IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v12y2022i4p568-d796423.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of Farming System on Potato Yield and Tuber Quality in Northern Baltic Sea Climate Conditions

Author

Listed:
  • Kalle Margus

    (Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, EE 51006 Tartu, Estonia)

  • Viacheslav Eremeev

    (Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, EE 51006 Tartu, Estonia)

  • Evelin Loit

    (Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, EE 51006 Tartu, Estonia)

  • Eve Runno-Paurson

    (Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, EE 51006 Tartu, Estonia)

  • Erkki Mäeorg

    (Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, EE 51006 Tartu, Estonia)

  • Anne Luik

    (Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, EE 51006 Tartu, Estonia)

  • Liina Talgre

    (Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, EE 51006 Tartu, Estonia)

Abstract

For finding more sustainable cropping systems, this study on how the farming system influences the yield and quality of potato tubers was carried out with long-term crop rotation experiment. The long-term five-field crop rotation field trial was established with the following farming system treatments: organic farming system treatments: Org I (organic control), Org II (organic crop rotation with winter cover crops) and Org III (organic crop rotation with winter cover crops and the addition of composted cattle manure); conventional farming system treatments: N0 (conventional system without fertilizers), N50 (conventional system with fertilization, N50P25K95), N100 (conventional system, N100P25K95) and N150 (conventional system, N150P25K95). The average yield (based on 3 trial years) of conventional systems was 25% higher, compared to organic systems. However, in organic systems, the yield was the most stable. The most fluctuating cropping system was the most intensively managed N150. In each trial year, the yield differed statistically and it varied from 4.7 t ha −1 up to 10.9 t ha −1 . Org I had the same dry matter yield as the N0 system, where chemicals were used, meaning that using chemicals for plant protection but no fertilizer for growth improvement had no positive effect. In each year, the yield in Org III system was similar to N50 system. Regarding the tubers per plant, there were no differences between farming systems but there was a significant difference between the trial years. The tubers in conventional systems had a lower starch content than the organic systems. It is possible to conclude that if cover crops and manure are used, organic farming practices provide just as good results as the conventional farming with low nitrogen level.

Suggested Citation

  • Kalle Margus & Viacheslav Eremeev & Evelin Loit & Eve Runno-Paurson & Erkki Mäeorg & Anne Luik & Liina Talgre, 2022. "Impact of Farming System on Potato Yield and Tuber Quality in Northern Baltic Sea Climate Conditions," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-12, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:12:y:2022:i:4:p:568-:d:796423
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/12/4/568/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/12/4/568/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Karin Kauer & Sandra Pärnpuu & Liina Talgre & Viacheslav Eremeev & Anne Luik, 2021. "Soil Particulate and Mineral-Associated Organic Matter Increases in Organic Farming under Cover Cropping and Manure Addition," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-23, September.
    2. Alon Tal, 2018. "Making Conventional Agriculture Environmentally Friendly: Moving beyond the Glorification of Organic Agriculture and the Demonization of Conventional Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-17, April.
    3. 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.
    4. Adrian Muller & Christian Schader & Nadia El-Hage Scialabba & Judith Brüggemann & Anne Isensee & Karl-Heinz Erb & Pete Smith & Peter Klocke & Florian Leiber & Matthias Stolze & Urs Niggli, 2017. "Strategies for feeding the world more sustainably with organic agriculture," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 8(1), pages 1-13, December.
    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. Nesar Ahmed & Shirley Thompson & Giovanni M. Turchini, 2020. "Organic aquaculture productivity, environmental sustainability, and food security: insights from organic agriculture," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(6), pages 1253-1267, December.
    2. Debuschewitz, Emil & Sanders, Jürn, 2021. "Bewertung der Umweltwirkungen des ökologischen Landbaus im Kontext der kontroversen wissenschaftlichen Diskurse," 61st Annual Conference, Berlin, Germany, September 22-24, 2021 317076, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    3. Aleksandra Kowalska & Milena Bieniek, 2022. "Meeting the European green deal objective of expanding organic farming," Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 17(3), pages 607-633, September.
    4. Joseph, Sarah & Peters, Irene & Friedrich, Hanno, 2019. "Can Regional Organic Agriculture Feed the Regional Community? A Case Study for Hamburg and North Germany," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    5. Anna Kuczuk & Katarzyna Widera, 2021. "A Greater Share of Organic Agriculture in Relation to Food Security Resulting from the Energy Demand Obtained from Food—Scenarios for Poland until 2030," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-19, October.
    6. Malek, Žiga & Tieskens, Koen F. & Verburg, Peter H., 2019. "Explaining the global spatial distribution of organic crop producers," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    7. Aleksandra Kowalska & Monika Ratajczyk & Louise Manning & Milena Bieniek & Radosław Mącik, 2021. "“Young and Green” a Study of Consumers’ Perceptions and Reported Purchasing Behaviour towards Organic Food in Poland and the United Kingdom," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-23, November.
    8. Haijiang Wu & Stéphan Marette, 2020. "Local and Global Welfare When Regulating Organic Products: Should Local Regulation Target Production or Consumption?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-19, July.
    9. Bellassen, Valentin & Drut, Marion & Hilal, Mohamed & Bodini, Antonio & Donati, Michele & de Labarre, Matthieu Duboys & Filipović, Jelena & Gauvrit, Lisa & Gil, José M. & Hoang, Viet & Malak-Rawlikows, 2022. "The economic, environmental and social performance of European certified food," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    10. Anna Kuczuk & Katarzyna Widera, 2021. "Proposed Changes in Polish Agricultural Products Consumption Structure for 2030 Based on Data from 2008–2018," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-15, July.
    11. de la Riva, Enrique G. & Ulrich, Werner & Batáry, Péter & Baudry, Julia & Beaumelle, Léa & Bucher, Roman & Čerevková, Andrea & Felipe-Lucia, María R. & Gallé, Róbert & Kesse-Guyot, Emmanuelle & Rembia, 2023. "From functional diversity to human well-being: A conceptual framework for agroecosystem sustainability," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    12. Jie Zhao & Ji Chen & Damien Beillouin & Hans Lambers & Yadong Yang & Pete Smith & Zhaohai Zeng & Jørgen E. Olesen & Huadong Zang, 2022. "Global systematic review with meta-analysis reveals yield advantage of legume-based rotations and its drivers," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-9, December.
    13. Malard, Julien J & Adamowski, Jan Franklin & Rojas Díaz, Marcela & Nassar, Jessica Bou & Anandaraja, Nallusamy & Tuy, Héctor & Arévalo-Rodriguez, Luís Andrés & Melgar-Quiñonez, Hugo Ramiro, 2020. "Agroecological food web modelling to evaluate and design organic and conventional agricultural systems," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 421(C).
    14. Lombardi, G.V. & Parrini, Silvia & Atzori, R. & Stefani, G. & Romano, D. & Gastaldi, M. & Liu, G., 2021. "Sustainable agriculture, food security and diet diversity. The case study of Tuscany, Italy," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 458(C).
    15. Lauren Brzozowski & Michael Mazourek, 2018. "A Sustainable Agricultural Future Relies on the Transition to Organic Agroecological Pest Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-25, June.
    16. Alon Tal, 2018. "Making Conventional Agriculture Environmentally Friendly: Moving beyond the Glorification of Organic Agriculture and the Demonization of Conventional Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-17, April.
    17. Radka Redlichová & Gabriela Chmelíková & Ivana Blažková & Eliška Svobodová & Inez Naaki Vanderpuje, 2021. "Organic Food Needs More Land and Direct Energy to Be Produced Compared to Food from Conventional Farming: Empirical Evidence from the Czech Republic," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-19, August.
    18. Niraj Prakash Joshi & Luni Piya, 2021. "Food and Nutrient Supply from Organic Agriculture in the Least Developed Countries and North America," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-17, April.
    19. Valeria Borsellino & Emanuele Schimmenti & Hamid El Bilali, 2020. "Agri-Food Markets towards Sustainable Patterns," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-35, March.
    20. Desamparados Blazquez & Josep Domenech & Jose-Maria Garcia-Alvarez-Coque, 2018. "Assessing Technology Platforms for Sustainability with Web Data Mining Techniques," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-15, November.

    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:gam:jagris:v:12:y:2022:i:4:p:568-:d:796423. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.