IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i14p8059-d597149.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reducing Topdressing N Fertilization with Variable Rates Does Not Reduce Maize Yield

Author

Listed:
  • Calogero Schillaci

    (Department of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of Milan, Via Celoria 2, 20133 Milano, Italy)

  • Tommaso Tadiello

    (Department of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of Milan, Via Celoria 2, 20133 Milano, Italy)

  • Marco Acutis

    (Department of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of Milan, Via Celoria 2, 20133 Milano, Italy)

  • Alessia Perego

    (Department of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of Milan, Via Celoria 2, 20133 Milano, Italy)

Abstract

Proximal sensing represents a growing avenue for precision fertilization and crop growth monitoring. In the last decade, precision agriculture technology has become affordable in many countries; Global Positioning Systems for automatic guidance instruments and proximal sensors can be used to guide the distribution of nutrients such as nitrogen (N) fertilization using real-time applications. A two-year field experiment (2017–2018) was carried out to quantify maize yield in response to variable rate (VR) N distribution, which was determined with a proximal vigour sensor, as an alternative to a fixed rate (FR) in a cereal-livestock farm located in the Po valley (northern Italy). The amount of N distributed for the FR (140 kg N ha −1 ) was calculated according to the crop requirement and the regional regulation: ±30% of the FR rate was applied in the VR treatment according to the Vigour S-index calculated on-the-go from the CropSpec sensor. The two treatments of N fertilization did not result in a significant difference in yield in both years. The findings suggest that the application of VR is more economically profitable than the FR application rate, especially under the hypothesis of VR application at a farm scale. The outcome of the experiment suggests that VR is a viable and profitable technique that can be easily applied at the farm level by adopting proximal sensors to detect the actual crop N requirement prior to stem elongation. Besides the economic benefits, the VR approach can be regarded as a sustainable practice that meets the current European Common Agricultural Policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Calogero Schillaci & Tommaso Tadiello & Marco Acutis & Alessia Perego, 2021. "Reducing Topdressing N Fertilization with Variable Rates Does Not Reduce Maize Yield," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-14, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:14:p:8059-:d:597149
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/14/8059/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/14/8059/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ahmed Kayad & Dimitrios S. Paraforos & Francesco Marinello & Spyros Fountas, 2020. "Latest Advances in Sensor Applications in Agriculture," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-8, August.
    2. Werner Kleinhanß & Carmen Murillo & Carlos San Juan & Stefan Sperlich, 2007. "Efficiency, subsidies, and environmental adaptation of animal farming under CAP," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 36(1), pages 49-65, January.
    3. Christoph W. Zecha & Gerassimos G. Peteinatos & Johanna Link & Wilhelm Claupein, 2018. "Utilisation of Ground and Airborne Optical Sensors for Nitrogen Level Identification and Yield Prediction in Wheat," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-13, June.
    4. Perego, A. & Rocca, A. & Cattivelli, V. & Tabaglio, V. & Fiorini, A. & Barbieri, S. & Schillaci, C. & Chiodini, M.E. & Brenna, S. & Acutis, M., 2019. "Agro-environmental aspects of conservation agriculture compared to conventional systems: A 3-year experience on 20 farms in the Po valley (Northern Italy)," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 73-87.
    5. Elena Tamburini & Mattias Gaglio & Giuseppe Castaldelli & Elisa Anna Fano, 2020. "Biogas from Agri-Food and Agricultural Waste Can Appreciate Agro-Ecosystem Services: The Case Study of Emilia Romagna Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-15, October.
    6. Quemada, M. & Lassaletta, L. & Jensen, L.S. & Godinot, O. & Brentrup, F. & Buckley, C. & Foray, S. & Hvid, S.K. & Oenema, J. & Richards, K.G. & Oenema, O., 2020. "Exploring nitrogen indicators of farm performance among farm types across several European case studies," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Musshoff, Oliver & Hirschauer, Norbert & Herink, Michael, 2009. "Bei welchen Problemstrukturen sind Data-Envelopment-Analysen sinnvoll? Eine kritische Würdigung," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 58(02), pages 1-11, February.
    2. Sara Pavone & Elena Ragazzi & Lisa Sella, 2015. "Sostenere le imprese agro-industriali in Piemonte: un?analisi controfattuale," SCIENZE REGIONALI, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2015(3 Suppl.), pages 129-143.
    3. Zoltan Bakucs & Imre Fertő & József Fogarasi & Laure Latruffe & Yann Desjeux & Eduard Matveev & Sonia Marongiu & Mark Dolman & Rafat Soboh, 2011. "EU farms’ technical efficiency and productivity change in 1990 – 2006 [Efficacité technique et changement de productivité des exploitations agricoles européennes 1990-2006]," Post-Print hal-02808334, HAL.
    4. Frýd, Lukáš & Sokol, Ondřej, 2021. "Relationships between technical efficiency and subsidies for Czech farms: A two-stage robust approach," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    5. Kassoum Ayouba & Jean-Philippe Boussemart & Stéphane Vigeant, 2017. "The impact of single farm payments on technical inefficiency of French crop farms," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(1), pages 1-23, July.
    6. Trnkova, Gabriela & Mala, Zdenka & Vasilenko, Alexandr, 2012. "Analysis of the Effects of Subsidies on the Economic Behavior of Agricultural Businesses Focusing on Animal Production," AGRIS on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management, vol. 4(4 Special), pages 1-12, December.
    7. Latruffe, Laure & Bravo-Ureta, Boris E. & Moreira, Victor H. & Desjeux, Yann & Dupraz, Pierre, 2011. "Productivity and Subsidies in European Union Countries: An Analysis for Dairy Farms Using Input Distance Frontiers," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114396, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Thomas Slijper & Yann de Mey & P Marijn Poortvliet & Miranda P M Meuwissen, 2022. "Quantifying the resilience of European farms using FADN," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(1), pages 121-150.
    9. Shangyi Lou & Jin He & Hongwen Li & Qingjie Wang & Caiyun Lu & Wenzheng Liu & Peng Liu & Zhenguo Zhang & Hui Li, 2021. "Current Knowledge and Future Directions for Improving Subsoiling Quality and Reducing Energy Consumption in Conservation Fields," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-17, June.
    10. Normaisharah Mamat & Mohd Fauzi Othman & Rawad Abdoulghafor & Samir Brahim Belhaouari & Normahira Mamat & Shamsul Faisal Mohd Hussein, 2022. "Advanced Technology in Agriculture Industry by Implementing Image Annotation Technique and Deep Learning Approach: A Review," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-35, July.
    11. Andrew P. Barnes, 2023. "The role of family life‐cycle events on persistent and transient inefficiencies in less favoured areas," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(1), pages 295-315, February.
    12. Zhu, Xueqin & Demeter, Robert Milan & Oude Lansink, Alfons G.J.M., 2008. "Competitiveness of dairy farms in three countries: the role of CAP subsidies," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44143, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Wei, Zhibiao & Zhuang, Minghao & Hellegers, Petra & Cui, Zhenling & Hoffland, Ellis, 2023. "Towards circular nitrogen use in the agri-food system at village and county level in China," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    14. Serra, J. & Paredes, P. & Cordovil, CMdS & Cruz, S. & Hutchings, NJ & Cameira, MR, 2023. "Is irrigation water an overlooked source of nitrogen in agriculture?," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 278(C).
    15. Kamer-Ainur AIVAZ, 2021. "Investigating the Impact of Subsidy Revenues on Turnover at the Level of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing Companies in the Coastal Area of the Black Sea," Economics and Applied Informatics, "Dunarea de Jos" University of Galati, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, issue 2, pages 31-38.
    16. Tomislav Herceg & Iva Vuksanovic, 2017. "Technological progress in Croatian perennial agriculture," International Journal of Economic Sciences, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences, vol. 6(1), pages 18-32, May.
    17. Siva K. Balasundram & Redmond R. Shamshiri & Shankarappa Sridhara & Nastaran Rizan, 2023. "The Role of Digital Agriculture in Mitigating Climate Change and Ensuring Food Security: An Overview," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-23, March.
    18. Shen Yuan & Bruce A. Linquist & Lloyd T. Wilson & Kenneth G. Cassman & Alexander M. Stuart & Valerien Pede & Berta Miro & Kazuki Saito & Nurwulan Agustiani & Vina Eka Aristya & Leonardus Y. Krisnadi &, 2021. "Sustainable intensification for a larger global rice bowl," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-11, December.
    19. Isidoro GUZMÁN & Narciso ARCAS, 2008. "The Usefulness Of Accounting Information In The Measurement Of Technical Efficiency In Agricultural Cooperatives," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 79(1), pages 107-131, March.
    20. Khafagy, Amr & Vigani, Mauro, 2022. "Technical change and the Common Agricultural Policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).

    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:13:y:2021:i:14:p:8059-:d:597149. 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.