118 V. Tellarini, F. Caporali Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 2000 111–123
Table 2 Maremma Park farms: cropping systems and capital amounts
a
Parameters Lower input farm L
Higher input farm H Hectares
Percentage Hectares
Percentage a. Crop area
Lucerne 4.10
19.52 0.00
0.00 Annual forage crops clover and mixtures
8.90 42.38
0.00 0.00
Winter cereals wheat, barley, oat 4.00
19.05 13.40
59.56 Grain legumes pigeon bean
1.90 9.05
0.00 0.00
Oil crops safflower, sunflower 0.00
0.00 4.20
18.67 Tree crops vine, olive, kivi
2.10 10.00
4.90 21.78
Total 21.00
100.00 22.50
100.00 b. Livestock
Average heads Percentage
Average heads Percentage
Bovine 17.86
100.00 0.00
0.00 c. Amount of capitals ECUha
ECUha Percentage
ECUha Percentage
Buildings 3642
52.66 6162
53.40 Fruit plantations
603 8.73
2650 22.97
Machinery 1922
27.79 2727
23.63 Livestock
748 10.82
0.00 Total
6915 100.00
11539 100.00
a
Source: direct inquiry.
7. the gross and net energy productivity of the money spent on non-renewable input; and
8. the gross and net energy productivity of the money spent on input produced by agriculture.
This is expressed in GJECU and tells us how much energy gross and net is produced per ECU spent on
the acquisition of the various kinds of input. Clearly these are only some of the APIs that could
be proposed, and, once again, each of these ratios can be calculated at both separate sector and whole farm
levels.
3. Results of an application of the methodology to two farms in Central Italy
In this section, a comment on the main results ob- tained by the application of the above methodology to
two farms in the Maremma Park on the southern Tus- can coast, in the Province of Grosseto is provided.
The findings date back to the triennium 1987–1989.
Even if the methodology here proposed has still to be perfected and empirically tested on a large number
of farms in different environments and management conditions, it is already capable of yielding indicators
of some utility in categorizing farms according to their sustainability.
These are two neighbouring farms, sharing the same pedological and climatic conditions. They are
of similar size 21 and 22 ha of cultivated surface area, CSA but with profoundly different technolog-
ical and management styles, which have lasted for more than a decade. One of the farms farm H is
market-oriented, more specialized and characterized by higher
1
external input, with ‘high environmental risk’ techniques monoculture of cereals, exclusive
use of chemical fertilizers, etc.. The other farm L is characterized by a lower input of external energy,
together with cow breeding, a prevalent use of organic fertilizers, and a more varied crop rotation Table 2.
1
Higher than the other farm. In the same way, the other farm
will be characterized by lower external input than the first one farm H. It is not among the aims of this paper to give an absolute
definition of the level of sustainability of a farm, but the aim is to supply indicators capable of evidencing differences between farm
systems. Thus, it is only possible to say that one of two farms is characterized by a higher or lower level of external input than
the other one.
V. Tellarini, F. Caporali Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 2000 111–123 119
Table 3 Maremma Park farms provenance of the input in energy
a
Provenance of the input Average energy values 1987–1989, GJha
Lower input farm B 21.0
b
Higher input farm A 22.23
b
i1 Total re-use of current year farm production internal transfers 54.7
12.8 i1a obligatory re-use of current year farm production
8.4 5.9
i1b voluntary re-use of current year farm production 46.3
6.8 i2 Total re-use of previous year’s farm production
43.8 9.9
i2a obligatory re-use of previous year’s farm production 12.4
8.2 i2b voluntary re-use of previous year’s farm production
31.5 1.8
i3 External input produced by agriculture 4.3
13.0 i4 External input produced by other sectors non-renewable
19.5 32.8
i5 Input produced on the farm i1 + i2 98.5
22.7 i6 Input external to the farm i3 + i4
23.8 45.9
i7 Input produced by agriculture i1 + i2 + i3 102.8
35.7 i8 Total input i1 + i2 + i3 + i4
122.3 68.6
a
Source: direct inquiry.
