Modifying the yield factor based on more efficient use of fertilizer — The environmental impacts of intensive and extensive agricultural practices

The aim of this article is to draw attention to calculations on the environmental effects of agriculture and to the definition of marginal agricultural yield. When calculating the environmental impacts of agricultural activities, the real environmental load generated by agriculture is not revealed properly through ecological footprint indicators, as the type of agricultural farming (thus the nature of the pollution it creates) is not incorporated in the calculation. It is commonly known that extensive farming uses relatively small amounts of labor and capital. It produces a lower yield per unit of land and thus requires more land than intensive farming practices to produce similar yields, so it has a larger crop and grazing footprint. However, intensive farms, to achieve higher yields, apply fertilizers, insecticides, herbicides, etc., and cultivation and harvesting are often mechanized. In this study, the focus is on highlighting the differences in the environmental impacts of extensive and intensive farming practices through a statistical analysis of the factors determining agricultural yield. A marginal function is constructed for the relation between chemical fertilizer use and yield per unit fertilizer input. Furthermore, a proposal is presented for how calculation of the yield factor could possibly be improved. The yield factor used in the calculation of biocapacity is not the marginal yield for a given area, but is calculated from the real and actual yields, and this way biocapacity and the ecological footprint for cropland are equivalent. Calculations for cropland biocapacity do not show the area needed for sustainable production, but rather the actual land area used for agricultural production. The proposal the authors present is a modification of the yield factor and also the changed biocapacity is calculated. The results of statistical analyses reveal the need for a clarification of the methodology for calculating marginal yield, which could clearly contribute to assessing the real environmental impacts of agriculture.

Modifying the yield factor based on more efficient use of fertilizer — The environmental impacts of intensive and extensive agricultural practices

The aim of this article is to draw attention to calculations on the environmental effects of agriculture and to the definition of marginal agricultural yield. When calculating the environmental impacts of agricultural activities, the real environmental load generated by agriculture is not revealed properly through ecological footprint indicators, as the type of agricultural farming (thus the nature of the pollution it creates) is not incorporated in the calculation. It is commonly known that extensive farming uses relatively small amounts of labor and capital. It produces a lower yield per unit of land and thus requires more land than intensive farming practices to produce similar yields, so it has a larger crop and grazing footprint. However, intensive farms, to achieve higher yields, apply fertilizers, insecticides, herbicides, etc., and cultivation and harvesting are often mechanized. In this study, the focus is on highlighting the differences in the environmental impacts of extensive and intensive farming practices through a statistical analysis of the factors determining agricultural yield. A marginal function is constructed for the relation between chemical fertilizer use and yield per unit fertilizer input. Furthermore, a proposal is presented for how calculation of the yield factor could possibly be improved. The yield factor used in the calculation of biocapacity is not the marginal yield for a given area, but is calculated from the real and actual yields, and this way biocapacity and the ecological footprint for cropland are equivalent. Calculations for cropland biocapacity do not show the area needed for sustainable production, but rather the actual land area used for agricultural production. The proposal the authors present is a modification of the yield factor and also the changed biocapacity is calculated. The results of statistical analyses reveal the need for a clarification of the methodology for calculating marginal yield, which could clearly contribute to assessing the real environmental impacts of agriculture.

A lean termelési rendszer munkásokra gyakorolt hatása (Effects of lean production on quality of working life from workers’ point of view)

A lean termelési rendszer munkásokra gyakorolt hatásaival foglalkozó irodalomban nincsen egyetértés annak megítélésében, hogy a hatásokban a negatív vagy pozitív hatások dominálnak-e. A szerző tanulmánya ehhez a vitához a pszichológiai, egészségügyi, munkahelyi jellemzőkre és a dolgozói elégedettségre vonatkozó eredmények áttekintésével kapcsolódik. A munkások elégedettségének vizsgálata arra utal, hogy a lean termelési rendszer egyszerre növeli és csökkenti is az elégedettséget, így az összességében nem változik más termelési rendszerekhez képest. A lean termelés kritikusai azt hangsúlyozzák, hogy a többi tényező negatívan hat a munkásokra. Megállapításaik megalapozottsága a nagyon kevés empirikus munka miatt megkérdőjelezhető. Ugyanakkor a tevékenységmenedzsment kutatói érdemben nem tudják cáfolni a stressz, a sérülések és betegségek kockázatának növekedését és a munka intenzívebbé válását. A negatív hatások és a várt pozitív hatások hiányának kiemelése felveti, hogy a munkavállalók bevonásán alapuló lean termelési rendszer nehezen ültethető át a gyakorlatba, illetve hogy a lean termelés intenzifikáción alapuló modellje is elterjedt. _____________ This literature review contributes to the debate related to the effects of lean production on workers. The study reviews different dimensions of the debate and focuses on issues like worker’s satisfaction, psychological effects, health and safety aspects, and workplace characteristics. Findings of researches reviewed in this paper cannot confirm that from workers’ point of view lean production is better than other production initiatives. Lean production enhances and decreases worker’s satisfaction at the same time, altogether, the satisfaction of workers does not change significantly compared to other systems. The negative impact of the other factors (psychological etc.) on workers is usually emphasized in the critique of lean production. Although, the limited number of (empirical) studies doubts these critical voices. However, Operations Management can not reject negative effects like increasing level of stress, increased risks of health and safety problems or intensification of work. The emphasis of the negative effects and the lack of positive effects can refer to the difficult employment of lean involvement system, or simply reflect that the model of lean intensification system is widely spread.