Advertisement

Regional Environmental Change

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 1021–1032 | Cite as

Energy profiles of an agricultural frontier: the American Great Plains, 1860–2000

  • Geoff Cunfer
  • Andrew Watson
  • Joshua MacFadyen
Original Article

Abstract

Agro-ecosystem energy profiles reveal energy flows into, within, and out of US Great Plains farm communities across 140 years. This study evaluates external energy inputs such as human labor, machinery, fuel, and fertilizers. It tracks the energy content of land produce, including crops, grazed pasture, and firewood, and also accounts unharvested energy that remains available for wildlife. It estimates energy redirected through livestock feed into draft power, meat, and milk, and estimates the energy content of final produce available for local consumption or market sale. The article presents energy profiles for three case studies in Kansas in 1880, 1930, 1954, and 1997. Two energy transformations occurred during that time. The first, agricultural colonization, saw farm communities remake the landscape, turning native grassland into a mosaic of cropland and pasture, a process that reduced overall landscape energy productivity. A second energy transition occurred in the mid-twentieth century, characterized by fossil fuel energy imports. That outside energy raised harvested and unharvested energy flows, reused biomass energy, and also final produce. This socio-ecological transition increased landscape energy productivity by 33 to 45% above presettlement conditions in grain-growing regions. These energy developments were not uniform across the plains. Variations in rainfall and soil quality constrained or favored energy productivity in different places. The case studies reveal the spatial variation of energy profiles in Great Plains agro-ecosystems, while the longitudinal approach tracks temporal change.

Keywords

Agro-ecosystem energy Great Plains agriculture Agricultural colonization Socio-ecological transition 

Introduction

For 10,000 years, agriculture has been society’s primary energy supplier (Malanima 2006, 2009; Simmons 2008). Food for subsistence, firewood for domestic heat and industrial charcoal, a transportation system based on draft animals: all originated in agro-ecosystems. Even cities imported food, livestock feed, and fuel from hinterland farms (Cronon 1991; Gingrich et al. 2012). Maintaining agro-ecosystems required a constant investment of energy, in the form of human labor, farm produce cycled through livestock, or imported energy-rich inputs. Agro-ecosystems are societal converters that supply, consume, and redirect energy through looped pathways. The American Great Plains presents a rare opportunity for analysis: an agricultural frontier well documented from its beginning 150 years ago and right through the socio-ecological transition to modern industrialized farming. Agricultural frontiers date to the beginning of agriculture, but their incidence rose during the nineteenth century due to European colonization. In places Crosby (1986) referred to as “neo-Europes,” settlers displaced Indigenous populations and carried out large-scale land conversion for agriculture. Examples occurred in the Americas, Australia, and New Zealand, but also in the Ukrainian and Russian steppes (Moon 2013). Compared to long-farmed places, frontiers present a unique agricultural context. Large labor investments converted forests and grasslands into managed agro-ecosystems. Settlers exploited rich soils to grow bumper crops with little reinvestment in fertility maintenance. Labor shortages, of both people and draft animals, made it advantageous to open new land rather than re-invest in old land (Grigg 1992; Federico 2005; Belich 2009). Between 1860 and 2000, the Great Plains underwent two energy transitions. Agricultural colonization converted a grassland biome into an agricultural landscape by the 1920s, reducing overall plant growth in the process. Then, by the 1960s, a socio-ecological transition added imported fossil fuel energy to what had been primarily a local, biomass-based energy regime (Fischer-Kowalski and Haberl 2007). Inexpensive energy washed through the system, multiplying energy outputs, but also boosting internal and unharvested biomass energy flows.

The energy profiles presented here (Table 1) reveal core energy dynamics of Great Plains agro-ecosystems in 1880, 1930, 1954, and 1997; see the Appendix for energy estimation methods using historical sources (Tello et al. 2015). Prior to Euro-American settlement, c.1850, grassland ecosystems stockpiled energy as native vegetation, providing a baseline comparison with the agro-ecosystems that followed. Adopting Human Appropriation of Net Primary Production (HANPP) terminology (Haberl et al. 2007; Erb et al. 2009a, b; Krausmann et al. 2013), presettlement potential vegetation (NPPpot) estimates aboveground Net Primary Production of grassland plants under Native American fire regimes in the mid-nineteenth century (Pyne 1982, 1995; Courtwright 2011). While belowground NPP is important, it is difficult to estimate with historical data; long-term HANPP studies typically address only aboveground NPP (Krausmann et al. 2012; Fetzel et al. 2014; Gingrich et al. 2015). NPPact measures actual vegetation produced in later years, revealing agriculture’s impact. Unharvested Phytomass (UPH), a component of NPPact, includes unmanaged and unharvested aboveground plant matter within farmyards and fields. Hedgerows, groves, riparian vegetation, weeds, and unused crop residues in the agro-ecosystem contained plant matter available to unmanaged food webs, from insects to birds to small mammals (Guzman Casado and Gonzalez de Molina 2015). UPH can provide energy to wild animals, potentially supporting biodiversity (Guzman Casado and Gonzalez de Molina 2009). Comparing NPPpot with NPPact and UPH reveals agriculture’s impact on energy stored in phytomass, whether native plant or domesticated crop.
Table 1

Energy flows (GJ/ha) in three Kansas counties, 1880, 1930, 1954, and 1997

More pertinent to farmers and central to agriculture’s economic goals are measures of gross and net farm productivity. Land Produce (LP) represents the energy produced by croplands, woodlands, and pastures. Livestock-Barnyard Produce (LBP) is the meat, milk, and other animal commodities produced on farms. Combined, they constitute Total Produce (TP), the gross energy production of the managed system. But, Total Produce is never entirely available to people. Farmers divert much of that production back into the farm system, as seed for next year’s crop or as livestock feed and bedding. That crucial deduction from Total Produce, denoted here as Biomass Reused (BR), is energy that people must re-invest if the farm is to continue another year. The remainder, the farm’s net energy production, is Final Produce (FP), goods available for local consumption or market sale. Agriculture’s primary goal was not always to produce more energy. Some high-energy outputs, such as firewood, had low market value, while low-energy produce like fiber crops and meat had high market value. Energy processes in agro-ecosystems are not linear, with simple inputs and outputs, but looped, with energy inputs, internal cycling, and outputs (Tello et al. 2016).

Energy inputs (TIC) take two forms. Biomass Reused (BR) is energy derived from within the agro-ecosystem itself and was always the largest input (9–27 GJ/ha). External Inputs (EI) include Labor (L) invested by the farm community plus energy carriers imported from outside the agro-ecosystem, such as machinery, fuel, synthetic chemicals, and imported livestock feed. Labor, which never exceeded 0.04 GJ/ha, was by far the smallest of these External Inputs. Imported energy derived from fossil fuels, on the other hand, rose in importance over time, from negligible in the nineteenth century to 4–12 GJ/ha at the end of the twentieth century. The defining feature of the socio-ecological transition to industrial agriculture was increased inputs of fossil fuel energy embodied in imported tractors and trucks powered by internal combustion engines, plus their fuel. After the 1950s, chemical fertilizers, replete with embodied fossil fuel energy, constituted the largest imports on farms, while pesticides, electricity, and imported livestock feed contributed additional amounts. Irrigation was minimal in the counties evaluated here, but EI also includes the energy cost of lifting and distributing irrigation water. By the end of the twentieth century, External Inputs of fossil fuels, chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and electricity delivered 15–30% of Total Inputs Consumed, but Biomass Reused still contributed over 70%. Tracing these energy flows across 140 years reveals the energy story of the Great Plains as it moved from a raw frontier to become a modern, industrial breadbasket to the world.

Variations of Great Plains agriculture

Three Kansas counties provide case studies of dryland agriculture in the Great Plains (Fig. 1). Prior to Euro-American settlement, a semi-arid climate and landscape fire had created a grassland biome. Rainfall is highest (1000 mm/year) on the eastern edge of the region, supporting tallgrass prairie. It declines toward the west, through mixed-grass prairie (650 mm/year) to a western short-grass steppe (400 mm/year) (Lauenroth and Burke 1995; Wishart 2007). Since average rainfall is marginal for crops, weather variability makes farming unreliable. Crops may do well eight years out of ten but fail in the other two. The counties profiled here depended on natural rainfall and practiced little irrigation. While this article focusses on human management of farm energy flows, in any given year rainfall may be more important to productivity than energy or soil fertility. Four time points capture key moments in agro-ecosystem energy transitions. In 1880, all three places were in the early stages of settlement by Euro-American farmers. Fifty years later, in 1930, Great Plains farm systems were fully developed, with all land converted to either cropland or fenced pasture for extensive grazing. That year captures the post-frontier plains just before the onset of the economic depression and devastating drought that characterized the “Dust Bowl” era (1932–1941) (Worster 1979; Hurt 1981). After recovering from the 1930s disaster, in 1954 the socio-ecological transition was in full swing, and by 1997 the region was home to a modern industrialized farm system.
Fig. 1

Case study counties in Kansas, with agro-ecological zones (Malin 1944)

Nemaha County, Kansas, is on the wet eastern edge of the plains. Tallgrass and mixed-grass prairie covered most of the county, with low woodlands only along rivers. Nemaha averages 875 mm of precipitation annually, enough to support a variety of crops. Rich soils are deep and gently sloping with clay loam or silty clay loam textures (Kutnink et al. 1982). It was the first part of the interior grassland settled by Euro-Americans, beginning in the 1850s. Nemaha represents the prosperous, mixed-farming communities created during the mid-nineteenth century agricultural colonization of the Great Plains (Cunfer and Krausmann 2016). Only 200 km to the southwest, Chase County, Kansas, strikes a marked contrast. Rainfall averages 815 mm, supporting a vigorous native vegetation of tallgrass and mixed-grass prairie (Neill 1974). The soils, however, are only a few centimeters thick and poor for agriculture. The thin-skinned limestone hills are unsuitable for the plow. Only in bottomland along rivers did settlers find soils deep enough for cropland. Instead, they exploited generous native grasses for cattle grazing. Since the 1850s Chase County has been ranching country, with land devoted to fattening beef cattle and only a small amount planted in feed crops and hay to see cattle through winter (Malin 1984). Farther west, settlement had barely begun in Decatur County, Kansas, in 1880. Semi-arid climate averaged 525 mm of annual precipitation and supported short-grasses on 98% of the land. Soils are deep and level, with a silt loam texture (Hamilton et al. 1989; Cunfer and Krausmann 2009). Farmers eventually grew dryland wheat and drought-tolerant sorghum on half of the area and dedicated the other half to extensive, low-density cattle grazing. These three case studies represent characteristic types of Great Plains non-irrigated agriculture. Nemaha County’s rich soils and adequate rainfall supported prosperous mixed farming. Chase County’s adequate rainfall but poor soils allowed only extensive cattle ranching, while Decatur County’s good soils but low rainfall supported cereal farming and extensive cattle grazing.

