Embodied energy associated with the materials used in irrigation systems: Drip and centre pivot

Diotto, Adriano Valentim; Folegatti, Marcos Vinícius; Duarte, Sérgio Nascimento; Romanelli, Thiago Libório

doi:10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2014.02.002

Cited by 10 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…• feeding fleet; this refers to feeding preparation and distribution by means of self-propelled mixers; the related embodied energy was assessed as previously described in self-propelled machinery; • irrigation, including the overall tools used for irrigation, such as pumping stations, underground systems (life span of 20 years), pivot and mobile equipment (life span of 10 years); the related energy requirement was estimated as equal to 50,745 MJ·ha −1 for underground irrigation systems (our calculation based on irrigation characteristic), 46,800 MJ·ha −1 for pivot systems [31] and 89,184 MJ·ha −1 for mobile irrigation systems (our calculation, based on irrigation features); • milking equipment; embodied energy related to milking equipment has been estimated based on the number of stalls and clusters of milking parlors, using factors of 2161 MJ·stall −1 and 188 MJ·cluster −1 , respectively [11]; additionally the results were increased by 12% to account for maintenance; the life span applied corresponded to 12 years; moreover, the indirect energy of cooling tanks was included in this group using the energy content of several cooling tanks and their capacity (adapted from Kraatz, 2012 [11]): EC = 0.012·tc 2 − 0.214·tc + 2.036 where "EC" represents the annual indirect energy embodied in the cooling tank referring to per tonne of capacity, and "tc" represents the capacity of cooling tanks expressed in tonnes.…”

Section: Machinery and Equipmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comprehensive Energy Analysis and Related Carbon Footprint of Dairy Farms, Part 2: Investigation and Modeling of Indirect Energy Requirements

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dairy cattle farms are continuously developing more intensive systems of management, which require higher utilization of durable and non-durable inputs. These inputs are responsible for significant direct and indirect fossil energy requirements, which are related to remarkable emissions of CO 2 . This study focused on investigating the indirect energy requirements of 285 conventional dairy farms and the related carbon footprint. A detailed analysis of the indirect energy inputs related to farm buildings, machinery and agricultural inputs was carried out. A partial life cycle assessment approach was carried out to evaluate indirect energy inputs and the carbon footprint of farms over a period of one harvest year. The investigation highlights the importance and the weight related to the use of agricultural inputs, which represent more than 80% of the total indirect energy requirements. Moreover, the analyses carried out underline that the assumption of similarity in terms of requirements of indirect energy and related carbon emissions among dairy farms is incorrect especially when observing different farm sizes and milk production levels. Moreover, a mathematical model to estimate the indirect energy requirements of dairy farms has been developed in order to provide an instrument allowing researchers to assess the energy incorporated into farm machinery, agricultural inputs and buildings. Combining the results of this two-part series, the total energy demand (expressed in GJ per farm) results in being mostly due to agricultural inputs and fuel consumption, which have the largest share of the annual requirements for each milk yield class. Direct and indirect energy requirements increased, going from small sized farms to larger ones, from 1302-5109 GJ·y −1 , respectively. However, the related carbon dioxide emissions expressed per 100 kg of milk showed a negative trend going from class <5000 to >9000 kg of milk yield, where larger farms were able to emit 48% less carbon dioxide than small herd size farm (43 vs. 82 kg CO 2 -eq per 100 kg Fat-and Protein-Corrected Milk (FPCM)). Decreasing direct and indirect energy requirements allowed reducing the anthropogenic gas emissions to the environment, reducing the energy costs for dairy farms and improving the efficient utilization of natural resources.

show abstract

Section: Machinery and Equipmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comprehensive Energy Analysis and Related Carbon Footprint of Dairy Farms, Part 2: Investigation and Modeling of Indirect Energy Requirements

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This difference also influences on the energy depreciation of the irrigation equipment, which consequently results in a larger indirect energy demand for the second harvest. Electricity is indicated by some authors as the most significant energy input within the irrigated systems (JORDAN et al,2012;DIOTTO et al,2014;CARMO et al,2016).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The indirect energy related to the manufacturing of irrigation equipment (E irr ) was obtained by the methodology proposed by DIOTTO et al (2014). Indirect energy of the irrigation equipment was split into: energy of the pumping system (E pump ), of the pipeline (E pl ), and of the center pivot irrigation system (E pivot ), which was obtained according to the Eq.…”

Section: Energy Inputsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Energy balance of irrigated maize silage

Ferreira

Barbosa

et al. 2018

Cienc. Rural

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the present study is to evaluate the energy balance and energy efficiency of the silage maize crop in the Center for Research, Development and Technology Transfer of the Universidade Federal de Lavras (CDTT-UFLA). The crop was irrigated by center pivot and the stages of maize cultivation and energy inputs were monitored for the 1st and 2nd crops of the 2014/2015 harvest. Results from the energy analysis showed the crop had a total energy input of 45,643.85 MJ ha-1 and 47,303.60 MJ ha-1 for the 1st and 2nd crops and a significant predominance of direct energy type (about 92% of the matrix). Regarding direct energy inputs, the diesel oil was the most representative, contributing with approximately 38% of the total energy demand. Conversely, the irrigation system contribute with 3.92% e 5.97% in the 1st and 2nd crops, representing the largest indirect energy input. Nevertheless, irrigation and crop management allowed the system achieving high levels of productivity, resulting in an energy efficiency of 25.1 and 28.1 for the first and second crops respectively.

show abstract

“…According to Diotto, Folegatti, Duarte, and Romanelli (2014), the impact of filters in the global energy embodied in the irrigation networks is low, which reduces the importance of the energy consumed during the filtration stage. Following the same authors, the energy impact of the sand filters is 75% higher than screen filters, which are also commonly used in microirrigation systems.…”

Section: Environmental Costsmentioning

confidence: 99%