Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 42, Issue 6, pp 989–1001 | Cite as

Scenario Modeling Potential Eco-Efficiency Gains from a Transition to Organic Agriculture: Life Cycle Perspectives on Canadian Canola, Corn, Soy, and Wheat Production

  • N. Pelletier
  • N. Arsenault
  • P. Tyedmers
Article

Abstract

We used Life Cycle Assessment to scenario model the potential reductions in cumulative energy demand (both fossil and renewable) and global warming, acidifying, and ozone-depleting emissions associated with a hypothetical national transition from conventional to organic production of four major field crops [canola (Brassica rapa), corn (Zea mays), soy (Glycine max), and wheat (Triticum aestivum)] in Canada. Models of these systems were constructed using a combination of census data, published values, and the requirements for organic production described in the Canadian National Organic Standards in order to be broadly representative of the similarities and differences that characterize these disparate production technologies. Our results indicate that organic crop production would consume, on average, 39% as much energy and generate 77% of the global warming emissions, 17% of the ozone-depleting emissions, and 96% of the acidifying emissions associated with current national production of these crops. These differences were almost exclusively due to the differences in fertilizers used in conventional and organic farming and were most strongly influenced by the higher cumulative energy demand and emissions associated with producing conventional nitrogen fertilizers compared to the green manure production used for biological nitrogen fixation in organic agriculture. Overall, we estimate that a total transition to organic production of these crops in Canada would reduce national energy consumption by 0.8%, global warming emissions by 0.6%, and acidifying emissions by 1.0% but have a negligible influence on reducing ozone-depleting emissions.

Keywords

Life cycle assessment Organic Conventional Efficiency Nitrogen Green manure Agriculture 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was generously supported by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Killam Trust, and the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada. We also acknowledge the thoughtful and constructive input of three reviewers. Any errors are, of course, the sole responsibility of the authors.

