Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T16:52:41.553Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Energy use and efficiency in two Canadian organic and conventional crop production systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2007

J.W. Hoeppner ,
M.H. Entz ,
B.G. McConkey ,
R.P. Zentner  and
C.N. Nagy
J.W. Hoeppner
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, University of Manitoba, 222 Agriculture Building, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada.
M.H. Entz*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, University of Manitoba, 222 Agriculture Building, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada.
B.G. McConkey
Affiliation:
Semi-arid Prairie Agriculture Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Swift Current, SK S9H 3X2, Canada.
R.P. Zentner
Affiliation:
Semi-arid Prairie Agriculture Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Swift Current, SK S9H 3X2, Canada.
C.N. Nagy
Affiliation:
Centre for Studies in Agriculture, Law and the Environment, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A8, Canada.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A goal in sustainable agriculture is to use fossil fuel energy more efficiently in crop production. This 12-year study investigated effects of two crop rotations and two crop production systems (organic versus conventional management) on energy use, energy output and energy-use efficiency. The grain-based rotation included wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)–pea (Pisum sativum L.)–wheat–flax (Linum usitatissimum L.), while the integrated rotation included wheat–alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.)–alfalfa–flax. Energy use was 50% lower with organic than with conventional management, and approximately 40% lower with integrated than with the grain-based rotation. Energy use across all treatments averaged 3420 MJ ha−1 yr−1. Energy output (grain and alfalfa herbage only) across treatments averaged 49,947 MJ ha−1 yr−1 and was affected independently by production system and crop rotation. Energy output in the integrated rotation was three times that of the grain-based rotation; however, this difference was largely due to differences in crop type (whole plant alfalfa compared with grain seed). Energy output was 30% lower with organic than with conventional management. Energy efficiency (output energy/input energy) averaged to 17.4 and was highest in the organic and integrated rotations. A significant rotation by production system interaction (P<0.05) indicated that energy efficiency increases due to crop input reduction (i.e., shift from conventional to organic management) were greater in the integrated than in the grain-based rotation. Greater energy efficiency in the integrated rotation under organic management was attributed to the fact that the forage component was less sensitive to chemical input removal than grain crops.

Keywords

crop rotationorganicenergylegumes
Type
Research Article
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , March 2006 , pp. 60 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

01Fluck, R.C. and Baird, C.D. 1980. Agricultural Energetics. The AVI Publishing Company, Westport, CT.Google Scholar
02Rickerl, D. and Francis, C.A. 2004. Agroecosystems Analysis. Publication 43. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
03Haas, G., Wetterich, F., and Kopke, U. 2001. Comparing intensive, extensified and organic grassland farming in southern Germany by process of life cycle assessment. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 83: 43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
04Clancy, S.A., Gardner, J.C., Crygiel, C.E., Biondini, M.E., and Johnson, G.K. 1993. Farming practices for a sustainable agriculture in North Dakota. North Dakota State University, Carrington Research Extension Centre, Carrington, NDGoogle Scholar
05Nagy, C. 1999. Energy coefficients for agricultural inputs in western Canada. Centre for Studies in Agriculture, Law and the Environment, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK.Google Scholar
06Smil, V. 2000. Feeding the World: A Challenge for the Twenty-First Century. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
07Swanton, C.J., Murphy, S.D., Hume, D.J., and Clements, D.R. 1996. Recent improvements in the energy efficiency of agriculture: case studies from Ontario, Canada. Agricultural Systems 52: 399–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
08Stout, B.A. 1990. Handbook of Energy for World Agriculture. Elsevier Science Publishing, New York, NY.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
09Pimentel, D., Jurd, L.E., Bellotti, A.C., Forster, M.J., Oka, I.N., Sholes, O.D., and Whitman, R.J. 1973. Food production and the energy crisis. Science 182: 443–449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Smil, V. 1997. Global population and the nitrogen cycle. Scientific American 277: 76–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Smil, V. 2001. Enriching the Earth: Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch, and the Transformation of World Food Production. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
12Hesterman, O.B. 1988. Exploiting forage legumes for nitrogen contribution in cropping systems. In Hargrove, W.L. (ed.). Cropping Strategies for Efficient Use of Water and Nitrogen, ASA Special Publication Number 51. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI. 155–166.Google Scholar
13Entz, M.H., Baron, V.S., Carr, P.M., Meyer, D.W., Smith, S.R., and McCaughey, W.P. 2002. Potential of forages to diversify Northern Great Plain Cropping Systems. Agronomy Journal 94: 240–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14Kelner, D.J., Vessey, J.K., and Entz, M.H. 1997. The nitrogen dynamics of 1-, 2- and 3-year stands of alfalfa in a cropping system. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 64: 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Beckie, H.J. and Brandt, S.A. 1997. Nitrogen contribution of field pea in annual cropping systems. 1. Nitrogen residual effect. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 77: 311–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16Penning, L.J. and Orr, D. 1988. Effects of crop rotation on common root rot of barley. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology 10: 61–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Hoeppner, J.W. 2002. Energy use and efficiency in long-term western Canadian field studies. MSc thesis Department of Plant Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, CanadaGoogle Scholar
18Ensminger, M.E. 1987. Feeding beef cattle. In Ensminger, M.E. and Perry, R.C. (eds). Beef Cattle Science. The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Danville, IL, p. 239–348.Google Scholar
19Campbell, C.A., Zentner, R.P., Janzen, H.H., and Bowren, K.E. 1990. Crop rotation studies on the Canadian Prairies. Publication 1841. Government Publications Center, Ottawa, ON.Google Scholar
20Heichel, G.H. 1980. Assessing the fossil energy costs of propagating agricultural crops. In Pimental, D. (ed.). Handbook of Energy Utilization in Agriculture. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. p. 27–33.Google Scholar
21Heichel, G.H. 1978. Stabilizing agricultural energy needs: role of forages, rotations, and nitrogen fixation. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 33: 278–282.Google Scholar
22Spedding, C.R.W. and Walsingham, J.M. 1976. The production and use of energy in agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Economics 27: 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23Ominski, P.D., Entz, M.H., and Kenkel, N. 1999. The suppressive effects of Medicago sativa on weeds in subsequent cereal crops: a comparative survey. Weed Science 47: 282–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24Pimentel, D. 1997. Livestock production: energy inputs and the environment. In Proceedings 47th Annual Meeting of the Canadian Society of Animal Science, Montreal. p. 16–26.Google Scholar
25Entz, M.H., Guilford, R., and Gulden, R. 2001. Crop yield and nutrient status on 14 organic farms in the eastern Northern Great Plains. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 81: 351–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar