4.4 Article

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

期刊

RENEWABLE AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SYSTEMS
卷 21, 期 1, 页码 60-67

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1079/RAF2005118

关键词

crop rotation; organic; energy; legumes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据