Economics of farming systems
WildCRU has conducted research comparing the environmental impacts of organic, conventional, and integrated farming systems, and undertaken a meta-analysis comparing environmental impacts of organic and conventional farming in Europe. We carried out a life cycle assessment to explore the potential of integrated farming systems in terms of energy and greenhouse gas balances and biodiversity impacts when the opportunity costs of land use are taken into account. To provide further information for decision making, the financial performances of the farming systems were compared, and the cost-efficiencies of some specific practices for reducing greenhouse gas emissions were calculated. We also propose a novel method for weighting different environmental impact categories that allows calculation of overall environmental performance scores.
Hanna L. Tuomisto
Ian D. Hodge
David W. Macdonald
Tuomisto, H.L., Hodge, I.D., Riordan, P., and Macdonald, D.W. (2015) Farming for the future: optimising farming systems for society and the environment. In: Wildlife Conservation on Farmland. Eds: D.W. Macdonald & R.E. Feber. Oxford University Press.
Tuomisto, H.L., Hodge, I.D., Riordan, P., and Macdonald, D.W. (2012) Does organic farming reduce environmental impacts? A meta-analysis of European research. Journal of Environmental Management, 112, 309–320.
Tuomisto, H.L., Hodge, I.D., Riordan, P., and Macdonald, D.W. (2012) Exploring a safe operating approach to weighting in life cycle impact assessment—a case study of organic, conventional and integrated farming systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 37, 147–153.
Tuomisto, H.L., Hodge, I.D., Riordan, P., and Macdonald, D.W. (2012) Comparing global warming potential, energy use and land use of organic, conventional and integrated winter wheat production. Annals of Applied Biology, 161, 116–126.
Tuomisto, H.L., Hodge, I.D., Riordan, P., and Macdonald, D.W. (2012) Comparing energy balances, greenhouse gas balances and biodiversity impacts of contrasting farming systems with alternative land uses. Agricultural Systems, 108, 42–49.