Archive for the category: National and community nitrogen footprints

Ming-Chien Su¹, Hideaki Shibata², James N Galloway³, Allison M Leach⁴

¹ Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, National Dong Hwa University, No. 1, Sec.2, Da Hsueh Rd, Shoufeng, Hualien 97401, Taiwan , mcsu@mail.ndhu.edu.tw

² Field Center for Northern Biosphere, Hokkaido University; Kita-9, Nishi-9, Kita-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido 060-0809, Japan

³ Environmental Sciences Department, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA

⁴ Department of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire 03824, USA

Abstract

The emissions of reactive nitrogen (Nr) have been well known to cause many environmental problems and human health issues. Recently, the nitrogen (N) footprint indicator has been developed and used to specify the influence of the human use of reactive nitrogen on the environment. Taiwan’s Virtual Nitrogen Factors (VNFs; factors that describe average N losses during food production by food type) are similar to Japan’s VNFs (without accounting for trade) possibly due to comparable dietary and farming technologies. The average VNF of fruit is much higher than other vegetable products. Comparisons of the VNFs between Taiwan and Japan (without trade) follow the same pattern. The 10-year average total food production N footprint in Taiwan was 28 kg N/capita/yr. Furthermore, the N footprints for vegetable and animal products were 10 and 18 kg N/capita/yr, respectively. The results showed that the Taiwan N footprint is highly dependent on food production processes per unit of Nr consumed. We are focusing on domestic food production in Taiwan, but a next step for this study will be to also consider where the food consumed in Taiwan was produced (e.g., imports).

Eileen L. McLellan¹, Ken Cassman², Shai Sela³, Harold van Es³, Rebecca Marjerison³, Rod Venterea⁴, Christina Tonitto³ and Peter Woodbury³.

¹ Environmental Defense Fund, 1875 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, D.C. 2009, www.edf.org, emclellan@edf.org

² University of Nebraska, Plant Science Hall, Lincoln, NE 68583

³ Soil and Crop Sciences, Bradfield Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853

⁴ USDA-ARS Soil and Water Management Research Unit, Borlaug Hall, 1991 Upper Buford Circle, St. Paul MN 55108

Abstract

Nitrogen pollution and its negative impacts on human and environmental health are embedded in commodities traded domestically and internationally; we focus on grain because of its importance as a feedstock for food, feed and fuel. Food supply chain companies, in particular retailers and food processors, can play a catalytic role in reducing that burden through sustainable sourcing of grain and grain-derived products. We describe how such sourcing commitments might work to reduce N losses and how progress towards them can be tracked using a simple, robust and scalable indicator: N surplus. Using model simulations and empirical data on U.S. maize production, we show that N surplus, the difference between annual N inputs (fertilizer, manure, biological nitrogen fixation) and grain N outputs, is strongly related to N losses at field to regional scales. This analysis suggests that supply chain companies can set performance goals related to reductions in N surplus, which in turn could translate into large improvements in environmental outcomes. Recognizing that individual producers will need guidance and motivation on how to reduce N surplus, we present a conceptual model for using farmer-derived data in a social learning context to identify combinations of management practices that most effectively reduce N losses and improve crop yield or profit.

Ashley Evans¹, Donna Lucas^2, Dr Doris Blaesing²

¹ RM Consulting Group, PO Box 396, Penguin, Tasmania, 7310, http://www.rmcg.com.au, ashleyh@rmcg.com.au

² RM Consulting Group, PO Box 396, Penguin, Tasmania, 7310

Abstract

A nitrogen use efficiency (NUE%) calculator was developed to engage with cropping farmers and advisors on reducing nitrogen (N) losses from crop production.

The calculator utilises the ‘partial nitrogen balance’ (or ‘output-input ratio’) method to calculate NUE% for an individual crop, a rotation or a whole farm. It also enables estimating the monetary value of potentially unused mineral and organic nitrogen fertiliser.

Experience has demonstrated that both, farmers and advisors, are keen to engage with the tool due to its ease of use and the value of the results in supporting decisions on farm and monitoring NUE% over time. Farmers and advisors have used the calculator for a variety of reasons, including for verification of current best management practices, a means to assess whether or not fertiliser application is efficient and as a way to benchmark groups of producers in a region or groups growing a specific crop.

Calculating NUE% is a successful way to engage with cropping farmers and advisors. The review of nitrogen inputs, removal and costs, based on easily available data, proved an effective starting point for moving to more in-depth discussions about overall nitrogen, soil and crop management. This supported good planning and decision-making for farmers. In our experience, attempting a review of management practices with complex information and using assumptions where actual farm data is not available can disengage people.

Allison M. Leach¹, James N. Galloway², Elizabeth Castner², Jennifer Andrews¹

¹University of New Hampshire, 131 Main Street, 107 Nesmith Hall, Durham, NH, 03824 USA, Allison.Leach@unh.edu
²University of Virginia, PO Box 400123, Charlottesville, VA, 22904 USA

Abstract

Hundreds of institutions have calculated, tracked, and managed their carbon footprint to help improve their sustainability. Although important, greenhouse gas emissions address just one aspect of sustainability. We propose an integrated carbon and nitrogen footprint tool to allow institutions to track and manage a broader picture of their environmental impacts. This integrated tool will bring together the Campus Carbon Calculator (a tool developed in 2001 at the University of New Hampshire that is used by colleges and universities across the United States) and the Nitrogen Footprint Tool (a new tool developed in 2009 at the University of Virginia that is completing a beta testing phase with 18 institutions). We will present the methodology for this integrated tool, case study results for five universities, and management scenario analyses for a variety of reduction strategies. Preliminary analyses have found strong comparisons between the carbon and nitrogen footprint in both the food and energy sectors. In addition, we found reductions to both footprints for a variety of management strategies. This analysis holds significance for all institutions, regardless of whether they have calculated their own footprint, because it will identify the most effective footprint management strategies across institutions that could then be used in sustainability planning.

<For the full paper, please contact Allison Leach at Allison.Leach@unh.edu>

Otto C. Doering III

Agricultural Economics Dept., Purdue University, 403 West State Street, West Lafayette, IN, USA, doering@purdue.edu

Abstract

Agriculture in the U.S. is the major source of anthropogenic reactive nitrogen. The control and management of this nitrogen is a major challenge. The challenge is magnified by the nature of the nitrogen cascade; the ability of nitrogen to change form and move between land, air and water. This is only one of the factors making excess reactive nitrogen a wicked problem. The U.S. Environmental protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Agriculture are major players in dealing with reactive nitrogen and have different institutional histories, responsibilities, and structures. Yet, in order to effectively manage and control reactive nitrogen these institutions and their activities are going to have to encompass and mirror the nitrogen cascade. Institutions that internally have barriers between segments of the cascade will have to overcome them. Parts of the cascade that involve other institutions will have to be coordinated with those institutions. To accomplish this there has to be the coordination of functions carried out by the two primary agencies. This is made all the more difficult by the fact that EPA plays a regulatory role in contrast to the Department of Agriculture’s supportive sectoral role.