Using Response Surface Methodology for Economic and Environmental Trade-offs at the Farm Level

United States farmers typically spend over $10 billion annually on commercial fertilizer. Chemical inputs such as nitrogen (N) are essential for maintaining crop yields; however, farmers often apply excessive N inputs as an insurance policy. Nitrogen fertilizer consumption in the U.S. quadrupled fro...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inAir, Soil and Water Research Vol. 2013; no. 6; pp. 73 - 89
Main Authors Ascough, James C., Fathelrahman, Eihab M., Hoag, Dana L.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published London, England Libertas Academica 01.01.2013
SAGE Publishing
SAGE Publications
Sage Publications Ltd. (UK)
Sage Publications Ltd
Subjects
Analysis
Aquifers
Methods
Nitrogen
Nitrogen fertilizers
Iowa
New Hampshire
USA
response surface method
environmental impacts
optimization
nitrogen
trade-off analysis
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:United States farmers typically spend over $10 billion annually on commercial fertilizer. Chemical inputs such as nitrogen (N) are essential for maintaining crop yields; however, farmers often apply excessive N inputs as an insurance policy. Nitrogen fertilizer consumption in the U.S. quadrupled from 3 million metric tons in 1961 to over 12 million metric tons in 2004, and per ha N fertilizer use quadrupled. Increase in N use has been associated with the impairment of U.S. streams, lakes, and aquifers. The objective of this research study was to develop an integrated farm-level economic/environmental risk framework for trade-off analysis between farm profitability and environmental externalities (impacts). Results indicated that there was no single point of optimal trade-off between farm profitability and the environment. Additionally, trade-offs between farm profit and environmental impacts varied significantly depending on the choice of cropping or tillage system.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:1178-6221
1178-6221
DOI:10.4137/ASWR.S11697