Ambio

, Volume 45, Issue 8, pp 885–894 | Cite as

The sustainability of changes in agricultural technology: The carbon, economic and labour implications of mechanisation and synthetic fertiliser use

Report

Abstract

New agricultural technologies bring multiple impacts which are hard to predict. Two changes taking place in Indian agriculture are a transition from bullocks to tractors and an associated replacement of manure with synthetic fertilisers. This paper uses primary data to model social, environmental and economic impacts of these transitions in South India. It compares ploughing by bullocks or tractors and the provision of nitrogen from manure or synthetic urea for irrigated rice from the greenhouse gas (GHG), economic and labour perspective. Tractors plough nine times faster than bullocks, use substantially less labour, with no significant difference in GHG emissions. Tractors are twice as costly as bullocks yet remain more popular to hire. The GHG emissions from manure-N paddy are 30 % higher than for urea-N, largely due to the organic matter in manure driving methane emissions. Labour use is significantly higher for manure, and the gender balance is more equal. Manure is substantially more expensive as a source of nutrients compared to synthetic nutrients, yet remains popular when available. This paper demonstrates the need to take a broad approach to analysing the sustainability impacts of new technologies, as trade-offs between different metrics are common.

Keywords

Paddy Oxen India Draught animals Livelihoods Life cycle assessment LCA 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank the constructive comments from four anonymous reviewers. With thanks to the ESRC/Dfid Joint Scheme award RES-167-25-MTRUYG0; ES/1033768/1 for funding. The views expressed are those of the authors.

References

  1. Agarwal, B. 1984. Tractors, tubewells and cropping intensity in the Indian Punjab. The Journal of Development Studies 20: 290–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Astill, G.G., and J. Langdon. 1997. Medieval farming and technology: The impact of agricultural change in Northwest Europe. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  3. Bronick, C.J., and R. Lal. 2005. Soil structure and management: A review. Geoderma 124: 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhatia, A., H. Pathak, P. Aggarwal, and N. Jain. 2010. Trade-off between productivity enhancement and global warming potential of rice and wheat in India. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 86: 413–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carswell, G., and G. De Neve. 2014. MGNREGA in Tamil Nadu: A story of success and transformation? Journal of Agrarian Change 14: 564–585.Google Scholar
  6. Cerutti, A.K., A. Calvo, and S. Bruun. 2014. Comparison of the environmental performance of light mechanization and animal traction using a modular LCA approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 64: 396–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ci, E., and L. Yang. 2013. Paddy soils continuously cultivated for hundreds to thousands of years still sequester carbon. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B-Soil & Plant Science 63: 694–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. CIDS. 2014. State of Indian farmers: A report centre for the study of developing societies.Google Scholar
  9. Corbridge, S., J. Harriss, and C. Jeffrey. 2014. ‘Lopsided’, ‘Failed’, or ‘Tortuous’: India’s problematic transition and its implications for labour. In China-India: Paths of economic and social development, ed. D. Davin, and B. Harriss-White. Oxford: The British Academy by Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. CSE. 2009. Green rating project, fertilizers. http://www.cseindia.org/userfiles/79-90%20Fertilizer%281%29.pdf, New Delhi.
  11. CSE. 2012. Into the furnace. Green rating project of Indian Iron and Steel Sector. In ed. CSE, 256. Delhi: CSE.Google Scholar
  12. Dawe, D. 2000. The contribution of rice research to poverty alleviation. In Studies in plant science, ed. Sheehy P.L.M.J.E., and B. Hardy. Elsevier.Google Scholar
  13. Erisman, J.W., M.A. Sutton, J. Galloway, Z. Klimont, and W. Winiwarter. 2008. How a century of ammonia synthesis changed the world. Nature Geoscience 1: 636–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. EU. 2009. On the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. In ed. Official Journal of the European Union. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=Oj:L:2009:140:0016:0062:en:PDF.
  15. European Commission. 2010. International reference life cycle data system (ILCD) handbook, general guide for life cycle assessment. Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.Google Scholar
  16. Evenson, R.E., C. Pray, and M.W. Rosegrant. 1998. Agricultural research and productivity growth in India. International Food Policy Research Institute.Google Scholar
  17. FAO. 2005. Fertilizer use by crop in India. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.Google Scholar
  18. Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz, and R. Van Dorland. 2007. Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. In Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of working Group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, ed. S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller, 131–234. Cambridge, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Fuller, R.J., and L. Aye. 2012. Human and animal power—The forgotten renewables. Renewable Energy 48: 326–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gabriel, D., S.M. Sait, W.E. Kunin, and T.G. Benton. 2013. Food production vs. biodiversity: Comparing organic and conventional agriculture. Journal of Applied Ecology 50: 355–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gathorne-Hardy, A., D.N. Reddy, M. Venkatanarayana, and B. Harriss-White. 2016. System of Rice Intensification provides environmental and economic gains but at the expense of social sustainability—A multidisciplinary analysis in India. Agricultural Systems 143: 159–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ghosh, S., B. Wilson, S. Ghoshal, N. Senapati, and B. Mandal. 2012. Organic amendments influence soil quality and carbon sequestration in the Indo-Gangetic plains of India. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 156: 134–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. GoI. 2012. 19th livestock census. In Department of Animal Husbandry Dairying & Fisheries Ministry of Agriculture. Government of India.Google Scholar
  24. GoI. 2013. India rural development report 2012|13. In ed. Ministry of Rural Development. Government of India, http://rural.nic.in/sites/downloads/annual-report/MoRDEnglish_AR2012_13.pdf.
  25. GOI. 2014. All India report on number and area of operational holdings. Agriculture Census Division, Department of Agriculture & Co-Operation.Google Scholar
  26. Gupta, P.K., A.K. Jha, S. Koul, P. Sharma, V. Pradhan, V. Gupta, C. Sharma, and N. Singh. 2007. Methane and nitrous oxide emission from bovine manure management practices in India. Environmental Pollution 146: 219–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harriss-White, B., and N. Gooptu. 2000. Mapping India’s world of unorganised labour. In Working classes: Global realities, ed. L. Panitch, and C. Leys, 89–118. London: Merlin Press.Google Scholar
  28. Harriss-White, B., S. Janakarajan, and D. Colatei. 2004. Heavy agriculture and light industry in South Indian villages. In Rural india facing the 21st Century: Essays on long term change and recent development policy, ed. B. Harriss-White, and S. Janakarajan, 3–47. London: Anthem Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hou, A.X., G.X. Chen, Z.P. Wang, O. Van Cleemput, and W.H. Patrick. 2000. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from a rice field in relation to soil redox and microbiological processes. Soil Science Society of America Journal 64: 2180–2186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hull, K. 2009. Understanding the relationship between economic growth, employment and poverty reduction. In ed. DAC Network on Poverty Reduction (POVNET). Promoting pro-poor growth: Employment OECD. http://www.oecd.org/dac/povertyreduction/43514554.pdf.
  31. IPCC. 1996. IPCC good practice guidance and uncertainties management in national greenhouse gas inventories.Google Scholar
  32. IPCC. 2006. National guidelines for greenhouse gas inventories.Google Scholar
  33. IPCC. 2007. Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of workgroup I to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. ISO. 2006. Environment management—Life cycle assessment—Principles and framework. EN ISO 14040 2006. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization (ISO).Google Scholar
  35. Kindred, D., N. Mortimer, R. Sylvester-Bradley, G. Brown, and J. Woods. 2008. Understanding and managing uncertainties to improve biofuel GHG emissions calculations. London: HGCA.Google Scholar
  36. Ladha, J.K., H. Pathak, T.J. Krupnik, J. Six, and C. van Kessel. 2005. Efficiency of fertilizer nitrogen in cereal production: Retrospects and prospects. In Advances in agronomy, ed. L.S. Donald, 85–156. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  37. Mandal, S., K.K. Datta, D.K. Hore, and S. Mohanty. 2008. Biodiversity and organic agriculture—Opportunities and challenges for the north-east region of India and a model for the principles involved. Outlook on Agriculture 37: 87–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Misra, A.K., and A.S. Pandey. 2000. Seasonality of bullock power use in rainfed areas. Draught Animal News 32: 11–13.Google Scholar
  39. Montgomery, D.R. 2012. Dirt: The erosion of civilizations. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  40. Mueller, L., U. Schindler, W. Mirschel, T. GrahamShepherd, B.C. Ball, K. Helming, J. Rogasik, F. Eulenstein, and H. Wiggering. 2010. Assessing the productivity function of soils. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 30: 601–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Musa, H.L., and S.T. Bello. 1993. Research and development of draught animal power utilisation in West Africa. In ed. FAO. http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/ilri/x5483b/x5483b1s.htm, http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/ilri/x5483b/x5483b1s.htm.
  42. Pan, G., L. Li, L. Wu, and X. Zhang. 2004. Storage and sequestration potential of topsoil organic carbon in China’s paddy soils. Global Change Biology 10: 79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pan, G., P. Smith, and P. Pan. 2009. The role of soil organic matter in maintaining the productivity and yield stability of cereals in China. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 129: 344–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pearson, A. 1991. Animal power: matching beast and burden. Appropriate Technology 18: 11–14.Google Scholar
  45. Piesse, J., and C. Thirtle. 2010. Agricultural R&D, technology and productivity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 365: 3035–3047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Qin, Y., S. Liu, Y. Guo, Q. Liu, and J. Zou. 2010. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from organic and conventional rice cropping systems in Southeast China. Biology and Fertility of Soils 46: 825–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rahmann, G. 2011. Biodiversity and organic farming: What do we know? vTI Agriculture and Forestry Research 3: 189–208.Google Scholar
  48. Rotz, C.A. 2004. Management to reduce nitrogen losses in animal production. Journal of Animal Science 82: E119–E137.Google Scholar
  49. Sarkar, A. 2013. Tractor production and sales in India, 1989–2009. Review of Agrarian Studies 3.Google Scholar
  50. Sarma, J.S. 1981. Growth and equity: Policies and implementation in Indian agriculture. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.Google Scholar
  51. Schramski, J.R., K.L. Jacobsen, T.W. Smith, M.A. Williams, and T.M. Thompson. 2013. Energy as a potential systems-level indicator of sustainability in organic agriculture: Case study model of a diversified, organic vegetable production system. Ecological Modelling 267: 102–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Singh, H., D. Mishra, and N.M. Nahar. 2002. Energy use pattern in production agriculture of a typical village in arid zone, India—Part I. Energy Conversion and Management 43: 2275–2286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Singh, R.S. 2013. Custom hiring and scope of entrepreneurship development in farm machinery. AMA 44: 26–32.Google Scholar
  54. Spugnoli, P., and R. Dainelli. 2013. Environmental comparison of draught animal and tractor power. Sustainability Science 8: 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Starkey, P. 2010. Livestock for traction: World trends, key issues and policy implications. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
  56. Stoop, W.A., A. Adam, and A. Kassam. 2009. Comparing rice production systems: A challenge for agronomic research and for the dissemination of knowledge-intensive farming practices. Agricultural Water Management 96: 1491–1501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Teleni, E., R. Campbell, and D. Hoffmann. 1993. Draught animal systems and management: An Indonesian study. Canberra: ACIAR.Google Scholar
  58. Tennakoon, N.A., and S.D. Bandara. 2003. Nutrient content of some locally available organic materials and their potential as alternative sources of nutrients for coconut. COCOS 15: 23–30.Google Scholar
  59. Thomas, C.K. 2000. The role of draught cattle and buffaloes in sustainable agriculture in India. Draught Animal News 33: 4–11.Google Scholar
  60. Wood, S., and A. Cowie. 2004. A review of greenhouse gas emission factors for fertiliser production. Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Accounting, Research and Development Division, State Forests of New South Wales, Beecroft, NSW, Australia. http://www.ieabioenergy-task38.org/publications/GHG_Emission_Fertilizer%20Production_July2004.pdf.

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oxford India Centre for Sustainable Development, Somerville CollegeUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations