IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v157y2017icp270-278.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Replacing silage maize for biogas production by sugar beet – A system analysis with ecological and economical approaches

Author

Listed:
  • Jacobs, Anna
  • Auburger, Sebastian
  • Bahrs, Enno
  • Brauer-Siebrecht, Wiebke
  • Christen, Olaf
  • Götze, Philipp
  • Koch, Heinz-Josef
  • Mußhoff, Oliver
  • Rücknagel, Jan
  • Märländer, Bernward

Abstract

In a holistic methodological approach, we linked field trial data with different modeling approaches to answer the question if sugar beet roots offer an ecological and economical efficient alternative to silage maize as a substrate for biogas production. Field trials were conducted at highly productive sites in Germany, representative for Central Europe, and tested both biomass crops in continuous cultivation and in crop rotations with winter wheat. In these trials, estimated methane yield of silage maize was generally higher (6837 to 8782Nm3ha−1 a−1) than of sugar beet roots (3206 to 7861Nm3ha−1 a−1) and both biomass crops reached highest yield in crop rotations. Under the nonobservance of technical effects, substrate production costs (€ per Nm3 methane) were higher for sugar beet roots and a nationwide modeling showed that, in most of the German districts, it would need to be reduced by 10 to 25% in order to reach economical competitiveness with silage maize. However, at a farm level, sugar beet for biogas production was economically advantageous when introduced with a share of 10 to 16% into the individual farm's cultivation program mainly due to high yield stability reducing the economical risk. However, a decrease in gross margin (€ ha−1) was likely to occur. In the field trials, different ecological impacts of crop cultivation were assessed but did not highlight one of the two biomass crops in comparison. However, it was evident that cultivating them in three years long crop rotations with two years of winter wheat provoked lower risks of loss of soil organic matter (−122 to −20kg humus-C ha−1 a−1) or N-leaching (40 to 62kgNha−1 in three years) than in continuous cultivation. In contrast, the continuous cultivation of silage maize and sugar beet showed lower greenhouse gas emission (7652 to 11,074kg C-dioxide-equivalents ha−1 in three years) than the crop rotations with winter wheat. Overall, we conclude that sugar beet roots can offer an efficient alternative to silage maize as a substrate for biogas production. However, to raise sugar beet's competitiveness, dry matter yields should be increased without increasing production costs and ecological impacts.

Suggested Citation

  • Jacobs, Anna & Auburger, Sebastian & Bahrs, Enno & Brauer-Siebrecht, Wiebke & Christen, Olaf & Götze, Philipp & Koch, Heinz-Josef & Mußhoff, Oliver & Rücknagel, Jan & Märländer, Bernward, 2017. "Replacing silage maize for biogas production by sugar beet – A system analysis with ecological and economical approaches," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 270-278.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:157:y:2017:i:c:p:270-278
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2016.10.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X16306308
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.10.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Tilman & Kenneth G. Cassman & Pamela A. Matson & Rosamond Naylor & Stephen Polasky, 2002. "Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices," Nature, Nature, vol. 418(6898), pages 671-677, August.
    2. Richard Plevin & Mark Delucchi & Felix Creutzig, 2014. "Response to Comments on “Using Attributional Life Cycle Assessment to Estimate Climate-Change Mitigation …”," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 18(3), pages 468-470, May.
    3. van Ittersum, Martin K. & Ewert, Frank & Heckelei, Thomas & Wery, Jacques & Alkan Olsson, Johanna & Andersen, Erling & Bezlepkina, Irina & Brouwer, Floor & Donatelli, Marcello & Flichman, Guillermo & , 2008. "Integrated assessment of agricultural systems - A component-based framework for the European Union (SEAMLESS)," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 96(1-3), pages 150-165, March.
    4. Bacenetti, Jacopo & Sala, Cesare & Fusi, Alessandra & Fiala, Marco, 2016. "Agricultural anaerobic digestion plants: What LCA studies pointed out and what can be done to make them more environmentally sustainable," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 669-686.
    5. Wünsch, Karin & Gruber, Sabine & Claupein, Wilhelm, 2012. "Profitability analysis of cropping systems for biogas production on marginal sites in southwestern Germany," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 213-220.
    6. Auburger, Sebastian & Jacobs, Anna & Märländer, Bernward & Bahrs, Enno, 2016. "Economic optimization of feedstock mix for energy production with biogas technology in Germany with a special focus on sugar beets – Effects on greenhouse gas emissions and energy balances," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 1-11.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. De Menna, Fabio & Malagnino, Remo Alessio & Vittuari, Matteo & Segrè, Andrea & Molari, Giovanni & Deligios, Paola A. & Solinas, Stefania & Ledda, Luigi, 2018. "Optimization of agricultural biogas supply chains using artichoke byproducts in existing plants," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 137-146.
    2. Michael Kuhwald & Katja Dörnhöfer & Natascha Oppelt & Rainer Duttmann, 2018. "Spatially Explicit Soil Compaction Risk Assessment of Arable Soils at Regional Scale: The SaSCiA-Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-29, May.
    3. Robert Bedoić & Goran Smoljanić & Tomislav Pukšec & Lidija Čuček & Davor Ljubas & Neven Duić, 2021. "Geospatial Analysis and Environmental Impact Assessment of a Holistic and Interdisciplinary Approach to the Biogas Sector," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-20, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ewelina Olba-Zięty & Mariusz Jerzy Stolarski & Michał Krzyżaniak, 2021. "Economic Evaluation of the Production of Perennial Crops for Energy Purposes—A Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-16, November.
    2. Leah Grout & Simon Hales & Nigel French & Michael G. Baker, 2018. "A Review of Methods for Assessing the Environmental Health Impacts of an Agricultural System," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-27, June.
    3. Chopin, Pierre & Blazy, Jean-Marc & Guindé, Loïc & Wery, Jacques & Doré, Thierry, 2017. "A framework for designing multi-functional agricultural landscapes: Application to Guadeloupe Island," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 316-329.
    4. Schönhart, Martin & Schauppenlehner, Thomas & Schmid, Erwin & Muhar, Andreas, 2011. "Integration of bio-physical and economic models to analyze management intensity and landscape structure effects at farm and landscape level," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(2), pages 122-134, February.
    5. Reidsma, Pytrik & Bakker, Martha M. & Kanellopoulos, Argyris & Alam, Shah J. & Paas, Wim & Kros, Johannes & de Vries, Wim, 2015. "Sustainable agricultural development in a rural area in the Netherlands? Assessing impacts of climate and socio-economic change at farm and landscape level," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 160-173.
    6. Kirchner, Mathias & Schmidt, Johannes & Kindermann, Georg & Kulmer, Veronika & Mitter, Hermine & Prettenthaler, Franz & Rüdisser, Johannes & Schauppenlehner, Thomas & Schönhart, Martin & Strauss, Fran, 2015. "Ecosystem services and economic development in Austrian agricultural landscapes — The impact of policy and climate change scenarios on trade-offs and synergies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 161-174.
    7. Jacobs, Anna & Auburger, Sebastian & Bahrs, Enno & Brauer-Siebrecht, Wiebke & Christen, Olaf & Götze, Philipp & Koch, Heinz-Josef & Rücknagel, Jan & Märländer, Bernward, 2017. "Greenhouse gas emission of biogas production out of silage maize and sugar beet – An assessment along the entire production chain," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 114-121.
    8. Jeder, Houcine & Sghaier, Mongi & Louhichi, Kamel & Reidsma, Pytrik, 2014. "Bio-economic modelling to assess the impact of water pricing policies at the farm level in the Oum Zessar watershed, southern Tunisia," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 15(2), pages 1-19.
    9. Elisa Morri & Riccardo Santolini, 2021. "Ecosystem Services Valuation for the Sustainable Land Use Management by Nature-Based Solution (NbS) in the Common Agricultural Policy Actions: A Case Study on the Foglia River Basin (Marche Region, It," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-23, December.
    10. Liu, Duan & Tang, Runcheng & Xie, Jun & Tian, Jingjing & Shi, Rui & Zhang, Kai, 2020. "Valuation of ecosystem services of rice–fish coculture systems in Ruyuan County, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    11. Iris Kral & Gerhard Piringer & Molly K. Saylor & Javier Lizasoain & Andreas Gronauer & Alexander Bauer, 2020. "Life Cycle Assessment of Biogas Production from Unused Grassland Biomass Pretreated by Steam Explosion Using a System Expansion Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-17, November.
    12. Shen Yuan & Shaobing Peng, 2017. "Exploring the Trends in Nitrogen Input and Nitrogen Use Efficiency for Agricultural Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-15, October.
    13. Katarina Arvidsson Segerkvist & Helena Hansson & Ulf Sonesson & Stefan Gunnarsson, 2021. "A Systematic Mapping of Current Literature on Sustainability at Farm-Level in Beef and Lamb Meat Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-14, February.
    14. Vainio, Annukka & Tienhaara, Annika & Haltia, Emmi & Hyvönen, Terho & Pyysiäinen, Jarkko & Pouta, Eija, 2021. "The legitimacy of result-oriented and action-oriented agri-environmental schemes: A comparison of farmers’ and citizens’ perceptions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    15. Hualin Xie & Yingqian Huang & Qianru Chen & Yanwei Zhang & Qing Wu, 2019. "Prospects for Agricultural Sustainable Intensification: A Review of Research," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-27, October.
    16. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    17. Bangxi Zhang & Tianhong Fu & Chung-Yu Guan & Shihao Cui & Beibei Fan & Yi Tan & Wenhai Luo & Quanquan Wei & Guoxue Li & Yutao Peng, 2022. "Environmental Life Cycle Assessments of Chicken Manure Compost Using Tobacco Residue, Mushroom Bran, and Biochar as Additives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-10, April.
    18. Aude Ridier & Caroline Roussy & Karim Chaib, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 265-283, September.
    19. Robert Czubaszek & Agnieszka Wysocka-Czubaszek & Wendelin Wichtmann & Grzegorz Zając & Piotr Banaszuk, 2023. "Common Reed and Maize Silage Co-Digestion as a Pathway towards Sustainable Biogas Production," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-25, January.
    20. Paul L. G. Vlek & Asia Khamzina & Hossein Azadi & Anik Bhaduri & Luna Bharati & Ademola Braimoh & Christopher Martius & Terry Sunderland & Fatemeh Taheri, 2017. "Trade-Offs in Multi-Purpose Land Use under Land Degradation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:157:y:2017:i:c:p:270-278. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.