Skip to Content

Feed aggregator

Bill to Improve Rural Energy for America Program Introduced

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition - Fri, 03/23/2012 - 3:32pm

On Thursday, Senators Al Franken (D-MN) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) introduced Senate Bill 2225 that reauthorizes and amends the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP).  REAP provides agricultural producers and rural businesses with grants and loans for renewable energy and energy efficiency projects.  The Program also provides grant funding for energy audits and renewable energy development assistance.

The Franken-Harkin bill has new provisions for REAP that are supported by NSAC including:

  • Simplifying the Application Process: The bill simplifies applications for small projects, creating a three-tiered application system with application simplicity reflecting the size of the project.
  • Cutting Burdensome and Costly Regulation: The bill eliminates the USDA’s “two-meter rule,” which currently requires farmers to install a second meter for residential use that goes unread. This rule has levied heavy costs on farmers, and once removed by this bill will allow more farmers to benefit from REAP funding.
  • Strengthening Environmental and Health Provisions: The bill requires the USDA to include stronger environmental and health aspects in its award considerations.
  • Expanding Start-Up Support: The bill strengthens funding for feasibility studies so that rural farmers and businesses can start projects with sound planning

The new bill also proposes to increase the authorization for appropriation for REAP from $25 million to $100 million, and decrease the farm bill mandatory funding level for REAP from $70 million a year to $25 million.  In recent years, demand for REAP dollars has outstripped supply by a 3:1 margin.  USDA recently issued a progress report on REAP accomplishments.

Categories: Organizations

Spread Reckoning: U.S. Suburbs Face Twin Perils of Climate Change and Peak Oil [Excerpt]

Green Living | Scientific American - Fri, 03/23/2012 - 2:01pm

Editor's note: The following is an excerpt from Before the Lights Go Out: Conquering the Energy Crisis Before It Conquers Us (John Wiley & Sons, 2012), by Maggie Koerth-Baker.

[More]


Categories: Green / Sustainability

Green employment is on the rise

Sustainability | SmartBrief - Fri, 03/23/2012 - 1:44pm
In its first-ever survey of green goods and services jobs, the Labor Department found that 2.4% of America's total employment -More- 
Categories: Green / Sustainability

Entrepreneur fights "coyotes" to help coffee producers

Sustainability | SmartBrief - Fri, 03/23/2012 - 1:44pm
The creator of the La Colombe Torrefaction coffee brand is waging a one-man war against "coyotes" -- the "shakedown artists"  -More- 
Categories: Green / Sustainability

Happier pigs means costlier pork, producers warn

Sustainability | SmartBrief - Fri, 03/23/2012 - 1:44pm
Pork producers are moving livestock from cramped gestation pens to roomier communal stalls, in a move that industry experts s -More- 
Categories: Green / Sustainability

Brands help World Water Day make a splash

Sustainability | SmartBrief - Fri, 03/23/2012 - 1:44pm
Brands such as Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Procter & Gamble and Levi's helped mark World Water Day this week, touting their water-con -More- 
Categories: Green / Sustainability

You've picked all the low-hanging fruit -- what next?

Sustainability | SmartBrief - Fri, 03/23/2012 - 1:44pm
Green pioneers are starting to run out of easy ways to reduce their environmental impact, say Nadine Gudz and Melissa Vernon  -More- 
Categories: Green / Sustainability

Energy companies must learn to self-destruct, says Shell CEO

Sustainability | SmartBrief - Fri, 03/23/2012 - 1:44pm
Big energy companies are struggling to embrace the "how can I destroy my business" philosophy needed for truly disruptive inn -More- 
Categories: Green / Sustainability

Corporate culture isn't set in stone

Sustainability | SmartBrief - Fri, 03/23/2012 - 1:44pm
Many bosses think it's impossible to change corporate culture, but that's a misconception, writes S. Chris Edmonds.  -More- 
Categories: Green / Sustainability

Connect with us on Twitter

Sustainability | SmartBrief - Fri, 03/23/2012 - 1:44pm
Follow SB_GreenBiz on Twitter for more sustainability news from SmartBrief on Sustainability's lead editor, James daSilva.  -More- 
Categories: Green / Sustainability

Corporate culture is the most important driver of what happens in organizations, and senior leaders are the most important driver of their organization's corporate culture.

Sustainability | SmartBrief - Fri, 03/23/2012 - 1:44pm
S. Chris Edmonds, a senior consultant with The Ken Blanchard Cos., writing at SmartBrief's SmartBlog on Leadership -More- 
Categories: Green / Sustainability

Meet the Obama Official Investigating the Trayvon Martin Shooting

Environment & Health | Mother Jones - Fri, 03/23/2012 - 9:01am

On Tuesday, city officials from Sanford, Florida, trekked to Washington for a meeting on Capitol Hill with a group of black lawmakers and officials of the Justice Department's civil rights division. The topic at hand: the recently announced investigation of the killing of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, who was fatally shot in late February by George Zimmerman, a self-appointed neighborhood watch captain, while walking back to his father's house in a gated community from a local convenience store.

Sanford Mayor Jeff Triplet told the group he'd spent the last few days listening repeatedly to the recording of Zimmerman's 911 call, according to Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), who was present at the meeting. After the shooting, Zimmerman told the police that Martin had attacked him and he had acted in self-defense. Apparently believing his version of events, the Sanford police did not arrest him. But the 911 tape suggested that Zimmerman had pursued Martin, even though he had been warned against doing so by the 911 dispatcher.

When Hastings suggested that Zimmerman might have uttered a racial slur on the call, Triplet pulled a copy of the recording out of a folder and passed it to the DOJ's assistant attorney general for civil rights, Thomas Perez. Sanford's city manager, Norton Bonaparte, implored Perez to probe the conduct of the Sanford police.

The inquiry being conducted by Perez's division and the FBI is focused on the actual shooting, in part to determine whether it was a hate crime. But as questions continue to emerge about the Sanford police department's handling of this and other racially charged cases, civil rights leaders have urged the feds broaden the inquiry to include a civil investigation into possible police wrongdoing. And this is an area Perez knows well. During his two-year tenure at the civil rights division, he has quietly led a federal crusade against police misconduct, pursuing 19 investigations of local police departments—the most in the division's history.

"During the Bush administration [police misconduct] was not a high priority," says Richard Jerome, a former Justice Department attorney who now runs the Public Safety Performance Project at the Pew Center on the States. "There certainly were not only fewer cases but the end result of the cases were different."

Using its authority to compel institutional changes in local law enforcement agencies that have engaged in systemic violations of Americans' constitutional rights, Perez's office has helped to overhaul the police department of Puerto Rico and New Orleans police force. (New Orleans police officers shot several civilians in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.) It has scrutinized the Miami and Seattle police departments and exposed the civil rights abuses of Arizona's notorious anti-immigrant Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Continue Reading »

    
Categories: Green / Sustainability

Romney Louisiana Endorser: Undocumented Immigrants Make Walmart a Scary Place

Environment & Health | Mother Jones - Fri, 03/23/2012 - 6:00am

On Thursday, Mitt Romney's presidential campaign released a new list of Louisiana endorsers, ahead of the state's Saturday primary. Among the supporters? State Rep. Tim Burns of Mandeville, who, in 2008, justified his support for a slate of immigration bills by suggesting that undocumented immigrants had made Walmart unsafe for women:

They're frustrated by the inability to go to Walmart at night, they're scared to go to Walmart at night...You weren't sure you were in this country. Not trying to profile people, but it just seemed like people were concerned, that they were... ah.. I'm not trying to say any people there were being rude, or disrespectful or anything, but I could see how somebody, a housewife, could be intimidated to go there.

Walmart actually has pretty tight security, but Burns' point was that a certain group of people were by definition both suspicious and intimidating. It's positions and statements like these that help explain why Latinos are fleeing the Republican primary; just 14 percent of Latino voters say they would support Romney against President Obama in November.

Burns is also an avid opponent of abortion, to the extent that, in 2006, he sponsored a bill that would make the procedure punishable by one year in prison and/or a $10,000 fine. He made exceptions for rape and incest—sort of. Rape victims would need to prove within five days of the rape that they had not been pregnant prior to the crime; the rape must be reported to the police within seven days; and the abortion must be reported within 13 days. In cases of incest, victims would be required to file a police report prior to receiving an abortion (a move that would be severely complicated by the fact that the state also requires parental consent). State Rep. Joe Harrison, whose endorsement was also trumpeted by the Romney campaign on Thursday, introduced a 2011 bill that "would make it a crime to transport or shelter an illegal immigrant, or to help them stay here in the U.S"—similar to the law that was eventually passed in Alabama.

These aren't Mitt Romney's views in full and he doesn't have to agree with everything an endorser says. But campaigns, especially those as image-conscious as Team Romney, take the endorsement process very seriously, and they generally vet the politicians and leaders whose support they wish to cite. And Lousiana's not an isolated example: Romney has brought Kansas attorney general Kris Kobach—who helped lawmakers in Alabama and Arizona craft their harsh immigration laws—into the fold as an unpaid adviser, and tepidly embraced fetal Personhood when speaking to Christian groups.

Ultimately, all of this underscores a larger issue facing his campaign. Romney has gone out of his way to convince conservative activists that he's just like them. The problem is when everyone else starts believing him.

    
Categories: Green / Sustainability

Farm Energy Efficiency and Conservation Table of Contents

Alternative Farming Systems Information Center - Fri, 03/23/2012 - 5:32am

Articles and Fact Sheets

Introduction to Energy Efficiency and Conservation on the Farm

Farm Building: Energy Efficiency and Conservation

Greenhouse: Energy Efficiency and Conservation

Livestock Production and Buildings: Energy Efficiency and Conservation

Farm Equipment: Energy Efficiency and Conservation

Tractor and Field Operation: Energy Efficiency and Conservation

Crop Systems: Energy Efficiency and Conservation

Irrigation: Energy Efficiency and Conservation

Food System: Energy Efficiency

Farm Efficiency Checklist and Tips Series

Answers from our Experts - FAQs

News
Categories: Agriculture / Commerce

Introduction to Farm Equipment Energy Efficiency

Alternative Farming Systems Information Center - Fri, 03/23/2012 - 5:23am

 

Photo: Jason Johnson, NRCS.

Farms have lots of equipment, and most of it uses energy. In some cases, increasing the efficiency of a single piece of equipment or an operation can result in significant energy savings, especially over time. In other situations, many small improvements in efficiency and conservation across the farm can add up to meaningful reductions in energy use and operating costs.

In field-crop based agriculture, liquid fuel use in field operations is equivalent to fertilizers and pesticides as the two largest consumers of energy on U.S. farms (1). Substantial fossil fuel-derived energy in the form of electricity is also required by electric motors for cooling and heating.

These practices have been shown to minimize fuel use:

  • selecting the proper tractor and equipment, travel and engine speed,
  • reducing the number of field operations (i.e., reduced-till farming, etc.),
  • reducing tillage depth, and
  • properly adjusting and maintaining tractor and harvesting equipment.

Simple adjustments such as keeping tractor tires properly inflated/ballasted to improve tractive efficiency and reducing turning/down time can go a long way toward saving fuel and improving overall field efficiency. Replacing clogged air/fuel filters and cleaning injectors can also reduce fuel use. On grain dryers, ventilation equipment, and associated electric motors, these practices can significantly improve equipment and energy efficiency:

  • lubricating motors;
  • replacing rusty motors, corroded parts, and worn bearings;
  • tightening drive belts; and
  • cleaning dirty fans.
Image: Scott Sanford, University of Wisconsin - Madison.

Dairy farms rely heavily on electricity, mostly for collecting and cooling milk, heating water, lighting, and ventilation. In addition to motor maintenance, a dairy operation can double efficiency and lower expenses by 50% to 80% by installing a variable speed drive on vacuum pumps that use sensors to measure the vacuum level and then adjusts the motor speed to meet the air flow demand. Plate coolers – simple heat exchangers that take the heat from warm milk and transfer it to cold well- or pipe-water – are also excellent energy savers and provide hot water for the farm. Large savings accrue over the long term when new or replacement equipment is selected for energy efficiency.