References

  1. Alexandratos N (1999) World food and agriculture: outlook for the medium and longer term. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 96:5908–5914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Badgley C, Moghtader J, Quintero E et al (2007) Organic agriculture and the global food supply. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 22:86–108Google Scholar
  3. Bhat M, English B, Turhollow A et al (1994) Energy in synthetic fertilizers and pesticides: revisited. NRNL/Sub/90-99732/2. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VAGoogle Scholar
  4. Brentrup F, Kusters J, Kuhlman H et al (2001) Application of the Life Cycle Assessment methodology to agricultural production: An example of sugar beet production with different forms of nitrogen fertilizers. European Journal of Agronomy 14:221–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Canadian General Standards Board (2006) Canada organic production systems permitted substances lists. Retrieved May, 2006, from http://www.pwgsc.gc.ca/cgsb/on_the_net/organic/032_0311_2006-e.pdf
  6. Canadian Council of Ministers (2001) National action plan for the environmental control of ozone-depleting substances and their halocarbon alternatives: May 2001 update. Retrieved January, 2007, from http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/nap_update_e.pdf
  7. CANSIM (2007) Average yield of principal field crops in Canada. Retrieved January, 2007, from http://cansim2.statcan.ca/
  8. Carpenter S, Caraco N, Correl D et al (1998) Non-point pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecological Applications 8(3):559–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carvalho F (2006) Agriculture, pesticides, food security and food safety. Environmental Science and Policy 9(7–8):685–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cassman K (1999) Ecological intensification of cereal production systems: yield potential, soil quality, and precision agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of ScienceUSA 96:5952–5959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. CML (2001) CML 2 Baseline Method 2000. Centre for Environmental Studies, University of Leiden, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  12. Cox T, Glover J, Van Tassel D et al (2006) Prospects for developing perennial grain crops. BioScience 56(8):649–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crews T, Peoples M (2004) Legume versus fertilizer sources of nitrogen: ecological tradeoffs and human needs. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 102:279–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dobbie K, McTaggart I, Smith K (1999) Nitrous oxide emissions from intensive agricultural systems: variations between crops and seasons, key driving variables, and mean emission factors. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 105(21):26891–26899Google Scholar
  15. EcoInvent (2007) Swiss centre for life cycle inventories. Available at http://www.ecoinvent.ch/
  16. El-Hage Scialabba N, Hattam C (eds) (2002) Organic agriculture, environment and food security. Environment and Natural Resources Service Sustainable Development Department, UNFAO, Rome. Retrieved September, 2005, from http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y4137E/y4137e01.htm#P0_0
  17. Environment Canada (2006) National Inventory Report 1990–2004: greenhouse gas sources and sinks in Canada. Retrieved January, 2007, from http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/inventory_report/2004_report/2004_report_e.pdf
  18. Environment Canada (2007) Acid rain and the facts. Retrieved January, 2007, from http://www.ec.gc.ca/acidrain/acidfact.html
  19. Ess D, Vaughan D, Luna J et al (1994) Energy and economic savings from the use of legume cover crops in Virginia corn production. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 9(4):178–185Google Scholar
  20. Fournier J (1999) Pesticides: are they pests or blessing? Actualite Chimique 11:34–39Google Scholar
  21. Gerhardt R (1997) A comparative analysis of the effects of organic and conventional farming systems on soil structure. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 14:139–157Google Scholar
  22. Guinee J, Gorree M, Heijungs R et al (2001) Life cycle assessment: an operational guide to the ISO Standards Part 2. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment, The Hague, Netherlands. Retrieved January, 2006, from http://www.leidenuniv.nl/cml/ssp/projects/lca2/part1.pdf
  23. Hall C, Klitgaard K (2006) The need for a new, biophysical-based paradigm in economics for the second half of the age of oil. International Journal of Transdisciplinary Research 1(1):4–22Google Scholar
  24. Haas G, Wetterich F, Köpke U (2001) Comparing intensive, extensified and organic grassland farming in southern Germany by process life cycle assessment. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 83:43–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hoeppner J (2001) The effects of legume green manures, perennial forages, and cover crops on non-renewable energy use in western Canadian cropping systems. Master’s thesis, Department of Plant Science, University of Winnipeg, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  26. Hoeppner J, Entz M, McConkey B et al (2006) Energy use and efficiency in two Canadian organic and conventional crop production systems. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 21:60–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. IPCC (2006) Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Intergovernmental panel on climate change. Retrieved September, 2006, from http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.htm
  28. Jordan N, Boody G, Broussard W et al (2007) Environment: sustainable development of the agricultural bio-economy. Science 316(5831):1570–1571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Killpack S, Buchholz D (1993) Nitrogen replacement value of legumes. University of Missouri Extension. Retrieved September, 2006, from http://www.extension.missouri.edu/explore/envqual/wq0277.htm
  30. Korol M (2002) Canadian fertilizer consumption shipments and trade 2001/2002. Agriculture and Agri-food Canada. Retrieved January, 2006, from http://www.agr.gc.ca/pol/pub/canfert/pdf/canfert01_02_e.pdf
  31. Leikem D, Lamond R, Bonczkowski L et al (2007) Using legumes in crop rotations. Kansas State University. Retrieved January, 2008, from http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/library/crpsl2/l778.pdf
  32. Levelton Engineering Ltd., (S&T)2 Consultants Inc (1999) Assessment of net emissions of greenhouse gases from ethanol-gasoline blends in southern Ontario. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Policy Branch, Ottawa. Retrieved January, 2006, from http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/RENEW/Biomass/docs/FORUM/GHG_Eth.PDF
  33. Lockeretz W, Shearer G, Sweeney S et al (1980) Maize yields and soil nutrient levels with and without pesticides and standards commercial fertilizers. Agronomy Journal 72:65–72Google Scholar
  34. Mattsson B (1999) LCA of carrot puree: case studies of organic and integrated production. Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology Report No. 653, Gothenburg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  35. MEA (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being. Volume 1. Current state and trends. Findings of the Conditions and Trends Working Group. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  36. Offerman F, Nieberg H (2000) Economic performance of organic farms in Europe. Organic Farming In Europe: Economics and Policy 5, University of Hohenheim, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  37. Pelletier N, Tyedmers P (2007) Feeding farmed salmon: is organic better? Aquaculture 272:399–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pelletier N, Ayer N, Tyedmers P et al (2007) Impact categories for life cycle assessment research of seafood production: review and prospectus. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 12(6):414–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pennington D, Potting J, Finnveden G et al (2004) Life cycle assessment part 2: current impact assessment practice. Environment International 30:721–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pimentel D, Pimentel M (2006) Global environmental resources versus world population growth. Ecological Economics 59:195–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pimentel D, Hepperly P, Hanson J et al (2005) Environmental, energetic and economics comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. Bioscience 55(7):573–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. PRé (2006) SimaPro 7.0. PRe consultants, Netherlands. Retrieved January, 2006, from http://www.pre.nl
  43. Rhem G, Schmitt M, Eliason R (2002) Fertilizer recommendations for edible beans in Minnesota. University of Minnesota Extension. Retrieved September, 2006, from http://www.134.84.92.126/distribution/cropsystems/DC6572.html
  44. Robertson G, Paul E, Harwood R (2000) Greenhouse gases in intensive agriculture: contributions of individual gases to radiative forcing of the atmosphere. Science 289:1922–1925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shelley K (2004) Nitrogen fertilizer rates and application timing for winter wheat in Wisconsin—What are the economic optimums? University of Wisconsin Extension Services. Retrieved September, 2006, from http://www.soils.wisc.edu/extension/FAPM/2004proceedings/Shelley.pdf
  46. Smil V (2001) Feeding the world. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  47. Smolik J, Dobbs T, Rickerl D (1995) The relative sustainability of alternative, conventional, and reduced-till farming systems. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 10(1):25–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stanhill G (1990) The comparative productivity of organic agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 30:1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. State J, Posner J (1995) Legume cover crops as a nitrogen source for corn in an oat–corn rotation. Journal of Production Agriculture 8(3):385–390Google Scholar
  50. Statistics Canada (2007) Seeded area of field and speciality crops in Canada. Retrieved January, 2007, from http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/prim11a.htm
  51. Stolze M, Priorr A, Haring A et al (2000) The environmental impacts of organic farming in Europe. Organic farming in Europe: economics and policy 6. University of Hohenheim, Germany. Retrieved February, 2006, from http://www.uni-hohenheim.de/i410a/ofeurope/organicfarmingineurope-vol6.pdf
  52. (S&T)2 Consultants Inc (2003) The addition of ethanol from wheat to GHGenius. Natural Resources Canada, Office of Energy Efficiency, Ottawa. Retrieved February, 2006, from http://www.gov.mb.ca/est/energy/ethanol/wheat-ethanolreport.pdf
  53. (S&T)2 Consultants Inc (2005) Biodiesel GHG emissions using GHGenius: An update. Natural Resources Canada, Office of Energy Efficiency, Ottawa. Retrieved January, 2006, from http://www.studio255.com/crfa/pdf/res/20050311_NRCan_Biodiesel_GHG_Emissions.pdf
  54. Thomassen M, van Calker K, Smits M et al (2008) Life cycle assessment of conventional and organic milk production in the Netherlands. Agricultural Systems 96:95–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. VDI (1997) Cumulative energy demand: terms, definitions, methods of calculation. VDI-Richtlinien (4600) Verein Deutscher Ingenieure, DüsseldorfGoogle Scholar
  56. Williams A, Audsley E, Sandars D (2006) Determining the environmental burdens and resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural commodities. Main Report. DEFRA Research Project IS0205, Cranfield University. Retrieved January, 2007 from www.silsoe.cranfield.ac.uk
  57. Wood R, Lenzen M, Lundie S (2006) A comparative study of some environmental impacts of conventional and organic farming in Australia. Agricultural Systems 89:324–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School for Resource and Environmental StudiesDalhousie UniversityHalifaxCanada

Personalised recommendations