Exploring the production of bio-energy from wood biomass. Italian case study

This is the accepted manuscript of the following article: González-García, S., Bacenetti, J., 2019. Exploring the production of bio-energy from wood biomass. Italian case study. Science of the Total Environment 647, 158–168The concerns related to the environmental impact related to energy production fromfossil fuel are increasing. In this context, the substitution of fossil fuel based energy by bio-energy can be an effective solution. In this study, the production of electricity and heat in Italy in a combined heat and power plant (CHP) based on an Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) turbine from wood based biomass both from forest and agricultural activities has been analysed considering four potential alternative scenarios to the current energy status: biomass from very short rotation forestry (VSRF) poplar and willow stands as well as residues from natural forests and from traditional poplar plantations. The evaluation has been performed by applying Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method and an attributional cradle-to-gate approach has been followed. The expected savings of greenhouse gases emission and fossil fuels demand have been quantified, aswell as derived emissions of toxic pollutants and substances responsible for acidification, eutrophication and photochemical oxidant formation.The results have been also compared with the conventional Italian scenario considering the current Italian electricity profile and heat production from natural gas. Among the different scenarios, due to the lower transport distance, the use of biomass from traditional poplar plantation residues shows the lowest impact. The biomass combustion emissions are the main hotspot for several evaluated impact categories (e.g., particulatematter formation, human toxicity). In fact, when the produced bio-energy is compared to the reference system (i.e., electricity produced under the Italian electric profile) the results do not favor bio-energy systems. The results reported in this study support the idea that forest residues would be an interesting and potential feedstock for bio-energy purposes although further research is required specifically with the aim of optimizing biomass supply distancesThis research has been partially supported by a project granted by Xunta deGalicia (project ref. ED431F 2016/001) and by the STAR-ProBio project funded by the European Union'sHorizon 2020 Programresearch and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 727740. S.G-G. would like to express their gratitude to the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness for financial support (Grant reference RYC-2014-14984). S.G-G. belongs to the Galician Competitive Research Group GRC 2013-032 and to CRETUS Strategic Partnership (AGRUP2015/02). All these programmes are co-funded by Xunta de Galicia and FEDER (EU). Authors give thanks to the European Commission, through the Erasmus + Call 2017-KA1-Mobility of staff in higher education-Staff mobility for teaching and training activitiesS

Insights into different marine aquaculture infrastructures from a life cycle perspective

Aquaculture facilities represent an often-neglected process in environmental impact studies. This study focus on the environmental impact assessment of alternative net materials in Mediterranean marine aquaculture. A Life Cycle Assessment was conducted using primary and secondary data from specific databases and literature. Three baseline scenarios were compared: copper alloy net cages with 100 % of recycled material (CAN100), 75 % of recycled material (CAN75), and polyethylene net (PEN) System boundaries include manufacturing and disposal of cages, nets, and mooring system. The use and emissions of antifouling paints and CAN were considered. Sensitivity analysis of the most impacting sub-processes and Uncertainty analysis were also conducted. The use of CAN is advantageous in terms of environmental impact, but only considering a complete recyclability of the net at the end of its service life. Moreover, when considering a reduced service life of the PEN due to the detrimental effect of biofouling, the advantage of the CAN is even more evident. To counteract the negative effect of biofouling, copper-based antifouling paints are generally used in marine aquaculture. These products are a main environmental hotspot in PEN systems. Therefore, a higher consumption of such products could determine an environmental burden shifting from CAN to PEN ones. So far, CAN are not widespread in the aquaculture industry, mainly due to the high cost of initial investment compared to traditional PEN. Considering operational and environmental advantages, CAN cages could represent an affordable and resilient solution for aquaculture enhancing environmental, economic, and social performances of this industr

Does selection of variety affect the exergy flow of agricultural production? Rice production system in Italy

Exergy analysis is receiving considerable attention as an approach to be applied for making decision toward moving to a sustainable and energy-efficient food supply chain. This study focuses on how selection of variety affects the exergy flow of a crop production system (rice production). In this regard, 9 varieties of rice were investigated in Italy, the largest rice producer in Europe. Sensitivity analysis of inputs consumption and the exergy management scenarios of the most sensitive inputs are also provided in this study. The results indicated that the cumulative exergy consumption value of the investigated rice varieties ranges from 11,682 MJha-1 to 15,541 MJha-1. Chemical fertilizers and diesel fuel consumption were the biggest contributors to the total energy consumption in all investigated varieties. Luna variety, with the cumulative degree of perfection value of 3.87 and renewability indicator of 0.74, was identified as the most exergy efficient variety of rice in Italy

