Farming Systems Design 2007 - International Environmental ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Farming Systems Design 2007 Field-farm scale design and improvement year -1 ) and + 74% (from 7 to 27 t ha -1 year -1 ), while the increment was + 43% (from 29 to 51 t ha -1 year -1 ) in miscanthus. In the maturity stage (year 2-7) differences in yield production levels have been observed among the three species, with 46 t ha -1 in giant reed and –30% and –66% dry yield in miscanthus and cardoon respectively. From year 8-12 a decreasing production trend was observed in each crop, however differences in the yield level have been recorded (28 t ha -1 year -1 in giant reed and -18% and – 57% in miscanthus and cardoon respectively). All the three perennial crops were characterized by a favorable energy balance along the overall lifecycle (Table 1). During the field trial the total energy input was the same for the three species because identical management practices were applied. Soil tillage and planting were the main energy input in the crop establishment, while fertilisation and harvest represented the unique energy input from the 2 nd year onward. For this reason the total energy input changed from 15.3 GJ ha -1 in the establishing year to 11 GJ ha -1 in the following years. The energy output showed different values for each crop and giant reed energy output was higher than 60 giant reed miscanthus and cardoon. Moreover, the two miscanthus rhizomatous species are characterized by an cynara 50 energy efficiency and energy balance more favourable than cardoon (Table 1). The net 37 40 energy yield of the overall lifecycle was 605 and 446 GJ ha -1 for giant reed and miscanthus 30 27 respectively against 258 GJ ha -1 of cardoon. Dry yield (t ha -1 ) 20 10 0 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Years Figure 1. Above-ground dry yield of giant reed, miscanthus and cardoon from the crop establishment to the 12 th year of growth in comparison, for each species, with the mean value. 18 Conclusion Giant reed and miscanthus confirmed their better production performances than cardoon in term of biomass yield and net energy yield. However, cardoon crop efficiency could be increased testing other genetic sources under different management practices. The possibility to cultivate different biomass crops in the same land area allow to expand feedstock supplies minimising their negative impact on soil fertility and biodiversity. In order to improve the biomass resources in Europe, biomass systems should not be based on a singles feedstock type but on regional capability and specification. According this approach the present research has assessed a long term availability of complementary crops maximizing the yield on land area within sustainable agro-biomass systems. Table 1. Global energy balance for giant reed, miscanthus and cardoon from the crop establishment to the 12 th year of growth. Input (GJ ha -1 ) Output (2) (GJ ha -1 ) Energy efficiency Net energy yield (GJ ha -1 ) G (1) M (1) C (1) G (1) M (1) C (1) G (1) M (1) C (1) Year 1 15.3 479 166 109 31 11 7 464 150 94 From 2 nd to 7 th 11 760 565 367 69 51 33 749 554 356 From 8 th to 12 th 11 408 387 183 43 35 17 460 376 172 Mean 590 457 269 55 41 24 605 446 258 (1) G=Giant reed, M=Miscanthus, C= Cardoon; (2) Calculated as product of dry yield and calorific value 16.7, 16.9 and 14.9 MJ kg -1 for giant reed, miscanthus and cardoon respectively. References G. L. Angelini et al., Biomass yield and energy balance of giant reed (Arundo donax L.) cropped in central Italy as related to different management practices, 2005a. European Journal of Agronomy 22(4), 375-389 G.L. Angelini et al., Long term evaluation of biomass production of giant reed (Arundo donax L.) to different fertilisation input, plant density and harvest time in a Mediterranean environment, 2005b In: Proceeding of 14 th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, Paris, October 17-21, 2005, p. 141-144 I. Lewandowski et al., 2003. The development and current status of perennial rhizomatous grasses as energy crops in the US and Europe. Biomass & Bioenergy 25, 335–361 J. Fernández et al., Industrial application of Cynara cardunculus L. for energy and other uses, 2006. Industrial Crops and Products 24, 222-229 - 44 -
Farming Systems Design 2007 SUSTAINABLE CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION SYSTEMS IN THE WESTERN HIGH PLAINS, USA J. B. Norton Dep. of Renewable Resources, University of Wyoming, USA, jnorton4@uwyo.edu Introduction With profits threatened by rising costs of fuel, fertilizer, and other inputs, many producers of the Western High Plains are asking how to increase yields, cut costs, or increase value. Reduced-input or organic farming approaches can achieve these goals, but transition to either means learning new techniques, investing money, and taking risks. Most agricultural research in the wheat- and beef-producing region in the northern part of the Western High Plains (Figure 1) is narrowly disciplinary and responds to shortterm needs within a conventional, production agriculture framework. Basic shifts in economic and ecological drivers of agriculture systems are creating a need for systems research that can address short-term questions within a framework that assesses long-term economic, social, and biological impacts of alternative production approaches. Growth of biofuel production is expected to increase crop prices and intensify production. Prices for wheat and other non-biofuel crops will increase as producers switch to corn and wheat replaces corn for livestock feeding (Elobeid et al., 2006). At the same time, incentives for carbon sequestration may promote practices that store soil organic matter (Lewandrowski et al., 2004), and demand for valueadded products, especially certified organic foods, continues to encourage transition to alternative practices (Dimitri and Oberholtzer, 2006). Farming systems that address these trends will become increasingly prevalent in the Western High Plains. Producers need sound, regionspecific information on transition to alternative systems. Field-farm scale design and improvement Rocky Mountains SAREC Field Station Wyoming Nebraska Western High Plains Ecoregion Farming systems are at the intersection of economics, the Colorado social sciences, and biology (Spedding, 1996). Meaningful Figure 1: Location of study area. research in integrated systems must be broadly collaborative, long-term, and driven by the problems and questions of producers (Ikerd, 1993; Mueller et al., 2002). This paper describes the Farming Systems Project at the University of Wyoming James C. Hageman Sustainable Agriculture Research and Extension Center (SAREC). Methodology A team of Wyoming producers, researchers, and extension educators assembled in early 2007 to investigate implications of transition to alternative approaches. The long-term objective is to track agronomic, environmental, and economic differences among conventional, reduced-input, and organic approaches. The team includes faculty researchers in cropping systems, agricultural economics, soil science, hydrology, entomology, plant pathology, animal science, and weed science, and progressive farmers practicing all three approaches. During meetings in winter and spring, the team planned systems research that integrates multiple short- and long-term objectives via side-by-side conventional, reduced-input, and organic crop-forage-livestock operations. The goal is to develop and analyze farming systems specific to the northern part of the Western High Plains Ecoregion (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2007) in a scientifically sound framework. - 45 -
Page 1 and 2: Farming Systems Design 2007 An Inte
Page 3 and 4: Foreword The Farming Systems Design
Page 5 and 6: Farming Systems Design 2007 Field-f
Page 17 and 18: Farming Systems Design 2007 How to
Page 47: Farming Systems Design 2007 Field-f
Page 55 and 56: Farming Systems Design 2007 WEB BAS
Page 67 and 68: Stocking rate (Head hā 1 ) Total i
Page 77 and 78: Soil Organic C (t / ha) CO2 Equival
Page 81 and 82: Farming Systems design 2007 Field-f
Page 85 and 86: Farming Systems Design 2007 RICE-MA
Page 99 and 100:
Farming Systems Design 2007 Field-f
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Farming Systems Design 2007 it comb
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Farming Systems Design 2007 TASHUR
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Farming Systems Design 2007 ANALYSI
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Farming Systems Design 2007 simulat
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
show all

Farming Systems Design 2007 - International Environmental ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?