IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v12y2019i1p166-d194961.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Ying Xu

    (Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Højbakkegård Alle 30, 2630 Taastrup, Denmark)

  • Lisa Mølgaard Lehmann

    (Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Højbakkegård Alle 30, 2630 Taastrup, Denmark)

  • Silvestre García de Jalón

    (Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3). Building 1, 1st floor, Scientific Campus of the University of Basque Country, Barrio Sarriena, s/n. 48940 Leioa, Bizkaia, Spain)

  • Bhim Bahadur Ghaley

    (Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Højbakkegård Alle 30, 2630 Taastrup, Denmark)

Abstract

Agro-ecosystems for integrated food, fodder, and biomass production can contribute to achieving European Union goals to increase renewable energy sources and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The study objective was to evaluate the productivity and economic returns from a combined food and energy (CFE) system compared to sole winter wheat and sole short rotation woody crop (SRWC) production. Two excel-based models viz. Yield-SAFE and Farm-SAFE, were used to simulate agronomic productivity and economic assessment respectively. Yield-SAFE was calibrated and validated with measured data from CFE from 1996–2016. When compared over temporal scale of 21 years, CFE systems with 150–200 m alley width had the highest net present value (NPV) followed by 100 m, 50 m, sole winter wheat and sole SRWC, indicating higher profitability of CFE systems. Sensitivity analysis of NPV with ±10% yield fluctuations, and with 0–10% discount rate, demonstrated that CFE systems was more profitable than sole crops, indicating higher resilience in CFE systems. LER in CFE ranged from 1.14–1.34 indicative of higher productivity of CFE systems compared to component monocultures. Hence, the study has demonstrated that the productivity and the economic viability of CFE systems, were higher than sole crops, for informed decision making by farm managers and policy makers to contribute to renewable energy biomass production and to mitigate the impending adverse climate change effects on agricultural production.

Suggested Citation

  • Ying Xu & Lisa Mølgaard Lehmann & Silvestre García de Jalón & Bhim Bahadur Ghaley, 2019. "Assessment of Productivity and Economic Viability of Combined Food and Energy (CFE) Production System in Denmark," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:12:y:2019:i:1:p:166-:d:194961
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/1/166/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/1/166/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mola-Yudego, Blas & Pelkonen, Paavo, 2008. "The effects of policy incentives in the adoption of willow short rotation coppice for bioenergy in Sweden," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 3052-3058, August.
    2. Palma, J. & Graves, A.R. & Burgess, P.J. & van der Werf, W. & Herzog, F., 2007. "Integrating environmental and economic performance to assess modern silvoarable agroforestry in Europe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 759-767, September.
    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. Smith, Laurence G. & Westaway, Sally & Mullender, Samantha & Ghaley, Bhim Bahadur & Xu, Ying & Lehmann, Lisa Mølgaard & Pisanelli, Andrea & Russo, Giuseppe & Borek, Robert & Wawer, Rafał & Borzęcka, M, 2022. "Assessing the multidimensional elements of sustainability in European agroforestry systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    2. Lisa Mølgaard Lehmann & Jo Smith & Sally Westaway & Andrea Pisanelli & Giuseppe Russo & Robert Borek & Mignon Sandor & Adrian Gliga & Laurence Smith & Bhim Bahadur Ghaley, 2020. "Productivity and Economic Evaluation of Agroforestry Systems for Sustainable Production of Food and Non-Food Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-9, July.
    3. Maya Sollen-Norrlin & Bhim Bahadur Ghaley & Naomi Laura Jane Rintoul, 2020. "Agroforestry Benefits and Challenges for Adoption in Europe and Beyond," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-21, August.
    4. Alessandro Suardi & Sergio Saia & Walter Stefanoni & Carina Gunnarsson & Martin Sundberg & Luigi Pari, 2020. "Admixing Chaff with Straw Increased the Residues Collected without Compromising Machinery Efficiencies," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-14, April.
    5. Dmuchowski, Wojciech & Baczewska-Dąbrowska, Aneta H. & Gworek, Barbara, 2024. "The role of temperate agroforestry in mitigating climate change: A review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).

    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. Nana, Tian & Lu, Fadian, 2013. "Adaptive management decision of agroforestry under timber price risk," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 162-173.
    2. Aikaterini Papapostolou & Charikleia Karakosta & Kalliopi-Anastasia Kourti & Haris Doukas & John Psarras, 2019. "Supporting Europe’s Energy Policy Towards a Decarbonised Energy System: A Comparative Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-26, July.
    3. Ge, Jiaqi & Sutherland, Lee-Ann & Polhill, J. Gary & Matthews, Keith & Miller, Dave & Wardell-Johnson, Douglas, 2017. "Exploring factors affecting on-farm renewable energy adoption in Scotland using large-scale microdata," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 548-560.
    4. Yılmaz Balaman, Şebnem & Scott, James & Matopoulos, Aristides & Wright, Daniel G., 2019. "Incentivising bioenergy production: Economic and environmental insights from a regional optimization methodology," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 867-880.
    5. Celiktas, Melih Soner & Kocar, Gunnur, 2009. "A quadratic helix approach to evaluate the Turkish renewable energies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(11), pages 4959-4965, November.
    6. Galluzzo, Nicola, 2015. "Role And Effect Of Agroforesty Subsides Allocated By The Common Agricultural Policy In Italian Farms," International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics (IJFAEC), Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Department of Economics and Finance, vol. 3(01), pages 1-13, January.
    7. Tate, Graham & Mbzibain, Aurelian & Ali, Shaukat, 2012. "A comparison of the drivers influencing farmers' adoption of enterprises associated with renewable energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 400-409.
    8. Borremans, L. & Marchand, F. & Visser, M. & Wauters, E., 2018. "Nurturing agroforestry systems in Flanders: Analysis from an agricultural innovation systems perspective," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 205-219.
    9. Staton, Tom & Breeze, Tom D. & Walters, Richard J. & Smith, Jo & Girling, Robbie D., 2022. "Productivity, biodiversity trade-offs, and farm income in an agroforestry versus an arable system," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    10. Ben Fradj, Nosra & Jayet, Pierre Alain & Rozakis, Stelios & Georganta, Eleni & Jędrejek, Anna, 2020. "Contribution of agricultural systems to the bioeconomy in Poland: Integration of willow in the context of a stylised CAP diversification," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    11. Felton, Michelle & Jones, Philip & Tranter, Richard & Clark, Joanna & Quaife, Tristan & Lukac, Martin, 2023. "Farmers’ attitudes towards, and intentions to adopt, agroforestry on farms in lowland South-East and East England," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    12. Maya Sollen-Norrlin & Bhim Bahadur Ghaley & Naomi Laura Jane Rintoul, 2020. "Agroforestry Benefits and Challenges for Adoption in Europe and Beyond," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-21, August.
    13. Nigussie, Yalemzewd & van der Werf, Edwin & Zhu, Xueqin & Simane, Belay & van Ierland, Ekko C., 2018. "Evaluation of Climate Change Adaptation Alternatives for Smallholder Farmers in the Upper Blue-Nile Basin," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 142-150.
    14. Mola-Yudego, Blas & Dimitriou, Ioannis & Gonzalez-Garcia, Sara & Gritten, David & Aronsson, Pär, 2014. "A conceptual framework for the introduction of energy crops," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 29-38.
    15. Luedeling, Eike & Smethurst, Philip J. & Baudron, Frédéric & Bayala, Jules & Huth, Neil I. & van Noordwijk, Meine & Ong, Chin K. & Mulia, Rachmat & Lusiana, Betha & Muthuri, Catherine & Sinclair, Ferg, 2016. "Field-scale modeling of tree–crop interactions: Challenges and development needs," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 51-69.
    16. Parra-López, Carlos & Holley, Martin & Lindegaard, Kevin & Sayadi, Samir & Esteban-López, Gonzalo & Durán-Zuazo, Víctor H. & Knauer, Christoph & Engelbrechten, Hans-Georg von & Winterber, Ralf & Henri, 2017. "Strengthening the development of the short-rotation plantations bioenergy sector: Policy insights from six European countries," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(PB), pages 781-793.
    17. Tshering Choden & Bhim Bahadur Ghaley, 2021. "A Portfolio of Effective Water and Soil Conservation Practices for Arable Production Systems in Europe and North Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-18, March.
    18. Doukas, Haris, 2013. "Modelling of linguistic variables in multicriteria energy policy support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 227(2), pages 227-238.
    19. Rugani, Benedetto & Golkowska, Katarzyna & Vázquez-Rowe, Ian & Koster, Daniel & Benetto, Enrico & Verdonckt, Pieter, 2015. "Simulation of environmental impact scores within the life cycle of mixed wood chips from alternative short rotation coppice systems in Flanders (Belgium)," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 449-464.
    20. Di Corato, Luca & Gazheli, Ardjan & Lagerkvist, Carl-Johan, 2013. "Investing in energy forestry under uncertainty," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 56-64.

    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:gam:jeners:v:12:y:2019:i:1:p:166-:d:194961. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.