Agricultural Systems, Vol. 56, No. 4, pp.

443465, 1998
0 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd
All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain
PII: SO308-521X(97)00059-0 0308-521X/98 $19.00 + 0.00
ELSEVIER

Why Energy Productivity is Increasing: An I-O Analysis of

Swedish Agriculture

Hans-Erik Uhlin

Department of Economics, SLU, Uppsala, Sweden

(Received 3 April 1997; accepted 1 August 1997)

ABSTRACT

A combination of process and I-O analyses is used to investigate relation-

ships between several kinds of energy uses, product compositions and tech-
nical change in Swedish agriculture. Estimates are based on comparisons of
three development stages in the transition periodfrom 1956 to 1993. Energy
productivity has changed dramatically. Cash crops and non-ruminant ani-
mals have been more eficient in their use of support energy, compared to
other farm sectors; all sectors have increased their solar energy productiv-
ity. Support energy from fertilisers is increasingly a major contributor to
solar energy productivity giving 20 k Wh biomass per k Wh input. Manure
has become marginal as a substitute for external energy inputs through
fertiliser. Transforming a larger population of produced biomass to useful
products outside agriculture, changing from ruminants to non-ruminants
production or finding fuel uses of manure will increase energy productivity
and sustainability. Contradictions with recent analyses of energy or sus-
tainability may be explained by dtflerences in the perceived influences of
technical and structural change or earlier incomplete systems approaches.
0 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

INTRODUCTION

Concern for lack of future energy resources is a basis for suggestions that the
developed countries should change their food consumption pattern. This is
further compounded by the combined effect of a growing use of energy per
unit of food and an increasing population (Odum, 1971; Pimentel et al.,
1973, 1975; Steinhart and Steinhart, 1974; Chancellor and Goss, 1976;
443
444 H.-E. Uhlin

Loomis and Connor, 1992). It is generally agreed that plant products use much
less solar energy per unit of food energy than animal products. Still there is a
lack of data for more precise statements about the energy efficiency of dif-
ferent products. In primary agriculture such statements are obscured due to
complex energy relations, different production systems and product compo-
sitions. Recent studies have pointed out the importance of recognising tech-
nological changes for evaluating the dependence on energy use (Balwinder
and Fluck, 1993; Bonny, 1993; Cleveland, 1995; Uhlin and Hoffman, 1995;
Uhlin, 1997a,b). Technological developments evolve over long time periods
especially as fine tuning and learning by doing are major contributors to
productivity changes (Rosenberg, 1982; Rosenberg, 1994). This indicates the
importance of evaluating the performance of a system through a careful
study over time to analyze the following questions:
?? What effect have structural and technological change on energy use for
different agricultural products?
?? What differences are there in dependence on support and solar energy
for different agricultural products?
?? Are there grounds for re-evaluating earlier common wisdom of energy
productivity and thus change our judgements about how food compo-
sitions will influence energy sustainability in agriculture?
?? What directions of future research and agricultural policy will support
better energy sustainability in technological agriculture?
Opinions on future energy resources available for society and energy pro-
ductivity of different agricultural systems are crucial. The following state-
ment from Spedding et al. (1981) is typical.
Even so, the single most important aspect of agricultural efficiency in the
future is likely to be that of energy use and it is probable that the biological
efficiency with which energy, solar and non-solar, is utilised for the total
production of agricultural outputs will be the most important of the effi-
ciency ratios with which we are concerned (Spedding et al., 1981).
It is not clear how such a statement should be interpreted for policy and
research in agriculture and investment decisions in both farming and food
industries. There is a need for detailed energy analyses of major product
groups in agriculture to handle complex systems relating to several kinds of
energy uses and technical change.
Energy for food supply of a growing population has been a theme since the
oil crisis in the early 1970s and has resulted in a number of studies on the
increasing dependence of energy use in agriculture. Some pioneering studies
(Pimentel et al., 1973; Herendeen and Bullard, 1974; Hirst, 1974; Steinhart
and Steinhart, 1974; Leach, 1976) focused on the increasing use of fossil fuels.
The standard conclusion in most of these studies is that energy productivity
 Why energy productivity is increasing: an I-O analysis of Swedish agriculture 445

(index of output divided by index of support inputs all measured in energy

terms) is decreasing, which makes agriculture vulnerable to increasing oil
prices.
Recent studies have illustrated a shift during the 1980s from a decreasing
to an increasing energy productivity in agriculture (Balwinder and Fluck,
1993; Bonny, 1993; Cleveland, 1995). Several authors have indicated that the
need for support energy is different dependent on product. High protein food
such as milk, meat and egg need much more energy inputs than plant foods
(Cox and Atkins, 1979; Spedding et al., 1981; Loomis and Connor, 1992;
Francis and Madden, 1993). The possibility for a more vegetarian food
composition also seems to have gained support by the much lower need for
protein in modern societies (Pimentel et al., 1975; Chancellor and Goss, 1976).
It is also suggested that if animal products are to be used, ruminants are
preferred to non-ruminants, as the former use feed that could not be used by
humans (Committee on Agricultural Production Efficiency, 1975; Pimentel et
al., 1975; Edwards et al., 1993; Francis and Madden, 1993). The combination
of feed from fodder crops and manure from animals is suggested to make
agriculture less dependent on support energy. Therefore a consumption shift
to more plant and ruminant products will jointly make agriculture more
sustainable (Chancellor and Goss, 1976; Edwards et al., 1993; Francis and
Madden, 1993); however new evidence questions these conclusions. It has
been shown that Swedish intensive agriculture is more energy productive
than low-input and self-sufficient systems (Uhlin and Hoffman, 1995; Uhlin,
1996a,b). A common problem for most energy studies is the lack of relevant
in-depth data for all kinds of inputs and continuous time serial data.
This study is an attempt to bring these subjects forward by a comprehensive
comparison of three development stages in the transition of conventional
agriculture during the period 1956 to 1993. Used data originates from a
complete study of Swedish agriculture for three situations representing agri-
culture in the beginning of a rapid mechanisation and specialisation (1956),
just before the start of the oil crises (1972) and a more mature technological
agriculture (1993).
Several studies show that energy-related technical changes are biased and
sensitive to changing price relations (Lopez and Tung, 1982; Gopalakrishnan
et al., 1989; Debertin et al., 1990; Balwinder and Fluck, 1993). The methods
used in these studies are limited to statistical records and do not explicitly
show the energy relations involved. More detailed analyses of input-output
energy relations in different agricultural systems are needed. Techniques and
justifications for energy analyses are suggested (Bullard and Herendeen,
1975; Hannon et al., 1986; Fluck, 1997) and applied to agro-ecosystems
(Zucchetto and Bickle, 1984). More detailed analysis of input-output rela-
tions will be of assistance in settling debates about not only the energy
446 H.-E. Uhlin

productivity of different inputs but also energy intensity relations for crop-
animal and ruminants-non-ruminants. In this study these suggestions are
applied through a combination of process and input-output analyses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All inputs, internal turnovers and outputs have been estimated for Swedish
agriculture in 1956, 1972 and 1993. These estimates are based on three-year
averages for each period in order to be representative of normal conditions
for three development stages in the transition of conventional Swedish agri-
culture. Calculations are based on a combination of published data and
complementary studies (Uhlin et al., 1975; Uhlin and Hoffman, 1995).
Special emphasis has been made to check if the sums of estimated details are
consistent with known statistics. Energy requirements for each input and
period are based on a wide range of other energy studies and complementary
inquires among firms and organisations to establish conservative estimates.
Chosen periods were assumed to represent agriculture:
?? (1956). The beginning of a rapid mechanisation and specialisation.
Swedish agriculture can be characterised as a combination of traditional
practices based on manpower and animal traction with newly intro-
duced mechanisation and electrification. Farms are very small and still
highly diversified.
?? (1972). Just before the start of the oil crises. Agriculture was fully
mechanised with farms still rather small and practices based on price
expectations of labour becoming relatively expensive and energy
becoming relatively cheap. Further, the process of farm specialisation
was at the first stage of completion.
?? (1993). A more mature, specialised, mechanised and fully fertiliser-
based system. Most small-scaled farms are hobby- or part-time based.
Production is dominated by a small number of well-established specia-
lised farm firms and price expectations are based on rather stable and
fixed relations between most inputs. Profit margins are primarily based
on the management of capital and purchases as these expenses add up
to over 70% of the gross farm income.
Intensive agriculture is a complex system characterised by a combination
of solar energy and support energy. In addition there are several important
internal relations as well among as within plant and animal enterprises. Due
to economies of scale a number of activities for the making of means of
production have moved out of the primary sector and become industrial
sectors by their own. The analyses were done in three steps. Firstly a model
 Why energy productivity is increasing: an I-O analysis of Swedish agriculture 441

of the primary agricultural sector was constructed (Fig. 1). A simplified ver-
sion of systems symbols is used to make the relevant parts of the model more
accessible. This model shows resource flows into, within and out from the
sector. All flows were identified in physical, monetary and energy values.
Nutrients for plant production and processed feed for animal production
were considered of special interest. These activities are presented separately
to make evident the resource flows related to structural and technological
changes. For supply of nutrients, this was done by combining the internal
flows of manure with the external supply of fertilisers into a joint activity.
For processed feed, this was done by keeping external agricultural and pro-
cessing inputs apart from other inputs (arrows 5 and 6 in Fig. 1) and home
grown feed delivery (arrow lo), apart from other feed uses.
Plant production was divided into two groups of activities; cash crops and
fodder. The first group contains all grain, oil seed, potatoes, sugar beets and
alike. The second group contains grass, hay and other fodder crops. For
animal production four groups of activities were constructed. Milk and beef
is the joint produce from the keeping of milk cows, including milk and all
related meat production, horses represent drought animals and other ani-
mals are the combination of produce from specialised beef, sheep, broiler
and hen. Each group of activities includes total necessary stock for main-
taining the stock such as, reproduction (except insemination that is an entry
in indirect energy inputs). Each subgroup will from hereon be presented as a
farm sector.
Secondly data from other sources of process analyses and own simplified
process analyses were used to establish energy values on all inputs to each farm
sector. These estimates were based on physical data for almost all inputs
including all sources from mining through to final delivery, maintenance and
services during use. No explicit energy value of scrap from worn out
machinery is shown but was included through their effects on energy use in
processing the next generation parallel to recycling and uses of scrap iron. In
a few cases it was necessary to transfer economic data to an energy value.
Thirdly an input-output model was used to establish the system interde-
pendencies between farm sectors and links to inputs into and outputs from
agriculture. This made it possible to convert different inputs, measured in
energy values, to unit energy requirements of each farm sector following the
techniques and justifications made (Bullard and Herendeen, 1975; Hannon et
al., 1986; Fluck, 1997). The different categories considered were; solar, direct
(fuels and electricity), indirect (real capital, purchases and services), manure
and fertiliser and processed feed energy. Using the specifications made by
Zuchetto and Bickle (1984) the I-O model applied was;

&?k
= Ek(X - x>-
 1. Solar radiation 7.5* 106 kWh/ha and year.

2,7. Inputs from fossil origins and electricity used directly by

machinery, heating and power.

3,8. Sum of primary energy use for processing purchased and

real capital inputs.
crop products
17-
45. Sum of direct and direct energy use in the processing of
commercial fertilisers and animal feed (including
agricultural use).

E 6. Calorific energy content of biomass in imported feed.

N
T 9. Calorific energy content of biomass left on, or returned to
fields as straw, unharvested grass residual, spill and seed.
:
10. Calorific energy content of biomass in delivered grain
L
and oil seed used for feed processing.
L
A 11. Calorific energy content in feed stuff for animals outside
B agriculture.
L
E 12. ICalorific energy content of biomass in delivered feed stuff
directly from plant production to animals.
I
N 13. Energy valuation of horse labour.

