Food Habits and Environmental Impact

Transcription

UNIVERSITÁ POLITECNICA DELLE MARCHE
Scuola di Dottorato della Facoltà di Agraria
IX Ciclo
Curriculum: Alimenti e Salute
Food Habits and Environmental Impact:
An Assessment of the Natural Resource Demand in
Three Agri-Food Systems
Ph.D candidate:
Supervisors:
Lucia Mancini
Prof. Roberto Petrocchi
Dr. Christa Liedtke
Academic Year 2009/2010
Table of contents
Acknowledgements................................................................................................................6
Abstract.....................................................................................................................................8
Acronyms .................................................................................................................................9
Introduction ...........................................................................................................................10
Chapter 1. Literature Review..............................................................................................14
1.1 From the Environmental Economics to the Bioeconomics: Nicholas
Georgescu-Roegen contribution .....................................................................................14
1.2 The Georgescu-Roegen’s legacy and the Sustainability Science.......................16
1.3 The food environmental impact: assessment methodologies ...........................17
Chapter 2. Food Systems and Sustainability...................................................................21
2.1 The global food sector: economic features and emerging issues ......................21
2.2 A focus on Italian Agro-Food Sector.....................................................................28
2.2.1 The Italian Agriculture .......................................................................................30
2.2.2 Food industry and distribution ...........................................................................36
2.2.3 Foreign trade and domestic food expenditure .....................................................37
2.3 Food systems and sustainable development .......................................................41
2.3.1 World food demand and supply...........................................................................41
2.3.2 Loss of cropland and environmental degradation ...............................................45
Chapter 3. The Agri-Food Systems Paradigms ...............................................................50
3.1 The dominant agri-food system: general features and actual trends...............50
3.2 The transition towards Alternative Food Network ............................................52
3.3 GAS (Gruppi di Acquisto Solidale).......................................................................54
3.4 UPM (Un Punto Macrobiotico) ..............................................................................56
Chapter 4. Methodology and data gathering...................................................................60
4.1 The material flow-based approach........................................................................60
4.2 MIPS concept ............................................................................................................61
4.3 Material intensity of food .......................................................................................63
4.4 Material intensity along the supply chain (Analysis 1)......................................66
4.4.1 Data sources and simplifying hypothesis............................................................66
4.4.2 Vegetal productions.............................................................................................68
4.4.3 Animal productions.............................................................................................82
4.4.4 Processed foodstuffs.............................................................................................89
4.5 Material intensity of agricultural products from Ma-Pi polyculture ...............91
4.6 Material intensity along the value chain (Analysis 2) ........................................94
4.7 Diets composition ....................................................................................................97
4.7.1 Dominant and GAS paradigm ...............................................................................97
4.7.1 Ma-Pi diets ..........................................................................................................99
Chapter 5. The results ........................................................................................................102
5.1 Results of Analysis 1..............................................................................................102
5.1.1 Material intensity of conventional and organic food ........................................102
5.1.2 Material intensity of food from Ma-Pi polyculture ..........................................114
5.2 Results of Analysis 2..............................................................................................117
Chapter 6. Discussion on the results...............................................................................122
Chapter 7. Conclusions......................................................................................................130
Bibliografy ...........................................................................................................................134
Appendix ..............................................................................................................................145
2 Index of figures
Fig. 2.1 Food production and distribution networks .......................................................22
Fig. 2.2 Agricultural food business chain...........................................................................23
Fig. 2.3 Evolution of market concentration in the global seed industry........................24
Fig. 2.4 Evolution of market concentration in the global pesticides industry (19962008).........................................................................................................................................25
Fig. 2.5 Top global food retailers .........................................................................................26
Fig. 2.6 Supermarket share of retail food sales..................................................................27
Fig. 2.7 Percentage price changes of key commodities ....................................................27
Fig. 2.8 GDP and Value Added trends, index 2003-2004=100 ........................................28
Fig. 2.9 Number of employed, trend - Index average 2003-2004=100............................29
Fig. 2.10 Trend of agricultural production, Index average 2003-2004= 100 ..................31
Fig. 2.11 Average Utilized Agricultural Area (UAA) per holding by country, 2007...31
Fig. 2.12 Holdings by economic size of the holding 2007 ................................................32
Fig. 2.13 Agricultural income (Indicator A) in the EU % 2009/2008 .............................33
Fig. 2.14 Agricultural prices and costs, Italy (index 2000=100).......................................33
Fig. 2.15 Fertilizers and plant protection products’ consumption in EU countries (kg
of active ingredient per hectare of utilized agricultural area) ........................................35
Fig. 2.16 Gross Operating Margin (GOM) trend in agricultural, industrial firms and
food industries .......................................................................................................................36
Fig. 2.17 Food industry turnover by subsector, 2009........................................................36
Fig. 2.18 Food and agricultural products value chain, 2006............................................37
Fig. 2.19 Trend of agricultural products and foodstuffs at consumption prices (index
2000=100) ................................................................................................................................37
Fig. 2.20 Main countries of export destination and import origin for the Italian food
sector (share % of value).......................................................................................................39
Fig. 2.21 Human population growth in developed and developing countries ............42
Fig. 2.22 Trend of Food Price Indices..................................................................................43
Fig. 2.23 Agricultural production and inputs employment - Trend 1960-2005............44
Fig. 2.24 Trend in Nitrogen fertilizer efficiency of crop production calculated as
annual cereal production/annual global application of N .............................................44
Fig. 2.25 Undernourishment trend......................................................................................45
Fig. 2.26 Biofuels production in 2005 ..................................................................................46
Fig. 2.27 Water requirement for food production.............................................................47
Fig. 3.1 Simplified food chain scheme of the dominat agro-food system (Paradigm 1)
..................................................................................................................................................52
3 Fig. 3.3 The Pianesian trasparent label ...............................................................................59
Fig. 3.4 Simplified food chain scheme of the UPM agro-food system (Paradigm 3) ...59
Fig. 4.1 Framework of the study..........................................................................................65
Fig. 4.3 Vegetal productions under investigation .............................................................68
Fig. 4.4 Italian arable land use .............................................................................................69
Fig. 4.5 Winter cereals system boundary ...........................................................................70
Fig. 4.6 Maize and sorghum system boundary .................................................................71
Fig. 4.7 Paddy rice system boundary..................................................................................73
Fig. 4.8 Organic rice system boundary ...............................................................................74
Fig. 4.9 Evolution of pulses production and invested area .............................................74
Fig. 4.10 Grain legumes system boundary.........................................................................75
Fig. 4.11 Silages system boundary ......................................................................................77
Fig. 4.12 Hay production system boundary ......................................................................77
Fig. 4.13 Vegetables system boundary ...............................................................................80
Fig. 4.14 Top ten orange producers in the world ..............................................................82
Fig. 4.15 Milk production sub-processes............................................................................84
Fig. 4.16 Phases of Parmesan production process ............................................................86
Fig. 4.17 Meat production sub-processes ...........................................................................87
Fig. 4.18 Pasta production system boundary.....................................................................89
Fig. 4.19 Milled rice system boundary................................................................................90
Fig. 4.20 Orange juice system boundary ............................................................................91
Fig. 4.21 System boundary of Analysis 2 ...........................................................................95
Fig. 4.22 Share of the considered ingredients in the diet composition ..........................98
Fig. 5.1 Conventional wheat - MI composition ...............................................................103
Fig. 5.2 Organic wheat - MI composition .........................................................................103
Fig. 5.3 Conventional dried maize - MI composition .....................................................104
Fig. 5.4 Organic dried sorghum - MI composition .........................................................104
Fig. 5.5 Conventional dried peas –MI composition ........................................................105
Fig. 5.6 Organic dried peas – MI composition.................................................................105
Fig. 5.7 Conventional lucerne hay– material intensity composition............................106
Fig. 5.8 Organic lucerne hay– material intensity composition......................................107
Fig. 5.9 Maize silage – material intensity composition .................................................107
Fig. 5.10 Barley grass - material intensity composition..................................................108
Fig. 5.11 Conventional tomatoes in greenhouse - material intensity composition ....109
Fig. 5.12 Conventional tomatoes on open field- material intensity composition.......109
Fig. 5.13 Tomatoes from integrated agriculture on open field- material intensity
composition ..........................................................................................................................109
Fig. 5.14 Whole milk – material intensity composition..................................................110
Fig. 5.15 Parmesan – material intensity composition .....................................................111
4 Fig. 5.15 Conventional beef - material intensity composition.......................................111
Fig. 5.16 Organic beef - material intensity composition.................................................111
Fig. 5.17 Conventional Pasta - material intensity composition.....................................112
Fig. 5.18 Organic Pasta - material intensity composition...............................................112
Fig. 5.19 Conventional milled rice - material intensity composition ...........................113
Fig. 5.20 Organic rice - material intensity composition ................................................113
Fig. 5.20 Parboiled rice - material intensity composition...............................................114
Fig. 5.21 Natural orange juice - material intensity composition ...................................114
Fig. 5.22 Vegetal unit from Ma-Pi polyculture - material intensity composition.......115
Fig. 5.23 Beans by UPM - material intensity composition .............................................115
Fig. 5.24 Whole rice by UPM - material intensity composition ....................................116
Fig. 5.25 Cous cous by UPM - material intensity composition .....................................116
Fig. 5.26 Millet by UPM - material intensity composition .............................................116
Fig. 5.27 Barley by UPM - material intensity composition ............................................117
Fig. 5.28 Total Material Requirements (TMR) of nutrition in the three paradigms...120
Fig. 5.30 Air requirements of nutrition in the three paradigms....................................121
Fig. 5.31Differences in resource consumption in the three paradigms .......................121
Fig. 6.1 Groups of crops scored by average TMR (gh: greenhouse; of: open field) ...124
Fig. 6.2 Groups of crops scored by average water requirement (gh: greenhouse; of:
open field) .............................................................................................................................124
Fig. 6.3 Groups of crops scored by average air requirement (gh: greenhouse; of:
openfield) ..............................................................................................................................125
Fig. 6.4 Foodstuffs scored by TMR (CA: conventional agricultural; OA: organic
agriculture) ...........................................................................................................................125
Fig. 6.5 Foodstuffs scored by water requirements (CA: conventional agricultural; OA:
organic agriculture) .............................................................................................................126
Fig. 6.6 Foodstuffs scored by air requirements (CA: conventional agricultural; OA:
organic agriculture) .............................................................................................................126
Fig. 6.7 Crops scored by TMR values ...............................................................................126
Fig. 6.9 Crops scored by air requirements .......................................................................127
Fig. 6.10 The evaluated eco-efficiency of three agricultural systems...........................129
5 Acknowledgements
The study required a massive data collection from the literature. I would like to
thank Prof. Bruno Notarnicola, member of the Italian Life Cycle Assessment
Network and Dr. Paolo Neri, founder of the LCA-lab of the National Agency for
New Technologies, Energy and the Sustainable Development (ENEA), who helped
me considerably in the LCA studies retrieval. Many thanks also to Karl Xaver
Wolfsgruber, from the “Un Punto Macrobiotico” association, for his helpfulness and
suggestions.
Special thanks to all the Wuppertal Institute staff, where I spent the happiest and
most gratifying time of the Ph.D programme, and especially to Mr. Michael
Lettenmeier, Dr. Christa Liedtke and Mr. Holger Rohn with whom I worked more
closely. I am also grateful to Prof. Roberto Petrocchi and Dr. Matteo Belletti for the
trust professed in all these years, for seconding my research interests and for giving
me the opportunity to dedicate most of the time to my education.
This work is the result of three years of study and reflections on the theme of
economics and sustainability. A big contribution had the several conversations I had
with the people met in these three years. Between them, I want to thank in particular
my colleagues and friends Ms. Aleksandra Arcipowska, Ms. Valentina Aversano, Dr.
Carlo Cafiero, Ms. Francesca Colantuoni, Dr. Davide Longhitano, Ms. Monica
Padella and Dr. Ahmad Sadiddin. They helped and supported me in several
different ways, encouraging me in carrying on my ambitions, giving me many
intellectual stimulus and invaluable advices.
An essential help came from all my family, which always respected and supported
my decisions. Heartfelt thanks especially to my parents and to my boyfriend
Massimiliano, for following me in all my displacements and for his never lacking
closeness.
6 Dedicated to my dearest nephew Nicola,
future generations’ member
“Qual è il fine della conoscenza” chiese, “se non quello di capire la natura per poterne seguire
le regole e vivere meglio? Bisogna capire qual è il posto di noi esseri umani nell’universo,
capire in che rapporto stiamo con i vari fenomeni cosmici, così da poterci comportare
disciplinatamente, evitare disastri e contribuire al benessere di tutte le creature.”
Un altro giro di giostra, Tiziano Terzani
7 Abstract
The thesis aims at measuring the environmental impact of nutrition in three agrifood systems. The study considers the amount of natural resources used in the
production and consumption of food along its life-cycle. It is featured in two parts. In
the first one the analysis is restricted to the supply chain of food, and provides a
sustainability rating of thirty-seven products, grown through different agricultural
practices. The second analysis takes into consideration all the value chain according
to three paradigms of agri-food systems. They refers to different models of food
production and consumption, observed in Italy. The first one is the dominant
paradigm, including conventional and intensive farming practices, long and
globalized food chains, retailing in supermarkets. The other models refer to
Alternative Food Networks (AFN). The first is the GAS (Gruppi di Acquisto Solidali)
initiative, i.e. solidarity purchasing groups, that manage collectively the purchasing
of organic food and natural manufactured products mainly from local enterprises
and farmers. They aim at accessing high quality and naturally grown food, avoiding
the retailing passage and ensuring a fair price to the farmers. The third model refers
to UPM (Un Punto Macrobiotico), an international association established in the
Marche region in 1980. It manages and controls an entire food chain, since the
agricultural production, based on the post-organic technique “Ma-Pi polyculture”,
till the food purchasing and catering, in sixty-three restaurants spread in the Italian
territory. UPM is a very consumer-oriented food chain, in which a very exigent
demand (in terms of food naturality and healthiness) drives the agricultural
production towards the minimization of the external inputs employment. A further
model concerns the reduction of the “Food Miles”, i.e. the kilometres covered by
food, since the dominant paradigm. Thus, in this model the distances are reduced by
an average 90%, while the production practices do not change.
The methodology used for assessing the sustainability of food is the Material Input
Per Service unit (MIPS) indicator. It estimates the overall environmental pressure
caused by products or services by indicating the life-cycle-wide consumption of
natural resources in relation to the benefit provided. It includes five resource
categories: abiotic and biotic materials (renewable resources), water, air and soil.
Results of the first analysis provide a dataset of the material intensity of Italian
agricultural products and foodstuffs, which can expedite future research on the topic
of nutrition’s sustainability. The second analysis evaluates the natural resource
demand for feeding one person during a week, in the paradigms under investigation.
With respect to the dominant, the GAS model allows a 58% reduction in the abiotic
resource demand, 53% in water and 71% in air. The UPM system, instead, permits a
tenfold reduction in abiotic, biotic and water, and 82% decrease in the air category.
The insight on the socio-economic features of the systems, together with the
environmental sustainability measurement, allowed making some general
conclusions and policy recommendations on the sustainability of the different food
systems. The role of a low external input technology in agriculture is emphasized as
a possible strategy for driving food system towards more sustainable patterns and
empowering the small-scale farming.
8 Acronyms
AFN
Alternative Food Network
ENAMA
Italian National Agency for Agricultural Machinery
ESU
European Size Unit
GAS
Gruppi di Acquisto Solidali (Solidarity Purchasing Groups)
ISMEA
Service Institute for the Agri-Food Market
ISTAT
Italian National Institute of Statistics
LCA
Life Cycle Assessment
MFA
Material Flow Analysis
MI
Material Input
MIPS
Material Input Per Service unit
UPM
Un Punto Macrobiotico
9 Introduction
Recently, the two topics of nutrition and sustainability have being arousing a new
interest from institutional, political and civil society contexts. Between other
initiatives on these subjects, “Feeding the planet, energy for life” will be the theme of
the next Universal Exposition that will be held in Milan in 2015.
The main concern on agri-food systems regards the way they will feed a rising world
population, that will get 9.2 billions of people by 2050 (McIntyre, Herren at al., 2009).
FAO recently declared that the need for alternative proteins is urgent and is
promoting edible insect consumption as a sustainable food strategy (FAO, 2010).
The environmental crisis is a further troublesome issue. It interacts in a twofold
manner with the food security issue, and is likely to trigger a vicious circle. From the
one hand, it can bounder the food production. For instance, the climate changes can
bring to a higher frequency of extreme climatic events, or making some areas
unsuitable for cultivation; the depletion of natural resources (especially water and
fossil fuels), the water pollution and the soil degradation are compromising the
ecosystems services on which agricultural activity underpins (Nellemann,
MacDevette et al. 2009).
At the same time, the food production and consumption, accounting a relevant share
of the natural resources used by the economies (e.g., 20% in the German one,
according to Ritthoff, Kaiser at al. 2009) exacerbate and contribute to the
environmental crisis.
The agriculture can have a significant impact on the ecosystem, depending on the
farming practice. The monoculture and the deforestation practiced for obtaining
more cropland cause loss of biodiversity and increase the climate-altering emissions.
Intensive agricultural practices bring to the land degradation and desertification, the
overexploitation of water stocks and nom renewable energy sources. Modern
agriculture is an inefficient energy process, and has lost the metabolic gain provided
by the clorofillian photosynthesis: on average, in the US, two kilocalories of fossil
fuels are necessary to produce one kilocalorie of a crop (Pimentel, 2006).
The further steps of the food chain affect the environment mainly through the
consumption of energy and materials during the processing, packaging, and
distribution of food. The modern food habits and the westernalization of the way of
life in the developing countries are driving the food production through more
resource-intensive practices: increasing consumption of meat, dairy products,
functional, convenient, and exotic food, for instance. The globalization of the food
chains implies that displacing some production phase in very far areas can be
economically convenient. The air transport of food has drastically increased in the
last decade, and the distance covered by food has been proposed as an indicator of
its sustainability. The Food Miles concept, although including only a limited aspect
of the value chain, has had an international spread also between the consumers.
The last phases of the food chain, i.e. the purchasing and consumption, require
growing amount of fossil fuels since the retailing centres, which are gradually
substituting the traditional groceries, are usually located in out-of-town peripheries
that are reachable through a car trip (Cummins and MacIntyre 2006).
10 Beyond the environmental impact of food, other reasons of dissatisfaction with the
global food systems have emerged. In many countries farmers suffer an increasing
loss of value added and inequalities in the margin distribution along the value
chain’s steps. The very fragmentized and competitive agricultural sector, instead,
matches against the very powerful and concentrated sectors of the agricultural input
production from the one hand, and the retailing from the other. The absolute
inequality of bargaining power between the different actors in the food chain
rebounds on the farmers’ income. The high variability of commodity’s prices and the
increasing trend occurred in the last five years, after few decades of decline, threaten
the livelihoods of the poorest population. A further critical issue regards the
increasing competition in the resource use (especially land and water) between food
and no-food products (especially biomass for energy production and fibres,
especially cotton).
The dissatisfactions with the dominant model brought to the establishment of many
initiatives of alternative food network (AFN), all over the world. They involve
different stakeholders and have manifold motivations. According to Scrinis (2007),
they can briefly be branched into the initiatives related to the production practices
(e.g. pro-organic and fair trade); the ones seeking alternative relationships and
networks of distribution (e.g. Community Supported Agriculture, farmer markets,
short chain initiatives) and the ones focusing on alternative consumption practices,
involving a different perception of food quality and ethical values guiding the food
consumption (e.g. UPM, that is described below).
The relation between nutrition and health is a further topic of remarkable importance
for the policy makers. The modern food systems have improved the nutritional
conditions of people in many areas of the world, over the last fifty years, and the
percentage of undernourished persons has decreased. However, due to the
population growth the number of undernourished had only a very little wane. While
the problem of hunger keeps meting out the developing countries, the industrialized
area of the world face the health problems connected to the overnutrition. Obesity,
diabetes and many noncommunicable diseases are increasingly weighing in the
public expenditure for health. The taxation of the consumption of sugar-sweetened
beverages and fat food is actually applied by 33 states in the US as a mean of
reducing the intake of these foods and lowering the health care costs (Brownell,
Farley et al. 2009).
On the base of the context described above, this survey addresses the evaluation of
the environmental impact of nutrition. It performs a quantitative evaluation of the
natural resource withdrawal due to the food production and consumption in three
different agri-food chains. These results, and a close examination of the socioeconomic features of the food systems, allowed us to draw some general conclusions
on their sustainability. The investigation provides also some policy
recommendations on which food system should be supported by the policy maker,
and which agricultural form is more suitable for accomplish the task of feeding a
growing population, in an fair and ecologically sound way.
The three theoretical models under investigation have different features regarding:
the agricultural and livestock practices; the organization of the chain; the
consumption modes; the roles and the involvement of the stakeholders; the use of
energy and material resources for fulfilling the nutritional need. The first paradigm
refers to the dominant system, thus the most spread in the Western countries. It
encompasses intensive agricultural practices, a long and globalized food chain and
the retailing system is based on big supermarkets’ chains. A further option of the
dominant paradigm considers the reduction of the distances covered by food and the
shortening of the last step of the food chain, i.e. between last producer and
consumer. It aims at evaluating the effect of a food miles reduction in the whole
environmental impacts, without any change in the agricultural production,
processing processes and raw materials provision.
11 The other two paradigms refer to AFN experiences developed in Italy and having a
considerable success in terms of territorial spread and civil society involvement. The
GAS (Gruppi di Acquisto Solidali) are the so-called Solidarity Purchasing Groups, an
initiative of collective purchase and fair trade of organic food (and other goods),
supplied by local farmers. They aim at removing the retailing step of the food chain,
gathering fresh, local and organic food ensuring a fair price to the farmers. The third
paradigm refers to the international association UPM (Un Punto Macrobiotico). With
the aim of spreading a healthier and more natural nutrition and life style, it has
arranged an entire food chain, and controls all the phases of food production and
consumption, since the agricultural phase (based on the post-organic practices, the so
call Ma-Pi polyculture) till the preparation of food, through the catering service that
counts sixty-three restaurants in Italy.
Given the above, this study aims at providing a holistic overview on the
sustainability of the three paradigms, using a multidisciplinary approach, although
the environmental evaluation concerns mainly the field of the ecological economics.
The idea of sustainability it adverts, far from the new rhetoric of the green business
as an outwards change of the usual ways of producing and consuming, underpins on
the Georgescu-Roegen’s idea of thermodynamic degradation occurring in the
economic processes. It also regains the focus on matter, as a fundamental element in
the relationship between environment and economy, as proposed by the Rumanian
economist. Concerning the idea of sustainable agriculture, the benchmark is the
“eternal agriculture, that is, agriculture that can be practiced for eternity” (Heitschmidt,
Vermeire et al., 2004:E139). Thus, the ecological impact is based on the use of natural
resources as a proxy measure for the environmental burden.
The adopted methodology is based on the Material Flow Analysis (MFA) (Bringezu
and Moriguchi 2002), which accounts the use of natural resources of the economies.
The indicator MIPS (Material Input Per Service unit) (Schmidt-Bleek 1993) is
calculated for a set of thirty-seven agricultural products and foodstuffs, produced
through different practices (conventional, organic and Ma-Pi polyculture).
Additionally, the total amount of natural resources used for fulfilling the weekly
nutritional need of one person is assessed, according to the three paradigms of food
production and consumption.
The MIPS approach permits an estimation of the overall environmental pressure
caused by products and services by indicating the life-cycle-wide consumption of
natural resources in relation to the benefit provided. It gives a measure of ecoefficiency, through a wide perspective including different kinds of natural resources
(abiotic or non renewable, biotic or renewable, water, air and soil). With respect to
the most spread environmental indicators, i.e., the carbon footprint of food (e.g.,
Plassmann and Jones 2009) it provides a more comprehensive view and is suitable
for outlining possible tradeoffs in the use of different resources. Compared to specific
environmental evaluations like the Life Cycle Assessment, it has a lower level of
detail and only a quantitative evaluation of the impact. Moreover, MIPS results are
more suitable for being combined to economic data.
The thesis is organized in seven chapters. The first one illustrates a literature review
and retraces the emergence of the Sustainability Science as an academic discipline. It
outlines the major contributions in the field of the environmental economics and in
the bioeconomics. It lingers on the Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen contribution and on
the importance of the thermodynamics laws applied in the economic subject. It then
describes the subsequent development of the sustainability science and finally
focuses on the assessment methodology used for the evaluation of food and
agricultural products sustainability.
The second chapter provides an overview on the theme of food systems and
sustainability. It first takes into consideration the peculiarities of modern food
systems and the main economic treats, through a perspective based on the
complexity and the analysis of margin distribution along the value chain. It then
12 deepens the Italian agri-food sector, showing the main economic data and giving a
special emphasis to the agricultural sector, and its actual problems. The third part
takes into account the main issues and trends related to the sustainability and
nutrition, at a global level, i.e. the development of the food demand and supply, the
effect of commodity prices variations, the environmental problems linked to food
production, and the small scale farming perspective, questioning its relationship
with food security.
The description of the third paradigms under investigation follows in the third
chapter. The main socio-economic and organizational aspects, as well as weaknesses
and success factors are reported.
The forth chapter is devoted to the description of the methodology and the data
gathering. For all the crops and foodstuffs investigated the information sources are
documented, as well as the system boundary used for each evaluation. It explains
also the assumptions and simplifying hypothesis made in the study and the criteria
for the diets composition.
Results, in chapter five, are also branched by the first analyses on the foodstuffs and
agricultural products and the second one on the impact of a weekly diet, according to
the three food systems, and the modified version of the first one, with reduced food
miles.
In chapter six there is a discussion on the results and it shows some comparisons
between the resource demand of different crop groups, foodstuffs, conventional and
organic practices; it finally gives an overall evaluation on the considered food
systems eco-efficiency.
The seventh and last chapter makes general conclusion, providing some policy
recommendation for enhancing the sustainability in the food sector and few
suggestions for a further investigation on this theme.
13 Chapter 1. Literature Review
This chapter is devoted to review the literature related to the topics of the thesis. It
first illustrates the origins of the Science of Sustainability as academic discipline,
since the Environmental Economics to the development of the Ecological Economics
heterodox discipline. The review remarks the significance of Nicholas GeorgescuRoegen’s contribution, and its influence in the further literature. The second part
concerns the major issues related to the environmental impact of food, and the most
common assessment methodologies, included the one used in this study.
1.1 From the Environmental Economics to the Bioeconomics: Nicholas
Georgescu-Roegen contribution
The first concerns on the environmental effects of human activity can be singled out
with the creation of protected areas for the wildlife conservation since the end of XIX
century. However, only between the Sixties and Seventies of the XX century the
environmental issue started having more attention in the scientific community, as
well as in the media and public opinion. In 1962 the book by Rachel Carson, “Silent
Spring” (Carson 1962), enlighted the negative environmental effects of pesticides
used in agriculture and led, in the following years, to the ban of DDT
(dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) in many countries. In 1972 the Club of Rome
published “The Limits to Growth”, in which the consequences of an exponential
population growth were investigated in relation to the availability of natural
resources. The year after, the members of the “Organization of Arab Petroleum
Exporting Countries” (OAPEC) proclaimed an oil embargo to protest against the U.S.
military policy, supporting Israeli during the Yom Kippur war. This sudden
reduction of fossil fuels’ availability brought to a drastic increase of the oil price and
many European governments launched measures with the aim of promoting a
drastic energy saving, reforming their energetic policy and reducing the dependency
on fossil fuels. In this years a new awareness on the environmental and energetic
issue raised and the global environmental movement became more organized and
politically involved.
The Environmental Economics developed as academic discipline from the
neoclassical welfare theory and microeconomics. The idea of “externality”
introduced by Arthur Cecil Pigou provided the first economic explanation of the
environmental damage. Externalities are described as a typology of market failure, in
which the market, acting spontaneously, does not provide an efficient outcome
(Pigou 1920). The Pigouvian tax proposed by the English economist aims at
correcting the market inefficiency, charging who is responsible for the negative
externality. Ronald Coase brought another relevant contribution to the theoretical
development of the discipline. He refused the interference of the State in the market
dynamics involved by the Pigouvian taxation an formulated a theorem (Coase 1960),
denying the necessity of any State intervention into the market’s operation.
According to Coase’s theory, in absence of transaction costs private bargaining will
lead to an efficient solution, also when externalities exist. A poor definition of
property rights can prevent the bargaining and thus the market equilibrium. Harold
Hotelling introduced the natural resources as topic of investigation from an
14 economic point of view. His work “The economy of exhaustible resources” treats the
optimal rate of exploitation of no renewable resources (Hotelling 1931). The
Environmental Economics developed also estimative techniques for the definition of
natural goods’ value (i.e. Willing To Pay, Travel Cost and Hedonic Price),
maintaining the assumptions of rational individual behavior (utility or profit
maximization) and market clearing generating a unique economic equilibrium
(Bergh 2001).
Since the spread of “The Limits to Growth”, new criticisms raised to the neoclassical
theory and especially to the concept of infinitive growth of the economic system
within limited natural resource availability. The Rumanian economist Nicholas
Georgescu-Roegen formulated the most comprehensive, constructive and original
critic to the neoclassical economics, building up an alternative model of production
and becoming the father of the heterodox discipline of Bioeconomics. His
contribution embraces many subjects (from the rural sociology to the consumer’s
behavior and the role of expectations and uncertainty), but we just review the main
issues related to the topic of the thesis.
The rejection of the mechanist epistemology in behalf of a thermodynamics
interpretation of the economic process had a significant impact for the development
of new environmental-economic disciplines. In “Energy and Economic Myths”
(Georgescu-Roegen 1976) the author criticizes the “representation of the economic
process as a circular diagram, a pendulum movement between production and consumption
within a completely closed system” (Georgescu-Roegen 1993a:75) given both by the
neoclassical school and by the Marxist economists. These schools of thought reduce
the economic process to a self-sustained and perfectly reversible event, following the
physical laws of mechanics and ignoring the continuous interrelations with the
material environment as well as the role of nature in the economic problem.
Georgescu-Roegen looked instead at the thermodynamics, as a physical background
dominating the economic process. According to this interpretation, the material
processes of production and consumption use matter and energy, without
consuming them in a quantitative sense (due to the first thermodynamics law of
matter-energy conservation), but changing their qualitative features, according with
the second one, the entropy law.
The introduction of thermodynamics laws in economics brought to interpret the
economic processes as something transforming valuable natural resources in valueless
waste, that is low-entropy resources (or available, free energy) into high-entropy
waste (or unavailable, dissipated, bound energy) (Georgescu-Roegen 1971). In a close
system, a continuous and irrevocably degrade of free energy into bound energy
occurs and the human activities are accelerating this process of degradation of
natural resources into waste. The introduction of the Entropy law within the
economic theory implies many changes of perspective regarding the interpretation of
economic concepts. The idea of scarcity, that was the fulcrum of the classical
economists’ theory, assumes a different connotation: resources are not just limited, as
the Ricardian sense of scarcity suggests, but degradable, because subjects to the
entropy law. At the same time, the outcome of the economic process is not just a
material good, but rather the immaterial good of so called “enjoyment of life”.
Further consequences of the entropic interpretation of the economic process lies in
rejecting the belief of an infinitive substitution between natural and technological
capital1, the introduction of scrapes into the economic analysis and the development
of the Bioeconomics as a “discipline based on parallel knowledge and application of social,
1 The possibility of substitution between natural and man-‐made capital defines the concept of “weak sustainability” in contrast with the “strong sustainability”, in which the possibility of substitution is assumed to be temporary and spatially limited. The two approaches characterize respectively the Environmental Economics and Bioeconomics (but also Ecological Economics) disciplines. 15 economic and biophysical principles and emphasized the importance of an understanding of
the reciprocal influence of these principles” (Giampietro and Pastore 1999:287).
A special role in the functioning of the economic system is given to the agricultural
activity and this issue is treated by Georgescu-Roegen in several works. On the light
of the entropy law, the modern agriculture, substituting the animals’ traction with
the mechanization, using chemicals fertilizers instead of manure and using fossil
fuels for the input production, is highly inefficient and energy wasting. The
economic productivity obtained using more production inputs does not consider the
entropy increase resulting from the intensification of the productive techniques. A
major output in the present compromises the availability of resources of future
generations: one of the most crucial issue and ecological problem is the management
of the “low-entropy patrimony” between different generations2.
In “Energy and Economic Myths” Georgescu-Roegen deals with the theme of energy,
criticizing the emphasis given to this concept on behalf of the matter. He calls
“energeticist dogmas” the tendency of science of considering energy as the
fundamental and predominant resource for the human life and the natural systems.
With the statement “matter, matters too” the author outlined how the energeticist
dogmas neglects the relevance of matter as the source of value and as the basis of the
economic processes. The main reason, according to the author, lies in the fact that
matter is not subject to a qualitative degradation as energy, and because there is a
theoretical possibility of complete recycling. Through the analytic representation of
the flow-fund model (Georgescu-Roegen 1976) Georgescu-Roegen shows that matter
is a fundamental element in the relation between economic process and environment,
and denies the possibility of a complete recycling, stating the definitive irreversibility
of the economic process.
The idea of a degradable matter led to the formulation of the “forth law of
thermodynamics”, that has been criticized and is nowadays controversial. In spite of
this quarrel, whose treatment would bring far away the scope of this chapter, the
importance of the matter and the opposition towards the energeticist dogmas had
relevant consequences in the further development of the Sustainability Science, and
especially in the approach of material flows that has been used in this work (see
chapter 4). Other aspects of georgescu-roegenian though had a very strong impact in
the evolution of the modern science and society. The idea and social movement of
“Degrowth”, i.e., has been inspired by the Rumanian economist theories and his
criticism to the neoclassical theory of infinitive economic growth in a limited
biophysical space. We can undoubtedly state that the theoretical, analytic and
conceptual contribution of Georgescu-Roegen in the building of the Sustainability
Science and is still unsurpassed.
1.2 The Georgescu-Roegen’s legacy and the Sustainability Science
Nowadays, the Sustainability Science is a multidisciplinary field of knowledge
addressing the dynamic interactions between human and environment systems
(Clark and Dickson 2003). It has been officially introduced in 2001 during the world
congress "Challenges of a Changing Earth 2001" in Amsterdam, organized by the
International Council for Science (ICSU), the International Geosphere-Biosphere
Programme (IGBP), the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global
Environmental Change (IHDP) and the World Climate Research Programme
(WCRP) (Steffen, Jäger et al. 2002). It involves many disciplines, questing the impact
2 On the base of this integenerational perpective introduced by Georgescu-‐Roegen, the Bruntland Commission defined the sustainable development as a development that "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (UN 1987). In spite of the criticisms, it is still the most-‐often quoted definition of sustainable development. 16 of human societies over the ecosystems, the use of resources in an intergenerational
perspective and both from a local and global point of view. Many authors, thinkers
and scientists anticipated and influenced the creation of the Sustainability Science.
Between them, Ernst Schumacher largely contributed to the growth debate
(Schumacher 1973), while Karl Polanyi prefigured the concept of an economic system
embedded in the social, ecological and institutional environment (Polanyi 1944).
In the economic sphere, the two main disciplines underpinning on sustainability are
Bioeconomics and Ecological Economics. Georgescu-Roegen introduced the concept
of Bioeconomics stating that the “problem of human surviving that is not only a biological,
not only economic, but bioeconomic”(Georgescu-Roegen 1982). Focusing on the conflict
between different generations, he put the basis for new economic schools of thought,
using different analytical tools and approaches for investigating the linkages
between ecological and economic systems. Between them, Ecological Economics has
had the major impact due to the foundation of the International Society of Ecological
Economics (ISEE) in 1989 and the publication of its journal “Ecological Economics”.
Together with Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, the economists Herman Daly and
Kenneth Boulding can be considered the intellectual founders and antecedents of
Ecological Economics. The common remark of the three authors regards the
unfeasibility of a continuous growth in a limited biophysical space and the need for a
“strong sustainability”, in opposition to the mainstream economic theory (Daly and
Farley 2004). Nevertheless, different answers and theories are proposed for solving
the issue. Daly formulated the theory of Steady-State Economics, “defined by constant
stocks of physical wealth (artifacts) and a constant population, each maintained at some
chosen, desirable level by a low rate of throughput – i.e., by low birth rates equal to low death
rates and by low physical production rates equal to low physical depreciation rates, so that
longevity of people and durability of physical stocks are high.” (Daly 1974). GeorgescuRoegen, instead, refused the idea of the steady state as well as the concept of
“sustainable development”, stating that the more suitable condition implies a decline
of the economic system (Georgescu-Roegen 1993b). Kenneth Boulding used the
metaphor of “spaceship economy” to describe a world in which natural resources
and food supplies are limited in opposition with “cowboy economy”, where people
act as new availabilities of resources are always given for granted (Boulding 1966).
With this concept, he anticipated the view of a global system and the mass-energy
balances.
The ecologist Howard Odum contributed to the development of Ecological
Economics introducing the EMergy analysis, which aims at measuring the
sustainability of goods and systems through the accounting of the energy
incorporated in a product or service, expressed in solar energy (Odum 1971; Holling
1973). Many other scientists used this analysis, between them the Italian Enzo Tiezzi
(Tiezzi and Marchettini, 1999; Bastianoni, Marchettini et al. 2001). Another ecologist,
Crawford Holling, introduced the ideas of resilence and stability of the ecosystems
(Holling 1973), afterwards used also in economic studies.
1.3 The food environmental impact: assessment methodologies
A further in-deep examination of the literature concerns the topic of sustainability in
food production and consumption. In this paragraph we briefly review the most
common approaches for assessing the ecological impact of food, used in ecological
economic field.
One common approach to evaluate food sustainability lies in the assessment of its
energy content. This kind of analysis has its roots in the discipline of “agrarian
energetics”, well known since the XIX century, with the first studies of Sergej
Podolinskij (1850-‐1891), who introduced the energy balances in the agricultural
production, Eduard Sacher (1884-1903) and the Austrian economist Josef PopperLynkeus (1838-1921). Frederick Soddy (1877-1956), Nobel Prize for Chemistry in
17 1921, contributed to the development of an “energy theory of value”, emphasising
the dependency of economic systems on thermodynamics and the role of energy for
the creation of value (Soddy 1926). A further theoretical contribution in this topic is
by the Spanish ecological economist Martínez-Alier (Martínez-Alier and Schlüpmann
1987), while one of the first energy evaluation of the food systems has been done for
the U.S. (Steinhart and Steinhart 1974).
The relevance of energy flows in agro-food systems has greatly increased with the
intensification of agricultural practices and the development of an industrial food
system for the processing and distribution of food. Pimentel estimated that on
average, in the U.S., about 2 kcal of fossil energy is required to harvest 1kcal of crop
(Pimentel 2006). This figure includes all the inputs employed in agriculture, i.e. the
manufacturing, transport and employment of agrochemicals, the fuel consumption
for mechanical operations, manufacturing of machinery, electricity consumption for
greenhouses and irrigation plants. The whole food system uses about 19% of the total
fossil energy burned in the U.S. (Pimentel 2006). Other studies on the energy flows
have regarded the efficiency of the agricultural sector (Schroll 1994) and the potential
of energy use’s reduction (Brown and Elliott 2005).
The increasing prices of fossil fuels and other fuel-based agricultural inputs have
greatly contributed to stimulating the interest in this field of investigation.
Greenhouse emissions and global warming potential (GWP) are an additional
relevant topics concerning food systems sustainability. Globalized food systems rest
upon wide transport infrastructures and foodstuffs cover thousands kilometres
distances before reaching the table. In addition, the modern food industry provides
highly processed food that must be cooked, refrigerated, packed, stored and
transported. The availability of fresh fruit and vegetable has been extended to exotic
products that are imported in large quantities from tropical areas. Additionally, the
frequency of shopping trips and the distance travelled for foodstuffs purchasing has
increased in the last decades, due to the spreading of out-of-town shopping centres
that have replaced the small local shops (Jones 2002). Food processing, distributing
and marketing can instead be relevant voices in the total carbon dioxide emissions,
depending on the considered food system.
Also the agricultural sector provokes greenhouse gas emissions (Cline 2007), mostly
methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) and a minor share of carbon dioxide (CO2).
The evaluation of carbon emissions linked to food production and consumption is a
common method to evaluate the ecological impact of food. Several studies focused
on the “Carbon Footprint” of food, as a measure of environmental sustainability. It
accounts in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent all the greenhouse gases produced
directly and indirectly in the life cycle of a product (Plassmann, Jones et al. 2009). The
“Food Miles” measure (Paxton 1994) is also linked to the greenhouse gases emissions
and refers to the distances travelled by the food as an indirect measure of the
environmental impact. A number of studies exist on this theme (e.g. Coley, Howard
et al. 2009; Pretty et al. 2005; Saunders, Barber et al. 2006) that has had a wide spread
thanks to its handiness and immediately communicable message. However, focusing
only on the food transport phase and considering only the emissions of greenhouses,
it can not be considered an indicator of food sustainability, as stated by a DEFRA
(UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) study (Smith, Watkiss et
al. 2005).
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United States) estimated that
livestock production is responsible for approximately 18% of global greenhouse
gases emissions (Steinfeld, Gerber et al. 2006). Intensive livestock production,
concentrating in a small area a whole slew of animals, provokes also soil and water
contamination (Delgado, Rosegrant et al. 1999; Steinfeld, Gerber et al. 2006). This
evidence has encouraged the investigation on diet habits impact, with a special
regard to meat and animal based-foodstuffs’ consumption and their global warming
potential (Carlsson-Kanyama and Gonzales 2009), (Mc Michael, Powles et al. 2007),
18 (Eshel and Martin 2006), (Pimentel and Pimentel 2003). The environmental effects
associated with different dietary preferences have been investigated also in terms of
energy consumption (Pimentel and Pimentel 2003) material intensity (Mancini,
Lettenmeier et al. forthcoming) and general ecological cost (Marlow, Hayes et al.
2009). All these studies proved the higher impact of meat-based diets with respect to
the vegetarian ones.
Water use in agriculture is a crucial issue since this economic sector accounts almost
70% of the water withdrawals (FAO 2003) and many crops and staple food require
intensive irrigation. Animal products, and especially beef, are particularly water
demanding; if we consider the indirect consumption of water, through the forages
and grains intakes, more then two hundred tonnes litres of water are needed to
produce one kilogram of beef (Pimentel, Houser et al. 1997). In arid and semiarid
regions irrigation is a vital element for the economic development, thus governments
provide incentives for expanding irrigation systems. However, these policies are
usually not encouraging water use efficiency and exacerbate water scarcity and
depletion (Sadiddin 2009). Moreover, irrigation can leads up to the soil salinisation
and irreversible loss of fertility (Wallace 2000).
The concept of Virtual Water was introduced in the early Nineties (Allan 1993; Allan
1994) as a measure for the water used along the life cycle of a product. It is also called
“embedded water” or “exogenous water” in the case of import-export flows of
commodities (Hoekstra 2003). The Water Footprint, instead, is used in relation to the
consumption of water, also at country level, for the human activities, included
nutrition (Chapagain and Hoekstra 2004).
Feeding an increasing population requires new arable lands to be addressed to
agricultural activity. The change in land use is causing a vast deforestation, with
irreversible losses of biodiversity. The increasing global demand for palm oil-based
products, for instance, is causing a rapid deforestation in Malaysia and Indonesia,
which are located within two hotspots of biodiversity (Koh and Wilcove. 2007). The
loss of habitats and biodiversity is threatening the natural ecosystems in these areas.
In addition, monoculture, heavy use of agrochemicals and the degrading tillage
practices have a heavy impact also in the agroecosystems, eroding genetic resources,
insect biodiversity, soil fertility, and consequently it reduce the land productivity.
The link between biodiversity and food security has been outlined by several
scientific contributions (Thrupp 2000; Frison, Smith, et al. 2006; Brussaard, Caron et
al. 2010).
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a very rigorous, comprehensive and detailed
measurement of the environmental impact of products. It focuses on some categories
of resource use, like climate change potential, ozone depletion potential, overfertilization and eutrophication. It has been widely applied to many agricultural
products and foodstuffs but it requires substantial investments in terms of monetary
resources and time (Mattsson 1999).
A material flow-based approach was used in this survey for investigating the
sustainability of nutrition in different food systems (a description of the materialflow based approach is in chapter 4). The Material Flow Analysis (MFA) (Bringezu
and Moriguchi 2002) is a standardized methodology accounting the use of natural
resources of the economies, at local, national or international level. MF-based
indicators i.e. the Material Input Per Service unit (MIPS) (Schmidt-Bleek 1994) the
fossil maker), used in this study, is applicable at micro-economic level, for an
assessment of products and services’ environmental impact along their life cycle.
So far, the MFA has been performed to USA, Japan, Austria, Germany and
Netherlands, within the framework of two MFA projects coordinated by the World
Resource Institute (Adriaanse, Bringezu et al. 1997) In addition, MFAs exist for many
other countries, e.g. Italy (De Marco, Lagioia et al. 2000; Femia 2000), Finland
(Mäenpaää and Juutinen 2002) and Sweden (Isacsson, Jonsson et al. 2000). The
19 European Environmental Agency (EEA) and the European Statistical Office
(EUROSTAT) published in 2001 the first material balance of the European Union
(EU-15) (Bringezu and Schütz 2001a; Bringezu and Schütz 2001b). The United Nation
(UN 2003), the European Commission (Weisz, Krausmann et al. 2007) and the
Organization for the Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD 2008)
published some reports for the standardization of the methodology. MIPS is instead
be used for evaluating waste policy options (Lettenemeier and Salo 2008), for
assessing the Finnish households natural resource consumption, (Kotakorpi,
Lähteenoja et al. 2008), for the transport systems (Saari, Lettenmeier et al. 2007) and
communication networks (Federico, Musmeci et al. 2001) analysis and for evaluating
the material intensity of food in Germany (Ritthoff, Kaiser et al. 2009) and Finland
(Kauppinen, Lähteenoja et al. 2008).
20 Chapter 2. Food Systems and
Sustainability
“Nutrition” is one of the most material demanding areas of need, accounting for
approximately 20% of the total natural resource consumption of the German
economy (Rithoff, Kaiser et al. 2009). The ongoing increase of the world population
entails huge challenges for all countries’ agro-food systems. Agriculture has to satisfy
growing food requirements both in quantitative and qualitative terms, but the on
hand natural resource stock is quickly depleting. Moreover, food production and
energy production from biomass are competing for land (Pimentel and Pimentel
2008, Hahlbrock 2009). Therefore, the topics of nutrition and sustainability have been
gaining more and more attention in the political agenda of many governments and
international institutions.
This chapter intends to provide an understanding on the functioning of agro-food
systems, focusing on the main economic features at global level. It concentrates on
the interpretation of food systems as networks provided by Kinsey (2005) and on the
analysis of the power market concentration along the different segments of the
supply chain. The Italian context is also explored, through a brief overview of the
economic traits of the sector. Finally, the chapter takes into consideration some
relevant issues regarding food systems and sustainability, and the future challenges
they are going to face, i.e. the food demand growth, the environmental degradation
and the food security problems.
2.1 The global food sector: economic features and emerging issues
Il the last fifty years the global food system underwent a great transformation. The
technological progress (especially in the field of chemistry and mechanization) and
the market globalization have lead to the predominance of few corporations covering
high rates of the global market. Complexity and concentration of the market power
are thus two the main features of the globalized agro-food systems.
An increased complexity of relationships and interlocked activities characterize the
modern food systems. Kinsey (2003) proposed a web representation for illustrating
the manifold dynamics between the different stakeholders involved in the food
systems. The traditional linear chain representations are instead inadequate to
describe the new food economies. Furthermore, the focus shifts from the producers
to the consumer, which is set at the centre of the system (fig. 2.1). The radiant vectors
from the centre represent a set of task or activities connected with food:
1. Adding value to raw commodities (cleaning, packaging, cooking)
2. Aggregating and storing products for future sale
3. Monitoring of product safety and quality
21 4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Waste management, environmental preservation and recycling
Managing and training labour
Technology adaptation
Collecting, interpreting transmitting and analyzing information about
consumer/costumer demand
Basic science and technology
Providing financing and credit
Overseeing and facilitating the integrity of the market, the welfare of
producers, workers and consumers
Growing crops and raising animals
Transporting product from one point to another
The various stakeholders are the letters positioned in the vector corresponding to the
activity that they perform: consumers (C), retail food companies (R), foodservice
companies (FS), wholesalers (W), manufacturers (M), ingredient manufacturers (I),
first stage handlers (H), farmers (F), seed and feed companies (S), government
agencies (G), the media (TV), universities (U), scientific laboratories (L), banks (B),
and commodity exchanges and stock market (X).
Consumer, e.g., can perform many of the activities connected with food: they
transport it, add value cooking and preparing it, store it, monitor its quality, handle
the waste, manage their own labour, adopt technologies and even grown their own
food. Also other actors can be involved in more activities, while some stakeholders
have more specific functions (e.g. banks). Actors staying in more vectors demonstrate
a high level of vertical integration, while the lines connecting the different actions
show the strategic alliances, agreements, merges and cooperation. The more crowded
is the web, the higher is the integration level of the food system.
The vertical integration can lead to a major efficiency of the systems and to approach
the scale economies. On the other hands, Sodano (2004) outlines that an excessive
integration can bring anti-competitive effects and a concentration of the economic
and strategic power. The food policy would instead maintain equilibrium between
the dynamic of market and the execution of public functions connected with food, i.e.
the access to food and the environmental and health protection.
Fig. 2.1 Food production and distribution networks
Source: Kinsey 2003
22 Sodano (2004) analysis of agro-food systems propose the following features
characterizing the actual food demand and supply:
1. a radical difference in the food connotation and meaning between developed
countries (where food consumption responds also to secondary needs i.e.
conviviality, hedonism and of social status) and developing countries (where
food is strictly linked with nutritional requirements);
2. the geographical distribution of food supply and demand, in which rich
countries have high rates of self sufficiency and poor countries are more
dependent by importations;
3. the increasing market power asymmetry between the various steps of the
food chain and the value added distribution between the different actors;
4. the role of international organization like WTO (World Trade Organization)
in the global market regulation and its pressure towards the markets’
liberalization.
The introduction of intellectual property rights (IPRs) on seeds, that is actually
interesting the 67% of the total seed market, and the increasing relevance of the life
science industry (i.e. groups that traditionally worked separately in the fields of
chemistry, pharmacy and seed, jointed in the bio-engineering sector) are further
distinctive features of actual agro-food system (Dalle Mulle and Ruppanner 2010,
Howard 2009, Lang and Heasman 2004, Shiva 2001).
Concerning the second point of the previous list, fig. 2.2 illustrates the market
asymmetry between the different steps of the value chain, revealing a high level of
market concentration in the agricultural input production, in the food processors and
traders and in the retailer. Instead, farmer activity is highly competitive and
fragmented.
Fig. 2.2 Agricultural food business chain
Source: McIntyre, Herren at al., 2009
Concerning the sector of seed production, the process of market concentration
started in the Nineties, when a series of big merges interested the agro-industry. Fig.
2.3 shows that the top ten companies (table 2.1) gained 50% of the total market power
since 1985 to 2008. The success of hybrid crops in the Seventies, the discovery of
genetic engineering and the combination of interests between agrochemistry and
pharmaceutics were the main development steps of this sectors (Humphrey 2006). In
particular, the biotechnologies “brought companies like Du Pont, ICI, Elf-Aquitaine,
Monsanto, Rohm and Haas, and Unilever into the seed business. These companies sought to
exploit the complementarities between seed and other inputs (e.g., through seeds tolerant to
specific herbicides) brought about by the advent of biotechnology” (Srinivasan, 2003: p. 521).
The market of pesticides is even more concentrated (fig. 2.4), with the top ten
companies having 82% of the total market power (table 2.2). Four of these companies
(Syngenta, Bayer, Monsanto and DuPont) are also in the top ten of the seed
23 producers, demonstrating the merges of activities occurred with the development of
the life science industry.
Fig. 2.3 Evolution of market concentration in the global seed industry
Source: Dalle Mulle and Ruppanner et al., 2010
Table 2.1 Top 10 corporations' market share of the global seed market
Market
share (%)
Total market power of top ten companies
of which:
50
Monsanto (USA
35
DuPont (USA)
22
Syngenta (Switzerland)
13
Groupe Limagrain (France)
8
Land O'Lakes (USA)
7
KWS AG (Germany)
5
Bayer Crop Science (Germany)
4
Sakata (Japan)
3
DLF-Trifolium (Denmark)
2
Takii (Japan)
Others
2
50
24 Fig. 2.4 Evolution of market concentration in the global pesticides industry (1996-2008)
Table 2.2 Top ten corporations’ market share of the global pesticides market
Market
share (%)
of which:
82
Syngenta (Switzerland)
18
Bayer (Germany)
17
BASF (Germany)
9
Dow AgroSciences (USA)
9
Monsanto (USA)
10
DuPont (USA)
5
Makhteshim Agan (Israel)
4
Nufarm (Australia)
4
Sumitomo Chemical (Japan)
4
Arysta Lifescience (Japan)
Others
2
18
The sector of food processing is less concentrated than the agro-industry, with the
first ten companies covering the 28% of the market power (table 2.3). Moreover, the
concentration rate did not increase in the last eight years (Sodano 2004). One
explanation is that the manufacturing industry is not near to the customers and they
adapt more slowly to the consumers requirements and preference changes.
However, US market present a much higher level of concentration with respect to
European countries.
The power of supermarkets and retailing chains is instead drastically increasing. In
the latest years the top ten retail corporations (fig. 2.5) have more then doubled their
share of the global food retail market (Dalle Mulle and Ruppanner 2010). The share
of retailing through supermarkets has risen in the last decade especially in
developing countries, where the urbanization is significantly enlarging the
supermarkets’ costumer base, influencing the food habits and preferences all over
the world (Burch & Lawrence 2007).
25 Oliver De Schutter, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food outlined that this
concentration of market power can have a negative impact on the supply chain (De
Schutter, 2009), threatening the market competition, reducing wages and working
standard condition of food industry workers and imposing their own prices to
suppliers. “Due to deeply unequal bargaining positions of food producers and consumers on
the on hand, and buyers and retailers on the other hand, the latter can continue to pay
relatively low prices for crops even when the prices increase on regional or international
markets, and they can continue charge high prices to consumers even though prices fall on
these markets…” (Ibidem: p.5). The negative effects of the increasing “corporization”
within the global food system on consumers and farmers are illustrated in fig. 2.7.
During the twenty years 1980-2000, the prices of foodstuffs at retailing have
increased till more than 300%. The corresponding farm gate price is instead
decreased from 50 to 80%.
Table 2.3 Top ten corporations’ market share of the global food processing market
Market
share (%)
of which:
28
Nestlé (Switzerland)
26
PepsiCo Incl. (USA)
12
Kraft Foods (USA)
12
The Coca-Cola Company (USA)
9
Unilever (The Netherlands)
6
Tyson Foods (USA)
8
Cargill (USA)
7
Mars (USA)
7
Archer Daniels Midland Company (USA)
7
Danone (France)
Others
6
72
Fig. 2.5 Top global food retailers
Source: UNEP/GRID-Arendal, 2008
26 Fig. 2.6 Supermarket share of retail food sales
Fig. 2.7 Percentage price changes of key commodities
The last segment of food chain is the food service. Together with retailers, this sector
has the major growth potential. The urbanization and the spreading of “modern” life
styles are creating a growing demand for this sector. Economic development and
women employment out of the household will instead increase the demand of
services connected with food. The catering sector is traditionally fragmented and the
27 capability of meeting consumers’ requirements will probably modify the competitive
framework of the food systems.
2.2 A focus on Italian Agro-Food Sector
This section focuses on the Italian agro-food sector, providing a general outlook on
the main economic features and trends of the supply and demand of food.
Agricultural sector and its relationship with other food chain segments have a special
emphasis.
Agriculture and food industry constitute 1.6% and 1.7% of the Italian GDP (table 2.4).
In the five-year period 2004-2009 the primary sector lost annually 3% of its value
added, while food industry demonstrated a positive trend (average variation of 1%)
in spite of the economic crisis that involved the industrial sector and the GDP
decrease between 2008 and 2009 (fig. 2.8).
Table 2.4 Value added trend of Italian agro-food sector
Variation %
Average annual variation %
Value Added
Million Euro (2009) % GDP 2009/08 2008/07
2004-09
Agriculture
25084
1.6
-11.5
-0.5
-3.0
Food industry
25752
1.7
2.8
1.0
1.0
Industy (other)
256794
16.9
-12.3
-1.2
1.0
GDP
1520870
100
-3.0
1.4
2.5
Source: ISMEA 2010
Fig. 2.8 GDP and Value Added trends, index 2003-2004=100
Source: ISMEA 2010
In Italy there are 1726130 agricultural holdings, and the farmers represent the 80% of
the total operators in the food chain (without considering the food and beverages
manufacturers, which lack of data) but the value added gained by this segment is
only 45% (also in this case, without considering manufacturers) (table 2.5).
28 Table 2.5 Numbers of operators and value added generated along the value chain (unit)
Food,
beverage
& tobacco
manufact.
Food,
beverage
& tobacco
wholesale
Specialize
d food
retailers
Nonspecialize
d food
retailers
Restauran
ts, bars,
canteens,
catering
1726130
n.a.
34969
115674
57127
224376
2158276
80
-
2
5
3
10
100
25948
n.a
5916
4308
9587
11944
57703
45
-
10
7
17
21
100
Agric.
holdings
Numbers of
operators
%
Value added
%
Total
Source: EUROSTAT, 2008
The evolution of employed in the primary sector has a negative trend, with a drastic
reduction between 2008 and 2009, that is instead much slightly in the whole economy
and in the food industry (fig. 2.9). Also the labour productivity has decreased in the
last years in all the economic sectors. However, the absolute value added per labour
unit is significantly minor in the agriculture, (22000 euro versus 46300 of food
industry) demonstrating a standing gap between the primary and secondary sector
in terms of income generated (table 2.6).
Fig. 2.9 Number of employed, trend - Index average 2003-2004=100
Source: ISMEA, 2010
Table 2.6 Labour productivity of food sector: value added per labour unit
2009 (1000 Euro)
Agriculture
Food industry
Manufacturing industry
Other industry
Total economy
22.0
46.3
41.0
45.5
44.4
Variation %
2009/08 2008/07
-1.3
3.1
3.3
-3.0
-8.1
-3.6
-7.6
-2.2
-2.9
-0.8
Average annual variation %
2004-09
1.6
0.8
-0.5
-0.2
0.0
Source: ISMEA 2010
Concerning the main outputs of agro-food sector and the rate of self-sufficiency, in
spite of a high consumption of cereals’ by-products, Italian production covers only
79.1% of the cereals’ need. Also national production of milk, bovines, pigs and sheep
is not sufficient, while the poultry exceeds with a rate of 109.6%.
29 Table 2.7 Output of food chain: main agricultural and food products generated, and selfsufficiency (2006)
Cereals
Production
(1000 tonnes)
Self-sufficiency
rate (%)
Fresh veg.
20207
13495
79.1
-
Milk
Bovines
11787
Pigs
Sheep
Poultry
1111
1556
59
628
57.0
66.4
40.7
109.6
2.2.1
The Italian Agriculture
With respect to the European agricultural land use, Italian utilization is much more
oriented towards permanent crops (18% vs. 6%) (table 2.8). Groves account the 22%
of the whole value added from agricultural production, demonstrating certain
relevance in the sector economy (table 2.9). The main products from groves are wine
grapes, olives, oranges, peaches nectarines, apples which are in the top ten of Italian
production (table 2.10). The biggest share of the GDP comes from livestock (32.6%),
and herbaceous crops (30.4%). Between them, cereals have a primary relevance,
investing the biggest surfaces (wheat, maize, barley, rice, oats) (table 7). All the
productions had a negative variation in the latest five years, as shown in fig. 2.10.
A peculiarity of Italian holding framework is the fragmentation of the land property.
The average utilized agricultural area per holding is instead 7.4 ha, vs. 11.9 of the
EU-27 (table 5; fig. 4).
Table 2.8 Utilized agricultural area (UAA), 2005
Utilized agricultural area (1000 ha)
Total
Arable
Permanent
land
pasture
Italy
share (%)
EU-27
share (%)
12 708
171996
7040
55.40
104717
60.88
3347
26.34
55984
32.55
Permanent
crops
2286
17.99
10872
6.32
Other
35
0.28
423
0.25
Average
UAA per
holding (ha)
7.4
11.9
19.0
Table 2.9 GDP trend
Productions
Herbaceus crops
Groves
Annual fodders
Livestock farms
Related services activities
Agricultural production
Million Euros (2007) Share on the total %
13860
30.4
10183
22.3
1674
3.7
14868
32.6
5009
11.0
45594
100
Source: ISMEA, 2010
30 Table 2.10 Italian top crops, ranking by area invested and output, 2007
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Crops
Durum wheat
Olive
Maize
Wine grapes
Soft wheat
Barley
Rice
Oats
Area invested (1000 ha)
1439
1161
1053
711.7
661.2
344.7
228.1
154.5
Soya
Sunflower
130.3
126.5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Crops
Maize
Tomatoes
Wine grapes
Durum wheat
Sugar beat
Olive
Soft wheat
Oranges
Peaches+
nectarines
Apples
Production (1000 tonnes)
9846
6718
6178
4015
3804
3384
3257
2671
2486
2259
Source: ISTAT, 2008
Fig. 2.10 Trend of agricultural production, Index average 2003-2004= 100
Source: ISMEA, 2010
Fig. 2.11 Average Utilized Agricultural Area (UAA) per holding by country, 2007
The fragmentation is evident also in economic terms; fig. 2.12 shows that the number
of Italian farms (1679000) is much higher than the German (370000), French (527000)
and Spanish ones (1043000). Moreover, economically small farms (from 1 to 16 ESU)
constitute the 66% of the total value and the share of very small farms (less than 1
ESU) is also significant (17.6% vs. 5.9%, 6.8% and 9.9% of Germany, France and
Spain). As a consequence, the average Standard Gross Margin (SGM) (18 ESU in
2007) is below the average of EU-27 (20 ESU) and almost three times lower than the
31 French (58) and German farms (54) (EUROSTAT, 2010). The small farm dimension
often implies a familiar management of the enterprise and the recourse to familiar
labour force, that instead in particularly high in the Italian agriculture (table 2.11).
Fig. 2.12 Holdings by economic size of the holding 2007
Table 2.11 Farm labour force (family/no family)*, 2007
IT
EU-27
Persons regularly
employed (1000
persons)
2727
16 379
Labour Force (1 000
AWU**)
1216
8 985
Family labour force
(% AWU)
82.9
75.5
Non family labour
force (% AWU)
17.1
24.5
*Of holdings with at least1 ESU
**Annual Work Unit
Italy is the third country contributing to the total value of the EU-27 agricultural
industry output, after France and Germany (table 2.12). This share has decreased in
the period 2000-2009 and also the agricultural income had a negative trend in
between 2008 and 2009, losing 20.6% of the Indicator A calculated by EUROSTAT,
i.e. the real net value added at factor cost (factor income). It is calculated by
subtracting the consumption of fixed capital from gross value added at basic prices
and adding the value of (other) subsidies fewer taxes on production.
One explanation of the worsening of agricultural income stands on the increasing
gap between input costs and prices of food and agricultural products (see fig. 2.14
and table 2.13). In spite of an increasing trend of both the indexes during the period
2004-2008, and a falling in 2009 correspondently with the global financial crises, the
difference between costs and prices has enlarged. In fact, the average annual
variation of pesticides, fertilizers, fuels, fodders and salary are positive, and the
average annual rise in the cost of agricultural input is 4%. Instead, the average
annual variation of prices is 1.5% and during the period 2008-2009 some products
showed very negative results, e.g. cereals, -34% and wine, -21.5%.
32 Table 2.12 Output value at producer prices of the agricultural industry
EU-27
France
Germany
Italy
Spain
Million Euros
2000
2005
295331 308681
56607
56149
39203
38946
40996
42170
32693
35407
2009
329390
61 236
42 923
42 466
37087
% of EU-27
2000 2009
100
100
19.2 18.6
13.3 13.0
13.9 12.9
11.1 11.3
Fig. 2.13 Agricultural income (Indicator A) in the EU % 2009/2008
Fig. 2.14 Agricultural prices and costs, Italy (index 2000=100)
Source: ISMEA, 2010
33 Table 2.13 Prices and costs in Italian agriculture
PRICES
Agr.
products
Average
2009
Variation
2009/08
(%)
103.2
-1.0
2.1
109.9
128.1
-34.0
-13.4
5.5
0.9
97.6
-12.1
0.1
108.1
-14.5
-0.9
122.0
10.9
-0.8
266.0
12.5
13.2
87.0
-21.5
-2.5
117.5
-16.0
1.9
100.7
-6.1
1.2
108.9
-11.6
1.5
Animals
and eggs
Cereals
Fresh fruit
Milk and
dairy
products
Olive oil
Vegetables
and
potatoes
Tobacco
Wine
Agricultural
crops
Livestock
productions
Total
Average
annual
variation
(%)
COSTS
Agr. products
Average
2009
Variation
2009/08
(%)
118.7
0.8
1.9
173
114.8
-5.3
3.2
10.5
3.1
113.7
-7.1
4.1
Livestock
101.5
16.6
-2.0
Fodders
119.4
-10.5
3.5
106.3
1.9
-0.9
136.2
3.6
3.7
132.9
-0.2
4.4
118.6
-6.0
2.9
128.7
-1.8
4.0
Seed
Fertilizers
Pesticides
Fuels
Miscellaneous
expenditures
Salaries
Agricultural
crops
Livestock
productions
Total
Average
annual
variation
(%)
Source: ISMEA, 2010
Organic farming interests 8.4% of the Italian UAA and 52800 producers, 2.6% of the
total holdings. It has a fair diffusion with respect to the other European countries
(Germany, Spain and France) and the EU-25 (table 2.14). Citrus, orchards and olives
are the crops with the highest share of organic area (table 2.15) while sheep and goat
is the livestock form with highest organic heads (7.2%) and farms (3.5%) (table 2.16).
Fig. 2.15 ranks the European countries for the use of fertilizers and plant protection
products. Italian agriculture shows to be quite intensive in the use of inputs,
especially in the use of pesticides, employing almost 4 kg of active ingredient per
hectare.
Table 2.14 Organic farming
Producers
(1000)
2000
EU-25
IT
DE
FR
ES
52.80
12.74
8.99
13.39
Organic crop area
1000 ha
% of all
holdings
(2005)
2005
157.77
44.86
17.02
11.40
15.26
2000
1.6
2.6
4.4
2.0
1.4
1040.4
546.0
369.9
380.9
2005
6165.3
1069.5
807.4
505.5
807.6
% of
total
UAA
2005
4.0
8.4
4.7
2.0
3.2
Average
organic
area/holding
(ha)
2005
39.1
23.8
47.4
48.3
52.9
34 Table 2.15 Italian organic areas per crop, 2007
Total Italy (hectares)
167147
Share of the total arable land (%)
4.3
Vegetables
10061
4.3
Grape vine
23834
3.1
Olive
88391
8.7
Citrus
13529
11.9
Orchards
26170
6.5
Meadows and pastures
171291
5.0
Other crops
198067
2.1
UAA organic
698491
5.5
35212
0.3
Cereals
UAA in conversion
Source: ISTAT, 2008
Table 2.16 Organic farms and heads of cattle, 2007 (ISTAT)
Bovine and buffalo
Sheep and goat
Pigs
Poultry
units
% on total
units
% on total
units
Farms
Heads
4187
174891
2.8
2.7
3175
556320
3.5
7.2
1375
100666
% on total
1.4
1.1
units
% on total
1091
1.4
331446
0.2
Source: ISTAT, 2008
Fig. 2.15 Fertilizers and plant protection products’ consumption in EU countries (kg of
active ingredient per hectare of utilized agricultural area)
35 2.2.2
Food industry and distribution
Italian food industry is one of the main pillars in Italian economy. In spite of the
economic crises that involved many sectors of world economy, food industry has
maintained constant values of production in the years 2008-2009 (fig. 2.16). It counts
6350 industrial firms and 378000 operators. In 2009 the production was 120 billion of
euro, 12% of the entire manufacturing industrial sector. The balance between export
and import is positive, with 4.28 billions of euro (Federalimentare 2010). Meat
processing industry (including beef, cold cuts and poultry) has the major share of the
total turnover of food industry, milk and dairy products, wine and beer, sugar and
sweets follow (fig. 2.17). Water and non alcoholic beverages include also soft drinks,
fruit juices and coffee; cereal by products include rice and pasta industry.
Fig. 2.16 Gross Operating Margin (GOM) trend in agricultural, industrial firms and food
industries
Source: ISMEA, 2010
Fig. 2.17 Food industry turnover by subsector, 2009
Source: ISTAT, 2008
According to ISMEA elaborations, the distribution phase has the major weight in the
value chain, gaining 67% of the agricultural products’ value and 46% in processed
foodstuffs (fig. 2.18). Food industry has 16%, while the agricultural sector has only
the 14% in the processed foodstuffs and 20% in the agricultural products. The low
capacity of agriculture in retaining the value added is visible considering also the
trends of prices at consumption and prices paid to farmers (fig. 2.19). This gap has
being increasing in the five years 2004-2009, due to the growing distribution margins,
production costs for agriculture and the increasing demand of foodstuffs from
abroad (ISMEA, 2008). Concerning the distribution channels, in the latest years
36 supermarkets, hypermarkets and discounts have increased their turnover, mainly at
the expense of traditional retailers (table 2.17).
Fig. 2.18 Food and agricultural products value chain, 2006
Source: ISMEA, 2010
Fig. 2.19 Trend of agricultural products and foodstuffs at consumption prices (index
2000=100)
Source: ISMEA, 2010
Table 2.17 Distribution channels
Average Annual
Variation 2004-09
Traditional retail
Super and hypermarket
Free services
Discount
Others
Total purchase channels
Variation 2009/08
-5.1%
-8.3%
1.9%
1.0%
-3.3%
9.2%
7.8%
10.1%
-3.2%
-7.5%
0.8%
0.5%
Source: ISMEA, 2010
2.2.3
Foreign trade and domestic food expenditure
The trading balance of agro-food sector is negative (-13.3%) and the food
exportations in 2009 had a value of 24410 millions Euros (table 2.18). Considering
separately the two sectors of agriculture and food industry, a relevant difference
emerges between the two balances: -35.6% agriculture and -5.8% food industry.
However, the average annual variation in the five years 2004-2009 is positive in the
both sectors. Wine, pasta, olive oil and tomatoes are the first foodstuffs exported by
Italian agro-food system (table 2.19). Germany, France, United Kingdom and United
37 States are the main countries of destination, while the importations come overall
from Germany, France, Netherlands and Spain (fig. 2.20).
Table 2.18 Trade balance of agro-food sector
Millions of euro
2009
Variation %
2009/’08
Average Annual Variation %
2004-‘09
4523
19887
24410
318299
-15.5
-4.9
-7.0
-21.2
4.5
6.0
5.7
4.1
9532
22357
31888
321788
-12.3
-8.2
-9.5
-22.3
2.0
4.1
3.4
4.3
Exportation
Agriculture
Food industry
Agro-food sector
Whole economy
Importation
Agriculture
Food industry
Agro-food sector
Whole economy
Balance
Agriculture
Food industry
Agro-food sector
Whole economy
Millions of euro
-5009
-2469
-7478
-3490
%
-35,6
-5.8
-13.3
-0.5
Source: ISMEA, 2010
Table 2.19 Top twenty exported foodstuffs
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Foodstuff
Red and rosé wine VQPRD3
Pasta
Olive oil (virgin and extra-virgin)
Tomato sauce and peeled tomatoes
Biscuits and pastry
Sweet products based on cocoa
White wine no VQPRD
Red and rosé wine no VQPRD
Roasted coffee, by-products and surr.
Hard cheese
Other foods
Brandy and liquors
Other prepared pork meat
Apples
White wine VQPRD
Other olive oil
Bakery
Table grapes
Fruit juices
Milled rice
Value (2006) millions of Euros
1007.5
920.7
914.3
873.3
708.3
634.5
632.6
560.4
540.8
534.7
483.2
471.7
454.8
447.9
440.0
409.0
401.0
397.2
360.1
353.4
Share (%)
4.49
4.11
4.08
3.90
3.16
2.83
2.82
2.50
2.41
2.39
2.16
2.10
2.03
2.00
1.96
1.82
1.79
1.77
1.61
1.58
3 VQPRD: High quality wine produced in located areas 38 Source: ISMEA, 2010
Fig. 2.20 Main countries of export destination and import origin for the Italian food sector
(share % of value)
Source: ISMEA, 2010
The domestic expenditure for food has increased 10.5% in the latest five years of data
gathering (ISMEA 2010) while food prices has increased 12%. In the same period of
time, cereals, olive oil, wine and cattle had had a negative variation in the amounts
purchased, while the amount of purchased eggs, milk and dairy products, fish and
non-alcoholic beverages has risen.
Concerning the food habits of Italian consumers, meat occupies the first three
positions in the basket of foodstuffs, in terms of value (table 2.10). Table 2.21 shows
the Penetration Index4 of the most common foodstuffs in Italian diet. For each food
group are showed the three foodstuffs with the highest PI value.
4 Penetration Index measures the spreading of consumption: how many consumers over 100 consumed that product at least one time in the considering period (1 year) 39 Table 2.20 Food consumption of Italian households – value 2009 (ISMEA)
Food division
Incidence (%)
Swine meat
9.1
Bovine meat
7.1
Cold cuts
7.0
Fresh fruit
6.3
Fresh vegetables
5.8
Milk
4.7
Bread
4.7
Fish
4.2
Biscuits and sweets
3.5
Cheese with origin denomination
3.4
Total first ten foodstuffs
55.8
Source: ISMEA, 2010
Table 2.21 Penetration index of the three most common foodstuffs for each food division
Fruit
% P.I.
Dairy products
%PI
Apple
83.9
Milk
86.3
Banana
82.2
Yogurt
85.5
Orange
75.6
Ricotta cheese
76.3
Vegetables
Meat & eggs
Tomato
85.7
Eggs
90.5
Lettuce
83.3
Beef meat
86.8
Zucchini
72.5
Poultry meat
84.6
Cereals’ by-products
Fish
Pasta
98.9
Canned tuna
90.1
Biscuits for break.
94.8
Freeze sticks
37.0
Dry pasta with eggs
86.7
Anchovies
25.0
Wine
White normal wine
Red normal wine
High quality red wine
Oils and fats
52.4
Extra-virgin oil
72.4
46
Varius seeds oil
34.8
Sunflower oil
34.2
38.2
Source: ISMEA, 2005
In conclusion, the Italian agro-food system is a relevant sector of the national
economy and much more resilient to the 2008-2009 economic crisis than the economy
as a whole. However, a huge gap exits between the food industry and distribution
and agriculture. Data on this sector showed a strong inequality between the
profitability of farming activity and other value chain phases and a declining
production capacity in the last years. The concentration of power market upstream
and downstream the agricultural activity emerged as one of the causes for the crisis
of this sector. In spite of being one of the first producer and exporter for a number of
foodstuffs and agricultural products, Italian agriculture showed a relevant gap with
respect to other competitors like Germany, France and Spain, in terms of income and
growth potential.
40 2.3 Food systems and sustainable development
This section illustrates some of the major issues concerning the food systems and the
sustainability. It takes into consideration the main challenges they are going to face,
i.e. the increasing demand of food, the increasing competition with no-food
production, the depletion of natural resources, the environmental degradation, and
the food security. The descriptive analysis has a global perspective and focus on the
dynamics between developed and developing countries.
2.3.1
World food demand and supply
The world demand for food will increase substantially in the next decades, due to the
demographic growth that will lead the population to 9.2 billion of people by 2050
(Nellemann, MacDevette et al. 2009). The biggest share of this increase will interests
developing countries (fig. 2.21), and the expected growing incomes in this area will
lead to a major meat and animal proteins’ intake. As income increases, food
consumption shifts from maize and coarse grains to wheat and rice. Further growths
drive towards a higher intake of meat, fruits, vegetables, milk, dairy products as well
as more processed food (McIntyre, Herren at al. 2009). Increased consumption in
livestock products will make necessary a surge in the cereals production for animal
feed. Other economic and social factors, e.g. the gains in purchasing power of food,
the growing urbanization, the changes in women’s role, the growing international
trade, the influence exerted by the food industry and the increasing globalization of
tastes will drive towards a nutritional transformation with the changes in commodity
composition shown in table 2.22: an increase of the total amount of food consumed
by 2050, a drastic growth in the intake of cereals (for all use, while cereals as food
will diminish), meat, milk, dairy products and other food; a slight increase of sugar,
roots and tuber, pulses, vegetable oils.
The changes in food demand to 2050 are supposed to have relevant implications on
health. From the one hand, the dietary diversification will improve the nourishment
of poor population. On the other hand, obesity rate and non-communicable diseases
(further exacerbated because of obesity) are expected to increase (Ibidem).
41 Fig. 2.21 Human population growth in developed and developing countries
UNEP/GRID-Arendal, 2008
Table 2.22 Changes in commodity composition of food in kg/person/year
WORLD
Cereals, food
Cereals, all uses
Roots and tubers
Sugar (raw sugar equiv.)
Pulses, dry
Vegetable oils, oil seeds and
products (oil equiv.)
Meat (carcass weight)
Milk and dairy, excl. butter (fresh
milk equiv.)
Other food (Kcal/person/day)
Total food (kcal/person/day)
1969/71
148.7
302.8
83.7
22.4
7.6
1979/81
160.1
325
73.4
23.4
6.5
1989/91
171
329.3
64.5
23.3
6.2
1999/01
165.4
308.7
69.4
23.6
5.9
2030
165
331
75
26
6
2050
162
339
75
27
6
6.8
26.1
8.3
29.5
10.3
33
12
37.4
16
47
17
52
75.3
216
2411
76.5
224
2549
76.9
241
2704
78.3
289
2789
92
325
3040
100
340
3130
Source: McIntyre, Herren at al. 2009
After a century of decline, food prices have had a growing trend in the last ten years,
with a dramatic surge in 2008 (fig. 2.22). After the peak of July 2008, prices slightly
lessened, but the actual levels (October 2010) are still above the 2000 and 2004 ones.
In general, the food price have been characterized by a high volatility and the recent
surges have driven 110 million people into poverty and added 44 million more to the
undernourishment (Nellemann, MacDevette et al. 2009). According to the UNEP
report (Ibidem), the key causes of the food crisis are “a combined effect of speculation in
food stocks, extreme weather events, low cereals stocks, growth in biofuels competing for
cropland and high oil prices” (p.6). However, notwithstanding the contingent food
crisis, is clear that the global food system capacity of supply a growing demand will
be a crucial issue for the future world development, and agriculture (the sector that
directly manage the natural resources) will afford huge challenges.
42 Fig. 2.22 Trend of Food Price Indices5
Source: our elaboration, FAO data
The knowledge and technological progress in agriculture brought to undeniable
positive results in terms of food supply capacity. The advances in biotechnologies,
the fertilization, irrigation and mechanization techniques, the microfinance, the
policy incentives and the education and communication programs have contributed
to the economic growth in developed countries and to the improvement of livelihood
condition, although many deficiencies remain. The gains in food production (fig.
2.23) are mainly due to the increase of cropland and rangeland areas (15%), the
augmented yield per unit area (78%) and the greater cropping intensity (FAO 2003).
Thus, the employment of fertilizers, pesticides and the extension of irrigated lands
are the main causes of this boost, while the improvement in agricultural efficiency
had a little consideration. Moreover, the diminishing returns of fertilizers application
registered in the last decades (fig. 2.24) and the progressive natural resource
degradation will probably make the application of further input doses less effective
in increasing yields (Tilman, Cassman et al. 2002).
In spite of a considerable expansion of the global supply, the food security is still an
emergency and far from being solved. The percentage of undernourished people
halved in the last five decades (from 26% to 13%) but the number of undernourished
people had only a slightly decrease (from 878 millions in 1970 to 848 millions in
2006), as result of the population growth (fig. 2.25). It stands to reason that increase
the food supply is not enough for solving starvation and malnutrition, but also
access to food, distribution mechanisms, stability of supply, affordability, quality and
safety of food have a big role. Moreover, a broad range of socio-economic and
environmental factors can have a strong influence on the livelihood conditions of
farmers and impoverished people.
5 Meat Price Index: consists of 3 poultry meat product quotations, 4 bovine meat product quotations, 2 pig meat product quotations, 1 ovine meat product quotations; Dairy Price Index: consists of butter, SMP, WMP, cheese, casein price quotations; Cereals Price Index: this index is compiled using the grains and rice price indices weighted by their average trade share for 2002-‐2004. The Grain Price Index consists of International Grains Council (IGC) wheat price index, itself average of 9 different wheat price quotations, and 1 maize export quotation; the Rice Price Index consists of 3 components containing average prices of 16 rice quotations; Oil and Fat Price Index: consists of an average of 11 different oils; Sugar Price Index: index form of the International Sugar Agreement prices Food Price Index: Consists of the average of 6 commodity group price indices mentioned above; in total 55 commodity quotations considered by FAO as representing the international prices of the food commodities 43 Fig. 2.23 Agricultural production and inputs employment - Trend 1960-2005
Fig. 2.24 Trend in Nitrogen fertilizer efficiency of crop production calculated as annual
cereal production/annual global application of N
Source: Tilman, Cassman et al., 2002
44 Fig. 2.25 Undernourishment trend
Source: Our elaboration, FAO data
2.3.2
Loss of cropland and environmental degradation
The availability of cropland is a further critical issue for a future sustainable
development of global agro-food systems. The agricultural use of land is
traditionally competing with the urban development and the industrial utilization. In
the recent years, the competition for land has extended to the alternative agricultural
production patterns (food and no-food), as well as to the production of energy
through infrastructures. The emerging occurrence of the land grabbing that is
interesting many developing countries, i.e. the drastic increase in land acquisitions
by foreign investors (Cotula, Vermeulen et al. 2009, GRAIN 2008, Longhitano 2010) is
a clear signal of the growing competition for land.
According to the recent FAO projections additional 120 million of hectares are
needed to satisfy the growing demand of food (McIntyre, Herren at al. 2009).
Moreover, also the requirements of energy, fibres and urbanized land are going to
increase, contemporaneously with the population growth. The potential for
expanding arable land varies between the world areas. In Asia, nearly 95% of the
cropland is already utilized, while the potential availability in Africa is higher, but
constrained by environmental, social and political factors (FAO, 2003).
The conversion of rain forest into agricultural land is causing a severe deforestation
in some countries, especially the ones producing sugar cane (Brazil, India, China),
soybean (USA Brasil, Argentina), palm oil (Indonesia and Malaysia) and meat (USA,
Brazil and China). Especially in developing and the emerging countries the huge
increase of the demand for this commodities (used for animal feed, biofuels’
production or for nutrition) has made the land use change particularly convenient
from an economic point of view: the area covered by oil palms has doubled in
Indonesia in the past decade, and in Latin America cattle ranches are expanding
rapidly, accounting for an estimated 70% of deforestation in Brazil in 2007 (Malhi,
Roberts et al. et al. 2008). The destruction of rain forests has several negative
impacts: loss of biodiversity, threatening of indigenous community livelihoods, lack
of ecosystems services and acceleration of the climate change which will produce
negative feedback loops at the expense of the agricultural productivity (McIntyre,
Herren at al. 2009).
The demand of renewable energies is boosting the production of biofuels (biodiesel
and ethanol) that are becoming the first competitors of food production. The main
producers of ethanol are US, Brazil and China; the biodiesel is instead produced
mainly in Europe (Germany, France and Italy) (Fig. 2.26). The foreseen expansion of
these productions will lead to the occupation of 2% of the total arable land by 2050
(Ibidem, p. 38) and, together with other factors, to the rise of food prices between
45 20% and 50% by 2016 (OECD/FAO 2008). The major profitability in producing
energy instead of food could represent an opportunity for improving farmer
revenues, but at the same time many concerns for the food security in developing
countries are rising.
Between the production of no food products cotton is also expected to increase to an
additional 2% of cropland area, and together with biofuels they could get to an
occupation of 13% by 2050 (McIntyre, Herren at al. 2009).
Fig. 2.26 Biofuels production in 2005
Source: UNEP/GRID-Arendal
The loss of cropland is also caused by the soil degradation and the unsustainable
land use practices. Is estimated that every year 20000-50000 km2 of land is lost due to
degradation, chiefly soil erosion (Ibidem). The long-term result of land degradation
is also a decrease in crop yields.
Agricultural activity contributes significantly to the emission of Greenhouse Gases
(GHG), both directly (through the agricultural soil and livestock activity) and
indirectly (through the fossil fuels use, the production of agrochemicals, and the
conversion of land to agricultural use) The whole contribute of agriculture to the
total human-induced GHG emissions is estimated in a range between 17 and 32%
(Bellarby et al. 2008). Table 2.23 illustrates the different sources and the contribution
of each agricultural activity.
Table 2.23 Sources of direct and indirect agriculture greenhouse gases
Sources of agriculture GHG
Nitrous oxide from soils
Methane from cattle enteric fermentation
Biomass burning
Rice production
Manure
Fertiliser production
Irrigation
Farm machinery (seeding, tilling, spraying, harvest)
Pesticide production
Land conversion to agriculture
Million tonnes CO2-eq
2128
1792
672
616
413
410
369
158
72
5900
Source: Bellarby et al. 2008
46 Climate change will probably affect the food production in different ways: through
the change of weather conditions, which could turn favourably in some areas; the
frequency of extreme events e.g. flood, drought and storms and the frequency of
infestation and pests caused also by alien species. In general, a more severe impact is
foreseen in Africa and Western Asia, thus affecting the agricultural production in the
most food insecure areas. In the developed countries, agriculture could take
advantage of the climate change if the policy will recognise and foster its carbon
sequestration potential, encouraging the most suitable farming practices.
Water is a crucial resource for the agricultural production, and probably one of the
most limiting factors for the food production. Agriculture uses nearly 70% of the
total water consumption and the productivity of irrigated lands is 2-3 times higher
than the rainfed croplands (McIntyre, Herren at al. 2009). The water demand for food
production will double by 2050 (fig. 2.27) as well as the water withdrawals (De
Fraiture, Cai et al. 2003). According to WHO (World Health Organization) the water
scarcity will affect over 1.8 billion of people by 2025 (WHO 2007). The climate change
and in particular the melting glaciers due to the planet warming could dramatically
affect the agricultural production, especially in that areas where snow and glacial
mass are the primary sources for water irrigation. Central Asia and all the regions
depending by Himalayan rivers are especially threatened (UNEP 2007).
Fig. 2.27 Water requirement for food production
A further issue concerning the sustainability of agriculture is the environmental
degradation and the impact on biodiversity. The intensive agricultural practices
cause water eutrophication, the genetic erosion and in general the degradation of the
ecosystems, which are the basis of food production. Maintaining a high level of
biodiversity and the fully functionality of the ecosystems is beneficial also for
agricultural productivity. Also in this case, the role of agriculture can be two-fold: it
could contribute to deteriorate the natural endowment, through intensive farming
practices and a rapid withdrawal of the resources or could turn to low-impact, ecoefficient and conservative practices that allow preserving the ecosystems and
improving the quality of the environment. Some farming practices, e.g. agroforestry,
agroecology and intercropping have already proved to be productive and beneficial
for the ecosystems. They should be fostered and more research should focus on
combining the goals of productivity and environmental sustainability into the same
strategy.
47 One peculiar treat of the global agro-food systems consists in the dimension of farms.
Globally, about 525 millions of farms exist and 90% of these are defined as “small
farms”, i.e. have less than two hectares of land (Nagayets 2005). They occupy 60% of
the arable land and contribute substantially to the world food production, even if the
sector is predominantly oriented towards the subsistence. 95% of the small farms are
in Asia and Africa, while in North America and Latin America and Caribbean the
average farm size is the highest (table 2.24). These rural communities are the poorest
in the world6 and the most endangered by environmental degradation. Small farmers
are also more susceptible to market prices fluctuation, and have no bargaining power
with retailers, especially with supermarket chains that are hugely spreading in the
developing countries (see paragraph 2.2). Moreover, the supermarkets often require
stringent safety and quality standards that are not feasible for small farmers. The
small farm size characterizes also the Italian agriculture (see section 2.2) and is
always been considered as an obstacle to the rural development and one of the
causes of the gap existing between farmers’ incomes and the ones from other
economic activities.
At the same time, small-scale farms are often more efficient and productive in terms
of output per unit of land and energy employed (McIntyre, Herren at al. 2009).
Moreover, the subsistence economies prevent from the risk of market prices
fluctuations and often they can count upon resilience mechanisms, more than
industrialized and market oriented farms.
Table 2.24 Approximate farm sizes by world region
World region
Africa
Asia
Latin America and Carribean
Western Europe
North America
Average farm size, ha
1.6
1.6
67.0
27.0
121.0
Source: Nagayets 2005
The last issues touched by this chapter are the supply stability and the access to food,
further factor influencing the food security. In fact, there are many elements
influencing the food security, besides the production. They regard also social,
economic and political contexts that characterize a geographic area. E.g., the presence
of conflicts contributes substantially to the food insecurity.
Prices fluctuations, periodical shortages and adverse weather condition can menace
the food supply stability, as happened in 2008 during the recent food crisis. The
financial speculation on raw materials and the fluctuation of oil prizes destabilize the
food prices; this variability discourage farmers investments and bring governments
to limit exportation in order to ensure a domestic food supply and the selfsufficiency for the main commodities. This trend creates a global instability in the
international markets with a buying-panic behave that in turn worsens the price
increase. Developing countries are more vulnerable to the price fluctuations and
empowerment of food self-sufficiency is a common strategy adopted for improving
the food security. Moreover, the self-sufficiency can have a strategic relevance in the
geo-political equilibrium.
6 As they are mainly subsistence farms, the monetary outcome of these economies is negligible. However, the benefit of subsistence economies, in which farms are mostly oriented on self-‐
consumption, should be evaluated using non-‐monetary indicators, assessing the general wellbeing, risk exposure, social inclusion and livelihood conditions. The Sustainable Livelihood Approach developed by the UK Department for International Development (DFID) has started spreading the concept that focusing on five assets – human, physical, natural, financial and social – is a proper approach for a wider understanding of poor people’s livelihood (more information at: http://www.poverty-‐wellbeing.net/en/Home/Livelihood_Approaches) 48 The accessibility to food is often preventing food security. The huge increase of
supermarket retailing channels due to the urbanization trend in the developing
countries can improve the access to food for urban population, but at the same time,
the lack of infrastructures can make reaching the retailing centres very difficult,
especially for the communities that live far from the city. The distance to urban areas
can constrain the access to food especially in Central Asia, Africa, Australia and Latin
America. Furthermore, the access to food can be prevented also by insufficient
purchasing power of the households.
49 Chapter 3. The Agri-Food Systems
Paradigms
The assessment of agri-food systems’ environmental sustainability takes into account
three paradigms of food production and consumption. This chapter provide a
description of these models and a final drawing of the corresponding food chains.
The first paradigm is the dominant agri-food system, i.e. the most spread in Italy and
in the Western countries. The description has a sociologic perspective, and identifies
the main treats of the food production and consumption, as well as its weaknesses,
that have facilitated the transition towards the Alternative Food Networks (AFN).
The second section is instead committed to identify the common features of the
AFNs, and to provide an overview of the most meaningful initiatives. Between them,
two Italian experiences of AFN are taken into consideration: the GAS (Gruppi di
Acquisto Solidale), i.e. solidarity purchasing groups and UPM (Un Punto
Macrobiotico), an international association that has arranged an entire food chain,
controlling all the phases of food production and consumption, from the farming till
the food service.
While the first two paradigm descriptions are based on the exiting literature, the
third one (UPM) has so far been scarcely studied and information has been acquired
mainly through direct observation and interviews to members of the international
UPM secretary.
3.1 The dominant agri-food system: general features and actual trends
The dominant agri-food system paradigm is the result of the political project of
agricultural modernization and development advanced by the EU’s Common
Agricultural Policy (CAP) during the last 30-40 years (Van der Ploeg 2004). This
modernization project, motivated by a basic food sufficiency necessity due to post
war shortages, was strongly supported through subsidies and prices interventions
and brought to a substantial enhance of the EU agriculture’s productivity. The main
technological innovations introduced during the first phase of CAP are the use of
chemical fertilizers and pesticides, the mechanization and irrigation systems, the
genetically improved seed varieties and the intensification of animal production
practices. The resulting agricultural mode is highly specialized, capital intensive,
large-scaled and market-oriented.
Scrinis (2007) describes the turn of a chemical-industrial paradigm into a geneticcorporate one, occurred in the last two decades (Scrinis 2007). In this paradigm, the
agri-food corporations, upstream and downstream the agricultural production, have
strongly reinforced their ownership and control of the food systems. According to
Scrinis, “corporization” i.e. corporate integration “is one of the defining economic and
structural characteristic of the contemporary agri-food system”. The concentration process
50 and the merging between companies stimulated an oligopolistic and globally
integrated market of seeds, chemical inputs, primary processing, manufacturing and
food retailing. The farmers’ market power and distribution’s margins are squeezed
between the up and downstream supply chain’s stakeholders, thus between
increasing costs and decreasing prices (see chapter two).
The genetic engineering is a further treat of this agricultural model, which underpins
on monocultural, highly specialized crops and aims at producing undifferentiated,
highly standardized, cheap and durable foodstuffs. This agricultural scheme is
functional and necessary for the introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops that
have been selected and are spread in many countries (especially in soy, corn, cotton
and canola). These varieties can reduce the administration of chemical inputs in
some cases, through the genetically induced resistance to plant pests. At the same
time, they exacerbate the dependence of farmers on agri-food corporations,
producing sterile and patented seed, which often must be combined with specific
agri-industrial inputs produced by the same companies.
The relationships between farmers and agro-industries are increasingly ruled by
contracts and leasing arrangements. Contract farming has changed the farmers’
attitude towards production and risk, weakening their decision-making power, since
they may be guided to follow specific agricultural practices, becoming “growers”
instead of farmers (Hendrickson and Heffernan 2002).
The dominant agri-food paradigm is dominated by a deep trust on technology that
allows gaining efficiency improvements and therefore turning food production into
more sustainable patterns. The “precision farming” technique, using information
technologies such as GPS-guided machinery for the application of fertilizers, is an
explanatory example of this trend. The last technological innovation in agriculture
and food industry is the application of nanotechnology both in farming, processing
and packaging phase of the food chain (Scrinis and Lyons 2010).
The processing phase of agro-industrial food chain has evolved towards the
provision of convenience and highly processed food to the detriment of unprocessed
whole food. As the ingredients constituting the food are often no recognisable by the
consumer, the agricultural raw materials are interchangeable and replaceable, thus
increasing competition between farmers (Scrinis 2007).
Together with the production of standardized, globalized and low quality food a
channel of “high-quality” production has been emerging in the last years. The food
scares due to animal and human diseases (BSE, swain flue, etc.) and the emerging
concerns on the health effects of food have stimulated a new channel of food
products. It embraces high-quality and typical productions but also healthy and
functional food, claimed for their properties of protecting against some disease, or
for being beneficial for human well-being.
The dominant form of food retailing is the supermarket, which has developed in
national and transnational chains at the expense of small food retailers.
Supermarkets have become powerful institutions since they intermediate between
farmers and consumers. Their relevant market share and the use of contracts allow
gaining favourable conditions for the purchasing of agricultural products. The
manufacturing firms are charged for the grant of shelf-spaces, since they are
competing for a better visibility, and the development of supermarket’s brand
products’ lines has expanded the distribution margin within the value chain
(Blythman 2005).
The trend of centralization of the food supply in big supermarkets and shopping
centres, often located out-of-town or at the periphery, engendered the so-called
“food deserts” (Cummins and Macintyre 2006). This concept refers to the lack access
to healthy food in the urban neighbourhoods, due to supermarkets moving towards
city outskirts for logistic reasons. It has relevant social and medical rebounds, given
that the oodles of fast-food and snacks shops in the neighbourhood and the necessity
51 of car trips for purchasing fresh, healthy and cheap food favour malnutrition, obesity
and other diseases especially in the socially and economically disadvantaged
population (Pothukuchi and Kaufman 1999).
The main trends in consumption patterns regards the growing demand for
convenience and more processed food. The availability of out-of-season fruits and
vegetables have also shaped the food preferences, as well as the provision of exotic
and ethnic food. The globalized and industrialized food chains have lead to a
standardization of food supply and to a homologation of tastes. Many authors
outlined that consumers are disconnected to the food environmental, social and
economic origins (Renting and Wiskerke 2010). The hypermodern food geography
doesn’t permit an exchange between production and consumption side and the food
is undifferentiated, with no territorial, geographic or cultural reference. Together
with this market of cheap, low-quality and standardized food a reacting interest for
traditional, high-quality and territorially defined food has emerged in recent times,
as well as a growing demand for organic and fair traded products.
On the base of this description, a simplified value chain has been considered for the
assessment of the material intensity. Fig. 3.1 shows the phases considered and the
actors involved.
Fig. 3.1 Simplified food chain scheme of the dominat agro-food system (Paradigm 1)
Agricultural inputs produc0on Inputs' providers and distributors Agricultural produc0on Farmers Distribu0on Wholesalers Farmers' coopera7ves Other intermediates Retailing Department stores Retail dealers Food purchasing and consump0on Consumers Source: author elaboration
3.2 The transition towards Alternative Food Network
In the last couple of decades dissatisfaction towards the modern food system has
started to manifest in many different ways. The criticisms towards the industrial and
globalized food systems involve very different aspects and are claimed by many
stakeholders of the food systems. From the production hand, the small and mediumscale farmers, whose incomes are squeezed between the market power of agroindustrial corporate and distribution chains, have demonstrated an increasing
dissatisfaction.
A smaller portion of farmers has been carrying forward more radical instances,
claiming the role of peasant and traditional agriculture against the trend of
standardization and trivialization of food due to the globalization. Some of these
farmer movements have been part of the anti-globalization criticism, i.e. the antiWTO and anti-McDonald’s campaigns, other focus on the anti-GM food.
Within the farmers’ movements “Via Campesina”, founded in 1992, has gained a
relevant weight, involving members from 69 countries in the world. Its critic to agro-
52 industrial food systems is not limited to the margin distribution issue but advocates
the role of small farmers for a more sustainable agriculture and a healthier nutrition.
The proposed alternative model is underpinned over the principles of social justice,
gender and ethnic equality, economic equity and environmental sustainability
(Desmarais 2002). The critics to World Trade Organization and market based
agricultural policies have led to formulate the concept of “food sovereignty”, i.e. “the
right of peoples, communities, and countries to define their own agricultural, labour, fishing,
food and land policies which are ecologically, socially, economically and culturally
appropriate to their unique circumstances. It includes the true right to food and to produce
food, which means that all people have the right to safe, nutritious and culturally appropriate
food and to food-producing resources and the ability to sustain themselves and their
societies.” (http://www.foodsovereignty.org/new/).
The “Slow Food” international movement is an additional example of the criticism
that has being rising towards the modern food paradigm. Founded in 1986 by Carlo
Petrini (http://www.slowfood.com/), it aims at promoting the “good, clean and
fair” food, through the promotion and preserve of traditional cousin against the
increasing food homologation of global food systems. The concept of “slowness”, in
opposition with the “fast food model”, focus on food as a mean of promoting
environment and biodivesity, health, a better lifestyle and a fairer economy. The
movement has expanded internationally to over 100.000 members in 132 countries
and is very active in the field of education and information spreading.
From the consumption hand, the health concerns underpin the arising of criticism
and mistrust toward industrial food systems. The outbreak of animal and human
diseases linked to intensive breeding techniques (BSE, swine flu, avian flu, etc…), the
environmental damages and the landscape erosion contributed to a drastic
deteriorization of the public image of agriculture and to a growing demand for
sustainable food systems.
The dissatisfaction with the dominant model of food production and consumption
led to the creation and development of numerous grassroots initiatives, aiming at
constructing alternative agri-food models. According to Scrinis (2007) they include
the types of initiatives related to the production practices (e.g. organic agriculture,
free-range animal breeding, fair traded products); the ones that seek alternative
relationships and networks of distribution (e.g. the short chain initiatives, box
schemes, farmer markets and Community Supported Agriculture); and finally the
alternative consumption practices, involving a different perception and valuation of
food quality, the rediscovery of traditional food culture and the
“decommodification” of food practices (e.g. the choice of unprocessed food, or
ethical refusal of certain food due to environmental, animal welfare or socioeconomic reasons).
In the heterogenic ensemble of the alternative food movements, the Alternative Food
Networks (AFN) present a special interest for their capability of constructing a
different agri-food systems.
Many scholars have been studying these grassroots initiatives, seeking common and
characterizing traits, which allow conceptualizing AFN and defining the boundaries
between them and other kind of food systems or movements. Indeed, the distinction
between “conventional” and “alternative” can be very fleeting (Sonnino and
Marsden 2006). The short chains and re-localization strategies advanced by
conventional producers and farmers’ union, as well as the trend of revaluing local
productions, often with a defensive attitude are examples of cases that can not be
ascribed into the AFN, because lack the political will to change the actual system and
to put in practice the principles of equity, solidarity and sustainability.
Quality, thus the emphasis on the production of salutary, local, tasty food in
opposition to the low-cost, standardized and convenience food from the industrial
systems is also a failing feature for differentiating AFN. The concept of quality in fact
53 is not unquestioning and competing definitions of quality reflect different farming
systems, traditions, geographical contexts, consumer perceptions, etc. (Renting,
Marsden et al. 2003).
AFN requires an active role of the civil society, committed to social, economic and
environmental justice principles and directly involved in promoting and advancing
these initiatives (Feenstra 2002). The governance mode shifts from being state and
market centred to civil society and local institutions as main actors of the agri-food
system (Renting and Wiskerke 2010). “Urban food strategies”, “food charters”, urban
agriculture and “food planning” policies have been emerging in many big city in
Europe (London, Amsterdam) and United States (San Francisco, New York)
demonstrating the new central role of sustainable agri-food systems in the planning
agenda (Morgan 2009).
Many authors contend detected the concepts of post-productivism and
embeddedness (Winter 2003a; Winter 2003b; Watts, Ilbery et al. 2005; Sonnino and
Marsden 2006; Renting and Wiskerke 2010; Rossi and Brunori 2010) as peculiar and
distinguish features of AFN. The previous refers to the rupture with the
modernization paradigm, while the latter point at the territorial integration of the
production and consumption cycles. A further common trait is the wider dimension
of food, that embodies new meanings and values (Winter 2004; Brunori, Guidi 2007)
while Whatmore et al. (2003) identify the following three common elements as
distinctive of AFN (Whatmore, Stassart et al. 2003):
•
•
•
a fair distribution of the value along the value chain;
a new relationship based on trust between producers and consumers
new association forms of political association and market governance.
3.3 GAS (Gruppi di Acquisto Solidale)
A peculiar Italian experience of AFN is the Solidarity Purchasing Groups (GAS),
spontaneously originated by consumers for the direct purchasing of food and no
food products. The elimination of the intermediary subjects in the chain and the
extraction of a better price are not the only motivations spurring on these initiatives.
A profound sense of dissatisfaction with conventional food system, a critique
towards the consumption models and the globalized economy and the will of
putting in practice a political idea, through the construction of an alternative solution
are at the base of GAS creation (Saroldi 2005). The principles of ecological
sustainability and social equity are pursued through the acquisition of organic, local
and in season food and ecological or natural no food products. They also aim at
assuring a fair price to the farmers, at local level, through the direct negotiation with
producer, and also to developing countries, recurring to fair trade for some products
(i.e. bananas and ethnic food). The groups manage autonomously and are based on
participatory democracy principles. The participation to the group initiatives is at the
base of the GAS working. The relationships between groups’ members and between
them and producers are at the base of the “solidal” attribute defining this initiative
(Ragusa 2010).
The national network coordination (www.retegas.org) nowadays counts more than
600 groups. The members communicate through mailing list, Internet websites and
periodical meetings. The exchange of opinions, the spread of information and the
organization of other kind of initiatives for making people aware about sustainability
and social equity issues is also part of the GAS activity.
Rossi and Brunori outlined that the participation to GAS initiatives bring to a change
in consumers and producers attitudes (Brunori, Guidi et al. 2007a; Rossi and Brunori
2010). The farmers are especially pushed to diversify the productions, to turn to
organic (this is usually a precondition for joining to a GAS), to face the risk with new
partnership, to develop relational abilities and involve consumers into the crop
planning and management decisions (Lamine 2005). Concerning the consumers, they
54 are called to change their purchasing and eating habits, since their purchases are
constrained by seasonality. Moreover, the food can be more perishable, less
processed and have different organoleptic and aesthetical features than the food
bought at the supermarket.
On the other hand, the perceived benefits for GAS consumers concern the following
aspects:
•
•
•
the realization of a short chain, that ensure a better remuneration of the
farmers and a revitalization of local rural economy;
an easier access to fresh and organic food, a minor environmental impact due
to the food miles falling and more ecological agricultural practices;
the personal, trust-based and transparent interaction with farmers, that can in
some cases substitute the formal certification of production.
Regarding the agricultural producers the compliance to GAS can represent an
alternative source of income, more rarely it substitutes the conventional marketing
channels (Gaggiotti 2008/2009). The turn to organic practices is usually the main
obstacle to the adhesion.
The great spread of GAS occurred in the latest years (+58% between 2006 an 2008 in
the Marche Region, according to Gaggiotti, national trend is similar) is leading
scholars to question about the upscaling process and the linked danger of
“conventionalization” of GAS. Rossi and Brunori (2010) outline that the price
convenience is attracting more and more costumers, probably more interested in the
economic issue than in the real meaning of GAS experience. The growing of the
groups and of the managed merchandise may also transform the organizational
mode, requiring some brokers or additional sources of provision, beyond the local
territory. A further risk consists in the homologation and trivialization of this
experience, that can may be merged with the numerous initiatives of food relocalization and encompassed in the “new rhetoric of short chain” (Rossi and Brunori,
2010:1922). The concept of sustainability promoted and practiced by GAS, indeed, go
far beyond the reduction of food miles and is not simply an economic strategy for
consumer and producer. The initiative is strongly based on the willing of experience
a different form of economy (GAS are in fact usually involved in the Regional
Networks of Ethical and Solidal Economy, REES) and put in practice a meaningful
concept of sustainability, starting from the food provision.
The Fig. 3.2 illustrates the GAS value chain for a generic agricultural products, used
for the MIPS calculation in this study.
Fig. 3.2 Simplified food chain scheme of the GAS agro-food system (Paradigm 2)
Agricultural input produc0on Inputs' providers and distributors Agricultural produc0on Mainly local organic farmers Distribu0on GAS members Food purchasing and consump0on Consumers (GAS members) Source: author elaboration
55 3.4 UPM (Un Punto Macrobiotico)
The Japanese thinker George Ohsawa (Nyoiti Sakurazawa) is commonly recognized
as the founder of the Macrobiotics philosophy, which generally refers to a life-style
and dietary regimen based on the ancient Chinese philosophy of the Unique
Principle (or Yin and Yang principle), according to which two opposite and
complementary forces dominate the Universe.
In general, this philosophy is very much centred on nutrition, food and healthy life
styles as the key for a salubrious and long life. Also food can be classified according
to the Yin and Yang dichotomy, thus the macrobiotic meals must be balanced in the
composition of the ingredients, which are organic and mostly unprocessed. The
macrobiotic diet is characterized by a prevalence of cereals, vegetables and legumes,
poor in fats and animal origin proteins, has a high proportion of wholefoods and a
high fibres content.
Over the years in each Country Ohsawa’s scholars developed and actualized the
Macrobiotic vision in slightly different ways, most of which non faithful to the
founding father thought. In Italy the Macrobiotic basic theory and practice, as taught
by George Ohsawa, was deepen and developed in an original way by Mario Pianesi.
He founded in 1980, in the Italian Marche Region, the International Association “Un
Punto Macrobiotico” (UPM), currently the largest macrobiotic reality in the world.
UPM is a non profit association whose aim is “to diffuse, free form religious, political,
social and cultural discrimination, an healthier and more balanced nutrition and a culture of
respect and love for the Air, Water, Earth, Vegetables and all the living beings” (AAVV
2010). UPM is an original experience that can be encompassed in the category of
Alternative Food Networks. Mario Pianesi has put into practice and spread the
macrobiotic philosophy (Ma-Pi Macrobiotics) through the creation of a whole organic
food chain completely verified and organized by the UPM association itself. The
diets created and proposed by Mario Pianesi are based on foods produced and
processed without employing chemical and synthesis products and directly supplied
by local farmers. They are committed to follow the prescription of the Ma-Pi
polyculture, a peculiar farming practice based on intercropping and seed autoreproduction. The food is distributed by the same UPM, through three firms called
“La Salvia”, spread in the Italian territory. Food is finally retailed in UPM
shops/restaurants, where is cooked, according to the macrobiotic nutritional
principles. The whole UPM business underpins on the management of one
international secretariat, seventy-two shops, sixty-three restaurants, three whole sale
dealers, nine traditional bakeries, six food laboratories, two publishing houses, a
hostel, a university canteen, an international law study centre in the Italian territory.
UPM is very active in promoting the benefit of Ma-Pi diets and, in general, a healthy
nutrition. It organizes annual conferences on the themes of food, health and
sustainable development; have collaborative relationships with many foreign
countries, especially in North Africa, Latin America and Asia. UPM has activated in
fact a series of scientific collaborations with several Italian and foreign Institutions
focusing on specific projects7. Mario Pianesi was appointed as a member of the
UNESCO Scientific Committee on education for Sustainable Development.
7 “El Manar” Univesity (Tunisia); “La Sapienza University” of Rome (Institute of Experimental Medicine, Faculty of Communication Sciences); “Tokaj” University of Tokyo (Department of Economics); Academy of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Beijing (China); Beijing Ethnic and Tibetan Hospital (China); CNI-‐UNESCO; Cuban Ministry of Health and Finlay Institute; Egyptian Academy for Sciences and Technology; Embassy of Ivory Coast in Italy; Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Italy; European Parliament; FAO; Germplasm Institute of Bari (Italy); Italian State Police; Latin American School of Medical Science (Cuba); Medical University of Crimea – 56 The food purchased by the UPM centres (both in the restaurants and in the food
shops) is provided by farmers who are committed to respect a certain farming
practices, known internationally as the Ma-Pi Policulture, a natural and conservative
farming practice, that has the following main features (Perrino 2008; Figini
2008/2009):
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Use of auto-reproduced seeds (through programs of ancient plan varieties’
recovery) and choice of autochthon, well adapted plant varieties;
Intercropping and presence of trees, hedges and brushes in the field, in order
to favour a high biodiversity in the farm;
Crop rotations and green manure for maintaining the natural soil fertility;
Exclusion of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and other chemical
input;
Manual or mechanical elimination of weeds;
Superficial soil cultivation only if necessary;
Irrigation only if strictly necessary;
Crops residuals from harvesting are left in the ground.
The associated farms operate under the idea of producing a balanced farm
ecosystem, based on organic and permacultural principles, with the aim of
producing the highest quality food in a sustainable way. UPM establishes direct
relationship with the farmers, that engage in converting their farm into a polycoltural
organic system, in promoting on-farm biodiversity, fertility and self sufficiency in
open pollinated self reproduced seeds. The use of autochthonous and ancient plant
varieties makes the crops less vulnerable to the adverse environmental conditions.
When a farm converts to the Ma-Pi system it slowly introduces over the years rows
of fruit, nut and shelter trees in separate rows into the farms paddocks, starting a
transition toward a complete Ma-Pi polycultural model. Just like in modern organic
systems the establishment of shelterbelts are of prime importance in order to reduce
the chance of spray drift from neighbouring conventional farms. In between the rows
of diverse food and shelter trees are grown cereal and vegetable crops on a rotational
basis. Cover crops are also included in this rotation and provide the main source of
fertility.
The Ma-Pi organic polyculture is also designed to be ecologically stable, and prevent
biodiversity loss, erosion and desertification. The high level of biodiversity gained
during the years of conversion provides resilience and robustness to the agroecosystems, which will improve the reaction capacity to the environmental shocks.
The entire system aims at being self-sufficient and minimizing external inputs, in
order to have benefits at environmental and economic level, through the
minimization of the costs. The diversification of the outputs obtained through the
polycoltural system allows supplying a wide variety of vegetables, legumes and
cereals to the nearest UPM restaurant. The aim of the UPM system is to make each
centre self-sufficient and supplied by the nearest farms. Thus, the up-scaling
Simferopol; Autonomous Republic of Crimea (Ukraine); Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources (Ivory Coast); Ministry of Agriculture, Equatorial Guinea; Ministry of Agriculture Republic of Tunisia; Ministry of Environment and Territorial Management, Republic of Tunisia; Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ivory Coast; Ministry of Health and Public Hygiene, Ivory Coast; Ministry of Health, Autonomous Republic of Crimea; Ministry of Health, Kingdom of Thailand; Ministry of Interior Affairs – Health General Direction Department of Public Safety, Mongolian Academy of Sciences; National Institute of Nutrition, Cuba; National Rice Authority; Natural Sciences Society, Tunisia, Palestine Academy for Science and Technology, Senate of the Italian Republic; UNCCD; University of Florence (Faculty of Architecture). 57 perspective would multiply the number of centres and the number of farmers,
instead of enlarging the existent centres.
UPM has its own processing and distribution factories, under the brand name “La
Salvia”. They encompass three processing and distribution centres: one in the North
Italy (Milan province), one in central Italy, (Marche region) and one in Sicily. La
Salvia controls the raw materials production, the processing phase and the
distribution of fresh and packed food to the UPM shops. It doesn’t require a formal
certification for the organic agricultural production, but primarily aims at building a
relationship based on mutual trust and support for the benefit of both parties.
However, this relationship of trust is also backed by scrutiny through regular farm
reports, yearly soil tests, onsite visits and random unannounced farm visits and
chemical analysis of soil and crops. When farmers experience production difficulties
due to natural forces outside of their control - like drought or overwhelming pest
infestation - La Salvia is willing to still pay some money of compensation for helping
the farm business to survive; in return, the farmers must be seriously committed to
carry out the Ma-Pi Polyculture. The La Salvia quality control also provide
agronomical assistance and support to the farmers through providing advice and
holding specific courses, conferences and congresses aimed at helping inform their
farmers of how to best to implement the Pianesi organic polyculture. The farmers’
selection is based on an ethical evaluation and an ecological assessment of the farm,
through chemical analysis of the products and of the soil. The farmers are committed
to also to respect ethical principles in the labour employment and periodical controls
and chemical analysis for monitoring the quality and naturality of the products. The
prices are established by a contract, preserving the farmers by markets’ fluctuations.
UPM has developed its own labelling system, the so called “Pianesian Transparent
Label” that includes a number of information regarding the origin of the product i.e.
the place of cultivation, the crop variety, the amount harvested, the crop
management (fertilization, weeds management, pest control, irrigation, etc…) as well
as the number of passages between producer and consumer, that allows a complete
traceability of the chain (fig. 3.3).
The majority of UPM shops have a catering service that allows the customers to eat
and/or purchase their food at the same time. These centres are normally located in
residential areas with high housing density (that is common in Italy, even in small
towns) in order to be close to the consumers. The management of UPM centres is
similar to a franchising chain: every UPM associated centre has to supply the same
products at the same prices with the restaurants using the same recipes for their
meals at an agreed price throughout Italy. Each one is regarded as a small association
in its own right but has to run Ma-Pi macrobiotic cooking courses and other relevant
Ma-Pi macrobiotic events throughout a year. The price policy for macrobiotic food is
inspired to the principle of “providing the organic highest quality at the lowest
price”.
Concerning the consumption attitude and the ideological principles that aim the
UPM members, the environmental preservation, the refuse of consumerism,
overnutrition and all kind of excesses are the basis of Ma-Pi macrobiotic life-style,
plainly alternative to the modern society routine and habits. The UPM activity is
very much centred in educating people to a natural and chaste life-style (i.e the
restaurants’ costumers are warned to not use mobiles and to not waste food)
promoting also activities like social dinners, cooking courses, organized countryside
trips, etc. A low technology employment is encouraged and promoted (e.g. UPM
does not have a web site).
The members of this association assert that the dietary regimen proposed (Ma-Pi
diets) can not just forestall but also treat a number of diseases, included diabetes. In
this sense the Ma-Pi Macrobiotics can be defined as an alternative therapy of the
mainstream medicine’s theories and although it has not yet been studied a lot.
Nevertheless, some evidences on the benefits provided by these diets have been
58 emerging in the latest times, especially for the treatment of diabetes (Bhumisawasdi
and Vanna, 2006; Porrata Maury, Ladin et al. 2007, Wang Bin, 2010) for preventing
cancers (Rossini, 2003) and in general for promoting healthy conditions (Porrata
Maury, Triana et al. 2008). The intense debate on the Ma-Pi Macrobiotic health
benefits is nevertheless out of the scope of this work, which focus in particular on the
the agri-food system created by this association and on the ecological productivity of
UPM system. The model of food chain considered in this study for the UPM model is
shown in fig. 3.4.
Fig. 3.3 The Pianesian trasparent label
Source: UPM
Fig. 3.4 Simplified food chain scheme of the UPM agro-food system (Paradigm 3)
Agricultural produc0on Mainly local farmers Distribu0on UPM (La Salvia) Food purchasing and consump0on Household consumers UPM restaurants' consumers Source: author elaboration
59 Chapter 4. Methodology and data
gathering
The methodology used in this study is based on the analysis of material flows
between natural and anthropic system. The conceptual origins of this approach are
briefly illustrated in the first section of the chapter. A more detailed description of
the indicator used in this study follows. Its potentials and weaknesses, especially in
the context of food sustainability evaluation are highlighted. The data capture is
deeply explained in order to make the material intensity calculation transparent and
verifiable. This section focus first on the analysis of supply chains of the foodstuffs
under study, produced through conventional and organic practices. A separate
section deals with the products from Ma-Pi polyculture, which required a different
calculation approach. Successively, the chapter describes the diets’ composition and
the procedure followed for the evaluation of the material intensity of nutrition,
according to the three different paradigms.
4.1 The material flow-based approach
Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen first pointed out the relevance of matter in the
pursuance of the economic processes, stating that not only energy, but also materials,
combine to bring about the creation of economic value. Since this statement, a new
interest on material flows raised and a certain number of scientists started develop
Material Flow Analysis (MFA) (Bringezu and Moriguchi 2002; Bringezu 2003) and
MF-based indicators (Spangenberg, Femia et al. 1998) for evaluating the resource use
of the economies. Some European research centres have been pioneers in developing
these methodologies. Between them, Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment
and Energy and the Sustainable Europe Research Institute (SERI) engage in applied
research in sustainability and have developed a specific approach to investigate
ecological problems in relation with the social and economic spheres. This paragraph
is devoted to briefly illustrate the Wuppertal Institute’s vision and the main works
related to the material flows, in order to foreshadow and contextualize the
methodology used in this thesis.
According to Wuppertal Institute’s view, sustainability requires a decoupling
between human wellbeing and natural resources use. The idea of “Factor 4” (von
Weizsäcker, Lovins et al. 1997) based on the thesis that using resources more
efficiently would be possible to halve the resources use while doubling the standard
of living, has became a manifesto of Wuppertal Institute approach. Stressing resource
efficiency implies monitoring and systematically reducing the material flows passing
through the economic systems, thus the use of raw materials (minerals, biomass and
energy carriers) in the economic processes (Hinterberger and Seifert 1997;
Hinterberger and Schmidt-Bleek 1999). Schmidt-Bleek (2008) added to these
considerations the concept of equity between industrialized and developing
countries. As the latter should have a right to the economic growth and an
improvement of well-being, the reduction of resource use in developed countries
60 should be of a factor of ten, in order to permit the poor countries to increase their
resource use.
The MFA and the material flow based indicators like MIPS (Material Input per
Service Unit) have been implemented for this purpose, i.e. to facilitate the Factor 10
concept application and undertake a pattern of dematerialization. The MFA can be
applied at product level (using indicators like MIPS or TMR, Total Material
Requirement) for measuring the Ecological Rucksack of goods, i.e. the amount of
material resources that have been used for manufacturing, using, disposing a good.
Applied at national economy level, MFA provides an overview of the material basis
of the economy and, coupled with GDP and other economic indicators, evaluates the
growth’s sustainability and the efficiency in resource use.
4.2 MIPS concept
MIPS stands for Material Input per Service Unit and estimates the overall
environmental pressure caused by products or services by indicating the life-cyclewide consumption of natural resources in relation to the benefit provided. The
equation
(1) MIPS = MI/S
shows that MIPS is the reciprocal of resource productivity. Thus, this indicator tells
us how much efficient is a process in terms of “use of nature”.
The Material Input (MI) encompasses all matter and energy flows from natural
systems to techo-sphere, accounted in mass units. Energy is included through the
quantification of the energy carriers in terms of mass (e.g. the mass of fossil fuels per
unit of energy produced). The measurement of MIs comprises the backward
processes that have been necessary for producing a good/service, with a life-cycle
approach. The total mass of material flows that are used for producing a good, is
called “Ecological Rucksack”, or “Material Footprint” (Lettenmeier, Rohn et al. 2009).
This concept allow visualizing and quantifying the invisible amount of resources that
have been necessary for producing, transporting, using, disposing a mass unit of
product.
Five or six different categories of material inputs are considered (Ritthoff, Rohn et al.
2002):
• Abiotic raw materials: non-renewable resources like mineral raw materials, used
extraction of raw materials (e.g. ores, sand, gravel, slate, granite); fossil
energy carriers (e.g. coal, petroleum oil, petroleum gas); unused extraction
(gangue, overburden, i.e. all movements of soil and earth for constructing and
maintaining infrastructures like buildings, roads, rail network); soil
excavations (e.g. excavation of earth or sediment).
• Biotic raw materials: renewable resources from agriculture and silviculture, i.e.
plant-based biomass from cultivation (all plants which have been harvested,
picked, gathered, or used in other way). It also encompasses animal biomass,
which is calculated in units of plant- based inputs that have been necessary to
breed it, and biomass from uncultivated areas.
• Water (surface, ground and deep ground water) is taken into account when it is
actively removed from nature, i.e., by technical means.
• Air. All parts of the air that are changed chemically, i.e. mainly the quantity of
oxygen combusted that reflect the amount of carbon dioxide formed.
• Earth movements in agriculture and silviculture. Plowing, harrowing and other
soil movements cause relevant ecological changes and loss of fertility; as the
amounts of moved soil are extremely large, this category is often related to
the mass flow caused by erosion, which is sometimes calculated in place of
earth movements.
61 This categorization is essential because the different material flows have different
impact and magnitude. Thus, they cannot be summed together but are essential for
having a wide overview on the different impact sources. The reduction of one
material flow, instead, can result in the worsening of another category. I.e., a water
saving technology can result in higher energy consumption, thus affecting the abiotic
resource category. MIPS, instead, overcomes the one-dimensional perspective of
many sustainability indicators, i.e. carbon footprint and water footprint, but
maintains a handiness in being applied and communicated. Giljum et al. (2010)
demonstrated a correlation existing between carbon emissions and material
consumption, thus confirming that the material-flow based approach can be assumed
as a measure of environmental sustainability, but providing an overall view on the
different kinds of impact.
For industrial products, abiotic raw materials and water contribute meaningfully to
the end result, while in agricultural productions also biotic resource is an significant
category. In this study, we calculated all the categories of impact but narrowed the
interpretation of the result to the categories of abiotic, biotic, water and air, as no
reliable data were available for soil movements and especially erosion.
The “Service Unit” (SU) component (S in equation 1) refers to the benefit that is
provided using material or immaterial goods. The dimension unit of this part
depends on the object under consideration and the specific performance it provides
(e.g. person-kilometres for a mean of transport, floor area for buildings). Products
that are used just once (e.g. food) have S=1.
Relating the material input with the service unit allows comparing different ways for
fulfilling a need, or alternative productive techniques for producing something, on
the base of their intensity in resource use. Thus, MIPS can be also defined as the
“ecological price of a utility” (Schmidt-Bleek 2008) and be easily integrated in the
economic analysis.
In order to avoid the calculation out of primary data each time, MIPS calculation is
often done using average MI factors for materials and other inputs. They are the ratio
between the quantity (in mass units) of resources used and the quantity of product
obtained. Many MI factors of materials and “modules” (electricity, transport, etc.)
have been calculated and are published by Wuppertal Institute (available online:
http://www.wupperinst.org/uploads/tx_wibeitrag/MIT_v2.pdf). The use of readycalculated MI factor makes MIPS calculation easier, because not every pre-processchain needs to be recalculated by each user.
The theoretical basis of MIPS lays in Material Flow Analysis (MFA). The common
consideration is that productive processes are extracting resources from nature and
transforming them in something suitable (the product) and something unsuitable
(emissions, waste, etc.). The quantification of the throughput of process chains and
the minimization of these physical exchanges between human society and
environment is the aim of MFA (Bringezu and Moriguchi 2002). However, MIPS has
an input-oriented approach. Consistently with the matter-energy conservation law it
assumes that, as the input and the output side are equivalent in quantitative terms,
accounting the input side is enough to have a preliminary estimation of the
environmental impact of products and services (Schmidt-Bleek 1994; Bringezu and
Moriguchi 2002). On a microeconomic level, MIPS can be applied in a variety of
products and services for evaluating eco-innovations and indentifying eco-efficiency
improvements along the supply chain (Burger, Giljum et al. 2009). It is also
applicable at a macroeconomic level for an evaluation of policies from the
environmental point of view (Lettenmeier and Salo 2008).
The most controversially discussed aspect of the MIPS concept is probably the link
between the mass flow of resources and the environmental impacts caused by it. The
traditional approach of environmental policy focused rather on the impact of
hazardous substances in the output flows than on the material flow input,
62 considering also the possibility of material recycling and the treatment of waste and
emissions. Nevertheless, the importance of input mass flows and the necessity of a
reduction of these amounts are evident. The both economic and ecological costs as
well as the incompleteness of output treatments and the impossibility of a complete
recycling of materials are some common reasons for this approach. Moreover, the
specific environmental impact of most substances humans release to nature is even
partly known only for a very limited amount of substances. Thus, the amount of
materials moved from their original location can be considered a proxi measure for
the human use of natural capital potential environmental impact (Hinterberger and
Seifert 1997).
Advancing sustainability requires the de-linking of well-being from the natural
resource use. A drastic dematerialization of the economies and a parallel improving
in resource efficiency are the two main strategies through which this goal can be
achieved (von Weizsäcker, Lovins et al. 1997; Hinterberger and Schmidt-Bleek 1999;
Bringezu 2003; Schmidt-Bleek 2008; Burger, Giljum et al. 2009; Lettenmeier, Rohn et
al. 2009). Indicators like MIPS can be used for assessing the natural resource use of
products and services and starting dematerialization strategies. Comparing
alternatives, scenarios and different ways for obtaining the same output in terms of
material requirements allow obtaining useful information for supporting the
decision making at policy level, entrepreneurial level or for guiding consumers
towards low-impact purchases.
4.3 Material intensity of food
The MIPS concept can be applied to a variety of goods and services, included food.
In chapter two we briefly treated the economic and social relevance of nutrition, as
well as the impact of food production and consumption on the ecosystems. Before
going through the MIPS calculation we focus on some peculiarities concerning the
application of this methodology the field of nutrition.
Unlike many industrial goods, food is consumed in a single act and the established
service unit is usually kilograms of materials over kilograms of food. In this case,
instead of MIPS, the term “material intensity” can be used. Nevertheless, the SU can
also be set as the nutritional value of food (e.g. comparing the material requirement
for providing certain amounts of nutrients) or as human food requirement during a
period of time. In this survey, we use two different service units. In the first analysis
we calculate the material intensity of a range of foodstuffs and agricultural products,
along their supply chain. Thus, the SU is one kilogram of food. For each group of
food the system boundary, the allocation rules and simplifying hypothesis are
illustrated in the section 4.2. The second analysis concerns the evaluation of different
diets, provided by the three different food systems described in chapter three. In this
case the SU is the amount of food fed by one “average” person (average between
woman and man) during one week.
In the industrial processes there is always a direct proportionality between MI and
the environmental impact. Regarding the agricultural processes, instead, two
different trends bias the resulting MI. The mechanization and intensification of
agricultural practices normally lead to increase the MI, due to the largest amount of
material and energy resources used for the production. At the same time, higher
yields (that can be obtained through the intensification of the techniques) decrease
the MI, splitting the material requirements over a bigger amount of outputs. The
concept of eco-efficiency, applied in agriculture, has to be carefully weighted up and
evaluated case by case. Agriculture is the meeting point between natural and
anthropic systems. The farming activity is instead much more affected by
environmental condition and, on the reverse, farming practices can disturb
ecosystems in a very direct way. Effluents control is also much more difficult than in
the industrial systems. Finally, a huge variability of environmental conditions makes
each productive process unique. Therefore, the agricultural processes are highly site-
63 specific; the linked environmental impact can vary significantly when the geographic
context changes, especially in the Italian territory that presents a strong variability of
geomorphologic and pedologic conditions. The aim of the MIPS analysis of food is
therefore to obtain a rating of the foodstuffs eco-efficiency. The different agricultural
production strategies (conventional, organic, Ma-Pi polyculture) as well as the
supply chain managements are evaluated on the base of their productivity.
Pursuing the eco-efficiency of production processes has a positive feedback also in
economic terms because it allows gaining a better resource allocation. On the
production side, eco-efficiency entails a cost reduction, since the resources are
managed in a more rational way. Moreover, acting upstream through a minimization
of resource use, the downstream costs for waste management, pollution treatment
and purification are also reduced. Nevertheless, the ecological and economic
efficiency can diverge when market prices underestimate the biophysical scarcity of
natural resources and overestimate the capacity of the ecosystems as a sink, thus
encouraging a wasteful management. Therefore, an integrated evaluation of
economic and ecological efficiency of processes can be useful for providing
information on the overall performance of products. Using DEA (Data Envelopment
Analysis) models Kauppinen et al. (2008) studied the sustainability of food
consumptions, scoring a set of foodstuffs on the basis of the overall (economic and
ecological) efficiency. In this study the material intensity of foodstuffs and their
prices are considered as inputs in the DEA model, while the food’s nutritional values
are used as output. The results show the efficiency of each foodstuff in providing
individuals with a proper amount of nutrients while minimizing the material input
and the household expenditure. A similar investigation can be applied on the supply
hand for evaluating the overall efficiency of productive processes.
One way to obtain general information on agricultural products’ MI consists on
using average data from the national territory, regions, or from productive districts.
When data refers to a single productive case, all the farming conditions and
specificities have to be carefully documented. The comparability of MIPS figures
obtained by different studies on foodstuffs and agricultural products is instead
bounded. It depends on the system boundaries adopted in each case, as well as in the
geographical context.
The calculation of MIPS has a modular reasoning. The good under study is examined
since the production of intermediary products, with a life-cycle perspective. The
“elementary processes are materials (minerals, plastics, metals, construction
materials), fuels and transport services for which the five MIPS categories have been
calculated
by
the
Wuppertal
Institute
(see
http://www.wupperinst.org/uploads/tx_wibeitrag/MIT_v2.pdf). They are used for
building up more complex products and calculate MIPS of the final product.
In the case of food, the supply side is analyzed through the three steps of vegetal
productions, animal production and food processing (Fig. 4.1). Also the agricultural
inputs’ production and delivery is encompassed, as well as all the transport phases
within the supply chain. This part corresponds to the first analysis of this study. In
the second one, we take into consideration also the other steps of the value chain
(distribution, purchasing, consumption) comparing different agri-food chain and
consumption habits (Fig. 4.2).
64 Fig. 4.1 Framework of the study
Source: author elaboration
The salient points concerning the material flows of the food chain are briefly
resumed above:
Agricultural phase: it produces biomass for different purposes: the direct human
consumption, the livestock feed, the production of processed food, the
manufacturing of other goods (textile), the energy production. The chemicals used as
fertilizers, pesticides and for the weeds control constitute relevant sources material
flows. The analysis includes the production of these agrochemicals, fuels and other
inputs, e.g. seeds and their delivery when they are acquired from the market. Water
for irrigation is also accounted, and the energy and material consumptions for post
harvesting treatments (e.g. drying, silage, haying). Interesting outcomes can be
obtained when comparing organic and conventional productions in terms of material
intensity. Higher yields would result with a lower MI. This gain is however
counteracted when the high productivity is obtained using huge amounts of inputs
(both in terms of material and energy).
Cattle breeding: in metabolic terms, animal productions are less efficient than the
crops. One kilogram of meat requires, on average, 3 kilograms of grains and 16000
litres of virtual water. (Nellemann, MacDevette at al. 2009). Vegetal biomass and
water are the main flows in livestock activity. Electricity, infrastructures (stables,
milking installation, feeding plants, etc…) fossil fuels for the maintenance operations
are other inputs and depend on the breeding techniques. The impact linked to
breeding activity has to be allocated between the different co-products (e.g., meat
from a diary farm) following specific allocation rules.
Food processing: food undergoing several treatments is normally more resource
intensive and unsustainable than the unprocessed one. As any other industrial
product, the more processed is the food, the higher MI will result. Water, electricity,
fuels, materials for packaging are some of the inputs used in this step. A detailed
analysis of the food MI requires the information gathering from the firm and a close
collaboration with producers.
Food distribution and transports: food can cover very long distances before
reaching the table. Sometimes foodstuffs are composed of raw materials coming from
different countries of the world and some manufacturing phases can be displaced,
due to economic convenience. Consuming habits have been also changing and
including exotic foodstuffs and out-of-season fresh vegetables and fruits. MI analysis
includes all the transfers of the final products, as well as the intermediate and the
production input, considering the mean of transport and the total distance covered.
A more detailed insight should consider the energy consumptions of the cold-chains
used for perishable and frozen food.
65 Food purchasing and consumption: buying food often requires a car trip and
therefore fuel consumption. The industrialization of food sector has reinforced this
habit due to the spreading of out-of-town shopping centres that have replaced the
small local shops: the frequency of shopping trips and the distance travelled for
foodstuffs purchasing, instead, has increased in the last decades (Jones 2002). Food
preparation and cooking can entail fuels, electricity and water consumption, and
finally the waste management can also be counted.
4.4 Material intensity along the supply chain (Analysis 1)
The first analysis focus on measuring the material intensity of agricultural products
and foodstuffs produced in Italy. The aim of this part is to provide an eco-efficiency
rating of the most common Italian foodstuffs, and to highlight the processes along
the life cycle that are more significantly influencing the different impact categories.
Fig. 4.2 shows the system boundary of this study in general terms. For each group of
food the data sources, the allocation rules and the simplifying hypothesis are
explained in a detailed way in the paragraph 4.2.
Fig. 4.2 System boundary of analysis 1
The main criteria of foodstuffs selection are the following: their relevance on Italian
nutrition and economy; the availability of reliable data on the production processes;
their role in composing a diet and being functional for the second analysis (staple
food rather then drinks and seasonings). The next paragraph illustrates the data
sources, the main assumptions and the simplifying hypothesis that are common to all
the products under investigation.
4.4.1
Data sources and simplifying hypothesis
The calculation of MI can concern a specific product and use primary data, or refer to
an “average product” at national level, using different data sources from the
literature. In this work the latter approach prevails and the most common conditions
of production are taken into account, in order to obtain generalizable results on the
Italian foodstuffs. Nevertheless, the data availability prevented this option and in
some cases the calculations are based on “single case” products.
The main data sources used in this study are:
•
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies: are very detailed sources of information;
they describe the inventories of production and provide information on all
the inputs and outputs. In this study pasta, citrus fruits, rice, milk and cheese
66 •
•
•
•
used this kind of reports. Many of them are published by ENEA (Italian
National Agency or New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic
Development).
ENAMA (Nation Agency for Agricultural Mechanization): publishes a report
describing the fuels’ consumption of agricultural practices.
ISTAT (Italian National Statistic Agency): provides statistics and general
information on the food systems;
Economy-wide Material Flow Accounting - A compilation guide (2007): an
EUROSTAT and European Commission report that provide the
methodological standardization of MFA. It provided information on the
harvest index of crops, used in MIPS analysis for the calculation of the biotic
category.
Agricultural handbooks and course books (Bonciarelli, 2001)(Hoepli, 1997):
provide a description of agronomic practices and average data on yields.
Regarding the common assumptions and simplifying hypothesis for the MIPS
calculation:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Production losses and surpluses along the supply chains (e.g. losses during
cereals’ storing) have been neglected (nevertheless they can constitute a
relevant share of the total).
Infrastructures and agricultural machinery are not part of the analysis. The
material flows due to these goods, split for the total amount produced during
their life span is supposed to be very close to zero (Ritthoff, Kaiser et al. 2009).
The impact of greenhouses is instead included in the analysis because of the
shorter life span of these buildings and in order to compare vegetables grown
under greenhouses with the open field ones.
Irrigation is been considered for some crops (maize and vegetables) in which
it is commonly practiced. However, we account only the water volumes and
don’t consider the irrigation plants and the electricity consumption for this
use.
The determination of the impact linked to soil, i.e. the measurement of moved
earth in agriculture and silviculture, require the knowledge of the maximum
ploughing depth for each crop. These values have been multiplied for the
average soil density, in order to obtain mass units of moved soil. Considering
the different soil textures, the resulting average density is 1300 kg/m3
(Bonciarelli and Bonciarelli 2001). In this study the interpretation of the
erosion category was neglected, due to the lack of data for the different crops.
In fact the same estimation of 10 tonnes/ha per year (ISTAT 2003) is used for
all the crops. Thus, the resulting values of erosion don’t provide any
information on the impact of the used farming practice, but are simply
indirectly related with yields (for this reason, organic productions have
always higher values of erosion).
The harvest factors, which “denotes the share of primary crop harvest of total
aboveground plant biomass” (Weisz, Krausmann 2007, pg. 22), are used for
calculating the “biotic” category of MI, thus the total amount of harvested
biomass per product unit.
The analysis includes the transport of input materials for agriculture and all
the deliveries along the supply chain. We assumed a truck transport having
the MI values reported in table … calculated for Germany.
The seed is a material input used in agricultural processes. However, in
calculating MI of grains (cereals and dried pulses), this values corresponds to
the result of the analysis. We solve this loop-process using, when existing, the
MI of German crops. For each crop the selected values of seed are explained
in the next paragraphs.
The MI factor of electricity refers to the EU energetic mix (Lettenmeier, Rohn
et al. 2009) (table 4.1).
67 Table 4.1 Material Intensity of EU energy mix and truck
Electrical power, EU
Truck
Unit
Kg/kWh
Kg/km*t
Abiotic material
1.72
0.218
Biotic material
0
0
Water
32.53
1.91
Air
0.44
0.209
Moved soil
0
0
Source: Lettenmeier, Rohn et al. 2009
The data gathered in the inventory analysis have been processed by the software
GaBi 4.3, usually used for LCA analysis. In spite of the standard databases provided
by the software we used the database published by the Wuppertal Institute on the
MI factors. It contains the material intensity of intermediate products, energy
carriers, chemicals and other substances used in the processes. They have been used
in a modular way, thus for modelling complex processes since the elementary ones.
The appendix 2 shows all the processes as they have been set in GaBi. The
agricultural
4.4.2
Vegetal productions
The crops under investigation can be branched as showed in fig. 4.3 They are
produced for different purposes:
•
•
•
direct human consumption (fruit and vegetables; dried pulses, cereals)
livestock feeding (hay, fodders and silages; cereals, dried pulses)
food processing industry (wheat, for pasta and bakery industry, barley, rice
for milling)
Fig. 4.3 Vegetal productions under investigation
Vegetal productions Cereals (grain) Winter cereals Dried pulses Summer cereals Silages, hay and green fodders Vegetables & fruit Broad beans Lucern Tomatoes Wheat Maize Lupins Clover Zucchini Barley Sorghum Beans Maize Lettuce Oats Puddy rice Peas Sorghum Oranges Rye Barley Triticale Meadow Source: author elaboration
4.4.2.1
Cereals
Cereals have a significant relevance in the Italian agri-food economy, both in terms of
consumption and for the food industry. They occupy 32% of the Italian cultivable
68 area (fig. 4.4). Between them, durum wheat has the widest invested surface and
maize, which is mostly designed for the livestock breeding is the first crop in terms
of production (table. 4.2). Durum wheat is used for the production of pasta, which is
the second Italian exported foodstuff (after wine) (INEA 2006). Nevertheless the
import-export balance is negative, due to the importation of wheat (durum and soft)
and barley. Rice is cultivated in the Northern regions of Piemonte and Lombardia,
and Italy is the first European producer.
Fig. 4.4 Italian arable land use
Source: ISTAT, 2000
Table 4.2 Cereals' cultivation in Italy (2009)
Area (ha) Total production (t)
Durum wheat
1254082
3708681
Maize
916158
8206565
Soft wheat
568273
2943541
Barley
Rice (2008)
306782
224196
1058545
1388927
Oats
133853
319988
39902
244027
4033
12312
Sorghum
Rye
Source: ISTAT, 2009
Winter cereals
In the Mediterranean area winter grains are sown in autumn and harvested in the
early summer. Wheat is indirectly addressed to human consumption, through the
milling industry and the pasta or bakery industry. Barley is partially used for the
production of malt or for the preparation of a drink, coffee surrogate; a minor share
of barley is directly used for human nutrition, in form of salads or soups; the biggest
part is used as grain for cattle breeding, as well as oats, rye and triticale.
The average yields of cereals are affected by several factors. Crop rotations,
environmental and climatic conditions, soil features, variety choice and fertilization
levels are some of them. In calculating the MIs, we considered an average and
simplified process whose phases are drawn in fig. 4.5 The data used in the
calculations are from the available literature and are reported in table 4.3.
69 Fig. 4.5 Winter cereals system boundary
Ploughing!
Sowing!
Fertilization!
Pest treatments
and weed
control!
Storing!
Harvesting!
Table 4.3 – Data on winter cereals cultivation
Average yield
Seed amount
Max. ploughing
depth
N- fertilizer (Urea)
P-fertilizer (triple
superphosphate)
K-fertilizer
(Potassium oxide)
Pesticides and
herbicides
(active ingredient
amount)
Diesel for field
operations
Harvest factor
Main data sources
Unit
kg/ha
kg/ha
Wheat
5678
280
Barley
6000
125
Oats
5000
175
Rye
4000
140
Triticale
6000
200
cm
kg/ha
30
180
25
260
25
260
25
130
30
217
kg/ha
63
222
222
222
100
kg/ha
0
250
250
250
75
kg/ha
0.65
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
kg/ha
kg/kg
208
1.2
Bevilacqua,
Braglia et al.
2007;
Bevilacqua,
Buttol et al.
2007 Della
Corte,
Cecchini et
al. 2002;
169
1.2
169
1.2
169
1.2
169
1.2
Bonciarelli
and
Bonciarelli
2001;
Hoepli 1997
Bonciarelli
and
Bonciarelli
2001;
Hoepli 1997
Bonciarelli
and
Bonciarelli
2001;
Hoepli 1997
Bonciarelli
and
Bonciarelli
2001;
Hoepli 1997
The traditional farming practice of winter grains consists of a soil ploughing, with a
maximum depth included between 30 cm (wheat and triticale) and 25 cm (barley,
rye, oats) (Hoepli 1997, Bonciarelli and Bonciarelli 2001).. The modern farming
practices can significantly reduce the ploughing depth, in favour of a minimum
tillage or even a direct drilling. These new trends favour the maintenance of the soil
fertility and organic matter content and allow saving fuels for deeper field
operations. From the other hand, the weeds’ control can be more difficult and the
direct drilling requires a radical herbicide intervention before sawing. An in-deep
examination could take into consideration these farming practices in order to
evaluate the related material flows and more environmental friendly alternative.
The MI factors of seed are from the Ritthoff et al. (2009) study on material intensity
for German foodstuffs. As no data existed for rye and triticale, we used the same
values as for oats. The irrigation is commonly not necessary in the winter cereals’
cultivation, thus is not encompassed in this analysis. Water flows result from the
production and spreading of chemicals used in farming. We assumed a rate active
ingredient/water of 1000/1, which corresponds to 1 litre of water for each gram of
ingredient. The pesticides doses are from ISTAT statistics on the plant protection
70 products’ employment for the crop year 2007/2008 (ISTAT 2009) The diesel
consumptions, mostly provided by ENAMA, include all the field operations from
ploughing till harvesting and straw heaping.
The transports along the cereals life cycle comprise the provision of chemicals, seeds
and other inputs for farming. We assumed an average distance of 150 km by truck
for this operation. The delivery to milling plant or to storage sites is not allocated in
the cereals MI. We instead assumed the storing in the same farm and a natural grain
drying, which does not imply relevant material flows.
Summer cereals
Macrothermal species like rice, maize and sorghum require higher temperatures to
complete the vegetative cycle thus are grown within the spring and summer seasons.
Maize and sorghum are mostly cultivated for the cattle breeding, in form of grain,
silage and also fresh hay. This paragraph illustrates the methodology of MI
calculation for maize and sorghum grains and paddy rice. The paragraph 4.4.2.3
deals with the silage and hay and the production of milled and parboiled rice is in
the paragraph 4.4.4.2.
Maize and sorghum grain
Maize and sorghum are similar crops in terms of farming practice and environmental
requirements. Sorghum is less water demanding, is more resistant to dryness and
suitable for a low-impact production. Maize is usually grown through intensive
practices, because yields are very much affected by nutrients administrations and
water availability.
The analysis refers to the conventional production of irrigated maize (I), and to
conventional (C) and organic (O) sorghum grain production, both not irrigated. For
all of them we used the MI figures of conventional maize from Ritthoff et al. (2009).
The diesel consumptions (ENAMA 2005) include the field operations, as well as the
irrigation plant functioning in the case of irrigated crop. Regarding pesticides, we
used the same rules as in winter cereals.
According to the final destination of the product, grain can undergo different
treatments, in the same farm or in specialized plants. In this work we assumed the
transport to a storing centre (25 km) and a diesel consumption of 0.0258 for each
kilogram of dried grain (ENAMA 2005). Moreover the transport of input materials
covers 150 km.
Fig. 4.6 shows the system boundary and in table 4.4 are the data and the literature
references.
Fig. 4.6 Maize and sorghum system boundary
Ploughing!
Sowing!
Fertilization!
Irrigation!
Storing!
Grain drying!
Harvesting!
Pest treatments
and weed
control!
71 Table 4.4 Data on summer cereals cultivation
Unit
Average yield
(dried)
Seed amount
Max. ploughing
depth
N- fertilizer
(Urea)
superphosphate)
K-fertilizer
(Potassium oxide)
Pesticides and
herbicides
(active ingredient
amount)
Diesel for field
operations
Harvest factor
Main data
sources
Sorghum C
Sorghum O
8680
20
7172
12.5
5379
12.5
7040
200
5000
200
40
45
0
35
35
kg/ha
598
326
0
406
0
kg/ha
222
222
0
83
0
kg/ha
167
166.7
0
270
0
kg/ha
2.4
1.2
0
6.1
0
kg/ha
kg/kg
314
1.2
Bonciarelli
and
Bonciarelli
2001; Hoepli
1997
182
1.2
Bonciarelli
and
Bonciarelli
2001;
Hoepli 1997
182
1.2
Bonciarelli
and
Bonciarelli
2001;
Hoepli 1997
189
1.2
121
1.2
Blengini
and Busto,
2009
Mandelli et
al. 2005
kg/ha
kg/ha
cm
Maize I, C
Rice C
Rice O
I: irrigated; C: conventional; O: organic
Paddy rice
Rice cultivation is spread in the Northern provinces of Vercelli, Pavia, Novara and
Milan. 90% of the national rice production comes from this area. This crop is strictly
dependent by water availability and can be grown using different techniques. The
process under study is based on Blengini and Busto (2009) LCA study referring to the
rice produced in the Vercelli district.
The system boundary (fig. 4.7) includes all the operations up to the harvesting. The
drying and processing phases are discussed in the chapter 4.4.4.2 as milled rice
production. Also the delivery to manufacturing industry is allocated in the milled
rice production.
Rice cultivation requires the maintenance of watering canals and bank management,
in addition to the ploughing, sowing, fertilizing, plant protection treatments and
harvesting. The irrigation system does not require a pumping system because the
water flows by gravity in the canals network. The average water volume for
irrigation is 19800 m3/ha, according to the literature. The MI figures for seed are
from Ritthoff et al. (2009) (values for winter wheat). Regarding pesticides and inputs
transport distances, we used the same rules as in winter cereals.
The data used in MI calculation are presented in table 4.4.
72 Fig. 4.7 Paddy rice system boundary
Water canals
maintenance!
Ploughing!
Fertilization!
Irrigation!
Harvesting!
Pest treatments and
weed control!
Sowing!
Organic production of cereals
The average yields of organic cereals are assumed to be 25% less than the
conventional ones. The considered farming practices fulfil the directions of the
Council regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and
labelling of organic products.
The chemical fertilizers are substituted with manure and slurry administration. As
they are livestock by-products, their material intensity is null, but the diesel
consumption for transport and spreading on the field is considered. The pesticides
are avoided and the agronomic techniques such as the crops rotation, the choice of
resistant and well-adapted plant varieties are the main strategies for the weed
control.
The production of organic rice in Italy concerns 12825 ha, that is the 5% of the
national rice growing area (Regione Lombardia). In spite of a small farming area, in
the recent years the demand for organic rice is definitely increasing as well as the
agricultural experimentations on organic and low-impact farming practices. The
most challenging aspect of the organic rice growing regards the weed control and the
substitution of herbicides with a proper agronomic practice. Conventional farming,
instead, is typically chemical intensive, recurs to basin irrigation and is prevalently
done in monoculture. In the organic rice production a proper agronomic
management must substitute the agrochemicals’ employment. The choice of plant
variety, the water regulation, the crops’ rotation, the green manure and the “false
sowing”8 practice are the more relevant practices in the organic production.
The data on organic rice (table 4.4) are from the LCA study Mandelli, Neri et al
(2005) This survey analyzes a farm in the Milan area, in which the livestock activity
provides manure and slurry for the fertilization of the rise field. This system
boundary (fig. 4.7) includes the sowing of mustard seeds (12.5 kg/ha) for the
improvement of the chemical soil features. Pesticides are totally avoided and the
irrigation doesn’t require a pumping system. The amount of water used for irrigation
is 2500m3/ha. The field operations encompass the scattering manure (14t/ha) and
slurry (6t/ha). The transport of seeds covers 10 km, according to Mandelli.
8 The “false sowing” is an ancient agronomic practice, actually used in organic agriculture. It consists in preparing a seed bed and spreading the seed without ploughing under, in order to stimulate the weeds’ germination. 73 Fig. 4.8 Organic rice system boundary
Water canals
maintenance!
Ploughing!
Mustard seeds
spreading!
Fertilization!
Harvesting!
Irrigation!
Sowing!
Fig. 4.9 Evolution of pulses production and invested area
Source: FAOSTAT, 2009
4.4.2.2 Grain legumes
The cultivation of legumes has drastically decreased during the last decades, in Italy
and in Europe (fig…). The low productivity of these crops, the changing of diet
habits towards increasing animal-based proteins intakes, and the agricultural
industrialization are the main causes of this decline. In the traditional farming
systems legumes were normally included into the crop rotation by reason of their
nitrogen fixation property. The chemical industry development allowed substituting
them with fertilizers and the market system made other crops more attractive than
pulses. Nevertheless, these crops are particularly interesting from the point of view
of sustainability and, especially in Italy, have been rediscovered in the last years.
They are well-suited for an organic production, improve the soil fertility and are
healthy alternatives to meat consumption. Moreover, in the last years many
agronomist and researcher have been studying the effectiveness of these crops as
alternative fodders to soy by-products (almost totally imported, and often genetically
modified) due to their high protein content (Battini and Ligabue 2003; Bonomi 2003).
They are especially proper for the production of organic meat.
Grain legumes include a wide range of crops. They are used for the direct human
consumption (fresh or dried) or addressed to the processing industry for the canning;
otherwise they are used in the livestock feeding as protein sources. In this study we
consider the production of four pulses: field beans, lupins, dried peas and dried
beans. As shown in fig. 4.10 the industrial process of processing and packaging is
neglected, due to the lack of data in this phase of the supply chain.
74 Fig. 4.10 Grain legumes system boundary
Ploughing!
Sowing Fertilization!
Drying!
(only peas and
beans)!
Harvesting!
Pest treatments and
weed control!
The legumes are often cultivated rotated with wheat or other cereals because of their
property of improving the soil chemical features. The conventional farming practice
is similar to the cereals one, but nitrogen fertilization is usually reduced or not
necessary. Irrigation is normally not necessary. For pesticides and inputs transport
distances, we used the same rules as in winter cereals. The grain drying requires a
diesel consumption of 0.07kg/kg of final product.
The organic production of legumes is based on a proper agronomic management,
which allows avoiding the agrochemicals’ employment. For the calculation of the
material flows linked with organic legumes, we assumed a reduction of yield of 25%
and no agrochemicals employment.
75 Table 4.5 Data on legumes cultivation
Average yield
Seed amount
Max. ploughing
depth
N- fertilizer
(Urea)
superphosphate)
K-fertilizer
(Potassium oxide)
Pesticides
(active ingredient
amount)
Diesel for field
operations
Harvest factor
Main data
sources
4.4.2.3
Unit
kg/ha
kg/ha
Field bean
3000
200
3000
125
Bean (dried)
2500
70
Peas (dried)
3750
180
40
30
30
30
kg/ha
109
0
56
56
kg/ha
200
156
200
156
kg/ha
208
0
125
0
kg/ha
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.65
kg/ha
kg/kg
155
1.2
Bonciarelli and
Bonciarelli 2001;
Hoepli 1997
155
1.2
Bonciarelli and
Bonciarelli 2001;
Hoepli 1997
155
1.2
Bonciarelli and
Bonciarelli 2001;
Hoepli 1997
155
1.2
Bonciarelli and
Bonciarelli 2001;
Hoepli 1997
cm
Lupin
Silages, hay and green fodders
Forages can be sorted according to different criteria:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
botanic family (gramineae, leguminosae, cruciferae, etc…)
permanence (annual, poly-annual, perennial crops)
grassland formation (natural grass regeneration or man-made sowing)
placement in the crop rotation (main crop, stubble crop)
plant composition (one, few or many species)
fodder typology (stems and leaves; stems, leaves and grain; roots, etc..)
conservation and utilization modality (fresh forage, hay, dried forage, silage;
hay meadows, grazing pasture).
The MI analysis concerns the following productions:
•
•
•
maize and sorghum silages;
lucerne hay (Medicago sativa), clover hay (Trifolium repens) and meadow grass;
barley and sorghum green forage.
Maize and sorghum silage
The silage fermentation of vegetal biomass allows having the use of high nutritive
value fodders during the whole year. Moreover, silages are appreciated for their
digestibility and palatability.
The farming practise of cereals addressed to silaging is similar to the one for grain
production, with the exception of the harvesting phase. It requires a double-chop
forage harvester that collects the whole plant, cut it up and blows it in a trailer. The
biomass is stored in appropriate silos, or heaped up and covered with plastic sheets
in order to create an anaerobic environment for the fermentation.
76 Fig. 4.11 Silages system boundary
Ploughing!
Pest treatments
and weed
control!
Storing!
Heaping!
Harvesting!
Most of the data used is the same as in the grain production (see table 4.4). Only the
diesel consumption for the field operation differs (345 l/ha), due to the use of a high
power machine. Diesel is also used for the biomass storing (0.00142 kg/kg of silage).
Hay production
There are several species used for the production of hay, mainly from the botanic
family of gramineae, leguminosae and cruciferae. The calculation of hay MI in this
study refers to two legumes: lucerne (Medicago sativa) and clover (Trifolium repens)
crops, cultivated in a 3 and 4 years arable meadow. Each year, depending on the
season, from three to five cuts are possible.
Haymaking involves a multistep process (Fig. 4.12). The system under study
includes the crop irrigation, the grass pre-wilding on the field and the drying in the
warehouse. The data on hay production from lucerne and clover are in tab. 4.6.
Data on pesticides and inputs’ transport distances are the same as in the wheat.
Fig. 4.12 Hay production system boundary
Ploughing!
Pest treatments!
Mowing!
Transport and
storing!
Bale loading!
Hay gathering
and baling!
Hay turning!
Swathing!
The organic cultivation has been assumed to be 25% less productive than the
conventional one. The chemical fertilization is replaced by 200 q/ha of manure and
the irrigation has been considered only for clover (where it is absolutely necessary,
according to Bonciarelli), while organic lucerne is not irrigated.
The haymaking from permanent meadows produces 5000 kg of dried hay per year.
The diesel consumption for the harvesting operations and for hay drying are the only
relevant material inputs.
The exported biomass in the hay production (biotic category) is deduced from the
rate between the dry matter obtained and the fresh grass harvested, thus considering
the weight reduction during the drying process.
77 Table 4.6 Data on hay production
Unit
Average annual yield (dried
hay)
Fodder units/kg of dry matter
Seed amount
Max. ploughing depth
P-fertilizer
(triple
superphosphate)
K-fertilizer (Potassium oxide)
Pesticides (active ingredient
amount)
Diesel for field operations
Diesel for hay drying
Exported biomass
Lucerne
kg/ha
Clover
kg/ha
cm
kg/ha
10000
0.7
35
50
60
11000
0.6
7
50
60
kg/ha
kg/ha
278
317
222
167
kg/ha
kg/ha
kg/ha
kg/kg
0.6
251
139
4.5
Bonciarelli and Bonciarelli
2001;
Hoepli 1997
0.6
237
139
4.5
Bonciarelli and Bonciarelli
2001;
Hoepli 1997
Main data sources
Green fodders
These forages are addressed to the direct fresh consumption. Barley and sorghum
can be used for this purpose, cutting the whole plant and conferring the biomass to
the cattle, or to biomass plants for energy production. The farming practices do not
differ from the ones for the grain production. However, being the yields higher
(30000 kg/ha barley grass and 55000 kg/ha the sorghum grass) the impact of one
unit of product will be lower. We assumed these crops not being irrigated.
4.4.2.4
Fruit and vegetables
The weight of fruit and vegetable sector into the Italian agricultural economy is
relevant in terms of turnover (4.6% of the total) and export (fresh accounts 14% and
processed 11% of the total exported) (ISMEA 2008). The farms growing fruits and
vegetables are about 522775, with an average size of 1.5 ha (ISMEA 2008). Table 4.7
shows the weight of each branch in the sector of fruit and vegetables production.
Table 4.7 Fruit and vegetables Italian production and invested area
Crops
Open field vegetables
Fresh fruit
Tomato for processing industry
Citrus fruits
Potatoes
Table grape
Greenhouse vegetables
Shell-fruits
Dried pulses
Total fruit and vegetables
Vegetables + potatoes + dried pulses
Fresh fruit and shell-fruits + citrus + grape
Area (ha)
359138
282859
62726
166249
69943
68250
31586
154000
76957
1271708
600305
671358
Production (t)
7014029
5815715
4619821
3892624
1789629
1354363
1490573
243658
153719
26374129
15067770
11306359
Source: ISMEA, 2008
Vegetables
The crops under study are the three most relevant vegetables grown in the Italian
agri-food systems. Tomatoes, lettuce and zucchini have the highest Penetration
Index9 among vegetables and are at the top-rank in the Italian domestic purchases for
9 Penetration Index measures the spreading of consumption: how many consumers over 100 have consumed
that product at least one time in the considered period (1 year) (ISMEA 2005). 78 vegetables (table 4.8). Tomato is produced both for fresh consumption and for the
processing industry for many kinds of canned products (peeled tomatoes, tomato
sauce, paste, puree, etc...). In this study we just consider the production of tomatoes
for the direct consumption.
Table 4.8 Italian production and consumption of tomato, lettuce and zucchini
Penetration Index (%)
Production (t)
Share of greenhouse crop/total (%)
Domestic purchases (000 €)
Domestic purchases (t)
Share of total purchased vegetables (% in value)
Share of total purchased vegetables (% in tonnes)
Tomato
85.7
1346187
42
420794
269194
16
15
Lettuce
83.3
1055401
15
397302
224.492
15
13
Zucchini
72.5
536260
36
181852
120858
7
7
Source: ISMEA, 2008; ISTAT, 2007
The greenhouse production involves a significant share of the total vegetables’
production (table 4.8); for this reason we included this aspect in the MI analysis.
Greenhouse allows extending the supply of fresh vegetables beyond the season of
natural growing and creating the optimal environmental condition through the
conditioning, lighting, humidifying, etc. The crops isolation and the employment of
intensive agronomic techniques is directed to capitalize the area invested through the
gaining of the maximum yield and the production of out-of-season and highly
homologated products. The employment of massive amounts of inputs is considered
economically profitable since these agricultural products can fetch a better price and
due to the major yields achievable. However, the ecological cost is scarcely
documented, and an input-output analysis on the involved material flows could
bring to a different conclusion on the efficiency of these systems.
The greenhouse cultivation is naturally coupled with conventional and intensive
farming techniques, due to the necessity of yields maximization for recovering the
high capital expenditure for the construction and maintenance of greenhouses.
Regarding the open field production, the analysis distinguishes between an intensive
and conventional farming and the application of integrated agriculture techniques.
This low input practice consists on integrating all the agronomic methods that allow
avoiding or minimizing the employment of chemical inputs. These methods
encompass a correct soil management, the choice of resistant and well-adapted plant
varieties, the crops rotations, the employment of phytophagous for the plant
protection, etc. The productive process through integrated agriculture (IA) is
assessed assuming that the correct management of the agro-ecosystem allows
gaining the same yield of the conventional practice on open field, with an
employment of pesticides reduced of 50%, and the substitution of chemical fertilizers
with manure.
For each vegetable we analyses three productive methods:
•
•
•
greenhouse and conventional agriculture (GC)
open field and conventional agriculture (FC)
open field and integrated agriculture (FI)
We assumed the three systems of production being irrigated with the same amount
of water per output unit (29 kg/kg of tomatoes) (Anton 2004).
The MI analysis presented in this study neglects the impact of infrastructures and
capital goods. Nevertheless, in order to explore and compare the impact of crops in
greenhouses and on open field has been necessary to include the material flows
linked with greenhouses’ production and management. An additional argument for
this choice is that the average life span of these structures is significantly minor than
other ones like warehouses and depository. Some materials used for greenhouses,
e.g. covering plastic has an average lifespan of three years, according with Antón
(2004; Antón, Montero, et al. 2005). This study provides a LCA analysis of the
79 greenhouses tomato crop, and includes the direct measurements of all the materials
and energy consumption for the building up and management of these structures.
The analysis refers to the Mediterranean greenhouses, which are located in warm
and temperate areas, based on low technology with plastic cover. For each crop, the
impact of greenhouse is weighed on the base of the duration of the vegetative cycle
(from 90 to 120 days).
Fig. 4.13 shows the system boundary of vegetables and tables 4.9 the main data used
in the determination of the material intensity.
Fig. 4.13 Vegetables system boundary
Greenhouse
production and
management!
Nursery produc0on Fertilization!
Harvesting!
Pest treatments!
Irrigation!
80 Table 4.9 Data on vegetables growing
T GC
T FC
T FI
L GC
L FC
L FI
Z GC
Z FC
Z FI
Average yield
(kg/m2)
10
9
9
4
2.5
2.5
7
4
4
Seed (gr/m2)
2.5
2.5
2.5
1
1
1
0.3
0.25
0.25
Crop cycle
duration (days)
90
90
90
90
90
90
105
105
105
Max. ploughing
depth (cm)
35
35
35
45
45
45
35
35
35
N- fertilizer
(Urea) (kg/ha)
598
413
0
217
174
0
0
0
0
superphosphate)
(kg/ha)
278
244
0
311
249
0
0
0
0
K-fertilizer
(Potassium oxide)
(kg/ha)
375
292
0
267
214
0
0
0
0
Pesticides
(active
ingredient)(gr/kg
of product)
0.068
0.068
0.034
0.068
0.068
0.034
0.068
0.068
0.034
Diesel for field
operations
(kg/ha)
618
618
618
655
655
655
422
422
422
Water
requirements
(kg/kg of
product)
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
Main data
sources
Antón 2004; Bufacchi et al., 2000; Bonciarelli and Bonciarelli 2001
T: tomato; L: lettuce; Z: zucchini; GC: greenhouse + conventional; FC: open field + conventional; FI:
openfield + integrated agriculture
Table 4.10 Data on materials and energy consumption for greenhouse construction and
management
Weight
(kg)
Stainless steel
Polyvinyl chlorid
Concrete
Low density polyethylene
Polycarbonate
Distance of materials’ transport
(km)
Energy for building up (MJ/m2)
Diesel
for
conditioning
(l/m3*month)
15937
188
110
1256
12
Lifespan
(years)
Use
20
10
20
3
12
Windows structure, intern pillars,
channels for water gathering
Pipes
Structure
Plastic cover
Cover plate, door
400
0.128
1.6
Source: Antòn, 2004
81 Fruit
Citrus fruits are key products for the food sector in Southern Italy. 58% of national
supply comes from Sicily (Beccali and Cellura 2009), and Italy is the eighth orange
producer in the world (Fig. 4.14).
Fig. 4.14 Top ten orange producers in the world
Source: FAOSTAT, 2008
The material intensity analysis focus on the production of fruit for the direct
consumption and of orange based beverages, that are illustrated in the paragraph
4.4.4.3. The LCA study from Beccali and Cellura (2009), based on a Sicilian
representative farm, provided most of the data for the MIPS calculation of oranges.
The citrus grove’s lifespan is 25 years; the nursery production has been considered
negligible since the impact would be spread for all the years of production. The
calculation refers to an annual cultivation (table 4.11).
Table 4.11 Data on oranges cultivation
Average yield
Max. ploughing depth
P-fertilizer (triple superphosphate)
K-fertilizer
(Potassium oxide)
Pesticides
(active ingredient)
Diesel for field operations
Water requirements
Main data sources
4.4.3
kg/ha
cm
kg/ha
kg/ha
kg/ha
25000
80 (once in 25 years)
600
250
450
gr/kg of product
3.26
kg/ha
250
kg/kg of product
168
Beccali and Cellura, 2009
Animal productions
Livestock has a strong impact on ecosystems. It is responsible for approximately 18%
of global greenhouse gases emissions (Steinfeld, Gerber et al., 2006), mostly from
methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). Breeding requires considerable amounts of
water, directly, through the animals’ intakes, and indirectly, through the fodders’
cultivations. Intensive practices, concentrating in a small area a whole slew of
animals, provoke soil and water contamination (Delgado, Rosegrant et al. 1999). A
further ecological risk concern the loss of biodiversity linked with deforestation and
the change of soil use towards farming and breeding activity. The increasing global
demand of meat (table 4.12) is worsening these environmental problems.
82 Table 4.12 Meat consumption in developing and developed countries
Developing countries
Annual per capita meat
consumption (kg)
Annual per capita meat
consumption (kg)
Total meat consumption
(million tonnes)
Total milk consumption
(million tonnes)
Developed countries
1980
1990
2002
2015
2030
1980
1990
2002
2015
2030
14
18
28
32
37
73
80
78
83
89
34
38
46
55
66
195
200
202
203
209
47
73
137
184
252
86
100
102
112
121
114
152
222
323
452
228
251
265
273
284
Source: FAO, 2003
Italian citizens consume on average 25 kg of cattle meat, significantly more than the
European average. (table 4.13) The consumption of milk is instead minor than the
European one, while cheese is slightly above the average.
Table 4.13 Gross human apparent consumptions
kg per capita, 2007
Cattle
Italy
EU (25)
Poultry
25.0
8.8
Pigs
15.3
21.8
Milk
39.0
41.3
Cheese
57.7
82.5
Butter
21.0
16.5
2.8
4.2
The next paragraph illustrates the methodology and data gathering used for
calculating the material intensity of milk, Parmesan cheese and cattle. The choice of
these foodstuffs is based on the relevance that they have in the Italian nutrition and
on the data availability. The calculations of animal products used the results on
vegetal productions (and especially fodders and grains) previously elaborated (see
4.4.2).
4.3.3.1
Milk and cheese
Data on milk and cheese production refers to an existing farm producing organic
milk and Parmesan, located in the National Park of the Tuscany-Emilian Apennines
and described in the LCA study by Guerra et al. (2007). The farm is a representative
example of organic and high quality production of a typical Italian foodstuff. The
fodders for livestock are produced in the farm, through organic practices of
cultivation. Fodders’ material intensity used for the assessment of milk and cheese
impact has been evaluated in the previous part of the study (see 4.4.2). The feeding
ration includes a mixed concentrate composed by the feedstuffs shown in table 4.16
and forage from lucerne hay. The rations vary depending on the animals’ life’s stage.
All the components come from the same farm and are organically produced.
Table 4.16 Fodder composition and share of each ingredient in weight
Fodder’s ingredients
Lucerne hay
Grass meadows hay
Dried peas
Sorghum silage
%
7
5
35
53
Source: Guerra, Santini et al. 2007
The assessment of milk’s material intensity is based on the determination of 7 subprocesses’ impact. Each step (Fig. 4.15) requires a certain amount of material and
energy inputs to be performed. The fodders’ production phase includes the
production, transport and employment of the agricultural inputs, as described in
83 paragraph 4.4.2. Fodders, milk powder, water, electricity and natural gas are the
most relevant inputs. The MI factors of milk and milk powder used for calves
feeding are from Ritthoff et al. 2009. We neglected the impact of infrastructures
(stables, milking room, etc.) and the waste management and assumed the male calves
being sold after 20 days form their born, according to Guerra et al. (2007).
Fig. 4.15 Milk production sub-processes
Fodders produc7on Weaning Yearlings nutri7on • Lucern • Dry peas • Sorghum • Grass meadows • Milk powder • Fodders • Water • Fodders • Water Cows nutri7on Stables maintainance and milking • Fodder • Water • Electricity • Water • Fossil fuels Transport to retailers Source: author elaboration
The calculation refers to a specific farm, composed by 120 heads of cattle and
producing 2718 tonnes of milk per year. The transport to retailing centres is also
included, and covers 20 km.
84 Table 4.17 Data on material and energy consumption for milk production
Annual milk production
Weaning female calves
Duration
Milk
Milk powder
Water
Lucerne hay
Weaning male calves
Duration
Milk
Yearlings nutrition
Duration
Lucerne hay
Concentrate fodder
Water
Cows nutrition
Duration
Lucerne hay
Concentrate fodder
Water
Milking
Duration
Natural gas
Electricity
Water
Stable maintenance
Water
Electricity
Heating oil
kg
2717550
days
kg/head*day
kg/head*day
kg/head*day
kg/head*day
90
32
4
48.33
1
days
kg/head*day
20
48
days
kg/head*day
kg/head*day
kg/head*day
750
10.91
4.1
150
days
kg/head*day
kg/head*day
kg/head*day
1372
17
16.5
150
Hours/year
kg/year
kWh/year
kg/year
kg/year
kWh/year
kg/year
5490
2247
34009
1647000
2869
64706
1373
Source: Guerra, Santini et al. (2007)
Table 4.17 shows the consumption of materials, fodders, fossil fuels and other inputs
considered for the assessment of milk’s material input. All data refers to the farm
“Raggio di Sole” described in Guerra et al. (2007).
The milk skimming process requires an electricity consumption of 2 kWh per day.
The outputs are skimmed milk (90% in weight) and cream (10%). We allocated the
impact of this process on the base of economic criteria, thus considering the market
price of the two outputs and the total amount produced: 66% of the impact is
allocated to skimmed milk and 33% to cream. The Parmesan production requires the
mixture of skimmed and whole milk with the starting serum (from the previous day
production) and rennet’s add (fig. 4.16). The cooking phase requires diesel
consumption while only salt and a polyethylene film are needed for the next phases.
The weight reduction during the resting and seasoning phases (10%) is also
considered in the calculation. Other inputs are necessary for the maintenance of the
plants (water, electricity, natural gas) (table 4.18).
The Parmesan is locally distributed and retailed, covering an average distance of 50
km.
85 Table 4.18 Data on Parmesan production
Input
Skimmed milk
Whole milk
Diesel
Salt
Polyethylene film
Deionised water
Tap water
Electricity
Natural gas
Unit
kg/kg of Parmesan
kg/kg of Parmesan
kg/kg of Parmesan
kg/kg of Parmesan
kg/kg of Parmesan
kg/kg of Parmesan
kg/kg of Parmesan
kWh/kg of Parmesan
kg/kg of Parmesan
Amount
6.25
6.95
0.153
5,54E-05
4,94E-04
7,31E-05
5,54E-05
0,42
0,03
Source: Guerra, Santini et al. 2007
Fig. 4.16 Phases of Parmesan production process
4.3.3.2
Bovine meat
The study takes into consideration two different kinds of meat production. The two
models are partially based on already existing case studies from the literature and
are representative of two different trends of the livestock sector in Northern Italy.
The system boundary includes the fodder’s production, the manufacture, transport
and employment of agricultural inputs, the cattle breeding and the water intakes,
energy, fossil fuels and water requirements for stable maintenance, the slaughtering
phase, the distribution and purchasing of meat (fig. 4.17) We instead neglected the
waste management and the impact of infrastructures and the packaging of beef.
86 Fig. 4.17 Meat production sub-processes
Fodders produc7on CaPle breeding Stable maintenance • Maize • Wheat straw • Soybean • Fodders • Water • Water • Electricity • Fossil fuels Slaughtering • Water • Electricity • Fossil fuels Meat distribu7on and retailing Source: author elaboration
The model “Organic” describes the production of certified organic meat from semiextensive breeding. The main information source for this kind of product is a study
on the cattle breeding in Val Bormida, in the North West Italian region of Liguria
(Borsotto and Borsotto 2005). This area has a long-established vocation for highquality meat production, using predominantly the “Piemontese” native breed. The
traditional livestock technique is based on summer pasture and wintertime housing
with farm-produced lucerne hay feeding. The farm under study has 59.66 hectares of
land (partially addressed to pasture and partially to fodders cultivation) and 40.4
large animal units (LAU), in reproductive closed cycle. From the land cultivation the
farm obtains 103 tonnes of grass meadows hay and 36 tonnes of lucerne hay. In
accordance with the Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic
production, the animal density is low (0.68 LAU/ha of fodder land), the feeding
ration is composed of farm-produced forages, the cattle can access open spaces
through the pasturing. The value chain is restricted at a local level. We assumed a
local meat distribution system, covering a total distance of 50 km from the farm to
the in-town butcher shop.
The model “Conventional” refers to the conventional production of meat and largescale retailing trade. We considered a representative farm in the North-East Italian
region of Veneto, which presents the highest concentration of Italian cattle
(Montanari 2009). In this area the bovine livestock is highly specialized in bullock
fattening for meat production on a medium-large scale. Calves are usually imported
from Central and Northern Europe and intensively reared in permanent housing.
The density of livestock is high, with 9 ULA/ha of fodder land. The diet ration (table
4.19) is composed of maize silage and maize grain from the farm, soybean imported
from Brazil, pulp from sugar beet industry, wheat straw and bran. The system
includes the slaughtering and distribution of meat at a national level, marketed at a
department store. We assumed a total distance of 700 km from the farm to the shelf.
87 Table 4.19 Average composition of feed ration in the conventional production
Maize silage
Pulp from sugar beet industry
Maize grain
Soybean
Wheat straw
Wheat bran
kg/head*day (average doses)
7
3.6
2.6
1.7
0.9
0.6
Source: Montanari, 2009
The MI values of fodders used in this study are mostly from the previous results of
this work (grain cereals, lucerne hay, silages, meadows grass). The MI of soybean
from Brasil is from Wuppertal Institute database (Lettenmeier, Rohn et al., 2009) and
by-products used for animal feeding (pulps from sugar beet industry and wheat
straw) have null material inputs, because they are scruffs of other productive
processes. The transport of these products is included when they are produced
outside the farm. In the case of conventional breeding, we assumed the sugar beet
pulps and bran being transported for 150 km.
In the organic system cattle reproduces naturally and the herd is composed of
animals at different development stage. The conventional farm, instead, is
specialized in calves fattening. The animals are purchased at an average weight of
350 kg and sold at around 630 kg (Montanari 2009). In this case, calves are
considered as inputs of production and their material intensity is obtained from the
OA models’ results. Data on stables’ energy consumptions has been partially
provided by experts interview and partially from ENAMA. They refer to an average
equipped stable, with conveyor belt and are dimensioned on the base of the annual
housing time (all the year in the conventional, only winter in organic). Energy and
water consumption in the slaughtering phase are the same for the two systems. They
are provided by the legislative decree 372/99 (art. 3, paragraph 9) illustrating the
guidelines for the identification of the best practices for butchers (DL 372 1999).
The phases of transports in the meat chain encompass the provision of inputs for
agriculture and of fodders and calves (in the conventional system), the trip from the
farm to the slaughter, and from it to the retailer.
Table 4.20 Data on the production of organic and conventional beef
Italian geografic area
Livestock density
Stabulation
Reproductive cycle
Agricultural practice
Organic beef
North-West (Liguria, Val Bormida),
mountain
0.68 ULA/ha
summer pasture
close
organic
Fodders
lucern hay
grass meadows hay
pastures
Main literature reference
Montanari et al. 2009
Conventional beef
North-East (Veneto), plain
9 ULA/ha
permanent
open
conventional
maize silage
maize grain
soybean from Brazil
wheat straw and bran
pulps from sugar beet
Borsotto and Borsotto 2005
88 Table 4.21 - Data on consumptions for stable maintenance and slaughtering
Electricity consumption for 50 head stable
Diesel consumption for stable
Water consumption for slaughtering
Electricity consumptions for slaughtering
kWh/year
kg/ULA
kg/carcass tonnes
kg/carcass tonnes
1800
42
5500
350
Source: DL 372/1999
4.4.4
4.4.4.1
Processed foodstuffs
Pasta
Pasta is one of the most exported Italian foodstuff and consumed by 98.9% of the
Italian people (ISMEA 2008 ). Nevertheless, the country is not self sufficient for the
wheat production and 48% of the total durum wheat consumed is imported from
abroad (ISMEA 2008 ).. Most of the information used in these calculations are from
three LCA studies (Bevilacqua, Braglia M. 2007), Bevilacqua, Buttol , 2002)Della
Corte, Cecchini et al.2002) from which we deduced average values in order to have
representative figures for the pasta consumed in Italy.
We analysed the production of pasta from conventional and from organic durum
wheat (par. 4.4.2.1). In the pasta from conventional agriculture (CA), we considered
half of the wheat used for pasta production being imported from abroad. The
average distance covered by imported wheat results from the average distance of the
first twelve countries exporting to Italian market, weighted for the amounts provided
(ISMEA 2008). Thus, the average distance is 5558 km. The remaining part of the
wheat (50%) has national origin and the average distance of provision reported by
the literature is 183,3 km.
Fig. 4.18 illustrates the main steps of pasta production and the system boundary of
MI calculation for this foodstuff.
Fig. 4.18 Pasta production system boundary
Wheat cultivation!
Grain storing!
Milling!
Pasta packaging!
Pasta production!
Semolina storing!
The processing phases of semolina and pasta production are the same in the both
systems. They require mostly energy inputs for the industrial manufacturing and
water, while the packaging uses plastic materials (table…).
89 Table 4.22 Data on pasta production
MILLING PHASE
Wheat
Electricity
Water
Natural gas
Pasta production
Semolina
Electricity
Water
Natural gas
Packaging
PVC (Polyvinyl chloride)
PP (Polypropylene)
Electricity
kg/kg of semolina
kWh/kg of semolina
kg/kg of semolina
kg/kg of semolina
1.34
0.34
0.2
0.00021
kg/kg of pasta
kWh/kg of pasta
kg/kg of pasta
kg/kg of pasta
0.99
0.18
1.53
0.027
kg/kg of pasta
kg/kg of pasta
kWh/kg of pasta
2.7E-07
0.067
0.01
Source: Bevilacqua et al., 2007; Della Corte, Cecchini et al., 2002
4.4.4.2
Milled and parboiled rice
Paragraph 4.4.2.1 discusses the data gathering and methodology followed for paddy
rice cultivation. The industrial process for producing milled rice (organic and
conventional) includes the rice drying, storing, refining and packaging. Parboiled
rice undergoes a heat-treatment that improves the nutritional profile (vitamins and
minerals). The main steps of this treatment are the soaking, followed by a pressure
steaming and drying (Blengini and Busto 2009). The packaging of rice uses plastic
materials (polyethylene) and a carton box. Table 4.23 and fig. 19 illustrate the system
boundary and data used for the calculation of milled and parboiled rice’s MI.
The transports along the rice supply chain include 20 km from the farm to the
processing plant.
Fig. 4.19 Milled rice system boundary
Rice cultivation!
Rice drying ans
storing!
Refining!
Packaging!
90 Table 4.23 Data on rice production
Milled Conv.
Electricity for processing
(drying and refining)
Water for processing
Natural gas for processing
Heating oil for processing
Low Density Polyethylene for
packaging
Cardboard for packaging
Milled Org.
Parboiled Conv.
kWh/kg
kg/kg
kg/kg
kg/kg
kg/kg
3.85E-02
0.57
2,33E-06
3.40E-02
2.84
-
1.01E-01
2.33
7.63E-02
2.33E-06
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.05
kg/kg
Source: Blengini and Busto et al. 2009
4.4.4.3 Natural orange juice
The oranges processing for natural juice production is analyzed in Beccali and
Cellura (2009). After the oranges’ delivery in the industrial plant (50 km) they are
washed and selected. After the pressing process, refining, pasteurization and cooling
follow (fig. 4.20). The packaging uses low-density polyethylene. Data on inputs used
for orange juice processing are in table 4.24.
Table 4.24 Data on orange juice production
ORANGES
Electricity
Water
Heavy fuel oil
Steam
Natural gas
KG/KG
kWh/kg
kg/kg
kg/kg
kg/kg
kg/kg
7.1
1.1
4.61
0.032
0.095
0.02
Source: Beccali and Cellura 2009
Fig. 4.20 Orange juice system boundary
Orange cultivation!
Selection and
washing!
Primary extraction!
Refrigeration and
packaging!
Pasteurization and
cooling!
Refining!
4.5 Material intensity of agricultural products from Ma-Pi polyculture
Ma-Pi polyculture pursues maximizing the plant promiscuity, mixing herbaceous
crops with trees, brushes, hedges, reeds’ groves and wild herbs, that can also be used
for nutrition. This system ensures a high level of biodiversity in the agro-food
system, and a variety of agricultural products, which can supply the restaurants
offering a wide range of foodstuffs. The productivity of each single crop is low, in
comparison with monocultural systems, but the total amount of edible biomass is
considerable. Due to the peculiar features of this system, we used two patterns for
assessing the eco-efficiency of UPM products. In the first, the service unit is a mixed
vegetal unit (1 kg) coming from a polyculture parcel land. In the second, we assessed
products that are grown through intercropping systems, but with a minor variety of
crops, and where the crop under study can be considered as the main product. In this
91 case, the other outputs of cultivation are assessed as by-products, using appropriate
allocation rules, based on mass criteria.
So far, Ma-Pi polyculture has been scarcely studied and doesn’t exist a scientific
literature on this topic, especially on the agronomic practices. Thus, the data capture
for the MI calculation has been carried out asking directly to UPM secretary.
However, most of the information on products’ cultivation can be found simply
reading the Pianesian Transparent Label of UPM foodstuffs.
4.5.1
Material intensity of a vegetal unit from polyculture
The parcel land under study (1 ha) contains for rows of fruit trees (104 trees, in total),
is surrounded by a hedge of productive plants (from which firewood, poles, soft
fruits are collected) and includes 5 sub-parcels of 1800m2 in which a wide variety of
vegetables is cropped. Aromatic and edible wild herbs are also collected in the
parcel. The MI calculation includes only the edible products from polyculture, table
4.25 lists the plants varieties and their annual yields. The vegetables are not grown all
at the same times, but succeed in two turns.
92 Table 4.25 Outputs obtained by 1ha of polycultural land
Outputs
Fruits
Yields* (kg/ha)
Hazelnut (Corylus avellana)
20
Raspberry (Rubus ideaeus)
15
Strawberry tree (Arbutus unedo)
10
Blackberry (Rubus ulmifolius)
Vegetables
550
Pear (Pyrus communis)
490
Plum (Prunus domestica)
420
Peach (Prunus persica)
250
Apricot (Prunus armeniaca)
170
Walnut (Juglans regia)
75
Melon (Cucumis melo)
197
Artichoke (Cynara cardunculus)
Edible herbs
540
1494,5
Lettuce (Lactuca sativa)
615
Headed cabbage (Brassica oleracea)
Celery (Apium graveolens)
976
797,5
108,25
Chard (Beta vulgaris)
316
Parsley (Petroselinum crispum)
17,5
Radish (Raphanus sativus)
163
Cucumber (Cucumis sativus)
Cereals
30
Carrots (Daucus carota)
Onion (Allium cepa)
Grain legumes
5
Apple (Malus domestica)
196,5
Pumpkin (Cucurbita spp.)
178,25
Zucchini (Cucurbita pepo)
850
Cauliflower (Brassica oleracea)
230
Leek (Allium porrum)
170
Chicory (Chicorium intybus)
497,25
Cabbage (Brassica oleracea)
994,5
Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris)
100
Peas (Pisum sativum)
300
Green beans (Phaseolus vulgaris)
200
Barley (Hordeum vulgare)
TOTAL
135
11111,25
Source: UPM; *net of seed amounts for planting
According to Ma-Pi Polycolture prescriptions, external inputs are minimized and
chemicals fertilizers and pesticides are totally avoided (see chapter 3). The inputs
employed are diesel for the field operations (380 litres per year), water for irrigation
(450 m3) and electricity for the irrigation plant (90 kWh).
4.5.2
Material intensity of the main crops
This analysis refers to five agricultural products: whole rice, barleys (var. cannellini),
millet, barley and cous-cous from durum wheat. Each crop is grown between other
plants (table. 4.26), and the impact is allocated to the various outputs on the base of
its mass. The seed is self-produced by the farm, and fertilization is granted through
green manure. The external inputs are the diesel for field operations and the
materials and electricity for packaging. All the foodstuffs are packed in
Polyvinylchloride (PVC) bags (3.6E-04 kg/kg) using 0.0385 kWh/kg of electricity.
93 Cous-cous from durum wheat is the only processed foodstuff considered. The
milling phase consumptions are assumed to be equal to the wheat from conventional
and organic agriculture (see section 4.4.4) even if it uses stone mills. Water
requirements and other inputs used in agriculture are shown in table 4.26. For rice,
we assumed that irrigation uses the same amount of water than in the organic rice
(500kg/kg). Considering the allocations between the secondary products obtained by
the rice field, the resulting amount of water for rice irrigation is 285 kg.
Local farmers supply the nearest UPM restaurant, thus we assumed an average
distance of 25 kilometres covered in each food chain.
Table 4.26 Yields of main crops and sub-products
Yield of main crop (kg/ha)
Whole rice
3400
Wheat for cous-cous
2300
Millet
1800
Barley
1560
Beans
Intercropped plants
Horsetail
Willow
Reeds
Almond
Olives
Chickpea
Apple trees
Pear trees
Grapes
walnut
Yield (kg/ha)
2500 (firewood)
600
700
45
1500
900
600
220
artichoke
Maize
Pumpkins
Wild edible herbs
1800
80
1400
3000
230
Source: UPM
Table 4.27 Data on material and energy inputs
Whole rice
Cous-cous
Millet
Barley
Beans
Diesel
consumptions
(kg/ha)
84,15
34,85
10,2
63,75
85,85
Water
consumptions
(kg/kg)
Maximum ploughing
depth (cm)
285
0.18
186
20
15
25
25
30
Electricity
consumptions
(kWh/kg)
1.13
82
-
Source: UPM
4.6 Material intensity along the value chain (Analysis 2)
This part of the study focus on the evaluation of the natural resource consumption
required for nourishing one person for one week. The service unit is the weekly
amount of food required by an average person, and correspond to 14000 kilocalories.
The study investigates the material intensity of this consumption activity, according
to three different agri-food systems providing the food. The systems under
investigation are the three paradigms described in chapter 3, thus three theoretical
food chain models, including the phases shown in fig. 4.21.
94 Fig. 4.21 System boundary of Analysis 2
The system boundary reduces the complexity of food chains, neglecting some minor
sources of impact, making use of some simplifying hypotheses and leaving out of the
analysis aspects that are scarcely documented. Between them:
•
•
•
•
•
the impact of infrastructures (i.e. agricultural machinery and warehouses,
industrial plants, retailing buildings, roads and other infrastructures for the
transport system) is neglected;
the waste management, both in the productive and consumption phase, is
neglected;
the production of inputs is considered for all the phases, but the distribution
and retailing of these inputs is out of the analysis;
the transports within the various steps of the value chain are included,
assuming an average distance covered by the products using trucks or other
means of transport;
the conservation of perishable goods along the food chain implies energy and
material expenditures along the cold-chain (refrigerated trucks, cold stores
and domestic cooling). However, the lack of information on this aspect
doesn’t allow including it in the analyses.
Table 4.28 resumes the outstanding features of the three paradigms of food chains,
described in detail in chapter three.
95 Table 4.28 Main features of the three food paradigms
Food Paradigm
Agricultural
practice
Distance for
agricultural inputs’
provision (km)
Dominant
Conventional and
industrialized
Stakeholders in the
supply chain
Food retailing
mode
Food demand
Polyculture Ma-Pi
0
Globalized
100
Local and
territorially
embedded
Local
Long
Short
Short
700
Inputs producers
and retailers,
farmers,
processors,
wholesalers,
retailers,
consumers
Mostly
supermarkets and
hypermarkets
Large variety of
products, included
exotic, out of
season fruit and
vegetables,
processed,
convenience, and
functional food
from 20 to 50
25
Inputs producers
and retailers,
farmers, GAS
organizers,
consumers
Farmers, UPM,
consumers
GAS depository
Shops and
restaurants
Bigger shares of
fresh fruit and
vegetables, other
basic foodstuffs
(e.g. pasta, wine,
oil, honey, etc…),
organic
Mainly cereals,
legumes and
vegetables
None
Direct relation and
reciprocal
acquaintance
None
Out-of-town
shopping centres:
car
Neighbouring due
to periodical
meeting and other
initiatives
organized by GAS
In-town GAS
sorting centres
walking
Relation
intermediated by
UPM
Reciprocal
acquaintance
between consumers
(customary eating
at UPM restaurant),
close relation
between UPM
members
In-town UPM
shops
walking
30
-
-
150
Social interactions
between
consumers and
producers
Social interactions
between
consumers
Purchasing mode
Purchasing trip
Distance for
shopping by car
(round trip, km)
UPM
Organic
Supply chain
localization
Supply chain
length
Average distance
covered by food
(from farm to
retailing) (km)
GAS
A further model takes into account the concept of Food Miles, and evaluates the
material input of systems in which the distances of transports are reduced. This
added model aims at evaluating the resource saving due to the application of the
food miles concept, in the way it is most common in the Italian context, i.e., with a
reduction in the distances of the only final phases of the value chain. Thus, the
conventional model was assessed also with reduced transport distances (from an
average 700 km to 20 for fresh vegetables and 50 km for the processed products,
meat and oranges). The purchasing mode is turned to the walking, avoiding the car
trip. The farming and processing practices do not differ in this model from the
conventional paradigm, as well as the provision of agricultural inputs.
96 4.7 Diets composition
4.7.1 Dominant and GAS paradigm
Food habits are supposed to be equals in the dominant and in GAS system. Even if
there are some evidences that GAS costumers use to eat more fresh vegetables, in
comparison with conventional consumers (Gaggiotti 2008/2009) we neglected this
slightly difference and assessed the material intensity of the two systems on the same
diet. The foods’ shares and rations follow the recommendation of Italian Health
Ministry (http://www.piramidealimentare.it/) concerning salubrious nutrition and
food habits. They specify the recommended weekly portions for each food category.
The diet composed is simplified with respect to a normal one, because it
encompasses only the foodstuffs whose material intensity was assessed in the first
analyses. It provides 14000 kilocalories in a week. Table 4.29 shows the nutritional
recommendation by the ministry and the corresponding foodstuffs used in this
investigation.
The material intensity of diets refers to the provision of 2000 dairy kilocalories, for a
week and one person. This nutritional requirement is fulfilled multiplying the rations
by a factor of 2.45, because the diet under study (that is composed of these foodstuffs
for which MI are calculated in the first part of the study) is limited to few products
(11) and lacks of important energy sources like sugar, oils and fats. The diet under
study is composed of the ingredients shown in table 4.29 and accomplishes the
health ministry recommendations on the shares between ingredients and their
energy contribution.
97 Table 4.29 Diet composition in dominant and GAS system
Food
category
Recommended
dairy portions
Fruits and
vegetables
5-6
Bread, pasta,
rice,
potatoes
4-5
Dressing (oil
& fats)
2-3
Milk and
dairy
products
2-3
Meat, fish,
legumes,
cold cuts,
eggs
1-2
Sweets
TOTAL
Amount per
portion (g)
fruit: 150
Weekly
amount
(g)
Adjusted
amounts
(g/week)
Calories’
intake
(cal/week)
2250
2250
1876
vegetables:
250
oranges
tomatoes,
lettuce,
zucchini
1750
4292
644
juices: 250
orange juice
750
1840
pasta: 80
pasta
320
785
2771
rice: 80
milled rice
785
2606
oils: 10
-
-
-
-
butter: 10
milk
Parmesan
cheese
beef
1750
4292
2747
140
500
343
1226
1030
1300
-
-
dried peas
60
147
419
-
-
-
-
-
-
19229
14000
milk: 125
cheese: 20
meat: 100
fish: 150
dried
legumes: 30
1
Foodstuffs
considered
in the study
cold cuts: 50
eggs: 1
(piece)
Sugar: 5
320
Fig. 4.22 Share of the considered ingredients in the diet composition
Source: Italian Health Ministry (website)
The MI of legumes refers to the values “at field” thus neglecting the industrial phase
of manufacturing and assuming a direct consumption of dried peas. The material
intensity of vegetable is instead shared between the three species considered:
tomatoes, lattuce and zucchini. For the first system they are produced in greenhouses
and with conventional farming techniques, in the GAS system is assumed an open
field cultivation with integrated agriculture practices.
The food cooking implies material and energy flows. Pasta, rice, beef and zucchini
are the foodstuffs for which these requirements are accounted. The rest is assumed to
be consumed uncooked. The consumptions for this process is shown in table 4.30.
The energy source used is natural gas, that is the most spread in Italy.
98 Table 4.30 Data on consumptions in cooking phase
Pasta
Rice
Beef
Zucchini
Water (kg/kg)
8
6
-
Natural gas (kg/kg)
0.0091
0.0091
0.0030
0.0060
Salt (kg/kg)
0.06
-
Source: Bevilacqua 2007 and our assumpitions
4.7.1
Ma-Pi diets
The ordinary meal supplied by UPM restaurant comprises a soup and a mixed dish,
made of fixed shares of vegetables (30-40%), cereals (40-50%) and legumes (8-10%)
(Porrata Maury, Triana et al. 2008). Tables 4.31-4.34 show the four meal models used
for the MIPS calculation. Each table contains the ingredients’ list and doses for one
meal and one person. As breakfast is not included in the calculation we considered 2
meals and a half per day and per person for accomplishing the nutritional need. For
millet, barley, cous cous, beans and rice we used specific MI values for the other
ingredients uses the MI value of an average vegetal unit from polycultural farming.
Table 4.31 List n°1- Doses for one meal and one person
Vegetable soup with barley
Whole rice salad
Millet salad
Ingredients
onion
carrot
celery
barley
chard
whole rice
carrot
onion
parsley
millet
carrot
radish
Weight uncooked (g)
15.00
25.00
15.00
15.00
20.00
60.00
30.00
20.00
2.00
60.00
20.00
30.00
Final weight (g)
lettuce
150.00
15.00
40.00
160.00
52.00
45.00
517.70
917.00
Zucchini
Chick pea
Salad
TOTAL
300
180.00
180.00
Source: UPM
99 Table 4.32 List n°2 - Doses for one meal and one person
Vegetable soup
Whole rice with vegetables
Green beans with onion
Vegetables
Black beans with vegetables
Mixed salad
Ingredients
onion
carrot
radish
chicory
whole rice
onion
carrot
chard
green beans
onion
parsley
Weight uncooked (g)
20.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
60.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
70.00
20.00
2.00
carrot
chicory
beans
30.00
50.00
16.00
onion
10.00
Final weight (g)
300.00
180.00
150.00
150.00
carrot
10.00
celery
10.00
lettuce
10.00
carrot
10.00
parsley
10.00
48.00
534.80
833.00
TOTAL
55.00
Source: UPM
Table 4.33 List n° 3 - Doses for one meal and one person
Millet soup
Sushi with onions and
parsley
Cous cous salad
Salad
Bean salad
Lettuce
TOTAL
Ingredients
onion
millet
whole rice
onion
parsley
cous cous
onion
radish
headed
cabbage
carrot
beans
carrot
onion
parsley
Weight uncooked (g)
100.00
25.00
60.00
10.00
2.00
80.00
10.00
20.00
Final weight (g)
70.00
10.00
15.00
10.00
10.00
1.00
45.00
150.00
510.60
895.00
300.00
180.00
170.00
50.00
Source: UPM
100 Table 4.34 List n° 4 - Doses for one meal and one person
Vegetable soup
Whole rice salad
Barley with vegetables
Zucchini and carrots
Salad
TOTAL
Ingredients
onion
carrot
celery
peas
whole rice
carrot
green beans
parseley
barley
onion
radish
Weight uncooked (g)
20.00
30.00
20.00
15.00
60.00
20.00
30.00
2.00
50.00
10.00
30.00
Finale weight (g)
zucchini
carrot
cucumbers
50.00
70.00
300.00
150.00
55.00
737.00
917.00
300.00
180.00
180.00
Source: UPM
101 Chapter 5. The results
The first part of this chapter presents the resulting material intensities of the
agricultural products and foodstuffs according to the system boundaries described in
chapter 4. For each product, the distribution of the impact along the food chain steps
is illustrated. A list of the material intensity results is in Appendix 1.
The second section of the chapter presents the results of the second analysis, i.e. the
MIPS assessment of the different paradigms of food production and consumption
and the evaluation of the natural resource saving obtainable with the AFNs under
study and the “food miles” strategy.
5.1 Results of Analysis 1
The present section illustrates the results on food material intensity along the supply
chain, thus from the production of agricultural input till the harvesting (for
agricultural product) or till the packaging (for the foodstuffs). For each group of food
a figure illustrates the contribution of each productive phase in the total impact. The
results of this part are gathered in Appendix 1.
5.1.1
Material intensity of conventional and organic food
The following results refers to the conventional and organic systems of cultivation,
while a separate section is devoted to the products from Ma-Pi polyculture, due to
the peculiarity of these products, which needed a different system of calculation.
5.1.1.1
Vegetal productions
Winter cereals
The winter cereals under investigation are produced according to similar farming
practices and the results on their material intensity (table 5.1) refer to the production
of grains “at field”. Thus, the transport to storing plants and the following phases of
the supply chain are not encompassed in this analysis (see chapter 4.4.2).
Fig. 5.1 and 5.2 show the contribution of each chain’s step in the total impact of
conventional and organic wheat. As the other winter cereals have very similar
outcomes, the distribution of wheat’s impact along the chain is discussed as
representative crop for all the winter cereals.
In the conventional farming, fertilizers and pesticides’ production embodies most of
the water consumption. Fertilizers are also affecting abiotic and air category, together
with the diesel used in field operations. Transport’s impact, that encompasses at this
stage only the inputs’ provision, is visible only in the organic system (77% of air
consumption), where there aren’t other sources of impact. The bigger impact of the
organic in the categories of moved soil and erosion is attributable to the minor yield,
and to the resulting higher charge per unit of output.
102 Table 5.1 Winter cereals material intensity (kg/kg)
WINTER CEREALS
Wheat
CA
Wheat
OA
Barley
CA
Barley
OA
Oats
CA
Oats
OA
Rye
CA
Rye
OA
Triticale
CA
Triticale
OA
Abiotic
0.23
0.08
0.80
0.04
0.96
0.05
1.09
0.08
0.38
0.06
Biotic
1.80
1.83
1.88
1.90
1.93
1.96
1.93
1.96
1.91
1.93
Water
3.77
0.59
5.48
0.32
6.21
0.39
6.29
0.53
4.10
0.43
Air
0.20
0.13
0.22
0.10
0.26
0.13
0.26
0.16
0.17
0.11
Erosion
1.82
2.42
1.69
2.29
2.06
2.77
2.56
3.41
1.71
2.28
Moved soil
717.07
956.46
556.92
755.12
681.50
919.17
844.00
1125.33
673.08
897.44
Source: study results
Fig. 5.1 Conventional wheat - MI composition
Fig. 5.2 Organic wheat - MI composition
Summer cereals
In comparison with winter cereals, these crops generally require more intensive
agricultural practices. Nevertheless, the achievable yields are also higher, thus the
resulting MI is similar to winter cereals in most of the impact categories (table 5.2).
Maize and rice requires irrigation for a proper plant development, thus water
consumption is definitely higher than in sorghum, which is less water demanding. In
conventional and irrigated crops (fig. 5.3 shows maize results as example) fertilizers
dominate the consumption of abiotic materials, while the resource consumption
linked to pesticides is less visible. Diesel, used in these crops for field operation and
103 grain drying is responsible of 50% of the air consumption and constitutes the biggest
share of air, abiotic and water consumption in the organic sorghum production (fig.
5.3).
The value of moved soil is much higher in rice due to the construction and
maintenance of the system of watering canals that is necessary for the cultivation.
Table 5.2 Summer cereals material intensity (kg/kg)
SUMMER CEREALS (grain)
Abiotic
Biotic
Water
Air
Erosion
Moved soil
Maize
CA
0.53
2.08
457.04
0.23
1.00
521.25
Maize (dried)
CA
0.65
2.40
526.84
0.36
1.15
600.52
Sorghum
CA
0.51
2.08
5.03
0.18
1.25
732.23
Sorghum (dried)
CA
0.62
2.32
5.96
0.31
1.40
816.76
Sorghum
OA
0.10
2.08
0.79
0.23
1.86
1089.02
Paddy rice
CA
0.77
1.90
2828.29
0.24
1.45
1552.53
Paddy rice
OA
0.06
1.92
500.39
0.08
2.05
2191.82
Fig. 5.3 Conventional dried maize - MI composition
Fig. 5.4 Organic dried sorghum - MI composition
Grain legumes
The abiotic resource consumption of this vegetal group is slightly lower than other
crops because they don’t’ need nitrogen fertilization (table 5.3). The amounts of
moved soil are instead quite high, due to the deepness of ploughing practices used
for legumes and the lower yields, in comparison with cereals. The impact of dried
104 and conventional peas (representative for all these crops) is featured by fertilizers
(43% of abiotic, 20% of water, 14% of air), diesel and transports. Pesticides affect
mostly the water consumption. In the organic system the main source of impact is
the diesel for field operations and drying (fig. 5.5).
Table 5.3 Grain legumes’ material intensity (kg/kg)
GRAIN LEGUMES
Abiotic
Biotic
Water
Air
Erosion
Moved soil
Field bean
CA
1.27
1.91
8.10
0.34
3.38
1793.33
Field bean
OA
0.12
1.94
1.41
0.24
4.58
2476.71
Lupins
CA
0.29
1.88
5.13
0.25
3.36
1337.50
Lupins
OA
0.11
1.90
1.13
0.23
4.53
1836.83
Bean (dried)
CA
1.19
1.87
8.95
0.71
4.02
1585.20
Bean (dried)
OA
0.32
1.88
2.50
0.73
5.39
2149.55
Peas (dried)
CA
0.39
1.89
5.59
0.45
2.70
1083.20
Peas (dried)
OA
0.22
1.91
1.97
0.49
3.65
1505.90
Fig. 5.5 Conventional dried peas –MI composition
Fig. 5.6 Organic dried peas – MI composition
Fodders
Results on fodder’s material intensity (table 5.4) show that hay from conventional
lucerne and clover requires a higher amount of abiotic and biotic material and air per
unit of product than the maize and sorghum silage. The considered system of hay
production encompassed the artificial drying through fossil fuels, and the diesel
consumption has in fact the major share of air consumption (76%), water (50%) and a
105 considerable share of abiotic resources (21%). Diesel is the first voice of resource
consumption in the organic hay, where other inputs have a negligible effect (Fig. 5.7).
In general, silage has a better performance because is more productive, and the
fermentation doesn’t allow the biomass weight loss that is in the hay production
(indeed, hay has a higher biotic material’s consumption).
Fertilizers strongly contribute to the consumption of abiotic resources in the
production of all the fodders from conventional agriculture, while pesticides affect
only water in the production of green fodders (fig. 5.10 shows the MI composition of
fresh fodder from barley). The transports weight only on the production of green
fodders, where the amount of other inputs is very modest. Diesel is responsible of
remarkable amounts of air and water consumption, especially in the production of
hay and silage, which require more field operations.
Table 5.4 Fodders' material intensity (kg/kg)
FODDERS
Abiotic
Biotic
Water
Air
Erosion
Mais silage
CA
0.10
1.00
83.12
0.05
0.18
Moved soil
94.83
Sorghum silage
CA
0.10
1.00
85.35
0.05
0.25
146.72
Sorghum silage
OA
0.02
1.00
112.65
0.04
0.33
195.63
Lucerne hay
CA
0.25
4.50
68.47
0.15
0.11
72.55
Lucerne hay
OA
0.07
4.50
0.51
0.17
0.15
98.23
Clover hay
CA
0.33
4.50
184.11
0.17
0.08
48.89
Clover hay
OA
0.06
4.50
242.86
0.15
0.10
65.40
Grass hay meadow
OA
0.06
1.50
0.46
0.15
0.00
0.00
Barley grass
CA
0.16
1.01
1.10
0.04
0.34
110.84
Sorghum grass
CA
0.09
1.00
62.29
0.03
0.18
106.70
Sorghum grass
OA
0.01
1.00
81.89
0.02
0.24
142.61
Fig. 5.7 Conventional lucerne hay– material intensity composition
106 Fig. 5.8 Organic lucerne hay– material intensity composition
Fig. 5.9 Maize silage – material intensity composition
107 Fig. 5.10 Barley grass - material intensity composition
Vegetables
The MI calculation of fresh vegetables involved three productive systems:
conventional in greenhouse, conventional on open field, integrated agriculture on
open field; three vegetable plants, tomatoes, lettuce and zucchini and one fruit,
orange (only conventional production, in open field). In spite of the higher yields
achievable in greenhouse, this practice demonstrated to be not eco-efficient in
comparison with the open field ones. Table 5.5 shows that the resource consumption
of covered crops is higher in the all categories. The greenhouses constitute 95% and
99% of the total abiotic and air consumption, 31% of the water (fig. 5.11). In the
conventional system on open field, fertilizers and diesel are the main issues affecting
the MI, while in the integrated agriculture there is also the impact of transport
weighting on air and abiotic consumption (fig. 5.12).
Table 5.5 Vegetables’ material intensity (kg/kg)
VEGETABLES
Abiotic
Biotic
Water
Erosion
Moved soil
Tomatoes
CA greenhouse
1.95
1.00
44.73
Air
4.18
1.00
455.01
Tomatoes
CA openfield
0.09
1.00
30.40
0.04
1.00
585.01
Tomatoes
IA openfield
0.02
1.00
29.64
0.03
1.00
585.01
Lettuce
CA greenhouse
5.79
1.00
76.95
12.51
1.00
585.27
Lettuce
CA openfield
0.18
1.00
30.90
0.12
1.00
585.43
Lettuce
IA openfield
0.04
1.00
29.77
0.09
1.00
585.60
Zucchini
CA greenhouse
3.31
1.00
35.14
7.16
1.00
455.05
Zucchini
CA openfield
0.19
1.00
15.98
0.10
1.00
455.07
Zucchini
IA openfield
0.05
1.00
29.94
0.07
1.00
455.09
Oranges
CA
0.34
1.00
182.09
0.27
0.40
17.28
108 Fig. 5.11 Conventional tomatoes in greenhouse - material intensity composition
Fig. 5.12 Conventional tomatoes on open field- material intensity composition
Fig. 5.13 Tomatoes from integrated agriculture on open field- material intensity
composition
109 5.1.1.2
Animal productions
The analyses of milk and dairy products refers only to an organic and high-quality
productions, while the beef results encompass the two forms of conventional meat
produced trough permanent housing and organic trough partial housing.
Concerning milk production (fig. 5.14, table 5.6), the milk powder used for calves
feeding constitutes a huge part of the material intensity, especially the abiotic (63%)
and water (48%). The production of fodders follows is the second impact source. The
same outcome is for Parmesan production, where the milk-processing phase
contributes modestly to the consumption of abiotic resources (14%) and air (15%),
mostly due to the consumption of electricity and fossil fuels for the milk cooking.
Stables maintenance (which include the fuels, electricity, water consumptions but not
the infrastructure) affects the total impact with small shares: 14% of abiotic, 10% of
water and 6% of air in the milk process, 12% of abiotic, 9% of water, 5% of air in the
cheese.
Results on meat shows that organic production allows reducing drastically the
employment of abiotic resources, water and soil, in spite a lower productivity of
extensive breeding systems. In the conventional system calves are purchased and
imported from France, thus are considered as productive inputs and are responsible
for 65% of the biotic resource consumption (fig. 5.6). The trip of calves provision is
accounted in “transport”. Fodders production has the highest impact both in
conventional and organic systems, in all the categories. Slaughtering phase is also
relevant in terms of air and abiotic resources, while stable maintenance’s effect is
visible only in the organic system.
Table 5.6 Animal productions’ material intensity
ANIMAL PRODUCTIONS
Abiotic
Biotic
Water
Air
Erosion
Moved soil
Milk whole
OA
0.41
4.63
20.76
0.30
1.07
435.56
Milk skimmed
OA
0.30
3.39
15.24
0.22
0.79
319.41
Parmesan cheese
OA
5.66
53.34
254.97
4.29
12.38
5021.07
Beef
CA
6.84
43.91
2222.71
6.89
5.10
2945.56
Beef
OA
3.15
49.37
137.24
6.47
0.84
551.52
Fig. 5.14 Whole milk – material intensity composition
110 Fig. 5.15 Parmesan – material intensity composition
Fig. 5.15 Conventional beef - material intensity composition
Fig. 5.16 Organic beef - material intensity composition
5.1.1.3
Processed foodstuff
Pasta
The reduction of material input achievable with organic practices of cultivation
involves the categories of renewable and no-renewable resources, water and air. The
111 production of conventional pasta uses national wheat only for 50%. The rest is
usually imported from foreign countries. The MI calculation takes into consideration
this statistic and the provision of raw materials is included in the issue “transport”.
Its impact is significantly higher in the conventional pasta (29% of ait, 15% of abiotic)
than in the organic one (Fig. 5.17). The farming phase has a major weight in the
conventional production. In the organic one, the industrial phase (including milling,
pasta production and packaging) dominates the categories of abiotic, air and water.
In table 5.7 the material intensity results of wheat flour and pasta.
Table 5.7 Pasta material intensity
Abiotic
Biotic
Water
Air
Erosion
Moved soil
Wheat flour
CA
1.13
3.23
18.88
0.61
3.26
1287.65
Wheat flour
OA
0.66
2.45
11.79
0.21
3.24
1281.27
Pasta at shelf
CA
1.61
3.20
28.70
0.88
3.23
1277.45
Pasta at shelf
OA
1.16
2.43
21.81
0.50
3.22
1271.12
PASTA
Fig. 5.17 Conventional Pasta - material intensity composition
Fig. 5.18 Organic Pasta - material intensity composition
Rice
Organic rice implies a major use of biotic resources and soil, because of the minor
yield and the use of green manure as fertilizing practice. Abiotic, water and air are
instead reduced with this practice (table. 5.8). Parboiled rice is more demanding for
abiotic, water and air, due to the additional treatments it undergoes.
112 Farming phase is responsible for almost the entirety of water consumption, more
than a half of abiotic in conventional (58%) and parboiled rice (52%) and considerable
share of air (54% in conventional, 48% in organic and 36% in parboiled) (Fig. 5.19).
Processing phase is instead less relevant, with the exception of parboiled. The
packaging (made of double bag in plastic and cardboard) affects overall the abiotic
and air consumption in the organic rice.
Table 25.8 Rice Material Intensity
RICE
Abiotic
Biotic
Water
Air
Erosion
Moved soil
Milled rice at shelf
CA
1.85
2.74
3923.40
0.60
2.00
2142.49
Milled rice at shelf
OA
0.75
3.33
855.96
0.30
3.42
3653.03
Parboiled rice at shelf
CA
2.05
2.74
3927.81
0.90
2.00
2142.49
Fig. 5.19 Conventional milled rice - material intensity composition
Fig. 5.20 Organic rice - material intensity composition
113 Fig. 5.20 Parboiled rice - material intensity composition
Orange juice
The production of oranges contributes for 37% of the total consumption of abiotic
resources, while 48% is attributable to the processing phase (table 5.9, fig. 5.21). The
consumption of 1.42 kg of air for each kilogram of juice is due to farming process for
42% and to processing for 41%. Packaging has a small effect on the entire material
input (10% of abiotic, 7% of air) as well as transport.
Table 5.9 Orange juice Material Intensity
ORANGE JUICE
Orange juice
CA
Abiotic
Biotic
Water
Air
3.31
7.1
1254.1
1.264
Erosion
Moved soil
2.84
122.69
Fig. 5.21 Natural orange juice - material intensity composition
5.1.2
Material intensity of food from Ma-Pi polyculture
The products of polyculture have been assessed as an average vegetal mass provided
by a mixed land parcel, while five crops have been evaluated separately. The system
boundary of these crops includes the packaging and transport to retailers, while the
fresh vegetables supplied by the mixed parcel of land are retailed without any
packaging.
Table 5.7 shows the results on the material intensity of the different crops and Fig.
5.22-5.27 represent the distribution of the impact between the different phases of the
114 chain. Diesel used in field operations is the main source of impact within the
agricultural production. It concerns the consumption of abiotic materials and air.
Cous cous is the only product requiring a milling phase from wheat, thus the
processing phase in this crop accounts the great part of abiotic, water and air
consumption. In the other foodstuffs packaging contributes substantially to the
abiotic category (millet 66%, barley 52%, rice 63%, beans 49%). Transport’s
contribution is negligible in all the products.
Table 5.7 Material intensity of agricultural products from Ma-Pi polyculture
Generic vegetal unit from polyculture
Beans
Whole rice
Cous cous
Millet
Barley
Abiotic
0.04
0.04
0.06
1.22
0.06
0.04
Biotic
1.10
0.52
1.05
0.97
1.05
0.59
Water
40.83
187.18
285.94
22.02
1.02
0.58
Air
0.10
0.05
0.06
0.49
0.03
0.05
Erosion
0.90
1.56
1.68
2.48
5.76
2.05
Moved soil
292.50
60.67
43.59
48.33
187.12
66.67
Fig. 5.22 Vegetal unit from Ma-Pi polyculture - material intensity composition
Fig. 5.23 Beans by UPM - material intensity composition
115 Fig. 5.24 Whole rice by UPM - material intensity composition
Fig. 5.25 Cous cous by UPM - material intensity composition
Fig. 5.26 Millet by UPM - material intensity composition
116 Fig. 5.27 Barley by UPM - material intensity composition
5.2 Results of Analysis 2
The final outcome of the work consists in a quantification of the natural resources
adsorbed by nutrition, according to three different systems of production and
consumption (also called “paradigms”), described in chapter 3. The first paradigm is
split into the 1a, having a standard food chain, and 1b, where the transport distances
are reduced, according to the food miles idea (see chapter 4.6).
Tables 5.8-5.11 illustrate the amount of resources consumed, by the different
environmental categories. They refer to the amount of food necessary to nourish one
person during a week, divided by foodstuff. For the UPM paradigm we adopted a
different system of diet composition, and data is divided by the four meals under
investigation that are considered having each one a frequency of 4.4, during one
week, in order to satisfy the nutritional requirement of one person.
117 Table 5.8 - MIPS of nutrition according to Paradigm 1a – Dominant food system
(kg/week*person)
PARADIGM 1A –
DOMINANT
Abiotic
Biotic
Water
Air
Erosion
Moved
Soil
TMR
Pasta (CA)
1.53
2.51
32.0
0.87
2.54
1003
4.0
Rice (milled. CA)
1.50
2.15
3084.0
0.51
1.57
1684
3.7
Meat (beef. CA)
Legumes (peas. dried.
CA)
8.61
53.84
2727.7
8.70
6.25
3612
62.5
0.06
0.28
0.8
0.07
0.40
159
0.3
Fruit (oranges. CA) *
Fruit juice (natural
orange juice. CA)*
0.89
5.52
941.5
0.38
2.21
95
6.4
6.09
13.06
2306.9
2.33
5.22
226
19.2
Tomatoes (CA. gh)
3.03
1.43
66.1
6.25
1.43
651
4.5
Lettuce (CA. gh)
8.55
1.43
112.4
18.21
1.43
839
10.0
Zucchini (CA. gh)
4.99
1.43
52.5
10.54
1.43
652
6.4
Milk (whole OA) *
1.75
19.86
89.1
1.30
4.60
1869
21.6
Cheese (Parmesan. OA)
1.94
18.32
87.6
1.47
4.25
1724
20.3
Tot.
38.9
119.8
9500.7
50.6
31.3
12514.0
158.8
CA: from conventional agriculture; OA: from organic agriculture; IA: integrated agriculture;
gh: greenhouse crop; of: open field; *: same values in P1 and P”; source: study results
Table 5.9 - MIPS of nutrition according to Paradigm 1b – Dominant + reduced food miles
(kg/week*person)
PARADIGM 1B –
RED. FOOD MILES
Abiotic
Biotic
Water
Air
Erosion
Moved
Soil
TMR
Pasta (OA)
1.41
2.51
30.94
0.73
2.54
1002.62
3.92
Rice (milled. OA)
1.37
2.15
3082.44
0.37
1.57
1681.56
3.53
Meat (beef. OA)
OA)
8.41
53.84
2725.95
8.48
6.25
3612.29
62.25
0.03
0.28
0.29
0.07
0.54
221.51
0.31
orange juice. CA)*
0.89
5.52
941.52
0.38
2.21
95.36
6.40
5.81
13.06
2304.68
2.18
5.22
225.69
18.87
Tomatoes (IA. of)
2.79
1.43
64.03
5.98
1.43
650.66
4.22
Lettuce (IA. of)
8.31
1.43
110.35
17.94
1.43
838.87
9.74
Zucchini (IA. of)
4.75
1.43
50.42
10.27
1.43
652.22
6.18
Milk (whole. OA) *
1.75
19.86
89.12
1.30
4.60
1869.05
21.61
1.94
18.32
87.55
1.47
4.25
1724.12
20.26
Tot.
37.5
119.8
9487.3
49.2
31.5
12573.9
157.3
118 Table 5.10 - MIPS of nutrition according to Paradigm 2 – GAS food system
(kg/week*person)
PARADIGM 2 GAS
Abiotic
Biotic
Water
Air
Erosion
Moved
Soil
TMR
Pasta (OA)
1.04
1.91
25.42
0.42
2.53
997.66
2.95
Rice (milled. OA)
0.62
2.62
675.89
0.24
2.69
2867.13
3.24
Meat (beef. OA)
OA)
3.87
60.55
168.30
7.93
1.03
676.35
64.41
0.03
0.28
0.29
0.07
0.54
221.61
0.31
orange juice. CA)*
0.89
5.52
941.52
0.38
2.21
95.36
6.40
6.09
13.06
2306.95
2.33
5.22
225.69
19.15
Tomatoes (IA. of)
0.03
1.43
42.45
0.05
1.43
836.57
1.46
Lettuce (IA. of)
0.06
1.43
42.72
0.13
1.43
838.48
1.49
Zucchini (IA. of)
0.08
1.43
42.73
0.10
1.43
652.28
1.51
Milk (whole. OA) *
1.75
19.86
89.12
1.30
4.60
1869.05
21.61
1.94
18.32
87.55
1.47
4.25
1724.12
20.26
Tot.
16.4
126.4
4422.9
14.4
27.4
11004.3
142.8
Table 5.11 MIPS of nutrition according to Paradigm 3 - UPM (kg/week*person)
PARADIGM 3: UPM
Abiotic
Biotic
Water
Air
Erosion
Moved Soil
TMR
Meal 1
0.88
2.98
199.96
2.45
4.42
680.35
3.87
Meal 2
0.63
3.06
240.73
1.72
2.86
730.13
3.68
Meal 3
1.41
2.00
204.23
2.73
3.42
349.62
3.41
Meal 4
0.84
4.24
254.77
2.31
4.16
1027.19
5.08
Total
3.76
12.28
899.69
9.21
14.87
2787.29
16.0
Figures 5.28-5.30 illustrate and compare the resource withdrawing linked to the
paradigms under invastigation. The interpretation of MIPS categories can adopt the
indicator TMR (Total Material Requirement) that, in this study, is the sum of abiotic
and biotic categories. Usually it encompassed also erosion, but, as explained in
chapter 4, data on erosion produced by each specific crop wasn’t available, thus we
used the same value for all the agricultural land. Therefore, we neglect the
interpretation of erosion results.
Regarding TMR, meat is the major source of material consumption both in P1 (a and
b) and P2. Milk, cheese and orange juice follow (these foodstuffs have the same MI in
P1 and P2). Meat is also the second share of water consumption in P1, after rice.
Oranges and orange juice follow. Air consumption is very much affected by
greenhouse crops, which in P1 form 69% of the total. Meat is also relevant both in P1
and P2 air category.
Differences between P1 and P2 are underestimated, because for some foodstuffs we
used the same figures of material intensity (they are checked off with * in the tables).
However, P2 system demonstrates to reduce the environmental impact of food,
especially in terms of air (-71%), abiotic (-58%) and water (-53%) (table 5.12; fig. 5.31).
P2 is instead more demanding in terms of biotic resources, which consist in
119 renewable material use, i.e. biomass. It is assignable to the lower yields achievable
through organic farming, and the higher portion of seed invested per output unit.
Differences between P1a and P2b are negligible in all the categories, demonstrating
that the distances’ reduction only downstream the food chain, i.e., between
producers and consumers, does not permit a considerable resource saving. Farming
practices and provision of raw materials and agricultural inputs have a key role in
the food environmental impact.
The UPM system (P3) presents the best environmental performance, allowing the
reduction of TMR, abiotic, biotic and water resource use of a factor 10 and the
reduction of air use of a factor 5.
Fig. 5.28 Total Material Requirements (TMR) of nutrition in the three paradigms
Fig. 5.29 Water requirements of nutrition in the three paradigms
120 Fig. 5.30 Air requirements of nutrition in the three paradigms
Fig. 5.31Differences in resource consumption in the three paradigms
Table 5.12 Reductions in resource use of paradigms 1b, 2 and 3 with respect to 1a
ABIOTIC BIOTIC WATER AIR
EROSION MOVED SOIL TMR
Paradigm 1a
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Paradigm 1b
-3.80
0.00
-0.14
-2.91
0.44
0.48
-0.93
Paradigm 2
-57.87
5.48
-53.45 -71.51
-12.72
-12.06 -10.06
Paradigm 3
-90.34
-89.75
-90.53 -81.80
-52.57
-77.73 -89.90
121 Chapter 6. Discussion on the results
The outcomes of the MIPS analysis on the Italian agricultural products and
foodstuffs provide a sustainability rating of the different foodstuffs produced
through three main agricultural practices: conventional, organic and Ma-Pi
polyculture10.
The results showed in the section 5.1 account for two aspects: the eco-efficiency of
different foodstuffs and agricultural products, and the productivity of the practices,
mainly referred to the agricultural phase.
Concerning the first perspective, which focus on the food products performance,
different groups of foodstuffs are scored by their material, water and air requirement
in figures 6.1-6.3. Among the vegetal productions11, fresh vegetables in greenhouse
have the highest impact in terms of TMR and especially air. The open field
cultivation, however, allows a drastic resource saving and these crops have the best
environmental performance in terms of material requirements between all the crop
groups. Summer cereals, including the irrigated maize and rice crops, are the most
water demanding and the second group for TMR.
Regarding animal productions and processed foodstuffs (figures 6.4-6.6) results
confirmed the high impact of meat and cheese, which present the highest TMR and
air consumptions. Meat is also very water demanding, second after rice. This result
is confirmed by the outcomes on diets presented above, where cheese and meat
embody the biggest shares of the resource demand due to nutrition, in the paradigms
P1a, P1b and P2. Many other studies in the scientific literature have claimed the high
ecological cost of meat: in terms of climate change potential (Carlsson-Kanyama and
Gonzales 2009, McMichael, Powles et al. 2007, Eshel and Martin 2006), water
footprint (Hoakstra 2007) and energy consumption (Pimentel and Pimentel 2003,
Pimentel 2006). A minor visibility has had the dairy products, which also have a
relevant impact on diets, in spite of a modest weekly consumption of cheese
provided by the Italian diets (0.3 kg). A similar outcome is reported by a study on
natural resource consumption of Finnish households (Kauppinen, Lähteenoja et al.
2008) where dairy products are the first voice in the total resource consumption due
to nutrition, and vegetarian diets (in which meat is substantially substituted by dairy
products) do not have a minor impact than the omnivorous ones.
Pasta demonstrates a very positive performance, as the impact due to this product in
the total due to nutrition is very low (less than 3%, fig. 5.28) in the categories TMR,
water and air, both in conventional and organic system, in spite of a weekly
consumption of 0.8 kg per person.
10
The Ma-Pi polyculture can be defined as a post-organic practice, going beyond the agrochemicals’ ban and aiming at building up a different agro-ecosystem, with the highest levels
of biodiversity and self-sufficiency from external inputs. 11
figures are for conventional agriculture and vegetables, and are divided in greenhouse and
open field growing 122 The second perspective, i.e. the evaluation of farming practices’ productivity, implies
the comparison between conventional, organic and post-organic techniques. While
the previous two are comparable through the products’ MI results (which had the
same system boundary), the third system can be compared to the others through the
diets’ performances, thus encompassing all the value chain.
Before discussing the productivity, one must remind that the concept of material
intensity focus on the withdrawing of natural resources, which is considered as a
proxy measure for the environmental impact. Thus, the evaluation of MI discloses
the rate input/output of each productive process, in biophysical terms, therefore the
“thermodynamic expenditure” resulting from each production and consumption act.
The results on supply chain show that conventional systems can have a good
performance in spite of the massive amount of inputs employed, when yields are
very high; on the contrary, in vegetables greenhouses the higher yields do not
compensate the use of energy and materials, so they are less eco-efficient than the
open field production.
The organic agricultural productions have a minor yield with respect to the
conventional ones (was assumed 25% less than the conventional when specific data
lacked). Nevertheless, organic practice resulted to have a higher productivity in
terms of natural resource use. Figures 6.7-6.9 show the vegetal productions, paired
conventional and organic, and scored by their MIPS results. Almost all the organic
crops have a lower impact with respect to the same crop produced by conventional
agriculture, with the exception of beans, peas and sorghum, for the air consumption,
and clover hay and sorghum grass for the water consumption. These exceptions are
attributable to the major impact per kilogram of final product that derives from the
minor yields. This is especially visible in the biotic category (see also results in
chapter 5.1). Thus, the reduction of resource use in organic systems is especially
visible in the category of abiotic, water and air. In general, a trade off between abiotic
or no-renewable and biotic or renewable resources emerges. This is attributable to
the higher amounts of seed, i.e. biotic material, per product unit required by the
organic farming and a major use of the vegetal biomass in order to substitute the
agrochemicals (i.e, green manure and false sowing practices).
The impact of biotic materials employed in organic production is even more evident
in animal based products. The TMR of organic meat, instead, is slightly higher than
the conventional one due to the major value of biotic resources used (49.37 kg/kg vs.
43.91). It reflects that the amount of biomass used for livestock feeding per unit of
meat obtained is higher in the organic and extensive system, where cattle graze for
the major part of the year. Nevertheless, organic meat halves the consumption of
abiotic materials (3.15 vs. 6.84) and slashes the water consumption (137.24 vs.
2222.71), which in the conventional system are owing to fodders’ cultivation for 95%.
123 Fig. 6.1 Groups of crops scored by average TMR (gh: greenhouse; of: open field)
Fig. 6.2 Groups of crops scored by average water requirement (gh: greenhouse; of: open
field)
124 Fig. 6.3 Groups of crops scored by average air requirement (gh: greenhouse; of: openfield)
Fig. 6.4 Foodstuffs scored by TMR (CA: conventional agricultural; OA: organic agriculture)
125 Fig. 6.5 Foodstuffs scored by water requirements (CA: conventional agricultural; OA:
organic agriculture)
Fig. 6.6 Foodstuffs scored by air requirements (CA: conventional agricultural; OA: organic
agriculture)
Fig. 6.7 Crops scored by TMR values
126 Source: study results
Fig. 6.8 Crops scored by water requirements
Fig. 6.9 Crops scored by air requirements
The results on UPM products showed that a drastic reduction of the food material
intensity is achievable using agronomic techniques that minimize the employment of
external inputs. The Ma-Pi polyculture can be considered as a peculiar form of
agroecological management, pointing at restoring the agro-ecosystems’ fertility
through a high level of biodiversity and the coexistence of arboreal and herbaceous
plants (Altieri 2002). A high productivity, a high level of biodiversity, and a low
employment of external inputs characterize these systems.
127 Fig. 6.10 arranges the three farming systems investigated in this study on the base of
their eco-efficiency. The diagram is inspired by an Altieri elaboration (2010), adding
the variable “material input employment”, outcome of this survey. The Ma-Pi system
has a high level of eco-efficiency, while organic system is less productive, thus has a
medium eco-efficiency. The conventional system, based on monoculture, has a low
level of biodiversity and an elevated input employment. In spite of its high
productivity, the eco-efficiency is low.
Regarding the analyses of the food systems, i.e. including the food distribution,
purchasing and consumption, the second paradigm, referred to the GAS model,
demonstrated to reduce the environmental impact, especially in terms of no
renewable, water and air consumption. However, the potential of this system is
underestimated, because we used the same MIPS values both in the first and second
paradigm for four foodstuffs: orange and orange juice (from conventional
agriculture), milk and cheese (from organic agriculture). A negligible impact
reduction is instead obtainable when reducing the distances between producer and
consumer, but without a change in the agricultural practices (P1b paradigm). This
outcome confirms the key role of the farming phase in driving food system towards
sustainability.
The sustainability gains obtainable through the third paradigm, referred to UPM, are
even more drastic than the one from paradigm two, and allow the reduction of at
least a factor 10 in the categories of abiotic, biotic and water and of a factor 5.5 in the
air consumption. The UPM experience demonstrates that a significant reduction of
the ecological impact due to nutrition is achievable through three main strategies:
•
•
•
strengthening of low-external inputs farming practices;
setting of short and local food chains;
orienting the food habits towards a lower food intake12 and a minimization of
animal based products.
The diet considered in this study was based on cereals, legumes and vegetables,
neglecting every animal origin food and imported foodstuffs because they represent
a very small share of the total.
Food waste has also been neglected from our analysis. However, the impact of
trashed food along the value chain can affect relevantly the results. The value of food
waste along the Italian supply chain has been estimated in 37 billion of euro, equal to
3% of the GDP (Segrè 2010). The potential of AFNs like GAS and UPM in reducing
this inefficiency should be assessed.
The economic performance of the different agro-food systems and the analysis of the
margin distribution along the food chains were beyond the scope of this study.
However, measuring sustainability as natural resources’ input/output rate, thus
pointing out the efficiency of production systems and their capability of enhancing
resource productivity has also an economic advantage. First, it encourages a rational
resource allocation through the comparison of different production practices and
consumption habits. The efficiency in resource use is likely to reflect the economic
efficiency, because wasteful and ineffective techniques imply dispensable costs. In
the case of agricultural production, the minimization of external inputs can
contribute reducing the production costs, which have a key role in the agriculture
profitability (see chapter 2), due to the high concentration in the sector of the
agricultural inputs production.
Moreover, the results on crops disclose that a major yield does not imply a higher
productivity when this gain is obtained with more than proportional inputs. It
suggests that the farm profitability can be improved through the strategy of
12 The service unit of UPM diet didn’t refer to the calories intake but to the normal amount of food recommended by UPM, that corresponds to two meals and a half 128 minimizing the inputs instead of the most common “productivist” scheme of yield
maximization.
Fig. 6.10 The evaluated eco-efficiency of three agricultural systems
129 Chapter 7. Conclusions
7.1 Overview of the study
The main challenges the global agri-food systems are going to face concern the
following aspects:
•
•
•
•
•
to accomplish a growing food demand and the food habits changing, at a
global level;
to deal with an increasing competition for land and other natural resources;
to improve the food safety and security in developed and developing
countries;
to preserve the natural ecosystems and their productive capacity, on which
the agricultural activity rest with;
to not worsen the environmental crisis and climate change, but to take
advantage of the mitigation potential of suitable agricultural practices.
In order to be sustainable, future food systems must be productive, minimize their
impact on the environment and ensure an equitable income distribution along the
food chain. Moreover, starvation and subnutrition should be halved by 2015,
according
to
the
Millennium
Development
Goals
of
the
UN
(http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/).
This study aimed at evaluating the environmental sustainability of three different
Italian food systems that have been defined through three theoretical paradigms. The
first one is the dominant paradigm, characterized by a modern and industrialized
agriculture, the globalization of the food chain and the predominance of the
department stores in the food retailing. The second paradigm refers to the initiative
of solidarity purchasing groups (GAS in Italian), which manage collectively the
distribution of organic food, supplied by local farmers. The third paradigm is based
on the UPM (Un Punto Macrobiotico) experience, an international association
handling an entire food chain, since the agricultural production (based on a postorganic practice called Ma-Pi polyculture) till the food preparation and catering,
according to the principles of the macrobiotic diet. A further model took into
consideration the Food Miles concept, thus the reduction of the distances covered by
food produced with the same practices as in the dominant paradigm.
The investigation method used for assessing the sustainability of these food systems
is the Material Input Per Service unit (MIPS), applied on a set of agricultural
products and foodstuffs produced according to the three paradigms. The MIPS
analysis has provided a sustainability rating of food, based on their eco-efficiency,
i.e. the amount of resources embodied per unit of obtained output. The interpretation
of the results regards the categories of abiotic and biotic materials (joined together in
the indicator TMR, Total Material Requirement), water and air. The categories of
moved soil and erosion, although accounted, are left out of the results’ interpretation
because of the lack of specific data. This methodology has demonstrated to be a
suitable tool for obtaining an overview on the Italian foodstuffs’ pressure on the
130 environment, and to make comparisons between different production practices and
diets.
The material approach permitted to take into account of some aspects that are
usually neglected by the traditional environmental investigation. The huge amounts
of materials that is used, for instance, in the extraction activity, as well as overburden
and other flows that do not enter directly in the production process but are
withdrawn by the ecosystems. Moreover, encompassing more aspects and
environmental categories allows understanding possible tradeoffs in the resource use
(e.g. between biotic and abiotic materials in the agricultural production) and to find
out possible side effects of impact reduction strategies. A further advantage of this
methodology is the focus on the input side, based on the assumption that the
entering energy and material flows must be equivalent to the outgoings, according to
the first thermodynamic low. It allows an ex-ante evaluation of the eco-efficiency, the
planning of a strategy for enhancing the resource productivity and the monitoring of
the economy dematerialization.
However, MIPS is a raw level and quantitative evaluation, which can be completed if
more specific information are required. A qualitative survey on specific
environmental aspects, i.e. the eco-toxicity of substances used in the production
processes and their pollutant potential, can follow and integrate the MIPS analysis
when an in-depth investigation is necessary.
In general, the work has a multidisciplinary and holistic approach. The
environmental evaluation has been carried out with a wide perspective, focusing on
the main socio-economic features that characterize the different food paradigms. The
ecological economics and agricultural economics are the main disciplines
underpinning the study, but it has made use of topics and knowledge from rural
sociology, agronomy, environmental science, nutrition science and
human
geography.
7.2 Summary of major results and policy recommendations
As a result, this investigation has primarily provided a database on the material
intensity of a set of thirty-one food products from conventional and organic farming,
and six products from Ma-Pi polyculture. This knowledge basis will expedite future
research on the theme of nutrition’s sustainability. Secondary, the study accounts the
sustainability of three food systems, evaluating them on the base of their ecoefficiency.
The outcomes on foodstuffs confirm the better environmental performance of the
organic agriculture with respect to the conventional practices. Also from a materialflow perspective, organic practices demonstrated to have a considerable impact
reduction potential and should definitively be boosted in order to make the
agricultural sector more sustainable. The Ma-Pi polyculture, defined as a postorganic practice, showed an even greater environmental sustainability and proved to
reduce the resource use of a factor of ten, accomplishing to the requirement for a
sustainable development stated by the Factor 10 concept (Schimdt-Bleek 2001); see
also: www.factor10-institute.org). It refers to the tenfold reduction in the resource
use that industrialized countries should gain in order to permit the developing
countries growth.
From the UPM analysis emerged that the minimization of the inputs can be an
effective strategy for stressing agricultural biophysical productivity, and a valuable
alternative to the “productivist” scheme that have been dominating in the last
decades and that focus on the yields’ maximization. The organic and post-organic
agricultural systems, in addition, provide a number of services like the carbon
sequestration and the preservation of soil fertility that haven’t be assessed by this
study, but that should be taken into consideration by the policy maker when
comparing them with the conventional system.
131 The low input agricultural technologies present several advantages for the smallscale farms, which represent 90% of the total in the world. Economic data on the
Italian and global food systems show that these farms have a low profitability, and
the farmers’ distribution margins are squeezed between growing costs for
intermediate products and the low prices fetched by the retailing sector, which is
undergoing a concentration process. The inequality of bargaining power between
small farmers and other stakeholders, up and downstream the agricultural
