Benchmarking Energy Use Online

Benchmarking Energy
Use on Farm
By Guangnan Chen, Tek Maraseni , Thomas Banhazi ,
Jochen Bundschuh
Benchmarking Energy Use
on Farm
by Guangnan Chen, Tek Maraseni , Thomas Banhazi , Jochen Bundschuh
June 2015
RIRDC Publication No 15/059

RIRDC Project No: PRJ-009235
i
© 2015 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation
All rights reserved.
ISBN 978-1-74254-805-0
ISSN 1440-6845
Benchmarking Energy Use on Farm

Publication No. 15/059
Project No. PRJ-009235
The information contained in this publication is intended for general use to assist public knowledge and
discussion and to help improve the development of sustainable regions. You must not rely on any information
contained in this publication without taking specialist advice relevant to your particular circumstances.
While reasonable care has been taken in preparing this publication to ensure that information is true and correct,
the Commonwealth of Australia gives no assurance as to the accuracy of any information in this publication.
The Commonwealth of Australia, the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC), the
authors or contributors expressly disclaim, to the maximum extent permitted by law, all responsibility and liability
to any person, arising directly or indirectly from any act or omission, or for any consequences of any such act or
omission, made in reliance on the contents of this publication, whether or not caused by any negligence on the
part of the Commonwealth of Australia, RIRDC, the authors or contributors.
The Commonwealth of Australia does not necessarily endorse the views in this publication.
This publication is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are
reserved. However, wide dissemination is encouraged. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and
rights should be addressed to RIRDC Communications on phone 02 6271 4100.
Researcher Contact Details
Dr Guangnan Chen
Associate Professor (Agricultural Engineering)
National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture
Faculty of Health, Engineering and Sciences
University of Southern Queensland
West Street
Toowoomba, Queensland 4350
Phone: 07 4631 2518

Fax: 07 4631 2526
Email: chengn@usq.edu.au
In submitting this report, the researcher has agreed to RIRDC publishing this material in its edited form.
RIRDC Contact Details
Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation

Level 2, 15 National Circuit
BARTON ACT 2600
PO Box 4776
KINGSTON ACT 2604
Phone: 02 6271 4100

Fax: 02 6271 4199
Email: rirdc@rirdc.gov.au.
Web: http://www.rirdc.gov.au
Electronically published by RIRDC in June 2015

Print-on-demand by Union Offset Printing, Canberra at www.rirdc.gov.au
or phone 1300 634 313
ii
Foreword
Energy is a critical input and significant cost in agricultural production. This report establishes on-
farm energy use benchmarks for a range of agricultural industries including grain cropping,
horticulture, dairy, beef, sheep, pork and chicken meat. This information will allow growers/producers
to make informed decisions about their energy management strategies and upgrading production
facilities.
Reducing input costs and achieving greater energy use efficiency can play an important role in
improving farm profitability. This report finds that energy costs and energy intensities vary
significantly between industries and growers.
The report identifies opportunities for achieving energy savings through improved management
practices, recovery of energy from agricultural waste and adoption of renewable energy. The issues of
data gaps and data sharing in energy use data are discussed, along with identification of opportunities
for further research.
This project was funded by RIRDC through the National Rural Issues program, focusing on the rural
priorities of productivity and adding value.
This report is an addition to RIRDC’s diverse range of over 2000 research publications and it forms
part of our National Rural Issues R&D program, which aims to inform and improve policy debate by
government and industry on national and global issues relevant to agricultural and rural policy in
Australia by targeting current and emerging rural issues, and produce quality work that will inform
policy in the long term.
Most of RIRDC’s publications are available for viewing, free downloading or purchasing online at
www.rirdc.gov.au. Purchases can also be made by phoning 1300 634 313.
Craig Burns
Managing Director
Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation
iii
Acknowledgments
The National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture (NCEA) would like to acknowledge the support
of the RIRDC for funding this project. The NCEA recognises the significant contribution made by
Australian growers/producers in paying levies and the Federal Government in matching these levies.
In addition to the researchers who authored this work, the NCEA would also like to thank the
contributions and useful discussions of many people, among them particularly include Craig Baillie,
Gary Sandell, Shahbaz Mushtaq, Andrew Barber, Amy Fay, Karen Christie, and Glen Riethmuller.
Their detailed comments and feedback have significantly improved the quality and relevance of this
work, and this is greatly appreciated by the whole project team.
iv
Abbreviations
ABARES Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences
ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics
APL Australian Pork Limited
BREE Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics
CNG Compressed Natural Gas
CO2-e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
CSG Coal Seam Gas
DPI Department of Primary Industries
ECM Energy Conservation Measures
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FCR Feed Conversion Ratio
FiT Feed-in-Tariffs
FU Functional Unit
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GJ Gigajoule or one billion (109) joules
GRDC Grains Research and Development Corporation
GVP Gross Value of Production
GWP Global Warming Potential
ha hectare (10,000 square metres)
HSCW Hot Standard Carcase Weight
IPCC Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change
kWh kilowatt-hour or 3.6 MJ
LCA Life Cycle Assessment
LCI Life Cycle Inventory
LNG Liquefied Natural Gas
LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas
MJ Megajoule (MJ) or one million (106) joules
ML Megalitre or one million (106) litres
NCEA National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
PJ Petajoule or 1015 joules
RIRDC Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation
USQ The University of Southern Queensland
VSD Variable Speed Drives
v
Table of contents
Foreword ................................................................................................................... iii
Acknowledgments.................................................................................................... iv
Abbreviations ............................................................................................................ v
Table of contents...................................................................................................... vi
List of tables and figures .......................................................................................... x
Executive summary ................................................................................................ xv
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................1
1.1 Energy and agriculture ..................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 Energy sources and types .......................................................................................... 1
1.1.2 Fossil energy ............................................................................................................. 2
1.1.3 Electricity .................................................................................................................. 2
1.1.4 Renewable energy ..................................................................................................... 3
1.1.5 Types of energy use .................................................................................................. 4
1.1.6 Energy use and environment ..................................................................................... 5
1.1.7 Greenhouse gas emissions from the use of energy ................................................... 5
1.1.8 Agricultural emissions and mitigation policy ........................................................... 6
1.1.9 Benchmarking and energy research in agriculture.................................................... 6
1.2 Research objectives and methodology ............................................................................. 7
1.2.1 Research objectives ................................................................................................... 7
1.2.2 Research methodology .............................................................................................. 7
1.3 Report structure................................................................................................................ 7
2 Energy Use in the Grain Sector ........................................................................... 8

2.1 Introduction ................................................................... ................................................. 8
2.1.1 Grain industry in Australia........................................................................................ 8
2.1.2 Grain farming systems .............................................................................................. 8
2.2 Literature review ............................................................................................................. 9
2.2.1 Overseas research...................................................................................................... 9
2.2.2 Australian research.................................................................................................. 10
2.3 Research methodology .................................................................................................. 10
2.3.1 Selection of top three high value crops ................................................................... 10
2.3.2 Energy data collection for key farming regions and processes............................... 11
2.4 Results and discussions ................................................................................................. 15
2.4.1 Fuel consumption (irrigation fuel use not included) ............................................... 15
2.4.2 Energy consumption (irrigation fuel use included) ................................................ 17
2.4.3 Factors influencing on-farm irrigation energy use.................................................. 19
2.5 Conclusions and recommendations............................................................................... 20
2.5.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 20
2.5.2 Energy saving opportunities ................................................................................... 20
2.5.3 Recommendations for further research ................................................................... 21
vi
3 Energy Use in the Horticultural Sector ............................................................. 22
3.1 Horticultural industry in Australia ................................................................................ 22
3.2.1 Project scope ........................................................................................................... 22
3.2.2 Selection of top three high value crops ................................................................... 22
3.2.3 Process identification and data collection method for the nursery industry ........... 23
3.2.4 Process identification and data collection method for the potato and tomato
industries .......................................................................................................................... 24
3.3 Literature review ........................................................................................................... 26
3.3.1 Nursery.................................................................................................................... 26
3.3.2 Potatoes ................................................................................................................... 26
3.3.3 Tomatoes ................................................................................................................. 26
3.4 Results and discussions ................................................................................................. 27
3.4.1 Nursery.................................................................................................................... 27
3.4.2 Potatoes ................................................................................................................... 32
3.4.3 Tomatoes ................................................................................................................. 33
3.5.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 34
4 Energy Use in the Dairy Sector .......................................................................... 37

4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 37
4.1.1 Dairy industry in Australia...................................................................................... 37
4.1.2 Dairy farming systems ............................................................................................ 37
4.1.3 Dairy farming processes ......................................................................................... 39
4.1.4 Energy sources ........................................................................................................ 39
4.3 Literature review ........................................................................................................... 41
4.3.1 Energy research and on-farm energy use benchmarks ........................................... 41
4.3.2 Energy use by individual on-farm operations ......................................................... 42
4.4 Energy use of a hypothetical farm ................................................................................ 44
4.5 Opportunities for reducing on-farm energy costs ......................................................... 45
4.5.1 Improving energy efficiency ................................................................................... 46
4.5.2 Adoption of alternative and renewable energy ....................................................... 47
4.6.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 49
5 Energy Use in the Pig and Poultry Industries ................................................... 50

5.1 Pig and poultry industries in Australia........................................................................... 50
5.2 Sources of energy use on pig and poultry farms ............................................................ 52
5.3 Literature review ............................................................................................................ 53
5.3.1 Total energy use of pig production including feed production ............................... 53
5.3.2 Direct on-farm energy use of pig production (overseas studies) ............................ 56
5.3.3 Total energy use of broiler production including feed production ......................... 57
5.3.4 Direct on-farm energy use of broiler production (overseas studies)....................... 58
5.4 Results of Australian studies.......................................................................................... 60
5.4.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................... 60
vii
5.4.2 Total energy use of pig production supply chains in Australia .............................. 60
5.4.3 On-farm direct energy usage in Australian piggery production ............................. 61
5.4.4 Case study of direct on-farm energy usage in one Queensland piggery ................. 63
5.4.5 Total energy use of poultry production supply chains in Australia ........................ 64
5.4.6 On-farm direct energy usage in Australian poultry production .............................. 66
5.5 Opportunities for reducing energy costs in the pig and poultry industries .................... 67
5.5.1 Opportunities for improving energy efficiency ...................................................... 68
5.5.2 Opportunities for renewable energy usage ............................................................. 69
5.6 Conclusions and recommendations................................................................................ 69
5.6.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 69
5.6.2 Measures to improve energy efficiency .................................................................. 70
5.6.3 Adoption of alternative and renewable energy ....................................................... 71
6 Energy Use in the Feedlot Cattle and Sheep Wool Production ....................... 72
6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 72
6.1.1. Feedlot industry in Australia.................................................................................. 72
6.1.2. Sheep industry in Australia .................................................................................... 74
6.2 Sources of energy use in feedlot and sheep farming operations .................................... 75
6.3 Research on energy use in the cattle feedlot industry in Australia and overseas .......... 75
6.3.1. Australian research................................................................................................. 77
6.3.2. Overseas research................................................................................................... 78
6.4 Energy benchmarks in the cattle feedlot industry in Australia ...................................... 78
6.4.1. Feedlot on-farm water supply energy usage .......................................................... 78
6.4.2. Feedlot on-farm feed preparation energy usage..................................................... 79
6.4.3. Feedlot on-farm feed delivery energy usage .......................................................... 80
6.4.4. Feedlot on-farm feed cattle washing energy usage ................................................ 81
6.4.5. Feedlot on-farm feed waste management energy usage ........................................ 81
6.4.6. Energy usage for administration and minor activities ........................................... 81
6.4.7. Total direct on-farm energy usage ......................................................................... 82
6.4.8. The study of Sandell et al. (2013) .......................................................................... 83
6.5 Energy benchmarks in the wool production industry in Australia ................................ 84
6.6 Conclusions and recommendations................................................................................ 88
6.6.1. Cattle feedlots ........................................................................................................ 88
6.6.2. Sheep farming ........................................................................................................ 89
7 Conclusions and recommendations for further work....................................... 90

7.1 Project background and motivations.............................................................................. 90
7.2 Project objectives ........................................................................................................... 90
7.3 Project research methodology ........................................................................................ 90
7.4 Overall research findings ............................................................................................... 91
7.5 Specific research findings .............................................................................................. 92
7.5.1. Grain energy benchmark ........................................................................................ 92
7.5.2. Horticulture energy benchmark ............................................................................. 92
7.5.3. Livestock and animal energy benchmark .............................................................. 92
7.6 Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 92
7.6.1. Energy efficiency opportunities ............................................................................. 92
7.6.2. Opportunities for adopting alternative and renewable energy ............................... 94
7.7 Implications for relevant stakeholders ........................................................................... 95
viii
8 Appendix ............................................................................................................... 97
8.1 Appendix 1 - Australian crop production (ABARES, 2014) ......................................... 97
8.2 Appendix 2 - Australian grains and oilseeds prices ....................................................... 98
8.3 Appendix 3 - Available overseas research and energy data for grape production......... 99
9 References .......................................................................................................... 101
ix
List of tables and figures
Tables
Table 1.1: Project objectives and tasks
Table 1.2: Classification of energy sources
Table 1.3: Energy content (combustion) and average retail prices of common fuels
Table 2.1: Grain energy performance data from the published overseas literature
Table 2.2: Grain energy performance data published from Australian research
Table 2.3: Total value of different grain and oilseed crops for five-year to 2012–13
Table 2.4: On-farm operation data for three highly valued grain crops in Northern Grain Region
Table 2.5: On-farm operation data for highly valued grain crops in Southern Grain Region
Table 2.6: On-farm operation data for highly valued grain crops in Western Grain Region
Table 2.7: Fuel (diesel, L/ha) consumption (except for irrigation fuel) for three high value grain crops
in Northern Grain Region (Example from Darling Downs region)
in Southern Grain Region (example from Victoria)
in Western Grain Region
Table 2.10: A summary of fuel consumption (diesel, L/ha) data (except for irrigation) for three high
value grain crops
Table 2.11: Energy consumption (GJ/ha) for three high value grain crops in Northern Grain Region
Table 2.12: Energy consumption (GJ/ha) for three high value grain crops in Southern Grain Region
Table 2.13: Energy consumption (GJ/ha) for three highly valued grain crops in Western Grain Region
Table 2.14: Energy consumption (GJ/ha) from different sources for three high value crops
Table 2.15: Benchmark energy consumption from three different grain crops
Table 3.1: Values of some horticultural crops in 2011-12
Table 3.2: Key attributes of five different nurseries in Queensland
Table 3.3: On-farm diesel and irrigation energy use for 23 key vegetables in Australia
Table 3.4: Horticulture energy performance data from the published literature
x
Table 3.5: Summary of energy consumption in five different nurseries in Queensland
Table 3.6: Energy consumption at Nursery A, Brisbane (electricity as the sole source of energy)
Table 3.7: Energy consumption at Nursery B, Brisbane
Table 3.8: Energy consumption at Nursery C, Sunshine Coast
Table 3.9: Energy consumption at Nursery D, Sunshine Coast
Table 3.10: Energy consumption from Nursery E, Brisbane
Table 3.11: On-farm energy consumption from potato farming operations in NSW
Table 3.12: On-farm energy use for tomatoes production in Queensland and Sydney
Table 3.13: Benchmark energy consumption for nursery, potato and tomato production in Australia
Table 4.1: Some of the common range and typical values of production parameters for the dairy
industry in Australia
Table 4.2: Direct on-farm energy input from different countries
Table 4.3: Average diesel fuel for various agricultural field operations
Table 4.4: Estimated electricity use in a dairy shed in Ireland
Table 4.5: Estimated electricity use for different activities in dairy sheds
Table 4.6: Resources used and outputs produced per year at the hypothetical farm
Table 4.7: Estimated payback periods of various energy and renewable energy technologies
Table 4.8: Projects with a payback period of less than five years
Table 4.9: Benchmark on-farm direct energy consumption for dairy milk production
Table 5.1: International literature on total energy use of pig production (feed production energy
included)
Table 5.2: Direct energy consumption in different on-farm activities of pork production
Table 5.3: International literature on total energy use of broiler production (feed production energy
included)
Table 5.4: Total energy consumption in different activities of broiler production
Table 5.5: Direct energy consumption in broiler and layer farms per chicken in the United Kingdom
(England/Wales)
Table 5.6: Direct on-farm electricity and heating energy consumption in broiler houses
Table 5.7: Direct on-farm energy use components at four conventional piggeries
xi
Table 5.8: Direct on-farm energy use for one piggery in QLD
Table 5.9: Breakdown of total energy use for poultry production supply chains (MJ per 1kg of CW)
Table 5.10: Direct on-farm energy use for the grow-out farm (free range supply chain) per tonne live-
weight produced
Table 5.11: Direct on-farm energy use for the grow-out farm (organic supply chain) per tonne live-
weight produced
Table 5.12: Literature related to potential actions to improve the direct on-farm energy efficiency of
pig and poultry buildings
Table 5.13: Benchmark energy use for pig and poultry production in Australia
Table 6.1: Cattle numbers on feed, feedlot capacity and capacity utilization
Table 6.2: Australian Wool Production Forecast 2014
Table 6.3: Studies reported or investigated regarding energy utilisation in feedlot operations in
Australia and other countries
Table 6.4: Average expenditure on fuel and cash costs per farm, 2007-08
Table 6.5: The highest and lowest energy consumption among the nine feedlots surveyed in 2004
Table 6.6: Energy source per unit of production
Table 6.7: Sources of energy, conversion factors and percentage of total energy consumption
Table 6.8: Itemised energy usage for key processes
Table 6.9: Studies reported or investigated energy utilisation in wool sheep industry in Australia
Table 6.10: Total energy budget for intensive wool production
Table 6.11: On-farm direct energy use in sheep wool production
Table 6.12: Benchmark energy use for feedlot cattle production
Table 6.13: Benchmark energy use for sheep wool production in Australia
Table 7.1: Some of the generic energy management measurements
Table 7.2: Energy inputs, demand intensities, renewable energy resources and exporting energy
potential for a range of agricultural operations
Table 8.1: Grape energy performance data from the overseas published literature
Table 8.2: Direct liquid fuel energy use for activities in grape production in New Zealand
xii
Figures
Figure 1.1: Electricity price increases in NSW and Queensland since 2004
Figure 1.2: Electricity consumption by sector (PJ)
Figure 1.3: Various inputs of farm production
Figure 1.4: Emission intensities for different types of energy sources
Figure 2.1: Total grain production and cropping area, 2002–03 to 2012–13
Figure 2.2: Cropping systems and conditions investigated in this project
Figure 4.1: Australia's Dairy Farming regions
Figure 4.2: Australian dairy farming systems
Figure 4.3: Energy uses in dairy animal production system
Figure 4.4: Life cycle energy use per tonne of fresh market milk and a selection of manufactured milk
products
Figure 4.5: Typical breakdown of dairy shed energy costs
Figure 4.6: The distribution of on-farm energy uses at the hypothetical farm
Figure 5.1: Overview of Australian pig industry
Figure 5.2: State distribution of the national pig breeding herd (percent of breeding sows)
Figure 5.3: Consumption of various meat types in Australia
Figure 5.4: State distribution of volume of chicken meat produced
Figure 5.5: The source and utilisation of energy (electricity and fuel) on pig and poultry farms
Figure 5.6: Total energy consumption in pork production in five European countries
Figure 5.7: Breakdown of total energy use by different on-farm activities in pig production
Figure 5.8: Breakdown of energy use by different on-farm activities in broiler production
Figure 5.9: Breakdown of total energy use by supply chain components for the Northern piggery
supply chain
Figure 5.10: Breakdown of total energy use by supply chain components for the Southern piggery
supply chain
Figure 5.11: Direct on-farm energy use for the monitored farrow to finish piggeries on a per tonne of
live weight
Figure 5.12: Direct on-farm energy use at the breeding and farrow to finish piggeries
xiii
Figure 5.13: Breakdown of total energy use by supply chain components for the QLD poultry
production
Figure 5.14: Breakdown of total energy use by supply chain components for the SA poultry
production
Figure 5.15: Breakdown of total energy use by supply chain components for the free-range poultry
production
Figure 5.16: Breakdown of total energy use by supply chain components for the organic poultry
production
Figure 5.17: Total shed energy use (MJ/tonne live weight produced for three farms over a one-year
time period)
Figure 6.1: Cattle numbers on feed June 2013 versus June 2014
Figure 6.2: Layout of a typical cattle feedlot operation
Figure 6.3: Sheep numbers by State
Figure 6.4: Typical steps and procedures in the chain of production of wool fibres
Figure 6.5: The source and utilisation of energy, electricity and fuel in feedlot operations
Figure 6.6: Electricity consumption as a proportion of farm variable costs in 2011
Figure 6.7: Water supply energy usage (MJ/Head-On-Feed/Month)
Figure 6.8: Feed processing energy usage (MJ/t of grain)
Figure 6.9: Energy consumed for feed processing, feed delivery/feedlot area and water supply for
2002 and 2004 survey years
Figure 6.10: Feed delivery component energy usage (MJ/tonne of ration)
Figure 6.11: Waste management energy usage (MJ/head-on-feed/month)
Figure 6.12: Total direct on-farm energy usage in feedlots (MJ/kg live weight gain)
Figure 6.13: Total energy consumption for individual feedlots in 2004. The indirect energy usage
outside of the feedlot such as cattle and commodity delivery were included
Figure 6.14: Percentage energy distribution from operations in the feedlot with the highest energy
consumed during 2004
Figure 6.15: The potential sources of energy in grazing wool sheep in Australia
Figure 6.16: Life cycle of wool from farm to fabric formation
Figure 7.1: An example of NCEA online renewable energy calculator output sheets
Figure 8.1: Energy use breakdown for the winemaking process
xiv
Executive summary

What the report is about?
This report establishes on-farm energy use benchmarks for selected agricultural sectors in Australia,
which include grain cropping, horticulture, dairy, beef, sheep, pork and chicken meat. Opportunities
for further research and energy savings through improved management and adoption of renewable
energy are also identified. This information will allow growers/producers to make informed decisions
about their energy management strategies and upgrading production facilities.

Who is the report targeted at?
This report is targeted at Australian rural primary industries and associated stakeholders, including
researchers, consultants, extension officers, farmers/growers, policy makers and others where
relevant.
Where are the relevant industries located in Australia?
This research is relevant to all states and territories in Australia.

Background
With a rapidly expanding world population, agriculture must supply more food of better quality than
ever before. Farming in Australia is often an energy intensive operation. The uses of energy resources
and associated environmental effects are one of the major challenges facing agriculture. This can be
managed through research and adoption of industry best management practices. By knowing the
amount of fuel and electricity required, farmers are empowered to fine tune and select the most
efficient farming practices for them.
Aims/objectives
The aim of this project is to quantify energy uses for key agricultural industries in Australia. This is a
first step to reduce energy use and the associated greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture.
Methods used
This research involves an extensive literature review of energy uses in on-farm agricultural
applications. The available methods and data in the literature are analysed and reviewed. The
feedback from the relevant industry stakeholders has also been incorporated.
Results/Key findings
From this project, it has been found that:

• Much of the recent on-farm energy research has been undertaken as part of wider Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA) studies. This work takes account of energy use from different sources but
does not usually divide them into different processes, so that their individual process
efficiency is largely unknown.
• In the public literature, there is little direct on-farm energy data available for the key farming
processes of grape growing in Australia, and also for the nursery sector outside Queensland.
There is a relative lack of Australian research in the energy use of livestock industry. This
lack of data is particularly significant because a considerable proportion of overseas research
results may not be relevant to Australia due to our different climate and farming systems.
xv
• Energy costs and energy intensities vary significantly between different industries and
growers. Within the same sector, a variation with a factor of up to 10 may occur. Energy use
is often significantly influenced by the local climate and the irrigation and growing methods
(eg, greenhouses vs open fields) adopted.
• Some of the variations in direct on-farm energy use may be due to the different
methodologies and assumptions adopted in different literature. A clear definition of system or
research boundaries is thus required in all such research projects. For example, production of
feed for livestock is included in some studies while it is not in others. Similar situations also
exist for the inclusion of indirect energy uses such as embodied energy use for manufacturing
and transporting fertiliser. When co-production (eg, wool and sheep meat) is involved,
different ways of handling co-products may be applied. Some livestock energy use indices
refer to animal live weight, while others to dressed carcass weight.
• ‘High-value’ horticulture and nursery sectors may use up to 1500 times more on-farm energy
per hectare than that of the broad-acre cereal crops. Crops grown in greenhouses can also
have direct on-farm energy intensity per kilogram of product of up to 10-20 times that of the
same crops when grown in open fields.
• Beef feedlots in Australia have generally higher energy usage than pork and poultry, which in
turn have higher energy usage than sheep wool and cow milk on a unit weight basis. Dairy
farming’s chief energy source is electricity, while cropping and sheep grazing mainly rely on
transport fuels.
• The direct on-farm energy use for grain grown under dryland conditions may be as low as 0.4
GJ/ha, while for irrigated crops, this may go up to 4.4 GJ/ha. For horticultural products, the
direct on-farm energy use ranges from 7.64 GJ/ha for potatoes grown in open fields to 5955
GJ/ha for tomatoes grown in greenhouses.
• In Australia, it has been found that the direct on-farm energy needed to produce one litre or
one kilogram of (fresh) milk is 0.41-0.83 MJ/kg milk. The average direct on-farm energy uses
for pork and poultry meat production are respectively 0.61-3.78 and 0.51-0.88 MJ/kg live
weight. This is comparison to 6 MJ/kg live weight for feedlot beef production. The direct on-
farm energy use for wool production varies between 0.78 and 1.25 MJ/kg wool.
• On pig and poultry farms, the processes of heating, cooling and ventilation are often the most
energy-consuming processes. Feed processing and feed delivery are the two main sources of
energy consumption within a feedlot. For wool sheep, the main on-farm energy uses are for
spraying and top dressing of pasture.
Implications for relevant stakeholders
This report will improve energy awareness among growers and other stakeholders. Where possible,
benchmark energy use of individual farming processes has also been identified and provided in the
report. The large variation of energy benchmarks found in this report may indicate the significant
opportunities for reducing energy use in these industries.
Recommendations
The success of energy efficiency programs is dependent on good quality data. Recent literature on
direct on-farm energy use in agriculture in Australia is relatively limited. There are still
inconsistencies and access issues for on-farm energy use data in and between different industries. This
can be improved through further research and development, and also data sharing.
It is recommended that further monitoring and characterization of major direct on-farm energy uses
for different farming systems be carried out, particularly for those sectors not covered in this report.
Over-reliance on overseas or even national scale data may not be appropriate because different local
climates and farming systems will result in very different energy uses. There also needs
harmonization and clear definition of what is included and what is excluded from the analyses for
different production systems.
xvi
To promote the adoption of energy-saving technologies, there is a need of specific knowledge and
technology transfer programs in the agricultural industries. It is recommended that in order to promote
industry awareness and implementation of improved practices, this report should be further developed
and converted into a series of easy-to-read farmer-friendly summary reports for different regions and
sectors. The industry will maximise benefits by getting these short reports with the present
comprehensive report to back it up.
It is also suggested that one possible way of data sharing energy benchmarking information for
researchers and consultants could be achieved via the national life cycle inventory (LCI) dataset for
Australian agricultural processes (AusAgLCI). The relevant data in that database should be updated
based on the research results of this report.
xvii
1 Introduction
Energy use efficiency has become increasingly important due to the increasing cost and scarcity of
energy sources and the associated greenhouse gas emissions causing global warming (Chen and
Baillie, 2009; Bundschuh and Chen, 2014).
The overall aim of this project is to identify and analyse direct energy demands, up to the farm gate,
of selected agricultural industry in Australia. This is necessary because reduction of energy
consumption and costs can only be done when we know where and how the energy is used. The
specific objectives of this study are given in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1: Project objectives and tasks
Overall Project Objectives Specific Project Objectives and Tasks

• To compile, estimate and • Define farm system types for each industry
analyse relevant • Characterise farm systems
information from a wide • Collect energy and production data
variety of sources, • Analyse and benchmark energy use
particularly the existing • Analyse and identify energy use pattern /mix and compare across
research published in the industries
open literature; • Link the energy use data to the production processes/practices,
• To determine baseline data sources and prices of energy supply, and characteristics of the
on energy inputs on-farm; region and the industry
• To identify areas where • Identify opportunities and best practices to increase energy
efforts for improved energy efficiency, farm profitability and industry sustainability
efficiency could be • Develop and rank energy diversification through renewable
focused. energy options.
1.1 Energy and agriculture

1.1.1 Energy sources and types
Agricultural production relies on a variety of energy sources, including both renewable and non-
renewable resources (Table 1.2). At present, fossil fuels, in the various forms, supply most of the
energy required by agriculture (Sandell et al. 2014).
Table 1.2: Classification of energy sources (Source: Chen et al. 2103b)
Non-renewable Renewable Biological Renewables

(Limited) (Unlimited) (can be reproduced)
Oil Solar Wood
Coal Wind Energy crops
Natural gas Hydropower Biomass fermentation (ethanol)
Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) Tidal and wave energy Bio-diesel
CSG (LNG, CNG) Geothermal Biogas (Anaerobic digestion)
Nuclear power (Uranium) Animal and human power
Common energy sources for agriculture include petrol, diesel, and electricity. Some farms may also
use LPG propane, and natural gas for various purposes including heating and drying.
1
Historically, the availability of cheap fossil fuels has made a significant contribution to the increase in
agricultural productivity and production. However, lack of inexpensive fossil fuels and the prospect of
high energy prices in the future will limit our ability to achieve important food production growth and
security targets (Bundschuh et al. 2014). It has been predicted that the world’s oil supply peak may
occur around 2025 (Miller and Sorrell, 2013). It has also been predicted that the global population
will reach 9.6 billion by 2050 (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs,
Population Division, 2014), so the demand for food, fibre and energy will also increase significantly
in that period while the availability of fossil fuels may decrease.
1.1.2 Fossil energy
Fossil fuels are currently used to operate tractors and other farm machinery. Fuels are also required
for the transportation of fertilizers, crop seeds and other goods to and from the farm. Gas may be
needed for various purposes including heating and drying.
1.1.3 Electricity
Electricity is a common power source for agriculture. Compared with fuels and gas, electricity is a
high-grade energy and is clean for on-site use. Electricity is however generally not suitable for mobile
plant. It has prohibitive capital costs if it is located far away from the grid. Because of this, electricity
policies and tariffs can significantly influence the ultimate prices of electricity. For some electricity
consumers, the network charges may make up 50% of the total electricity costs
(http://www.energysmartstrata.com.au/fact-sheets/sydney-electricity-prices-explained).

Electricity is mainly used for two purposes in agriculture:
• Water pumping. This may be needed for cleaning, animals drinking and crop irrigation.
• Stationary operations. These may include electricity uses for various machines and appliances
including heating, cooling and ventilation.
Overall, electricity is a high greenhouse gas emission energy source in Australia. At present, over 90%
of Australia's electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, and approximately 74% of electricity
produced in Australia is from coal (BREE, 2012). In Australia, power generation contributes 34% of
the country's net greenhouse gas emissions (CO2e).
Australia’s electricity costs have increased by 70-80% in the last 5 years, reaching an average retail
price of around 20-23 cents per kWh in 2013 (Fig.1.1). A significant proportion of this increase may be
due to the upgrade of electricity network infrastructure and new metering service costs. Other
additional costs were the various State and Federal “green” schemes such as the renewable energy
target schemes, feed-in tariffs and energy efficiency schemes.
Figure 1.2 shows the overall electricity usage in different industries in Australia in 2012. As shown,
the agriculture sector uses 8.3 PJ of electricity.
2
Figure 1.1: Electricity price increases in NSW and Queensland since 2004
(Source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/return-power-gst-to-the-
poor/story-fn59niix-1225938928090)
Figure 1.2: Electricity consumption by sector (PJ) (Source: BREE, Energy in Australia 2012)
1.1.4 Renewable energy
Renewable energy is a source of energy which is naturally occurring and which is theoretically
inexhaustible. Renewable energies can be broken down into those where the sun is the source of the
energy (solar energy) and those where it is from another source (non-solar energies) (Yusaf et al.
2011). Solar energies include biomass, biofuels, solar power, and wind energy. Renewable non-solar
energies include tidal energy and geothermal energy.
Renewable energy is particularly well-suited for rural and remote applications, and in some instances
can provide the lowest cost option for energy access (Chen et al. 2014). In many cases, using local
renewable energy resources can help to improve energy access, diversify farm revenues, avoid
disposal of waste products, reduce dependence on fossil fuels and GHG emissions, and help achieve
sustainable development goals.
3
At present, cost is still often a major hurdle for renewable energy technologies, usually due to high
up-front capital costs compared to traditional sources. Overall, renewable energy now accounts for
approximately 15% of the world’s primary energy supply mix (http://www.se4all.org/our-vision/our-
objectives/renewable-energy).
1.1.5 Types of energy use
Energy is used both on-farm and off-farm in agriculture (Saunders et al. 2006; Chen et al. 2010). It
may be further divided into direct energy use, ie. the fuel and electricity consumed during agricultural
production, and the indirect energy (embodied energy) involved in the production of all other inputs
from equipment to agro-chemicals (Fig.1.3). For the livestock industry, this could include the feed
purchased from outside the farm.
Figure 1.3: Various inputs of farm production (Source: Saunders et al. 2006)
In this study, the energy benchmarking will generally be limited to direct on-farm energy use, so the
indirect energy (embodied energy) and also the energy required for off-farm operations will not be
considered unless explicitly stated. This mostly takes place in Chapter 5 for the pig and poultry
industries, where nearly all of the available research articles were LCA focused (ie, feed production
and manufacturing energy is included in the calculations). Because the majority of pigs and chickens
in Australia are entirely housed inside a building, the indirect energy associated with feed production
and management is particularly important. The discussions of this chapter thus include elements of
indirect energy associated with feed production. This is in comparison with other livestock sectors
(eg, sheep and cattle in Chapter 6) where animals usually spend some of their time outdoors so that
the feed conversion may not be as critical as the pig and poultry industries.
4
1.1.6 Energy use and environment
One of the major problems associated with the use of fossil fuels is their environmental impact (IPCC,
2013). Not only does their extraction significantly alter the environment, but their combustion also
leads to pollution, particularly the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It is widely believed that
widespread burning of fossil fuels has contributed to the rise of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere,
which causes atmospheric heat retention or “global warming.” It is estimated that about 20% of the
world total net GHG emissions is related to the agricultural sector, from sources such as energy use,
methane from livestock, and nitrous oxide from fertilisers (Sims and Flammini, 2014).
All significant scientific models and evidence show that the earth’s surface temperature will likely
rise between 2°C and 5°C by 2100. It is also widely believed that to avoid the most radical impacts of
climate change, average temperatures should not be allowed to rise to any higher than 2°C above pre-
industrial levels. Failing to achieve this may lead to consequences over a long time (Garnaut, 2008).
Extreme weather brought about by global warming can severely impact the world’s food production.
1.1.7 Greenhouse gas emissions from the use of energy
The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (Measurement) Technical Guidelines (NGER
Technical Guidelines) published by the Australian Government provides the caloric value and GWP
for various fuel sources (Commonwealth of Australia, 2013).
Energy and emission intensities vary significantly for different types of energy and fuel sources
(Table 1.3 and Fig. 1.4). For example, for the same heat output, the GHG emissions from natural gas
may be only 60% of coal. The GHG emissions from electricity generation can also vary from location
to location, depending on the fuel sources being used.
By fuel switching (even between different fossil fuels), it is possible to significantly reduce both the
energy cost and environmental pollution.
Table 1.3: Energy content (combustion) and average retail prices of common fuels (Source: Chen et
al. 2014)
Fuel Type Form Density Energy Content Retail Price

Grid Electricity - - - $83/GJ (23c/kWh)
Petrol Liquid 0.72 kg/L 46.4 MJ/kg (34.2 MJ/L) $40/GJ
Diesel Liquid 0.84 kg/L 45.6 MJ/kg (38.6 MJ/L) $40/GJ
LPG Liquid 0.51 kg/L 49.4 MJ/kg (25.7 MJ/L) $27/GJ
Natural Gas Gas 0.67 kg/m3 53.6 MJ/kg (38.7 MJ/m3) $13/GJ
LNG (at −160°C) Liquid 0.41~0.5 kg/L 53.6 MJ/kg (22.2 MJ/L) $20/GJ
CNG (250 bar) Liquid 0.129 kg/L 53.6 MJ/kg (9 MJ/L) $10/GJ
Coal Solid 1.4 t/m3 29.2 MJ/kg $10/GJ
Wood Pellets Solid 0.4-0.8 t/m3 19.8 MJ/kg $8/GJ
5
Emission Factor kg CO2e/GJ
0 50 100 150 200 250
Ethanol 0.26
B100 0.26
Wood 1.28
Biogas 4.8
Methane 4.83
CSG 51.3
LNG 51.3
CNG 51.3
LPG 59.9
ULP 95 67.1
Diesel 69.5
Black c oal 88.4
Brown c oal 93.1
Electricity-‐ Qld 239
Electricity-‐ NSW 244
Figure 1.4: Emission intensities for different types of energy sources (Source: Sandell et al. 2014)
1.1.8 Agricultural emissions and mitigation policy
Globally, agriculture is a major source of energy consumption and therefore greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. Australia is currently the highest per-capita greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting country (24.3t
CO2e/person) in the world. Its agricultural sector accounts for 15% of national GHG emissions and is
the second largest source of emissions (DCCEE, 2012). This proportion is significantly higher than
Central and Eastern Europe (3%), the former Soviet Union (3%), and the USA (5.5%) (Smith et al.
2008).
In order to reduce GHG emissions, the previous Australian Government in 2010 implemented the
carbon trading scheme, entitled a “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” (Department of Climate
Change, 2008). This was abolished by the current Government in 2014, which instead proposed a
Direct Action Plan and allocated $2.55 billion for this purpose (Australian Government, 2014). With
this plan, the government expects agriculture to contribute to Australia’s unconditional national target
of a 5% reduction in GHG emissions by 2020 (Department of Environment, 2014).
1.1.9 Benchmarking and energy research in agriculture
Energy benchmarking and process optimisation is crucial to reduce energy use (AGO, 2006).
Benchmarking has been defined as the “process of comparing products, services, processes and
outcomes with other organisations or exemplars, for the purpose of improving outcomes by
identifying, adapting and implementing best practice approaches” (ECU, 2011). Benchmarks can be
based on groups or individual partners (Barber et al. 2014).
Significant research is being conducted in Australia and in the world on energy efficiency and
renewable energy (Centre for Energy Research, 2004; Warwick HRI, 2007; Chen and Maraseni,
2011; Chen et al. 2014). This includes a large number of journal and conference papers and reports
published every year. A number of books and monographs have also been published. These include:
Pellizzi et al. (1988), Stout (1989), Eastop and Croft (1990), Kitani (1999), and Bundschuh and Chen
(2014).
6
1.2 Research objectives and methodology
1.2.1 Research objectives

The aim of this project is to quantify and benchmark energy uses for key agricultural industries in
Australia. This is the first step in reducing energy use and the associated greenhouse gas emissions
from agriculture.
1.2.2 Research methodology
This project was undertaken at the industry level. The majority of work was a desk-top review,
focusing on data and literature from Australia (Chen et al. 2008; Chen and Baillie, 2009; McHugh, et
al, 2010; Sandell et al. 2013; Chen et al. 2013a; Renouf and Fujita-‐Dimas, 2013; Sandell et al. 2014).
Where appropriate, overseas data was also provided and reviewed, in order to provide a basis for
global comparison.
Relevant expertise within each of the specific industries was also engaged, in order to fill the data and
knowledge gaps in the literature. The energy benchmarks was developed using a combination of
indicators based on either unit area or unit weight, in agreement with the common practice/preference
of the particular industry. Opportunities for further research and energy savings through improved
management and adoption of renewable energy were also identified.
1.3 Report structure
The report was structured into 7 chapters. The first chapter is an introduction which presents the
context and the objectives of the research work. Chapter 7 presents the general conclusions as well as
recommendations for further research.
For the grains industry, three grain crops are selected, including two winter crops (wheat and barley)
and one summer crop (sorghum). Data is analysed for three agro-ecological regions, under both
irrigated and dry-land conditions and under dry-land both for conventional and zero-tillage systems.
For the horticultural industry, the initial three selected crops were: nursery, potato and
grapes. However, it was found that there is little energy data available for grape growing in Australia.
Therefore, it was decided to focus on nursery, potato and tomato instead.
For the dairy sector, most dairy farms in Australia adopt the method of mixed livestock farming and
use pasture-based management systems with some level of supplementary feeding. So this type of
farming system is focused on in this report.
The energy use of pork and chicken meat will be discussed together in Chapter 5, because issues
related to these two industries are fairly similar. Similarly, the energy use of feedlot cattle and wool
sheep industries will also be discussed together, and will be presented in Chapter 6.
7
2 Energy Use in the Grain Sector
2.1 Introduction
2.1.1 Grain industry in Australia
The grain industry plays a vital role in Australia’s economy. The grain industry operates in all states
of Australia and makes a major economic contribution at the national and state levels. Australia
produced over 48.5 million tonnes of grain in 2011-12 (Figure 1). However, in 2012-2013, this fell to
38.7 million tonnes (ABARES, 2013), because of increased climatic variability and volatility of grain
prices (GRDC, 2013).
Figure 2.1: Total grain production and cropping area, 2002–03 to 2012–13 (Source: ABARES, 2013)
2.1.2 Grain farming systems
The grain industry in Australia can be broadly divided into three agro-ecological regions: 1) The
Southern Region covers south-eastern Australia, including central and southern New South Wales,
Victoria, Tasmania, and south-eastern South Australia. Soils in this area are generally poor (low
fertility) with many subsoil constraints, such as salinity, sodicity and toxic levels of some elements; 2)
The Northern Region covers Queensland and northern New South Wales. This region has relatively
good soils but relatively high variability of seasonal rainfall and therefore the production; and 3) The
Western Region covers Western Australia. This region has poor soils and crops yields largely depend
on winter and spring rainfall (GRDC, 2013).
Depending on the availability and price of water for irrigation, grains in these regions are produced
either on irrigated or dryland (rain-fed) conditions. Similarly, for various reasons, many grain growers
under dryland farming method are also moving from the conventional tillage system to reduced or
zero tillage systems, often to hold more moisture in the soil. Under drought conditions, minimum
tillage is recognised as being a more resilient farming practice (FAO, 2012). Most (about 80%) of
grains produced in Australia is by dryland farming method. However, irrigation generally produces
significantly higher (up to 3 times of dryland farming) yield per hectare.
8
2.2 Literature review
2.2.1 Overseas research
Recent international literature on energy use by the arable cropping industry is relatively limited
(Table 2.1). Research by McChesney (1978, 1982), while dated, may still offer one of the most
comprehensive breakdowns of energy consuming activities on an arable cropping farm.
Pellizzi et al. (1988) found that in Europe, for wheat-like cereals, 55-65% of the direct field energy
consumption was attributed to soil tillage, while harvesting took about 25%. They also reported that
the range of field energy consumption for wheat-like cereals varied from 2.5 GJ/ha to 4.3 GJ/ha. For
maize (corn), this was estimated to be between 4.7 and 5.0 GJ/ha, including drying which alone
required 50-60% of the field fuel consumption.
Table 2.1: Grain energy performance data from the published overseas literature
Direct Indirect Total

Energy Energy Energy
Crops Researchers Country
Input Input Input
(GJ/ha) (GJ/ha) (GJ/ha)
Wheat 2.5~4.3 Pellizzi et al. (1988) Europe
Maize (corn) 4.7~5.0 Pellizzi et al. (1988) Europe
Conventional arable 5.8 15.0 20.8 Cormack (2000) UK
Organic arable 3.8 2.3 6.1 Cormack (2000) UK
Wheat 16~32 Tsatsarelis (1993) Greece
Wheat 4.0 12.4 16.4 Pimentel et al. (2002) USA
Wheat (irrigated) 10.9 14.7 25.6 Safa & Samarasinghe (2011) NZ
Wheat (dryland) 3.2 14.3 17.5 Safa & Samarasinghe (2011) NZ
Wheat (irrigated) 24.4 9.8 34.2 Barber (2004b) NZ
Wheat (dryland) 6.9 13.3 20.2 Barber (2004b) NZ
Barley 9.0 Barber (2004b) NZ
Maize (corn) 15~36 Barber (2004b) NZ
Cormack (2000) compared the energy inputs in organic farming with similar conventional systems in
the UK. It was found that organically grown crops require only around 30% of the energy input per
unit area of conventional crops, largely because of lower, or zero, fertiliser and pesticide energy
inputs. However, the generally lower yields of organic crop systems reduce the advantage of organic
methods when energy input is calculated on a unit output basis.
In Greece, the total life cycle energy inputs for soft winter wheat production were found to be between
16 and 26 GJ/ha (Tsatsarelis, 1993). Extra energy inputs of 3 GJ/ha were required for straw
harvesting. The major energy inputs were found to be fertilizers and fuel, amounting to 81–84% of the
total inputs. Wheat yields ranged between 2.5-6 t/ha. Pimentel et al. (2002) found the energy use for
winter wheat production in America was 16.4 GJ/ha, of which 4.0 GJ/ha was the on-farm direct
energy use. Barber (2004b) investigated the energy demands of irrigated arable and dry arable
cropping systems in New Zealand. It was found that the main direct energy inputs were liquid fuels,
most of which were consumed during field operations, and electricity, especially where irrigation was
undertaken. Total energy intensity ranged from around 5 GJ/ha for dry arable farms growing cereals to
34.2 GJ/ha for irrigated wheat (Barber, 2004b). Wheat yields in the NZ dryland operation were 4.3
t/ha. The yield of irrigated wheat was 7.2 t/ha.
9
2.2.2 Australian research
Compared to other parts of the world, energy use data is limited in Australia (Table 2.2). However,
energy use for the production of wheat and barley production was investigated by Khan et al. (2010b),
based on the farm survey data in Coleambally Irrigation Areas (CIA) and Murrumbidgee Irrigation
Area (MIA) of New South Wales. It was found that the total life cycle energy inputs for wheat and
barley are respectively 3028 and 2175 kWh/ha (or 10.9 and 7.8 MJ/ha respectively).
Table 2.2: Grain energy performance data published from Australian research

Input Input Input
Wheat 5.8 5.1 10.9 Khan et al. (2010b) Australia
Barley 5.7 2.1 7.8 Khan et al. (2010b) Australia
Wheat 0.8 Sandell et al. (2013) Australia
Wheat 0.35 Biswas (2008) Australia
Wheat, Barley, Maraseni & Cockfield Australia
0.9~2.5
Sorghum (2011a; 2012)
Sandell et al. (2013) investigated the energy saving opportunities for various farming enterprises in
Western Australia. The energy use data is based on the published data of Western Australian
Agriculture enterprises from the Planfarm Bankwest Benchmarks 2011/12. This was further
complemented by seven case studies of “typical” farming enterprises. It was shown that diesel was by
far the largest (85-90%) on-farm energy source and cost for all enterprises. The average on-farm
energy use was 0.83 GJ per hectare, consisting of 20 L diesel, 1.5 L petrol and 2.4 kWh of electricity.
Biswas (2008) found that this can be as low as 0.35 GJ/ha in south-western Australia.
Maraseni and Cockfield (2011a and 2012) also studied the energy use of wheat, barley and sorghum
crops grown in the Northern region of Australia.
2.3 Research methodology

Based on the discussions in Section 2.1.2, this study developed on-farm energy use benchmarks for all
three agro-ecological regions, under both irrigated and dryland conditions. For dryland farming, both
conventional and zero-tillage systems were considered (Figure 2.2).
Furthermore, given the limitation of time and resources, as suggested by RIRDC, this study was
focused on three high value grain crops.
2.3.1 Selection of top three high value crops
In order to determine the high value grain crops of interest, grain yield data for various years were
taken from ABARES (2014) and are presented in Table 2.3. Similarly, the prices of these grain crops
in seven different time periods were also taken from the data of ABARES (2014) (Appendices 1 and
2).
It can be seen from Table 2.3 that the top three highest valued grain crops are: wheat, barley and
canola. However, canola is mainly used for oil production and therefore the fourth highest valued crop
(sorghum) is selected for this project. The three grain crops finally selected are two winter crops
(wheat and barley) and one summer crop (sorghum).
10
Figure 2.2: Cropping systems and conditions investigated in this project

Table 2.3: Total value of different grain and oilseed crops for five-year to 2012–13
Five-year average to 2012–13 Total

Average domestic
value
Crops Area planted Yield Production prices between
(million
(‘000 ha) (t/ha) (kt) 2012-2013 (A$/t)
A$)
Winter crops
Wheat 13 518 1.82 24,606 292 7185
Barley 4 092 1.96 7,909 267 2112
Canola 2 226 1.20 2,709 548 1485
Chickpeas 490 1.22 586 521 305
Faba beans 154 1.68 264 NA NA
Field peas 286 1.16 330 366 121
Lentils 155 1.29 212 NA NA
Lupins 633 1.19 756 NA NA
Oats 795 1.48 1,165 229 267
Summer crops
Sorghum 630 3.27 2,076 279 579
Corn (maize) 67 5.94 401 339 136
Sunflower 37 1.28 46 523 24
2.3.2 Energy data collection for key farming regions and processes
In this project, a bottom-up approach is taken to estimate the energy uses. Grain farming processes are
first identified. “Typical” farming operation data is then collected from published and unpublished
literature for all three grain zones (northern, southern and western) and for three different tillage types
(irrigated, dryland-zero tillage and dryland-conventional tillage). Where such data is not available,
relevant government organisations and experts have been approached and consulted to fill the data
gaps. A summary of these field operation data is provided in Tables 2.4-2.6, which represent the
typical farming systems and practices in these areas. This data will be used to calculate the on-farm
fuel and energy use later. In all farming operations, it is also assumed that diesel is used.
11
In both Northern and Southern Grain Regions (Tables 2.4 and 2.5), it is noted that: 1) surface/furrow
irrigation is the dominant irrigation system. However, barley in the Northern region is often by
pressured irrigation either with side rolled or by centre pivot and lateral move; and 2) sorghum needs
greater irrigation (7.5 ML/ha) than the two other crops of wheat and barley (2.5 ML/ha). In the case of
Western Australia (Western Grain region), about 90% of grain is produced using zero-till systems.
There are neither irrigated grain crops nor dryland sorghum crops. Thus, irrigation is not assumed to
take place in Western Australia (Table 2.6).
As expected, conventional tillage wheat and barley have more farming activities than zero tillage
systems.
12
Table 2.4: On-farm operation data for three highly valued grain crops in Northern Grain Region (example from Darling Downs region)
Note: Sorghum data was taken from interviews with Mr Gary Sandell, Research Engineer, National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture, University of Southern Queensland; all other data are
taken from Maraseni and Cockfield (2011a and 2012).
Number of times Number of times for Number of times for

Diesel for dry land (conventional tillage) dry land (zero tillage) irrigated land
Farming operation
(L per ha per operation)
Wheat Barley Sorghum Wheat Barley Sorghum Wheat Barley Sorghum
Primary tillage 18 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Secondary tillage 8 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fertiliser application 5 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0
Boom spraying 2.25 1 2 1 6 6 3 5 2 0
Planting 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Aerial spray 3 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2
Harvesting diesel L/ha)* 6.6 8.1 8.0 6.6 8.1 8.0 12.9 12.9 11.5
2.5 ML 2.5 ML 2.93 ML
Type of irrigation and amount of water used
(furrow) (side roll) (furrow)
Table 2.5: On-farm operation data for highly valued grain crops in Southern Grain Region (example from Victoria)
Note: Source: *Amount of diesel used for each operation was taken from Maraseni and Cockfield (2011a and 2012). Number of times of different farming operation for dryland (zero till)
sorghum was taken from interviews with Mr Gary Sandell (Research Engineer, National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture, University of Southern Queensland). This value is for a typical
farm in Tamworth, NSW. The rest of the data was taken from Darryl Pearl (Project Officer, Productive Soils (Mallee/Wimmera), Rural Recovery Coordinator Mallee, FSV Grains Agriculture
Productivity, Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Victoria). The numbers in the brackets are averages of given values and they are used for further analysis. ** The amounts of
water for irrigated crops were taken from DPI Victoria (2010). Most of the irrigation in Victoria is surface irrigation (pers comm with Dr S Mushtaq, Deputy Director, International Centre for
Applied Climate Sciences, University of Southern Queensland).
Number of times Number of times for Number of times for

Diesel (L per ha per for dry land (conventional tillage) dry land (zero tillage) irrigated land
Farming operation
operation)*
Primary tillage 18 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Secondary tillage 8 0-3 (1.5) 0-3 (1.5) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fertiliser application 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Boom spraying 2.25 1 1 1 0-5 (2.5) 0-5 (2.5) 2 0-5 (2.5) 0-5 (2.5) 0
Planting 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Aerial spray 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
Harvesting (diesel L/ha)* 6.6 8.1 8.0 6.6 8.1 8.0 12.9 12.9 11.5
2.5 ML 2.5 ML 7.5 ML
Type of irrigation and amount of water used **
(surface) (surface) (surface)
13
Table 2.6: On-farm operation data for highly valued grain crops in Western Grain Region (Western Australia)
Note: Data was obtained from interviews with Glen Riethmuller, Development Officer, Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia, Dryland Research Institute, WA.
Diesel Number of times for dry land Number of times for Number of times for
Farming operation (L per ha per (conventional tillage) dry land (zero tillage) irrigated land
operation) Wheat Barley Sorghum Wheat Barley Sorghum Wheat Barley Sorghum
Primary tillage 5 1 1 NA 0 0 NA NA NA NA
Secondary tillage 0 0 0 NA 0 0 NA NA NA NA
Fertiliser application 0 0 0 NA 0 0 NA NA NA NA
Boom spraying 0.5 3 3 NA 3 3 NA NA NA NA
Planting 4 1 1 NA 1 1 NA NA NA NA
Aerial spray NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Harvesting (diesel L/ha) 5 5 NA 5 5 NA NA NA NA
Type of irrigation and amount of water used NA NA NA
14
2.4 Results and discussions
In the following Section 2.4.1, the fuel (diesel) consumption data (L/ha) for tillage and other field
operations will firstly be presented. No fuel use for irrigation is included.
Subsequently in Section 2.4.2, by using the energy conversion factors, the fuel uses will be converted
into energy values (GJ/ha). The energy use due to irrigation pumping is now also included. For diesel,
the energy conversion factor of 38.6 GJ/kL is used (DCC, 2009). It is also assumed that about 60 MJ
of energy is used per mega-litre (ML) water pumped per meter total dynamic head. This means about
0.5 GJ of energy will be used for each ML of water under surface irrigation. The corresponding value
for pressured irrigation is 0.775 GJ/ML (Jacob, 2006). Therefore, energy conversion factors of 0.5
GJ/ML and 0.775 GJ/ML are used respectively for surface irrigation and pressured irrigation systems
in this project.
In Section 2.4.3, relevant options of irrigation energy savings will be discussed, as irrigation energy is
an important component of energy in irrigated crops and also in other industries.
2.4.1 Fuel consumption (irrigation fuel use not included)
Tables 2.7-2.9 present fuel (diesel) consumption data for three high value grain crops in Northern,
Southern and Western Grain Regions, respectively. No fuel use for irrigation is included in these
tables. Table 2.10 presents the summary of all the fuel consumption data.
in Northern Grain Region (Example from Darling Downs region)
Fuel consumption (L/ha)

Farming Fuel consumption (L/ha) Fuel consumption (L/ha)
for dry land
operation for dry land (zero tillage) for irrigated land
(conventional tillage)
Primary tillage 18 18 0 0 0 0 0 18 18
Secondary tillage 24 16 8 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fertiliser application 5 0 0 5 0 5 5 5 0
Boom spraying 2.3 4.5 2.3 13.5 13.5 6.8 11.3 4.5 0
Planting 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Aerial spray 3 0 0 3 3 0 3 0 6
Harvest 6.6 8.1 8 6.6 8.1 8 12.9 12.9 11.5
Total diesel (L/ha) 63.9 51.6 23.4 33.1 29.6 24.8 37.2 45.4 40.5
in Southern Grain Region (example from Victoria)

for dry land
Primary tillage 18.0 18.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Secondary tillage 12.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Fertiliser application 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Boom spraying 2.3 2.3 2.3 5.6 5.6 4.5 5.6 5.6 0.0
Planting 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Aerial spray 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
15
Harvest 6.6 8.1 8.0 6.6 8.1 8.0 12.9 12.9 11.5
Total diesel (L/ha) 48.9 50.4 15.3 17.2 18.7 23.5 23.5 23.5 16.5
in Western Grain Region

for dry land
Primary tillage 5.0 5.0 NA 0.0 0.0 NA NA NA NA
Secondary tillage 0.0 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 NA NA NA NA
Fertiliser application 0.0 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 NA NA NA NA
Boom spraying 1.5 1.5 NA 1.5 1.5 NA NA NA NA
Planting 4.0 4.0 NA 4.0 4.0 NA NA NA NA
Aerial spray 0.0 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 NA NA NA NA
Harvest 5.0 5.0 NA 5.0 5.0 NA NA NA NA
Total diesel (L/ha) 15.50 15.5 NA 10.50 10.5 NA NA NA NA
Table 2.10: A summary of fuel consumption (diesel, L/ha) data (except for irrigation) for three high
value grain crops
Fuel consumption (L/ha) Fuel consumption (L/ha)

Cropping region by dryland farming by irrigated farming
Conventional tillage Zero tillage Irrigated farming
Northern Region 63.9 51.6 23.3 17.2 18.7 23.5 37.2 45.4 40.5
Southern Region 48.9 50.4 15.3 33.1 29.6 24.8 23.5 23.5 16.5
Western Region 15.5 15.5 NA 10.5 10.5 NA NA NA NA
Average of all
42.7 39.2 19.3 20.3 19.6 24.1 30.3 34.5 28.5
three regions
It can be seen from Table 2.10 that the highest amounts of diesel for farming operations (other than
irrigation diesel) are required by the wheat and barley farming systems, both under the conventional
tillage system in Northern Grain Region, followed by the same crops under a similar tillage system in
Southern Grain Region. Western Region grains require the least amount of diesel. This is mainly due
to the prevalence of sandy soil and lower number of farming activities in no-till systems. Sandy soil is
in general easier to work with. Therefore, it requires less fuel than other soils. For example, on
average, a primary tillage in Northern and Southern Australian soils may require up to 18 L of diesel,
whereas 5 L of diesel could be enough for the same tillage area in sandy soils in Western Australia
(Tables 2.4-2.6).
By getting the average of all three regions, it can be found (Table 2.10) that wheat (42.7 L/ha) and
barley (39.2 L/ha) under the dryland conventional tillage system requires the highest amounts of
diesel, followed by sorghum (19.3 L/ha). The corresponding numbers using the zero tillage system are
respectively 20.3, 19.6, 24.1 L/ha, noting that WA does not have sorghum crops.
When irrigation is practised, the required average energy inputs for field operations (except for
irrigation fuel) are 34.5 L/ha (barley), 30.3 L/ha (wheat) and 28.5 L/ha (sorghum).
As expected, the zero tillage system requires the least amount of “on-farm diesel usage” among all
crops (McLaughlin et al. 2008; Tullberg, 2000).
16
2.4.2 Energy consumption (irrigation fuel use included)
By using the energy conversion factors, the fuel uses in Tables 2.7-2.9 are now converted into energy
values. Tables 2.11-2.13 present the detailed energy consumption data. Irrigation pumping energy use
has been included in these tables. Table 2.14 presents a summary of these results.
Table 2.11: Energy consumption (GJ/ha) for three high value grain crops in Northern Grain Region
Energy consumption Energy consumption

Energy consumption (GJ/ha)
(GJ/ha) for dry land (GJ/ha)
Farming operation for dry land (zero tillage)
(conventional tillage) For irrigated land
Primary tillage 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7
Boom spraying 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.0
Planting 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Aerial spray 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2
Harvest 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.4
Tot diesel energy 2.5 2.0 0.9 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.4 1.8 1.6
Tot irrigation energy 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.9 1.5
Grand total 2.5 2.0 0.9 1.3 1.1 1.0 2.7 3.7 3.0
Share of irrigation 47% 53% 48%
Table 2.12: Energy consumption (GJ/ha) for three high value grain crops in Southern Grain Region
Energy consumption Energy consumption Energy consumption

(GJ/ha) for dry land (GJ/ha) (GJ/ha)
Farming operation
(conventional tillage) For dry land (zero tillage) For irrigated land
Primary tillage 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Boom spraying 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0
Planting 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Aerial spray 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Harvest 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.4
Tot diesel energy 1.9 1.9 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.6
Tot irrigation energy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.3 3.8
Grand total 1.9 1.9 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.9 2.2 2.2 4.4
Table 2.13: Energy consumption (GJ/ha) for three highly valued grain crops in Western Grain Region
Energy consumption Energy consumption Energy consumption

(GJ/ha) for dry land (GJ/ha) (GJ/ha)
Farming operation (conventional tillage) For dry land (zero tillage) For irrigated land
Primary tillage 0.2 0.2 NA 0.0 0.0 NA NA NA NA
Secondary tillage 0.0 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 NA NA NA NA
Fertiliser application 0.0 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 NA NA NA NA
Boom spraying 0.1 0.1 NA 0.1 0.1 NA NA NA NA
17
Planting 0.2 0.2 NA 0.2 0.2 NA NA NA NA
Aerial spray 0.0 0.0 NA 0.0 0.0 NA NA NA NA
Harvest 0.2 0.2 NA 0.2 0.2 NA NA NA NA
Total diesel energy 0.7 0.7 NA 0.5 0.5 NA NA NA NA
Table 2.14: Energy consumption (GJ/ha) from different sources for three high value crops
Energy consumption
Energy consumption Energy consumption
(GJ/ha) for irrigated
Energy (GJ/ha) for dry land (GJ/ha) for dry land
land
consumption
Conventional tillage Zero tillage Irrigated farming
Northern Grain Region
Total diesel energy 2.5 2.0 0.9 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.4 1.8 1.6
Total irrigation
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.9 1.5
energy
Grand total 2.5 2.0 0.9 1.3 1.1 1.0 2.7 3.7 3.0
Southern Grain Region
Total diesel energy 1.9 1.9 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.6
Total irrigation
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.3 3.8
energy
Grand total 1.9 1.9 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.9 2.2 2.2 4.4
Western Grain Region
Total diesel (GJ/ha) 0.6 0.6 NA 0.4 0.4 NA NA NA NA
Average of grand
totals for all three 1.7 1.5 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 2.2 2.9 3.7
regions
It can be seen from Table 2.14 that when irrigation is practiced, it will require the highest amounts of
diesel fuel energy for all three crops. Australia wide, the highest amount of energy is required for
sorghum crops (4.4 GJ/ha) grown under irrigated systems in the Southern Grain region, followed by
barley (3.7 GJ/ha) and sorghum (3.0 GJ/ha) grown under irrigation in the Northern Grain region.
Irrigation related energy also accounts for a higher proportion of total on-farm direct energy use for
all grains in Southern Grain region than that of their counterparts in the Northern Grain region.
In both Southern and Northern regions, both wheat and barley require the same amount of irrigation
water (2.5 ML/ha), but sorghum requires a higher amount of irrigation water especially in the
Southern Grain region (7.5 ML/ha). The most common irrigation system in both regions is surface
irrigation. However, pressured irrigation is the most common irrigation system for barley in Northern
Grain region. Because a pressured irrigation system requires a higher amount of energy than surface
irrigation system, barley in the Northern Grain region thus consumes higher amounts of energy than
wheat and barley in Southern region. Therefore, sorghum in Southern Grain region requires the
highest amount of irrigation related energy (3.8 GJ/ha), followed by barley in Northern Grain region
(1.9 GJ/ha).
18
2.4.3 Factors influencing on-farm irrigation energy use
A number of factors can impact on-farm energy consumption. When irrigation is practised, the energy
use associated with water pumping could make up more than 50% of the total on-site direct energy
use. Several factors will need to be considered to reduce the energy use by irrigation.
Surface vs. pressured irrigation
Firstly, in most of the grain regions discussed above, surface irrigation is used. In terms of energy
consumption, this is more efficient because it requires a lower amount of irrigation energy per ML.
Converting surface irrigation systems to more water-efficient pressurised systems is often promoted to
improve water use efficiency (Green et al. 1996; Zehnder et al. 2003; Lal 2004; Jacob, 2006; Jackson
et al. 2010, Jackson and Hanjra, 2014). However, these pressurised systems may increase energy
consumption. For example, it is identified that savings of up to 91 GL of water are possible through
the conversion of surface irrigation systems to sprinkler irrigation for 73,000 ha of grain or seed crops
in Australia. However, this would increase energy consumption by up to 1253 GJ (Shahbaz et al.
2013; Shahbaz and Maraseni, 2011). Therefore, farmers and policy makers alike would need to be
mindful of the cumulative impacts and potential unintended consequences of switching irrigation
technology. Further research is also required, taking into account the water-food-energy-climate nexus
and life cycle impact (Page et al. 2012; Bundschuh et al. 2014; Eady et al. 2014). An energy and water
trade-off analysis may be necessary (Jacob, 2006; Mushtaq and Maraseni, 2011, Mushtaq et al. 2013).
Diesel vs. electricity irrigation pumping
Secondly, for crop growing, the most common irrigation pumps are diesel-based. Electricity-based
water pumping systems have lower on-site energy consumption rates than diesel-based water
pumping systems. However, this may be offset by the higher energy cost per GJ for electricity (Table
1.3). The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions factor for electricity (244 kgCO2e/GJ) in Australia is also
much higher than that of diesel (69.9 kgCO2e/GJ), making diesel the preferable option from a
greenhouse perspective (Fig.1.4). Although diesel pumps emit less GHG, there are additional costs
associated with the use of diesel. For example, the working life of a diesel pump is typically 7000-
15000 hours but for an electric pump it is almost infinite. Maintenance costs for a diesel pump are
almost double that of an electric pump. Furthermore, diesel pumps are more labour intensive (you
need to go to the field to operate while electric pumps can be operated remotely) (Shahbaz and
Maraseni, 2011). Farmers are also concerned about the other emissions such as particulates that may
create health problems. Therefore, overall, where possible, farmers may often prefer to use electric
pumps. This factor will need to be considered while making a decision on fuel selection for pumping
irrigation water.
Opportunities for irrigation pumping energy savings
Previous research has identified that there is a significant potential to save irrigation pumping energy
through improved design and operations. Pathak and Bining (1985) and Chen et al. (2009) showed
that for irrigation, fuel savings of 50% could be realistically achieved per ML of water pumped
through improvements in irrigation equipment and water management practices. In the USA, energy
efficiency audits on irrigation systems have on average identified savings of at least 10% of the
energy bill – and in many instances up to 40%. Very often, the irrigators who owned these inefficient
systems were unaware of any problems. The National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture (NCEA)
at the University of Southern Queensland has developed a Pump Efficiency Monitor for use in the
irrigation industry (Szabo et al. 2013), and has again demonstrated fuel saving opportunities of up to
over 50% for per ML of water pumped.
19
2.5 Conclusions and recommendations
2.5.1 Conclusions
The grain industry plays a vital role in Australia’s economy. In this chapter, grain farming processes
have been identified. “Typical” farming operation data has also been collected from several sources
including published and unpublished literature as well as expert interviews. The benchmark on-farm
energy uses (Table 2.15) have also been established for 27 scenarios, including three high value grain
crops - wheat, barley and sorghum - for three regions (Northern, Southern and Western) under three
farming conditions with both dryland (both for conventional and zero-tillage) and irrigated conditions.
Table 2.15: Benchmark energy consumption from three different grain crops
Crops Wheat Barley Sorghum

Benchmark on-farm direct energy use (GJ/ha) 0.4-2.7 0.4-3.7 0.6-4.4
It has been found that energy requirements for farming operations is directly related to the intensity
and frequency of farming operations, which in turn is related to tillage practices, soil types, irrigation
systems, local climate, and crop types.
As expected, fuel input in grain production in dryland systems is less than in irrigated systems. The
highest amount of energy is required for sorghum crops (4.4 GJ/ha) grown under irrigated systems in
the Southern Grain region, followed by barley (3.7 GJ/ha) and sorghum (3.0 GJ/ha) grown under
irrigation in the Northern Grain region. Under dryland conditions, crops under zero tillage require less
energy per hectare for each crop than conventional tillage. Among the three regions, Western
Australia requires less energy for each crop, mainly due to easily workable sandy soils. The lowest
energy requirements (0.4 GJ/ha) are wheat and barley grown in dryland by zero tillage methods in
Western Australia. This data gives significant insights for energy use by different crops in different
farming systems, and is also broadly consistent with the data obtained from other research as shown in
Tables 2.1 and 2.2.
2.5.2 Energy saving opportunities
In addition to the opportunities for irrigation pumping energy savings, several recent reviews of on-
farm energy efficiency (Chen et al. 2008; Tullberg, 2000; Sims, 2014; Sandall et al. 2014) have
highlighted that there are a number of effective technologies and methods available to farmers to
reduce inputs while still maintaining or improving yield.
For example, it can be seen from the comparison of Tables 2.11-2.13 that in all cultivation types,
crops grown in Western Australia require the least amount of energy compared with their counterparts
in other regions. This is mainly because farmers in WA already practice either reduced or zero tillage.
This finding is in agreement with Maraseni and Cockfield (2011a) and also Baillie (2009), who
compared energy use from three scenarios on Keytah farm (Moree, NSW) and concluded that the
reduced and zero tillage operations could result in 12% and 24% energy savings.
Other opportunities also exist. The majority of these benefits may come under the banner of Precision
Agriculture (PA) using modern field equipment with satellite navigation, with many case studies
available (Sandall et al. 2014). The major barriers to adoption of these technologies are the relatively
high capital costs and the inability to guarantee results. However, the latter issue is being overcome as
PA technologies are maturing quickly. There are also significant opportunities for energy savings,
particularly through the implementation of integrated pest management techniques that can reduce the
volume of spray used and the energy required to apply it (Frater, 2004). Similarly, improvements in
water application efficiency will result in less water being pumped for the same result. Improvements
in water application efficiency will result in a larger crop area for a given quantity of energy or water.
20
2.5.3 Recommendations for further research
Energy consumption for on-farm cropping activities largely depend on factors such as tillage
practices, irrigation type (surface, sprinkler etc.), water source (surface or ground water), depth of
ground water, soil type (sandy, clayey, loamy) and pump types (electricity-based or diesel-based).
Australia being a diverse continent, these factors not only vary between the grain regions, but also
vary within a grain region. However, in this study, only the most common (“average farm”) attributes
are considered for each region which may not necessarily reflect specific areas within the region.
Therefore, more research across a larger number of sites is recommended in order to determine if the
results found in this project are sufficiently indicative of the given region. Furthermore, given the
large area of grain cropping in Australia, the potential of overall energy saving and the reductions of
GHG emissions should also be quantified. This should be particularly useful for policy development.
In irrigated crops, irrigation energy has been identified as a major contributor (47-86%) of total
energy use. It is noted that farmers are now increasingly utilising pressurised irrigation systems
powered by electricity. Therefore, identifying strategies that are both water and energy efficient would
be a matter of priority for further research.
Furthermore, in order to improve the sustainability of food production, a complete life cycle analysis
may be needed (Grant and Beer, 2008; Chen et al. 2010; Chen et al. 2013a; Renouf and Fujita-‐
Dimas, 2013). This is because energy is not only consumed for the direct on-farm operations such as
cultivation, fertilising, irrigating and harvesting activities, but also indirectly for production, storage
and transportation of several other farm inputs such as machinery, fertiliser, herbicides, insecticides,
fungicides, and plant regulator etc. The first part, also called direct energy, is covered by this study
but the second part, called indirect energy, is not covered. The latter may account for up to 50-80% of
the total energy input in some agricultural products (Grant and Beer, 2008; Chen et al. 2013a).
Finally, there is also the opportunity to produce gas and fuels from on-farm waste and biomass to
create a quasi ‘closed cycle’ grain production in Australia. Farmers produce wheat, for which the
waste straw and chaff can be sold to a bioenergy plant operator to convert it to useful heat for sale or
use on the farm (Bogdanski et al. 2010). However, to date, no detailed research has been conducted to
take up this opportunity in the grain industry of Australia. In comparison, Chen et al. (2013b)
identified that subject to economic evaluation, the cotton industry in Australia would be able to
produce more energy than it needs for its on-farm operations. Through the production of bio-fuels and
bio-energy, agriculture can potentially contribute to energy security, farming incomes and carbon
sequestration and pollution reduction.
21
3 Energy Use in the Horticultural Sector
3.1 Horticultural industry in Australia
Horticulture is one of the fastest growing industries in Australia. According to ABS report (2013), the
gross value of production (GVP) of Australian horticulture was $8.7 billion in 2011-12, ranking the
third highest behind the meat and grain industries. This industry has also employed an average of
108,000 people annually, or 1.1% of national employment and the equivalent of 25% of agricultural
employment (http://www.ihc2014.org/horticulture.html).
Australian horticulture is diverse, incorporating 140 commodities, including vegetables, fruits, nuts,
table and wine grapes, nursery plants, turf, cut flowers and extractive crops etc. Among them, fruit
and nuts contribute the highest gross value ($4,090 million), followed by vegetables ($3,338 million)
and “nursery, flower and turf” ($1,271 million) (ABS, 2013).
Like other crops, horticultural crop production requires various forms of energy for planting, applying
agrochemicals (fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides and fungicides), irrigating, crop cultivation,
harvesting, refrigeration, processing and transport. The horticultural sector in Australia accounts for
about 6% of the total agricultural greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions whereas vegetable industry
accounts for close to 60% of the total GHG emissions within the horticultural sector (Deuter, 2008).

3.2.1 Project scope
Given the limitation of project time and resources, and as suggested and agreed by RIRDC, this study
only developed on-farm energy benchmark for three top high value horticultural crops in Australia.
In this study, the energy benchmarking was also limited to farm gate. Energy required for post-
farming operations such as transportation, storage, processing and marketing was generally not
considered.
3.2.2 Selection of top three high value crops
Production and price information for horticultural crops for 2013 was not available at the time of
writing this report. However, this information is available for years 2011-12. Table 3.1 shows the
GVPs breakdowns of some major individual commodities in 2011-12 (ABS, 2013).
Table 3.1: Values of some horticultural crops in 2011-12
Crop Value
Grapes $1,041 million
Potatoes $626 million
Bananas $466 million
Apples $464 million
Tomatoes $352 million
Oranges $301 million
Mushrooms $267 million
Strawberries $235 million
22
Carrots $215 million
Onions $212 million
Melon $165 million
Lettuce $129 million
For this study, initially three horticultural crops (grapes, potatoes and nurseries) were selected for
energy benchmarking. However, due to the unavailability (to the authors of this report) of energy data
for grape farming in Australia, it was decided to replace it with another highly produced vegetable
crop, i.e., tomatoes, for which some on-farm energy data is available. Therefore, the final three
selected horticultural crops for this study are: nurseries, potatoes and tomatoes (Although we are
aware that the Winemakers’ Federation of Australia, South Australian Wine Industry Association and
the Winegrape Council of SA have jointly developed the Australian Wine Carbon Calculator for
measuring carbon footprints from Australian wineries, and thus might have some energy and
greenhouse gas data for the local grape industry, we have not been able to have access to this data.
During the work of this project, we were however able to find some overseas data for grape
production, which is now attached in Appendix 3 of this report).
3.2.3 Process identification and data collection method for the nursery
industry
The nursery industry is often an energy intensive operation (Schmidt et al. 2010). Most of the
nurseries in Australia utilise greenhouse systems for production. The types of fossil fuels used for the
greenhouse could be different and moreover so will be their energy consumption. In this study, the
typical farming and production processes in the nursery industry are first identified. Energy uses in
the nursery industry may include heating, irrigation and various machinery operations. Farming
operation data is extracted from available literature (Schmidt et al. 2010; Chen et al. 2011), in which
five case study data is available. A brief snapshot of these five nurseries is given in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2: Key attributes of five different nurseries in Queensland
Attributes Nursery A Nursery B Nursery C Nursery D Nursery E

Location Brisbane Brisbane Sunshine Coast Sunshine Coast Brisbane
Total 8 ha in 2
18 ha, 2.5 ha sites. This
4 ha, of which 8 ha, 5 ha of which 25 ha, 3.5 ha of
of which is audit considers
Land area 1.5 ha is used is used for which is used for
used for only the 5 ha
for production production production
production main office
site
Annual
$1.1 m $3 m Not available Not available Not available
turnover
Main plant A wide variety
Not available Not available Fruit trees Ferns
varieties of plants
Electricity, Electricity,
Source of Electricity, LPG Electricity, LPG
Electricity only LPG gas and petrol, LPG
energy gas and diesel gas and diesel
diesel gas & diesel
There are 3 There are 7 plastic
There are 2 glasshouses, with houses (6 x 120 Fibreglass,
small their areas being m2 & 1 x 3000 solar weave
There are 8
glasshouses 2000, 3000 and m2). The 6 and salon cloth
plastic houses,
(propagation 4000 m2 smaller houses are buildings as
Glass/plastic with a total
houses) heated respectively. One is heated by well as a large
houses area of 1.2 ha.
by two hot heated by a gas electricity, while outside
water heaters boiler, while the the large one by a growing area.
other two by LPG gas boiler
Pumps & 2 machinery sheds 5 pumps, 3 There are 3 1 potting
23
machinery for mixing and working & two pumps being machine,
potting are for back-up used regularly. 1 mixer and
several pumps
In these nurseries, each covers a total area of 4 ha to 25 ha, with their production area limited to up to
5 ha. Nursery E produces varieties of plants, whereas Nursery D specialises in a high value fern crop.
The main energy sources for these nurseries are diesel, electricity, petrol and LPG gas. All the
nurseries have between 2 and 8 glass/plastic greenhouses.
3.2.4 Process identification and data collection method for the potato and
tomato industries
In this section, typical farming processes of potato and tomato production are first identified. Farming
operation data are then collected from several sources of available literature, including some national
level studies (Maraseni et al. 2010; Rab et al. 2008). Using data from several sources, Maraseni et al.
(2010) estimated the national GHG emissions for 23 key vegetables crops grown in Australia,
including potatoes and tomatoes (Table 3.3). Similarly, Rab et al. (2008) undertook a preliminary
carbon footprint analysis for the Australian vegetable industry based on readily available data.
Potatoes
The studies of both Maraseni et al. (2010a) and Rab et al. (2008) are national level investigations and
do not include the details on fuel and electricity use for different farming operations. Thus, in order to
fill these data gaps, in the case of potatoes, data of two case study examples from NSW were taken
and extracted. The NSW Department of Primary Industries (2013) has developed gross margin
budgets for potatoes grown in NSW. The budget shows that there are differences in gross margins, the
frequency and duration of farming operations and amount of irrigation water uses between the
potatoes grown in summer and winter. Based on this data, the study then estimated the fuel used per
hour, the amount of time taken for each farming activities (hr/ha), the amount of irrigation water used
and the type of irrigation system for summer and winter potatoes. The most common irrigation system
in NSW is electricity-based central pivot system (pers comm with Dr Shahbaz Mushtaq, University of
Southern Queensland), which on average may require 0.4 GJ of energy for each ML of water.
Tomatoes
The typical farming and production processes in the tomato industry are also identified. Gross
margins data for tomatoes are available from the NSW DPI website. However, the data is in a form
which precludes meaningful estimates of the amounts and types of fuel used for the different farming
operations.
Page et al. (2011) provided an estimation of on-farm energy use from tomato farming operations. This
was conducted as part of a life cycle assessment into tree typical tomato production systems in
Australia: 1) field production in Bundaberg, Queensland; 2) low-tech greenhouse production system
in Sydney; and 3) medium-tech greenhouse production system in Sydney. The last two systems were
categorised on the basis of the level of automation and yields. The low-tech system uses LPG fired
burners to circulate hot air in the greenhouses whereas the mid-tech system uses a coal-fired boiler to
heat water through pipes in the greenhouses. Tomato cropping cycles for the low-tech and medium-
tech Sydney greenhouse systems are about 5-6 months (usually in summer months) and 10 to
11months, respectively. In comparison, Queensland’s field production system operates throughout the
year (with a cropping cycle of 3 to 6 months depending upon the season) and uses a drip irrigation
system.
On the basis of information provided by Page et al. (2011), the direct on-farm energy uses for these
three tomato production systems were estimated in this report.
24
Table 3.3: On-farm diesel and irrigation energy use for 23 key vegetables in Australia (Source: Maraseni et al. 2010a).
Total
Energy Energy Irrigation Energy for Energy for Energy for Energy
Production Diesel Diesel Diesel energy
Crop Area (ha) from diesel from diesel water irrigation irrigation irrigation consumed
(t) (kL) (L/ha) (L/t) consumed
(GJ/ha) (GJ/t) (ML) (GJ) (GJ/ha) (GJ/t) (GJ/t)
(GJ/ha)
Asparagus 1,302 5,609 548 421 98 16.25 3.78 10,416 41,664 32 7.43 48.25 11.21
Beans, French and runner 4,978 28,844 1,206 242 42 9.34 1.62 29,868 119,472 24 4.14 33.34 5.76
Beetroot 1,279 40,765 108 84 3 3.24 0.12 7,035 28,138 22 0.69 25.24 0.81
Broccoli 7,135 46,031 1,387 194 30 7.49 1.16 42,810 171,240 24 3.72 31.49 4.88
Cabbages 2,020 81,563 818 405 10 15.63 0.39 8,080 32,320 16 0.40 31.63 0.79
Capsicums (excluding
2,156 56,313 943 437 17 16.87 0.66 17,248 68,992 32 1.23 48.87 1.89
chillies)
Carrots 5,715 271,464 769 135 3 5.21 0.12 31,433 125,730 22 0.46 27.21 0.58
Cauliflowers 3,580 69,793 354 99 5 3.82 0.19 14,320 57,280 16 0.82 19.82 1.01
Celery 991 48,542 240 242 5 9.34 0.19 5,946 23,784 24 0.49 33.34 0.68
Chillies (excluding
163 1,957 39 239 20 9.23 0.77 978 3,912 24 2.00 33.23 2.77
capsicums)
Cucumbers 577 41,931 140 243 3 9.38 0.12 3,462 13,848 24 0.33 33.38 0.45
Green peas-fresh pod wt 277 15,232 67 242 4 9.34 0.15 1662 6648 24 0.44 33.34 0.59
Green peas (shelled-wt) 3,354 533 812 242 1523 9.34 58.79 20,124 80,496 24 151.02 33.34 209.81
Lettuces 10,011 271,251 3,487 348 13 13.43 0.50 40,044 160,176 16 0.59 29.43 1.09
Melon -Rock & cantaloupe 2,628 68,105 362 138 5 5.33 0.19 10,512 42,048 16 0.62 21.33 0.81
Melon –Water 4,421 136,861 1,074 243 8 9.38 0.31 35,368 141,472 32 1.03 41.38 1.34
Mushrooms 181 42,739 44 243 1 9.38 0.04 1,086 4,344 24 0.10 33.38 0.14
Onions 5,413 246,496 798 147 3 5.67 0.12 32,478 129,912 24 0.53 29.67 0.65
Potatoes 34,096 1,211,988 4,033 118 3 4.55 0.12 136,384 545,536 16 0.45 20.55 0.57
Pumpkins 5,968 102,505 406 68 4 2.62 0.15 47,744 190,976 32 1.86 34.62 2.01
Sweet corn 5,942 62,575 2,070 348 33 13.43 1.27 47,536 190,144 32 3.04 45.43 4.31
Tomatoes 7,293 296,035 3,013 413 10 15.94 0.39 43,758 175,032 24 0.59 39.94 0.98
Zucchini and button squash 2,438 23,704 672 276 28 10.65 1.08 19,504 78,016 32 3.29 42.65 4.37
25
3.3.1 Nursery
By collecting and collating information, energy benchmark was developed for five Queensland
nurseries by Schmidt et al. (2010) and Chen et al. (2011). This data (Table 3.2) will be used as the
basis of discussion in this report.
A study was also undertaken to determine the energy used for greenhouse heating in the vegetable and
flower industry in New Zealand (Barber, 2004a). It was found that average energy use in the North
Island is 1,210 MJ/m2 (12100 GJ/ha) while it is 1,830 MJ/m2 (18300 GJ/ha) in the South Island (Table
3.4). Energy use was strongly influenced by management practice, regional location, the type and age
of greenhouse, and the type of crop being grown. Generally, smaller operations were less energy
intensive, possibly due to capital constraints.
Table 3.4: Horticulture energy performance data from the published literature

