Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T14:59:07.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A technique for assessing environmental impact risks of agricultural systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

Olha Sydorovych ,
Charles W. Raczkowski ,
Ada Wossink ,
J. Paul Mueller ,
Nancy G. Creamer ,
Shuijin Hu ,
Melissa Bell  and
Cong Tu
Olha Sydorovych*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.
Charles W. Raczkowski
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Resources, North Carolina A&T State University, Greensboro, NC, USA.
Ada Wossink
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
J. Paul Mueller
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.
Nancy G. Creamer
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.
Shuijin Hu
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.
Melissa Bell
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.
Cong Tu
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Conventional agriculture often aims to achieve high returns without allowing for sustainable natural resource management. To prevent environmental degradation, agricultural systems must be assessed and environmental standards need to be developed. This study used a multi-factor approach to assess the potential environmental impact risk of six diverse systems: five production systems and a successional system or abandoned agronomic field. Assessment factors were soil quality status, amount of pesticide and fertilizer applied and tillage intensity. The assessment identified the best management practices (BMP)–conventional tillage system as a high-risk system mostly because of extensive tillage. The certified organic system was also extensively tilled and was characterized by P build-up in the soil, but performed well based on other assessment factors. Conversely, the BMP–no tillage and the crop–animal integrated system were characterized as low risk mainly because of reduced tillage. The paper discusses assessment strengths and weaknesses, ways to improve indicators used, and the need for additional indicators. We concluded that with further development the technique will become a resourceful tool to promote agricultural sustainability and environmental stewardship and assist policy-making processes.

Keywords

environmental impact assessmentenvironmental risk indicatorsagricultural production systemssoil qualitylarge-scale systems experimentbest management practicesfarming systems
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , September 2009 , pp. 234 - 243
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Pacini, C., Wossink, A., Giesen, G., Vazzana, C., and Huirne, R. 2003. Evaluation of sustainability of organic, integrated and conventional farming systems: a farm and field-scale analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 95:273–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Chandre Gowda, M. and Jayaramaiah, K. 1998. Comparative evaluation of rice production systems for their sustainability. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 69:1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Parra-Lopez, C., Calatrava-Requena, J., and De-Haro-Gimenez, T. 2007. A multi-criteria evaluation of the environmental performances of conventional, organic and integrated olive-growing systems in the south of Spain based on experts' knowledge. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 22:189–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Rasul, G. and Thapa, G. 2004. Sustainability of ecological and conventional agricultural systems in Bangladesh: an assessment based on environmental, economic and social perspectives. Agricultural Systems 79:327–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Van Calker, K., Berentsen, P., Romero, C., Giesen, G., and Huirne, R. 2006. Development and application of multi-attribute sustainability function for Dutch dairy farming systems. Ecological Economics 57:640–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Van Passel, S., Nevens, F., Mathijs, E., and Van Huylenbroeck, G. 2007. Measuring farm sustainability and explaining differences in sustainable efficiency. Ecological Economics 62:149–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Bockstaller, C., Guichard, L., Makowski, D., Aveline, A., Girardin, P., and Plantureux, S. 2008. Agri-environmental indicators to assess cropping and farming systems: a review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 28:139–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Jollands, N., Lermit, J., and Patterosn, M. 2004. Aggregate eco-efficiency indices for New Zealand: a principal components analysis. Journal of Environmental Management 73:293–305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Bockstaller, C. and Girardin, P. 2003. How to validate environmental indicators. Agricultural Systems 76:639–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Dale, V. and Beyeler, S. 2001. Challenges in the development and use of ecological indicators. Ecological Indicators 1:3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Piorr, H. 2003. Environmental policy, agri-environmental indicators and landscape indicators. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 98:17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Von Wiren-Lehr, S. 2001. Sustainability in agriculture—an evaluation of principal goal-oriented concepts to close the gap between theory and practice. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 84:115–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13Rigby, D., Howlett, D., and Woodhouse, P. 2000. A review of agricultural and rural livelihood sustainability. Working Paper 1. Available at Web site http://www.livelihoods.org/lessons/project_summaries/agriIndicators_projsum.htmlGoogle Scholar
14Mueller, J.P., Barbercheck, M., Bell, M., Brownie, C., Creamer, N., Hitt, A., Hu, S., King, L., Linker, H., Louws, F., Marlow, S., Marra, M., Raczkowski, C., Susko, D., and Wagger, M. 2002. Development and implementation of a long-term agricultural system study: Challenges and opportunities. HortTechnology 12:362–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Andrews, S., Karlen, D., and Cambardella, C. 2004. The soil quality assessment framework: a qualitative soil quality evaluation method. Soil Science Society of America Journal 68:1945–1962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16Klute, A. 1986. Water retention: laboratory methods. In Klute, A. (ed.). Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1. 2nd ed. Agronomy 9. SSSA, Madison, WI. p. 635–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Grossman, R.B. and Reinsch, T.G. 2002. Bulk density and linear extensibility. In Dane, J.H. and Topp, G.C. (eds). Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 4. SSSA, Madison, WI. p. 201–225.Google Scholar
18Nimmo, J.R. and Perkins, K.S. 2002. Aggregate stability and size distribution. In Dane, J.H. and Topp, G.C. (eds). Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 4. SSSA, Madison, WI. p. 317–327.Google Scholar
19Vance, E.D., Brookes, P.C., and Jenkinson, D.S. 1987. An extraction method for measuring soil microbial biomass carbon. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 19:703–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Drinkwater, L.E., Cambardella, C.A., Reeder, J.D., and Rice, C.W. 1996. Potentially mineralizable nitrogen as an indicator for biologically active soil N. In Doran, J.W. and Jones, A.J. (eds). Methods for Assessing Soil Quality. Special Publication No. 9. SSSA, Madison, WI. p. 217–230.Google Scholar
21Parkin, T.B., Doran, J.W., and Franco-Vizcaino, E. 1996. Field and laboratory tests of soil respiration. In Doran, J.W. and Jones, A.J. (eds). Methods for Assessing Soil Quality. Special Publication No. 9. SSSA, Madison, WI. p. 231–246.Google Scholar
22Nelson, G. and Bullock, D. 2003. Simulating a relative environmental effect of glyphosate-resistant soybeans. Ecological Economics 45:189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23Gustafson, D. 1989. Groundwater ubiquity score: a simple method for assessing pesticide leachability. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 8:339–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24Becker, R., Herzfeld, D., Ostlie, K., and Stamm-Kativich, E. 1989. Pesticides: surface runoff, leaching, and exposure concerns. Minnesota Extension Services Bulletin No. AG-BU-3911.Google Scholar
25Sullivan, P. 2004. Sustainable Soil Management: Soil Systems Guide. National Center for Appropriate Technology, ATTRA Publication. Available at Web site http://www.attra.ncat.org.Google Scholar
26Cassel, K. and Raczkowski, C.W. 1995. Tillage effects on corn production and soil physical conditions. Soil Science Society of America Journal 59:1436–1443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27Franzluebbers, A.J., Langdale, G.W., and Schomberg, H.H. 1999. Soil carbon, nitrogen, and aggregation in response to type and frequency of tillage. Soil Science Society of America Journal 63:349–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28Franzluebbers, A.J. 2002. Water infiltration and soil structure related to organic matter and its stratification with depth. Soil Tillage Research 66:197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29Raczkowski, C.W., Reyes, M.R., Reddy, G.B., Buscher, W., and Bauer, P. 2009. Comparison of conventional and no-tillage corn and soybean production on runoff and erosion in the southeastern US Piedmont. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 64(1):53–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30Diaz-Balteiro, L. and Romero, C. 2004. In search of a natural sustainability index. Ecological Economics 49:401–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31Gomiero, T. and Giampietro, M. 2005. Graphical tools for data representation in integrated analysis of farming systems. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues 5:264–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32Krajnc, D. and Glavic, P. 2005. How to compare companies on relevant dimensions of sustainability. Ecological Economics 55:551–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33Jones, C.A. 1983. Effect of soil texture on critical bulk densities for root growth. Soil Science Society of America Journal 47:1208–1211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34Vepraskas, M.J. 1988. Bulk density values diagnostic of restricted root growth in coarse-textured soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal 52:1117–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35Bell, M. and Raczkowski, C.W. 2007. Soil property indices for assessing short-term changes in soil quality. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 22:1–11.Google Scholar