only one lamb, she may not need any concentrate. Another farmer, Ola had 180 winter fed sheep and lived at Vestvågøy by the beach. He recently renovated his sheep barn, an investment that also included an automatized concentrate feeder. His sheep were grazing in the fields near the farm, as well as in mountain pastures during summertime. Earlier the sheep could access beach pastures in proximity to the farm. Not long ago he put up fences to keep the sheep away from the road, and close to the farm. About concentrates he told: “As long as a ewe is well-fed and has good quality roughage, she does not need any concentrates. They need more energy before lambing. An ewe with three foetuses need some [concentrates] for the foetuses to grow, as well as some for maintenance […]. An ewe that has only one lamb or is empty does not get any concentrates at all, given that they are not too thin. Hence the variance in concentrate regimes varied according to biophysical conditions; annual cycles in feeding, as well as quality and access to pasture, cultivated fields and winter hey. At the same time, Ola demonstrates how optimising feeding indoor seemed more significant to him than access to beach pastures nearby. This means that the perceptions towards concentrate should be seen in relation to what alternatives are present, and whether these alternatives are perceived

2 The agricultural cooperative regulates prices for lamb meat, and qualities are determined through the EUROP-classification system for meat, that considers, slaughter class and fat class for all slaughtered lambs. This system has been used in Norway since 1997 (Lind, 2002).

105

Journal of Rural Studies 59 (2018) 98–110

I. Bay-Larsen et al.

(Lofotlam, 2015):

Secondly, many farmers fear that these products based on Norwegian protein sources would be too costly. The farmers expressed that any new feed based on local protein sources must be at the same price level of feed that they are using today. Taking into consideration the general low profitability in sheep farming, increased costs of concentrates may be difficult for the farmers to handle. Maintaining the farmer's profitability may therefore be at stake if increasing the amount of local protein in the future. If concentrates based on local proteins are more expensive, one might expect that farmers choose the cheapest alternative which might be concentrates based on proteins from Brazil. Other economic rationales also come into play, for example how today's policy instruments favours ewes with many lambs. This increases likelihood for bottle sheep, which are highly dependent on concentrates. These recent changes in subsidies influence the economic balance of having surplus lambs and therefore influence what protein sources are in use on the farms. Some of the farmers did not send the sheep to mountain pastures with more than two lambs. They told that after the government agencies switched from basing subsidies on the number of winter-fed sheep to the number of sheep slaughtered, they started to feed concentrates to the surplus lambs. These lambs were fed concentrates during the whole summer, and could be sent to the abattoir earlier to receive a higher price. This illustrates how subsidy policies directly influence farming practices, including feeding regimes, which is confirmed by other studies showing how farmers' adaptive capacity is closely linked to subsidies and general agricultural policies (Risvoll, 2015; Bjørkhaug and Rønningen, 2014). At the same time, Kaare, a full-time farmer from the inland region reflected upon the costs of concentrates on a more general level and considered it as too low. The farmer noted:

During thousands of years the green mountainsides in Lofoten have developed an entirely special flora – a grazing grounds consisting of nutritious herbs and fertile pastures, naturally salted by sea salt brought by the wind and the storms. Fresh seaweed from the arctic Ocean is also a natural part of the grazing ground. Lofotlam is a food speciality with quality and taste characterized by Lofoten's unique nature. The initiative has been well received by the farmers. The products from Lofotlam soon became a success and the farmers had to work hard to produce enough lambs to meet the demand. Initially, the company had 62 members, mostly sheep farmers from the Lofoten Islands (Martinsen, 2012). Today the membership has exceeded by one hundred. The farmers enrolled in the Lofotlam brand production stressed that they need to conform to expectations of a clean and purely natural product based on local resources. Ola was brought up on a sheep farm himself, and had been several decades in the business. He was very proud of the new products: […], it is nice to get our own profile, and to show us, that it is possible to produce great products here north. It is a unique product. It has been through blind tests many times, and the assessors pick out Lofotlam time after time, the taste on the meat is very good. […]. The lambs I send to the mountain have not been in touch with any concentrates, and I send them [to the abattoir] directly from the mountain. It is not possible to be closer to organic [products]. Farmers even expressed concern over the purity of the product, and the risks of consumers being disappointed if media headlines about Lofotlam fed on Brazilian soya would reach the consumers. Hence, some farmers felt that feeding the lambs with (import based) concentrates conflicted with the idea behind the Lofotlam brand being lambs fed on local, clean and purely natural nutritious grass. These farmers tried to feed as little concentrates as possible. Others even refrained from feeding with concentrates at all, although the weight of the lambs were lower. When asked about replacing soya with local proteins most farmers were positive as this would strengthen the authentic market brand. Anna had moved to the Island of Vestvågøy and worked on the farm with her father-in law. She had 130 winter fed sheep that grazed on fields near home, in the mountains, and partly by the beach. She told:

Imported concentrates are too cheap and it is a political choice that farmers are using large amounts of concentrates; it is a result of politics. The first archetype illustrates how the use of concentrates is balanced against quality and access to grasslands, silage and mountain pastures as explained in the previous section. This second archetype illustrates how use of concentrates are governed through norms and virtues shared within social networks, and that application of concentrate should be modes. At the same time, the archetype demonstrates how use of concentrates varies greatly among farmers, and that many have their individual strategies based on diverging knowledge base, interests and preferences. Despite agricultural organisations like agricultural services, NORTURA and Felleskjøpet, the perceptions and practices related to use of concentrate is remarkably various. Even the price of concentrate is perceived differently. For our analyses, this indicates that replacing soya with local protein sources can be embedded in certain individual farming practices. At the same time, the lack of shared understandings and perceptions of the role of concentrate, indicates that replacing imported protein sources will not necessarily be embedded in social networks, which may hamper a proactive and effective response to change. This is exactly what archetypical story 3 goes deeper into.

It is important to develop local concentrates from northern Norway that can underpin the brand. It is painful to think about the concentrates you give the sheep you sell as Lofotlam. It would be fantastic if the sheep could get some [protein sources] from this place that would, without doubt be 100% Norwegian. Lofotlam, basically, is presented as [a lamb] that has been grazing on green mountain sides and on the beaches. […] We have struggled towards building the Lofotlam brand, and then you are not completely faithful to this. Based on this archetypical story one might argue that positive perceptions towards local protein sources, and certain concerns towards Brazilian based feed, are shared among part-taking farmers on Vestvågøy and Røst. Since their main product heavily depends on the local and natural brand, these farmers will favour locally produced feed. The networks have probably influenced farmers’ perceptions and practices in certain directions. One of the main reasons for the farmers to be members of the Lofotlam Company, however, is the opportunity for higher economic returns since a brand like Lofotlam has a higher price in the market. It soon became clear that there were conflicts between the timing of market demand and supply of lamb meets. The market price was highest early in the autumn, in August. However, most of the lambs are still out grazing in the mountains at that time and have generally not reached their optimal slaughtering weight. To meet demand, farmers adapted to the situation by collecting their biggest lambs early in

4.3. Archetype 3: Lofotlam - proactive approach to limiting conditions The third archetypical story explains how the farmers' perceptions and practices to increase the local protein sources was formed by the farmers’ proactive and collective efforts in branding the sustainability and arctic value of their product. As a response to the substantially decrease in number of sheep farms in the Lofoten Islands, the agricultural extension service initiated the establishment of the Lofotlam company (Lamb from Lofoten) in 2002. The aim of the company was to develop a local brand, and to increase the lamb production in the Lofoten Islands through providing sales, profiling, and marketing services for local lamb products (Brønnøysundregistrene, 2003). The Lofotlam Company profile was expressed in the following terms 106

Journal of Rural Studies 59 (2018) 98–110

I. Bay-Larsen et al.

where they can find seaweeds.

August. To acquire good enough slaughter weight, some of the farmers also fed their thinnest lambs with concentrates. This challenged established practises. For example, farmers changed their practice for collecting sheep from the mountain pastures, after dialogue with grocery stores. The grocery store also adjusted their market strategy to fit feeding seasons and animal needs. It thereby demonstrates how feed regimes are being balanced against farmers’ need to brand and market products to secure economic development and the continuation of farming. These processes of collaboration and network building have been arenas where practices and perceptions towards local resources have been shaped. The storylines demonstrate adaptation as a proactive process, where farmers not only face change, but also create wider opportunities. Another way to analyse this is to say that the farmers were able to create business opportunities. The archetype thereby demonstrates how adaptation is not a merely reactive process, but can also be a proactive take on opportunities that are not yet developed. The Lofotlam company developed closer relationships between northern Norwegian farmers and large grocery chains; that is ensuring close dialogue with major market players and consumers. Thus, the farmers perceptions of using local protein sources were formed by common understanding and norms developed within this network. Changing behaviour and practises takes time and need to be led by trusted actors (Simsek et al., 2003).

Earlier, seaweed was not only grazed on directly by the sheep. Farmers also brought it to the barn to feed the sheep. Multiple practices were used to harvest the resource, either by boat or from the beaches. Knifes and scythe were used to cut the seaweeds. Sometimes the seaweed was washed onshore in huge loads during winter storms. John had also worked as a fisher and explained how he as a child, took part in the harvest and how they also balanced access to feed with breeding strategies: We were ten kids and everyone had to go to the beach to harvest channeled wrack (Pelvetia canaliculata) and bladderwrack (Fucus vesiculosus). In spring when it was “bunød” [feed shortage], the animals were crazy. We went at low tide with hessian sacks, buckets and collected the seaweed. We had to pull it from the rocks and it was so cold. If you had too many pregnant ewes, you could have a problem when spring came. The seaweed was brought from the beach using sled and boxes and sometimes stored outside the barn in huge loads. It was labour-demanding and hard work. Most people gave the seaweed directly to the animals, without any preparations. However, some stories about ways to prepare the seaweed exist, including parboiling. Another elderly fisherfarmer, from Røst, Adam, has about 200 winter fed sheep grazing on fields near the farm, on beaches, on islets, and in the mountains during the summer. He remembered from childhood how his mother prepared the seaweed before given it to the animals:

4.4. Archetype 4: Social embeddedness across generations - Seaweed pastures

The fine species can be compared to grass; it is tiny and grows on other species. My mother added hot fresh water and the colour changed from brown to green. She also added flour on the seaweed and it became more like porridge. We used this all winter.

The last story explores how the perceptions and practices among the farmers were related to the use of seaweed in the past. All farmers were aware of earlier use of seaweed, and some farmers at Røst and Vestvågøy uphold this tradition and claim that seaweed is good for the sheep welfare, growth and health. The group of elderly people interviewed could explain practices from the 40s and 50s when most households in the region kept 8–10 sheep and 1–2 cows. At that time, concentrated feed was not available and shortages of feed for cattle and sheep was sometimes a severe problem in late winter. Multiple strategies were used to survive this critical time of the year. Animals were given fish offal from boiled fish heads (fiskeslo), as an additional protein source. Sheep also went grazing underneath drying racks for fish heads, and returned with red faces from eating grass fertilized with blood and entrails. Sallow sprout (Salix caprea) was cut and dried during summer and given to the animals, who ate it with good appetite. Some of the interviewed farmers noted that they also observe today how animals feed on for instance rowan (Sorbus aucaparia). Seaweeds were also important parts of the pastures in many areas, and the animals went down to the beach to feed at low tide. One elderly lady, Amalie, recalls from her childhood the seasonal cycles of the animals:

Although his sheep still graze on seaweed, he has never practiced the old techniques, neither harvesting nor pre-boiling. With more than 200 sheep, these practices are too labour intensive. In his telling, he also differentiated between the use of different species of seaweed, red and brown. Among the most frequently mentioned species were dulse (palmaria palmata). Other seaweeds like channeled wrack (Pelvetia canaliculate) and egg wrack (Ascophyllum nodosium) were also mentioned, in addition to kelps like sugar kelp (Laminaria saccharina) and oarweed (Laminaria digitate). At the same time, uncertainty was prevalent about classification/nomenclature and the differences between seaweed species, for example kelp and wrack. Despite the immediate access to and great abundance of this resource, the lack of terminology and knowledge about the different species indicate a rather scanty Norwegian coastal culture in this respect. However, several of the farmers also reflected on the nutrients in the seaweeds and how these affect animal welfare and digestion. Memories of the elderly woman Amalie even included how the wool indicated the welfare and condition of the animals, as losing wool is a sign of undernourishment.

At low tide, the sheep came walking down to the shoreline one after the other. They knew when it was low tide. They were there until the water rose again. Then they walked back.

If sheep started to lose wool during winter, we were sent down to the beach at low tide to get more feed. It worked, the wool grew and the cattle became healthier. I guess there were elements they needed.

In Røst and other sites where winters are mild, mature sheep are kept outdoors all winter, (even today). These animals are clearly habituated to eating seaweed on the beaches and find their own way to the shore at low tide, or at certain times of year. Unlike many other pastures in the county, roads, fences and other forms of infrastructure do not constrain animals in this archipelago to the same extent. The beaches are still highly accessible for the animals. One of the fisherfarmers, John, had kept sheep at Røst for decades. Today he has 40 sheep grazing nearby his farm and on beaches, and he explained the animals’ migration patterns:

She could not recall anything about the seaweed's effect on parasites, the taste of the meat, or the health of the fetus. However, stories about digestion problems and flatulence were told by her and several of the fisherfarmers, and Adam explained: Sometimes if the sheep only ate on the beach, they became flatulent and it was critical to take them back home. They were so filled with gas and could not bear anything, and even walking became problematic. Once, a sheep died after walking 2–3 km by the road.

In general, the sheep at Røst are at the northern part on the islands, but we have some that use these fields in immediate proximity to the farm. Every year in September, they migrate to the northern fields

Many farmers are convinced that the animals even drink from the 107

Journal of Rural Studies 59 (2018) 98–110

I. Bay-Larsen et al.

5. Conclusion and implications for further research

sea and that this can be explained by lack of salt. The farmers at Røst had experienced an extremely dry summer, and fresh water scarcity became a problem after months without rain. Dry meadows and pastures made the sheep walk down to the beach daily, which is unusual in summertime. Today, the shoreline is less used than thirty years ago. When sheep farming was organized into larger entities, people became less familiar with animals and the social acceptability of livestock decreased. Conflicts with property owners and tourism in Vestvågøy have demanded another management regime, and today pastures are fenced in. Farmers report that animals in many cases do not have access to the grazing resources on the beach, due to fences and road construction. The farmers that share and carry with them memories from the past clearly see the value of local resources like seaweeds and kelp. At the same time, they have concerns about the practicalities and economics connected to large-scale use of this feed resource. Although their sheep use the beach as pasture, the usage of these resources has not been modernized into present value chains and production lines. As uttered by Adam:

Over the last decades locally grown feed and outfield pastures have been supplemented by protein rich concentrate, based on soya from Brazil. Such concentrates have provided stable and cheap feed for animals through winter and as a buffer in poor seasons. These modernisation and rationalisation processes are however challenged by limited access to protein components at the world market, and increasing competition from fish farming and biofuels, to mention some. Current trends therefore challenge both farmers' and consumers’ interpretation of economic and environmental sustainability of the production. This includes critique of Brazilian agriculture (at the cost of biodiversity preservation), climate impact from soya transport, as well as questions of self-sufficiency and food security. Norwegian NGOs, agricultural unions and research funds therefore stress the need to investigate how alternative protein sources in Norwegian animal production can be a part of the solution (Norges bondelag, 2015; van Oort and Andrew, 2016; Norges forskningsråd 2016). More local proteins in animal feed has become a vision for future sustainable sheep farming in the north. Replacing soya with local proteins in this feed component requires large-scale cultivation of protein rich species. An intriguing question is how seaweed can be a part of innovation programs that seeks to address new feeding ingredients in animal husbandry (Stévant et al., 2017). Current use of local proteins in Norwegian sheep farming is based on legumes and seaweed in mountain and beach pastures, as well as cultivated grass and silage. Increasing the use of these sources requires a policy that facilitates seed development and access to pastures. In this paper, we have investigated farmers' perceptions of reintroducing and increasing the use of local protein sources in arctic sheep farming. A narrative approach was chosen to reveal the perceptions as defined through the farmers' narratives, practices and livelihood. Based on in-depth interviews with active and retired sheep farmers in coastal and inland northern Norway, we have explored the dynamic relationship between biophysical and political conditions for farming, and the farmers’ capacity and willingness to adapt to new and alternative sustainable practises, including exploitation of local protein sources. The farmers perceptions to change were presented through four distinct, yet interconnected, archetypical stories. Each archetypical story encompasses multiple stories, and work as explanatory paths to how farmers’ perceptions towards exploiting local feed resources are shaped by current and past feeding regimes (biophysical conditions, policy framework and social networks), as well as practices and perceptions to change. Archetype 1 reflects how access to more cultivated land and outfield pastures is constrained by policy, market and climatic change. A cold and wet arctic climate that causes irregular crop failures, combined with increasing carnivore pressure on outfield pastures, have resulted in limited access to summer grazing. To gain the most protein rich feed for their animals, the farmers need to balance their use of concentrates towards quality on cultivated grass, silage and pasture (including beaches), as well as seasonal variations. These biophysical and political conditions clearly shape the windows of opportunity within which farmers operate. These conditions are not possible to change in a short-term perspective and it is not evident how these conditions can be addressed in a proactive manner, however, three gateways for a proactive approach was identified. First, Archetype 1 s revealed some flexibility in current feeding regimes, even within the frames of northern sheep farming. The seasonal and climatic variation in pastures, cultivated land and quality in animal feed, force farmers and farming to continuously adapt towards change. Second, Archetype 4 demonstrated positive perceptions towards seaweed protein derived from traditional use and social networks across generations. For farmers that had seen sheep feed on seaweed on the beaches all their life, this window of opportunity was obvious. Thus, this study contributes to the social embeddedness research by illustrating how social relations across generations may be

Nothing would have been better than using this feed source, but we are not capable of bringing the seaweed to 200 animals, we used to have 20. Finally, both fisherfarmers and the younger farmers shared a great concern over environmental impact and sustainability of marine ecosystems. Spending many months at sea on an annual basis, for decades, these people had experienced large-scale fluctuations and even collapses in kelp forests and commercial fish stocks. A precautionary approach to commercial and large-scale use of local resources was therefore deemed appropriate as argued by John: I am concerned about the kelp forest. Kelp forests are our rainforests. One must not take it without knowing what you are doing. These are habitat for juveniles and small fish and their food. Today fishing of copepods for aquaculture threatens juveniles. Sea urchins have taken so much already. It is not enough for people too. Aquaculture industry is in everything, deciding a lot along the coast. One must begin with farming of seaweeds on land, not in the ocean. The prospect of introducing more local feed ingredients will be affected by ecological fluctuations, structural changes in primary industries, the profitability of sheep farming, recruitment and globalisation. The long-time perspectives of these farmers are therefore highly valuable to better understand their perceptions towards such major changes. This archetype demonstrates farmers’ ties to biophysical surroundings and concepts of ecological sustainability. Some of the farmers shared concerns connected to harvesting kelp forests, which are important habitats for fish eggs, larvae and juveniles. Other farmers clearly associated local protein sources to a wider discourse about organic and biodynamic food production, as well as global food security. They were also embedded in local practices and traditions carried out across time, like the exploitation of seaweed and beach pastures. Local understandings and perceptions must, according to Berkes (2009) be understood as part of the larger knowledge systems that have emerged locally and in close interaction with the environment, and that have been handed down through generations. Some of the farmers had grown up on the farm and spent most of their lives with their families. Moreover, the farms had been in the ownership of their family for several generations. Thus, the farmers were socially embedded in earlier farming practices (Breton-Miller and Miller, 2009), which may have influenced their perception toward using locally produced protein sources - that of earlier generations of the farm. Hence, the farmers that still are frequently using beaches as pastures have positive perceptions towards a feeding regime based on seaweed.

108

Journal of Rural Studies 59 (2018) 98–110

I. Bay-Larsen et al.

sources. In that respect, we have added nuances to the literature of adaptive capacity, by demonstrating how peoples’ perceptions might be important drivers for social action and for extending windows of opportunity in a changing world. Including protein from seaweed is an intriguing option for future concentrates that require a potential for upscaling seaweed production in Europe. This is not a straightforward exercise. Many dimensions must be in place for this to succeed, including technological development, biological competence, value chains, products and markets to mention some (Bjørkhaug et al., 2017; Stévant et al., 2017). While the challenges to such a development is relatively easy to identify, the solutions to these challenges are less obvious. To replace or reintroduce local protein sources requires substantial and long-term investments in both competence, technology and market mechanisms. At the same time, the unstable situation in global markets for protein rich feed components, makes the vision of a local protein sources that is economically, environmentally and socially sustainable, difficult to refuse. There are several issues that need to be explored in further research to promote more local protein-sources. In general, there is a need for more knowledge according to the economic, environmental, scientific, technological, agronomics for industrial harvest/cultivation of algae and other protein rich northern species. Future research should address both the pathways for an optimised balance between pastures, silage and concentrate, and not at least the managerial challenges connected to spatial management and marine and mountain ecology. Inter-disciplinary approaches are needed that also involves food industry, agricultural organisation and environmental organisations, aspects of value chains and market mechanisms connected to new products based on the visions for more extensive exploitation of local protein rich species.

significant for understanding individuals’ perceptions to change (Breton-Miller and Miller, 2009). Third, Archetype 3 about the Lofotlam demonstrates how farmers identified and made use of the flexibility inherent to their adaptive practices and skills. Here, a proactive approach was chosen. Based on shared interests, ambitions and preferences, this regional initiative succeeded in launching a brand that led to increasing economic margins in coastal sheep farming. Close relationships between farmers increase their power and enable them to act more proactively related to the market. Increased embeddedness among individuals may work as a strategy to expand their windows of opportunity, and thus influence on their perception to change. This analysis adds to the literature on social embeddedness through illustrating that closer relationships between actors can promote both reactive and proactive adaptation. The farmers welcomed to replace soya with local protein, as they were advertising an arctic, natural and clean product. In fact, soya did not fit with this image. This paved the way for embedding the idea of using less soya concentrates among the farmers, into shared norms and practices. Archetype 2 demonstrates how the use of concentrate varies greatly between farmers. This indicates another type of flexibility than the one found in archetype one and three. Although the individual farmers were positive towards the idea to replace protein components in concentrates, such change is, however, beyond what the individual farmers can cope with on the farm. To introduce local protein in concentrates, there is a need for industrial manufacturing and Felleskjøpet to proactively explore how seed-composition in cultivated fields and blended concentrates can be altered. Such industrial structures might be embedded in farming networks at multiple levels, and thus hard to change. The diverse feeding practices at the individual level, illustrated in Archetype 2 however, indicates that alternatives to Felleskjøpet already exists, and that new ideas can be embedded into current practices and ways of perceiving change. Most farmers have positive perceptions towards the idea of reintroducing local protein sources in their farming practices. Because of limiting biophysical and socio-economic conditions, they cannot see how this can be carried out in near future. This article has addressed the dynamic and reflexive relationship between biophysical and socioeconomic conditions on the one hand and endogenous dimensions to adaptive capacity, such as perceptions, on the other. Combining insights from adaptive capacity and social embeddedness literature with narrative methodology, the article demonstrates how emic approaches reveal individual/collective perceptions, based on subjective meaning and agency. Narrative analysis has revealed how arctic sheep farming are run at the margins, while at the same time flexibility is found in some part of the feeding regime. We claim that this flexibility provides a window of opportunity that farmers can approach in proactive or reactive ways. Farmers perceptions towards changes can determine how they go about adapting, and how farmers meet these limiting conditions through proactive or reactive responses. The findings illustrate how they are, to some extent, able to impact the biophysical and socioeconomic frames within which they operate when addressing change in a proactive manner. This article shows how optimising feeding regimes in arctic sheep farming is context-dependent and that adaptation to change is best seen as an open process, that needs to be addressed through holistic approaches that involve multifaceted sources of knowledge and value systems, including perceptions derived from both biophysical and social embeddedness. Doing so, we add to the knowledge gap on how to see perceptions as derived from interaction between multiple drivers of change (Nilsson et al., 2017) and recent publications focusing on reactive and proactive adaptation approaches (Brown et al., 2017). To reveal proactive approaches to adaptation, we suggest that more focus must be paid to endogenous factors, like perceptions. Rather than investigating adaptive capacity as “what is” this article illustrates how adaptation as processes might enlarge the windows of opportunity that comes with changing conditions, e.g. reintroducing local protein

Acknowledgments This study is funded by the Norwegian Research Council's BIONÆR program and the project Alternative Protein sources for sheep farming (ALTPRO 233682/E50). The authors would like to express their gratitude to valuable comments given by project partners, in particular Vibeke Lind and Michael Roleda, and colleagues at Nordland Research Institute's department for Environment and Society. We also would like to thank Erika Søfting and Nordland museum for valuable collaboration at an early stage of the project and Matthew Hoffman for language editing. References Bay-Larsen, I., Hovelsrud, G., 2017. Activating adaptive capacity in fishing communities in northern Norway. In: Fondahl, Gail, Wilson, Gary N. (Eds.), Northern Sustainabilities: Understanding and Addressing Change in the Circumpolar World. Springer Polar Sciences 978-3-319-46148-9, 332865_1_En, (10). Adger, N.W., Dessai, S., Goulden, M., Hulme, M., Lorenzoni, I., Nelson, D.R., Naess, L.O., Wolf, J., Wreford, A., 2009. Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Climate Change 93 (2–3), 335–354. Ahnström, J., Höckert, J., Bergeå, H.L., Francis, C.A., Skelton, P., Hallgren, L., 2009. Farmers and nature conservation: what is known about attitudes, context factors and actions affecting conservation? Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 24 (01), 38–47. Aldunce, P., et al., 2016. Is Climate Change Framed as ‘business as Usual’ or as a Challenging Issue? the Practitioners' Dilemma. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy. Amundsen, H., 2012. Illusions of resilience? An analysis of community responses to change in Northern Norway. Ecol. Soc. 17 (4). Arasaki, S., Arasaki, T., 1983. Low Calorie, High Nutrition Vegetables from the Sea. Japan Publication, Inc., Tokyo. Beiarn kommune, 2017. Om Kommunen [online]. http://www.beiarn.kommune.no/Omkommunen Accessed: 20.02.2017. Berkes, F., 2009. Indigenous ways of knowing and the study of environmental change. J. Roy. Soc. N. Z. 39 (4), 151–156. Bjørkhaug, H., Rønningen, K., 2014. Crisis - what crisis? Marginal farming, rural communities and climate robustness - the case of Northern Norway. Int. J. Sociol. Agric. Food 21, 51–69. Bjørkhaug, H., Almås, R., Brobakk, J., 2012. In: Amås, R., H (Eds.), Emerging Neo-productivist Agriculture as an Approach to Food Security and Climate Change in Norway, pp. 211–234.

109

Journal of Rural Studies 59 (2018) 98–110

I. Bay-Larsen et al.

Makkar, H.P.S., et al., 2014. State-of-the-art on use of insects as animal feed. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 197 (Suppl. C), 1–33. Marsden, T., 2012. Towards a real sustainable agri-food security and food policy: beyond the ecological fallacies? Political Q 83, 139–145. Marshall, N.A., Park, S.E., Adger, W.N., Brown, K., Howden, S.M., 2012. Transformational capacity and the influence of place and identity. Environ. Res. Lett. 7, 034022. Martinsen, G.E., 2012. Merkevaren Lofotlam Beskyttet. (NRK Nordland). http://www. nrk.no/nordland/merkevaren-lofotlam-beskyttet-1.8329114. Mølstre, Lene, 2016. Possible Explanations for the Apparent Lack of Coherence between Norwegian Agricultural Policy and Norwegian REDD Policy. MS thesis. Norwegian University of Life Sciences Ås, 2016. Nelson, R., Howden, M., Smith, M.S., 2008. Using adaptive governance to rethink the way science supports Australian drought policy. Environ. Sci. Pol. 11 (7), 588–601. Nilsson, A.E., Bay-Larsen, I., et al., 2017. Towards extended shared socioeconomic pathways: a combined participatory bottom-up and top-down methodology with results from the Barents region. Global Environ. Change 45 (Suppl. C), 124–132. Norges bondelag, 2015. Tang Og Tare På Forbrettet Til Dagros. retrieved Oct 31st 2017 from. https://www.bondelaget.no/nyhetsarkiv/tang-og-tare-pa-forbrettet-til-dagrosarticle81920-3805.html. Norges forskningsråd, 2016. Programplan for Havbruksforskning – HAVBRUK2. Norges forskningsråd, Oslo. O'Brien, K.L., Wolf, J., 2010. A values-based approach to vulnerability and adaptation to climate change. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Climate Change 1 (2), 232–242. Paschen, J.A., Ison, R., 2014. Narrative research in climate change adaptation - exploring a complementary paradigm for research and governance. Res. Pol. 43 (6), 1083–1092. Patt, A.G., Weber, E.U., 2014. Perceptions and communication strategies for the many uncertainties relevant for climate policy. WIREs Climate Change 5, 219–232. https:// doi.org/10.1002/wcc.259. Plummer, R., Armitage, D., 2010. Integrating perspectives on adaptive capacity and environmental governance. In: Armitage, D., Plummer, R. (Eds.), Adaptive Capacity and Environmental Governance. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 1–9. Pyhälä, A., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Lehvävirta, H., Byg, A., Ruiz-Mallén, I., Salpeteur, M., Thornton, T.F., 2016. Global environmental change: local perceptions, understandings, and explanations. Ecol. Soc. 21 (3), 25. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES08482-210325. Risvoll, C., 2015. Adaptive Capacity within Pastoral Communities in the Face of Environmental and Societal Change. PhD Thesis in Sociology, Faculty of Social Sciences. University of Nordland. Risvoll, C., Fedreheim, G.E., Galafassi, D., 2016. Tradeoffs in pastoral governance: challenges for biodiversity and adaptation. Pastoralism: Res., Policy Practice 6 (4), 1–15. Rybråten, S., Hovelsrud, G.K., 2010. Local effects of global climate change: differential experiences of sheep farmers and reindeer herders in Unjàrga/Nesseby, a coastal Sámi community in northern Norway. In: Hovelsrud, G.K., Smit, B. (Eds.), Community Adaptation and Vulnerability in Arctic Regions. Springer publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 313–334. Saltdal tourist center, 2015. Saltdal Turistsenter. retrieved May 2017. https://www. isaltdal.no/om-turistsenteret/. Simsek, Z., Lubatkin, M.H., Floyd, S.W., 2003. Inter-firm networks and entrepreneurial behavior: a structural embeddedness perspective. J. Manag. 29 (3), 427–442. Statistics Norway, 2017. Statistisk Sentralbyrå. Husdyrhald. [Online]. Accessed 20.03. 2017. https://www.ssb.no/jordhus, Accessed date: 20 March 2017. Stévant, P., et al., 2017. Seaweed aquaculture in Norway: recent industrial developments and future perspectives. Aquacult. Int. 25 (4), 1373–1390. Tayyab, U., Novoa-Garrido, M., Roleda, M.Y., Lind, V., Weisbjerg, M.R., 2016. Ruminal and intestinal protein degradability of various seaweed species measured in situ in dairy cows. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 213, 44–54. Uzzi, B., 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: the paradox of embeddedness. Adm. Sci. Q. 42 (1), 35–67. van Oort, B., Andrew, R., 2016. Climate Footprints of Norwegian Dairy and Meat – a Synthesis a Literature Study of Emissions of Norwegian Dairy and Meat Products Compared to Other Relevant Products and Regions, Commissioned by TINE AS. CICERO Report CICERO). Verbeke, W., Spranghers, T., De Clercq, P., De Smet, S., Sas, B., Eeckhout, M., 2015. Insects in animal feed: acceptance and its determinants among farmers, agriculture sector stakeholders and citizens. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 204, 72–87. Vinge, H., 2015. Food security, food sovereignty, and the Nation-State: historicizing Norwegian farmland policy. In: Trauger, Amy (Ed.), Food Sovereignty in International Context. Discourse, Politics and Practice in Place. Routledge, New York, pp. 87–105. Wilkins, R.J., Jones, R., 2000. Alternative home-grown protein sources for ruminants in the United Kingdom. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 85, 23–32. Wolf, J., Allice, I., Bell, T., 2013. Values, climate change, and implications for adaptation: evidence from two communities in Labrador, Canada. Global Environ. Change 23 (2), 548–562.

Bjørkhaug, H., Bay-Larsen, I., Bjørkan, M., Risvoll, C., Vangelsten, B.V., 2017. Upscaling algae cultivation in Norway – identifying challenges and opportunities. In: Hopefullness - the 13th Nordic Environmental Social Science Conference, Tampere. June 6–8th, 2017. Breton-Miller, L., Miller, D., 2009. Agency vs. stewardship in public family firms: a social embeddedness reconciliation. Enterpren. Theor. Pract. 33 (6), 1169–1191. Brobakk, J., Almås, R., 2012. Increasing food and energy prices in 2008: what were the causes and who was to blame? Int. Jrnl. of Soc. of Agr. & Food 18 (No. 3), 236–259. Brønnøysundregistrene, 2003. Nøkkelopplysninger fra Enhetsregisteret. http://w2.brreg. no/enhet/sok/detalj.jsp?orgnr=985270791 Brønnøysundregistrene). Brown, K., et al., 2017. Making space for proactive adaptation of rapidly changing coasts: a windows of opportunity approach. Sustainability 9 (8), 1408. Burton, R.J.F., 2004. Seeing through the ‘good Farmer's’ eyes: towards developing an understanding of the social symbolic value of ‘productivist’ behaviour. Sociol. Rural. 44, 195–215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2004.00270.x. Cambell, et al., 2012. Rethinking agricultural policy regimes: food security, climate change and the future resilience of global agriculture. Bingley: emerald insight. Res. Rural Sociol.Develop. Vol. 18. Dacin, M.T., Ventresca, M.J., Beal, B.D., 1999. The embeddedness of organizations: dialogue & directions. J. Manag. 25 (3), 317–356. Dannevig, H., Bay-Larsen, I.A., van Oort, B., Keskitalo, C., 2015. Adaptive capacity to changes in terrestrial ecosystem services amongst primary small-scale resource users in northern Norway and Sweden. Polar Geogr.; Vol. 38 (4) s. 271-288. Dewhurst, R.J., Fisher, W.J., Tweed, J.K.S., Wilkins, R.J., 2003. Comparison of grass and legume silages for milk production. 1. Production responses with different levels of concentrate. J. Dairy Sci. 86, 1598–2611. Erickson, Bonnie H., 1988. The relational basis of attitudes. In: Social Structures: a Network Approach. (Wellman and Berkowitz) New York, Cambridge University Press, pp. 99–121. Feola, G., Lerner, A., Jain, M., Montefrio, M.J.F., Nicholas, K.A., 2015. Researching farmer behaviour in climate change adaptation and sustainable agriculture: lessons learned from five case studies. J. Rural Stud. 39, 74–84. Folke, C., Carpenter, S.R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., Rockström, J., 2010. Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecol. Soc. 15 (4), 20 Adger 20013. Fraser, M.D., Fychan, R., Evans, S.T., Speijers, M.H.M., Jones, R., 1999. The effect of harvest data and inoculation on the coluntary intake and in vivo digestibility of kale silage by sheep. Proc Br Soc Anim Sci 96. Füssel, H.M., 2007. Adaptation planning for climate change: concepts, assessment approaches, and key lessons. Sustain. Sci. 2, 265–275 [CrossRef]. Granovetter, M., 1985. Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. Am. J. Sociol. 91 (3), 481–510. Grothmann, T., Patt, A., 2005. Adaptive capacity and human cognition: the process of individual adaptation to climate change. Global Environ. Change 15 (3), 199–213. Harris, S.L., Clark, D.A., Auldist, M.J., Waugh, C.D., Laboyrie, P.G., 1997. Optimum white clover content for dairy pastures. Proc. N. Z. Grassl. Assoc. 57, 189–197. Henchion, M., et al., 2017. Future protein supply and demand: strategies and factors influencing a sustainable equilibrium. Foods 6 (7), 53. Hulme, M., 2008. Governing and adapting to climate. A response to Ian Bailey's Commentary on ‘Geographical work at the boundaries of climate change’. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 33 (3), 424–427. Jasanoff, S. (Ed.), 2004. States of knowledge: the co-production of science and social order. Routledge, Oxon. Jørgensrud, Å.S., 2014. Farm Household Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity to the Double Exposure of Climate Change and Structural Change: a Case Study of a Farming Community in Western Norway. Master Thesis. Norwegian University of Life Sciences, NMBU (Ås). Kofinas, G., Clark, D., Hovelsrud, G.K., 2013. reportAdaptive and Transformative Capacity, in Arctic Interim Resilience Report 2013. Stockholm Environment Institute and the Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm, pp. 73–93. Kvalvik, I., Dalmannsdottir, S., Dannevig, H., Hovelsrud, G., Rønning, L., Uleberg, E., 2011. Climate change vulnerability and adaptive capacity in the agricultural sector in Northern Norway. Acta Agric. Scandinavica, Sec. B 61 (1), 27–37. Leonardus, C., de Visser, M., Schreuder, M., Stoddard, F., 2014. The EU's dependency on soya bean import for the animal feed industry and potential for EU produced alternatives. OCL 2014 (4), 21 D407. Lind, V., 2002. Effects of feeding limited roughage to sheep on ewe performance, economic aspects and behavior. Acta Agric. Scand., Sect. A, Animal Sci. 52, 65–71. Lockwood, M., Raymond, C.M., Oczkowski, E., Morrison, M., 2015. Measuring the dimensions of adaptive capacity: a psychometric approach. Ecol. Soc. 20 (1), 37. Lofotlam, 2015. Lofotlam. Lam i verdensklasse Lofotlam AS. http://www.lofotlam.no/ Hovedside. Lorenzoni, I., Nicholson-Cole, S., Whitmarsh, L., 2007. Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Global Environ. Change 17 (3–4), 445–459.

110