Eco-Agricultural Industrial Chain: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Yongwei Liu
,
Zhenzhen Yang
,
Changxiong Zhu
,
Baogang Zhang
,
Hongna Li

In the chain of the eco-agricultural industry, suitable technology should be selected according to the local characteristics from different stages of the source, the process, and the end. In detail, the scientific and proper use of pesticides and fertilizers should be promoted, as well as the application of the biological humic acid organic fertilizer in cultivation. In terms of breeding, it is important to control the source of ecological feed to achieve nutrient recycling. In the processing of agricultural products, all related wastes should be fully utilized for ecological feeds and biological organic fertilizers. In the field of rural living, suitable technology should be chosen according to the actual situation in order to achieve in situ sewage disposal and recycling utilization. Based on all these technological measures and helpful policymaking procedures, water resource protection and water quality improvement could be realized ultimately with the combination of these technologies in the chain of the eco-agricultural industry.

  • water pollution control
  • agricultural non-point pollution
  • eco-agricultural industrial chain

1. Agricultural NPS Pollution

Agricultural non-point source (NPS) pollution mainly refers to contaminants from non-specific locations in agricultural production and rural lives, which cause air, soil, and water environment pollution in diffuse forms. Contrary to point source pollution, NPS pollution is heterogeneously distributed and characterized by random and intermittent occurrence, complex mechanisms and processes, uncertain discharge channels and amounts, and variable spatial and temporal pollution loads, and thus it is extremely difficult to control accurately by technical measures. Agricultural NPS pollution has aroused widespread concern throughout the world.
Agricultural NPS pollution is mainly caused by chemical fertilizer, pesticides, livestock and poultry manure, and other forms of agricultural waste. The sources are mainly pesticides and fertilizers lost due to irrational use in agricultural production, agricultural film left in cultivated land, improper disposal of animal manure, and pollutants produced by unscientific and irregular application. Specifically, the use of pesticides in China is ranked first in the world, with 0.73 million t in 1990, and a great increase to 1.16 million tons in 2017 [1]. In addition, the pesticides used were generally highly toxic and stable, with low utilization rates less than 30%, and the unused part was lost in the soil, water, and air [2]. 

2. The Eco-Agricultural Industrial Chain Technology

According to the Report of the Party’s 20th National Congress, green development and a harmonious coexistence between man and nature is constantly pursued in China. The eco-agricultural industrial chain technology is put forward according to the principle of reduce, reuse, and resource. It would guide agricultural production, changing from the traditional mode of “resources–products–wastes” to the circulation pattern of “resources–products–renewable resources–products”. Thus, the final aim could be achieved to realize the material’s multilevel use and energy conversion in the system. A number of anaerobic digestion (AD)-centered integrated systems have been reported in China, with various combinations of digester, animal production, and greenhouse [3]. In Liberia, an integrated system incorporating husbandry of pigs, rabbits, and fish with a rice mill was reported [3]. A” food to waste to food” system in Norway integrates AD, vegetable cultivation, and mushroom growing [4]. In this system, biogas production provides energy for the process and CO2 for the greenhouse, and, for the first time, the efficient direct use of digestate as a substrate and fertilizer was developed. The agricultural industry chain is suitable for the area incorporated with planting, breeding, and agricultural processing. In British Columbia, an Eco-Industrial Park was reported, including dairy farming, greenhouse cultivation of vegetables, and mushroom growing. The results indicated that non-renewable energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, aquatic acidification, respiratory effects from organic emissions, and human toxicity were reduced by 50%–90%. Meanwhile, aquatic eutrophication and respiratory effects from inorganic emissions also decreased by more than 10% [3]. Ecological ditches in the watersheds of modern agricultural parks could be used to intercept nitrogen and phosphorus from farmland runoff effectively [5]. It has been reported that ecological ditches can remove 24.9~72% of TN and 36.1~60% of TP [6]. A concatenation of the agricultural industry was chained to reduce costs and increase profits, and, more importantly, to control the agricultural NPS pollution and protect the water quality at the same time. In the United States, a series of policy systems and technical services have been developed to prevent and control the pollution of agricultural NPS. For example, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act in 2008 required growers to comply with environmental conservation and wetland protection regulations, and the subsides and revenue insurance (including fallow fields) for crops are still provided in previous legislation. In addition, a series of supporting legal provisions, laws, and regulations have been introduced to guide famers to reduce the use of pesticides and other chemicals for the reduction of NPS at the same time. The enaction of the Soil and Water Quality Protection Act further sets out principal requirements for soil and water quality and protection. Moreover, the Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency jointly launched and implemented an agricultural NPS pollution remediation program in the United States. In order to effectively control NPS pollution from various sources, the Clean Water Law has formulated different pollution emission standards based on the” Best Pollution Control Technology”, “Best Available Technology”, and “Best Practical Technology”. It also stipulates that the government will share a portion of the costs for those who voluntarily take measures to prevent and control agricultural NPS. Moreover, the government will grant tax deductions for those who voluntarily take other measures [7]. For the situation in Japan, they have proposed the concept of building a “Country of the Environment” that coexists with the Earth, and it has begun to emphasize the legalization of recycling and symbiosis in its environmental legislation and polices. In the case of rural wastewater treatment, for example, there are clear provisions in the relevant laws and regulations. In detail, for specific environmental preservation areas, sewerage treatment is jointly managed by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport; the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries; and the Ministry of the Environment. For agricultural promotion areas, agricultural village drainage facilities are used, and for other scattered rural areas, the technology of purification tanks is used [8]. Generally speaking, agricultural NPS management around the world has also undergone evolution from a local scale to an entire scale, from scattered points to an integrated system, and, finally, gradually toward collective joint development and utilization of the watershed as a unit.

3. The Eco-Agricultural Industrial Chain of “Crop Farming, Breeding, Agricultural Product Processing, and Rural Living”

3.1. Ecological Breeding Technologies

3.1.1. Green Ecological Feed

With the development of intensive breeding and aquaculture, extensive hormone and antibiotic feed additives are used to lower the risk of diseases and increase production indexes, causing serious environment pollution [9]. Ecological feeds could maintain the microbial flora balance [10], enhance immunity [11], and promote digestion and nutrition absorption [12]. Moreover, they also could significantly accelerate animal growth, strengthen disease resistance, reduce the amount of feed, and improve the lean meat rate.

3.1.2. Ecological Breeding Technology with Low Pollution and Zero Emissions

Ecological breeding is a sustainable development model of animal husbandry with low consumption, low emission, and high efficiency. The fermentation bed system (FBS) is an animal housing system of environmental protection, a safe and effective ecological pig raising mode combined with the modern microbial fermentation technology [13]. These systems mainly focus on reducing animal waste pollution, decreasing incidence, protecting animal welfare, improving animal product quality, and increasing breeding benefits, and can be used for recycling and sustainable production [14], as they are cheaper to establish compared to conventional confinement systems. This technology is based on the repeated spreading of sawdust, rice husk, corn stalks, or other agricultural material in indoor booths. A solid fermentation agent is added to build heap fermentation and then it is spread into the pig barn to form a bedding cushion. Animal feces and urine discharged directly in the bedding can be decomposed rapidly by padding materials, and the whole breeding process is zero-emission, with no smell and no pollution. It has been widely used in animal husbandry. Compared with traditional static composting, the continuous nitrogen addition of FBS could ensure that the bedding litters maintain appropriate C/N ratios for efficient microbial fermentation [15]. FBS is considered as an effective approach to deal with livestock manure, reducing ammonia nitrogen emissions and nitrogen losses in fermentation [15][16].

3.1.3. The Processing Technology of Biological Humic Acid Fertilizer with Padding Materials

Abandoned padding materials carry potential value as resources and are rich in humic acid, beneficial microbes, and nutrients (N + P2O5 + K2O ≥ 7%). These padding materials could be re-utilized as substrates for mushroom cultivation or organic fertilizers, with the principle of “adjusting measures to local conditions, and selecting methods to given quantity”. Dong et al. proved that after 55 days of composting of the padding materials, organic matter and total nutrient reached 6.19% and 56.11%, respectively, meeting the relevant regulations in the national agricultural industry standards for organic fertilizer. The abandoned padding materials of deep litter were thus evaluated as a safe source to produce integrated organic fertilizer [17].

3.2. Ecological Crop Farming Technologies

3.2.1. Agronomic Measures

Cover crops improve above- and below-ground biodiversity. The cover of a mixture of legumes or grasses increased the diversity of beneficial soil microbes while minimizing the proliferation of soil-borne pathogens [18]. Moreover, cover crops could control weeds, increase pest resistance, and reduce fertilizer costs [19]. Straw mulching could significantly reduce the surface runoff (73.9~86.2%), and showed more beneficial characteristics compared with plastic film mulching in minimizing the loss of nutrients and increasing the yield effect [20][21]. Compared with plastic film mulching, straw mulching showed greater potential for soil water storage before sowing under summer fallow mulching and year-round mulching. The nitrogen loss and greenhouse gas emissions of the year-round mulching were lower than those of summer fallow mulching. Therefore, straw mulching under year-round mulching should be recommended to local farmers in dryland areas of China and other similar areas around the world [20]. The rotation mode provides microbial richness and an increase in microbial diversity [22]. Well-planned crop rotation can reduce the infestation of fungi, bacteria, viruses, and insect pests, and control weed density [23]. Reduced tillage maintains soil health via the preservation of organic matter in the soil and minimal soil disturbance, which improves water regulation and reduces nutrient leaching into the groundwater, and leads to less soil erosion and improved carbon sequestration [19]. Intercropping could control pests, reduce N leaching, and increase soil N availability [19]. Intercropping includes mixed intercropping, relay intercropping, and strip intercropping, which incorporates a diversified plant community and thus increases above-ground biodiversity [19]. Compared with monocultures, intercropping reduced pest populations and N leaching, and increased soil N availability. Moreover, intercropping facilitates weed control through interspecific competition for light, nutrients, and water [24]. In addition, agroforestry [19], conservation agriculture [25], diversified crop–livestock systems [26], and organic agriculture [27] are good methods to control the farmland pollution from the source.

3.2.2. Irrigation Modes

While many water-saving rice production techniques have been adopted in China, the environmental effects of these techniques require further investigation. Irrigated rice systems are the main rice ecosystems around the world. Several irrigation modes, including conventional flooding irrigation (CF), drip irrigation, semi-dry cultivation, shallow-wet irrigation (SW), controlled irrigation (CI), intermittent irrigation (II), no-flooded mulching cultivation, alternate wetting and drying irrigation (AWD), and rainfall-adapted irrigation (RAI), have been used to improve crop water productivity [28][29]. Among various irrigation modes, AWD has the most advantages in increasing famer incomes, reducing CH4 emissions, and alleviating pest attacks and disease damage [28][29]. RAI is a further development of AWD and has been widely practiced in multi-rain regions, which can not only maintain rice yields, but also reduce environmental pollution and the irrigation cost in comparison with CF [28][30].

3.2.3. Fertilization System

Rationally controlling fertilizer application and strengthening fertilizer management can effectively reduce agricultural environmental pollution [31]. It is encouraged to apply the optimum formula for fertilization via soil testing to achieve a nutrient balance. The fertilization structure and application mode should be adjusted according to the local soil fertility for scientific farmland nutrient management. The use of slow-release fertilizer can reduce environmental pollution and improve nutrient utilization. At present, the most common slow-release fertilizers on the market mainly include coated slow-release fertilizers and chemical synthetic slow-release fertilizers [32]. Compared with coated controlled-release fertilizers, chemical synthetic slow-release fertilizers are more widely used because there is no film pollution [33].

3.3. Rural Sewage Treatment and Recycling Technology

ural domestic sewage has become a major cause of water quality deterioration [34]. At present, the main treatment technologies for rural domestic sewage include biological approaches (such as anaerobic–anoxic–oxic, membrane bioreactors, anaerobic digestion, and septic tanks) [35], ecological approaches (such as constructed wetland, ponds, and soil infiltration systems) [36], and combined treatment approaches [37][38]. Zhong et al. used bibliometric software to analyze 512 relevant papers between 1991 and 2022, and concluded that constructed wetlands are the most widely used option in treating rural domestic sewage due to the ease of combination with other treatment technologies [37].

3.4. Planning and Construction Technology of Eco-Agricultural Industrial Park

Based on the above key technologies, the technology system of an eco-agricultural industrial park (Figure 1) was put forward. Concretely, an eco-agricultural industrial park of 333~667 hm2 was constructed with the core of the deep-litter housing system based on the existing farming and breeding industries. In the upstream chains, the micro-ecological industry was vigorously developed to produce green ecological feed, and thus the feed utilization rate was improved and the hazards of organic matter and heavy metals were slowed down. At the same time, multiple sources of agricultural waste (such as straw, sawdust), which were difficult to discard, could be used to produce padding materials of deep litter, and subsequent research on material replacement and optimal allocation schemes could be carried out. In the process of breeding, oral probiotics were added to improve animals’ intestinal micro-ecological environment and create an odorless breeding space. In the downstream industry chain, a marketing network was established, including the slaughterhouse, fur processing factory, and processing industry, with the purpose of improving the additional value of products; meanwhile, the abandoned padding material could be reutilized to produce high-quality biological organic fertilizer, which could be used in the planting base of pollution-free green fruits, vegetables, tea, field crops, and edible fungi, etc. In addition, the circulation industry chain system could be used as a demonstration model to promote the development of agricultural tourism.
/media/item_content/202303/64118848d0f31ijerph-20-03281-g001.png
Figure 1. Eco-agricultural park system.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/ijerph20043281

References

  1. Zou, L.; Liu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Hu, X. Assessment and analysis of agricultural non-point source pollution loads in China: 1978-2017. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 263, 110400.
  2. Cai, Q.Y.; Mo, C.H.; Wu, Q.T.; Katsoyiannis, A.; Zeng, Q.Y. The status of soil contamination by semivolatile organic chemicals (SVOCs) in China: A review. Sci. Total. Environ. 2008, 389, 209–224.
  3. Zhang, S.; Wang, H.; Bi, X.; Clift, R. Synthesis and assessment of a biogas-centred agricultural eco-industrial park in British Columbia. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 321, 128767.
  4. Stoknes, K.; Scholwin, F.; Krzesinski, W.; Wojciechowska, E.; Jasinska, A. Efficiency of a novel “Food to waste to food” system including anaerobic digestion of food waste and cultivation of vegetables on digestate in a bubble-insulated greenhouse. Waste Manag. 2016, 56, 466–476.
  5. Li, X.-N.; Zhang, W.-W.; Wu, J.-Y.; Li, H.-J.; Zhao, T.-K.; Zhao, C.-Q.; Shi, R.-S.; Li, Z.-S.; Wang, C.; Li, C. Loss of nitrogen and phosphorus from farmland runoff and the interception effect of an ecological drainage ditch in the North China Plain—A field study in a modern agricultural park. Ecol. Eng. 2021, 169, 106310.
  6. Jin, J.; Tian, X.; Liu, G.; Huang, J.; Zhu, H.; Qiu, S.; Fu, X.; Wu, Y.; Bing, H. Novel ecological ditch system for nutrient removal from farmland drainage in plain area: Performance and mechanism. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 318, 115638.
  7. Agency, U.E.P. Non-Point Source Pollution from Agriculture. 2003. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/regions/water/nPs/nPsag.html (accessed on 6 June 2005).
  8. Wang, J. New Trends in Environmental Legislation and Policy in Japan in the 21st Century—Aiming for a “Country of the Environment” that Coexists with the Earth. Environ. Prot. 2006, 24, 68–71. (In Chinese)
  9. Kim, B.; Ji, K.; Kim, C.; Kang, H.; Lee, S.; Kwon, B.; Kho, Y.; Park, K.; Kim, K.; Choi, K. Pharmaceutical residues in streams near concentrated animal feeding operations of Korea—Occurrences and associated ecological risks. Sci. Total. Environ. 2019, 655, 408–413.
  10. Wang, L.F.; Bergstrom, J.R.; Hahn, J.D.; Young, M.G.; Zijlstra, R.T. Acid-binding capacity of feed in swine nutrition. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2023, 295, 115519.
  11. Vijayaram, S.; Sun, Y.Z.; Zuorro, A.; Ghafarifarsani, H.; Van Doan, H.; Hoseinifar, S.H. Bioactive immunostimulants as health-promoting feed additives in aquaculture: A review. Fish Shellfish. Immunol. 2022, 130, 294–308.
  12. Rønn, M.; Thorsteinsson, M.; Johannsen, J.C.; Nørgaard, J.V.; Julegaard, I.K.; Nielsen, M.O. Evaluation of nutritional quality for weaner piglets of a new methanotrophic microbial cell-derived protein feed. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2022, 294, 115498.
  13. Patel, N.; Jha, D.K.; Shrivastava, A.K.; Baskar, K. Performance of Gramapriya poultry birds under different systems of management. Int. J. Agric. Technol. 2013, 9, 1769–1774.
  14. Han, T.; Wang, T.; Wang, Z.; Xiao, T.; Wang, M.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, J.; Liu, D. Evaluation of gaseous and solid waste in fermentation bedding system and its impact on animal performance: A study of breeder ducks in winter. Sci. Total. Environ. 2022, 836, 155672.
  15. Chen, Q.; Wang, J.; Zhang, H.; Shi, H.; Liu, G.; Che, J.; Liu, B. Microbial community and function in nitrogen transformation of ectopic fermentation bed system for pig manure composting. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 319, 124155.
  16. Yang, X.; Song, Z.; Zhou, S.; Guo, H.; Geng, B.; Peng, X.; Zhao, G.; Xie, Y. Insights into functional microbial succession during nitrogen transformation in an ectopic fermentation system. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 284, 266–275.
  17. Dong, L.; Changxiong, Z.; Li, Z.; Jingfeng, M.; Xianghua, Y.; Bing, G. Reseach and Application of Ectopic Microbial Fermentation system in processing piggery waste. J. Agric. Resour. Environ. 2016, 33, 540–546.
  18. Vukicevich, E.; Lowery, T.; Bowen, P.; Úrbez-Torres, J.R.; Hart, M. Cover crops to increase soil microbial diversity and mitigate decline in perennial agriculture. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2016, 36, 1–14.
  19. Rosa-Schleich, J.; Loos, J.; Mußhoff, O.; Tscharntke, T. Ecological-economic trade-offs of Diversified Farming Systems—A review. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 160, 251–263.
  20. Zhao, C.; Huang, H.; Qian, Z.-H.; Jiang, H.-X.; Liu, G.-M.; Xu, K.; Hu, Y.-J.; Dai, Q.-G.; Huo, Z.-Y. Effect of side deep placement of nitrogen on yield and nitrogen use efficiency of single season late japonica rice. J. Integr. Agric. 2021, 20, 1487–1502.
  21. Li, Z.; Zhang, Q.; Li, Z.; Qiao, Y.; Du, K.; Tian, C.; Zhu, N.; Leng, P.; Yue, Z.; Cheng, H.; et al. Effects of straw mulching and nitrogen application rates on crop yields, fertilizer use efficiency, and greenhouse gas emissions of summer maize. Sci. Total. Environ. 2022, 847, 157681.
  22. Venter, Z.S.; Jacobs, K.; Hawkins, H.-J. The impact of crop rotation on soil microbial diversity: A meta-analysis. Pedobiologia 2016, 59, 215–223.
  23. Nichols, V.; Verhulst, N.; Cox, R.; Govaerts, B. Weed dynamics and conservation agriculture principles: A review. Field Crops Res. 2015, 183, 56–68.
  24. Verret, V.; Gardarin, A.; Pelzer, E.; Médiène, S.; Makowski, D.; Valantin-Morison, M. Can legume companion plants control weeds without decreasing crop yield? A meta-analysis. Field Crops Res. 2017, 204, 158–168.
  25. Mafongoya, P.; Rusinamhodzi, L.; Siziba, S.; Thierfelder, C.; Mvumi, B.M.; Nhau, B.; Hove, L.; Chivenge, P. Maize productivity and profitability in Conservation Agriculture systems across agro-ecological regions in Zimbabwe: A review of knowledge and practice. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 220, 211–225.
  26. Nie, Z.; McLean, T.; Clough, A.; Tocker, J.; Christy, B.; Harris, R.; Riffkin, P.; Clark, S.; McCaskill, M. Benefits, challenges and opportunities of integrated crop-livestock systems and their potential application in the high rainfall zone of southern Australia: A review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 235, 17–31.
  27. Reganold, J.P.; Wachter, J.M. Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. Nat. Plants 2016, 2, 15221.
  28. Yan, J.; Wu, Q.; Qi, D.; Zhu, J. Rice yield, water productivity, and nitrogen use efficiency responses to nitrogen management strategies under supplementary irrigation for rain-fed rice cultivation. Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 263, 107486.
  29. Zhuang, Y.; Zhang, L.; Li, S.; Liu, H.; Zhai, L.; Zhou, F.; Ye, Y.; Ruan, S.; Wen, W. Effects and potential of water-saving irrigation for rice production in China. Agric. Water Manag. 2019, 217, 374–382.
  30. Qi, D.; Hu, T.; Liu, T. Biomass accumulation and distribution, yield formation and water use efficiency responses of maize (Zea mays L.) to nitrogen supply methods under partial root-zone irrigation. Agric. Water Manag. 2020, 230, 105981.
  31. Li, F.; Xiang, M.; Liu, S.; Lei, K.; Shi, Z.; Yang, J.; Li, Y. Life cycle assessment and fertilization scheme optimization of paddy field crops in South China. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 325, 129339.
  32. Naz, M.Y.; Sulaiman, S.A. Slow release coating remedy for nitrogen loss from conventional urea: A review. J. Control. Release 2016, 225, 109–120.
  33. Xie, J.; Yang, Y.; Gao, B.; Wan, Y.; Li, Y.C.; Cheng, D.; Xiao, T.; Li, K.; Fu, Y.; Xu, J. Magnetic-Sensitive Nanoparticle Self-Assembled Superhydrophobic Biopolymer-Coated Slow-Release Fertilizer: Fabrication, Enhanced Performance and Mechanism. ACS Nano 2019, 13, 3320–3333.
  34. Zheng, T.; Xiong, R.; Li, W.; Wu, W.; Ma, Y.; Li, P.; Guo, X. An enhanced rural anoxic/oxic biological contact oxidation process with air-lift reflux technique to strengthen total nitrogen removal and reduce sludge generation. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 348, 131371.
  35. Yang, F.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Li, J.; Jin, F.; Zhou, B. Performance analysis and evaluation of the 146 rural decentralized wastewater treatment facilities surrounding the Erhai Lake. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 315, 128159.
  36. Yang, P.; Hou, R.; Li, D.; Yuan, R.; Wang, F.; Chen, Z.; Zhou, B.; Chen, H. Nitrogen removal from rural domestic wastewater by subsurface wastewater infiltration system: A review. Process. Saf. Environ. Prot. 2022, 159, 309–322.
  37. Zhong, L.; Ding, J.; Wu, T.; Zhao, Y.-l.; Pang, J.W.; Jiang, J.-P.; Jiang, J.-Q.; Li, Y.; Ren, N.-Q.; Yang, S.-S. Bibliometric overview of research progress, challenges, and prospects of rural domestic sewage: Treatment techniques, resource recovery, and ecological risk. J. Water Process. Eng. 2023, 51, 103389.
  38. Wang, S.; Hu, C.; Cheng, F.; Lu, X. Performance of a combined low-consumption biotreatment system with cost-effective ecological treatment technology for rural domestic sewage treatment. J. Water Process. Eng. 2023, 51, 103380.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Video Production Service
Feedback