Next Article in Journal
Urban Microclimate Canopy: Design, Manufacture, Installation, and Growth Simulation of a Living Architecture Prototype
Previous Article in Journal
Identifying Vulnerable Households Using Machine Learning
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Life Cycle Assessment of Thai Hom Mali Rice to Support the Policy Decision on Organic Farming Area Expansion

by
Rattanawan Mungkung
1,2,*,
Saruda Sitthikitpanya
1,
Sarocha Dangsiri
1 and
Shabbir H. Gheewala
3,4
1
Centre of Excellence on enVironmental Strategy for GREEN Business (VGREEN), Faculty of Environment, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand
2
Department of Environmental Technology and Management, Faculty of Environment, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand
3
The Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment (JGSEE), King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi (KMUTT), Bangkok 10140, Thailand
4
Centre of Excellence on Energy Technology and Environment, PERDO, Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation, Bangkok 10140, Thailand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2020, 12(15), 6003; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su12156003
Submission received: 23 June 2020 / Revised: 22 July 2020 / Accepted: 24 July 2020 / Published: 26 July 2020

Abstract

:
Thailand has a strategic national policy to increase organic rice farming. This study firstly applied Life Cycle Assessment for evaluating the quantitative environmental impacts at the regional and national levels to facilitate the national policy decision on the expansion of organic rice cultivation areas. The impact categories of interest included global warming, terrestrial acidification, freshwater eutrophication, terrestrial ecotoxicity, and freshwater ecotoxicity, and the life cycle impact assessment method applied was ReCiPe. The results showed that the life cycle environmental impacts from organic rice cultivation in the nine provinces in the North were lower than those from the 12 provinces in the Northeast, due mainly to the higher yields and lower use of fertilizers in the former. The methane emissions in the North (11,147 kg CO2e/ha) were similar to those in the Northeast (11,378 kg CO2e/ha). However, nitrous oxide emissions in the Northeast were higher than in the North due to the higher amounts of fertilizer used. If Thailand expands the rice farming by 50% in the North and by 50% in the Northeast, the greenhouse gas emissions could be reduced from 11,400 to 11,100 kg CO2e/ha, but the impacts of terrestrial acidification, freshwater eutrophication, terrestrial ecotoxicity, and freshwater ecotoxicity could be increased by 0.0257 kg PO4e (95%), 0.508 kg 1,4-DBe (53%), and 33.1 kg 1,4-DBe (17%), respectively. To reduce the global warming as well as other environmental impacts, Thailand should expand rice farming areas to the North. This information could be useful for supporting the policy decisions on which areas the organic rice farming should be expanded in to minimize the potential life cycle environmental impacts.

