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 menedzsment és a leadership jellemzők kapcsolata a hazai vállalati gyakorlatban (Lean management and leadership attributes in the practice of Hungarian firms)

A nemzetközi szakirodalom a vezetőt a lean termelés bevezetésében és fenntartásában is kulcsszereplőként határozza meg. Ennek ellenére nagyon kevés empirikus elemzés vizsgálja a vezetőkkel kapcsolatos kérdéseket. A szerzők a kontingencialista leadership elmélet keretei között a lean termelési rendszer és a vezetési jellemzők kapcsolatát vizsgálják elméleti szempontból és empirikusan egyaránt. Bár a kérdés nem került korábbi munkák fókuszába, az elméleti és empirikus megfontolások alapján egyaránt megállapítható, hogy több vezetési jellemző is szorosan kapcsolható egy jól működő lean termelővállalat vezetőjéhez. Követendő vezetési jellemzőként jelenik meg többek között az együttműködő, a delegáló, a teljesítményorientált vagy fejlődésorientált. Azonosíthatók olyan jellemzők is, amelyek elméletileg nem egyeztethetők össze a lean termelési rendszer logikájával, pl. autokrata, diktatórikus vagy mikrovezető ______ The working paper focuses on two connected research questions: on one hand based on widely accepted literature it systematically maps the ideal leadership style and related leader attributes that help in transforming a company into a real and well-functioning lean organization. On the other hand the paper analyzes whether leaders of companies with more developed lean practice do or do not follow these leadership attributes recommended by literature. The study uses the fourth round of the Hungarian Competitiveness Research Survey from 2009. This study is limited to the analysis of questionnaires filled in by producers that have more than 50 employees (about 65 manufacturing firms). The authors analyze the leadership styles of two managers, namely the CEO and production manager. Results of the empirical analysis revealed astonishing and contradictory attitudes toward ideal leadership attributes of leaders operating in more developed lean companies.