Abstract
Abstract A goal in sustainable agriculture is to use fossil fuel energy more efficiently in crop production. This 12-year study investigated effects of two crop rotations and two crop production systems (organic versus conventional management) on energy use, energy output and energy-use efficiency. The grain-based rotation included wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)–pea ( Pisum sativum L.)–wheat–flax ( Linum usitatissimum L.), while the integrated rotation included wheat–alfalfa ( Medicago sativa L.)–alfalfa–flax. Energy use was 50% lower with organic than with conventional management, and approximately 40% lower with integrated than with the grain-based rotation. Energy use across all treatments averaged 3420 MJ ha −1 yr −1 . Energy output (grain and alfalfa herbage only) across treatments averaged 49,947 MJ ha −1 yr −1 and was affected independently by production system and crop rotation. Energy output in the integrated rotation was three times that of the grain-based rotation; however, this difference was largely due to differences in crop type (whole plant alfalfa compared with grain seed). Energy output was 30% lower with organic than with conventional management. Energy efficiency (output energy/input energy) averaged to 17.4 and was highest in the organic and integrated rotations. A significant rotation by production system interaction ( P <0.05) indicated that energy efficiency increases due to crop input reduction (i.e., shift from conventional to organic management) were greater in the integrated than in the grain-based rotation. Greater energy efficiency in the integrated rotation under organic management was attributed to the fact that the forage component was less sensitive to chemical input removal than grain crops.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 11
Claim · model-written summary
Energy use was 50% lower under organic than under conventional management.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- organice1
- Outcome
- Energy usee1
- Direction
- lowere1
- Value
- 50%e1
- Comparator
- conventional managemente1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Energy use was 50% lower with organic than with conventional management”
e0“The grain-based rotation included wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)”
t0“Energy use and efficiency in two Canadian organic and conventional crop production systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Energy use was about 40% lower in the integrated rotation than in the grain-based rotation.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- integratede2
- Outcome
- Energy usee1
- Direction
- lowere2
- Value
- 40%e2
- Comparator
- grain-based rotatione2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Energy use was 50% lower with organic than with conventional management”
e2“approximately 40% lower with integrated than with the grain-based rotation”
e0“The grain-based rotation included wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)”
t0“Energy use and efficiency in two Canadian organic and conventional crop production systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Energy use averaged 3420 MJ ha-1 yr-1 across all treatments.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Outcome
- Energy usee3
- Value
- 3420 MJ ha −1 yr −1e3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Energy use across all treatments averaged 3420 MJ ha −1 yr −1”
e0“The grain-based rotation included wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)”
t0“Energy use and efficiency in two Canadian organic and conventional crop production systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Energy output averaged 49,947 MJ ha-1 yr-1 across treatments.
- Taxon
- alfalfa
Medicago sativae4 - Outcome
- Energy output (grain and alfalfa herbage only)e4
- Value
- 49,947 MJ ha −1 yr −1e4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“Energy output (grain and alfalfa herbage only) across treatments averaged 49,947 MJ ha −1 yr −1”
t0“Energy use and efficiency in two Canadian organic and conventional crop production systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Energy output was 30% lower under organic than under conventional management.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- organice5
- Outcome
- Energy outpute5
- Direction
- lowere5
- Value
- 30%e5
- Comparator
- conventional managemente5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“Energy output was 30% lower with organic than with conventional management”
e0“The grain-based rotation included wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)”
t0“Energy use and efficiency in two Canadian organic and conventional crop production systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Energy output in the integrated rotation was three times that of the grain-based rotation.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- integrated rotatione7
- Outcome
- Energy outpute7
- Direction
- three timese7
- Comparator
- grain-based rotatione7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“Energy output in the integrated rotation was three times that of the grain-based rotation”
e0“The grain-based rotation included wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)”
t0“Energy use and efficiency in two Canadian organic and conventional crop production systems”
Claim · model-written summary
The difference in energy output between rotations is largely due to crop type.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Outcome
- this differencee1
- Qualifier
- differences in crop typee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“this difference was largely due to differences in crop type”
e7“Energy output in the integrated rotation was three times that of the grain-based rotation”
e0“The grain-based rotation included wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)”
t0“Energy use and efficiency in two Canadian organic and conventional crop production systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Energy efficiency averaged 17.4 across treatments.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Outcome
- Energy efficiency (output energy/input energy)e2
- Value
- 17.4e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Energy efficiency (output energy/input energy) averaged to 17.4”
e0“The grain-based rotation included wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)”
t0“Energy use and efficiency in two Canadian organic and conventional crop production systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Energy efficiency was highest in the organic and integrated rotations.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- organic and integrated rotationse3
- Outcome
- Energy efficiencye2
- Direction
- higheste3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“was highest in the organic and integrated rotations”
e2“Energy efficiency (output energy/input energy) averaged to 17.4”
e0“The grain-based rotation included wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)”
t0“Energy use and efficiency in two Canadian organic and conventional crop production systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Energy efficiency gains from reduced crop inputs were greater in the integrated than in the grain-based rotation.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- crop input reductione1
- Outcome
- energy efficiency increases due to crop input reductione1
- Direction
- greatere1
- Value
- P <0.05e1
- Comparator
- grain-based rotatione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“A significant rotation by production system interaction ( P <0.05) indicated that energy efficiency increases due to crop input reduction (i.e., shift from conventional to organic management) were greater in the integrated than in the grain-based rotation”
e0“The grain-based rotation included wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)”
t0“Energy use and efficiency in two Canadian organic and conventional crop production systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher energy efficiency of the integrated rotation under organic management is attributed to the less input-sensitive forage component.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae4
- Outcome
- energy efficiencye1
- Qualifier
- the forage component was less sensitive to chemical input removal than grain cropse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“the forage component was less sensitive to chemical input removal than grain crops”
e1“A significant rotation by production system interaction ( P <0.05) indicated that energy efficiency increases due to crop input reduction (i.e., shift from conventional to organic management) were greater in the integrated than in the grain-based rotation”
e4“Energy output (grain and alfalfa herbage only) across treatments averaged 49,947 MJ ha −1 yr −1”
t0“Energy use and efficiency in two Canadian organic and conventional crop production systems”
The same questions in other papers
cultivation system · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
44 papers in the same direction as this paper · 71 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
112 papers more in this group
See all 116 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.