production, is one of the main reason of the persistent difference between rural and
non rural incomes in the industrialized world, and of farmers’ impoverishment in
the developing countries.
Nevertheless, small farms are often more productive in the resource use and have a
relevant function in mitigating the food insecurity in the rural areas. The
empowerment of low-input technologies in these farms would reduce their
dependence from input suppliers. Moreover, the evaluation of the environmental
and social benefit provided by them should be reconsidered in a wider perspective,
adding to the monetary assets the evaluation of the livelihood conditions.
UPM model, based on a small scale and low external input agricultural practices, can
be taken as an emblematic example of sustainable agri-food systems based on smallscale farming. This model underpins on the existence of several small farmers, with a
diversified agricultural production, supplying a very health-oriented food demand.
These farms, producing a wide range of products through the intercropping farming
practice, are very productive, because have a high rate output/input and count upon
a local food distribution systems, managed by UPM.
Both the AFNs under investigation proved to generate a beneficial effect on the
environment, mainly through the use of different and more ecological farming
practices, and the creation of a local food chain, which reduce the transport distances
and intermediate steps in the food chain. However, the reduction of the food miles
alone did not provide a significant impact reduction. Although the study have not
assessed the sociologic and economic effects of AFN directly, the literature insight on
this topic display that benefits can rise from AFNs in terms of local economy
revitalization, healthier food habits and farmers’ income. The success that these
initiatives have had and their expansion in the latest years can partially prove these
benefits. However, a further investigation is needed on this topic.
UPM system shows also how a specific food demand - very much exigent in terms of
healthy property and nutritional value of food - can drive the agricultural supply
towards the environmental sustainability. The central role of the consumers and their
awareness on environmental, agricultural and health-related issues is a crucial factor
for enhancing the organic and post organic practices. In turn, agricultural practices
contribute substantially in the total environmental impact of food. Results
demonstrate that the agronomic techniques have a major role in expedite a transition
towards sustainable agri-food systems.
Boosting a sustainable agriculture has many implications also in the public health. As
“issues related to hunger exist in tandem with issues related to obesity” (Kinsey 2003:2) a
food policy focused on the production of healthy food can generate many synergies.
The outcomes of this study hint that exists a reciprocal relation between the
environmental performance of food production and its healthiness. Many studies
have pointed to the negative effects of high meat, sugar and fat consumption and our
results confirmed that these products embody huge amount of natural resources.
Other similar studies proved the same for fats and sugar (see, e.g., Kotakorpi,
Lähteenoja et al. 2008; Ritthoff, Kaiser et al. 2009). Thus, acting on the eco-efficiency
and natural resource saving could enable the achievement of positive effects on the
environment and on the health at the same time. Obesity, diabetes and many other
noncommunicable diseases caused by a bad nutrition have enormous costs in terms
of public expenditure. The chemicals used in agriculture are also dangerous for the
health as well as more processed and treated foodstuffs contain higher amounts of
132 additives, preservatives and other harmful substances. An agricultural policy
focused on the reduction of inputs and on the production of natural and healthy food
would contribute to reduce the health care costs, and preserving the ecosystems.
Contemporaneously, spreading a basic knowledge on sustainability and raising
public awareness of the benefit of a healthy nutrition would promote a demand for
an organic and low-impact agriculture.
7.3 Suggestions for future research
This study could be considered as the first part of a wider investigation, concerning
the sustainability of food systems. The environmental impact would instead be
joined to an economic and sociologic empirical evaluation of the studied food
systems. This analysis could take into account the margin distribution within the
various steps of the value chain, in order to verify the effects on the agricultural
sector’s income. Such enquiry would aims at validating the hypothesis that AFNs
can provide an economic opportunity for farmers and ensure a fairer value
distribution.
This study neglected the role of food waste, and the potential of the different
paradigms in reducing it. However, this is a relevant issue affecting all the steps of
the food chain. An in-depth examination can investigate the size of this wastage and
the impact of different waste management strategy.
Moreover, the hamper of food for which the material intensity has been evaluated
could be definitely enlarged. Many other foodstuffs are important ingredients of the
Italian diet, and could be useful for a comparison between other European diets, i.e.
the Finnish and German one, for which the material intensity have been already
calculated.
From a methodological point of view, the MIPS indicator could be improved,
especially in defining the impact on soil and land use. A continuous updating of the
MI factors, based on the technology advances and referred to specific countries, is
necessary to improve the assessments’ quality. Enlarging the evaluation to other
foodstuffs of Italian diet would complete this study and gain more detailed
information. The changing food habits in developing countries could also be taken
into account in order to quantify how much the natural resource use will increase in
the next year. Finally, evaluating the material intensity of different European food
chain and integrate this information with measurements on the economic
performances would allow setting a system of incentive/taxation for food producers,
based on the eco-efficiency in the food production. Such a system could make the
European CAP more effective in promoting the agri-food systems sustainability and
avoiding wasteful financial disbursements.
133 Bibliografy
Adriaanse, A., S. Bringezu, et al. (1997). Resource Flows: The Material Basis of
Industrial Economies. Washington, USA, World Resources Institute, Wuppertal
Institute, Netherlands Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning, and Environment
National Institute for Environmental Studies.
Allan, J. A. (1993). Fortunately there are substitutes for water otherwise our hydropolitical futures would be impossible. Priorities for water resources allocation and
management. ODA. London, ODA: 13-26.
Allan, J. A. (1994). Overall perspectives on countries and regions. Water in the Arab
World: perspectives and prognoses. P. Rogers and P. Lydon. Cambridge,
Massachusetts, Harvard University Press: 65-100.
Altieri, M. A. (2002). "Agroecology: the science of natural resource management 5
for poor farmers in marginal environments." Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment 1971: 1-24.
Altieri, M. A. (2010). Designing an enduring and resilient agriculture for a planet in
crisis. 2nd International Conference on Sustainability Science Rome.
Antón, A. (2004). Utilización del análisis del ciclo de vida en la evaluación del
impacto ambiental del cultivo bajo invernadero mediterráneo. Programa
d’Enginyeria Ambiental. Barcelona, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. Thesis
doctoral.
Antón, A., J. I. Montero, et al. (2005). "LCA and tomato production in Mediterranean
greenhouses." International Journal Agricultural Resources Governance and Ecology
4(2): 102-112.
Bastianoni, S., N. Marchettini, et al. (2001). "Sustainability assessment of a farm in the
Chianti area (Italy)." Journal of Cleaner Production 9(4): 365-373.
Battini, F., M. Ligabue, et al. (2003). "Pisello proteico nell'alimentazione delle bovine
da latte." L'informatore agrario 1/2003.
Beccali, M., M. Cellura, et al. (2009). "Resource Consumption and Environmental
Impacts of the Agrofood Sector: Life Cycle Assessment of Italian Citrus-Based
Products." Environmental Management 43: 707-724.
Bergh, J. C. J. M. v. d. (2001). "Ecological economics: themes, approaches, and
differences with environmental economics." Regional Environmental Change 2: 1323.
Bevilacqua, M., M. Braglia, et al. (2007). "Life Cycle Assessment of pasta production
in Italy" Journal of Food Quality 30.
134 Bevilacqua, M., P. Buttol, et al. (2002). Analisi del ciclo di vita di due tipi di pasta
della ditta Barilla. E. report. Bologna, ENEA (Italian National Agency for new
technologies, energy and sustainable economic development).
Bhumisawasdi, J., O. Vanna, et al. (2006). "The Self-Reliant System for Alternative
Care of Diabetes Mellitus Patients – Experience Macrobiotic Management in Trad
Province." Journal of The Medical Association of Thailand 89(12): 2104-2115.
Blengini, G. A. and M. Busto (2009). "The life cycle of rice: LCA of alternative agrifood chain management systems in Vercelli (Italy)." Journal of Environmental
Management 90: 1512-1522.
Blythman, J. (2005). Shopped: the shocking power of British supermarkets. London,
Harper Perennial.
Bonciarelli, F. and U. Bonciarelli (2001). Coltivazioni erbacee. Bologna.
Bonomi, A. (2003). "L'impiego della farina di semi di pisello (Pisum sativum L.)
nell'alimentazione dei suini all'ingrasso " Rivista di suinicoltura 12.
Borsotto, L., P. Borsotto, et al. (2005). L'allevamento bovino da carne in Val Bormida
(SV). Introduzione alle tecniche biologiche e valorizzazione delle produzioni.
Savona, Istituto Nazionale di Economia Agraria.
Boulding, K. E. (1966). The economics of the coming spaceship earth. Environmental
quality in a growing economy. H. Jarret. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press.
Bringezu, S. and H. Schütz (2001a). Material use indicators for the European Union,
1980-1997. Economy-wide material flow accounts and balances and derived
indicators of resource use. W. Paper. Wuppertal, EUROSTAT, Wuppertal Institute.
Bringezu, S. and H. Schütz (2001b). Total material requirement of the European
Union Technical Report E. E. Agency. Copenhagen European Environment Agency
35.
Bringezu, S. and Y. Moriguchi (2002). Material flow analysis A Handbook of
Industrial Ecology. L. W. A. Robert V. Ayres. Geltenham: UK, Edward Elger
Publishing.
Bringezu, S., Schütz, H., Moll, S. (2003). "Rationale for and Interpretation of
Economy-wide Material Flow Analysis and Derived Indicators." Journal of Industrial
Ecology 7(2): 21.
Brown, E. and R. N. Elliott (2005). Potential energy efficiency savings in the
agriculture sector. Washington, D.C. , American Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy.
Brownell, K. D., T. Farley et al. “The Public Health and Economic Benefits of Taxing
Sugar-Sweetened Beverages” The New England Journal of Medicine 361: 1599-1605
Brunori, G. (2007). "Local food and alternative food networks: a communication
perspective." Anthropology of food.
Brunori, G., F. Guidi, et al. (2007a). In-depth review on alternative food marketing
strategies. Case study: Solidarity-Based Purchasing Groups. National report in INSIGHT EU Project FP6 WP3 In-depth review of innovation systems and processes /
practical experiences in the field of agriculture and agricultural marketing.
135 Brussaard, L., P. Caron, et al. (2010). "Reconciling biodiversity conservation and food
security: scientific challenges for a new agriculture." Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability 2: 1-9.
Burch, D. and G. Lawrence (2007). Supermarkets and agri-food supply chains:
transformations in the production and consumption of foods. Montpellier Parade
UK, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited
Burger, E., S. Giljum, et al. (2009). Comprehensive ecological indicators for products:
three case studies apllying MIPS and ecological footprint 8th International
Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics Ljubljana.
Carlsson-Kanyama, A. and A. D. Gonzales (2009). "Potential contributions of food
consumption patterns to climate change." The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
89(suppl): 5.
Carson, R. (1962). Silent Spring. Boston, Houghton Mifflin.
Chapagain, A. K. and A. Y. Hoekstra (2004). Water Footprints of Nations. V. o. W. R.
Report. IHE Delft, The Netherlands, UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education.
Clark, W. C. and N. M. Dickson (2003). "Sustainability science: The emerging
research program." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America (PNAS) 100(14): 8059-8061.
Cline, W. R. (2007). Global Warming and Agriculture: Impact Estimates by Country.
Washington DC, Center for Global Development; Peter G. Peterson Istitute for
International Economics.
Coase, R. H. (1960). "The Problem of Social Cos." Journal of Law and Economics 3(1):
1:44.
Coley, D., M. Howard, et al. (2009). "Local food, food miles and carbon emissions: A
comparison of farm shop and mass distribution approaches." Food Policy 34(2): 150.
Cotula, L., S. Vermeulen, et al. (2009). Land grab or development opportunity?
Agricultural investment and international land deals in Africa. London, Rome, IIED,
FAO, IFAD
Cummins, S. and S. MacIntyre (2006). "Food environments and obesity—
neighbourhood or nation?" International Journal of Epidemiology 35(1): 100-104.
Dalle Mulle, E. and V. Ruppanner (2010). Exploring the Global Food Supply
Chain. Markets, Companies, Systems. THREAD, 3D --> Trade - Human Rights Equitable Economy.
Daly, H. E. (1974). "The Economics of the Steady State." The American Economic
Review 64(2): 15-21.
Daly, H. E. and J. C. Farley (2004). Ecological economics: principles and applications.
Washington, DC, Island Press.
Delgado, C., M. Rosegrant, et al. (1999). Livestock to 2020: the next food revolution.
Washington, DC.
De Fraiture, C., X. Cai, et al. (2003). "Addressing the Unanswered Questions in
Global Water Policy: A Methodology Framework." Irrigation and Drainage 52: 21-30.
De Marco, O., G. Lagioia, et al. (2000). "Materials Flow Analysis of the Italian
Economy." Journal of Industrial Ecology 4(2): 55-70.
136 De Schutter, O. (2009). Agribusiness and the Right to Food, Report of the Special
Rapporteur on the Right to Food. U. Nations.
Delgado, C., M. Rosegrant, et al. (1999). Livestock to 2020: the next food revolution.
Washington, DC.
Della Corte, C., F. Cecchini, et al. (2002). Analisi del ciclo di vita di 1 kg di pasta della
ditta "Antonio Amato". E. Report, ENEA (Italian National Agency for new
technologies, energy and sustainable economic development); Università
"Parthenope" di Napoli: 117.
Desmarais, A.A. (2002). "The Va Campesina: Consolidating an International Peasant
and Farm Movement " Journal of Peasant Studies 29(2): 91-124.
ENAMA (2005). Prontuario dei consumi di carburante per l’impiego agevolato in
agricoltura. Roma Ente Nazionale per la Meccanizzazione Agricola.
Eshel, G. and P. Martin (2006). "Diet, energy and global warming." Earth Interact 10:
16.
EUROSTAT (2008). Food: from farm to fork statistics. Pocketbooks. Luxemburg.
EUROSTAT (2010). Agricultural statistics. Main results — 2008–09. Pocketbooks.
Luxemburg, EUROSTAT, European Union.
FAO (2003). Agriculture, food and water. Roma Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United States.
FAO (2010) Forest insects as food: humans bite back, Proceedings of a workshop on
Asia-Pacific resources and their potential for development, 19-21 February 2008,
Chiang Mai, Thailand
FEDERALIMENTARE (2010). "industria alimentare italiana. Le cifre di base." Italian
Federation of Food Industry.
http://www.federalimentare.it/docs/cifre_di_base_2009.pdf.
Federico, A., F. Musmeci, et al. (2001). MIPS of the Italian Telephone Network.
Environmental Impact of Telecumunication System and Services, Lausanne.
Feenstra, G. (2002). "Creating space for sustainable food systems: Lessons from the
field." Agriculture and Human Values (19): 7.
Femia, A. (2000). A material flow account for Italy, 1988. E. W. Paper. Luxemburg,
Eurostat.
Figini, F. (2008/2009). Riso e sostenibilità? Sistemi naturali di coltivazione.
Economics Department. Milano, Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi. Master of
Science in Economics and Social Science.
Frison, E. A., I. F. Smith, et al. (2006). "Agricultural biodiversity, nutrition, and
health: Making a difference to hunger and nutrition in the developing world." Food
and Nutrition Bulletin 27(2): 167-179.
Gaggiotti, S. (2008/2009). Gruppi d'Acquisto Solidale e mercato alimentare:
l'esperienza nella Regione Marche. Facoltà di Agraria. Ancona, Università Politecnica
delle Marche. Master Degree in Nutrition Science: 84.
Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1971). The Entropy Law and the Economic Process.
Cambridge, MA., Harvard University Press.
137 Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1976). Energy and Economic Myths. New York, Oxford,
Pergamon Press.
Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1982). Energia e miti economici. Torino, Boringhieri.
Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1993a). Selections from "Energy and Economic Myths".
Valuing the Earth: Economics, Ecology, Ethics. H. E. Daly and K. N. Townsend.
Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press.
Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1993b). The entropy low and the economic problem. Valuing
the Earth: Economics, Ecology, Ethics. H. E. Daly and K. N. Townsend. Cambridge,
Massachusetts, MIT Press.
Giampietro, M. and G. Pastore (1999). Biophysical roots of "enjoyment of life"
accordign to Georgescu-Roegen's bioeconomic paradigm. Bioeconomics and
sustainability: essays in honor of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen. K. Mayumi and J. M.
Gowdy. Northampton, MA, Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. .
Giljum, S., M. Dittrich, et al. (2010). Resource use and resource productivity in Asia.
Trends over the past 25 years. SERI. Working Paper. N. 11. Vienna, Austria,
Sustainable Europe Research Institute (SERI); Wuppertal Institute for Climate,
Environment and Energy.
GRAIN (2008). SEIZED! The 2008 land grab for food and financial security.
Barcelona, GRAIN International.
Guerra, E., G. Santini, et al. (2007). Analisi di sostenibilità ambientale di aziende
biologiche all'interno di un'area protetta: l'Appennino Tosco Emiliano. Applicazione
del metodo LCA alla produzione del Parmigiano Reggiano. Facoltà di Scienze
matematiche, fisiche e naturali Firenze, Università degli Studi di Firenze Corso di
Laurea Specialistica in Biologia Ambientale
Hahlbrock, K. (2009). Feeding the Planet. Environmental Protection through
Sustainable Agriculture, Haus Publishing.
Heitschmidt, R. K., L. T. Vermeire, et al. (2004). "Is rangeland agriculture
sustainable?" Journal of Animal Science(82): 8.
Hendrickson, M. K. and W. D. Heffernan (2002). "Opening Space through
Relocalization: Locating Potential Resistance in the Weeknesses of the Global Food
System." Sociologia Ruralis 42(4).
Hinterberger, F. and E. K. Seifert (1997). Reducing Material Throughput: A
Contribution to the Measurement of Dematerialization and Sustainable Human
Development. Environment, Technology and Economic Growth - The Challenge to
Sustainable Development. v. d. S. J. Tylecote A. Cheltenham, UK - Northhampton,
MA, USA Edward Elgar
Hinterberger, F. and F. Schmidt-Bleek (1999). "Dematerialization, MIPS and Factor 10
- Physical sustainability indicators as a social device." Ecological Economics 29(1): 5356.
Hoekstra, A. Y. (2003). Virtual water: An introduction. International Expert Meeting
on Virtual Water Trade, IHE Delft, The Netherlands.
Hoepli (1997). Manuale di agricoltura. Hoepli.
Holling, C. S. (1973). "Resilence and stability of ecological systems." Annual Review
of Ecological Systems 4: 1-24.
138 Hotelling, H. (1931). "The economy of exaustible resources " Journal of Political
Economy 39(2): 137:175.
Humphrey, J. (2006). Global Value Chains in the Agrifood Sector. Vienna, UNIDO
(United Nations Industrial Development Organization).
Isacsson, A., K. Jonsson, et al. (2000). Material Flow Accounts, DMI and DMC for
Sweden 1987-1997. E. W. Papers, Statistics Sweden.
ISMEA (2005). Rapporto sui consumi alimentari in Italia.
ISMEA (2008). Outlook dell'agroalimentare italiano Annual Report.
ISMEA (2010). La competitività dell’agro-alimentare italiano. Check up 2010.
Tendenze recenti e outlook.
ISTAT (2003). 1980-1998 Material-Input-Based indicators time series and 1997
material balance of the Italian economy. Rome, Italian National Institute of Statistics.
ISTAT (2009). Utilizzo dei prodotti fitosanitari nella coltivazione del frumento tenero
e duro Annata agraria 2007-2008. Rome, Italian National Institute of Statistics.
ISTAT (2010). Agricoltura e ambiente. L’indagine 2007 sulla struttura e le produzioni
delle aziende agricole. Rome, Italian National Institute of Statistics.
Jones, A. (2002). "An Environmental Assessment of Food Supply Chains: A Case
Study on Dessert Apples." Environmental Management 30(4): 560–576.
Kauppinen, T., S. Lähteenoja, et al. (2008). Kotimaisten elintarvikkeiden
materiaalipanos - Elintarvike MIPS (Material Input of Finnish foodstuffs). (Available
from http://www.mtt.fi/pdf/met130.pdf). E. Maa- ja elintarviketalous 130.
Kinsey, J. (2003). Emerging Trends In The New Food Economy: Consumers, Firms
And Science, Emerging Trends In The New Food Economy: Consumers, Firms And
Science. 14575.
Koh, L. P. and D. S. Wilcove. (2007). "Cashing in palm oil for conservation." Nature
448: 2.
Kotakorpi, E., S. Lähteenoja, et al. (2008). Household MIPS - Natural resource
consumption of Finnish households and its reduction. The Finnish Environment
43en. Helsinky, Ministry of the Environment Environmental Protection Department:
160.
Lamine, C. (2005). "Settling the shared uncertainties: local partnerships between
producers and consumers." Sociologia Ruralis 45(4): 324-345.
Lang, T. and M. Heasman (2004). Food wars: the global battle for minds, mouths, and
markets. London, UK, Earthscan.
Legislative decrete n. 372 (1999). IPPC (Prevenzione e riduzione integrate
dell'inquinamento) - Linee guida per l'identificazione delle migliori tecniche
disponibili.
Lettenmeier, M. and V. Salo (2008). Natural resource consumption of different waste
policy options in the Helsinki metropolitan area. ConAccount 2008 Urban
metabolism measuring the ecological city, Prague.
139 Lettenmeier, M., H. Rohn, et al. (2009). Resource productivity in 7 steps. How to
develop eco-innovative products and services and improve their material footprint.
Wuppertal Spezial Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy. 41.
Longhitano, D. (2010). Land Grabbing, agroenergie e commercio internazionale, tra
teoria ed evidenze. XLVII Convegno di Studi della Società Italiana di Economia
Agraria (SIDEA). Campobasso, Italy
Mäenpaää, I. and A. Juutinen (2002). "Material flows in Finland: Resource Use in a
Small Open Economy." Journal of Industrial Ecology 5(3): 33-48.
Malhi, Y., J. T. Roberts, et al. (2008). "Climate Change, Deforestation, and the Fate of
the Amazon." Science 319(5860): 169-172.
Mancini, L., M. Lettenmeier, et al. (forthcoming). "Application of the MIPS Method
for Assessing the Sustainability of Production-Consumption Systems of Food."
Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization (Special Issue "From GDP to WellBeng Conference").
Mandelli, S., P. Neri, et al. (2005). LCA - Fattori di caratterizzazione nella categoria
human health. Applicazione allo studio della produzione di riso E. Paper. Bologna,
ENEA (Italian National Agency for new technologies, energy and sustainable
economic development); Università degli studi Milano - Bicocca: 257.
Marlow, H. J., W. K. Hayes, et al. (2009). "Diet and the environment: does what you
eat matter?" The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 89(suppl).
Martínez-Alier, J. and K. Schlüpmann (1987). Ecological economics: energy,
environment and society. Oxford, Basil Blackwell.
Mattsson, B. (1999). Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Agricultural
Food Production. Department of Agricultural Engineering Goteborg Swedish
University of Agricultural Science PhD thesis 298.
McIntyre, B. D., H. R. Herren, et al. (2009). Agriculture at a Crossroads. Global
Report of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science, and
Technology for Development (IAASTD). Washington, DC, IAASTD
McMichael, A. J., J. W. Powles, et al. (2007). "Food, livestock production, energy,
climate change, and health." The Lancet 370(9594): 10.
Montanari, C. (2009). Il costo di produzione della carne bovina. Il mercato della carne
bovina. Rapporto 2009. F. Angeli. Milano 75-89.
Morgan, K. (2009). "Feeding the City: The Challanges of Urban Food Planning."
International Planning Studies 14(4): 341-348.
Nagayets, O. (2005). Small Farms: Current Status and Key Trends. Information Brief.
Future of Small Farms Research Workshop Washington DC. IFPRI, Washington DC.
Nellemann, C., M. MacDevette, et al. (2009). The environmental food crisis – The
environment’s role in averting future food crises. A UNEP rapid response
assessment., GRID-Arendal: UN Environment Programme.
Odum, H. T. (1971). Environment, power, and society. New York Wiley.
OECD (2008). Measuring material flows and resource productivity. Paris, OECD.
OECD/FAO (2008). OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2008-2017.
140 Paxton, A. (1994). The Food Miles Report: the Dangers of Long Distance Food
Transport. London, Safe Alliance.
Perrino, P. (2008). Sostenibilità e Biodiversità: la Policoltura Ma-Pi. I Conference on:
La Policoltura Ma-Pi: una Proposta per una Agricoltura Sostenibile. Rome.
Pigou, A. C. (1920). The Economics of Welfare. London, Macmillan.
Pimentel, D. (2006). Impacts of organic farming on the efficiency of energy use in
agriculture An organic center state of science review. Ithaca, Cornell University.
Pimentel, D. and M. H. Pimentel (2008). Food, energy and society. New York CRC
Press.
Pimentel, D. and M. Pimentel (2003). "Sustainability of meat-based and plant based
diets and the environment." The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 78(suppl).
Pimentel, D., J. Houser, et al. (1997). "Water Resources: Agriculture, the
Environment, and Society." American Institute of Biological Sciences 47(2).
Plassmann, K. and G. E. Jones (2009). Where Does the Carbon Footprint Fall?:
Developing a Carbon Map of Food Production, IIED.
Polanyi, K. (1944). The great transformation Boston, Beacon Press.
Porrata Maury, C., A. A. Landín, et al. (2007). "Efecto terapéutico de la dieta
macrobiótica Ma-Pi 2 en 25 adultos con diabetes mellitus tipo 2." Revista Cubana de
Investigation Biomedica 26(2).
Porrata Maury, C., M. H. Triana, et al. (2008). "Caracterización y evaluación
nutricional de las dietas macrobióticas Ma-Pi." Revista Cubana de Investigation
Biomedica 27(3-4).
Pothukuchi, K. and J. L. Kaufman (1999). "Placing the food system on the urnab
agenda: The role of municipal institutions in food systems planning." Agriculture
and Human Values 16: 213-224.
Pretty, J. (2008). "Agricultural sustainability: concepts, principles and evidence." Phil.
Trans. R. Soc. B 363: 18.
Ragusa, S. (2010). A tutto Gas. Come aprire un Gruppo di acquisto solidale e vivere
meglio. Milano, Terre di Mezzo.
Regione Lombardia (2007). Progetto coltivazione del riso con metodo biologico.
Risultati del quinquennio 2002-2006. Quaderni della ricerca, Regione Lombardia. n°
72.
Renting, H. and H. Wiskerke (2010). New Emerging Roles for Public Institutions and
Civil Society in the Promotion of Sustainable Local Agro-Food Systems. 9th
European IFSA Symposium Vienna, Austria.
Renting, H., T. K. Marsden, et al. (2003). "Understanding alternative food networks:
exploring the role of short food supply chains in rural development." Environment
and Planning A 35(3): 393-411.
Ritthoff, M., C. Kaiser et al. (2009) Wie viel Natur kostet unsere Nahrung? Ein Beitrag
zur Materialintensität ausgewählter Produkte aus Landwirtschaft und Ernährung.
NRW, Wuppertal Papers Wuppertal Institute.
141 Ritthoff, M., H. Rohn et al. (2002) Calculating MIPS - Resource productivity of
products and services. Wuppertal Special 27e, Wuppertal Institute. Available at at
<www.mips-online.info>
Rossi, A. and G. Brunori (2010). Drivers of transformation in the agro‐food system.
GAS as co‐production of Alternative Food Networks. 9th European IFSA
Symposium, Vienna (Austria).
Saari, A., M. Lettenmeier, et al. (2007). "Influence of vehicle type and road category
on natural resource consumption in road transport." Transportation Research Part D:
Transport and Environment 12(1): 9.
Sadiddin, A. (2009). Agricultural Policy Impact on the Stability of Farm Income and
Water Use in the North-East of the Syrian Arab Republic. Dipartimento di Economia
e Politica Agraria. Napoli Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II. Doctoral.
Saroldi, A. (2005). Reti e pratiche di economia solidale. Obiettivo Decrescita. M.
Bonaiuti. Bologna, EMI: 153-160.
Saunders, C., A. Barber, et al. (2006). Food miles - comparative energy / emissions
performance of New Zealand's agriculture industry, Lincoln University.
Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit.
Schmidt-Bleek, F. (1993) The Fossil Makers, English translation of “Wieviel Umwelt
braucht der Mensch? MIPS - Das Maß für ökologisches Wirtschaften”, Available
online at http://factor10-institute.org/publications.html
Schmidt-Bleek, F. (2008). The Earth. Natural Resources and Human Interventation.
London Haus Publishing.
Schmidt-Bleek, F. (2001). "Factor 10: Sustainability requires a change in signals to the
market." Abstracts of Papers of the American Chemical Society 222: U31-U31.
Schroll, H. (1994). "Energy-flow and ecological sustainability in Danish agriculture."
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 51(3).
Schumacher, E. F. (1973). Small is beautiful: a study of economics as if people
mattered. New York, Harper & Row.
Scrinis, G. (2007). "From techno-corporate food to alternative agri-food movements."
Local Global 4: 112-140.
Scrinis, G. and K. Lyons (2010). Nanotechnology and the Techno-corporate Agri-food
Paradigm. Food Security, Nutrition and Sustainability. G. Lawrence, K. Lyons and T.
Wallington. London, Earthscan.
Segrè, A. (2010). Lezioni di Ecostile. Sprecare, consumare, vivere, Ed. Bruno
Mondadori, Milano.
Shiva, V. (2001). Patents, Myths and Reality. Boston.
Smith, A., P. Watkiss, et al. (2005). The Validity of Food Miles as an Indicator of
Sustainable Development: Final report. F. M. F. R. I. 7. London, UK, Department of
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).
Sodano, V. (2004). Strumenti di analisi per l'economia dei mercati agroalimentari,
Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane
Soddy, F. (1926). Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt. New York, EP Dutton.
142 Sonnino, R. and T. Marsden (2006). "Beyond the Divide: Rethinking Relationships
Between Alternative and Conventional Food Networks in Europe." Journal of
Economic Geography 6: 181-199.
Spangenberg, J. H., A. Femia, et al. (1998). Material Flow-based Indicators in
Environmental Reporting. Environmental Issues Series. Wuppertal, European
Environment Agency. 14: 58.
Steffen, W., J. Jäger, et al. (2002). Challenges of a Changing Earth. Proceedings of the
Global Change Open Science Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 10-13 July
2001. Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, Springer.
Steinfeld, H., P. Gerber, et al. (2006). Livestock's long shadow: environmental issues
and options. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Steinhart, J. S. and C. E. Steinhart (1974). "Energy use in the U.S. food system."
Science 184(4134): 307-316.
Thrupp, L. A. (2000). "Linking agricultural biodiversity and food security: the
valuable role of agrobiodiversity for sustainable agriculture." International Affairs
76(2).
Tiezzi, E. and N. Marchettini (1999). Che cos'è lo sviluppo sostenibile? Le basi
scientifiche della sostenibilità e i guasti del pensiero unico. Roma, Donzelli editore.
Tilman, D., K. G. Cassman, et al. (2002). "Agricultural sustainability and intensive
production practices." Nature 418: 671-677.
UN (2003). Handbook for Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting. New
York, UN (United Nations, Commission of the European Communities);
International Monetary Fund; OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development and World Bank).
UNEP (2007). The Global Environment Outlook Report. Nairobi, United Nations
Environment Programme.
UNEP/GRID-Arendal, 'Agricultural trends, production, fertilisers, irrigation and
pesticides',
UNEP/GRID-Arendal
Maps
and
Graphics
Library,
2009,
<http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/agricultural-trends-production-fertilisersirrigation-and-pesticides> [Accessed 10 November 2010]
UNEP/GRID-Arendal, 'Global Biofuel Production', UNEP/GRID-Arendal Maps and
Graphics
Library,
2009,
<http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/global-biofuelproduction> [Accessed 10 November 2010]
UNEP/GRID-Arendal, 'Price change of selected retail foodstuffs and the percentage
of retail value paid to primary', UNEP/GRID-Arendal Maps and Graphics Library,
2008, <http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/price-change-of-selected-retail-foodstuffsand-the-percentage-of-retail-value-paid-to-primary> [Accessed 7 November 2010]
UNEP/GRID-Arendal, 'Top 10 global food retailers', UNEP/GRID-Arendal Maps
and Graphics Library, 2008, <http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/top-10-global-foodretailers>
UNEP/GRID-Arendal, 'Trends in population, developed and developing countries,
1750-2050 (estimates and projections)', UNEP/GRID-Arendal Maps and Graphics
Library, 2009, <http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/trends-in-population-developedand-developing-countries-1750-2050-estimates-and-projections>
[Accessed
10
November 2010]
143 Van der Ploeg, J. D. (2004). The Virtual Farmer - Past, Present and Future of the
Dutch Peasantry. Assen, The Netherlands, Royal Van Gorcum.
von Weizsäcker, E. U., A. B. Lovins, et al. (1997). Factor Four: Doubling Wealth Halving Resource Use: The New Report to the Club of Rome. London, Earthscan
Publications LTD.
Wallace, J. S. (2000). "Increasing agricultural water use efficiency to meet future food
production." Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 82(1-3): 14.
Watts, D. C. H., B. Ilbery, et al. (2005). "Making reconnections in agro-food
geography: alternative systems of food provision." Progress in Human Geography
29(1): 22-40.
Weisz, H., F. Krausmann, et al. (2007). Economy-wide Material Flow Accounting "A
compilation guide". Luxemburg, Eurostat; European Commission.
Whatmore, S., P. Stassart, et al. (2003). "What's Alternative About Alternative Food
Networks?" Environment and Planning A 35: 389-391.
WHO (2007). The World Heath Report. A Safer Future. Global Public Health Security
in the 21st Century. Geneva, Switzerland, World Health Organization.
Winter, M. (2003a). "Geographies of food: agro-food geographies - making
reconnections." Progress in Human Geography 27: 505-513.
Winter, M. (2003b). "Embeddedness, the new food economy and defensive localism."
Journal of Rural Studies 19(1): 23-32.
Winter, M. (2004). "Geographies of food: agro-food geographies – farming, food and
politics." Progress in Human Geography 28(5): 664-670.
144 Appendix
1. Material Intensity results
kg/kg
Wheat
Wheat
Barley
Barley
Oats
Oats
Rye
Rye
Triticale
Triticale
Maize
Maize (dried)
Sorghum
Sorghum (dried)
Sorghum
Paddy rice
Paddy rice
Field bean
Field bean
Lupins
Lupins
Bean (dried)
Bean (dried)
Peas (dried)
Peas (dried)
Mais silage
Sorghum silage
Sorghum silage
Lucerne hay
Lucerne hay
Clover hay
Clover hay
Grass hay meadow
Barley grass
Sorghum grass
Sorghum grass
Tomatoes
Tomatoes
Tomatoes
Lettuce
Lettuce
Lettuce
Zucchini
Zucchini
CA
OA
CA
OA
CA
OA
CA
OA
CA
OA
CA
CA
CA
CA
OA
CA
OA
CA
OA
CA
OA
CA
OA
CA
OA
CA
CA
OA
CA
OA
CA
OA
OA
CA
CA
OA
CA
gh
CA of
IA of
CA
gh
CA of
IA of
CA
gh
CA of
Abiotic
0.23
0.08
0.80
0.04
0.96
0.05
1.09
0.08
0.38
0.06
0.53
0.65
0.51
0.62
0.10
0.77
0.06
1.27
0.12
0.29
0.11
1.19
0.32
0.39
0.22
0.10
0.10
0.02
0.25
0.07
0.33
0.06
0.06
0.16
0.09
0.01
Biotic
1.80
1.83
1.88
1.90
1.93
1.96
1.93
1.96
1.91
1.93
2.08
2.40
2.08
2.32
2.08
1.90
1.92
1.91
1.94
1.88
1.90
1.87
1.88
1.89
1.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.50
1.50
1.01
1.00
1.00
Water
3.77
0.59
5.48
0.32
6.21
0.39
6.29
0.53
4.10
0.43
457.04
526.84
5.03
5.96
0.79
2828.29
500.39
8.10
1.41
5.13
1.13
8.95
2.50
5.59
1.97
83.12
85.35
112.65
68.47
0.51
184.11
242.86
0.46
1.10
62.29
81.89
Air
0.20
0.13
0.22
0.10
0.26
0.13
0.26
0.16
0.17
0.11
0.23
0.36
0.18
0.31
0.23
0.24
0.08
0.34
0.24
0.25
0.23
0.71
0.73
0.45
0.49
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.15
0.17
0.17
0.15
0.15
0.04
0.03
0.02
Erosion
1.82
2.42
1.69
2.29
2.06
2.77
2.56
3.41
1.71
2.28
1.00
1.15
1.25
1.40
1.86
1.45
2.05
3.38
4.58
3.36
4.53
4.02
5.39
2.70
3.65
0.18
0.25
0.33
0.11
0.15
0.08
0.10
0.00
0.34
0.18
0.24
Soil
717.07
956.46
556.92
755.12
681.50
919.17
844.00
1125.33
673.08
897.44
521.25
600.52
732.23
816.76
1089.02
1552.53
2191.82
1793.33
2476.71
1337.50
1836.83
1585.20
2149.55
1083.20
1505.90
94.83
146.72
195.63
72.55
98.23
48.89
65.40
0.00
110.84
106.70
142.61
1.96
0.09
0.02
1.00
1.00
1.00
44.65
30.40
29.64
4.17
0.04
0.03
1.00
1.00
1.00
455.01
585.01
585.01
5.78
0.18
0.04
1.00
1.00
1.00
76.90
30.90
29.77
12.51
0.12
0.09
1.00
1.00
1.00
585.27
585.43
585.60
3.26
0.19
1.00
1.00
35.10
15.98
7.16
0.10
1.00
1.00
455.05
455.07
145 Zucchini
Oranges
Milk whole
Milk skimmed
Parmesan cheese
Beef
Beef
Wheat flour
Wheat flour
Pasta
Pasta
Milled rice
Milled rice
Parboiled rice
Orange juice
Generic vegetal unit from
polyculture
Beans
Whole rice
Cous cous
Millet
Barley
IA of
CA
OA
OA
OA
CA
OA
CA
OA
CA
OA
CA
OA
CA
CA
0.05
0.34
0.41
0.30
5.66
6.84
3.15
1.13
0.66
1.61
1.16
1.69
0.71
1.90
3.38
1.00
1.00
4.63
3.39
53.34
43.91
49.37
3.23
2.45
3.20
2.43
2.74
3.33
2.74
8.10
29.94
182.09
20.76
15.24
254.97
2222.71
137.24
18.88
11.79
28.70
21.81
3922.06
855.57
3926.47
1506.10
0.07
0.27
0.30
0.22
4.29
6.89
6.47
0.61
0.21
0.88
0.50
0.45
0.26
0.75
6.90
1.00
0.40
1.07
0.79
12.38
5.10
0.84
3.26
3.24
3.23
3.22
2.00
3.42
2.00
3.24
455.09
17.28
435.56
319.41
5021.07
2945.56
551.52
1287.65
1281.27
1277.45
1271.12
2142.49
3653.03
2142.49
139.97
MaPi
Mapi
MaPi
MaPi
MaPi
MaPi
0.04
0.04
0.06
1.22
0.06
0.04
1.10
0.52
1.05
0.97
1.05
0.59
40.83
187.18
285.94
22.02
1.02
0.58
0.10
0.05
0.06
0.49
0.03
0.05
0.90
1.56
1.68
2.48
5.76
2.05
292.50
60.67
43.59
48.33
187.12
66.67
CA: Conventional agricolture; OA: Organic agricolture; IA: Integrated agricolture; Gh: green
house; Of: open field; MaPi: macrobiotic-pianesian polyculture
146 2. GaBi processes
147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175

Food Habits and Environmental Impact

Transcription

Similar documents

How to Tie a Woggle

lnstallation - ConservationMart.com

Turkey - EOPOWER

RÉSoNANSS: a regional contribution to

Real Time Control of Hand Prosthesis Using Surface EMG

Electromagnetic fields

CoUNTerMEASURES CoUNTerMEASURES

PrimeFilm 1800 AFL Low-Cost 35mm Slide/Film Scanning Through

IC-910 SDR Mod

The new RS-35M, June, 2010 - Stu Martin, [email protected]