A Comparative Cost-Benefit Analysis of Conventional and Organic Hazelnuts Production Systems in Center Italy

In this study, the economic profitability of hazelnut production in central Italy using conventional and organic farming systems was evaluated using the cost–benefit analysis methodology. Viterbo’s province is the leading province in Italy in terms of quantity produced. Three indicators were calculated for both farming systems: net present value, payback time, internal rate of return. The analysis was conducted utilizing primary data collected by means of interviews and surveys with local farmers and organizations of producers. The collected production data refer to the decade 2008–2018; a global area of 100.34 ha and 6.14 ha were considered for conventional and organic cultivation, respectively. Sensitivity analysis was carried out considering different discount rates, price variability, and inflation rates. The net present value is equal to 92,800 €/ha and to 3778 €/ha, the payback time is 10.47 years and 42.94 years, while the internal rate of return is 12.2% and 1.1% for the conventional and organic production systems, respectively. The conventional production system performs significantly more remuneratively, considering that the price premium paid by the market for the organic product and the subsidies granted to organic farmers are not sufficient to balance the lower yield

Energy and environmental assessment of industrial hemp for building applications : a review

Buildings significantly contribute to global environmental pollution due to consumption of both natural and primary-energy resources as well as to emission of carbon dioxide in their life-cycles. Therefore, to enable construction of more sustainable buildings, it is important and urgent that new low-environmental impact materials are developed, mainly by reducing the use of non-renewable resources. In this regard, the recent advances in the development of natural fibres represent a significant opportunity to produce improved-materials and energy from renewable resources. For this purpose, assessments of energy and environmental performances are needed to support both the design and the production of the aforementioned materials so as to identify solutions for enhanced contribution to global sustainability. In this context, this study presented a review of the papers published so far that have focussed upon the assessment of the environmental and energy impacts related to the use of hemp-based materials for building applications. The reviewed studies aimed at testing and improving hygro-thermal properties and eco-friendliness of these materials so as to enable reduction of both embodied and operational energy, whilst preserving both indoor air quality and comfort. Doing so would enable limiting the use of energy resources and, as a consequence, their impacts to human health and to the environment, so contributing to making buildings healthier and more environmentally sustainable throughout their life-cycles. Based upon the findings of the studies reviewed these materials have strengths and weaknesses and their use is strictly dependent on the given structural situation and on specific requirements of thermal, moisture, fire and sound protection. In particular, all studies concluded that the main strength in the use of hemp-based materials comes from the production phase because of the “green” origin of these materials, mainly associated with the carbon sequestration during plantation growth

Foamy polystyrene trays for fresh-meat packaging: Life-cycle inventory data collection and environmental impact assessment

Abstract: ood packaging systems are designed to perform series of functions mainly aimed at containing and protecting foods during their shelf-lives. However, to perform those functions a package causes environmental impacts that affect food supply chains and that come from its life-cycle phases. Therefore, package design should be done based upon not only the issues of cost, food shelf-life and safety, as well as practicality, but also of environ- mental sustainability. For this purpose, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) can be applied in the packaging fi eld with the aim of highlighting environmental hotspots and improvement potentials, thus enabling more eco-friendly prod- ucts. In this context, an LCA of foamy polystyrene (PS) trays used for fresh meat packaging was performed here. The study highlighted that the highest environmental impacts come from PS-granule production and electricity consumption. In this regard, the authors underscored that there are no margins for improvement in the produc- tion of the granules and in the transport of the material inputs involved as well as of the trays to users. On the contrary, changing the energy source into a renewable one (by installing, for instance, a wind power plant) would enable a 14% damage reduction. In this way, the authors documented that alternative ways can be found for global environmental improvement of the system analysed and so for enhanced environmental sustainability of food packaging systems

Agricultural and forest biomass for food, materials and energy: bio-economy as the cornerstone to cleaner production and more sustainable consumption patterns for accelerating the transition towards equitable, sustainable, post fossil-carbon societies

n/

Environmentally sustainable biogas? the key role of manure co-digestion with energy crops