Mixed farming in Nemaha County, Kansas

Nemaha County’s tallgrass prairie generated 90 GJ/ha of aboveground biomass energy in its presettlement condition (NPPpot). As Euro-Americans transformed that grassland into an agricultural mosaic, they reduced plant productivity (NPPact) significantly. By 1880, 25 years after initial settlement, energy productivity from the land was down 24% to 68 GJ/ha. Half a century later, it had fallen to 56 GJ, just over half of its presettlement value. Then, in the mid-twentieth century, a technological revolution—the socio-ecological transition—drove productivity higher. NPPact rose to 71 GJ/ha in 1954, then to 120 by 1997. At the end of the twentieth century, total plant energy production was 33% higher than under presettlement conditions. This progression, in two phases, reveals agriculture’s basic environmental impact on natural systems.

Figure 2 presents energy profiles for Nemaha County in 1880 and 1930, indicating energy flows through the agro-ecosystem in GJ/ha, each arrow scaled to the size of its energy content. Land Produce (LP), the energy output of farmland, constituted the human-managed portion of NPPact. Nemaha cropland, pastures, and woodland produced 22 GJ/ha of LP in 1880 and 30 in 1930. Livestock-Barnyard Produce (LBP) barely registered in 1880 at 0.5 GJ/ha, doubling to 1.0 in 1930. Another important portion of NPPact went unused by the farm population as Unharvested Phytomass (UPH), remaining available for unmanaged biodiversity. UPH dropped during agricultural colonization, falling from 45 GJ/ha in 1880 to only 26 by 1930. In most years, about half of NPPact remained free for wild animals, though much less than under presettlement conditions.
Fig. 2

Agro-ecosystem energy profile of Nemaha County, Kansas, 1880 and 1930

Farm families could not consume or sell all of the farm system’s Total Produce, however. First, they had to re-invest a portion to secure farm continuity into the next year. Biomass Reused (BR) diverted some Land Produce into feed and forage for livestock, bedding straw, and seed for next spring’s crop. In 1880, Biomass Reused consumed 18 GJ/ha, nearly 80% of Total Produce, climbing to 23 GJ in 1930. What remained, Final Produce (FP), was available for consumption or export to market. This energy flow, the primary objective of family labor and enterprise, was 5 GJ/ha in 1880 and 8 GJ/ha 50 years later in 1930. In those two years, from a gross farm productivity of 23–31 GJ/ha, farmers re-invested about 20 GJ as Biomass Reused, leaving net productivity (FP) of 5–8 GJ. External Inputs were modest at 4 GJ/ha in 1880 and 3 GJ/ha in 1930. They included farm machinery and fuel (plus the embodied energy of manufacture and transport) and a small amount of imported livestock feed. Labor (L), as demanding as it was for farm families, was less important in energetic terms, constituting only 0.04 GJ/ha. That low number demonstrates how effectively agriculture amplifies human work. In Nemaha County in 1930, a farmer returned 7.7 GJ/ha of Final Produce from a Labor investment of 0.04 GJ/ha, a ratio of 193:1. Pioneer farmers, through their sweat and ingenuity (and aided by generous liberal land policies), converted a tallgrass prairie into a prosperous farming community, one that required large energy reinvestments but sustained a comfortable lifestyle.

The next 75 years saw a second energy transformation that multiplied energy flows (Fig. 3). The change resulted from an increase in External Inputs of inexpensive fossil fuel energy. EI doubled between 1930 and 1954, rising from 3 to 7 GJ/ha, and then nearly doubled again to 12 GJ by 1997. Most of that imported energy came as synthetic fertilizers that dramatically boosted crop yields, but it also included tractors, trucks, harvesters, and the fuel to power them, plus electricity and imported livestock feed. After 1930, EI quadrupled, sending a jolt of energy throughout the system. Farmers benefited by significantly raising marketable production (FP) and also increased Biomass Reused and Unharvested Phytomass, energy that did not make it into the monetary economy.
Fig. 3

Agro-ecosystem energy profile of Nemaha County, Kansas, 1954 and 1997

Not all energy flows changed in unison, however. While EI rose by 120% between 1930 and 1954, Final Produce increased by only 70% and Biomass Reused was flat. Unharvested Phytomass jumped from 26 to 35 GJ/ha. Then, all energy flows rose sharply in the next 40 years. In 1997, EI was 12 GJ/ha and NPPact jumped to 120 GJ/ha. Much of that, 57 GJ, was biomass harvested from farmland as LP, but UPH also rose, to 63 GJ/ha, nearly double 1954 levels. Unmanaged wildlife around Nemaha farms now had access to more energy than they had in over a century. Of the 58 GJ/ha of Total Produce, nearly half (27 GJ/ha) went into a much-increased Biomass Reused and the remainder to Final Produce (31 GJ/ha), which had increased by 240%. By pouring fossil fuel energy into their enterprises, farmers raised marketable production dramatically: FP quadrupled between 1930 and 1997.

Figure 3 reveals an interesting progression in the socio-ecological transition. Between 1930 and 1954, EI rose by 4 GJ/ha and FP kept pace, rising by 5 GJ. Then, between 1954 and 1997, EI climbed another 5 GJ, but this time, FP went up by a remarkable 18 GJ/ha. As farmers mechanized in the early part of the socio-ecological transition, abandoning horses and mules for tractors, energy inputs rose and so did energy outputs. Then, in a second phase of transition, driven now by fertilizer, productivity exploded. Energy inputs climbed throughout the twentieth century, but the great gains in crop production happened only in its last several decades. Historians of agriculture have focussed on machinery as the defining technology of industrialized farming (Williams 1987; Fitzgerald 1991; Cunfer 2005). Most link agricultural modernization to the adoption of tractors, but synthetic fertilizers, with their high embedded energy content, were the most important driver of increased crop production, and that occurred a few decades later. Mechanization improved labor productivity, whereas synthetic fertilizers improved land productivity.

Extensive cattle ranching in Chase County, Kansas

With each move westward on the Great Plains farmers faced greater environmental challenges. Although Chase County is not far from Nemaha, its energy profile looks quite different. Only slightly drier, but with poorer soils, all managed energy flows in Chase County were smaller. Rich grasslands supported extensive cattle grazing beginning in the 1850s, when Euro-Americans appropriated Native American land and replaced wild bison with livestock (Malin 1984; Courtwright 2011). Presettlement energy productivity was the same in both places (89–90 GJ/ha). In Chase County, agricultural management reduced total productivity (NPPact) over time, but only by 15%, to fluctuate between 74 and 79 GJ/ha between 1880 and 1954. In the late twentieth century, ranchers pushed NPPact back up to 91 GJ/ha, matching presettlement amounts. They accomplished this recovery through productivity gains on the 12% of land plowed for crops, mainly through fertilizer application. Chase County ranching had a smaller basic environmental impact than did Nemaha County farming.

In 1880 all Chase County energy flows except UPH were less than half those in Nemaha: energy inputs (EI) of 1 GJ/ha generated 10 GJ/ha of Land Produce, leaving 64 GJ of Unharvested Phytomass (Fig. 4). Ranchers recirculated 90% of LP back into their livestock operations as Biomass Reused; indeed, they devoted nearly all of their small amount of arable land to growing feed and forage crops to see cattle through winter. Final Produce of 2 GJ/ha left only a small amount of energy for export to markets, mainly in the form of live cattle shipped by rail to slaughterhouses in Kansas City or Chicago (Cronon 1991). That system continued with little change for over a century, bringing economic prosperity to a small population spread over a large area; population density was 3.5 people/km2 compared to 9.8 in Nemaha County. In 1930 EI (2 GJ/ha) and UPH (65 GJ/ha) had hardly changed, with LP (14 GJ/ha) and FP (4 GJ/ha) up slightly. In 1954 EI was still only 2 GJ/ha; LP (12 GJ/ha) and FP (2 GJ/ha) had fallen a bit (Fig. 5). UPH remained the same at 67 GJ/ha. Ranchers still directed 90% of LP into Biomass Reused to feed cattle. In this extensive, low-impact meat-producing economy, the socio-ecological transition had not yet begun as late as the mid-1950s.
Fig. 4

Agro-ecosystem energy profile of Chase County, Kansas, 1880 and 1930

Fig. 5

Agro-ecosystem energy profile of Chase County, Kansas, 1954 and 1997

That finally changed in the second half of the twentieth century, but only modestly in energy terms. EI rose to 4 GJ/ha in 1997 and Land Produce jumped by 80%. Unharvested Phytomass was still flat at 69 GJ/ha. Ranchers drove livestock density from 18 animals/km2 in 1954 up to 28 in 1997 by creating concentrated feed lots within extensive pastures. They also fed more produce to those cattle, raising Biomass Reused from 11 GJ/ha in 1954 to 19 in 1997. NPPact rose by 15% to 91 GJ/ha in 1997, identical to its presettlement value. Final Produce doubled to reach 4 GJ/ha. This was a notable increase, but hardly the spectacular results created in the grain-growing regions. In Chase County, EI tripled over 120 years but only reached 4 GJ/ha in 1997, a level matched in Nemaha already in 1880. Final Produce dipped in the mid-twentieth century then doubled by 1997, but in that year it generated only an eighth of Nemaha’s output. UPH remained stable through more than 150 years, above 70% of presettlement NPP. Biomass Reused rose after 1954, reaching a level five times that of FP. Natural conditions put strict limits on agro-ecosystem productivity in Chase County, and farm communities adapted by limiting cropland while fully exploiting pasture for cattle grazing (Cunfer and Krausmann 2016).

Dryland cereal production in Decatur County, Kansas

To the west, Decatur County faced a different environmental constraint. There, soils were good but low rainfall was limiting. In this semi-arid shortgrass steppe, presettlement plant productivity (NPPpot) was 47 GJ/ha, half that of Nemaha and Chase’s tallgrass vegetation. The transition from native grassland to managed agro-ecosystem decreased productivity by half. NPPact remained stable through the mid-twentieth century, then rose sharply by 1997 thanks to imported synthetic fertilizer. Between initial settlement and 1997, NPPact rose from 47 to 68 GJ/ha, a 45% increase. Decatur County was on the western edge of frontier settlement in 1880, with very small energy flows; Final Produce was only 0.4 GJ/ha that year (Fig. 6). During the next half century the county filled up, farmers plowed all arable land and grazed cattle on the rest. They planted wheat and sorghum, both of which became valuable export crops (Cunfer and Krausmann 2009). Between 1880 and 1930 Decatur’s Unharvested Phytomass dropped from 23 to 18 GJ/ha. Land Produce, meanwhile, multiplied by nine times, to 17 GJ/ha. Three quarters of LP went back into farms as Biomass Reused (13 GJ/ha), leaving 5 GJ/ha of Final Produce. By 1930 Decatur County’s productivity did not yet match levels Nemaha County achieved 50 years earlier, a reminder of rainfall’s powerful constraint.
Fig. 6

Agro-ecosystem energy profile of Decatur County, Kansas, 1880 and 1930

In a now-familiar trend, external energy inputs rose between 1930 and 1954, to 6 GJ/ha, while Final Produce remained virtually the same (Fig. 7). Here again, early investments in fossil fuel energy had little effect on FP or BR. Between 1954 and 1997, however, the socio-ecological transition brought dramatic results through the application of synthetic fertilizer. The same 6 GJ/ha of EI now pushed internal energy flows and outputs upward along with it. Land Produce doubled to 33 GJ/ha. Biomass Reused captured 17 of those GJ, leaving 16 GJ/ha as Final Produce. Unharvested Phytomass rose, up 100% to 35 GJ/ha. This highly industrialized farm system produced a lot of marketable grain and also left for wildlife three quarters as much biomass as under presettlement conditions. In 1997, Decatur County’s managed energy flows were a bit over half the size of those in Nemaha, but larger than in Chase County. These comparisons reveal the relative impact on productivity of soil quality and rainfall differentials.
Fig. 7

Agro-ecosystem energy profile of Decatur County, Kansas, 1954 and 1997

Conclusion

Great Plains agro-ecosystems underwent two energy transformations. Agricultural colonization began in the eastern plains in the 1850s, in the western plains in the 1880s, and concluded everywhere by the 1920s. Through the first 75 years, nearly all land in the region became either cropland or grazed pasture (Cunfer 2005). In the process, farmers reduced plant productivity compared to presettlement conditions. Then, over the next 75 years, a second energy transformation, the socio-ecological transition, multiplied plant productivity again. Today, the two grain-growing counties produce 33 to 45% more energy than they did prior to settlement; plant production in the ranching county is virtually identical to that in c.1850. The socio-ecological transition depended on fossil fuel energy in a variety of forms, but most prominently in synthetic fertilizers. Tractors and trucks transformed farm family lifestyles and required energy imports, but they only modestly raised land productivity. In the mid-twentieth century, biomass energy outputs lagged behind climbing fossil fuel energy inputs. Then, when fertilizer took off in the 1950s, productivity rose much faster. Climbing NPPact came from Land Produce, which rose by multiples, and also from Unharvested Phytomass. The latter rose modestly in grazing regions where it had always been high and dramatically in grain-growing areas. Landscape conversion into agro-ecosystems during agricultural colonization increased harvested portions of NPPact and decreased unharvested portions. The socio-ecological transition boosted all energy pathways.

Higher rainfall in the eastern plains allowed farmers to benefit more and earlier from external energy investments. In 1930, Nemaha farmers applied 1 kg of fertilizer per hectare of cropland, compared to 1/3 kg in Chase County and none in Decatur (US Census Bureau 1930). In 1954, farmers in wetter Nemaha and Chase Counties applied 45 and 39 kg/ha, respectively, while those in dry Decatur County had not yet reached 1 kg (US Census Bureau 1954). By 1997, fertilizer applications had leveled off in Chase County (43 kg/ha), risen substantially in Decatur County (59 kg), and tripled in Nemaha County (139 kg). By the late twentieth century, all Kansas farmers employed energy-rich fertilizer to boost crop yields, but more so in eastern Kansas, where rainfall was sufficient for nutrient-hungry corn. In the dry western part of the state, farmers grew wheat and sorghum, which need less water and fewer soil nutrients. Nemaha County farmers began the socio-ecological transition decades earlier and reaped greater productivity increases than did grain farmers in Decatur County.

These results add nuance to previous studies of NPPact in the Great Plains (Lauenroth 1979; Bradford et al. 2005) and reveal an agro-ecological context rarely addressed in HANPP studies. Assessing the entirety of the U.S. Great Plains, Bradford et al. (2005) estimated that cultivation raised aboveground NPP by 26%, somewhat lower than the 33 to 45% increase estimated here. Most of that gain came from corn cultivation, and a smaller part from wheat and sorghum, with irrigation and fertilizer applications as the primary drivers of increasing NPP. Without contradicting those region-wide results, the case studies explored here highlight internal energy loops and expose the energy constraints imposed by climate and soil. Human Appropriation of Net Primary Production studies have addressed global scales (Imhoff et al. 2004; Haberl et al. 2007, 2009; Krausmann et al. 2009, 2013; Erb et al. 2009a, 2009b) or European nations (Haberl et al. 2005; Musel 2009; Schwarzlmuller 2009; Kohlheb and Krausmann 2009; Vackar and Orlitova 2011; Gingrich et al. 2015) but not the New World. Long-term HANPP studies in those regions begin centuries after agricultural colonization and focus on the twentieth century’s socio-ecological transition. Other HANPP studies address the Philippines (Kastner 2009), South Africa (Niedertscheider et al. 2012), New Zealand (Fetzel et al. 2014), and Canada’s Nova Scotia (O’Neill et al. 2007). Thus far, scholars have neglected the Americas, which were characterized by Euro-American colonization, low population densities, and export-focussed agro-ecosystems. There are no HANPP studies of agricultural frontiers (except for New Zealand, where settlers converted forest to sheep pasture but grew few crops). Most HANPP research assumes that native vegetation was forest, rather than grassland, with important implications for NPPpot. The energy consequences of clearing forest for farmland are different from those in native grassland. For example, Gingrich et al. (2015) found that the socio-ecological transition led to less cropland, forest regrowth, and NPPact values around 10% higher than NPPpot. The present study shows that NPP gains from the socio-ecological transition may be even higher in grasslands.

Comparative internal energy flows also reveal interesting patterns. All farms and ranches in the Great Plains required reinvestment of Biomass Reused. That was true during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but even more so after the socio-ecological transition. In both ranching and grain-growing regions, rising EI did not substitute for Biomass Reused, but rather drove it higher alongside Final Produce; likewise with Unharvested Phytomass. Increasing flows of BR fed more livestock for meat production, but LBP remained small compared to other energy flows, never climbing higher than 1 GJ/ha. The conversion from livestock feed (BR) to meat (LBP) is inefficient, with large energy losses via waste heat. Converting fossil fuels (EI) into feed crops (BR) and then into meat (LBP) is even less efficient. Increased EI did not diminish BR or UPH on their way to boosting FP. Instead, EI raised all three energy flows. The flush of new energy through agro-ecosystems affected all aspects of farms, including domesticated livestock, market exports, and some wildlife.

While the socio-ecological transition brought changes everywhere in the Great Plains, there were regional variations. Wetter, eastern areas began importing fossil fuel energy earlier than drier areas, and they saw larger returns. Regions with poor soils also increased energy imports, but at lower levels and later than places with abundant cropland. In the eastern plains, farmers invested in tractors in the 1910s and applied synthetic fertilizer in the 1920s (Kansas State Board of Agriculture 1915; U.S. Census Bureau 1930). By the 1930s farmers in the dry western regions transitioned to tractors, but they adopted fertilizer only after the 1950s, and even then applied it at a third the rate of those to the east. In Kansas’s bluestem pastures, where soils were thin, ranchers used fossil fuel energy to increase feed crops, but energy imports and exports remained low. Rainfall and soils were limiting factors, even in an era of cheap, abundant fossil fuel energy.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada’s Partnership Grant 895-2011-1020 and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, U.S. National Institutes of Health grants R01 HD033554 and R01 HD044889. Thanks to Simone Gingrich, Fridolin Krausmann, members of the Sustainable Farm Systems project and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.

References

  1. Audsley E, Alber S, Clift R, Cowell S, Crettaz P, Gaillard G, Hausheer J, Jolliett O, Kleijn R, Mortensen B, Pearce D, Roger E, Teulon H, Weidema B, van Zeijts H (1997) Harmonization of environmental life cycle assessment for agriculture: final report of the concerted action AIR3-CT94–2028. Silsoe Research Institute, SilsoeGoogle Scholar
  2. Belich J (2009) Replenishing the earth: the settler revolution and the rise of the anglo world. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bradford JB, Lauenroth WK, Burke IC (2005) The impact of cropping on primary production in the US Great Plains. Ecology 82:1863–1872. doi: 10.1890/04-0493 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cleveland CJ (1995) The direct and indirect use of fossil fuels and electricity in USA agriculture, 1910-1990. Agric Ecosyst Environ 55:111–121. doi: 10.1016/0167-8809(95)00615-Y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Courtwright J (2011) Prairie fire: a Great Plains history. University Press of Kansas, LawrenceGoogle Scholar
  6. Cronon W (1991) Nature’s metropolis: Chicago and the great west. W.W. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Crosby A (1986) Ecological imperialism: the biological expansion of Europe, 900–1900. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Cunfer G (2005) On the Great Plains: agriculture and environment. Texas A&M University Press, College StationGoogle Scholar
  9. Cunfer G, Krausmann F (2009) Sustaining soil fertility: agricultural practice in the old and new worlds. Global Environment 4:8–47. doi: 10.3197/ge.2009.020402 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cunfer G, Krausmann F (2016) Adaptation on an agricultural frontier: socio-ecological profiles of Great Plains settlement, 1870-1940. J Interdiscip Hist 46:1–38. doi: 10.1162/JINH_a_00868 Google Scholar
  11. Davis JE (1956) Use of electricity on farms: a summary report of ten area studies. Agricultural Research Service Agriculture Information Bulletin 161. U.S. Department of Agriculture, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  12. Erb K-H, Krausmann F, Gaube V, Gingrich S, Bondeau A, Fischer-Kowaslki M, Haberl H (2009a) Analyzing the global human appropriation of net primary production—processes, trajectories, implications: an introduction. Ecol Econ 69:250–259. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.07.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Erb K-H, Krausmann F, Lucht W, Haberl H (2009b) Embodied HANPP: mapping the spatial disconnect between global biomass production and consumption. Ecol Econ 69:250–259. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.06.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Federico G (2005) Feeding the world: an economic history of agriculture, 1800–2000. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  15. Fetzel T, Gradwohl M, Erb K-H (2014) Conversion, intensification, and abandonment: a human appropriation of net primary production approach to analyze historic land-use dynamics in New Zealand 1860-2005. Ecol Econ 97:201–208. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.12.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fischer-Kowalski M, Haberl H (eds) (2007) Socioecological transitions and global change: trajectories of social metabolism and land use. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  17. Fitzgerald D (1991) Beyond tractors: the history of technology in American agriculture. Technol Cult 32:114–126. doi: 10.2307/3106015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gingrich S, Haidvogl G, Krausmann F (2012) The Danube and Vienna: urban resource use, transport and land use 1800-1910. Reg Environ Chang 12:283–294. doi: 10.1007/s101 13-010-0201-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gingrich S, Niedertscheider M, Kastner T, Haberl H, Cosor G, Krausmann F, Kuemmerle T, Mueller D, Reith-Musel A, Jepson MR, Vadineanu A (2015) Exploring long-term trends in land use change and aboveground human appropriation of net primary production in nine European countries. Land Use Policy 47:426–438. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.04.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grigg D (1992) The transformation of agriculture in the west. Basil Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. Guzman Casado GI, Gonzalez de Molina M (2009) Preindustrial agriculture versus organic agriculture: the land cost of sustainability. Land Use Policy 26:502–510. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.07.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guzman Casado GI, Gonzalez de Molina M (2015) Energy efficiency in agrarian systems from an agroecological perspective. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 39:924–952. doi: 10.1080/21683565.2015.1053587 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Guzman Casado GI, Aguilera E, Soto D, Cid A, Infante J, Garcia Ruiz R, Herrera A, Villa I, Gonzalez de Molina M (2014) Methodology and conversion factors to estimate the net primary productivity of historical and contemporary agroecosystems. Sociedad Espanola de Historia Agraria Documentos de Trabajo DT-SEHA n. 1407. See http://seha.info/es/Publicationes/Documentos
  24. Haberl H, Plutzar C, Erb K-H, Gaube V, Pollheimer M, Schulz NB (2005) Human appropriation of net primary production as determinant of avifauna diversity in Austria. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 110:119–131. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2005.03.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haberl H, Erb K-H, Krausmann F, Gaube V, Bondeau A, Plutzar C, Gingrich S, Lucht W, Fischer-Kowalski M (2007) Quantifying and mapping the human appropriation of net primary production in Earth’s terrestrial ecosystems. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:12942–12947. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0704243104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haberl H, Erb K-H, Krausmann F, Berecz S, Ludwiczek N, Musel A, Schaffartzik A, Martinez-Alier J (2009) Using embodied HANPP to analyze teleconnections in the global land system: conceptual considerations. Geografisk Tidsskrift—Danish Journal of Geography 109:119–130. doi: 10.1080/00167223.2009.10649602 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hamilton VL, Angell RC, Tricks BD (1989) Soil survey of Decatur County, Kansas. U.S. soil Conservation Service. Government Printing Office, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  28. Hurt RD (1981) The dust bowl: an agricultural and social history. Nelson Hall, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  29. Imhoff ML, Bounoua L, Ricketts T, Loucks C, Harriss R, Lawrence WT (2004) Global patterns in human consumption of net primary production. Nature 429:870–873. doi: 10.1038/nature02619 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. IPNI (2012) A nutrient use geographic information system (NuGIS) for the U.S. www.ipni.net/nugis. Accessed 17 June 2016
  31. Kansas Geological Survey (2002) WIZARD water well levels database. http://hercules.kgs.ku.edu/geohydro/wizard/index.html. Accessed 17 June 2016
  32. Kansas State Board of Agriculture (1915) Biennial report. State Printing Office, TopekaGoogle Scholar
  33. Kastner (2009) Trajectories in human domination of ecosystems: human appropriation of net primary production in the Philippines during the 20th century. Ecol Econ 69:260–269. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.08.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kohlheb N, Krausmann F (2009) Land use change, biomass production and HANPP: the case of Hungary 1961-2005. Ecol Econ 69:292–300. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.07.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Krausmann F, Haberl H, Erb K-H, Wiesinger M, Gaube V, Gingrich S (2009) What determines geographical patterns of the global human appropriation of net primary production? Journal of Land Use Science 4:15–34. doi: 10.1080/17474230802645568 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Krausmann F, Gingrich S, Haberl H, Erb K-H, Musel A, Kastner T, Kohlheb N, Niedertscheider M, Schwarzlmueller E (2012) Long-term trajectories of the human appropriation of net primary production: lessons from six national case studies. Ecol Econ 77:129–138. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.02.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Krausmann F, Erb K-H, Gingrich S, Haberl H, Bondeau A, Gaube V, Lauk C, Plutzar C, Searchinger TD (2013) Global human appropriation of net primary production doubled in the 20th century. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110:10324–10329. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1211349110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kutnink PR, Gier DA, Haberman RL (1982) Soil survey of Nemaha County, Kansas. U.S. soil Conservation Service. Government Printing Office, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  39. Lauenroth WK (1979) Grassland primary production: North American grasslands in perspective. In: French NR (ed) Perspectives in grassland ecology: results and applications of the US/IBP grassland biome study. Ecological studies. Springer, New York, pp 3–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lauenroth WK, Burke IC (1995) Great Plains, climate variability. In: Encyclopedia of environmental biology, vol. 2. Academic, San Diego, pp 237–249Google Scholar
  41. Malanima P (2006) Energy crisis and growth, 1650-1850: the European deviation in comparative perspective. J Glob Hist 1:91–121. doi: 10.1017/S1740022806000064 Google Scholar
  42. Malanima P (2009) Pre-modern European economy: one thousand years (10th–19th centuries). Brill, BostonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Malin JC (1944) Winter wheat in the golden belt of Kansas: a study in adaptation to subhumid geographical environment. University of Kansas Press, LawrenceGoogle Scholar
  44. Malin JC (1984) In: Swierenga RP (ed) History and ecology: studies of the grassland. University of Nebraska Press, LincolnGoogle Scholar
  45. Miranowski J (2005) Energy consumption in US agriculture. In: Outlaw J, Collins K, Duffield J (eds) Agriculture as a producer and consumer of energy. CAB International, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  46. Moon D (2013) The plough that broke the steppes: agriculture and environment on Russia’s grasslands, 1700–1914. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Musel A (2009) Human appropriation of net primary production in the United Kingdom 1800-2000: changes in society’s impact on ecological energy flows during the agrarian-industrial transition. Ecol Econ 69:270–281. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.08.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Neill JT (1974) Soil survey of Chase County, Kansas. U.S. soil Conservation Service. Government Printing Office, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  49. Niedertscheider M, Gingrich S, Erb K-H (2012) Changes in land use in South Africa between 1961 and 2006: an integrated analysis based on the human appropriation of net primary production framework. Reg Environ Chang 12:715–727. doi: 10.1007/s10113-012-0285-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. O’Neill DW, Tyedmers PH, Beazley KF (2007) Human appropriation of net primary production (HANPP) in Nova Scotia, Canada. Reg Environ Chang 7:1–14. doi: 10.1007/s10113-006-0021-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Osteen CD, Szmedra PI (1989) Agricultural pesticide use trends and policy issues. In: Economic Research Service Agricultural Economic Report 622. U.S. Department of Agriculture, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  52. Parker F, Adams JR, Clark KG, Jacob KD, Mehring AL (1946) Fertilizers and lime in the United States: resources, production, marketing and use. In: Agricultural Research Service, miscellaneous publication 586. U.S. Department of Agriculture, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  53. Pyne SJ (1982) Fire in America: a cultural history of wildland and rural fire. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  54. Pyne SJ (1995) World fire: the culture of fire on earth. Holt, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  55. Schwarzlmuller E (2009) Human appropriation of aboveground net primary production in Spain, 1955-2003: an empirical analysis of the industrialization of land use. Ecol Econ 69:282–291. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.07.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Simmons IG (2008) Global environmental history: from 10,000 BC to AD 2000. Edinburgh University Press, EdinburghCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sloggett G (1985) Energy and U.S. agriculture: irrigation pumping, 1974–83. In: Economic Research Service Agricultural Economic Report 545. U.S. Department of Agriculture, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  58. Strickler PE, Hinson WC (1962) Extent of spraying and dusting on farms, 1958, with comparisons. In: Economic Research Service statistical bulletin 314. U.S. Department of Agriculture, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  59. Tello E, Galan E, Cunfer G, Guzman GI, Gonzalez de Molina M, Krausmann F, Gingrich S, Sacristan V, Marco I, Padro R, Moreno-Delgado D (2015) A proposal for a workable analysis of energy return on investment (EROI) in agroecosystems, part I: analytical approach. In: Social ecology working paper 156. Institute for Social Ecology, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  60. Tello E, Galan E, Sacristan V, Cunfer G, Guzman GI, Gonzalez de Molina M, Krausmann F, Gingrich S, Padro R, Marco I, Moreno-Delgado D (2016) Opening the black box of energy throughputs in farm systems: a decomposition analysis between the energy returns to external inputs, internal biomass reuses and total inputs consumed (the Valles County, Catalonia, c.1860 and 1999). Ecol Econ 121:160–174. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.11.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Thelin GP, Stone WW (2013) Estimation of annual agricultural use of 39 pesticides for counties of the coterminous United States, 1992–2009. In: U.S. Geological Survey scientific investigations report 2013–5009. U.S. Department of the Interior, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  62. United States Bureau of the Census (1880) Census of agriculture. U.S. Department of Commerce, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  63. United States Bureau of the Census (1930) Census of agriculture. U.S. Department of Commerce, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  64. United States Bureau of the Census (1954) Census of agriculture. U.S. Department of Commerce, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  65. United States Bureau of the Census (1960) Historical statistics of the United States: colonial times to 1957; a supplement to the statistical abstract of the United States. U.S. Department of Commerce, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  66. United States Bureau of the Census (1997) Census of agriculture. U.S. Department of Commerce, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  67. United States Energy Information Administration (2013) Kansas state profile and energy estimates, table ET5. www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.cfm?incfile=/state/seds/sep_prices/ind/pr_ind_KS.html&sid=KS. Accessed 17 June 2016
  68. Vackar D, Orlitova E (2011) Human appropriation of aboveground photosynthetic production in the Czech Republic. Reg Environ Chang 11:519–529. doi: 10.1007/s10113-010-0167-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Williams RC (1987) Fordson, Farmall, and Poppin’ Johnny: a history of the farm tractor and its impact on America. University of Illinois Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  70. Wishart DJ (ed) (2007) Encyclopedia of the Great Plains. University of Nebraska Press, LincolnGoogle Scholar
  71. Worster D (1979) Dust bowl: the southern plains in the 1930s. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of HistoryUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada
  2. 2.School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious StudiesArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations