Investigation 22. On-Farm Energy Use

Keyword(s):  
Energies ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (24) ◽  
pp. 6636
Author(s):  
Iván García Kerdan ◽  
Sara Giarola ◽  
Ellis Skinner ◽  
Marin Tuleu ◽  
Adam Hawkes

Agricultural direct energy use is responsible for about 1–2% of global emissions and is the major emitting sector for methane (2.9 GtCO2eq y−1) and nitrous oxide (2.3 GtCO2eq y−1). In the last century, farm mechanisation has brought higher productivity levels and lower land demands at the expense of an increase in fossil energy and agrochemicals use. The expected increase in certain food and bioenergy crops and the uncertain mitigation options available for non-CO2 emissions make of vital importance the assessment of the use of energy and the related emissions attributable to this sector. The aim of this paper is to present a simulation framework able to forecast energy demand, technological diffusion, required investment and land use change of specific agricultural crops. MUSE-Ag & LU, a novel energy systems-oriented agricultural and land use model, has been used for this purpose. As case study, four main crops (maize, soybean, wheat and rice) have been modelled in mainland China. Besides conventional direct energy use, the model considers inputs such as fertiliser and labour demand. Outputs suggest that the modernisation of agricultural processes in China could have the capacity to reduce by 2050 on-farm emissions intensity from 0.024 to 0.016 GtCO2eq PJcrop−1 (−35.6%), requiring a necessary total investment of approximately 319.4 billion 2017$US.


2013 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 175
Author(s):  
S.O. Jekayinfa ◽  
S.O. Afolayan ◽  
A. Taiwo ◽  
J.O. Popoola

1987 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-86
Author(s):  
Lalit R. Verma ◽  
Lyle Jacobsen
Keyword(s):  

2019 ◽  
Vol 97 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. 147-148
Author(s):  
Jason Rowntree ◽  
Paige Stanley ◽  
David Beede ◽  
Marcia DeLonge ◽  
Michael Hamm

Abstract Using life cycle analysis (LCA), several studies have concluded that grass-finished beef systems have greater GHG intensities than feedlot-finished (FL) beef systems. These studies evaluated only one grazing management system– continuous grazing – and assumed steady-state soil carbon (C), to model the grass-finishing environmental impact. However, by managing for more optimal forage growth and recovery, adaptive multi-paddock (AMP) grazing can improve animal and forage productivity, potentially sequestering more soil organic carbon (SOC) than continuous grazing. To examine impacts of AMP grazing and related SOC sequestration on net GHG emissions, a comparative LCA was performed of two different beef finishing systems in the Upper Midwest, USA: AMP grazing and FL. We used on-farm data collected from the Michigan State University Lake City AgBioResearch Center for AMP grazing. Impact scope included GHG emissions from enteric methane, feed production and mineral supplement manufacture, manure, and on-farm energy use and transportation, as well as the potential C sink arising from SOC sequestration. Across-farm SOC data showed a 4-year C sequestration rate of 3.59 Mg C ha−1 yr−1 in AMP grazed pastures. After including SOC in the GHG footprint estimates, finishing emissions from the AMP system were reduced from 9.62 to −6.65 kg CO2-e kg carcass weight (CW)−1, whereas FL emissions increased slightly from 6.09 to 6.12 kg CO2-e kg CW−1 due to soil erosion. This indicates that AMP grazing has the potential to offset GHG emissions through soil C sequestration, and therefore the finishing phase could be a net C sink. However, FL production required only half as much land as AMP grazing. This research suggests that AMP grazing can contribute to climate change mitigation through SOC sequestration and challenges existing conclusions that only feedlot-intensification reduces the overall beef GHG footprint through greater productivity.


Energies ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. 13033-13046 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tek Maraseni ◽  
Guangnan Chen ◽  
Thomas Banhazi ◽  
Jochen Bundschuh ◽  
Talal Yusaf

Author(s):  
Alessandro Persiani ◽  
Francesco Montemurro ◽  
Angelo Fiore ◽  
Rosalba Scazzarriello ◽  
Mariangela Diacono

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 152 ◽  
Author(s):  
James A Dyer ◽  
Xavier P. C. Verge ◽  
Raymond L. Desjardins ◽  
Devon E. Worth

This paper describes fossil fuel energy use for on-farm transportation, heating of farm buildings, electricity generation, machinery supply and the spreading of manure. These four terms describe the barnyard energy budget. Calculations for this energy budget were driven by population data for beef and dairy cattle, hogs and poultry in Canada. Prior to comparing this energy budget for 2001 and 2011, the year-to-year trends from 1990 to 2014 were analysed. The declines in all livestock populations, except poultry, between 2001 and 2011 reduced the size of the Canadian barnyard energy budget from 25 PJ to 22 PJ. The resulting change in the fossil CO2 emissions between 2001 and 2011 was from 1.62 MtCO2 to 1.36 MtCO2. A sensitivity analysis based on future elimination of coal for generating electricity, introduction of electric pickup trucks (e-pickups) and increased use of electric heat, reduced fossil CO2 emissions during 2011 from dairy farms by 29%, beef farms by 24%, hog farms by 19% and poultry by 13%. The most affected provinces by this test were Alberta and Saskatchewan because of the heavy dependence on coal in electricity generation in these two provinces. This scenario test suggests a Canada-wide potential reduction of 0.30 MtCO2. A second sensitivity test based on a Canada-wide 20% reallocation of protein production from beef to pork revealed a very modest potential to actually reduce barnyard fossil CO2 emissions by 0.09 MtCO2 for Canada. 


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document