b
Values in parentheses indicate cultivated surface ha. Table 4
Maremma Park farms destination of the output in energy
a
Destination of the output Energy values average 1987–1989 GJha
Lower input farm B Higher input farm A
o1 Output destined for re-use on the farm in the current year 75.1
22.1 o1a Output obligatorily destined for re-use on the farm in the current year
7.2 5.0
o1b Output voluntarily destined for re-use on the farm in the current year 67.9
17.1 o2 Output destined for the subsequent cycle
36.4 23.3
o2a Output obligatorily destined for the subsequent cycle 17.5
11.9 o2b Output voluntarily destined for the subsequent cycle
18.8 11.4
o3 Output destined for final consumption 17.8
35.9 o4 Net output o2 + o3
54.2 59.2
o5 Gross output o1 + o2 + o3 129.3
81.2
a
Source: direct inquiry.
It should be emphasized that, unlike farm H, farm L is not run according to criteria aimed at maximizing
overall economic results. In Tables 3, 4, 5 and 6, it is reported, respectively, the
energy and monetary profiles of the two farms. Farm L shows a much higher total energy input per hectare of
CSA i8, and higher input from the farm itself i1 and i2, whereas external input, both renewable i3 and
non-renewable i4, is much lower. When evaluated in monetary terms, the differences are similar as far
as external non-renewable input is concerned, much larger with regard to total re-use of farm production
and much smaller for the external input produced by agriculture. This all suggests that the market, i.e., the
most powerful source of action-orientating informa- tion, discourages recycling while rewarding imports
from the outside, thus undermining the very basis of agroecosystem sustainability.
Although the gross output of farm L is notably higher in energy terms o5, it is not in monetary terms.
This is due to the low pricing of the very high quantity of output destined for re-use.
The direct structural APIs are shown in Table 7. The indicator of dependence on non-renewable
sources clearly differentiates the two situations: in energy terms, at farm L not even 16 of total input
is non-renewable, while the percentage for farm H is nearly 48 three times higher. In monetary terms,
120 V. Tellarini, F. Caporali Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 2000 111–123
Table 5 Maremma Park farms provenance of the input in monetary values
a
Provenance of the input Average values 1987–1989 ECUha
Lower input farm B 21.0
b
Higher input farm A 22.13
b
i1 Total re-use of current year farm production internal transfers 205.6
2.6 i1a obligatory re-use of current year farm production
0.0 0.0
i1b voluntary re-use of current year farm production 205.6
2.6 i2 Total re-use of previous year’s farm production
78.9 9.3
i2a obligatory re-use of previous year’s farm production 0.0
0.0 i2b voluntary re-use of previous year’s farm production
78.9 9.3
i3 External input produced by agriculture 30.4
33.0 i4 External input produced by other sectors non-renewable
481.0 715.3
i5 Input produced on the farm i1 + i2 284.5
11.9 i6 Input external to the farm i3 + i4
511.5 748.3
i7 Input produced by agriculture i1 + i2 + i3 314.9
44.9 i8 Total input i1 + i2 + i3 + i4
796.0 760.2
a
Source: direct inquiry.
b
Values in parentheses indicate cultivated surface ha. Table 6
Maremma Park farms destination of the output in monetary values
a
Destination of the output Energy values average 1987–1989 GJha
Lower input farm B Higher input farm A
o1 Output destined for re-use on the farm in the current year 216.6
4.1 o1a Output obligatorily destined for re-use on the farm in the current year
0.0 0.0
o1b Output voluntarily destined for re-use on the farm in the current year 216.6
4.1 o2 Output destined for the subsequent cycle
144.7 47.9
o2a Output obligatorily destined for the subsequent cycle 0.0
0.0 o2b Output voluntarily destined for the subsequent cycle
144.7 47.9
o3 Output destined for final consumption 702.9
969.4 o4 Net output o2 + o3
847.7 1017.3
o5 Gross output o1 + o2 + o3 1064.2
1021.4
a
Source: direct inquiry.
the indicator of dependence on non-renewable energy for farm H is only 1.5 times higher. In other words,
the market reduces by one half the distance existing between the two farms in energy terms, thus mini-
mizing the crucial role of the agroecosystem pattern of organization.
The indicators of farm autonomy are the mirror im- age of those of dependence: almost 81 for farm L
and little 33 for farm H in terms of energy. Here a kind of land ‘buffer mechanism’ can be observed, i.e.,
an automatic mechanism aimed at guaranteeing that a fairly consistent quota of total output is forcibly kept
within the system itself. On both farms the indicator of obligatory re-use assumes fairly high values, which
remain reasonably constant over time. It is interesting to observe that in the farm with higher external input
the percentage of input re-used independently of the entrepreneur’s will is, on average and consistently,
higher: almost 21 against 17. On the other hand, the global indicator of voluntary re-use is decidedly
higher for farm L, which chooses to re-use almost two-thirds of total input, as against a bare 13 for
farm H.
In monetary terms, the differences between the farms for indicators both of farm autonomy and
of re-use are much greater than in energy terms,
V. Tellarini, F. Caporali Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 2000 111–123 121
Table 7 Maremma Park farms — direct indicators: structural indicators
a
Description In energy values GJGJ
Monetary values Average 1987–1989 ECUECU
Lower input Higher input
Lower input Higher input
farm L farm H
farm L farm H
21.00
b
22.23
b
21.00
b
22.23
b
1 Indicator of dependence on non-renewable energy sources i4i8 0.158
0.477 0.601
0.941 2 Indicator of obligatory re-use [i1a + i2ai8]
0.169 0.207
0.000 0.000
3 Indicator of immediate voluntary re-use i1bi8 0.378
0.100 0.261
0.003 4 Indicator of deferred voluntary re-use i2bi8
0.259 0.026
0.100 0.012
5 Global indicator of voluntary re-use [i1b + i2bi8] 0.637
0.126 0.361
0.016 6 Indicator of farm autonomy i5i8
0.806 0.333
0.361 0.016
7 Indicator of overall sustainability i7i8 0.842
0.523 0.399
0.059 8 Indicator of immediate removal o3o5
0.145 0.426
0.662 0.948
9 Indicator of total removal o4o5 0.415
0.708 0.791
0.995 10 Indicator of obligatory internal destination [o1a + o2ao5]
0.186 0.199
0.000 0.000
11 Indicator of immediate voluntary internal destination o1bo5 0.530
0.233 0.209
0.005 12 Global indicator of immediate internal destination o1o5
0.585 0.292
0.209 0.005
a
Source: direct inquiry.
b
Values in parentheses indicate cultivated surface ha. Table 8
Maremma Park farms — direct indicators: functional indicators average 1987–1989
a
Desription In energy values GJGJ
In monetary values ECUECU Lower input Higher input Lower input Higher input
farm L farm H
farm L farm H
21.00
b
22.23
b
21.00
b
22.23
b
13.a Indicator of gross output from total input o5i8 1.055
1.181 1.339
1.339 14.a Indicator of gross output from total farm input o5i5
1.308 3.598
4.040 116.417
15.a Indicator of gross output from annual farm input o5i1 2.376
6.402 6.024
246.991 16.a Indicator of gross output from external non-renewable input o5i4 7.103
2.462 2.360
1.422 17.a Indicator of gross output from total external input o5i6
5.578 1.766
2.220 1.363
13.b Indicator of net output from total input o4i8 0.442
0.857 1.064
1.334 14.b Indicator of net output from total farm input o4i5
0.547 2.627
3.281 115.750
15.b Indicator of net output from annual farm input o4i1 0.984
4.675 4.958
245.338 16.b Indicator of net output from external non-renewable input o4i4
2.985 1.773
1.853 1.416
17.b Indicator of net output from total external input o4i6 2.350
1.277 1.745
1.358
a
Source: direct inquiry.
b
Values in parentheses indicate cultivated surface ha.
emphasizing the fact that the market does not suffi- ciently appreciate the flow of energy directed mainly
at the soil. The two farm situations are similarly differentiated
as far as output destination is concerned. While farm H shows an indicator of immediate removal of slightly
43, farm L removes 15 of total energy, the remaining 85 being destined for re-use on the farm
either during the current cycle o1 or in future cycles o2. Once again, the land’s ‘buffer mechanism’ can
be observed, and, once again, it is farm H that shows a higher value of the obligatory internal destination
indicator: almost 20 against less than 19.
Table 8 reports the functional indicators. Interest- ingly, the farm with lower input of external factors
turns out to be less efficient than the farm with higher input of external factors in relation to total input i8,
total farm input i5, and annual farm input i1; and
122 V. Tellarini, F. Caporali Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 2000 111–123
Table 9 Maremma Park farms crossed indicators: economic productivity of the energy input
a
Output in monetary valueinput in energy: ECUGJ Economic productivity of the energy input
average 1987–1989 Lower input
Higher input farm L 21.00
b
farm H 22.23
b
Gross economic productivity of total energy input o5i8 8.8
14.8 Gross economic productivity of energy input from outside the farm o5i6
46.5 22.0
Gross economic productivity of non-renewable energy input o5i4 61.6
30.7 Gross economic productivity of energy input produced by agriculture o5i7
10.4 28.7
Net economic productivity of total energy input o4i8 7.0
14.7 Net economic productivity of energy input from outside the farm o4i6
36.6 21.9
Net economic productivity of non-renewable energy input o4i4 48.3
30.6 Net economic productivity of energy input produced by agriculture o4i7
8.3 28.6
a
Source: direct inquiry.
b
Values in parentheses indicate cultivated surface ha. Table 10
Maremma Park farms crossed indicators: energy productivity of the monetary input
a
Output in energyinput in monetary value: GJECU Energy productivity of the monetary input
average 1987–1989 Lower input
Higher input farm L 21.00
b
farm H 22.23
b
Gross energy productivity of total monetary input o5i8 40.1
26.3 Gross energy productivity of money spent on input from outside the farm o5i6
64.5 26.8
Gross energy productivity of money spent on non-renewable input o5i4 68.9
27.9 Gross energy productivity of money spent on input produced by agriculture o5i7
109.1 455.3
Net energy productivity of total monetary input o4i8 16.8
19.1 Net energy productivity of money spent on input from outside the farm o4i6
27.1 19.5
Net energy productivity of money spent on non-renewable input o4i4 29.0
20.3 Net energy productivity of money spent on input produced by agriculture o4i7
45.3 333.8
a
Source: direct inquiry.
b
Values in parentheses indicate cultivated surface ha.
this in terms of both gross o5 and net o4 output. Nevertheless, farm L is decidedly more efficient as re-
gards both total external input i6 and non-renewable external input i4. When measured in monetary terms,
this superiority is considerably reduced. Farm L cer- tainly contributes less to the production of goods and
services for final consumption, but it provides higher quality energy in the form of animal products. It also
consumes much fewer non-renewable resources and exploits them much better, i.e., it is more sustainable.
Finally, the crossed indicators are presented Tables 9 and 10. The farm with lower input of
external factors presents a higher net economic pro- ductivity of both external input and non-renewable
input. But the less efficient management of this farm is evidenced by the lower economic productivity, net
and gross i.e., including internal transfers, of both total energy input and energy input from agriculture.
The situation is much the same for energy produc- tivity of monetary input: farm L has higher values for
renewable and non-renewable external input, but lower values for both total input and input from agriculture.
4. Conclusions
