IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/recore/v55y2011i12p1146-1153.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Closing the phosphorus loop in England: The spatio-temporal balance of phosphorus capture from manure versus crop demand for fertiliser

Author

Listed:
  • Bateman, Anna
  • van der Horst, Dan
  • Boardman, David
  • Kansal, Arun
  • Carliell-Marquet, Cynthia

Abstract

Every year 90 million tonnes of housed livestock manures are produced in the UK. This is a valuable reservoir of global phosphorus (P) and a point in the cycle where it is vulnerable to being lost from the terrestrial system. Improved manure management for the effective reuse of phosphorus is vital to simultaneously tackle a major source of water pollution and reduce our dependence on imported fertilisers. This paper quantifies, for the first time, the spatial and temporal challenges of recycling the required amount of manure P from areas of livestock production to areas of crop production in eight regions of England. The analysis shows that England has a P deficit and therefore the capacity to fully utilise the manure P on arable land, but that uneven spatial distribution of livestock poses a significant challenge to closing the P loop in agriculture. Two of the eight regions were shown to have surplus manure P, with the remaining six regions having P deficits, indicating that an annual export of 4.7 thousand tonnes P (2.8 million tonnes manure) must take place from the west to the east of the country each year to balance P supply and demand. Moreover, housed manure production peaks between October and February, requiring an excess of 23.0 thousand tonnes P (15 million tonnes manure) to be stored until it can be used for crop fertilisation from March onwards. The results demonstrate the scale of the challenge in managing manure P in an agricultural system that has separated livestock production from crop production, a pattern that is echoed throughout the developed world. To overcome the spatial and temporal challenges, a logistical system is recommended that will balance the nutrient potential (nitrogen and P content and availability) and pollution potential (eutrophication, greenhouse gas emissions, particulates and nitrous oxide from transport) for cost-effective and environmentally compatible redistribution of manure P from areas of surplus to areas of deficit, when required.

Suggested Citation

  • Bateman, Anna & van der Horst, Dan & Boardman, David & Kansal, Arun & Carliell-Marquet, Cynthia, 2011. "Closing the phosphorus loop in England: The spatio-temporal balance of phosphorus capture from manure versus crop demand for fertiliser," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 55(12), pages 1146-1153.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:recore:v:55:y:2011:i:12:p:1146-1153
    DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.07.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092134491100156X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.07.004?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. 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.
    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. Kleemann, Rosanna & Chenoweth, Jonathan & Clift, Roland & Morse, Stephen & Pearce, Pete & Saroj, Devendra, 2015. "Evaluation of local and national effects of recovering phosphorus at wastewater treatment plants: Lessons learned from the UK," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 105(PB), pages 347-359.
    2. Theobald, Tim F.H. & Schipper, Mark & Kern, Jürgen, 2016. "Phosphorus flows in Berlin-Brandenburg, a regional flow analysis," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 1-14.
    3. Reijnders, L., 2014. "Phosphorus resources, their depletion and conservation, a review," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 32-49.
    4. Klinglmair, Manfred & Vadenbo, Carl & Astrup, Thomas Fruergaard & Scheutz, Charlotte, 2017. "An MFA-based optimization model for increased resource efficiency: Phosphorus flows in Denmark," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 1-10.
    5. Cooper, James & Carliell-Marquet, Cynthia, 2013. "A substance flow analysis of phosphorus in the UK food production and consumption system," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 82-100.

    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. 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.
    2. 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).
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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).
    6. 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.
    7. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Jónsson, Jón Örvar G. & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur & Nikolaidis, Nikolaos P. & Giannakis, Georgios V., 2019. "Tools for Sustainable Soil Management: Soil Ecosystem Services, EROI and Economic Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 109-119.
    14. Kataki, Sampriti & West, Helen & Clarke, Michèle & Baruah, D.C., 2016. "Phosphorus recovery as struvite: Recent concerns for use of seed, alternative Mg source, nitrogen conservation and fertilizer potential," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 142-156.
    15. Ashley E. Larsen & Steven D. Gaines & Olivier Deschênes, 2017. "Agricultural pesticide use and adverse birth outcomes in the San Joaquin Valley of California," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, December.
    16. Carpentier, A. & Reboud, X., 2018. "Why farmers consider pesticides the ultimate in crop protection: economic and behavioral insights," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277528, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Tiziano Gomiero, 2016. "Soil Degradation, Land Scarcity and Food Security: Reviewing a Complex Challenge," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-41, March.
    18. Alexander D. Chapman & Stephen E. Darby & Hoàng M. Hồng & Emma L. Tompkins & Tri P. D. Van, 2016. "Adaptation and development trade-offs: fluvial sediment deposition and the sustainability of rice-cropping in An Giang Province, Mekong Delta," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 137(3), pages 593-608, August.
    19. Rosa, R.D. & Ramos, T.B. & Pereira, L.S., 2016. "The dual Kc approach to assess maize and sweet sorghum transpiration and soil evaporation under saline conditions: Application of the SIMDualKc model," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 77-94.
    20. Hristov, Jordan & Clough, Yann & Sahlin, Ullrika & Smith, Henrik G. & Stjernman, Martin & Olsson, Ola & Sahrbacher, Amanda & Brady, Mark V., 2020. "Impacts of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy “Greening” reform on agricultural development, biodiversity, and ecosystem services," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 42(4), pages 716-738.

    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:recore:v:55:y:2011:i:12:p:1146-1153. 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: Kai Meng (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/resources-conservation-and-recycling .

    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.