ARTICLE IN PRESS

Biosystems Engineering (2005) 91 (2), 245256

doi:10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2005.03.010
RDRural Development

Energy Use and Economic Evaluation of a Three Year Crop Rotation for
Conservation and Organic Farming in NE Italy
L. Sartori1; B. Basso2; M. Bertocco1; G. Oliviero3
1

Dipartimento Territorio e Sistemi Agro-Forestali, University of Padova, viale dellUniversita`, 16 35020, Legnaro (Padova), Italy;
e-mail of corresponding author: matteo.bertocco.1@unipd.it
2
Dipartimento di Scienze dei Sistemi Colturali, Forestali e dellAmbiente, University of Basilicata, via Ateneo Lucano, 10 85100, Potenza, Italy;
e-mail: basso@unibas.it
3
San Basilio Farm, via S. Basilio, 45012, Ariano nel Polesine (Rovigo), Italy
(Received 30 September 2004; accepted in revised form 19 March 2005; published online 10 May 2005)

The conservation of natural resources is the most important key for a sustainable agriculture, especially
considering the decreasing conditional subsidies of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the European
Union (EU) for the coming years: the lower economic supports oblige farms to increase efciency to reduce
production costs, whilst given the interaction of agricultural activities with environment quality, appropriate
natural resources management will be a crucial aspect for farms.
The paper examines the efciency of agricultural production systems and particularly the efciency of
energy use in a 3-yr soya bean, maize and wheat rotation. The study also aimed to analyse the production cost
and the role of EU subsidies on farm strategies for important emerging management systems namely
conservation farming (CF) and organic farming (OF) systems. Experiments were carried out in NE Italy, on a
farm situated near Rovigo. Energy inputs were generally higher in the CF system but counterbalanced by a
higher yield (output), while the OF system had generally reduced energy use (due to no chemical inputs) but
lower yield. The economic net return was higher for the CF system, but when the economic subsidies from EU
were considered, the integrated net return was higher in the OF system for soya bean and wheat.
r 2005 Silsoe Research Institute. All rights reserved
Published by Elsevier Ltd

1. Introduction
Energy consumption in Italian agriculture amounts to
around 0
42 EJ yr1 (45% of national consumption), of
which 55% relates to arable crops, 27% to the livestock
breeding sector and 16% to horticulture. The directly used
energy (e.g. electricity, fuels, etc.) is about 3040% of total
consumption (Biondi et al., 1989). Within each agricultural
sector, direct energy costs are a small percentage of the
gross saleable production, varying from 13% for cereal
farms practising monoculture to 46% for livestock farms
(the higher values resulting from crop drying processes)
(Pellizzi & Castelli, 1984; Pellizzi, 1992). The energy costs
rise to 710% when indirect consumption (e.g. fertilisers,
seeds sown, etc.) is included (Biondi et al., 1989).
It is important, therefore, to analyse cropping systems
in energy terms and to evaluate alternative solutions,
1537-5110/$30.00

especially for arable crops, which account for more than

half of the primary sector energy consumption. From
this point of view, soil tillage methods are worthwhile
studying as, in Italy, they account for around one third
of the energy input on average (Bonari et al., 1992).
They also inuence the other production factors (Toderi
& Bonari, 1986), which in turn contribute differently to
total energy costs. The standard cropping method in
Italy includes (with slight modications depending on
the crop and type of soil) mouldboard ploughing to a
depth of 0
30
4 m, eld cultivation, harrowing and
sowing. The Po valley farmers think that by ploughing
the soil to 0
4 m more water can be stored and that the
yields are more constant over the years. It has been
difcult for the extension services and researchers
working in this eld to convince them that intensive
tillage does not allow for soil and water conservation

245

r 2005 Silsoe Research Institute. All rights reserved

Published by Elsevier Ltd

ARTICLE IN PRESS
246

L. SARTORI ET AL.

and reduces soil organic matter content, according to the

basics of conservation agriculture, which is dened as the
integration of agronomic practices with the aim of
conserving, improving and making more efcient use of
natural resources (Reicosky, 2001). The farmers point on
yield consistency is correct but the lower yield observed in
conservation tillage systems is only related to the rst few
years of transition period between intensive tillage and
conservation practices. The adoption of reduced tillage
methods gives energy savings of between 32% and 57%
in maize (Cantele & Zanin, 1983) and greater savings can
be achieved by no-tillage (Sartori & Peruzzi, 1994; Borin
et al., 1997), with a consequential increase of the
efciency of energy use. However, benets can be
appreciable also in relation to environmental aspects:
large amounts of crop residues at soil surface reduce
water runoff and nutrients loss (SSSA, 1997), whilst their
incorporation in a fairly shallow layer lead to an increase
in the organic matter in the upper soil layer. Furthermore, there is some evidence that agricultural practices,
and particular soil tillage, have been a signicant
component of the increase in atmospheric CO2 and
greenhouse gases which has occurred in the last few
decades (Lal, 1997; Tilman et al., 2002; Cole, 1996; Cole
et al., 1997; Schlesinger, 1999), both in direct (fossil fuel
consumption) and indirect terms, CO2 emission being
correlated to the energy content of inputs used (Borjesson, 1996; Robertson et al., 2000) and mineralisation
process (Kern & Johnson, 1993; Ismail et al., 1994). In
this respect, mechanisation level generally plays an
important role in both energy and costs of production
(Hernanz et al., 1995). Holland (2004) in his extensive
review on conservation agriculture suggested the potential for farmers to earn money from carbon credits if
they change cropping practices to increase carbon levels
in their soils, simultaneously improving fertility and
productivity. Holland (2004) also reports that carbon
benets from no-till over conventional tillage are in the
order of more than 300 kg of carbon per hectare per year
in no-till farming compared to conventional tillage
without other changes to cropping practices. Long-term
trials (Rasmussen et al., 1998; Smith et al., 2001) found
that conversion from conventional tillage to no-till can
on average add 2
9 tonnes of carbon per hectare over
12 yr of growing wheat.
Recently, the number of organic farms in Italy has
increased considerably, because of the European Union
(EU) economic support for quality food; organic farms
must produce food of high quality but also attain
greater sustainability by reducing external inputs and
preserving natural resources but the adoption of
conventional agricultural practices in some cases could
reduce the potential benets of organic farming on
environmental (Sartori et al., 2003).

Despite the difculty in evaluating some inputs, and

the fact that the marked heterogeneity of the outputs
and their different potential utilisations make it difcult
to identify signicant and reliable values for comparing
the different cropping systems (Bonari et al., 1992),
organic farming may be characterised by better energy
efciency. The use of mineral fertilisers and pesticides
lead to higher yields in the conventional cropping
system, but also require higher energy inputs compared
to organic system (Alfoldi et al., 1994; Campiglia et al.,
1995; Gristina et al., 1995; Dalgaard et al., 2001).
Nevertheless, the agronomic management in organic
farming lead to a series of problems with respect to
conventional agriculture, for which weed control by
herbicides absorbs 25% of the total energy cost; the
alternative control techniques using mechanical methods, even if more efcient energy-wise (Clements et al.,
1995), involve more operations and more importantly
can contribute towards soil degradation and the
reduction of its fertility. In the last few years, several
studies attempted to compare energy use and economic
aspects between conventional farming and conservation
or organic farming systems, but research on the direct
comparison of conservation farming with the organic
farming systems using the EU guidelines is limited in the
literature.
This paper reports an energy analysis intended to
evaluate the efciency of a conservation farming in
comparison with an organic farming in a 3-yr soya bean,
maize and wheat rotation. The study also aimed to
analyse the production cost and to show the role of EU
economic support on farm strategies in achieving
sustainable production systems.

2. Material and methods

2.1. Site description and climatic data
The experiment was carried out in NE Italy, at the
San Basilio Farm situated near Rovigo, (45140 1200 N,
111470 2200 E, 6 m a.s.l), during a 3-yr period (20002002)
on two ats (13% slope) elds of 10 and 15 ha. The soil
(Arenosol in the FAO classication) is predominantly
sandy in both elds, according to the USDA particlessize distribution limits, with different amount of organic
matteri.e., 1
25% and 3
90%, respectively.
The climate of the area (data relating to the
19922002 period) is characterised by an annual average
rainfall of 850 mm, distributed mostly in autumn and
spring. The annual average temperature is 13
3 1C, with
a monthly maximum of 23
5 1C in July and a minimum
of 3
2 1C in January. During the study period, annual
precipitation was lower in 2000 and 2001 with a total

ARTICLE IN PRESS
247

ENERGY USE AND ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF A 3-YR CROP ROTATION

rainfall of 600 mm and 550 mm, respectively, whilst in

2002 precipitation was slightly higher than the annual
average with a total of 870 mm. The average temperatures agreed with the average season, except for 2001
with an average mean value of 15 1C due to the mild
temperature during winter and the high temperature
during summer.
2.2. Experimental design and management
The crop rotation adopted was the same for the two
elds and consisted in soya bean (Glycine max, L.), in
2000, maize (Zea mais, L.) in 2001 and wheat (Triticum
aestivum, L.) in 2002. For the previous 10 yr, the farm
has adopted a simplied management cropping system,
by generally reducing the tillage intensity according to
soil characteristics and crop species, introducing cover
crops (e.g., Hordeum vulgaris, L. and Vicia faba minor,
L.), and adopting integrated strategies in the weed
control.
During eld trials, the agronomic eld operations
were performed in the two elds according to conservation (CFconservation farming) and organic practices
(OForganic farming), respectively. In particular, for
the CF system residue management, a decrease in tillage
intensity and integrated crop protection were considered, whilst for the OF system the use of chemical
fertilisers and pesticides was not allowed. For both
systems, the residue management was performed by
using a straw chopper after harvesting and the adopted
tillage practices had reduced depth and intensity: in the
CF system, chisel ploughing was performed during
autumn and disc harrowing was carried out for maize
and wheat during winter. After organic fertiliser
distribution, in the OF system the mouldboard ploughing was performed in maize and wheat in order to
incorporate them, whilst in CF in wheat the organic

fertiliser was incorporated with disc harrowing. The

seedbed preparation was performed in both systems by
using spring tine cultivation and rotary harrowing: in
OF a greater number of eld operations was performed
for each crop than in CF, in order to attain mechanical
weed control. Sowing was performed for both crops and
cover crops by using a row planter and a grain drill, with
the seeding rate reported in Table 1. Fertiliser was
applied during the autumnwinter period in the form of
organic compounds for maize and wheat in the OF
system. In the CF system, the inorganic phosphorus was
applied in autumn in soya bean, and inorganic fertilisers
were distributed in autumn (phosphorous and potassium) and in spring (nitrogen) in maize, whilst in wheat
organic manure was applied after sowing. The weed
control was done in CF by integrating the row crop
cultivation with herbicides applications in maize and
soya bean, and only by herbicide distribution in wheat,
whilst in OF this objective was attained both during
seedbed preparation with rotary harrowing and after
sowing with row crop cultivations in maize and soya
bean and mechanical crop protection in wheat. Pest
control was done by spraying chemical insecticides
only in CF following the calendar and products
commonly used in the study area. The eld was irrigated
to avoid any water stress using a sub-surface system.
Water was applied by the farmer by raising the water
table depth.
During crop rotation harvest was carried out at crop
maturity, by using a New Holland TX 64 combine
harvester and the total yield was calculated by weighing
all dump wagons for each eld.
2.3. Energy balance
The energy balance was performed using the gross
energy requirement, as suggested by the International

Table 1
Main input rate for the three crops for conservation farming (CF) and organic farming (OF) systems
Type of operation

Input rate, kg ha1

Type of input
Soya bean

Sowing

Seeds of crop
Seeds of cover crops

Fertilisation

Nitrogen (N-NH
3)
Phosphorus (P2O5)
Potassium (K2O)
Organic manure

Crop protection

Herbicides
Insecticides

Maize

Wheat

CF

OF

CF

OF

CF

OF

60
00

67
00

28
00

32
00
225
00

212
00

208
00

313
00

460
00
319
00
112
00

10,000

4,640

1,160

4
58
0
11

10
07
0
27

0
01

ARTICLE IN PRESS
248

L. SARTORI ET AL.

Federation of Institutes for Advanced Study (Slesser &

Wallace, 1982), with the exception that an energy value
was also attributed to human labour. The study has
considered only the energy used in crop production,
without taking into account the environmental source of
energy (radiation, wind, water, etc.). The energy content
of the crop residues retained on the eld was not
considered. As regards irrigation, the system used
during cropping cycle has no energy cost and thus it
was not inserted in the energy balance calculation.
The only output considered was the dry weight of nal
yield, expressed as energy by using conversion coefcients, whilst an energy value was assigned for each input
involved in the production process using conversion
coefcients obtained from the literature. In particular, the
most appropriate and representative values of the Italian
production systems were specically used in this study as
follows, as reported in detail in Table 2.
(a) Human labour
This value corresponds to the biochemical energy
potentially consumable by a person, and it was
calculated considering the coefcient 1
95 MJ h1 which
takes into account only the hourly energy demand
required for working (Pimentel & Pimentel, 1979). This
value was found not to be important so was not shown
in the tables.
(b) Indirect use of mechanisation
The weight of the machinery and equipment was
converted into manufacturing energy value using the
coefcient 80
23 MJ kg1 (Hornacek, 1979) and it was
then divided by the estimated technical and economic
life, to allow for the calculation of the hourly energy
cost. In particular, the annual use expressed in hour
(tractor, 900 h yr1 and equipment, 150350 h yr1,
respectively) was considered and then it was multiplied
to the economic life, expressed in years and ranging
from a minimum of 10 yr for tractors to a maximum of
20 yr for dump wagons, based on the experimental
condition at the farm.
(c) Direct use of mechanisation
This value was obtained by multiplying the hourly
fuel and lubricant consumption by the hours of work in
the various cropping operations. In this respect, a
loading ranging from a minimum of 50% to a maximum
of 70% relative to the maximum engine power was used,
by considering different agronomic practices and eld
conditions.
(d) Seeds sown, fertilisers and herbicides
The energy cost of these was evaluated by multiplying
the amounts used by their unit energy cost to the farm,
excluding the distribution cost that was calculated in the
direct and indirect mechanisation and in the labour.

Table 2
Average energy contained in the main technical input used during
crop rotation for conservation farming (CF) and organic farming
(OF) systems
Input
Tractors
Fuel
Oils
Fertilisers
N-NH
3
P2O5
K2 O
Organic
manure
Pests
management
Insecticides
Herbicides
Seeds sown
Maize

Energy required,
MJ kg1
80
23
46
20
78
13

Hornacek, 1979
Biondi et al., 1989
Carillon, 1979

59
17
10
0
30

Scholz et al., 1998

Scholz et al., 1988
Scholz et al., 1988
Gezer et al., 2003

261
277
104
65

Wheat
Soya bean
Drying
Grain yield
Maize
Wheat
Soya bean

Sources

West and Marland,

2002
West and Marland,
2002
Pimentel and Pimentel,
1979

27
63
33
49
50

Dalgaard et al., 2002

14
70
13
86
16
87

Jarach, 1985
Jarach, 1985
Borin et al., 1997

(e) Drying process

The energy used for drying the harvested product was
a function of the moisture content present in the grain at
harvest maturity. Maize, wheat and soya bean are
harvested at different moisture contents, and the energy
necessary for drying is expressed as MJ Mg1 per unit of
moisture in the dried grain, to attain the limit of moisture
required for safe grain storage (u 15%), according to
the difference between the grain moisture content at
harvest and the limit value, by multiplying that for the
specic coefcient (50 MJ kg1) (Dalgaard et al., 2002).
Finally, the following parameters were calculated by
considering the energy of both of these requirements
and outputs per unit area and unit mass of kernel:
net energy (NE outputinput, expressed as MJ ha1
and MJ t1, respectively);
energy conversion index (ECI output input1);
efciency of energy use (EEU net energy input1).

2.4. Economic aspects

In order to highlight the difference in the farm gross
margins as a consequence of the two production systems

ARTICLE IN PRESS
ENERGY USE AND ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF A 3-YR CROP ROTATION

analysed, the total production cost, expressed as h ha1

cultivated, was calculated by summing the cost for
inputs (fertilisers, seeds sown, herbicides, etc.) and the
total operating cost of machinery. The cost for inputs
was determined by recording their application rates and
the labour during agronomic practices and pricing them
according to the current market. The total operating
cost of machinery was calculated by considering the
total hourly operating cost of machinery (Table 3),
which was obtained by summing the xed and the
variable costs. The rst component is due to the annual
costs that the farmer must support to have introduced
machinery and equipments in the farm and it is given by
depreciation, interest on investment, cost for lodging,
insurance, taxes and manage. The second component is
determined by the utilization of the machinery and is
given by the costs for annual repair and maintenance
operations, the cost for fuel and lubricants consumption
and the cost for labour. The total operating cost of
machinery was obtained by dividing the total hour
operating cost for the work rate of different machinery
systems.
The prot was calculated by subtracting the total cost
of production to the economic value of yield, obtained
by considering market prices trend in the region. The
EU Agricultural Policy subsidies were taken into
account to consider the effect of EU strategies on farm
economic balances. In particular, for the experimental
area considered in the paper the integration of the farm

249

gross margin was due to the Italian economic support,

which was different for each type of crop, according to
the guidelines of the Common Agricultural Policy, and
the economic integration due to the adoption of
conservation or organic cropping system by the farmer
(Reg. CE 1257/99): in particular, the economic rate
received by the farm for the adoption of organic farming
was almost 50% greater than that obtained by introducing the conservation system.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Energy input
The total energy input per unit surface area in the CF
system for the 3-yr rotation was 50% greater than in OF
system and for individual crops was 30%, 68
7% and
58
8% higher for soya bean, maize and wheat,
respectively, than the OF system. In general, the large
energy requirement of CF resulted from chemical input,
especially fertilisers, whilst most energy in OF came
from mechanisation, with small differences depending
on the crop considered (Table 4). In maize, the energy
requirement from fertilisers was 70% higher than it was
from soya bean which had the lowest energy requirement. Tillage and seed amount were the other two
important energy requirements. The seed amount in the
OF maize (including the cover crop seeds) corresponded

Table 3
Agronomic practices adopted by the farm during the experiment, coefcients for energy balance calculation and determination of the
total operating cost of machinery for conservation farming (CF) and organic farming (OF) systems
Equipment
Type
Mouldboard plough
Chisel plough
Disk and chisel combined tiller
Straw chopper
S-tine harrow
Rotary harrow
Roller
Double spinner disc
Double spinner disc
Manure spreader
Pneumatic distributor
Row planter
Grain drill
Field sprayer
Rotary hoe
Tined weeder
Weeder
Combine harvester
Dump wagon
Dump wagon

Tractor
Weight, Mg

Power, kW

Weight, Mg

1
90
0
65
2
20
1
04
0
80
2
63
0
50
0
75
0
75
2
50
0
80
0
94
0
80
0
60
1
05
1
06
0
95
10
02
3
00
1
90

154
154
154
70
154
154
70
70
85
70
70
70
70
85
70
70
70
199
154
70

9
58
9
58
9
58
3
70
9
58
9
58
3
70
3
70
4
95
3
70
3
70
3
70
3
70
4
95
3
70
3
70
3
70
10
15
9
58
3
70

Field capacity, ha h1

Cost, h h1

1
10
1
70
1
903
70
2
20
2
40
1
404
50
2
805
60
5
006
30
5
9011
10
0
805
60
6
3011
10
1
902
20
2
202
80
4
305
60
2
203
70
3
705
60
2
805
50
2
90

31
70
20
60
24
00
10
20
22
30
28
60
10
80
12
10
12
40
16
80
17
00
12
90
11
80
32
20
10
20
11
20
8
80
200
00
23
80
10
10

ARTICLE IN PRESS
250

L. SARTORI ET AL.

Table 4
Average energy requirement for mechanisation and other external inputs for conservation farming (CF) and organic farming (OF)
systems
Crop

Energy input
Mechanisation
Direct

Seeds sown

Fertilisers

Herbicides

Drying

Total

Indirect
1

Conservation farming, MJ ha
Soya bean
3
49
Maize
3
78
Wheat
2
44
Average
3
24

0
40
0
36
0
34
0
36

2
00
2
93
5
87
3
60

5
33
33
75
19
30
19
46

2
35
2
99
0
00
1
78

3
09

1
03

13
58
45
90
27
95
29
47

Organic farming, MJ ha1

Soya bean
4
90
Maize
7
88
Wheat
4
08
Average
5
62

0
53
1
06
0
50
0
70

2
25
10
14
5
75
6
05

0
00
3
23
1
04
1
43

3
56

1
19

7
69
25
89
11
39
14
99

Conservation farming, MJ Mg1

Soya bean
0
78
Maize
0
34
Wheat
0
44
Average
0
52

0
09
0
03
0
06
0
06

0
45
0
27
1
05
0
59

1
19
3
06
3
45
2
57

0
52
0
27
0
00
0
26

0
28

0
09

3
03
4
26
4
99
4
09

Organic farming, MJ Mg1

Soya bean
1
54
Maize
1
33
Wheat
1
17
Average
1
35

0
17
0
18
0
14
0
16

0
71
1
71
1
64
1
35

0
00
0
55
0
30
0
28

0
60

0
20

2
42
4
37
3
26
3
35

to 40% of the total energy requirement. Mechanical

operation were 10% of the total energy requirements in
the CF system and 42% in the OF system with a
maximum of 70% in OF soya bean. The use of the
mouldboard plough after manure application caused a
higher requirement for energy in OF compared to CF.
The sowing energy input was higher in the maize OF
compared to the other crops because of the cover crop
during crop rotation. Figure 1 depicts the energy inputs
in the different eld operations in the two farming
systems. In CF, the eld operation that required the
highest amount of energy input was the fertilisation,
followed by sowing, weed control and harvest. Tillage
did not signicantly affect the energy balance (2%) due
to the high efciency tools used for tillage and their
conservation approach. In OF, the operation with
highest energy requirements was the sowing (42%) due
to increase in seed amount necessary to compensate the
losses occurring with the tined weeding and to suppress
weed competitions. Weed control also required a high
amount of energy for the numerous mechanical operations required both before and after sowing, particularly
in OF. For these reasons, the mechanical energy used
was higher in the OF (Fig. 2). Yields and moisture level
in the grain affected the drying process. Kernel drying

was not irrelevant in the energy balance, especially in the

OF. Human labour had little impact on energy
requirement both in CF and OF, although the greater
amount of mechanisation (tillage for weed control)
required in OF determined a higher requirement of this
input, especially in maize. If the energy requirement is
considered per unit of product, the differences between
CF and OF become smaller due to the inuence exerted
by the different yield values obtained in the two
production systems in weighting the input for the
yieldconsidered as energy outputas reported in
Table 5.

3.2. Energy output, balance and efficiency

The energy output was higher in the CF than the OF
system (Table 5), because of the higher yields. In the CF
system, the energy output was 41%, 85% and 60%
greater for soya bean, maize and wheat, respectively,
than those obtained in the OF system. The net energy
per hectare was 58% greater in CF than OF, and
particularly 35%, 89% and 34% higher in CF than in
OF for soya bean, maize and wheat, respectively,
because of the higher energy output. In terms of energy

ARTICLE IN PRESS
ENERGY USE AND ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF A 3-YR CROP ROTATION

251

25

Energy input,GJ ha-1

20

15

10

Tillage

Seedbed Fertilisation
preparation

Sowing

Crop
protection

Harvest

Fig. 1. Main energy input grouped by field agronomic operations for conservation farming , and organic farming : the energy
amount required for crop protection includes herbicides applications and mechanical weeds control

50

Energy input, GJ ha -1

40

30

20

10

0
CF

OF

CF

Soya bean

OF
Maize

CF

OF
Wheat

Fig. 2. Average influence of mechanisation and external inputs (seed, fertilisers, herbicides, etc.) on total energy requirement in the
3-year crop rotation for conservation farming (CF) and organic farming (OF) systems: , energy for mechanisation; , energy for
external inputs

output, differences per unit of product were smaller

between farming systems, with even a greater net energy
(NE) in the OF wheat. The average energy conversion
index (ECI) and the efciency of energy use (EEU) were
both higher in the OF system than in the CF system
(23% and 31%, respectively), and particularly in soya
bean (ECI of +25%; EEU of +31%) and in wheat
(ECI of +53%; EEU of +83%), whilst in maize the

ECI was higher in CF because of the greater yield

production, and EEU showed similar values for both
farming systems. The higher energy use efciency shown
in OF may be due to the reduction of chemical input
although more frequent mechanical operations were
required. The adoption of agronomic practices generally
decreasing tillage intensity in both systems, with the use
of mouldboard ploughing only in OF when request,

ARTICLE IN PRESS
252

L. SARTORI ET AL.

Table 5
Main energy indicators (expressed in GJ ha1 and GJ Mg1, respectively) for the three crops for conservation farming (CF) and
organic farming (OF) systems
Input, GJ ha1

Input, GJ Mg1

NE, GJ ha1

NE, GJ Mg1

ECIy

EEUz

Conservation farming
Soya bean
75
67
Maize
161
98
Wheat
77
62
Average
105
09

13
58
46
90
27
95
29
47

3
03
4
26
4
99
4
09

62
10
115
08
49
67
75
62

13
84
10
44
8
87
11
05

5
57
3
45
2
78
3
94

4
57
2
45
1
78
2
94

Organic farming
Soya bean
Maize
Wheat
Average

7
69
25
89
11
39
14
99

2
42
4
37
3
26
3
35

45
92
61
23
37
12
48
09

14
45
10
33
10
60
11
80

6
97
3
37
4
26
4
86

5
97
2
37
3
26
3
86

Crop

Output, GJ ha1

53
61
87
12
48
51
63
08

 NE, net energy.

y
z

ECI, energy conversion index.

EEU, efciency of energy use.

Table 6
Production costs, expressed as h ha1 ; for different external inputs used during crop rotation for conservation farming (CF) and
organic farming (OF) systems
Production cost, h ha1

Crop
Mechanisation

Labour

Seeds

Fertilisers

Herbicides

Total

Conservation farming
Soya bean
Maize
Wheat
Average

163
160
136
153

51
48
37
45

50
145
139
111

35
141
152
109

137
124
9
90

435
618
472
508

Organic farming
Soya bean
Maize
Wheat
Average

200
282
164
216

64
114
48
76

67
204y
124
132

61
136
98

332
661
472
488

 Cost includes values for fuels and lubricants and for harvesting.
y

Cost for maize and cover crop seeds.

contributed to increase energy efciency, but was not

able to make the difference between the two management systems because of the request of energy due to the
mechanical weed control in OF.

3.3. Economic aspects

The two farming systems compared in this study
showed similar production costs in the 3-yr rotation
(Table 6). The fertilisers, insecticides and herbicides had
a signicant effect in the CF with a cost of +10% of the
total economic balance. In OF, the highest cost was
related to labour with a cost greater than 60% compared
to the CF system; other important costs were tillage
(40%) and seeds cost (18%). As for the single crops

(Fig. 3), wheat has similar production cost in both cases

due to balance between synthetic products in CF and
tillage for weed control in OF. In soya bean, the cost
was higher in CF (+24%), whilst the maize was slightly
higher in OF (+10%) due to the numerous tillage event
before and after sowing for weed control. The analysis
of individual operations (Fig. 4) showed that the average
cost for tillage, weed control and seed bed preparation
were higher by two fold in OF, whilst the fertilisers cost
was higher in CF. Overall, the main costs in CF are
related to the purchasing of synthetic material (fertilisers, insecticides and herbicide) whilst in OF are related
to mechanical operations.
The net return of different crops was highly dependent on the yields, which were always greater in CF than
in OF, and the production cost also played an important

ARTICLE IN PRESS
ENERGY USE AND ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF A 3-YR CROP ROTATION

253

700

Production cost, C ha

-1

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
CF

OF

CF

Soya bean

OF
Maize

CF
Wheat

Fig. 3. Average production cost of agronomic practices for each crop and for both conservation farming (CF) and organic farming
(OF) systems: &, tillage; , fertilisation; , crop protection; , harvest

160

Production costs, C ha-1

120

80

40

Tillage

Seedbed Fertilisation
preparation

Sowing

Crop
protection

Harvest

Fig. 4. Average production cost for agronomic practices adopted during the crop rotation for the conservation farming system &,
and the organic farming system

role on the nal net return (Table 7) that resulted of

109 h ha1 greater in CF than OF. The soya bean net
return was lower in OF, because the lower production
was accompanied by a lower cost of production than in
CF. The OF maize net return was 53% lower than CF,

because of a 19% lower yield together with a 7% greater

cost of production than CF. The cost of mechanisation
was lower in CF due to the lower intensity of eld
operations required and for the high eld capacity of the
machinery used. Finally, the wheat had a net return

ARTICLE IN PRESS
254

L. SARTORI ET AL.

Table 7
Economic parameters, expressed as h ha1 yr1 ; considered in the economic analysis for conservation farming (CF) and organic
farming (OF) systems
Crop

Economic value of
yield, h ha1 yr1

Total production
cost, h ha1 yr1

Net return,
h ha1 yr1

Economic integration support,

h ha1 yr1
(a)

Integrated net
return,
h ha1 yr1

(b)

Conservation farming
Soya bean
973
Maize
1088
Wheat
781
Average

435
618
472
508

438
470
309
406

569
559
475
534

(46)
(44)
(47)
(45)

236
236
236
236

(20)
(19)
(23)
(20)

1243
1265
1019
1176

Organic farming
Soya bean
Maize
Wheat
Average

332
661
472
488

406
219
264
297

569
559
475
534

(39)
(44)
(39)
(41)

480
480
480
480

(33)
(38)
(39)
(37)

1455
1258
1218
1310

738
880
736

(a), EU economic integration of farm gross margin considering the Italian economic support for each type of crop, according to the guidelines of
the Common Agricultural Policy; (b), EU economic integration of farm gross margin, being different for the cropping system adopted by the farm
(Reg. CE 1257/99).
 Values in parentheses refer to the percentage incidence of economic integration support on the total integrated return.

45 h ha1 lower than CF, because of the reduced yield.

The integrated net return, which consider the EU
subsidies, representing a higher economic benet for
the organic farming, was generally 134 h ha1 lower in
CF than OF, primarily because of greater economic
support for the organic system of production. Consequently, except for maize, for which the increase in cost
of production in OF was not counterbalanced by higher
yield, the EU economic support in the experimental area
had a greater incidence on total amount of nal net
return in organic farming and in justifying the adoption
of organic cropping system.

4. Conclusions
In general, the organic farming system (OF) demonstrated a better energy usewith a general requirement
of energy input 50% lower than the conservation farming
(CF)and this difference resulted accentuated in wheat,
despite the lower yields obtained, which was mainly due
to the lower incidence of external chemical inputs; in fact,
in the CF system the applications of fertiliser, herbicides
and insecticides caused a greater use of energy, especially
in maize, with a lower both energy conversion and
efciency use indexes (ECI, 23% and EEU, 31%,
respectively) respect to the OF system. Although
agronomic management imposed by the organic farming
causes a higher number of tillage operation for attaining
weed control. This evidence could be a cause of a
decrease in soil fertility and organic matter content along
soil prole, with a lower carbon sequestration, above all

when the tillage management does not consider the

adoption of conservative practicesi.e., mouldboard
ploughing, high tillage intensity in seed bed preparation,
high frequency in mechanical weed control.
The economic balance showed a higher production
cost for the CF system, primarily in soya bean, even
though the higher yield allowed for a greater net return
than that obtained in the OF system. Although when the
EU subsidies were considered in the economic balance
the integrated net return increased more in the OF
system than in the CF system, because of the economic
integration due to the adoption of conservative or
organic cropping system by the farmer. This aspect was
crucial in the experimental areabeing the economic
integration for the adoption of organic farming appreciably greater than that for conservation practices
because it economically justied the OF system without
taking into account the type of agronomic practices
performed during cropping system and the efciency of
the management realised by farmer.
In conclusion, the OF system was more efcient
energy use than the CF system, but the lower yield level
obtained, without considering the economic subsidies of
the European Agricultural Policy, do not economically
justify its adoption by farms in the considered experimental area.
References
Alfoldi T; Niggli U; Spiess E; Besson J M G (1994). Input
and output of energy for different crops in bio-dynamic,
bio-organic and conventional production systems in a

ARTICLE IN PRESS
ENERGY USE AND ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF A 3-YR CROP ROTATION

long-term eld trial in Switzerland. Proceedings of the 3rd

ESA Congress (Borin M; Sattin M, eds) pp 650651. Abano
Terme, Italy
Biondi P; Panaro V; Pellizzi G (1989). Le richieste denergia
del sistema agricolo italiano [Energetic requirements of
the Italian agricultural system], PFE, LB-20. Consiglio
Nazionale delle RicercheEnte per le Nuove Tecnologie,
lEnergia e lAmbiente, Roma, Italia, p 387
Bonari E; Mazzoncini M; Peruzzi A; Silvestri N (1992).
Valutazioni energetiche di sistemi produttivi a diverso livello
di intensicazione colturale. [Energetic analysis of production system with various level cropping system.]. LInformatore Agrario, 1, 1125
Borin M; Menini C; Sartori L (1997). Effects of tillage systems
on energy and carbon balance in North-Eastern Italy. Soil
and Tillage Research, 40, 209226
Borjesson P I I (1996). Energy analysis of biomass production
and transportation. Biomass and Bioenergy, 11, 305318
Campiglia E; Caporali F; Tellarini V; Del Chicca M (1995).
Valutazione di differenti interventi agronomici attraverso
lanalisi dei ussi energetici e nanziari nellagroecosistema
azienda. [Evaluation of different agronomic practices
through the energy balance analysis and economic return
in a agroecosystem rm.]. Rivista di Agronomia, 29(3),
358365
Cantele A; Zanin G (1983). Diserbanti ed energia: considerazioni sul loro impiego in agricoltura. [Herbicides and
energy: evaluation of their adoption in agricolture.]. Rivista
di Agronomia, 17, 6577
Carillon R (1979). Lanalyse energetique de lacte agricole.
[Energetic analysis of the agricultural process.]. Etude du
Centre national detudes et dexperimentation de machinisme agricole, 458, 148
Clements D R; Weise S F; Brown R; Stonehouse D P; Hume D
J; Swanton C J (1995). Energy analysis of tillage and
herbicide inputs in alternative weed management systems.
Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment, 52, 119128
Cole C V; Duxbury J; Freney J; Heinemeyer O; Minami K;
Mosier A; Paustian K; Rosenberg N; Sampson N; Sauerbeck
D; Zhao Q (1997). Global estimates of potential mitigation
of greenhouse gas emissions by agriculture. Nutrient Cycling
in Agroecosystems, 49, 221228
Cole C V (1996). Agricultural options for mitigation of
greenhouse gas emissions. In: Climate Change 1995:
Impacts, Adaptation and Mitigation of Climate Change:
Scientic Technical Analyses. Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, Working Group II, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK
Dalgaard T; Halberg N; Porter J R (2001). A model for fossil
energy use in Danish agriculture used to compare organic
and conventional farming. Agriculture, Ecosystem and
Environment, 87, 5165
Gezer I; Acaroglu M; Haciseferogullari H (2003). Use of energy
and labour in apricot agriculture in Turkey. Biomass and
Bioenergy, 24, 215219
Gristina L; Temple S; Diana B; Sarno F; Sarno R (1995).
Energetic analysis of four farming systems during the
conversion from conventional to organic farming system
in the Sacramento ValleyCalifornia. Rivista di Agronomia, 29(3), 493498
Hernanz J L; Giron V S; Cerisola C (1995). Long-term energy
use and economic evaluation of three tillage systems for
cereal and legume production in central Spain. Soil and
Tillage Research, 35, 183198

255

Holland J M (2004). The environmental consequences of

adopting conservation tillage in Europe: reviewing the
evidence. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 103, 125
Hornacek M (1979). Application de lanalyse energetique a` 14
exploitations agricoles [Energetic analysis of 14 agricultural
practices.]. Etudes du Centre National dEtudes et dExperimentation de Machinisme Agricole (CNEEMA), 457, 1120
Ismail I; Blevins R L; Frye W W (1994). Long-term no-tillage
effects on soil properties and continuous corn yields. Soil
Science Society of American Journal, 58, 193198
Kern J S; Johnson M G (1993). Conservation tillage impacts on
national soil and atmospheric carbon levels. Soil Science
Society of American Journal, 57, 200210
Jarach M (1985). Sui valori di equivalenza energetica per
lanalisi e il bilancio energetico in agricoltura. [On the
equivalent energetic values for energy balance and analysis
in agriculture.]. Rivista di Ingegneria Agraria, 2, 102114
Lal R (1997). Residue management, conservation tillage and
soil restoration for mitigating greenhouse effect by CO2enrichment. Soil and Tillage Research, 43, 81107
Pellizzi G; Castelli G (1984). Agricoltura, energia e sistemi
energetici integrati. [Agriculture energy and integrated
energetic systems.]. Franco Muzio, Padova, Italia
Pellizzi G (1992). Use of energy and labor in Italian
agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research,
52, 111119
Pimentel P; Pimentel M (1979). Food, Energy and Society.
Edward Arnold, London
Rasmussen P E; Goulding K W T; Brown J R; Grace P R;
Janzen H H; Korschens M (1998). Long-term agroecosystem
experiments: assessing agricultural sustainability and global
change. Science, 282, 893896
Reicosky D C (2001). Conservation Agriculture: Global
Environmental benets of soil carbon management. In:
Conservation Agriculture, a Worldwide Challenge (Garcia
Torres L; Benites J; Martinez A, eds), pp 112. Kluwer
Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, The Netherlands
Robertson G P; Paul E A; Harwood R R (2000). Greenhouse
gases in intensive agriculture: Contributions of individual
gases to radiative forcing of the atmosphere. Science, 289,
19221925
Sartori L; Peruzzi A (1994). The evolution of no-tillage in
Italy: a review of the scientic literature. In: Experience
with the Applicability of No-tillage Crop Production in the
West-European Countries (Tebrugge F; Bohrnsen A, eds),
pp 119130. Wissenschaftlicher Fachverlag, Giessen, Germany. Proceeding of the 1st EC Workshop, 2728 June,
Giessen, Germany
Sartori L; Bertocco M; Chiarion M (2003). Energy and CO2
balance for corn (Zea mais, L.) and wheat (Triticum
aestivum, L.) in organic and conventional production
systems in Italy. In: Management and Technology Applications to Empower Agriculture and Agro-Food Systems
(Piccarolo P, ed.), pp 660671. Proceedings of the XXX
CIOSTA-CIGR Congress, 2224 September, Turin, Italy
Schlesinger W H (1999). Carbon sequestration in soils. Science,
284, 2095
Scholz V; Berg W; Kaulfub P (1998). Energy balance of solid
biofuels. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 71,
263272
Slesser M; Wallace I (1982). Energy consumption per tonne of
competing agricultural products available to the EC
(Commission of the European Communities, ed.). Information on Agriculture, 85, 168

ARTICLE IN PRESS
256

L. SARTORI ET AL.

Smith P; Goulding K W; Smith K A (2001). Enhancing the

carbon sink in European agricultural soils: including trace
gas uxes in estimates of carbon mitigation potential.
Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 60, 237252
SSSA (1997). Glossary of Soil Science Terms. Soil Science
Society of America, Madison, WI p 134
Tilman D; Cassman K G; Matson P A; Naylor R; Polasky S
(2002). Agricultural sustainability and intensive production
practices. Nature, 48, 671677

Toderi G; Bonari E (1986). Lavorazioni del terreno: aspetti

agronomici. Interazioni tra lavorazioni e terreno, clima,
altre tecniche agronomiche. [Soil tillage: agronomic aspects
Relationship between soil, tillage climate and agronomic
practices.]. Rivista di Agronomia, 20, 85105
West T O; Marland G (2002). A synthesis of carbon
sequestration, carbon emission and net carbon ux in
agriculture: comparing tillage practices in the United States.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 91, 217232