Reducing energy and carbon footprint in semi-arid irrigated cropping systems through crop diversification

Dabit Bista; Sushil Sapkota; Pramod Acharya; Ram Acharya; Rajan Ghimire

doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e27904

Reducing energy and carbon footprint in semi-arid irrigated cropping systems through crop diversification

Heliyon. 2024 Mar 13;10(6):e27904. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e27904. eCollection 2024 Mar 30.

Authors

Dabit Bista¹, Sushil Sapkota¹, Pramod Acharya², Ram Acharya¹, Rajan Ghimire^{2

3}

Affiliations

¹ New Mexico State University, Department of Agricultural Economics and Agricultural Business, Las Cruces, NM, USA.
² New Mexico State University, Agricultural Science Center, Clovis, NM, USA.
³ New Mexico State University, Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Las Cruces, NM, USA.

Abstract

Energy and carbon (C) footprints of agricultural production practices have garnered high attention due to rising energy costs and increasing global warming. However, the contribution of conservation and regenerative farming practices, including cover cropping, on energy and C footprints have not yet been documented for cropping systems in arid and semi-arid regions. This study evaluated the energy and C footprint of cover crop integrated silage maize (Zea mays L.) and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) production systems in the semi-arid region of the southwestern US. The treatments were mixtures of winter cover crops: i) grasses and legumes (GL), ii) grasses, brassicas, and legumes (GBL), iii) grasses and brassicas (GB), and iv) no cover crops (NCC) control for each crop production system. Results showed cover crops had 24.1-24.5% greater energy input than NCC. In silage maize rotation, energy output was 17-22% greater in GBL and GL than in NCC. In silage sorghum rotation, the energy output was 15-24% greater in all cover crops than in NCC. The resulting net energy was 16-21% greater in GBL and GL than in NCC under silage maize, while it was 18-24% greater in GBL and GB than in NCC under silage sorghum. In the silage maize system, the C-footprint per kg yield was not different among treatments, whereas in silage sorghum, it was 58% greater in GBL than in NCC. The benefit-to-cost ratio was greater than one for all treatments, but the additional revenue through C credit programs could make cover cropping a more feasible and beneficial approach, improving economic and environmental sustainability while producing silage crops. While the C footprint was crop rotation specific, cover cropping should be encouraged over crop-fallow systems to producers in semi-arid environments to reduce energy usage and increase C-credit benefits. Clear national and state policy on the C credit program will also enhance economic and environmental benefits by adopting cover cropping and other regenerative farming practices.

Keywords: Carbon credit; Carbon footprint; Cost-benefit ratio; Cover cropping; Net energy efficiency.