IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v162y2018icp89-96.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Energy use and greenhouse gas emissions in organic and conventional grain crop production: Accounting for nutrient inflows

Author

Listed:
  • Hoffman, Eric
  • Cavigelli, Michel A.
  • Camargo, Gustavo
  • Ryan, Matthew
  • Ackroyd, Victoria J.
  • Richard, Tom L.
  • Mirsky, Steven

Abstract

Agriculture is a large source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and has large energy requirements. Previous research has shown that organic farming and conservation tillage practices can reduce environmental impacts from agriculture. We used the Farm Energy Analysis Tool (FEAT) to quantify the energy use and GHG emissions on area (ha) and crop yield (kg crop) bases for five cropping systems that comprise the Farming Systems Project (FSP) at the USDA-Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Beltsville Agricultural Research Center in Maryland, US. The FSP consists of five grain cropping systems that mimic those used in the mid-Atlantic region of the US: 1) a 3-year conventional no-till corn (Zea mays L.)–soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr)–wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)/soybean rotation (NT), 2) a 3-year conventional chisel-till corn–soybean–wheat/soybean rotation (CT), 3) a 2-year organic corn–soybean rotation (Org2), 4) a 3-year organic corn–soybean–wheat rotation (Org3), and 5) a 6-year organic corn–soybean–wheat–alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) rotation (Org6). We accounted for nutrient inflows into organic systems by using a mass-energy allocation method, which accounts for the total energy and GHG emissions from the original production of nutrients found in poultry litter through synthetic fertilizer production (N) and nutrient mining (P and K). We believe this is the first attempt to quantify energy use and GHG emissions from nutrients applied in organic systems that originated through industrial processes used in conventional agriculture. Energy use was greatest in the conventional systems when expressed on a per area basis, with energy costs of producing synthetic N fertilizer accounting for 45 to 46% of total energy use. When expressed per unit of crop yield, energy use was greatest in Org2, lowest in Org6, and similar in Org3, NT and CT. Energy use decreased with increasing crop rotation length and complexity among organic systems whether expressed on an area or yield basis. Greenhouse gas emissions were higher in the Org2 and Org3 systems than in the conventional systems and were lowest in Org6 whether expressed on an area or yield basis. Our results indicate that organic management consistently had lower energy use than conventional management on an area basis, but not when expressed on a crop yield basis. Of particular interest is that diversifying grain cropping systems to include perennials was a more effective management strategy than organic management per se to reduce energy use and GHG emissions in agriculture.

Suggested Citation

  • Hoffman, Eric & Cavigelli, Michel A. & Camargo, Gustavo & Ryan, Matthew & Ackroyd, Victoria J. & Richard, Tom L. & Mirsky, Steven, 2018. "Energy use and greenhouse gas emissions in organic and conventional grain crop production: Accounting for nutrient inflows," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 89-96.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:162:y:2018:i:c:p:89-96
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2018.01.021
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X16305923
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. G. Robertson & Peter Grace, 2004. "Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Tropical and Temperate Agriculture: The need for a Full-Cost accounting of Global Warming Potentials," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 51-63, March.
    2. Casey, J.W. & Holden, N.M., 2005. "Analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from the average Irish milk production system," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 97-114, October.
    3. Beckman, Jayson F. & Borchers, Allison & Jones, Carol, 2013. "Agriculture's Supply and Demand for Energy and Energy Products," Economic Information Bulletin 149033, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    4. Pelletier, N., 2008. "Environmental performance in the US broiler poultry sector: Life cycle energy use and greenhouse gas, ozone depleting, acidifying and eutrophying emissions," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 98(2), pages 67-73, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pérez-Neira, David & Schneider, Monika & Armengot, Laura, 2020. "Crop-diversification and organic management increase the energy efficiency of cacao plantations," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    2. Šarauskis, Egidijus & Masilionytė, Laura & Juknevičius, Darius & Buragienė, Sidona & Kriaučiūnienė, Zita, 2019. "Energy use efficiency, GHG emissions, and cost-effectiveness of organic and sustainable fertilisation," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 1151-1160.
    3. Jianzheng Li & Zhongkui Luo & Yingchun Wang & Hu Li & Hongtao Xing & Ligang Wang & Enli Wang & Hui Xu & Chunyu Gao & Tianzhi Ren, 2019. "Optimizing Nitrogen and Residue Management to Reduce GHG Emissions while Maintaining Crop Yield: A Case Study in a Mono-Cropping System of Northeast China," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 11(18), pages 1-16, September.
    4. Šarauskis, Egidijus & Romaneckas, Kęstutis & Jasinskas, Algirdas & Kimbirauskienė, Rasa & Naujokienė, Vilma, 2020. "Improving energy efficiency and environmental mitigation through tillage management in faba bean production," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:162:y:2018:i:c:p:89-96. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Haili He). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.