=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3293/paper46
|storemode=property
|title=The Agro-ecological Pattern of Animal Husbandry as a Sustainable Food System
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3293/paper46.pdf
|volume=Vol-3293
|authors=Alessandro Scuderi,Giuseppe Timpanaro,Mariarita Cammarata,Luisa Sturiale,Claudio Bellia,Vera Teresa Foti
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/haicta/ScuderiTCSBF22
}}
==The Agro-ecological Pattern of Animal Husbandry as a Sustainable Food System==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3293/paper46.pdf
The Agro-ecological Pattern of Animal Husbandry as a
Sustainable Food System
Alessandro Scuderi 1, Giuseppe Timpanaro 1, Mariarita Cammarata 1, Luisa Sturiale 2, Claudio
Bellia 1 and Vera Teresa Foti 1
1
Department of Agriculture Food and Environment Di3A- University of Catania, Via S.Sofia 100, Catania, Italy
2
Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture DICAR - University of Catania, Via S.Sofia 16, Catania, Italy
Abstract
The need to satisfy agroecological principles, in order to restore the environmental balance
without neglecting the economic benefits for producers, makes the sustainability assessment
of fundamental importance. The study is based on the application of Environmental and
Economic indicators, developed on the basis of the SAFA methodology, to assess the state of
sustainability of organic meat farming in Sicily (Italy). For the dimension related to the
Environment the results were on average positive due to the growing commitment to a rational
use of resources and the implementation of environmentally friendly practices, but
improvements are needed to make the sector more sustainable. In the Economic Area the
results were quite high due to the investments that allowed farmers to increase their economic
resilience in the long term. The research demonstrates the importance of assessing production
processes and the difficulties of methodological application and the detection of certain aspects
of business management. In the agri-food system there are opportunities to achieve ambitious
objectives, in a market with high consumer needs, where economic and environmental
sustainability is increasingly strategic.
Keywords 1
Agroecology, livestock, environment, economics, lab meat
1. Introduction
Agricultural production, due to its contribution to climate change, exploitation of natural resources
and the loss of biodiversity, needs to follow the path of sustainable development. The European
Commission's aims towards a complete reduction in net emissions of greenhouse gases in 2050 in the
whole Union [1]. In this context the livestock sector assumes particular relevance, if on the one hand it
is considered of fundamental importance for the population' s livelihood on the other hand it is the main
producer of greenhouse gases (GHG). In recent decades the livestock sector has been characterised by
an increase in the number of animals and production units connected with the rise in feed production
and the modernisation of stables, as well as the excessive use of antibiotics and vaccines administered
[2]. It is an important user of natural resources and has a significant influence on air quality, global
climate, soil quality, biodiversity and water quality, altering the biogeochemical cycles of nitrogen,
phosphorus and carbon, giving rise to a series of environmental conflicts [3]. In this scenario there is a
strong need to affirm the application of the agroecology concept, with the primary aim of reducing the
use of chemical inputs and the impact of agriculture on the environment [4]. It evolves to counter the
concept of conventional agriculture based on the exploitation of resources, emphasising the context-
specific nature of agroecosystem [5].
Proceedings of HAICTA 2022, September 22–25, 2022, Athens, Greece
EMAIL: alessandro.scuderi@unict.it (A. 1); giuseppe.timpanaro@unict.it (A. 2); mariarita.cammarata@phd.unict.it (A. 3);
luisa.sturiale@unict.it (A. 4); c.bellia@unict.it (A. 5); v.foti@unict.it (A. 6)
ORCID: 0000-0003-2511-6205 (A. 1); 0000-0002-0119-2644 (A. 2); 0000-0002-7507-8422 (A. 3); 0000-0002-3838-2978 (A. 4); 0000-
0003-0007-0714 (A. 5); 0000-0002-6659-752X (A. 6)
©️ 2022 Copyright for this paper by its authors.
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
246
Fundamental is to educate farmers about the importance of producing in an environmentally and
economically sustainable way [6], not achieving quantity over quality with the production of food
surpluses as well as irreversible damage to the environment and the economic issue [7,8]. In this context
the aim of the research is to provide a framework on organic livestock farming in Sicily (Southern
Italy), where, especially in mountain areas, it is characterized by adult cow unit lower than normal
admitted which perform important functions such as maintaining the landscape, avoiding that many
areas remain uncultivated due to the impossibility to access them, and reducing the possibility of fire
thanks to the feeding of grazing livestock for most of the year. For this purpose its environmental and
economic sustainability is analysed in order to highlight strengths and weaknesses of the sector in this
area.
