An analysis of the energy ef

ficiency of winter rapeseed biomass under

different farming technologies. A case study of a large-scale farm in
Poland

Wojciech Stefan Budzy

nski, Krzysztof Jozef Jankowski

*

, Marcin Jarocki

Department of Agrotechnology, Agricultural Production Management and Agribusiness, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Oczapowskiego 8, 10-
719 Olsztyn, Poland

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:
Received 23 March 2015
Received in revised form
11 June 2015
Accepted 16 June 2015
Available online 14 July 2015

Keywords:
Winter rapeseed
Production technology
Biomass yield
Energy balance

a b s t r a c t

The article presents the results of a three-year study investigating the impact of production technology
on the energy ef

ficiency of winter rapeseed produced in large-scale farms. Rapeseed biomass produced

in a high-input system was characterized by the highest energy demand (30.00 GJ ha

1

). The energy

demand associated with medium-input and low-input systems was 20% and 34% lower, respectively. The
highest energy value of oil, oil cake and straw was noted in winter rapeseed produced in the high-input
system. In the total energy output (268.5 GJ ha

1

), approximately 17% of energy was accumulated in oil,

20% in oil cake, and 63% in straw. In lower input systems, the energy output of oil decreased by 13

e23%,

the energy output of oil cake

e by 6e16%, and the energy output of straw e by 29e37% without visible

changes in the structure of energy accumulated in different components of rapeseed biomass. The
highest energy gain was observed in the high-input system. The low-input system was characterized by
the highest energy ef

ficiency ratio, at 4.22 for seeds and 9.43 for seeds and straw. The increase in pro-

duction intensity reduced the energy ef

ficiency of rapeseed biomass production by 8e18% (seeds) and 5

e9% (seeds and straw).

© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Energy consumption is on the rise in highly developed coun-

tries. The continued surge in energy demand can be attributed to
the exponential increase in population and energy consumption
per capita. At the end of the 20th century, energy consumption was
estimated at 500 and 900 MJ day

1

person

1

in Europe and the

USA, respectively. Of that amount, 5

e8% of energy was used in food

and feed processing, 30

e40% e in households, 30e40% e in agri-

culture and industry, and 20

e30% e in transport

[1]

.

Economic growth also increased the demand for energy in the

agricultural sector. In the 20th century, technological progress in
agriculture increased energy consumption per ha several fold and
induced changes in the structure of energy inputs. It is worth noting
that in the last century, agriculture was transformed from the main
source of energy to one of the largest consumers of energy. Today,
80% of primary energy is generated from non-renewable sources,

mainly fossil fuels

[2]

. In pre-industrial times, the demand for en-

ergy was covered from renewable sources in 80%

[3]

. After the in-

dustrial revolution, economic growth became highly dependent on
fossil fuels, which led to the search for alternative sources of energy

[2]

. A holistic approach to energy issues requires a bioeconomic

analysis of the consequences of increased biofuel production that
integrates both economic and environmental factors

[4

e6]

. In

Europe, the major source of renewable energy is biomass, which
plays a signi

ficant role in the production of primary and secondary

biofuels. Agricultural biomass is the primary raw material in the
production of 1st generation liquid biofuels

[7]

. The leading 1st

generation liquid biofuel is bioethanol which is produced mainly in
the USA (from maize) and Brazil (from sugarcane)

[8,9]

. In

2010

e2013, the USA and Brazil were responsible for 50% and 30% of

global ethanol production, respectively

[8,10]

. Vegetable oil began

to play a signi

ficant role on the global biofuel market only 15 years

ago

[8]

. Between 2010 and 2013, the global production of biodiesel

increased from 18.4 to 24.4 Tg per annum. The key suppliers of
biodiesel are the EU countries which have a 39%

e51% share of the

global market

[8]

. The EU produces mainly esters of rapeseed oil

(62

e65%), followed by esters of palm oil (19e21%) and used

* Corresponding author.

E-mail address:

[e-mail]

(K.J. Jankowski).

Contents lists available at

ScienceDirect

Energy

j o u r n a l h o me p a g e :

w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m/ l o ca t e / e n e r g y

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.06.087

0360-5442/

© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Energy 90 (2015) 1272

e1279

cooking oil (12

e13%). Outside the EU, biodiesel is manufactured

mainly from soybean oil (42%) and palm oil (31%). In non-EU
countries, the share of rapeseed oil in biodiesel production does
not exceed 3%

[8]

. In the EU, rapeseed is a popular biodiesel crop not

only on account of its high oil yield per hectare (1

e2 Mg ha

1

), but

also its highest energy conversion ef

ficiency (ratio of energy output

to energy input) among all oilseed crops suited to the European
climate

[9,11]

. According to Bielski et al.

[9]

, the conversion of

oilseed plant biomass to liquid fuel is justi

fied when the energy

ef

ficiency ratio of seeds is equal to or higher than 5 (measured in

the

field). In Europe, the above requirement is met only by winter

rapeseed, on the assumption that the production technology is
adequately planned and implemented

[9]

. It should be noted that

fat-free components (oil cake and straw) of rapeseed biomass can
be converted to solid fuel (straw briquettes and a mixture of straw
and oil cake)

[12,13]

. The energy ef

ficiency ratio of winter rapeseed

seeds and straw can reach 11

e12

[9,11]

.

The energy ef

ficiency ratio of biomass is influenced mainly by

the crop production regime. The production technology determines
the demand for energy (energy input) and the amount of energy
accumulated in biomass (energy output)

[14

e17]

. Rapeseed pro-

duction involves farming operations that are relatively energy-
intensive (mostly fertilization, crop protection agents and fuel
consumption) and conform to high quality standards (precision
farming, combination of farming operations). Production technol-
ogy is often regarded as an additional production factor, next to the
labor, land and capital. The proponents of this approach argue that
technological knowledge and the ability to implement that tech-
nology in practice are often more important than the owned re-
sources. According to Klepacki

[18]

, production technology and

other applications of knowledge are more likely to affect economic
performance and growth than resources.

Production technology is an interdisciplinary activity that

combines scienti

fic achievements from various fields and promotes

their practical application. For agricultural technology to advance,
the growing demand for high-quality crops has to be reconciled
with reduced fertilizer, fuel, pesticide and herbicide consumption

[19

e21]

. Farming operations should be developed based on the

latest advancements in science and technology, including in the
field of biology (new plant varieties), chemistry (new or improved
fertilizers and crop protection agents) and technology (machines,
equipment, automated production systems). For technological in-
puts to be justi

fied, they have to reduce energy consumption and

generate economic, environmental, ergonomic and social bene

fits

[22]

. According to Borlaug

[23]

, modern plant varieties and tech-

nologies are chie

fly responsible for the fact that global food pro-

duction has increased faster than the rate of population growth.
Today, modern crop production technology is faced with a new
challenge

e the production of bioenergy.

This article presents the results of a study into the energy ef

fi-

ciency of winter rapeseed grown in three systems characterized by
different energy inputs in a large-scale farm, based on direct
measurements. The analyzed processes (technologies) of rapeseed
biomass production (seeds, straw) differed in their demand for
agricultural inputs and energy. The aim of the study was to identify
the most energy ef

ficient technology of winter rapeseed production

in large-scale farms that use machines and equipment character-
ized by high

field efficiency.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Field experiment

The experiment was performed in 2007

e2010 at the Agricul-

tural Experiment Station in Ba

łcyny (53

35

0

46.4

00

N; 19

51

0

19.5

00

E;

elevation

e 137 m above sea level) in northeastern Poland, owned

by the University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn. The experi-
mental variables were three winter rapeseed production systems
(

Table 1

). The experiment had a completely randomized design

with three replications. The experimental

field had an area of 25 ha.

The experiment was located approximately 300 m from the center
of the farming estate. Each year, the experiment was established on
Haplic Luvisol developed from boulder clay

[24]

. Winter wheat was

the forecrop. In experimental plots, soil pH ranged from 6.0 to 6.5.
Soil

nutrient

levels

were

as

follows:

1.52

e1.64% C

org

,

122

e148 mg kg

1

P

2

O

5

, 147

e182 mg kg

1

K

2

O, 62

e69 mg kg

1

Mg,

20

e27 mg kg

1

SO

2

4

. Soil organic C was determined by the

modi

fied Kurmies' method

[25]

. Soil pH was measured using a

digital pH-meter with temperature compensation (20

C), in

deionized water and in 1 M KCl, at a 5:1 ratio

[26]

. Plant-available P

and K were extracted with calcium lactate (Egner-Riehm method).
Phosphorus was determined by the vanadium molybdate yellow
colorimetric method, and K was determined by AES (atomic
emission spectrometry)

[26]

. Magnesium was extracted with

0.01 M CaCl

2

and determined by AAS (atomic absorption spectro-

photometry)

[26]

. Sulfate-S was determined by extracting a soil

sample with acetate buffer, according to the Bardsley and Lancaster
method

[27]

.

In all production systems, dressed winter rapeseed seeds were

sown in mid-August, in rows at 20 cm spacing. Nutrients were
applied to soil as ammonium phosphate (N and P), potash salt (K),
ammonium sulfate (N and S) and ammonium nitrate (N), in
accordance with the experimental design (

Table 1

). Once-over

harvest of winter rapeseed was carried out towards the end of
July (1st experimental cycle) or at the beginning of August (2nd and
3rd experimental cycles).

2.2. Biomass processing experiment

In each treatment, the seed yield of winter rapeseed was

determined after threshing, in terms of weight, it was adjusted to a
standard moisture content (7%) and expressed as Mg ha

1

. The

straw yield was determined after threshing, in terms of weight, on a
dry matter basis, and was expressed as Mg ha

1

. Seed samples were

cold pressed in a laboratory press (pressing capacity of approx.
50 kg h

1

). The oil content of oil cake was 119 g kg

1

DM (dry

matter). The oil cake yield of winter rapeseed was expressed as
Mg ha

1

, on a dry matter basis.

2.3. Energy output analysis

The unit energy value of winter rapeseed biomass (seeds, oil, oil

cake, straw) was determined by adiabatic combustion in the IKA C
2000 calorimeter, with the use of a dynamic method. The LHV
(lower heating value) of biofuel was expressed in terms of moisture
content determined at harvest

[28]

. The energy value of seeds, oil,

oil cake and straw was determined as the product of LHV
(MJ kg

1

DM) and biomass yield (Mg ha

1

DM).

2.4. Energy inputs analysis

The energy inputs in winter rapeseed production were deter-

mined by process analysis based on direct measurements of Diesel
oil consumption, labor and the

field capacity of farming machines

and equipment (

Table 2

). The energy inputs for winter rapeseed

production were divided into categories based on

fluxes (labor,

energy carriers, farming machines and equipment, materials) and
farming operations (tillage, sowing, fertilization, etc.). The energy
inputs associated with the operation of tractors and machines were
calculated by multiplying the speci

fic consumption of a machine

W.S. Budzy

nski et al. / Energy 90 (2015) 1272e1279

1273

unit by the energy equivalent of 112 MJ kg

1

of mass

[29]

. Labor was

estimated based on the energy equivalent of 40 MJ man-hour

1

[29]

. The energy value of 1 dm

3

of Diesel oil was set at 48 MJ

[30]

. To

estimate fuel consumption, each farming operation was started
with a full fuel tank that was re

filled at the end of the operation. The

energy inputs associated with production materials were deter-
mined based on the energy indicators proposed by W

ojcicki

[30]

:

seeds of winter rapeseed

e 24 MJ kg

1

, nitrogen fertilizers

e

77 MJ kg

1

N, phosphorus fertilizers

e 15 MJ kg

1

P

2

O

5

, potassium

fertilizers

e 10 MJ kg

1

K

2

O, crop protection chemicals

e

300 MJ kg

1

of active ingredient, and by Fore et al.

[31]

: sulfur

fertilizers

e 8.9 MJ kg

1

S.

The energy ef

ficiency of winter rapeseed production was

determined based on energy gain, the unit energy consumption
ratio and the energy ef

ficiency ratio

[11]

.

2.5. Statistical analysis

The results of biomass yield (seeds, oil, oil cake and straw),

unit energy value of biomass (LHV) and energy value of biomass
yield (energy outputs) were processed by ANOVA and treatment
means were compared by Duncan's test at the 0.05 probability
level using the Statistica 10.1 PL application

[32]

. The analyzed

production systems were considered as

fixed effects, whereas

the year of study and replications were considered as random
effects.

3. Results

3.1. Energy inputs

The high-input system was characterized by the highest de-

mand for energy (

Fig. 1

). In that system, energy inputs exceeded

those of medium-input and low-input systems by 20% and 34%,
respectively. Changes in the intensity of the applied farming op-
erations reduced energy inputs without inducing signi

ficant

changes in energy expenditures associated with the analyzed
agricultural processes. The most energy-intensive operation in the
production of winter rapeseed was mineral fertilization which
accounted for 75

e79% of the total energy input. The remaining

farming operations had the following share of the total energy
input: seed and straw harvesting

e 11%, tillage e 4e6%, pest, weed

and pathogen control

e 4e6%, sowing e 2e4% (

Fig. 1

).

An energy

flow analysis revealed that fertilizers and energy

carriers were the most energy-intensive agricultural inputs that
accounted for 79

e80% and 14e15% of the total energy input per ha

of winter rapeseed, respectively, regardless of the production sys-
tem. The energy inputs associated with labor and transport were
low and did not exceed 6% of the total energy input (

Table 3

).

3.2. Biomass yield and energy output

The highest seed (4.17 Mg ha

1

), oil (1.19 Mg ha

1

), oil cake

(2.69 Mg ha

1

) and straw (10.31 Mg ha

1

) yield in winter rapeseed

Table 1
Winter rapeseed production process.

Farming operations

Time of performing
farming operations
(BBCH-scale

a

)

Production technology

High-input system

Medium-input system

Low-input system

Tillage

e

cultivation unit (5

e8 cm)

and pre-sowing
ploughing (18

e20 cm)

cultivation unit (5

e8 cm)

and pre-sowing
ploughing (18

e20 cm)

cultivation unit (18

e20 cm)

Cultivar

(pure live seeds m

2

)

e

hybrid cultivar Nelson (60)

open-pollinated cultivar Castille (80)

open-pollinated cultivar Castille (80)

Mineral fertilization

(kg ha

1

)

00

20 N, 75 P

2

O

5

, 96 K

2

O

20 N, 75 P

2

O

5

, 96 K

2

O

20 N, 75 P

2

O

5

, 96 K

2

O

25

100 N

100 N

100 N

50

103 N, 60 S

90 N

53 N

55

47 N

e

e

Weed control

00

metazachlor

þ quinmerac

(999

þ 249 g ha

1

)

b

alachlor

þ clomazone

(1920

þ 72 g ha

1

)

c

e

12

haloxyfop-R (52 g ha

1

)

d

haloxyfop-R (52 g ha

1

)

d

haloxyfop-R (52 g ha

1

)

d

30

e

e

clopyralid

þ picloram

(93.4

þ 23.4 g ha

1

)

e

Disease control

30

tebuconazole (250 g ha

1

)

f

tebuconazole (250 g ha

1

)

f

e

57

e

dimoxystrobin

þ boscalid

(200

þ 200 g ha

1

)

g

dimoxystrobin

þ boscalid

(200

þ 200 g ha

1

)

g

65

azoxystrobin (250 g ha

1

)

h

e

e

Pest control

25

chlorpyrifos

þ cypermethrin

(300

þ 30 g ha

1

)

i

50

thiacloprid

þ deltamethrin

(60

þ 6 g ha

1

)

j

57

acetamiprid (24 g ha

1

)

k

a

Phenological development stages of winter rapeseed based on an international BBCH-scale developed for crop species (Biologische Bundesanstalt, Bundessortenamt und

Chemical Industry).

b

Butisan Star 416 SC applied at 3.0 dm

3

ha

1

.

c

Lasso 480 EC

þ Command 480 EC applied at 4.0 þ 0.15 dm

3

ha

1

.

d

Perenal 104 EC applied at 0.5 dm

3

ha

1

.

e

Galera 334 SL applied at 0.35 dm

3

ha

1

.

f

Horizon 250 EW applied at 1.0 dm

3

ha

1

.

g

Pictor 400 SC applied at 1.0 dm

3

ha

1

.

h

Amistar 250 SC applied at 1.0 dm

3

ha

1

.

i

Nurelle D 550 EC applied at 0.6 dm

3

ha

1

.

j

Proteus 110 OD applied at 0.6 dm

3

ha

1

.

k

Mospilan 20 SP applied at 0.12 dm

3

ha

1

.

W.S. Budzy

nski et al. / Energy 90 (2015) 1272e1279

1274

production was observed in the high-input system with pre-sowing
ploughing, a hybrid variety of winter rapeseed (Nelson), soil
fertilization with NPKS at 501 kg ha

1

, chemical weed control in the

fall, three pesticide treatments and three fungicide treatments. In
medium-input and low-input systems, seed yield was reduced by
0.32 and 0.69 Mg ha

1

, oil yield

e by 0.16 and 0.24 Mg ha

1

, oil cake

yield

e by 0.14 and 0.41 Mg ha

1

, and straw yield

e by 2.95 and

3.66 Mg ha

1

, respectively (

Table 4

).

A decrease in production intensity signi

ficantly lowered the LHV

values of seeds and oil by 2% and 3%, respectively. The differences in
the energy value of 1 kg of oil cake and straw were not statistically
signi

ficant (

Table 5

).

Winter rapeseed produced in the high-input system was char-

acterized by the highest amount of effective energy for the pro-
duction of liquid biofuels (energy accumulated in oil) and solid
fuels (energy accumulated in oil cake and straw). By comparison,

Table 2
Technical parameters of agricultural machines, their performance and fuel consumption in the process of producing winter rapeseed.

Farming operations

Engine power
of self-propelled
machine (kW)

a

Parameters
of accompanying
machine

Service life (h)

Weight (kg)

Performance of self-propelled
machine and accompanying
machine (ha h

1

)

f

Fuel
consumption
(l h

1

)

f

Self-propelled
machine

Accompanying
machine

Self-propelled
machine

Accompanying
machine

Tillage-cultivation

unit (5

e8 cm)

246

4.0

b

12000

2000

13003

2150

4.4

32.9

Tillage-cultivation

unit (18

e20 cm)

246

4.0

b

12000

2000

13003

2150

3.1

45.1

Pre-sowing

ploughing (18

e20 cm)

169

7

c

12000

2000

9420

3370

1.6

27.6

Sowing

246

6.0

b

12000

1440

13003

8900

4.4

34.8

Mineral fertilization

114

30.0

b

9000

1200

5635

300

15.8

16.8

Chemical crop protection

53

20.0

b

9000

1050

3550

1350

7.0

5.7

Seed harvesting

220

6.0

b

3000

e

13300

e

2.7

e3.3

g

39.4

Straw harvesting

53

1.8

b

9000

1500

3550

2400

1.5

e2.3

g

6.1

Seed transportation

59

10

d

9000

6000

6100

3740

e

8.5

Straw transportation

59

8

d

9000

6000

6100

2800

e

8.5

Loading

55

2500

e

4800

e

4922

e

e

8.0

a

Tractor/harvester/loader.

b

Working width (m).

c

Number of furrows.

d

Carrying capacity (Mg).

e

Load capacity (kg).

f

Average of three years.

g

Differences resulting from different biomass yields.

Fig. 1. Estimated energy inputs in winter rapeseed production by operations (average of three years).

Table 3
Structure of energy inputs in winter rapeseed production by energy

fluxes (average of three years).

Speci

fication

Production technology

High-input system

Medium-input system

Low-input system

MJ ha

1

%

MJ ha

1

%

MJ ha

1

%

Labor

235

0.8

200

0.8

157

0.8

Tractors and machines

1446

4.8

1271

5.2

995

5.0

Fuel

4243

14.1

3681

15.1

2965

14.9

Materials

total, including:

24171

80.3

19279

78.9

15792

79.4

seeds

96

0.3

90

0.4

90

0.5

fertilizers

23409

77.8

18255

74.7

15406

77.4

crop protection chemicals

666

2.2

934

3.8

297

1.5

W.S. Budzy

nski et al. / Energy 90 (2015) 1272e1279

1275

the energy output of oil decreased by 13% and 23%, the energy
output of oil cake

e by 6% and 16%, and the energy output of straw -

by 29% and 37% in medium-input and low-input systems, respec-
tively. In general, biomass from the high-input system was char-
acterized by the highest total energy output (268.5 GJ ha

1

). In

medium-input and low-input systems, the total energy output of
winter rapeseed biomass was lower by 22% and 30% (i.e. by 58.2
and 80.8 GJ ha

1

in absolute values), respectively (

Fig. 2

). The po-

tential use of energy accumulated in the biomass of winter rape-
seed produced in the high-input system was as follows: 17% -
effective energy for the petrochemical industry (oil), 83%

e energy

for the generation of heat and electricity (20%

e oil cake and 63% e

straw). The potential use of energy accumulated in biomass from
medium-input and low-input systems was determined at 19% for
oil, 24% for oil cake, and 57% for straw (

Fig. 2

).

3.3. Energy ef

ficiency ratio

The energy ef

ficiency of winter rapeseed biomass was evaluated

based on two scenarios. The

first scenario (A) analyzed the energy

output of seed biomass (straw was left in the

field to decompose

naturally). The amount of energy accumulated in the entire winter
rapeseed biomass (seeds and straw) was determined in the second
scenario (B) (

Table 6

).

The energy gain from seeds produced in the high-input system

was determined at 71.23 GJ ha

1

(

Table 6

), and it was 5% and 15%

higher than in medium-intensity and high-intensity systems,
respectively. The smallest amount of energy (5928 MJ) went into
the production of 1 Mg of seeds in the low-input system. The en-
ergy gain from 1 ton of seeds increased with energy inputs

e by 11%

in the medium-intensity system and 21% in the high-input system.
Seeds were characterized by the highest energy ef

ficiency ratio

(4.22) in the low-input production system. An increase in agricul-
tural inputs reduced the energy ef

ficiency of seeds by 8% in the

medium-input system and 18% in the low-input system (

Table 6

).

The energy ef

ficiency ratio of winter rapeseed biomass pro-

duction increased signi

ficantly to approximately 8.61e9.43 when

the energy potential of seeds and straw was incorporated in the
analysis (

Table 6

, variant B), without inducing changes in the en-

ergy ef

ficiency of farming operations. In variant B, the energy effi-

ciency ratio was also highest (9.46) in the low-input system. The
increase in agricultural inputs lowered the energy ef

ficiency ratio of

rapeseed biomass by 9% in the medium-input system and 5% in the
high-input system (

Table 6

).

4. Discussion, conclusions and recommendations

4.1. Energy inputs

The high yield potential of rapeseed is relatively dif

ficult to

harness because the species is highly sensitive to cold stress, ionic
imbalance in soil and biotic stress. In Eastern Europe, where the
average growing season lasts 300

e330 days, rapeseed is charac-

terized by a long period of seed initiation (in the fall) and potential
yield reduction (in the spring)

[33]

. For this reason, production

technology should be adapted to the morphological and physio-
logical characteristics of rapeseed plants in various stages of
development. The type and timing of farming operations should be
adjusted the biological requirements of plants. The highest winter
rapeseed yield is noted in highly intensive production systems.
According to Cook et al.

[34]

, Budzy

nski et al.

[35]

and Jankowski

[16]

, rapeseed yield in medium-input and low-input systems in

15

e20% and 30e40% lower, respectively, than in high-input sys-

tems. Czech research revealed even greater differences in seed yield
between energy-intensive and non-energy intensive systems,
which ranged from 9% in medium-input systems to 54% in low-
input systems

[36,37]

. In the present study, the seed yield in

medium-input and low-input systems was 7% and 16% lower,
respectively, than in the high-input system, but the noted differ-
ences were reduced by 50% in comparison with the research carried
out 10

e20 years earlier

[16,34

e37]

. In recent years, the progressive

minimization of differences in seed yield between high-input and
low-input production systems can be attributed to advancements
in biology (introduction of heterotic hybrids), technology and
organizational standards.

In Europe, the energy input per ha of winter rapeseed ranges

from 13 to 35 GJ

[38

e41]

. Such signi

ficant variations in energy

requirements can be explained by the fact that energy consumption
in crop production is strongly determined by the intensity of the
applied production technology

[16,40,42]

. According to Klug-

mann

eRadziemska et al.

[13]

, the amount of energy required to

produce 2.5 Mg of rapeseed (from sowing to the achievement of the
end product that meets industrial standards) can be estimated at
21.6 GJ ha

1

, and it increases by approximately 1 GJ ha

1

per every

Table 4
Biomass yield of winter rapeseed (average of three years).

Yield

Production technology

High-input system

Medium-input system

Low-input system

Seeds (Mg ha

1

93% DM)

4.17

a

y

3.85

b

3.48

c

Oil (Mg ha

1

)

1.19

a

1.03

b

0.95

b

Oil cake (Mg ha

1

DM)

2.69

a

2.55

b

2.28

c

Straw (Mg ha

1

DM)

10.31

a

7.36

b

6.65

c

y means with the same letter are not significantly different at P 0.05 in Duncan's test.

Table 5
Unit energy value (LHV) of the biomass yield of winter rapeseed (average of three years).

Speci

fication

Production technology

High-input system

Medium-input system

Low-input system

Seeds (MJ kg

1

DM)

25.70

a

y

25.39

ab

25.10

b

Oil (MJ kg

1

)

38.86

a

38.96

a

37.91

b

Oil cake (MJ kg

1

DM)

20.04

20.00

19.95

Straw (MJ kg

1

DM)

16.37

16.27

16.20

y means with the same letter are not significantly different at P 0.05 in Duncan's test.

W.S. Budzy

nski et al. / Energy 90 (2015) 1272e1279

1276

additional 0.5 Mg. In the Mediterranean region, De Mastro et al.

[15]

estimated the energy input for the production of winter rapeseed in
a low-input system at 14.0

e14.7 GJ ha

1

. In high-input systems, the

demand for energy is at least twice higher than in low-input sys-
tems. Jankowski

[16]

measured direct energy inputs in

field oper-

ations and estimated energy demand at 31.7 GJ ha

1

in the high-

input system (with seed yield of 4.7 Mg ha

1

), 20.6 GJ ha

1

in the

medium-input system (with seed yield of 4.0 Mg ha

1

) and

14.0 GJ ha

1

in the low-input system (with seed yield of

3.1 Mg ha

1

). The production systems analyzed in this study were

characterized by similar energy inputs and somewhat lower
biomass yield per hectare. On average, energy inputs per Mg of
seeds were 10% (high-input system), 25% (medium-input system)
and 31% (low-input system) higher than those reported by Jan-
kowski

[16]

.

The amount of energy consumed during the production of

winter rapeseed is determined by the applied production regime, in
particular mineral fertilization which accounts for 70

e80% of the

total energy input

[11, 42]

, (

Fig. 1

). Fertilization involves signi

ficant

energy expenditure due to the high value of chemically bonded
energy in fertilizers

[11, 40, 42]

, (

Table 3

). Alluvione et al.

[17]

compared three farming systems (low-input integrated farming,
integrated farming and conventional farming) and demonstrated
that optimal nitrogen fertilization (adapted to the crop's nutrient
requirements) was the key element responsible for the reduction in
energy inputs (by up to 35%). In the energy

flow analysis, the energy

intensity of rapeseed production was also determined by energy
carriers (12

e30%)

[11, 16, 31, 43, 44]

, (

Table 3

). The energy

expenditure associated with fertilization (machine operation, labor,
fuel consumption) accounted for 1

e3% of the total energy input.

Thus, in large-scale commercial farms, energy consumption could
be reduced by improving the ef

ficiency of mineral fertilizers and

decreasing fertilizer rates. There is a need for advanced techno-
logical solutions, including the use of more effective machines that
consume less fuel, but they will not contribute to reducing energy
inputs in crop production

[11]

.

4.2. Energy output

In Poland, high-input production systems supply winter rape-

seed biomass with the highest energy value. The energy accumu-
lated

in

the

biomass

of

winter

rapeseed

(seeds,

straw)

(249

e314 GJ ha

1

) could be converted in 18

e26% to produce liquid

fuels (oil) and in 74

e82% to produce solid fuels

[11,16]

. The value of

energy accumulated in biomass decreases by 6% (medium-input
system) to 22% (low-input system) with a reduction in the energy
intensity of the applied production technology

[16]

, mainly due to

the drop in the biomass yield per 1 ha

[16]

, (

Table 4

) and the

decrease in LHV values of oil [

Table 5

]. LHV could decrease in

response to signi

ficant changes in the chemical composition of

winter rapeseed in a high-input production system. Jankowski

[16]

demonstrated that oil made from winter rapeseed in the high-input
system was characterized by a less satisfactory content of carot-
enoid and chlorophyll pigments in fat, acid and peroxide values of
fat, and the ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acids than oils pro-
duced in medium-input and low-input systems. Even when winter

Fig. 2. Energy value of the biomass yield of winter rapeseed (average of three years).

Table 6
Energy analysis of the biomass of winter rapeseed (average of three years).

Speci

fication

Production technology

High-input system

Medium-input system

Low-input system

Energy inputs (GJ ha

1

)

A

28.99

23.56

19.19

B

30.10

24.43

19.91

Energy value of biomass yield (energy outputs) (GJ ha

1

)

A

100.21

91.09

81.05

B

268.54

210.34

187.72

Energy gain (GJ ha

1

)

A

71.23

67.53

61.86

B

238.44

185.91

167.81

Energy consumption per unit of production

e 1 Mg DM (MJ)

A

7475

6579

5928

B

2121

2233

2014

Energy ef

ficiency ratio

A

3.46

3.87

4.22

B

8.92

8.61

9.43

A

e seeds; B e seeds þ straw.

W.S. Budzy

nski et al. / Energy 90 (2015) 1272e1279

1277

rapeseed is produced in a low-input system, its energy output per
hectare is 2

e3 higher than that of other Brassica oilseed crops

(spring rapeseed, white mustard, Indian mustard)

[11]

. The energy

output of winter rapeseed biomass can be further increased by: (i)
increasing yield and yield stability, (ii) increasing resistance to
disease and (iii) environmental stressors (low fertilizer rate,
drought), and (iv) improving biometric parameters to enable plants
to adapt to advanced farming solutions (semi-dwarf and dwarf
varieties).

4.3. Energy ef

ficiency ratio

The energy ef

ficiency of biomass is determined mainly by the

energy ef

ficiency of crop production and conversion. In Europe, the

energy ef

ficiency ratio of seed biomass ranges from 1.1 to 2.4

[14,39,40]

to 3.6

e5.4

[9,11,16]

. In Turkey, Unakitan et al.

[44]

esti-

mated the energy ef

ficiency of rapeseeds at 4.7. In Iran, the above

parameter was determined in the range of 1.4

[45]

to 3.2

[46]

. In a

study by Jankowski

[16]

, the seed biomass of winter rapeseed

produced in a high-input system had the energy ef

ficiency ratio of

3.6. In less intensive farming systems, the value of the energy ef-
ficiency ratio increased to 4.7 (medium-input system) and 5.4 (low-
input system), marking a 30% and 50% increase, respectively. In the
work of Alluvione et al.

[17]

, the energy effectiveness of an inte-

grated farming system (with reduced energy demand) was 31

e33%

lower in comparison with the conventional high-input system. In
our study, a reduction in farming intensity increased the energy
ef

ficiency ratio by 12e22%. It should also be noted that the energy

ratio in the high-input system did not decrease below the accept-
able level (1.0). The marginal bene

fit decreases with an increase in

production intensity (2.30:1 for low-intensity to medium-intensity,
and 1.68:1 for medium-intensity to high-intensity in variant A, and
5.00 and 10.26 in variant B, respectively), which explains the drop
in the energy ef

ficiency ratio, but intensification is justified from

the energy point of view as long as the marginal bene

fit is higher

than 1:1.

In the present study, the above-ground biomass components

of winter rapeseed produced in three systems with various en-
ergy inputs were characterized by different potential energy
output. In practice, an agricultural system is a logical sequence of
technological processes and treatments that ensure the achieve-
ment of the production goal. The optimal production technology
should be designed and selected in a closed cycle in view of the
limitations indicated by a productivity analysis and/or an energy
balance. The proposed systems should be veri

fied in a series of

evaluations and analyses, including energy, labor, input and cost
balances. The results should be used to select the optimal tech-
nical and organizational solutions. The chosen production tech-
nology, which implies the choice of speci

fic agricultural machines

and materials, should always be characterized by a positive bal-
ance in the above evaluations

[47]

. In this experiment, the highest

values of the energy ef

ficiency ratio (4.22 and 9.43) were noted in

the low-input system regardless of the biomass management
scenario (energy derived from seeds only or from both seeds and
straw). A low-input system should be adopted in farms where
rapeseed production is limited by access to energy resources
rather than land (mostly large-scale farms). In farms where the
main factor limiting rapeseed production is land rather than en-
ergy resources (mostly small-scale farms), winter rapeseed
should be grown in a high-input system. A high-input system is
characterized by high energy demand, but the energy output
generated per hectare is 15% (seed biomass) to 40% (seed and
straw biomass) higher than in a low-input system with low en-
ergy consumption.

Acknowledgements

The results presented in this paper were obtained as part of a

comprehensive study

financed by the Polish Ministry of Science

and Higher Education (grant No. N310 031 32/167) and the National
Science Center (grant No. N N310 169039). We would like to thank
Dr Andrzej Kosecki and Andrzej Kerner, Eng. From the Agricultural
Experiment Station in Ba

łcyny for assistance in determining energy

inputs and the ef

ficiency of farming operations in production fields.

References

[1]

Chmielewski JI. Global vision of nuclear energy use in a

fifty-year perspective.

Energetyka 1998;4:147

e52 [in Polish]

.

[2] Escobar JC, Lora ES, Venturini OJ, Yanez EE, Castillo EF, Almazan O. Biofuels:

environment, technology and food security. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2009;13:1275

e87.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2008.08.014

.

[3]

Weizs

€acker EV, Lovins AB, Lovins HL. Doubling welfare, halving resource use.

In: The new report to the Club of Roma. Toru

n: Rolewski; 1999. p. 1e292 [in

Polish]

.

[4] Harvey M, Pilgrim S. The new competition for land: food, energy, and climate

change.

Food

Policy

2011;36:40

e51.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

j.foodpol.2010.11.009

.

[5] Raghu S, Spencer JL, Davis AS, Wiedenmann RN. Ecological considerations in

the sustainable development of terrestrial biofuel crops. Curr Opin Environ
Sustain 2011;3:15

e23.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2010.11.005

.

[6] Sheppard AW, Gillespie I, Hirsch M, Begley C. Biosecurity sustain within grow

glob bioeconomy. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2011;3:4

e10.

http://dx.doi.org/

10.1016/j.cosust.2010.12.011

.

[7]

Nigam PS, Singh A. Production of liquid biofuels from renewable resources.
Prog Energy Combust Sci 2011;34:52

e68

.

[8]

Borychowski M. Production of liquid biofuels in the world after 2000. Its level
and dynamics. Prog Econ Sci 2014;1:111

e9 [in Polish]

.

[9]

Bielski S, Jankowski K, Budzy

nski W. The energy efficiency of oil seed crops

production and their biomass conversion into liquid fuels. Przem Chem
2014;93(12):2270

e3 [in Polish]

.

[10]

Golisz E. Competitiveness of Brazilian bioethanol in the world. Probl Rol

Swiatowego 2014;14:16e24 [in Polish]

.

[11] Jankowski KJ, Budzy

nski WS, Kijewski Ł. An analysis of energy efficiency in

the production of oilseed crops of the family Brassicaceae in Poland. Energy
2015;81:674

e81.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.01.012

.

[12]

Stolarski MJ, Szczukowski S, Tworkowski J, Krzy

_zaniak M, Gulczynski P,

Mleczek M. Comparison of quality and production cost of briquettes made
from agricultural and forest origin biomass. Renew Energy 2013;57:20

e6

.

[13] Klugmann-Radziemska E, Ciunel K. Rapeseed pellet

e a byproduct of biodiesel

production

e as an excellent renewable energy source. Chem Didact Ecol

Metrol 2013;18:109

e19.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/cdem-2013-0024

.

[14] Cardone M, Mazzoncini M, Menini S, Rocco V, Senatore A, Seggiani M, et al.

Brassica carinata as an alternative oil crop for the production of biodiesel in
Italy: agronomic evaluation, fuel production by transesteri

fication and char-

acterization. Biomass Bioenergy 2003;25:623

e36.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

S0961-9534(03)00058-8

.

[15]

De Mastro G, Grassano N, Verdini L, Manolio G. A comparison of different
systems of rapeseed (Brassica napus L. var. oleifera) cultivation for energy
generation. Congr Mediterr Plants October 2006:27

e8. Bari, Italy. [In Italian]

.

[16]

Jankowski K. Habitat, agrotechnological and economic conditions of winter
rapeseed production for consumption and energy purposes. In: Disseratations
and Monographs131. University Publisher University Warmia and Mazury in
Olsztyn; 2007. p. 1

e174 [In Polish]

.

[17]

Alluvione F, Moretti B, Sacco D, Grignani CEUE. Energy use ef

ficiency of

cropping systems for a sustainable agriculture. Energy 2011;36:4468

e81

.

[18]

Klepacki B. Nonmaterial factors of polish agriculture development. Nauk.
SERiA Rocz 2007;IX(1):231

e5 [In Polish]

.

[19]

McGuckin RH. The effect of technology use on productivity growth. In: The
Conference Board and Center for economic Studies; 1996. p. 2

.

[20]

Nakamura T, Ohashi H. Effects of technology adoption on productivity and
industry growth: a study of steel re

fining furnaces. J Industrial Econ 2008;56:

470

e99

.

[21]

Graff S, Link J, Binder J, Claupein W. Crop models as decision support systems
in crop production. Crop Prod Technol 2012:3

.

[22]

Szeptycki A. Estimation of the effectiveness of modernization in plant pro-
duction technologies on the example of sugar beet harvesting. In

_zynieria Rol

2005;7:323

e30 [In Polish]

.

[23] Borlaug N. The green revolution revisited and the road ahead. Special 30th

Anniversary Lecture. Oslo: The Norwegian Nobel Institute; 2000. Available at:

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1970/borlaug-
lecture.pdf

[25.01.2015].

[24]

IUSS Working Group WRB. World Reference Base for soil resources. In: World
soil resources Reports No. 103. FAO. 2nd ed. 2006. p. 132. Rome

.

[25]

SCHR. Research protocol of the chemical and agricultural research laboratory
in Poland. of 21. 2nd ed. June 2004. Poland 2004. [in Polish]

.

W.S. Budzy

nski et al. / Energy 90 (2015) 1272e1279

1278

[26]

Houba VJG, van der Lee JJ, Novozamsky I. Soil and plant analysis. Part 5B. Soil
analysis procedure other procedure. Wageningen Agricultural University; 1995

.

[27]

Bardsley CE, Lancaster DJ. Determination of reserve sulphur and soluble sul-
phate in soils. Soil Sci Soc Am Proc 1960;24:265

e8

.

[28]

Kopetz H, Jossart J, Ragossnig H, Ch Metschina. European biomass statistics.
Brussels: European Biomass Association (AEBIOM); 2007

.

[29]

Pawlak J. Organizational and economic aspects of automated plant production
systems in family farms. PWRiL, 1989. p. 1

e108 [In Polish]

.

[30]

W

ojcicki Z. Equipment, materials and energy inputs in growth-oriented

farms. IBMER, 2000. p. 1

e139 [In Polish]

.

[31] Fore SR, Porter P, Lazarus W. Net energy balance of small-scale on-farm

biodiesel production from canola and soybean. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:
2234

e44.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.02.037

.

[32] Inc StatSoft. Statistica (data analysis software system), version 10. 2011.

www.

statsoft.com

.

[33]

Szempli

nski W. Crops. University Publisher University Warmia and Mazury in

Olsztyn; 2012 [in Polish]

.

[34]

Cook SK, Jones AE, Green M. A comparasion of input levels in oilseed rape. In:
Proc., 9th Int. Rapseed Congress1; 1995. p. 238

e40. Cambridge

.

[35]

Budzy

nski WS, Jankowski KJ, Truszkowski W. Agricultural and economical

effectiveness of production technologies of winter oilseed rape in selected
big area farms. Ro

sliny oleiste e Oilseed Crops 2005;XXVI:407e19 [in

Polish]

.

[36]

Va

sak J, Fabry A, Bervidova L, Balik J, Filípek I. Winter oilseed rape in Czech

Republik

e cultivation technology and marketing. Rosliny oleiste e Oilseed

Crops 1994;XV:183

e92 [in Polish]

.

[37]

Va

sak J, Miksík V. Intensification of rapeseed production system in 2000/01-

results and experiences. Praga, 11-12.12.2001. In: Proc. Intl. Congress Agri-
cultura

e Scientia - Prosperitas; 2001. p. 1e9 [in Czech]

.

[38]

Bailey AP, Basford WD, Penlington N, Park JR, Keatinge JDH, Rehman T, et al.
A comparison of energy use in conventional and integrated arable farming
systems in the UK. Agric Ecosyst Environ 2003;97:241

e53

.

[39] Venturi P, Venturi G. Analysis of energy comparison for crops in European

agricultural systems. Biomass Bioenergy 2003;25:235

e55.

http://dx.doi.org/

10.1016/S0961-9534(03)00015-1

.

[40] Firrisa MT, Duren I, Voinov A. Energy ef

ficiency for rapeseed biodiesel pro-

duction in different farming systems. Energy Ef

fic 2014;7:79e95.

http://

dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12053-013-9201-2

.

[41] Duren I, Voinov A, Arodudu O, Firrisa MT. Where to produce rapeseed bio-

diesel and why? Mapping European rapeseed energy ef

ficiency. Renew En-

ergy 2015;74:49

e59.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.07.016

.

[42]

Rathke GW, Diepenbrock W. Energy balance of winter oilseed rape (Brassica
napus L.) cropping as related to nitrogen supply and preceding crop. Eur J
Agron 2005;24:35

e44

.

[43]

Hovelius K, Hansson P-A. Energy and exergy analysis of rape seed oil methyl
ester (RME) production under Swedish conditions. Biomass Bioenergy
1999;17:279

e90

.

[44]

Unakitan G, Hurma H, Yilmaz F. An analysis of energy use ef

ficiency of canola

production in Turkey. Energy 2010;35:3623

e7

.

[45]

Abbas D. Energy use ef

ficiency and economic analysis of canola production in

three different areas in Iran. J Agric Biological Sci 2011;6(11):54

e61

.

[46]

Mousavi-Avval SH, Ra

fiee S, Jafari A, Mohammadi A. Energy flow modeling

and sensitivity analysis of inputs for canola production in Iran. J Clean Prod
2011;19:1464

e70

.

[47]

Swie˛cicki WK, Surma M, Koziara W, Skrzypczak G, Szukała J, Bartkowiak-
Broda I, et al. Modern technologies in crop production

e friendly for man and

environment. Pol J Agron 2011;7:102

e12 [In Polish]

.

W.S. Budzy

nski et al. / Energy 90 (2015) 1272e1279

1279