IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v108y2012icp42-49.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing energy balances, greenhouse gas balances and biodiversity impacts of contrasting farming systems with alternative land uses

Author

Listed:
  • Tuomisto, H.L.
  • Hodge, I.D.
  • Riordan, P.
  • Macdonald, D.W.

Abstract

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is commonly used for comparing environmental impacts of contrasting farming systems. However, the interpretation of agricultural LCA studies may be flawed when the alternative land use options are not properly taken into account. This study compared energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) balances and biodiversity impacts of different farming systems by using LCA accompanied by an assessment of alternative land uses. Farm area and food product output were set equal across all of the farm models, and any land remaining available after the food crop production requirement had been met was assumed to be used for other purposes. Three different management options for that land area were compared: Miscanthus energy crop production, managed forest and natural forest. The results illustrate the significance of taking into account the alternative land use options and suggest that integrated farming systems have potential to improve the energy and GHG balances and biodiversity compared to both organic and conventional systems. Sensitivity analysis shows that the models are most sensitive for crop and biogas yields and for the nitrous oxide emission factors. This paper provides an approach that can be further developed for identifying land management systems that optimize food production and environmental benefits.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:108:y:2012:i:c:p:42-49
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2012.01.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X12000121
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Thomassen, M.A. & van Calker, K.J. & Smits, M.C.J. & Iepema, G.L. & de Boer, I.J.M., 2008. "Life cycle assessment of conventional and organic milk production in the Netherlands," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 96(1-3), pages 95-107, March.
    3. Stone, James J. & Dollarhide, Christopher R. & Benning, Jennifer L. & Gregg Carlson, C. & Clay, David E., 2012. "The life cycle impacts of feed for modern grow-finish Northern Great Plains US swine production," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 1-10.
    4. Styles, David & Jones, Michael B., 2008. "Miscanthus and willow heat production--An effective land-use strategy for greenhouse gas emission avoidance in Ireland?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 97-107, January.
    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. Michal Kulak & Thomas Nemecek & Emmanuel Frossard & Gérard Gaillard, 2013. "How Eco-Efficient Are Low-Input Cropping Systems in Western Europe, and What Can Be Done to Improve Their Eco-Efficiency?," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 5(9), pages 1-22, September.
    2. Pierie, F. & Benders, R.M.J. & Bekkering, J. & van Gemert, W.J.Th. & Moll, H.C., 2016. "Lessons from spatial and environmental assessment of energy potentials for Anaerobic Digestion production systems applied to the Netherlands," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 233-244.
    3. Siegmeier, Torsten & Blumenstein, Benjamin & Möller, Detlev, 2015. "Farm biogas production in organic agriculture: System implications," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 196-209.

    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:eee:agisys:v:108:y:2012:i:c:p:42-49. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.