EconPapers    
Economics at your fingertips  
 

Do greenhouse gas emission calculations from energy crop cultivation reflect actual agricultural management practices? – A review of carbon footprint calculators

Christiane Peter, Katharina Helming and Claas Nendel

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2017, vol. 67, issue C, 461-476

Abstract: A wide range of calculators have been developed to assess the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of agricultural products, including biomass for bioenergy production. However, these calculators often fail in their ability to take into account the differences in pedoclimatic conditions, agricultural management practices and characteristics of perennial crops and crop rotations. As a result, the predictions of GHG emissions by these calculators are characterized by a high level of uncertainty, and calculators may fail in their ability to detect mitigation options along the production chain. The aim of this study was to analyze the available calculators for calculating GHG emissions from energy crop cultivation based on Carbon Footprint (CFP) approaches according to the goal and scope of the calculator, the methodology used to account for GHG emissions from energy crop cultivation, energy crop cultivation management practices and the ability to model crop rotation. Out of 44 environmental assessment calculators for agricultural products, we identified 18 calculators which are capable of assessing GHG emissions from energy crop cultivation. These calculators differ in their goal and scope and which farming operations related to crop management are taken into account; this makes it difficult to compare and interpret the results from these CFP assessments. Only seven calculators out of 18 can calculate GHG emissions from energy crop rotations. At the moment, none of these calculators are able to consider actual effects from energy crops in rotation in the context of nutrient shifts, reductions in the use of agricultural operating needs, or the sequence and composition of crop rotations. However, by expanding the system boundaries of the CFP study, by taking the whole energy crop rotation and local agricultural management practices into account, the opportunity to identify more GHG mitigation options increases.

Keywords: Crop rotation; Carbon Footprint; Crop management; Energy crops; Life Cycle Assessment; Greenhouse gas emissions (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2017
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (17)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032116305536
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:rensus:v:67:y:2017:i:c:p:461-476

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600126/bibliographic
http://www.elsevier. ... 600126/bibliographic

DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.059

Access Statistics for this article

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews is currently edited by L. Kazmerski

More articles in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().

 
Page updated 2025-03-19
Handle: RePEc:eee:rensus:v:67:y:2017:i:c:p:461-476