Le Fermier Knowledge Search

ANNEX 1 : INDICATORS USED FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF CROPPING SYSTEMS

## Limits

TFI is a measure of the intensity of pesticide use but does not describe the risk this represents for the environment (it does not take into account some characteristics of the products - such as toxicity or persistence - nor those of the environment in which they are used). Consequently, we could initiate a discussion during the evaluation on the choice of pesticides.

## Complementary indicator in the calculator for seed treatments

TFI does not take into account seed treatments, so we complete the information by marking the percentage of treated seeds in the total number of seeds used by the farmer. We can also indicate if the farmer chooses treated seed or if the choice is that of the seed producer.

## ENERGY CONSUMPTION

Source: ADEME, M. Cariolle (ITB)

Calculated for :
- Evaluation of the initial state
- Evaluation of the modified CS

## Objectives

The aim is to estimate variations in energy consumption following changes in practices.

## Calculation method

Here we use the conversion table offered by ADEME and M. Cariolle to estimate energy consumption for the following interventions (cf. section 'Number and type of passages made'):

- Rolling
- Ploughing
- Superficial cultivation
- Soil decompaction
- Sowing
- Hoeing/harrowing/rotary hoeing
- Mowing/maintenance
- Spreading manure/mineral fertiliser
- Spraying
- Harvesting
- Cutting/hay making/windowing/baling
- Shredding

We can also take into account energy costs linked to the consumption of fertilisers and water.

To simplify the calculation, we consider only three types of fertiliser: ammonium nitrate for nitrogen, Super 45 for phosphorous and potassium chloride for potassium. Further, we consider that phosphorous and potassium will be adjusted according to the crop's needs.

We then calculate the energy costs for each crop, for each system and then the difference in consumption between the different systems.

**Attention**: For combined operations (for example, superficial cultivation and rolling), count these as only one operation.

## Parameter data/Data to be collected on the farm

Data to be collected: number and type of passages made, quantities of nitrogen inputs, yields.

Parameter data: energy consumption for each type of intervention.

## Limits

This indicator is based on the principal of saving energy: it makes it possible to reduce overall energy consumption, without taking into account the system's productivity. It should therefore be completed by the 'energy efficiency' indicator described below.

Practical guide for the design of cropping systems less reliant on pesticides

78
Practical guide for the design of cropping systems less reliant on pesticides

# ANNEX 1 : INDICATORS USED FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF CROPPING SYSTEMS

## ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF THE SYSTEM

Source: ADEME, M. Cariolle (ITB)

**Calculated for :**
- Evaluation of the initial state
- Evaluation of the modified CS

## Objectives

The aim is to estimate the system's energy efficiency by measuring the ratio between energy costs and the system's productivity.

## Calculation method

Energy efficiency crop i = (CV crop i / E cost crop i)

with:
- CV crop i = calorific value of products
- E cost crop i = energy cost of the crop i

This indicator is calculated for all the crops, and then for the CS under study.

## Parameter data/data to be collected on the farm

Data to be collected: number and type of passages made, quantities of nitrogen inputs, yields.

Parameter data: energy consumption for each type of intervention, calorific value for products.

## Limits

This indicator evaluates the efficiency of the system: we are seeking here to optimise energy use without taking into account the fact that this resource may be limited. It should therefore be completed by taking into account the indicator 'energy consumption'.

## BASCULE BALANCE

Source: Benoit M., 1992. Un indicateur des risques de pollution azotée nommé « BASCULE». (Balance Azotée Spatialisée des systèmes de Culture de l'Exploitation, (spatialized nitrogen balance for farm cropping systems)). Fourrages, 129, 95-110.

**Calculated for:**
- Evaluation of the initial state
- Evaluation of the modified CS

## Objectives

The aim is to estimate the impact of the management of nitrogen fertilisation in zones where nitrogen is a major issue.

