Small Ruminant Research 49 (2003) 97–105

Economic profitability and typology of Ripollesa

breed sheep farms in Spain
M.J. Milán a,∗ , E. Arnalte b , G. Caja a
a Departamento de Ciencia Animal y de los Alimentos, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Edifici V. 08193, Bellaterra, Spain
b Departamento de Economı́a y Ciencias Sociales, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Valencia, Spain

Accepted 5 April 2002

Abstract
The aim of this work was to study the economic results of Ripollesa breed sheep farms in Spain, and to establish a typology
which would clarify the characteristics of the different types of existing farms. Data was collected using a survey of 52 farm
owners, from which the mean economic results of the farms were calculated. To establish a typology, the data were treated
using a multivariate statistical analysis (principal component analysis). Subsequently, a hierarchy analysis (cluster analysis) of
the coordinates of the farms with the first five factors was applied. The results indicate that, in general and under our working
conditions, the most diversified farms obtain higher income and higher net added value at factor cost (NAVfc). At the same
time, public subsidies make up an average of 27% of total income and 52% of NAVfc. It was possible to typify four groups
of farms.
© 2003 Published by Elsevier Science B.V.
Keywords: Sheep; Farm management; Principal component analysis; Ripollesa breed; Spain

1. Introduction ments to producers. Among the effects of these pay-

The 1999 census showed Catalonia with 1,046,634
head of sheep (Departament d’Agricultura Ramaderia
i Pesca, 2000), which is approximately 5% of the to-
tal for Spain. Among native sheep breeds in Catalo-
nia, the Ripollesa is the most common. It is found
mainly in the provinces of Barcelona and Gerona and
is currently characterized as a meat-producing breed.
The sheep sector was one of the first whose produc-
ers received direct subsidies to compensate for falls in
income. The Common Market Organization from its
beginning anticipated the need for compensation pay-
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +93-581-2152;
fax: +93-581-14-94.
E-mail address: mariajose.milan@uab.es (M.J. Milán).
ments have been increases in flock size and aging of
the flocks (Cahn, 1990; Manrique et al., 1992). In ad-
dition, Boutonnet (1993) asked whether or not meat
had become a subproduct for sheep producers, since
subsidies made up more than a third of the total in-
come on French sheep farms dedicated to meat pro-
duction. In similar vein, Bazin (1994) observed that in
1991 subsidies were equivalent to 100% of the profit
on French sheep farms, that is to say, income from
the sale of products was the same as their production
costs.
At the moment, as well as compensating income,
there are other reasons which justify maintaining these
bonuses: these are the so-called “non-productive”
functions associated with this type of farming. They
have been observed by various authors (Blanchemain

0921-4488/03/$ – see front matter © 2003 Published by Elsevier Science B.V.

doi:10.1016/S0921-4488(03)00058-0
98 M.J. Milán et al. / Small Ruminant Research 49 (2003) 97–105
and Flamant, 1983; Blanchemain, 1989; Zorita, 1990;
Accounts Tribunal of the EC, 1995). Among these
functions the following are of some importance:
• The majority of autonomous sheep breeds in the
community are able to make use of resources which
would otherwise remain unused.
• Sheep production is often the only significant ac-
tivity in areas where it is difficult to promote other
types of economic activity: it therefore contributes
to the continuance of human activity in areas which
would otherwise be abandoned.
• Sheep farming contributes to the maintenance of
certain ecosystems and thus reduces the risk of for-
est fires, soil erosion and loss of biodiversity.
The fact that sheep farming, as it occurs with farm-
ing practices that are extensive or semi-intensive, is
characterized by a diversity of productive systems
(Capillon, 1985; Caja and Such, 1991; Liénard et al.,
1992; Manrique et al., 1992, 1994), making it diffi-
cult to understand the situation of these farms and
the effects of agricultural policies together with the
strategies needed to adapt to these policies. This lack
of knowledge was the main reason for the current
work, the aim of which was to describe the situation
as well as to study the economics of Ripollesa sheep
farms in Catalonia and to evaluate the degree to which
community subsidies affect them. At the same time,
the work was planned to establish a typology which
is effective in helping to understand the diversity of
existing farming practices.
2. Materials and methods
The data used refers to 1993 and was obtained in
1994 from surveys returned by 52 farm owners ded-
icated to meat production. The surveyed farms com-
prised approximately 15% of the total of the official
census of Ripollesa breed sheep farms in Catalonia.
The sample of farms was obtained using a stratified
sampling by provinces. Two zones were defined:
Gerona and Barcelona provinces, which are the main
areas of Ripollesa breed farming. Amortizations were
calculated using the linear amortization method, with
a residual value of zero and a useful life of 25 years
for buildings, 20 years for farm machinery and 10
years for fencing.
A multivariate statistical analysis was used to treat
the data for the typological analysis. A principal com-
ponent analysis (PCA) was made using 41 variables.
This analysis synthesizes data which can be dispersed
and heterogeneous for some variables and factors; this
explains most of the total variability of the sample
(Johnson and Wichern, 1982; Judez, 1989). The in-
terpretation of the factors is helped by the use of the
rotated matrix, varimax. Subsequently, a hierarchical
analysis (cluster analysis) was performed on the co-
ordinates of the farms against the first five factors.
This analysis differentiates and groups farms accord-
ing to their homogeneity using Euclidean distance
(Hair et al., 1987). Finally, the mean structural, tech-
nical and economic indicators that define each group
were calculated. The differences between groups were
checked using a one-way ANOVA analysis with a
Student–Newman–Keuls mean comparison test. All
calculations were made using the (6.1.2) version of
the SPSS statistical package (SPSS, 1998).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Income from the farm
On 35% of the farms studied, all family income
came directly from the farm while, 17% of cases in-
come was supplemented with some type of pension.
In the rest, there were additional external sources of
income. Income from the farm was defined as income
from the flock, from other agricultural activities, from
the sale of agricultural products and from agrarian sub-
sidies. In the farms studied, the mean incomes from
the farm amounted to 49,387 (Table 1). Farm in-
comes correlated positively and significantly with the
Table 1
Total income and income from sheep farming on “Ripollesa” breed
farms
Mean ± S.D.∗
Income from sheep farming ( ) 29109 ± 15365
Income from sheep farming per sheep ( ) 78.4 ± 12.4
Total subsidies/total income (%) 26.9 ± 7.0
Sheep subsidies/sheep income (%) 27.6 ± 6.2
Total income ( ) 49387 ± 52739
∗ Standard deviation.
 M.J. Milán et al. / Small Ruminant Research 49 (2003) 97–105
number of sheep in the flock (r = 0.48; P < 0.01) but
correlated negatively with the percentage represented
by income from sheep farming over total income (r =
−0.42; P < 0.01). This indicates that the most diver-
sified farms earn more income than those which deal
exclusively with sheep. One of the most significant
sources of income was the public subsidies. These sub-
sidies comprise a mean of 27% of the total income,
with a maximum value of 39%. The amount of spe-
cific subsidies given to sheep farmers represented a
mean of 73% of total subsidies.
Mean income from sheep farming (sale of meat,
wool and sheep subsidies) was 29,109 per farm or
78.4 per sheep. The “bonus” played an important part
in the income derived from sheep farming (27.6%).
The mean for sheep related income was 71% of total
farm income. Only on five farms did the total income
derived from sheep farming. On 54% of the farms,
sheep farming generated more than 75% of income,
while on 19% of farms this figure was below 50%. The
latter cases were farms with a small flock where other
livestock rearing was important or where a large area
was given over to the production and sale of cereals.
Significant correlations were obtained (P < 0.01) be-
tween income from sheep farming and numerical pro-
ductivity (number of saleable lambs per ewe joined)
(r = 0.96) and productivity index (weight of saleable
lambs per ewe joined) (r = 0.92) of the flocks, in
spite of the seasonal nature of meat prices and the fact
that these farms use continuous mating, with lambing
taking place all the year round.
3.2. Farm expenditure
The items of expenditure that have been taken into
account to obtain external expenditure were those re-
lated to sheep farming, expenditure related to other
livestock rearing, the cost of renting buildings and the
cost of crops. Labor costs and the rent of farms not
owned by the farmer, were not included. Mean exter-
nal expenditure on the farm was 21,930 . Expenditure
on crops had a mean percentage of 34% of the ex-
ternal expenditure of the farm. As would be expected
these costs correlated positively (P < 0.01) with agri-
cultural area (AA) (r = 0.73) and negatively with
farming costs (r = −0.43) and feed per sheep (r =
−0.36). These correlations were due to the fact that
an increase in crop production on the farm decreased
99
Table 2
Mean expenditure per sheep on “Ripollesa” breed farms
Expenditure ( ) Mean ± S.D.∗ (%)
Feed 14.1 ± 5.1 (69.2)
Veterinary 2.6 ± 1.4 (12.6)
Land rent 1.5 ± 2.3 (7.4)
Sheds 1.4 ± 1.2 (6.9)
Shearing 0.8 ± 0.3 (3.8)
Total livestock 20.4 ± 6.3 (100)
∗ Standard deviation.
the dependency on external products for feed. Sheep
related expenditure was 20.4 per sheep (Table 2)
and had a mean percentage of 51% of total exter-
nal expenditure. Farming expenditure per sheep cor-
related significantly (P < 0.01) and inversely with the
AA of the farms (r = −0.39). Logically, as AA de-
creases farmers have to rely more heavily on bought
feed and rented pastures. Mean feed expenditure per
sheep (which included everything bought to feed both
sheep and lambs) was 14.1 per sheep, with high vari-
ability, depending on the availability of feed on the
farm. The mean health expenditure per sheep (includ-
ing medicines, reproductive treatment and veterinary
costs) was 2.6 per sheep. The wide dispersion in-
dicates the differences in health care that the flocks
receive. No correlation was found between this index
and the productivity of the flocks. On some farms, the
renting of pastures is an important part of expendi-
ture on the flock (Table 2). Expenditure on rented pas-
ture had a mean of 6.6% of the farming expenditure.
No significant correlation was found between expen-
diture on rented pastures per sheep and the AA of the
farm. Another type of cost to be taken into account
is the group called “shedding costs” which included
electricity, water, cleaning products and disinfectants.
These costs had an inverse correlation with flock size
(r = −0.48; P < 0.01), which indicates the working
of economies of scale.
3.3. Economic results
Table 3 shows the mean economic results of the sur-
veyed farms. Gross agrarian production (GAP) of the
farm was obtained by adding all forms of income from
the sale of farm products. The great importance of
subsidies on the economic results of the farms can be
observed. These subsidies comprised a mean of 52%
100 M.J. Milán et al. / Small Ruminant Research 49 (2003) 97–105

Table 3 farm expenditure over total expenditure and the per-

Mean economic results on “Ripollesa” breed sheep farms centage of income from sheep over total income. This
Parameter ( ) Mean ± S.D.∗ factor was indicative of the distribution and orienta-
Gross agrarian sales 37673 ± 48309
tion of the AA and characterizes farms which were
External expenditure 21930 ± 42249 relatively more specialized in cereal cultivation, with
Gross added value (mp)a 15743 ± 10276 recent investment in machinery and a higher relative
Subsidies 11714 ± 7321 importance of expenditure on crops, as opposed to
Gross added value (fc)b 27456 ± 16681 farms with a higher relative specialization in forage
Amortization 3077 ± 2416
Net added value (fc) 24378 ± 15891
and in which income from sheep and sheep farming
Wages and salaries paid 4647 ± 6302 costs were preponderant. The second principal com-
Net farm surplus 19731 ± 14620 ponent, which explained 15% of the variance, was a
Net farm surplus/family AWUc 16300 ± 12689 dimensional factor and characterized farms according
Net farm surplus without subsidies/family 6374 ± 7719 to the size of their flock. The third principal compo-
AWU
a
nent, which explained 10% of variance, was a fac-
Market prices.
b tor of economic dimension. These were farms with a
Factor cost.
c Annual work unit. high GAP and high costs, in which income from sheep
∗ Standard deviation. with respect to total income was not very important.
The fourth principal component, explaining 8% of
of the net added value at factor cost (NAVfc). Table 3 the variance, characterized farms with little AA, high
also reflects the net farm surplus (NFS) of the family livestock costs, high AA productivity and a high de-
annual work unit (AWU), which may be considered as gree of mechanization per hectare. These were farms
an indication of the economic sustainability of these on which expenditure on grazing land per sheep was
farms. The mean value is not high, given that theo- important. The fifth principal component, which ex-
retically it should remunerate the opportunity costs of plained 7% of the variance, typified farms with high
the factors (land, labor and capital) of the farm family. labor and sheep productivity; this value increased in
In order to appreciate the effect of direct subsidies on relation to increases of AA with total labor.
the NFS of the farm, the value of these subsidies was
subtracted, giving very low mean values. The overall 3.5. Establishment of typologies
results of the farm expressed in NAVfc correlate pos-
itively (P < 0.01) with flock size (r = 0.68) and with Four groups were obtained from the cluster analy-
AA (r = 0.47). They also have a negative correla- sis. Two groups of 20 farms each were the most sig-
tion with farming expenditure per sheep (r = −0.28; nificant. The other two groups were composed of four
P < 0.05). However, they have no correlation with the and two farms each. A total of six farms remained in-
numerical or productivity index of the flock. dividualized. Table 4 shows details of the mean val-
ues of land use of the farms for each group. Table 5
3.4. Characterizing factors of the farms shows the mean values of the availability of labor for
each group. The characteristics of each of the groups
The results of the PCA indicated that there were are discussed below.
11 factors with values higher than the unit, these ex-
plained 84% of the variance. The first five components 3.5.1. Group 1: farms with a strong bias to cereal
explained 60% of the variance. The first principal com- production
ponent explained 20% of the variance and had high Group 1 farms had a mean total surface (TS) of
and positive correlation coefficients with the percent- 214 ha and a mean AA of 56 ha, practically all of
age of cultivated cereal land over AA, the amortiza- which were cultivated. The farms had a high per-
tion of machinery, the percentage of crop costs with centage of woodland, occasionally used for grazing.
respect to total expenditure and with total labor costs. Nearly half of the AA was cultivated with winter cere-
The coefficients were high and negative with the per- als, the rest of the AA was given over mainly to forage
centage of forage land over AA, the percentage of (alfalfa and ryegrass predominated) and usually had
 M.J. Milán et al. / Small Ruminant Research 49 (2003) 97–105 101

Table 4
Mean values of land distribution according to groups
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 P<

Number of farms 20 20 4 2 –
Total surface (ha) 214.2a 138.5a 125.0a 1738.0b <0.00
Agricultural area (ha) 55.8 43.4 26.5 86.0 NSa
Forage surface (ha) 25.3 39.5 24.8 68.5 NS
Natural pasture surface (ha) 0.4a 19.2b 3.7a,b 0.0a,b <0.05
Winter cereal surface (ha) 26.4a 3.6b 1.8b 17.5a,b <0.00
Arable land/AAb (%) 99.4a 73.5b 75.0a,b 100.0a,b <0.03
Cereal surface/AA (%) 47.6a 9.7b 5.8b 18.6b <0.00
Forage surface /AA (%) 45.5a 89.9b 94.2b 81.4b <0.00
Owned surface/TSc (%) 73.2a 47.3a,b 0.8b 17.3a,b <0.02
Power/AA (hpd /ha) 3.3 3.3 1.3 1.4 NS
Different letters in the same row indicate significant differences (P < 0.05).
a Not significant.
b Agricultural area.
c Total surface.
d Horse power; 1 hp = 0.7457 kW.

some irrigated land. The flocks were medium sized
and the livestock rate was the lowest (Table 5). On
these farms sheep were not usually farmed together
with other livestock. Total mean labor employed was
2.2 AWU, with a mean percentage of salaried workers
of 32.6%; these workers usually carried out shepherd-
ing tasks. In this group, the owner usually worked full
time on the farm. With respect to flock management,
on eight farms in this group discontinuous mating was
the usual practice while the rest preferred to have a
more uniform production of lambs over the year since
the product was sold directly to local butchers.
This was the group of farms which had invested
most heavily in recent years, both in buildings and in
machinery. In nearly all cases (19) they had installa-
tions that allowed the sheep to be separated into pens.
This helped certain reproductive and feeding practices.
The majority (16) could also undertake mechanical
cleaning in the sheds. Nine farms had a race-way and
four farms had a sheep dip. As well as having the
most specialized installations for sheep production,
this group had the most modern installations. Nine
farms in the group had some type of fencing to control
grazing. Sheep farming costs were only 39% of total
farm costs (Table 6) as a consequence of the impor-
tance of cropping activity on these farms. However,
income from sheep was 61% of the total income, due
to the fact that a large proportion of other agricultural
production was given over to feed for the sheep (both
concentrates and forage). At the same time, sheep
farming costs per sheep were low (compared to other
groups), due, above all, to the low cost of bought feed

Table 5
Mean Values of the availability of labor according to groups
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 P<

TotalAWUa 2.2a 1.5b 1.6a,b 2.2a,b <0.04

Family AWU 1.4 1.3 1.0 1.1 NSb
Salaried work/total AWU(%) 32.6a 9.6b 33.7a,b 50.0a,b <0.01
AAc /total AWU (ha) 24.9 30.0 17.6 39.1 NS
Sheep/total AWU 170a 200a 452b 402b <0.00
Age of owner (years) 44a 45a 61b 49a,b <0.03
Different letters in the same row indicate significant differences (P < 0.05).
a Annual work unit.
b Not significant.
c Agricultural area.
102 M.J. Milán et al. / Small Ruminant Research 49 (2003) 97–105

Table 6
Mean flock size, units of other livestock types, livestock rate and productivity according to group
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 P<

Sheep 367a 273b 667c 886c <0.00

Total LUa 85.2 53.5 139.0 141.5 NSb
LU ruminants/AAc 1.3a 1.8a 5.4b 1.7a <0.00
Lambs sold 361a 315a 683b 910b <0.00
Numerical productivityd 0.98 1.11 1.02 1.02 NS
Ponderal productivitye 22.9 26.1 23.0 24.5 NS
Different letters in the same row indicate significant differences (P < 0.05).
a Livestock unit.
b Not significant.
c Agricultural area.
d Lambs per sheep and year.
e kg per sheep and year.

and the rent for grazing land. As has been mentioned,
these were farms with low livestock activity, on which
the sheep used woodland grazing and stubble from
cereal production as well as forage produced on the
farm, so that they had less need for grazing land out-
side the farm. The subsidies received were 29% of the
total income of the farms with a mean of 12,590 .
On these farms, subsidies came mainly from sheep
bonuses and subsidies for arable crops. The mean eco-
nomic productivity (NAVfc/AA) of the land was the
lowest of the groups; although the mean economic
productivity of the flock (NAVfc/LU sheep) was high.
NFS per family employee AWU was on average to
low. If the subsidies to the farm are not taken into ac-
count this group had the lowest NFS per family AWU
(Table 7).

Table 7
Mean expenditure and economic results according to group
Group 1 Group2 Group 3 Group 4 P<

Pasture rent per sheep ( ) 0.7a 1.4a 3.5b 0.8a,b <0.01

Feed costs per sheep ( ) 11.3a 15.6b 19.3b 11.8a,b <0.00
Livestock expenditure per sheep ( ) 16.5a 22.4b 25.9b 16.8a,b <0.00
Sheep income per sheep ( ) 73.7 82.5 75.8 76.4 NSa
Livestock expenditure/TEb (%) 38.8a 63.6b 80.7c 58.5a,b,c <0.00
Agrarian gross sales (× 103 ) 33.2a 20.2b 39.0a 54.0a <0.00
Subsidies (× 103 ) ( ) 12.6a 6.5b 17.2a,c 22.0c <0.00
NAVfc (× 103 ) ( ) 24.5a 14.9b 32.8a,c 47.2c <0.00
Net farm surplus (× 103 ) ( ) 17.5a,b 13.0a 28.0b,c 35.2c <0.00
Sheep income/total income (%) 61.1a 85.6b 91.0b 91.0a,b <0.00
Subsidies/total income (%) 28.5 25.4 31.0 28.5 NS
Subsidies/NAVfc (%) 58.3 48.3 53.3 48.3 NS
NAVfcc /AA ( ) 470.0a 623.3a 1289.2b 535.5a,b <0.00
NAVfc/AWUd ( ) 11089a 10710a 21150b 20939b <0.00
NAVfc/Lue sheep ( ) 435.1 350.4 320.9 336.6 NS
NFSf /family AWU ( ) 13475a 10530a 35610b 30976b <0.00
NFS subsidy/family AWU ( ) 3577 4987 13656 11317 NS
Different letters in the same row indicate significant differences (P < 0.05).
a Not significant.
b Total expenditure.
c Net added value at factor cost.
d Annual work unit.
e Livestock unit.
f Net farm surplus.
 M.J. Milán et al. / Small Ruminant Research 49 (2003) 97–105
3.5.2. Group 2: farms with a bias towards forage
These farms were relatively small compared to those
in group 1 (Table 4). The mean arable land was approx-
imately 75% of the AA; the non-worked AA consisted
mainly of natural pasture (19 ha). Ninety percent of
the AA was for forage (approximately 40 ha) for an-
imal feed. Rented land was more common than in
group 1 and consisted of the whole farm or plots of
land near the farm. Flock size was the smallest and
the farming of other livestock was unusual. The mean
labor force was 1.5 AWU, with very few salaried
workers. Compared to group 1 it was more likely that
the owner had some other gainful activity of external
work income and more likely that family members
worked off the farm. A high percentage of “individ-
ual farms” as defined by Blanc (1987) were observed.
The amount of investment in buildings and farm ma-
chinery was less than for group 1. All farms had in-
stallations for separating sheep into lots, but only 14
farms could clean the sheds mechanically. In general,
these farms were less innovative than those in group
1, although fencing for grazing was more common
(11 farms). Being farms with more of their own for-
age land and less labor, investment was made pri-
marily in improving working efficiency. The practice
of discontinuous mating was less frequent than in
group 1.
Livestock expenditure (Table 7) per sheep was
higher than group 1. The mean cost per sheep de-
rived from renting grazing land was higher, as was
the mean cost for bought feed. This was due to the
bias towards livestock on these farms and a greater
dependence on outside factors, especially bought con-
centrates. Livestock expenditure had a mean of 64%
of total expenditure and income from sheep were
86% of total income. This group was characterized
by having the highest numerical and mean productiv-
ity index of the flocks. Public subsidies were 25% of
total income. In absolute terms, this group received
the least public subsidy, which was due to the smaller
size of the flocks and smaller area of arable crops
eligible for subsidy. The mean economic productivity
of the labor force (NAVfc/AWU) was the lowest of
the groups studied (Table 7), while flock productivity
was average (NAVfc/LUsheep) and land productiv-
ity (NAVfc/AA) was higher than group 1. NFS per
family AWU was the lowest, although if this was cal-
culated omitting subsidies it was higher than group
103
1, which confirms that there was more reliance on
public subsidy than group 1.
3.5.3. Group 3: farms with high livestock activity
These were farms with hardly any stable territorial
base. Most of the AA was grazing land (94%) with
a mean area of 11.3 ha under Italian ryegrass. The
area given over to winter cereals was correspondingly
small. In all cases, the land was almost entirely rented.
The mean size of flocks was high. The mean total la-
bor force was 1.6 AWU and the mean percentage of
salaried workers was 34%. This was the group with
the highest number of family members, excluding the
owner, working outside the farm. The mean age of
the owner was the highest. This group had the high-
est number of sheep and least AA per AWU. Having
less AA, the available labor worked almost completely
with the sheep. Investment in buildings was the aver-
age, although if the number of sheep was taken into
account, this was the lowest value together with group
4. Mean investment in machinery was also the lowest
in comparison to the other groups, with a mean mech-
anization index which was lower than groups 1 and 2
(Table 4). They turned to outside help for a number
of tasks more than the other groups, especially when
these required heavy machinery (for example, com-
bined harvesters). Mechanical cleaning of sheds was
available in three of the four farms and on only two
could sheep be divided into pens. None of the farms
had a race-way, sheep dip or hoof dip, which indicates
the low degree of specialization of the installations.
This group had the highest proportion of farms with
fencing for grazing (three farms), which meant a great
saving in labor costs in the group with the highest
number of sheep per AWU. Only one farm undertook
discontinuous mating.
This group had the highest mean livestock expen-
diture per sheep. As the livestock rate was high, they
had to resort to buying feed products more than the
other groups, and to renting grazing land. Mean sheep
expenditure was 81% of total expenditure, and in-
come from sheep was 91% of total income. In this
group of farms subsidies were 31% of total income,
and these came almost entirely from the bonus for
sheep. NFS per family AWU was the highest although
subsidies were not taken into account. Finally, these
farms had the highest economic productivity of land
(NAVfc/AA) and work (NAVfc/AWU) (Table 7).
104 M.J. Milán et al. / Small Ruminant Research 49 (2003) 97–105
3.5.4. Group 4: farms with a strong territorial
base and large flocks
Although this group was composed of only two
farms, it represented a type of farm which was clearly
differentiated from the rest of the sample surveyed.
These were farms with a very high mean TS and a
mean AA of 86 ha, which was wholly cultivated. The
majority of land was grazing, principally Italian rye-
grass with a mean of 17 ha. Both farms had a high
percentage of rented land. The flocks were large but
the livestock rate was medium to low. Mean employed
labor was 2.2 AWU, with 50% of salaried workers.
Neither the owner nor the family had work outside
the farm. Both the AA and the number of sheep per
labor AWU were high. Investment in buildings was
low. The annual amortization of agricultural machin-
ery was high in absolute terms. However, the relative
value was the lowest of all the groups, which indi-
cates that having a larger cultivated area the farm ob-
tained higher profitability from these investments. On
both farms, animals could be separated into lots and
the sheds could be cleaned mechanically. Neither farm
had fencing for grazing. Livestock expenditure per
sheep was one of the lowest values of all the groups.
Fifty-nine percent of the external expenditure corre-
sponded to the sheep. Sheep farming brought in 91%
of total income. A large part of agricultural production
was destined as animal feed. Subsidies were 28.5% of
total income and as an absolute value they were the
highest. They came from bonuses for sheep and sub-
sidies for arable crops. This group of farms had the
highest mean NAVfc of the sample studied. NFS per
family AWU was high. The profitability of the land
and the flock was average, while the economic pro-
ductivity of labor was high (Table 7).
4. Conclusion
From the obtained results, it is possible to conclude
that the economic sustainability of the studied farms
is not assured. The average value of the net farm sur-
plus of the family annual work unit is 16,300 . It
must be taken into account that this should remuner-
ate the opportunity costs of the factors (land, labor
and capital) of the farm family. If this index is calcu-
lated without taking into account the direct subsidies a
very low average value is obtained, that gives an idea
of the dependence of the farms on these subsidies.
As an average, the total received subsidies reached
27% of the total income of the farms, and 52% of the
NAVfc, which places them below the values described
for sheep farms from other countries.
Four different groups can be formed depending on
the structural characteristics and economic results of
the farms.
• Group 1: Farms with a strong bias to cereal produc-
tion. These were diversified farms (fundamentally
sheep and cereal) in which, the income proceeding
from sheep activity reached 61% of the total in-
come. NFS per family AWU was average to low,
and if the subsidies are taken away they represent
the lowest value of the set of analyzed farms.
• Group 2: Farms with a bias towards forage. These
were smaller farms that use the land for the pro-
duction of forages to feed the flock. They are more
specialized. The mean NFS per family AWU was
the lowest.
• Group 3: Farms with high livestock activity. These
were farms with a small area and large flocks, with
a greater dependence on buying feed and renting
grazing land. NFS per family AWU was the highest
although subsidies were not taken into account.
• Group 4: Farms with a strong territorial base and
large flocks. These were farms specializing in sheep
production in which a large part of agricultural pro-
duction was destined to be animal feed. The mean
NFS per family AWU was high. The profitability of
labor was high.
Groups 3 and 4 secured higher profitability due to
the fact that they had the largest flocks with approxi-
mately the same utilization of labor. In both, the prof-
itability of labor was high.
References
Accounts Tribunal of the EC, 1995. Informe especial no. 13/95
sobre la aplicación de las medidas de intervención previstas
para la organización de mercados en el sector de las carnes de
ovino y caprino (Special report no. 3/95 on the application of
the ways of foreseeable interventions for the organization of
markets in the sector of sheep and goat meat). DOCE N1285/1,
28 October 1995, 38 pp.
Bazin, G., 1994. Aides directes et disparites des revenus agricoles
(Deficiency payments and disparities of agricultural revenues).
Econ. Rurale 220–221, 192–196.
 M.J. Milán et al. / Small Ruminant Research 49 (2003) 97–105
Blanc, M., 1987. Family and employment in agriculture: recent
changes in France. J. Agric. Econ. 38, 289–301.
Blanchemain, A., 1989. The diversity of sheep production systems
in France: a first analysis. Etudes et Recherches sur les Systèmes
Agraires et le développement 16, 47–53.
Blanchemain, A., Flamant, J.C., 1983. Voies et impasses du
développement de l’élevage ovin et caprin en zones difficiles
(The development of ovine and caprine breeding in difficult
zones). In: 10 Journées pour la Recherche ovine et caprine.
INRA-ITOVIC-SPEOC, Paris, pp. 3–26.
Boutonnet, J.P., 1993. Les revenus des éleveurs ovins (Revenues
of sheep farmers). SFER. Session sur les revenus agricoles.
Montpellier, 12 pp.
Cahn, A., 1990. The EC sheep meat regime, the political
dimension. In: Slade, C.F.R., Lawrence, T.L.J., Davies, H.,
Pitkethly, M.C. (Eds.), New Developments in Sheep Production.
British Society of Animal Production, Edinburgh, pp. 1–5.
Caja, G., Such, X., 1991. Situación de la producción de leche
de oveja en el mundo y clasificación de los principales
sistemas de producción de ovino lechero (The situation of milk
production of sheep throughout the world and classification of
the principal production systems of sheep milk). Ovis 14, 11–
27.
Capillon, A., 1985. Connaı̂tre la diversité des exploitations: un
préalable à la recherche de réferences techniques regionales
(Knowing the variety of the farms: a preliminary research of
regional technical references). Agriscope 6, 31–40.
Departament d’Agricultura, Ramaderia i Pesca (DARP), 2000.
Estadı́stica i conjuntura agrària (Agrarian conjuncture and
statistics), vols. 150–151, Barcelona, 125 pp.
105
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., 1987. Multivariate Data
Analysis with Readings. MacMillan, New York, USA.
Johnson, R.A., Wichern, D.W., 1982. Applied multivariate
statistical analysis. 594 pp.
Judez, L., 1989. Técnicas de análisis de datos multidimensionales
(Technologies for the analysis of multidimensional infor-
mation). MAPA. Madrid, 301 pp.
Liénard, G., Cordonnier, P., Boutonnet, J.P. Exploitations et
systèmes de production d’herbivores INRA. Importance, évolu-
tion, questions (Farms and productin systems of herbivores.
Importance, evolution, questions). Prod. Anim. 5, 1, 59–85.
Manrique, E., Maza, M.T., Olaizola, A.M., 1992. Adaptación
de los sistemas de producción ovina de carne a un mercado
competitivo y a una PAC reformada (Adjustment of the meat
sheep production systems for a competitive market and for
a reformed CAP). In: I Congreso Nacional de Economı́a y
Sociologı́a Agraria, Zaragoza.
Manrique, E., Sáez, A., Olaizola, A.M., 1994. La economı́a de
la producción ovina: de las rentas de la explotación a la
gestión medioambiental (The economy of sheep production:
from farming revenues to environmental management). In:
Gallego, L., Pérez, J.I. (Eds.), Producción Ovina y Caprina,
pp. 59–88.
SPSS Inc., 1998. SPSS statistical package (6.1.2) for Windows.
Chicago, IL, USA.
Zorita, E., 1990. Hacia una nueva estructura de la ganaderı́a
ovina en España, armonizando recursos alimenticios y objetivos
medioambientales (Towards a new structure of sheep livestock
in Spain, harmonizing feeding resources and environmental
objectives). Ovis 11, 9–42.