Ecological Indicators 24 (2013) 534–542

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Ecological Indicators
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind

Emergy synthesis of a combined food and energy production system compared to

a conventional wheat (Triticum aestivum) production system
Bhim Bahadur Ghaley ∗ , John Roy Porter
Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen, Højbakkegård Allé 30, 2630 Taastrup, Denmark

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: It is a major challenge to produce food and energy sustainably for the ever increasing world popula-
Received 26 December 2011 tion as today’s conventional food production and energy needs are met by the fossil based resources,
Received in revised form 8 August 2012 causing enormous environmental load. A novel, combined food and energy (CFE) agro-ecosystem, was
Accepted 9 August 2012
designed for sustainable production of food, fodder and energy without chemical inputs (fertiliser, herbi-
cide and fungicide). The objective was an emergy synthesis of the CFE system compared to a conventional
Keywords:
wheat (Triticum aestivum) production system to assess resource use efficiency. The emergy indices, used
Solar transformity
to assess the environmental performance and sustainability, exhibited contrasting differences between
Environmental loading ratio
Emergy yield ratio
the two production systems in terms of outputs (Y), total emergy use, solar transformity, relative use
Total emergy use of local renewable resources, environmental loading ratio (ELR), emergy yield ratio (EYR) and emergy
Biomass sustainability index (ESI). The Y in the CFE consisted of grain, straw, fodder and woodchip production
Emergy indices of 4020, 3580, 6100 and 10,000 kg/ha/yr respectively whereas Y in the conventional wheat consisted of
7250 and 3770 kg grain and straw/ha/yr respectively. The Y in the CFE was 81% (2.80E+11 J/ha/yr) higher
with 13.5 times (6.40E+03 seJ/J) lower solar transformity compared to the Y (1.54E+11 J/ha/yr) and solar
transformity (8.63E+04 seJ/J) in the conventional wheat, exhibiting highly resource intensive production
in conventional wheat. The local renewables constituted 19.2% and 2.6% of the total emergy input in the
CFE and the conventional wheat respectively with a corresponding lower ELR (4.21) and 22.5% higher EYR
(1.26) in CFE compared to conventional wheat. CFE was more reliant on local renewable emergy flows
and compatible with the local environment with higher ESI (0.30) compared to conventional wheat
(0.03), where 64.5% of the total emergy input constituted chemical inputs. The study demonstrated that
the innovative agro-ecosystem, exemplified by CFE, is considerably less resource demanding and more
amenable to sustainable production, whether defined in terms of outputs, solar transformity, relative use
of local renewable resources, EYR, ELR or ESI.
© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction development (Rydberg and Haden, 2006). With agro-ecosystems

Humans depend on the fossil based resources for production
of food, feed and energy (Porter et al., 2009). However, the differ-
ent natural and human ‘engineered’ ecosystems, augmented with
fossil based resources, has resulted in accelerating pressure on the
ecosystems with adverse environmental impacts due to massive
use of fossil based inputs (Odum and Odum, 2000), reducing the
capacity of the ecosystems for provision of food, feed and energy
(MEA, 2005; UKNEA, 2011). The worsening states of many ecosys-
tems have awakened the realization to the grave consequences
for continued sustenance of food and energy production, neces-
sitating a renewed perspective towards a sustainable trajectory of
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +45 35 33 35 70; fax: +45 35 33 34 88.
E-mail address: bbg@life.ku.dk (B.B. Ghaley).
practised over 37% of the earth’s surface (Porter et al., 2009), it
is also the single biggest contributor to the worsening environ-
mental impacts both by the natural land converted to food and
fodder production and the practice of conventional farming. Tra-
ditionally, agricultural research focussed on increasing crop yields
and enhancing the economic efficiency of different production sys-
tems, which helped in boosting the production and bringing down
the price of food (Rydberg and Haden, 2006). However, the ecolog-
ical costs are not sufficiently been taken into account, which have
a significant bearing on the long-term sustainability of agriculture.
Hence, there is a need for more integrated accounting procedures
to account for both economic and ecological costs in evaluating
production systems, to provide a balanced view on the compar-
ative resource use. In this context, emergy synthesis (Brown and
Ulgiati, 2004; Odum, 1988, 1996) is an accounting tool which takes
into account both the environment and the economic inputs into