14. Energy valuation of manure.

rJ
Animal products
T . 15. Sum of notes 4 and 14.
?? Milkand beef 8
S
a Other animal 16. Sum of notes 5,6 and 10.

17, 18. Calorific energy content of biomass in products delivered

for food and other purposes outside agriculture.

Fig. 1. A model of energy flows and conversion in Swedish primary agriculture. Adapted from Odum (1970). Numerical key explanations are
listed above.
 Why energy productivity is increasing: an I-O analysis of Swedish agriculture 449

where Ek = row vector (1 xn) of energy input of type k into each farm sec-
tor; X=(nxn) matrix of flows among farm sectors; %=(nxn) diagonal
matrix of total outputs from each farm sector; &= row vector (1 xn) of
embodied energy coefficient for each type of energy and output.
Energy requirements for each input were based on estimates relevant for
each period to account for technical and structural changes between supply
sectors and agriculture. Energy values were based on careful estimates
including all direct and indirect uses of energy and the original source of
energy. This means, for example, that electricity based on nuclear power has
been traced from the outlet back through the energy use of distribution,
transformation and mining. Thus the outlet measure has been transformed
to a gross energy use that is equivalent to the change of energy quality in the
original uranium, following the principle meaning of entropy loss.
There were no complete and continuous statistical sources available for the
kind of estimates sought for in this study. Neither are there any formal sta-
tistical model for making estimates. Evidently a choice had to be made
between an approach based on available continuous sources and formal
statistical methods, versus an approach where different statistical sources
and own estimates based on available process knowledge were put together
in accordance to the objectives of the study. This is a matter of a choice
between on one side using more exact sources and formal models, but getting
a rather incomplete (or even inaccurate) coverage of the topic and on the
other side, a more complete and accurate coverage, but lack of formal
methods of testing the results. In this study the latter approach was used.
Energy flows estimated are of three main types; solar-energy, energy con-
tent in agricultural outputs and support energy.
Solar energy is defined as energy in solar beams reaching agricultural land
in rotation during growing season. Growing season is defined as the period
when average temperature is above + 3 Celsius. The average solar energy in
Sweden is 65 000 cal cmp2 or 7.5x lo6 kWh ha-.
Energy contents in outputs are measured as the sum of calorific value of
the products contained in the farm sectors defined.
Support energy is related to controllable inputs to agriculture and the fol-
lowing specifications were used. All energy values on support energy were
based on the concept of primary energy (US Department of Energy, 1995)
which is defined as the amount of energy delivered to an end user, adjusted
for the energy that is lost in the generation, transmission, and distribution of
the energy. Furthermore a distinction was made between direct and indirect
energy. Direct energy for agriculture would be all inputs that are directly
used, as electricity and fuels and measured as primary direct energy (PDE).
Indirect energy was measured as the energy embodied in all other inputs
except land and labour. Tracking back of all energy inputs that have been
450 H.-E. Uhlin

made in earlier stages of the making of an input, say a tractor (extraction of

raw materials, manufacturing etc), will sum up to a measure of indirect
energy. Considering primary energy requirements this will be a measure of
primary indirect energy @IDE). Gross energy requirement (GER) in agri-
culture is thus the sum of PDE and PIDE.
All measures in the E matrix (Table 2) are in GER except for processed
feed where energy values are the sum of calorific contents of feed and, esti-
mated GER for energy use in primary agricultural related to imported feed
plus feed processing.
All measures in the X matrix (Table 2) are calorific values except for
manure outputs (arrow 14) which are measured as an opportunity cost. This
was done by estimating the GER for fertilisers necessary to substitute the
nutrient content of manure. For horses an opportunity cost was estimated as
the net energy value (calorific content minus support energy inputs) of bio-
mass foregone when feeding the horses. The rationale for using an opportu-
nity cost approach for these two activities, is that these inputs should have an
energy value and that these values should reflect an operational and available
alternative. By applying this method it was also possible to illustrate the
effects of technical and structural change.
A summary of estimated energy flows into and out from agriculture is
presented in Table 1. These aggregated figures were distributed to the defined
farm sectors as presented in Table 2(a)-(c).
The figures in Table 2 were used in the I-O model to get the energy pro-
ductivity measures for each period and farm sector. As an example the
matrices used for 1956 is shown in Table 3.
The Ek matrice for 1956 is simple the figures in matrix E1gs6.

TABLE 1
Energy Flows in Agriculture Measured in Gross Energy (TWh)

Row 1993 1972 1956

Outputs TWh
1 Animal products 5.2 (26%) 4.9 (29%) 5.2 (36%)
Plant products
2 for food uses 11.5 (57%) 11 (65.5%) 8.2 (57%)
3 for non-food uses 3.5 (17%) 0.9 (5.5%) 1 (7%)
4 Total product 20.2 (100%) 16.8 (100) 14.4 (100)
5 Inputs TWh
6 Direct energy 7.9 5.3 4,4
7 Real capital 4.7 6.8 4.7
8 Commodities 4.5 9.1 5.9
9 Services 0.67 1.05 0.55
10 Subtotal inputs 17.77 22.25 15.55
11 Land/solar energy 23 300 25 300 32 000
12 Labour (million manhours) 90x 106 190x 106 510x 106
 Why energy productivity is increasing: an I-O analysis of Swedish agriculture 451

TABLE 2
Matrix X1sxx Shows Estimated Energy Flows Among Farms Sectors, Export and Total
Output of Products. Matrix E1sxx Shows Estimated Energy Values of Inputs for Each Farm
Sector. All Values are TWh. (See Fig. 1 and text for explanation of how figures are estimated)

a. Agriculture 1.956
Matrix Xi9s6

From\ To (I) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Export Total output

(1) Cash cropsL 4.39 3.4 1.34 11.2 2.15 1.15 10% 34.51
(2) FoddeP 4.51 3.54 2.8 25.6 0 0.1 0.7 37.3
(3) Horse@ 1.1 0.66 0 0.24 0 0 0.16 2.16
(4) Milk and beef 0 0 0 0 0.26 0 5.27 5.53
(5) Pork 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
(6) Other animalC 0 00 000 0.27 0.27

Matrix E1ss6

From\ To (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Direct energyd PDI 2.95 0.99 0.12 0.24 0.08 0.05

Indirect energyP PIDE 2.83 1.55 0.1 0.81 0.1 0.04
Manure and fertilised 4.78 1.39 0 0 0 0
Processed feed 0 0 0.11 1.61 254 1.16
Solar radiationh 16320 15680 0 0 0 0

b. Agriculture 1972
Matrix X1972

From\ To (1) (2) 13) (4) (5) (6) Export Total output

(1) Cash crops 15.36 8.12 0.2 11.9 3.8 0.96 17.58 57.84
(2) Fodder 4.85 2.57 0.2 21.7 0 0.8 0.7 30.82
(3) Horses 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.21
(4) Milk and beef 0 0 0 0 0.26 0 4.42 4.86
(5) Pork 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 1.5
(6) Other animal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0.4

Matrix E1972

From\To (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Direct energy PDI 2.36 1.51 0.05 0.73 0.49 0.18

Indirect energy PIDE 5.5 1.41 0.05 1.1 0.2 0.05
Manure and ferriliser 6.47 1.17 0 0 0 0
Processed feed 0 0 0.12 2.78 4.72 3.35
Solar radiation 15 433 9867 0 0 0 0

(continued)
452 H.-E. Uhlin

Table 2-contd
c. Agriculture 1993
Matrix Xiws

From\ To (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Export Total output

(1) Cash crops 11.23 8.2 0.1 7 3 0.75 20.8 51.08

(2) Fodder 8.83 644 0.1 0.19 0 1 1.5 36.87
(3) Horses 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.21
(4) Milk and beef 0 0 0 0 0.26 0 3.7 3.96
(5) Pork 0 00 000 1.46 1.46
(6) Other animal 0 00 000 0.48 0.48

Matrix Ei9a3

From\ To (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Direct energy PDI 3.1 1.96 0.05 1.69 0.83 0.28

Indirect energy PIDE 2.49 2.57 0.05 0.97 0.4 0.07
Manure and fertiliser 1.9 1.1 0 0 0 0
Processed feed 0 0 0.11 4.88 3.07 1.94
Solar radiation 11 880 11 420 0 0 0 0

a Arrows 9 (columns 1 and 2) 12 (columns 3, 4, 5 and 6), 10, 11 and 17 (column export) in
Fig. 1.
*Arrows 13 (columns 1 and 2) and 14 (column export) in Fig. 1.
Arrows 14 and 18 in Fig. 1.
dArrows 2 and 7 in Fig. 1.
Arrows 3 and 8 in Fig. 1.
fArrow 15 (sum of arrow 4 and opportunity cost transformed arrow 14) in Fig. 1.
gArrow 16 (sum of arrows 5, 6 and 10) in Fig. 1.
hArrow 1 in Fig. 1.

TABLE 3
The 6x6 Matrice of Outputs and Flows Between Farm Sectors

(a) Total outputs from each farm sector (see column 8, Table 2)
34.51 0 0 0 0 0
0 37.3 0 0 0 0
x= 8 0 2.16 0 0 0
o 5.53 0 0
0 0 0 010
&O 0 0 0 0 0.27

(b) Flows among farm sectors (see columns 1 to 6, Table 2)

4.39 3.4 1.34 11.2 2.15 1.15

I
4.57 3.54 2.8 25.6 0 0.0

0 0 0 0 0.26 0
x= 0
1.1 0
0.66 00 0
0.24 00 00 I
 Why energy productivity is increasing: an I-O analysis of Swedish agriculture 453

RESULTS

A systems model of agriculture

The simplified model of agriculture shows a number of crucial relations as

shown in Fig. 1. In this model two fictitious activities were designed; manure
and fertiliser respectively processed feed. This was done to include all
important combinations of biological and industrial activities necessary for
the objectives of this study.

Total agriculture sector

Estimated energy values for all arrows in Fig. 1 are contained in Tables 1
and 2. Six main characteristics should be observed:

?? output has increased steadily from 14.4 to 20.2 TWh or 40%

?? as output increases have occurred only among plant products the com-
position of output has changed significantly, reducing animal products
from a third to a fourth of total output
?? support energy inputs first raised significantly and thereafter decreased
to a level just 14% higher in 1993 than in 1956
?? comparing 1993 with 1956 it is evident that direct energy inputs are the
only category significantly larger while all others have about the same
or a lower value
?? labour input decreased substantially over the whole period
?? solar energy input decreased for the whole period which by definition
follows the decrease in land use.

Figures presented in Table 2 are discussed below. Internal energy flows in

agriculture are mainly of three types, non-exported bio-mass back to crop-
ping, feed to animals, and manure from animals to cropping (arrows 9, 10,
12, 13 and 14). Recycled bio-mass has continuously increased from
15.3 TWh in 1956 to 34.7 TWH in 1993, indicating a large decrease in the
share of exported harvest of bio-mass. For the same period total feed
(calorific value) to animals has decreased from 49.5 to 40TWh including
imports from abroad while the energy volume of animal food products has
remained the same.
In 1956 manure from animals was an important input to plant production
considering both nutrients and energy. Measured by its calorific value the
total volume of manure has been rather constant, about 14TWh. The
opportunity cost energy value (GER) was in 1956 technology 1.52 TWh. Due
to technical change this cost has shrunk to 0.44TWh in 1993.
454 H.-E. Uhlin

The results of the I-O analysis are presented in two main sections, one for
the plant production and one for animal production.

Plant farm sectors

Estimated energy productivity for each category of energy inputs and the
two plant farm sectors defined are presented in Figs 2 and 3.
0.18
n 0.16

Direct energy Indirect energy Fertilisers

Input category

Fig. 2. Total energy requirement, kWh (GER) per 1 kWh unit of cash crop output.

Direct energy Indirect energy Fertilisers

Input category

Fig. 3. Total energy requirement, kWh (GER), per 1 kWh unit of fodder crop output.

Cash crops Fodder crops

Fig. 4. Total solar energy requirement, (kWh) per 1 kWh unit of crop output.
 Why energy productivity is increasing: an I-O analysis of Swedish agriculture 455

The different pattern of change is striking. Whilst the cash crop sector has
decreased its use of all categories of support energy, the fodder sector is
characterised by a strong increase in energy use, except for a minor decrease
in energy through fertiliser. Detailed information of the changing pattern is
given in Table 4.
The cash crop sector has decreased the total support energy requirement
per unit of output with 60% and the fodder crop sector has increased its
requirement with almost the same or 56%. In 1993 the support energy pro-
ductivity was almost the same for both sectors with a relation of four units of
output per unit of input. The input structure had by 1993 become almost the
same, with the only difference, that the cash crop sector uses a larger pro-
portion of direct energy and a smaller proportion of indirect energy, com-
pared to the fodder crop sector.
Estimated solar energy productivity for the two sectors is shown in Fig. 6.
For both sectors the results showed an increase in solar energy productiv-
ity. Again the positive change was better in the cash grain sector, with a solar
energy requirement in 1993 that was 61% of the use in 1956 compared to a
decrease to only 89% for the fodder crop sector. Due to this large difference
the solar energy use for cash crops has become lower than for fodder crops.

Animal sectors

Estimated energy productivity for each category of energy inputs and the
three animal farm sectors defined are presented in Figs 5-7.
The results illustrated several similarities in the change of energy use
among the three sectors. Some differences were evident. The pork and other
animal sectors have experienced a much larger reduction of the use of ferti-
lisers than beef and milk. This is a consequence of the development in the

TABLE 4
Contribution as a Percentage to Total Energy Requirement, GER per 1 kWh Unit of Crop
Output for Different Inputs and the Three Time Periods

Direct energy Indirect energy Fertilisers Total

Cash crops
1956 28 28 44 100 (0.40)
1972 19 38 43 100 (0.37)
1993 42 37 21 100 (0.24)

Fodder crops
1956 25 37 38 100 (0.16)
1972 28 36 36 100 (0.25)
1993 36 44 20 100 (0.25)

OWithin parentheses, total input of man-made energy GER (kWh).

456 H.-E. Uhlin

I
Indirect energy Fertilisers Processfxl feed
Direct energy

Input category

Fig. 5. Total energy requirement, kWh (GER) per 1 kWh unit of combined milk and beef
output.

3.26

2.62
r
2.33

Direct energy Indirect energy Fertilisers Processed feed

lnput category

Fig. 6. Total energy requirement, kWh (GER) per1 kWh unit of pork output.

8.38

0.93 0.77
0.64 cl.64 0.51 0.57
I m.l-i=&.

Direct energy Indirect energy Fertilisers Processed feed

input category

Fig. 7. Total energy requirement, kWh (GER) per1 kWh unit of other animal output.
 Why energy productivity is increasing: an I-O analysis of Swedish agriculture 457

plant production shown above. The different pattern of energy use through
processed feed is striking. It should be noted that these figures are the sum of
calorific and support energy.
Detailed information of the changing pattern is given in Table 5.
In 1993 the support energy productivity is almost the same for all sectors
with a relation of O-4 units of output per unit of input. The input structure
has by 1993 become almost the same for the pork meat and other animal

TABLE 5
Contribution as a Percentage to Total Energy Requirement, GER per 1 kWh Unit of Animal
Output for Different Inputs and the Three Time Periods

Direct energy Indirect energy Fertilisers Processed fee8 TotaIb

Milk cows and beef

1956 26 36 35 3 100 (1.84)
1972 24 38 31 7 100 (2.71)
1993 44 38 15 3 100 (2.41)
Pork
1956 22 26 28 24 100 (1.97)
1972 27 29 25 19 100 (2.26)
1993 39 25 8 28 100 (2.47)
Other animal
1956 24 22 27 27 100 (2.87)
1972 26 23 20 31 100 (2.85)
1993 41 23 9 27 100 (2.25)

Excluding calorific energy content in feed.

bWithin parentheses, total input of man-made energy GER (kWh).

Milk and Pork meat Other

Beef animal

Fig. 8. Total solar energy requirement, (kWh) per 1 kWh unit of animal output.
458 H.-E. Uhlin

TABLE 6
Total Solar Energy Use=, (kWh), per 1 kWh Unit of Animal Output

Milk and beef Pork meat 0 ther animal

1956
Solar energy input 4121 3845 5289
(domestic + import) (4043 + 78) (3269 + 576) (4386+912)
Land (ha) 0.00055 0.00050 0.00068
1972
Solar energy input 3453 2698 4684
(domestic + import) (3381+72) (2489 + 209) (4054 + 630)
Land (ha) 0.00046 0.00035 0.00061
1993
Solar energy input 3520 2190 2933
(domestic + import) (3457 + 63) (2043 + 147) (2633 + 360)
Land (ha) 0.00047 0.00029 0.0003 1

*A solar radiation of 9 500x lo3 kWh per hectare is used for imported feed. For imported feed
the solar energy input used per kWh unit feed was 600 kWh, 360 kWh and 350 kWh for,
respectively, 1956, 1972 and 1993. The latter figures are slightly lower than the averages for
Swedish cash crops (Fig. 4).

sectors, but is quite different to the milk and beefs sector. The latter use
relatively more energy through fertiliser and relatively less energy through
processed feed. This indicates that the pork and other animal sectors are
much more dependent on external inputs of feed (import and processing)
than the milk and beef sector.
Estimated solar energy productivity for the three sectors is shown in Fig. 8.
For all sectors the results showed an increase in solar energy productivity
with a significant different pace. The positive change was much better for the
pork and other animal sectors with a solar energy requirement in 1993 that
was 57 and 55% respectively of the use in 1956, compared to a decrease to 85%
for the milk and beef sector. Due to this large difference the solar energy use
of other animals has become much lower than that of milk and beef. More
detailed figures of solar energy use through feed are shown in Table 6.

DISCUSSION

Solar energy productivity of plant production, gross biomass in plant pro-

duction/total solar energy, has increased from 1956 to 1993 with O-24 to 0.42.
Agriculture has shifted its output composition increasing the share of plant
produces from 64 to 74% (Table 1). The proportion of total biomass pro-
duced in plant production converted and exported as outputs from agricul-
ture has risen from 20 to 23%. These changes are the effects of a significant
 Why energy productivity is increasing: an I-O analysis of Swedish agriculture 459

increase in solar energy productivity for all defined sectors. All together this
has resulted in almost a doubling of the proportion of exported products to
solar energy, 0.045 to 0.087%. During the same period the proportion of
exported products to gross support energy has increased from 93 to 114%
indicating that both solar and support productivity has increased.
Accessible solar radiation is 1000 times larger per hectare than the input of
support energy (Table 1). An optimal use of solar energy seems important.
Biologists suggest that it may be possible to develop systems that transfer
about one per cent of solar radiation to bio-mass. In that case Swedish
agriculture has only moved halfway. The results from this study can be used
to evaluate some possible ways to further move in the direction of higher
solar productivity. Two obvious alternatives are to further increase the pro-
portion of plant products and redirect the content of plant biomass to a lar-
ger proportion of useful products exported. The following discussion is
concerned with the relations of solar energy use and animal production,
including internal relationships to plant production. Further the discussion is
limited to pure energy considerations and differences in monetary values of
products due to taste, nutrient values and similar aspects will not be assessed.
Evidently a large proportion of solar energy collected through agriculture
into plants, will not be available for humans if these plant products are
transferred through animals. The latter can be considered as a loss in energy
productivity but performances vary among sectors. This means that some
changes in the animal production composition must be considered to sub-
stantially increase energy productivity. The results of this study clearly indi-
cate a shift in energy productivity among the sectors. As shown in Table 6
and Fig. 8 pork meat and other animals now require less land base than milk
and beef. The former two sectors have had a more rapid energy productivity
development than the latter.
By comparing solar input per energy unit from crop products (here cash
crops are used) with per energy unit animal products the loss of available
energy for food when animals are introduced can be estimated. In 1956 the
conversion rate for animal sectors did not differ much except for a lower
figure for other animals. By 1993 these relationships had changed substan-
tially. Pork meat provides 19% of solar energy compared to cash crop pro-
ducts, while milk and beef provide 12% and other animals 14%.
In Table 7 the proportion of solar energy transferred to animal products
are shown. The estimated figures are compared to figures presented by
Spedding et al. (1981). The latter figures are estimated from data in the late
60s to late 70s. These figures are to a large extent estimated through a com-
bination of synthetic and experimental data. They are thus not based on
average practices and are not complete regarding replacement, mortality, etc.
If adjusted to be fully comparable in these respects the figures probably
460 H.-E. Uhlin

TABLE 7
Productivity of Solar Energy for Animal Products. Output of Energy (kWh) per kWh Solar
Energy Received

1993 1972 1956 UK

Milk and beef OJJOO28 0.00029 0.00024 0.00027

Pork meat O-00046 0.00037 OXI 0@0044
Other animal oJIOo33 0.0002 1 0@0019 0.000 12-0~00023

Spedding et al., 198 1, Table 28.2.

would be lower. Still they convey credibility to the results of this study as
their internal relations and size are similar. The mismatch for other animal
may be explained by differences in compositions and the fact that this sector
has been very dynamic during the period studied.
Several authors (Committee on Agricultural Production Efficiency, 1975;
Pimentel et al., 1975; Holmes, 1977; Bondi, 1982; Edwards et al., 1993) have
argued that milk and egg sectors are efficient for converting feed energy and
protein to food. The contradicting result is explained by differences in tech-
nological stages compared and methodological approach. Actually these two
factors are interrelated. By relating energy productivity (some authors use
efficiency) of animals to only feed-food conversion, cited studies have
only considered conversion efficiencies within animal sectors and not tech-
nological changes in plant production. Solar energy productivity develops
fast for some crops, as shown in this study. Feed efficiency has also devel-
oped differently among animals and the accumulated solar energy pro-
ductivity thus will change drastically.
One explanation of the limitations of earlier studies is that they have mixed
food perspectives with energy without taking full considerations of all its
consequences. In addition to pointing at the difference between an analysis
of feed versus solar energy conversion productivity, this study considers
energy productivity in a systems context over time including manure. As the
energy value of manure changes it will effect animal sectors differently.
The drastic change of performance in energy productivity for cash crops
and ruminants versus fodder and ruminants is a major result of this study.
This highlights the advantages of the used approach as several aspects seem
to substantiate that a changing performance is related to the effects of tech-
nological and structural change. The changes in solar energy and support
energy productivity seem to be parallel. A comparison among sectors of
estimated energy requirements indicates a slower productivity change for
fodder crops and milk and beef. A slower productivity for milk and beef is
illustrated and discussed elsewhere (Uhlin, 1993). It is also indicated that the
amount of land used for grass and fodder is larger than can be motivated
 Why energy productivity is increasing: an I-O analysis of Swedish agriculture 461

from whole sector programming (Jonasson, 1996). Possible explanations are

risk aversion and security reasons due to large volume and quality swings in
harvests. Informal talks with agronomists support this, which suggests that
on an average, more land than is required is used for fodder. It is also pos-
sible that land of poor quality is used for fodder and thus not competitively
managed.
Estimated energy productivity of crop sectors clearly indicates a slower
productivity change for fodder. If productivity is slower in fodder produc-
tion compared to cash crops, and for dairy as compared to pork and other
non-ruminants the two trends coincide. Together they will make the differ-
ence in energy productivity between milk and dairy and the other two animal
sectors even larger.
To some extent the technological change in delivered inputs to agriculture
may have contributed. This study has explicitly elaborated with and handled
manure and fertiliser as a joint activity. Their role for solar energy produc-
tivity and linking plant and animal sectors is crucial. The energy productivity
of the making of fertilisers has been outstanding. This means that crops
highly responsive to fertiliser input have gained but it also means that the
energy value of manure decreases.
Evidently fertiliser inputs are essential for binding solar energy into bio-
mass which is illustrated by the energy requirements through fertilisers in
Figs 2 and 3. The average conversion rate for crop sectors is 20 to 1, i.e. for
each kWh fertiliser used, 20 kWh of biomass is collected in crops. The con-
version rate increased for the period studied, indicating that the technical
and structural changes had continuously kept the marginal productivity (on
an average) of fertilisers higher than that of the average productivity. This
result does not support fears about a decreasing effectiveness of fertilisers
(Cox, 1984) but is in line with a recent study which show no sign of
decreasing productivity of energy use in agriculture, as a response to
resource degradation (Cleveland, 1994). It is suggested that energy produc-
tivity in the making of fertiliser is reaching its thermodynamic limit (Slesser,
1984). Further studies are needed to illustrate differences between specific
crops, current and future possibilities of fertiliser productivity.
This study has pointed at a new perspective on manure. Several authors
have suggested that the main road to increased energy productivity (often
called efficiency) or, decreased use of support energy, is an increased self
support of energy and nutrients (Steinhart and Steinhart, 1974; Committee
on Agricultural Production Efficiency, 1975; Pimentel et al., 1975; White,
1977; Bondi, 1982). An essential part of such a strategy is the production and
use of manure. Such arguments are strongly refuted by the results in this
study. A difference again explained by the limitations of studies that do not
consider relevant energy relations and technological change. It is also
462 H.-E. Uhlin

obvious that most cited studies do not apply a relevant method as they seem
not to consider the opportunity value/cost concept. This study has shown
that manure has a calorific content of 14TWh but an opportunity value of
only 0.44TWh for 1993. Still the larger need for energy use in storing,
treating and spreading manure is not accounted for. This indicates first of all
the minor roll of manure as an energy substitute in agriculture. It also indi-
cates that manure instead may be used as a fuel input where its huge calorific
value can be used. In such a case it will have a significant effect on the energy
productivity of agriculture. Still there should be ways of preserving its
nutrient contents for use in agriculture. This suggestion is not new but more
intensive and, larger farm units, new technology and new perspectives on
energy sources make these aspects more relevant. From pure energy pro-
ductivity aspects on agriculture the advantage of alternative uses of manure
seems evident.
This study has illustrated some advantages of a systems approach that not
only combines important linkages among different energy sources, biological
and technical activities, but also considers the effects of technological and
structural change of conventional agriculture. Still several aspects not con-
sidered in this study may have relevance. One obvious limitation is that
environmental and some natural resource base aspects are not included. Less
obvious, but perhaps even more important, is the political and institutional
context. The poor energy productivity for the two joint sectors, milk and
beef respectively, fodder crops can be used as an example of this. It has been
suggested that one explanation for a slower productivity change for milk and
beef is the specific protection of the agricultural policy (Uhlin, 1993). Such a
protection has been motivated by food security reasons and that milk pro-
duction is a major user of labour in agriculture. At the same time cash crops
and pork meat sectors have explicitly been targeted as sectors where inter-
national competition should prevail. All together this may suggest that the
reasons for a slower energy productivity in milk and beef to some part are not
technologically or biologically based. Still this should not explain all the
differences in solar productivity among animal sectors.
Some theoretical implications of this study are:

?? Energy productivity for different farm products is affected by technolo-

gical and structural changes but also the composition of farm sectors.
Thus models must be developed that can handle this.
?? In addition to complex biological and technological relations changes in
the agricultural sector are highly influenced from policy and institu-
tional contexts. All these factors probably have significant influences on
energy productivity. Combining these factors are further requirements
on energy analyses.
 Why energy productivity is increasing: an I-O analysis of Swedish agriculture 463

?? One important methodological aspect is the fact that most energy studies
have not taken account for the opportunity value of surplus land
generated in intensive agriculture, land for fodder crops and manure.
Their opportunity value/cost is based on the fact that they can deliver
biomass for energy uses and should thus be a part of evaluation of
energy productivity in agriculture. These are important specifics to be
addressed in systems approaches.

This study illustrates the need to further develop systems analyses

approaches to link biological and technological relations to technological,
structural and policy changes.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project was supported by several grants from The Royal Swedish
Academy of Agriculture and Forestry. Many thanks to all people at the
Graduate School of The Environment, Macquarie University, Sydney for
giving me an excellent scientific and social environment when writing the
paper. Thank you Patricia Davies for helping me through the English
language.

REFERENCES

Balwinder, P. S. and Fluck, R. C. (1993) Energy productivity of a production sys-

tem: Analysis and measurement. Agricultural Systems 43, 41H37.
Bondi, A. (1982) Nutrition and animal productivity. In CRC Handbook of Agricuf-
tural Productivity, pp. 185-212, ed. J. M. Rechcigl. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Bonny, S. (1993) Is agriculture using more and more energy? A French case study.
Agricultural Systems 43, 51-66.
Bullard, C. V. and Herendeen, R. A. (1975) The energy cost of goods and services.
Energy Policy 3, 268-278.
Chancellor, W. J. and Goss, J. R. (1976) Balancing energy and food production,
1975-2000. Science 192,213-218.
Cleveland, C. J. (1994) Resource degradation, technical change, and the productiv-
ity of energy use in U.S. agriculture. Ecological Economics 3, 185-201.
Cleveland, C. J. (1995) The direct and indirect use of fossil fuels and electricity in
USA agriculture, 1910-1990. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 55, 11 I-
121.
Committee on Agricultural Production Efficiency (1975) Agricultural Production
Ejiciency. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.
Cox, W. G. (1984) The linkage of inputs to outputs in agroecosystems. In Agricul-
tural Ecosystems, pp. 187-208, ed. R. Lowrance, B. R. Stinner and G. J. House.
John Wiley 8~ Sons, New York.
464 H.-E. Uhlin

Cox, W. G. and Atkins, D. M. (1979) Agricultural Ecology: An Analysis of World

Food Production Systems, W. H. Freeman, San Fransisco.
Debertin, D. L., Pagoulatos, A. and Aoun, A. (1993) Impacts of technological
change on factor substitution between energy and other inputs within US agri-
culture, 1950-1979. Energy Economics 12, 2-10.
Edwards, C. A., Grove, T. L., Hat-wood, R. R. and Pierce Colfer, C. J. (1993) The
role of agroecology and integrated farming systems in agricultural sustainabil-
ity. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 46, 99-121.
Fluck, R. C. (1997) Input-output energy analysis for agriculture and the food chain.
In Analysis of Agricultural Energy Systems, ed. R. M. Peart and R. C. Brook.
pp. 83-88. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Francis, A. C. and Madden, J. P. (1993) Designing the future: sustainable agricul-
ture in the US. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 46, 123-134.
Gopalakrishnan, C., Jordan, W. K. and Shrestha, R. B. (1989) Energy-non-energy
input substitution in US agriculture: some findings. Applied Economics 21, 673-
679.
Hannon, B., Costanza, R. and Herendeen, R. A. (1986) Measures of energy cost and
value in ecosystems. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 13,
391-401.
Herendeen, R. A. and Bullard, C. V. (1974). Energy costs of goods and services.
CAC Document 140. Energy Research Group, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL.
Hirst, E. (1974) Food-related energy requirements. Science 184, 134138.
Holmes, W. (1977) Choosing between animals. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society of London Series B Biological Sciences 281, 121-137.
Jonasson, L. (1996) Mathematical programming for sector analysis. Dissertations
18. Department of Economics, SLU, Uppsala, Sweden.
Leach, G. (1976). Energy and Food Production. IPC Sci Tech Press, Guildford, UK.
Loomis, R. S. and Connor, D. J. (1992) Crop Ecology: Productivity and Manage-
ment in Agricultural Systems, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Lopez, R. E. and Tung, F. L. (1982) Energy and non-energy input substitution
possibilities and output scale effects in Canadian agriculture. Canadian Journal
of Agricultural Economics 3, 115-l 32.
Odum, H. T. (1971) Environment, Power and Society, Wiley, New York.
Pimentel, D., Hurd, L. E., Belloti, A. C., Forster, M. J., Oka, I. N., Sholes, 0. 0.
and Whitman, R. J. (1973) Food production and the energy crisis. Science 182,
443-449.
Pimentel, D., Dritschilo, W., Krummel, J. and Kutzman, J. (1975) Energy, and land
constraints in food protein production. Science 190,754-761.
Rosenberg, N. (1982) Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Rosenberg, N. (1994) Exploring the Black Box. Technology, Economics, and History,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Slesser, M. (1984) Energy use in the food-processing sector of the European Eco-
nomic Community. In Energy and Agriculture, pp. 132-153, ed. G. Stanhill.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Spedding, C. R. W., Walsingham, J. M. and Hoxey, A. M. (1981) Biological E@-
ciency in Agriculture. Academic Press, London.
Steinhart, S. S. and Steinhart, C. E. (1974) Energy use in the US food system. Sci-
ence 184, 307-316.
 Why energy productivity is increasing: an I-O analysis of Swedish agriculture 465

Uhlin, H. (1993) Structural Change in Agriculture-Some Issues with Special Con-

siderations to Dairy Farming (in Swedish). Report No. 68, pp. 1-127. Depart-
ment of Economics, SLU, Uppsala, Sweden.
Uhlin, H. (1996a) Jordbrukets energibalans. Faklo No. 6. SLU, Uppsala, Sweden.
Uhlin, H. (1996b) Anvandning av solenergi i jordbruket. Faklo No. 7. SLU,
Uppsala, Sweden.
Uhlin, H. (1997a). Energy productivity and sustainability in Swedish agriculture -
some evidence and issues. Ir_ Sustainability and Global Environmental Policy, pp.
119-129, ed. A. Dragun and K. Jakobson. E. Elgar, Aldershot, UK.
Uhlin, H. and Hoffman, R. (1995) Energy balance of agriculture-some perspectives
on energy flows in agriculture 1956, 1972, and 1993 (in Swedish). KSLAs tid-
skrift M(6), 9-24
Uhlin, H., Johansson, E., Lindstroem, I., Nilsson, P., Myhrman, D., Moeller, G.,
Petre, H., Renborg, U., Wiktorsson, H. and Wunsche, U. (1975) Resource Flows
in Swedish Agriculture and Forestry with Emphasis on Energy Flows (in Swedish)
Department of Economics and Statistics, SLU, Uppsala, Sweden.
Uhlin, H-E. (19976) Energy productivity of technological agriculture-lessons from
the transition of Swedish agriculture. Submitted to Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment.
US Department of Energy (1995) Measuring Energy Ejiciency in the United States
Economy: DOE/EIA-0555(95)/2.
A Beginning. US Department of Energy,
Washington, DC.
White, D. J. (1977) Prospects for greater efficiency in the use of different energy
sources. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B
Biological Sciences 281, 261-275.
Zucchetto, J. and Bickle, G. (1984) Energy and nutrient analyses of a dairy farm in
Central Pennsylvania. Energy in Agriculture 3, 2947.