IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i24p10602-d464449.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Environmental Impacts of the Grassland Agricultural System and the Cultivated Land Agricultural System: A Comparative Analysis in Eastern Gansu

Author

Listed:
  • Huilong Lin

    (State Key Laboratory of Grassland Agro-Ecosystems, College of Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
    Key Laboratory of Grassland Livestock Industry Innovation, College of Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
    Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, College of Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China)

  • Yanfei Pu

    (State Key Laboratory of Grassland Agro-Ecosystems, College of Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
    Key Laboratory of Grassland Livestock Industry Innovation, College of Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
    Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, College of Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China)

  • Xueni Ma

    (State Key Laboratory of Grassland Agro-Ecosystems, College of Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
    Key Laboratory of Grassland Livestock Industry Innovation, College of Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
    Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, College of Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China)

  • Yue Wang

    (State Key Laboratory of Grassland Agro-Ecosystems, College of Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
    Key Laboratory of Grassland Livestock Industry Innovation, College of Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
    Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, College of Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China)

  • Charles Nyandwi

    (State Key Laboratory of Grassland Agro-Ecosystems, College of Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
    Key Laboratory of Grassland Livestock Industry Innovation, College of Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
    Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, College of Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China)

  • Jean de Dieu Nzabonakuze

    (State Key Laboratory of Grassland Agro-Ecosystems, College of Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
    Key Laboratory of Grassland Livestock Industry Innovation, College of Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
    Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, College of Pastoral Agriculture Science and Technology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China)

Abstract

“Introducing grass into fields”, the major approach to modern grassland agriculture, is the crucial direction of agricultural structure adjustment in the farming-pastoral zone of Northern China. However, there have been few studies on the environmental impacts of agricultural production in this pattern. We used the life cycle assessment (LCA) method for the first time from the perspective of the entire industry chain from agricultural material production to livestock marketing, which involves the combination of planting and breeding. A comparative analysis of the environmental impact processes of beef and pork, the main products of the two existing agricultural systems in Eastern Gansu, was conducted. The findings showed that based on the production capacity of the 1 ha land system, the comprehensive environmental impact benefit of the grassland agricultural system (GAS) in the farming-pastoral zone was 21.82%, higher than that of the cultivated land agricultural system (CLAS). On Primary energy demand (PED) and environmental acidification potential (AP), the GAS needs improvement because those values were 38.66% and 22.01% higher than those of the CLAS, respectively; on global warming potential (GWP), eutrophication potential (EP), and water use (WU), the GAS performed more environment-friendlily because those values were 25.00%, 68.37%, and 11.88% lower than those of the CLAS, respectively. This indicates that a change in land use will lead to a change in environmental impacts. Therefore, PED and AP should be focused on the progress of grassland agriculture modernization by “introducing grass into fields” and new agricultural technologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Huilong Lin & Yanfei Pu & Xueni Ma & Yue Wang & Charles Nyandwi & Jean de Dieu Nzabonakuze, 2020. "The Environmental Impacts of the Grassland Agricultural System and the Cultivated Land Agricultural System: A Comparative Analysis in Eastern Gansu," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-13, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:24:p:10602-:d:464449
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/24/10602/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/24/10602/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Walter, Christof & Stützel, Hartmut, 2009. "A new method for assessing the sustainability of land-use systems (II): Evaluating impact indicators," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1288-1300, March.
    2. Casey, J.W. & Holden, N.M., 2006. "Quantification of GHG emissions from sucker-beef production in Ireland," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 90(1-3), pages 79-98, October.
    3. Yao, Yao & Huang, Gordon & An, Chunjiang & Chen, Xiujuan & Zhang, Peng & Xin, Xiaying & Jian Shen, & Agnew, Joy, 2020. "Anaerobic digestion of livestock manure in cold regions: Technological advancements and global impacts," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    4. Nemecek, Thomas & Dubois, David & Huguenin-Elie, Olivier & Gaillard, Gérard, 2011. "Life cycle assessment of Swiss farming systems: I. Integrated and organic farming," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(3), pages 217-232, March.
    5. Thomassen, M.A. & Dolman, M.A. & van Calker, K.J. & de Boer, I.J.M., 2009. "Relating life cycle assessment indicators to gross value added for Dutch dairy farms," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2278-2284, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hongpeng Guo & Zixu Su & Xiao Yang & Shuang Xu & Hong Pan, 2022. "Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Beef Cattle Breeding Based on the Ecological Cycle Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-15, August.
    2. Aida Skersiene & Alvyra Slepetiene & Vaclovas Stukonis & Egle Norkeviciene, 2023. "Accumulation of SOC and Carbon Fractions in Different Age Red Fescue Permanent Swards," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-13, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nina Repar & Pierrick Jan & Thomas Nemecek & Dunja Dux & Martina Alig Ceesay & Reiner Doluschitz, 2016. "Local versus Global Environmental Performance of Dairying and Their Link to Economic Performance: A Case Study of Swiss Mountain Farms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-19, December.
    2. Giulio Lazzerini & Jacopo Manzini & Stefano Lucchetti & Stefania Nin & Francesco Paolo Nicese, 2022. "Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Carbon Sequestration from Conventional and Organic Olive Tree Nurseries in Tuscany, Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-13, December.
    3. Veronika Fenyves & Tibor Tarnóczi & Zoltán Bács & Dóra Kerezsi & Péter Bajnai & Mihály Szoboszlai, 2022. "Financial efficiency analysis of Hungarian agriculture, fisheries and forestry sector," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 68(11), pages 413-426.
    4. Behroozeh, Samira & Hayati, Dariush & Karami, Ezatollah, 2022. "Determining and validating criteria to measure energy consumption sustainability in agricultural greenhouses," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    5. Jindřich Špička & Tomáš Vintr & Renata Aulová & Jana Macháčková, 2020. "Trade-off between the economic and environmental sustainability in Czech dual farm structure," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 66(6), pages 243-250.
    6. Zhen, Wei & Qin, Quande & Wei, Yi-Ming, 2017. "Spatio-temporal patterns of energy consumption-related GHG emissions in China's crop production systems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 274-284.
    7. Vogel, Everton & Martinelli, Gabrielli & Artuzo, Felipe Dalzotto, 2021. "Environmental and economic performance of paddy field-based crop-livestock systems in Southern Brazil," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    8. Danilo Bertoni & Daniele Cavicchioli & Franco Donzelli & Giovanni Ferrazzi & Dario G. Frisio & Roberto Pretolani & Elena Claire Ricci & Vera Ventura, 2018. "Recent Contributions of Agricultural Economics Research in the Field of Sustainable Development," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-20, December.
    9. Ivonne Acosta-Alba & Hayo M. G. Van der Werf, 2011. "The Use of Reference Values in Indicator-Based Methods for the Environmental Assessment of Agricultural Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(2), pages 1-19, February.
    10. Ferraz de Campos, Victor Arruda & Silva, Valter Bruno & Cardoso, João Sousa & Brito, Paulo S. & Tuna, Celso Eduardo & Silveira, José Luz, 2021. "A review of waste management in Brazil and Portugal: Waste-to-energy as pathway for sustainable development," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 802-820.
    11. Huysveld, Sophie & Van Meensel, Jef & Van linden, Veerle & De Meester, Steven & Peiren, Nico & Muylle, Hilde & Dewulf, Jo & Lauwers, Ludwig, 2017. "Communicative farm-specific diagnosis of potential simultaneous savings in costs and natural resource demand of feed on dairy farms," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 34-45.
    12. Lisa Mølgaard Lehmann & Magdalena Borzęcka & Katarzyna Żyłowska & Andrea Pisanelli & Giuseppe Russo & Bhim Bahadur Ghaley, 2020. "Environmental Impact Assessments of Integrated Food and Non-Food Production Systems in Italy and Denmark," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-11, February.
    13. Jaime Jaimes-Estévez & German Zafra & Jaime Martí-Herrero & Guillermo Pelaz & Antonio Morán & Alejandra Puentes & Christian Gomez & Liliana del Pilar Castro & Humberto Escalante Hernández, 2020. "Psychrophilic Full Scale Tubular Digester Operating over Eight Years: Complete Performance Evaluation and Microbiological Population," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-17, December.
    14. Tuomisto, H.L. & Hodge, I.D. & Riordan, P. & Macdonald, D.W., 2012. "Comparing energy balances, greenhouse gas balances and biodiversity impacts of contrasting farming systems with alternative land uses," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 42-49.
    15. Oriana Gava & Fabio Bartolini & Francesca Venturi & Gianluca Brunori & Alberto Pardossi, 2020. "Improving Policy Evidence Base for Agricultural Sustainability and Food Security: A Content Analysis of Life Cycle Assessment Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-29, February.
    16. Paulina-Soledad Vidal-Espinosa & Manuel Alvarez-Vera & Andrés Cárdenas & Juan-Carlos Cobos-Torres, 2023. "Beneficial Microorganisms in the Anaerobic Digestion of Cattle and Swine Excreta," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-16, April.
    17. Tavera-Ruiz, C. & Martí-Herrero, J. & Mendieta, O. & Jaimes-Estévez, J. & Gauthier-Maradei, P. & Azimov, U. & Escalante, H. & Castro, L., 2023. "Current understanding and perspectives on anaerobic digestion in developing countries: Colombia case study," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    18. González-Quintero, Ricardo & van Wijk, Mark T. & Ruden, Alejandro & Gómez, Manuel & Pantevez, Heiber & Castro-Llanos, Fabio & Notenbaert, An & Arango, Jacobo, 2022. "Yield gap analysis to identify attainable milk and meat productivities and the potential for greenhouse gas emissions mitigation in cattle systems of Colombia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    19. Siwal, Samarjeet Singh & Zhang, Qibo & Devi, Nishu & Saini, Adesh Kumar & Saini, Vipin & Pareek, Bhawna & Gaidukovs, Sergejs & Thakur, Vijay Kumar, 2021. "Recovery processes of sustainable energy using different biomass and wastes," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    20. Raymond L. Desjardins & Devon E. Worth & Xavier P. C. Vergé & Dominique Maxime & Jim Dyer & Darrel Cerkowniak, 2012. "Carbon Footprint of Beef Cattle," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(12), pages 1-23, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:24:p:10602-:d:464449. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.