The environmental, nutritional, and economic benefits of rice-aquaculture animal coculture in China

Environmental life cycle assessment of rice production in northern Italy: a case study from Vercelli

“…These results are also confirmed in ozone formation-human health, ozone formation-terrestrial ecosystems and fine particulate matter formation, where irrigation impacts on average about 80% (1.28 × 10 1 kg NO X eq out on 1.60 × 10 1 kg for OFHH, 1.29 × 10 1 kg NO X out on 1.62 × 10 1 for OFTE and 9.99 × 10 0 kg PM 2.5 eq out on 1.20 × 10 1 kg for FPMP), in line with the findings of Escobar et al (2022), where energy consumption for irrigation turns out to be the primary source of OFHH and OFTE, causing 75% of these impacts. But these results are also confirmed in the fossil resource scarcity (FRS), where irrigation impacts about 74% (1.78 × 10 3 kg oil eq out on 2.42 × 10 3 kg) and in agreement with Xu et al (2022), who show that energy consumption under conventional rice production in China had the largest impact (35-38%) on FRS. However, irrigation also has an impact on freshwater eutrophication (94%) and terrestrial acidification (77%).…”

“…The application of LCA has been used to evaluate which were the most suitable agro-systems to produce rice concerning the environmental aspect. Most studies on the application of LCA in rice production are mostly concentrated in Asian Countries: Thailand (Jirapornvaree et al 2021;Yodkhum et al 2018), China (Xu et al 2022;Shen et al 2021), Malaysia (Abdul Rahman et al 2019Harun et al 2021), Iran (Habibi et al 2019;Morandini et al 2020), Bangladesh (Shew et al 2019;Jimmy et al 2017), and Japan (Masuda 2019). Jirapornvaree et al (2021), for example, consider complete rice production (from cradle to gate), showing that the total GWP is about 38 kg CO 2 eq, while Yodkhum et al (2018) study different waste straw management systems.…”

“…Jirapornvaree et al (2021), for example, consider complete rice production (from cradle to gate), showing that the total GWP is about 38 kg CO 2 eq, while Yodkhum et al (2018) study different waste straw management systems. In China, Xu et al (2022) evaluate the environmental impacts of a monoculture rice crop with an integrated rice-shrimp crop, while Shen et al (2021) take Ratoon rice as the object of study so as to identify its hotspots. In both studies, production and field emissions as a result of nitrogen fertilizers are found to be the predominant sources of environmental impacts.…”

“…In general, mainly due to the availability of data and to dwell on the stages of the production process, there is a widespread tendency in LCA studies on rice production to take from cradle to farmgate as reference boundaries. However, what changes is that sometimes machinery production processes are also considered (Harun et al 2021;Zoli et al 2021) as well as transportation to the farm (Xu et al 2022). In our study, the production process of the machinery was not considered, both because of data unavailability and because of its reduced environmental contribution due to its long useful life and depreciation (also in agreement with Xu et al 2022 andYu et al 2022), as well as, again because of data unavailability, the other post-harvest production stages were also not considered.…”

“…However, what changes is that sometimes machinery production processes are also considered (Harun et al 2021;Zoli et al 2021) as well as transportation to the farm (Xu et al 2022). In our study, the production process of the machinery was not considered, both because of data unavailability and because of its reduced environmental contribution due to its long useful life and depreciation (also in agreement with Xu et al 2022 andYu et al 2022), as well as, again because of data unavailability, the other post-harvest production stages were also not considered. Therefore, for better alignment with other studies, and to focus on the impacts related to agricultural processes of rice production, the choice of boundaries fell on the from cradle to farmgate.…”