1. Introduction

The World Food Summit Plan of Action has made a commitment on sustainable agriculture using appropriate technologies, such as organic farming to promote agro-ecosystem health, sustainable use of water and soil, and food security [1]. In 2018, there were 186 countries involved in organic farming, and total organic agricultural land expanded widely to 71.5 million hectares, especially in Europe and Asia, where the agricultural areas increased by about 9%. The increase in organic agriculture promoted high values of the organic products with 96.7 billion euros for total consumption and 12.8 euros per capita consumption [2]. In Asia, the area used for organic agriculture is 6.5 million hectares, and the key crop is organic rice, representing 41% of the total organic cereal area [3]. In terms of organic agricultural area, Thailand was ranked seventh, and second in terms of production quantity. Thailand has the largest concentration of rice growers certified through United States Department of Agriculture [4].
Organic rice is becoming highly consumed because there is increasing preference worldwide for food and environmental sustainability [5]. In the organic farming system, almost all synthetic inputs are prohibited, and soil-building crop rotations are practiced. There are many advantages of the organic farming system over the conventional farming system. Firstly, organic farming enhances soil capacity for nutrient and water retention [6]. For example, soils under organic agriculture gain the characteristic of capturing more water and increasing water retention in the rhizosphere compared to soils under conventional treatment. It was shown that in the rainy season, water capture in organic areas could be 100% higher than in conventional areas [7]. Secondly, organic farming has better nutrient-retentive abilities and provides great biodiversity of microorganisms, insects, plants, and animals [6]. Organic agriculture also improved soil nutrients and enhanced microbiological activities (e.g., increases in total nitrogen content in soil (69–125%), nitrate (42–174%), phosphate (47–116%), total microbial cells (38–127%), and enzymatic activities (20–246%) of acid phosphatase, protease, and dehydrogenase) [8,9]. Thirdly, organic farming can reduce the risk of infiltration and groundwater pollution from synthetic fertilizers and pesticides [6]. Lastly, the consumers gain the benefit of healthy food because the organic farming practices reduce pesticide use and utilize organic nutrient sources [6].
Organic rice cultivation is also known to enhance the soil organic carbon. Organic farming could potentially mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions via soil nutrient management practices. Komatsuzaki et al. [10] compared the carbon sequestration between conventional and organic rice production in West Java, Indonesia, and found that the soil in the organic farming system showed higher soil carbon content than conventional soils after four years of continuous organic farming; however, there were no significant differences in soil bulk density between the two farming systems. Minasny et al. [11] reported that the top 15 cm of soils stored about 31 Tg of carbon (C) with a sequestration rate of 0.3 Tg C per year in South Korea, whereas the agricultural top soils accumulated more than 1.7 Tg C per year in Java over the period 1990–2010. In China, it was estimated that the full popularization of straw return in China’s rice paddies could sequester 10.48 Tg C per year [12]. The effects of organic amendments on soil carbon sequestration in paddy fields of subtropical China were studied by Zhang et al. [13], who concluded that organic amendments increased soil organic carbon significantly by 7–45% after 25–28 years of fertilization. The carbon was sequestered at a rate of 0.20 to 0.48 tha−1 year−1 under the double-rice and 0.70 to 0.88 tha−1 year1 under the rice–wheat cropping system. Ghimire et al. [14] highlighted that improved nutrient management practices, such as reduced- and no-tillage management, nitrogen (N) fertilizer and farmyard manure (FYM) application, and crop residue addition, are important for increasing crop production as well as improving soil organic carbon sequestration.
As part of organic rice production sustainability, the environmental performance of organic and conventional rice cultivation systems has been intensively evaluated using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Yodkhum et al. [15] studied the GHG emissions from organic rice (Khao Dawk Mali 105) in the Chiang Mai province, Thailand. The total GHG emissions of organic rice production were 0.58 kg CO2e per kg of paddy rice. The major source was the field emissions, which contributed 83% of the total GHG emissions, followed by field preparation, harvesting, and other stages (planting, cultivation, and transport of raw materials), with 9%, 5%, and 3% of the total, respectively. The GHG emissions of organic paddy rice were considerably lower than those of conventional rice production due to the advantage of using organic fertilizers [15]. Transforming farm management strategies from conventional to organic approaches also improved the efficiency of reducing GHG, particularly the emissions from irrigation and resource utilization [16,17]. However, some studies suggested that organic rice production could lead to higher environmental impacts compared to conventional production. A five-year long-term LCA study in Japan revealed that organic rice increased environmental impacts in comparison to conventional farm in terms of global warming, acidification, eutrophication, and non-renewable energy [18]. Hokazono and Hayashi [19] aimed to compare crop rotation systems used in organic farming (organic rotation systems) with those of both conventional farming (conventional rotation systems) and continuous rice cropping systems in Japan, and concluded that organic rotation systems have the potential of being recommended as sustainable agricultural practices, in comparison with conventional rotation systems and continuous (organic and conventional) rice production systems. Moreover, Nunes et al. [20] compared the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of white and brown rice between minimal tillage and organic systems under the practices and climate conditions in the south of Brazil. The results showed that the highest value of GWP was observed for the organic white rice (equivalent to 35.53 kg CO2e/kg of protein), followed by the organic brown rice (equivalent to 26.50 kg CO2e/kg of protein), and minimal-tillage brown rice (equivalent to 20.91 kg CO2e/kg of protein), whereas the lowest GWP (equivalent to 15.80 kg CO2e/kg of protein) was observed in minimal-tillage white rice [20]. Bacenetti et al. [21] conducted an LCA of organic rice cultivation with a cradle-to-field-gate boundary in a farm located in Pavia, Italy. The results identified the key hotspots contributing to environmental impacts, namely the methane emission from the flooded fields, the production of compost, the nitrogen emissions associated with the application of fertilizer, and the mechanization of the field operations. From the results, the substitution of organic compost with cattle manure was selected as a mitigation strategy to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 13–51% [21]. Lovarelli and Bacenetti [22] reported that the mechanical operations carried out during farming activities were responsible for GHG emissions by both fuel consumption and exhaust gases directly emitted into the air, as well as by the consumption of mineral and fossil resources for realization of materials (i.e., the processes of mineral extraction, energy use, and production for the materials that compose the tractor and implement). In addition, Fusi et al. [23] evaluated the environmental profile of paddy rice cultivation with different straw management scenarios (burial into the soil of the straw versus harvesting) by using LCA, and highlighted that the collection of the straw improves the environmental performance of rice. Mungkung et al. [24] also evaluated the environmental performance of Hom Mali organic rice production in the Surin province of Thailand using LCA. The study was focused on the practical methodologies of carbon, water, and biodiversity footprints aiming to support the environmental product declaration for international markets to enhance the competitiveness. A carbon footprint of 2.88 kg CO2e per kg was observed, with a considerable water use index of 1.34 m3 H2Oe [24].
In Thailand, organic rice is being promoted under a strategic national policy on sustainable agriculture and Thailand 4.0 due to a premium price from niche markets [25]. According to the National Economic and Social Development Plan (2017–2021), it is targeted that the organic agriculture area will be increased by 15% per year; 90% of this area is for rice [25]. In 2019, Thailand had around 91,265 hectares of agricultural area under organic cultivation, out of which 59% was used for organic rice production [26]. The main production sites for organic rice are in the Northeast (80%) and the North (20%) [27]. The goal of this study was, therefore, to analyze the environmental performance of organic rice cultivation in Thailand by using the LCA methodology. Different scenarios of organic rice farming expansion in the North and the Northeast of Thailand were proposed with the calculation of potential life cycle environmental impacts. Most of the studies reviewed in the literature have evaluated rice at the product level. This study is original in its use of LCA as an assessment tool to deliver the quantitative and potential life cycle environmental impacts at the regional and national levels to facilitate the national policy decisions on the expansion of organic rice cultivation areas in Thailand.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Goal and Scope Definition

The studied organic rice is Hom Mali rice (KhaoDawk Mali 105), which is the main organic rice cultivated in Thailand. The method used for the LCA study followed the guidelines laid out in ISO14040 and 14044 [28,29]. The goal of this study was to assess the potential life cycle environmental impacts from expanding organic rice farming (160,000 hectares) [27]. The studied areas (Figure 1) covered the land areas identified by the Department of Land Development that are suitable for rice cultivation, located in 9 provinces in the North (N) and 12 provinces in the Northeast (NE), namely: N1 (Maesai, Mueang, Pan, Mae Lao, and Chiang Sean districts, Chiang Rai province, Thailand), N2 (Dok Kham Tai, Baantoon, and Hong Hin districts, Phayao province, Thailand), N3 (Thoen and Mueang districts, Lampang province, Thailand), N4 (Mae Dang and Mae Rim districts, Chiang Mai province, Thailand), N5 (Keereemat and Ban Dan Lan Hoi districts, Sukhothai province, Thailand), N6 (Hat Kruat, Thasao, Hat Song Kwae, and Wang Din districts, Uttradit province, Thailand), N7 (Bang Mun Nak, Wachira Barami, Pho Thale, and Pho Prathap Chang districts, Phichit province, Thailand), N8 (Thap Than and Swang Arom districts, Uthai Thani province, Thailand), N9 (Mueang and Si Thep districts, Phetchabun province, Thailand), NE1 (Wanon Niwat, Waritchaphum, and Pang Khon districts, Sakon Nakhon province, Thailand), NE2 (Mueang and Don Tan districts, Mukdahan province, Thailand), NE3 (Kut Chum, Kho Wang, and Pa Tiu districts, Yasothon province, Thailand), NE4 (Mueang and Hua Ta Pan districts, Amnat Charoen province, Thailand), NE5 (Trakanphuetphon, Muang Samsip, Det Udom, Mueang, Khemmarat, Sam Rong, and Phibunmangsahan districts, Ubon Ratchathani province, Thailand), NE6 (Sikhoraphum and Khu Kan districts, Sisaket province, Thailand), NE7 (Chumphon Buri, Sikhoraphum, Chomphra, and Kap Choeng districts, Surin province, Thailand), NE8 (Chalerm Prakiat and Nongki districts, Buriram province, Thailand), NE9 (Mueang and Borabue districts, Maha Sarakham province, Thailand), NE10 (Mueang and Nakhu districts, Kalasin province, Thailand), NE11 (Waeng Yai, Phon, and Samsoong districts, Khon Kaen province, Thailand), NE12 (Phimai, Prathai, Bua Yai, and Sung Noen districts, Nakhon Ratchasima province, Thailand).
This study proposed alternative scenarios based on varying cultivation areas of organic rice farming in the North (N) and Northeast (NE) regions. The different cultivation area ratios were varied, as shown in Table 1, based on the assumptions that the proposed ratios were applied in all provinces for a particular region. Moreover, the average inputs and outputs were used as the representative datasets for a particular province.
The system boundary in this study was defined as the organic rice product system based on cradle to farm gate, covering the field preparation activities (tilling, sowing, and fertilizing), the cultivation period (seeding, planting, and fertilizing), and the harvesting (Figure 2). The main rice species cultivated is jasmine rice, with the local name of Khao Dawk Mali 105 (KDML 105). The crop production cycle was 120 days. Agricultural machines (i.e., tractors) were used for land preparation (land excavation) and the petrol used for tractors was taken into account [22]. The organic rice seeds were mainly sourced from the local rice seed division, Department of Rice. For some provinces, the organic rice seeds were produced by a group of local farmers who were trained by the local rice seed division of the Department of Rice on the rice seed production and farming practices. These groups of farmers would provide their seeds to the farmers who grew the paddy rice, with a commitment to give the paddy rice back to the seed producers at the ratio of 1:3 (seed to paddy rice) at the harvesting time. Most of the rice fields in the North are within irrigated zones, whereas the rice fields in the Northeast totally rely on rainfall. During the cultivation period, organic fertilizers were added periodically, and biological extracts made from vegetable and fruit wastes were applied, if needed. Harvesting machines were generally used, but a proper cleaning system was required. The petrol used for harvesting machines was also considered [22]. After harvesting, the straw was usually incorporated into the soil together with manure for nutrient management to prepare a good soil quality for the next crop. Thus, there was no allocation in this case, and all environmental impacts were totally allocated to the paddy rice. The effect of straw management and soil quality on GHG emissions was beyond the scope of this LCA. The soil carbon in rice fields was also not included in the study, as rice has been planted in the region for a long time and, hence, no major changes were anticipated. The unit of analysis was set as 1 ha of organic rice cultivation to facilitate the comparison of environmental performances based on land use from the policy perspective.

2.2. Inventory Data Collection

Based on the organic rice farming production in 2017, the inventory data were collected from 184 farmers covering 317 ha of the total cultivation area in the North and 208 farmers covering about 592 ha of the total cultivation area in the Northeast. The samples were selected based on the sampling of organic farms registered with the Department of Rice, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Thailand. The required input and output data were identified as follows: (1) Inputs: Land, seed, fuel, water (rainfall), and organic fertilizers, and (2) Outputs: Paddy rice and emissions into the environment (including air and waterborne emissions). The inventory data (foreground data) were mainly collected from the direct interviewing of farmers. In organic farming practice, there were four types of organic fertilizers applied: Manure, compost, organic fertilizer (pellet), and organic fertilizer (liquid) with different levels of %N and %P2O5 (Table 2). Agricultural machines were used for field preparation and harvesting activities, and the quantity of diesel used by the different machines was taken from the literature [30].
The GHG emissions from the organic rice fields under consideration are carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The direct GHG emissions from the organic rice field were based on the literature where available, and were supplemented by the default values as defined in the Product Category Rules (PCR) of rice products developed by the Thailand Greenhouse Gas Management Organization (Public Organization) (TGO) [30], which are based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Tier-1 method [35]. The default values of direct GHG emissions were provided with the scaling factors associated with the major or second rice and the farm location in a particular region, including the water management (Table 3).
Five different field emissions from rice fields were considered: (1) Direct emissions from the field and methane emissions from organic matter decomposition; (2) emissions from fertilizer application and nitrous oxide emissions from rice fields, including direct and indirect nitrous oxide emissions from managed soils; (3) emissions from fuel combustion into the air, which are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs), and nitrous oxide; (4) phosphorus emission into water, leaching into the ground and run-off into surface water using a factor of 0.175 kg P ha−1 year−1; and (5) nitrogen emissions into water, leaching into the ground and run-off into surface water (Table 4).

2.3. Impact Assessment

The life cycle impact assessment method was the ReCiPe 2016 Midpoint v 1.02 [36]. The impact categories of interest were selected based on the associated potential impacts and the policy context: Global warming as kg CO2e, terrestrial acidification as kg SO2e, freshwater eutrophication as kg PO4e, terrestrial ecotoxicity as kg 1,4-DCB, and freshwater ecotoxicity as kg 1,4-DCB. The impacts were evaluated using SimaPro version 8.5.2 with ecoinvent 3 databases supplementing the field data and other localized data from government sources and international literature (Table 4).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Inventory Analysis Results

Table 5 shows the gate-to-gate inventory data of organic Hom Mali rice farming over the crop period of 120 days in the North and the Northeast. The average of the rice yield in the North (3267 kg/ha) was higher than that in the Northeast (2946 kg/ha). The lower yield in the Northeast is mainly due to the lower fertility of soil [39]. Thus, higher fertilizer use (mainly compost, cattle manure, and liquid organic fertilizer) was observed in the Northeast. The rice cultivation in the Northeast also required more seeds per unit area compared to the North. The amount of rainwater in the Northeast was higher.
The inventory of inputs per ha of the cultivation of organic rice and different field emissions is shown in Table 6. Similar direct emissions (CH4) were found in the North and the Northeast. The nitrous oxide emissions from rice fields in the Northeast were higher than in the North due to the higher amounts of fertilizer used in the Northeast. The emissions from fossil fuel combustion into air, which are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, NMVOCs, and nitrous oxide, were higher in the Northeast because seeding in the Northeast is mechanized, whereas it is done manually in the North. The water emissions, including total nitrogen and total phosphorus, in the Northeast were also higher than those in the North because of the fertilizer used (Table 6).

3.2. Life Cycle Impact Assessment

Table 7 shows the life cycle impact assessment results of organic rice paddy production in the North and the Northeast. It was found that the organic rice paddy production in the North had lower impact on global warming but higher impact on freshwater eutrophication, terrestrial ecotoxicity, and freshwater ecotoxicity than that in the Northeast. The lower global warming impact of organic rice paddy production in the North was associated with the higher yield, lower fertilizer application, and lower diesel use for agricultural machines. However, the application of green manure and organic fertilizer (pellet) could potentially release reactive N and P, leading to higher values of freshwater eutrophication for organic rice paddy production in the North.
Figure 3 shows the contribution analysis results of organic rice paddy production in the North (A) and the Northeast (B). The GHG emissions, especially from field emissions of methane, were the main contributor to the impact on global warming for both regions (93% for the North, and 91% for the North East). In the North, the use of fertilizers (especially organic fertilizer (pellet)) was identified as the key contributor to environmental impacts, which contributed to 86% in terrestrial acidification, 98% in freshwater eutrophication, 68% in terrestrial ecotoxicity, and 94% in freshwater ecotoxicity. In the Northeast, the use of fertilizers (mainly organic fertilizer (pellet) and compost) also highly contributed to terrestrial acidification (80%), freshwater eutrophication (88%), and freshwater ecotoxicity (81%). The use of diesel for agricultural machinery contributed substantially to terrestrial ecotoxicity (61%).

3.3. Scenarios of Rice Farming Expansion

Table 8 shows the life cycle impact assessment results of different scenarios of organic rice production as the consequences of rice farming expansion in the North and Northeast. Due mainly to the higher yield in the North with lower inputs (i.e., fertilizer), the expansion of organic rice farming totally in the North offered a lower impact on global warming. In contrast, the expansion of organic rice farming totally in the Northeast presented lower impacts on terrestrial acidification, freshwater eutrophication, terrestrial ecotoxicity, and freshwater ecotoxicity. To reduce global warming, Thailand should expand the rice farming area to the North. Nevertheless, Thailand should expand the area to the Northeast when considering soil and water pollution as a priority. For example, if Thailand expands the rice farming by 50% in the North and 50% in the Northeast, the global warming could be reduced from 11,400 to 11,100 kg CO2e (1.02%), but the impacts of terrestrial acidification, freshwater eutrophication, terrestrial ecotoxicity, and freshwater ecotoxicity could increase by 0.0433 kg SO2e (1.16%), 0.0257 kg PO4e (95%), 33.13 kg 1,4-DBe (17.2%), and 0.5075 kg 1,4-DBe (52.7%), respectively (Table 8). Therefore, the suitable scenario should be based on the consideration of impact categories.
This study could be used to identify the main hotspot, which could be helpful for farm management. For example, if there is a need to expand organic rice farming to the North, promotion of reduction in organic fertilizer (pellet) is required by using other choices, such as liquid organic fertilizer and cattle manure, which have lower impacts. In contrast, if expanding to Northeast, the alternative wet and dry rice cultivation method could be promoted to improve water management efficiency. Crop rotation, intercropping, and non-invasive cover cropping are also recommended to improve nutrient management and soil fertility. In addition, soil analysis, such as for pH and nutrients in soil, is suggested for both areas for higher nutrient use efficiency, resulting in the reduction of fertilizers, investment costs, and environmental impacts.
It was also highlighted that the main hotspot for GHG emissions was largely linked to the direct methane emissions from rice fields, where the impact reduction must be focused. It is worth mentioning that the emission factors were obtained from both direct measurements where the data were available, which turned out to be higher than the default values based on the IPCC-Tier 1 method. Therefore, there is a need to develop the baseline emission factors of different rice farming systems in Thailand to reflect more realistic data in terms of GHG emissions. The other factors affecting the methane emissions were linked to the application of different organic fertilizers and soil quality. The study on the linkage of soil quality and GHG emissions should also be combined with the results from LCA. In addition to that, several factors are linked to the rice farmers’ decision to adopt organic rice production. Yanakittkul and Aungvaravong [40] highlighted that attitudes towards farming behavior, group-norm influences on farming behavior, perceived behavioral control of farmers, comparative usefulness of behaviors, perceived of risk of farming, and support of government policy were the key factors. Especially for small-scale holders, governmental support for (1) irrigation efforts for organic rice farming (e.g., digging ponds, wells, pumping stations), (2) the prices of certified organic rice, (3) organic rice exports, (4) production equipment acquisition (e.g., seed, organic fertilizer, and organic rice mills), (5) low-interest loans for organic rice farmers, (6) assistance for farmers to certify organic rice standards, and (7) cultivation knowledge and techniques to increase the productivity of organic rice is needed.

4. Conclusions

Organic rice is expected to be a solution for sustainable agriculture, as it damages the ecosystem’s health less than conventional rice and promotes human health. From the ecosystem approach, growing organic rice with no use of chemicals, pesticides, and herbicides could potentially improve the soil fertility and biodiversity. However, chemical use is not the only environmental aspect to consider. Direct GHG emissions from rice fields and agricultural activities of organic rice farming practices could also have impacts on the environment. This work carried out an analysis of the national policy of expanding organic rice cultivation areas by assessing the cumulative environmental performance of organic rice at the regional and national levels. Different scenarios created by varying different ratios of possible areas for organic rice expansion, representing alternative policy options, were proposed and investigated. The system approach and quantitative life cycle environmental impacts resulting from the LCA study were primarily introduced to support the policy decisions in Thailand. The cumulative environmental impacts from the nine provinces in the North turned out to be lower than those from the 12 provinces in the Northeast, due mainly to their higher yields and lower use of fertilizers. The rice farmers in the North also have the advantage of irrigation systems, while the rice farmers in the Northeast are mainly in rain-fed areas. This information could be useful for supporting the policy decisions about the areas in which organic rice farming should be expanded to minimize the potential life cycle environmental impacts. It was worth mentioning that the LCA was performed under the assumptions made, and, therefore, the LCA results should be treated under those limitations to focus on the environmental aspects only. The policymakers must also consider other factors affecting the promotion of organic rice, especially from the socio-economic perspectives.

Author Contributions

R.M. is the principal researcher involved in the research development, the data collection, the validation of collected data, the data analysis, and conclusions of the results, including leading the writing of manuscript. S.S. and S.D. conducted the data collection and data analysis. S.H.G. helped with the data analysis, data validation, and reviewing the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Science and Technology Development Agency (Thailand) Special thanks are given to the rice farmers for their good cooperation.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. FAO. Implementation of the World Food Summit Plan of Action. 2020. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/w9990e/w9990e07.htm (accessed on 10 July 2020).
  2. Willer, H.; Schlatter, B.; Trávníˇcek, J.; Kemper, L.; Lernoud, J. The World of Organic Agriculture—Statistics and Emerging Trends; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  3. FIBL. Organic World. 2019. Available online: https://www.organic-world.net/country-info/asia.html (accessed on 19 January 2019).
  4. Ferreira, G.; Skorbiansky, S.R. Commodity Focus: Overview of the U.S. Organic Rice Market. In Rice Outlook No. (RCS-18G); Economic Research Service, USDA: Washington, DC, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  5. Azadi, H.; Schoonbeek, S.; Mahmoudi, H.; Derudder, B.; De Maeyer, P.; Witlox, F. Organic agriculture and sustainable food production system: Main potentials. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2011, 144, 92–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. FAO. Organic Agriculture. 2019. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/X0075e/X0075e.htm (accessed on 19 January 2019).
  7. Lotter, D.W.; Seidel, R.; Liebhardt, W. The performance of organic and conventional cropping systems in an extreme climate year. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 2003, 18, 146–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Marinari, S.; Mancinelli, R.; Campiglia, E.; Grego, S. Chemical and biological indicators of soil quality in organic and conventional farming systems in Central Italy. Ecol. Indic. 2006, 6, 701–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Pimentel, D.; Hepperly, P.; Hanson, J.; Douds, D.; Seidel, R. Environmental, energetic, and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. BioScience 2005, 55, 573–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Komatsuzaki, M.; Syuaib, M.F. Comparison of the Farming System and Carbon Sequestration between Conventional and Organic Rice Production in West Java, Indonesia. Sustainability 2010, 2, 833–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Minasny, B.; McBratney, A.B.; Hong, S.Y.; Sulaeman, Y.; Kim, M.S.; Zhang, Y.S.; Kim, Y.H.; Kim, M.S.; Han, K.H. Continuous rice cropping has been sequestering carbon in soils in Java and South Korea for the past 30 years, Global. Biogeochem. Cycles 2012, 26, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Fei, L.U.; Xiao-Ke, W.A.N.G.; Bing, H.A.N.; Zhi-Yun, O.; Hua, Z. Straw return to rice paddy: Soil carbon sequestration and increased methane emission. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2010, 21, 99–108. [Google Scholar]
  13. Zhang, W.; Xu, M.; Wang, X.; Huang, Q.; Nie, J.; Li, Z.; Li, S.; Hwang, S.W.; Lee, K.B. Effects of organic amendments on soil carbon sequestration in paddy fields of subtropical China. J. Soils. Sediments 2012, 12, 457–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ghimire, R.; Lamichhane, S.; Acharya, B.S.; Bista, P.; Sainju, U.M. Tillage, crop residue, and nutrient management effects on soil organic carbon in rice-based cropping systems: A review. J. Integr. Agric. 2017, 16, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Yodkhum, S.; Gheewala, S.H.; Sampattagul, S. Life cycle GHG evaluation of organic rice production in northern Thailand. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 196, 217–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Harada, H.; Kobayashi, H.; Shindo, H. Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by no-tilling rice cultivation in Hachirogata polder, northern Japan: Life-cycle inventory analysis. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2007, 53, 668–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Jimmy, A.N.; Khan, N.A.; Hossain, M.N.; Sujauddin, M. Evaluation of the environmental impacts of rice paddy production using life cycle assessment: Case study in Bangladesh. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 2017, 3, 1691–1705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hokazono, S.; Hayashi, K. Variability in environmental impacts during conversion from conventional to organic farming: A comparison among three rice production systems in Japan. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 28, 101–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hokazono, S.; Hayashi, K. Life cycle assessment of organic paddy rotation systems using land- and product-based indicators: A case study in Japan. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2015, 20, 1061–1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Nunes, F.A.; Seferin, M.; Maciel, V.G.; Flôres, S.H.; Ayub, M.A.Z. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from rice production systems in Brazil: A comparison between minimal tillage and organic farming. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 73, 799–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bacenetti, J.; Fusi, A.; Negri, M.; Bocchi, S.; Fiala, M. Organic production systems: Sustainability assessment of rice in Italy. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 225, 33–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lovarelli, D.; Bacenetti, J.; Fiala, M. Effect of local conditions and machinery characteristics on the environmental impacts of primary soil tillage. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 479–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Fusi, A.; Bacenetti, J.; González-García, S.; Vercesi, A.; Bocchi, S.; Fiala, M. Environmental profile of paddy rice cultivation with different straw management. Sci. Total. Environ. 2014, 494, 119–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mungkung, R.; Pengthamkeerati, P.; Chaichana, R.; Watcharothai, S.; Kitpakornsanti, K.; Tapananont, S. Life Cycle Assessment of Thai organic Hom Mali rice to evaluate the climate change, water use and biodiversity impacts. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 211, 687–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board, Office of the Prime Minister. The Twelfth National Economic and Social Development Plan (2017–2021). 2019. Available online: https://www.greengrowthknowledge.org/sites/default/files/downloads/policy-database/THAILAND%29%20The%20Twelfth%20National%20Economic%20and%20Social%20Development%20Plan%20%282017-2021%29.pdf (accessed on 19 January 2019).
  26. Office of Agricultural Economics. Agricultural Economic Information. 2020. Available online: http://www.oae.go.th/view/1/Information/EN-US (accessed on 7 July 2020).
  27. Department of Rice. Rice Production in Thailand. 2020. Available online: http://www.ricethailand.go.th/web/home/images/brps/text2559/15092559/15092559.pdf (accessed on 7 July 2020).
  28. International Organization for Standardization. Environmental Management: Life Cycle Assessment; Requirements and Guidelines; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  29. International Organization for Standardization. Environmental Management: Life Cycle Assessment; Principles and Framework; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  30. Thailand Greenhouse Gas Management Organization (Public Organization) (TGO). Product Category Rules: Rice Products. 2018. Available online: http://thaicarbonlabel.tgo.or.th/PCR/A4.pdf (accessed on 20 July 2018).
  31. Ohsodsapa, Y.; Vongmaneeroj, A.; Hongphayoon, C. Fertilizers for Sustainable Agriculture; KU Inc.: Bangkok, Thailand, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  32. Sitthipasin, R.; Seedachakul, T. Compost production from agricultural residue. Res. J. CMRU 2009, 2, 103–105. [Google Scholar]
  33. Suthipasil, R.; Sridechakul, T. Organic Fertilizer (Pellet) Production from Agriculture Waste; Chiang Mai Rajabhat University Intellectual Repository: Bangkok, Thailand, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  34. Region Environment Office 6 (REO6), Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of Thailand. Bio-Ferment Juice and Bio-Compost. 2010. Available online: http://reo06.mnre.go.th/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1220&Itemid=264 (accessed on 19 June 2016).
  35. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. 2006. Available online: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp./public/2006gl/index.Html (accessed on 28 April 2013).
  36. Goedkoop, M.J.; Heijungs, R.; Huijbregts, M.; De Schryver, A.; Struijs, J.; Van Zelm, R. A Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method Which Comprises Harmonised Category Indicators at the Midpoint and the Endpoint Level; First Edition Report I: Characterization. 2009. Available online: http://www.lcia-recipe.net (accessed on 6 January 2016).
  37. Thai Meteorological Department (TMD). Monthly Weather Summary [in Thai]. 2015. Available online: http://www.tmd.go.th/en/climate.php?FileID=4 (accessed on 20 March 2015).
  38. Etiope, G. EMEP/EEA Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook 2009; EEA: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  39. Land Development Department (LDD). Soil Classification in Thailand. 2019. Available online: http://oss101.ldd.go.th/thaisoils_museum/survey_1/AboutCLASS_01_57.HTM (accessed on 19 January 2019).
  40. Yanakittkul, P.; Aungvaravong, C. A model of farmers intentions towards organic farming: A case study on rice farming in Thailand. Heliyon 2020, 6, e03039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Figure 1. Potential areas for expanding organic rice cultivation.
Figure 1. Potential areas for expanding organic rice cultivation.
Sustainability 12 06003 g001
Figure 2. System boundary of the Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) study.
Figure 2. System boundary of the Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) study.
Sustainability 12 06003 g002
Figure 3. The contribution analysis results for organic rice paddy production in the North (A) and the Northeast (B).
Figure 3. The contribution analysis results for organic rice paddy production in the North (A) and the Northeast (B).
Sustainability 12 06003 g003
Table 1. Alternative scenarios of organic rice area expansion.
Table 1. Alternative scenarios of organic rice area expansion.
ScenariosCultivation Area Ratios
North (N)Northeast (NE)
N100100%-
N80 + NE2080%20%
N60 + NE4060%40%
N50 + NE5050%50%
N40 + NE6040%60%
N20 + NE8020%80%
NE100-100%
Note: Percentage is the ratio of cultivation area to the total cultivation area.
Table 2. Nutrient levels in different organic fertilizers.
Table 2. Nutrient levels in different organic fertilizers.
Organic Fertilizer%N%P2O5Sources of Data
Manure1.90.7[31]
Compost2.60.9[32]
Organic fertilizer (pellet)1.751.66[33]
Organic fertilizer (liquid)0.250.05[34]
Table 3. Direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from organic rice fields in the North and Northeast.
Table 3. Direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from organic rice fields in the North and Northeast.
Type of Rice FieldsCH4 Emission/Season (120 Days) (gCH4/m2)
Irrigated CropRainfed Crop
Major rice45.3830.41
Second rice14.57-
Table 4. Data sources of the inputs and outputs associated with organic rice farming.
Table 4. Data sources of the inputs and outputs associated with organic rice farming.
InventoryUnitSources of Data
Seedkg ha−1Farmer interviews
Organic fertilizerkg ha−1Farmer interviews
DieselL ha−1[30]
Rain waterm3 ha−1[37]
Emissions into air from direct field emissionkg[35]
Emissions into air from fertilizer, atmospheric decomposition of volatilized N, leaching and runoff N (N2O)kg ha−1[35]
Emissions to air from fossil fuel combustionkg ha−1[35,38]
Emissions into air from fertilizer application
NOxkg ha−1[38]
NH3kg ha−1[38]
NMVOCskg ha−1[38]
Emissions into water
N output, N runoffkg ha−1[35]
P leaching, P runoffkg ha−1[35]
Table 5. Inventory data of organic rice farming in the North and the Northeast.
Table 5. Inventory data of organic rice farming in the North and the Northeast.
FarmAreaYieldSeedRain WaterGreen ManureCattle ManureCompostOrganic Fertilizer (Pellet)Organic Fertilizer (Liquid)
(ha)(kg/ha)(kg/ha)(m3/ha)(kg/ha)(kg/ha)(kg/ha)(kg/ha)(kg/ha)
N119323812514,7007099624543087
N23835579411,420-26219442371
N35131359411,460-10741495186
N44133177510,6403133981038318
N51936469412,1306771771781046
N64432929412,25040647485667
N75528259413,2707238742853334
N83731201259870531597536346
N91332779411,3907248007623136
N-Avg 32679911,90321781730743059
NE116285512516,801-257647380-
NE22281312512,431-114613540208
NE37228289412,431-3114541414
NE445288112512,43169146311117
NE541303512518,810-1568209434519
NE6128288312513,890661001-219-
NE7211292912513,89033276168431
NE818291012512,060-698123337809
NE98316312514,937-31153831340
NE102731299413,7701101678571018
NE11631721259731-625103101656
NE12182755949770-505132616333
NE-Avg 294611713,41343711990134260
Note: N: North; NE: Northeast; Avg: Average. N1 (Chiang Rai), N2 (Phayao), N3 (Lampang), N4 (Chiang Mai), N5 (Sukhothai), N6 (Uttradit), N7 (Phichit), N8 (Uthai Thani), N9 (Phetchabun), NE1 (Sakon Nakhon), NE2 (Mukdahan), NE3 (Yasothon), NE4 (Amnat Charoen), NE5 (Ubon Ratchathani), NE6 (Sisaket), NE7 (Surin), NE8 (Buriram), NE9 (Maha Sarakham), NE10 (Kalasin), NE11 (Khon Kaen), NE12 (Nakhon Ratchasima).
Table 6. Inventory of inputs and outputs per ha of the cultivation of organic rice (the crop period was 120 days).
Table 6. Inventory of inputs and outputs per ha of the cultivation of organic rice (the crop period was 120 days).
InventoryUnitNorthNortheast
Crop yieldkg32672946
Seedkg99117
Rain waterm311,90313,413
Manure (green and cattle)kg1034754
Compostkg307990
Organic fertilizer (pellet and liquid)kg489394
DieselL2639
Air emissions
Methane (field emission)kg46.045.8
Nitrous oxidekg0.15670.200
Nitrous oxide (indirect, volatilization)kg0.01050.0133
Nitrous oxide (leaching/run off)kg0.1180.150
Air emissions (fossil fuel combustion)
Carbon dioxidekg70.2105
Methanekg0.00280.0043
Nitrogen dioxidekg0.00060.0009
Sulfur dioxidekg0.7751.16
Carbon monoxidekg0.00770.0116
non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs)kg0.03850.0577
Nitrous oxidekg0.2420.363
Water emissions
Total nitrogenkg6.658.48
Total phosphoruskg0.1880.178
Table 7. Life cycle impact assessment results of organic rice paddy production in the North and the Northeast.
Table 7. Life cycle impact assessment results of organic rice paddy production in the North and the Northeast.
Impact CategoriesUnitNorthNortheast
Per kgPer haPer kgPer ha
Global warmingkg CO2e3.4111,1003.8611,400
Terrestrial acidificationkg SO2e0.00113.800.00123.72
Freshwater eutrophicationkg PO4e2.40 × 10−50.07839.17 × 10−60.0270
Terrestrial ecotoxicitykg 1,4-DBe0.07962600.0658194
Freshwater ecotoxicitykg 1,4-DBe0.00061.980.00030.963
Table 8. Life cycle impact assessment results of different scenarios of organic rice production as the consequences of rice farming expansion in the North and Northeast.
Table 8. Life cycle impact assessment results of different scenarios of organic rice production as the consequences of rice farming expansion in the North and Northeast.
ScenarioGlobal WarmingTerrestrial AcidificationFreshwater EutrophicationTerrestrial EcotoxicityFreshwater Ecotoxicity
(kg CO2e)(kg SO2e)(kg PO4e)(kg 1,4-DBe)(kg 1,4-DBe)
N10011,1503.800.07842601.98
N80 + NE2011,1903.790.06812471.78
N60 + NE4011,2403.770.05782341.57
N50 + NE5011,2603.760.05272271.4705
N40 + NE6011,2903.750.04762201.3690
N20 + NE8011,3303.730.03732071.1660
NE10011,3803.720.02701940.9630

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mungkung, R.; Sitthikitpanya, S.; Dangsiri, S.; Gheewala, S.H. Life Cycle Assessment of Thai Hom Mali Rice to Support the Policy Decision on Organic Farming Area Expansion. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6003. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su12156003

AMA Style

Mungkung R, Sitthikitpanya S, Dangsiri S, Gheewala SH. Life Cycle Assessment of Thai Hom Mali Rice to Support the Policy Decision on Organic Farming Area Expansion. Sustainability. 2020; 12(15):6003. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su12156003

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mungkung, Rattanawan, Saruda Sitthikitpanya, Sarocha Dangsiri, and Shabbir H. Gheewala. 2020. "Life Cycle Assessment of Thai Hom Mali Rice to Support the Policy Decision on Organic Farming Area Expansion" Sustainability 12, no. 15: 6003. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su12156003

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop