IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v139y2015icp17-28.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Tradeoffs between production and perennial vegetation in dairy farming systems vary among counties in the northeastern U.S

Author

Listed:
  • Franklin Egan, J.
  • Hafla, Aimee
  • Goslee, Sarah

Abstract

Dairy farms that grow more perennial vegetation as grazing pastures or conserved forages can offer many environmental benefits but may show reduced milk production relative to farms feeding higher amounts of grain and corn silage. Because yields of annual and perennial crops vary with soil type, an accurate comparison of the productive potential of these systems over county or regional scales may require taking into account spatial variation in soil quality. In this study, we present a novel approach to calculate the production from dairy systems that adjusts average crop yields to the productive potential of local soils using the National Commodity Crop Productivity Index (NCCPI). We used on-farm survey data to define confinement and grazing systems with varying amounts of perennial forage and applied our method to a sample of five counties in the northeast United States. High corn silage farm systems produced 21 to 168% more milk per hectare of farmland than grazing-based farm systems, but variation among counties was greater than variation among systems, with the best (Lancaster, PA) producing as much as 5.3 times more than the least (Orange, VT). Adjusting yields for soil productivity had smaller effects on milk production than differences in farm system or county. On average, grazing farm systems generally produced slightly more milk when yields were adjusted using the NCCPI (8%) while high corn silage systems showed a moderate decrease (13%). Compared to scenarios of all local crop production, scenarios with unlimited corn and soybean imports often more than doubled county-scale milk production. Restricting grain imports to prevent excess phosphorus resulted in a 3–15% decrease in milk production relative to unlimited imports, but still produced far more milk than in the all local production scenarios. Sensitivity analysis of the model showed that milk production in each county was very responsive to changes in perennial forage yields (especially for grazing systems), responsive to changes in average daily milk production per cow, and generally not responsive to changes in the productive lifetime of lactating cows. This study demonstrates a persistent tradeoff between perenniality and production in dairy systems, but suggests that opportunities may exist to maintain current milk production levels in the Northeast while also expanding land cover in perennial vegetation.

Suggested Citation

  • Franklin Egan, J. & Hafla, Aimee & Goslee, Sarah, 2015. "Tradeoffs between production and perennial vegetation in dairy farming systems vary among counties in the northeastern U.S," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 17-28.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:139:y:2015:i:c:p:17-28
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2015.06.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X15000815
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2015.06.004?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
    ---><---

    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. Dawson, C.J. & Hilton, J., 2011. "Fertiliser availability in a resource-limited world: Production and recycling of nitrogen and phosphorus," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(Supplemen), pages 14-22, January.
    2. Belflower, Jeff B. & Bernard, John K. & Gattie, David K. & Hancock, Dennis W. & Risse, Lawrence M. & Alan Rotz, C., 2012. "A case study of the potential environmental impacts of different dairy production systems in Georgia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 84-93.
    3. Aimee N. Hafla & Jennifer W. MacAdam & Kathy J. Soder, 2013. "Sustainability of US Organic Beef and Dairy Production Systems: Soil, Plant and Cattle Interactions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(7), pages 1-26, July.
    4. Jonathan A. Foley & Navin Ramankutty & Kate A. Brauman & Emily S. Cassidy & James S. Gerber & Matt Johnston & Nathaniel D. Mueller & Christine O’Connell & Deepak K. Ray & Paul C. West & Christian Balz, 2011. "Solutions for a cultivated planet," Nature, Nature, vol. 478(7369), pages 337-342, October.
    5. Konak, Abdullah & Coit, David W. & Smith, Alice E., 2006. "Multi-objective optimization using genetic algorithms: A tutorial," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 91(9), pages 992-1007.
    6. Verena Seufert & Navin Ramankutty & Jonathan A. Foley, 2012. "Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture," Nature, Nature, vol. 485(7397), pages 229-232, May.
    7. Dawson, C.J. & Hilton, J., 2011. "Fertiliser availability in a resource-limited world: Production and recycling of nitrogen and phosphorus," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(S1), pages 14-22.
    8. Johnson, David M., 2013. "A 2010 map estimate of annually tilled cropland within the conterminous United States," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 95-105.
    9. O’Brien, Donal & Shalloo, Laurence & Patton, Joe & Buckley, Frank & Grainger, Chris & Wallace, Michael, 2012. "A life cycle assessment of seasonal grass-based and confinement dairy farms," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 33-46.
    10. Jack Kloppenburg & John Hendrickson & G. Stevenson, 1996. "Coming in to the foodshed," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 13(3), pages 33-42, 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. Cortez-Arriola, José & Groot, Jeroen C.J. & Rossing, Walter A.H. & Scholberg, Johannes M.S. & Améndola Massiotti, Ricardo D. & Tittonell, Pablo, 2016. "Alternative options for sustainable intensification of smallholder dairy farms in North-West Michoacán, Mexico," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 22-32.
    2. Seyed Hashem Mousavi-Avval & Sami Khanal & Ajay Shah, 2023. "Assessment of Potential Pennycress Availability and Suitable Sites for Sustainable Aviation Fuel Refineries in Ohio," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-14, July.

    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. Mathy Sane & Miroslav Hajek & Chukwudi Nwaogu & Ratna Chrismiari Purwestri, 2021. "Subsidy as An Economic Instrument for Environmental Protection: A Case of Global Fertilizer Use," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-20, August.
    2. Dániel Fróna & János Szenderák & Mónika Harangi-Rákos, 2019. "The Challenge of Feeding the World," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-18, October.
    3. Meyer-Aurich, Andreas & Karatay, Yusuf Nadi, 2019. "Effects of uncertainty and farmers' risk aversion on optimal N fertilizer supply in wheat production in Germany," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 130-139.
    4. Michael Barrowclough & L. Geyer, 2015. "Biofuel Policies: The Underground Limitation on Biofuels," International Advances in Economic Research, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 21(1), pages 55-65, March.
    5. Dmitrieva, D. & Ilinova, A. & Kraslawski, A., 2017. "Strategic management of the potash industry in Russia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 81-89.
    6. Jezeer, Rosalien E. & Verweij, Pita A. & Santos, Maria J. & Boot, René G.A., 2017. "Shaded Coffee and Cocoa – Double Dividend for Biodiversity and Small-scale Farmers," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 136-145.
    7. Peter Horton & Steve A. Banwart & Dan Brockington & Garrett W. Brown & Richard Bruce & Duncan Cameron & Michelle Holdsworth & S. C. Lenny Koh & Jurriaan Ton & Peter Jackson, 2017. "An agenda for integrated system-wide interdisciplinary agri-food research," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 9(2), pages 195-210, April.
    8. Hans-Peter Weikard, 2016. "Phosphorus recycling and food security in the long run: a conceptual modelling approach," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 8(2), pages 405-414, April.
    9. Reijnders, L., 2014. "Phosphorus resources, their depletion and conservation, a review," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 32-49.
    10. Paul J. A. Withers & Colin Neal & Helen P. Jarvie & Donnacha G. Doody, 2014. "Agriculture and Eutrophication: Where Do We Go from Here?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(9), pages 1-23, September.
    11. Mariusz Z. Gusiatin & Dorota Kulikowska & Katarzyna Bernat, 2024. "Municipal Sewage Sludge as a Resource in the Circular Economy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-25, May.
    12. Ami Reznik & Ariel Dinar, 2022. "Local conditions and the economic feasibility of urban wastewater recycling in irrigated agriculture: Lessons from a stochastic regional analysis in California," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(4), pages 2115-2130, December.
    13. Marion Desquilbet & Bruno Dorin & Denis Couvet, 2016. "Land Sharing vs Land Sparing to Conserve Biodiversity: How Agricultural Markets Make the Difference [land-sharing/land-sparing, comment les marchés font la différence]," Post-Print hal-03948463, HAL.
    14. Shuangxi Li & Zhaohui Zhang & Juanqin Zhang & Xianqing Zheng & Hanlin Zhang & Haiyun Zhang & Yue Zhang & Naling Bai & Weiguang Lv, 2022. "Using Mathematical Models to Study the Influences of Different Ratios of Chemical Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium on the Content of Soluble Protein, Vitamin C, and Soluble Sugar in Melon," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-15, December.
    15. Olagunju, Kehinde Oluseyi & Feng, Siyi & Patton, Myles, 2021. "Dynamic relationships among phosphate rock, fertilisers and agricultural commodity markets: Evidence from a vector error correction model and Directed Acyclic Graphs," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    16. Chowdhury, Rubel Biswas & Moore, Graham A. & Weatherley, Anthony J. & Arora, Meenakshi, 2014. "A review of recent substance flow analyses of phosphorus to identify priority management areas at different geographical scales," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 213-228.
    17. Aleksandra Dimitrijević & Marija Gavrilović & Sanjin Ivanović & Zoran Mileusnić & Rajko Miodragović & Saša Todorović, 2020. "Energy Use and Economic Analysis of Fertilizer Use in Wheat and Sugar Beet Production in Serbia," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-12, May.
    18. Wassenaar, T. & Doelsch, E. & Feder, F. & Guerrin, F. & Paillat, J.-M. & Thuriès, L. & Saint Macary, H., 2014. "Returning Organic Residues to Agricultural Land (RORAL) – Fuelling the Follow-the-Technology approach," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 60-69.
    19. Johannes Dahlin & Verena Halbherr & Peter Kurz & Michael Nelles & Carsten Herbes, 2016. "Marketing Green Fertilizers: Insights into Consumer Preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-15, November.
    20. Mollie Chapman & Susanna Klassen & Maayan Kreitzman & Adrian Semmelink & Kelly Sharp & Gerald Singh & Kai M. A. Chan, 2017. "5 Key Challenges and Solutions for Governing Complex Adaptive (Food) Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-30, September.

    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:139:y:2015:i:c:p:17-28. 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.