Input Input Input
Greenhouse nursery 12100-18300 Barber (2004a) NZ
Greenhouse nursery 20000 Vox (2010) Italy
Open-field potato 20.55 Rab et al. (2008) Australia
Open-field potato 21.3 38.7 60 Barber (2004b) NZ
Open-field potato 25.6 26.3 51.9 White (1975) UK
Greenhouse tomato 10000-20000 CAE (1996) NZ
Greenhouse tomato 25.2 4.1 29.3 Albright & de Villiers (2008) USA
Greenhouse tomato 53.4 53.3 106.7 Hatirli et al. (2006) Turkey
3.3.2 Potatoes
Norton (2008) studied the environmental sustainability in the processing potato industry in Australia
It was found that the main emitters of GHG in potato growing were: fertiliser (24.9-55.9% of
emissions), diesel use (25.9-39.5%), agri-chemical use (3.5-8.9%), infrastructure (10.7-15.9%) and
electricity (0-19.1%).
LCA studies have also been reported on potatoes production in southern Sweden and in the UK
(Mattsson and Wallén, 2003; Williams et al. 2006). Mattsson and Wallén (2003) suggested that
organic cultivation is considerably less energy intensive. In contrast, energy input is reported to be the
same for organic and conventional production (Williams et al. 2006). Mass of the product was used as
the functional unit in both studies.
Barber (2004b) showed that total energy inputs into potato production were similar in NZ with
American findings at around 60 GJ/ha, of which 21.3 GJ/ha was on-farm direct energy. The yield was
16.1 t/ha. This was in comparison with a national mean average yield of 36 t/ha in Australia.
3.3.3 Tomatoes
Tomatoes in Australia are grown either in the field or in the greenhouse. Depending upon the level of
technology and the yields, three types of greenhouses are identified: the low-technology (low-tech),
medium technology (med-tech) and high technology (hi-tech) (Page et al. 2011).
26
When growing tomatoes, energy inputs can vary between 20-45 MJ/kg of produce (or 1-2 GJ/m2 or
10000-20000 GJ/ha) (CAE, 1996), the range reflecting climatic variations and the need for additional
heating, mainly required at night during winter periods, though to maintain optimum temperatures for
plant growth at other times. Albright and de Villiers (2008) established that producing locally in
heated greenhouses in the New York area requires about 49.3 MJ/kg for out-of-season tomatoes and
only 3.4 MJ/kg in unheated high tunnels for seasonal production in Mexico whereas the trucking
energy over the 4,000 km from Mexico into New York State needs 10 MJ/kg. These figures are also
quite comparable to a French study, where 31.6 MJ/kg is required on average for heating only for out-
of-season tomatoes and 5.13 MJ/kg for seasonal unheated production (Boulard et al. 2011). In
general, crops grown in glass or plastic cladded greenhouses can have energy intensity demands up to
10 to 20 or more times that of the same crops when grown in open fields (Saunders and Hayes, 2009).
3.4 Results and discussions

3.4.1 Nursery
Today’s Australian nursery industry is often a labour, water and energy intensive industry. By
collecting and collating machinery and energy use data for five small-to medium nurseries, energy
benchmarking was developed by Schmidt et al., (2010) and Chen et al. (2011). A summary of energy
data for all five nurseries is presented in Table 3.5. The detailed breakdowns of energy data for
various activities for individual nurseries are also given in Tables 3.6-3.10, where the raw energy data
from different sources has been converted into the standard energy unit (GJ).
Table 3.5: Summary of energy consumption in five different nurseries in Queensland
Attributes Nursery A Nursery B Nursery C Nursery D Nursery E

Used area for
1.5 ha 5 ha 3.5 ha 2.5 ha 5 ha
production
Annual
$1.1 m $3 m N/A N/A N/A
turnover
Energy consumed
122.08 242.28 651.21 493.06 1558.54
from electricity (GJ)
Energy consumed
0 92.6 204.6 Not available 867.5
from diesel (GJ)
Energy consumed
0 488.3 586.0 Not available 119.4
from LPG gas (GJ)
Energy consumed
0 0 0 0 165.4
from Petrol (GJ)
Total direct energy
122.08 823.18 1441.81 493.06 2710.84
consumption (GJ)
Total direct energy
81.4 164.6 411.9 197.2 542.2
intensity (GJ/ha)
Table 3.6: Energy consumption at Nursery A, Brisbane (electricity as the sole source of energy)
Energy Standard
Practices Energy use Energy estimation
source energy (GJ)
6,048 Two heaters 1.5 & 1.3 kW capacity (use 12
Heating Electricity 21.77
kWh hr/day for 180 winter days)
12,264 Three water pumps (main pump 3 kW + two
Pumping Electricity 44.15
kWh booster pumps with total capacity of 1.1 kW)
27
Office 15,600 Office area 100m2, energy use 0.05kW/m2
Electricity 56.16
use kWh (Office opens 12 hr/d, 5 days/wk and 52 wks)
33,912
Total Electricity 122.08
kWh
Table 3.7: Energy consumption at Nursery B, Brisbane
Energy Standard
Practices/uses Energy use Energy estimation
source energy (GJ)
Glasshouse 0.2 kW x 3 fans x 3 glasshouse x
Electricity 2,700 kWh 9.72
ventilation fans 1500 hr
Mixing, potting, and 1,4000 7kW machine used for 2000
Electricity 50.40
conveyers kWh hours
1 variable speed 24,000
Electricity 86.40 16 kW pump used for 1500 hours
pump kWh
2 hot water boiler 2.2 kW pumps (total) used for
pumps 1500 hours
1 submerge 2.2 kW pumps (total) used for
pump (dam) 1500 hours
20,000 Office area 200m2: energy use
Office use Electricity 72
kWh 0.05kW/ m2 (opens for 2000 hr)
Total Electricity 67,300kWh 242.28
Hot water heating LPG gas 8,000 L 205.6 8 L/hr for 1000 hr
Hot air burner LPG gas 11,000 L 282.7
Total LPG gas 19,000 L 488.3
12 small tractors, each
consuming 1 L diesel/hr. Each
Tractors Diesel 2,400 L 92.6
tractor is running about 1 hr/day
for 200 working days.
Total Diesel 2.400 L 92.6
28
Table 3.8: Energy consumption at Nursery C, Sunshine Coast
Energy Standard
source energy (GJ)
Heaters for 6 small 3 kW x 12 heaters x 1000
plastic houses hr/yr
Heaters for “open
Electricity 7,000 kWh 25.2 7 kW x 1000 hr/yr
houses”
Steam generator Electricity 54,000 kWh 194.4 90 kW x 600 hr/yr
Steam generator blower Electricity 800 kWh 2.88 2 kW x 400 hr/yr
Ventilation fans for 6 240v x 3.6A x 6 fans x
small plastic houses 1500 hr/yr
Ventilation fans for the
Electricity 1,050 kWh 3.79 0.7 kW*1500 hr/yr
large plastic house
Cool room refrigeration 6 kW x 6 rooms x 3 hr/day
Electricity 39,420 kW 141.91
systems x 365 days
0.6 kW x 2 motors x 300
Bag filler mixers Electricity 360 kWh 1.30
hr/yr
Fertiliser agitator Electricity 330 kWh 1.19 1.1 kW x 300 hr/yr
Pump (dam to tank) Electricity 15,000 kWh 54 10 kW x 1500 hr/yr
2 VSD pumps (tank to
Electricity 7,500 kWh 27 2.5 kW x 2 x 1500 hr/yr
nursery)
2 small tank to orchard
Electricity 1,500 kWh 5.4 1.5 kW x 2 x 500 hr/yr
pumps
Pressure booster pumps Electricity 150 kWh 0.54 0.75 kW x 200 hr/yr
Office area 100m2, energy
Office use Electricity 10,000 kWh 36 use 0.05kW/m2 for 2000 hrs
p.a.
Total Electricity 180,886kWh 651.21
LPG engine (2.8 L) for
LPG gas 1,800 L 46.3 30 L/hr x 600 hr/yr
mixer
2 forklifts LPG gas 3,000 L 77.1 2 x 3 L/hr x 500 hours
Hot air burner for the 12 L/hr x 1500 hr (100
LPG gas 18,000 L 462.6
large plastic house hr/wk for 15 weeks)
Total LPG gas 22,800 L 586.0
2 small tractors of 5 1 L/hr x 1 hr/day x 200
Diesel 400 L 15.4
horsepower working days x 2 tractors
7 Utes Diesel 4,900 L 189.1 7 x 3.5 L/hr x 200 hr/yr
Total Diesel 5,300 L 204.6
29
Table 3.9: Energy consumption at Nursery D, Sunshine Coast
Energy Standard
source energy (GJ)
1 main VSD pump Electricity 15,000 kWh 54 5 kW x 3000 hr/yr
240v x 8.2A x 1500
1 ozone treatment pump Electricity 2,952 kWh 10.63
hr/yr
1 main multi-stage dam
Electricity 550 kWh 1.98 1.1 kW x 500 hr/yr
transfer pump
1 ventilation fan for new
Electricity 1,500 kWh 5.4 1.0 kW x 1500 hr/yr
glasshouse
7 exhaust fans for potting 7 x 0.4 kW x 600
shed area hr/yr
1.5 kW x 3 x 5000
3 dehumidifiers Electricity 22,500 kWh 81
hr/yr
37 x 0.4 kW x 600
37 lights Electricity 8,880 kWh 31.97
hr/yr
Electric hot heater Electricity 16,500 kWh 59.4 11 x 1500 hr/yr
5 prolongation room air 5 x 1.5 kW x 6000
Electricity 45,000 kWh 162
conditioners hr/yr
1 mixer Electricity 2,400 kWh 8.64 4 kW x 600 hr/yr
1 Office & 2 house family Include office & 2
Electricity 20,000 kWh 72
living areas living area
Total Electricity 136,962 493.06
Gas burner LPG gas Not available Not available Not available
Total LPG gas Not available Not available Not available
Steam steriliser Diesel Not available Not available Not available
Total Diesel Not available Not available Not available
Table 3.10: Energy consumption from Nursery E, Brisbane
Energy Standard
source energy (GJ)
Potting P-Line x 1 - 2.8 hr/day - all year (5
Electricity 1,552kWh 5.59
machine days/week)
15 kW x 1 - 1.25 hr/day - 10.5 months
Mixer Electricity 1,240 kWh 4.46
(5 days/week)
36V x 2 - 6 hr/day - all year (5
Cart charger Electricity 3,271 kWh 11.78
days/week)
Utility vehicle Electricity 580 kWh 2.09 Electric x 2 - charged daily
Diesel heat
Electricity 464 kWh 1.67 No explanation available
exchanger
Diesel boiler Electricity 165 kWh 0.59 2.2 kW pump - 610 hr/yr
2 x 5.5 kW x 1 – 3.35 hr/day for 9
Main pump Electricity 6,696 kWh 24.1
months & 4.35 hr/day for 3 months
Chlorine 5kW x 1 - 4.5 hr/day - 6 months & 1.5
pump hr/day 6 months
Aerators Electricity 9,196 kWh 33.11 For 0.57ML dam x 1 - continuous
5 kW x 1 - 3 hr/day - 6 months & 1
Transfer pump Electricity 1,748 kWh 6.29
hr/day 6 months
Fogging pump Electricity 443 kWh 1.59 4 kW x 1 - 2.8 hr/day - all yr
Steam Electricity 9,798 kWh 35.27 60 kW x 1 - 0.6 hr/day - all yr (5
30
generator days/week)
Water heaters
space
Water heater system: Column 93kW x
Water heaters
Electricity 219,748 kWh 791.09 3- one unit 12hrs x 7 months - two
bench
units 12 hours 4 months.
Water Heater
pump
Total
electricity
Gas heater LPG gas 4,645 L 119.4 Fan x 2 - 610 hr/yr
Total gas LPG gas 4,645 L 119.4
Vehicle-
Diesel 4309.2 L 166.3 1.9 hr/day for 12 months
bobcat
Vehicle- Small tractor JD X595 x 1 - 2.8
Diesel 2116.8L 81.7
Tractor (s) hr/day for 12 months
Vehicle-truck Diesel 600 L 23.2 Truck 4T diesel x 4000km/yr
Boiler Diesel 10067 L 388.6 2.2 kW pump - 610 Hhr/yr)
Heat
Diesel 5380 L 207.7 Fan - 610 hr/yr
exchanger
Total diesel Diesel 22473 L 867.5
Utility vehicle JD Petrol Gator x 3 x
Utility vehicle Petrol 1701 L 58.2
1.5 hr/day for 12 months
Forklift 1.5T Petrol x 1 - 0.75 hr/day -
Forklift petrol Petrol 236.25 L 8.1
5 months
4wd Petrol 2900 L 99.2 4WD Pajero x 20000km/yr
Total petrol Petrol 4837.25 L 165.4
Diesel, electricity, petrol and LPG gas are used for various processes in nursery, such as preparation,
establishment, in-season, irrigation, harvest, post-harvest, and general (Chen et al. 2011). However,
electricity, LPG gas and diesel are more common than petrol. Electricity is mostly used for heating,
pumping, refrigerating, running potting mixture, bag filler mixers and fertiliser agitator, and for office
use. LPG gas is mainly used for hot water heating and hot air burner, whereas diesel is mostly used
for tractors and other vehicles. In total, these five nurseries collectively used over 5591 GJ of energy
(Table 3.5). Out of them, 54.9% was consumed by electricity, 21.4% by LPG gas and 20.8% by
diesel. Petrol used about 3% of the total energy.
It can also be seen from the summary Table 3.5 that the direct energy consumption is generally not
directly related to the production area. In Nursery A, energy consumption per hectare production area
is 81.4 GJ, whereas in Nursery B it is 164.6 GJ, Nursery D 197.2 GJ, Nursery C 411.9 GJ and for
Nursery E it is 542.2 GJ. Instead, energy consumption is more directly related to intensity of
operations. These energy figures are also 20-1000 times higher than those of broad-acre cereal crops
presented in Table 2.13 for Australia, but are still considerably lower than their NZ counterparts,
which is cooler than Queensland.
Overall, it was also found that (Schmidt et al. 2010; Chen et al. 2011):
• Due to historical, personal and geographical reasons, a wide variety of growing methods and
systems are used in the nursery industry.
• Heating often forms a very significant component of the energy cost, particularly when this is
supplied by electricity energy. In this case, alternative heat sources such as LPG may be used
to reduce the energy costs.
• Growers are generally well aware of the need to reduce their energy usage. This may be
evidenced by the widespread use of variable speed pumps to save pumping energy.
• It is observed that some motors used at a number of sites are significantly more powerful than
the tasks they are required to perform.
31
3.4.2 Potatoes
In Australia, vegetable farming occupies 112,000 ha of land. Potatoes are the largest crop by area
(30.5 %), followed by lettuce (8.9 %), tomatoes (6.5%), and broccoli (6.4 %). The production areas,
yields and energy consumption data for the 23 vegetable crops are given Table 3.3 (Maraseni et al.
2010a).
The potato industry in Australia is the second highest commodity sold (in value and in volume)
contributing in excess of $0.5b annually to the economy. About 55% of Australian households
purchase potatoes each week, only second to carrot (63%) (Potatoes South Australia and VICSPA,
2014). Australia produces about 1.2 m t of potatoes on 34,096 hectare of land.
National level average data
For different farming operations (excluding irrigation pumping), in national average, potatoes need a
total of 118 L of diesel per hectare or 3 L of diesel for each tonne of potatoes (Maraseni et al. 2010a).
As a result, diesel related energy consumption is averaged at about 4.55 GJ/ha or 0.12 GJ/t. Energy
requirements for potato farming are lower than those of the other 22 key vegetables (Table 3.3),
fourth lowest on a per hectare basis and second last on a per tonnage weight basis. On average, each
hectare of potato production needs 4 ML of water and in order to supply 1 ML of water, it was
assumed by Rab et al. (2008) that about 4 GJ of energy is required which is very high in comparison
with other studies. Based on these figures, another 16 GJ of energy is required to irrigate each hectare
of potato farm. In total, about 20.55 GJ (or 0.57 GJ/t) of energy is required for each hectare of potato
farm. Irrigation related energy accounts for over 75% the total energy use.
State level data
As discussed in the methodology section, two state level case studies in NSW are further presented
below: 1) to show the details of fuel/energy consumption for each field activities, which are not
available from national level studies; and 2) to show how national level figures compare with local
data. As noted, potatoes can be planted both in winter and summer seasons. The amount of diesel and
water and therefore the energy requirements for the summer and winter potatoes are different.
Therefore, they are presented and discussed separately (Table 3.11). Potato production in summer
requires a higher amount of diesel and water. The main difference in diesel consumption comes from
bin trailer at harvesting, for which a winter crop only needs 72 L/ha whereas a summer crop needs 96
L/ha. In total, summer and winter crops need 192.45 L and 156.45 L of diesel per hectare,
respectively. The respective diesel related energy values are 7.43 GJ/ha and 6.04 GJ/ha. These values
are somewhat higher than the national average values of 118 L/ha or 4.55 GJ/ha.
Summer potatoes need higher amounts of irrigation water (5 ML/ha) than winter potatoes (4 ML/ha).
In NSW, the most common irrigation system for potato crops is the electricity based centre pivot
system (NSW Department of Primary Industries, 2013). At a rate of 0.4 GJ/ML, each hectare of
summer potato crops requires about 2 GJ of irrigation related energy compared to 1.6 GJ for winter.
In total (including both diesel and electricity related energy), the summer and winter potato crops
require 9.43 GJ/ha and 7.64 GJ/ha of energy, respectively, and irrigation related energy accounts for
over 20% of the total energy used. These state figures are significantly lower than the national average
(20.55 GJ/ha). The differences are likely to be due to a difference in the use of energy conversion
factors for irrigation water pumping. In the national level study, 4GJ of energy per ML of irrigation
water was used (Rab et al. 2008) whereas at state level, we used a value 0.4 GJ/ML for central pivot
irrigation system. If the same conversion rate is used, both national and state level studies will give
comparable results. However, as discussed, some differences in energy requirement will still persist
between summer and winter potatoes crops.
32
Table 3.11: On-farm energy consumption from potato farming operations in NSW.
Source: *NSW Department of Primary Industries (2013) Potato (fresh summer) gross margin budget, 2p
**NSW Department of Primary Industries (2013) Potato (fresh winter) gross margin budget. 2p; *** Electricity-
based central pivot irrigation system requires 0.4 GJ of energy for each ML of water.
Quantity Summer Winter

Farming of Standard Quantity
activities diesel Rate Diesel Diesel Standard
energy of diesel
(L/hr)* (hr/ha)* (L/ha) (L/ha) energy (GJ/ha)
(GJ/ha) (L/hr)**
Ground/bed
15 0.4 6 0.23 0.4 6 0.23
preparation
Sowing/planting 15 0.35 5.25 0.20 0.35 5.25 0.20
Harvester 12 4 48 1.85 3 36 1.39
Chemical
12 0.8 9.6 0.37 0.8 9.6 0.37
applications
Fertiliser
12 2 24 0.93 2 24 0.93
applications
Bin trailer at
12 8 96 3.71 6 72 2.78
harvesting
Slash 12 0.3 3.6 0.14 0.3 3.6 0.14
Total diesel (L/ha) 192.45 7.43 156.45 6.04
Irrigation water (electricity-based 5 4
2.00 1.60
central pivot system)*** ML/ha ML/ha
Total direct energy intensity (GJ/ha) 9.43 7.64
Share of irrigation related energy in % 21.21 20.95
3.4.3 Tomatoes
In terms of production, tomato is the second largest vegetable crop in Australia, covering 7,293
hectares of land (O’Halloran, et al. 2008; Maraseni et al. 2010a). Victoria and Queensland together
produce over 80% of the total national production. Tomato in Australia is grown for two different
purposes: 1) the processed foods; and 2) fresh market. Victoria is the major producer (86% of total
production) for the processed market, whereas Queensland is the major producer (55% of the total
production) for the fresh market (RIRDC, 2010).
National level average data
For different farming operations (excluding irrigation pumping), in national average, tomatoes need
413 L of diesel per hectare or 10 L of diesel for each tonne of tomatoes (Table 3.3) (Maraseni et al.
2010a). As a result, diesel related energy consumption is about 15.94 GJ/ha or 0.39 GJ/t. The energy
requirement for tomato farming is relatively high in comparison with many other vegetables including
potatoes (Table 3.3). On average, each hectare of tomato production needs 6 ML of water and in order
to supply 1 ML of water about 4 GJ of energy was assumed by Rab et al. (2008). Based on these
figures, an additional 24 GJ of energy is required to irrigate each hectare than for a potato farm. Thus,
around 39.94 GJ (or 0.98 GJ/t) of energy is required for each hectare for a tomato farm. Irrigation
related energy accounts for over 60% of the total energy.
33
Comparison of three typical production systems
As discussed in the methodology section (Page et al. 2011), in order to cover diverse tomato
production systems, the direct on-farm energy uses are further estimated for three typical tomato
production systems in Australia: 1) field production in Bundaberg, Queensland; 2) low-tech
greenhouse production system in Sydney; and 3) medium-tech greenhouse production system in
Sydney (Table 3.12). Tomato production with greenhouse systems in Sydney needs an artificial
heating system which is the major source of on-farm energy consumption. As Queensland’s field
production system does not require greenhouses, it is more energy efficient, both in terms of per
hectare and per unit yield.
Table 3.12: On-farm energy use for tomatoes production in Queensland and Sydney (Source: Page et
al. 2011)
Field production Low-tech greenhouse Med-tech greenhouse

in Queensland in Sydney in Sydney
Diesel (MJ/kg) 0.69 0.29 0.36
Artificial heating (MJ/kg) 0.00 2.04 17.04
Electricity (MJ/kg) 0.80 0.32 0.11
Total energy (MJ/kg) 1.49 2.64 17.51
Yield (t/ha) 60 160 340
Total energy (MJ/ha) 89,249 422,928 5,954,998
Form Table 3.12, it can be seen that if comparisons are based on yield (per kg), the on-farm energy
use of low-tech and medium-tech greenhouse systems in Sydney are respectively 1.77 times and
11.77 times those of field production system in Queensland. The yield of tomatoes is highest in the
medium-tech greenhouse system in Sydney (340 t/ha) followed by low-tech greenhouse systems in
Sydney (160 t/ha) and field production system in Queensland (60 t/ha).
Alternatively, if comparisons are made on per hectare basis, the on-farm energy uses of low-tech and
medium-tech greenhouse systems in Sydney are even much more energy intensive, being respectively
4.7 times and 66.7 times those of field production systems in Queensland. The massive difference in
on-farm energy use between low-tech and medium-tech greenhouse systems are due to differences in
fuel used (LPG for low-tech and coal for medium-tech) for greenhouse systems and the length of
growing season (5-6 months vs. 10-11 months).
Overall, there is a huge difference in on-farm energy consumption estimates from the national level
study (Maraseni et al. 2010a; Rab et al. 2008) and these case studies. This highlights the need to
engage with growers to collect actual energy use data. Even the most energy efficient tomatoes
production system (field production in Bundaberg) has higher on-farm energy uses than that of the
national level estimation (1.49 GJ/t vs. 0.98 GJ/t). Therefore, to reconcile these numbers, a larger
number of case studies representing diverse geographical locations and production systems are
recommended for further studies. In particular, irrigation pumping energy use will need to be
monitored and compared.

3.5.1 Conclusions
The horticultural industry in Australia is one of the most diverse industries in the world, producing
over 140 commodities. This industry employs over 108,000 people, approximately 25% of
34
agricultural employment, and accounts for about 6% of the total agricultural greenhouse gas
emissions.
This study has identified the typical farming and production processes for three highly valued
horticultural crops: namely nurseries, potatoes and tomatoes. The on-farm energy uses in Australia by
five nurseries, two seasons of potato production, and three types of tomato production methods have
been studied. The on-farm energy use benchmark data has also been established (Table 3.13).
Table 3.13: Benchmark energy consumption for nursery, potato and tomato production in Australia
Crops Nursery Potatoes Tomatoes

Benchmark on-farm direct energy use (GJ/ha) 81.4 - 542.2 7.64 - 9.43 89.2 - 5955.0
It has been found that there is a very significant variation in energy use for the horticultural industry
in Australia. Overall, the key factors influencing on-farm energy consumption are: 1) the type of
production system, whether greenhouse system or open field system, and even within the greenhouse
system whether it is low tech, medium tech or high tech; 2) cropping season (winter or summer) and
length of cropping cycle; 3) geographical locations; 4) type of fuel used for various farming
operations; 5) type of irrigation systems used; 6) intensity and frequency of farming operations; and 7)
scale of mechanisation. It has been shown that crops grown in greenhouses can have energy intensity
demands per kilogram up to 10 to 20 times that of the same crops when grown in open fields.
Artificial lighting and seasonal heating can also consume up to some 20 MJ/kg or more of fresh
products such as tomatoes.
To encourage growers to adopt energy-conservation measures, demonstrated case studies with

associated economic analyses would be necessary. This should not only cover the “usual” field
operations and irrigation pumping, but also other aspects of activities unique to the horticultural
industry. For example, a recent study of trade-off analysis for relocating greenhouse production to
places which require no/limited heating and/or the substitution of fossil fuels in artificial heating by
solar energy has provided useful insight (Page et al. 2012, Page et al. 2014).
In this study, it has been found that there is currently a total lack of energy data for the nursery sector
outside Queensland. For potato and tomato production, some of the farm-level or state-level data is
not consistent with the national-level data. Improving the quality of energy use data in these sectors is
therefore crucial and would need to involve further on-farm metering and monitoring.
For horticultural operations with considerable cooling requirements, heating and refrigeration systems
often consume a large amount of electricity and thereby contribute greatly to the running costs of
businesses. Improvements to the design, controls and operations of these systems have thus significant
potential to reduce energy consumption. Currently, there appears to be little data available to assess
the real performance of refrigeration systems used in the horticultural sector. More research in this
aspect is needed.
The options of adopting renewable energy should also be studied further (Schmidt et al. 2010; Chen et
al. 2011). On-farm heat and power generation has been identified as one of the major areas of
potential reductions in energy and cost in the horticultural industry. A number of horticultural
enterprises have already implemented some of these measures including the installation of a
photovoltaic system and upgrading to more energy efficient lighting such as LED lighting.
35
In this study, the energy benchmarking has been limited to farm gate, and the energy required for
post-farming operations such as transportation, storage, processing and marking is not considered.
Therefore, in order to get a complete picture, comprehensive research covering both up-stream and
down-stream energy is crucial.
Useful resources including the best-practices guides have been published by the Department of
Industry, Tourism and Resources (2003), South Australian Wine Industry Association (2013), Oregon
Association of Nurseries (2011), and Connecticut Farm Energy Best Management Practices Guide
(2010). Other specific industries will need to develop similar resources to suit the requirements of
their own sectors.
36
4 Energy Use in the Dairy Sector
4.1 Introduction
4.1.1 Dairy industry in Australia
Dairying is one of Australia’s largest agricultural sectors, with around 1.6 million dairy cows on 7,500
dairy farms producing over 9 billion litres of milk per year (Dairy Australia, 2010; PwC, 2011).
Overall, the Australian dairy industry has a farm gate value of AU$4 billion, while the factory gate
value will be more than twice this number. Australia also exports some 50% of dairy production, with
a 7% global market share (the third highest after NZ and the European Union). About 40,000 people
are directly employed on dairy farms and related manufacturing plants.
While all states in Australia have dairy industries that supply fresh drinking milk to local cities and
towns, the bulk of milk production occurs in the temperate climate of south-eastern Australia
(Fig.4.1), particularly Victoria which produces around 65% of the country’s total milk production and
where a significant proportion of milk produced goes to the lower-priced dairy manufacturing and
export markets.
Currently, growth in the Australian dairy industry is dependent on expanding export markets. Exports
are expected to continue to grow, particularly to Asia and the Middle East
(http://work4australia.com/dairy.html).
Figure 4.1: Australia's Dairy Farming regions (Source:

http://rightmoves.tdtvictoria.org.au/activity5.htm)
4.1.2 Dairy farming systems

Based on the level of grain supplementary feeding, whether a feedpad is used or not and also the
proportion of the year that cows graze pastures, Dairy Australia uses a standard classification that
classifies the dairy farms into five main feeding systems (Little, 2010), namely:
37
1. Grazed pasture + other forages + up to 1.0 tonne grain/concentrates fed in bail
2. Grazed pasture + other forages + more than 1.0 tonne grain/concentrates fed in bail
3. Pasture grazed for most, or all of the year + partial mixed ration on feed pad with or without
grain/concentrates fed in bail
4. Hybrid system with pasture grazed for less than nine months per year + partial mixed ration
(PMR) on feed pad with or without grain/concentrates fed in bail
5. Total mixed ration system (TMR) with zero grazing. Cows housed and fed total mixed ration.
Alternatively, Fig.4.2 shows the definition of four production systems operating across Australian
dairy farms.
Figure 4.2: Australian dairy farming systems (Source: https://chdairiesdiary.wordpress.com/tag/milk-

systems)
Overall, most dairy farms in Australia adopt the pasture-based management system with
approximately 70% of feed requirements coming from grazed pastures, although there is currently a
trend of increases in farm intensification largely achieved through greater reliance on supplementary
feeding and increase usage of nitrogen fertiliser (Christie, et al. 2012). One of the major international
competitive advantages of the Australian dairy industry is its ability to produce milk at a low cost due
to the production and consumption of high amounts of home grown forage (Christie, et al. 2008).
In comparison, most of the milk produced in Europe is produced from farms using feedlot systems.
Some of the common range of production parameters for the dairy industry in Australia is summarised
in Table 4.1 (Dharma, et al. 2012). The average herd size in Australia is about 220 cows per farm
(PwC, 2011).
Table 4.1: Some of the common range and typical values of production parameters for the dairy
industry in Australia
Stocking rate (per ha) Irrigated: 2~4. Dryland: 1 (average 1.5 for whole Australia)
Milk yield (kg per cow per year) 1000~10000 (average 5500 kg for Australia)
Pasture, silage and hay intake 5~10 tonne dry matter per cow per year
Supplementary grain feeding intake 0~5 tonne per cow per year (average1.5 t for Australia)
Irrigation water use Average 3.5 ML/ha for Australia
38
Because of the project budget constraint, this study will only discuss the on-farm energy use of one
“representative” type of dairy farm in Australia. For this purpose, one simplified hypothetical farm
will be set up and analysed, largely based on the “average” data in Table 4.1.
4.1.3 Dairy farming processes

The farming processes of dairy farms may include the following broad types of activities (Fig.4.3):
• Field operations, including feed (grazing and forage) production, feed harvesting, feeding and
manure management. Some energy consumption is also required for the transport of
purchased feed and agro-chemical materials. In Australia, the grain/concentrate is generally
purchased from outside the farm, so the on-farm energy use associated with the production of
this material will not be included in this “on-farm” study.
• Shed operations. The main uses of energy may include water heating, milk harvesting and
milk cooling.
• Animal houses. This is to allow easy management and also to provide an improved
microclimate for the livestock. In Australia, lighting, heating and cooling of animal houses
are not normally practised, except for calves in their first 8-12 weeks of life. Thus, there is
little energy use associated with this item and it will therefore not be further discussed in this
report.
Figure 4.3: Energy uses in dairy animal production system (Source: Ahokas et al. 2014)
4.1.4 Energy sources
Dairy farms rely on a variety of energy sources, including both renewable and non-renewable
resources. At present, fossil fuels, including electricity, petrol, diesel and to a lesser extent LPG
(propane), and natural gas (for water heating) supply most of the energy required by the dairy
industry. Fuels are needed for the operation of tractors and various machinery and also required for
the transportation of fertilizer, grass seeds and other goods to the farm. Electricity is mainly used for
two purposes including:
39
• Shed operations. These may include the electricity uses associated with milking machines and
temporary cool storage.
• Water pumping. This is to meet both the animals drinking needs and also for pasture, forage
and fodder production if irrigation is adopted. According to the Dairy Research and
Development Corporation (2001), 57% of dairy farms in Australia irrigate their pastures
although this figure will vary according to location and may change with times. It is further
estimated that around 90% or more irrigation pumping in Australia is powered by electricity.
The latter can be a significant energy user, because in Australia, average 3.5 ML/ha water is
irrigated for the dairy farms (ABS, 2007).
A recent survey by Dairy Australia (Watson and Watson, 2012) has found that 40% of dairy farms in
Australia have installed some sorts of renewable energy technology, mostly in the form of heat
pumps, solar water heating and/or photovoltaic panels for electricity generation.
Indirect energy is also used in the manufacture, packaging and transport of various fertilizers and
pesticides. These include the energy use associated with the production of purchased grain
concentrate and also the repairs and maintenance of various farm and capital goods. Fig. 4.4 shows
life cycle energy inputs per tonne of market milk and milk products delivered to and consumed by
consumers (Nicol, 2005). One kilogram of fresh milk consumes about 9 MJ of total energy, 2 MJ of
which is used directly and indirectly “on-farm”.
Figure 4.4: Life cycle energy use per tonne of fresh market milk and a selection of manufactured milk
products (Source: Nicol, 2005).

Following the literature review in the next section on the energy use in various dairy operations and in
different countries, a simplified hypothetical model of an “average” farm was constructed for
Australia. This was largely based on the data in Table 4.1, and was used to profile and simulate the
benchmark energy use of the farm. The energy saving opportunities and also the adoption of
renewable energy were also discussed.
40
4.3.1 Energy research and on-farm energy use benchmarks
There were a number of studies in Australia and overseas on the energy use in the dairy industry,
including the reviews by Ahokas et al. (2014) and Sims (2014). A range of different indicators have
also been used. These included MJ/kg milk, MJ/litre milk, MJ/ha, MJ/cow, MJ per tonne of milk solid
etc.
USA
From a survey of 14 dairies in Texas and California, Capareda et al. (2009) found that total on-farm
energy usage (electricity and fuels) ranged from 464 kWh (1.67 GJ) to 1,637 kWh (5.89 GJ) per year
per cow for a pasture dairy in Northeast Texas. Assuming a daily milk production of 29.5 kg and a
300 days per year milk production, this leads to an on-farm direct energy index of 0.19~0.66 MJ/kg
milk (Table 4.2).
In another study (Ludington and Johnson, 2003), 32 energy audits were conducted on intensive dairy
farms across central and northern New York. It was found that generally, dairy on-farm direct
electricity use varied between 800 and 1200 kWh/cow-year, or between 2.88~4.32 GJ/cow-year. The
average milk yield was high at 10,908 kg/cow-year. After taking account of the energy use due to
propane and fuel oil, the average on-farm energy intensity was calculated as 0.69 MJ/kg milk.
Belgium
Annual average total energy input on large (over 100 cows) specialised dairy farms in 2000–2001 was
found by Meul et al. (2007) to be 36.3 GJ/ha, consisting 12.1 GJ/ha (33.4%) of direct on-farm and
24.2 GJ/ha (66.6%) of indirect energy inputs. The average direct on-farm energy use was 1.23 MJ/kg
milk.
Germany
Energy consumption of three types of dairy farms in the Allgäu region, Germany, has been estimated
by Haas et al. (2001), ranging between 0.74 to 1.72 MJ/kg milk.
Sweden
Diesel use on 46 Swedish dairy farms was found to range between 62 and 191 litre per ha, with an
average of 113 litre per ha (Cederberg and Flysjö, 2004a; Flysjö, 2012). The electricity use at farm
level was between 0.3-0.6 MJ per kg milk, where the largest inputs were the milking, cooling and
lighting (Flysjö, 2012).
New Zealand
Wells (2001) found that the direct on-farm energy intensity for NZ was 9.6 GJ per tonne of milk solid,
which translates to around 0.71 MJ/kg milk.
United Kingdom
The total energy input was found to be 57.5 GJ/ha per tonne of milk solid, consisting of 17.2 GJ
(30.0%) of direct on-farm energy inputs or 2.47 MJ/kg milk. UK dairy farmers used significantly
more fuels but less electricity than their counterparts in NZ (Saunders and Barber, 2008).
Australia
In Australia, some on-farm energy use and production data is available from LCA studies. Christie et
al. (2012) analysed the energy uses of a sample of 41 dairy farms. It was found that the average
amount of on-farm direct diesel consumed was 0.0044 litres per kg milk (0.17 MJ/kg milk) and the
average amount of electricity was 0.067 kWh (0.24 MJ/kg milk). It was further found that energy use
represented approximately 9% of Victorian dairy farm businesses emissions profile, in comparison
with methane (73%), and nitrous oxide (18%) (Swann, 2012).
41
Table 4.2: Direct on-farm energy input from different countries
Direct on-farm energy input Researchers Country

0.19~0.66 MJ/kg milk Capareda et al. (2009) USA
0.69 MJ/kg milk Ludington and Johnson (2003) USA
0.74~1.72 MJ/kg milk Haas et al. (2001) Germany
1.23 MJ/kg milk Meul et al. (2007) Belgium
0.71 MJ/kg milk Wells (2001) NZ
2.47 MJ/kg milk Saunders and Barber (2008) UK
0.41 MJ/kg milk Christie et al. (2012) Australia
Overall, it can be found from Table 4.2 that the total direct on-farm energy needed to produce one
kilogram of milk varies between 0.19-2.47 MJ/kg milk. It is also noted that higher energy use in Table
4.2 does not always necessarily lead to a higher energy cost. This is because fossil fuels (diesel and
petrol) and electricity have a different cost structure. Fossil fuels are generally cheaper than electricity
(Table 1.3). ADIC (2014) shows that electricity accounts for 2.4% of total dairy farm operating costs,
compared with 0.8% in other livestock and cropping enterprises. This is because dairy farming’s chief
energy source is electricity, while cropping, sheep and beef grazing mainly rely on transport fuels.
The differences in energy uses in Table 4.2 may be due to the following factors:
• Different farming systems adopted (in particular the electricity used for irrigation pumping and
animal housing in northern hemisphere farms, the amount of supplementary feeding, and the
milk yield per cow).
• Different analysis methods. For instance, some analyses include fodder feed production, while
others may only include the direct energy consumed on-farm.
4.3.2 Energy use by individual on-farm operations
A number of studies have also investigated the on-farm energy uses of dairy farms (Wells, 2001;
Upton et al. 2013; Ahokas, et al. 2014). An itemised account of energy inputs relating to key
production processes was also reported in some of these studies.
Machinery and tractor operations

The fuel energy use of various farming field operations has been estimated and reported by Wells
(2001) (Table 4.3).
Table 4.3: Average diesel fuel for various agricultural field operations (Source: Wells, 2001)
CAE (1996) estimated that to fuel tractors and machinery, dairy farms may require around 7 L of
diesel/cow/year, of which 2–3 L is for forage conservation, 1–2 L for cultivation, 1–2 L for feeding
42
out hay and silage, and the rest for pasture renovation and miscellaneous farming operations. This
number may be too low. When hay and silage operations are involved, McChesney et al. (1978)
suggested that a typical hay making system will consume around 23–26 L/ha of diesel fuel, whereas
silage requires around 38 L/ha. The total fuel use for forage operation was reported as 135.5 L/ha
(Chianese et al. 2009).
Overall, Christie et al. (2011, 2012) showed that diesel consumption in Australia may be estimated
using the formula: Diesel (L) = 25.5 * (t milk solid) + 5500. For an average Australian farm with 220
cows, each producing 5500 litres of milk with 7.5% milk solids, this would translate to
7814 litres diesel use or 52 L/ha or 0.25 MJ/kg milk. In Victoria, the Victoria DEPI (Department of
Environment and Primary Industries, 2013) reported that the average fuel and oil cost was $0.10/kg
milk solid, which is $0.10/13.5 kg milk or about 0.185 MJ/kg milk, if the average fuel cost is assumed
as $40/GJ .
Water pumping operations

The dairy industry is the second largest user of irrigation water in Australia (Khan et al. 2010a). It
uses approximately 25% of the surface irrigation water in Australia (Khan et al. 2010a). It is also a
major user of groundwater in all areas especially in South Australia. Surface flood irrigation is most
common in northern Victoria, while other parts of southern Australia and Tasmania tend to use the
pressured systems which are more energy intensive. Irrigation in the Queensland dairy industry is also
undertaken almost wholly using pressured sprinkler systems (Wigginton, and Raine, 2001).
For irrigation water pumping, previous research indicates that energy use may be around 4-8
kWh/ML/meter head for electricity and 1.5L/ML/meter head for diesel pumps. It is typically assumed
that surface irrigation operates at 10m head (pumping) while this is 30 m head (pumping) for low
pressure sprinkler irrigation. Alternatively, NSW Department of Primary Industries (2003) estimated
that electricity uses for irrigation are respectively 200 and 275 kWh/ML for surface and sprinkler
irrigation systems. Chen et al (2005) assumed the figure of 400 kWh/ML for a hypothetical dairy farm
in Queensland. Brown and Macdonald (2010) found it varying between 200 and 500 kWh/ML in
Tasmania.
Stationary motor uses

The use of electricity by various dairying equipment has been estimated by Upton et al (2013) (Table
4.4) and Ahokas, et al. (2014) (Table 4.5). This is shown by Upton et al (2013) as reaching a total of
42 Wh or 152 kJ/kg milk. Chen et al. (2005) assumed this as 35 Wh/kg milk. It was also reported that
the combined energy use of milk harvesting and cooling operation in Central Texas was 427
kWh/cow/year or 171 kJ/ litre milk (Capareda et al. 2009). Milk cooling may be the largest energy
user in shed operations (Table 4.4 and Fig.4.5).
Table 4.4: Estimated electricity use in a dairy shed in Ireland (Source: Upton et al. 2013)
Task/Activity Electricity use (Wh/L) kJ/kg milk Percentage

Milk cooling 13.02 47 31%
Water heating 9.83 35 23%
Milking 8.44 30 20%
Lighting 1.37 5 3%
Other 7.54 27 18%
Water pumping 2.13 8 5%
Total 42.13 152 100%
43
Table 4.5: Estimated electricity use for different activities in dairy sheds
(Source: Ahokas, et al. 2014)
Figure 4.5: Typical breakdown of dairy shed energy costs (Source: Dairy Australia, 2013)
4.4 Energy use of a hypothetical farm

To further illustrate the energy use in the Australian dairy farms, a simplified hypothetical model of
an “average” farm is set up below. Table 4.6 summarizes the key on-farm direct energy used and
outputs produced at this farm on an annual basis. The stocking density is assumed to be 1.5 cows per
ha (Table 4.1). The milk yield is 5500 L per cow per year. The irrigation water use is 3.5 ML/ha
(ABS, 2007). The irrigation pumping electricity use is 250 kWh/ML. Electricity use due to milking
machines and temporary cool storage in the dairy shed is 250 kWh per cow per year or 45 Wh/L milk.
44
The diesel fuel use for pasture and tractor operation is assumed as 7814 litres (52 L/ha). The fertilizer,
grass seeds and other goods are also assumed to be transported by trucks from a distance, equivalent
to a fuel use of 5 L/ha.
Table 4.6: Resources used and outputs produced per year at the hypothetical farm
Land use area 150 ha

Total cow numbers 220
Milk production 1210000 litre
Electricity use in the dairy shed 55000 kWh (198000 MJ)
Irrigation water use 525 ML
Electricity use for irrigation pumping 131250 kWh (472500 MJ)
Total electricity use at the site 186250 kWh (670500 MJ)
Diesel fuel use for tractor field operations 7814 litre (301625 MJ)
Truck transport fuel use 750 litre (28950 MJ)
Total direct on-farm energy use for the farm 1001075 MJ
Total direct on-farm energy use per litre of milk 0.83 MJ/kg milk
From the above table, it can be calculated that for this hypothetical farm, the electricity use (670 GJ)
makes up 67% of the total direct on-farm energy consumed, including 47% for irrigation water
pumping and 20% for shed operations (Fig.4.6). The diesel fuel use for tractor field operations
contributes the other 30%, while the energy for truck transportation is very small at 3%. The direct
on-farm energy index is found to be 0.83 MJ/kg milk, which is similar to the range of data reported in
Table 4.2 and also other industry data in Australia (Brown and Macdonald, 2010). This will translate
to around 5~6 cents per kg milk or $275~330 per cow per year.
Figure 4.6: The distribution of on-farm energy uses at the hypothetical farm
4.5 Opportunities for reducing on-farm energy costs

Improving energy use efficiency can provide significant gain for industry sustainability and also
reducing energy consumption. Overall, there are essentially two methods to reduce energy costs:
improving energy efficiency or adopting alternative and renewable energy.
45
4.5.1 Improving energy efficiency
Broadly, at the industry level, increased energy efficiency may be achieved by the methods of
improved transport and process planning, value chain management, and farm design and operation.
At the individual farm level, an energy audit may need to be conducted first. This exercise is useful to
pinpoint where their energy use is highest, and to look at potential efficiency options and the potential
savings achievable. Effective energy efficiency strategies will also need to be highly specific to each
individual farm. Overall, a recent survey by Dairy Australia (Watson and Watson, 2012) has found
that in Australia, 20% of dairy farms have had an energy audit conducted on their dairy or irrigation
system and a further 40% of respondents indicate that they are very to fairly interested in having one
done in the near future.
Nationally, Dairy Australia has strongly promoted on-farm energy assessments as per the Smarter
Energy Use Program. This program aims to provide farmers with information and technical support to
improve farm energy efficiency including funding for 900 energy audits (Fay, 2013). However, it is
currently limited to electricity use only.
An energy self-audit tool containing benchmark information for Tasmanian farm energy use,
extensive references and energy management action plans and checklists has been developed for
Tasmanian dairy farmers and consultants wishing to undertake farm energy audits (Brown and
Macdonald, 2010). Typically, the energy assessment recommendations range from small changes to
existing equipment that can be implemented immediately, to advice on new technology and long term
investment options. For the dairy farmers, this may initially focus on the energy use of irrigation
water pumping, and also the shed operation.
The general principles for energy savings should include:

• Use energy-efficient equipment, including energy-efficient water-cooling systems and hot
water systems. A significant amount of energy could be saved by upgrading facilities with
newer and more energy efficient equipment.
• Replace old, worn parts.
• Use correctly-sized equipment.
• Perform regular maintenance and efficiency checks.
For field operations,

• Irrigation and pumping – comparing your pumping costs against benchmarks is the first step
in reviewing irrigation system efficiencies. The benchmark appears to be $30~40/ ML for
irrigating on flats - with low to medium pressure irrigation.
• Tractor and vehicle selection and operation to reduce direct use of diesel and petrol (Chen et
al. 2009).
For shed operations,

• The design of the milking shed and holding yards can improve cows' comfort and make them
easier to handle during milking.
• Milk harvesting – The proposed energy conservation measures (ECM), with the greatest
potential savings, is the installation of a variable speed drive (VSD) on the vacuum pump. It
has been found that variable speed drives can save 50% of the cost of running the milk
vacuum pump (Sims, 2014). Victoria DEPI study (2012) also showed that for an average
sized farm in Gippsland, the installation of variable speed drives (VSD) on an existing blower
vacuum pump requires only a 3 year payback period. This technology also has the
characteristic of the greatest return on investment and shortest time to recoup initial cash
outlay.
• Milk cooling – It was estimated that some 75% of plate coolers are not running efficiently
46
(Bullock, 2013). Chilling systems also often need to be fine-tuned. Recycling the waste heat
from the refrigeration system to heat up the hot water could be a good energy-saving measure
(Sims, 2014).
• Hot water – pre-heating with solar or heat recovery systems is often recommended. It appears
that the most profitable technology to reduce this energy for water heating was to install a
thermal heat recovery system to the refrigeration unit on the milk vat. Solar hot water systems
were also profitable technologies. Use of LPG for water heating also has the potential to
reduce energy.
• Replacing old lights with energy-efficient fluorescent fittings. Very often, the greatest number
of proposed ECMs was for energy-efficient lighting. This is due to the many options available
to improve lighting efficiency.
• A critical review of electricity and energy tariffs. Adopting off-peak systems and getting a
better tariff can also save considerable energy costs. Power demand at milking times can
create peak load spikes on the power distribution lines. Contracts with electricity network
companies usually include increased tariff charges when specified peak kVA demand levels
are exceeded (Wells, 2001).
4.5.2 Adoption of alternative and renewable energy
Identification of alternative and renewable energy sources in light of the likely increases to the cost of
traditional energy sources will more favourably position the agricultural and dairy sector to respond to
these challenges while maintaining or increasing current production. The possible options include:
• Solar energy – This appears to be an attractive technology and has been adopted to different
extent by some 40% of dairy farmers in Australia (Watson and Watson, 2012), particularly
when the government Feed-in-tariffs (FiT) subsidy is available. A case study showed that a
farmer installing a five kilowatt system may be able to pay itself off in less than four years.
Without subsidies, however, solar can be tricky economically because energy produced by
solar is in the middle of the day but high usage in dairy is usually at morning and late
afternoon. The high cost of battery storage and low feed in tariffs can make it less cost
effective to store or exchange energy generated for use at milking time. Solar hot water
systems can generally be a good option as energy is stored as hot water. Furthermore, the use
of solar energy will need to be weighed up against other possible strategies to make sure that
it is the best economic investment. Future technology will become cheaper and more efficient,
including battery storage, which will allow for more widespread adoption.
• Biogas – A sustainable way of offsetting the cost of energy use on dairy farms is the
conversion of animal manure wastes through anaerobic digestion into electrical power, heat,
and fuel. In one overseas study (Capareda et al., 2009), it is shown that the estimated daily
potential energy availability from manure (25.7 kWh per day per cow) is much greater than
the average daily on-farm shed energy requirement (3.2 kWh per day per cow), indicating the
possibility of adopting onsite manure to energy conversion systems. An anaerobic digestion
system installed on an 800 head dairy in Princeton, Minnesota, has been reported to produce
enough methane to generate about 2,900 kWh per day of electricity (Goodrich and Schmidt,
2002), which represents approximately 14% conversion efficiency. Of the energy produced,
only 1500 kWh are used at the facility. However, it is noted that biogas operations are
difficult to implement and be cost effective in Australia, because the majority of the industry
is based on grazing pastures where the majority of manure is deposited in the paddock and not
captured for use in a digester. Corrosion of equipment and the requirements for high labor
inputs on a daily basis are other major constraints. It is estimated that a farm would generally
require a significant number of cows (~1000) to be viable in a pasture based systems. Future
technology may be more efficient and cheaper for wider adoption with smaller herds.
• LPG - LPG for water heating may be used to reduce energy cost. The profitability of this
system will be dependent on low and stable LPG prices.
47
The Victoria DEPI report (Swann, 2012) identified and compared the economic performance of
various energy and renewable energy technologies that can reduce energy consumption in the dairy
shed (Table 4.7). It was found that all the technologies studied were profitable investments on the case
study farm, excluding VSD on new oil vane vacuum pumps.
Table 4.7: Estimated payback periods of various energy and renewable energy technologies
Payback
Technology option
period (years)
5 kW solar panel system (Reduce the electricity use sourced from the grid) 10
30 kW solar panel system (Reduce the electricity use sourced from the grid) 9
Flat plate solar hot water system (Capture solar energy to preheat water) 6
Evacuated tube solar hot water system (Capture solar energy to preheat water) 6
Thermal heat recovery unit (Capture heat from the refrigeration to preheat water) 5
LPG water heating (Replace the electricity from the grid to heat water) 5
VSD on existing oil vane pump (Match vacuum pump speed with air flow demand) 4
VSD on existing blower pump (Match vacuum pump speed with air flow demand) 3
VSD on new oil vane pump (Match vacuum pump speed with air flow demand) >10
VSD on new blower pump (Match vacuum pump speed with air flow demand) >10
NBA Consulting (2013) also reviewed potential energy efficiency projects at 101 dairy farms across
Australia and showed the projects that have a payback period of less than 5 years (Table 4.8).
Table 4.8: Projects with a payback period of less than five years (Source: NBA Consulting 2013)
Overseas, several BMP guides for energy savings are available, covering both on-farm and off-farm
dairy processing operations (Ludington et al. 2004; Focus on Energy, 2006; Connecticut Farm Energy
Best Management Practices Guide, 2010; Teagasc. 2011).
48
4.6.1 Conclusions
Dairying is one of Australia’s largest agricultural sectors, with around 1.6 million dairy cows on 7,500
dairy farms producing over 9 billion litres of milk per year. Following the literature review on the
energy use in various dairy operations, a simplified hypothetical model of an ‘average’ farm has been
constructed in this project to evaluate and simulate the benchmark energy use of the farm. The energy
saving opportunities and the adoption of renewable energy have also been discussed.
It has been found that the majority of dairy farms in Australia use pasture-based management systems
with some level of supplementary feeding. The total direct on-farm energy needed to produce one
kilogram of milk is found to be around 0.41-0.83 MJ/kg milk in Australia. This is in comparison with
0.19-2.47 MJ/kg milk overseas. The electricity use makes up 67% of the total direct on-farm energy
consumed in an Australian dairy farm, including 47% for irrigation water pumping and 20% for shed
operations (Fig.4.6). The diesel fuel use for tractor field operations contributes the other 30%.
Table 4.9: Benchmark on-farm direct energy consumption for dairy milk production
Crops Australia Overseas

Benchmark on-farm direct energy use (MJ/kg milk) 0.41-0.83 0.19-2.47
A significant amount of energy could be saved by upgrading facilities with newer and more energy
efficient equipment, both in the dairy shed and also for irrigation and pumping. It appears that
variable speed drives on vacuum pumps, heat recovery systems from the refrigeration systems, and
conversion to LED lighting offer very good opportunities for investment in energy saving devices,
while solar energy based systems would need substantial funding assistance to be an attractive
financial investment (Whish-Wilson, 2013). In situations where dairies are paying peak power rates
for a substantial part of their water heating energy, the investment returns estimated may improve
significantly.
It has been identified that there is currently an insufficient study on the comparison of energy use and
sustainability between different dairy farming and irrigation systems.
Considering electricity is one of the major energy inputs in dairy milk production, a critical review of
electricity and energy tariffs in the Australian dairy industry would also help to understand the current
tariffs (Dairy Australia, 2013) and the price path impacts for growers and different operational
practices. Identification and adoption of alternative and renewable energy sources will have the
potential to reduce energy costs and help to protect the environment.
49
5 Energy Use in the Pig and Poultry Industries
5.1 Pig and poultry industries in Australia
Livestock industries are very important components of the agricultural sector in Australia. The gross
value of production (GVP) of Australian pig industry is estimated to be around $946 million (APL,
2011-2012), but the pig industry supply chain contributed approximately $2.6 billion to the national
economy in 2013. The pork industry employs more than 20,000 people in Australia (APL, 2015). The
pork industry contributes approximately 2.13% of total Australian farm production.
There are approximately 1,400 pig producers in Australia, producing about 5 million pigs per annum
(Fig.5.1). A large percentage of these pig farms are located close to major population centres and
grain supply areas such as south east Queensland, NSW and Victoria (Figure 5.2).
Figure 5.1: Overview of Australian pig industry (Source: Price, 2014)
Figure 5.2: State distribution of the national pig breeding herd (percent of breeding sows)
(Source: APL, 2011-2012)
50
The gross value of the poultry meat industry is around $2.2 billion and the industry’s retail value is
estimated to be at around A$ 5.6 billion (ACMF, 2011). The chicken meat industry is the largest
supplier of meat for domestic consumption in Australia (Figure 5.3), dominated by large companies
and a vertically integrated modern supply chain with efficient production systems (ACMF, 2011). As
a result, two very large integrated companies supply more than 70% of the nation’s chicken meat
products (ACMF, 2011). The actual production of broiler chickens is typically contracted out (by
these integrator companies) to contract growers and thus approximately 800 growers produce about
80% of the nation’s chicken meat under contract arrangements. Therefore, it can be said that the
chicken meat industry in Australia is a highly efficient and vertically integrated rural industry.
Figure 5.3: Consumption of various meat types in Australia (Source: Australian Chicken meat
Federation (http://www.chicken.org.au/page.php?id=4)
The poultry industry directly employs approximately 40,000 employees. In addition, approximately
100,000 jobs are directly related on the industry (ACMF, 2011). Chicken grow-out farms are typically
located in close proximity to major population centres where they have easy access to processing
plants, feed/water supplies and available labour, including service personnel such as tradesmen and
veterinarians. The major chicken meat production areas include NSW (Central coast, Newcastle,
Tamworth and Griffith areas), Queensland (Brisbane’s south, south west and north), Victoria
(Mornington Peninsula, east of Melbourne, Geelong and Bendigo areas), SA (outskirts of Adelaide
and the Two Wells areas) and WA (Perth’s outer metropolitan areas) (ACMF, 2011) (Figure 5.4).
Figure 5.4: State distribution of volume of chicken meat produced (Source: ACMF, 2011)
51
Almost all chicken meat produced in Australia is destined for the domestic market and only a very
small percentage (approximately 4%) of the production is sold overseas (ACMF, 2011). The
Australian pig industry exported AU$ 118 million pork products in 2011-12 (APL, 2011-2012).
However, during the same period, Australia also imported AU$ 474 million pork products.
Overall, rural industries are under increasing pressure to reduce resource use and thus environmental
impacts. Specifically, all livestock industries will need to significantly reduce their energy use in
order to reduce their environmental footprint (Wiedemann et al. 2012a).
Feed (up to 70%), housing, health and labour related costs traditionally represent the largest share of
input costs for intensive livestock industries and energy costs are usually a smaller component of
production costs. However, energy cost is still a relatively important portion of total production costs.
Particularly, energy cost is one aspect where savings and enhanced profitability can be found.
Both the pork and poultry industries have commissioned studies investigating energy usage of
Australian piggeries and poultry facilities. These studies (conducted by the same group of researchers)
have had a very significant impact on the intensive livestock industries and these reports are often
viewed as benchmark information for both the pig and poultry industries in this area (Wiedemann et
al. 2012a; Wiedemann et al. 2010). Thus, the present review will draw heavily on the results
presented in these two reports. In addition, results generated by other international research teams will
also be reviewed in this project (Basset-Mens and van der Werf, 2005; Cederberg and Flysjö, 2004b;
Dalgaard et al. 2007; Lammers et al. 2012; de Vries and de Boer, 2010; Pelletier, 2008; Alvarenga et
al. 2012; Barber et al. 1989; Ahokas et al. 2014).
5.2 Sources of energy use on pig and poultry farms

Energy usage could differ greatly between farms and will depend on many factors, including the size
of the farm, the location of the livestock buildings, management practices used and resources that are
available on particular farms. The potential usage of energy on a typical pig and poultry farm are
presented in Figure 5.5.
Figure 5.5: The source and utilisation of energy (electricity and fuel) on pig and poultry farms
52
Energy is directly used in a variety of ways on livestock farms including:
• Ventilation, illumination and climate control systems (heating and cooling)

• Feed and water delivery systems
• Cleaning and disinfection
• Waste management systems
• Administration energy usage (office facilities, staff amenities etc.)
• Repair and maintenance facilities
Energy is usually consumed in the form of electricity and/or fuel (such as diesel, petrol and gas) and
these energy sources are needed to enable the day-to-day operations of farms, including feed
preparation, delivery, cleaning and transportation activities.
Apart from the relatively small percentage of free range animals, most pig and poultry production in
Australia is undertaken within confinement buildings to facilitate high feed conversion efficiency (via
providing an optimal thermal environment for the animals) and protecting the stock from predators
and diseases (Aland and Banhazi, 2013; Banhaz and Rutley, 2013).

