Next Article in Journal
Experimental Study of a Coil Type Steam Boiler Operated on an Oil Field in the Subarctic Continental Climate
Next Article in Special Issue
Towards a Full Circular Economy in Biogas Plants: Sustainable Management of Digestate for Growing Biomass Feedstocks and Use as Biofertilizer
Previous Article in Journal
Energy Consumption in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) Households in the Platform Economics
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Energies
Volume 14
Issue 4
10.3390/en14041003
energies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Energy Optimization in Different Production Technologies of Winter Triticale Grain

by
Władysław Szempliński
,
Bogdan Dubis
*,
Krzysztof Michał Lachutta
and
Krzysztof Józef Jankowski
Department of Agrotechnology and Agribusiness, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, 10-719 Olsztyn, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2021, 14(4), 1003; https://doi.org/10.3390/en14041003
Submission received: 4 January 2021 / Revised: 3 February 2021 / Accepted: 11 February 2021 / Published: 14 February 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Energy from Field Energy Crops)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This article presents the results of a field experiment investigating the energy efficiency of grain produced by a semi-dwarf genotype of winter triticale at different levels of agricultural inputs. The energy efficiency of winter triticale grain production was evaluated in two low-input and two high-input cultivation practices that differed in the rate of nitrogen fertilizer (split application) and disease control. The energy inputs associated with the production of winter triticale grain at low levels of agricultural inputs were determined to be 14.5 to 14.7 GJ ha−1. Higher levels of agricultural inputs increased the demand for energy in grain production by 25% on average. The energy output of grain peaked (163.3 GJ ha−1) in response to a fertilizer rate of 120 kg ha−1 applied in a split ratio of 50:50 (BBCH 27/32) and two fungicide treatments (BBCH 31 and 39). The energy output of grain from the remaining cultivation regimes was 3–13% lower. The energy efficiency ratio was highest in the low-input cultivation regime with a nitrogen rate of 90 kg ha−1 split into two applications (60 and 30 kg ha−1 for BBCH 27 and 32, respectively), seed dressing with fungicide (thiram and tebuconazole) and one fungicide treatment (azoxystrobin) (BBCH 39).

1. Introduction

Triticale (× Triticosecale Wittm.) is an interspecific hybrid of wheat (Triticum ssp.) and rye (Secale ssp.). Triticale has considerable genetic potential [1,2], and modern cultivars are characterized by higher grain yields and lower disease susceptibility than wheat [3,4,5,6,7]. Triticale has low soil, water and fertilizer requirements, and it is relatively resistant to drought, low temperatures and fungal diseases [8,9,10,11,12,13,14]. The global production of triticale reached 12.8 million Mg in 2018. Nearly 90% of the global output is produced in Europe, mainly Poland (4.08 million Mg), Germany (19.3 million Mg), France (1.38 million Mg) and Belarus (1.02 million Mg) [15]. Due to its high protein content and favorable amino acid profile, triticale grain is used mainly in the feed industry [16,17,18,19] and, to a smaller extent, in the food processing industry [20,21,22,23,24,25,26]. However, the future potential of global triticale grain production will be largely determined by its processing suitability in the baking industry [24,27,28,29,30,31].
Triticale is a cereal species with high energy potential [32,33,34,35,36,37]. Triticale grain can be converted to chemicals, biomaterials, biocomponents and energy in biorefineries [38,39]. Triticale is abundant in starch and cellulose, and it can be used in the production of biofuels [20,34], and triticale straw can be directly incinerated [38,40]. Triticale grain can be processed into biogas during anaerobic digestion [41,42], and bioethanol can be obtained from grain [33,43,44,45,46,47,48,49] and/or straw [35,50]. Triticale grain is particularly suited for bioethanol production due to its high starch content (650–680 g kg−1 dry matter, DM) and somewhat lower protein content 125 g kg−1 DM) [51], as well as high amylolytic activity which speeds up starch hydrolysis and digestion [11,44]. The production of 1 ton of bioethanol requires 2.78 to 3.38 Mg of triticale grain [49,52]. The efficiency of bioethanol derived from triticale is determined by the productivity of cultivars [11,53] and growing conditions as well as agronomic factors, mostly nitrogen fertilization [40,45,53,54,55].
Triticale has lower agronomic needs, in particular lower nitrogen requirements, than other cereals, and its biomass is particularly suitable for energy generation because relatively low nitrogen fertilizer rates (i) decrease protein content and increase bioethanol yields per unit area [46], and (ii) improve the energy efficiency of biomass production [56]. The energy efficiency of agricultural production has to be increased to combat climate change and the energy crisis. Effective energy use is one of the key priorities of sustainable agriculture [57,58]. Patterson [59] defines energy efficiency as the ratio of energy outputs to energy inputs. The demand for energy in the production process and the volume of energy accumulated in biomass are two important components of the energy balance, which determine not only energy efficiency, but also the eco-efficiency of agricultural production [60]. Agricultural production systems characterized by higher energy efficiency are more environmentally friendly [61,62,63,64]. Agrotechnologies with lower energy efficiency increase the consumption of non-renewable energy resources [65] and contribute to greenhouse gas emissions [66,67,68,69].
Energy efficiency is determined by the intensity of agricultural inputs [48,49,70,71]. The demand for energy can be reduced by optimizing agricultural operations and deploying production technologies that are best suited to the cultivated crops and local conditions [72]. Nitrogen fertilization and disease control are very important agronomic factors in the production of winter triticale grain [4,73,74,75,76,77]. Nitrogen fertilizers have a large share of energy inputs due to the high value of energy stored in chemical bonds [49,58,62]. For this reason, efficient nitrogen use not only increases agricultural profits, but also reduces local pollutant emissions and greenhouse gas emissions, and improves global food security [51,78,79]. High nitrogen use efficiency is a key prerequisite for high energy efficiency in agriculture. In cereal production, nitrogen use efficiency can be improved by introducing high-yielding and nitrogen-efficient cultivars (hybrid, dwarf, semi-dwarf), adapting nitrogen fertilizer rates to the nutritional requirements of the produced crops, or applying nitrogen in split rates in different stages of plant development [48,49,80]. Similarly to fertilizers, plant protection products are also highly energy-intensive inputs in agricultural production [69], but they considerably boost the yield potential of crops [74,76]. Plant protection products do not induce significant changes in energy inputs [49,81], but they considerably improve energy outputs by increasing biomass yields [82,83,84].
The aim of this study was to evaluate the energy efficiency (energy inputs, energy output, energy gain and energy efficiency ratio) of grain production in a semi-dwarf genotype of winter triticale at four levels of agricultural inputs. Triticale was grown in a field experiment in a large farm in north-eastern Poland.

