Life cycle assessment of oilseed crops produced in rotation with dryland cereals in the inland Pacific Northwest
- 181 Downloads
Oilseed crops are expected to become an important feedstock for production of renewable jet fuel. The objective of this study is to determine the life cycle energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of several 2- and 3-year crop rotations with cereals and oilseeds in a low precipitation environment of the inland Pacific Northwest. The purpose is to ascertain whether cropping intensification could improve energy efficiency and reduce GHG emissions.
A life cycle assessment (LCA) was carried out to evaluate the fossil energy and carbon footprint of nine cropping systems characterized by different inputs applied to spring carinata [Brassica carinata (A.) Braun] and winter canola (B. napus L.) in rotation with wheat (Triticum aevistum L.) and other cereal crops. Grain yield and field activity data from cropping systems were acquired from a field experiment over a 5-year period. Gas emissions were measured weekly over 2 years using static chamber methodology and laboratory gas chromatography. Inputs for the LCA regarding fertilizers, machinery fuel use, and pesticides were from the field trials and literature for fuel use.
Results and discussion
Emission results of winter wheat (WW) rotations are between 300 and 400 g CO2 eq. kg−1 WW, in the range for US average WW cropping emissions (i.e., 300–600 g CO2 eq. kg−1 WW). Reduced tillage fallow (RTF)-Winter oilseed (WO)-RTF-WW and summer fallow (SF)-WW rotation were the most promising, from a trade-off of GHG emissions versus total crop sales over 6 years per hectare with low emissions and high sales. The best oilseed result was 660 g CO2 eq. kg−1 for canola following RTF. Highest yields were observed when cereal or oilseed crops were planted following RTF. Efficiency in terms of Energy Return on Energy Investment was 3.85 for winter oilseed yields 1338.9 kg ha−1 and 1.6 for spring oilseed yields 552.2 kg ha−1.
Compared to SF-WW, bioenergy oilseed cultivation may increase CO2 equivalent emissions in 3-year cereal-based rotations due to increased inputs with inclusion of fallow-substitution cultivation. Fossil energy inputs required to produce oilseed crops were smaller than the total energy in final seed and thus oilseeds have the potential to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. Improving energy efficiency and encouraging adoption by growers will depend on ability to enhance agronomic performance with higher yielding, drought and cold tolerant oilseed varieties.
KeywordsEnergy Carbon Winter wheat Canola Carinata
Life cycle assessment
Reduced tillage fallow
The authors gratefully appreciate the technical support provided by Alex Lasher, Wayne Polumsky, and John McCallum in the laboratory and field. The US Department of Agriculture is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Mention of commercial products and organizations in this manuscript is solely to provide specific information. It does not constitute endorsement by USDA-ARS over other products and organizations not mentioned.
This study was supported by Research Grant Award [2012-10008-19727] from USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, and USDA- Agricultural Research Service National Programs Soil and Air (NP 212) and Agricultural Competitiveness and Sustainability (NP 216).
- Alberta agriculture and forestry (2015) Farm machinery cost calculator. www.agric.gov.ab.ca/app24/costcalculators/machinery/getmachimpls.jsp. Accessed 14 March 2017
- Baumann H, Tillman A (2004) . Studentlitteratur AB, LundGoogle Scholar
- Dangol N, Shrestha DS, Duffield JA (2015) Life cycle analysis and production potential of camelina biodiesel in the Pacific Northwest. Trans ASABE 58:465–475Google Scholar
- Gilbert RO (1987) Statistical methods for environmental pollution monitoring. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Hayer F, Bonnin E, Carrouée B, Gaillard G, Nemecek T, Schneider A, Vivier C (2010) Designing sustainable crop rotations using life cycle assessment of crop combinations. In: 9th European IFSA symposium Vienna, Austria, pp 903–911Google Scholar
- Holzapfel C (2012) Conventional Brassica carinata (Ethiopian mustard) variety testing. Indian Head Agricultural Research Foundation. http://www.iharf.ca/resources/2011%20IHARF%20annual%20report.pdf. Accessed 12 Dec 2017
- Horne R, Grant T, Verghese K (2009) Life cycle assessment. Principles, practice and prospects. CSIRO Publishing, CollingwoodGoogle Scholar
- Papendick RI (2004) Farming with the wind II: Wind erosion and air quality control on the Columbia Plateau and Columbia Basin. Washington State University College of Agriculture and Home Economics Report No. XB1042, Pullman, WAGoogle Scholar
- Parkin TB, Venterea RT (2010) USDA-ARS GRACEnet project protocols chapter 3. Chamber-based trace gas flux measurements 4:1–39Google Scholar
- Piringer G, Steinberg LJ (2006) Reevaluation of energy use in wheat production in the United States. J Ind Ecol 10(1–2):149–167Google Scholar
- SAFN (2011) Sustainable aviation fuels northwest: powering the generation of flight. Report. https://www.climatesolutions.org/sites/default/files/uploads/safn_2011report.pdf. Accessed 12 Dec 2017
- Stationary combustion emission factors, Solid, gaseous, liquid and biomass fuels: Fed Regist (2009) EPA;40 CFR Parts 86, 87, 89 et al; Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases; Final Rule, 30Oct09, 261 pp. Tables C-1and C-2 at FR, pp 56409–56410Google Scholar
- Taylor DC, Falk KC, Palmer CD, Hammerlindl J, Babic V, Mietkiewska E, Jadhav A, Marillia E, Francis T, Hoffman T, Giblin EM, Katavic V, Keller WA (2010) Brassica carinata – a new molecular farming platform for delivering bio-industrial oil feedstocks: case studies of genetic modifications to improve very long-chain fatty acid and oil content in seeds. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 4:538–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Young DL, Young FL, Hammel JE, Veseth RJ (1999) A systems approach to conservation farming. In: Michalson EL, Papendick RI, Carlson JE (eds) Conservation farming in the United States: The methods and accomplishments of the STEEP Program. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 173–191Google Scholar