IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v103y2010i2p110-116.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Intensive versus low-input cropping systems: What is the optimal partitioning of agricultural area in order to reduce pesticide use while maintaining productivity?

Author

Listed:
  • Gosme, Marie
  • Suffert, Frédéric
  • Jeuffroy, Marie-Hélène

Abstract

Pesticide use should be reduced for sustainable agriculture. Low-input cropping systems, centered on hardy varieties that maintain their yield in the presence of pests, allow pesticide use to be reduced. Since yield potential is generally lower for hardy varieties than for high-yielding varieties, a balance must be found between production and pesticide reduction. In order to compute the optimal partitioning of agricultural area between intensive and low-input cropping systems, we present a model that allows yield and gross margins to be computed at the landscape scale, as a function of the proportion of the area under intensive and low-input systems. The model shows that two cases must be distinguished, depending on inoculum production by each of the coexisting systems. If the low-input system produces less inoculum (e.g. because resistant varieties are used), coexistence can be optimal, whereas if the low-input system produces more inoculum (e.g. because tolerant varieties are used), it is best to devote the whole area to a single system. The model gives the gross margin for each cropping system as a function of the proportion of low-input systems - and so predicts the proportion to which the farmers' choices will lead - and illustrates the use of different (simplified) policies that would ensure that the optimum proportion is reached.

Suggested Citation

  • Gosme, Marie & Suffert, Frédéric & Jeuffroy, Marie-Hélène, 2010. "Intensive versus low-input cropping systems: What is the optimal partitioning of agricultural area in order to reduce pesticide use while maintaining productivity?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(2), pages 110-116, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:103:y:2010:i:2:p:110-116
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308-521X(09)00110-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. David J. Pannell, 2008. "Public Benefits, Private Benefits, and Policy Mechanism Choice for Land-Use Change for Environmental Benefits," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(2), pages 225-240.
    2. Pretty, J. N. & Brett, C. & Gee, D. & Hine, R. E. & Mason, C. F. & Morison, J. I. L. & Raven, H. & Rayment, M. D. & van der Bijl, G., 2000. "An assessment of the total external costs of UK agriculture," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 113-136, August.
    3. Havlik, Petr & Bamiére, Laure & Jacquet, Florence & Millet, Guy, 2008. "Spatially explicit farming system modelling for an efficient agri-environmental policy design," 107th Seminar, January 30-February 1, 2008, Sevilla, Spain 6676, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Janssen, Sander & van Ittersum, Martin K., 2007. "Assessing farm innovations and responses to policies: A review of bio-economic farm models," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 94(3), pages 622-636, June.
    5. Vanloqueren, Gaëtan & Baret, Philippe V., 2008. "Why are ecological, low-input, multi-resistant wheat cultivars slow to develop commercially? A Belgian agricultural 'lock-in' case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 436-446, June.
    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. Michal Kulak & Thomas Nemecek & Emmanuel Frossard & Gérard Gaillard, 2013. "How Eco-Efficient Are Low-Input Cropping Systems in Western Europe, and What Can Be Done to Improve Their Eco-Efficiency?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(9), pages 1-22, September.
    2. Christoph Müller & Richard D. Robertson, 2014. "Projecting future crop productivity for global economic modeling," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(1), pages 37-50, January.

    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. Jacquet, Florence & Butault, Jean-Pierre & Guichard, Laurence, 2011. "An economic analysis of the possibility of reducing pesticides in French field crops," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(9), pages 1638-1648, July.
    2. van Grieken, M.E. & Roebeling, P.C. & Bohnet, I.C. & Whitten, S.M. & Webster, A.J. & Poggio, M. & Pannell, D., 2019. "Adoption of agricultural management for Great Barrier Reef water quality improvement in heterogeneous farming communities," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 1-8.
    3. Beardmore, Leslie & Heagney, Elizabeth & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2019. "Complementary land use in the Richmond River catchment: Evaluating economic and environmental benefits," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    4. Jongeneel, Roel & Polman, Nico & van der Ham, Corinda, 2014. "Costs and benefits associated with the externalities generated by Dutch agriculture," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182705, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Wang Cheng, 2022. "The Impact of Enterprise Digital Transformation on Service Innovation Performance -- Taking the construction enterprises in the Yangtze River Delta as the research object," International Journal of Science and Business, IJSAB International, vol. 14(1), pages 155-172.
    6. Eric Tollens, 2004. "Biodiversity versus transgenic sugar beet: the one euro question," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 31(1), pages 1-18, March.
    7. Thomas Vendryes, 2014. "Peasants Against Private Property Rights: A Review Of The Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 971-995, December.
    8. Hutchings, Timothy R., 2009. "A financial analysis of the effect of the mix of crop and sheep enterprises on the risk profile of dryland farms in south-eastern Australia – Part 1," AFBM Journal, Australasian Farm Business Management Network, vol. 6(01), pages 1-16, October.
    9. Schreefel, L. & de Boer, I.J.M. & Timler, C.J. & Groot, J.C.J. & Zwetsloot, M.J. & Creamer, R.E. & Schrijver, A. Pas & van Zanten, H.H.E. & Schulte, R.P.O., 2022. "How to make regenerative practices work on the farm: A modelling framework," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    10. Gómez-Limón, José A. & Gutiérrez-Martín, Carlos & Riesgo, Laura, 2016. "Modeling at farm level: Positive Multi-Attribute Utility Programming," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 17-27.
    11. Adrian Sadłowski & Wioletta Wrzaszcz & Katarzyna Smędzik-Ambroży & Anna Matras-Bolibok & Anna Budzyńska & Marek Angowski & Stefan Mann, 2021. "Direct Payments and Sustainable Agricultural Development—The Example of Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-20, November.
    12. Kovacevic, Vujadin & Wesseler, Justus, 2010. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of algae energy production in the EU," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 5749-5757, October.
    13. Anastasio J. Villanueva & Klaus Glenk & Macario Rodríguez-Entrena, 2017. "Protest Responses and Willingness to Accept: Ecosystem Services Providers’ Preferences towards Incentive-Based Schemes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 801-821, September.
    14. Yeh, D. Adeline & Gomez, Miguel I. & Lin Lawell, C.-Y. Cynthia, 2020. "Sustainable Pest Management Under Uncertainty: A Dynamic Bioeconomic Analysis of Lowbush Blueberry Production," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304326, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Soraya Tanure & Carlos Nabinger & João Luiz Becker, 2015. "Bioeconomic Model of Decision Support System for Farm Management: Proposal of a Mathematical Model," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(6), pages 658-671, November.
    16. Tait, Peter R. & Cullen, Ross, 2006. "Some External Costs of Dairy Farming in Canterbury," 2006 Conference (50th), February 8-10, 2006, Sydney, Australia 109595, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    17. Magrini, Marie-Benoit & Anton, Marc & Cholez, Célia & Corre-Hellou, Guenaelle & Duc, Gérard & Jeuffroy, Marie-Hélène & Meynard, Jean-Marc & Pelzer, Elise & Voisin, Anne-Sophie & Walrand, Stéphane, 2016. "Why are grain-legumes rarely present in cropping systems despite their environmental and nutritional benefits? Analyzing lock-in in the French agrifood system," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 152-162.
    18. Lv, Yao & Gu, Shu-zhong & Guo, Dong-mei, 2010. "Valuing environmental externalities from rice-wheat farming in the lower reaches of the Yangtze River," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1436-1442, May.
    19. Sibylle Bui & Ionara Costa & Olivier De Schutter & Tom Dedeurwaerdere & Marek Hudon & Marlene Feyereisen, 2019. "Systemic ethics and inclusive governance: two key prerequisites for sustainability transitions of agri-food systems," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 36(2), pages 277-288, June.
    20. Oscar Montes de Oca Munguia & Rick Llewellyn, 2020. "The Adopters versus the Technology: Which Matters More when Predicting or Explaining Adoption?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(1), pages 80-91, March.

    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:agisys:v:103:y:2010:i:2:p:110-116. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    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.