## Calculation method and source of data

For the whole CS:

Balance = nitrogen inputs - nitrogen exports

with:
- Nitrogen inputs: total quantity of nitrogen brought to the field in mineral or organic form
- Nitrogen exports: total quantity of nitrogen exported by the production = average yield per crop x export coefficient of crop

# ANNEX 1 : INDICATORS USED FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF CROPPING SYSTEMS

|  Indicator | Calculation method | Data for input | Parameter data |   | Output  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|   |  n=length of rotation | Data | Data | Units | Output  |
|  Energy costs | Σ (cost interv. i×nb interv. i)/n+number of units of N mineral input=energy cost of one unit+quantity of water given×energy cost for m³ of water+energy cost of P for 1T of product=yield yield+energy cost of K for 1T of product=yield | Number of passages for: Rolling Ploughing Superficial cultivation Soil decompaction Sowing Hoeing /harrowing/rotary hoeing Mowing/maintenance Spreading manure/mineral fertiliser Spraying Harvesting Cutting/hay making/windowing/baling Shredding Yields | Energy consumption/ type of interventions Energy cost per unit of nitrogen Global needs of P and K per crop + energy cost per unit of P and K Energy cost per m³ of water Sources: INRA, ADEME, 1999 | MJ/ha MJ/T | Total energy cost per crop and average for the CS  |
|  Energy efficiency | Σ (NCV crop i/cost E crop i)/n | Quantities of water supplied Quantities of nitrogen supplied per crop N.B.: The number of passages can be directly reduced in the calculator according to the crop | Net calorific value (NCV) of products and by-products Sources: INRA, ADEME, 1999 |  | Energy efficiency per crop and average for CS  |
|  Bascule balance | Σ (N inputs-export coefficient×yield)/n | Quantity of nitrogen inputs in mineral or organic form Average yield per crop | Export coefficient per crop Source: COMIFER | kg N/ha | Nitrogen balance for the CS  |
|  Number and type of passages made |  | Number and type of passages made |  |  | Average number and type of passages in the CS  |
|  Gross product (GP) | Σ (yield×price)/n for all crops in the crop sequence | Average yield per crop | Sale price per crop | €/ha and €/q | Average gross product for the CS  |
|  Operational costs (OC) | Σ (quantity of seed purchased×price)+ Σ (TFI treatment i×unit cost of treatment i or phytosanitary charge)+ Σ (quantity of nitrogen inputs×unit cost of nitrogen)/n+cost of P for 1T of product×yield+cost of K for 1T of product=yield | Quantities of seed purchased per crop (in kg) TFI per crop and by type of treatment or plant protection product charges Quantities of fertiliser input per crop Quantities of organic nitrogen purchased Yields | Cost of seeds Cost of treatments/ unit cost of TFI and by type of treatment Unit cost of N Global needs of P and K per crop+unit cost of P and K | Seeds: €/kg TFI: €/ha Mineral fertiliser (N/P/K): €/kg Organic fertiliser: €/kg | Average operational costs for the CS  |
|  Labour and machinery costs (LMC) | Σ (Number of interventions i×LMC for intervention i)/n | Number of passages for: Irrigation Soil decompaction Superficial cultivation Ploughing Sowing Spreading Spraying Harvesting Shredding Harrowing | Cost per type of intervention Source: Barèmes Entraide | €/ha | Average LMC for the CS  |
|  Direct margin | GP-OC-LMC |  |  | €/ha | Average direct margin for the CS  |
|  Purchase of specific equipment |  | Purchases to be made |  |  |   |
|  Learning costs |  | Number of new crops in the rotation Number of new practices in the crop sequence Number of new practices in the crop sequence |  |  |   |

Practical guide for the design of cropping systems less reliant on pesticides

ANNEX 1 : INDICATORS USED FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF CROPPING SYSTEMS

## Calculation method and source of data

For the calculation, we proceed as follows:

- Calculation of gross product
- Hypotheses are made both for the yields of newly introduced crops and on yields of crops whose growing method has been modified.
- At this stage, the price context is considered to be identical to that of the CS.

Data to be collected: yields
Data parameter: sale price per crop

- Calculation of costs
Identical for the current CS, making hypotheses on the number of passages and the quantities of inputs involved.
Data to be collected/estimated: quantities bought, nature and type of passages made (cf. page 'Number and type of passages made').
Parameter data: price/ha for mechanised tasks and labour cost

- Calculation of direct margin

$$
DM = GP - OC - LMC
$$

## Limits

Labour costs are considered proportional to the number of passages made, though this is not the case in reality.

Also, possible investments necessary for the introduction of new practices are not taken into account, hence the indicator 'Purchase of specific equipment'.

Furthermore, other fixed costs are not taken into account here.

Finally, we do not take into account variations stemming from changes in direct subsidies, possible agro-environmental schemes etc.

The two indicators which follow are not calculated in the calculator which accompanies this guide. Nevertheless, it can be interesting to calculate them to complete the evaluation.

## PURCHASE OF SPECIFIC MATERIAL

Calculated for :
- Evaluation of the modified CS

## Objectives

This indicator seeks to complete the results for the indicator 'margin for economic manoeuvre'.

## Calculation method and source of data

Based on the list of equipment available to the farmer and his cooperative, we can see which purchases are necessary and at what approximate cost: is the purchase possible for the farm and under what conditions?

Practical guide for the design of cropping systems less reliant on pesticides

82
Practical guide for the design of cropping systems less reliant on pesticides

# ANNEX 1 : INDICATORS USED FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF CROPPING SYSTEMS

## LEARNING COSTS

**Calculated for :**
- Evaluation of the modified CS

**Objectives**
If a farmer introduces new practices he may have undergo further training. This indicator seeks to measure the investment necessary.

**Calculation method and source of data**
Learning costs can be evaluated according to the following criteria:
- Number of new crops for the farmer
- Number of new practices (for habitual crops and for new crops)

ANNEX 1 : INDICATORS USED FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF CROPPING SYSTEMS

## Parameter data/data to be collected on the farm

Data to be collected: quantities of nitrogen inputs and average yield for each crop.

Parameter data : export coefficients per crop.

## Calculation methods for the evaluation of modified CS

Nitrogen inputs are estimated for the newly introduced crops and average regional yields are used for the calculations.

## Limits

This indicator should not be interpreted annually. Indeed, depending on the crop, good management of nitrogen inputs will not produce the same values for this indicator.

Oilseed rape is an important balancing mechanism and can surpass 50 kg/ha. Sunflower has a weak balancing effect (-10 kg/ha). Other crops have a balance ranging from 20 to 40 kg/ha.

This is explained by the fact that the calculation of the balance is based on exports and does not take into account potential returns to the soil. Neither does it take into account the characteristics of the environment, while the 'rational' management of inputs takes these factors into account. Furthermore, the Bascule balance takes into account all the inputs in organic form and not only the proportion of nitrogen which is effective during the growing season for a given crop. Neither is the symbiotic fixation of nitrogen by leguminous plants taken into consideration.

Finally, it should be noted that the balance does not take into account the management of nitrogen during the fallow period: we consider that all the nitrogen used by nitrate-fixing catch crops is returned to the soil.

## NUMBER AND TYPE OF PASSAGES MADE

## Calculated for :

- Evaluation of the initial state
- Evaluation of the modified CS

## Objectives

The aim is to estimate the workload necessary to conduct all the interventions listed in the CMP.

This indicator makes it possible to judge the intensity of interventions in the CS.

## Calculation method and sources of data

We count the number of passages conducted for the work listed below for the whole cropping system, according to the farmer, starting with the original state and for an a priori evaluation of the alternative CS:

- Rolling
- Ploughing
- Superficial cultivation
- Soil decompaction
- Sowing
- Hoeing/harrowing/rotary hoeing
- Mowing/maintenance
- Spreading manure/mineral fertiliser
- Spraying
- Harvesting
- Cutting/hay making/windowing/baling
- Shredding

Attention : For combined operations (for example, superficial cultivation and rolling), count these as only one operation.

## Limits

This indicator does not take into account possible conflicts in the work to be completed, which should be considered elsewhere in the design process, notably in using the table in support sheet S2 for the scheduling of work.

Practical guide for the design of cropping systems less reliant on pesticides

PART II: A METHOD FOR CO-DESIGNING CROPPING SYSTEMS LESS RELIANT ON PESTICIDES

STEPHY Calculator - comparative CS$^a$ evaluation

![img-0.jpeg](img-0.jpeg)

Furthermore, using the calculator we can run simulations to vary the characteristics of the cropping system (yield, number of mechanical interventions etc.) and see their influence on the values of the indicators. For example, it is interesting to see how a variation in estimated yield of introduced crops or of pre-existing crops managed in a different way can influence the profit margins associated with each system. To do this, we can reduce or increase the yield by 5q/ha and see the effects on the calculated indicators. The calculator also offers different price contexts both for the sale price of products and the purchase price of fertilisers. We can therefore simulate changes in the economic performance of the cropping system in different economic situations and estimate the sensitivity of new systems in different contexts.

However, to compare different systems, it is necessary to use the same price context for each one.

Practical guide for the design of cropping systems less reliant on pesticides

ANNEX 1 : INDICATORS USED FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF CROPPING SYSTEMS

## DIRECT MARGIN (DM) – CALCULATED FOR THE EVALUATION OF THE CURRENT CS

### Objectives

This indicator is estimated for the current cropping system in order to then evaluate the effects of changes in practices on the margin.

### Calculation method and source of data

#### Gross product

For each crop, we use the following formula to calculate the gross product:

$$
\text{Gross product (GP)} = \text{yield} \times \text{price}
$$

For the yield, we take the average yields of the farmer for the past five years.

The prices are the average selling prices for each crop.

**Data to be collected:** yields per crop

**Parameter data:** average selling price per crop

#### Operational costs (OC) and labour and machinery costs (LMC)

For each crop, we calculate the operational costs, which take into account the cost of seeds and fertilisers based on the graphs supplied. To simplify the calculation, we consider only three types of fertiliser: ammonium nitrate for nitrogen, Super 45 for phosphorous and potassium chloride for potassium. Further, we consider that phosphorous and potassium will be adjusted according to the crop's needs.

Furthermore, different price contexts are offered in the calculator making it possible to conduct simulations of changes in the performances of systems in different economic contexts.

We estimate the cost of pesticides based on the TFI for each crop and for each type of product. For this we build on the calculation of the average TFI unit cost per crop and per category of product carried out in the ECOPHYTO programme.

The costs of mechanisation (price/hectares to be covered) and for labour are estimated with the aid of the tables offered by CUMA/Entraide.

**Data to be collected:** quantities bought, number and type of passages (cf. sheet 'Number and type of passages made').

**Parameter data:** costs of different products; price/ha for mechanised tasks and labour cost by type of intervention.

#### Direct margin

$$
\text{DM} = \text{GP} - \text{OC} - \text{LMC}
$$

## DIRECT MARGIN (DM) – CALCULATED FOR THE ALTERNATIVE CS

### Objectives

This indicator is calculated for the ex ante evaluation of CSᵃ. Hypotheses are made on the yields of crops grown according to the new CMP, or new crops introduced. The evolution of the direct margin is calculated for the entire CSᵃ according to these hypotheses, in the same price context as the current CSᵃ.

We can then vary these hypotheses in the calculation to simulate different situations. Different price contexts, corresponding to 2006 (average prices), 2007 (high prices) and 2008 (low prices) are available in the calculator.

Practical guide for the design of cropping systems less reliant on pesticides

# PART II: A METHOD FOR CO-DESIGNING CROPPING SYSTEMS LESS RELIANT ON PESTICIDES

|  Indicator | Alternative CS 1 (OR = Ww) - (Var = Ww) - p(a = Ww)  |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|   |  Crop 1 | Crop 2 | Crop 3 | Crop 4 | Crop 5 | Crop 6 | Average for the CS  |
|  TFI | ↓ | ↓ |  | ↓ |  | ↓ | ↓  |
|  Yield (t/ha) | ↓ | ↓ |  | ↓ |  | ↓ | ↓  |
|  Costs (€/£) | ↓ | ↓ |  | ↓ |  | ↓ | ↓  |
|  Direct margin (€/£) | → | → |  | → |  | → | →  |
|  Nitrogen input | → | ↓ |  | ↓ |  | ↓ | ↓  |
|  Number of passages in fallow period | ↓ |  |  | ↑ |  | ↑ | →  |
|  Number of passages for mechanical weeding | ↑ | ↑ |  | ↑ |  | ↑ | ↑  |

Through this quick evaluation, we can see that the proposed alternative cropping system is less reliant on pesticides, which makes it possible to reduce the farmer's costs. Therefore, even if yields are reduced, the system can produce a margin equivalent to that of the current system when the sale price of products and the cost of inputs are equivalent. On the other hand, the number of mechanised interventions is increased (passages during fallow period and mechanical weeding). Working hours and energy consumption in this system could therefore be higher. With regards to energy consumption, its increase due to the higher number of passages in the field may be offset by the reduction in the quantities of nitrogen used in the system. The qualitative evaluation made in this programme does not allow us to be certain on this point. To go further, it is necessary to conduct a quantitative evaluation, which can be done using the STEPHY® calculator (see comprehensive programme).

## Comprehensive programme

The STEPHY® calculator provides a quantitative evaluation of proposed alternative solutions. The crop management plans for each crop within each of the different systems envisaged are entered into the calculator. The indicators characterising the initial state for the alternative systems are calculated automatically.

![img-0.jpeg](img-0.jpeg)
Cartoon by Robert Rousso in Le Courrier de l'environnement from INRA n° 57, p. 89

Practical guide for the design of cropping systems less reliant on pesticides

ANNEXES

# CONTENTS

List of abbreviations 73

Annex 1: Indicators used for the environmental evaluation of cropping systems 74
- Objectives and constraints of the evaluation 74
- TFI (Treatment Frequency Index) 76
- Energy consumption 77
- Energy efficiency of the system 78
- Bascule balance 78
- Number and nature of passages made 79
- Direct margin (DM) – Calculated for the evaluation of the current CS 80
- Direct margin (DM) – Calculated for the evaluation of alternative CS 80
- Purchase of specific equipment 81
- Learning costs 82

Annex 2: Typical technical itineraries for crops grown according to three different logics: 'integrated', 'integrated at the CMP scale' and 'integrated at the CS scale' 83
- Common (bread) wheat 83
- Hard (durum) wheat 86
- Spring barley 88
- Winter barley 90
- Rape 91
- Grain maize 94
- Sunflower 96
- Potato 97
- Beet 100
- Pea 102
- Other species 105
- Triticale 105
- Sorghum 105
- Flax 106
- Field (broad) bean 106
- Hemp 107
- Lucerne (alfalfa) 107

Practical guide for the design of cropping systems less reliant on pesticides

[1] https://agriculture.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/STEPHY_Practical_Guide_cle063c35.pdf#page=77
[2] https://agriculture.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/STEPHY_Practical_Guide_cle063c35.pdf#page=78
[3] https://agriculture.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/STEPHY_Practical_Guide_cle063c35.pdf#page=75
[4] https://agriculture.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/STEPHY_Practical_Guide_cle063c35.pdf#page=81
[5] https://agriculture.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/STEPHY_Practical_Guide_cle063c35.pdf#page=82
[6] https://agriculture.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/STEPHY_Practical_Guide_cle063c35.pdf#page=79
[7] https://agriculture.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/STEPHY_Practical_Guide_cle063c35.pdf#page=66
[8] https://agriculture.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/STEPHY_Practical_Guide_cle063c35.pdf#page=80
[9] https://agriculture.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/STEPHY_Practical_Guide_cle063c35.pdf#page=65
[10] https://agriculture.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/STEPHY_Practical_Guide_cle063c35.pdf#page=72