Photo: George Hecht.

Energy savings can be found in:

  • efficient field equipment use;
  • adjustments, cleaning, and maintenance  /*-->*/ of equipment; and
  • thoughtful planning to select new or replacement equipment for the most efficient energy use.

References
  1. Schnepf, R. 2004. Energy Use in Agriculture: Background and Issues. CRS Report for Congress.

 

Additional Resources

Contributors to This Article

Authors


Peer Reviewers

Categories: Agriculture / Commerce

Selecting Engine and Travel Speeds for Optimal Fuel Efficiency

Alternative Farming Systems Information Center - Fri, 03/23/2012 - 5:04am

Photo: Gary E. Wyatt. Introduction

The speed at which tractor engines are operated, travel speed in the field, and the load tractors pull all have a major influence on the fuel efficiency of the equipment. Running equipment at optimal speeds and loads can save significantly on fuel costs.

Optimizing Travel Speed

Field travel speed is a major factor in matching tractor to implement. For many operations, the most desirable travel speed is from 5 to 7 miles per hour (6.4 to 9.7 kph) because most implements are designed to perform high-quality work at these speeds.

/*-->*/

Travel speeds below 4 mph (6.4 kph) result in low field capacities, poor soil mixing for tillage operations, and reduced life of the drive train except for certain operations, such as planting, where precise control is required. Operating equipment at high speeds generally increases implement maintenance, increases tire wear, and reduces the life of the implement. It can also break down soil aggregates, which leads to compaction. Field speeds may be limited by heavy yield, rough ground, operator skill, or downed crops. Irregular and small fields, overlap, and large machinery can affect field efficiency.

Optimizing Fuel Efficiency

Most tractor engines have the highest fuel efficiency when operated at or near their rated speed and load (maximum power). Primary tillage implements properly matched to the tractor achieve the best fuel efficiency in the field by pulling loads at the fastest speed possible within the acceptable speed range for the implement. This will also reduce the time requirements for field operations and shock loads on the drive train. 

If tractor and implement are improperly matched with resulting partial engine loads, increasing travel speed by gearing up and maintaining a full throttle setting to achieve near maximum engine power will usually increase the fuel required. The additional power required for this increased speed and draft more than offsets the fuel efficiencies gained by running the engine at maximum power. While this common practice does not save fuel, it will reduce time requirements. This time savings may be more valuable than the additional fuel required if more timely operations result in reduced crop losses.

Photo: Alexander Morse Photography. Fuel versus Time Considerations

Ideally, field operations should require the least possible fuel and time. However, many operations do not require full tractor engine power, even at the fastest travel speed acceptable for high-quality work. In fact, studies indicate that tractor loading in the field averages only about 55% of maximum power. For some of these light loads, combining operations decreases time requirements and increases fuel use efficiency by utilizing more of the tractor's power. For other light load conditions, shifting to a higher gear and slowing the engine speed to maintain the desired field travel speed can result in 15 to 30% fuel savings.

Normally, operations that require engine loads of 65% or less of a tractor's maximum power can be performed by gearing up and throttling down. Check the operator's manual for specific recommendations. However, it is generally safe to reduce engine speed by 20 to 30% of the rated RPM.

Remember not to overload the engine, which will cause engine wear, overheating, and excessive black smoke. To check for overloading, work for a short time at the desired field speed while geared up and throttled down. Then rapidly open the throttle. If the engine easily regains speed, it is not overloaded. If the engine is overloaded, gear down and increase the engine speed to achieve the desired field speed.

If you need a new tractor, consider getting one with a constantly variable transmission. This type of transmission adjusts the gear ratios and engine speed to optimize the tractor’s performance based on the type of load.

Optimal Tractor Speed: An Example

Tractor drawbar power is a combination of field speed and implement draft. This is calculated using this formula:

Drawbar Hp = (lb of Implement Draft x mph Field Speed) / 375

Assume a 100-hp tractor can pull a 20-foot-wide implement at 3 mph. The formula indicates that the same power could be used to pull a 10-foot-wide version of the same implement at 6 mph. Which match is the best? In most situations, the higher field speed and narrower implement is the better choice. The advantages of increasing field speed while maintaining a desired power input by decreasing the implement width include:

  • The narrower implement allows faster field speeds and requires less draft which in turn requires less tractor ballast. The relationship of field speed to rear ballast is shown in Figure 1 below.
  • Less tractor ballast means that less tractor power is "wasted" just to move the tractor through the field; see Figure 2.
  • A lighter tractor has less potential of soil compaction and less demand for duals.
  • Lower implement draft means less torque in the drive train and increased life of the drive train. Figure 3 shows the relationship of a tractor's drive train life to the travel speed.
Figure 1. Approximate relationship of rear tractor ballast and field speed assuming operation at 80 percent maximum power and optimum slip, for two wheel drive tractors. Figure 2. Drawbar power loss from drive wheel slip and tractor rolling resistance as rear wheel ballast changes. Note the "optimum" slip occurs when total loss is minimized. Figure 3. Estimated relationship of final drive train life with field speed. This assumes that the tractor is appropriately ballasted and operating near 80 percent maximum power.

Source: Smith and Grisso, Using Tillage Horsepower More Efficiently: Selecting Speed, Slip and Ballast. Conservation Tillage Proceeding 9:79-81. 1990.

In summary, there is a practical maximum travel speed for a tillage operation, usually in the range from 5 to 7 mph. Above this speed, the operator must consider personal safety, damage to the tractor or implement, and poor tillage performance. Field speeds of at least 6 mph will provide more efficient use of available power. Avoid speeds below 5 mph.

Additional Resources

Contributors to This Article

Authors

Peer Reviewers

Categories: Agriculture / Commerce

Match Implement Size to Tractor to Save Fuel

Alternative Farming Systems Information Center - Fri, 03/23/2012 - 4:59am

 

Photo:  Gary E. Wyatt.

Matching tractors and implements of appropriate size is a major management decision facing many farmers and ranchers. Proper sizing will minimize time and labor requirements while maintaining efficient field operations.

If the tractor is oversized for the implement, fuel consumption and costs will be higher than necessary for the work done. According to data from Lazarus, a 200 HP MFWD tractor costs $24.27 more per hour of use than a 130 HP MFWD tractor; costs include fuel and oil, maintenance and repair, depreciation and overhead, which includes interest, insurance, and housing. If the implements are too large for the tractor, overloading will occur, resulting in slow field speeds and, therefore, reduced field capacity and quality of work. Overloading also causes excessive wear, increasing downtime and maintenance costs. 

/*-->*/ Farmers can evaluate how different equipment sizes affect the time needed to accomplish tasks by examining work performed in acres per hour (Lazarus). Table 1 below compares plowing 300 acres with a 15-foot chisel plow to a 21.3-foot chisel plow with front disks and a fold, and a 57-foot chisel plow. Total cost per acre for plowing 300 acres vary by a maximum of $1,566 depending on which piece of equipment is used. The difference in time required to plow is as high as 26 hours more. The larger equipment uses more diesel per acre; it costs $1,221 more to plow 300 acres with the largest equipment in this example. Farmers will need to examine the tradeoffs between time, costs, and fuel used. 

Table 1. Equipment Comparison Costs for 300 Acres Implement Work in Acres per Hour Time in Hours Required to Plow 300 Acres Costs per Acre Total Cost for 300 Acres Cost of Diesel Used per Acre Cost of Diesel Used for 300 Acres Chisel Plow, 15 Feet 8.5 acres per hour 300 acres /8.5 acres per hour  = 35.29 hours $10.61

$10.61 x 300 acres = $3,183.00

$2.39 $717.00 Chisel Plow, Front Disk 21.3 Feet Fold 12.04 acres per hour 300 acres /12.04 acres per hour  = 24.91 hours $13.38 $13.38 x 300 acres = $4014.00 $3.84 $1,152.00 Chisel Plow, 57 feet 32.30 acres per hour 300 acres /32.30 acres per hour  = 9.29 hours $8.16

$8.16 x 300 acres = $2448.00

$6.46 $1,938.00

Data and calculations in Table 1 were based on information in Machine Cost Estimates by William F. Lazarus, University of Minnesota for May 2011. Costs for buying new equipment also vary by as much as $215,000 (see Table 2 below). Farmers should also examine these initial costs.

Table 2. New Equipment Net Costs Implement Net Cost of New Implement Tractor Required to Pull Implement Net Cost of New Tractor Total New Net Costs Chisel Plow, 15 feet $19,000 130 HP $111,000 $130,000 Chisel Plow, Front Disk 21.3 Feet Fold $32,000

310 HP 4WD (270 PTO)

$223,000 $255,000 Chisel Plow, 57 Feet

$70,000

425 HP 4WD (370 PTO) $275,000 $345,000

Data in Table 2 were based on information in Machine Cost Estimates by William F. Lazarus, University of Minnesota for May 2011.

Photo: Paul O'Garra. Factors That Determine a Good Match

Selecting an implement to match the tractor depends primarily on tractor size, soil type and condition, field speed, and implement pull requirements. One of the most common errors in equipment selection is to overestimate the drawbar horsepower produced by the tractor. Normally, only 50% to 65% of the maximum PTO horsepower is converted to drawbar horsepower in the field. Consequently, many implements are oversized for the tractor. Performance data on every tractor sold in the United States can be found at the Nebraska Tractor Test Laboratory Tractor Test Reports.

Travel Speed of a Good Match

In general, if implements are matched to tractor size, a tractor should be able to pull the implement in the 3 to 8 mile per hour range. When a tractor can easily pull an implement faster than about 8 MPH, the tractor is probably too large for the implement. Conversely, if the tractor cannot pull the implement faster than 3 MPH, the tractor is probably too small for the implement. Surveys in the past have shown several operations such as spraying, harrowing, and cultivating consume more fuel than would be suggested by mathematical calculations. Analysis of that survey data often revealed that too large a tractor was used for the particular field operation.

Photo: Nathan Paden. Tractor Size and Efficiency

When properly loaded, larger tractors can be more efficient than smaller tractors, yet using small tractors to pull small implements or to do small jobs can be more economical and fuel efficient than using large tractors to pull small implements. Farmers should consider keeping small tractors that are in good condition for doing the smaller jobs around the farm.

Gear Up and Throttle Down Large Tractors

An alternative to using a smaller tractor is to employ the concept of "gear up—throttle back" with a tractor that is too large for an implement. When pulling light loads for short periods of time, a fuel savings can result from pulling that load in a higher gear while reducing RPMs; the RPMs should stay higher than 20% to 30% of the rated RPM. The appearance of black smoke during the operation may indicate overloading and would suggest going to the next lowest gear.

Additional Resources

Contributors to This Article

Authors

Peer Reviewers

 

Categories: Agriculture / Commerce

Additional Resources for Greenhouse Energy Conservation and Efficiency

Alternative Farming Systems Information Center - Fri, 03/23/2012 - 4:52am
Table Of Contents

Articles Published on eXtension Farm Energy site

Strategies and Checklists
  • Greenhouse Energy Conservation Checklist by John Bartok, Univ. of Connecticut agricultural engineer emeritus. A brief but comprehensive summary of steps growers can take to reduce greenhouse energy use.

Construction and Comprehensive Greenhouse Guides
  • Virtual Grower, from USDA, is a decision support tool for greenhouse growers. Using this downloaded software, you can "virtually" build a greenhouse with a variety of materials for roofs and sidewalls, design the greenhouse style, schedule temperature set points throughout the year, and predict heating costs for over 230 sites within the US. Different heating and scheduling scenarios can be predicted with few inputs.
  • Greenhouse Engineering. Available from NRAES: Natural Resource, Agricultural and Engineering Service for $30. This 212 page printed manual, NRAES-33, contains current information needed to plan, construct, and control the commercial greenhouse. Describes various structures, methods of materials handling, the greenhouse environment, and energy conservation. Includes conversion tables, worksheets for performing calculations, and sources of greenhouse construction materials and contractors. (1994)
  • Solar Greenhouses by Barbara Bellows, updated by K. Adam, NCAT Agriculture Specialists. ATTRA Publication #IP142, 2008. Discussion of basic principles of solar greenhouse design, and construction options. Books, articles and Web sites, and computer software relevant to solar greenhouse design are all provided in a resource list.

High Tunnels
  • hightunnels.org - USDA-sponsored project that is testing and promoting high tunnel systems in the Central Great Plains. For growers and educators; a one-stop source of information on all aspects of high tunnel construction and use.

Crop Production in High Tunnels

High Tunnel Crop Production Project. Mississippi State University Extension Service. 2010.

  • Year Round Production in a Passive Solar Greenhouse Slide presentation by Steve Moore, North Carolina State University

Geothermal Heating

 

Greenhouse Efficiency and Conservation Case Studies

Miscellaneous Resources related to Greenhouse Energy
Categories: Agriculture / Commerce

Energy Use and Efficiency in Pest Control, Including Pesticide Production, Use, and Management Options

Alternative Farming Systems Information Center - Fri, 03/23/2012 - 4:48am

Photo: Soil Science at North Carolina State University. Introduction

Up until the last half century, agricultural producers used a variety of cultural and biological controls in an attempt to manage crop pests. The use of pesticides to control weeds, insects, diseases, and other pests is now the predominant force in industrialized agriculture, enhancing the ability of a few workers to cultivate large areas. With the advent of pesticides, human and environmental health have become areas of concern, as has the disturbance of natural biological cycles and, from the energy aspect, the use of fossil fuels for pesticide manufacture and use. Recent technology has made pesticides generally safer and more energy-efficient. This article reviews the energy involved in pesticide production and use and various management alternatives for pest control.

Pesticide and Energy Use in the U.S.

In the United States, approximately 1.25 billion pounds of pesticides are used annually; nearly half are herbicides with the most used being glyphosate and atrazine (1). The use of pesticides also varies by crop group. The fruit and vegetable industry uses the largest amount on a per acre basis, but, because of their large area of cultivation, the feed and food grain crops lead by far in total use. Forages and pastures overall use the least per acre and in total (2).

Of the overall total energy used in agriculture, less than 15% is attributed to pesticides (3) with most crop acres being closer to 5%. Fertilizer (primarily nitrogen), followed by direct fuel consumption for field operations then irrigation and grain drying, represent the greatest amounts of energy use in U.S. agriculture production (4). Transportation on and off the farm also uses significant amounts of petroleum fuels. Even though total energy use in pesticide manufacture is small in comparison, it can require two to five times as much energy per pound as nitrogen fertilizer manufacture. More detailed information on pesticide use and comparative energies in agriculture can be found in the references (3, 4, 5).

Energy Involved in Pesticide Manufacture

Energy used in the manufacture of pesticides is affected by chemical composition, the methods of manufacture, and the fossil fuel and other resources used to manufacture them. Petroleum chemicals, such as ethylene, propylene, and methane, are the source of many pesticides. The heating, distillation, stirring, and drying processes in manufacture also use electricity, natural gas, steam, and additional petroleum sources. Secondary and tertiary energy consumption occurs in the construction and maintenance of the manufacturing plant and equipment, consumption and handling of raw materials, disposal of waste, and other operations. Details of these energies, calculations thereof, and cost-benefit analyses can be found in reference (6).

Table 1 contains a summary of estimated energy requirements for the manufacture of some selected pesticides on a per pound of active ingredient basis and on a per acre basis for a typical use rate. Although these are older products, they are still used. Unfortunately, because of patent and other rights, little information is available on the newer concentrated materials. The relatively new class of biopesticides use limited fuels in their makeup but do consume energy during overall manufacture and use. It should be noted that the values presented in Table 1 for older chemicals may be off by a factor of ±10%, and the somewhat newer products may vary by up to 50% from the true value. New efficiencies in manufacturing result in newer plants manufacturing older chemicals that may have lower actual energy consumption than presented here.

Because of different use rates, pesticides also vary in energy use per acre. The values given in Table 1 are typical use rates for one or more major crops during a growing season, but the reader should realize that rates vary based on pests, crop grown, field conditions, and method and type of application. In addition, some pesticides can be applied multiple times to the same crop in a given growing season.

Table 1. Estimated manufacturing energy inputs for various pesticides (BTUs/lb), typical application rates (lbs/A), and energy per unit area of use (BTUs/A) on an active ingredient basis.

adapted from references: Helsel (7); Green (6).
Pesticide BTUs/lb Application Rate BTUs/A   (x 1000)      (lbs/A) (x 1000) Herbicides       2,4-D 36.5 0.50 18.3 Alachlor 119.5 2.50 297.5 Atrazine 81.7 1.50 122.6 Bentazon 186.6 1.00 186.6 Chlorsulfuron 157.0 0.03 3.9 Dicamba 126.9 0.75 95.2 Diquat 172.0 0.50 86.0 Diuron 116.1 2.00 232.2 EPTC 68.8 4.00 275.2 Fluazifop-butyl 222.7 0.25 55.7 Glyphosate 195.2 1.00 195.2 MCPA 55.9 0.50 28.0 Metolachlor 118.7 1.50 178.1 Paraquat 193.5 0.50 96.8 Trifluralin 64.5 1.00 64.5 Fungicides       Captan 49.5 3.25 160.9 Ferbam 26.2 8.00 209.6 Maneb 42.6 4.00 170.4 Insecticides       Carbaryl 65.8 1.50 32.9 Cypermethrin 249.4 0.25 62.4 Malathion 98.5 1.25 123.1 Phorate 89.9 2.50 224.8


To illustrate the interaction of energy in pesticide production and its integration in a cropping system, consider the major trend of using genetically engineered glyphosate-resistant crops. Glyphosate is the predominant herbicide used in the United States. On a per pound of active ingredient comparison, glyphosate requires nearly two and a half times the energy for manufacture (195,200 BTUs/lb) of atrazine (81,700 BTUs/lb) and about one and a half times that of metolachlor (118,700 BTUs/lb), two of the major herbicides that glyphosate has been replacing in corn production. However, both atrazine and metolachlor were, and are, used together for controlling broadleaf and grassy weeds in corn, whereas glyphosate alone controls these and often many other problem weeds if emerged at the time of application but with no residual activity as with the others. Glyphosate is also used at a lower volume rate per acre than the total of the two, resulting in a calculated energy use per acre for glyphosate of nearly 25% less than the two herbicides combined.

