Adrienne L. Contasti, A. G. Firth, B. H. Baker, J. Brooks, M. Locke, D. Morin
{"title":"气候智能型农业的平衡权衡:出售碳信用额能否抵消小规模大豆净收益的潜在损失(甘氨酸max L.)美国中南部的生产商?","authors":"Adrienne L. Contasti, A. G. Firth, B. H. Baker, J. Brooks, M. Locke, D. Morin","doi":"10.1287/deca.2023.0478","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is a need to achieve sustainable agricultural production to secure food, fiber, and fuel for a growing global population. Climate-smart (CS) actions (no-till and cover crops) can reduce carbon emissions and promote soil organic carbon (SOC) storage. Contemporary voluntary carbon markets provide producers with a monetary incentive to adopt CS actions. However, SOC–yield dynamics under CS actions are not well known, making it difficult for producers to judge whether additional income from carbon credits will offset potential losses to yield income. We designed a SOC–yield framework that captures SOC–yield–income dynamics under traditional (reduced tillage, no cover crops) and CS actions. Using a modified structured decision-making approach, we applied the framework to a case study in which producers aim to increase income by selling carbon credits after adopting CS actions. Specifically, we demonstrated how to balance tradeoffs between yield and carbon credit income that arise from tillage and winter cover crop actions (cereal rye, Secale cereale L. and crimson clover, Trifolium incarnatum L.) in a soybean (Glycine max L.) production system in Mississippi. Results indicated that a producer could minimize losses to net yield income by adopting no-till if already using cover crops. There was also evidence that carbon credit income could offset losses to yield income when adopting CS in place of traditional actions. Identifying risks to yield income and SOC storage can help design carbon neutrality policies that have minimum impact on a producer’s income. History: This paper has been accepted for the Decision Analysis Special Issue on Further Environmental Sustainability. Funding: This work was supported by the USDA-ARS [Grants 58-0200-0-002 (Advancing Agricultural Research) and 58-6001-8-003] and the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture [McIntire Stennis Project 1020959]. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/deca.2023.0478 .","PeriodicalId":46460,"journal":{"name":"Decision Analysis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Balancing Tradeoffs in Climate-Smart Agriculture: Will Selling Carbon Credits Offset Potential Losses in the Net Yield Income of Small-Scale Soybean (Glycine max L.) Producers in the Mid-Southern United States?\",\"authors\":\"Adrienne L. Contasti, A. G. Firth, B. H. Baker, J. Brooks, M. Locke, D. Morin\",\"doi\":\"10.1287/deca.2023.0478\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"There is a need to achieve sustainable agricultural production to secure food, fiber, and fuel for a growing global population. Climate-smart (CS) actions (no-till and cover crops) can reduce carbon emissions and promote soil organic carbon (SOC) storage. Contemporary voluntary carbon markets provide producers with a monetary incentive to adopt CS actions. However, SOC–yield dynamics under CS actions are not well known, making it difficult for producers to judge whether additional income from carbon credits will offset potential losses to yield income. We designed a SOC–yield framework that captures SOC–yield–income dynamics under traditional (reduced tillage, no cover crops) and CS actions. Using a modified structured decision-making approach, we applied the framework to a case study in which producers aim to increase income by selling carbon credits after adopting CS actions. Specifically, we demonstrated how to balance tradeoffs between yield and carbon credit income that arise from tillage and winter cover crop actions (cereal rye, Secale cereale L. and crimson clover, Trifolium incarnatum L.) in a soybean (Glycine max L.) production system in Mississippi. Results indicated that a producer could minimize losses to net yield income by adopting no-till if already using cover crops. There was also evidence that carbon credit income could offset losses to yield income when adopting CS in place of traditional actions. Identifying risks to yield income and SOC storage can help design carbon neutrality policies that have minimum impact on a producer’s income. History: This paper has been accepted for the Decision Analysis Special Issue on Further Environmental Sustainability. Funding: This work was supported by the USDA-ARS [Grants 58-0200-0-002 (Advancing Agricultural Research) and 58-6001-8-003] and the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture [McIntire Stennis Project 1020959]. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/deca.2023.0478 .\",\"PeriodicalId\":46460,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Decision Analysis\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Decision Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1287/deca.2023.0478\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Decision Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1287/deca.2023.0478","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
Balancing Tradeoffs in Climate-Smart Agriculture: Will Selling Carbon Credits Offset Potential Losses in the Net Yield Income of Small-Scale Soybean (Glycine max L.) Producers in the Mid-Southern United States?
There is a need to achieve sustainable agricultural production to secure food, fiber, and fuel for a growing global population. Climate-smart (CS) actions (no-till and cover crops) can reduce carbon emissions and promote soil organic carbon (SOC) storage. Contemporary voluntary carbon markets provide producers with a monetary incentive to adopt CS actions. However, SOC–yield dynamics under CS actions are not well known, making it difficult for producers to judge whether additional income from carbon credits will offset potential losses to yield income. We designed a SOC–yield framework that captures SOC–yield–income dynamics under traditional (reduced tillage, no cover crops) and CS actions. Using a modified structured decision-making approach, we applied the framework to a case study in which producers aim to increase income by selling carbon credits after adopting CS actions. Specifically, we demonstrated how to balance tradeoffs between yield and carbon credit income that arise from tillage and winter cover crop actions (cereal rye, Secale cereale L. and crimson clover, Trifolium incarnatum L.) in a soybean (Glycine max L.) production system in Mississippi. Results indicated that a producer could minimize losses to net yield income by adopting no-till if already using cover crops. There was also evidence that carbon credit income could offset losses to yield income when adopting CS in place of traditional actions. Identifying risks to yield income and SOC storage can help design carbon neutrality policies that have minimum impact on a producer’s income. History: This paper has been accepted for the Decision Analysis Special Issue on Further Environmental Sustainability. Funding: This work was supported by the USDA-ARS [Grants 58-0200-0-002 (Advancing Agricultural Research) and 58-6001-8-003] and the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture [McIntire Stennis Project 1020959]. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/deca.2023.0478 .