energy_use_in_agriculture
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Next revision | Previous revisionNext revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
energy_use_in_agriculture [2020/03/26 08:38] – created matsz | energy_use_in_agriculture [2020/03/26 13:04] – [Analysis of CAPRI energy module results] matsz | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
===Diesel fuel=== | ===Diesel fuel=== | ||
+ | Among the direct energy sources in agriculture, | ||
+ | ===Electricity=== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Electricity consumption plays a major role in animal production activities and drying cereals. Like diesel, data on electricity use is not included in CAPRI. Therefore a normative approach has been chosen to quantify consumption levels. Concerning housing systems, a distinction between the different activities has been made as well as a grouping of the EU countries in “North”, | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===Heating oil and heating gas=== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Main consumption sources for heating oil and heating gas are greenhouses and grain drying. Greenhouses consumption quantity is taken from member states statistics, where available. Alternatively, | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===Indirect energy sources=== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Indirect energy use describes external primary energy expenditures linked to materials utilised in production systems, balanced up to a defined system border (Diepenbrock, | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Table 31: Energy content factors for indirect energy input** | ||
+ | |||
+ | ^Indirect energy source^Cumulative energy demand^Unit^ | ||
+ | |Tractor| | ||
+ | |Harvester| | ||
+ | |Trailed Machinery| | ||
+ | |Nitrate fertiliser| | ||
+ | |Phosphate fertiliser| | ||
+ | |Potassium fertiliser| | ||
+ | |Herbicides| | ||
+ | |Insecticides| | ||
+ | |Fungicides| | ||
+ | |Lubricants| | ||
+ | |Minerals| | ||
+ | |Salt| | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===Mineral fertiliser=== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Mineral fertiliser energy assessment follows CAPRI-endogenous calculated fertiliser use. Thereby, the assessment is linked to net mineral fertiliser use. Such regionalized and activity-specific input quantities divided into the fertiliser groups (Nitrate, phosphate, potassium) are assessed by the energy content coefficients as shown in Table 31. Those are compiled using average registered consumption quantities of the single fertilisers on the market, which are broken down to their active substance content. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ===Machinery use and lubricants=== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Machinery energy assessment is sub-divided into different machinery classes such as tractor, harvester and trailed machinery as well as special machinery such as irrigation or drying machinery on the one hand. On the other hand, a distinction between the machinery itself and the efforts for repairing and maintanance is made. In consequence, | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===Buildings energy use=== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Quantifying buildings energy use on a regional scale is rather difficult task due to lack of data. None of the common database offers any statistics on the amount, age or structure of agricultural buildings. Those few member states offering such data on a national level do not provide a standardised methodology. In consequence a normative approach has been chosen for CAPRI energy indicator. This approach is based on a life cycle analysis study carried out at AGROSCOPE ART (Project BW04). Standardized building types for different animal production activities have been set up using architectural planning instruments (“ART Preisbaukasten”) that permits quantifying the building material used and carrying out energy assessment. This data was broken down on a MegaJoule per square meter and year-term, whereas differentiation between depreciation, | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===Crop Protection=== | ||
+ | |||
+ | To reflect energy input via pesticides, the CAPRI-FADN data on monetary efforts for crop protection is used. Due to the fact that FAOSTAT offers consumption quantities of the different agents on a national level, a mechanism has been chosen to get those two parameters “quantities” and “energy content” together. Data from the EAA database helps to create the link in-between. Multiplying the quantities applied with the energy content data, the total sector energy consumption quantity can be calculated. Beside the pesticide categories shown in Table 31, growth regulatories are included in the calculation. Using the sector expenses, the “energy value” of plant protection application, | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===Seed=== | ||
+ | |||
+ | For considering seed in terms of energy, a distinction between certified and non-certified seed is done. A broad range of statistics, both on national and regional level indicate the share of certified and non-certified seed use. Information about total quantities applied is available for most CAPRI activities from literature. Non-certified as well as certified seed contain a “basic value” covering energy efforts for production of the output. Non-certified seed is being assumed to remain in the NUTS-II region for local production. Additionally to the basic value, energy efforts for cleaning, chemical treatment and storage are charged. Certified seed is charged, beside the basic value, with energy requirements for breeding, treatment, cleaning, packaging and transport. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===Drying energy efforts=== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Energy required for drying mainly consists of two parameters: Firstly, the difference between harvest moisture content of the cereals and the marketable final moisture content and secondly the direct and indirect energy requirements for the reduction of one unit of moisture content. Estimation of harvest moisture content is carried out with the help of a regression model. To deliver explanatory variables, German harvest statistics are applied. In a first step a linear model is set up for each activity using climate data to find out an interrelationship between climate data and harvest moisture content. In a second step the linear models are applied for other EU countries using EU climate data to project harvest moisture content for regions where no harvest statistics are available. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Three different datasets are used for the generation of the projection module: Harvest statistics of Germany, Climate Data for the EU and Data about cereal cultivation regions in the EU: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Harvest statistics of Germany: Data stem from a representative statistic survey of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002. Data is shown for 13 NUTS-I regions (excluding the city NUTS-I regions) and gives information about the weighted average moisture content of harvested cereals, divided into the activities wheat, rye, oats and barley. | ||
+ | * Climate data for the EU: Data stem from Climate Research Unit (CRU) of University of East Anglia in the version of CRU TS 2.1. Equally data from the years 2000, 2001 and 2002 is used. Addi-tionally long-term climate data is used displaying a 30-year average from the years 1961-1990. | ||
+ | * Cultivation Data for the EU: a dataset showing 0.5 x 0.5 degree grids with a cereal share lower than 10 % of UAA (based on CAPRI disaggregation crop data) was used to exclude grids being assumed irrelevant for the estimation process. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The harvest moisture statistical data and climate data was linked. The first step of the core statistic model was a principal component analysis (PCA), in which a broad range of variables were summarised into fewer principal components while preserving variability in the original variables. In the next step, the linear model was used to predict the average moisture content for regions, where no harvest moisture content data was available. Therefore, climate data as described above was used. Beside the exclusion of grid cells with a cereal area share lower than 10 percent of the UAA, a number of regions where grain drying is not applied, where not further considered. For the remaining regions, for each grid and production activity, a harvest moisture content estimate was calculated by the use of the linear models described above. In a fourth step, average harvest moisture content estimates are calculated by NUTS-I region and activity. Finally, the energy requirements for the reduction from the estimated moisture content to the marketable final moisture content was calculated. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===Irrigation energy=== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Energy requirements for irrigation consist of direct and indirect components. Indirect requirements display machinery depreciation and repairs. EU-FSS (Parameter K-10) as well as national and re-gional sources indicate the share of mobile and fixed irrigation equipment. Furthermore, | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===Energy requirements for greenhouses=== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Energy consumption for greenhouses is determined by direct energy consumption for heating, supplementary illumination, | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===Feeding stuff=== | ||
+ | |||
+ | In animal production, feeding stuff plays a major role in energy consumption concerns. Quantification of the requirement is rather complex. The most important database are feeding coefficients implying quantities of different feeding stuff components on an activity- and regionalized basis. Furthermore, | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Energy output assessment==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | In order to calculate energy balances or efficiency parameters, the output generated by agricultural production has to be assessed by its energy content. The CAPRI output level on the one hand is a basis for this assessment. Energy content factors, on the other hand, are used. Those are based on literature research. Basically, the assessment follows a caloric approach designed by FAO. Main coefficients are based on FAOSTAT data, some are taken from Mittenzwei (2006) | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===Energy allocation=== | ||
+ | |||
+ | For activities producing more than one marketable product (e.g. DCOW: COMI, BEEF, YCAM, YCAF), an allocation between the main output and the side-products has to be carried out. For plant production activities, no such allocation is done, the main product is charged with the complete energy needs. The allocation parameters assumed for animal production activities are shown in Table 32. The procedure follows literature data. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===Young animals=== | ||
+ | |||
+ | To achieve a consistency in energy balances for animal activities, young animals assessment is an important item. To achieve such, all energy requirements necessary for a young animal are summed up following the lifelines within the young animal module of CAPRI. Nevertheless, | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Table 32: Allocation of animal products** | ||
+ | |||
+ | ^CAPRI activity ^Main product share (%) ^Side product N°1 share (%) ^Side product N°2 share (%) ^Side product N°3 share (%) ^Side product N°4 share (%)^ | ||
+ | |DCOW | ||
+ | |SCOW |YCAM: | ||
+ | |SOWS |YPIG: | ||
+ | |SHGM |SGMI: | ||
+ | Source: CAPRI Modelling System | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====Analysis of CAPRI energy module results==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | The results of the CAPRI energy module can be displayed in various ways and on different levels. Table 33 gives an overview. Further down, each parameter is shown in more detail. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Table 33: Energy module results structure** | ||
+ | |||
+ | ^Parameter ^Parameter Unit ^Description ^Availability^ | ||
+ | |Energy per CAPRI activity unit|MJ/ha; MJ/ | ||
+ | |Energy per CAPRI output unit|MJ/ | ||
+ | |Energy efficiency – Type “energy”|MJ/ | ||
+ | |Energy efficiency – Type “Finance”|MJ/ | ||
+ | |Energy balance |MJ|The output level of all CAPRI activities of a region are assessed by its energy contents (See Chapter 7.5.3 FIXME) whereas allocation between main product and side-products is done for some activities and then sum up over the region. The input energy requirements for all CAPRI activities are multiplied with the relevant activity levels and then sum up over the region. The result shows energy requirements (INPUT) and energy output (OUTPUT). Imports and exports of energy can be shown separately.|Aggregated on EU level| | ||
+ | |Energy requirements-overview|MJ/ | ||
+ | |Energy requirements-detail|MJ/ | ||
+ | |Energy input units|Input unit/ha; Input unit/ | ||
+ | |Energy content products|MJ/ | ||
+ | Source: CAPRI Modelling System | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===Application notice=== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Basically, the energy module is designed as post-model analysis. This implies, that the energy module can be run independently from the CAPRI core model. Nevertheless, | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===Structure of output tables=== | ||
+ | |||
+ | A broad range of output tables permits to display results of the energy indicator. Some of those are presented in this chapter. Figure 41 shows some examples for display modes of the energy indicator. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Figure 41: Energy parameters: examples for results displaying** | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{:: | ||
+ | {{:: | ||
+ | {{:: | ||
+ | {{:: | ||
+ | |||
+ | Taking Example 1, the results of the energy consumption overview table are shown. This can be explored within the scenario exploitation table. Beside “Total MJ”, which indicates energy consumption per ha or head, a number of energy consumption categories such as diesel, electricity, |
energy_use_in_agriculture.txt · Last modified: 2022/11/07 10:23 by 127.0.0.1