Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
[41]. Throughout the system, food waste is taken into account for each
crop [42].
The total expenses to labor, service and materials throughout the sup-
ply system were estimated based on 12 month average supermarket prices
(from March 2012 to March 2013) for each of the vegetables [43]. The
prices were adjusted for infl ation to refl ect average 2009-2010 prices ac-
cording to the price index for vegetables including potatoes and tubers
[44].
1.5 RESULTS OF SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT
The service provided by the three systems is a comparable “basket” of
vegetables produced during one year and delivered to the consumer's
door. This service is measured in food energy and is equal to 74,328 MJ/
year as an average of 2009 and 2010 (Table 1). This corresponds to the to-
tal annual food energy needed for 19-23 people (based on a recommended
daily intake of 8.8-11 MJ [45]). The emergy flows are illustrated for the
case (Figure 1A) and for the model systems (Figure 1B). The two dia-
grams demonstrate clearly the different distribution systems and that in the
case the full money flow goes to the farm whereas in the model systems
part of money flows to the freight companies, supermarkets, and regional
distribution centers (RDC).
1.5.1 EMPIRICAL SYSTEM
The basis of any emergy assessment is the emergy table (Table 4) that
shows all environmental and societal flows, which support the system.
Notably labor and services (L&S) make up 89% of total emergy used by
the case (calculated from Table 4). As emergy use for L&S is calculated
as a function of the emergy use for the national economy, this reflects the
national resource consumption rather than the specific business. To avoid
distorting the results of the actual farm with the implications of being em-
bedded in an industrialized economy, we consider the emergy indicators
both with and without L&S.