Several newer pesticides, particularly herbicides, are labeled for use at very low rates, literally a few ounces or less per acre. While documented energy use in manufacture is not specifically known, estimates would suggest, on a per pound basis, energy use is greater, but on a per acre basis energy use is likely to be two to three times less than their predecessors with higher use rates.

Energy for Pesticide Formulation, Packaging, Transport, and Application

In addition to the energy for manufacturing the active ingredients of pesticides, energy utilized in formulation, packaging, and transportation can also represent sizable amounts of energy expended to convey usable pesticides to the end user. These amounts can vary significantly because of the variety of uses, formulations, and packaging options. A review by Green (6) suggests that emulsifiable oil-based pesticides may require about 8,600 BTUs/lb, wettable powders up to 12,900 BTUs/lb, granules 4,300 BTUs/lb, and microgranules 8,600 BTUs/lb for formulation. Packaging is estimated to require about 860 BTUs/lb, and transportation about 430 BTUs/lb. With some newer concentrated pesticides applied at very low rates per acre, energy expended on a per acre basis for formulation, packaging, and distribution will be significantly reduced.

Once the end user purchases a pesticide, it needs to be applied to the crop or target. When some pesticides are used, adjuvants must be added to the tank mixture for enhanced efficacy. Typical rates could be 1 to 2 qts/A. For broadcast application, a tractor or truck with a tank sprayer may require up to 0.5 gal/A of fuel or more. If application is combined as part of the field tillage or other operations, the extra energy expended is very low. Some specialized equipment, such as orchard sprayers, can consume significantly more fuel (1+ gal/A). Aerial spraying may also consume more energy than land applications if fields are small or odd-shaped and turning is frequent. Newer low-volume application technology can reduce energy use by lowering transport weight and travel to and from refill sites.

Use of low-volume/low–rate technologies and substitution of lower energy materials or non-petroleum-based pesticides can also lower overall energy expended in crop production.

/*-->*/ IPM triangle courtesy of Royal Botanical Gardens Melbourne. 

Management Practices to Reduce Pesticide Use 

Although pesticides represent less than one-sixth of the energy used in the production of many crops and energy use per acre is decreasing, it is still valuable to evaluate alternative pest control measures to reduce energy expenditures.

The use of integrated pest management (IPM) is the first step in planning for pest control and, it is hoped, pesticide reduction. IPM involves scouting for pests and determining the economic thresholds of pests so as to reduce spraying preventative pesticides on a frequent and calendarized basis. In heavy use pesticide situations, such as for fruits and vegetables, a 50% or more reduction in pesticide use can often be realized from using IPM.

Other good crop management practices such as adequate fertility, crop rotations, cover crops, proper plant spacing, and optimal planting dates can also often reduce the amount of pesticide needed per acre.

Because herbicides are such a large part of overall pesticide use, there have been suggestions of using mechanical cultivation as a practice to reduce pesticide use and thus energy consumption. As an example, we can make such a comparison in the production of soybeans. It is a somewhat typical practice today to apply 1 qt/A of glyphosate in one postemergence operation to glyphosate-resistant soybean varieties. This requires a total of slightly more than 230,000 BTUs/A for all energy inputs from manufacture to application. Formerly mechanical cutlivation was used consisting of at least one rotary hoeing and two standard sweep or shovel cultivations to achieve sufficient weed control. These operations would require a total of approximately 192,000 BTUs/A direct diesel fuel equivalent, plus an estimated additional 38,000 BTUs/A for indirect energies associated with fuel acquisition and processing and farm equipment manufacture. As can be seen, the estimated energy totals for both methods of weed control are similar. Thus, the decision on which method to use is not so dependent on energy use but on weed control efficacy and other practical considerations, such as time, labor, weather, and, perhaps most important, overall economics and effect on the environment.

Genetic engineering has been providing new biological methods of pest control that can significantly reduce pesticide use. The incorporation of insect resistance into the germplasm of various crops has reduced the need for energy-intensive insecticides in corn, cotton, and several other major crops. Use of biopesticides will also reduce energy use if the volume and application methods do not consume excessive amounts of energy.

Summary

Although pesticides are energy intensive in their manufacture on a per weight basis, they represent much less than 15% of the total energy invested in the production of many field crops. The first step in reducing energy use in pest control is to practice IPM concepts on the farm. Because pest control is important both in yield and quality of crops, it is of utmost importance to first choose the best control methods, then evaluate methods to reduce total amounts of energy in the various processes. These practices will often provide significant reductions in per unit energy use of crop production compared to selecting a practice based solely on low fossil fuel energy that may sacrifice pest control.

When and where pesticides are used, choosing concentrated low-energy chemicals that are environmentally benign can provide savings and useful benefits.

References
  1. Kiely, T.; Donaldson, D.; Grube, A. Pesticide Industry Sales and Usage 2000 and 2001 Market Estimates; USEPA: Washington, DC, 2004.
  2. Agricultural Chemical Use Database. National Agricultural Statistics Service.
  3. Pimentel, D. Energy inputs in production agriculture. In Energy in Farm Production; Fluck, R.C., ed.; Energy in World Agriculture; Elsevier: Amsterdam, 1992; Vol. 6, 13-29.
  4. Stout, B.A. Energy Use and Management in Agriculture; Breton Publishers: N. Scituate, Massachusetts, U.S.A., 1984.
  5. Helsel, Z.R. Energy and alternatives for fertilizer and pesticide use. In Energy in Farm Production; Fluck, R.C., ed.; Energy in World Agriculture; Elsevier: New York, 1992; Vol. 6, 177-201.
  6. Green, M.B. Energy in pesticide manufacture, distribution, and use. In Energy in Plant Nutrition and Pest Control; Helsel, Z.R., ed.; Energy in World Agriculture; Elsevier: Amsterdam, 1987; Vol. 2, 165-177.
  7. Helsel, Zane R. (2006) Energy in Pesticide Production and Use, Encyclopedia of Pest Management, 1:1, 1-4. Taylor & Francis, London.     

For Additional Information

Contributors to This Article

Author

Peer Reviewers

Categories: Agriculture / Commerce

Energy-Efficient Use of Fertilizer and Other Nutrients in Agriculture

Alternative Farming Systems Information Center - Fri, 03/23/2012 - 4:40am

This equipment is broadcasting fertilizer to build overall soil fertility. Photo: Andy Harper. Introduction

An important way farmers can conserve energy is making efficient use of fertilizers and other nutrient sources. This article will introduce farmers to the concepts of fertilizer energy and efficient nutrient use. It discusses how to optimize fertilizer use by soil testing, fertilizer placement, and application and by using farm manures and cover crops as part of a soil fertility plan. It includes a discussion on the impact of nutrient carry-over and crop rotation on fertility planning. Thoughtful use of these management practices will help farmers conserve energy and save money.

Fertilizer Energy Use in the U.S.

It is estimated that less than 1% of the total U.S. annual energy consumption is presently being used for fertilizer production, yet this still represents nearly 500 trillion BTUs. The production of nitrogen fertilizers, which requires approximately 25,000 BTUs per pound of nitrogen, represents more than three-fourths of the total energy used for all fertilizer production. Energy consumption values for phosphate and potash fertilizer are estimated at 5,600 BTUs per pound of phosphate(P2O5) and 4,700 BTUs per pound of potash (K2O).

Energy use for the production of fertilizer is not the entire story. Energy is also required for transporting fertilizers to the dealer and then to the farm and for application. Energy use for transportation varies greatly, depending on the fertilizer source being shipped, the methods of transportation, and the distance traveled.

Approximately 1,600 BTUs are required to move one ton of fertilizer one mile by rail or barge and nearly 4,000 BTUs per ton one mile by truck. Pipelines are another means of transporting ammonia fertilizer and should be included in any energy-cost analysis. High-analysis fertilizers generally require more total energy for production but less energy per pound of actual nutrient and for transportation.

Although fertilizers are expensive and consume large quantities of energy, they also help plants utilize the sun’s energy more efficiently. Green plants capture energy from the sun by the process of photosynthesis and store energy as carbohydrates, oil, and protein, which eventually are available for human and animal consumption. Quite often, plants cannot absorb the maximum energy from the sun without the use of fertilizers.

A bushel of corn contains approximately 400,000 BTUs of energy; therefore, each pound of nitrogen must increase yields 0.0625 bushels to return the amount of energy required to produce one pound of nitrogen (25,000 BTUs). Putting it another way, 6.25 bushels of corn contain as much energy as 100 pounds of nitrogen. Quite often, a farmer can expect a 40- to 50-bushel increase in yield with 100 pounds of nitrogen.

Thus, it is easy to see that fertilizers are energy efficient, often resulting in a far greater return of energy than expended, but that energy increase does not diminish the importance of optimizing the efficiency of fertilizer use.

At the critical level, yield returns decrease with subsequent fertilizer additions. Diagram: PSS eLibrary. Efficient Use of Fertilizers

One of the most important ways the grower can conserve fertilizer energy is making efficient use of fertilizer. Economists generally recommend that increasing amounts of fertilizer should only be used when the additional value of yield realized exceeds the cost of nutrients applied. Efficient use can be defined as maximizing yield with a minimum amount of fertilizer. The greatest efficiency usually results from the first increment of added fertilizer/nutrients. Additional increments of fertilizer/nutrients usually result in a lower efficiency but may be profitable. A grower who wants to maximize profits will usually sacrifice some fertilizer efficiency.

Soil Testing

Fertilizer is an important source of plant nutrients required for optimal plant growth. The soil and its organic matter derived from plant residues and manures, however, also supply a large portion of the nutrients essential to growing plants. Soil testing is a means of evaluating the soil’s ability to supply these nutrients. Some soils are naturally fertile or have been made more fertile by the use of fertilizers or other nutrient sources.

An assessment of what the soil can supply can be related to crop yields and is used extensively for making fertilizer and lime recommendations. Soils that test low in phosphorus (P) or potassium (K) will need larger amounts of fertilizer P and K than soils testing high in these two nutrients. Much fertilizer energy can be saved by soil testing if fertilizers are applied to soils that have the greatest need and by using reduced rates where soil reserves are high.

More specific savings and efficiencies have been realized in recent years with the advent of precision farming concepts and equipment, more specifically testing soils on a smaller area basis and using GPS guidance systems and variable rate applications to more precisely apply fertilizers.

Liming Liming soil to the optimal pH for a crop helps makes nutrients more available, thus reducing the need for fertilizers. Photo: Vern Grubinger, University of Vermont Extension.

Limestone is an important source of the essential nutrients calcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg). It is commonly used to raise the soil pH, which is a measure of soil acidity or alkalinity.

Nutrient availability to plants is often affected by soil pH, with the greatest availability generally occurring between pH 6.5 and 7.0. For example, on acid soils (below 5.5), soluble aluminum is toxic to many plants and reduces the availability of P fertilizers. On alkaline soils, P availability is also reduced, resulting in reduced fertilizer efficiency and crop yield.

Liming acid soils will also improve nodulation of legumes and increase fixation of atmospheric nitrogen, thereby reducing added N fertilizer requirements.

Fertilizer Placement

It has long been known that banding (placing fertilizer near the seed at planting) is more efficient at supplying nutrients to the crop than broadcast applications, yet some crop producers have moved away from band applications. One of the reasons for this shift is that many crops no longer respond to P and K fertilizers where soils are already high in these nutrients.

This equipment is used to sidedress lettuce while cultivating for weed control. Photo: Vern Grubinger, University of Vermont Extension.

Another reason for the shift from band to broadcast fertilizer is the increased labor cost and time involved in band application. As an example, corn yields are greatly affected by time of planting. Any operation which delays planting, such as filling fertilizer hopper/tanks, can slow planting time, causing a reduction in yield and resulting in a significant economic loss.

Before one switches from banding to broadcasting, a thorough analysis of band applications should be made. Banding usually means less fertilizer per acre and fewer trips across the field and may mean higher yield per acre. Estimates of additional time involved in banding fertilizers are as low as 30 seconds per acre. As farmers become better equipped to handle bulk blended or liquid fertilizers for use in planters, and as fertilizer prices continue to escalate, banding will become more efficient and economical.

Uniform Fertilizer Applications

Uniform application of broadcast fertilizer is important in maximizing yields. Non-uniform application of dry bulk blended fertilizers, due to segregation or separation of nutrients in loading, hauling, and spreading, can result in overfertilization or underfertilization of certain nutrients and areas in the field. The result is reduced yield, lower fertilizer efficiency and wasted energy.

Liquid fertilizer, which generally has a higher cost of production due to larger inputs of energy, would appear to have some advantages when considering uniform application and efficient use. Thus, the larger cost for energy for producing liquid fertilizer may be offset by greater efficiency due to more uniform application.

Poor spreading patterns can also cause over- or underfertilization. Again, precision agriculture methods using GPS and similar means can greatly reduce this variation.

Time of Application

Sidedress applications of nitrogen (N) applied after plant emergence - particularly on shallow-rooted crops such as potatoes grown on sandy soils which are subject to leaching, or on crops grown on fine-textured soils where denitrification is a problem – may be used advantageously to increase effectiveness of fertilizers. Agronomic research has shown that delaying the time of N application will generally result in better usage of N.

Corn and potatoes are good examples of crops having a high requirement of N later in the growing season. Sidedressed N will help to assure that N will be plentiful during the later stages of growth. In some cases, such as fields receiving manure, adequate N may be available throughout the growing season without further N application.

Over the last decade or more, a pre-sidedress N test (PSNT) has been available for corn and other crops to determine actual need for supplemental N. Use of this test could significantly reduce N use and therefore energy and any potential pollution.

Applying N through the irrigation system is another means of improving nitrogen efficiency. Such a procedure requires little additional energy for application and assures that adequate nitrogen is available during the plant’s greatest period of use. This practice is well adapted to sandy soils where leaching of N is a problem.

Use of Manure Spreading manure on hayland provides nutrients and organic matter. Photo: NRCS.

Manure is an organic nutrient source available on poultry and livestock farms. Often equivalent to a low-analysis fertilizer, it thus requires a great deal of energy for uniform distribution to the field but should be effectively utilized whenever possible. The nutrient composition of manure varies greatly, depending on the type of livestock and the methods of handling and spreading. Incorporation of manure immediately after application will reduce volatilization losses of ammonia nitrogen and nutrient runoff from manure and result in better nutrient recovery.

Use of Legumes in Rotation

Incorporating a legume crop such as alfalfa in the crop rotation is an excellent way of improving the N status of the soil. Legumes fix atmospheric N by a process called symbiotic N fixation. Therefore, roots and nodules rich in N when plowed under release readily available N for other crops.

This field of biennial sweet yellow clover was grown as a cover crop to enhance soil fertility and provide N to a subsequent vegetable crop. Photo: Vern Grubinger, University of Vermont Extension.


Fertilizer N recommendations should be adjusted for the amount of N returned by the legume residue. A good stand of alfalfa, when plowed under, will supply 80 to 100 pounds of N per acre. A poor stand of less than 30 percent alfalfa will supply no more than 40 pounds of N per acre. A good stand of clover will supply 40 to 60 pounds of N. Soybeans in the southern United States may supply up to 40 pounds of N to next year’s crop with less supplied by soybeans grown further north.

Nutrient Carry-Over

Fertilizer residue and manure nutrients often carry over from one year to another. More carry-over can be expected with high application rates and following droughty years. Yield reduction due to drought, poor stand, or insect or disease problems often results in less nutrient uptake and removal, which can significantly influence the carry-over of fertilizer.

Nutrient carry-over from crop residues and manured soils also contributes to the fertility of the soil. Not all of the nutrients in manure are released in the first year of application. Only half the N and P are considered available in the first year of application, but all of the K should be available in the first year.

Crop Rotation

Crop rotation is also important in using fertilizer efficiently. A low nutrient-requiring crop such as soybeans following a heavily fertilized corn crop may require little or no fertilizer. Such practices are common and helpful in utilizing fertilizer efficiently.

Summary

Although the amount of energy used for the production of fertilizer is relatively small compared to the total U.S. energy consumption, conservation wherever possible is important. Considerable energy can also be expended in transporting and applying fertilizers. Fertilizers, however, help conserve energy by improving the crop’s ability to capture the sun’s energy and store it as plant energy.

Agricultural producers have many opportunities to make efficient use of fertilizers. Management practices such as liming, soil testing, band placement of fertilizer, uniform applications, timing of nitrogen application to coincide with the crop’s period of greatest use, use of manure, legumes, carry-over fertilizer, and advantages of certain crop rotations can all help to conserve energy.

Additional Resources

Introduction to Energy Efficient Tractor and Field Operations

References
  1. Vitosh, M.L. 1977. Fertilizer Management to Save Energy. Energy Facts, Ext. Bull. E-1136, Cooperative Extension Service, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI (out-of-print).
  2. Schnepf, R. 2004. Energy Use in Agriculture: Background and Issues. CRS Report for Congress.
  3. Hoeft, R.G. and J.C. Siemens. 1975. Do Fertilizers Waste Energy? In: Crops and Soils, American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI.

Contributors

Authors

Peer Reviewers

Categories: Agriculture / Commerce
Syndicate content


by Dr. Radut.