Curwen, David; Kraft, George J.; Osborne, Thomas; Shaw, Byron H. / Demonstration of low input strategies for potato/vegetable production on irrigated sands
Crop productivity responses to BMPs, pp. 6-18 PDF (4.8 MB)
3. Energy Inputs The energy input differences are indicated in Table 8. Table 8. Input Energy Differences - 1989 BMP Demonstrations Energy Diff. 1000 BTUs/A - BMP from Grower 1/ Input Field A Field B Nitrogen -1,281 +284 Herbicide -99 Insecticide Fungicide Irrigation -364 -145 Total -1,744 +139 1/ BMP used + (more than), - (lessThan) or = (same as) the grower program k j The BMP program pro uced energy savings of 1.7 million BTUs / acre. This repr sented about a 24% reduction in energy use when compared to the estimated 6-7 million BTUs needed to grow a sweet corn crop. As the data (Table 8) indicates, reduced nitrogen and irrigation us ided the largest energy savings. The BMP program at Field B r qulTe@ in a net increase in energy use of about 7%. This increase s-attributed to the extra-nitrogen used by the BMP program. 4. Input Costs The reduction of production inputs did reduce costs at Field A while total costs were essentially the same at Field B. The cost data is presented in Table 9. The cost savings of $24/acre at Field A represent about 15% reduction based on a total cost of $161/acre (does not include fixed costs). As indicated in the 1988 potato results, the true measure of the cost impacts of BMPs is the determination of the per unit cost. Tbi asno-t-done because of a lack of total cost data for thegrower pogram. oas with t e potatoes for FieM1dA (1988) , the BMP program did reduce costs, but yields were also reduced. This may have resulted in a higher per unit cost for the BMP program.