Sustentabilidad del sistema ovino ecologico lechero en Castilla la Mancha (Espana).
Livestock production is considered sustainable if productivity and profitability of production are maintained in the long term and the resources are conserved. Therefore, incomes are guaranteed and meet the basic human needs, apart from social and cultural demands, such as security, fairness, freedom, education, employment and recreation [30, 35].
Organic farming in Castilla-La Mancha has experienced a tremendous growth over the period 2001-2009, having increased the number of organic producers from 387 to 4,751 and the surface howing gone from 14,790 to 246,076 ha. The organic dairy sheep (Ovis aries) sector has maintained a rising trend during the period 2001-2009, with annual growth of about 40% . Conversion to organic farming milk production is made from traditional farms, which meet many of the technical requirements. However, in the conversion process to organic production, a need to change its structure and reorganize the production system was required , generating a wide variety that allows a typology of systems . Organic production does not guarantee but allows obtaining an adequate level of global sustainability that includes economic, ecological and social dimensions .
For the implementation of sustainable agriculture, the basic condition is the design of methodologies to assess, in addition to the environmental impact, changes that will occur in the economic and social environments, consequences of the changes to the system. The initial assessment, being the basis of comparison for future assessments, is an essential tool for the analysis of system changes. Various methods have been developed, with implementation in the livestock systems of the proposals by Meul et al. [17, 18], Van Calker et al. , Van der Werf and Petit , Rigby et al. , Masera et al. , amongst others. Although they are focused on particular scenarios, they have common indicators. The indicators according to Gras  are "variables that provide information on other variables difficult to measure or access, which can be used as a benchmark to make a decision." The indicators emerge as the basis for sustainability assessment methodologies, and aim to measure the distance and direction of change from the initial state of a system, to a transition state, and then to a sustainable scenario . The MESMIS methodology  is very flexible and can be adjusted to different livestock systems [10, 11, 16, 21], but its application is unknown in organic farming systems. This methodology is based on a systemic approach that defines seven basic attributes for sustainability: productivity, stability, reliability, resilience, adaptability, equity and selfreliance [9, 14]. Its application ranges from knowledge of the general attributes to obtain indicators and it is developed in six stages: description of the management system, determination of critical points, selection of strategic indicators, measurement and monitoring of indicators, presentation and integration of results as well as conclusions and recommendations.
Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the degree of sustainability of the organic dairy sheep systems in the region of Castilla La Mancha (Central Spain) using an adaptation of MESMIS methodology.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Data were collected through a survey of 31 dairy sheep farms: the 10 organic ones existing (100%) in the region of Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) and other 21 (84% of existing ones) that had begun the certification process and met more than 80% of the necessary requirements to access the organic certification [6, 15]. The farms in conversion were selected through stratified random sampling with proportional allocation by province, according to the farm size and geographic location, according to Milan et al. . The survey included ques tions on technical, economic and social data and was performed in 2008. The technical data include management, size and level of intensification variables. The economic data covered the main expenses (feed, labor), depreciation (of facilities, machinery and animals), and revenue from the sale of animals, milk and subsidies. Among the social data, the prospect of continued activity and family workforce were high-lighted.
Adaptation of the MESMIS methodology to organic dairy sheep system
The organic dairy sheep system in Castilla La Mancha is based on family labor force, Manchega breed, use of external feeding resources and local agricultural byproducts. The following three sub-systems were characterized by Toro-Mujica et al.  (TABLE I).
--Group I: Family Subsistence System (29% of farms). Where workforce is formed by workers from the owner family, with an average of 56 years old and 36 years working with sheep. The combination of this profile with a low level of education limits their job opportunities outside the sector. Flocks are smaller and stocking rates are the lowest (0.12 livestock units (LU)/ha). The feeding is based on complementing grazing with supplementation on pen (3.6kg /L milk). The average milk productivity is 76 L/sheep year. This group obtains a negative economic result with average outcomes of -49.8[euro] per ewe and year.
--Group II: Semi-Intensive Commercial System (29% of farms). It is characterized for having high levels of investment and driving the sheep indoors most of the year (0.7LU/ha). The feeding base is composed by conserved forages supplemented with concentrates (4.1kg/L milk). Workforce tends to be external (49%), and productivity is medium (0.5WU/100 sheep). All this coupled with high levels of investment and mismanagement of feeding, causes adverse economic results (-38.3[euro] per ewe and year).
--Group III: Family Commercial System (42% of farms). Corresponds to family farms profile with skilled workforce. Flocks are medium size and their management is semi-extensive. Supplementation feed is lower than in the other two groups (2.2 kg/L) due to the importance of herds' grazing in large areas. It presents positive results from the technical and economic points of view with average outcomes of 43.8[euro] per ewe and year.
TABLE II shows the critical points, diagnostic criteria and indicators for each attribute, according to Nahed et al.  and the strategic aspects of organic dairy sheep production . For each indicator, the dimensions of sustainability (economic, social and ecological) to perform its evaluation according to this categorization  have been considered in addition to the attributes. The attributes of stability, reliability and resilience were considered as one, as indicated by Lopez-Ridaura et al. . Through a linkage between attributes, critical points and diagnostic criteria indicators to use were defined. Thus, thirty-five indicators were selected, which represented the attributes of sustainability and its three dimensions together.
Obtained management and sustainability indicators
The measurement of indicators relating to the farm as an unit of measurement was performed by literature review and surveys . Thresholds or benchmarks were determined for each indicator, identifying the maximum possible values and optimal values relating to the sustainability. To obtain the optimum value of each indicator, previously reported data were used, apart from expert opinion and information obtained through surveys. For example, for indicators of economic dependence of subsidies or lamb mortality, the first quartile as optimal level  was considered. Additionally, for expenditure of external or supplementary feeding, 0 values were considered optimal, since what is sought is self-sufficiency in food .
For the evaluation of the indicators, criteria of the AMOEBA (a general method of ecosystem description and assessment) method were used , which transforms the original values of the variables to sustainability indicators of percentage basis. The AMOEBA approach is a model used to visually assess a system's condition relative to an optimal condition. The model is circular with the various indicators positioned around the outside. Lines radiate from the center to the indicators, on a continuum from unsustainable (in the center) to sustainable (the outer ring) . TABLE III shows the transformation methodology of sustainability indicators in variables whose values can range from 0 to 100, where values closer to 100 are indicative of the best or highest sustainability. Next, the indicators were added by two complementary approaches: sustainability attributes and dimensions .
The differences between groups were determined by ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis contrast, according to applicability given by the contrast variance. When the Kruskal-Wallis test was used, in a second step we applied the Mann-Whitney test to check for differences between groups for each variable. Spearman correlations were used to analyze the relationships amongst the original variables inside each group. For the development of statistical analysis SPSS 11.5 was used .
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Grouping of sheep farms by typology allowed to appreciate 22 statistically significant differences (P<0.05) for the original variables and 21 for the indicators (TABLES IV and V).
The breed was eliminated as a variable because it did not show variability (all the flocks showed the same breed). The lack of statistical significance of variables such as education level, stocking rate, equipment and level of supplementation feed per litre, arises from the use of optimal related levels; which giveS rise to the standardization of variables that have higher or superior values to the optimal. In the opposite case, the significant differences in investment indicators per animal and meat productivity come from the selection of an optimum value above the average for all groups, increasing the differences between them.
Gaspar et al.  found that self-reliance for pasture systems in Extremadura (Spain) exceeded 70%. However, the values below 40% of the self-reliance index show a common weakness in the three studied systems (TABLE V). Therefore, they should increase participation in the commercial channel and improve the organization of the productive processes.
Farms in groups I and III are more actively involved in the process of organic production, despite having more difficult access to land (1.7% and 20.2% in groups I and III, respectively) when compared to 50.5% in group II (P<0.05) (TABLE V).
The Family Subsistence System (Group I) presents the highest level of adaptability attribute, while the lowest value (P < 0.05) corresponds to the Semi-Intensive Commercial System (Group II). The Family Commercial System is located in an intermediate position between groups I and II. The variables that affected the adaptability to a greater extent were the subsidies per sheep and per ha (TABLE V). Group I receives lower subsidies (16.4[euro]/ha) mainly for its lower stocking rate (0.1 LU/ha) and flock size (24.9 LU). Group II shows less adaptability (57.5%) due to their larger flock size (138.7 LU) and stocking rate (0.7 LU/ha). This determines a higher level of subsidies (up to 15.3% of total revenues). Finally, group III reaches 61.9% of adaptability; corresponding to intermediate flock size and stocking rate, 72.6 LU and 0.4 LU/ha, respectively. The farmers of group I should carry on producing organic dairy sheep without subsidies because they do not have any other job alternative. The last agrees with Garcia et al. , who found that the opportunity cost of family labor is zero for this production system. Adaptability values are similar to those described by Nahed et al.  in dairy goat (Capra hircus) systems in the south of Spain.
Equity analyzes the system capacity to allocate resources among the involved individuals, both at intra and intergenerational [11, 17]. In this sense, there is a proper relation ship between family labor, productivity and continuity, exceeding the attribute of 72% in the three systems (TABLE V). The three groups did not show differences in the attribute, but in some of the indexes that compose it. Group I is a pure family system (100% of the workforce), with the prospect of continuity in the activity (85.2%), although with a lower productivity (50.9%) of labor per animal, compared to 73.8 in Group II and 76.5% in III (P<0.05). The low labor productivity of Group I is related with the replacement of the deficit technology for labor, as it is showed in the positive correlation between productivity per area and level of investment per hectare (r: 0.49, P =0.0081). In the same way, there is a positive correlation between investment and stocking rate (r: 0.94, P = 0.0005), a relation that has also been pointed out by Castel et al.  in dairy goat systems in poor areas of southern Spain.
Group II presents a smaller percentage of fixed family labor, according to the commercial profile of the farms, although this variable is not correlated within the group, with labor productivity (r: 0.40, P = 0. 1235). Thus, contrary to the expectations, the productivity of external labor is similar to the productivity of family labor. A similar situation was observed by Gaspar et al. .
Analyzing the sustainability from the stability system perspective, values lower than 42% are obtained in each of the groups (TABLE V), similar to that described by Nahed et al.  in dairy goats. According to Masera et al. , the low stability reflects the inability of the system to maintain productivity under normal conditions. This deficiency is due in part to the high dependence of external supplementary feeding, which is 55 to 70% of the feeding cost. Castel et al.  found the same when studied dairy goats in Southern Spain.
At a structural level it is observed that the average area of Group I is 280.2 ha with 88.9% for livestock use, while in Group II farms are of a larger size (371.9 ha) and use 39% as grazing area (TABLES I and IV). There are also significant differences (P < 0.05) between Groups I and II for the pasture indicator area, with values of 66.7 and 32.6%, respectively (TABLE V). Meanwhile, Group III maintains an intermediate situation. The low stocking rate of Group I reveals its pastoral character compared to Groups II and III. Group I seeks the balance between pasture production and livestock nutritional requirements [3, 24]; while Group II combines the sheep activity with cereal and grapevine (indicator of crops is 38.9 vs. 20.3%) using crop residues in feeding sheep . Group II, with more investment per hectare (P<0.05) than group I increases intensification and labor productivity (TABLE IV), This strategy seeks applying economies of scale  to increase production and reduce fixed unit costs, but fails to generate profits (net margin of -0.7[euro]/l). Group III has an intermediate investment level and gets the greatest value on Investment per area indicator (TABLE V).
The productivity index fluctuates between 62.2 and 73.7%, and is dependent on indicators that are grouped into four diagnostic criteria: profitability, resource use, production level and animal management. The variability found for this attribute among the groups analyzed, is less than that reported by Gaspar et al. , and similar to that described by Nahed et al. .
Group I shows a milk productivity of 75.5 l/sheep year, much lower (P<0.05) than those of 103.4 and 108.3 l/sheep a year for groups II and III, respectively (TABLE IV). This results in the indicator values for milk productivity per animal of 62.5% (TABLE V). Moreover, the indicator of meat productions shows differences between groups I, II, and III with values of 80.9, 65.9, and 80.5%, respectively (P < 0.05). The productive performance of Group II is lower and is accentuated by a high mortality rate, reaching 16.9% (TABLE V). Group II corresponds to a semi-intensive system with a high level of feed supplementation (4.1 kg/L) compared to 2.2 kg/Lin Group III, which represent values for the indicator being 60.5 and 69.3%, respectively.
The technical efficiency indicator  shows that Group I has the lowest technical efficiency (55.5%), compared to Groups II and III, having values close to 69.8% (P < 0 05). Both Gaspar et al.  and Perez et al.  found greater heterogeneity in the technical efficiency of meat sheep production systems in Extremadura and Aragon as a result of greater diversity in specificity and structure.
The Net Margin indicator per liter of Group III presents (P < 0.05) higher values (85.6%) compared with those in groups I and II (46.5 and 61.3%, respectively). Group I responds to a maintenance or subsistence and self-employment model, which charges neither the family salary nor depreciation in its accounting; the strategic objective of this group is to generate a living wage for a family unit, as indicated by Giorgis et al.  in grazing dairy systems of the Pampas and Valerio et al.  in small ruminants systems of subsistence in the Dominican Republic.
Group II increases its productivity due to a higher technological level. However, given the heavy reliance on external inputs (food, labor, etc.), these improvements do not allow to reach a positive net margin, and farms register losses. Farms in this group have an uncertain future and their continuity in the activity are at the expense of losing capital (by not accounting depreciation), a finding that is similar to Garcia et al.  in the agroforestry systems of Andalucia.
When comparing the Sustainability in the three systems, TABLE V shows that the differences are explained mainly by the Productivity (P < 0.05) and Adaptability attributes (P < 0.05). Gaspar et al.  reported significant differences for these two attributes, in addition to the Stability attribute. The three systems show low values of the Stability and Self-reliance attributes, while for the Equity attributes values are more elevated, although there were no significant differences among the systems.
The organic dairy sheep systems have a global sustainability level of 58%, by aggregation of the economic, social and environmental (TABLE IV) values similar to those found by Gaspar et al. , in systems with predominance of sheep. There are differences (P < 0.1) between Group II (55.4%) and Group III (59.5%), indicating the viability of the latter in terms of global sustainability.
TABLE V shows the dimensions of the sustainability according to the typology established. The social and economic dimensions have values around 64% with no differences among the systems. The environmental dimension is low (<50%), revealing a critical situation, since the evaluated sys tems are formed by organic and conversion process farms. This problem stems out from an inadequate enforcement of the organic production rules and own deficiencies of standards do not guarantee the sustainability of the system (e.g. 40% of the diet can be concentrate-based, and stocking rate until 2 LU/ha is unable to maintain the systems stability). The differences between Groups II and III show that the Family Commercial system is environmentally sustainable, the Semi-Intensive Commercial system does not respond to the principles of sustainability, going into conflict with the concepts of sustainability and organic production. Family Subsistence system presents a level of sustainability similar to the Family Commercial system, as a result of similar behavior at the economic and environmental sustainability level. Differences between Groups I and III are not significant, although Family Subsistence system (Group I) is important to conserve the agro eco-systems.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The main weakness of organic dairy sheep systems is that they are highly dependent on subsidies, the degree of diversification is low, they have high feeding requirements and biodiversity is low. It is necessary to enhance multi-functionality and complementarity of activities in order to reduce the dependence on farms from a single source of revenue and facilitate self-sufficiency in production inputs.
In organic dairy sheep systems, the family nature of the workforce avoids the abandonment of rural areas and enhances activity continuity. It highlights the effectiveness in managing of resources in Family Commercial systems (Group III) which means less economic vulnerability.
In Family Subsistence (Group I) and Family Commercial systems (Group III), the low percentage of land owned limits the investment, higher production and the development of other agricultural activities. These systems must promote the access of producers to pasture, either publicly or privately ownership, by creating specific rules (use of crop residues for livestock, etc.) or modification of regulations use of natural and protected areas.
The Family Commercial system is the most sustainable globally in both the adaptability and productivity attributes, such as the environmental dimension. This system should improve certain productivity indicators. In the short and medium term indicators related to marketing channels (by increasing active participation in the channel and vertical integration in the production chain), the stability of the workforce and the development of complementary activities should be improved. In the long term, it requires an increased access to land, either owned or for long periods through contractual arrangements.
The lower sustainability of Family Subsistence (Group I) and Semi-Intensive Commercial (Group II) systems is due to mismanagement of resources, which determines less produc tivity and lower margin in relation to the Family Commercial system (Group III).
Family Subsistence system presents low profitability resulting from low investments in both infrastructures and improving grasslands, which do not allow adequate stocking rates and generate low technical efficiency. Sustainability would improve by increasing the productivity of labor and optimization of supplementary feeding especially in the last third of gestation and lactation. In addition, producers must join to racial improvement programs within the Scheme Selection of the Manchego Sheep Breed, and other improvement programs.
The Semi-Intensive Commercial system (Group II) presents an inefficient management of resources, as its high productivity per hectare is derived from a high stocking rate and an excessive level of supplementation per animal. Structural changes are required to reduce both, plus an increasing degree of specialization of labor.
Recibido: 10/06/2014. Aceptado: 23/10/2014.
Authors would like to thank the Spanish International Cooperation Agency (Spanish initials: MAEC-AECI) and the National Commission on Science and Technology (Spanish initials CONICYT) of Chile for financial support received during her postgraduate studies.
 AGUILAR, C.; ALLENDE, R.; MORALES, S. Gestion de sistemas pecuarios. Coleccion en Agricultura. Facultad de Agronomia e Ingenieria Forestal. Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile. Santiago de Chile. Pp. 34. 2003.
 BRINK, B.; HOSPER, S.; COLIJN, F. A quantitative method for description & assessment of ecosystems: The AMOEBA-approach. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 23: 265-270. 1991.
 CABALLERO, R.; FERNANDEZ-SANTOS, X. Grazing institutions in Castilla-La Mancha, dynamic or downward trend in the Spanish cereal-sheep system. Agr. Sys. 101: 69-79. 2009.
 CASTEL, J.M.; MENA, Y.; RUIZ, F.A.; CAMUNEZ-RUIZ, J.; SANCHEZ-RODRIGUEZ, M. Changes occurring in dairy goat production systems in less favoured areas of Spain. Small Rum. Res. 96: 83-92. 2011.
 CASTEL, J.M.; RUIZ, F.A.; MENA, Y.; SANCHEZ-RODRIGUEZ, M. Present situation and future perspectives for goat production systems in Spain. Small Rum. Res. 89: 207-210. 2010.
 COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic
production and labelling of organic produtcs and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91. Ofic. J. of the Europ. Union. L 189/1-L 189/22. 2007.
 FLATEN, O. Alternative rates of structural change in Norwegian dairy farming: impacts on costs of production and rural employment. J. Rural Stud. 18: 429-441. 2002.
 GARCIA, A.; PEREA, J.; ACERO, R.; ANGON, E.; TORO, P.; RODRIGUEZ, V.; GOMEZ-CASTRO, G. Structural characterization of extensive farms in andalusian dehesas. Arch. Zoot. 59: 577-588. 2009.
 GARCIA, P.G.; DIAZ, F.J.M.; SANCHEZ, M.E.; GARCIA, F.P. Assessment of the sustainability in dehesa farms according to size and livestock prevalence. ITEA. 105: 117-141. 2009.
 GASPAR, P.; MESIAS, F.; ESCRIBANO, M.; PULIDO, F. Sustainability in Spanish Extensive Farms (Dehesas): An Economic and Management Indicator-Based Evaluation. Rangeland Ecol. Manag. 62: 153-162. 2009.
 GASPAR, P.; MESIAS, F.J.; ESCRIBANO, M.; PULIDO, F. Assessing the technical efficiency of extensive livestock farming systems in Extremadura, Spain. Livest. Sci. 121: 7-14. 2009.
 GIORGIS, A.; PEREA, J.; GARCIA, A.; GOMEZ, G.; ANGON, E.; LARREA, A. Caracterizacion tecnica-economica y tipologia de las explotaciones lecheras en La Pampa (Argentina) Rev. Cientif. FCV-LUZ. XXI(4): 340-352. 2011.
 GRAS, R. Le Fait technique en agronomie: activite agricole, concepts et methodes d'etude. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique. L'Harmattan, Paris. France. Pp. 45. 1989.
 LOPEZ-RIDAURA, S.; MASERA, O.; ASTIER, M. Evaluating the sustainability of complex socio-environmental systems. The MESMIS framework. Ecol. Indic. 2: 135-148. 2002.
 MINISTERIO DE MEDIO AMBIENTE Y MEDIO RURAL Y MARINO. Estadisticas 2009. Agricultura ecologica. Espana. Pp 48. 2009.
 MASERA, O.; ASTIER, M.; LOPEZ-RIDAURA, S. Sus tentabilidad y manejo de recursos naturales. El marco de evaluacion MESMIS. Grupo Interdisciplinario de tecnologia rural apropiada (GIRA A.C.). Michoacan. Pp. 55-60 1999.
 MEUL, M.; NEVENS, F.; REHEUL, D. Validating sustainability indicators: Focus on ecological aspects of Flemish dairy farms. Ecol. Indic. 9: 284-295. 2009.
 MEUL, M.; VAN PASSEL, S.; NEVENS, F.; DESSEIN, J.; ROGGE, E.; MULIER, A.; VAN HAUWERMEIREN, A. MOTIFS: a monitoring tool for integrated farm sustainability. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 28: 321-332. 2008.
 MILAN, M.J.; ARNALTE, E.; CAJA, G. Economic profitability and typology of Ripollesa breed sheep farms in Spain. Small Rum. Res. 49: 97-105. 2003.
 NAHED, J.; CASTEL, J.M.; MENA, Y.; CARAVACA, F. Appraisal of the sustainability of dairy goat systems in Southern Spain according to their degree of intensification. Liv. Sci. 101: 10-23. 2006.
 NESS, B.; URBEL-PIIRSALUA, E.; ANDERBERGD, S.; OLSSONA, L. Categorising tools for sustainability assessment. Ecol. Econ. 60: 498-508. 2007.
 PEREZ, J.P.; GIL, J.M.; SIERRA, I. Technical efficiency of meat sheep production systems in Spain. Small Rum. Res. 69: 237-241. 2007.
 RIGBY, D.; WOODHOUSE, P.; YOUNG, T.; BURTON, M. Constructing a farm level indicator of sustainable agricultural practice. Ecol. Econ. 39: 463-478. 2001.
 RUIZ, F.A.; CASTEL, J.M.; MENA, Y.; CAMUNEZ, J.; GONZALEZ-REDONDO, P. Application of the tech nico-economic analysis for characterizing, making diagnoses and improving pastoral dairy goat systems in Andalusia (Spain). Small Rum. Res. 77: 208-220. 2008.
 SPSS for Windows. Version 14.0.0. Chicago: SPSS Inc. 2005.
 THOMPSON, P.B.; NARDONE, A. Sustainable livestock production: methodological and ethical challenges. Liv. Prod. Sci. 61: 111-119. 1999.
 TORO-MUJICA, P.; GARCIA, A.; GOMEZ-CASTRO, G.; ACERO, R.; PEREA, J.; RODRIGUEZ-ESTEVEZ, V. Sustentabilidad de agroecosistemas. Arch. Zoot. 60(R): 15-39. 2011.
 TORO-MUJICA, P.; GARCIA, A.; GOMEZ-CASTRO, G.; PEREA, J. RODRIGUEZ-ESTEVEZ, V.; ANGON, E.; BARBA, C. Organic sheep dairy farms in south-central Spain: Typologies according to livestock management and economic variables. Small Rum. Res. 104: 28-36. 2012.
 TORO-MUJICA, P.; GARCIA, A.; GOMEZ-CASTRO, G.; ACERO, R.; PEREA, J.; RODRIGUEZ-ESTEVEZ, V.; AGUILAR, C.; VERA, R. Technical efficiency and viability of organic farming dairy sheep in a traditional area for sheep production in Spain. Small Rum. Res. 100: 89-95. 2011.
 TORO, P.; GARCIA, A.; GOMEZ-CASTRO, G.; PEREA, J.; ACERO, R.; RODRIGUEZ-ESTEVEZ, V. Evaluacion de la sustentabilidad en agroecosistemas. Arch. Zoot. 59(R): 71-94. 2010.
 VALERIO, D.; GARCIA, A.; PEREA, J.; ACERO, R.; GOMEZ, G. Caracterizacion social y comercial de los sistemas ovinos y caprinos de la region noroeste de Republica Dominicana. Intercien. 34: 637-644. 2009.
 VAN CALKER, K.J.; BERENTSEN, P.B.M.; GIESEN, G.W.J.; HUIRNE, R.B.M. Identifying and ranking attributes that determine sustainability in Dutch dairy farming. Agr. Human Values. 22: 53-63. 2005
 VAN DER WERF, H.M.G.; PETIT, J. Evaluation of the environmental impact of agriculture at the farm level: a comparison and analysis of 12 indicator-based methods. Agr. Ecosys. Environ. 93: 131-145. 2002.
 VAN HAUWERMEIREN, S. Indicadores biofisicos de sustentabilidad. Manual de Economia Ecologica. Instituto de Economia Politica, Santiago de Chile. Pp. 131-155. 1998.
 YUNLONG, C.; SMIT, B. Sustainability in agriculture: A general review. Agr. Ecosys. Environ. 49: 299-307. 1994.
Paula Toro-Mujica (1), Anton Garcia (1), Jose Perea (1) *, Carmen de Pablos-Heredero (2), Cecilio Barba (1) y Elena Angon (1)
(1) Animal Production Deparment, University of Cordoba, Campus Rabanales, 14071 Cordoba, Spain. * Tel.: +34957218745 firstname.lastname@example.org. (2) Rey Juan Carlos University, Social Sciences Faculty, Business Organization Department, Paseo de los Artilleros s/n, Madrid 28032, Madrid, Spain
TABLE I DIMENSION VARIABLES OF ORGANIC DAIRY SHEEP SYSTEMS Technical Average Group I Group II variables Flock size (LU) 77.9 24.9 (a) * 138.7 (c) (1) Stocking rate 0.4 0.1 (c) 0.7 (a) (LU/ha) (1) Farm surface 359.2 280.2 371.9 area (ha) Agricultural 109.2 12.4 203.8 area (ha) Grassland area 227.4 267 165.8 (ha) Supplementary 3.1 3.6 (ab) 4.1 (a) feed consumption (kg/L) Milk production 97.4 75.5 (b) 103.5 (a) (L/ewe per year) Total 528.0 202.5 (a) 801.6 (c) production of lambs (lambs sold/year) Economic variables Lamb sales 47.2 50,2 39,5 income ([euro]/ ewe/year) Milk sales 97.4 75.5 (b) 103.5 (a) income ([euro]/ ewe/year) Gross margin -7.2 -49,8 (b) -38,3 (b) ([euro]/ewe/ year) Family unit 53.6 41,8 (b) 34,6 (c) gross income ([euro]/ewe per year) Family unit 0.53 0,56 (a) 0,26 (b) gross income ([euro]/L) Social variables Responsible age 46.8 56.1 (a) 45.0 (b) (years) Experience of 25.0 36.1 (a) 22.0 (b) activity (years) Family labour 83.3 100.0 (a) 51.9 (b) (%) Technical Group III P variables Flock size (LU) 72.6 (b) 0.00 (1) Stocking rate 0.4 (b) 0.00 (LU/ha) (1) Farm surface 404.9 0.55 area (ha) Agricultural 110.5 0.11 area (ha) Grassland area 242.1 0.59 (ha) Supplementary 2.2 (b) 0.03 feed consumption (kg/L) Milk production 108.3 (a) 0.03 (L/ewe per year) Total 565.5 (b) 0.00 production of lambs (lambs sold/year) Economic variables Lamb sales 50,4 0,17 income ([euro]/ ewe/year) Milk sales 108.3 (a) 0.03 income ([euro]/ ewe/year) Gross margin 43,8 (a) 0,00 ([euro]/ewe/ year) Family unit 74,9 (a) 0,00 gross income ([euro]/ewe per year) Family unit 0,71 (a) 0,00 gross income ([euro]/L) Social variables Responsible age 40.9 (b) 0.00 (years) Experience of 18.6 (b) 0.01 activity (years) Family labour 93.4 (a) 0.00 (%) (1) Livestock Unit. * Values with different letters on the same row are different (P < 0.05). TABLE II ATTRIBUTES, CRITICAL POINTS AND INDICATORS SELECTED IN THE CASE STUDIED Attributes Critical Diagnostic points criterion Self-reliance No organized Liquidity or marketing cash-flow channels Reduced Membership association level Few land Risk owned Adaptability High Risk dependence of subsidies Low income Risk resources Inadequate Improving technical capacity management Educational Education level Equity Generation Employment of fix labor generation Abandon of Continuity farms High Dependency dependency of the of the exploitation activity Low labor Intensification productivity per animal Intensification per area Stability, High Purchase of reliability and dependency inputs resilience of external resources Grassland area Intensification Low Investment investment on capital goods Low Breeds biological diversity Species Cultivated species Productivity High economic Profitability vulnerability of the activity Inadequate Intensification management of resources use Efficiency Inadequate Lamb mortality technical management Goat replacement Attributes Critical Indicators Unit points Self-reliance No organized Participation of No. marketing intermediates channels Reduced Workers unions No. association level Few land Level of OA/TA (1) owned own land Adaptability High Subsidies [euro]/ha dependence per hectare of subsidies Subsidies [euro]/ewe per ewe Dependency IS/TI (2) of subsidies Low income Activities No. resources Inadequate Females/male technical ratio management Equipment No. Educational Education and level training Equity Generation Percentage of FL/TL (3) of fix labor fix labor Percentage of FFL/TL (4) fix labor from the owner family Abandon of Perception of -- farms continuity High People depending No. dependency on the activity of the activity Low labor Labor productivity AWU/ (5) productivity per animal 100 sheep (5) Labor productivity AWU/100 ha (5) per area Stability, High Cost pen feeding CPF/TEF (6) reliability and dependency resilience of external resources Grassland area GA/TA (7) Stocking rate LU/ha (8) Low Investment [euro]/ha investment per area on capital goods Investment [euro]/ewe per animal Low Sheep breeds No. biological exploited diversity Shannon index -- Number of No. species Productivity High economic Net margin/ [euro]/L vulnerability liter milk of the produced activity Net margin/ [euro]/AWU (5) Annual work units Net margin/ [euro]/ha hectare Inadequate Milk production L/ha management per area of resources use Milk production L/ewe per animal Supplementary Kg/L feed per liter milk produced Supplementary Kg/ewe feed per ewe Technical % efficiency Meat Kg of productivity lamb/ewe Inadequate Lamb mortality DL/BL (9) technical management Goat replacement rate Attributes Critical Dimension1 (10) points Self-reliance No organized E marketing channels Reduced S association level Few land S owned Adaptability High E dependence of subsidies E E Low income E resources Inadequate M technical management E Educational S level Equity Generation S of fix labor S Abandon of S farms High S dependency of the activity Low labor S productivity S Stability, High M reliability and dependency resilience of external resources M M Low E investment on capital goods E Low M biological diversity M M Productivity High economic E vulnerability of the activity E E Inadequate M management of resources use E M M E E Inadequate E technical management E (1) Own area/Total area, (2) Inputs from subsidies/Total inputs, (3) Fix labor/Total labor, (4) Fix familiar labor/Fix labor, (5) Annual Work Unit, (6) Cost pen feeding /Total feed cost, (7) Grasssland area/Total area, (8) Livestock Unit, (9) Dead lambs/ Born lambs, (10) Dimension: E: Economic, M: Environmental, S: Social. TABLE III ADAPTATION OF AMOEBA METHODOLOGY Optimal value chosen Expression Maximum VI (1)/VO (2) * 100 Minimum VO/VI *100 Percentile or mean value with indicator VI/VO * 100 value lower than optimum Percentile or mean value with indicator VO/VI *100 value higher than optimum (1) VI: Indicator value, (2) VO: Optimal value. TABLE IV MEAN VALUES OF ORIGINAL VARIABLES, OPTIMAL VALUES AND CRITERION USED Attributes Variable T (1) Adaptability Subsidies A per ewe ([euro]/ ewe/year) Subsidies A per ha ([euro]/ ha/year) Dependence A on subsidies (% of total incomes) Activities A (No.) Equipments A (No.) Ratio A females/ male Education A Self- Participating A management intermediates (No.) A Worker unions (No.) Own land K (%) Equity Fix labor A (%) Fix family A labor (%) Perception A of continuity Dependent A people (No.) Labor A productivity (AWU/100 sheep) (2) Labor A productivity (AWU/100 ha) (2) Stability Cost pen A feeding (%) Grassland A area (%) Stocking A rate (LU/ha) Investment A per area ([euro]/ ha) Investment A per animal ([euro]/ sheep) Sheep -- breeds (No.) Shannon A index Species K cultivated (No.) Productivity Net A margin/ liter milk produced Net A margin/ AWU ([euro]/ AWU) (2) Net A margin/ hectare ([euro]/ ha) Milk A productivity (l/ha) Milk A productivity (l/ewe) Supplementary A feed level (kg/L) Supplementary A feed level (kg/ewe/ year) Technical A efficiency (%) Meat A productivity (kg of lamb/ewe) Lamb A mortality (%) Replacement A rate (%) Attributes Variable Group I II III Adaptability Subsidies 22.2 (a) 23.9 (ab) 26.0 (b) per ewe ([euro]/ ewe/year) Subsidies 16.4 (a) 108.2 (b) 56.6 (ab) per ha ([euro]/ ha/year) Dependence 13.5 15.3 13.3 on subsidies (% of total incomes) Activities 1.3 1.2 1.2 (No.) Equipments 7.7 (a) 6.7 (b) 6.5 (a) (No.) Ratio 52.5 55.0 47.4 females/ male Education 2.3 (b) 1.4 (a) 2.2 (b) Self- Participating 0.7 0.9 0.9 management intermediates (No.) 0.8 (b) 0.2 (a) 0.8 (b) Worker unions (No.) Own land 1.7 (a) 50.5 (b) 20.2 (b) (%) Equity Fix labor 100.0 (b) 86.7 (ab) 74.0 (a) (%) Fix family 100.0 (b) 64.8 (a) 81.5 (ab) labor (%) Perception 2.6 2.9 2.6 of continuity Dependent 3.4 4.8 4.5 people (No.) Labor 0.7 (b) 0.5 (ab) 0.3 (a) productivity (AWU/100 sheep) (2) Labor 0.7 (ab) 2.6 (b) 0.6 (a) productivity (AWU/100 ha) (2) Stability Cost pen 55.8 66.7 69.4 feeding (%) Grassland 88.9 (b) 39.1 (a) 63.9 (ab) area (%) Stocking 0.1 (a) 0.7c 0.7 (b) rate (LU/ha) Investment 186.8 (a) 1623.6 (b) 782.9 (ab) per area ([euro]/ ha) Investment 241.6 305.7 282.9 per animal ([euro]/ sheep) Sheep 1.0 1.0 1.0 breeds (No.) Shannon 0.0 0.1 0.1 index Species 1.2 (a) 2.3 (b) 2.5 (b) cultivated (No.) Productivity Net -1.2 (a) -0.7 (a) 0.2 (b) margin/ liter milk produced Net -8115 (a) -16836 (a) 8268 (b) margin/ AWU ([euro]/ AWU) (2) Net -42.2 (ab) -446.4 (a) 114.5 (b) margin/ hectare ([euro]/ ha) Milk 49.6 (a) 437.2 (b) 271.0 (ab) productivity (l/ha) Milk 75.5 (a) 103.4 (b) 108.3 (b) productivity (l/ewe) Supplementary 3.6 (ab) 4.1 (b) 2.2 (a) feed level (kg/L) Supplementary 226.0 (a) 386.5 (b) 229.4 (a) feed level (kg/ewe/ year) Technical 55.5 (a) 71.7 (b) 69.8 (b) efficiency (%) Meat 14.9 11.9 14.7 productivity (kg of lamb/ewe) Lamb 11.8 16.9 10.8 mortality (%) Replacement 21.6 19.0 22.1 rate (%) Attributes Variable Optimal Criterion value Adaptability Subsidies 23.2 C25 per ewe ([euro]/ ewe/year) Subsidies 17.6 C25 per ha ([euro]/ ha/year) Dependence 11.5 C25 on subsidies (% of total incomes) Activities 3.0 Max (No.) Equipments 7.0 C50 (No.) Ratio 25 Rec (3) females/ male Education 2.0 C75 Self- Participating 0.0 Min management intermediates (No.) 2.0 Max Worker unions (No.) Own land 100 Max (%) Equity Fix labor 100 Max (%) Fix family 100 Max labor (%) Perception 3.0 Max of continuity Dependent 4.0 C50 people (No.) Labor 0.3 C50 productivity (AWU/100 sheep) (2) Labor 0.5 C50 productivity (AWU/100 ha) (2) Stability Cost pen 0.0 Min feeding (%) Grassland 75.0 Rec area (%) Stocking 0.2 C50 rate (LU/ha) Investment 695.7 P75 per area ([euro]/ ha) Investment 320.1 P75 per animal ([euro]/ sheep) Sheep 2.0 Rec breeds (No.) Shannon 1.5 Max index Species 6.0 Max cultivated (No.) Productivity Net 0.6 C75 margin/ liter milk produced Net 5831 C75 margin/ AWU ([euro]/ AWU) (2) Net 41.7 C75 margin/ hectare ([euro]/ ha) Milk 94.6 C50 productivity (l/ha) Milk 120.7 C75 productivity (l/ewe) Supplementary 2.15 C25 feed level (kg/L) Supplementary 185.9 C25 feed level (kg/ewe/ year) Technical 100.0 Max efficiency (%) Meat 16.6 P75 productivity (kg of lamb/ewe) Lamb 5.5 C25 mortality (%) Replacement 20.0 Rec rate (%) Values with different letters (a, b, c) on the same row are different (P < 0.05). (1) A: ANOVA, K: Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney for independent samples. (3) Annual work unit. (3) Recommended values. TABLE V INDICATORS OF SUSTAINABILITY (%) PER TYPOLOGY GROUPS Indicator, attribute or Groups dimension (%) I II III Adaptability 66.1 (b) 57.5 (a) 61.9 (ab) Subsidies per ewe 44.8 (b) 35.6 (ab) 29.8 (a) Subsidies per ha 69.8 (b) 27.7 (a) 58.8 (b) Dependence on subsidies 86.0 74.8 83.2 Activities 44.4 40.7 41.0 Equipments 91.6 89.2 87.2 Ratio female/male 53.7 51.3 58.2 Education level 72.2 83.3 75.6 Self -management 35.7 39.1 37.5 Participating intermediates 66.7 55.6 53.8 Workers unions 38.9 (b) 11.1 (a) 38.5 (b) Own land 1.7 (a) 50.5 (b) 20.2 (b) Equity 79.9 73.1 72.4 Fix labor 100.0 (b) 86.7 (ab) 74.0 (a) Fix family labor 100 (b) 64.8 (a) 81.5 (ab) Perception of continuity 85.2 92.3 87.2 Dependent people 73.0 71.9 60.9 Labor productivity per animals 50.9 (a) 73.8 (b) 76.5 (b) Labor productivity per area 70.1 (b) 45.0 (a) 54.6 (ab) Stability 40.9 41.5 38.9 Cost pen feeding 44.3 33.3 30.6 Grassland area 66.7 (b) 32.6 (a) 53.7 (ab) Sheep stocking rate 56.5 42.6 60.7 Investment per area 26.8 (a) 28.1 (a) 59.8 (b) Investment per ewe 72.0 (b) 79.3 (b) 54.9 (a) Shannon index 0.0 4.4 3.6 Species cultivated 20.3 (a) 38.9 (b) 41.0 (b) Productivity 65.6 (a) 62.2 (a) 73.7 (b) Net margin per liter 46.5 (a) 61.3 (a) 85.6 (b) milk produced Net margin per AWU (1) 58.4 (a) 51.4 (a) 71.0 (b) Net margin per hectare 65.9 49.2 57.3 Milk productivity per area 52.5 (ab) 33.7 (a) 61.4 (b) Milk productivity per ewe 62.5 (a) 81.8 (b) 79.6 (b) Supplementation level per liter 57.1 60.5 69.3 Supplementary feed 74.4 (b) 51.2 (a) 67.7 (b) level per ewe Technical efficiency 55.5 (a) 71.7 (b) 69.8 (b) Meat productivity 80.9 (b) 65.9 (a) 80.5 (b) Lamb mortality 88.1 83.1 89.3 Replacement rate 79.6 73.9 78.8 Global sustainability 59.3 (ab) 55.4 (a) 59.5 (b) Economic sustainability 64.9 62.5 65.6 Social sustainability 65.7 64.8 63.2 Environmental sustainability 47.3 (ab) 38.7 (a) 49.6 (b) Values with different letters (a, b, c) are different (P<0.05). 1. Annual Work Unit.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||articulo en ingles|
|Author:||Toro-Mujica, Paula; Garcia, Anton; Perea, Jose; de Pablos-Heredero, Carmen; Barba, Cecilio; Angon, E|
|Publication:||Revista Cientifica de la Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias|
|Date:||Nov 1, 2014|
|Previous Article:||Desempeno productivo de cerdas Yorkshire puras y cruzadas en una granja comercial de Venezuela.|
|Next Article:||En defensa del condes.|