Assessment of Environmental Standards for Arable
Farms

Philippe Girardin, Eric Sardet

► To cite this version:

Philippe Girardin, Eric Sardet. Assessment of Environmental Standards for Arable Farms. Ecolabels and the greening of the food market, Nov 2002, Boston, United States. 205 p. hal-01600611

HAL Id: hal-01600611

https://hal.science/hal-01600611

Submitted on 4 Jun 2020

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution - ShareAlike 4.0 International License
ECOLABELS AND THE
GREENING OF THE FOOD MARKET

Proceedings of a Conference
Boston, Massachusetts
November 7-9, 2002

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Gerald J. and Dorothy R. Friedman
School of Nutrition Science and Policy
Tufts University
Boston, MA 02111 (USA)
# Assessment of Environmental Standards for Arable Farms

Philippe Girardin<fnref n="1" /> and Eric Sardet<fnref n="1" />

## Ecolabeling: A Societal Requirement

To respond to society's demand for a more sustainable agriculture (better stewardship of the environment, animal welfare, better integration into the local fabric), the mass market, some professional organizations, and even producer groups have proposed guidelines or standards for how farmers manage their farming systems. Facing this proliferation of guidelines, the consumer is confused. Which is the most sustainable? What are the impacts of the different types of agriculture (integrated, sustainable, low input, organic, etc.)? How can one rate them?

To answer this question, we propose a method for comparing standards for arable farming systems. As a first step, only the environmental impacts were taken into account, but not health or social impacts. The method provides an outline of a "reference" standard.

## Analysis of the Standards

We analyzed eight sets of standards proposed for European farmers. According to their historical origin or their aim, they are variously called "standards", "reference guide", "charter", "contract", "commitment", "base", etc. (Hereafter, these all will be called "standards.") They are:

* the European standards for organic agriculture (OA) (Le Guillou and Scharpé, 2000)

* the standards of the International Organization of Biological Control (IOBC) (Böller et al., 1997)

* the Swiss guide for Integrated Production (IP) (Ofag, 1999)

* the basis for agriculture "raisonnée" (French Ministry of Agriculture, 2002)

* the charter of Farre (Forum de l'Agriculture Raisonnée Respectueuse de l'Environnement) (Farre, 1999)

* the contract of CTE 68 (Contrat Territorial d'Exploitation) (Préfecture du Haut-Rhin, 2000)

* "engagement Irtac" (Institut de Recherches Technologiques Agro-alimentaires des Céréales) (Irtac, 1999)

* the system of reference Quali'Terre (Quali'Terre, 2000).

These standards sometimes include external control, but sometimes only involve self-assessment. The study was carried out only for standards for arable farming systems, and does not cover viticulture, arboriculture, mixed farms, dairy farms or vegetable farming.

The method for analyzing the environmental impacts of each standard was developed in two steps:

### 1. Evaluation matrix

The first step is to develop a double entry table (shown in Table 1 with values entered for the specific case of Organic Agriculture):

* The rows correspond to the six components of environmental impact (expanded to 10 rows by breaking some down into subcomponents regarding which all the technical actions mentioned in the standards were assessed: ground and surface water; air; soil; biodiversity; nonrenewable resources; and landscape.

* The 27 columns are formed from the total of 210 technical actions found in the eight standards. The actions corresponding only to the regulatory process (such as keeping pesticides in a special room) were not taken into account. Those 210 technical actions were grouped into 27 technical operations and then into 8 technical functions (fertilization, pesticide management, water management, rotation, cropping plan, soil cover, non-

<footnote n="1">¹INRA Agriculture Durable UMR Nancy-Colmar, BP 507, 68021 Colmar, Cedex, France. Corresponding author is Ph. Girardin (girardin@colmar.inra.fr)</footnote>
productive elements, and mechanical operations). For example, the technical function "pesticide management" includes six technical operations: storage of pesticides; handling and use; rinsing and disposal of containers; sprayer management; choice of pesticides; and biological control. These encompass the 48 separate technical actions found in one or another of the eight standards.

When the technical operation has no impact on the environmental component being considered, the corresponding box in the matrix is shaded (for example, splitting of N-fertilizer application has no impact on the landscape).

## 2. Rating of technical actions

Each technical action receives a rating score. Examples are presented in Table 2 for pesticide management. The score for each of the six technical operations (e.g., "choice of pesticides") is calculated by summing the scores of the technical actions going into that technical operation. In using the sum, it is assumed there is a compensation among the different technical actions. To get a clearer picture, the values for the technical operations are represented in the evaluation matrix with pictograms corresponding to four classes (X = no prescription, or a prescription dealing only with regulatory aspects; ⊕ = technical operation with a low effect on the environment; ⊙ = technical operation with a medium effect on the environment; ⊙ = technical operation with a high environmental effect).

An evaluation matrix with those pictograms was set up for each of the eight standards. Table 1 has already given an example for the European standards on organic agriculture. In this first step of evaluation, the rating of a given technical operation is the same for all environmental components. With a more precise evaluation of the technical actions, it is possible to differentiate the impact for each environmental component.

### Comparison of Standards

#### Simple comparison

The simplest way to compare the standards is to count the number of pictograms that represent each of the four classes. Such a presentation (Figure 1) shows that respectively 53 and 58% of the technical actions included in the IP (18 of 34) and OA (18 of 31) standards have a high impact on the environment.

At the other end, the Farre and Quali'Terre standards mention more technical actions (respectively 46 and 45), but very few of these have a high environmental impact (respectively 13 and 27%). However, this type of comparison does not take into account the relative importance of the technical operations, all of which get the same weight. To avoid this shortcoming, the standards also were compared using the multicriteria analysis method ELECTRE III (Shärlig, 1990).

### Multicriteria analysis

The ELECTRE III method needs a reduced (<10) number of criteria. The information included in the eight evaluation matrices must be aggregated. This aggregation was done in two steps. First, the information in each of the eight rows of the matrix was condensed into a single row by aggregating the information within each column. Then, the 27 columns were condensed into 8 columns corresponding to the 8 technical functions (Table 3). To do so, each of the 27 criteria was weighted by agro-environmental experts using Simos's method (1990). One set of these weighting factors is presented in Table 4. It was used for the remaining calculations.

ELECTRE III was used for a first comparison of the eight standards for their impacts on groundwater (Table 5A). Only the criteria that affect water quality were used in the calculation (pesticides, N-fertilizer and irrigation management). A second ranking was done taking into account the impacts on all the environmental components (Table 5B) using ELECTRE III and four other methods of global aggregation. The first is the weighted mean. In the second method, called "dictatorial", the criterion with the highest weight is used for the first ranking, the second criterion is then used to break ties, and so forth. In the third method, called "hierarchical", any standard that does not obtain at least the value ⊙ for the most important criterion is set aside. Then, any standards that do not obtain at least that value for the second most important criterion are set aside, and so forth. In the fourth method, called "democratic," the standards were compared pairwise by two for the eight technical functions. One standard was judged better than the other if it is higher for at least 50% of the criteria. Those criteria must also correspond to more than 50% of the total weight.

### Results

The results of the ranking show the environmental relevance of organic agriculture and integrated production (Swiss IP and IOBC) (Morris and Winter, 1999). While
the other standards have some positive aspects, they clearly are insufficient to improve environmental quality in arable lands.

The OA standards imposes fewer constraints than the others, but, they have a stronger positive impact on the environment. Nevertheless, some improvements can be proposed, such as quantitative management of N fertilization; irrigation management; and soil cover. Some parts of the IP standards could be included in OA, since most parts of the different standards are complementary. Continuing development of the standards is necessary to keep consumers' confidence.

Apart some specific points like storage of pesticides, the standards of French "raisonnée" agriculture, which are close to the English or German "integrated" agriculture (Bonny, 1997), have a very weak positive impact on the environment. Most of the items mentioned in those standards correspond only to the regulatory aspect or are only optional. This kind of standard is intended to be met by 80% of all farmers. In contrast, the most restrictive standards, such as IP or OA, are accepted by only a few percent of farmers.

The environmental impacts presented here are only potential impacts. Very likely, the farmers' practices go beyond what they need to do according to the standards they agree to follow. This is particularly true in organic agriculture, where farmers are obliged to use rotations, cover crops, and other beneficial techniques even if that is not explicitly stated in the standards (Bourdais, 1998).

Taking into account the complementary nature of the eight standards analyzed here, it is possible to set up a "reference" standard for which the most environmentally positive technical action was selected. For example, for the management of hedges, the IP standard was included, whereas splitting the N fertilizer application was taken from "raisonnée" agriculture. Even if it is not the best way to avoid nitrate pollution, it is the best among the actual standards. No standard has a satisfactory requirement regarding field size management or soil organic matter content. The agronomic and economical feasibility of such a "reference" standard must still be demonstrated.

Two improvements in this method for comparing standards for agriculture can be investigated. First, the environmental impact could be differentiated according to the environmental components. For instance, the impact of soil cover could be considered more important for erosion and runoff than for soil biological activity. The second improvement concerns the use of weighting factors for the different environmental components. The Simos's method could also be used for the environmental criteria. In this case there will be three kinds of

expertise involved in the comparison. The first expertise corresponds to the decision rules for each technical action (Table 2); the second is used to weight the technical operations; the third is used to weight the factors for the environmental components.

## Conclusion

The proposed method allows us to do four things: 1) to clarify the standards for users; 2) to rank them according to one or all the environmental components; 3) to improve the current standards; and 4) to help in writing new standards.

However, to answer the societal requirements, it will be important to enlarge the method by including health, social and ethical aspects in order to assess not only the environmental impacts but also the overall sustainability of agricultural practices (Féret and Douguet, 2001). This assessment could be made more reliable by using three indices (social, environmental and health), which could rate the type of management and later all the food products. The method presented in this paper could be used to develop the environmental index.

## References

* Böller, F., C. Malavolta, and E. Jörg. 1997. Directives pour la Production Intégrée en grandes cultures. Bulletin Oilb/Srop 20:21-39.

* Bonny, S. 1997. L'agriculture raisonnée, l'agriculture intégrée et Farre. Nature Sciences Sociétés 5:64-71

* Bourdais, J.L. 1998. Agrobiologie et environnement – Une comparaison des systèmes de production agrobiologiques et conventionnels en Aquitaine sur la base d'indicateurs. Fcca-Cemagref, Bordeaux.

* Farre. 1999. Socle commun de l'agriculture raisonnée respectueuse de l'Environnement. Farre, Boulogne Billancourt, France.

* Féret, S., and J.M. Douguet. 2001. Agriculture durable et agriculture raisonnée, quels principes et quelles pratiques pour la soutenabilité du développement en agriculture? Nature Sciences Société 9: 58-64.

* Irtac. 1999. Production raisonnée des céréales à paille. Institut de recherche technologique alimentaire des céréales, Paris.

* Le Guillou, G., and A. Scharpé. 2000. L'agriculture biologique – Guide sur la réglementation communautaire. Opoce (Office des Publications Officielles des Communautés Européennes), Luxembourg.
Ministère de l'agriculture. 2002. Le référentiel de l'agriculture raisonnée. Paris.

Morris, C., and M. Winter. 1999. Integrated farming systems: the third way for European agriculture? Land Use Policy 16:193-205.

Ofag. Prestations écologiques requises: règles techniques. Srva, Lausanne.

Préfecture du Haut-Rhin. 2000. Arrêté préfectoral concernant les CTE type du Haut-Rhin. Préfecture 68.

Quali'Terre. 2000. Référentiel régional de qualification des exploitations agricoles. Quali'Terre, Arras.

Shärlig, A. 1990. Décider sur plusieurs critères. Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes, Lausanne.

Simos, J. 1990. Evaluer l'impact sur l'environnement, une approche originale par l'analyse multicritères et la négociation. Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes, Lausanne.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1. Environmental quality implications of four standards for arable farming systems.</figcaption></figure>
<caption>Table 2. Example of decision rules to qualify environmental impact of pesticide management.</caption>

## PESTICIDE MANAGEMENT

### Storage<sup>a</sup>

<table><tr><td>☐ The floor of the room is covered with concrete</td><td>+ 6</td></tr><tr><td>☐ Room that does not freeze</td><td>+ 1</td></tr><tr><td>☐ Room locked, well-ventilated</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>☐ Room with pesticide cabinet, or, on the floor, a duckboard isolating the pesticides from the soil, or, a reserve of absorbent material in case of leakage or spillage, and, a water reserve or an extinguisher close to the room.</td><td>+ 2</td></tr><tr><td>☐ Room with an extinguisher or nearby water source</td><td>+ 0.5</td></tr><tr><td>☐ Unusable pesticides stored in a specific room and not kept for too a long time</td><td>+ 0.5</td></tr><tr><td>☐ Fuels kept separate from flammable materials</td><td>+ 0.5</td></tr><tr><td>☐ Establish and maintain a register of pesticides kept in stock</td><td>+ 0.5</td></tr><tr><td>☐ Tools used specifically for preparation of the spray mixture stored in the pesticide room</td><td>+ 0.5</td></tr></table>

### Handling and use

<table><tr><td>☐ Filling site:</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>  ☐ if a filling site is mentioned</td><td>+ 0.5</td></tr><tr><td>  ☐ if safety standards are mentioned<br>or</td><td>+ 4</td></tr><tr><td>☐ Filling of the sprayer tank:</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>  ☐ no pesticide spill (brackets, intermediate tank, return-flow valves)</td><td>+ 1</td></tr><tr><td>  ☐ no direct pumping into ground or surface water</td><td>+ 1.5</td></tr><tr><td>  ☐ Prepare mixer in a room with no risk of spilling into a body of water or a groundwater recharge area</td><td>+ 0.5</td></tr><tr><td>☐ Field location relative to the water resource: no spraying less than 10 m from a watercourse</td><td>+ 3</td></tr><tr><td>☐ Calculate accurately the minimum volume of mixture for each treated area</td><td>+ 1</td></tr><tr><td>☐ Remember to use personal protection (notwithstanding common sense and the regulations)</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>☐ Take into account the information given by the extension services and agrometeorological information</td><td>+ 0.5</td></tr><tr><td>☐ Subscribe to a technical advisory service not linked to a pesticide marketing organization</td><td>+ 1</td></tr></table>

### Rinsing/disposal

<table><tr><td>☐ (a) Provide a water reserve on the sprayer or in the field and spray the rinse water on the field</td><td>+ 3</td></tr><tr><td>☐ (b) Cans and packages: 3 systematic rinses, pour the rinsing water into the sprayer, make a hole in the cans and keep in a special room before disposal or recycling</td><td>+ 3</td></tr><tr><td>☐ (c) Be involved in the collection operation or put cans, packages and outdated pesticides in a waste collection site where toxic wastes are collected</td><td>+ 3</td></tr><tr><td>☐ If (a) + (b) or (a) + (c)</td><td>+ 8</td></tr></table>

### Sprayer

<table><tr><td>☐ Sprayer checked by accredited service at least every three years</td><td>+ 2</td></tr><tr><td>☐ Self-check of sprayer once a year according to the directions of use</td><td>+ 2</td></tr><tr><td>☐ Before each spraying, be sure sprayer is in good working order (filter, gauge, valves, nozzle)</td><td>+ 3</td></tr><tr><td>☐ Water reserve on the sprayer for the user</td><td>+ 1</td></tr><tr><td>☐ Brush/"handblower" in the tractor to clean the nozzles</td><td>+ 1</td></tr><tr><td>☐ Choice of nozzles: prefer air injection nozzles and recoil nozzles (bigger drops, less drift)</td><td>+ 3</td></tr></table>
<table><caption>Table 2, continued</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="2">X Choice of pesticides</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>☐ No pesticide use (Organic farming standards)</td><td>+10</td></tr><tr><td>☐ Systematic selection of pesticide treatment based on tolerance thresholds<br>or</td><td>+4</td></tr><tr><td>☐ Recommendations for each crop with (a) prohibition of at least one type of treatment<br>(insecticide, fungicide, growth regulator, herbicide....) (b) limitation on number of sprayings<br>☐ if (a) or (b)</td><td>+4</td></tr><tr><td>☐ Application rate: systematic reduction, at least 20%</td><td>+2</td></tr><tr><td>☐ No atrazine (until July 2003; afterwards: forbidden by regulations)</td><td>+2</td></tr><tr><td>☐ Choice of pesticides according to their toxicity (impacts on health/beneficials/biodiversity)<br>according to a positive list in the standards</td><td>+4</td></tr><tr><td>☐ Take into account field risks (drainage, slope) in pesticide choice according to mobility and persistence<br>  ■ with an accepted diagnostic method</td><td>+4</td></tr><tr><td>  ■ if no complementary information</td><td>+1</td></tr><tr><td>☐ Control of resistance through the successive or simultaneous use of active ingredients from different chemical classes</td><td>+2</td></tr><tr><td>☐ Have valid (less than 3 years old) instructions (ingredient, recommended dose, spectrum of activity...)</td><td>+0.5</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="2">X Alternative methods</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>☐ Implementation of preventive pest control:<br>  ■ if no complementary information</td><td>+1</td></tr><tr><td>  ■ if general approaches (hoeing, flame weeding, biological control...)</td><td>+2</td></tr><tr><td>  ■ systematic choice of biological, biotechnical, physical and agronomic means when they are efficient</td><td>+5</td></tr><tr><td>☐ Choice of varieties according to their tolerance or resistance</td><td>+3</td></tr><tr><td>☐ Recording of crop health, and interpretation from technical reports</td><td>+2</td></tr><tr><td>☐ Weeding at the scale of crop rotation and according to soil management</td><td>+1</td></tr></tbody></table>

ª The points obtained for each technical operation (X) are summed, and the pictogram (see Table 3) is assigned according to the following rule:

$$[\text{sum}] \le 3 = \text{⊗}; \quad 3 < [\text{sum}] < 7 = \text{ Mö}; \quad [\text{sum}] \ge 7 = \text{ Mö}$$
<table><caption>Table 3. Evaluation matrix of the environmental impacts of technical functions for eight standards.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Pesticides</th><th>Fertilization</th><th>Non-productive elements</th><th>Cropping plan</th><th>Rotation</th><th>Irrigation</th><th>Soil cover</th><th>Mechanization</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>French raisonnée</th><td>⊗</td><td>⊗</td><td>⊗</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>⊗</td><td>●</td><td>●</td></tr><tr><th>CTE 68</th><td>⊗</td><td>●</td><td>⊗</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>⊗</td></tr><tr><th>OA</th><td>⊗</td><td>⊗</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>⊗</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td></tr><tr><th>FARRE</th><td>⊗</td><td>⊗</td><td>⊗</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>⊗</td><td>●</td><td>●</td></tr><tr><th>IRTAC</th><td>⊗</td><td>⊗</td><td>●</td><td>⊗</td><td>⊗</td><td>⊗</td><td>●</td><td>●</td></tr><tr><th>IOBC</th><td>⊗</td><td>●</td><td>⊗</td><td>⊗</td><td>⊗</td><td>⊗</td><td>●</td><td>⊗</td></tr><tr><th>Quali'terre</th><td>⊗</td><td>⊗</td><td>⊗</td><td>⊗</td><td>⊗</td><td>⊗</td><td>●</td><td>⊗</td></tr><tr><th>Swiss IP</th><td>⊗</td><td>●</td><td>⊗</td><td>⊗</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td><td>●</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 4. Weighing factors of an agronomist expert obtained by Simos's methodª (1990).</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="10">Pesticides</th><th colspan="2">Fertilization</th><th colspan="2">Mechanization</th><th colspan="2">Rotation</th><th colspan="2">Soil Cover</th><th colspan="2">Irrigation</th></tr><tr><th>Storage</th><th>Handling/ utilization</th><th>Rinsing/ disposal</th><th>Sprayer</th><th>Choice of pesticides</th><th>Biological control</th><th>Agenda</th><th>Dose</th><th>Splitting</th><th>Intercrops</th><th>Storage</th><th>Spreading</th><th>Type</th><th>P & K</th><th>Mineral amendments</th><th>Organic matter</th><th>Trace elements</th><th>Maintenance</th><th>Choice of tools</th><th>Anti-erosion techniques</th><th>Fied size</th><th>Crop diversity</th><th>Quantity</th><th>Management</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>.03</td><td>.11</td><td>.08</td><td>.18</td><td>.37</td><td>.24</td><td>.06</td><td>.28</td><td>.19</td><td>.21</td><td>.02</td><td>.13</td><td>.11</td><td>.13</td><td>.05</td><td>.21</td><td>.13</td><td>.50</td><td>.43</td><td>.07</td><td>.50</td><td>.50</td><td>.25</td><td>.75</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">.20</td><td colspan="2"></td><td colspan="2"></td><td colspan="2">.47</td><td colspan="2"></td><td colspan="2"></td><td colspan="2">.19</td><td colspan="2"></td><td colspan="2">.01</td><td colspan="2"></td><td colspan="2">.12</td><td colspan="2">.15</td><td colspan="2">.07</td><td colspan="2">.16</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td colspan="2"></td><td colspan="2"></td><td colspan="2"></td><td colspan="2"></td><td colspan="2"></td><td colspan="2"></td><td colspan="2"></td><td colspan="2"></td><td colspan="2"></td><td colspan="2">.11</td><td colspan="2"></td><td colspan="2"></td><td colspan="2"></td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote>ªThe expert is given cards, on each of which is written the name of one criterion, and is asked to rank them in increasing order according to the impact of the criterion on an environmental component. He can put cards in the same position if he judges the impacts are similar, and he can insert white cards within the set of the “criteria” cards to increase the distance between criteria. Then, the ranks are transformed into weighting factors. A group of experts gets an agreement on the ranks they obtained.</footnote>
Table 5. Ranking of the standards according to the impact on water [A] or the total environmental impact [B] of the agricultural practices they recommend.

[A] Impact on surface and groundwater.

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Aggregation Method</th><th colspan="8">Standards</th></tr><tr><th>Swiss IP</th><th>OA</th><th>IOBC</th><th>IRTAC</th><th>CTE68</th><th>FARRE</th><th>French Raisonnée</th><th>Quali' terre</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>ELECTRE III</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>7</td><td>7</td></tr></tbody></table>

[B] Impact on all the environmental components (water, air, soil, biodiversity, non-renewable resources, landscape)

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Aggregation method</th><th colspan="8">Standards</th></tr><tr><th>Swiss IP</th><th>OA</th><th>IOBC</th><th>IRTAC</th><th>CTE 68</th><th>FARRE</th><th>French Raisonnée</th><th>Quali' terre</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Weighted mean</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>"Dictatorship"</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>6</td><td>5</td><td>7</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>"Hierarchy"</td><td>1</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>6</td><td>4</td><td>7</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>"Democracy"</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>ELECTRE III</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>7</td></tr></tbody></table>