IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v14y2021i17p5574-d630017.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

GHG and NH 3 Emissions vs. Energy Efficiency of Maize Production Technology: Evidence from Polish Farms; a Further Study

Author

Listed:
  • Anita Konieczna

    (Institute of Technology and Life Sciences—National Research Insitute, Falenty, 3 Hrabska Avenue, 05-090 Raszyn, Poland)

  • Kamil Roman

    (Institute of Wood Sciences and Furniture, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, 166 Nowoursynowska St., 02-787 Warsaw, Poland)

  • Kinga Borek

    (Institute of Technology and Life Sciences—National Research Insitute, Falenty, 3 Hrabska Avenue, 05-090 Raszyn, Poland)

  • Emilia Grzegorzewska

    (Institute of Wood Sciences and Furniture, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, 166 Nowoursynowska St., 02-787 Warsaw, Poland)

Abstract

The paper determines the effect of selected cultivation technologies, including production chain energy inputs (growing, harvest, heap forming) on greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) to the atmosphere. The data for the study was collected from 13 actually operating family farms ranging in size from 2 to 13 ha, located in the Podlaskie voivodship (Poland). GHG and ammonia (NH 3 ) emissions from natural and mineral fertilisation as well as GHGs from energy carriers in a form of fuels (ON) were estimated. The average GHG emissions from the sources analysed were 1848.030 kg·CO 2 eq·ha −1 and 29.492 kg·CO 2 eq·t −1 of the green forage yield. The average NH 3 emissions per hectare were 15,261.808 kg NH 3 and 248.871 kg NH 3 ·t −1 of yield. The strongest impact on the environment, due to the GHG emissions to the atmosphere, thus contributing to the greenhouse effect, is due nitrogen fertilisation, both mineral and natural. On average, in the technologies under study, 61% of the total GHG emissions came from fertilisation. The GHG emissions were correlated with the energy efficiency, calculated at the previous research stage, of the production technologies applied. There is a negative correlation (r = −0.80) between the features studied, which means that the higher the energy efficiency of the silage maize plantations, the lower the air pollution emissions in a form of the GHGs from the sources under study. It is so important to prevent environmental degradation to continue, conduct in-depth, interdisciplinary research on reducing the energy consumption of crop production technologies and striving to increase energy efficiency.

Suggested Citation

  • Anita Konieczna & Kamil Roman & Kinga Borek & Emilia Grzegorzewska, 2021. "GHG and NH 3 Emissions vs. Energy Efficiency of Maize Production Technology: Evidence from Polish Farms; a Further Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-16, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:17:p:5574-:d:630017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/17/5574/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/17/5574/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ajanovic, Amela, 2011. "Biofuels versus food production: Does biofuels production increase food prices?," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 2070-2076.
    2. Alessandro Agostini & Ferdinando Battini & Jacopo Giuntoli & Vincenzo Tabaglio & Monica Padella & David Baxter & Luisa Marelli & Stefano Amaducci, 2015. "Environmentally Sustainable Biogas? The Key Role of Manure Co-Digestion with Energy Crops," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-32, June.
    3. Kinga Borek & Wacław Romaniuk & Kamil Roman & Michał Roman & Maciej Kuboń, 2021. "The Analysis of a Prototype Installation for Biogas Production from Chosen Agricultural Substrates," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-19, April.
    4. Felten, Daniel & Fröba, Norbert & Fries, Jérôme & Emmerling, Christoph, 2013. "Energy balances and greenhouse gas-mitigation potentials of bioenergy cropping systems (Miscanthus, rapeseed, and maize) based on farming conditions in Western Germany," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 160-174.
    5. Meyer-Aurich, Andreas & Schattauer, Alexander & Hellebrand, Hans Jürgen & Klauss, Hilde & Plöchl, Matthias & Berg, Werner, 2012. "Impact of uncertainties on greenhouse gas mitigation potential of biogas production from agricultural resources," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 277-284.
    6. 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.
    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. Lu Li & Huaiqiang Liu & Taogetao Baoyin, 2022. "Mowing Increases Root-to-Shoot Ratio but Decreases Soil Organic Carbon Storage and Microbial Biomass C in a Semiarid Grassland of North China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-15, August.
    2. Stanisław Bielski & Renata Marks-Bielska & Paweł Wiśniewski, 2022. "Investigation of Energy and Economic Balance and GHG Emissions in the Production of Different Cultivars of Buckwheat ( Fagopyrum esculentum Moench): A Case Study in Northeastern Poland," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-24, December.
    3. Xianguo Ren & Haiqing Tian & Kai Zhao & Dapeng Li & Ziqing Xiao & Yang Yu & Fei Liu, 2022. "Research on pH Value Detection Method during Maize Silage Secondary Fermentation Based on Computer Vision," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-17, October.
    4. Dai Geng & Di Wang & Yushuang Li & Wei Zhou & Hanbing Qi, 2023. "Detection Stability Improvement of Near-Infrared Laser Telemetry for Methane Emission from Oil/Gas Station Using a Catadioptric Optical Receiver," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-16, April.
    5. Anita Konieczna & Kamila Mazur & Adam Koniuszy & Andrzej Gawlik & Igor Sikorski, 2022. "Thermal Energy and Exhaust Emissions of a Gasifier Stove Feeding Pine and Hemp Pellets," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-17, December.
    6. Emmanouil Tziolas & Stefanos Ispikoudis & Konstantinos Mantzanas & Dimitrios Koutsoulis & Anastasia Pantera, 2022. "Economic and Environmental Assessment of Olive Agroforestry Practices in Northern Greece," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-15, June.

    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. 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.
    2. Sinéad O’Keeffe & Daniela Thrän, 2019. "Energy Crops in Regional Biogas Systems: An Integrative Spatial LCA to Assess the Influence of Crop Mix and Location on Cultivation GHG Emissions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-17, December.
    3. Susanne Theuerl & Christiane Herrmann & Monika Heiermann & Philipp Grundmann & Niels Landwehr & Ulrich Kreidenweis & Annette Prochnow, 2019. "The Future Agricultural Biogas Plant in Germany: A Vision," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-32, January.
    4. 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.
    5. Budzianowski, Wojciech M. & Postawa, Karol, 2017. "Renewable energy from biogas with reduced carbon dioxide footprint: Implications of applying different plant configurations and operating pressures," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 68(P2), pages 852-868.
    6. Carlotta Penone & Elisa Giampietri & Samuele Trestini, 2022. "Futures–spot price transmission in EU corn markets," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(3), pages 679-709, July.
    7. Amaducci, Stefano & Yin, Xinyou & Colauzzi, Michele, 2018. "Agrivoltaic systems to optimise land use for electric energy production," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 220(C), pages 545-561.
    8. Dmytro Zhuravel & Kyrylo Samoichuk & Serhii Petrychenko & Andrii Bondar & Taras Hutsol & Maciej Kuboń & Marcin Niemiec & Lyudmyla Mykhailova & Zofia Gródek-Szostak & Dmytro Sorokin, 2022. "Modeling of Diesel Engine Fuel Systems Reliability When Operating on Biofuels," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-16, February.
    9. Baudry, Gino & Delrue, Florian & Legrand, Jack & Pruvost, Jérémy & Vallée, Thomas, 2017. "The challenge of measuring biofuel sustainability: A stakeholder-driven approach applied to the French case," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 933-947.
    10. Anita Konieczna & Kamila Mazur & Adam Koniuszy & Andrzej Gawlik & Igor Sikorski, 2022. "Thermal Energy and Exhaust Emissions of a Gasifier Stove Feeding Pine and Hemp Pellets," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-17, December.
    11. Xujing Yu & Liping Shan & Yuzhe Wu, 2021. "Land Use Optimization in a Resource-Exhausted City Based on Simulation of the F-E-W Nexus," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-22, September.
    12. Keller, Victor & Lyseng, Benjamin & English, Jeffrey & Niet, Taco & Palmer-Wilson, Kevin & Moazzen, Iman & Robertson, Bryson & Wild, Peter & Rowe, Andrew, 2018. "Coal-to-biomass retrofit in Alberta –value of forest residue bioenergy in the electricity system," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 373-383.
    13. Soha, Tamás & Papp, Luca & Csontos, Csaba & Munkácsy, Béla, 2021. "The importance of high crop residue demand on biogas plant site selection, scaling and feedstock allocation – A regional scale concept in a Hungarian study area," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    14. Bekkering, J. & Hengeveld, E.J. & van Gemert, W.J.T. & Broekhuis, A.A., 2015. "Will implementation of green gas into the gas supply be feasible in the future?," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 409-417.
    15. repec:lic:licosd:31912 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Lauer, Markus & Hansen, Jason K. & Lamers, Patrick & Thrän, Daniela, 2018. "Making money from waste: The economic viability of producing biogas and biomethane in the Idaho dairy industry," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 621-636.
    17. Cheteni, Priviledge, 2017. "Sustainability development: Biofuels in agriculture," MPRA Paper 80969, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 24 Jun 2017.
    18. Cansino, J.M. & Pablo-Romero, M.del P & Román, R. & Yñiguez, R., 2012. "Promotion of biofuel consumption in the transport sector: An EU-27 perspective," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(8), pages 6013-6021.
    19. Seber, Gonca & Escobar, Neus & Valin, Hugo & Malina, Robert, 2022. "Uncertainty in life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of sustainable aviation fuels from vegetable oils," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    20. 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.
    21. Saha, Chayan Kumer & Nandi, Rajesh & Akter, Shammi & Hossain, Samira & Kabir, Kazi Bayzid & Kirtania, Kawnish & Islam, Md Tahmid & Guidugli, Laura & Reza, M. Toufiq & Alam, Md Monjurul, 2024. "Technical prospects and challenges of anaerobic co-digestion in Bangladesh: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).

    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:14:y:2021:i:17:p:5574-:d:630017. 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.