Next Article in Journal
The Effect of Tree-Planting Patterns on the Microclimate within a Courtyard
Next Article in Special Issue
The Paradox of the Virtual Water Trade Balance in the Mediterranean Region
Previous Article in Journal
Sustainable Business Models: A Review
Previous Article in Special Issue
Understanding Farmers’ Behavior towards Sustainable Practices and Their Perceptions of Risk
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 11
Issue 6
10.3390/su11061664
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Energy Analysis, and Carbon and Water Footprint for Environmentally Friendly Farming Practices in Agroecosystems and Agroforestry

by
Dimitrios P. Platis
1,
Christos D. Anagnostopoulos
1,
Aggeliki D. Tsaboula
1,
Georgios C. Menexes
2,
Kiriaki L. Kalburtji
1 and
Andreas P. Mamolos
1,*
1
School of Agriculture, Laboratory of Ecology and Environmental Protection, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece
2
School of Agriculture, Laboratory of Agronomy, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2019, 11(6), 1664; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su11061664
Submission received: 5 February 2019 / Revised: 15 March 2019 / Accepted: 18 March 2019 / Published: 19 March 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Preserving Ecosystem Services via Sustainable Agro-Food Chains)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Agriculture accounts for 5% of the entire energy used worldwide. Most of it is not in a renewable form, so it can be linked to greenhouse gas emissions. According to the Paris Agreement, on climate change, one of its major targets is the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the agricultural production process must drastically change. Currently, the sustainable use of water is critical for any agricultural development. Agricultural production effects water quality and sufficiency, as well as, freshwater wetlands. Energy balance, carbon, and water footprint are crucial for sustainable agricultural production. Agroforestry systems are important in reducing high inputs of non-renewable energy and greenhouse gas emissions, along with better water use, leading to the most minimal influence on climate change. Energy analysis, carbon, and water footprint can be applied to agroforestry systems’ production. An outline could be applied by adopting a modified—for agricultural production—life cycle assessment methodology to assess energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and water consumption in agroforestry ecosystems.

1. Introduction

Agroforestry ecosystems are land-use systems in which tree species are grown in conjunction with crops or grassland grazing or post-harvest grazing [1,2]. According to the FAO [3], there are three main types of agroforestry systems: (a) agrisilvicultural systems are a combination of crops and trees, (b) silvopastoral systems combine forestry and grazing of domesticated animals on pastures, rangelands, or on farms and (c) agrosilvopastoral systems are a combination of trees, animals and crops. The three different production components of agrosilvopastoral systems (trees, crops/grass, and animals) could be applied in the form of spatial arrangement or temporal sequence.
The major environmental benefits of agroforestry ecosystems are: increased soil fertility, reduced soil erosion, improved water quality, increased biodiversity, improved microclimate, and larger carbon sequestration [4,5,6,7,8]. From an ecological standpoint, agroforestry is a natural resource management system that sustains and enhances production for increased social, economic, and environmental benefits [9].
The application of agroforestry systems could minimize non-renewable energy inputs in agricultural production, reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GGE), and apply better water use during the production process [10,11,12,13]. The application of agroforestry could also increase the energy use efficiency (EUE) of production [14]. In the Paris Agreement on climate change, agroforestry was suggested as a measure in adapting to the negative consequences of climate change and reducing GGE [15,16].
Agroforestry ecosystems could be evaluated with environmental indicators based on energy use, yield, GGE, and water consumption of the production process. Finally, there is a possibility of applying a methodology of environmentally-friendly cultivation practices in agricultural production.
The scope of this review is to present how energy analysis, carbon and water footprint (CF and WF), and life cycle assessment (LCA) methods could assess the environmental impacts on agroforestry ecosystems and agroecosystems in general.

2. Energy in Agroecosystems

Worldwide, agriculture accounts for 5% of the total energy consumption [17]. Most of it is not in a renewable form, so it is essential to use it properly [18]. Extensive and intensive agriculture requires higher inputs of fertilizers, agrochemicals, agricultural machinery, seeds, and fuels, resulting in higher energy consumption and usually increased GGE [19]. Agricultural production could be analyzed from an energy standpoint, by the conversion of all inputs and outputs of production, into energy units [20,21,22,23,24].
Energy balance began to be discussed in the early 1970s when the global energy crisis made people aware that the quantity of solid fuels is limited [25]. The reflections were focused on production and use of energy. The lack of energy resources, and the subsequent side-effects, required precise planning and careful estimation of energy consumption [26].
According to the FAO [3], energy consumption in an agroecosystem leads to increased productivity and strengthened product safety. Application of energy is contributing in general in the economic growth of the rural sector. In the EU, agriculture, forestry, and other related activities are responsible for 2.78% of fossil fuel energy consumption [27].
In agroecosystems, human labor, application of fossil fuels, machinery, electricity for irrigation, and agrochemicals are considered as energy inputs [28]. Energy consumption for the production of fertilizers, chemical products, machinery and any other that was used in agricultural production is also included as energy inputs [28]. This complementary energy contributes to the maximization of output (production) per hectare [29].
Well-managed practices on agroforestry ecosystems, such as intercropping, could enhance both EUE of the production system and the added value of the agricultural products [30]. However, farming practices can negatively affect agroforestry ecosystems from an environmental point of view. Lin et al. [31] showed that the EUE in agroforestry did not differ from that of organic farming systems, probably because the tree components were not well-developed enough to have positive interactions with the cultivations.

Energy Analysis

Energy analysis is an approach of agroecosystems’ production, which is based on the conversion of all inputs and outputs into energy units. According to this method, both the energy that flows into the agroecosystem and the energy outputs are calculated [28]. The evaluation of agroecosystems from an energy standpoint is crucial for minimizing energy inputs and improving environmental aspects of production [32]. Consequently, effective use of energy resources is vital, taking into account the need for increasing agricultural production [23,28,29]. Energy analysis is used for the estimation of energy efficiency and environmental resilience of the productive systems [33].
The methods vary accordingly to the location of the farm, the production period, the flows of energy, the materials that are taken into account and the energy equivalents [25]. Extensive information for the applied methodology is required to compare different energy analyses [25]. Energy analysis could provide alternative ways for input reduction and simultaneously could increase productivity [34]. Energy saving is environmentally necessary but insufficient for increasing net income. The combination of an economic and energy analysis of the production system contributes to the planning of more suitable strategies for agricultural management [35].

3. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Water Use in Agroecosystems

Energy use in agriculture is directly linked to GGE. Greenhouse gases (GHGs) absorb and emit thermal radiation in the atmosphere within the infrared spectrum. The main GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). The agricultural sector contributes to 22% of the GGE, which have a negative impact on the climate, while cultivation practices approach 20% of the annual global CO2 emissions [17]. In the EU, GGE from agriculture reach 470.6 Mt of CO2-equivalent per year, which equals 10% of the total GGE [36]. To achieve the climate targets, set out in the Paris Agreement in 2015, GGE must be drastically reduced, through the use of fossil fuels, as well as through the resources and cultivation practices applied [37]. Based on this process, the CF of the products should be estimated. The CF refers to the GGE of a product throughout the product’s lifecycle [38]. Current policies on global agricultural production and especially in Europe, include methods of reducing total fossil fuel consumption to maintain high agricultural outputs (final products) [39]. The goal of reducing GGE up to 80–95% by 2050 [40,41] requires the streamlining of methods and techniques for the agroecosystems [42,43].
According to Baah-Acheamfour et al. [44], agroforestry systems could minimize GGE in agricultural production. Agroforestry could increase vegetative carbon, soil organic carbon stocks, and reduce CH4 and N2O emissions compared to cropland. Agroforestry ecosystems with tree components along with the simultaneous environmental friendly farming practices could demonstrate better results on carbon sequestration compared to grasslands and total GGE reduction compared to intensive monocultures [45]. Tree and crop management practices in agroforestry ecosystems could affect the total carbon sequestration of the system [46]. In some cases, CO2 emissions reduction from forest fires is another aspect of well-managed agroforestry ecosystems [46]. Rigueiro-Rodríguez et al. [47] highlighted that the application of silvopastoral systems, along with goat grazing, could lead to a less flammable herbaceous layer. These systems could enhance CO2 emissions reduction, especially if they include fast-growing tree components, such as poplar [48].
Given the essential role in food and energy supply, water is an important resource for sustainable agricultural development [49]. Agricultural production is greatly affecting the quality and sufficiency of water, as well as the freshwater wetlands [50]. Water pollution, due to the use of agrochemicals and the overconsumption of water, is a structural problem in many regions of the world [51,52], especially where intensive livestock production is indispensable [53,54]. With regards to agroforestry ecosystems, their application along with livestock components, such as silvopastoral systems, could improve water quality and reduce water consumption [9].
WF is a concept emerging from the issue of water sufficiency. WF expresses the amount of water consumed directly or indirectly (from the supply chain) to produce products and services [49].

3.1. The Concept of Carbon and Water Footprint

The concepts of CF and WF are of particular importance to management practices. These methods contribute to the reduction of GGE and the quantity of water required for production. For each product, CF is the sum of GHGs, which are emitted during production, use, and final disposal. The concept of WF expresses the amount of water consumed directly or indirectly to the production. WF is the sum of individual footprints known as green, blue and grey footprints. Green refers to the consumption of water stored in soil moisture from atmospheric deposition during the production. Blue refers to the consumption of surface or underground water bound during production. Grey refers to the volume of water polluted during agricultural production [49].
The issue of global warming is essential, as well as the CF and WF of products [17,55,56,57]. Wiedmann and Minx [58] recognized that the definitions of CF differ between researchers. The term “Climate Footprint” was proposed, which included all the GHGs covered by the Kyoto Protocol [59]. Despite the differences between the calculation, the CO2-equivalent (CO2-e) expresses the global warming from GGE and is used as a reference unit of CF. The CF improves the management of GGE by evaluating the production inputs [60,61,62]. The main factors which determine the amount of CF and WF of an agricultural product are the crop yield in relation to the inputs, the demand, the quality, and the impact of climatic conditions. The assessment of CF and WF of a product provides a context for both inputs and quantity of water consumed across the production process. Based on the assessment of CF and WF, consumers, traders, and food industries could contribute to more rational management of inputs and especially water inputs. Cultivation practices during the various stages of production, means of transport, and distribution systems are some of the variables that could optimize the management of inputs and minimize the CF and WF of the product. To summarize, the values of the WF are associated with the CF and energy demand [17].

3.2. Carbon and Water Footprint in Agroecosystems

The assessment of the life cycle of each crop species of an area is the basis on which CF and WF are calculated. The products with reduced CF and WF incorporate a series of advantages for both the production system and the consumer. Compared to conventional systems, the organic and integrated production systems reduce GGE and utilize the water resources in an optimal way [20,21,22,23,24,29,42]. Reduced GGE and rational management of water resources depend on farm area [23,34,63]. Therefore, a combination of the production system and farm location could contribute to the reduction of inputs and the reduction of production costs due to the implementation of possible energy savings [24]. The combination mentioned above could increase environmentally-friendly food production. Measuring and recording both CF and WF of food, allows the consumer: (a) to choose products which genuinely help to tackle climate change, (b) recognize the competitive advantage of a product in relation to similar products and (c) to promote the overall environmental benefits, highlighting the use of products with lower CF and WF.
Considering that the inputs with high CF are the fertilizers, fuel, and machinery for irrigation [64], producers should implement procedures to reduce these factors. This goal could be achieved by applying regulated nitrogen-release fertilizers in deeper soil layers [65]. These products restrict both the leaching in deeper soil layers and the N2O emissions in the atmosphere [65]. In previous years, an attempt was made to produce nitrogen fertilizers with a reduced CF, focusing on the benefits for agriculture and the environment. Cultivation practices based on rational management of water and reduction of input losses could lead to cultivations resilient in dry climates, with lower GGE. In summary, climate change requires environment-friendly farming practices which reduce the CF and WF of the agricultural products. This characteristic acts as an added value to the agricultural products, which is also an expected purpose.
Agroforestry ecosystems concentrated on livestock production showed the largest CF [66]. Nevertheless, the tree components enhance carbon sequestration more compared to grasslands [67].
According to Ibidhi and Salem [68], the different types of agroforestry systems concentrated on livestock production (sheep) perform differently according to WF. Extensive agropastoral systems presented the highest WF (around 13,000 l kg-1 meat), followed by the agropastoral system (10,023 l kg−1 meat), and the agrosilvopastoral farming system which showed up the lowest WF (8654 l kg−1 meat) [68].
Although the indicator of WF is a commonly accepted method to assess water consumption, it is necessary to take into account the climate data and hydrological modeling, especially in regions with extreme conditions [69].

4. A Method for Measuring Energy Use, Carbon and Water Footprint—the Life Cycle Assessment

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a methodology to investigate the environmental impact of products, taking into account all relevant impacts during production. LCA is a method to estimate the energy use in agriculture and to calculate CF and WF for the life cycle of the crop species, applied to the product, the process, and the farm level [28,70,71]. The real advantage of an LCA is the determination of environmental impacts related to a specific system, to locate life cycle phases for process improvements, create data, and compare alternatives for products, services, and processes [72]. The methodology of calculation of CF and WF requires an LCA of cultivated species with various production standards [73,74,75] with a detailed description of inputs and outputs. CF and WF refer to the calculation of GGE and the Water Use for a product. There is not a unique methodology for the calculation of CF [76]. The CF of a product should include all emissions during the life cycle [64]. The total emissions per unit of production are the CF (CO2-equivalent kg−1). WF in m3 or l kg−1 is calculated according to the methodology of Hoekstra and Chapagain [77], Ababaei and Etedali [78]. WF of the cultivated species is calculated for long periods and different locations [56,79]. The results can be compared to the WF of other geographic regions and on a global scale.
A recent application of LCA, implemented in the reforested area of the Peruvian Amazon highlights the environmental benefits of a jam produced by fruits harvested from agroforestry ecosystems [80]. Although LCA methodologies are very useful to evaluate the environmental impacts of agricultural production, extensive research of all the environmental aspects should be carried out. Therefore, further accepted standardization is necessary to take place [81].
An outline could be applied by adopting a modified, for agricultural production, life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology to assess energy use [29,63,73,74,82,83], which could involve the five stages, as shown in Figure 1.
In stage 1, the goals are calculating the energy used from the production components of the different farming systems and comparing them to determine the crop or farming system with low energy inputs. The functional unit is the product output per hectare. The system boundaries could start at the use of production factors, and end at the removal of the product. In stage 2, the energy inputs and outputs of production are estimated. In stage 3, the effects of the different production systems on yields are examined. In stage 4, the results are evaluated and discussed. In stage 5, a remodeling is applied according to the results, with the final goal of minimizing energy inputs, improving environmental aspects and replacing of crops.
The emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O from fuels are calculated by their coefficients of CO2-equivalent given by the IPCC [64,84]. Fertilizers and soil calculations are made according to the coefficients also given by IPCC [17,84] and EMEP / CORINAIR [85]. The WF of crops (m3 kg-1) is calculated by dividing the total volume of green and blue water used (m3 yr-1) by the quantity of the production (kg yr-1) [86,87,88].
The calculation of CF and WF could help producers to reduce their GGE in an economically efficient way. The CF of a product can affect competitiveness by reducing the cost of products [89]. The production process varies in different countries or even regions since the type of energy used in each country leads to different CF and WF. Therefore, CF and WF could be adopted as a management evaluation tool for crop production.
In Table 1, it is shown that the CF of livestock is higher than that of fruit and vegetables. Firstly, this reflects the fact that animals and especially ruminants produce methane (CH4), that is 25 times more powerful than CO2, and secondly, it is a result of manure management, which also produces GHGs.
In Table 2, it is shown that the WF is undoubtedly higher in the production of meat products and, in general, animal production. Crop products, such as rice and corn cultivations, also have high WF.
According to Table 1 and Table 2, the high CF and WF of crop production is attributed to the increased inputs of intensive crop production and the mismanagement of water resources.

5. Conclusions

Agroforestry ecosystems could be evaluated with environmental indicators based on the energy use, the yield, the GGE, and the water consumption of the production process. There is a possibility of applying a methodology of environment-friendly cultivation practices in agricultural production.
Provided that an appropriate number of farms can be selected, comparisons could be made between different farming systems, species, and environments. This process could lead to more efficient rationalization of inputs. Products with reduced CF and WF contribute to the reduction of energy use while they continue to meet consumers’ demands. The resilience of agricultural production on climate change could be stabilized by applying less intensive and carefully organized farming methods and techniques. The above agro-environmental indices are useful to decision makers seeking crop and farming systems to regulate the fragile balance between climate change and agricultural production.

Author Contributions

Each one of the authors contributed according to their research speciality in this review. More specifically: D.P.P. (part of his PhD Thesis, Author), A.P.M., G.C.M., K.L.K. (all three supervisors of the PhD Thesis, Authors), C.D.A., A.D.T. (Both technical support, team members, editing).

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank our colleagues from Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and the anonymous reviewers for their critical comments that greatly improved the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Cardinael, R.; Chevallier, T.; Cambou, A.; Béral, C.; Barthès, B.G.; Dupraz, C.; Durand, C.; Kouakou, E.; Chenu, C. Increased soil organic carbon stocks under agroforestry: A survey of six different sites in France. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2017, 236, 243–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Papanastasis, V.P. Agroforestry; Ziti Press: Thessaloniki, Greece, 2015; p. 192. (In Greek) [Google Scholar]
  3. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Agroforestry. Available online: http://www.fao.org/forestry/agroforestry/80338/en/ (accessed on 5 February 2019).
  4. Garrett, H.E.; Rietveld, W.J.; McGraw, R.F. Alley cropping practices. North American agroforestry: An integrated science and practice. Agrofor. Syst. 2002, 54, 83–85. [Google Scholar]
  5. Garrity, D.P. Agroforestry and the achievement of the millennium development goals. Agrofor. Syst. 2004, 61, 5–17. [Google Scholar]
  6. Williams-Guillen, K.; Perfecto, I.; Vandermeer, J. Bats limit insects in a tropical agroforestry system. Science 2008, 320, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Nair, P.K.R.; Kumar, B.M.; Nair, V.D. Agroforestry as a strategy for carbon sequestration. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2009, 172, 10–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kumar, B.M.; Nair, P.R. Carbon Sequestration Potential of Agroforestry Systems: Opportunities and Challenges; Springer Science and Business Media: Luxemburg, 2011; Volume 8, pp. 43–60. [Google Scholar]
  9. Nair, P.K.R. Climate change mitigation: A low-hanging fruit of agroforestry. In Agroforestry-The future of Global Land Use; Kumar, B.M., Nair, P.R., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 31–67. [Google Scholar]
  10. Partey, S.T.; Frith, O.B.; Kwaku, M.Y. Comparative life cycle analysis of producing charcoal from bamboo, teak, and acacia species in Ghana. Int. J. Life Cycle Ass. 2017, 22, 758–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Pragya, N.; Sharma, N.; Gowda, B. Biofuel from oil-rich tree seeds: Net energy ratio, emissions saving and other environmental impacts associated with agroforestry practices in Hassan district of Karnataka, India. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 164, 905–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Thamo, T.D.; Addai, D.J.; Pannell, D.J.; Robertson, M.J.; Thomas, D.T.; Young, J.M. Climate change impacts and farm-level adaptation: Economic analysis of a mixed cropping–livestock system. Agric. Syst. 2017, 150, 99–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Waldron, A.; Garrity, D.; Malhi, Y.; Girardin, C.; Miller, D.C.; Seddon, N. Agroforestry Can Enhance Food Security While Meeting Other Sustainable Development Goals. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 2017, 10, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Smith, J.; Pearce, B.D.; Wolfe, M.S. A European perspective for developing modern multifunctional agroforestry systems for sustainable intensification. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2012, 27, 323–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Torres, C.M.M.E.; Jacovine, L.A.G.; Nolasco de Olivera, N.S.; Fraisse, C.W.; Soares, C.P.B.; de Castro Neto, F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and carbon sequestration by agroforestry systems in southeastern Brazil. Sci. Rep. UK 2017, 7, 16738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. World Agroforestry Centre. Agroforestry to Meet the Paris Agreement. 2017. Available online: http://blog.worldagroforestry.org/index.php/2017/11/29/agroforestry-to-meet-the-paris-agreement/ (accessed on 5 February 2019).
  17. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  18. Fluck, R.C. Energy in Farm Production; Elsevier Science Publishers: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  19. Li, T.X.; Balezentis, T.; Makutenie, E.D.; Streimikiene, D.; Krisciukaitiene, I. Energy-related CO2 emission in European Union agriculture: driving forces and possibilities for reduction. Appl. Energy 2016, 180, 682–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kaltsas, A.M.; Mamolos, A.P.; Tsatsarelis, C.A.; Nanos, G.D.; Kalburtji, K.L. Energy budget in organic and conventional olive groves. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2007, 122, 243–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kavargiris, S.E.; Mamolos, A.P.; Tsatsarelis, C.A.; Nikolaidou, A.E.; Kalburtji, K.L. Energy resources’ utilization in organic and conventional vineyards: energy flow, greenhouse gas emissions and biofuel production. Biomass Bioenergy 2009, 33, 1239–1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Michos, M.C.; Mamolos, A.P.; Menexes, G.C.; Tsatsarelis, C.A.; Tsirakoglou, V.M.; Kalburtji, K.L. Energy inputs, outputs and greenhouse gas emissions in organic, integrated and conventional peach orchards. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 13, 22–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Michos, M.C.; Menexes, G.C.; Kalburtji, K.L.; Tsatsarelis, C.A.; Anagnostopoulos, C.D.; Mamolos, A.P. Could energy flow in agro-ecosystems be used as a “tool” for crop and farming system replacement? Ecol. Indic. 2017, 73, 247–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Litskas, V.D.; Karaolis, C.S.; Menexes, G.C.; Mamolos, A.P.; Koutsos, T.M.; Kalburtji, K.L. Variation of energy flow and greenhouse gas emissions in vineyards located in Natura 2000 sites. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 27, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hulsbergen, K.J.; Feil, B.; Biermann, S.; Rathke, G.W.; Kalk, W.D.; Diepenbrock, W. A Method of Energy Balancing in Crop Production and its Application in a Long-term Fertilizer Trial. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2001, 86, 303–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kizilaslan, H. Input–output energy analysis of cherries production in Tokat Province of Turkey. Appl. Energy 2009, 86, 1354–1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Eurostat. Final Energy Consumption by Sector and Fuel. 2014. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/final-energy-consumption-by-sector-9/assessment-1#tab-related-briefings (accessed on 5 February 2019).
  28. Michos, M.C.; Menexes, G.C.; Mamolos, A.P.; Tsatsarelis, C.A.; Anagnostopoulos, C.D.; Tsaboula, A.D.; Kalburtji, K.L. Energy flow, carbon and water footprints in vineyards and orchards to determine environmentally favourable sites in accordance with Natura 2000 perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 187, 400–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Taxidis, E.T.; Menexes, G.C.; Mamolos, A.P.; Tsatsarelis, C.A.; Anagnostopoulos, C.D.; Kalburtji, K.L. Comparing organic and conventional olive groves relative to energy use and greenhouse gas emissions associated with the cultivation of two varieties. Appl. Energy 2015, 149, 117–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Jianbo, L. Energy balance and economic benefits of two agroforestry systems in northern and southern China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2006, 116, 255–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lin, H.C.; Huber, J.; Hülsbergen, J. Energy use efficiency of organic and agroforestry farming systems. Ökobilanzierung. 2013. Available online: http://orgprints.org/21660/1/21660_LIn.pdf (accessed on 5 February 2019).
  32. Chen, G.Q.; Jiang, M.M.; Chen, B.; Yang, Z.F.; Lin, C. Emergy analysis of Chinese agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2006, 115, 161–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ozkan, B.; Fert, C.; Karadeniz, C.F. Energy and cost analysis for greenhouse and open-field grape production. Energy 2007, 32, 1500–1504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kehagias, M.C.; Michos, M.C.; Menexes, G.C.; Mamolos, A.P.; Tsatsarelis, C.A.; Anagnostopoulos, C.D.; Kalburtji, K.L. Energy equilibrium and Carbon dioxide, Methane, and Nitrous oxide-emissions in organic, integrated and conventional apple orchards related to Natura 2000 site. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 91, 89–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Unakıtan, G.; Aydın, B. A comparison of energy use efficiency and economic analysis of wheat and sunflower production in Turkey: A case study in Thrace Region. Energy 2018, 149, 279–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Eurostat. Greenhouse Gas Emission Statistics. 2017. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics explained/index.php/Greenhouse_gas_emission_statistics (accessed on 5 February 2019).
  37. Bryngelsson, D.; Wirsenius, S.; Hedenus, F.; Sonesson, U. How can the EU climate targets be met? A combined analysis of technological and demand-side changes in food and agriculture. Food Policy 2016, 59, 152–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Weidema, B.P.; Thrane, M.; Christensen, P.; Schmidt, J.; Løkke, S. Carbon footprint. A catalyst for life cycle assessment? J. Ind. Ecol. 2008, 12, 3–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Alluvione, F.; Moretti, B.; Sacco, D.; Grignani, C. EUE (energy use efficiency) of cropping systems for a sustainable agriculture. Energy 2016, 36, 4468–4481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. European Climate Foundation. Available online: http://www.roadmap2050.eu/attachments/files/Roadmap2050-AllData-MinimalSize.pdf (accessed on 5 February 2019).
  41. Paris Agreement. 2015. Available online: http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php (accessed on 20 July 2018).
  42. Litskas, V.D.; Mamolos, A.P.; Kalburtji, K.L.; Tsatsarelis, C.A.; Kiose-Kampasakali, E. Energy flow and greenhouse gas emissions in organic and conventional sweet cherry orchards located in or close to Natura 2000 sites. Biomass Bioenergy 2011, 35, 1302–1310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Adewale, C.; Reganold, J.P.; Higgins, S.; Evans, R.D.; Carpenter-Boggs, L. Improving carbon foot-printing of agricultural systems: Boundaries, tiers, and organic farming. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2018, 71, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Baah-Acheamfour, M.; Chang, S.X.; Bork, E.W.; Carlyle, C.N. The potential of agroforestry to reduce atmospheric greenhouse gases in Canada: Insight from pairwise comparisons with traditional agriculture, data gaps and future research. For. Chron. 2017, 93, 180–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Mutuo, P.K.; Cadisch, G.; Albrecht, A.; Palm, C.A.; Verchot, L. Potential of agroforestry for carbon sequestration and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from soils in the tropics. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2005, 71, 43–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mosquera-Losada, M.R.; Freese, D.; Rigueiro-Rodríguez, A. Carbon sequestration in European agroforestry systems. In Carbon Sequestration Potential of Agroforestry Systems; Kumar, B.M., Nair, P.K.R., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands; Berlin, Germany, 2011; pp. 43–59. [Google Scholar]
  47. Rigueiro-Rodríguez, A.; López-Díaz, M.L.; Mosquera-Losada, M.R. Organic matter and chromium evolution in herbage and soil in a Pinus radiata silvopastoral system in northwest Spain after sewage sludge and lime application. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2011, 42, 1551–1564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Gordon, A.M.; Thevathasan, N.V. How much carbon can be stored in Canadian agroecosystems using a silvopastoral approach? In Silvopastoralism and Sustainable Land Management; Mosquera-Losada, M.R., McAdam, J., Rigueiro-Rodríguez, A., Eds.; CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UK, 2006; pp. 210–219. [Google Scholar]
  49. Hoekstra, A.Y. Water footprint assessment: evolvement of a new research field. Water Resour. Manag. 2017, 31, 3061–3081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Steinfeld, H.P.; Gerber, P.; Wassenaar, T.; Castel, V.; Rosales, M.; Haan, C.D. Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2006; pp. 131–150. [Google Scholar]
  51. Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y. Global Anthropogenic Phosphorus Loads to Freshwater and Associated Grey Water Footprints and Water Pollution Levels: A High-Resolution Global Study. Water Resour. Res. 2018, 54, 345–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Evans, A.E.; Mateo-Sagasta, J.; Qadir, M.; Boelee, E.; Ippolito, A. Agricultural water pollution: key knowledge gaps and research needs. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2019, 36, 20–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Bernués, A.; Ruiz, R.; Olaizola, A.; Villalba, D.; Casasús, I. Sustainability of pasture-based livestock farming systems in the European Mediterranean context: Synergies and trade-offs. Livest. Sci. 2011, 139, 44–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Rodríguez-Ortega, T.; Bernués, A.; Olaizola, A.M.; Brown, M.T. Does intensification result in higher efficiency and sustainability? An emergy analysis of Mediterranean sheep-crop farming systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 144, 171–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. East, A.J. What is a Carbon Footprint? An Overview of Definitions and Methodologies. Vegetable Industry Carbon Footprint Scoping Study, Sydney, Australia, 26 September 2008. 2008. Available online: http://vegiecarbontool.com/uploads/Discussion%20Paper%201_What%20is%20a%20carbon%20footprint.pdf (accessed on 5 February 2019).
  56. Hoekstra, A.Y.; Chapagain, A.K.; Aldaya, M.M.; Mekonnen, M.M. Water Footprint Manual: State of the Art 2009; Water Footprint Network: Enscheda, The Netherlands, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  57. World Wildlife Fund (WWF). 2010 Living Planet Report; WWF: Gland, Switzerland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  58. Wiedmann, T.; Minx, J. A Definition of ‘Carbon Footprint’; Technical Report; ISA Research and Consulting: Durham, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  59. Kelly, L.M.; Shepson, P.B.; Strim, B.P.; Karion, A.; Sweeney, C.; Gurney, K.R. Aircraft-based measurements of the carbon footprint of Indianapolis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 7816–7823. [Google Scholar]
  60. World Business Council for Sustainable Development and World Resource Institute (WRI/WBCSD). The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard Revised Edition; World Business Council for Sustainable Development and World Resource Institute: Geneva, Switzerland, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  61. Carbon Trust. Carbon Footprint Measurement Methodology, Version 1.3; Carbon Trust: London, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  62. British Standards Institution (BSI). Guide to PAS 2050: How to Assess the Carbon Footprint of Goods and Services; British Standards Institution: London, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  63. Zafiriou, P.; Mamolos, A.P.; Menexes, G.C.; Siomos, A.S.; Tsatsarelis, C.A.; Kalburtji, K.L. Analysis of energy flow and greenhouse gas emissions in organic, integrated and conventional cultivation of white asparagus by PCA and HCA: cases in Greece. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 29, 20–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Software for National Gas Inventories, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2006. Available online: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/ (accessed on 5 February 2019).
  65. Akiyama, H.; Yan, X.; Yagi, K. Evaluation of effectiveness of enhanced- efficiency fertilizers as mitigation options for N2O and NO emissions from agricultural soils: meta-analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2010, 16, 1837–1846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Escribano, M.; Moreno, G.; Eldesouky, A.; Horrillo, A.; Gaspar, P.; Mesías, F.J. Carbon footprint in dehesa agroforestry systems. In Proceedings of the 4th European Agroforestry Conference, Agroforestry as Sustainable Land Use, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, 28–30 May 2018; pp. 401–405. [Google Scholar]
  67. Eldesouky, A.; Mesias, F.J.; Elghannam, A.; Escribano, M. Can extensification compensate livestock greenhouse gas emissions? A study of the carbon footprint in Spanish agroforestry systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 200, 28–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ibidhi, R.; Ben Salem, H. Water footprint assessment of sheep farming systems based on farm survey data. Animal 2019, 407–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Naranjo-Merino, A.C.; Ortíz-Rodriguez, O.O.; Villamizar-G, A.R. Assessing Green and Blue Water Footprints in the Supply Chain of Cocoa Production: A Case Study in the Northeast of Colombia. Sustainability 2018, 10, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Dalgaard, R.; Schmidt, J.; Flysjö, A. Generic model for calculating carbon footprint of milk using four different life cycle assessment modelling approaches. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 73, 146–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Paolotti, L.; Boggia, A.; Castellini, C.; Rocchi, L.; Rosati, A. Combining livestock and tree crops to improve sustainability in agriculture: A case study using the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 131, 351–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Schweinle, J.; Rödl, A.; Börjesson, P.; Neary, D.G.; Langeveld, J.W.A.; Berndes, G.; Cowie, A.; Ahlgren, S.; Margni, M.; Gaudreault, C.; et al. Assessing the Environmental Performance of Biomass Supply Chains: Methods, Results, Challenges and Limitations, IEA Bioenergy, Task 43 Report. 2015, p. 121. Available online: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubsjournals/2015/rmrs 2015 schweinle j001.pdf (accessed on 5 February 2019).
  73. International Standardization Organization (ISO). Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment-Principles and Framework; ISO-Norm 14040:2006; European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  74. International Standardization Organization (ISO). Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment-Requirements and Guidelines; ISO-Norm 14044:2006; European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  75. International Standardization Organization (ISO). Carbon Footprint of Products—Requirements and Guidelines for Quantification and Communication; ISONorm 14067:2013; European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  76. Pandey, D.; Agrawal, M.; Pandey, J. Carbon footprint: Current methods of estimation. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2011, 178, 135–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Hoekstra, A.Y.; Chapagain, A.K. Globalization of Water: Sharing the Planet’s Freshwater Resources; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008; pp. 12–15. [Google Scholar]
  78. Ababaei, B.; Etedali, H.R. Estimation of water footprint components of Iran’s wheat production: comparison of global and national scale estimates. Environ. Process. 2014, 1, 193–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Hoekstra, A.Y.; Chapagain, A.K.; Aldaya, M.M.; Mekonnen, M.M. The Water Footprint Assessment Manual: Setting the Global Standard; Earth Scan: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  80. Recanati, F.; Arrigoni, A.; Scaccabarozzi, G.; Marveggio, D.; Melià, P.; Dotelli, G. LCA Towards Sustainable Agriculture: The Case Study of Cupuaçu Jam from Agroforestry. Procedia CIRP 2018, 69, 557–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Roy, P.; Nei, D.; Orikasa, T.; Xu, Q.; Okadome, H.; Nakamura, N.; Shiina, T. A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products. J. Food Eng. 2009, 90, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Finkbeiner, M.; Inaba, A.; Tan, R.B.H.; Christiansen, K.; Klüppel, H.J. The new international standards for life cycle assessment: SO 14040 and ISO 14044. Int. J. Life Cycle Ass. 2006, 11, 80–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Finnveden, G.; Hauschild, M.Z.; Ekvall, T.; Guinιe, J.; Heijungs, R.; Hellweg, S.; Koehler, A.; Pennington, D.; Suh, S. Recent developments in Life Cycle Assessment. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 91, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Greenhouse Gas Inventory Reference Manual; Three Volumes; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Technical Support Unit: London, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  85. EMEP/CORINAIR. Atmospheric Emissions Inventory Guidebook. Group 10: Agriculture, 3rd ed.; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  86. Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y. The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2011, 15, 1577–1600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y. Water footprint benchmarks for crop production: A first global assessment. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 46, 214–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. International Standardization Organization (ISO). Environmental Management—Water Footprint—Principles, Requirements and Guidelines; ISO 14046:2014; European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  89. Erickson, P.; Owen, A.; Dawkins, E. Low-Greenhouse-Gas Consumption Strategies and Impacts on Developing Countries. 2012. Available online: https://www.sei.org/publications/low-greenhouse-gas-consumption-strategies-and-impacts-on-developing-countries/ (accessed on 5 February 2019).
  90. Chapagain, A.; James, K. The Water and Carbon Footprint of Household Food and Drink Waste in the UK; Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP): Banbury, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  91. Hoekstra, A.Y. Water Neutral: Reducing and Offsetting the Impacts of Offsetting Water Footprints. UNESCO-IHE Value of Water Research Report Series No. 28. 2008. Available online: https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/5148071/Report28-WaterNeutral.pdf (accessed on 5 February 2019).
  92. Hoekstra, A.Y. The Water Footprint of Modern Consumer Society; Routledge: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 11 01664 g001 550
Figure 1. A modified for agriculture LCA with five stages.
Figure 1. A modified for agriculture LCA with five stages.
Sustainability 11 01664 g001
Table
Table 1. The CF of selected food products (mean global prices from Chapagain and James [90]).
Table 1. The CF of selected food products (mean global prices from Chapagain and James [90]).
Food Productkg CO2-eq kg−1
Beef Meat30.4
Eggs4.81
Pork meat4.36
Olive oil3.9
Chicken3.83
Rice1.8
Legumes1.13
Bread0.98
Sugar0.47
Potato0.16
Tomato (open-field)0.15
Apple0.07
Table
Table 2. The WF of selected food products (mean worldwide prices from Hoekstra and Chapagain [77], Hoekstra [91], Hoekstra [92]).
Table 2. The WF of selected food products (mean worldwide prices from Hoekstra and Chapagain [77], Hoekstra [91], Hoekstra [92]).
Food Productl of H2O kg−1
Beef Meat15,415
Pork meat 5988
Chicken4325
Rice3400
Eggs3265
Sugar beet1500
Peach1200
Corn900
Apple700
Potato250
Tomato (open-field)180

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Platis, D.P.; Anagnostopoulos, C.D.; Tsaboula, A.D.; Menexes, G.C.; Kalburtji, K.L.; Mamolos, A.P. Energy Analysis, and Carbon and Water Footprint for Environmentally Friendly Farming Practices in Agroecosystems and Agroforestry. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1664. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su11061664

AMA Style

Platis DP, Anagnostopoulos CD, Tsaboula AD, Menexes GC, Kalburtji KL, Mamolos AP. Energy Analysis, and Carbon and Water Footprint for Environmentally Friendly Farming Practices in Agroecosystems and Agroforestry. Sustainability. 2019; 11(6):1664. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su11061664

Chicago/Turabian Style

Platis, Dimitrios P., Christos D. Anagnostopoulos, Aggeliki D. Tsaboula, Georgios C. Menexes, Kiriaki L. Kalburtji, and Andreas P. Mamolos. 2019. "Energy Analysis, and Carbon and Water Footprint for Environmentally Friendly Farming Practices in Agroecosystems and Agroforestry" Sustainability 11, no. 6: 1664. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su11061664

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop