https://doi.org/10.4081/jae.2025.1663

Environmental impact assessment of maize cultivation system considering different irrigation methods

Early Access
    Published:12 May 2025
    Environmental sustainability, life cyle assessment, irrigation, maize ear
    Abstract Views: 0
    PDF: 0
    Supplementary: 0
    Publisher's note
    All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

    Authors

    Filippo Vigo
    filippo.vigo@unimi.it
    https://orcid.org/0009-0003-5454-2729
    Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of Milan, Italy.
    Michele Zoli
    https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9258-1775
    Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of Milan, Italy.
    Daniela Lovarelli
    https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0187-8515
    Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of Milan, Italy.
    Jacopo Bacenetti
    https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9188-4475
    Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of Milan, Italy.

    Maize is a key crop for the livestock sector being able to produce different fodder. Among these, ear maize silage is widely used as an energy source in the diets of pigs, dairy cows and fattening cattle. Given the variability of rainfall, irrigation plays a relevant role to achieve both satisfactory productivity and product quality. In this context, it is essential to explore the sustainability of different irrigation methods for maize cultivation.In this study, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) was applied to evaluate the environmental impact of maize farms using different irrigation systems: pivot, drip, flood, and hose irrigation. One ton of ear maize silage at 48% moisture content was selected as functional unit and a “from cradle to farm gate” was considered as system boundary . Primary inventory data were collected mainly by surveys and interviews with the farmers. The Environmental Footprint 3.1 method was used to assess 14 impact categories. The results do not allow to clearly identify the best irrigation method across all environmental impact categories, therefore highlighting the need of trade-offs. While yield is the primary driver of environmental impacts, the influence of irrigation remains significant. Climate change was found to range from 116.66 kg CO2 eq./t of ear maize for flood irrigation to 207.42 kg CO2 eq./t for hose irrigation. Water use varied from 2178.29 m³ depriv./t for pivot irrigation to 10380.65 m³ depriv./t for flood irrigation. Regarding the contribution analysis, changing the considered environmental impact the main contribution varies, for example nitrous oxide is the main responsible to climate change, ammonia to particulate matter and acidification while nitrate and ammonia emissions to marine eutrophication. In conclusion, this study provides a basis for evaluating different irrigation methods, emphasising that irrigation plays a significant role in the overall environmental impact of maize cultivation, regardless of the end product.

    Dimensions

    Altmetric

    PlumX Metrics

    Downloads

    Download data is not yet available.

    Citations

    Crossref
    Scopus
    Google Scholar
    Europe PMC
    AA. VV., 2016. Il mais. Collana Coltura & Cultura. Ed. Script, Bologna. ISBN: 9788890279133
    Agricoltura.it, 2023 – Mais coltura strategica ma produzioni 2022 in calo (-23% in Italia). Da ricerca futuro nel segno della redditività e sostenibilità di Lorenzo Benocci.
    Andreasi Bassi, S., Biganzoli, F., Ferrara, N., Amadei, A., Valente, A., Sala, S., Ardente, F. (2023). Updated characterisation and normalisation factors for the Environmental Footprint 3.1 method. JRC130796, Joint Research Center, Editor.
    Bacenetti, J., Lovarelli, D., Fiala, M. (2016). Mechanisation of organic fertiliser spreading, choice of fertiliser and crop residue management as solutions for maize environmental impact mitigation. Eur. J. Agron. 79:107-118.
    Bacenetti, J., Negri, M., Fiala, M., González-García, S. (2013). Anaerobic digestion of different feedstocks: impact on energetic and environmental balances of biogas process. Sci. Total Environ. 463:541-551.
    Bernas, J., Moudrý Jr, J., Kopecký, M., Konvalina, P., Štěrba, Z. (2019). Szarvasi-1 and its potential to become a substitute for maize which is grown for the purposes of biogas plants in the Czech Republic. Agronomy 9:98.
    Bessou, C., Basset-Mens, C., Tran, T., Benoist, A. (2013). LCA applied to perennial cropping systems: a review focused on the farm stage. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18:340-361.
    Blandino M., Reyneri A. (2018). Irrigazione innovativa per resa e sanità del mais. Informatore Agrario 9:48-52
    Brentrup, F., Küsters, J., Lammel, J., Kuhlmann, H. (2000). Methods to estimate on-field nitrogen emissions from crop production as an input to LCA studies in the agricultural sector. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 5:349-357.
    Bocchiola, D., Nana, E., Soncini, A. (2013). Impact of climate change scenarios on crop yield and water footprint of maize in the Po valley of Italy. Agr. Water Manage. 116:50-61.
    Canaj, K., Mehmeti, A. (2022). Analyzing the water-energy-environment nexus of irrigated wheat and maize production in Albania. Energy Nexus 7:100100.
    Dressler, D., Loewen, A., Nelles, M. (2012). Life cycle assessment of the supply and use of bioenergy: impact of regional factors on biogas production. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 17:1104-1115.
    Erenstein, O., Chamberlin, J., Sonder, K. (2021). Estimating the global number and distribution of maize and wheat farms. Glob. Food Secur. 30:100558.
    Erenstein, O., Jaleta, M., Sonder, K., Mottaleb, K., Prasanna, B. M. (2022). Global maize production, consumption and trade: trends and R&D implications. Food Secur. 14:1295-1319.
    European Commission (2012). Joint Research Centre. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
    Fantin, V., Righi, S., Rondini, I., & Masoni, P. (2017). Environmental assessment of wheat and maize production in an Italian farmers' cooperative. J. Clean. Prod. 140:631-643.
    Giorgi, F., Lionello, P. (2008). Climate change projections for the Mediterranean region. Glob. Planet. Change 63:90-104.
    Grant, T., Beer, T. (2008). Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from irrigated maize and their significance in the value chain. Austr. J. Exp. Agr. 48:375-381.
    Hasler, K., Bröring, S., Omta, .SW.F., Olfs, H.W. (2015). Life cycle assessment (LCA) of different fertilizer product types. Eur. J. Agron. 69:41–51
    Huijbregts, M.A., Steinmann, Z.J., Elshout, P.M., Stam, G., Verones, F., Vieira, M, et al. (2017). ReCiPe2016: a harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 22:138-147.
    Irfan, M., Arshad, M., Shakoor, A., Anjum, L. (2014). Impact of irrigation management practices and water quality on maize production and water use efficiency. J. Anim. Plant Sci. 24:1518-1524.
    ISMEA.it. Istituto di Servizi per il Mercato Agricolo Alimentare. Analisi di mercato e report sulla produzione di mais in Italia. Available from: https://www.ismea.it/istituto-di-servizi-per-il-mercato-agricolo-alimentare
    ISO 14040. IPCC, 2006. Linee guida IPCC per gli inventari nazionali dei gas a effetto serra. Preparato dal National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme. IGES, Giappone.
    ISO 14044, 2006. Gestione ambientale: ciclo di vita. Valutazione: requisiti e linee guida. Organizzazione internazionale per la standardizzazione.
    Israelson, O.V., Hansen, V.E. (1962). Irrigation principles and practices. New York, J. Wiley & Sons.
    Kim, S., Dale, B.E. (2008). Life cycle assessment of fuel ethanol derived from corn grain via dry milling. Bioresour. Technol. 99:5250-5260.
    Lavorano, H. (2023).– Mais 2023: quantità e qualità ok, ma i prezzi scendono. Available from: https://www.informatoreagrario.it/filiere-produttive/seminativi/mais-2023-quantita-e-qualita-ok-ma-i-prezzi-scendono/
    Li, Y.Z., Cheng, Y.L., Xu, L.L., Li, W.S., Yan, X., Li, X.F., et al. (2022). A comparative study of silage quality characteristics of whole-plant, whole-ear and whole-straw silage of different maize varieties (lines). Acta Prataculturae Sinica 31:144.
    Lovarelli, D., Bacenetti, J. (2017). Bridging the gap between reliable data collection and the environmental impact for mechanised field operations. Biosyst. Engin. 160:109-123.
    Moreno Ruiz, E., Valsasina, L., FitzGerald, D., Brunner, F., Vadenbo, C., Bauer, C., et al. (2016). Documentation of changes implemented in ecoinvent database v3. 3. Zurich, Ecoinvent.
    Noya, I., González-García, S., Bacenetti, J., Arroja, L., Moreira, M.T. (2015). Comparative life cycle assessment of three representative feed cereals production in the Po Valley (Italy). J. Clean. Prod. 99:250-265.
    Overview and Methodology: Data Quality Guideline for the Ecoinvent Database Version 3.
    EPD International (2020:07). PCR – Product Category Rules. 2020:07 Arable and Vegetables Crops, 2023. EPD International. Available from: www.environdec.com
    Pereira, L. S., Cordery, I., Iacovides, I. (2009). Coping with water scarcity: Addressing the challenges. Cham, Springer.
    Ranum, P., Peña-Rosas, J.P. and Garcia-Casal, M.N. (2014). Global maize production, utilization, and consumption. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1312:105-112.
    Rosenbaum, R.K., Anton, A., Bengoa, X., Bjørn, A., Brain, R., Bulle, C., et al. (2015). The Glasgow consensus on the delineation between pesticide emission inventory and impact assessment for LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20:765-776.
    Sheffield, J., Wood, E.F. (2008). Projected changes in drought occurrence under future global warming from multi-model, multi-scenario, IPCC AR4 simulations. Clima. Dynam. 31:79-105.
    Singh, N., Kaur, A., Shevkani, K. (2014). Maize: grain structure, composition, milling, and starch characteristics. In: Chaudhary, D., Kumar, S., Langyan, S. (eds.). Maize: nutrition dynamics and novel uses. New Delhi, Springer. p. 65-76.
    Smith, P., Martino, D., Cai, Z., Gwary, D., Janzen, H., Kumar, P., McCarl, B., et al. (2007). Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 363:789–813
    Vašíčková, J., Hvězdová, M., Kosubová, P., Hofman, J. (2019) Ecological risk assessment of pesticide residues in arable soils of the Czech Republic. Chemosphere 216:479–487.
    Weidema, B.P., Bauer, C., Hischier, R., Mutel, C., Nemecek, T., Reinhard, J., et al. (2013). Overview and methodology: Data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3. St. Gallen, The ecoinvent Centre.
    Žalud, Z., Hlavinka, P., Prokeš, K., Semerádová, D., Jan, B., Trnka, M. (2017). Impacts of water availability and drought on maize yield–A comparison of 16 indicators. Agr. Water Manage. 188:126-135.
    Zucaro, A., Forte, A., Fagnano, M., Fierro, A. (2014). Life cycle assessment of maize cropping under different fertilization alternatives. Int. J. Perform. Engin. 10:427.

    How to Cite

    Vigo, F. (2025) “Environmental impact assessment of maize cultivation system considering different irrigation methods”, Journal of Agricultural Engineering. doi: 10.4081/jae.2025.1663.
    Copyright (c) 2025 the Author(s) Creative Commons License

    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

    PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.