My Account: Log In | Join | Renew
Search
Author
Title
Vol.
Issue
Year
1st Page

Abstract

 

This article in JEQ

  1. Vol. 43 No. 2, p. 709-722
     
    Received: Apr 02, 2013
    Published: June 23, 2014


    * Corresponding author(s): cwrice@ksu.edu
 View
 Download
 Alerts
 Permissions
 Share

doi:10.2134/jeq2013.04.0112

Life Cycle Assessment of Fertilization of Corn and Corn–Soybean Rotations with Swine Manure and Synthetic Fertilizer in Iowa

  1. Evan Michael Griffing *a,
  2. Richard Lynn Schauerb and
  3. Charles W. Ricec
  1. a Environmental Clarity LLC, 19116 Capehart Drive, Montgomery Village, MD 20886, and Wichita State Univ., Wichita, KS
    b Schauer Associates, PO Box 398, Townsend, DE 19734
    c Kansas State Univ., Dep. of Agronomy, 2004 Throckmorton Plant Science Center, Kansas State Univ., Manhattan, KS 66506

Abstract

Life cycle assessment is the predominant method to compare energy and environmental impacts of agricultural production systems. In this life cycle study, we focused on the comparison of swine manure to synthetic fertilizer as nutrients for corn production in Iowa. Deep pit (DP) and anaerobic lagoon (AL) treatment systems were compared separately, and urea ammonium nitrate (UAN) was chosen as the representative synthetic fertilizer. The two functional units used were fertilization of 1000 kg of corn in a continuous corn system and fertilization of a crop yielding 1000 kg of corn and a crop yielding 298 kg of soybean in a 2-yr corn–soybean rotation. Iowa-specific versions of emission factors and energy use were used when available and compared with Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change values. Manure was lower than synthetic fertilizer for abiotic depletion and about equal with respect to eutrophication. Synthetic fertilizer was lower than manure for global warming potential (GWP) and acidification. The choice of allocation method and life cycle boundary were important in understanding the context of these results. In the DP system, methane (CH4) from housing was the largest contributor to the GWP, accounting for 60% of the total impact. When storage systems were compared, the DP system had 50% less GWP than the AL system. This comparison was due to reduction in CH4 emissions from the storage system and conservation of nitrogen. Nitrous oxide emissions were the biggest contributor to the GWP of UAN fertilization and the second biggest contributor to the GWP of manure. Monte Carlo and scenario analyses were used to test the robustness of the results and sensitivity to methodology and important impact factors. The available crop-land and associated plant nutrient needs in Iowa was compared with manure production for the current hog population. On a state- or county-wide level, there was generally an excess of available land. On a farm level, there is often an excess of manure, which necessitates long-distance transport.

  Please view the pdf by using the Full Text (PDF) link under 'View' to the left.

Copyright © 2014. Copyright © by the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America, Inc.