Advertisement

Environment, Development and Sustainability

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 351–373 | Cite as

A Multi-Criteria Analysis of Sustainability Effects of Increasing Concentrate Intensity in Swedish Milk Production 1989–1999

  • Stefan Hellstrand
Article

Abstract

The concept of sustainable development is forcing standard economic analysis to acknowledge and address the existence of dimensions of performance, which are not reducible to monetary accounting. In particular, the implementation of this concept in practice requires: (a) the simultaneous handling of indicators developed in different disciplinary fields; and (b) an approach more related to the procedures adopted by consultants (Participatory Integrated Analysis), rather than theoretical academic analysis looking for ‘the’ optimal solution. The case study considered in this paper is a multi-criteria analysis of changes, which occurred in the Swedish milk production sector for the period 1989–1999. Multi-criteria impact matrices and multi-criteria representations are used to provide a transparent method of integrated analysis. Changes are characterized and quantified in a way that makes it possible to relate the impact of existing trends in relation to different sub-objectives (variation in performance in relation to social, economic and ecological indicators). The results of this analysis confirm a few well known predicaments of sustainability associated with agriculture. The growth of Sweden economy is driving a major increase in material throughputs within its agricultural sector. The need of increasing agricultural throughput (especially labour productivity) has moved the Swedish dairy sector in a clear situation of decreasing marginal return ( = large increases in inputs are not reflected in a proportional increase in output). Therefore, sound policies of development of this sector aimed at increasing the goal of sustainability have to be developed by considering several indicators of performance, and not only economic variables.

Keywords

integrated assessment milk production sector multi-criteria analysis sustainable animal production Sweden 

Abbreviations

AAT

Amino acids absorbed in the small intestine

DM

Dry matter

ECM

Energy corrected milk

GDP

Gross domestic production

IA

Integrated assessment

ME

Metabolizable energy

MCIM

Multi-criteria impact matrix

MCR

Multi-criteria representation

RAM

Result analysis milk-production

SEK

Swedish crowns

TPES

Total primary energy supply

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Danell, S. 2001“Växtnäring”, in Miljöredovisning för svenskt jordbruk 2000SCB och LRFStockholmGoogle Scholar
  2. Boer, I.J.M. 2003Environmental impact assessment of conventional and organic milk productionLivestock Production Science806977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Drake, L. and Hellstrand, S.: 1998, The Economics of the Swedish Policy to Reduce Cadmium in Fertilisers, Kemikalieinspektionen PM no 2, SolnaGoogle Scholar
  4. Eriksson, S., Sanne, S., Thomke, S. 1976Fodermedelstabeller och utfodringsrekommendationer till idisslarehästar och svinStockholmGoogle Scholar
  5. Giampietro, M. 2003Multi-Scale Integrated Analysis of Agro-EcosystemsCRC PressBoca Raton437Google Scholar
  6. Hall, C.A.S., Cleveland, C.J., Kaufmann, R. 1986Energy and Resource Quality: the Ecology of the Economic ProcessJohn Wiley & Sons, IncNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Hellstrand, S.: 1988, Kan ekonomin i mjölkproduktionen förbattras - en modell för biologiskekonomisk analys av mjölkproduktionen och dens resultat för 15 gårdar i Värmland, Rapport 175, inst. for husdjurens utfodring och vård, SLU, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  8. Hellstrand, S.: 1989, Bakgrund och kommentarer till 1989 års fodermedelstabeller och näringsrekommendationer för idisslare, Rapport 191, inst. för husdjurens utfodring och vård, SLU, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  9. Hellstrand, S.: 1996, The Environmental Impact of Milk Production-From the Field to the Entrance to the Dairy, Technical Report no. 22 1996, Department of Systems Ecology, Stockholm University, StocholmGoogle Scholar
  10. Hellstrand, S.: 1997, Reduction of the Discharges on the Local Level not Always Sustainable: — A Swedish Example, In Proceedings of Pulp & Paper Conference, March 9–13, 1997, Orlando, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  11. Hellstrand, S. 1998Marken:–Den livsviktiga resursen, en förstudie. Del 1. Analys, Svenska Lantmner och Lantbrukarnas RiksförbundLantbrukarnas RiksförbundStockholmGoogle Scholar
  12. Hellstrand, S.: 2002, Ecological and Economic Effects of Increasing Concentrate Intensity in Swedish Milk Production 1989–1999, ÅF-MFG report F002/21, FrykstaGoogle Scholar
  13. Hellstrand, S. and Landner L.: 1998, Cadmium in Fertilizers, Soil, Crops, and Foods – the Swedish Situation. In Cadmium exposure in the Swedish Environment, KEMI report no. 1/1998, SolnaGoogle Scholar
  14. Hellstrand, S. and Landner L.: 2001, ‘Role of phosphorus in sustainable agriculture and the cadmium issue’, in J.K. Syers and M. Gochfeld (eds.), Proceedings of the SCOPE-workshop, Belgian Academy of Sciences, Brussels, Belgium, 13–16 September 2000, financially supported by the Royal Academy of Sciences of Belgium, the Institute Mondial du Phosphate (IMPHOS), and the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health SciencesGoogle Scholar
  15. IEA: 1999, Energy Balances of OECD Countries 1965–1997, International Energy Agency, OECDGoogle Scholar
  16. Landner, L., Walterson, W., Hellstrand, S. 2000Copper in Sewage Sludge and Soil, A Literature Review and Critical Discussion of Disposal of Copper-containing Sludges to Agricultural LandInternational Copper Association LtdNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. OECD: 2001, Policies to Enhance Sustainable Development, Meeting of the OECD Council at Ministerial level, 2001Google Scholar
  18. Pareto, V. 1896Cours d’economique politiqueLausanneRougeGoogle Scholar
  19. Pimentel, D.: 2004. ‘Livestock Production and Energy Use’, in C.J. Cleveland, (ed.) Encyclopedia of Energy, Elsevier Academic Press Volume 3: 671–676Google Scholar
  20. Regeringen: 2001, Nationell strategi för hållbar utveckling, Regeringens skrivelse till riksdagen 2001/02:172, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  21. SHS1991 Mjölkproduktionens lönsamhet 1989/90. 1. Lönsamhetsutveckling 1960–1990. 2. Resultat från RAM kontrollåret 1989/90, Meddelande nr 169Svensk HusdjursskötselEskilstunaGoogle Scholar
  22. SHS: 1992, RAM-resultat 1990–91, Bilaga 1, Eskilstuna (http://www.svenskmjolk.se)Google Scholar
  23. Spörndly, R. 1989Fodertabeller för idisslare 1989, Speciella skrifter 39Sveriges lantbruksuniversitetUppsalaGoogle Scholar
  24. Spörndly, R. 1991Fodertabeller för idisslare 1991, Speciella skrifter 44Sveriges lantbruksuniversitetUppsalaGoogle Scholar
  25. Spörndly, R.: 1995, Fodertabeller för idisslare 1995, Rapport 235, inst. för husdjurens utfodring och vård, Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  26. Statistics Sweden: 1997, Yearbook of Agricultural Statistics 1997, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  27. Statistics Sweden: 2000, Yearbook of Agricultural Statistics 2000, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  28. Statistics Sweden: 2001, Utsläpp till luft av ammoniak i Sverige 1999, Statistiska meddelanden MI 37 SM 0001, ÖrebroGoogle Scholar
  29. Statistics Sweden: 2002a, EAA Economic Accounts for Agriculture, Statistiska meddelanden JO 45 SM 0202, SCB (ln Swedish)Google Scholar
  30. Statistics Sweden: 2002b, Nitrogen and phosphorus balances in arable land and agricultural sector in Sweden 1999. Statistiska meddelanden. MI 40 SM 0101, SCB (in Swedish)Google Scholar
  31. Swedish Board of Agriculture: 1992, Foderstatistik 1991, JönköpingGoogle Scholar
  32. Swedish Board of Agriculture: 1995, Foderstatistik 1994, JönköpingGoogle Scholar
  33. Swedish Board of Agriculture: 1997, Foderstatistik 1996, JönköpingGoogle Scholar
  34. Swedish Board of Agriculture: 2001, Feed control by the Swedish Board of Agriculture. Controls 19961999, Manufacture, import and supervision 1999, Rapport 2001:6, Jordbruksverket, JönköpingGoogle Scholar
  35. Swedish Dairy Association: 2001, Cattle Statistics 2001, HållstaGoogle Scholar
  36. Swedish Energy Agency: 2001, Energy in Sweden. Facts and Figures 2001, EskilstunaGoogle Scholar
  37. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences: 1995a, Production branch calculus Northern Sweden, Report 195, Research Information Centre, Uppsala (in Swedish)Google Scholar
  38. Swedish University of Agricultura1 Sciences: 1995b, Production branch calculus Plain Districts Southern Sweden, Report 188, Research Information Centre, Uppsala (in. Swedish)Google Scholar
  39. WHO: 1985, Energy and Protein Requirements, Report of a joint FAO/WHO/UNU Expert Consultation. World Health Organization, Technical Report Series 724, GenevaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Hellstrand
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Crop Production ScienceSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations