Friendly to the environment biomass production from kenaf and fiber sorghum T H E O F A N I S. A. G E M T O S, L A B O R A T O R Y O F F A R M M E C H A N I S A T I O N, D E P A R T M E N T O F A G R I C U L T U R E, C R O P P R O D U C T I O N A N D R U R A L E N V I R O N M E N T, U N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E S S A L Y, G R E E C E
Introduction Kenaf and Fibre Sorghum are two crops that can be used for fibre production as well as for biomass for energy production through ethanol production (second generation biofuels) or burning. They are two high yielding annual crops that can be cultivated mostly in South European countries
Second generation biofuels (i.e bioethanol), but also biomass use for burning, are expected to use crop residues and whole crops. The removal of all biomass can have several adverse effects to the soil and the ecosystem. The soil will remain uncovered by crop residues The total removal of biomass will reduce organic material inputs leading to reduced soil organic matter and reduce feed material for the soil fauna and microorganisms.
DIRECTIVE 2009/28/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 23 April 2009, Article 18 par. 3 requires that: Any relevant information on measures taken for soil, water and air protection, the restoration of degraded land, the avoidance of excessive water consumption in areas where water is scarce to be declared for the biofuels produced
The Directive takes into account energy from biofuels and bioliquids. The latter should contribute to a reduction of at least 35 % of greenhouse gas emissions in order to be taken into account. From 1 January 2017, their share in emissions savings should be increased to 50 %. We need not only to find suitable crops but also cropping practices that can achieve the set targets
Outline To make an account of the problems that whole plant use for second generation biofuels can cause to the soil and possible methods to alleviate them and secure the sustainability of the raw material production system. Some results of using alternative tillage methods will be presented and effects to the crop and the soil. An energy analysis will be given to assess the sustainability of the systems.
Risks of soil degradation A study funded by the European Commission on European soils revealed that six factors can be major threats (SOCO team): 1. Soil erosion by water and wind 2.Soil organic matter reduction 3. Soil biodiversity 4. Soil compaction 5. Soil pollution by heavy metals 6. Soil acidification
The first four factors will be affected by whole crop removal.
What second generation biofuels whole biomass use will cause It will cause: 1. The soil to remain bare for periods of the year enhancing erosion 2. The removal of all organic matter leading to reduction of soil organic matter 3. Soil compaction by the movement of heavy harvesting and transportation machinery 4. Reduce biodiversity
Soil erosion Is defined as the removal of soil particles from higher to lower parts of the land through the action of water runoff or the wind. The phenomenon is considered to start from the rain or irrigation water drops impact on bare soil. This impact breaks the soil aggregates, producing small soil particles that are closing soil surface pores reducing water infiltration and are easily moved by water or wind
Soil organic matter Is a basic factor of soil fertility as it binds the soil mineral to aggregates increasing their stability, improves water holding and cation exchange capacity, when decay provides N to the plants, it contributes to better soil structure. It is produced by the organic part of the plants. Most stable organic matter is produced by the high lignin content of the roots, while the cellulosic material of the aerial part is easily decomposed.
Recent research proved that without the cellulosic material of the aerial part the root biomass cannot be decomposed by the soil microorganisms. Therefore the whole biomass removal can affect also root biomass decomposition
Soil biodiversity Huge amounts of microorganisms and upper animals are living in the soil. They are the living soil. They are using biomass for their energy needs. Removal of the biomass will reduce their feedstock and cause reduction of their numbers and activities. Their activities in the soil are very important for soil fertility. But also for soil structure. Especially worms can improve soil structure.
Soil Compaction It is a destruction of soil structure due to the excess loads imposed by heavy machinery. It causes reduction of soil porosity (reduced water infiltration, reduced drainage, reduced water holding capacity), increases the energy consumption for soil tillage, causes difficulties in plant emergence. Biomass harvesting and heavy transportation vehicles, especially under wet soil conditions cause compaction.
How we can alleviate the problems At the moment research suggests that we should act in four directions: 1. Introduce crop rotations and keep the soil covered all the year round with minimum periods where the soil remains bare 2. Use cover crops as green manure by leaving them on/or in the soil 3. Use reduced or no tillage 4. Use controlled traffic or new mechanisation systems with small size, light machinery.
Material and Methods Several experiments are carried out to study the effects of tillage and crop rotation. A long term experiment comparing five tillage systems was run for the last16 years. The treatments were: 1. Conventional tillage (CT) with ploughing at 25-30 cm in autumn and 2-3 passes of a disk harrow at 7-9 cm or a light cultivator at 6-8 cm for seedbed preparation. 2. Reduced tillage (HC) using a heavy cultivator at a depth of 20-25 cm or a subsoiler at 30-35 cm and 2 passes of a disk harrow or a light cultivator for seedbed preparation. 3. Reduced tillage (RC) with one pass of a rotary cultivator at 10-15 cm for primary tillage, and one or two passes of a disk harrow or a light cultivator before planting.
4. Reduced tillage (DH) Primary and secondary tillage with a disk harrow at 6-8 cm. One or two passes in autumn or early in the winter for residue management and weed destruction and one or two passes for seedbed preparation before planting the crop. In the third year a field cultivator was used for secondary tillage In year 2012 we used for the Spring crop instead of disc harrow a strip tillage machine developed in the laboratory. 5. No-tillage (NT). Direct planting using a conventional pneumatic planting machine. The plots were split in two parts. In one part all residues were removed and added to the other plot. That way one plot had double mulching material.
Crop rotation
Results and Discussion Two crops were cultivated the first year. Sunflower and soybeans. Soil organic matter was increased from 1% at the beginning of the experiment to around 2% after 16 years of the treatments with crop residues and some times all the crop kept in the field.
Soil organic matter after 16 years of the experiment
Penetration resistance 26-5-2012
Penetration resistance 21-9-12
Penetration resistance in strip tillage plots
Yield
Material and Methods A series of experiments were designed and carried out in order to study the production of sweet and fibre sorghum as a raw material for second generation alcohol production.
Varieties and Tillage experiment In one experiment, the following varieties of sorghum were tested: SUGARGRAZE, Dale, M81-E, THEIS, TOPPER 76-6 (sweet sorghum varieties) and PR 849 F, AMIGO, TOPSILO (fibre sorghum varieties), under two tillage systems i.e., conventional tillage (ploughing, seedbed preparation by disk or toothed harrows and planting by conventional pneumatic seeder) and no-till (planting with a no-till monosem planter).
Row spacing experiment In a second experiment two row spacing and plant population were tested for two of the varieties (SUGARGRAZE and PR 849 F). Row spacing at 0.75 m and 0.375 m were tested under conventional tillage. Conventional tillage was used for all the plots.
Fertilisation and irrigation experiment In a third experiment, three levels of N fertiliser were tested at 150, 250 and 350 kg of N/ha. Additionally, in half of the experimental plots one water application in August were omitted in order to test this effect to the crop. Conventional tillage was used for all the plots.
Measurements Crop emergence (by counting plant numbers during emergence and the final population). In each plot after planting, a 2 m row was marked in the two middle rows of each experimental plot where population measurements were carried out. Crop growth by measuring the height of the plants and the date when the flowering started, The plant moisture content (by drying in an oven samples of plants) and the sugar content (by measuring the sugar content of the sip extracted by hand pressure and using a brix meter reflectometer).
crop yield was measured using a modified one row silage chopper with a bucket and a balance to weigh the yield. Based on sugar content, the moisture content of the stalks and the final yield, the sugar produced per ha were estimated.
Results: Varieties and tillage Κατεργασίες 7 6 Αριθμός φυτών / 2cm 5 4 3 2 Συμβατική Ακαλλιέργεια 1 0 17/6/13 19/6/13 21/6/13 23/6/13 25/6/13 27/6/13 29/6/13 1/7/13 3/7/13 5/7/13 7/7/13 Ημερομηνία 60000 Varieties 50000 Number of Plants / ha 40000 30000 20000 Dale Topper 76-6 Sugargraze PR 849 F 10000 AMIGO TOPSILO 0 17/6 19/6 21/6 23/6 25/6 27/6 29/6 1/7 3/7 5/7 7/7 Date
Κατεργασίες X Ποικιλίες 10 9 Συμβατική 8 Αριθμός φυτών / 2cm 7 6 Dale 5 Topper 76-6 4 Sugargraze 3 PR 849 F 2 AMIGO 1 TOPSILO 0 17/6/13 19/6/13 21/6/13 23/6/13 25/6/13 27/6/13 29/6/13 1/7/13 3/7/13 5/7/13 7/7/13 Ημερομηνία 9 8 Ακαλλιέργεια 7 Αριθμός φυτών / 2cm 6 5 Dale Topper 76-6 4 Sugargraze 3 PR 849 F 2 AMIGO 1 TOPSILO 0 17/6/13 19/6/13 21/6/13 23/6/13 25/6/13 27/6/13 29/6/13 1/7/13 3/7/13 5/7/13 7/7/13 Ημερομηνία
450 400 Συμβατική 350 300 Υψος, cm 250 Dale 200 Topper 76-6 Sugargraze 150 PR 849 F 100 AMIGO 50 TOPSILO 0 5/7/2013 25/7/2013 14/8/2013 3/9/2013 23/9/2013 13/10/2013 2/11/2013 Ημερομηνία 400 350 Ακαλλιέργεια 300 Υψος, cm 250 200 150 Dale Topper 76-6 Sugargraze 100 PR 849 F AMIGO 50 TOPSILO 0 5/7/2013 25/7/2013 14/8/2013 3/9/2013 23/9/2013 13/10/2013 2/11/2013 Ημερομηνία
Κατεργασίες 25 20 Σάκχαρα, % 15 10 Ακαλλιέργεια Συμβατική 5 0 28/9 3/10 8/10 13/10 18/10 23/10 28/10 Ημερομηνία Ποικιλίες 30 25 Σάκχαρα, % 20 15 DALE 10 TOPPER 76-6 SUGARGRAZE 5 PR849F AMIGO TOPSILO 0 28/9 3/10 8/10 13/10 18/10 23/10 28/10 Ημερομηνία
25 20 Κατεργασίες X Ποικιλίες Ακαλλιέργεια Σάκχαρα, % 15 10 DALE TOPPER 76-6 5 SUGARGRAZE PR849F AMIGO TOPSILO 0 28/9 3/10 8/10 13/10 18/10 23/10 28/10 Ημερομηνία 25 Συμβατική 20 Σάκχαρα, % 15 10 DALE TOPPER 76-6 5 SUGARGRAZE PR849F AMIGO TOPSILO 0 28/9 3/10 8/10 13/10 18/10 23/10 28/10 Ημερομηνία
Total sugars Κατεργασίες 25 20 Σάκχαρα, (brix) 15 10 Ακαλλιέργεια Συμβατική 5 0 28/9 3/10 8/10 13/10 18/10 23/10 28/10 Ημερομηνία Ποικιλίες 35 30 Σάκχαρα, (brix) 25 20 15 10 DALE TOPPER 76-6 5 SUGARGRAZE PR849F AMIGO TOPSILO 0 28/9 3/10 8/10 13/10 18/10 23/10 28/10 Ημερομηνία
25 20 Κατεργασίες X Ποικιλίες Ακαλλιέργεια Σάκχαρα, (brix) 15 10 DALE TOPPER 76-6 5 SUGARGRAZE PR849F AMIGO TOPSILO 0 28/9 3/10 8/10 13/10 18/10 23/10 28/10 Ημερομηνία 20 18 Συμβατική 16 14 Σάκχαρα, (brix) 12 10 8 DALE 6 TOPPER 76-6 4 SUGARGRAZE PR849F 2 AMIGO TOPSILO 0 28/9 3/10 8/10 13/10 18/10 23/10 28/10 Ημερομηνία
Κατεργασίες X Ποικιλίες 2000 1800 1600 1400 Παραγωγή, Kg 1200 1000 800 600 Ακαλλιέργεια Συμβατική 400 200 0 DALE SUGARGRAZE PR849F AMIGO TOPSILO
Ημερομηνία Row spacing experiment Αποστάσεις 8 ΑΡΙΘΜΟΣ ΦΥΤΩΝ / 2m 7 6 5 4 3 πυκνή αραιή 2 1 0 15/6/2013 20/6/2013 25/6/2013 30/6/2013 5/7/2013 10/7/2013 Ημερομηνία CV%= 15,9-24,4 350 Ποικιλίες 300 250 Ύψος, cm 200 150 SUGARGRAZE 100 PR849F 50 0 5/7/2013 25/7/2013 14/8/2013 3/9/2013 23/9/2013 13/10/2013
αποστάσεις 25 20 Σάκχαρα, % 15 10 L1 L2 5 0 28/9 3/10 8/10 13/10 18/10 23/10 28/10 Ημερομηνία αποστάσεις 25 20 Σάκχαρα, brix 15 10 L1 L2 5 0 28/9 3/10 8/10 13/10 18/10 23/10 28/10 Ημερομηνία
αποστάσεις 3000 2500 2000 Παραγωγή, Kg 1500 1000 L1 L2 500 0 1524,53 2331,85
Fertilisation and irrigation experiment 400 Ποικιλίες 350 300 Ύψος, cm 250 200 150 Α Β 100 50 0 5/7/13 25/7/13 14/8/13 3/9/13 23/9/13 13/10/13 2/11/13 Ημερομηνία
Λίπανση 350 300 250 Ύψος, cm 200 150 80% 100% 100 120% 50 0 5/7/13 25/7/13 14/8/13 3/9/13 23/9/13 13/10/13 2/11/13 Ημερομηνία CV% = 3,9-12,8 300 Αρδευση 250 Ύψος, cm 200 150 100 Πλήρης Άρδευση Μειωμένη Άρδευση 50 0 5/7/13 25/7/13 14/8/13 3/9/13 23/9/13 13/10/13 2/11/13 Ημερομηνία
25 Αρδευση 20 Σάκχαρα, % 15 10 A1 A2 5 0 28/9 3/10 8/10 13/10 18/10 23/10 28/10 Ημερομηνία Λίπανση 25 20 Σάκχαρα, % 15 10 Λ1 (Ν 14,5) Λ2 (Ν 25) 5 Λ3 (Ν 36) 0 28/9 3/10 8/10 13/10 18/10 23/10 28/10 Ημερομηνία
Σάκχαρα, brix Αρδευση 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 A1 A2 6 4 2 0 28/9 3/10 8/10 13/10 18/10 23/10 28/10 Ημερομηνία Λίπανση 20 18 16 14 Σάκχαρα, brix 12 10 8 Λ1 (Ν 14,5) Λ2 (Ν 25) 6 4 2 0 28/9 3/10 8/10 13/10 18/10 23/10 28/10 Ημερομηνία Λ3 (Ν 36)
Αρδευση 1640 1620 1600 Παραγωγή, Kg 1580 1560 1540 Α1 Α2 1520 1500 1480 1620,72 1537,98 ποικιλία Χ Λίπανση 2500 2000 Παραγωγή, Kg 1500 1000 500 Λ1 (Ν 14,5) Λ2 (Ν 25) Λ3 (Ν 36) 0 2132,59 1633,39 1849,06 1434,03 1258,13 1168,88 Sugargraze PR849F Αλληλεπίδραση: ns
Energy analysis Kenaf and Sorghum
Material and Methods We used the method to assess the energy sequestered to each input and output. We used literature data for the indirect energy input We used an instrumented tractor to measure all the direct energy inputs
Energy balance KENAF CT Inputs 100m PD 2 CT ENERGY INPUTS Tillage Passes Fixed Energy Inputs Variable Energy Inputs Energy of Agricultural Products Total (MJ/ha) (MJ/ha) (MJ/ha) (MJ/ha) Plough 1 152,18 2445,50 2597,7 Disc harrow 3 121,24 1067,97 1189,2 Field cultivator 1 26,74 435,65 462,4 Sowing Total 300,17 3949,12 4249,3 Seed (kg/ha) Seed 4,00 415,44 Sowing 36,14 350,34 Fertilization Total 36,14 350,34 415,44 801,9 Fertilizer Units /ha Nitrogen 231 17.694,60 Phosphorus 63 1.008,00 Potasium 63 806,40
Energy balance KENAF CT Inputs Application 6,34 124,23 Total 6,34 124,23 19.509,00 19639,6 Pesticide application active incredient quantity (kg/ha) 1,2045 393,86 Application 4,32 60,62 Irrigation Total 4,32 60,62 393,86 458,8 Pumping depth (m) Total water suplies (m3/ha) Sprinkler irrigation 100 20 399,4 2747,1 3146,5 Drip irrigation 650 1268,9 64208,6 65477,5 Total 670,00 1668,27 66955,73 68624,0 Harvest Corn picker 391,7 698,8 Transportation Total 391,7 698,8 1090,5 Average transport distance (km) 242,32 473,36 Total 5 231,04 242,32 473,4 0,00 0,00 0,00 TOTAL ENERGY INPUTS 2638,00 72381,20 20318,30 95337,50
Energy balance KENAF CT Outputs ENERGY OUTPUTS Seed Yield Energy Outputs Total Inputs Net Energy Energy Efficiency Energy Productivity (kg/ha) (MJ/ha) (MJ/ha) (MJ/ha) (kg/mj) #ΤΙΜΗ! #ΤΙΜΗ! #ΤΙΜΗ! Stalks 26210 484885 389547,5 5,09 0,27 Total 26210 484885 95337,50 389547,5 5,09 0,27 1,00
Energy balance Kenaf CT ENERGY BUDGET case ΧΩΡΟΣ ΓΙΑ ΔΗΜΙΟΥΡΓ ΙΑ ΠΙΝΑΚΑ Energy Budget CT 1 CT NT Energy Inputs (MJ/ha) 2 Tillage 4249 c 425 0 Sowing 802 100,0 80 80 Fertilization 19640 1964 1964 Pesticide application 459 46 237 Irrigation 68624 6752 6752 Harvest 1091 109 109 Transportation 473 47 36 Total 95337 9424 9179 Yield (kg/ha) Stalks 26210 2621 2013 Energy Outputs (MJ/ha) Stalks 484885 48489 37241 Total 484885 48489 37241 Energy Budget Net Energy (MJ/ha) 389548 39065 28061 Energy Efficiency 5,09 5,15 4,06 Energy Productivity (kg/mj) 0,27 0,28 0,22
Kenaf energy balance, CT, 100 m PD Harvest 1,1% Transportation 0,5% Tillage 4,5% Sowing 0,8% Fertilization 20,6% Pesticide application 0,5% Irrigation 72,0%
KENAF Energy Balance CT PD10 m 2 CT ENERGY INPUTS Tillage Passes Fixed Energy Inputs Variable Energy Inputs Energy of Agricultural Products Total (MJ/ha) (MJ/ha) (MJ/ha) (MJ/ha) Plough 1 152,18 2445,50 2597,7 Disc harrow 3 121,24 1067,97 1189,2 Field cultivator 1 26,74 435,65 462,4 Sowing Total 300,17 3949,12 4249,3 Seed (kg/ha) Seed 4,00 415,44 Sowing 36,14 350,34 Fertilization Total 36,14 350,34 415,44 801,9 Fertilizer Units /ha Nitrogen 231 17.694,60 Phosphorus 63 1.008,00 Potasium 63 806,40 Application 6,34 124,23 Total 6,34 124,23 19.509,00 19639,6 Pesticide application active incredient quantity (kg/ha) 1,2045 393,86 Application 4,32 60,62 Total 4,32 60,62 393,86 458,8
KENAF Energy Balance CT PD10 m Irrigation Pumping depth (m) Total water suplies (m3/ha) Sprinkler irrigation 20 399,4 1393,5 1792,9 10 Drip irrigation 650 1268,9 18283,5 19552,4 Total 670,00 1668,27 19677,00 21345,3 Harvest Corn picker 391,7 698,8 Total 391,7 698,8 1090,5 Transportati on Average transport distance (km) 242,32 473,36 Total 5 231,04 242,32 473,4 0,00 0,00 0,00 TOTAL ENERGY INPUTS 2638,00 25102,47 20318,30 48058,76
KENAF Energy Balance CT PD10 m ENERGY OUTPUTS Seed Yield Energy Outputs Total Inputs Net Energy Energy Efficiency Energy Productivity (kg/ha) (MJ/ha) (MJ/ha) (MJ/ha) (kg/mj) #ΤΙΜΗ! #ΤΙΜΗ! #ΤΙΜΗ! Stalks 26210 484885 436826,2 10,09 0,55 Total 26210 484885 48058,76 436826,2 10,09 0,55 1,00
KENAF Energy Balance NT PD10 m ENERGY OUTPUTS Seed Yield Energy Outputs Total Inputs Net Energy Energy Efficiency Energy Productivity (kg/ha) (MJ/ha) (MJ/ha) (MJ/ha) (kg/mj) #ΤΙΜΗ! #ΤΙΜΗ! #ΤΙΜΗ! Stalks 20130 372405 326790,0 8,16 0,44 Total 20130 372405 45614,98 326790,0 8,16 0,44 1,00
Kenaf energy balance CT 10 m PD Harvest 2,3% Transportation 1,0% Tillage 8,8% Sowing 1,7% Irrigation 44,4% Fertilization 40,9% Pesticide application 1,0%
Fibre Sorghum energy Balance CT 100m 1 CT ΑΝΑΛΥΣΗ ΕΙΣΡΟΩΝ ΕΝΕΡΓΕΙΑΣ Ενέργεια Σταθερών Στοιχείων Ενέργεια Μεταβλητών Στοιχείων Ενέργεια γεωργικών εφοδίων Σύνολο Κατεργασία εδάφους (MJ/στρ) (MJ/στρ) (MJ/στρ) (MJ/στρ) Περάσματα Άροτρο 1 15,22 244,55 259,8 Δισκοσβάρνα 3 12,12 106,80 118,9 Ελαφρύς καλλιεργητής 1 2,67 43,57 46,2 Σύνολο κατεργασίας 30,02 394,91 424,9 Σπορά Ποσ. σπόρου (kg/στρ) Σπόρος 2,10 218,11 Εργασία σποράς 3,61 35,03 Σύνολο σποράς 3,61 35,03 218,11 256,8 Λίπανση Μονάδες λιπάσματος /στρ Άζωτο 23,1 1.769,46 Φώσφορος 6,3 100,80 Κάλιο 6,3 80,64 Εφαρμογή 0,63 12,42 Σύνολο λίπανσης 0,63 12,42 1.950,90 1964,0
Ψεκασμοί - Φυτοφάρμακα Ποσότητα δ.ο. (kg/στρ) 0,12045 39,39 Εφαρμογή 0,43 6,06 Σύνολο φυτοπροστασίας 0,43 6,06 39,39 45,9 Άρδευση Βάθος άντλησης (m) Συνολική ποσότητα νερού (m3/στρ) Άρδευση με μπεκ/καρούλι 100 20 33,5 274,7 308,2 Άρδευση με σταγόνες 650 23,1 6420,9 6444,0 Σύνολο άρδευσης 670,00 56,60 6695,57 6752,2 Συγκομιδή Θεριζοαλωνιστική 39,2 69,9 Σύνολο συγκομιδής 39,2 69,9 109,1 Μεταφορά παραγωγής Μέση απόσταση μεταφοράς (km) 33,19 64,84 Σύνολο μεταφοράς 5 31,65 33,19 64,8 0,00 0,00 0,00 ΣΥΝΟΛΟ ΕΙΣΡΟΩΝ ΕΝΕΡΓΕΙΑΣ 162,12 7247,08 2208,39 9617,59
ΣυντελεστΕνεργειακή Εκροές Σύνολο Καθαρή ής παραγωγικότητα Απόδοση ενέργειας εισροών ενέργεια απόδοσης (kg/στρ) (MJ/στρ) (MJ/στρ) (MJ/στρ) (kg/mj) Σπόρος #ΤΙΜΗ! #ΤΙΜΗ! #ΤΙΜΗ! Στελέχη 3590 66415 56797,4 6,91 0,37 Σύνολο 3590 66415 9617,59 56797,4 6,91 0,37
ΚΑΤΑΡΤΙΣΗ ΕΝΕΡΓΕΙΑΚΟΥ ΙΣΟΖΥΓΙΟΥ case ΧΩΡΟΣ ΓΙΑ ΔΗΜΙΟΥΡΓΙΑ ΠΙΝΑΚΑ Ενεργειακό Ισοζύγιο CT 1 CT NT Εισροές ενέργειας (MJ/στρ) 2 Κατεργασία εδάφους 425 c 425 0 Σπορά 257 100,0 257 257 Λίπανση 1964 1964 1964 Ψεκασμοί - Φυτοφάρμακα 46 46 237 Άρδευση 6752 6752 6752 Συγκομιδή 109 109 109 Μεταφορά παραγωγής 65 65 34 Σύνολο 9618 9618 9353 Απόδοση (kg/στρ) Στελέχη 3590 3590 1875 Εκροές ενέργειας (MJ/στρ) Στελέχη 66415 66415 34688 Energy Budget Σύνολο 66415 66415 34688 Καθαρή ενέργεια (MJ/στρ) 56797 56797 25334 Συντελεστής απόδοσης 6,91 6,91 3,71 Ενεργειακή παραγωγικότητα (kg/mj) 0,37 0,37 0,20
Fibre sorghum CT, 100 m PD Συγκομιδή 1,1% Μεταφορά παραγωγής 0,7% Κατεργασία εδάφους 4,4% Σπορά 2,7% Λίπανση 20,4% Ψεκασμοί - Φυτοφάρμακα 0,5% Άρδευση 70,2%
Fibre Sorghum NT 10 m PD 1 CT ΑΝΑΛΥΣΗ ΕΙΣΡΟΩΝ ΕΝΕΡΓΕΙΑΣ Ενέργεια Σταθερών Στοιχείων Ενέργεια Μεταβλητών Στοιχείων Ενέργεια γεωργικών εφοδίων Σύνολο Κατεργασία εδάφους (MJ/στρ) (MJ/στρ) (MJ/στρ) (MJ/στρ) Περάσματα Άροτρο 1 15,22 244,55 259,8 Δισκοσβάρνα 3 12,12 106,80 118,9 Ελαφρύς καλλιεργητής 1 2,67 43,57 46,2 Σύνολο κατεργασίας 30,02 394,91 424,9 Σπορά Ποσ. σπόρου (kg/στρ) Σπόρος 2,10 218,11 Εργασία σποράς 3,61 35,03 Σύνολο σποράς 3,61 35,03 218,11 256,8 Λίπανση Μονάδες λιπάσματος /στρ Άζωτο 23,1 1.769,46 Φώσφορος 6,3 100,80 Κάλιο 6,3 80,64 Εφαρμογή 0,63 12,42 Σύνολο λίπανσης 0,63 12,42 1.950,90 1964,0
Ψεκασμοί - Φυτοφάρμακα Ποσότητα δ.ο. (kg/στρ) 0,12045 39,39 Εφαρμογή 0,43 6,06 Σύνολο φυτοπροστασίας 0,43 6,06 39,39 45,9 Άρδευση Βάθος άντλησης (m) Συνολική ποσότητα νερού (m3/στρ) Άρδευση με μπεκ/καρούλι 10 20 33,5 139,4 172,9 Άρδευση με σταγόνες 650 23,1 1828,3 1851,4 Σύνολο άρδευσης 670,00 56,60 1967,70 2024,3 Συγκομιδή Θεριζοαλωνιστική 39,2 69,9 Σύνολο συγκομιδής 39,2 69,9 109,1 Μεταφορά παραγωγής Μέση απόσταση μεταφοράς (km) 33,19 64,84 Σύνολο μεταφοράς 5 31,65 33,19 64,8 0,00 0,00 0,00 ΣΥΝΟΛΟ ΕΙΣΡΟΩΝ ΕΝΕΡΓΕΙΑΣ 162,12 2519,21 2208,39 4889,72
ΑΝΑΛΥΣΗ ΕΚΡΟΩΝ ΕΝΕΡΓΕΙΑΣ Συντελεστ Ενεργειακ Εκροές Σύνολο Καθαρή ής ή παραγωγικότητα Απόδοση ενέργειας εισροών ενέργεια απόδοσης (kg/στρ) (MJ/στρ) (MJ/στρ) (MJ/στρ) (kg/mj) Σπόρος #ΤΙΜΗ! #ΤΙΜΗ! #ΤΙΜΗ! Στελέχη 3590 66415 61525,3 13,58 0,73 Σύνολο 3590 66415 4889,72 61525,3 13,58 0,73
Fibre Sorghum CT 10m PD Μεταφορά παραγωγής 1,3% Κατεργασία εδάφους 8,7% Συγκομιδή 2,2% Σπορά 5,3% Άρδευση 41,4% Λίπανση 40,2% Ψεκασμοί - Φυτοφάρμακα 0,9%
Fibre Sorghum NT 10 m PD 1 NT ΑΝΑΛΥΣΗ ΕΙΣΡΟΩΝ ΕΝΕΡΓΕΙΑΣ Ενέργεια Σταθερών Στοιχείων Ενέργεια Μεταβλητών Στοιχείων Ενέργεια γεωργικών εφοδίων Σύνολο Κατεργασία εδάφους (MJ/στρ) (MJ/στρ) (MJ/στρ) (MJ/στρ) Περάσματα Σύνολο κατεργασίας 0,00 0,00 0,0 Σπορά Ποσ. σπόρου (kg/στρ) Σπόρος 2,10 218,11 Εργασία σποράς 3,61 35,03 Σύνολο σποράς 3,61 35,03 218,11 256,8 Λίπανση Μονάδες λιπάσματο ς /στρ Άζωτο 23,1 1.769,46 Φώσφορος 6,3 100,80 Κάλιο 6,3 80,64 Εφαρμογή 0,63 12,42 Σύνολο λίπανσης 0,63 12,42 1.950,90 1964,0
Ψεκασμοί - Φυτοφάρμακα Ποσότητα δ.ο. (kg/στρ) 0,12045 39,39 0,288 191,53 Εφαρμογή 0,43 6,06 Σύνολο φυτοπροστασί ας 0,43 6,06 Άρδευση Βάθος άντλησης (m) Συνολική ποσότητα νερού (m3/στρ) 230,92 237,4 Άρδευση με μπεκ/καρούλι 20 33,5 139,4 172,9 10 Άρδευση με σταγόνες 650 23,1 1828,3 1851,4 Σύνολο άρδευσης 670,00 56,60 1967,70 2024,3 Συγκομιδή Θεριζοαλωνιστι κή 39,2 69,9 Σύνολο συγκομιδής Μεταφορά παραγωγής Σύνολο μεταφοράς 39,2 69,9 109,1 Μέση απόσταση μεταφοράς (km) 17,34 33,86 5 16,53 17,34 33,9 0,00 0,00 0,00 ΣΥΝΟΛΟ ΕΙΣΡΟΩΝ ΕΝΕΡΓΕΙΑΣ 116,98 2108,44 2399,92 4625,34
ΑΝΑΛΥΣΗ ΕΚΡΟΩΝ ΕΝΕΡΓΕΙΑΣ Συντελεστ Ενεργειακ Εκροές Σύνολο Καθαρή ής ή παραγωγικότητα Απόδοση ενέργειας εισροών ενέργεια απόδοσης (kg/στρ) (MJ/στρ) (MJ/στρ) (MJ/στρ) (kg/mj) Σπόρος #ΤΙΜΗ! #ΤΙΜΗ! #ΤΙΜΗ! Στελέχη 1875 34688 30062,2 7,50 0,41 Σύνολο 1875 34688 4625,34 30062,2 7,50 0,41
Fibre Sorghum NT 10 m PD Συγκομιδή 2,4% Μεταφορά παραγωγής 0,7% Κατεργασία εδάφους 0,0% Σπορά 5,6% Άρδευση 43,8% Λίπανση 42,5% Ψεκασμοί - Φυτοφάρμακα 5,1%
Conclusions Soil organic matter was increased in the 16 years of the experiment without residues removal from 1 to 2%. Soil organic matter content was lower in conventional tillage but the difference was small most probably due to the crop residues remaining in the field and crops not being totally harvested. Soil compaction was higher in the reduced or no till plots. Yield in Sunflower was higher in conventional plots with strip tillage and rotary cultivator. In soybeans was high in conventional as well as in reduced tillage plots (heavy cultivator and strip tillage).
CONCLUSIONS Sugar Graze gave the highest yield (17 t of dry matter/ha) followed by Amigo, PR489F, Dale and Topsilo. Sugar Graze and Dale gave higher yields with conventional tillage while Amigo, PR489F and TopSilo performed better with no-tillage. Sip sugar content increased till end October but the highest sugars yield was achieved at mid October indicating that respiration was higher than photosynthesis after the mid October.
Narrow row spacing gave the highest yield in dry matter and in sugars per ha for both varieties. Higher N applications and full irrigation gave the highest yields and the best sugars production per ha but the differences were not significant in all cases.
The energy balance of the two crops is positive and the energy efficiency high. There are several problems with the energy analysis of thee experiments comparing tillage systems. To have comparable results we have to use the same sowing date but one of the advantages of NT is that sowing can be earlier and in appropriate time. We have also to have the same inputs. But given that NT has lower yields then it is not fair to use the same inputs like fertiliser or even irrigation water. Another problem is the pumping depth of irrigation water
Acknowlegments The paper is based on data collected by the projects run by the Laboratory of Farm Mechanisation of the University of Thessaly funded by the Ministry of Education and the General Secretary of Research and Technology and the European Commission.
biomass.agr.uth.gr