Energia, ambiente, economia e olival no Alentejo. Estudo preliminar

Prevê-se que o consumo de energia na agricultura irá aumentar significativamente nos próximos anos com a intensificação dos sistemas de produção. As melhorias na eficiência energética dos sistemas de produção estão relacionadas com a redução do uso de energia para um determinado serviço ou nível de actividade, ou a um aumento de produtividade para a mesma energia consumida. Os sistemas de produção agrícola estão muito dependentes de um consumo directo de energia (combustíveis), mas também de um consumo indirecto devido à energia gasta na produção de diversos factores de produção. Uma correcta avaliação de consumos energéticos deve considerar estas duas componentes. Neste trabalho analisaram-se 3 sistemas de produção do Olival (tradicional, intensivo e super-intensivo), uma das culturas mais importantes em Portugal. Para cada sistema de produção, calcularam-se os custos de capital e de operação das diferentes actividades, assim como os consumos energéticos (directos e indirectos) e o nível de emissões de gás com efeito estufa (GHG) traduzido em CO2eq. Verificou-se um acréscimo significativo de energia consumida, de produção de GHG e custos totais com a intensificação da produção. Mas também um aumento significativo da produção o que conduziu a um maior lucro para o agricultor. O sucesso da actividade agrícola está dependente do lucro, pelo que nesta cultura a tendência será caminhar para a intensificação. Deste modo será difícil diminuir o consumo de energia associado à produção do olival, mas será necessário aumentar a sua eficiência de utilização. Dado o elevado grau de mecanização dos sistemas intensivos, o aumento da eficiência energética na produção de azeitona no Alentejo terá de passar pela melhoria nas práticas de gestão culturais, no sentido de optimizar o uso das máquinas que lhes estão associadas. Ou ainda pela utilização de técnicas de agricultura de precisão numa tentativa de reduzir e optimizar a utilização de diferentes factores de produção, entre outras potenciais alternativas

Economic and environmental analysis of energy efficiency measures in agriculture. Case Studies and trade offs.

This report is the result of the collaboration of the partners of the AGREE work-package “Economic and environmental analysis”, which is based on case study analyses of the partners in seven countries of the EU. The case studies show economic and environmental trade-offs in the different regions in the EU, for which each partner is responsible. Nevertheless prior to the reporting of the case studies an intensive discussion on a common methodological approach has been accomplished and applied to the case studies. The case studies show a wide range of different perspectives of energy efficiency in agriculture, but they are all based on the common methodology presented in Chapter 3. In Chapter 4, the case studies are presented, with authors indicated at the beginning of each section. Each section of Chapter 4 ends with a synthesis analysis of the results from the different case studies. Chapter 5 summarizes and concludes the report by highlighting the major findings of the analyses. The report builds upon the “State of the Art in Energy Efficiency in Europe” published separately by the AGREE consortium (Gołaszewski et al. 2012), which shows the status quo of energy use and possible energy efficiency measures in agriculture across different production systems and regions in Europe. This report presents an economic and environmental analysis based on in-depth case studies which show the potential for, and constraints on, energy efficiency measures in agriculture with respect to the specific environments in Europe

Agriculture and energy efficiency in portuguese agriculture and trade-offs with farm economics and environmental impacts: case studies for selected agricultural production

This paper aims to present and discuss an economic and environmental analysis based on case studies for selected Portuguese agriculture production systems which show potentials and constraints of energy efficiency measures in agriculture with respect to the specific environment of Portugal. Results are the Portuguese part of one work package of AGREE (AGRiculture and Energy Efficiency) an European project. It illustrates case studies and shows trade-offs associated with energy efficiency measures for selected case studies of production systems with their estimated impact on energy use, economic costs and greenhouse gas emissions. Production systems include arable crops (wheat), animal husbandry (dairy, pork and poultry), greenhouse (tomato) and permanent crops (olive trees and vineyards). Results for energy efficiency measures including reduced tillage, fertilizer management and use, including organic and precision farming, and irrigation show large gains in energy consumption and relevant reductions for greenhouse gas emissions but small effects in economic costs and profits. However, if energy efficiency measures impacts are evaluated with respect to production levels of agricultural systems economic effects become more expressive and relevant in private but mainly in social terms. This is due to differences in the relative importance of inputs in energy use, emissions and costs and also to differences of inputs for different agricultural systems. For arable crops diesel and fertilizer contributions arerelevant for energy and emissions but seeds are more important to costs. For animal husbandry feeding is important for energy use and costs but animal purchases are more relevant to emissions. For greenhouse crops diesel and electricity are very important for energy and emissions but plants are more important for costs. For permanent crops diesel and lubricants are particularly important for olives and pesticides for vineyards in energy use and emissions with fertilizer also being important to costs. As a result out of the energy efficiency measures considered there are potential savings of energy and positive economic and environmental impacts but of different magnitude for agricultural systems considered

Less or more intensive crop arable systems of Alentejo region of Portugal: What is the option to sustainable production?

Competitiveness of traditional arable crop system of Alentejo region of Portugal has been questioned for long. Discussion and research on the sustainability of the system has evolved on two contrasted alternative options for production technologies to traditional system. On the one hand reduced and no tillage systems aim to more extensive technical operations reducing costs and maintaining production, or even to increase it in the long run as soil fertility improves. On the other hand, input intensification using irrigation, as a complement in the last stage of crop cycle or always when needed, aimed to increase system production levels. To evaluate competitiveness and sustainability of arable crop system we evaluated traditional rotation technology and alternative no tillage and irrigation systems and analyze their farm economic results as well their energy efficiency and environmental impacts. The analysis of the impact of no tillage and irrigation on arable land production system showed that both alternatives contributed to cost savings and profit earnings, energy savings and reduced GHG emissions, increasing physical and economic factor efficiency. Research and technological development of both options are worthwhile to promote competitiveness and sustainability of arable crop production systems of the Alentejo region of Portugal

Energy saving measures in Agriculture – Overview on the basis of national reports.

The reduction of energy inputs in agricultural production is a process of practical implementation of a set of energy saving (ES) measures associated with a given type of production, farm infrastructure and managerial or organizational activities. In six national reports from Finland, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Poland and Portugal for 13 subsectors of agriculture, 481 ES measures in total were identified and classified into seven categories: 1) type of energy input: indirect, direct; 2) type of ES measure: operational level, systems level, process monitoring, farm management, market orientation, capital goods; 3) importance: from 1-low to 5-high; 4) R&D: yes, no; 5) potential of the measure: achievable at present or not immediately ready for implementation; 6) indication of an investment cost: from €1000 to over €1000000; 7) estimated payback time: from 1 to over 5 years. The general conclusions from the analysis are as follows.ES measures refer to the reduction of main energy inputs in agricultural production, including fertilizers and pesticides; fuels for powering tractors and other machinery; fuel use for heating, cooling, and ventilation in farm buildings and facilities; electricity use for pumping, lighting; and energy embodied in buildings and equipment. In general, the listed ES measures can reduce both direct and indirect energy inputs and the overwhelming majority of the ES measures (443 out of 481) were assessed in the range from 3 (moderate) to 5 (high) in terms of their importance for energy saving. The implementation of part of the ES measures in agricultural practice is achievable at presente Agriculture and Energy Efficiency 4 (464 out of 481) but will require some advanced research (389 out of 481). In the highly industrialized production of pigs and broilers, there are many ES measures which may be implemented with technologies which are presently on the market such as improved heat insulation, more efficient ventilation, lighting and cooling systems, as well advanced control of the interior climate. R&D will be especially important for progress in attaining energy efficiency in agriculture when applied to systems involved in the production process, operational activity and capital goods/farm infrastructure engaged in production. The estimated categories of investment costs related to implementation of ES measures vary greatly between subsectors. 1/3 of the total number of the measures can be implemented at a cost under €1000, and 1/3 incur costs in the range from €1000 to €25000. The highest investment costs would be associated with saving energy and improving energy efficiency in greenhouses and livestock production. They are associated with improved heat insulation, more efficient ventilation, lighting and cooling systems, as well advanced control of the interior climate. In crop production, energy saving will be considerably affected by the ES measures associated with reduction of diesel fuel use by optimizing the parameters for tractor and machinery use in field operations, reduction of energy use for drying and in produce stores. On the other hand, reduction of indirect energy input is associated with implementation of ES measures related to advanced high-yield and disease-resistant cultivars, application of alternative sources of nutrients and plant protection (organic and green fertilizers, bioactive microorganisms), advanced monitoring of the production process and use of production means in accordance with the soil fertility and plant nutrient uptake (Precision Arable Agriculture with Variable Rate application). The importance of ES activities may be country-specific, e.g. in the southern EU countries more importance will be attributed to the ES measures associated with irrigation of cultivated crops while in the central and north-eastern countries – to the ES measures associated with energy effective drying techniques for the harvested crop.. In perennial crop production, the majority of ES measures are connected with fertilization, plant protection and field operations. In greenhouse production, potential reduction of direct energy inputs is associated with the control of greenhouse atmosphere by energy efficient systems of heating, cooling and ventilation as well optimization of production processes. There are also importante measures connected with new solutions for energy recovery and the use of other,alternative sources of energy. The structure of ES measures in livestock production depends on the country. In Portugal,Poland and Finland many ES measures are associated with the production of animal feed and the promotion of animal welfare. However in the Netherlands and Germany most of the reported ES measures are related to electricity use and to the buildings and associated infrastructure for livestock production. Energy use in livestock production may be reduced by increased efficiency of production inputs which require energy consumption, e.g. water use and cleaning, heat insulation, ventilation, reduction of amount of ammonia in buildings, heat recovery, energy use optimization for a given production system

Dzialania energooszczedne w rolnictwie (Energy saving measures in agriculture)

The reduction of energy inputs in agricultural production is a process of practical implementation of a set of energy saving (ES) measures associated with a given type of production, farm infrastructure and managerial or organizational activities. In six national reports from Finland, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Poland and Portugal for 13 subsectors of agriculture, 481 ES measures in total were identified and classified into seven categories: 1) type of energy input: indirect, direct; 2) type of ES measure: operational level, systems level, process monitoring, farm management, market orientation, capital goods; 3) importance: from 1-low to 5-high; 4) R&D: yes, no; 5) potential of the measure: achievable at present or not immediately ready for implementation; 6) indication of an investment cost: from €1000 to over €1000000; 7) estimated payback time: from 1 to over 5 years. The general conclusions from the analysis are as follows.ES measures refer to the reduction of main energy inputs in agricultural production, including fertilizers and pesticides; fuels for powering tractors and other machinery; fuel use for heating, cooling, and ventilation in farm buildings and facilities; electricity use for pumping, lighting; and energy embodied in buildings and equipment. In general, the listed ES measures can reduce both direct and indirect energy inputs and the overwhelming majority of the ES measures (443 out of 481) were assessed in the range from 3 (moderate) to 5 (high) in terms of their importance for energy saving. The implementation of part of the ES measures in agricultural practice is achievable at presente Agriculture and Energy Efficiency 4 (464 out of 481) but will require some advanced research (389 out of 481). In the highly industrialized production of pigs and broilers, there are many ES measures which may be implemented with technologies which are presently on the market such as improved heat insulation, more efficient ventilation, lighting and cooling systems, as well advanced control of the interior climate. R&D will be especially important for progress in attaining energy efficiency in agriculture when applied to systems involved in the production process, operational activity and capital goods/farm infrastructure engaged in production. The estimated categories of investment costs related to implementation of ES measures vary greatly between subsectors. 1/3 of the total number of the measures can be implemented at a cost under €1000, and 1/3 incur costs in the range from €1000 to €25000. The highest investment costs would be associated with saving energy and improving energy efficiency in greenhouses and livestock production. They are associated with improved heat insulation, more efficient ventilation, lighting and cooling systems, as well advanced control of the interior climate. In crop production, energy saving will be considerably affected by the ES measures associated with reduction of diesel fuel use by optimizing the parameters for tractor and machinery use in field operations, reduction of energy use for drying and in produce stores. On the other hand, reduction of indirect energy input is associated with implementation of ES measures related to advanced high-yield and disease-resistant cultivars, application of alternative sources of nutrients and plant protection (organic and green fertilizers, bioactive microorganisms), advanced monitoring of the production process and use of production means in accordance with the soil fertility and plant nutrient uptake (Precision Arable Agriculture with Variable Rate application). The importance of ES activities may be country-specific, e.g. in the southern EU countries more importance will be attributed to the ES measures associated with irrigation of cultivated crops while in the central and north-eastern countries – to the ES measures associated with energy effective drying techniques for the harvested crop.. In perennial crop production, the majority of ES measures are connected with fertilization, plant protection and field operations. In greenhouse production, potential reduction of direct energy inputs is associated with the control of greenhouse atmosphere by energy efficient systems of heating, cooling and ventilation as well optimization of production processes. There are also importante measures connected with new solutions for energy recovery and the use of other,alternative sources of energy. The structure of ES measures in livestock production depends on the country. In Portugal,Poland and Finland many ES measures are associated with the production of animal feed and the promotion of animal welfare. However in the Netherlands and Germany most of the reported ES measures are related to electricity use and to the buildings and associated infrastructure for livestock production. Energy use in livestock production may be reduced by increased efficiency of production inputs which require energy consumption, e.g. water use and cleaning, heat insulation, ventilation, reduction of amount of ammonia in buildings, heat recovery, energy use optimization for a given production system

Otoczenie zewnetrzne efektywnosci energetycznej w rolnictwie – studium przypadków (External sector energy efficiency in agriculture - case studies)

Until recently energy efficiency in agriculture has received little attention. Nevertheless, energy consumption in agriculture is considerable, especially when indirect energy use is taken into account. AGREE has the objective of showing the potential of short term energy efficiency gains and the promise of a long term potential. Environmental effects of savings on direct and indirect energy use in agriculture are integrally considered, as energy use efficiency also implies reduction of greenhouse gas emissions

Analiza ekonomiczna i srodowiskowa dzialan z zakresu efektywnosci energetycznej w rolnictwie (Economic and environmental analysis of activities in the field of energy efficiency in agriculture)

This text is the result of the collaboration of the partners of the AGREE work-package “Economic and environmental analysis”, which is based on case study analyses of the partners in seven countries of the EU. The case studies show economic and environmental trade-offs in the different regions in the EU, for which each partner is responsible. Nevertheless prior to the reporting of the case studies an intensive discussion on a common methodological approach has been accomplished and applied to the case studies. The case studies show a wide range of different perspectives of energy efficiency in agriculture, but they are all based on the common methodology presented in Chapter 3. In Chapter 4, the case studies are presented, with authors indicated at the beginning of each section. Each section of Chapter 4 ends with a synthesis analysis of the results from the different case studies. Chapter 5 summarizes and concludes the report by highlighting the major findings of the analyses. The report builds upon the “State of the Art in Energy Efficiency in Europe” published separately by the AGREE consortium (Gołaszewski et al. 2012), which shows the status quo of energy use and possible energy efficiency measures in agriculture across different production systems and regions in Europe. This report presents an economic and environmental analysis based on in-depth case studies which show the potential for, and constraints on, energy efficiency measures in agriculture with respect to the specific environments in Europe

Importance of Shank3 Protein in Regulating Metabotropic Glutamate Receptor 5 (mGluR5) Expression and Signaling at Synapses*

Shank3/PROSAP2 gene mutations are associated with cognitive impairment ranging from mental retardation to autism. Shank3 is a large scaffold postsynaptic density protein implicated in dendritic spines and synapse formation; however, its specific functions have not been clearly demonstrated. We have used RNAi to knockdown Shank3 expression in neuronal cultures and showed that this treatment specifically reduced the synaptic expression of the metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 (mGluR5), but did not affect the expression of other major synaptic proteins. The functional consequence of Shank3 RNAi knockdown was impaired signaling via mGluR5, as shown by reduction in ERK1/2 and CREB phosphorylation induced by stimulation with (S)-3,5-dihydroxyphenylglycine (DHPG) as the agonist of mGluR5 receptors, impaired mGluR5-dependent synaptic plasticity (DHPG-induced long-term depression), and impaired mGluR5-dependent modulation of neural network activity. We also found morphological abnormalities in the structure of synapses (spine number, width, and length) and impaired glutamatergic synaptic transmission, as shown by reduction in the frequency of miniature excitatory postsynaptic currents (mEPSC). Notably, pharmacological augmentation of mGluR5 activity using 3-cyano-N-(1,3-diphenyl-1H-pyrazol-5-yl)-benzamide as the positive allosteric modulator of these receptors restored mGluR5-dependent signaling (DHPG-induced phosphorylation of ERK1/2) and normalized the frequency of mEPSCs in Shank3-knocked down neurons. These data demonstrate that a deficit in mGluR5-mediated intracellular signaling in Shank3 knockdown neurons can be compensated by 3-cyano-N-(1,3-diphenyl-1H-pyrazol-5-yl)-benzamide; this raises the possibility that pharmacological augmentation of mGluR5 activity represents a possible new therapeutic approach for patients with Shank3 mutations