4.7 Article

Carbon Footprint and Life-Cycle Costs of Maize Production in Conventional and Non-Inversion Tillage Systems

Journal

AGRONOMY-BASEL
Volume 10, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/agronomy10121877

Keywords

life-cycle assessment; life-cycle costing; greenhouse gas emissions; costs; cereal crops; soil tillage

Funding

  1. National Science Centre, Poland [2015/19/N/HS4/03031]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Given the problem of climate change and the requirements laid down by the European Union in the field of gradual decarbonization of production, it is necessary to implement solutions of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions into agricultural practice. This research paper aimed to evaluate the carbon footprint and life-cycle costs of grain maize production in various tillage systems. The material for the analyses was data from 2015-2017 collected on 15 farms located in the Wielkopolska region (Poland) and growing maize for grain in three tillage systems: conventional, reduced, and no-tillage. The life-cycle assessment and life-cycle costing methodologies were applied to assess the GHG emissions and costs associated with the grain maize production in the stages from cradle-to-farm gate, i.e., from obtaining raw materials and producing means for agricultural production, through the processes of maize cultivation to grain harvesting. The calculated values of the carbon footprint indicator for maize production in conventional, reduced, and no-tillage systems were 2347.4, 2353.4, and 1868.7 CO2 eq. ha(-1), respectively. The largest source of GHG emissions was the use of nitrogen fertilizers. Non-inversion tillage with cover crops and leaving a large amount of crop residues in the field increased the sequestration of organic carbon and contributed to a significant reduction of the carbon footprint in maize production. The conventional tillage system demonstrated the highest overall life-cycle costs per hectare.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available