1470-160X/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.08.009
 B.B. Ghaley, J.R. Porter / Ecological Indicators 24 (2013) 534–542
a production system, based on the principles of thermodynamics.
This tool has been widely used to analyze agro-ecosystems and
energy production options under different contexts (Buonocore
et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2006; Coppola et al., 2009; Franzese et al.,
2009; Häyhä et al., 2011; Lefroy and Rydberg, 2003; Li et al., 2011;
Lu and Campbell, 2009; Marchettini et al., 2003; Ulgiati et al.,
2011a,b).
With the world population increasing at 57 million per year (UN,
2012), increasing food and energy production without deteriorat-
ing the health of the ecosystems, is a major challenge. There is an
increasing lobby not only to produce food and fodder sustainably
but also to integrate bio-energy production on-farm to mitigate
the adverse effects of fossil based resources on the environment.
With EU target to produce 25% of total biofuel consumption in
2030 from the existing 2% (EC, 2011), integrated agro-ecosystems
for co-production of food and energy need to be designed. Given
this challenge, a novel combined food and energy agro-ecosystem
(CFE) was designed for sustainable production of food, fodder and
energy on-farm without chemical inputs of fertiliser, herbicide and
fungicide, on an experimental basis in Denmark. Given the poten-
tial of the CFE system, there is a need to assess the sustainability of
the production system compared to a conventional wheat produc-
tion with chemical inputs. Hence, the objective of the study was
an emergy synthesis of the CFE system designed for production of
food, fodder and energy needs to assess the resource use efficiency
compared to a conventional wheat (Triticum aestivum) production
system in Denmark.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Description of combined food and energy (CFE) and
conventional wheat production system
The CFE site is located at the experimental farm in Taastrup
(55◦ 40 N, 12◦ 18 E) under Department of Plant and Environmental
Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen in Denmark.
The trial site was established in 1995 and located at 130 m above
sea level. The CFE system consists of 10.1 ha of barley (Hordeum
vulgare), wheat and clover/ryegrass sward (fodder) and ca. 1 ha
of biofuels (biomass belts) consisting of four belts of short rota-
tion woody crops (SRWC) (Fig. 1). Each biomass belt is 11 m wide
and consists of 5 double rows of SRWC. Of 5 double rows, 3 mid-
dle double rows consist of three willow clones (one double row
each) of (Salix viminalis (L.) “Jor”, Salix dasycladus Wimmer and
Salix triandra × cinerea (L.) bordered by one double row of com-
mon hazel (Corylus avellana (L.) on one side and one double row
of alder (Alnus glutinosa (L.) Gaertner) on the other side. Alder
fixes nitrogen and the common hazel is attractive to predatory
insects. The trees were planted at within-row spacing of 0.5 m
and between-row spacing of 0.7 m. Each double row is 1.3 m apart,
with a planting density of 20,000 trees/ha. The biomass belts were
established at varying distances of 50, 100 and 200 m to assess
the spatial effects of distance. The biomass belts are harvested and
chipped every 4 years and the woodchips taken to a nearby heat
and power station for the production of heat and electricity. The
food and fodder crops grown between the biomass belts are har-
vested annually. The crop rotation is one field of barley under-sown
with clover/ryegrass, two fields of clover/ryegrass and one field of
wheat, thus constituting the acreage division of the CFE system as
45:45:10 (fodder:food:tree biomass). The CFE system has been in
such rotations since 2000; previously oats and fodder beets were
produced from 1995 to 2000. The CFE system is managed organ-
ically, without the use of fertilisers, herbicides or pesticides and
with the nutrient sources mainly derived from biological nitrogen
fixation and the application of animal manure.
535
For the emergy synthesis of the conventional wheat produc-
tion system, 11.1 ha of wheat field (same acreage as CFE system)
was identified at the same experimental site in Taastrup in 2011
and demarcated as the trial site. The conventional wheat field was
located adjacent to the CFE and the field was cropped with win-
ter wheat and conventional practice of fertiliser, herbicide and
pesticide inputs (Table 1) were applied according to the standard
practice in Denmark and the site had been cultivated with annual
grain crops for the last 15–20 years.
2.2. Emergy defined
Emergy is the sum total of energy used up in the creation of
a certain service or product and is sometimes referred as ‘energy
memory’ of a product and hence the emergy value of a product
is the energy used up in the creation of the product (Brown and
Ulgiati, 1999; Odum, 1996). Production in ecosystems and eco-
nomic systems requires inputs of different types like sunlight, fuel,
machinery, human labour and economic services, etc. and all the
inputs can be converted into a common unit of solar emjoules or
solar equivalent joules (seJ) (Brown et al., 2004; Hau and Bakshi,
2004; Odum and Odum, 2003). Emergy analysis is a valuation
tool, which takes into account the inputs from the nature and the
economy on an equal footing using emergy as a common basis of
measure (Costanza, 2000; Odum and Odum, 2000). A higher emergy
value is associated with greater use of energy, materials and time in
its creation or alternatively, if more energy is dissipated in its cre-
ation, higher is a product’s emergy value (Brown and Ulgiati, 1999,
2010; Odum, 1996; Chen et al., 2006). Emergy synthesis provides
an integrated evaluation of resource use efficiency in a produc-
tion activity or process and the extent of emergy use from external
sources and the environmental loading accruing due to the pro-
cess in question (Jorgensen et al., 2004; Odum et al., 2000b; Odum,
2002).
2.3. Emergy synthesis
For emergy synthesis, the system boundary is defined to assess
the inputs and outputs of the system under study. The inputs and
outputs crossing the boundary of analysis were inventoried. Inputs
were classified as local renewables (R), local non-renewables (N)
and purchased (F) and the sum total of R + N + F = U is total emergy
use of the production system. We defined local renewables as
those inputs which can be replaced at a faster rate than its use.
Local renewable inputs consisted of sun, wind and rain and local
non-renewables consisted of topsoil loss and purchased resources
consisted of machinery, fertiliser, labour, fuel, seed input, herbi-
cide, fungicide, services, etc. (Tables 1 and 2; Appendices A and
B). Labour input constituted the different costs from land prepa-
ration to harvest and service input comprised the total input cost
for buying the purchased resources (input items 5–13 in Table 1
and 5–9 in Table 2) except labour to avoid double counting. The
different units given in joules, grams and dollars, depending on the
nature of inputs, were then multiplied by the solar transformity
coefficients to transform the diversity of inputs into emergy units
(seJ) (Tables 1 and 2). The solar transformity values are based on
the updated global emergy flow of 15.83E24 seJ/yr. For compari-
son with other production systems, seJ/ha/yr (Tables 1 and 2) is
reported. The inputs consisted of both economic and natural inputs
for production on-farm including harvesting but do not include the
resources for transport.
2.4. Emergy indices
Emergy indices can be used to compare different systems
in terms of ecological and economic efficiencies as indices of
536 B.B. Ghaley, J.R. Porter / Ecological Indicators 24 (2013) 534–542

Table 1
Emergy inputs of local renewable (R), local non-renewable and purchased (F) resources and outputs in the conventional wheat production system during the year 2011, at
the experimental site located in Taastrup in Denmark.

Input category Inputs Units Inputs Emergy per unit Emergy Emergy %

Local renewable (R) unit seJ/unit seJ/ha/yr

1 Sunlight J/yr 2.90E+13 1.00E+00 2.61E+12 0.0
2 Wind J/yr 5.01E+10 2.45E+03 1.11E+13 0.1
3 Rain J/yr 1.26E+10 3.02E+04 3.43E+14 2.6

Total local renewable 3.43E+14

Local non-renewable (N)
4 Top soil loss J/yr 4.97E+09 1.24E+05 5.55E+13 0.4

Total local non-renewable 5.55E+13

Purchased (F)
5 Diesel J/yr 3.13E+10 1.11E+05 3.13E+14 2.4
6 Machinery g/yr 1.03E+05 1.12E+10 1.04E+14 0.8
7 Seeds g/yr 1.89E+06 1.20E+09 2.04E+14 1.5
8 Herbicide g/yr 1.11E+04 2.52E+10 2.52E+13 0.2
9 Fungicide g/yr 4.44E+03 2.52E+10 1.01E+13 0.1
10 Nitrogen g/yr 2.11E+06 4.05E+10 7.70E+15 57.8
11 Phosphorus g/yr 2.22E+05 3.70E+10 7.40E+14 5.6
12 Potassium g/yr 6.66E+05 1.85E+09 1.11E+14 0.8
13 Manure g/yr 4.88E+05 2.13E+08 9.36E+12 0.1
14 Labour $/yr 3.12E+03 3.12E+12 8.77E+14 6.6
15 Services $/yr 1.00E+04 3.12E+12 2.82E+15 21.2

Total purchased 1.29E+16

Total emergy use (U) 1.33E+16

Outputs (Y)
16 Wheat (grain) kg/yr 8.05E+04 1.84E+12 7250 kg/ha
J/yr 1.13E+12 1.32E+05 1.02E+11 J/ha
17 Wheat (Straw) kg/yr 4.18E+04 3.53E+12 3770 kg/ha
J/yr 5.86E+11 2.52E+05 5.28E+10 J/ha

Details on inputs/yr for 11.1 ha (column 4) are provided in Appendix A (Table 1 calculations). Transformity values are based on updated global emergy value of 15.83 E24 seJ/yr.
Transformity for each row were gleaned from different sources: row 1, 2, and 3 (Odum, 1996; Odum et al., 2000a); row 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 (Brandt-Williams, 2002); row
7 (Coppola et al., 2009); row 13 (Bastianoni et al., 2001); row 14, 15 (Franzese et al., 2009) row 17 energy content (Coppola et al., 2009).

Table 2
Emergy inputs of local renewable (R), local non-renewable and purchased (F) resources and outputs in the combined food and energy system during the year 2011, at the
experimental site in Taastrup in Denmark.

Input category Inputs Units Inputs Emergy per unit Emergy Emergy %

Local renewable (R) unit seJ/unit seJ/ha/yr

1 Sunlight J/yr 2.90E+13 1.00E+00 2.61E+12 0.1
2 Wind J/yr 5.01E+10 2.45E+03 1.11E+13 0.6
3 Rain J/yr 1.26E+10 3.02E+04 3.43E+14 19.2

Total local renewable 3.43E+14

Local non-renewable (N)
4 Top soil loss J/yr 2.45E+09 1.24E+05 3.00E+13 1.7

Total local non-renewable 3.00E+13

Purchased (F)
5 Diesel J/yr 1.69E+10 1.11E+05 1.69E+14 9.4
6 Machinery g/yr 3.40E+04 1.12E+10 3.43E+13 1.9
7 biomass belt planting material J/yr 3.92E+08 1.58E+04 6.19E+12 0.3
8 Seeds g/yr 9.09E+05 1.45E+09 1.31E+14 7.3
9 Manure g/yr 2.22E+05 2.13E+08 4.26E+12 0.2
10 Labour $/yr 1.04E+03 3.12E+12 2.92E+14 16.3
11 Services $/yr 2.78E+03 3.12E+12 7.80E+14 43.6

Total purchased 1.42E+15

Total emergy use (U) 1.79E+15

Outputs (Y)
12 Wheat/barley kg/yr 2.03E+04 4.45E+11 4.02E+03 kg/ha
(grain) J/yr 2.84E+11 3.18E+04 5.62E+10 J/ha
13 Wheat/barley kg/yr 1.81E+04 5.00E+11 3.58E+03 kg/ha
(Straw) J/yr 2.53E+11 3.57E+04 5.01E+10 J/ha
14 Fodder kg/yr 3.08E+04 2.93E+11 6.10E+03 kg/ha
J/yr 1.18E+11 7.68E+04 2.33E+10 J/ha
15 Woodchip yield kg/yr 1.00E+04 1.79E+11 1.00E+04 kg/ha
J/yr 1.50E+11 1.19E+04 1.50E+11 J/ha

Details on inputs/yr for 11.1 ha (column 4) are provided in Appendix A (Table 2 calculations). Transformity values are based on updated global emergy value of 15.83 E24 seJ/yr.
Transformity for each row were gleaned from different sources: row 1, 2, and 3 (Odum, 1996; Odum et al., 2000a); row 4, 5, 6 (Brandt-Williams, 2002); row 7, 10, 11 (Franzese
et al., 2009); row 8 (Coppola et al., 2009); row 9 (Bastianoni et al., 2001); row 12, 13 energy content (Coppola et al., 2009); row 14, 15 energy content (Haden, 2003).
 B.B. Ghaley, J.R. Porter / Ecological Indicators 24 (2013) 534–542
Fig. 1. Field layout of the combined food and energy production system (CFE) located in Taastrup in Denmark.
sustainability (Brown and Buranakarn, 2003; Chen et al., 2009,
2006). Emergy-based indices calculated in this study are: output
(Y), total emergy use (U), solar transformity (U/Y), fraction of local
renewable resource use, emergy yield ratio (EYR), environmental
loading ratio (ELR), and emergy sustainability index (ESI).
The output (Y) of the production system is the sum of harvests
(Table 3) in kg and joules, derived by adding up total yields from the
harvested produce. Solar transformity, calculated as U/Y (Table 3),
is defined as the ratio between the total emergy inputs used in
the creation of a product and the energy available in the product,
expressed as solar emjoules per joule (seJ/J) (Brown and Ulgiati,
2004; Cavalett et al., 2006). Solar transformity provides a mea-
sure of energy quality and as more energy transformations are
required for a product’s formation, higher is a product’s energy
quality (Jorgensen et al., 2004; Rydberg and Haden, 2006). Solar
transformation coefficients have been worked out for a wide range
of natural and economic inputs, which is used for conversion of
material and human labour inputs into a common seJ unit (Brown
et al., 2004; Odum, 1988). Total emergy use (U) (Tables 1 and 2)
is the sum total of local renewables, local non-renewables and the
purchased inputs in a production system. A common criterion of
sustainability is a high level of local renewable resource usage.
The higher use of local renewable inputs indicates that a system
is locally based with less strain on local non-renewables and pur-
chased resources external to the system and vice versa. The fraction
of local renewables is calculated as R/[(R + N + F)]. Emergy yield ratio
Table 3
Comparative emergy indices for conventional wheat and the combined food and
energy production system in Taastrup in Denmark.
Emergy indices Parameters Wheat CFE
Output (J/ha/yr) Y 1.54E+11 2.80E+11
Solar transformity (seJ/J) U/Y 8.63E+04 6.40E+03
Emergy yield ratio (EYR) U/F 1.03 1.26
Environmental loading ratio (ELR) (F + N)/R 37.77 4.21
Emergy sustainability index (ESI) EYR/ELR 0.03 0.30
537
is calculated as U/F (Table 3) and is defined as the total emergy
input per purchased resources and indicates the efficiency of the
system in using the purchased inputs and its contribution to the
wider economy. The value of EYR can be one or higher; higher EYR
indicates higher yields per purchased inputs and is beneficial for the
wider economy whereas low EYR indicates inefficiency. The envi-
ronmental loading ratio [(F + N)]/R) (Table 3) is the ratio of sum of
purchased and local non-renewables to local renewable inputs in
a production process. Higher ELR values indicate higher environ-
mental stress and lower sustainability in the production process.
The emergy sustainability index (EYR/ELR) (Table 3) is an integrated
measure of economic and ecological sustainability of a production
process or activity (Brown and Ulgiati, 1997). Higher ESI values
indicates more compatible production process in the long-run.
3. Results
3.1. Renewable resources
The rain input of 3.43E+14 seJ/ha/yr (Table 1) constituted the
bulk of the renewable emergy flow and was considered as the total
climatological renewable flows (sunlight, wind and rain emergy)
into the system (Tables 1 and 2). As the sunlight, wind and rain
are co-products of coupled processes (Lefroy and Rydberg, 2003);
only the highest emergy flow was taken into account as the renew-
able resource input to avoid double counting (Cavalett et al., 2006).
In our study, CFE and the conventional wheat trial plots had same
acreage and located in the same experimental farm and hence the
input of renewable emergy (rain emergy) was similar for both pro-
duction systems. However, due to the differences in total emergy
input in the two production systems, the rain emergy constituted
only 2.6% (Table 1) of the total emergy input in conventional wheat
whereas in CFE, rain emergy constituted 19.2% (Table 2) of the total
emergy input, indicating that the rain emergy flow is of significant
importance, providing almost one-fifth of the total emergy input
for production of food, fodder and energy in the CFE.
538 B.B. Ghaley, J.R. Porter / Ecological Indicators 24 (2013) 534–542
3.2. Non-renewable resources
Soil erosion was taken as the non-renewable resource because
the quantity of soil lost during the annual cropping cycles cannot
be renewed within a cultivation year and has a turnover period of
decades before the soil is replaced. The soil erosion rate depends on
the type of vegetation cover and its effects on mitigating soil ero-
sion. Higher erosion rates are prevalent in annual row crops like
conventional wheat production systems, in which repeated field
operations and soil exposure makes it conducive for erosion to
take place in comparison to the CFE system where integration of
annual crops, trees and clover/ryegrass ley provides better ground
cover and need for relatively few field operations, reducing the soil
exposure for erosion to take place. Hence, emergy input due to
soil erosion in the conventional wheat was higher (4.97E+09 J/yr)
(Table 1) compared to CFE (2.45E+09 J/yr) (Table 2) which trans-
lated into 85% higher emergy input of 5.55E+13 seJ/ha/yr (Table 1)
in the conventional wheat compared to 3.00E+13 seJ/ha/yr in CFE
(Table 2). Less erosion rates in CFE is attributed to clover/ryegrass
ley component covering 45% of the field and 10% coverage with
biomass belts. The soil erosion in the biomass belts were con-
sidered negligible due to dense vegetative cover and a thick
layer of detritus formed by the shedded leaves, covering the soil
surface.
3.3. Purchased resources
Of the total emergy input, purchased resources consti-
tuted the bulk of the emergy input in conventional wheat
(1.29E+16 seJ/ha/yr) (Table 1) and CFE (1.42E+15 seJ/ha/yr)
(Table 2) systems equivalent to 97% and 79% of the total
emergy input respectively. In CFE, service emergy input
(7.80E+14 seJ/ha/yr) was the highest constituting 43.6% of the
total emergy input followed by labour (16.3%), diesel (9.4%) and
seed (7.3%) (Table 2) inputs, whereas in conventional wheat, nitro-
gen (7.70E+15 seJ/ha/yr) was the highest emergy input equivalent
to 57.8% of the total emergy input followed by services (21.2%),
labour (6.6%) and phosphorus (5.6%) inputs (Table 1). The chemical
inputs of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium fertilisers, herbicide
and fungicide constituted 64.5% of the total emergy input in the
conventional wheat, demonstrating the extent of dependence on
non-renewable resources.
3.4. Emergy indices for evaluation of agro-ecosystems
The emergy indices, used for sustainability evaluation, exhib-
ited contrasting differences between the two production systems
in terms of U, Y, solar transformity, ELR, EYR and ESI. In conven-
tional wheat, U was 7.4 times higher (1.33E+16 seJ/ha/yr) than
in CFE system (1.79E+15 seJ/ha/yr) (Tables 1 and 2) indicating
intensive resource use in conventional wheat. The CFE Y was 81%
(2.80E+11 J/ha/yr) higher with 13.5 times (6.40E+03 seJ/J) lower
solar transformity compared to the Y (1.54E+11 J/ha/yr) and solar
transformity (8.63E+04 seJ/J) in the conventional wheat, exhibit-
ing high resource use efficiency in CFE (Table 3). The Y from CFE
constituted multiple yield components of grain, straw, fodder and
woodchip production of 4020, 3580, 6100 and 10,000 kg/ha/yr
respectively (Table 2) whereas Y components in the conventional
wheat consisted of 7250 kg grain and 3770 kg straw/ha/yr (Table 1).
The solar transformity for component outputs from conventional
wheat was one-order higher (Table 1) compared to CFE (Table 2).
The lower solar transformity in CFE is both due to multiple output
products and non-use of chemical inputs of fertilisers, herbicide and
pesticide. Hence, U, Y and solar transformity values demonstrated
that the conventional wheat production required more emergy
input per unit of output (J) produced compared to CFE system of
production.
The CFE system of production had lower ELR (4.21) compared
to 9 times higher ELR (37.77) in conventional wheat (Table 3).
EYR in CFE was significantly higher by 22.5% (1.26) compared to
conventional wheat (1.03) which demonstrated that CFE sys-
tem had higher net contribution to the economy beyond its
own operations compared to conventional wheat. ESI in CFE
(0.30) was 10 times higher compared to conventional wheat
(0.03) (Table 3) indicating that CFE system was more ecolog-
ically and economically compatible compared to conventional
wheat.
4. Discussion
4.1. Comparison of the conventional wheat and CFE production
system
CFE system is a self-sustaining system with synergistic effects
of one component (crop, fodder and biofuel) supporting other
components in the production system. Cereal components were
under-sown with nitrogen-fixing clover/ryegrass mixture and the
cereal components benefited from wider nutrient depletion zone
available due to clover fixing its own requirement of nitrogen as
high as 57 kg nitrogen/ha (own calculations). On removal of the
cereal components, clover/rye component was beneficial in terms
of covering the soil surface, reducing the soil erosion, adding sub-
stantial amounts of organic matter due to shedding of leaves and
exploiting the available residual nitrogen in the soil, which if not
