IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v182y2020ics0308521x19311679.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Manuresheds: Advancing nutrient recycling in US agriculture

Author

Listed:
  • Spiegal, Sheri
  • Kleinman, Peter J.A.
  • Endale, Dinku M.
  • Bryant, Ray B.
  • Dell, Curtis
  • Goslee, Sarah
  • Meinen, Robert J.
  • Flynn, K. Colton
  • Baker, John M.
  • Browning, Dawn M.
  • McCarty, Greg
  • Bittman, Shabtai
  • Carter, Jennifer
  • Cavigelli, Michel
  • Duncan, Emily
  • Gowda, Prasanna
  • Li, Xia
  • Ponce-Campos, Guillermo E.
  • Cibin, Raj
  • Silveira, Maria L.
  • Smith, Doulas R.
  • Arthur, Dan K.
  • Yang, Qichun

Abstract

Nutrient recycling is fundamental to sustainable agricultural systems, but few mechanisms exist to ensure that surplus manure nutrients from animal feeding operations are transported for use on nutrient-deficient croplands. As a result, manure nutrients concentrate in locations where they can threaten environmental health and devalue manure as a fertilizer resource. This study advances the concept of the “manureshed” – the lands surrounding animal feeding operations onto which manure nutrients can be redistributed to meet environmental, production, and economic goals. Manuresheds can be managed at multiple scales, for example, on farms with both animals and crops, among animal farms and crop farms within a county, or even among animal farms and crop farms in distant counties. With a focus on redistribution among counties, we classified the 3109 counties of the contiguous United States by their capacity to either supply manure phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N) from confined livestock production (“sources”) or to assimilate and remove excess P and N via crops (“sinks”). Manure nutrient source counties were identified in 40 of the 48 states, with a substantial concentration in the southern US. Source counties for manure P greatly outnumbered source counties for manure N (390 vs. 100), and 99 of the 100 manure N source counties were also source counties for manure P. Conversely, sink counties for manure N outnumbered sink counties for manure P (2766 vs. 2317). We used the P balances of the source and sink counties to delineate four manuresheds dominated by various combinations of confined hog, poultry, dairy, and beef industries. The four manuresheds differed in the transport distances needed to assimilate excess manure P from their respective source areas (from 147 ± 51 km for a beef dominated manureshed to 368 ± 140 km for a poultry dominated manureshed), highlighting the need for systems-level strategies to promote manure nutrient recycling that operate across local, county, regional, and national scales.

Suggested Citation

  • Spiegal, Sheri & Kleinman, Peter J.A. & Endale, Dinku M. & Bryant, Ray B. & Dell, Curtis & Goslee, Sarah & Meinen, Robert J. & Flynn, K. Colton & Baker, John M. & Browning, Dawn M. & McCarty, Greg & B, 2020. "Manuresheds: Advancing nutrient recycling in US agriculture," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:182:y:2020:i:c:s0308521x19311679
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102813
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X19311679
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102813?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. Dimitri, Carolyn & Effland, Anne & Conklin, Neilson C., 2005. "The 20th Century Transformation of U.S. Agriculture and Farm Policy," Economic Information Bulletin 59390, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    2. Mullen, Jeffrey D. & Bekchanov, Ulugbek & Karali, Berna & Kissel, David & Risse, Mark L. & Rowles, Kristin & Collier, Sam, 2011. "Assessing the Market for Poultry Litter in Georgia: Are Subsidies Needed to Protect Water Quality?," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 43(4), pages 1-16, November.
    3. Havstad, Kris M. & Peters, Debra P.C. & Skaggs, Rhonda & Brown, Joel & Bestelmeyer, Brandon & Fredrickson, Ed & Herrick, Jeffrey & Wright, Jack, 2007. "Ecological services to and from rangelands of the United States," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 261-268, December.
    4. Niskanen, Olli & Iho, Antti & Kalliovirta, Leena, 2020. "Scenario for structural development of livestock production in the Baltic littoral countries," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    5. 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.
    6. Alan R. Collins & Tom Basden, 2006. "A Policy Evaluation of Transport Subsidies for Poultry Litter in West Virginia," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 28(1), pages 72-88.
    7. MacDonald, James M. & McBride, William D., 2009. "The Transformation of U.S. Livestock Agriculture: Scale, Efficiency, and Risks," Economic Information Bulletin 58311, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    8. Alan R. Collins & Tom Basden, 2006. "A Policy Evaluation of Transport Subsidies for Poultry Litter in West Virginia," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 28(1), pages 72-88.
    9. Skaggs, Rhonda K. & Acuna, Rene & Torell, L. Allen & Southard, Leland W., 2004. "Live Cattle Exports from Mexico into the United States: Where Do the Cattle Come From and Where Do They Go?," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 19(1), pages 1-6.
    10. Klerkx, Laurens & Aarts, Noelle & Leeuwis, Cees, 2010. "Adaptive management in agricultural innovation systems: The interactions between innovation networks and their environment," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(6), pages 390-400, July.
    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. Heidi M. Peterson & Lawrence A. Baker & Rimjhim M. Aggarwal & Treavor H. Boyer & Neng Iong Chan, 2022. "A transition management framework to stimulate a circular phosphorus system," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 1713-1737, February.
    2. Alvarez-Rodriguez, Javier & Ryschawy, Julie & Grillot, Myriam & Martin, Guillaume, 2024. "Circularity and livestock diversity: Pathways to sustainability in intensive pig farming regions," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).

    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. Kathrin Hasler & Hans-Werner Olfs & Onno Omta & Stefanie Bröring, 2016. "Drivers for the Adoption of Eco-Innovations in the German Fertilizer Supply Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-18, July.
    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. Boulestreau, Yann & Peyras, Claire-Lise & Casagrande, Marion & Navarrete, Mireille, 2022. "Tracking down coupled innovations supporting agroecological vegetable crop protection to foster sustainability transition of agrifood systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    4. Jacqueline S. Welles & Noelle Cielito T. Soriano & Freda Elikem Dorbu & G. M. Pereira & Laura M. Rubeck & Erica L. Timmermans & Benjamin Ndayambaje & Alison V. Deviney & John J. Classen & Jacek A. Koz, 2021. "Socio-Economic and Governance Conditions Corresponding to Change in Animal Agriculture: South Dakota Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-19, September.
    5. Siegmeier, Torsten & Möller, Detlev, 2013. "Mapping research at the intersection of organic farming and bioenergy — A scientometric review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 197-204.
    6. Joshi, Janak & Wang, Jingjing, 2018. "Manure management coupled with bioenergy production: An environmental and economic assessment of large dairies in New Mexico," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 197-207.
    7. Genowefa Blundo-Canto & Bernard Triomphe & Guy Faure & Danielle Barret & Aurelle de Romemont & Etienne Hainzelin, 2019. "Building a culture of impact in an international agricultural research organization: Process and reflective learning," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 136-144.
    8. Vermunt, D.A. & Wojtynia, N. & Hekkert, M.P. & Van Dijk, J. & Verburg, R. & Verweij, P.A. & Wassen, M. & Runhaar, H., 2022. "Five mechanisms blocking the transition towards ‘nature-inclusive’ agriculture: A systemic analysis of Dutch dairy farming," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    9. Cheng, Cheng-Feng & Chang, Man-Ling & Li, Chu-Shiu, 2013. "Configural paths to successful product innovation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(12), pages 2561-2573.
    10. Evelien Cronin & Sylvie Fosselle & Elke Rogge & Robert Home, 2021. "An Analytical Framework to Study Multi-Actor Partnerships Engaged in Interactive Innovation Processes in the Agriculture, Forestry, and Rural Development Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-19, June.
    11. 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.
    12. 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).
    13. Bentivoglio, Deborah & Bucci, Giorgia & Belletti, Matteo & Finco, Adele, 2022. "A theoretical framework on network’s dynamics for precision agriculture technologies adoption," Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural (RESR), Sociedade Brasileira de Economia e Sociologia Rural, vol. 60(4), January.
    14. Taylor, Michael H. & Rollins, Kimberly, 2012. "Using Ecological Models to Coordinate Valuation of Ecological Change on Western Rangelands for ex post Application to Policy Analysis," Western Economics Forum, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 11(1), pages 1-9.
    15. Cameira, Maria do Rosário & Rodrigo, Isabel & Garção, Andreia & Neves, Manuela & Ferreira, Antónia & Paredes, Paula, 2024. "Linking participatory approach and rapid appraisal methods to select potential innovations in collective irrigation systems," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 299(C).
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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).
    19. 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.
    20. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.

    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:182:y:2020:i:c:s0308521x19311679. 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.