IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i15p6637-d1449093.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Performance and Sustainability of Organic and Conventional Cotton Farming Systems in Egypt: An Environmental and Energy Assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Andi Mehmeti

    (Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Bari, Via Ceglie, 9, 70010 Valenzano, Italy)

  • Ahmed Abdelwahab M. Abdelhafez

    (Faculty of Organic Agriculture, Heliopolis University, 3 Cairo-Belbeis Desert Road, P.O. Box 3020 El Salam, Cairo 11785, Egypt)

  • Pierre Ellssel

    (Department of Crop Sciences, Institute of Agronomy, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Gregor-Mendel-Strasse 33, 1180 Vienna, Austria)

  • Mladen Todorovic

    (Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Bari, Via Ceglie, 9, 70010 Valenzano, Italy)

  • Generosa Calabrese

    (Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Bari, Via Ceglie, 9, 70010 Valenzano, Italy)

Abstract

Cotton cultivation is resource-intensive, posing significant environmental challenges, especially with conventional farming methods. Growing interest in sustainable agriculture drives the exploration of organic farming as a potential alternative with lower environmental impacts. Despite its benefits, organic farming often faces criticism for lower crop yields, sparking debates on the trade-offs between productivity and environmental impact. This study hypothesizes that organic cotton farming will have a smaller environmental footprint and higher energy efficiency compared to conventional methods. To test this hypothesis, a cradle-to-farm gate energy analysis and life cycle assessment (LCA) were conducted on both organic and conventional seed cotton production systems in the Beheira governorate of Egypt. The ReCiPe 2016 midpoint and endpoint characterization model was used for an environmental impact assessment. The impacts were evaluated using two functional units: one ton of seed cotton and one hectare of cultivated cotton. The findings revealed that organic cotton outperforms conventional cotton in net energy gain, efficiency, and profitability, with higher productivity and lower energy intensity. Regardless of the functional unit used (mass- or land-based), the assessed organic systems generally show a better environmental performance than the conventional systems in the local context, even when accounting for data uncertainty. This is due to lower input intensity and the use of less energy-intensive organic fertilizers and bio-fertilizers. Fertilization and irrigation are key factors influencing environmental impacts, with fertilization affecting midpoint impacts and irrigation affecting endpoint impacts. Therefore, precision fertilization, efficient irrigation practices, and effective nutrient and soil moisture management are recommended to minimize environmental impacts. Subsequent studies could explore whether similar patterns are observed in different geographic regions and evaluate additional social and economic aspects of cotton sustainability beyond environmental impacts. Future agricultural LCAs should use both mass-based and area-based functional units to capture a broader range of environmental effects and evaluate the co-benefits and trade-offs between organic and conventional practices.

Suggested Citation

  • Andi Mehmeti & Ahmed Abdelwahab M. Abdelhafez & Pierre Ellssel & Mladen Todorovic & Generosa Calabrese, 2024. "Performance and Sustainability of Organic and Conventional Cotton Farming Systems in Egypt: An Environmental and Energy Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(15), pages 1-24, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:15:p:6637-:d:1449093
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/15/6637/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/15/6637/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eva-Marie Meemken & Matin Qaim, 2018. "Organic Agriculture, Food Security, and the Environment," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 10(1), pages 39-63, October.
    2. Victoria Gonzalez & Xingqiu Lou & Ting Chi, 2023. "Evaluating Environmental Impact of Natural and Synthetic Fibers: A Life Cycle Assessment Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-16, May.
    3. Yeşim Aytop, 2023. "Determination of Energy Consumption and Technical Efficiency of Cotton Farms in Türkiye," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-14, July.
    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. Meike Weltin & Silke Hüttel, 2023. "Sustainable Intensification Farming as an Enabler for Farm Eco-Efficiency?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 84(1), pages 315-342, January.
    2. Johan Swinnen & Alessandro Olper & Senne Vandevelde, 2021. "From unfair prices to unfair trading practices: Political economy, value chains and 21st century agri‐food policy," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(5), pages 771-788, September.
    3. Martín-García, Jaime & Gómez-Limón, José A. & Arriaza, Manuel, 2024. "Conversion to organic farming: Does it change the economic and environmental performance of fruit farms?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    4. Stavros Kalogiannidis & Simeon Karafolas & Fotios Chatzitheodoridis, 2024. "The Key Role of Cooperatives in Sustainable Agriculture and Agrifood Security: Evidence from Greece," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-20, August.
    5. Chiara Mazzocchi & Guido Sali, 2022. "Supporting mountain agriculture through “mountain product” label: a choice experiment approach," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 701-723, January.
    6. Anna Lungarska & Thierry Brunelle & Raja Chakir & Pierre‐Alain Jayet & Rémi Prudhomme & Stéphane De Cara & Jean‐Christophe Bureau, 2023. "Halving mineral nitrogen use in European agriculture: Insights from multi‐scale land‐use models," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(3), pages 1529-1550, September.
    7. Cecilia Castaldo & Matilde Giaccherini & Giacomo Pallante & Alessandro Palma, 2024. "Unveiling Shades of Green Food beyond Labels. Evidence from an Online Experiment to Climate Adaptation," CESifo Working Paper Series 11161, CESifo.
    8. Iliriana Miftari & Rainer Haas & Oliver Meixner & Drini Imami & Ekrem Gjokaj, 2022. "Factors Influencing Consumer Attitudes towards Organic Food Products in a Transition Economy—Insights from Kosovo," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-14, May.
    9. Maurer, Rainer, 2023. "Comparing the effect of different agricultural land-use systems on biodiversity," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    10. Koen Deconinck & Marion Jansen & Carla Barisone, 2023. "Fast and furious: the rise of environmental impact reporting in food systems," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 50(4), pages 1310-1337.
    11. Weerahewa, Jeevika & Dayananda, Dasuni, 2023. "Land use changes and economic effects of alternative fertilizer policies: A simulation analysis with a bio-economic model for a Tank Village of Sri Lanka," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    12. Seifert, Stefan & Wolff, Saskia & Hüttel, Silke, 2023. "Eco-Efficiency of Agricultural Landscapes--Insights from North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany," GEWISOLA 63rd Annual Conference, Goettingen, Germany, September 20-22, 2023 344236, GEWISOLA.
    13. 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).
    14. Radu Lucian Pânzaru & Daniela Firoiu & George H. Ionescu & Andi Ciobanu & Dragoș Mihai Medelete & Ramona Pîrvu, 2023. "Organic Agriculture in the Context of 2030 Agenda Implementation in European Union Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-31, July.
    15. Stancu, Alina & Suvorov, Nicolae, 2021. "Step By Step Conversion to Organic Agriculture," Western Balkan Journal of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (WBJAERD), Institute of Agricultural Economics, vol. 3(1), June.
    16. Kristin Jürkenbeck & Achim Spiller, 2020. "Consumers’ Evaluation of Stockfree-Organic Agriculture—A Segmentation Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-19, May.
    17. Meemken, Eva-Marie, 2021. "Large farms, large benefits? Sustainability certification among family farms and agro-industrial producers in Peru," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    18. Ramazan Çakmakçı & Mehmet Ali Salık & Songül Çakmakçı, 2023. "Assessment and Principles of Environmentally Sustainable Food and Agriculture Systems," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-27, May.
    19. Erik Nelson & John Fitzgerald & Nathan Tefft, 2019. "The distributional impact of a green payment policy for organic fruit," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-25, February.
    20. Sheng Wu & Shanwei Li, 2024. "Collaboration to Address the Challenges Faced by Smallholders in Practicing Organic Agriculture: A Case Study of the Organic Sorghum Industry in Zunyi City, China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-24, May.

    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:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:15:p:6637-:d:1449093. 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.