Comparison of Carbon Footprint of Organic and Conventional Farming of Chinese Kale
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study compared the carbon footprint (CF) of organic agriculture with that of conventional agriculture in the cultivation of Chinese kale. The farm management data collected included the use of chemical and organic fertilizers, and fossil fuel for tillage, irrigation and transportation. Greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) were calculated and added to the CF. The results showed that conventional agriculture had a CF of 0.402±0.47 kg CO2e/kg Chinese kale. Proportion of CFs from: chemical fertilizer (51%), transportation (21%), irrigation (19%), tillage (5%), organic fertilizer (2%), herbicide (1%) and insecticide (1%), and organic agriculture had a CF of 0.195±0.122 kg carbon dioxide CO2e/kg Chinese kale (proportion of CFs from: transportation (81%) organic fertilizer (12%) and fossil fuel for irrigation (7%). The CFs differed, depending on farm management, and that of conventional agriculture was almost double that of organic agriculture because of the higher emissions from use of chemical fertilizers and of fossil fuel for tillage, herbicide and insecticide applications. The conventional farm management led to higher production per unit of planted area. Thus, it seems that conventional farming has relatively higher CF than organic farming. There is still room for both management practices to reduce their GHG emissions and their CFs by reduce chemical fertilizer and fossil fuel use in conventional farming. The promotion of organic farming practices will help to improve sustainable, environmentally friendly agricultural production of Chinese kale in Thailand.
Article Details
Published articles are under the copyright of the Environment and Natural Resources Journal effective when the article is accepted for publication thus granting Environment and Natural Resources Journal all rights for the work so that both parties may be protected from the consequences of unauthorized use. Partially or totally publication of an article elsewhere is possible only after the consent from the editors.
References
2. Chaimanuskul K, Punnakanta L, Sonchaem W, Sukreeyapongse P, Hutacharoen RA. Practice model for sustainable agriculture assessment: a case study of the sustainable cultivation of Thai Hom Mali (Jasmine) rice in Thailand. Environment and Natural Resources Journal 2011;9:12-28.
3. Dalgaard T, Hakberg N, Porter JR. A model for fossil energy use in Danish agriculture used to compare organic and conventional farming. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 2001;87(1):51-65.
4. Florence VS, Astrid L, Michael M, Viviane P, Didier S, Frederic D. Organic versus conventional farming: the case of wheat production in Wallonia (Belgium). Procedia 2015;7:272-9.
5. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Volume 1-5. Hayama, Japan: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies; 2006.
6. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL, editors. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, USA; Cambridge University Press: 2007.
7. Kaltasas AM, Mamolos AP, Tsatsarelis CA, Nanos GD, Kalburtji KL. Energy budget in organic and conventional olive groves. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 2007;122:243-51.
8. Kaufman A, Watanasak S. Farmers and fertilizers: a socio-ecological exploration of the alternative agriculture movement in Northeastern Thailand. Environment and Natural Resources Journal 2011;9:1-11.
9. Kerdnoi1 T, Prabudhanitisarn S, Sangawongse S, Prapamontol T, Santasup C. The struggle of organic rice in Thailand: a multi - level perspective of barriers and opportunities for up scaling. Environment and Natural Resources Journal 2014;12:95-115.
10. Kun K, Genxing P, Pete S, Ting L, Lianqing Li, Jinwei Z, Xuhui Z, Xiaojun H, Ming Y. Carbon footprint of China’s crop production: an estimation using agro-statistics data over 1993-2007. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 2011;142:231-7.
11. Martin RAN, Gareth EJ, Jeremy PH, Gabriela S, Nicola A, John RH. Greenhouse gas emissions in coffee grown with differing input levels under conventional and organic management. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 2012;151:6-15.
12. Matthias SM, Franziska S, Niel J, Rinnie J, Christian S, Matthias S. Environmental impacts of organic and conventional agricultural products: are the differences captured by life cycle assessment? Journal of Environmental Management 2015;149:193-208.
13. Meisterling K, Samaras C, Schweizer V. Decisions to reduce greenhouse gases from agriculture and product transport: LCA case study of organic and conventional wheat. Journal of Cleaner Production 2009;17:222-30.
14. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. Bureau of Agriculture Development Policy and Planning, Central of Philosopher Community. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives; Bangkok, Thailand. 2010. (in Thai)
15. Mungkung R, Gheewala SH, Tomnantong A. Carbon footprint of IQF peeled Tail-On breaded shrimp (Litopenaeusvannamei): how big is it compared to other aquatic products? Environment and Natural Resources Journal 2012;10:31-6.
16. Office of Agricultural Economics (OAE). Farmer database in Thailand cropping years 2015 [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2015 Dec 10]. Available from: http://www.oae.go.th.
17. Prapaspongsa T, Løkke S. Framework for LCI modelling towards green logistic systems. Environment and Natural Resources Journal 2012;10:58-65.
Rewlay-Ngoen C, Papong S, Piumsomboon P, Malakul P, Sampattagul S. Life cycle impact modeling of global warming on net primary production: a case study of biodiesel in Thailand. Environment and Natural Resources Journal 2013;11:21-30.
18. Sandrhu HS, Wratten SD, Cullen R. The role of supporting ecosystem in conventional and organic arable farmland. Ecological Complexity 2010;7:302-10.
Thailand Greenhouse Gas Management Organization (Public Organization), (TGO). Thailand [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 Jun 15]. Available from: http://www.tgo.or.th.
19. Thailand National Technical Committee on Product Carbon Footprint. Carbon footprint of product. Bangkok, Thailand: Amarin Printing; 2009.
20. Thailand National Technical Committee on Product Carbon Footprint. Carbon footprint of product. Bangkok, Thailand: Amarin Printing; 2011.
20. Thailand National Technical Committee on Product Carbon Footprint. Carbon footprint of product. Bangkok, Thailand: Amarin Printing; 2015.
20. Thailand Research Fund (TRF). The development of the sufficient economy for mitigate greenhouse gases emission by Eastern Wisdom. Bangkok; 2010.
21. The British Standards Institution (BSI). Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. London, UK: British Standards Institution; 2008.
22. The Joint Graduated School of Energy and Environment (JGSEE). Thailand greenhouse gases inventory report. Bangkok; 2009.
23. Sessa F, Marino M, Montanaro G, Dal Piaz A, Zanotelli D, Mazzetto F, Tagliavini M. Life cycle assessment of apples at a country level. Proceeding of the 9th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in Ari-food Sector (LCA Food 2014); 2014 Oct 8-10; Vashon, USA: American Center for Life Cycle Assessment; 2014.
24. Sinden G. The contribution of PAS 2050 to the evolution of international greenhouse gas emissions standards. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2009;14(3):195-203.
25. Sonia L, Marina M, Francesco G, Maurizio G. Life cycle assessment of organic and conventional apple supply chains in the North of Italy. Journal of Cleaner Production 2017;140:654-63.
26. Spyros F, Efthalia C, Life cycle assessment of organic versus conventional agriculture: a case study of lettuce cultivation in Greece. Journal of Cleaner Production 2016;112:2462-71.
27. Suwannarit A. Fertilizer with Agriculture and Environment. 3rd ed. Bangkok: Kasetsart University; 2010.
28. Yantai G, Chang L, Con AC, Robert PZ, Reynald LL, Hong W, Chao Y. Carbon footprint of spring wheat in response to fallow frequency and soil carbon changes over 25 years on the semiarid Canadian prairie. European Journal of Agronomy 2012;43:175-84.
29. Yuttitham M, Gheewala SH, Chidthaisong A. Carbon footprint of sugar produced from sugarcane in Eastern Thailand. Journal of Cleaner Production 2011;19: 2119-27.