2. Materials and Methods

A field experiment was conducted in 2008–2011 in the Agricultural Experiment Station in Bałcyny in north-eastern Poland (53°35′46.4′′ N, 19°51′19.5′′ E, elevation 137 m). The experimental treatments were four levels of agricultural inputs in the production of a semi-dwarf genotype of winter triticale (× Triticosecale Wittm.) cv. Alekto, which differed in the spring nitrogen rate (split application) and fungal disease control (Table 1). The experiment had a randomized block design (RBD) with three replications. Plot size was 15 m2 (10 by 1.5 m). In each year of the study, the preceding crop was winter rapeseed (Brassica napus L.). Each year, the experiment was established on Haplic Luvisol (LV-ha) originating from boulder clay [85]. Soil was disc harrowed and deep plowed after the harvest of the preceding crop. Sowing was preceded by tillage and harrowing. Fertilizers were applied before sowing at 70 kg ha−1 P2O5 (enriched superphosphate—40% P2O5) and 100 kg ha−1 K2O (potash salt—60% K2O). Each year, the seeds of semi-dwarf winter triticale cv. Alekto were dressed with thiram and tebuconazole and sown with a row seeder in late September at 400 germinating kernels per 1 m2, to a depth of 3.0 cm. During the autumn growing seasons, in stage Biologische Bundesanstalt, Bundessortenamt and Chemical Industry (BBCH) 14–15 [86], weeds were controlled with 1600 g ha−1 prosulfocarb, 50 g ha−1 diflufenican, 250 g ha−1 isoproturon and 3.75 g ha−1 chlorosulfuron. In the stage BBCH 31, ethephon (growth regulator) was applied at 480 g ha−1. Winter triticale was harvested at physiological maturity (BBCH 89) using a small-plot harvester (7–10 August).
Energy inputs were divided into categories based on the respective agricultural operations and energy fluxes (Equation (1)).
Energy inputs = Ei diesel + Ei fixed assets + Ei materials + Ei human labor
where:
Energy inputs—total energy inputs (GJ ha−1),
Ei diesel—energy input for diesel fuel consumption (GJ ha−1),
Ei fixed—energy input for fixed assets (GJ ha−1),
Ei materials—energy input for materials (GJ ha−1),
Ei human labor—energy input for labor (GJ ha−1).
The energy inputs for labor, tractor and machine operation, fuel consumption and materials were determined based on energy consumption and energy indicators per unit area in crop production (Table 2).
The higher heating value (HHV) of winter triticale grain was estimated by adiabatic combustion in a calorimeter (IKA C 2000, USA) with the use of a dynamic method. The lower heating value (LHV) was calculated based on the moisture content of freshly harvested grain [87] (Equation (2)).
LHV = HHV × ( 100 − W ) 100 − WC × 0.0244
where:
LHV—lower heating value of grain fresh matter (MJ kg−1),
HHV—higher heating value of grain dry matter (MJ kg−1),
MC—moisture content of freshly harvested grain (%),
0.0244—correction coefficient for water vaporization enthalpy (MJ kg−1 per 1% moisture content).
The energy output of triticale grain was calculated as the product of fresh matter yield (FMY) and LHV (Equation (3)) of grain.
Energy output (GJ ha−1) = FMY (Mg ha−1) × LHV (GJ Mg−1)
The energy efficiency of winter triticale grain was determined based on energy gain (Equation (4)) and the energy efficiency ratio (Equation (5)):
Energy gain (GJ ha−1) = Energy output (GJ ha−1) − Energy inputs (GJ ha−1)
Energy   efficiency   ratio = Energy   output   ( GJ   ha − 1 ) Energy   inputs   ( GJ   ha − 1 )
The energy inputs in the production of winter triticale were determined in a process analysis by measuring diesel oil consumption, labor and the field performance of tractors and agricultural machines during standard agronomic operations in a large farm (own measurements, Table 3). Energy inputs were divided into two categories: (i) based on energy fluxes (labor, energy carriers, machines, agricultural tools, materials—seeds, fertilizers and pesticides) and (ii) agronomic operations (tillage, sowing, mineral fertilization, weed control, growth regulation, disease control, grain harvest).

3. Results and Discussion

The majority of conventional farming systems rely on high-input production technologies involving energy-intensive materials (fertilizers, pesticides) [89]. In crop production, energy inputs are determined mainly by crop species and the number of agronomic operations, i.e., by the intensity of the applied production technology [48,49,58,90,91]. In the present study, the average energy inputs associated with the 3-year production cycle of a semi-dwarf genotype of winter triticale ranged from 14.5–14.7 GJ ha−1 (low inputs A and B) to 17.1–19.3 GJ ha−1 (high inputs C and D) (Table 4). Similar energy inputs in the production of triticale grain were reported by Bielski et al. [49] (16.7–21.9 GJ ha−1) and Raczkowski [92] (12.1–22.2 GJ ha−1). In the work of Vigovskis et al. [93], the energy inputs associated with winter triticale production were much higher at 35 GJ ha−1. In a study by Czarnocki et al. [94], the analyzed parameter ranged from 12.6 to 13.6 GJ ha−1, depending on the applied tillage method.
Technology D was the most energy-intensive due to the highest nitrogen fertilizer rates (90 and 60 kg ha−1 applied in stages BBCH 27 and 32, respectively) and a single fungicide treatment in stage BBCH 31. Energy consumption in the remaining production variants was lower by 11% (C), 24% (B) and 25% (A) (Table 4).
Regardless of the level of agricultural inputs, mineral fertilization had the highest share of energy inputs (62.7–71.5%; 9.2–13.8 GJ ha−1 in absolute values). Nitrogen fertilization alone was responsible for 49.0–61.1% of total energy inputs. Other energy-intensive operations included sowing (10.9–14.5% of total energy inputs), tillage (8.4–11.2%), chemical control of weeds, pathogens and lodging (5.3–6.7%), grain harvest and transport (3.9–5.2%) (Table 4). The structure of energy inputs in the production of triticale grain was similar in the experiments conducted by Czarnocki et al. [94], Raczkowski [92] and Bielski et al. [49]. It should be noted that energy inputs associated with various agronomic operations are fairly similar in the production of triticale and other cereals [95,96,97]. The structure of energy inputs was similar in the production of winter rapeseed [98,99], spring rapeseed, white mustard (Sinapis alba L.), Indian mustard (Brassica juncea (L.) Czern.) [100], maize (Zea mays L.), sweet sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench)) [70,71] and giant miscanthus (Miscanthus × giganteus Greef and Deuter) [56]. The structure of energy inputs in the production of different groups of crops (annual vs. perennial; monocots. vs. dicots) is comparable because mineral fertilization has the highest share of total energy inputs in most production technologies [56,70,71,98,99,100].
In the current study, the use of chemical control agents made only a minor contribution to total energy inputs (±6%) in the production of winter triticale grain (Table 4). According to Bielski [81] and Bielski et al. [49], fungicides account for 1.2–1.9% of total energy inputs in the production of winter triticale, subject to the intensity of the production technology. In a study by Deike et al. [84], fungicides were also responsible for a low percentage of energy inputs in the production of various crops, which could be attributed to the low fungicide dose per unit area [82]. Nonetheless, the use of pesticides should be minimized in agricultural production to prevent the contamination of soil, water and food, and to protect beneficial microorganisms. However, the application of pesticides can be reduced only when the pressure from weeds, pests and pathogens is low, but in the long-term perspective, this strategy can have adverse effects by considerably decreasing crop yields [101].
The analysis of energy fluxes (Table 5) revealed that agricultural materials (seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, growth regulator) accounted for 78.0–83.3% of total energy inputs associated with the evaluated levels of agricultural inputs. The above can be attributed mainly to considerable amounts of energy accumulated in mineral fertilizers (61.2–70.4% of total energy inputs) and seeds (8.7–11.5%). Other studies of winter triticale [49] and spring triticale [92] also demonstrated that agricultural materials had the largest share of total energy inputs in crop production (74–84%). In the work of Bielski [81], fertilizers and pesticides were responsible for 66% of total energy inputs (61% and 5%, respectively) in various winter triticale production systems. Agricultural materials also accumulated significant amounts of energy (77–89% of total energy inputs) in a study analyzing energy consumption in various production technologies of winter barley [90]. In other studies, agricultural materials had a somewhat smaller share of total energy inputs in the production of winter triticale (64%) [91] and spring triticale (58%) [55]. The relative proportions of mineral nitrogen fertilizers and pesticides in total energy inputs were determined to be 28% and 5%, respectively, by Deike et al. [84]. The relatively small share of fertilizers in the structure of energy inputs resulted from low rates of nitrogen application (98 kg ha−1 on average).
In the present study, energy carriers, the operation of machines and tractors and labor accounted for 11.0–14.5%, 4.5–6.0% and 1.1–1.5% of total energy inputs, respectively (Table 5). Higher levels of agricultural inputs in winter triticale cultivation led to an absolute increase in all energy fluxes without inducing significant changes in their structure (Table 5). Raczkowski [92], Bielski et al. [49] and Gozubuyuk et al. [91] estimated the percentage of energy carriers in total energy inputs to be 8.8–14.5%, 17.2–21.5% and 27.9%, respectively, in winter triticale production. The cited authors also found that labor accounted for only 0.3–3.5% of total energy inputs. Similar results were reported by Szempliński [96], Dubis [97] and Gozubuyuk et al. [91] in studies investigating the main energy fluxes in the production of other cereal species (spring barley, spring wheat, winter wheat).
Research shows that intensive crop farming increases GHG emissions per unit yield, and N fertilizers and energy carriers are the main contributors [102,103]. The effect of plant protection products on GHG emissions remains relatively small because the applied doses are nearly 10-fold lower than the rates of N fertilizers [102]. In a study by Wójcik-Gront and Bloch-Michalik [102], GHG emissions in winter triticale production were higher (0.304 kg CO2 eq. kg−1) at higher levels of agricultural inputs and a mean N fertilizer rate of 124.65 kg ha−1, and lower (0.277 kg CO2 eq. kg−1) at lower levels of agricultural inputs and a mean N fertilizer rate of 88.62 kg N ha−1. Higher GHG emissions at a higher intensity of agricultural inputs and higher N fertilizer rates were also noted in wheat, rye, spring triticale, barley, oat and maize [102]. Hughes et al. [104] demonstrated that GHG emissions were higher in winter barley production (0.335 kg CO2 eq. kg−1) than in spring barley production (0.300 kg CO2 eq. kg−1), mostly due to higher N fertilizer rates. Van Stappen et al. [105] reported GHG emissions of 0.349 kg CO2 eq. kg−1 in wheat grain production in Belgium, whereas Charles et al. [106] noted an increase in GHG emissions to 0.381 kg CO2 eq. kg−1 when winter wheat was fertilized with 140 kg N ha−1 in Switzerland. Other authors [107,108] found that GHG emissions can be reduced through agricultural intensification by increasing crop yield per unit area.
The energy potential of crop production technologies is determined based on energy gain and the energy efficiency ratio [49,70,71]. In the current experiment, semi-dwarf winter triticale cv. Alekto had a positive energy balance regardless of the levels of agricultural inputs, i.e., the energy output in terms of grain yield exceeded the energy inputs associated with grain production (Table 6). The energy output of grain was highest (163.3 GJ ha−1) in treatment C with a nitrogen fertilization rate of 120 kg ha−1 and two fungicide treatments. The energy output of grain produced in the remaining treatments was lower by 3% (high inputs D), 6% (low inputs B) and 13% (low inputs A). Energy gain was also highest in treatment C (high inputs) at 146.2 GJ ha−1. In the remaining treatments (A, B and D), the energy gain of winter triticale grain was lower by 7.0 to 18.9 GJ ha−1 relative to treatment C. Energy output (141.8 GJ ha−1) and energy gain (127.3 GJ ha−1) were lowest in the low-input treatment A where nitrogen was applied at 90 kg ha−1 and disease control was limited to seed dressing only. Other authors also found that the energy potential of winter and spring triticale is determined mainly by agricultural intensification, mostly the nitrogen rate [48,49,55,81]. In a study by Bielski et al. [49], the energy output of winter triticale grain supplied with nitrogen at 150 kg ha−1 increased by 19% and 39% relative to treatments where nitrogen was applied at 120 and 30 kg ha−1, respectively. Agricultural intensification also enhances energy gain by increasing biomass yields [49,51,109]. The net energy output of crops can be improved through the application of cultivation and protective treatments which minimize yield losses caused by pests, weeds and pathogens [110] and increase nitrogen use efficiency [84].
An analysis of energy indicators (Table 6) revealed that the energy efficiency ratio was highest (9.8–10.5) in low-input treatments A and B. Higher energy inputs associated with an increase in agricultural inputs decreased the energy efficiency of the production process by 3–10% (C) and 16–22% (D).
Bielski [81] and Gozubuyuk et al. [91] reported equally high energy efficiency ratios in the production of winter triticale grain of 7.4–9.9 and 10.5, respectively. In the work of Klikocka et al. [55], the energy efficiency ratio of spring triticale reached 6.8. In contrast, the energy efficiency ratios calculated by Vigovskis et al. [93] in other cereal species (spring barley, spring wheat, triticale) were significantly lower, in the range of 1.5–1.8. The energy efficiency ratio is a useful metric for determining the optimal allocation of agricultural inputs in crop production [62]. In a study by Bielski et al. [49], the energy efficiency ratio of semi-dwarf winter triticale cv. Twingo peaked at 8.2 with low-input production technology. The analyzed parameter decreased by 24–27% when agricultural inputs were intensified. Lewandowski and Schmidt [51], Bielski [81], Bielski et al. [48] and Bielski et al. [49] also reported a considerable decrease in the energy efficiency ratio of winter triticale production in response to a high nitrogen rate that was not compensated by a corresponding increase in the energy output in terms of grain yield. Agricultural intensification also decreased the energy efficiency ratio in the production of winter wheat and sugar beet [109], maize and sorghum [111], sweet sorghum [71], winter rapeseed [98] and fodder galega [112].

4. Conclusions

Energy inputs should be reduced in modern crop production technologies to optimize energy use and minimize the adverse environmental impacts of agriculture. For this reason, the importance of energy-efficient solutions is increasingly emphasized in the farming sector. In the present study, the energy inputs in the production of semi-dwarf genotype winter triticale cv. Alekto ranged from 14.5 to 19.3 GJ ha−1, subject to the levels of agricultural inputs. Fertilizers had the largest share of total energy inputs (61.2–70.4%), and mineral fertilization was the most energy-intensive farming operation (62.7–71.5%). Energy output and energy gain peaked in response to two fungicide treatments, seed dressing and a fertilizer rate of 120 kg ha−1 applied in a split ratio of 50:50 (BBCH 27/32). The energy efficiency ratio was highest when winter triticale was fertilized with 90 kg ha−1 (60 and 30 kg ha−1 in BBCH stages 27 and 32, respectively), seeds were dressed and a single fungicide treatment was applied (BBCH 39). Regardless of the obtained results, the energy efficiency ratio of winter triticale grain was very high (8.2–10.5) at all levels of agricultural inputs. However, in order to minimize greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, the energy efficiency of grain production should be improved by reducing agricultural inputs.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, W.S. and B.D.; methodology, W.S. and K.J.J.; software, K.J.J.; validation, W.S., B.D. and K.J.J.; formal analysis, W.S.; investigation, B.D.; resources, B.D.; data curation, K.J.J.; writing—original draft preparation, B.D.; writing—review and editing, W.S., B.D., K.M.L. and K.J.J.; visualization, B.D.; supervision, B.D.; project administration, W.S. and B.D.; funding acquisition, B.D. and K.J.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The results presented in this paper were obtained as part of a comprehensive study of the University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn (grant No. 30.610.013-110). The project was financially supported by the Minister of Science and Higher Education in the scope of the program entitled “Regional Initiative of Excellence” for the years 2019–2022, project No. 010/RID/2018/19, amount of funding PLN 12,000,000.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The research was conducted within the project 30.610.013-110.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the staff of the Agricultural Experiment Station in Bałcyny for technical support during the experiment.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Roques, S.E.; Kindred, D.R.; Clarke, S. Triticale out-performs wheat on range of UK soils with a similar nitrogen requirement. J. Agric. Sci. 2017, 155, 261–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Derejko, A.; Studnicki, M.; Wójcik-Gront, E.; Gacek, E. Adaptive grain yield patterns of Triticale (×Triticosecale Wittmack) cultivars in six regions of Poland. Agronomy 2020, 10, 415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Mergoum, M.; Macpherson, H.G. (Eds.) Triticale Improvement and Production; Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italia, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  4. Kindred, D.R.; Sylvester-Bradley, R. Routes to reducing the N requirements of high yielding wheat crops. Asp. Appl. Biol. 2010, 105, 97–106. [Google Scholar]
  5. Estrada-Campuzano, G.; Slafer, G.A.; Miralles, D.J. Differences in yield, biomass and their components between triticale and wheat grown under contrasting water and nitrogen environments. Field Crop. Res. 2012, 128, 167–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Clarke, S.; Roques, S.; Weightman, R.; Kindred, D. Modern triticale crops for increased yields, reduced inputs, increased profitability and reduced greenhouse gas emissions from UK cereal production. AHDB Cereals Oilseeds Proj. Rep. 2016, 556, 65. [Google Scholar]
  7. Losert, D.; Maurer, H.P.; Marulanda, J.J.; Würschum, T. Phenotypic and genotypic analyses of diversity and breeding progress in European triticale (× Triticosecale Wittmack). Plant Breed. 2017, 136, 18–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Jessop, R.S. Stress tolerance in newer triticales compared to other cereals. In Triticale: Today and Tomorrow; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1996; pp. 419–427. [Google Scholar]
  9. Schwarte, A.J.; Gibson, L.R.; Karlen, D.L.; Liebman, M.; Jannink, J.L. Planting date effects on winter triticale dry matter and nitrogen accumulation. Agron. J. 2005, 97, 1333–1341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Tohver, M.; Kann, A.; Täht, R.; Mihhalevski, A.; Hakman, J. Quality of triticale cultivars suitable for growing and bread-making in northern conditions. Food Chem. 2005, 89, 125–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kučerová, J. The effect of year, site and variety on the quality characteristics and bioethanol yield of winter triticale. J. Inst. Brew. 2007, 113, 142–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Blum, A. The abiotic stress response and adaptation of triticale—A review. Cereal Res. Commun. 2014, 42, 359–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Randhawa, H.S.; Bona, L.; Graf, R.J. Triticale breeding—Progress and prospect. In Triticale; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 15–32. [Google Scholar]
  14. Liu, W.; Maurer, H.P.; Leiser, W.L.; Tucker, M.R.; Weissmann, S.; Hahn, V.; Würschum, T. Potential for marker-assisted simultaneous improvement of grain and biomass yield in triticale. Bioenergy Res. 2017, 10, 449–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Faostat, Food and Agriculture Organization Corporate Statistical Database. Available online: http://www.apps.fao.org (accessed on 20 July 2020).
  16. Beltranena, E.; Salmon, D.F.; Goonewardene, A.; ZIjlstra, R.T. Triticale as a replacement for wheat in diets for weaned pigs. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2008, 88, 631–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Djekic, V.; Mitrovic, S.; Milovanovic, M.; Djuric, N.; Kresovic, B.; Tapanarova, A.; Djermanovic, V.; Mitrovic, M. Implementation of triticale in nutrition of non-ruminant animals. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2011, 10, 5697–5704. [Google Scholar]
  18. Widodo, A.E.; Nolan, J.V.; Iji, P.A. The nutritional value of new varieties of high-yielding triticale: Feeding value of triticale for broiler chickens. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 2015, 45, 74–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Alijošius, S.; Švirmickas, G.J.; Bliznikas, S.; Gružauskas, R.; Šašytė, V.; Racevičiūtė-Stupelienė, A.; Kliševičiūtė, V.; Daukšien, A. Grain chemical composition of different varieties of winter cereals. Zemdirbyste-Agriculture 2016, 103, 273–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. McGoverin, C.M.; Snyders, F.; Muller, N.; Botes, W.; Fox, G.; Manley, M. A review of triticale uses and the effect of growth environment on grain quality. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2011, 91, 1155–1165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Agil, R.; Hosseinian, F. Dual functionality of triticale as a novel dietary source of prebiotics with antioxidant activity in fermented dairy products. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 2012, 67, 88–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Martinez, C.S.; Ribotta, P.D.; Leon, A.E.; Añon, M.C. Colour assessment on bread wheat and triticale fresh pasta. Int. J. Food Prop. 2012, 15, 1054–1068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Senol, F.S.; Kan, A.; Coksari, G.; Orhan, I.E. Antioxidant and anticholinesterase effects of frequently consumed cereal grains using in vitro test models. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2012, 63, 553–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Pattison, A.L.; Trethowan, R.M. Characteristics of modern triticale quality: Commercially significant flour traits and cookie quality. Crop. Pasture Sci. 2013, 64, 874–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Navarro-Contreras, A.L.; Chaires-González, C.F.; Rosas-Burgos, E.C.; Borboa-Flores, J.; Wong-Corral, F.J.; Cortez-Rocha, M.O.; Cinco-Moroyoqui, F.J. Comparison of protein and starch content of substituted and complete triticales (× Triticosecale Wittmack): Contribution to functional properties. Int. J. Food Prop. 2014, 17, 421–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Zhu, F. Triticale: Nutritional composition and food uses. Food Chem. 2018, 241, 468–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Rakha, A.; Åman, P.; Andersson, R. Dietary fibre in triticale grain: Variation in content, composition, and molecular weight distribution of extractable components. J. Cereal Sci. 2011, 54, 324–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Nakurte, I.; Klavins, K.; Kirhner, I.; Namniece, J.; Adlere, L.; Matvejevs, J.; Kronberga, A.; Kokare, A.; Strazdina, V.; Legzdina, L.; et al. Discovery of lunasin peptide in triticale (× Triticosecale Wittmack). J. Cereal Sci. 2012, 56, 510–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bielski, S.; Dubis, B.; Budzyński, W. Influence of nitrogen fertilisation on the technological value of semi-dwarf grain winter triticale varieties Alekto and Gniewko. Pol. J. Nat. Sci. 2015, 30, 325–336. [Google Scholar]
  30. Fraś, A.; Gołębiewska, K.; Gołębiewski, D.; Mańkowski, D.R.; Boros, D.; Szecówka, P. Variability in the chemical composition of triticale grain, flour and bread. J. Cereal Sci. 2016, 71, 66–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Panasiewicz, K.; Koziara, W.; Sulewska, H. Evaluation of technological quality in grain and flour of winter triticale (Triticosecale Wittm.) from controlled cultivation conditions. Pol. J. Nat. Sci. 2018, 33, 89–99. [Google Scholar]
  32. Jørgensen, J.R.; Deleuran, L.C.; Wollenweber, B. Prospects of whole grain crops of wheat, rye and triticale under different fertilizer regimes for energy production. Biomass Bioenergy 2007, 31, 308–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Beres, B.; Pozniak, C.; Eudes, F.; Graf, R.; Randhawa, H.; Salmon, D.; Mcleod, G.; Dion, Y.; Irvine, B.; Voldeng, H.; et al. Canadian ethanol feedstock study to benchmark the relative performance of triticale: I. Agronomics. Agron. J. 2013, 105, 1695–1706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Cantale, C.; Petrazzuolo, F.; Correnti, A.; Farneti, A.; Felici, F.; Latini, A.; Galeffi, P. Triticale for bioenergy production. Agric. Sci. Procedia 2016, 8, 609–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kossatz, H.L.; Rose, S.H.; Viljoen-Bloom, M.; van Zyl, W.H. Production of ethanol from steam exploded triticale straw in a simultaneous saccharification and fermentation process. Process Biochem. 2017, 53, 10–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mupondwa, E.; Li, X.; Tabil, L. Integrated bioethanol production from triticale grain and lignocellulosic straw in Western Canada. Ind. Crops Prod. 2018, 117, 75–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Agudelo, R.; García-Aparicio, M.P.; Görgens, J.F. Impact of triticale cultivar (× Triticosecale sp. Wittmack) and location on pretreatment requirements and fermentable sugars yield. Biomass Conv. Bioref. 2020, 10, 107–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Dassanayake, G.D.M.; Kumar, A. Techno-economic assessment of triticale straw for power generation. Appl. Energy 2012, 98, 236–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sanaei, S.; Stuart, P.R. Systematic assessment of triticale-based biorefinery strategies: Techno-economic analysis to identify investment opportunities. Biofuels Bioprod. Bioref. 2018, 12 (Suppl. S1), 46–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lewandowski, I.; Kauter, D. The influence of nitrogen fertilizer on the yield and combustion quality of whole grain crops for solid fuel use. Ind. Crops Prod. 2003, 17, 103–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Amon, T.; Amon, B.; Kryvoruchko, V.; Machmuller, A.; Hopfner-Sixt, K.; Bodiroza, V.; Hrbek, R.; Friedel, J.; Pötsch, E.; Wagentristl, H.; et al. Methane production through anaerobic digestion of various energy crops grown in sustainable crop rotations. Bioresour Technol. 2007, 98, 3204–3212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Teghammar, A.; Karimi, K.; Horváth, I.S.; Taherzadeh, M.J. Enhanced biogas production from rice straw, triticale straw and softwood spruce by NMMO pretreatment. Biomass Bioenergy 2012, 36, 116–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Weightman, R.M.; Davis-Knight, H. Triticale as a low input cereal for alcohol production II. Potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions relative to bioethanol from wheat. Asp. Appl. Biol. 2008, 90, 135–142. [Google Scholar]
  44. Pejin, D.; Mojovic, L.J.; Vucurovic, V.; Pejin, J.; Dencic, S.; Rakin, M. Fermentation of wheat and triticale hydrolysates: A comparative study. Fuel 2009, 88, 1625–1628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Obuchowski, W.; Banaszak, Z.; Makowska, A.; Luczak, M. Factors affecting usefulness of triticale grain for bioethanol production. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2010, 90, 2506–2511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kindred, D.; Weightman, R.; Roques, S.; Sylvesterbradley, R. Low nitrogen input cereals for bioethanol production. Asp. Appl. Biol. 2010, 101, 37–44. [Google Scholar]
  47. Beres, B.; Pozniak, C.; Bressler, D.; Gibreel, A.; Eudes, F.; Graf, R.; Randhawa, H.; Salmon, D.; Mcleod, G.; Dion, Y.; et al. Canadian ethanol feedstock study to benchmark the relative performance of triticale: II. Grain quality and ethanol production. Agron. J. 2013, 105, 1707–1720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Bielski, S.; Dubis, B.; Jankowski, K. The energy efficiency of production and conversion of winter triticale biomass into biofuels. Przemysł Chem. 2015, 94, 1798–1801. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  49. Bielski, S.; Romaneckas, K.; Novikova, A.; Šarauskis, E. Are higher input levels to triticale growing technologies effective in biofuel production system? Sustainability 2019, 11, 5915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Agudelo, R.A.; García-Aparicio, M.P.; Görgens, J.F. Steam explosion pretreatment of triticale (× Triticosecale Wittmack) straw for sugar production. New Biotechnol. 2016, 33, 153–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lewandowski, I.; Schmidt, U. Nitrogen, energy and land use efficiencies of miscanthus, reed canary grass and triticale as determined by the boundary line approach. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2006, 112, 335–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Smith, T.C.; Kindred, D.R.; Brosnan, J.M.; Weightman, R.M.; Shepherd, M.; Sylvester-Bradley, R. Wheat as a feedstock for alcohol production. In HGCA Research Review; HGCA: Warwickshire, UK, 2006; Volume 61, pp. 50–60. [Google Scholar]
  53. Jansone, I.; Malecka, S.; Miglane, V. Suitability of winter triticale varieties for bioethanol production in Latvia. Agron. Res. 2010, 8, 573–582. [Google Scholar]
  54. Swanston, J.S.; Smith, P.L.; Thomas, W.T.B.; Sylvester-Bradley, R.; Kindred, D.; Brosnan, J.M.; Bringhurst, T.A.; Agu, R.C. Stability, across environments, of grain and alcohol yield, in soft wheat varieties grown for grain distilling or bioethanol production. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2014, 94, 3234–3240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Klikocka, H.; Kasztelan, A.; Zakrzewska, A.; Wyłupek, T.; Szostak, B.; Skwaryło-Bednarz, B. The energy efficiency of the production and conversion of spring triticale grain into bioethanol. Agronomy 2019, 9, 423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Dubis, B.; Jankowski, K.J.; Załuski, D.; Sokólski, M. The effect of sewage sludge fertilization on the biomass yield of giant miscanthus and the energy balance of the production process. Energy 2020, 206, 11818910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Schroll, H. Energy-flow and ecological sustainability in Danish agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1994, 51, 301–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Alluvione, F.; Moretti, B.; Sacco, D.; Grignani, C. EUE (energy use efficiency) of cropping systems for a sustainable agriculture. Energy 2011, 36, 4468–4481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Patterson, M.G. What is Energy Efficiency? Concepts, Indicators and Methodological Issues. Energy Policy 1996, 24, 377–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Rathke, G.W.; Diepenbrock, W. Energy balance of winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) cropping as related to nitrogen supply and preceding crop. Eur. J. Agron. 2006, 24, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Risoud, B. Energy efficiency of various French farming systems: Questions to sustainability. In International Conference Sustainable Energy: New Challenges for Agriculture and Implications for Land Use; Wageningen University: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  62. Hülsbergen, K.J.; Feil, B.; Biermann, S.; Rathke, G.W.; Kalk, W.D.; Diepenbrock, W. A method of energy balancing in crop production and its application in a long-term fertilizer trial. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2001, 86, 303–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Gundogmus, E.; Bayramoglu, Z. Energy input use on organic farming: A comparative analysis on organic versus conventional farms in Turkey. J. Agron. 2006, 5, 16–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Castoldi, N.; Bechini, L. Integrated sustainability assessment of cropping systems with agro-ecological and economic indicators in northern Italy. Eur. J. Agron. 2010, 32, 59–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ozkan, B.; Akcaoz, H.; Fert, C. Energy input–output analysis in Turkish agriculture. Renew. Energy 2004, 29, 39–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Dyer, J.A.; Desjardins, R.L. Simulated farm fieldwork, energy consumption and related greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. Biosyst. Eng. 2003, 85, 503–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Lal, R. Carbon emission from farm operations. Environ. Int. 2004, 30, 981–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Tzilivakis, J.; Warner, D.J.; May, M.; Lewis, K.A.; Jaggard, K. An assessment of the energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) production in the UK. Agric. Syst. 2005, 85, 101–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Wood, R.; Lenzen, M.; Dey, C.; Lundie, S. A comparative study of some environmental impacts of conventional and organic farming in Australia. Agric. Syst. 2006, 89, 324–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Jankowski, K.J.; Dubis, B.; Sokólski, M.M.; Załuski, D.; Bórawski, P.; Szempliński, W. Productivity and energy balance of maize and sorghum grown for biogas in a large-area farm in Poland: An 11-yearfield experiment. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2020, 148, 112326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Jankowski, K.J.; Sokólski, M.M.; Dubis, B.; Załuski, D.; Szempliński, W. Sweet sorghum—Biomass production and energy balance at different levels of agricultural inputs. A six-year field experiment in north-eastern Poland. Eur. J. Agron. 2020, 119, 126119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Pawlak, J. Efficiency of energy inputs in polish agriculture. Rocz. Nauk Roln. 2012, 1, 121–128. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  73. Ivanova, A.; Tsenov, N. Production potencial of new triticale varieties grown in the region of Dobrudzha. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2014, 6, 243–246. [Google Scholar]
  74. Bielski, S. Effect of nitrogen fertilization and fungicide protection on winter triticale wholesomeness. Acta Sci. Pol. Agric. 2015, 14, 3–14. [Google Scholar]
  75. Dubis, B.; Winnicki, T.; Budzyński, W.S.; Jankowski, K.J. Cost-effectiveness of the production of short-straw winter triticale cultivar Alekto. Acta Sci. Pol. Agric. 2015, 14, 11–20. [Google Scholar]
  76. Dubis, B.; Bogucka, B.; Smaciarz, W. The effect of production system intensity on the yield of winter triticale (× Triticosecale Wittm. ex A. Camus) cultivar Alekto. Acta Sci. Pol. Agric. 2017, 16, 199–206. [Google Scholar]
  77. Bielski, S.; Romaneckas, K.; Šarauskis, E. Impact of nitrogen and boron fertilization on winter triticale productivity parameters. Agronomy 2020, 10, 279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Snyder, C.S.; Bruulsema, T.W.; Jensen, T.L.; Fixen, P.E. Review of greenhouse gas emissions from crop production systems and fertilizer management effects. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2009, 133, 247–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Hirel, B.; Tétu, T.; Lea, P.; Dubois, F. Improving nitrogen use efficiency in crops for sustainable agriculture. Sustainability 2011, 3, 1452–1485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Raun, W.R.; Johnson, G.V. Improving nitrogen use efficiency for cereal production. Agron. J. 1999, 91, 357–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Bielski, S. Energy balance evaluation of winter triticale production. Engineering for rural development. In Proceedings of the 14th International Scientific Conference Engineering for Rural Development, Jelgava, Latvia, 20–22 May 2015; pp. 552–557. [Google Scholar]
  82. Clements, D.R.; Weise, S.F.; Brown, R.; Stonehouse, D.P.; Hume, D.J.; Swanton, C.J. Energy analysis of tillage and herbicide inputs in alternative weed management systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1995, 52, 119–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Uhlin, H.E. Energy productivity of technological agriculture-lessons from the transition of Swedish agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1999, 73, 63–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Deike, S.; Pallutt, B.; Christen, O. Investigations on the energy efficiency of organic and integrated farming with specific emphasis on pesticide use intensity. Eur. J. Agron. 2008, 28, 461–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. IUSS Working Group WRB. World Reference Base for Soil Resources, 2nd ed.; World Soil Resources Reports No. 103; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2006; p. 132. [Google Scholar]
  86. Meier, U. Growth stages of mono- and dicotyledonous plants. In BBCH Monograph; Julius Kühn-Institut: Quedlinburg, Germany, 2018; Available online: https://www.julius-kuehn.de/media/Veroeffentlichungen/ bbch%20epaper%20en/page.pdf (accessed on 28 May 2020).
  87. Kopetz, H.; Jossart, J.M.; Ragossnig, H.; Metschina, C. European Biomass Statistics; European Biomass Association (AEBIOM): Brussels, Belgium, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  88. Wójcicki, Z. Equipment, Materials and Energy Inputs in Growth-Oriented Farms; IBMER: Warszawa, Poland, 2000. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  89. Jaśkiewicz, B. The impact of production technology on yields of winter triticale under varied percentages of cereals to total cropped area. Pol. J. Agron. 2015, 23, 11–17. [Google Scholar]
  90. Czarnocki, S. Energy assessment of alternative technologies of preparing land for winter barley sowing. Agric. Eng. 2013, 3, 69–75. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  91. Gozubuyuk, Z.; Demir, O.; Kucukozdemir, A. Some operating parameters, energy efficiency, carbon dioxide emission and economic analysis of triticale and wheat grown in high altitude semi-arid climate conditions. J. Crop. Breed. Genet. 2019, 5, 42–53. [Google Scholar]
  92. Raczkowski, M. Energy expenditure in triticale cultivation with different microelements fertilization technique. Pol. J. Nat. Sci. 2010, 25, 236–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Vigovskis, J.; Sarkanbarde, D.; Svarta, A.; Jermuss, A.; Agafonova, L. The estimation of energy efficiency of crop rotation in long–term trials. In Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency, Jelgava, Latvia, 28–30 May 2012; pp. 56–60. [Google Scholar]
  94. Czarnocki, S.; Starczewski, J.; Turska, E. Energy efficiency of different variants of soil tillage the cultivation of winter triticale. Pam. Puław. 2006, 142, 43–54. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  95. Budzyński, W.; Szempliński, W.; Fedejko, B. Agricultural, quality and energetic evaluation of various spring bread wheat weed control and nitrogen fertilisation methods. Part II. Energy-consumption of cultivation. Rocz. Nauk Roln. 1996, 112, 93–101. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  96. Szempliński, W. Enviromental and agrotechnical conditions in the production of fodder spring barley in northeastern Poland. In Rozprawy i monografie; Warmia and Mazury University: Olsztyn, Poland, 2003; pp. 1–99. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  97. Dubis, B. Agricultural, energy and economic analysis of spring wheat production for human consumption. In Rozprawy i monografie; Warmia and Mazury University: Olsztyn, Poland, 2012; Volume 171, pp. 1–130. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  98. Budzyński, W.S.; Jankowski, K.J.; Jarocki, M. An analysis of the energy efficiency of winter rapeseed biomass under different farming technologies. A case study of a large-scale farm in Poland. Energy 2015, 90, 1272–1279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Sokólski, M.; Jankowski, K.J.; Załuski, D.; Szatkowski, A. Productivity, energy and economic balance in the production of different cultivars of winter oilseed rape. A case study in north-eastern Poland. Agronomy 2020, 10, 508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Jankowski, K.J.; Budzyński, W.S.; Kijewski, Ł. An analysis of energy efficiency in the production of oilseed crops of the family Brassicaceae in Poland. Energy 2015, 81, 674–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Deike, S.; Pallutt, B.; Moll, E.; Christen, O. Effect of different weed control strategies on the nitrogen efficiency in cereal cropping systems. J. Plant Dis. Prot. 2006, 20, 809–816. [Google Scholar]
  102. Wójcik-Gront, E.; Bloch-Michalik, M. Assessment of greenhouse gas emission from life cycle of basic cereals production in Poland. Zemdirbyste-Agriculture 2016, 103, 259–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Lu, X.; Lu, X.; Cui, Y.; Liao, Y. Tillage and crop straw methods affect energy use efficiency, economics and greenhouse gas emissions in rainfed winter wheat field of Loess Plateau in China. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B—Soil Plant Sci. 2018, 68, 562–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Hughes, D.J.; West, J.S.; Atkins, S.D.; Gladders, P.; Jeger, M.J.; Fitt, B.D.L. Effects of disease control by fungicides on greenhouse gas emissions by UK arable crop production. Pest Manag. Sci. 2011, 67, 1082–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Van Stappen, F.; Loriers, A.; Mathot, M.; Planchon, V.; Stilmant, D.; Debode, F. Organic versus conventional farming: The case of wheat production in Wallonia (Belgium). Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 2015, 7, 272–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  106. Charles, R.; Jolliet, O.; Gaillard, G.; Pellet, D. Environmental analysis of intensity level in wheat crop production using life cycle assessment. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2006, 113, 216–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Burney, J.A.; Davis, S.J.; Lobell, D.B. Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 107, 12052–12057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Grassini, P.; Cassman, K.G. High-yield maize with large net energy yield and small global warming intensity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 1074–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Kuesters, J.; Lammel, J. Investigations of the energy efficiency of the production of winter wheat and sugar beet in Europe. Eur. J. Agron. 1999, 11, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Klingauf, F.; Pallutt, B. Fertilisation and Crop Protection-Efficiency or a Problem of Emission? Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2002, 48, 395–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Franzluebbers, A.J.; Francis, C.A. Energy output: Input ratio of maize and sorghum management systems in eastern Nebraska. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1995, 53, 271–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Dubis, B.; Jankowski, K.J.; Sokólski, M.M.; Załuski, D.; Bórawski, P.; Szempliński, W. Biomass yield and energy balance of fodder galega in different production technologies: An 11-year field experiment in a large-area farm in Poland. Renew. Energy 2020, 154, 813–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Levels of agricultural inputs in the production of a semi-dwarf genotype of winter triticale (2008–2011).
Table 1. Levels of agricultural inputs in the production of a semi-dwarf genotype of winter triticale (2008–2011).
Farming OperationDate (BBCH Scale)Levels of Agricultural Inputs
Low InputHigh Input
ABCD
N fertilizer (kg ha−1)2790606090
320306060
Fungicides31nonenone125 g ha−1 flusilazole + 250 g ha−1 carbendazim125 g ha−1 flusilazole + 250 g ha−1 carbendazim
39none250 g ha−1 azoxystrobin72 g ha−1 flutriafol + 72 g ha−1 epoxiconazolenone
BBCH—Biologische Bundesanstalt, Bundessortenamt und Chemische Industrie [86].
Table
Table 2. Energy equivalence of inputs in the production technology [88].
Table 2. Energy equivalence of inputs in the production technology [88].
InputUnitEnergy Equivalent
LaborMJ hour−140
Tractors MJ kg−1125
MachinesMJ kg−1110
Diesel oilMJ kg−148
SeedsMJ kg−19
NMJ kg−177
P2O5MJ kg−115
K2OMJ kg−110
PesticidesMJ kg−1 active ingredient300
Table
Table 3. Technical parameters, performance and fuel consumption of agricultural machines in the production of winter triticale (2008–2011).
Table 3. Technical parameters, performance and fuel consumption of agricultural machines in the production of winter triticale (2008–2011).
Farming Operation Parameters of Self-Propelled Machine Parameters of Accompanying MachineService Life (h)Weight (kg)Performance of Self-Propelled Machine and Accompanying Machine (ha h−1)Fuel Consumption (dm3 h−1)
Self-Propelled MachineAccompanying Machine Self-Propelled MachineAccompanying Machine
Disc harrowing (5–8 cm)130 kW4.25 m (working width)10,0001500710551003.018.0
Fall plowing (18–22 cm)130 kW5 (number of furrows)10,0001400710523701.526.0
Tillage cultivation unit (5–8 cm)130 kW4 m (working width)10,0001800710518803.517.2
Sowing 184 kW4 m (working width)10,000180010,98056004.029.5
Mineral fertilization130 kW24 m (working width)10,0002000710568513.58.7
Chemical control94 kW24 m (working width)10,00030005166560010.07.6
Harvest370 kW/10.5 m (working width)-2800-20,000-4.145.0
Biomass transport130 kW10 Mg (carrying capacity)10,000140071052600-8.0
Loading55 kW/2500 kg (load capacity)-10,000-4922--3.0
Table
Table 4. Structure of energy inputs in the production of a semi-dwarf genotype of winter triticale per farming operation (2008–2011).
Table 4. Structure of energy inputs in the production of a semi-dwarf genotype of winter triticale per farming operation (2008–2011).
Farming OperationLevels of Agricultural Inputs
Low InputHigh Input
ABCD
MJ ha−1%MJ ha−1%MJ ha−1%MJ ha−1%
Tillage162111.2162111.016219.516218.4
Sowing210714.5210714.4210712.3210710.9
Mineral fertilization, including 916563.2920562.711,51567.213,82571.5
-N fertilization711549.1719649.0950655.511,81661.1
Chemical control, including8455.89856.711316.610235.3
-disease control110.11401.02861.71780.9
Grain harvest and transport7565.27565.27564.47563.9
Total14,494100.014,674100.017,130100.019,332100.0
Table
Table 5. Structure of energy inputs in the production of a semi-dwarf genotype of winter triticale by energy fluxes (2008–2011).
Table 5. Structure of energy inputs in the production of a semi-dwarf genotype of winter triticale by energy fluxes (2008–2011).
Energy FluxLevels of Agricultural Inputs
Low InputHigh Input
ABCD
MJ ha−1%MJ ha−1%MJ ha−1%MJ ha−1%
Labor2081.42221.52301.32221.1
Tractors and machines8395.88746.09015.38744.5
Energy carriers207814.3213414.5216412.6213411.0
Materials, including:11,36978.411,44478.013,83580.816,10283.3
-seeds167411.5167411.416749.816748.7
-mineral fertilizers898062.0898061.211,29065.913,60070.4
-nitrogen693047.8693047.2924053.911,55059.7
-pesticides 7154.97905.48715.18284.3
-fungicides110.1750.51560.91130.6
Total14,494100.014,674100.017,130100.019,332100.0
Table
Table 6. Energy indicators in the production of a semi-dwarf genotype of winter triticale (2008–2011).
Table 6. Energy indicators in the production of a semi-dwarf genotype of winter triticale (2008–2011).
Energy IndicatorsLevels of Agricultural Inputs
Low InputHigh Input
ABCD
Energy output (GJ ha−1)141.8153.5163.3158.6
Energy gain (GJ ha−1)127.3138.8146.2139.2
Energy efficiency ratio9.810.59.58.2
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Szempliński, W.; Dubis, B.; Lachutta, K.M.; Jankowski, K.J. Energy Optimization in Different Production Technologies of Winter Triticale Grain. Energies 2021, 14, 1003. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14041003

AMA Style

Szempliński W, Dubis B, Lachutta KM, Jankowski KJ. Energy Optimization in Different Production Technologies of Winter Triticale Grain. Energies. 2021; 14(4):1003. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14041003

Chicago/Turabian Style

Szempliński, Władysław, Bogdan Dubis, Krzysztof Michał Lachutta, and Krzysztof Józef Jankowski. 2021. "Energy Optimization in Different Production Technologies of Winter Triticale Grain" Energies 14, no. 4: 1003. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14041003

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop