IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/stagec/122446.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cropping intensity vs. profitability of selected plant production activities in Poland

Author

Listed:
  • Skarzynska, Aldona

Abstract

This study shows the impact of cropping intensity on the economic results of plant production in Poland. The real amount of production outlays, which in value terms represents the level of direct costs, was adopted as the intensity measure. The economic results diversification scale is reflected by the level of gross margin and income from management activity, as well as by the production profitability index in the activity types analysed. When using low-intensity, as compared to high-intensity, cropping technologies, the economic results of the activities in question become more favourable. The profitability analysis of various production factors points to a prevalence of agricultural farms with low intensity levels of the activity conducted. Lower outlays of production means contributed to a more effective utilisation of both the natural soil fertility, and labour combined with fixed assets. A lower use of chemical crop-enhancing agents forces the farmer to employ more environmentally-friendly methods to keep production at a profitable level. The results show that the use of modern technological achievements may contribute to reducing the unfavourable impact of chemical agents on the natural environment, consistent with maintaining high economic efficiency of agricultural production.

Suggested Citation

  • Skarzynska, Aldona, 2012. "Cropping intensity vs. profitability of selected plant production activities in Poland," Studies in Agricultural Economics, Research Institute for Agricultural Economics, vol. 114(1), pages 1-8.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:stagec:122446
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.122446
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/122446/files/Cropping_intensity_vs._profitability_of_selected_plant_production_activities_in_Poland.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.122446?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zilberman, David & Templeton, Scott R. & Khanna, Madhu, 1999. "Agriculture and the environment: an economic perspective with implications for nutrition1," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(2-3), pages 211-229, May.
    2. David Tilman & Kenneth G. Cassman & Pamela A. Matson & Rosamond Naylor & Stephen Polasky, 2002. "Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices," Nature, Nature, vol. 418(6898), pages 671-677, August.
    3. Hernandez-Rivera, Jose & Mann, Stefan, 2008. "Classification of agricultural systems based on pesticide use intensity and safety," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44246, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Dincer, Ibrahim, 2000. "Renewable energy and sustainable development: a crucial review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 4(2), pages 157-175, June.
    5. de Wit, C. T. & Huisman, H. & Rabbinge, R., 1987. "Agriculture and its environment: Are there other ways?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 211-236.
    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. Abramczuk, Łukasz & Augustyńska-Grzymek, Irena & Czułowska, Magdalena & Idzik, Marcin & Jabłoński, Konrad & Skarżyńska, Aldona & Zekalo, Marcin, 2013. "Projection of income for 2015 for selected agricultural products," Multiannual Program Reports 164836, Institute of Agricultural and Food Economics - National Research Institute (IAFE-NRI).
    2. Qi-Qi CHEN & Jun-Biao ZHANG & Yu HUO, 2016. "A study on research hot-spots and frontiers of agricultural science and technology innovation - visualization analysis based on the Citespace III," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 62(9), pages 429-445.
    3. Józwiak, Wojciech & Kagan, Adam & Niewęgłowska, Grażyna & Skarzynska, Aldona & Sobierajewsja, Jolanta & Zieliński, Marek & Ziętara, Wojciech, 2014. "Effectiveness, production costs and competitiveness of Polish agricultural holdings at present and in the medium and long-term perspective," Multiannual Program Reports 207400, Institute of Agricultural and Food Economics - National Research Institute (IAFE-NRI).
    4. Elisa Morri & Riccardo Santolini, 2021. "Ecosystem Services Valuation for the Sustainable Land Use Management by Nature-Based Solution (NbS) in the Common Agricultural Policy Actions: A Case Study on the Foglia River Basin (Marche Region, It," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-23, December.
    5. Liu, Duan & Tang, Runcheng & Xie, Jun & Tian, Jingjing & Shi, Rui & Zhang, Kai, 2020. "Valuation of ecosystem services of rice–fish coculture systems in Ruyuan County, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    6. Karabulut, Halit & Yücesu, Hüseyin Serdar & ÇInar, Can & Aksoy, Fatih, 2009. "An experimental study on the development of a [beta]-type Stirling engine for low and moderate temperature heat sources," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 68-73, January.
    7. Wenran Gao & Hui Li & Karnowo & Bing Song & Shu Zhang, 2020. "Integrated Leaching and Thermochemical Technologies for Producing High-Value Products from Rice Husk: Leaching of Rice Husk with the Aqueous Phases of Bioliquids," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-15, November.
    8. Shen Yuan & Shaobing Peng, 2017. "Exploring the Trends in Nitrogen Input and Nitrogen Use Efficiency for Agricultural Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-15, October.
    9. Katarina Arvidsson Segerkvist & Helena Hansson & Ulf Sonesson & Stefan Gunnarsson, 2021. "A Systematic Mapping of Current Literature on Sustainability at Farm-Level in Beef and Lamb Meat Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-14, February.
    10. Vainio, Annukka & Tienhaara, Annika & Haltia, Emmi & Hyvönen, Terho & Pyysiäinen, Jarkko & Pouta, Eija, 2021. "The legitimacy of result-oriented and action-oriented agri-environmental schemes: A comparison of farmers’ and citizens’ perceptions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    11. Hualin Xie & Yingqian Huang & Qianru Chen & Yanwei Zhang & Qing Wu, 2019. "Prospects for Agricultural Sustainable Intensification: A Review of Research," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-27, October.
    12. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    13. Xiaohua, Wang & Yunrong, Hu & Xiaqing, Dia & Yuedong, Zhoa, 2006. "Analysis and simulation on rural energy-economy system on Shouyang County in China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 139-151, April.
    14. Aude Ridier & Caroline Roussy & Karim Chaib, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 265-283, September.
    15. Karatayev, Marat & Clarke, Michèle L., 2016. "A review of current energy systems and green energy potential in Kazakhstan," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 491-504.
    16. Paul L. G. Vlek & Asia Khamzina & Hossein Azadi & Anik Bhaduri & Luna Bharati & Ademola Braimoh & Christopher Martius & Terry Sunderland & Fatemeh Taheri, 2017. "Trade-Offs in Multi-Purpose Land Use under Land Degradation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, November.
    17. Diriba Shiferaw G., 2017. "Water-Nutrients Interaction: Exploring the Effects of Water as a Central Role for Availability & Use Efficiency of Nutrients by Shallow Rooted Vegetable Crops - A Review," Journal of Agriculture and Crops, Academic Research Publishing Group, vol. 3(10), pages 78-93, 10-2017.
    18. Sheng Gong & Jason.S. Bergtold & Elizabeth Yeager, 2021. "Assessing the joint adoption and complementarity between in-field conservation practices of Kansas farmers," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-24, December.
    19. Seufert, Verena & Ramankutty, Navin & Mayerhofer, Tabea, 2017. "What is this thing called organic? – How organic farming is codified in regulations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 10-20.
    20. Amaducci, Stefano & Yin, Xinyou & Colauzzi, Michele, 2018. "Agrivoltaic systems to optimise land use for electric energy production," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 220(C), pages 545-561.

    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:ags:stagec:122446. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/akiiihu.html .

    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.