taken up, can be lost beyond the reach of roots. The alder trees in
the biomass belts fixed 152 kg nitrogen/ha (own calculations) and
supplemented nitrogen requirement of other tree components in
the biomass belts (willow and hazelnut trees) and hazelnut pro-
vided refuge to the predatory insects, an ecosystem service required
to regulate the pest population in the cereal production system.
Hence, there was a ‘complementarity’ of synergistic effects of one
component on other components and vice versa in contrast to con-
ventional wheat, where such mechanisms did not exist and the
nutrient needs and crop output was dependent on the external
inputs of fertilisers and herbicides, a major share of the emergy
costs in production.
In the CFE system, the production risks were negligible due to
less dependence on the external inputs in contrast to conventional
wheat, where the risks were high due to dependence on the exter-
nal inputs, exposing the farmers to the fluctuation in market prices
of purchased resources. The CFE system of production can be com-
pared to the agro-forestry system practised by an indigenous tribe
(Lancandon Maya) from Chiapas in Mexico (Diemont et al., 2006;
Martin et al., 2006), where natural succession of crop, shrubs and
trees were effectively utilised to regenerate soil fertility for pro-
duction of multiple food crops. The agro-forestry system did not
use any external inputs like fertilisers, herbicides or pesticides and
the practice has been maintained for centuries by the indigenous
community. Similarly, an alley cropping system with lupin/wheat
rotation between the trees in Australia (Lefroy and Rydberg, 2003),
was found to be more efficient in utilisation of renewable resources
for production of crops compared to only lupin/wheat rotation
without trees. The co-production of multiple outputs, exemplified
by CFE are reported to be more efficient with less environmental
load compared to independent production of outputs (Bastianoni
and Marchettini, 2000). This demonstrated that use of natural eco-
logical processes to maintain natural complexity by combining
annual crops with semi-perennials and perennials can effectively
decrease the need for external inputs for sustainable production of
food, fodder and energy.
 B.B. Ghaley, J.R. Porter / Ecological Indicators 24 (2013) 534–542
4.2. Significance of fertiliser inputs and its emergy contribution
Denmark stands at 20th position of the 138 countries using max-
imum quantity of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium fertiliser/ha
of crop land, with mean fertiliser use of 159.9 kg nutrients/ha of
arable land (FAOStat, 2007). In Denmark, nitrogen, phosphorus
and potassium fertiliser use in wheat is 150:17:40 kg nutrients/ha
and the total consumption in wheat production is estimated at
95,000:10,000:25,000 tons respectively (FAOStat, 2007), indicating
the extent of dependence on fertilisers for wheat production. The
trend was reflected in our emergy synthesis of conventional wheat
production, where nitrogen input was the highest emergy cost con-
stituting 57.8% (Table 1) of the total emergy input. The trend was
in similarity to emergy synthesis of conventional corn production
in Kansas in USA, in which 47% of the purchased inputs constituted
emergy attributed to nitrogen and phosphorus fertilisers (Martin
et al., 2006) and emergy synthesis of annual lupin/wheat rota-
tion in Australia, in which 46% of the purchased inputs (Lefroy and
Rydberg, 2003) constituted phosphorus fertiliser. Emergy synthe-
sis of conventional wheat crop production, conducted in Risø in
Denmark (Coppola et al., 2009), reported more than 50% of the
emergy flow from purchased non-renewable fossil based fertilisers,
which supported our findings.
As nutrients are one of the main limiting factors for crop pro-
duction, the intensive use of fertilisers have created dependence
on non-renewable resources increasing the ELR and decreasing the
ESI as reflected in our conventional wheat production system. The
non-use of fertiliser inputs in CFE decreased ELR and increased
ESI demonstrating that the CFE system was more amenable to the
local environment and used higher percentage of local renewable
resources. The reduction of fertiliser inputs can be achieved by
CFE-like system or by enhancing the fertiliser use efficiency by
exploiting the genetic differences in cultivars in nutrient uptake
and by matching the fertiliser application with crop demand. Apart
from the on-site benefits of reduction of fertiliser inputs, off-
site benefits can be reaped due to reduced fertiliser loss to the
surrounding environment reducing contamination of our natural
resources.
4.3. Renewable fraction in CFE and conventional wheat
The two production systems provided a stark example of differ-
ences in use of natural processes and the purchased resources to
produce outputs. With both systems of production located in the
same experimental farm, the quantity of local renewable resources
received by both the systems were the same and the fraction of
local renewable resource use was a function of the extent of local
non-renewables and purchased resources used. The high percent-
age of local renewable fraction (19.2%) in CFE (Table 2) and alley
cropping (30%) (Lefroy and Rydberg, 2003) indicated that CFE was
more dependent on the ecological processes of natural diversity
and used minimum purchased resources. Our findings were in line
with emergy synthesis of conventional corn and blackberry produc-
tion in USA and Lacandon polycultural rotation system in Mexico
(Martin et al., 2006) where, local renewable fraction increased in
the order; conventional corn production (5%) < blackberry produc-
tion (31%) < Lacandon polycultural rotation (91%), which explicitly
demonstrated that local renewable fraction decreased as we move
away from the natural diversity. As the agro-ecosystems shift to
monoculture systems to produce high yields, additional fertiliser
inputs are required to meet the increasing crop demands for nutri-
ents, drawing heavily on the non-renewable resources, typical of
our conventional wheat production system. Although cereal yields
were lower in CFE, proportionately less inputs were used and use
of cultivars with high production potential, adapted to the lower
fertility levels with high nutrient uptake and utilization efficiency,
539
can increase the outputs and enhance the sustainability of the CFE
system.
4.4. Solar transformity
Solar transformity in terms of emergy required to produce 1 J
of output was 13.5 times higher in conventional wheat which
demonstrated that the production system was less efficient and
used more emergy input per J of output produced compared
to CFE. The solar transformity reported in our study in the
conventional wheat was similar to another conventional wheat
production study in Denmark (Coppola et al., 2009). However,
solar transformity was lower for Danish agricultural crops for
the year 1936 (2.88E+04 seJ/J) and 1999 (3.40E+04 seJ/J) (Haden,
2003) and the increasing trend of solar transformity values from
1936 to 1999 to 2011 indicated the increasing input for pro-
duction of agricultural produce. Our findings corresponded well
with emergy synthesis of three cropping systems in Australia
(Lefroy and Rydberg, 2003), in which solar transformity was
lower in alley cropping (9.27E+4 seJ/J) compared to conventional
lupin/wheat rotation (11.70E+4 seJ/kg). Hence, solar transformity
values indicated the efficiency of the production system under
investigation.
4.5. Emergy yield ratio (EYR)
Renewable resources like sun, wind and rainfall are distributed
over large areas and have low energy quality. Hence, high qual-
ity emergy inputs are imported into the agricultural production
system to concentrate low quality energy into crop outputs. CFE
exhibited higher (EYR = 1.26) ability to exploit local resources per
unit of imported (non-local) resources compared to the conven-
tional wheat production system (1.03). In conformity to our results,
EYR reported for Danish agricultural system in the year 1936, 1970
and 1999 were 1.14, 1.08 and 1.17 respectively (Haden, 2003). The
higher EYR value of CFE was a clear indicator of its net contribution
to the wider economy compared to the conventional wheat pro-
duction system (Odum, 1996). Lower EYR of conventional wheat
is similar to the traditional energy analyses in agricultural produc-
tion system. However, the basis for energy and emergy synthesis
are very different because emergy synthesis is based on conversion
of all inputs into a common unit of seJ, whereas energy analysis is
performed by dividing the total energy output by energy input of
purchased resources (Franzese et al., 2009). In similarity to emergy
synthesis, energy analysis has demonstrated that the net bene-
fits from agro-ecosystems have decreased on shifting from bullock
driven to mechanised agriculture due to high energy input and low
energy efficiency in today’s industrial agriculture (Diemont et al.,
2006).
4.6. Environmental loading ratio (ELR)
The increase in quantity of purchased resources increases the
ELR due to its adverse effects on environment in terms of emergy
use in extraction, processing and transport to the point of consump-
tion. ELR values for Danish agriculture in 1936, 1970 and 1999 were
reported as 7.39, 13.13 and 9.67 respectively (Haden, 2003) and the
lower values can be due to less use of emergy inputs in those years
and/or because the values reported were average for the whole
agricultural system in Denmark. In line with our findings, emergy
evaluation of the conventional corn production system in Australia
reported ELR values of 18.83 whereas the less intensive blackberry
production had ELR values of 2.23 (Martin et al., 2006). In similar-
ity, CFE system of production had lower environmental loading as
indicated by low ELR due to less purchased resources. Hence, CFE-
like agro-ecosystem which use minimum resources would help
540 B.B. Ghaley, J.R. Porter / Ecological Indicators 24 (2013) 534–542

maintain ecological integrity for sustainable production of food, Appendix A.

fodder and energy in the long run.
Table 1 Calculations
4.7. Emergy sustainability index 1. Solar energy
Area cultivated = 1.11E+04 m2
Insolation = 3.73E+09 J/m2 /yr (DMI, 2011)
In CFE, higher ESI (0.30) indicated higher ecological and Albedo = 0.3 (Haden, 2003)
economic sustainability of the production process relative to con- Solar energy = (land area) (insolation) (1-albedo)
ventional wheat (0.03). ESI values can range from 0 to ∞ and our (Brandt-Williams, 2002)
= 1.11E+04 m2 )(3.73E+09 J/m2 /yr) (1 − 0.3)
ESI values of less than one is characteristic of consumer products
= 2.90E+13 J/yr
(Brown and Ulgiati, 1997) in similarity to ESI value of 0.45 for corn
2. Wind energy
production in Italy (Ulgiati et al., 1993). In comparison to the ESI Area cultivated = 1.11E+04 m2
values reported for the Danish Agriculture for the year 1936, 1970 Density of wind = 1.3 kg/m3 (Coppola et al.,
and 1999 as 0.15, 0.08 and 0.12 respectively (Haden, 2003), the 2009)
Drag coefficient = 1.00E−03
ESI value for CFE was higher in contrast to conventional wheat.
Wind velocity = 4.80E+00 (DMI, 2011)
In similarity to our study, conventional corn production system
Wind energy = (land area) (density of wind) (drag
in USA reported ESI of 0.06 whilst the indigenous polyculture ESI coefficient) (wind velocity)3 × (time) (Odum
was 115.98 (Martin et al., 2006), much higher than ESI values for et al., 2000a)
CFE. Hence, ESI can be used as an indicator of the sustainability of = (1.11E+04 m2 )(1.3 kg/m3 ) (1.00E−03)
the agro-ecosystem, which can help in identifying agro-ecosystems (4.8E+00 m/s)3 (3.14E+7 s/yr)
= 5.01E+10 J/yr
which are less demanding on environment and largely dependent
3. Rain,
on the local renewable resource for production. evapotranspiration
Area cultivated = 1.11E+04 m2
5. Conclusions Precipitation average = 0.726 m/yr (record from weather station at
the experimental site)
Run-off coefficient = (1 − 0.683) (Hansen and Nielsen, 1995)
By assessing the inputs in the two production systems and Gibbs free energy = 4.94E+00 J/g
converting the inputs into a common currency of seJ, it was Conversion = 1.00E+06 g/m3
possible to compare the emergy inputs in the two production Rain energy = (land area) (precipitation average) (run-off
systems on an equal footing. Such comparisons are useful to coefficient) (Gibbs free energy)
(Brandt-Williams, 2002)
assess emergy intensive inputs to improve the resource use effi-
= (1.11E+04 m2 )(0.726 m/yr)(0.317)(4.94E+00 J/g)
ciency of the production systems. For example, nitrogen was the (1.00E+06)
highest emergy input in conventional wheat and strategies can = 1.26E+10 J/yr
be devised to reduce the nitrogen input by improving the use 4. Loss of topsoil in
efficiency by management and exploiting cultivar differences in conventional wheat
Area cultivated = 11.1E+00 ha
nutrient uptake. Similarly, service input was the highest emergy
Erosion rate in = 7.62E+05 g/ha/yr (Hansen and Nielsen, 1995)
input in the CFE and ways to reduce the service emergy can cereals/wheat
be investigated by combining more field operations and thereof % Organic matter in soil = 0.026 (Sibbesen, 1995; Schjønning, 1995)
reducing the machinery use. Based on the quantity of local Energy content/g = 5.40 kcal/g
organic
renewables, local non-renewables and purchased resources in the
Energy content = 4186 J/kcal
two production systems, purchased resources (chemical inputs) Energy of top soil loss = (farmed area) (erosion rate)(% organic in
formed the bulk of the emergy input in conventional wheat. soil)(5.40 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal)
As chemical inputs are non-renewables and emergy intensive, = (11.1E+00 ha) (7.62E+05 g/ha/yr)
they deplete the finite environmental resources available. Hence, (0.026)(5.40 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal)
= 4.97E+09 J/yr
there is a need for alternative production method like CFE. As
5. Diesel
CFE is characterised by relatively high fraction of local renew- Area cultivated = 11.1 ha
able resource use, such agro-ecosystems can be potential way Quantity = 76.39 l/ha = 6.49E+04 g/ha/yr (record from
forward for sustained production of food, fodder and energy but trial site)
the adoption would hinge upon economic viability and favourable Energy content = 4.34E+04 J/g
Energy = (area cultivated) (quantity) (energy content)
agriculture policies to encourage environment-friendly farming
= (11.1 ha) (6.49E+04 g/ha/y) (4.34E+04 J/g)
practices. = 3.13E+10 J/yr
6. Machinery
Area cultivated = 11.1 ha
Acknowledgements
Quantity = 9.31E+03 g/ha/yr (record from trial site)
Total use = (area cultivated) × (quantity)
The financial support provided by the project ‘Fuel for Life’ = (11.1 ha) (9.31E+03 g/ha/yr)
for collection of data in the combined food and energy pro- = 1.03E+05 g/yr
duction and in the conventional wheat production trial site is 7. Seeds
Area cultivated = 11.1 ha
highly appreciated. The help of Mr. Manuel Montesino San Martin,
Quantity = 1.70E+05 g/ha/yr (record from trial site)
for incorporating some reviewer comments, is highly appreci- Total use = (area cultivated) × (quantity)
ated. The support provided by Mr. Anders Kristian Nørgaard, = (11.1 ha) (1.70E+05 g/ha/yr)
Research Technician, in providing information on the differ- = 1.89E+06 g/yr
ent inputs used at the trial sites were extremely useful. We 8. Herbicide
Area cultivated = 11.1 ha
like to thank the manuscript reviewers for the detailed com-
Quantity = 1.00E+03 g/ha/yr (record from trial site)
ments and their suggestions for improvements, which constituted Total use = (area cultivated) × (quantity)
a significant input for improving the scientific content of the = (11.1 ha) (1.00E+03 g/h/y)
paper. = 1.11E+04 g/yr
 B.B. Ghaley, J.R. Porter / Ecological Indicators 24 (2013) 534–542 541

9. Fungicide 5. Diesel
Area cultivated = 11.1 ha Area cultivated = 11.1 ha
Quantity = 4.00E+02 g/ha/yr (record from trial site) Quantity = 41.15 l/ha = 3.50E+04 g/ha/y (record from trial
Total use = (area cultivated) × (quantity) site)
= (11.1 ha) (4.00E+02 g/ha/y) Energy content = 4.34E+04 J/g
= 4.44E+03 g/yr Energy = (area cultivated) (quantity) (energy content)
10. Nitrogen = (11.1 ha)(3.50E+04 g/ha/y) (4.34E+04 J/g)
Area cultivated = 11.1 ha = 1.69E+10 J/yr
Quantity = 1.90E+05 g/ha/y (record from trial site) 6. Machinery
Total use = (area cultivated) × (quantity) Area cultivated = 11.1 ha
= (11.1 ha) (1.90E+05 g/ha/yr) Quantity = 3.06E+03 g/ha/yr (record from trial site)
= 2.11E+06 g/yr Total cost = (area cultivated) × (quantity)
11. Phosphorus = (11.1 ha) (3.06E+03 g/ha/yr)
Area cultivated = 11.1 ha = 3.40E+04 g/yr
Quantity = 2.00E+04 g/ha/yr (record from trial site) 7. Biomass belt
Total use = (area cultivated) × (quantity) planting material
= (11.1 ha) (2.00E+04 g/ha/y) Area cultivated = 1 ha
= 2.22E+05 g/yr Wood equivalent = 3.92E+08 J (Franzese et al., 2009)
12. Potassium energy/ha
Area cultivated = 11.1 ha 8. Seeds
Quantity = 6.00E+04 g/ha/yr (record from trial site) Area cultivated = 10.1 ha
Total use = (area cultivated) × (quantity) Quantity = 9.00E+04 g/ha/yr (record from trial site)
= (11.1 ha) (6.00E+04 g/ha/yr) Total use = (area cultivated) × (quantity)
= 6.66E+05 g/yr = (10.1 ha) (9.00E+04 g/ha/yr)
13. Manure = 9.09E+05 g/yr
Area cultivated = 11.1 ha 9. Manure
Quantity = 4.40E+04 g/ha/yr (record from trial site) Area cultivated = 11.1 ha
Total use = (area cultivated) × (quantity) Quantity = 2.00E+04 g/ha/yr (record from trial site)
= (11.1 ha) 4.40E+04 g/ha/yr) Total use = (area cultivated) × (quantity)
= 4.88E+05 g/yr = (11.1 ha) (2.00E+04 g/ha/yr)
14. Labour = 2.22E+05 g/yr
Area cultivated = 11.1 ha 10. Labour
Cost = 281.3 $/ha/yr (cost of labour from land Area cultivated = 11.1 ha
preparation to harvest) Cost = 9.37E+01 $/ha/yr (cost of labour from land
Total use = (area cultivated) × (cost) preparation to harvest)
= (11.1 ha) (281.3 $/ha/yr) Total use = (area cultivated) × (cost)
= 3.12E+03 $/yr = (11.1 ha) (9.37E+01 $/ha/yr)
15. Services = 1.04E+03 $/yr
Area cultivated = 11.1 ha 11. Services
Cost = 9.04E+02 $/ha/yr (cost of inputs 5–13 in Area cultivated = 11.1 ha
Table 1) Cost = 2.50E+02 $/ha/yr (cost of inputs 5–9 in
Total cost = (area cultivated) × (cost) Table 2)
= (11.1 ha) (9.04E+02 $/ha/yr) Total cost = (area cultivated) × (cost)
= 1.00E+04 $/yr = (11.1 ha) (2.50E+02 $/ha/yr)
= 2.78E+03 $/yr

Appendix B.
Table 2 Calculations (1–3 is same as Table 1):
4. Loss of topsoil in CFE
Area cultivated
Wheat component
Pasture/grass ley
Willow belts
Erosion rate in wheat field
Erosion rate in
pasture/grass ley
% Organic matter in soil
Energy content/g organic
Energy content
Energy of top soil loss in
wheat component
Energy of top soil loss in
pasture/grass ley
component
Total topsoil loss in wheat
and pasture/grass ley
= 11.1E+00 ha
= 5.05 ha
= 5.05 ha
= 1 ha
= 7.62E+05 g/ha/yr (Hansen and Nielsen, 1995)
= 6.22E+04 g/ha/yr (Hansen and Nielsen, 1995)
= 0.026 (Sibbesen, 1995; Schjønning 1995)
= 5.40 kcal/g
= 4186 J/kcal
= (farmed area) (erosion rate)(% organic in
soil)(5.40 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal)
= (5.05E+00 ha) (7.62E+05 g/ha/yr)
(0.026)(5.40 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal)
= 2.26E+09 J/yr
= (farmed area) (erosion rate)(% organic in
soil)(5.40 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal)
= (5.05E+00 ha) (6.22E+04 g/ha/yr)
(0.026)(5.40 kcal/g)(4186 J/kcal)
= 1.85E+08 J/yr
= 2.45E+09 J/yr
References
Bastianoni, S., Marchettini, N., 2000. The problem of co-production in environmental
accounting by emergy analysis. Ecol. Model. 129, 187–193.
Bastianoni, S., Marchettini, N., Panzieri, M., Tiezzi, E., 2001. Sustainability assessment
of a farm in the Chianti area (Italy). J. Cleaner Prod. 9, 365–373.
Brandt-Williams, S.L., 2002. Folio 4: emergy of Florida agriculture (2nd printing). In:
Handbook of Emergy Evaluation. Center for environmental policy, University of
Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Brown, M.T., Ulgiati, S., 1999. Emergy evaluation of the biosphere and natural capital.
Ambio 28, 486–493.
Brown, M.T., Buranakarn, V., 2003. Emergy indices and ratios for sustainable material
cycles and recycle options. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 38, 1–22.
Brown, M.T., Ulgiati, S., 1997. Emergy-based indices and ratios to evaluate sustain-
ability: monitoring economies and technology toward environmentally sound
innovation. Ecol. Eng. 9, 51–69.
Brown, M.T., Ulgiati, S., 2004. Energy quality, emergy, and transformity: H.T. Odum’s
contributions to quantifying and understanding systems. Ecol. Model. 178,
201–213.
Brown, M.T., Ulgiati, S., 2010. Updated evaluation of exergy and emergy driving the
geobiosphere: a review and refinement of the emergy baseline. Ecol. Model. 221,
2501–2508.
Brown, M.T., Odum, H.T., Jorgensen, S.E., 2004. Energy hierarchy and transformity
in the universe. Ecol. Model. 178, 17–28.
Buonocore, E., Franzese, P.P., Ulgiati, S., 2012. Assesing the environmental per-
formance and sustainability of bioenergy production in Sweden: a life cycle
assessment perspective. Energy 37, 69–78.
Cavalett, O., de Queiroz, J.F., Ortega, E., 2006. Emergy assessment of integrated pro-
duction systems of grains, pig and fish in small farms in the South Brazil. Ecol.
Model. 193, 205–224.
Chen, G.Q., Jiang, M.M., Chen, B., Yang, Z.F., Lin, C., 2006. Emergy analysis of Chinese
agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 115, 161–173.
Chen, B., Chen, Z.M., Zhou, Y., Zhou, J.B., Chen, G.Q., 2009. Emergy as embodied energy
based assessment for local sustainability of a constructed wetland in Beijing.
Commun. Nonlin. Sci. Numer. Simul. 14, 622–635.
542 B.B. Ghaley, J.R. Porter / Ecological Indicators 24 (2013) 534–542
Coppola, F., Bastianoni, S., Østergård, H., 2009. Sustainability of bioethanol produc-
tion from wheat with recycled residues as evaluated by Emergy assessment.
Biomass Bioenergy 33, 1626–1642.
Costanza, R., 2000. Social goals and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecosystems
3, 4–10.
Diemont, S.A.W., Martin, J.F., Levy-Tacher, S.I., 2006. Emergy evaluation of Lacandon
Maya indigenous swidden agroforestry in Chiapas, Mexico. Agroforestry Syst.
66, 23–42.
DMI, 2011. Danish Meteorological Institute, Denmark (http://www.dmi.dk)
(accessed on 20.12.2011).
European Commission, 2011. Energy Roadmap 2050. Available from
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy2020/roadmap/doc/com 2011 8852 en.pdf
(accessed on 03.05.2012).
FAOStat, 2007. Fertilizer Use Statistics. Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations.
Franzese, P.P., Rydberg, T., Russo, G.F., Ulgiati, S., 2009. Sustainable biomass produc-
tion: a comparison between gross energy requirement and emergy synthesis
methods. Ecol. Indic. 9, 959–970.
Haden, A.C., 2003. Emergy Evaluations of Denmark and Danish Agriculture. The-
sis/Dissertation 1–102.
Hansen, A., Nielsen, J.D., 1995. Runoff and loss of soil and nutrients. In surface runoff,
erosion, and loss of phosphorus at two agricultural soils in Denmark. Plot studies
1989–1992. SP report No. 14. Danish Institute of Plant and soil Science.
Hau, J.L., Bakshi, B.R., 2004. Promise and problems of emergy analysis. Ecol. Model.
178, 215–225.
Häyhä, T., Franzese, P.P., Ulgiati, S., 2011. Economic and environmental performance
of electricity production in Finland: a multicriteria assessment framework. Ecol.
Model. 223, 81–90.
Jorgensen, S.E., Odum, H.T., Brown, M.T., 2004. Emergy and exergy stored in genetic
information. Ecol. Model. 178, 11–16.
Lefroy, E., Rydberg, T., 2003. Emergy evaluation of three cropping systems in south-
western Australia. Ecol. Model. 161, 195–211.
Li, L., Lu, H., Ren, H., Kang, W., Chen, F., 2011. Emergy evaluations of three aquaculture
systems on wetlands surrounding the Pearl River Estuary, China. Ecol. Indic. 11,
526–534.
Lu, H.F., Campbell, D.E., 2009. Ecological and economic dynamics of the Shunde
agricultural system under China’s small city development strategy. J. Environ.
Manag. 90, 2589–2600.
Marchettini, N., Panzieri, M., Niccolucci, V., Bastianoni, S., Borsa, S., 2003. Sustain-
ability indicators for environmental performance and sustainability assessment
of the productions of four fine Italian wines. Int. J. Sustainable Dev. World Ecol.
10, 275–282.
Martin, J.F., Diemont, S.A.W., Powell, E., Stanton, M., Levy-Tacher, S., 2006. Emergy
evaluation of the performance and sustainability of three agricultural systems
with different scales and management. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 115, 128–140.
MEA, 2005. Millenium ecosystem assessment. In: Ecosystems and Human Well-
Being: Biodiversity Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.
Odum, H.T., 1988. Self-organization, transformity, and information. Science 242,
1132–1139.
Odum, H.T., 1996. Environmental Accounting: Emergy and Environmental Decision
Making. John Wiley & Sons, INC.
Odum, H.T., 2002. Explanations of ecological relationships with energy systems
concepts. Ecol. Model. 158, 201–211.
Odum, H.T., Odum, E.P., 2000. The energetic basis for valuation of ecosystem services.
Ecosystems 3, 21–23.
Odum, H.T., Odum, B., 2003. Concepts and methods of ecological engineering. Ecol.
Eng. 20, 339–361.
Odum, H.T., Brown, M.T., Brandt-Williams, S.L., 2000a. Folio 1: emergy of global
processes. In: Handbook of Emergy Evaluation. Center for Environmental Policy.
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Odum, H.T., Doherty, S.J., Scatena, F.N., Kharecha, P.A., 2000b. Emergy evaluation of
reforestation alternatives in Puerto Rico. Forest Sci. 46, 521–530.
Porter, J., Costanza, R., Sandhu, H., Sigsgaard, L., Wratten, S., 2009. The value of pro-
ducing food, energy, and ecosystem services within an agro-ecosystem. Ambio
38, 186–193.
Rydberg, T., Haden, A.C., 2006. Emergy evaluations of Denmark and Danish agri-
culture: assessing the influence of changing resource availability on the
organization of agriculture and society. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 117, 145–158.
Schjønning, P., 1995. Erodibility index of Danish Soils. In surface run-off, erosion and
loss of phosphorus at two agricultural soils in Denmark. Plot studies 1989–1992.
SP Report No. 14. Danish Institute of Plant and soil Science.
Sibbesen, E., 1995. Phosphorus, nitrogen and carbon in particle-size fractions of soils
and sediments. In surface run-off, erosion and loss of phosphorus at two agri-
cultural soils in Denmark. Plot studies 1989–1992. SP Report No. 14. Danish
Institute of Plant and soil Science.
UKNEA, 2011. United Kingdom National Ecosystem Assessment. http://uknea.unep-
wcmc.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=KSXkgw7AKSY%3d&tabid=82 (accessed on
22.12.2011).
Ulgiati, S., Odum, H.T., Bastianoni, S., 1993. Emergy analysis of Italian agricultural
system: the role of energy quality and environmental inputs. In: Bonati, L.,
Cosentino, U., Lasagni, M., Moro, G., Pitea, D., Schiraldi, A. (Eds.), Trends in Eco-
logical Physical Chemistry. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 187–215.
Ulgiati, S., Zucaro, A., Franzese, P.P., 2011a. Shared wealth or nobody’s land? The
worth of natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 70, 778–787.
Ulgiati, S., Ascione, M., Barbigli, S., Cherubini, F., Franzese, P.P., Viglia, S., Zucaro,
A., 2011b. Material energy and environmental performance of technological
and social systems under a life cycle assessment perspective. Ecol. Model. 222,
176–189.
United Nations, 2012. Population and Vital Statistics Report. Department of Econonic
and Social Affairs, Population division, New York.