IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/recore/v124y2017icp129-140.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Biotic resource loss beyond food waste: Agriculture leaks worst

Author

Listed:
  • Kuisma, Miia
  • Kahiluoto, Helena

Abstract

Enhancing the efficiency of biotic resource use by avoiding losses and boosting circular economy is one key in agrifood systems to ensuring food security and the functioning of the Earth system. The aims of this study were to first identify the greatest prospects for improving the biotic resource use efficiency and, second, to design methods to assess this efficiency. We assessed biotic resource use efficiencies (outputs/inputs) and biotic residue ratios (residues/inputs) in terms of dry matter, energy (LHVd), nitrogen and phosphorus for two Finnish case regions. We identified the greatest biotic resource use inefficiency as occurring in animal production, followed by crop production. The resource use efficiency in animal production is unavoidably low, but in crop production, the utilization of recycled nutrients, i.e., animal and green manures, and the rejection of the use of spare mineral fertiliser can enhance efficiency. In addition, the agrifood system efficiency was 3.4–21% higher according to the circular use of biotic resources compared to the exclusion of these. The losses from the agrifood system represent 52–76% of the current biotic inputs of the studied elements in crop production, which highlights the importance of efficient resource use in terms of food security. We conclude that substituting the external resources in favour of the circular use of biotic resources as well as the avoidance of losses are the keys to enhancing the system's efficiency. The determination of the biotic resource use efficiency and biotic residue ratio applying the introduced generic assessments serves boosting of circular economy.

Suggested Citation

  • Kuisma, Miia & Kahiluoto, Helena, 2017. "Biotic resource loss beyond food waste: Agriculture leaks worst," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 129-140.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:recore:v:124:y:2017:i:c:p:129-140
    DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.04.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344917301076
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.04.008?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Alexander, Peter & Brown, Calum & Arneth, Almut & Finnigan, John & Moran, Dominic & Rounsevell, Mark D.A., 2017. "Losses, inefficiencies and waste in the global food system," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 190-200.
    2. Huysman, Sofie & Sala, Serenella & Mancini, Lucia & Ardente, Fulvio & Alvarenga, Rodrigo A.F. & De Meester, Steven & Mathieux, Fabrice & Dewulf, Jo, 2015. "Toward a systematized framework for resource efficiency indicators," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 68-76.
    3. Jonathan A. Foley & Navin Ramankutty & Kate A. Brauman & Emily S. Cassidy & James S. Gerber & Matt Johnston & Nathaniel D. Mueller & Christine O’Connell & Deepak K. Ray & Paul C. West & Christian Balz, 2011. "Solutions for a cultivated planet," Nature, Nature, vol. 478(7369), pages 337-342, October.
    4. Risku-Norja, Helmi & Maenpaa, Ilmo, 2007. "MFA model to assess economic and environmental consequences of food production and consumption," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 700-711, February.
    5. Mena, Carlos & Adenso-Diaz, B. & Yurt, Oznur, 2011. "The causes of food waste in the supplier–retailer interface: Evidences from the UK and Spain," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 55(6), pages 648-658.
    6. Kalt, Gerald, 2015. "Biomass streams in Austria: Drawing a complete picture of biogenic material flows within the national economy," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 100-111.
    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. Alan, Hale & Köker, Ali Rıza, 2023. "Analyzing and mapping agricultural waste recycling research: An integrative review for conceptual framework and future directions," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(PB).

    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. Aschemann-Witzel, Jessica & de Hooge, Ilona E. & Almli, Valérie L., 2021. "My style, my food, my waste! Consumer food waste-related lifestyle segments," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    2. Friedman, Nicola & Ormiston, Jarrod, 2022. "Blockchain as a sustainability-oriented innovation?: Opportunities for and resistance to Blockchain technology as a driver of sustainability in global food supply chains," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    3. Christy Anderson Brekken & Hikaru Hanawa Peterson & Robert P. King & David Conner, 2018. "Writing a Recipe for Teaching Sustainable Food Systems: Lessons from Three University Courses," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-19, June.
    4. Jessica Aschemann‐Witzel & Ana Giménez & Alice Grønhøj & Gastón Ares, 2020. "Avoiding household food waste, one step at a time: The role of self‐efficacy, convenience orientation, and the good provider identity in distinct situational contexts," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 581-606, June.
    5. Rommel, Jens & Anggraini, Eva, 2018. "Spatially explicit framed field experiments on ecosystem services governance," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 201-205.
    6. Ascui, Francisco & Ball, Alex & Kahn, Lewis & Rowe, James, 2021. "Is operationalising natural capital risk assessment practicable?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    7. Zeke Marshall & Paul E. Brockway, 2020. "A Net Energy Analysis of the Global Agriculture, Aquaculture, Fishing and Forestry System," Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 1-27, June.
    8. Meike Weltin & Silke Hüttel, 2023. "Sustainable Intensification Farming as an Enabler for Farm Eco-Efficiency?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 84(1), pages 315-342, January.
    9. Law, Elizabeth A. & Macchi, Leandro & Baumann, Matthias & Decarre, Julieta & Gavier-Pizarro, Gregorio & Levers, Christian & Mastrangelo, Matías E. & Murray, Francisco & Müller, Daniel & Piquer-Rodrígu, 2021. "Fading opportunities for mitigating agriculture-environment trade-offs in a south American deforestation hotspot," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 262.
    10. Ongolo, Symphorien & Giessen, Lukas & Karsenty, Alain & Tchamba, Martin & Krott, Max, 2021. "Forestland policies and politics in Africa: Recent evidence and new challenges," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    11. Marcela Prokopová & Luca Salvati & Gianluca Egidi & Ondřej Cudlín & Renata Včeláková & Radek Plch & Pavel Cudlín, 2019. "Envisioning Present and Future Land-Use Change under Varying Ecological Regimes and Their Influence on Landscape Stability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-24, August.
    12. James J Elser & Timothy J Elser & Stephen R Carpenter & William A Brock, 2014. "Regime Shift in Fertilizer Commodities Indicates More Turbulence Ahead for Food Security," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(5), pages 1-7, May.
    13. 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).
    14. Abdulai, Issaka & Hoffmann, Munir P. & Jassogne, Laurence & Asare, Richard & Graefe, Sophie & Tao, Hsiao-Hang & Muilerman, Sander & Vaast, Philippe & Van Asten, Piet & Läderach, Peter & Rötter, Reimun, 2020. "Variations in yield gaps of smallholder cocoa systems and the main determining factors along a climate gradient in Ghana," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    15. Qian Sun & Mingjie Wu & Peiyu Du & Wei Qi & Xinyang Yu, 2022. "Spatial Layout Optimization and Simulation of Cultivated Land Based on the Life Community Theory in a Mountainous and Hilly Area of China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, March.
    16. Heider, Katharina & Quaranta, Emanuele & García Avilés, José María & Rodriguez Lopez, Juan Miguel & Balbo, Andrea L. & Scheffran, Jürgen, 2022. "Reinventing the wheel – The preservation and potential of traditional water wheels in the terraced irrigated landscapes of the Ricote Valley, southeast Spain," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 259(C).
    17. Tiziano Gomiero, 2016. "Soil Degradation, Land Scarcity and Food Security: Reviewing a Complex Challenge," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-41, March.
    18. Thomas Beaussier & Sylvain Caurla & Véronique Bellon Maurel & Eléonore Loiseau, 2019. "Coupling economic models and environmental assessment methods to support regional policies : A critical review," Post-Print hal-02021423, HAL.
    19. Jeong, Hanseok & Kim, Hakkwan & Jang, Taeil & Park, Seungwoo, 2016. "Assessing the effects of indirect wastewater reuse on paddy irrigation in the Osan River watershed in Korea using the SWAT model," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 393-402.
    20. Anna Lungarska & Thierry Brunelle & Raja Chakir & Pierre‐Alain Jayet & Rémi Prudhomme & Stéphane De Cara & Jean‐Christophe Bureau, 2023. "Halving mineral nitrogen use in European agriculture: Insights from multi‐scale land‐use models," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(3), pages 1529-1550, September.

    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:recore:v:124:y:2017:i:c:p:129-140. 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: Kai Meng (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/resources-conservation-and-recycling .

    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.