2. Materials and Methods
The study is based on the identification of environmental and economic sustainability indicators in
order to evaluate the livestock farms' efficiency in Sicily. On the basis of the ‘‘Sustainability
Assessment of Food and Agriculture Systems’’ (SAFA) framework realized by the FAO [9], indicators
used in the survey have been created. The cattle farms identified for this research are located in Sicily
(South Italy). The sample is composed of 6 farms with a surface from 60 to 350 hectares and
characterized by a family management system as this is the main activity carried out by the interviewed
farmers. All farms in question follow the principles of organic farming and agroecology in relation to
the characteristics of the reference territory. The topic considered in relation to the environmental
dimension and the relative indicators are reported in table 1.
Table 1
Environmental indicators (*)
Environmental Indicators
Atmosphere Animal Welfare
Greenhouse gas emission reduction target Practices implemented to promote the health of
the animals
Practices implemented to reduce GHG Share of healthy animals
emissions
Air pollutants emission reduction target Practices implemented to reduce the suffering
and injury risk of animals
Practices implemented to reduce air pollutant Freedom from stress
Water Biodiversity
Target for reducing water consumption or Description plan for the conservation and
water withdrawals rehabilitation of the reference habitat
Practices implemented to increase the Practices implemented to enhance ecosystem
efficiency or reduced freshwater functionality
consumption in the operations
Target to improve the water quality affected Practices implemented to protect and maintain
by operations the integrity of wild plants and animal
populations
Practices implemented to reduce or prevent Share of the utilized area with diverse crop
the release of pollutants into water rotations
Soil Materials and Energy
Practices implemented to increase soil quality Share of renewable energy in total energy used
and fertility
Share of utilized land in good conditions of Practices implemented to reduce energy demand
soil physical structure in operations
247
Plan to preserve soil quality and reduce soil Target to reduce the generation of waste
degradation
Conservation techniques and soil Practices implemented to reduce waste
rehabilitation measures implemented generation
(*) our elaboration on SAFA indicators
In relation to the economic area, table 2 show the thematic areas and the indicators developed.
Table 2
Economic Indicators (*)
Investment
Activities in which the company has invested over the last 5 years to improve its performance
Contribution of enterprise investments to the community's needs
Maintaining the company's profits in the long term
Business plan or up-to-date document
Revenues in the last 5 years adequate to cover expenses
Processes to determine the total costs of the products
Vulnerability
Actions to reduce the negative impact on production volume and quality standards
Product diversification
Actions to reduce the risk of input shortages
Stable business relationships
Actions implemented to consolidate and diversify income
Net cash flow in the last five years
Formal or informal financial sources
Risk management plan
Product quality and information
Hazardous pesticides
Food contamination
Share of food products complying with quality norms
Traceability system
Certified production
Local Economy
Other employees hired in the last five years
Payment of taxes
Local procurement
(*) our elaboration on SAFA indicators
The indicators were included in a questionnaire and administered to the farmers interviewed. They
have been developed in the form of open-ended questions and each answer received has been given a
score ranging from high too low to which corresponds a numerical value [10]. The SAFA framework
also provides for the attribution of a score expressed as "high", "good", “moderate”, “limited” and “low”
[11]. To each of them the researchers have attributed a numerical value, according to the Likert scale,
specifically, the “high” score corresponds to the value 5, the “good” to the value 4, the “moderate” to
the value 3, the “limited” to the value 2 and the “low” to the value 1, therefore we pass from 5 to 1
when the answer indicates a worse result. After assigning a score for each of the indicators analysed,
the average value of the farms surveyed was calculated and represented in the following bar graphs.
Each farm, indicated by alphabet letters, represent an agroecological peculiarity (table 3) that does not
mean they have reached the maximum level of sustainability, all of them can still be improved from
many points of view. However, they represent a starting point and a model for other live-stock farms.
All of them are characterized by a livestock unit (LU) of less than 1. The reasoned and stratified choice
248
of the farms under investigation was made in order to identify 6 livestock farms expression of the
different models present in the territory. The selection of the sample was initially made considering 20
farms, located in Sicily and more specifically in the province of Enna, but not all of them provided
reliable data for the study and therefore still under review. The data obtained by the farms excluded
from the sample, once revised and made coherent, will be used for future studies in which the analysis
will be upgraded.
Table 3
Characteristics of livestock farms (*)
Denomination Surface (ha) No. of animals LU Agroecological characteristic
A 87 35 0.4 Self-production of all livestock feedstuffs
B 150 35 0.2 Environmental-friendly crop management
C 350 285 0.8 Use of renewable energy
D 80 50 0.6 Slow growth in the natural environment
E 100 35 0.4 Correct water management
F 60 41 0.7 Circular economy and recycling of materials
(*) our elaboration
3. Results and Discussion
The survey carried out in order to assess the environmental and economic sustainability of livestock
farms in Sicily gave the following results, summarised in Figures 1 and 2. The first one shows the
results for the environmental dimension, within which in the atmosphere topic the results obtained by
the companies are average with good opportunities for improvement. They do not have written plans to
communicate to stakeholders, but their commitment translates into the implementation of eco-
sustainable practices, proper management of solid and liquid manure, land control activities to avoid
the risk of fires and the application of minimum processing. The same result can be observed in the
water theme, in which farmers commit to implementing practices that do not allow the waste of this
resource, such as the cultivation of species that do not require irrigation and the correct management of
water inside the cattle sheds. In the soil topic, the results are positive and tending towards the maximum
value. Farmers implement the controlled application of organic fertilizers toc improve nutrient
deficiencies, reduction of tillage and cultivation of nitrogen-fixing crops. They pay a lot of attention to
soil management and they declared that the land is in excellent condition without signs of compaction
and degradation, due to soil conservation and improvement practices. Another topic in which the results
are very high is the Animal Welfare. Farmers are committed to reduce the use of veterinary medicines
and to ensuring the satisfaction of all animals' needs. The 100% of the animals are in good health, they
are supported in their normal needs and sources of stress are reduced e.g. for the slaughterhouse places
are chosen near the farm so that the journey is short and all animal transport regulations are respected.
Biodiversity is another topic considered within the environmental indicators. In this context the results
are lower than the average value, which means that farms are not very careful about maintaining
biodiversity, so a process of awareness-raising and improvement is necessary. They only commit to
crop rotations. The same results are reported in materials and energy topics. Only one farm uses
renewable energy therefore the need for improvements is underlined. The farm’s practices for reducing
energy use concern the cleaning of stables and the feeding of livestock when it is not grazing, but a
particular commitment to reduce energy effort and waste reduction was not reported by any of the
interviewed farmers.
Another important dimension of sustainability is the economic area (Fig. 2). The first topic refers to
the investments made by farm to extend sustainability, for example the use of human resources or funds
provided by agricultural policies. In this context, the results are positive and higher than the average
value. Farmers are creating a relationship between the activities and the enterprise's investment. In
general, all the companies analysed refer to other activities in the territory for the supply of inputs not
produced directly. All interviewed made investments to improve financial and natural capital in the
249
long term, such as the purchase of new land or the modernisation of machinery to improve production
performance and reduce pollution. All livestock farms have a business plan drawn up with the help of
professional figures and they declared to have a positive net profit demonstrating the farms' profitability
and financial sustainability over time. Moving on to the vulnerability area, all farms have obtained a
high score as they are able to guarantee the production quantity and quality by reducing the risks that
could threaten the production process. Farmers, in addition to meat production, also deal with cereal
and forage production through the practice of crop rotations to diversify their activities. All the
interviewed declared to have stable relationships always with the same suppliers, with the exception of
one farms, because it was sometimes forced to find inputs in companies other than the usual ones
because the latter were not able to supply it. All stated that the level of liquidity to meet the farm's
financial commitments over the last 5 years is very positive, and they are able to obtain loans both
formal (from banks or credit institutions) and informal (from families or friends) to face difficult
situations or to improve production performance. The ability of enterprises to cope with internal and
external risks was also reported, so the company can implement action plans to reduce the negative
effects, such as the creation of farm roads that can be used in the event of flooding or the necessary fire
prevention measures in crops. The area of interest “Product quality and information” obtained high
scores. All farms have declared the non-use of pesticides, no one has contaminated products, and all
the products produced are in conformity with the regulations. All interviewed uses the traceability
system and certification bodies that periodically carry out checks in the farms. The last topic in the
economic area is “Local Economy”. This refers to the use of local workforce in production process, in
which farmers have a low commitment, because they are family businesses and rarely use seasonal
workforce. The results are more positive in other indicators, in fact they regularly pay all taxes and all
inputs are found in the pertinent territory.
Environmental Results
6.0
5.0
4.0
Mean Value
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Freedom from stress
Energy demand reduction
Practices implemented
Suffering reduction
Water consumption
Water quality
Waste generation
Waste reduction
GHG reduction
Healthy animals
Practices implemented
Practices implemented
Animals health
Ecosystem functionality
Soil structure
soil degradation reduction
Soil quality and fertility
Air pollutants reduction
Habitat conservation
Practices implemented
Integrity of plants and animal
Crop rotations
Renewable energy
Soil rehabilitation
Atmosphere Water Soil Animal Welfare Biodiversity Materials
and Energy
Environmental indicators and topics
Figure 1: Results of the environmental sustainability assessment in livestock farms
250
Economics Results
6.0
5.0
Mean Value
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
Formal/Informal financial…
0.0
Traceability system
Investments
Negative impact reduction
Income diversification
Hazardous pesticides
Quality norms
Total cost of products
Net cash flow
Other employees
Business plan
Local procurement
Community need
Revenues
Food contamination
Certified production
Product diversification
Risk managemement
Payment of taxes
Shortage risk reduction
Stable relationships
Company's profit
Investment Vulnerability Product quality and Local
information Economy
Economics indicators and topics
Figure 2: Results of the economic sustainability assessment in livestock farms
The results of the sustainability levels suggest that the peculiarities presented by the analysed farms
can be the key to achieve an environmentally and economically sustainable livestock farming.
Agroecological principles, supported by organic farming, aim to improve production and ecological
performance. Sicily lends itself to sustainable farming and this is the message we want to disseminate
in order to increase the number of farms that follow the principles of agroecology.
4. Conclusions
Respect for ecosystem balance, ensuring the product's quality, the health of the consumer and of the
animals reared, as well as guaranteeing an adequate income for the producer, are aspects that need to
enter into synergy to ensure a sustainable livestock farming system. Significant improvements in both
the environmental and economic spheres can only be made by respecting the principles of organic
farming and agroecology. The study highlights the strengths and weaknesses of organic livestock farms
in Sicily. Regarding the environmental aspect, farms certainly still need to concentrate their efforts to
achieve significant sustainability levels, especially for biodiversity, use of renewable energy sources
and the reduction of waste produced during production process. On the other hand, very positive results
have been achieved in the economic area thanks to the commitment of farmers to use the EU agricultural
policy aid by increasing investment in the sector. In conclusion, it is possible to affirm that in spite of
the numerous improvements that the Sicilian livestock sector still needs, an elected model of
sustainability is certainly beginning to emerge for the companies operating in Sicily.
5. Acknowledgements
This research was funded from the research project “Sostenibilità economica, ambientale e sociale
del sistema agroalimentare del mediterraneo”, Principal investigator Prof. Claudio Bellia funded by
PIAno di inCEntivi per la Ricerca di Ateneo (PIACERI) UNICT 2020/22 line 2, UPB: 5A722192154,
University of Catania.
251
6. References
[1] European Commission. Communication No. 640. (2019). The European Green Deal. Brussels,
Belgium, 2019.
[2] N. Ramankutty, Z. Mehrabi, K. Waha, L. Jarvis, C. Kremen, M. Herrero, L.H. Rieseberg. “Trends
in global agricultural land use: implications for environmental health and food security”. Annual
Review of Plant Biology (2018): 69:789–815.
[3] A. Leip, G. Billen, J. Garnier, B. Grizzetti, L. Lassalett, S. Reis, D. Simpson, M. Sutton, W. de
Vries, F. Weiss. “Impacts of European livestock production: nitrogen, sulphur, phosphorus and
greenhouse gas emissions, land-use, water eutrophication and biodiversity". Environmental
Research Letters (2015): 10:115004.
[4] M. Altieri. “The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems”. Agriculture, Ecosystems &
Environment (1999): 74:19-31.
[5] N. Clay, T. Garnett, J. Lorimer. “Dairy intensification: Drivers, impacts and alternatives”. Ambio
(2019):49:35–48.
[6] L. Sturiale, A. Scuderi, G. Timpanaro, B. Matarazzo. “Sustainable use and conservation of the
environmental resources of the Etna park (unesco heritage): Evaluation model supporting
sustainable local development strategies”. Sustainability (2020): 12: 1–16.
[7] P. Guarnaccia, S. Zingale, A. Scuderi, E. Gori, V. Santiglia, G. Timpanaro. “Proposal of a
Bioregional Strategic Framework for a Sustainable Food System in Sicily”. Agronomy (2020):10:
1546.
[8] A. Scuderi, C. Bellia, V.T. Foti, L. Sturiale, G. Timpanaro. "Evaluation of consumers' purchasing
process for organic food products". AIMS Agriculture and Food (2019): 4:251-265.
[9] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Sustainability Assessment of
Food and Agriculture Systems: SAFA Guidelines, Version 3.0; Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2013. Available online:
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/nr/sustainability_pathways/docs/SAFA_Guidelines_Vers
ion_3.0 (accessed on 5 December 2020).
[10] V.T. Foti, A. Scuderi, G. Timpanaro. “The economy of the common good: The expression of a
new sustainable economic model”. Quality - Access to Success (2017):18:206-214.
[11] M. Cammarata, G. Timpanaro, A. Scuderi. “Assessing sustainability of organic livestock farming
in Sicily: A case study using the FAO Safa framework”. Agriculture (2021): 11: 274.
252