Site-Adapted Agriculture: Where Arable Crops Can Be Produced Sustainably

Is Swiss agriculture adapted to local site conditions? Agroscope and the Federal Office for Agriculture evaluated three scenarios. In the most sustainable, the arable land surface is similar to the current surface, but some of this land is at different locations.

The Swiss Federal Constitution calls for food production in Switzerland to be site-adapted and resource-efficient. ‘Site-adapted’ means making optimal use of the agronomic and economic potential of a site, while maintaining ecological sustainability.About 58% of Switzerland’s utilised agricultural area  is managed as permanent grassland, 38% as arable land and 4% as permanent crops (in 2024). But is the current land use matched to site conditions?

Potential for site-adapted arable farming

To answer this question, researchers at Agroscope, in collaboration with colleagues from the Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG), used national data to analyse which agricultural areas would be suitable for growing arable crops for direct human consumption. Spatially explicit models were developed which considered the soil, climate and topography criteria for each location. Existing ecological focus areas, permanent crops and alpine summer pastures were not included.

Focus on three scenarios

Three scenarios were evaluated for the analysis. The potential for arable production was determined on the basis of three geographical criteria (slope, soil properties and climate suitability) and two ecological criteria (prevention of soil erosion, minimisation of greenhouse gas emissions from drained organic soils). This was done by overlaying the utilised agricultural area with slope, soil and climate suitability maps. In Scenario 1, areas with a slope gradient of maximum 35% and climate and soil conditions suitable for wheat cultivation were assumed to be suitable for arable production.  In Scenario 2, areas at high risk of erosion were excluded from the arable areas considered in Scenario 1. . In Scenario 3,  organic soils were additionally excluded on the grounds of unsustainability.

What the analysis shows

While Scenario 1 shows very high arable potential (more than today), Scenario 2 is very similar to current use in terms of its arable area. The main difference between the two scenarios is that around 40% of the arable land from Scenario 1 is used as grassland in Scenario 2 due to the risk of erosion. In Scenario 3 organic soils were additionally excluded on the grounds of being unsustainable for arable farming, and converted to grassland. The spatial difference between Scenarios 2 and 3 is low.

Enough arable land – but some in the wrong place

The results show that Scenario 3 provides a similar amount of arable land as currently (38% arable land, 58% grassland). However, analyses show regional spatial differences in land use compared with today. More specifically, some grassland areas should be managed as arable land and vice versa, to fully exploit the agronomic potential while also maintaining biodiversity and protecting the climate.

This study investigated the suitability of a site for arable farming in terms of its agronomic potential. However, site-adapted agriculture should consider additional aspects including ecological, economic and social. In future, Agroscope and the FOAG will take account of these aspects in their work on site-adapted production.