 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
News Releases Weed control carbon footprint higher in organic production 3 December 2007 The carbon footprint of weed control in organic production for two of the UK’s major crops is greater than that in conventional production, says a new study commissioned by the BCPC Weeds Group and undertaken by the University of Nottingham. The paper indicates that for winter wheat and potatoes, measured per unit of area grown, the carbon footprint of weed control in organic production is greater than that in conventional production. Moreover, the results show that the carbon footprint and financial costs of weed control per tonne of output in organic production far exceed that in conventional production. Dr Paul Wilson, associate Professor of Management and director of Agriculture and Environmental Science at the University; and Dr Debbie Sparkes, lecturer in Agronomy at the same department, told the British Crop Production Council’s (BCPC’s) ‘annual review of weed control’ that the carbon footprint of weed control in conventional wheat production lies in the range 16.25-16.78kg CO2/tonne in comparison with 48.95-58.68kg CO2/t for weed control in organic wheat production (inclusive of cultivations in each system) – see Table 1. For weed control in conventional potatoes (exclusive of cultivations), carbon emissions range from 0.74-1.11kg CO2/t, while in organic potatoes, weed control emissions range from 3.81kg CO2/t (inter-row cultivation) to 10.03kg CO2/t (flame weeding) – see Table 2. "Financial costs of weed control in conventional wheat were approximately £15/t, while in organic production comb weeding (inter-row cultivation) costs approximately £27/t (£41/t),” said Dr Wilson. “In potatoes, weed control costs in conventional production range from £0.75/t-£1.50/t, and in organic production costs range from £3.25/t (inter-row cultivation) to £4.75/t (flame weeding)." When examined on a per hectare basis, Dr Wilson said that the difference in environmental and financial costs is less extreme, though remains substantial. "Increasing yields offers the greatest opportunity to reducing the environmental cost of weed control in organic production," he added. While the results will make interesting reading for both conventional and organic growers in the UK, Dr Wilson said that they do contrast with previous findings that suggest that the environmental consequences of organic and conventional production are similar. "The paper has been intentionally narrow in its focus, however, the environmental consequences of other inputs in production, their impact on the environment (e.g. nitrate losses) and the environmental impacts of food importation in place of lower yields in organic production must be borne in mind when considering the wider aspects of agricultural and food production and consumption." "Future research should encompass the totality of the production process and hence capture the fuller environmental costs of organic and conventional production. In addition, analysis should consider the wider environmental, financial and economic consequences of these different production systems in meeting our food needs," he said. Table 1. Carbon emissions for weed control in winter wheat (kg CO2/tonne).
Table 2. Carbon emissions for weed control in potatoes (kg CO 2/tonne).
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
For further information contact: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| © BCPC |