Assessment of Productivity and Economic Viability of Combined Food and Energy (CFE) Production System in Denmark

Xu, Ying; Lehmann, Lisa Mølgaard; Jalón, Silvestre García de; Ghaley, Bhim Bahadur

doi:10.3390/en12010166

Cited by 8 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Nonetheless, it is an untapped by-product that could provide an extra amount of biomass for the production of bio-commodities. From this point of view, its collection should in theory be as high as possible, in order to reduce the fixed energetic costs of collection, as also recently suggested, taking into account that the producing bioenergy from the straw may have lower impacts compared to that from the grain [25] and that combining food and energy systems may allow for a further reduction of the environmental impact and to mitigate the climate-related fluctuations of the agricultural production and commodity value [26].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Admixing Chaff with Straw Increased the Residues Collected without Compromising Machinery Efficiencies

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The collection of residues from staple crop may contribute to meet EU regulations in renewable energy production without harming soil quality. At a global scale, chaff may have great potential to be used as a bioenergy source. However, chaff is not usually collected, and its loss can consist of up to one-fifth of the residual biomass harvestable. In the present work, a spreader able to manage the chaff (either spreading [SPR] on the soil aside to the straw swath or admixed [ADM] with the straw) at varying threshing conditions (with either 1 or 2 threshing rotors [1R and 2R, respectively] in the combine, which affects the mean length of the straw pieces). The fractions of the biomass available in field (grain, chaff, straw, and stubble) were measured, along with the performances of both grain harvesting and baling operations. Admixing chaff allowed for a slightly higher amount of straw fresh weight baled compared to SPR (+336 kg straw ha −1 ), but such result was not evident on a dry weight basis. At the one time, admixing chaff reduced the material capacity of the combine by 12.9%. Using 2R compared to 1R strongly reduced the length of the straw pieces, and increased the bale unit weight; however, it reduced the field efficiency of the grain harvesting operations by 11.9%. On average, the straw loss did not vary by the treatments applied and was 44% of the total residues available (computed excluding the stubble). In conclusion, admixing of chaff with straw is an option to increase the residues collected without compromising grain harvesting and straw baling efficiencies; in addition, it can reduce the energy needs for the bale logistics. According to the present data, improving the chaff collection can allow halving the loss of residues. However, further studies are needed to optimise both the chaff and the straw recoveries.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Admixing Chaff with Straw Increased the Residues Collected without Compromising Machinery Efficiencies

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The evidence of higher productivity in agroforestry systems has been reported in different studies. The LER of a combined food and energy (CFE) production system in Denmark ranged from 1.14-1.34 [17], indicating that crop and tree yields produced in agroforestry required 14-34% less land or fewer resources in terms of light, water, nutrients, compared to monoculture. This is a significant advantage and provides avenues for ecological intensification to produce more with fewer inputs.…”

Section: Agronomic Productivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The forestry system had a much lower financial equivalent annual value of EUR 194 ha −1 yr −1 with grants. However, in a 20-year field study of combined food and energy production systems in Denmark, calculations on agronomic productivity, costs of production, and revenue flows showed that agroforestry systems had higher net present values compared to monocrops [17]. Further, sensitivity analysis was carried out with different discount rates between 0-10%, and agroforestry systems were most insensitive to the discount rate and provided a stable and consistent net present value [17].…”

Section: High Costs For Implementationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, Wilson and Lovell [113] stated that "a diverse portfolio of products would allow revenue streams to be spread out over the short-term (crops, forage, livestock, mushrooms, certain fruits like currants), medium-term (nuts, fruits such as apples or persimmons, biomass, medicinal plants), and long-term (lumber, increased property value)". Income stability is an insurance against complete loss of income from monoculture with adverse climatic conditions, which is a clear benefit from adoption of agroforestry [17]. Although the complexity of managing AFS is a concern, the diversity of produce is seen by landowners as a benefit of land conversion to AFS, as long as these are financially viable [19,22,153].…”

Section: Products and Marketingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Agroforestry Benefits and Challenges for Adoption in Europe and Beyond

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soil degradation is a global concern, decreasing the soil’s ability to perform a multitude of functions. In Europe, one of the leading causes of soil degradation is unsustainable agricultural practices. Hence, there is a need to explore alternative production systems for enhanced agronomic productivity and environmental performance, such as agroforestry systems (AFS). Given this, the objective of the study is to enumerate the major benefits and challenges in the adoption of AFS. AFS can improve agronomic productivity, carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling, soil biodiversity, water retention, and pollination. Furthermore, they can reduce soil erosion and incidence of fire and provide recreational and cultural benefits. There are several challenges to the adoption and uptake of AFS in Europe, including high costs for implementation, lack of financial incentives, limited AFS product marketing, lack of education, awareness, and field demonstrations. Policies for financial incentives such as subsidies and payments for ecosystem services provided by AFS must be introduced or amended. Awareness of AFS products must be increased for consumers through appropriate marketing strategies, and landowners need more opportunities for education on how to successfully manage diverse, economically viable AFS. Finally, field-based evidence is required for informed decision-making by farmers, advisory services, and policy-making bodies.

show abstract

“…Crop yield in a rotation is calculated as the average yield over a whole crop rotation. LER of IFNS is the summation of partial LERs of each individual crop and tree components in a given IFNS system [12,13] In order to assess the economic viability, gross margins were calculated as follows [14] (Equation ( 2)):…”

Section: Agronomic Productivity and Economic Viabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Productivity and Economic Evaluation of Agroforestry Systems for Sustainable Production of Food and Non-Food Products

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agroforestry systems have multifunctional roles in enhancing agronomic productivity, co-production of diversity of food and non-food products and provision of ecosystem services. The knowledge of the performance of agroforestry systems compared with monoculture is scarce and scattered. Hence, the objective of the study was to analyze the agronomic productivity and economic viability of diverse agroforestry systems in Europe. A network of five agroforestry systems integrating arable crops, livestock and biomass trees was investigated to assess the range of agricultural products in each agroforestry system. Land Equivalent Ratio (LER) was used to measure the agronomic productivity, whereas gross margin was used as an indicator for economic viability assessment. LER values ranged from 1.36–2.00, indicating that agroforestry systems were more productive by 36–100% compared to monocultures. Agroforestry gross margin was lower in Denmark (€112 ha−1 year−1) compared to United Kingdom (€5083 ha−1 year−1) and the crop component yielded higher returns compared to negative returns from the tree component in agroforestry. Hence, the study provided robust field-based evidence on agronomic productivity and economic viability assessment of agroforestry systems in diverse contexts for informed decision making by land managers, advisory services, farmers and policymakers.

show abstract

Assessment of Productivity and Economic Viability of Combined Food and Energy (CFE) Production System in Denmark

Cited by 8 publications

References 15 publications

Admixing Chaff with Straw Increased the Residues Collected without Compromising Machinery Efficiencies

Admixing Chaff with Straw Increased the Residues Collected without Compromising Machinery Efficiencies

Agroforestry Benefits and Challenges for Adoption in Europe and Beyond

Productivity and Economic Evaluation of Agroforestry Systems for Sustainable Production of Food and Non-Food Products

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About