We analyzed the environmental impacts of three biogas systems based on dairy manure, sorghum and maize. The geog. scope of the anal. is the Po valley, in Italy. The anaerobic digestion of manure guarantees high GHG (Green House Gases) savings thanks to the avoided emissions from the traditional storage and management of raw manure as org. fertiliser. GHG emissions for maize and sorghum-based systems, on the other hand, are similar to those of the Italian electricity mix. In crop-based systems, the plants with open-tank storage of digestate emit 50% more GHG than those with gas-tight tanks. In all the environmental impact categories analyzed (acidification, particulate matter emissions, and eutrophication), energy crops based systems have much higher impacts than the Italian electricity mix. Maize-based systems cause higher impacts than sorghum, due to more intensive cultivation. Manure-based pathways have always lower impacts than the energy crops based pathways, however, all biogas systems cause much higher impacts than the current Italian electricity mix. We conclude that manure digestion is the most efficient way to reduce GHG emissions; although there are trade-offs with other local environmental impacts. Biogas prodn. from crops; although not providing environmental benefits per se; may be regarded as an option to facilitate the deployment of manure digestion.Agostini, A.; Battini, F.; Giuntoli, J.; Tabaglio, V.; Padella, M.; Baxter, D.; Marelli, L.... (2015). Environmentally sustainable biogas? the key role of manure co-digestion with energy crops. Energies. 8(6):5234-5265. https://doi.org/10.3390/en8065234S5234526586Bacenetti, J., Fusi, A., Negri, M., Guidetti, R., & Fiala, M. (2014). Environmental assessment of two different crop systems in terms of biomethane potential production. Science of The Total Environment, 466-467, 1066-1077. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.07.109Capponi, S., Fazio, S., & Barbanti, L. (2012). CO2 savings affect the break-even distance of feedstock supply and digestate placement in biogas production. Renewable Energy, 37(1), 45-52. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2011.05.005Gerin, P. A., Vliegen, F., & Jossart, J.-M. (2008). Energy and CO2 balance of maize and grass as energy crops for anaerobic digestion. Bioresource Technology, 99(7), 2620-2627. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2007.04.049Battini, F., Agostini, A., Boulamanti, A. K., Giuntoli, J., & Amaducci, S. (2014). Mitigating the environmental impacts of milk production via anaerobic digestion of manure: Case study of a dairy farm in the Po Valley. Science of The Total Environment, 481, 196-208. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.02.038Boulamanti, A. K., Donida Maglio, S., Giuntoli, J., & Agostini, A. (2013). Influence of different practices on biogas sustainability. Biomass and Bioenergy, 53, 149-161. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.02.020Blengini, G. A., Brizio, E., Cibrario, M., & Genon, G. (2011). LCA of bioenergy chains in Piedmont (Italy): A case study to support public decision makers towards sustainability. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 57, 36-47. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.10.003González-García, S., Bacenetti, J., Negri, M., Fiala, M., & Arroja, L. (2013). Comparative environmental performance of three different annual energy crops for biogas production in Northern Italy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 43, 71-83. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.017Lansche, J., & Müller, J. (2012). Life cycle assessment of energy generation of biogas fed combined heat and power plants: Environmental impact of different agricultural substrates. Engineering in Life Sciences, 12(3), 313-320. doi:10.1002/elsc.201100061Lijó, L., González-García, S., Bacenetti, J., Fiala, M., Feijoo, G., Lema, J. M., & Moreira, M. T. (2014). Life Cycle Assessment of electricity production in Italy from anaerobic co-digestion of pig slurry and energy crops. Renewable Energy, 68, 625-635. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2014.03.005Lijó, L., González-García, S., Bacenetti, J., Fiala, M., Feijoo, G., & Moreira, M. T. (2014). Assuring the sustainable production of biogas from anaerobic mono-digestion. Journal of Cleaner Production, 72, 23-34. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.022Whiting, A., & Azapagic, A. (2014). Life cycle environmental impacts of generating electricity and heat from biogas produced by anaerobic digestion. Energy, 70, 181-193. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2014.03.103Berndes, G. (2002). Bioenergy and water—the implications of large-scale bioenergy production for water use and supply. Global Environmental Change, 12(4), 253-271. doi:10.1016/s0959-3780(02)00040-7Gheewala, S. H., Berndes, G., & Jewitt, G. (2011). The bioenergy and water nexus. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 5(4), 353-360. doi:10.1002/bbb.295Amaducci, S., Amaducci, M. T., Benati, R., & Venturi, G. (2000). Crop yield and quality parameters of four annual fibre crops (hemp, kenaf, maize and sorghum) in the North of Italy. Industrial Crops and Products, 11(2-3), 179-186. doi:10.1016/s0926-6690(99)00063-1Amaducci, S., Monti, A., & Venturi, G. (2004). Non-structural carbohydrates and fibre components in sweet and fibre sorghum as affected by low and normal input techniques. Industrial Crops and Products, 20(1), 111-118. doi:10.1016/j.indcrop.2003.12.016Mahmood, A., & Honermeier, B. (2012). Chemical composition and methane yield of sorghum cultivars with contrasting row spacing. Field Crops Research, 128, 27-33. doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2011.12.010Zegada-Lizarazu, W., & Monti, A. (2011). Energy crops in rotation. A review. Biomass and Bioenergy, 35(1), 12-25. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.08.001Barbanti, L., Grandi, S., Vecchi, A., & Venturi, G. (2006). Sweet and fibre sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench), energy crops in the frame of environmental protection from excessive nitrogen loads. European Journal of Agronomy, 25(1), 30-39. doi:10.1016/j.eja.2006.03.001Searchinger, T., Heimlich, R., Houghton, R. A., Dong, F., Elobeid, A., Fabiosa, J., … Yu, T.-H. (2008). Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change. Science, 319(5867), 1238-1240. doi:10.1126/science.1151861Styles, D., Gibbons, J., Williams, A. P., Stichnothe, H., Chadwick, D. R., & Healey, J. R. (2014). Cattle feed or bioenergy? Consequential life cycle assessment of biogas feedstock options on dairy farms. GCB Bioenergy, 7(5), 1034-1049. doi:10.1111/gcbb.12189PE International AGwww.pe-international.comPlevin, R. J., Delucchi, M. A., & Creutzig, F. (2013). Using Attributional Life Cycle Assessment to Estimate Climate-Change Mitigation Benefits Misleads Policy Makers. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 18(1), 73-83. doi:10.1111/jiec.12074Marañón, E., Salter, A. M., Castrillón, L., Heaven, S., & Fernández-Nava, Y. (2011). Reducing the environmental impact of methane emissions from dairy farms by anaerobic digestion of cattle waste. Waste Management, 31(8), 1745-1751. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2011.03.015Chantigny, M. H., Angers, D. A., Rochette, P., Bélanger, G., Massé, D., & Côté, D. (2007). Gaseous Nitrogen Emissions and Forage Nitrogen Uptake on Soils Fertilized with Raw and Treated Swine Manure. Journal of Environment Quality, 36(6), 1864. doi:10.2134/jeq2007.0083Loria, E. R., & Sawyer, J. E. (2005). Extractable Soil Phosphorus and Inorganic Nitrogen following Application of Raw and Anaerobically Digested Swine Manure. Agronomy Journal, 97(3), 879. doi:10.2134/agronj2004.0249Möller, K., Stinner, W., Deuker, A., & Leithold, G. (2008). Effects of different manuring systems with and without biogas digestion on nitrogen cycle and crop yield in mixed organic dairy farming systems. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 82(3), 209-232. doi:10.1007/s10705-008-9196-9Koehler, B., Diepolder, M., Ostertag, J., Thurner, S., & Spiekers, H. (2013). Dry matter losses of grass, lucerne and maize silages in bunker silos. Agricultural and Food Science, 22(1), 145-150. doi:10.23986/afsci.6715Herrmann, C., Heiermann, M., & Idler, C. (2011). Effects of ensiling, silage additives and storage period on methane formation of biogas crops. Bioresource Technology, 102(8), 5153-5161. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2011.01.012Schittenhelm, S. (2010). Effect of Drought Stress on Yield and Quality of Maize/Sunflower and Maize/Sorghum Intercrops for Biogas Production. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science. doi:10.1111/j.1439-037x.2010.00418.xGas Engines for CHP Units and Gensetshttp://www.truck.man.eu/man/media/content_medien/doc/global_engines/power/BR_Power_Gas_EN.pdf?_ga=1.109727301.1989443271.1432903866Walla, C., & Schneeberger, W. (2008). The optimal size for biogas plants. Biomass and Bioenergy, 32(6), 551-557. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2007.11.009Liebetrau, J., Clemens, J., Cuhls, C., Hafermann, C., Friehe, J., Weiland, P., & Daniel-Gromke, J. (2010). Methane emissions from biogas-producing facilities within the agricultural sector. Engineering in Life Sciences, 10(6), 595-599. doi:10.1002/elsc.201000070Li, Z., Yin, F., Li, H., Wang, X., & Lian, J. (2013). A novel test method for evaluating the methane gas permeability of biogas storage membrane. Renewable Energy, 60, 572-577. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2013.06.010Amon, B., Kryvoruchko, V., Amon, T., & Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S. (2006). Methane, nitrous oxide and ammonia emissions during storage and after application of dairy cattle slurry and influence of slurry treatment. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 112(2-3), 153-162. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2005.08.030Amon, B., Kryvoruchko, V., Moitzi, G., & Amon, T. (2006). Greenhouse gas and ammonia emission abatement by slurry treatment. International Congress Series, 1293, 295-298. doi:10.1016/j.ics.2006.01.069Muñoz, I., Schmidt, J. H., Brandão, M., & Weidema, B. P. (2014). Rebuttal to ‘Indirect land use change (iLUC) within life cycle assessment (LCA) - scientific robustness and consistency with international standards’. GCB Bioenergy, 7(4), 565-566. doi:10.1111/gcbb.12231Carrosio, G. (2013). Energy production from biogas in the Italian countryside: Policies and organizational models. Energy Policy, 63, 3-9. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.08.072Posch, M., Seppälä, J., Hettelingh, J.-P., Johansson, M., Margni, M., & Jolliet, O. (2008). The role of atmospheric dispersion models and ecosystem sensitivity in the determination of characterisation factors for acidifying and eutrophying emissions in LCIA. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13(6), 477-486. doi:10.1007/s11367-008-0025-9Seppälä, J., Posch, M., Johansson, M., & Hettelingh, J.-P. (2005). Country-dependent Characterisation Factors for Acidification and Terrestrial Eutrophication Based on Accumulated Exceedance as an Impact Category Indicator (14 pp). The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 11(6), 403-416. doi:10.1065/lca2005.06.215The Riskpoll Softwarehttp://www.arirabl.com/softwareGreco, S. L., Wilson, A. M., Spengler, J. D., & Levy, J. I. (2007). Spatial patterns of mobile source particulate matter emissions-to-exposure relationships across the United States. Atmospheric Environment, 41(5), 1011-1025. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.09.025Abdalla, M., Osborne, B., Lanigan, G., Forristal, D., Williams, M., Smith, P., & Jones, M. B. (2013). Conservation tillage systems: a review of its consequences for greenhouse gas emissions. Soil Use and Management, 29(2), 199-209. doi:10.1111/sum.12030Snyder, C. S., Bruulsema, T. W., Jensen, T. L., & Fixen, P. E. (2009). Review of greenhouse gas emissions from crop production systems and fertilizer management effects. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 133(3-4), 247-266. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2009.04.021Zhang, S., Li, Q., Lü, Y., Zhang, X., & Liang, W. (2013). Contributions of soil biota to C sequestration varied with aggregate fractions under different tillage systems. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 62, 147-156. doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.03.023Derpsch, R., Franzluebbers, A. J., Duiker, S. W., Reicosky, D. C., Koeller, K., Friedrich, T., … Weiss, K. (2014). Why do we need to standardize no-tillage research? Soil and Tillage Research, 137, 16-22. doi:10.1016/j.still.2013.10.002Franzluebbers, A. J. (2010). Achieving Soil Organic Carbon Sequestration with Conservation Agricultural Systems in the Southeastern United States. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 74(2), 347. doi:10.2136/sssaj2009.0079Soane, B. D., Ball, B. C., Arvidsson, J., Basch, G., Moreno, F., & Roger-Estrade, J. (2012). No-till in northern, western and south-western Europe: A review of problems and opportunities for crop production and the environment. Soil and Tillage Research, 118, 66-87. doi:10.1016/j.still.2011.10.015Mircea, M., Ciancarella, L., Briganti, G., Calori, G., Cappelletti, A., Cionni, I., … Zanini, G. (2014). Assessment of the AMS-MINNI system capabilities to simulate air quality over Italy for the calendar year 2005. Atmospheric Environment, 84, 178-188. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.11.006Tabaglio, V., & Gavazzi, C. (2009). Monoculture Maize (Zea mays L.) Cropped Under Conventional Tillage, No-tillage and N Fertilization: (I) Three Year Yield Performances. Italian Journal of Agronomy, 4(3), 61. doi:10.4081/ija.2009.3.61Pirlo, G., & Carè, S. (2013). A Simplified Tool for Estimating Carbon Footprint of Dairy Cattle Milk. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 12(4), e81. doi:10.4081/ijas.2013.e81Sanz-Cobena, A., Sánchez-Martín, L., García-Torres, L., & Vallejo, A. (2012). Gaseous emissions of N2O and NO and NO3− leaching from urea applied with urease and nitrification inhibitors to a maize (Zea mays) crop. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 149, 64-73. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2011.12.016Stehfest, E., & Bouwman, L. (2006). N2O and NO emission from agricultural fields and soils under natural vegetation: summarizing available measurement data and modeling of global annual emissions. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 74(3), 207-228. doi:10.1007/s10705-006-9000-7Perego, A., Basile, A., Bonfante, A., De Mascellis, R., Terribile, F., Brenna, S., & Acutis, M. (2012). Nitrate leaching under maize cropping systems in Po Valley (Italy). Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 147, 57-65. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2011.06.014Van der Werf, H. M. G., Kanyarushoki, C., & Corson, M. S. (2009). An operational method for the evaluation of resource use and environmental impacts of dairy farms by life cycle assessment. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(11), 3643-3652. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.07.003Álvaro-Fuentes, J., Plaza-Bonilla, D., Arrúe, J. L., Lampurlanés, J., & Cantero-Martínez, C. (2012). Soil organic carbon storage in a no-tillage chronosequence under Mediterranean conditions. Plant and Soil, 376(1-2), 31-41. doi:10.1007/s11104-012-1167-xBaker, J. M., Ochsner, T. E., Venterea, R. T., & Griffis, T. J. (2007). Tillage and soil carbon sequestration—What do we really know? Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 118(1-4), 1-5. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2006.05.014Borin, M., Menini, C., & Sartori, L. (1997). Effects of tillage systems on energy and carbon balance in north-eastern Italy. Soil and Tillage Research, 40(3-4), 209-226. doi:10.1016/s0167-1987(96)01057-4De Sanctis, G., Roggero, P. P., Seddaiu, G., Orsini, R., Porter, C. H., & Jones, J. W. (2012). Long-term no tillage increased soil organic carbon content of rain-fed cereal systems in a Mediterranean area. European Journal of Agronomy, 40, 18-27. doi:10.1016/j.eja.2012.02.002Powlson, D. S., Stirling, C. M., Jat, M. L., Gerard, B. G., Palm, C. A., Sanchez, P. A., & Cassman, K. G. (2014). Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation. Nature Climate Change, 4(8), 678-683. doi:10.1038/nclimate229

Riduzione delle emissioni di ammoniaca nell’agricoltura mediterranea attraverso tecniche innovative di fertirrigazione con liquami (LIFE16 ENV/ES/000400)

Esta publicación ha sido elaborada como resultado de los trabajos realizados dentro del proyecto LIFE ARIMEDA: Reducción de emisiones de amoníaco en la agricultura mediterránea a través de técnicas innovadoras de fertirrigación con purín (LIFE16 ENV/ES/000400). El proyecto LIFE ARIMEDA ha recibido fondos del Programa LIFE de la Unión Europea.Publishe

Soybean and maize cultivation in South America: Environmental comparison of different cropping systems

Maize and soybean are two widely spread crops for food, feed and biofuel production, and in South America there are some of the most important producing countries in the world. This study investigates the environmental impact linked to their agricultural production in a sub-tropical South American context, starting from primary data relating to a cultivated area in eastern Paraguay. To this end, the Life Cycle Assessment approach was adopted in a cradle-to-farm gate perspective, evaluating eight different impact categories. In particular, two widespread intra-annual rotations were compared, both of which consider soybean as a first-season crop, alternating in the second-season with maize or soybean itself. Environmental results were expressed both in a crop-to-crop approach (per t of individual product) and with four different units expressing the land management function (1 ha year−1); the productive function (1 GJ ha−1 year−1 and 1 t of crude protein ha−1 year−1) and finally the financial function (1 USD of gross margin ha−1 year−1) of the two different cropping systems. In the cropping system approach, results expressed per hectare of cultivated area and per t of crude protein produced do not see one cropping system performing better than the other consistently over the evaluated impact categories. The soybean-maize rotation, on the other hand, appeared clearly more efficient from an environmental point of view in terms of gross energy and gross margin produced per hectare per year.The lack of a shared consensus on the most appropriate and comprehensive way to express the results of LCA studies on cropping systems makes difficult the selection of the best system. In particular, there are still on-going limitations and controversies in selecting the most appropriate functional unit for cropping systems LCA