IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v167y2018icp103-112.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Industrial agriculture and agroecological transition systems: A comparative analysis of productivity results, organic matter and glyphosate in soil

Author

Listed:
  • Virginia, Aparicio
  • Zamora, Martín
  • Barbera, Agustín
  • Castro-Franco, Mauricio
  • Domenech, Marisa
  • De Gerónimo, Eduardo
  • Costa, José Luis

Abstract

The system of industrial agriculture (IA), often implemented on a large scale and with high dependence on the supplies use, is reducing the soil organic matter (SOM) and increasing the glyphosate presence in the environment. An alternative approach to IA is agroecologywhich takes greater advantage of natural processes and beneficial on-farm interactions in order to reduce off-farm input use and to improve the efficiency of farming systems. In this study, a transition agroecological system (AT) is the alternative of the IA. Our objectives were: (i) to compare the agronomic productivity between AT and IA systems, (ii) to determine the effect of management practices on soil quality indicators such as soil organic matter content (SOM), soil bulk density, change in the weighted mean diameter (CMWD) and glyphosate and aminomethyl phosphonic acid (AMPA) concentration and (iii) to compare the economic results through a multi-temporal economic analysis between AT and IA systems. The soil sampling was carried out per soil-specific zones, delimited from apparent soil electrical conductivity (ECa) and elevation. Samples were taken at 0 to 2, 2 to 5, 5 to 10, 10 to 20, 20 to 30 and 30 to 40 cm of depth to determine the SOM content, the glyphosate concentration and main glyphosate metabolite, AMPA. Besides, the bulk density (δa) and CWMD were determined. The δa was lower in AT with respect to IA, both under no tillage (NT). No significant differences were found for CWMD between AT and IA systems, although a tendency to a lower value in AT system was observed. If we consider the percentage of organic matter as carbon matter per hectare, this means that in 6.5 years increase 540 kg ha−1 at 0 to 40 cm depth. The SOM content increased from 4,9 to 5,6% in AT with respect to IA. The content of glyphosate + AMPA at the first 40 cm was 0.06 kg ha−1 in the AT and 0.84 kg ha−1 in the IA system. In the AT system, the gross margin accumulated during 6.5 years, increased 244% with respect to IA. These results suggest that the AT system proposed could be applicable in extensive productions with temperate climates without interfering with the livelihood of the agricultural producers and it allows an improvement in soil conditions. It is important to carry out further studies in order to confirm the benefits of the AT system in other edaphic-climatic conditions, integrating productive, economic and environmental aspects.

Suggested Citation

  • Virginia, Aparicio & Zamora, Martín & Barbera, Agustín & Castro-Franco, Mauricio & Domenech, Marisa & De Gerónimo, Eduardo & Costa, José Luis, 2018. "Industrial agriculture and agroecological transition systems: A comparative analysis of productivity results, organic matter and glyphosate in soil," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 103-112.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:167:y:2018:i:c:p:103-112
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2018.09.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X17310454
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.09.005?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. Choumert, Johanna & Phélinas, Pascale, 2015. "Determinants of agricultural land values in Argentina," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 134-140.
    2. Stephens, Emma C. & Jones, Andrew D. & Parsons, David, 2018. "Agricultural systems research and global food security in the 21st century: An overview and roadmap for future opportunities," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 1-6.
    3. Phélinas, Pascale & Choumert, Johanna, 2017. "Is GM Soybean Cultivation in Argentina Sustainable?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 452-462.
    4. Ferraro, D.O. & Benzi, P., 2015. "A long-term sustainability assessment of an Argentinian agricultural system based on emergy synthesis," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 306(C), pages 121-129.
    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. Jimena Gonzalez-Ramirez & Poonam Arora & Guillermo Podesta, 2018. "Using Insights from Prospect Theory to Enhance Sustainable Decision Making by Agribusinesses in Argentina," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-15, August.
    2. Ritter, Matthias & Hüttel, Silke & Odening, Martin & Seifert, Stefan, 2020. "Revisiting the relationship between land price and parcel size in agriculture," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    3. Antoci, Angelo & Galdi, Giulio & Russu, Paolo, 2022. "Environmental degradation and comparative advantage reversal," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 82(PA).
    4. Phélinas, Pascale & Choumert, Johanna, 2017. "Is GM Soybean Cultivation in Argentina Sustainable?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 452-462.
    5. Tezcan, Ahmet & Büyüktaş, Kenan & Akkaya Aslan, Şerife Tülin, 2020. "A multi-criteria model for land valuation in the land consolidation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    6. Timler, Carl & Alvarez, Stéphanie & DeClerck, Fabrice & Remans, Roseline & Raneri, Jessica & Estrada Carmona, Natalia & Mashingaidze, Nester & Abe Chatterjee, Shantonu & Chiang, Tsai Wei & Termote, Ce, 2020. "Exploring solution spaces for nutrition-sensitive agriculture in Kenya and Vietnam," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    7. Hazem S. Kassem & Hamed Ismail & Yomna A. Ghoneim, 2022. "Assessment of Institutional Linkages and Information Flow within the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation: Case of Dakahlia Governorate, Egypt," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-26, May.
    8. Johanna CHOUMERT & Pascale PHELINAS, 2015. "Farmland Rental Values in GM Soybean Areas of Argentina: Do Contractual Arrangements Matter?," Working Papers 201532, CERDI.
    9. Marc F. Bellemare & Vaneesha Dusoruth, 2021. "Who Participates in Urban Agriculture? An Empirical Analysis†," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(1), pages 430-442, March.
    10. Pascale PHELINAS & Sonia SCHWARTZ, 2017. "Regulating transgenic soybean production in Argentina," Working Papers 201721, CERDI.
    11. Mariusz Dacko & Tomasz Wojewodzic & Jacek Pijanowski & Jarosław Taszakowski & Aneta Dacko & Jarosław Janus, 2021. "Increase in the Value of Agricultural Parcels—Modelling and Simulation of the Effects of Land Consolidation Project," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-14, April.
    12. Ritter, Matthias & Hüttel, Silke & Odening, Martin & Seifert, Stefan, 2019. "Revisiting the relationship between land price and parcel size," FORLand Working Papers 08 (2019), Humboldt University Berlin, DFG Research Unit 2569 FORLand "Agricultural Land Markets – Efficiency and Regulation".
    13. Yu-Hui Chen & Chun-Lin Lee & Guan-Rui Chen & Chiung-Hsin Wang & Ya-Hui Chen, 2018. "Factors Causing Farmland Price-Value Distortion and Their Implications for Peri-Urban Growth Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-18, August.
    14. Marcelo Caffera & Felipe Vásquez & Daniel Rodríguez & Leonidas Carrasco-Letelier & José Ignacio Hernández & Mariela Buonomo, 2019. "Spatial Spillovers in the Implicit Market Price of Soil Erosion: An Estimation using a Spatio-temporal Hedonic Model," Documentos de Trabajo/Working Papers 1909, Facultad de Ciencias Empresariales y Economia. Universidad de Montevideo..
    15. Pavez, Iciar & Codron, Jean-Marie & Lubello, Pasquale & Florêncio, Maria Cecilia, 2019. "Biosecurity institutions and the choice of contracts in international fruit supply chains," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    16. Nicholson, Charles F. & Stephens, Emma C. & Kopainsky, Birgit & Thornton, Philip K. & Jones, Andrew D. & Parsons, David & Garrett, James, 2021. "Food security outcomes in agricultural systems models: Case examples and priority information needs," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    17. Sen Chakraborty, Kritika & Chakraborty, Avinandan & Berrens, Robert P., 2023. "Valuing soil erosion control investments in Nigerian agricultural lands: A hedonic pricing model," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    18. Diego Ferraro & Daniela Blanco & Sebasti'an Pessah & Rodrigo Castro, 2021. "Land use change in agricultural systems: an integrated ecological-social simulation model of farmer decisions and cropping system performance based on a cellular automata approach," Papers 2109.01031, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2021.
    19. Ayala Wineman & Thomas S Jayne, 2018. "Land Prices Heading Skyward? An Analysis of Farmland Values across Tanzania," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 40(2), pages 187-214.
    20. Czyżewski, Bazyli & Trojanek, Radosław, 2016. "Drivers of agricultural land prices in terms of different functions of rural areas in Poland," Problems of Agricultural Economics / Zagadnienia Ekonomiki Rolnej 249742, Institute of Agricultural and Food Economics - National Research Institute (IAFE-NRI).

    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:167:y:2018:i:c:p:103-112. 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.