Overall, information that quantified the energy usage of different activities on pig and poultry farms
was scarce and very few Australian studies provided any breakdown of specific activity related
energy usage on-farms. However, a few overseas studies with good datasets were found in this project
and these studies will be used to identify potential on-farm energy efficiency improvement activities.
Given the fact that these studies were often undertaken in cold climate countries, care would need to
be taken when interpreting the results in relation to their energy use (Barber, et al. 1989; Ahokas, et
al. 2014).
In this study, the energy benchmarking will somehow not be limited to farm gate, but will extend into
feed supply and processing to demonstrate the overall energy efficiency of the supply chain. In this
chapter, the total energy use is defined as including both the direct on-farm production energy use and
also the energy use associated with feed production and manufacturing.
Different indicators for energy benchmarking may also be used, including both live-weight and
carcass weight. For piggeries, carcass weight is usually only 72 to 80% of live-weight
(https://www.daff.qld.gov.au/animal-industries/pigs/managing-a-piggery/production-and-
performance/performance-standards). For poultry, it is usually about 75% of live-weight (Lessler and
Ranells, 2007).
5.3.1 Total energy use of pig production including feed production
Like any other industries, livestock industries have to become efficient, including the energy use (Roy
et al. 2009; Dalgaard et al. 2001). The first step to improve energy efficiency of livestock farms is to
benchmark the overall energy use of different operations (Mikkola and Ahokas, 2009). Several
publications reported the results of studies conducted in European and North American countries with
the aim of stock taking energy use of different pig and poultry operations. Most of these energy use
studies were undertaken as part of wider life cycle assessment (LCA) studies (Philippe and Nicks,
2015; Sefeedpari et al. 2014; ten Hoeve et al. 2014; de Vries and de Boer, 2010), but still provided
good information on broad energy use. The main results of these key studies on total energy use are
presented in Table 5.1 for the pig industry.
53
Table 5.1: International literature on total energy use of pig production (feed production energy
included)
Authors Energy (MJ/kg) Country Comments

Good agricultural practice
Basset-Mens and van der Werf (2005) 15.9 France
(per kg of pig)
Basset-Mens and van der Werf (2005) 17.9 France Red label (per kg of pig)
Organic agriculture (per kg
Basset-Mens and van der Werf (2005) 22.2 France
of pig)
Cost conscious production
Cederberg and Flysjö (2004b) 18.4 Sweden
per kg done/fat free meat
Environment focused
Cederberg and Flysjö (2004b) 14.7 Sweden production per kg done/fat
free meat
Animal welfare focused
Cederberg and Flysjö (2004b) 16.1 Sweden production per kg done/fat
free meat
Calculated value based on
Eriksson et al. (2005) 19.8 Sweden 1kg of pig growth on soy
based diet
Non-organic 1 kg dead
Williams et al. (2006) 16.7 UK
weight
Williams et al. (2006) 14.5 UK Organic 1 kg dead weight
Williams et al. (2006) 15.5 UK Heavy 1 kg dead weight
Traditional commodity pigs
Pelletier et al. (2010a) 9.7 USA
- high profitability scenario
Traditional commodity pigs
- low profitability scenario
Bedded pig production -
high profitability scenario
Bedded pig production -
low profitability scenario
Traditional buildings -
Lammers et al. (2012) 28.8 USA
heavy Live Weight
Deep bedded system -
Lammers et al. (2012) 29.3 USA
heavy Live Weight
Meul et al. (2007) 13.3 Belgium Top 5% farms
Variation range 9.7-28.8
Basset-Mens and van der Werf (2005) reported on the results of a study that was undertaken to
compare the environmental impact (including but not limited to energy use) of three different pig
production systems used in France. The production systems evaluated were: 1) the good agricultural
practice (GAP) system that corresponded with essentially a ‘conventional’ system using slatted-floor
confinement buildings; 2) the organic (OA) pig production system that was based on organic
agriculture principles; and 3) the red label (RL) system that was a recognised French ‘quality label’
system. Crop and corresponding feed production was identified as the main area of energy use,
ranging from 74% for GAP to 96% for OA production system (Basset-Mens and van der Werf, 2005).
Cederberg and Flysjö (2004b) also compared three different pig production systems utilised in
Europe, this time in Sweden. A very small percentage of energy contribution came from renewable
energy sources (Cederberg and Flysjö, 2004b).
Williams et al. (2006) undertook a very detailed environmental analysis of essentially all major
agricultural commodities, including pig and poultry production in the UK. Several pig production
54
systems were compared, including organic, non-organic systems and a pig production system that
produced heavier finisher pigs. Not a great deal of difference was observed, except the non-organic
system used more energy when compared to the other systems (Williams et al. 2006).
Pelletier et al. (2010a) contrasted traditional and deep bedded pig production systems, highlighting
that the deep bedded pig production systems used more energy. Feed production related activities
were again identified as the main area contributing to energy use in both production systems (Pelletier
et al. 2010a). Generally, intensively housed pigs tended to be more efficient converters of feed to meat
due to the better controlled thermal environment in livestock buildings. Therefore, pigs raised in deep
bedded systems tended to use more total energy via consuming more feed (per kg weight gain) and
thus utilising a greater proportion of the embedded energy in the feed.
Lammers et al. (2012) demonstrated that in traditional piggery buildings the energy usage associated
with crop and feed production can be between 63 and 74 % of all energy consumed, while in deep
bedded systems this can be as high as 79 to 87%. In traditional piggery buildings, the second highest
energy usage was usually associated with the running/operation of the buildings that was between 17
and 24% of all energy use in this particular study (Lammers et al. 2012).
A comprehensive review and LCA study was undertaken by de Vries and de Boer (2010) to compare
the environmental impacts of the main livestock industries based on 16 OECD study data. It was
found that the production of 1 kg of pork required approximately 18–45 MJ, while the total energy
requirement to produce 1 kg of chicken was around 15–29 MJ. After removing an outlier study result,
de Vries and de Boer (2010) concluded that both pig (18 to 34 MJ/kg meat) and poultry production
(15–29 MJ/kg meat) required similar amounts of total energy. This is in comparison to the total
energy inputs of 25-70 MJ/kg meat found by Smil (2008) which also included both direct energy for
tractor fuels, heating, lighting, motors and indirect energy for feed, buildings and equipment.
Energy consumption in pork production in five European countries is shown in Fig.5.6 (AGREE,
2012). Feed was again found to be the major energy input in this study. Differences between countries
mainly result from differences in the class ‘other energy consumption’ which includes energy
consumption e.g. for heating and ventilation. Energy consumption for these inputs depends on climate
conditions and also on animal welfare requirements (AGREE, 2012).
Figure 5.6: Total energy consumption in pork production in five European countries (Source:
AGREE, 2012)
55
5.3.2 Direct on-farm energy use of pig production (overseas studies)
Direct energy use associated with different on-farm activities was presented by Ahokas et al. (2014)
(Table 5.2). Figure 5.7 shows the proportion of total energy usage recorded for different on-farm
activities. These were obtained by averaging out results presented by Ahokas et al. (2014).
In Fig.5.7, heating is found to be the major energy input and this is followed by ventilation related
energy use. The other inputs are low compared to these. Excluding the gross energy of feed to pigs,
Lammers et al. (2010) found that the direct on-farm energy use of pig production is 7.2–8.1 MJ/kg
live weight in the USA.
Table 5.2: Direct energy consumption in different on-farm activities of pork production (Source:
Ahokas et al. 2014).
Figure 5.7: Breakdown of total energy use by different on-farm activities in pig production
(Source: Ahokas et al. 2014)
56
Barber et al. (1989) also presented data on housing/on-farm activities based on a number of
enterprises located in North America. On a pig farm, the weaning/farrowing part of the operation was
assessed and heating consumed 66% of all energy used. Such a high energy input in heating was
understandable in cold climate countries, such as Canada. In livestock buildings housing piglets and
young weaner pigs, relatively high air temperatures have to be maintained in order to ensure that the
animals remain healthy (Seedorf et al. 1998; Banhazi et al. 2009; Pointon et al. 1995). Ventilation
used 19% of all energy as the second largest portion, followed by lighting at 13%. Manure, feed and
water handling required negligible amounts of energy (around 2%).
In comparison, in the grower/finisher building, the largest portion (64%) of energy use was associated
with the ventilation systems. Lighting (17%) and heating (12%) required smaller portions of the
energy used. Feeding, watering and manure handling required the smallest portion of energy use
around 7%.
For the full/farrow-to-finish operation, heating was responsible for 50% of energy use, followed by
ventilation related energy requiring around 32%. Ventilation and heating together are responsible for
82% of energy expenditure. The remaining 14% of energy was used in relation to lighting and 4%
was related to feeding, watering and manure handling activities. The larger percentage of ventilation
related energy use was understandable in grower/finisher building, as larger animals would require
higher ventilation throughputs in order to remove the considerable heat produced and the high
concentrations of airborne pollutants typically produced in grower/finisher buildings (Banhazi et al.
2011).
5.3.3 Total energy use of broiler production including feed production
The research studies that investigated total energy usage including feed production in the poultry
industry are listed in Table 5.3. The majority of articles were again LCA focused and thus contained
limited data on detailed on-farm energy usage. A life cycle assessment was undertaken by Pelletier
(2008) to determine the energy usage of US broiler supply chains. It was found that feed related
energy use is responsible for approximately 80% of supply chain energy use. Other on-farm inputs,
such as heating and ventilation contributed approximately 9% of the total energy use. Williams et al.
(2006) reported energy use for a number of alternative poultry farming systems, including non-
organic traditional, organic and free range systems. The difference in total energy use between
organic and free range poultry farming systems was found to be small, but the traditional/non-organic
system used considerably less energy.
Table 5.3: International literature on total energy use of broiler production (feed production energy
included)
Poultry MJ /kg live-weight Energy (MJ/kg) Country Comments

Pelletier (2008) 14.9 USA Supply chain
Williams et al. (2006) 12.0 UK Non-organic
Williams et al. (2006) 15.8 UK Organic
Williams et al. (2006) 14.5 UK Free range
Katajajuuri et al. (2008) 16.0 Finland Conventional housing
Variation range 12.0-16.0
Further comparison was provided by Ahokas et al. (2014) (Table 5.4), which shows a larger range of
variations between different studies. Instead of animal live weight, this time the comparison was
based on unit carcass weight.
57
Table 5.4: Total energy consumption in different activities of broiler production
(Source: Ahokas et al. 2014).
5.3.4 Direct on-farm energy use of broiler production (overseas studies)
Table 5.5 shows the specific direct on-farm energy consumption per chicken in broiler and layer
farms in the UK (England/Wales) (Agriculture and Food Development Authority, 2011; United
Nations, 2012.). Assuming that the average weight of each bird is 1.5 kg, the direct energy
consumption for broiler can be found to be 1.7 MJ/kg live-weight. For Cyprus, this was found to be
0.618 kWh/chicken or 1.5 MJ/kg live-weight (Kythreotou et al. 2011), which was lower than that in
the UK, mainly due to warmer climatic conditions.
Table 5.5: Direct energy consumption in broiler and layer farms per chicken in the United Kingdom
(England/Wales)
Farm size Energy consumption (kWh per chicken)

200,000 chickens for meat production 0.71
75,000 chickens for egg production 4.12
Direct on-farm electricity and heating energy consumption in broiler houses was also presented
Ahokas et al. (2014) (Table 5.6). Most of this data was again from the European countries. Hördahl
(2008) measured the direct on-farm energy consumption of two broiler houses of 100,000 birds in
Sweden, each with a target weight per bird of 1.5 kg. One house was measured in detail and in the
other house only the total electricity consumption was measured. Heating energy was clearly the
largest direct on-farm energy input. Liang et al. (2009) collected direct on-farm energy consumption
data from four commercial-size 12m×121m broiler houses in northwest Arkansas. Data was collected
for seventeen years. Baughman and Parkhurst (1977) monitored direct on-farm energy consumption
of two broiler houses: one insulated and fan ventilated and the other uninsulated, with drop curtain
side walls in north Carolina. Energy was monitored for two trials during the summer and winter
periods. It was found that the environmentally controlled house insulated and fan ventilated consumed
less direct on-farm energy to produce the same net weight than the conventional house uninsulated
with drop curtain side walls.
58
Table 5.6: Direct on-farm electricity and heating energy consumption in broiler houses
(Source: Ahokas et al. 2014).
Figure 5.8 shows the proportion of direct on-farm energy usage recorded for different on-farm
activities. This was again obtained by averaging out results presented by Ahokas et al. (2014).
Figure 5.8: Breakdown of energy use by different on-farm activities in broiler production (Source:
Ahokas et al. 2014)
A study by Barber et al. (1989) also presented data on housing/on-farm activities based on a number
of enterprises located in North America. In layer hen buildings, 64% of direct on-farm energy use was
associated with the ventilation systems. Additionally, 17% of direct on-farm energy was expended on
lighting and 19% on feeding, watering and manure handling. No heating related energy was required
for laying hens. For both broilers and pullet brooding buildings, a disproportionally large percentage
of direct on-farm energy was associated with heating. Indeed, above 70% of direct on-farm energy use
in pullet brooding buildings and 90% in boiler buildings were associated with heating.
59
5.4 Results of Australian studies
5.4.1 Methodology
Instead of focusing on overseas studies, the main objective of this report is to review previously
published studies that investigated the level of direct on-farm energy use on commercial pig and
poultry farms in Australia. Overall, the main Australian benchmarking studies were undertaken by
Wiedemann et al. (2010; 2012a and 2012b) which used similar methodologies. These studies provided
detailed information on direct energy used at different stages of the production. Farm production data
was typically collected over a one year period to counter seasonal changes. The reported studies were
conducted on seven pig and four poultry farms to provide a good overall assessment of the industry
under different climatic, management and nutritional conditions. The use of diesel, petrol and gas
were measured using existing fuel and gas meters and the available farm records were also analysed
in detail. Most of measurements were standardised as per kilogram of (Hot Standard) Carcase Weight
(HSCW). In the following, the total energy use including feed production is first discussed in Section
5.4.2. This is then followed by the discussions on direct on-farm energy use in Sections 5.4.3 and
5.4.4.
5.4.2 Total energy use of pig production supply chains in Australia
Figures 5.9 and 5.10 show the breakdown of total energy use associated with the major components of
the ‘Northern’ and Southern’ supply chains (Wiedemann et al. 2010). Similar to overseas studies
(Figs.5.6 and 5.7), approximately 60-70% of total energy use is associated with feeding/feed
production. This is an important aspect when considering energy efficiency improvement
opportunities on pig farms.
Figure 5.9: Breakdown of total energy use by supply chain components for the Northern piggery
supply chain
60
Figure 5.10: Breakdown of total energy use by supply chain components for the Southern piggery
supply chain
The following findings were also made (Wiedemann et al. 2010):

• Total energy requirements had similar patterns in all the supply chains studied.
• The total energy for full supply chain energy use for the Northern and Southern piggery
supply chains are respectively 24.5 and 20.3 MJ /kg carcass weight.
• The most important areas of total energy use were feed production, followed by housing and
services and meat processing. Differences in embodied energy between supply chains were
primarily driven by differences in feed use, either because of differences in the feed
conversion ratio, or differences in embodied energy between diets.
• The energy embodied in feed is usually related to three main inputs, namely: 1) the energy
used for growing feed grain in the form of diesel and fertiliser; 2) the energy used to produce
and incorporate synthetic amino acids (SAA) in the feed; and 3) the energy used to mill and
transport the feed/grain. It has to be noted that despite the small inclusion rate of SAA in the
feed, their contribution to total energy use is typically around 10-15% within diets because
SAA manufacturing is a very energy intensive process (Wiedemann et al. 2010).
• The second largest total energy use is usually associated with housing and management of
buildings. Total energy usage associated with weaner and finisher pig production is typically
lower in supply chains utilising deep-bedded systems such as the southern supply chain in this
instance because of the lower electricity, gas and liquid fuel usage per kilogram of pork
produced in relation to heating, cooling and running ventilation systems. However, these
systems typically use more feed due to the reduced feed conversion efficiency associated with
deep bedded systems thus their relative energy usage associated with the feed is
proportionally higher. Similar issues were identified in overseas studies Pelletier et al.
(2010a).
• The third largest component of total energy use was typically associated with meat
processing.
5.4.3 On-farm direct energy usage in Australian piggery production
Figure 5.11 presents the direct energy use for the monitored farrow to finish piggeries on a per tonne
of live weight produced over a 12 month period (APL, 2014), ranging from 0.61 to 1.48 MJ/kg live-
weight produced. Indirect energy for feed production is not included here.
61

Figure 5.11: Direct on-farm energy use for the monitored farrow to finish piggeries on a per tonne of
live weight
A comparison of the direct on-farm energy used at the breeding sites and the breeding area within a
farrow to finish piggery was reported on a per pig weaned basis in Figure 5.12. Piggery C and F are
breeder piggeries, while the other sites are farrow to finish. Piggery B and C are tunnel ventilated and
used more direct energy per weaned pig than the naturally ventilated sites. Amongst the naturally
ventilated piggeries, Piggery F uses substantially more energy on a per pig weaned basis.

Figure 5.12: Direct on-farm energy use at the breeding and farrow to finish piggeries
62
Table 5.7: Direct on-farm energy use components at four conventional piggeries

The contribution of various components to the direct on-farm energy use was monitored at four of the
six piggeries (APL, 2014). Table 5.7 shows these results as kWh/day for the monitoring period.
Results show that farrowing sheds are often the major contributing component to site direct energy
usage. This is significant when considering that the pig numbers in the farrowing section of a piggery
is relatively small compared to the grower and finishing sections.
Direct on-farm energy usage can vary significantly between seasons because of activities such as shed
heating and cooling. For a tunnel ventilated farrow to finish piggery in QLD, average daily electrical
direct on-farm energy use increased from 1150 kWh/day in winter to 1500 kWh/day in summer. This
is due to the increased fan activity to control the shed temperature under maximum ventilation. For a
naturally ventilated breeder piggery in Victoria, the direct on-farm energy use reduced from 920
kWh/day in winter to 830 kWh/day in summer due to reduced heating requirements.
The change in seasonal direct on-farm energy consumption is heavily dependent on the location and
type of piggery. Tunnel ventilated piggeries in warm climates will experience a dramatic increase in
direct on-farm energy use due to the fans. Naturally ventilated piggeries will likely see a small
increase of direct on-farm energy use in winter due to greater heating requirements. However, this is
dependent on the climate.
5.4.4 Case study of direct on-farm energy usage in one Queensland piggery
The percentage of direct on-farm energy usage by sources in one particular Queensland site is shown
in Table 5.8. Combined use of LPG gas and electricity was the main source of energy usage (54.8%),
followed by diesel (15%) and electricity (9.1%) used at the feed mill respectively. LPG gas used at the
feed mill was 7.5% and diesel used on farm was the other noteworthy contribution to direct on-farm
energy use. On-farm use of petrol was negligible 2% compared to other direct on-farm energy use
components. The total direct on-farm energy use at this site was 3.78 MJ/kg live-weight produced.
63
Table 5.8: Direct on-farm energy use for one piggery in QLD (Source: Wiedemann, 2014, pers.com.)
5.4.5 Total energy use of poultry production supply chains in Australia
In Table 5.9 and Figures 5.13-5.16, the total energy use breakdown between different components of
the poultry industry is presented (based on unit carcass weight CW). It is again evident that regardless
of the type of production facility investigated, a very large percentage (52-64%) of total energy use
within the poultry industry is related to feeding/feed production.
Table 5.9: Breakdown of total energy use for poultry production supply chains (MJ per 1kg of CW)
(Source: Wiedemann et al. 2012a)
Stage QLD SA Free Range Organic Unit

Breeding 1.8 1.3 1.9 1.6 MJ/kg CW
Grow-out feed 10.6 8.9 9.7 6.9 MJ/kg CW
Grow-out housing 5.0 2.7 3.0 2.2 MJ/kg CW
Meat processing 4.5 3.5 3.7 4.2 MJ/kg CW
Meat processing
-0.7 -0.9 -0.7 -1.0 MJ/kg CW
by-product offsets
Grow-out manure offsets -1.0 -1.0 -0.8 -1.0 MJ/kg CW
Total (supply chain) 20.2 14.5 16.8 12.8 MJ/kg CW
Total (farm gate) 11.6 (57%) 8.5 (59%) 10.7 (64%) 6.7 (52%) MJ/kg CW
64
Figure 5.13: Breakdown of total energy use by supply chain components
for the QLD poultry production

for the SA poultry production

for the free-range poultry production
65
Figure 5.16: Breakdown of total energy use by supply chain components for the organic poultry
production
The following main findings were also made (Wiedemann et al. 2012a):
• Total energy use for poultry supply chain including meat processing ranged from 12.5 MJ/kg for
organic farming to 14.5 MJ/kg in SA to 20.2 MJ/kg carcase weight CW in Queensland. Organic
production used considerably less total energy than all other production systems.
• Feed production represented the largest source of total energy use within all the supply chains,
ranging from 52% in QLD to 59% in SA.
• Feed conversion ratio (FCR) was identified as one of the most important production parameters
influencing the total energy use and efficiency of chicken meat production. It was demonstrated
that if FCR was improved from 1.9 to 1.7 kg i.e. production of 1kg of chicken meat carcass
weight, this can result in an improvement of energy use from 20.4 MJ/kg CW to 19.3 MJ/kg CW
which is a significant energy efficiency improvement (Wiedemann et al. 2012a).
• Wiedemann et al. (2012a) also concluded that energy use in feed production is primarily driven
by fossil fuel diesel use for cultivation and transportation. In addition, the embedded energy of
fertiliser production has also significantly contributed to feed related energy use.
5.4.6 On-farm direct energy usage in Australian poultry production
In Tables 5.10 and 5.11, the direct on-farm energy use for the grow-out farms for both free range
supply chain and organic supply chain per tonne live-weight produced are shown (Wiedemann et al.,
2012a). These ranged from 0.51 to 0.88 MJ/kg live-weight.
Table 5.10: Direct on-farm energy use for the grow-out farm (free range supply chain) per tonne live-
weight produced (Source: Wiedemann et al. 2012a)
Energy type Unit Amount/t Conversion Factor MJ equivalent/t

Electricity kWh 82.9 3.6 298.4
LPG gas L 19.8 25.7 508.9
Diesel L 0.9 38.6 34.7
Petrol L 1.2 34.2 41.0
Total 883.1
66
Table 5.11: Direct on-farm energy use for the grow-out farm (organic supply chain) per tonne live-
weight produced (Source: Wiedemann et al. 2012a)
Energy type Unit amount/t conversion factor MJ equivalent/t

Electricity kWh 24.7 3.6 88.9
LPG Gas L 15.5 25.7 398.4
Diesel L 0.3 38.6 11.6
Petrol L 0.2 34.2 6.8
Total 505.7
McGahan et al. (2014) also investigated the relative energy usage contribution by various types of
equipment within chicken sheds. It was found that the direct on-farm energy use was 0.56-0.60 MJ/kg
live-weight (Fig. 5.17). This was significantly lower than the UK and Cyprus data of 1.5-1.7 MJ/kg. It
was also shown that the fans used for ventilation made up the largest portion of direct on-farm
electrical energy demand at between 68 and 88% of total electrical energy use for the four sheds, and
as such the study determined that fan performance presented the greatest opportunities for potential
electrical energy savings in chicken shed operations. Lighting represented the next highest electrical
energy use, which was less than 10% of total electrical energy use for three of the farms studied.

Figure 5.17: Total shed energy use (MJ/tonne live weight produced for three farms over a one-year
time period) (Source: McGahan et al. 2014)
5.5 Opportunities for reducing energy costs in the pig and poultry
industries
Improving energy use efficiency can provide significant gain for industry sustainability and also
reducing energy consumption. In the following, we shall further discuss energy usage associated with
on-farm activities and identification of opportunities for improving energy efficiency.
Direct on-farm energy is used in different processes, mainly heating, cooling, ventilation, water
heating, lighting, operating electric motors and water pumps, processing, as well as fuel used in motor
vehicles for the transport of raw materials, feed and products. It should be noted that the processes of
heating, cooling and ventilation are often the most energy-consuming processes on pig and poultry
farms. Thus, we shall focus on specific methods to reduce direct on-farm energy use with animal
67
housing. Several BMP guides for energy savings are also available, most from overseas, covering
both on-farm and off-farm operations (Connecticut Farm Energy Best Management Practices Guide,
2010; Teagasc. 2011).
5.5.1 Opportunities for improving energy efficiency
Based on the discussions in the previous sections, the following main findings can be made:
• Feed production often represented the largest source of total energy use within all the supply
chains. Feed conversion ratio (FCR) was identified as one of the most important production
parameters influencing the energy use in intensive livestock production. However, it is
realised that there is limited opportunity to improve this by individual growers, as the
improvements have to be made ‘up-stream’ in relation to crop production.
• The second largest total energy use is usually associated with housing and management of
buildings. The greatest portion of energy is related to mainly two main areas, namely the
climate control of the buildings (heating and cooling) and ventilation-related energy use.
• In relation to ventilation system management, the economic feasibility of energy saving
methods will need to be weighed up against potential reduction of biological efficiency of the
animals.
• Direct on-farm energy use in pig and poultry buildings is strongly influenced by ventilation
and climate control related processes. In order to reduce the reliance on ventilation and
heating/cooling equipment and thus save on energy use, the following aspects of intensive
livestock management have to be better implemented:
o Better designed buildings to keep animals under thermal neutral zone without excessive
reliance on ventilation
o Improved air quality to reduce the need for constant dilution of airborne pollutant by
increased ventilation throughput
o Improved hygiene and cleaning processes to remove the source of airborne pollutants
o Development of intelligent ventilation, heating and cooling systems that would create an
environment that would maximise profitability of farms.
o Improve the efficiency of climate control systems for cooling and heating
o Improve the efficiency of evaporative cooling systems.
• Improvements in energy efficiency associated with other areas such as cleaning for example
can still deliver significant benefits to intensive livestock producers.
Table 5.12 lists the relevant literature in this area of research (Barber et al. 1989).
Table 5.12: Literature related to potential actions to improve the direct on-farm energy efficiency of
pig and poultry buildings (Source: Barber et al. 1989)
Heating/Cooling References
Add more insulation Axaopoulos et al. (2014)
Tightly seal the building against infiltration Strom and Morsing, (1984)
Reduce contaminant loads to reduce ventilation Banhazi (2013)
Edwards et al. (1987);
Use zone heating/cooling and create microclimates
Van Wagenberg et al. (2005)
Use renewable energy sources Hong et al. (2013)
Eliminate drafts/uncontrolled air movements Houszka, (2002)
Select high efficiency heating/cooling systems Riva et al. (2000)
Prevent over-ventilation Le Dividich and Herpin (1994)
Filter contaminants from the air Dawson (1990)
Remove airborne organisms by disinfection Panikar (2000)
Ventilation
Select energy-efficient fans Randall and Moulsley (1990)
Regularly clean fans, shutters, and controls Czarick and Lacy (1999)
68
Remove unnecessary obstructions to airflow Zhang et al. (2001)
Down et al.(1990); Foster and Down
Use natural ventilation
(1987); Randall and Moulsley (1990)
Improve effectiveness of ventilation, cooling/heating Lorusso and Maraziti (1998);
systems Timmons et al. (1995)
Lighting
Regularly clean lamps Prescott et al. (2003)
Install more efficient lamps McDaniel et al. (1977);
Lahrmann and Horst (1998)
Use more energy-efficient lighting schedules Costa et al. (2009); Giles et al. (2001)
Cleaning
Make all interior surfaces easily cleanable Madec (2013)
Use water-conserving washing systems Banhazi and Santhanam (2013)
Make use of detergents and other cleaning aids Carr et al. (1997)
5.5.2 Opportunities for renewable energy usage
A number of renewable energy sources may be used in intensively managed livestock buildings, to
reduce fossil energy use. These include solar energy (Cordeau and Barrington, 2010; Williams et al.
1985; Bazen and Brown, 2009; Davis et al.), biogas generation (Batzias et al. 2005; Massé et al. 2011)
and geothermal energy recovery (Kaygusuz, 2002). Renewable energy can often be used in multiple
applications in pig and poultry projects, both to provide the energy required for animal housing as
well as residential and office buildings. Davis et al. (2014) however found that solar PV systems do
not presently represent a financially viable investment for two case study farms due to a number of
site-specific limitations.
Overall, within the Australian pork industry, one of the most widely utilised energy saving
technologies is biogas production (McGahan et al. 2013). Depending on the temperature in the
digester pond, the biogas energy output from a pig may range from 20-40W to up to 200 W
(http://porkcrc.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Bioenergy-Support-Program-Talking-Topic-
1.pdf) so if a farm houses a large number of pigs, it would be worth investing some serious money to
cover the pond to recover the biogas. It is estimated by 2020, approximately 30% of the national herd
will utilise this technology, reducing the greenhouse gas emissions by 230 kt CO2-e/annum (Tait,
2014, Pork CRC, pers.com).
Korean researchers proposed an interesting alternative to the previously mentioned renewable energy
sources (Hong et al. 2013). They suggested using the ventilation air expelled from livestock buildings
to generate renewable energy via the utilisation of a small-scale wind power generation unit. They
have demonstrated that the small-scale wind power unit recovered 30% of the ventilation energy used
and converted it into renewable energy (Hong et al. 2013). Thus, such energy recovery system might
significantly aid in reducing the energy use of intensive livestock systems.

5.6.1 Conclusions
Livestock industries are very important components of the agricultural sector in Australia. The gross
value of production (GVP) of the Australian pig industry is estimated to be around $946 million
(APL, 2011-2012). The pig industry supply chain contributed in 2013 approximately $2.6 billion to
the national economy. The gross value of the poultry meat industry is around $2.2 billion and the
industry’s retail value is estimated to be at around A$ 5.6 billion (ACMF, 2011). Chicken meat is the
largest supplier of meat for domestic consumption in Australia (Figure 5.3).
69
This study has reviewed the literature concerning energy use in pig and poultry industries from both
overseas and Australian sources. The main Australian benchmarking studies are undertaken by
Wiedemann et al. (2010; 2012a and 2012b). This highlights the relative lack of Australian research in
this area.
The direct on-farm energy use benchmarks have been established (Table 5.13), which in general are
considerably lower than overseas producers. In this study, where appropriate, the energy
benchmarking has also been further extended into feed supply and processing to demonstrate the total
energy efficiency of the supply chain.
Table 5.13: Benchmark energy use for pig and poultry production in Australia
Pig Poultry
Direct on-farm energy use (MJ/kg live-weight) 0.61-3.78 0.51-0.88
Total energy use including feed production (MJ/kg carcass weight) 20.3-24.5 12.5-20.2
Overall it can be found that energy efficiency levels within the chicken and pork industries are
similar, but perhaps the chicken meat industry has the ability to be more energy efficient via the
superior biological efficiency of chicken when compared to pigs in relation to their ability to convert
feed to meat efficiently. Broiler production is much more energy efficient nowadays than almost 40
years ago.
5.6.2 Measures to improve energy efficiency
Energy consumption in livestock production can be reduced by fine tuning the production method. At
present, economics and work load mostly dictate the production system (Ahokas et al. 2014). It is
expected that the economical influence on the energy consumption will be higher in the future,
meaning that energy will be one key element in the economy of the farm.
It has been found that within the supply chain the greatest portion of total energy use is usually
associated with feed production for both the pigs and poultry industries. However, there is limited
opportunity to improve this in terms of on-farm research, as the improvements have to be made ‘up-
stream’ in relation to crop production. In spite of this, there are definitely opportunities for improving
on-farm energy use in intensively managed livestock farms.
In terms of on-farm operations, it has been found that the greatest proportion of energy is related to
mainly two main areas, namely the climate control of the buildings (heating and cooling) and
ventilation-related energy use. Building more energy efficient agricultural buildings can thus
significantly improve the energy efficiency of these industries. Ideas developed for improving the
energy efficiency of human dwellings can be easily implemented for these industries. Furthermore,
improvements in direct on-farm energy efficiency associated with other areas such as cleaning for
example can also deliver significant benefits to intensive livestock producers. These potential areas of
improvement will be discussed below in detail.
To save energy, the farmers will first need to conduct energy benchmarking and do energy analysis
(Ahokas et al. 2014). Specifically, energy can be saved in pork production by (Ahokas et al. 2014):
• Feed is the main energy consumption in pork production. By improving feed production, the
overall energy efficiency of pork production will also increase.
• Heat recovery from air ventilation could be used to heat the piggery. Then additional
heating is not needed or only to a smaller extent.
• Ventilation rate changes with changing circumstances (pig weight, humidity, temperature).
Control of the ventilation rate should work according to the micro-climate of the building.
70
Energy can be saved in broiler production by (Ahokas et al. 2014):
• Feed is the main energy input in broiler production. By improving feed production, the
overall energy efficiency of broiler production will also increase.
• Ventilation heat recovery could be used to heat the broiler house.
• Good insulation will decrease demand for heating energy.
• Energy efficient lights and fans will use less electricity than less energy efficient choices.
• Regular maintenance and cleaning of devices will save energy.
• Ventilation rate changes with changing circumstances (chicken weight, humidity,
temperature). Control of the ventilation rate should work according to the micro-climate of
the building.
• Optimal growing circumstances assure the best feed efficiency of broilers.
5.6.3 Adoption of alternative and renewable energy
Renewable energy can often be used in multiple applications in pig and poultry projects, both to
provide the energy required for animal housing as well as residential and office buildings. Biogas is
now captured from 10% of the total Australian pig herd. This may grow to 30% by 2020 (Tait, 2014,
Pork CRC, pers.com).
• The energy analysis methodologies need standardization (Ahokas et al. 2014). There needs to
be a clear definition of what is included and what is excluded from the analysis for different
production systems. Furthermore, some livestock energy use indices refer to animal live
weight, while others to addressed carcass weight. They have to be clearly stated in the
research.
• Development of more ‘intelligent’ cooling/heating systems
• Improving ventilation system efficiency by improving ventilation control procedures and
control decisions
• Development of better evaporative cooling systems
• Investigation of more widespread use of renewable energy sources, such a wind, solar and
biogas
• Development of alternative air quality improvement techniques such as air filtration tools
• Improving the efficiency of cleaning procedures implemented in livestock buildings.
71
6 Energy Use in the Feedlot Cattle and Sheep
Wool Production
6.1 Introduction
6.1.1. Feedlot industry in Australia
The Australian beef industry is the largest agricultural industry in Australia, and the feedlot sector
plays a major role in this industry. The feedlot industry has a gross value of approximately $2.7
billion, employing some 2,000 people directly and almost 7,000 more indirectly (Meat and Livestock
Australia, 2012). There are approximately 400 accredited feedlots throughout Australia and the
majority are located in areas in close proximity to cattle and grain supplies, particularly south east
Queensland, the northern tablelands of NSW and the Riverina area of NSW with expanding numbers
in Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia (National Feedlot Accreditation Scheme Database
2014). Queensland is the largest state in terms of cattle numbers on feed with approximately 67%
followed by NSW 14%, WA 11%, and the remainder shared between South Australia and Victoria
(Figure 6.1).
Figure 6.1: Cattle numbers on feed June 2013 versus June 2014 (Source: ALFA/MLA. 2014)
Table 6.1: Cattle numbers on feed, feedlot capacity and capacity utilization (Source: ALFA/MLA,
2014)
Numbers on feed NSW Victoria QLD SA WA Total

Jun-14 249,134 59,773 481,487 26,001 29,396 845,791
Mar-14 265,227 57,804 484,534 27,398 38,821 873,783
Jun-13 238,186 50,907 523,403 24,140 36,356 872,992
Capacity
Jun-14 330,503 77,734 589,648 26,951 51,419 1,076,256
Mar-14 358,242 76,325 597,880 26,499 48,728 1,107,674
Jun-13 334,543 74,229 714,894 31,524 118,901 1,274,091
Utilisation
Jun-14 75% 77% 82% 96% 57% 79%
Mar-14 74% 76% 81% 103% 80% 79%
Jun-13 71% 69% 73% 77% 31% 69%
72
The Australian beef feedlot industry plays a complementary role to the larger extensive grass-fed
cattle sector given that feedlot cattle spend 85-90% of their lives on pasture. However, over the past
decade, the majority of production growth in the beef industry has been from the feedlot enterprises,
with approximately 25% of Australia’s total beef supply and 80% of beef sold in major domestic
supermarkets.
The total number of cattle in feedlots is 810,405 (ALFA/MLA, 2013), with an average 95 days spent
on feed in feedlot operations (ALFA, 2014). The main markets for Australian grain fed beef are:
Japan, South Korea, China, the United States, and the domestic market.
The productivity of Australian beef production has significantly improved over the past decades
(ABARES, 2002). The Australian grain-fed cattle industry has been the primary driver for this
change. The two main reasons for the growth of cattle feedlot industry are:
• the capability of feedlot sector to fulfil the market need to supply a consistent quantity and
quality of beef throughout the year regardless of seasons and climatic variation;
• an increase in consumer demand for grain-fed beef. The variability in Australian climatic
conditions throughout the year results in a situation where the beef supply from grazing cattle
would be insufficient during the dry periods or drought, therefore the finishing cattle sourced
from the feedlot sector grain-fed provides more certainty and consistency in the beef market.
The emergence of markets such as Japan and Korea has also greatly assisted the industry to
grow faster, whilst the exclusion of US beef from the world market due to Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy (BSE) concerns, has ensured that this growth be more sustainable.
Figure 6.2 shows the layout of a feedlot operation with different areas for various activities. A beef
feedlot is a confined yard area with watering and feeding facilities, where cattle are completely hand-
or mechanically-fed for the purpose of beef production in covered or uncovered yards. A feedlot
operation will typically include: i) pens, ii) handling yards, iii) drains and ponds, iv) stock lanes and
feed alleys, v) manure stockpile and composting pads, vi) feed mill and feed storage facilities and vii)
stock and vehicle wash-down facilities.
Figure 6.2: Layout of a typical cattle feedlot operation
73
The supply of energy (electricity, diesel, petrol and gas) is fundamental to a feedlot production
system. However, there is limited data on energy usage in feedlot operations. The utilisation of energy
in a feedlot may directly or indirectly contribute to the cost of production chain. The direct energy
utilisation includes feed processing, feed delivery, water supply, irrigation, administration and other
farming activities (Davis and Watts, 2011). The indirect energy usage includes transportation of cattle
and commodities. This chapter is mainly concerned with the direct energy.
6.1.2. Sheep industry in Australia
Australia is the world’s largest wool producer and sheep farming is a significant component of
Australia’s agricultural sector. The wool industry has a gross value of $2.67 billion with flock
numbers at 75.5 million sheep (AWI Wool Production Forecasting Committee 2014). Wool accounts
for approximately 10% of Australia’s total agricultural exports (NSW Government, Trade and
Investment, 2013). Australian wool is mostly produced from the Merino sheep breed, which produces
fine and high quality wool.
Table 6.2: Australian Wool Production Forecast 2014 (Source: http://www.wool.com)
2012/13 2013/14 Change 2014/15 Change

Parameters nd
Final Final estimate y-o-y % 2 forecast y-o-y %
No. of opening sheep (m) 74.7 75.5 1.2% 71.7 -5.0%
No sheep shorn (m) 78.8 78.0 -1.0% 74.3 -4.7%
Average cut/head (kg 4.47 4.37 -2.3% 4.42 1.1%
Shorn greasy wool
352 341 -3.3% 328 -3.7%
production (m)
Figure 6.3: Sheep numbers by State (Source: Australian Wool Innovation, 2014).
Much of Australia’s wool is exported to countries such as China, Italy, Taiwan, Korea and France.
However, Australia’s wool production has been decreasing in the last 10 years and the demand has
been declining because of availability of alternative materials that may be cheaper, easier to produce
and manage such as synthetic fibres. Most of Australia’s wool is produced in the states of NSW,
Victoria and Western Australia.
74
There are several steps in the wool fibre production chain (Figure 6.4) that require different sources of
energy (electricity and fuels) and other resources. Wool production relies on inputs such as water,
fertilisers, machinery, fuel and agricultural chemicals to maintain pasture production and health of the
sheep. Energy is also required for repairs and maintenance, wool shearing and handling and transport.
Figure 6.4: Typical steps and procedures in the chain of production of wool fibres
6.2 Sources of energy use in feedlot and sheep farming operations

The sources and quantity of energy usage will depend on the size of enterprise, feedlot structure,
management and available resources. It is important to recognise that these variations can impact the
associated costs and profitability of farming in both feedlot and sheep industries. The potential
sources and usage of energy in a typical feedlot enterprise are presented in Figure 6.5.
Figure 6.5: The source and utilisation of energy, electricity and fuel in feedlot operations
6.3 Research on energy use in the cattle feedlot industry in

Australia and overseas
There was limited quantitative information on energy utilisation in cattle feedlots in Australia. Table
6.3 list the recent studies that have discussed the utilisation of energy in feedlot operations in both
75
Australia and overseas. It is noted that many of these studies were LCA focused which have included
the energy use of feed production such as the application of fertilisers. The majority of these studies
also only reported the importance of cost of energy in a feedlot, but did not provide quantitative data
or estimates on electricity or fuel usage.
Table 6.3: Studies reported or investigated regarding energy utilisation in feedlot operations in
Australia and other countries
References Description
Australian Research
Financial performance of beef cattle producing farms in Australia
Thompson and Martin
Descriptive of electricity usage no data
(2012)
Cost of fuel, oil and grease summary data
Martin (2003) Farm financial performance with cost of fuel descriptive, no data
Meta Economics Electricity supply for beef farms
Consulting Group (2013) Electricity usage overall estimate in beef industry
Graham Centre for
Energy usage in beef industry
Agriculture Innovation
Fuel descriptive, no data
(2014)
Economic analysis of livestock farming systems in the Northern
Tablelands of NSW
Alford et al. (2003)
Electricity overall cost
Cost of fuel, oil and grease summary data
Rural Solutions SA Farm gross margin and enterprise planning guide
(2012) Overall fuel costs for both beef pastoral and sheep farming
Estimated the impact of higher costs of petroleum, diesel and gas prices
ABARES (2008) on rural Australia
Provided overall fuel costs for different livestock industries
Fuel management in grazing system in the Australian Capital Territory
Gale et al. (2014)
Advisory comments one fuel energy usage in grazing beef and sheep
industries
Guidelines for the establishment and operation of cattle feedlots in South
Clark (2006) Australia
Descriptive information on fuel usages and its impact on environment
Long term life cycle assessment between 1981 and 2010 of beef
Wiedemann et al. (2014)
production systems in Australia
Energy usage of individual activities within Australian cattle feedlots
Davis et al. (2009)
Detailed costing on energy usage in cattle feedlots
Increasing the knowledge and adaption of energy saving initiatives
Sandell et al. (2013) amongst farming enterprises in Western Australia
Overall estimates on energy usage fuel and electricity in both beef and
sheep industries.
Overseas Research
Sweeten and McDonald Estimates on energy usage within the Texas USA beef industry
(1979) Financial assessment included
Life cycle assessment of three beef production systems located in the
Pelletier et al. (2010b)
upper Midwest of the USA
Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions assessment of beef production
Roop et al. (2014)
systems located in the Pacific Northwest of the USA
Nguyen et al. (2010) Energy benchmarking for life cycle assessment in the EU
Ogino et al. (2007) Energy benchmarking for life cycle assessment of Japanese beef
76
6.3.1. Australian research
Thomson and Martin (2012) reported a financial analysis on the beef industry in different regions of
Australia between 2011 and 2012, and estimated the costs of fuel, oil and grease. The report however
did not provide a detailed estimate for either the feedlot sector or the costing of electricity usage.
ABARES (2008) estimates the average fuel and cash expenditure per farm by different agricultural
sectors in 2007-08 (Table 6.4). The fuel as a share of total cash costs ranges from 3.9% for the dairy
sector to 10.7% for the wheat production.
Table 6.4: Average expenditure on fuel and cash costs per farm, 2007-08 (Source: ABARES October
2008 Submission to the Senate Select Committee on Fuel and Energy)
Fuel, oil and grease Total cash costs Fuel as a share of

($) ($) total cash costs (%)
All broadacre 23,340 352,750 8.0
Wheat and other crops 56,830 529,470 10.7
Mixed livestock-crops 33,790 379,470 8.9
Sheep industry 15,300 237,230 6.4
Beef industry 16,510 283,650 5.8
Sheep-beef industry 15,360 308,980 5.0
Dairy 13,680 351,460 3.9
ABARES (2012) also provides an estimate of the electricity consumption as a proportion of the farm
input costs for several agricultural industries (Figure 6.6).
Figure 6.6: Electricity consumption as a proportion of farm variable costs in 2011 (Source:
ABARES, 2012)
Wiedemann et al. (2014) show that total fossil “life cycle” fuel energy demand of the beef industry in
Australia in the last 5-year period stayed around the 11 MJ/kg live-weight. This is a slight reduction
compared to previous 5-year period and is associated with a decline in fertiliser use.
Davis et al. (2009) quantified the energy usage of different on-farm activities in seven feedlot
operations in Australia between March 2007 and February 2008. The selected feedlots represented
different geographical and climatic conditions, with diverse feeding systems. Subsequently, Meat
Livestock Australia commissioned a further report (Davis and Watts, 2011) to identify the energy
77
utilisation and estimated greenhouse gas emission in Australian feedlot operations. Annual energy
usage was estimated on the basis of one kilogram of Hot Standard Carcass Weight gain (kg HSCW
gain), which is the difference between total dressed carcass weights of cattle leaving the feedlot less
the estimated total dressed carcass weights of cattle entering the feedlot. For cattle, carcass weight
usually varies between 45% and 60 % of live-weight (McIntyre, 2007).
Sandell et al. (2013) carried out a study to investigate the energy saving opportunities in different
farming sectors in Western Australia. The study was based on benchmarking energy audits and seven
case studies which included site visits to representative farms, interviews and data collection from
farm records for each industry.
6.3.2. Overseas research
Similar to the piggery and poultry sectors, it is also generally found that the largest percentage of
energy use in all livestock production systems tends to be associated with feed production (Pelletier et
al. 2010b).
Using a life cycle assessment approach, Nguyen et al. (2010) investigate the environmental
consequences of beef production in the EU. A number of beef production systems were studied and it
was demonstrated that between 41-59 MJ non-renewable energy were required for the production of 1
kg beef live weight.
High energy use was demonstrated for beef production in the fattening stage by Ogino et al. (2006).
They reported that approximately 64% of energy usage was associated with the production and 35%
with the transportation of feed. Reduced feed conversion efficiency associated with typically long
fattening periods (26–28 months) employed on Japanese farms contributed to these results.
6.4 Energy benchmarks in the cattle feedlot industry in Australia

The direct on-farm energy uses in a feedlot typically include: i) water supply; ii) feed processing; iii)
feed delivery; iv) cattle washing; v) cattle waste management; and vi) administration and minor
activities such as repairs and maintenance.
6.4.1. Feedlot on-farm water supply energy usage
The water supply within a feedlot operation is used for various activities, such as i) water for stock, ii)
cattle wash, iii) feed processing, iv) dust suppression, v) general cleaning and vi) staff and office
amenities. Sources of water supply in feedlots vary and it could come from bores, surface water
pumped from creeks, rivers and/or dams. According to the guidelines of Meat and Livestock Australia
MLA (2012), an established feedlot would need to have access to approximately 24 mega-litres (ML)
of high-security water per annum per 1,000 Standard Cattle Units (SCU) of feedlot capacity and the
infrastructure to meet water demands during peak demand e.g. hot weather in summer and emergency
storage when the normal supply fails e.g. pump failure, broken mains or loss of a storage tank.
Davis et al. (2009) described the energy usage for water supply as energy requirement for i) supply
delivery from source and ii) reticulation around the feedlot secondary pumping. They estimated that
the average water supply energy consumption on a MJ/head-on-feed/month basis was 2.5 MJ/head-
on-feed/month, ranging from 0.04 to 6.6 MJ/head-on-feed/month (Figure 6.7). The total water supply
energy usage ranged from 12.3 to 77.7 MJ/head-on-feed. Davis and Watts (2011) also showed that the
amount of energy that was used to supply water to the feedlots was less than 0.15 MJ/kg HSCW gain.
However, there were some variations among feedlots which could be due to the design of the water
supply and delivery systems.
78
Figure 6.7: Water supply energy usage (MJ/Head-On-Feed/Month) (Source: Davis et al. 2009).
6.4.2. Feedlot on-farm feed preparation energy usage
The study of Davis et al. (2009) on energy usage for the preparation of feed in the feedlots showed
that the electricity usage for grain delivery, movement and milling and gas usage for boiler fuel in
steam flaking systems were the main sources of on-farm energy consumption. The average energy
usage for per tonne of grain processed is presented in Figure 6.8.
Figure 6.8: Feed processing energy usage (MJ/t of grain) (Source: Davis et al. 2009).
The average electricity requirement for feed processing ranged from 20 to 50 MJ/t of processed grain.
Three types of gases were used, including LPG, butane, and natural gas with the estimated average
gas energy usage for steam flaking systems ranging from 240 to 315 MJ/t of processed grain, with
some seasonal variations (i.e. higher gas usage during the winter time). Davis and Watts (2011)
concluded that feed processing is the single largest consumer of energy in the feedlots, and its
magnitude depended on the production and feed processing systems (Figure 6.9).
79
Figure 6.9: Energy consumed for feed processing, feed delivery/feedlot area and water supply for
2002 and 2004 survey years (Source: Davis and Watts, 2011).
Davis and Watts (2011) further explored the variations on the level of energy usage among the
feedlots with different feed processing systems such as tempering and reconstitution of grains. They
showed lower energy usage of 0.25 MJ/kg HSCW gain by using tempering and reconstitution
methods, compared with steam flaking that resulted in 4.4 MJ/kg HSCW gain. Fuel was the main
source of energy, however its usage had declined from 4.4 MJ/kg HSCW gain in 2001 to 2.3 MJ/kg
HSCW Gain in 2004. It appears that this decline may have been due to the cost and availability of
other sources of energy that were used in the feedlots. Davis and Watts (2011) also showed that when
the steam flaking system was used to process the grain, the energy requirement for feed processing
ranged from 45% to 70% of the total energy usage in the feedlot. Sweeten (1990) also reported similar
findings that grain reconstitution used significantly less energy (32% of overall feedlot energy usage).
6.4.3. Feedlot on-farm feed delivery energy usage
The delivery of feed tonne of ration in a feedlot is another important source of energy usage (Davis et
al. 2009) (Figure 6.10). This included the energy usage for the loading of commodities and feed
delivery.
Figure 6.10: Feed delivery component energy usage (MJ/tonne of ration) (Source: Davis et al. 2009).
80
Davis et al. (2009) estimated that the average monthly energy usage by feed delivery equipment
ranged from 19 to 39 MJ/t ration delivered, and the variation in the energy usage may have been due
to the number of loaders, volumetric capacity, engine capacity, commodity loading positions and pens
layout in the feedlots.
Davis and Watts (2011) further demonstrated that the overall estimated energy usage for feed delivery
in the feed yards can be the second largest energy usage in feedlots, and ranges from 0.4 to 2.5 MJ/kg
HSCW gain. They also showed that the contribution of feed delivery to the usage of energy varied in
different feedlots. This might have been due to the layout and location of pens i.e. closeness to the
feedmills and age and type feed trucks.
6.4.4. Feedlot on-farm feed cattle washing energy usage
Cattle washing before transportation to the abattoir is a common practice in most feedlots because of
abattoir requirements in order to reduce faecal contamination during slaughtering. Electricity or diesel
are the main sources of energy for cattle washing. Typically, cattle washing contributes to around
0.5% of total energy requirements in the feedlots where cattle wash is practised prior to transportation.
The average energy usage for cattle wash ranges from 1 to 12 MJ/head washed (Davis and Watts
2011). The usage of energy for washing cattle is directly proportional to the volume of water pumped
and used during the washing process, the dirtiness of the cattle and guidelines published by the
abattoirs.
6.4.5. Feedlot on-farm feed waste management energy usage
The waste management is a major component of feedlot operations and contributes to approximately
14% of total energy consumption, ranging between 7 and 24 % (Davis et al. 2009).The contribution of
energy usage for waste management ranges from 0.12 to 1.26 MJ/kg live weight gain of total energy
usage per month, which is equivalent to 6 to 15 MJ/head-on-feed/month (Figure 6.11). However, this
could reach up to a total of 27 MJ/head-on-feed/month in some feedlots. These variations can be
attributed to various manure management systems employed at each feedlot, such as the frequency of
cleaning, equipment used and the quantity of manure that is removed from pens and yards.
Figure 6.11: Waste management energy usage (MJ/head-on-feed/month) (Source: Davis et al. 2009).
6.4.6. Energy usage for administration and minor activities
The contribution of energy usage in cattle feedlot administration tasks and minor activities cattle
management, repairs and maintenance ranged from 4% to 30%, or 0.3 to 1.2 MJ/kg live weight gain
81
of total energy usage (Davis et al. 2009). The energy usage for cattle management also includes both
processing and hospital activities. Repairs and maintenance tasks such as electricity usage in
workshop facilities as well as diesel usage from mobile plant are other sources of energy usage. Davis
and Watts (2011) reported that the quantity of energy used to operate administration facilities in the
selected feedlots were between 0.1 and 0.2 MJ/kg HSCW, which is quite insignificant.
6.4.7. Total direct on-farm energy usage
The total monthly direct on-farm energy usage in those feedlots that were studied by Davis et al
(2009) is presented in Figure 6.12. In another study, Davis and Watts (2011) also reported that the
total direct on-farm energy usage in the feedlots ranged from 0.9 to 8.3 MJ/kg live weight gain. This
can go up to 1.4 to 12.79 MJ/kg HSCW gain (Figure 6.13). The results of a survey conducted by
Davis and Watts (2011) in 2004 suggested that feed processing and feed delivery were the two main
sources of energy consumption within a feedlot.
Figure 6.12: Total direct on-farm energy usage in feedlots (MJ/kg live weight gain)
(Source: Davis et al. 2009).
Figure 6.13: Total energy consumption for individual feedlots in 2004. The indirect energy usage
outside of the feedlot such as cattle and commodity delivery were included (Source: Davis and Watts,
2011).
The total energy usage for these activities was also standardised per kg live weight gain/month by
Davis et al. (2009) (Table 6.5). The total average monthly energy usage across all feedlots, between
82
March 2007 and February 2008, was 6 MJ/kg live weight gain, ranging from 2.7 to 11.7 MJ/kg live
weight gain/month, which was equivalent to 40 to 124 MJ/head-on-feed/month. The estimated
average energy usage for steam flaking was 100 MJ/head-on-feed, whereas the energy usage in
feedlots with tempering or reconstitution grain processing systems was 40 MJ/head-on-feed/month.
The case with the highest usage of energy across the feedlots studied in 2004 is shown in Figure 6.14.
Table 6.5: The highest and lowest energy consumption among the nine feedlots surveyed in 2004
(Source: Davis and Watts, 2011).
Figure 6.14: Percentage energy distribution from operations in the feedlot with the highest energy
consumed during 2004 (Source: Davis and Watts 2011).
6.4.8. The study of Sandell et al. (2013)
The estimates of energy utilisation in feedlots by Sandell et al. (2013) were based on Planfarm
Bankwest Benchmarks PBB, 2011/12 data and the corresponding case studies. Since no comparative
data on feedlot sector was provided, Sandell et al. (2013) had to rely on energy consumption data on
feedlot operations reported by Davis et al. (2009) and Davis and Watts (2011) for comparison
purposes.
Sandell et al. (2013) found that diesel was the main source of energy usage (81%), followed by
unleaded petrol (13%) and electricity (6%). LPG was not used as a source of energy in the beef sector
83
(0%) in Western Australia. The source and use of energy per unit of production and as a proportion of
total energy consumption and its cost are presented in Tables 6.6 and 6.7. These estimates are in very
close agreement with those reported by Davis and Watts (2011). The results of case studies by Sandell
et al. (2013) also show that total energy usage was 6.12 MJ/kg HSCW gain with a total cost $0.24/kg
HSCW gain. The estimated energy use for key processes is presented in Table 6.8.
Table 6.6: Energy source per unit of production
Litres diesel / Litres ULP / kg kWh electricity/kg Total energy MJ/kg

kg HSCW gain HSCW gain HSCW gain HSCW gain
Beef 0.13 0.01 0.20 6.12
Table 6.7: Sources of energy, conversion factors and percentage of total energy consumption
Conversion Portion of total Energy source Portion of

Source of energy factors energy as a portion total energy
(MJ/L) consumption (%) of GHG (%) cost (%)
Diesel 38.6 84% 66% 76%
Unleaded petrol ULP 34.2 4.0% 3% 4%
Liquid petroleum gas LPG 25.7 -
Electricity kWh 3.6 12% 31% 20%
Table 6.8: Itemised energy usage for key processes
Grain & hay Ration

Pen Manure Repair & Other
handing mix and Vehicles
cleaning handling maintenance electrical
& rolling deliver
MJ/kg
1.38 2.31 0.39 1.10 0.01 0.01 0.71
HSCW
% of total
23% 39% 7% 19% 0% 0% 12%
energy use
6.5 Energy benchmarks in the wool production industry in Australia

There are only limited studies on energy usage in Australian wool sheep grazing systems. Similar to
cattle feedlot operations, the on-farm component of sheep production utilises a high proportion of
resources such as energy (Figure 6.15).
The objective of this chapter was to explore the energy usage only for on-farm activities and inputs,
excluding other activities such as extraction, manufacturing, delivery and usage, wool scouring, top
making and shipping. A simplified diagram for the life cycle of wool production, processing and
transportation is presented in Figure 6.16.
The research studies and market research that investigated the energy usage in wool sheep industry
are listed in Table 6.9. It is noted that the majority of these reports were descriptive with limited data
on energy usage.
84
Figure 6.15: The potential sources of energy in grazing wool sheep in Australia
Figure 6.16: Life cycle of wool from farm to fabric formation (Source: Barber and Pellow, 2006)
85
Table 6.9: Studies reported or investigated energy utilisation in wool sheep industry in Australia
References Description
Descriptive with limited quantitative data
McHugh (2000) Cost of electricity combined with other costs in strip grazing
Impact of energy usage on production
A guide to making a profitable sheep farming
Hall et al. (2012)
Descriptive comments on fuel costs
Gale et al. (2014) Fuel management in grazing systems in the Australian Capital Territory
Advisory comments one fuel energy usage in grazing beef and sheep industries
Burrow and Estimated energy input to wool production
Mackenzie (1978) Energy budget for intensive wool production
Use of resource and greenhouse gas emissions from two wool production
Wiedemann et al. systems in Australia
(unpublished) Contribution of electricity, diesel and petrol in greenhouse emission in grazing
wool sheep
Biswas et al. Assessment of emissions from 1 kg of sheep meat, wheat and wool
(2010) production pre-farm and on-farm from a site in Hamilton, Victoria
Assessment of environmental impacts on life cycle of wool production
Henry (2012)
Electricity and fuel consumption in the life cycle of wool production
The relative contribution of greenhouse gas emissions from different
Brock et al.
components of the production system was determined. Only 2% of total
(2013)
emissions were embodied in farm inputs, including fertiliser.
Increasing the knowledge and adaption of energy saving initiatives amongst
Sandell et al.
farming enterprises in Western Australia
(2013)
Overall estimates on energy usage fuel and electricity in both beef and sheep
industries.
The study of Burrow and Mackenzie (1978) provided good energy usage data in wool sheep
production farms in Australia (Table 6.10). Because there have been marked changes in wool
production farming, these data may not accurately reflect the source and amount of required energy
for different tasks in wool sheep production farms today.
Table 6.10: Total energy budget for intensive wool production (Source: Burrow and Mackenzie,
1978)
Type and Annual

Equivalent
Components of System Quantity Energy
Energy
of Input Equivalent
Pasture production & maintenance Input per ha MJ/ha MJ/ha
Pasture establishment & renewal every 20
1.5 hr machinery 45.0
years, Break up ground, cultivate once and 28
9.5 kg fuel 522.5
sow. 1.5 tractor hours and 9.5 kg fuel.
Fertiliser application annual spread 145 kg 145 kg super 449.5
super per ha using truck working at the rate 10 0.1 hr machinery 3.0 470
ha per hour and 3.2 kg fuel per hour 0.32 kg fuel 17.6
Insecticide application annual spray 0.5 kg 0.5 kg insecticide 92.5
active ingredient per ha at the rate of 20 ha per 0.05 hr machinery 1.5 103
hour using a tractor - 3.2 kg fuel per hour 0.16 kg fuel 8.8
SUB-TOTAL Inputs to pasture production 601
86
McChesney (1979) produced a report on energy use in the sheep and beef farming sector of New
Zealand. Although somewhat dated, it also remains one of the best guides to energy use in this sector.
The overall energy intensity of sheep and beef farming systems was calculated to be 1.09 GJ/ha per
year, of which 73% of the energy inputs were indirect, almost half being for the manufacture,
transport and application of fertiliser. It was also found that the energy intensity of sheep and beef
production systems is strongly correlated to the stocking rate.
CAE (1996) showed that electricity consumption by a typical sheep and beef farm is generally low,
ranging from 3000 to 7000 kWh/annum or around 1.0-1.5 kWh/stock unit. Water pumps for stock
water reticulation systems are the main electrical energy consumers, with an energy intensity of about
12.5 kWh/ha. Vehicle use to maintain pumps consumes a small amount of fuel, bringing the total
energy intensity to 80 MJ/ha (Eastwood and Sims, 2003). It was estimated that 2GWh/annum of
electricity was used in NZ during shearing, equating to only 0.02 kWh per sheep shorn (CAE, 1996).
A multiple-phase study was conducted by Wiedemann et al. (unpublished) to investigate the use of
resources and greenhouse gas emissions in Australian wool production enterprises on two farms in
Northern NSW and Western Australia. The sheep production systems were wool, lamb and mutton
production. The energy demand at the farm level was determined by using the data on the amount of
energy and other inputs that were purchased for the farm. In these farms, the land use was divided into
arable and non-arable land resources and the water usage was estimated using a water balance for the
farm water supply system. These estimates included the supply chain processes that were only
associated with the primary production of wool at the farm-gate, and expressed as a functional unit of
“one kilogram of greasy wool at the farm gate”. The multiple production systems presented a
challenge for assessing the input of energy utilisation that is used only for wool production. The co-
production of wool and meat in one flock is complex, as both products are jointly produced from the
same sheep flocks, and determination of energy usage can be a challenging task. Wiedemann et al.
(unpublished) accounted for both, wool and meat, in their study by allocating mass and economic
factors in their analysis.
Wiedemann et al. (unpublished) estimated that total energy demands were 8.3±2.3 and 10±3.2 MJ/kg
wool in NSW and WA sheep farms, respectively. The energy demand was mainly associated with the
purchase of required inputs, among which the direct farm energy demand was 12% of total energy
utilisation in a sheep farm. This is similar to the estimation by Brock et al. (2103) who found from
their LCA studies that for 1 kg of wool produced in the Yass Region, NSW, the on-farm direct uses of
electricity and diesel were respectively: 0.0123 MJ/kg wool and 0.032 litre/kg wool (1.235 MJ/kg
wool), giving a total on-farm direct energy usage of 1.247 MJ/kg wool. Electricity was used on-farm
for shearing, crutching, electric fence operation and pumping of stock water. Diesel was used for
spreading of fertiliser (1.2 L diesel/ha or 0.018L/kg wool), utility (at 0.010L/kg wool), and motorbike
(0.004 L/kg wool). Pasture establishment and renovation was not included in that study as it was an
irregular practice in the region.
Biswas et al. (2010) investigated emissions from 1 kg of sheepmeat, wheat and wool production from
a site in Hamilton, Victoria. Minimum tillage is common practice in that area. The on-farm energy
uses for spraying, top dressing and shearing were found to be 0.65 L/ha, 0.81 L/ha, and 0.62 kWh/ha
respectively, with a wool production of 75 kg/ha. This gives an on-farm energy usage of 0.78 MJ/kg
wool (Table 6.11).
Table 6.11: On-farm direct energy use in sheep wool production (Source: Biswas et al. 2010)
Task/Activity Energy use Energy use

per hectare (MJ/ha)
Spraying 0.65 L diesel/ha 25.1 MJ/ha
Top dressing 0.81 L diesel/ha 31.3 MJ/ha
Shearing 0.62 kWh electricity/ha 2.2 MJ/ha
87
Total on-farm direct energy use per ha 58.6 MJ/ha
Total on-farm direct energy use per kg wool 0.78 MJ/kg wool
Barber and Pellow (2006) also studied the LCA energy usage in Merino sheep farms in New Zealand,
and estimated that the total on-farm energy usage was around 14.83 MJ/kg for greasy wool. The most
significant on-farm energy input was liquid fuels at 40% of total on-farm energy cost followed closely
by fertiliser at 39% (Barber and Pellow, 2006).
Other studies (Burrow and Mackenzie, 1978) reported 41 MJ of energy usage per kg of clean wool.
This usage included pasture, sheep and wool handling with an assumption of 25 kg of clean wool per
hectare. Fertiliser applications also contributed to approximately 46% of the total inputs to wool
production per year. The cost of transportation of sheep and wool was included in the estimation of
Burrow and Mackenzie (1978), which accounted for 27% of total inputs to wool production.
The overall energy usage for sheep wool and lamb production reported by Sandell et al. (2013) can
also provide a reliable cost estimate on the cost of energy in sheep mixed farming wool, lamb and
crops. However, it was not possible to accurately estimate from this report the energy usage for each
component within a combined farming practice. Because the co-production of wool and meat in one
flock is complex, as both products are jointly produced from the same sheep flocks, and determination
of energy usage can be challenging.

In this chapter, the on-farm energy usage in beef feedlot industry and grazing wool sheep farming in
Australia has been reviewed to demonstrate the cost of energy in these two production systems.
6.6.1. Cattle feedlots
Energy is fundamental to a feedlot production system. Overall, the available studies on energy usage
in feedlot production systems in Australia are limited, thus limiting our attempts to comprehensively
explore different sources of energy usage in feedlots with diverse feeding and management strategies.
Energy is used directly in the operation of the feedlot, including feed processing, feed delivery, water
supply, administration etc. Davis et al. (2009) and Davis and Watts (2011) showed that the average
direct on-farm energy usage in the feedlots was around 6 MJ/kg live weight gain, ranging from 0.9 to
8.3 MJ/kg live weight gain, and varying significantly with feed processing and delivery methods.
Sandell et al. (2013) showed that this was lower at 6.12 MJ/kg carcass weight gain from their Western
Australia study. These are in comparison with the total on-farm energy inputs of 41-59 MJ/kg live
weight (Nguyen et al. 2010) and 80-100 MJ/kg carcass weight in the Europe (Smil, 2008), including
both the direct energy for tractor fuels, heating, lighting, motors and the indirect energy for feed,
buildings and equipment.
Table 6.12: Benchmark energy use for feedlot cattle production
Feedlot cattle
Direct on-farm energy use (MJ/kg live-weight) 0.9-8.3
Total energy use including feed production (MJ/kg live-weight) 11-63.8
Two areas have been identified in which energy saving could be targeted. These are feed processing
and feed delivery. It has been found that feed processing is the single largest energy usage which
accounts up to 70% of the total energy consumption. This indicates that changes in the structure,
feeding and management of feedlot operations will have significant implications to the amount of
88
energy usage for beef production. Davis et al. (2009) and Davis and Watts (2011) also showed that the
energy usage using the steam flaking method is 9 times more than those feedlots that use flaked
grains.
In addition to feed processing, feed delivery and pen cleaning/maintenance were identified as the
second largest energy usage in feedlot operations, accounting for 15% to 40% of total energy usage.
To reduce energy costs, it is important to explore various options and alternative management
practices. There may be opportunities for energy recovery through biogas energy production using
feedlot manure for both electricity and heat purposes (Cantrell et al. 2008). The heat can then be used
to pre-heat water as part of the steam-flaking feed processing operations
http://www.beefcentral.com/lotfeeding/rangers-valley-signs-off-on-major-biogas-project/. If the
manure is to be used for combustion, the correct design of the boiler is essential. The viability of
gasification and pyrolysis technologies is highly dependent on the returns obtained from selling
biochar (Watts, 2013).
6.6.2. Sheep farming
Overall, data on the source and usage of energy in Australian wool sheep production are limited. The
report of Wiedemann et al. (unpublished) attempted to quantify the energy usage in two wool sheep
farming operations. They estimated that the total energy usage in grazing wool sheep ranged between
8.3 ± 2.3 and 10 ± 3.2 MJ/kg wool, among which the direct on-farm energy demand was only 12% of
total energy use in a sheep farm. This is similar to the estimation by Brock et al. (2103) who found
that for 1 kg of wool produced in the Yass Region, NSW, the direct on-farm uses of electricity and
diesel were respectively 0.0123 MJ and 0.032 litre (1.235 MJ), giving a total on-farm direct energy
usage as 1.247 MJ/kg wool. Biswas et al. (2010) estimated this to be 0.78 MJ/kg wool (Table 6.13).
Table 6.13: Benchmark energy use for sheep wool production in Australia
Sheep wool
On-farm direct energy use (MJ/kg wool) 0.78 to 1.25
Total energy use including fertiliser manufacturing and applications
8.3±2.3 to 10.0±3.2
for pasture production (MJ/kg wool)
For mixed farming wool, lamb and crops enterprises, the co-production of wool and meat in one flock
is complex, as both products are jointly produced from the same sheep flocks, and determination of
energy usage may be difficult. Further studies will be needed to provide more accurate benchmark
data at a regional scale for different regions on the energy usage components in both cattle feedlot and
wool sheep farming, in order to develop regionally-applicable strategies to reduce energy
consumption and GHG emissions.
89
7 Conclusions and recommendations for
further work
7.1 Project background and motivations
Australian agriculture is highly reliant on fossil fuels. In many cases, energy costs represent a
significant proportion of agricultural production input costs, including the cost of manufacturing and
transportation of various fertilisers.
Direct energy may be consumed in three major forms on most farms: 1) general electricity usage for
lighting, appliances, irrigation; 2) fuel use for machinery, tractors and vehicles; and 3) heating/cooling
for industries such as dairy, horticulture, piggeries and poultry.
While direct on-farm energy use may not be the biggest component of the total energy cost in
agricultural production, it is significant because any savings made will flow directly to the growers. In
addition, it also helps to protect the environment and reduces the greenhouse gas emissions.
7.2 Project objectives

Reduction of energy consumption can only be done when we know where and how the energy is used.
The purpose of this project is thus to update and provide benchmarks regarding “what are the energy
requirements and usage patterns of Australia’s agricultural industries and what are the opportunities to
reduce the use and cost of energy in agriculture”.
The specific key objectives are:

• Define farm system types for each industry
• Characterise farm systems
• Collect energy and production data
• Analyse and benchmark energy use of different sub-processes/practices
• Analyse and identify energy use pattern/mix and compare across industries (what, when,
where and how much energy is used). The energy use data will be further linked to the
sources and prices of energy supply, characteristics of the region and the industry.
• Identify opportunities and ‘best practices’ to increase energy efficiency, farm profitability and
industry sustainability
• Develop and rank energy diversification through renewable energy options.
• At the end of the project, a gap analysis will also be undertaken to identify and prioritise
future work. The impact of future technological development and influence of government
trade, energy and environment policy will be examined.
7.3 Project research methodology

This project has been undertaken at an industry level and within Australia. The majority of work is a
‘desk top’ literature review. Relevant expertise has been engaged within each of the industries.
Overall, a bottom-up approach has been taken to estimate the energy uses. Seven broad industries of
grain cropping, horticulture, dairy, beef, wool sheep, pork, and chicken meat have been studied. The
key energy conservation measurements specific to each industry have also been identified and
outlined.
90
7.4 Overall research findings
• Many of the recent energy research projects are undertaken as part of wider Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA) studies. This work takes account of energy use from different sources but
may not divide them into different processes, so that their individual process efficiency is still
unknown.
• In the public literature, there is little direct on-farm energy data available for the key farming
processes of grape growing in Australia, and for the nursery sector outside Queensland. There
is also a relative lack of Australian research in the energy use of livestock industry. This lack
of data is particularly significant because a considerable proportion of overseas research
results may not be relevant to Australia because of our different climate and farming systems..
• Direct on-farm energy costs and energy intensities vary significantly between different
industries and growers. Within the same sector, a variation with a factor of up to 10 may
occur. Energy use is often significantly influenced by the local climate, the irrigation and
growing methods (eg, greenhouses vs open fields) adopted.
• Some of the variations in direct on-farm energy use may also be due to the different
methodologies and assumptions adopted in different literature. A clear definition of system or
research boundaries is thus required in all such research projects. For example, production of
feed for livestock is included in some studies while it is not in others. Similar situations also
exist for the inclusion of indirect energy uses such as electricity usage and fertiliser embodied
energy. When co-production (eg, wool and sheep meat) is involved, different ways of
handling co-products may be applied. Some livestock energy use indices refer to animal live
weight, while others to dressed carcass weight.
• ‘High-value’ horticulture and nursery sectors may use up to 1500 times more direct on-farm
energy per hectare than that of the broad-acre cereal crops. Crops grown in greenhouses can
also have energy intensity per kilogram of product of up to 10-20 times that of the same crops
when grown in open fields.
• Generally, beef feedlots in Australia have higher energy usage than pork and poultry, which
in turn have higher energy usage than sheep wool and cow milk on a unit weight basis. Dairy
farming’s chief direct on-farm energy source may be electricity, while cropping and sheep
grazing mainly rely on transport fuels.
• Indirect energy use such as the embodied energy of fertilisers and feed for livestock could be
a major energy user in several agricultural sectors. This highlights the importance of a life
cycle approach. Improving feed and fertiliser conversion efficiency will also reduce the
greenhouse gas (methane and N2O) emissions.
• To be effective, energy saving measures will need to be modified to suit the particular
situations of each industry and farm. An individualised energy audit will help farmers to
benchmark and understand the range of energy use for their sector and also to pinpoint where
their energy use is highest and the potential savings achievable. This will best be performed
by regionally based personnel familiar with the industry and who have appropriate training.
This is also often best achieved through the whole farm system approach, taking into account
the water-food-energy-climate nexus and life cycle impact. Development of suitable
templates will not only improve the quality but also reduce the cost of energy audits.
• Reducing the dependence of the agri-food system on fossil fuels by substituting renewable
energy, at least in part, is feasible. Recovery of energy from waste also maximises the
productive value of resources, and minimises the impact on the environment and public
health. Renewable energy has been demonstrated to be feasible and cost-effective for a
number of on-farm operations.
91
7.5 Specific research findings
7.5.1. Grain energy benchmark
The highest amount of energy is required for sorghum crops (4.4 GJ/ha) grown under irrigated
systems in the Southern Grain region, followed by barley (3.7 GJ/ha) and sorghum (3.0 GJ/ha) grown
under irrigation in the Northern Grain region. Under dryland conditions, crops under zero tillage
require less energy for each crop than conventional tillage. Among the three regions, Western
Australia requires less energy for each crop, mainly due to easily workable sandy soils. The lowest
energy requirements (0.4 GJ/ha) are wheat and barley grown in dryland by the zero tillage method in
Western Australia.
7.5.2. Horticulture energy benchmark
Energy costs vary significantly between different operators and different sectors. A significant
proportion of energy use in the horticultural sector is to enable the growing of crops, in greenhouses
and other temperature-controlled structures. The direct energy use ranges from 7.64 GJ/ha for
potatoes grown in open fields to 5955 GJ/ha for tomatoes grown in greenhouses.
7.5.3. Livestock and animal energy benchmark
The livestock sector accounts for 66% of GHG emissions from agriculture in Australia which
amounts to approximately 16% of Australia’s total GHG emissions (Price, 2014). It has been found
that in Australia, the direct on-farm energy needed to produce one litre or one kilogram of (fresh) milk
is around 0.41-0.83 MJ/kg milk. The average direct on-farm energy uses for pork and poultry meat
production are respectively 0.61-3.78 and 0.51-0.88 MJ/kg live weight. This is in comparison with
around 6 MJ/kg live weight for feedlot beef production. The direct on-farm energy use for wool
production varies between 0.78 and 1.25 MJ/kg wool.
On pig and poultry farms, the processes of heating, cooling and ventilation are often the most energy-
consuming processes. Feed processing and feed delivery are the two main sources of energy
consumption within a feedlot. For wool sheep, the main on-farm energy uses are spraying and top
dressing of pasture. It is difficult to accurately estimate the energy usage for each component within a
combined sheep-cropping farming practice.
7.6 Recommendations
7.6.1. Energy efficiency opportunities
There are effectively two ways of reducing energy use and costs, either by practice refinement
(improving energy efficiency) or by practice change (reduced energy via a different approach,
including tariff/price negotiation, fuel switching (alternative fuels) and waste recovery and
utilisation).
It has been found that overall, the direct on-farm energy inputs by a farmer can be significantly
influenced by the climate, and the management and operation methods adopted. Some of the generic
energy management measurements for agricultural industries are summarised in Table 7.1 (Teagasc,
2011). Overall, a 5 to 20% energy saving could often be made immediately, across almost the whole
of agricultural sector (Centre for Energy Research, 2004; Sandall et al. 2014).
92
Table 7.1: Some of the generic energy management measurements (Source: Teagasc, 2011).
Brown and Elliot (2005) have found that the largest direct on-farm energy savings are often available
in motorised systems. Irrigation use across all sectors is energy intensive and has the potential to
improve both energy and water savings through better monitoring and management. An Excel Pump
Efficiency Calculator Tool was developed for the dairy industry (Brown and Macdonald, 2010). In
two cotton industry instances, savings of over 50% diesel use per ML of water pumped have also been
identified through improvements in the irrigation pumping systems (Chen et al. 2009; Szabo et al.
2013).
Pimentel et al. (2008) further showed that total fossil energy use in the US food system could be
significantly reduced by implementing appropriate technology and system changes. Using corn
production as an example, it was estimated that total energy in corn production could be reduced by
more than 50% with the following changes of practices: 1) using smaller machinery and less fuel; 2)
replacing commercial nitrogen applications with legume cover crops and livestock manure; and 3)
adopting alternative tillage and conservation techniques.
Alternative behavioural changes and technology developments such as precision agriculture

technology, better infrastructure and communication technologies, selection of crop varieties, and
conservation farming will all reduce the energy dependence and use of agriculture. These may be as
effective and important as energy technologies themselves. For example, precision agriculture using
modern field equipment with satellite navigation, alongside other best management practices, can
significantly reduce consumption of fuel and other inputs. Similarly, improvements in water
application efficiency will result in less water being pumped for the same result. Adopting off-peak
systems and getting a better tariff can also save considerable electricity costs.
There are significant further opportunities to collect more accurate and detailed information on energy
use in order inform specific opportunities to improve farming practices to reduce on-farm energy
usage. Energy use varies greatly between different sectors and different growers, and the pooling of
energy use data will further improve energy awareness, and can be a powerful stimulus to action.
Applications of cloud computing and big data technologies have the potential to improve farm data
management and business operations (Singh et al. 2015).
The industry should also support producers to self-assess (Brown and Macdonald, 2010). Regional
energy auditors will need to be identified and training provided. To be effective, energy saving
measures will need to be modified to suit the particular situations of each industry and also farm.
93
7.6.2. Opportunities for adopting alternative and renewable energy
Renewable energy is an important direction for the future. Renewable energy sources may include
solar, wind, hydropower, biomass, biogas and geothermal power. The broad opportunities for
adopting renewable energy in agriculture are given in Table 7.2.
Table 7.2: Energy inputs, demand intensities, renewable energy resources and exporting energy
potential for a range of agricultural operations, noting that this table is modified based on the original
work of Sims and Flammini (2014).

Potential
Type of Direct energy Energy demand Energy export
renewable
Enterprise inputs intensity potential
energy sources
• High diesel for
• Tractor fuel diesel. machinery. • Crop residues for • Biofuels or
• Electricity for • High energy heat and power feedstocks.
Arable e.g. wheat, irrigation, storage demand if irrigated; generation and • Solar power.
barley, sorghum, and facilities, • Low to medium for possibly biofuels. • Wind and hydro-
maize/corn conveying. conservation • Biofuels and biogas power are less likely
• Heat for drying agriculture. from energy crops. on flat to undulating
LPG, gas • Low heat demand • Solar if good sites. arable land
and seasonal.
• Tractor fuel diesel. • Dry residues for
• High to low diesel
• Electricity for combustion. • Heat and biogas
for machinery.
Horticulture irrigation, grading, • Wet residues for mainly used on-site.
• High power demand
vegetables and fruits. conveying, heating, anaerobic digestion. • Solar power
if irrigated and for
cooling, ventilation, • Solar and wind possible.
post-harvest chillers.
storing. possible.
• Diesel for tractors.
• High electricity, • Manure for biogas.
• Electricity for
especially if • Waste heat from • Heat and power
milking, pumping,
irrigated. milk cooling. from biogas.
Dairying cooling, irrigation,
• Medium fuel for • Solar thermal. • Solar or wind
lighting.
machinery. • Solar and wind if power.
• Heat for water,
• Low heat. good sites.
pasteurising.
• Diesel or petrol for
• Medium if some • Wind and small-
machinery. • Wind and hydro
Pastoral livestock e.g. pasture conserved. hydro if hill country.
• Electricity for power on hill
sheep, beef. • Very low power • Forest residues.
shearing, country.
demand. • Solar if good sites.
refrigeration.
• High if mainly
• Manure for biogas.
• Electricity for housed indoors. • Heat and power
• Poultry litter for
Intensive livestock lighting, ventilation, • Medium to low if from biogas and
combustion.
e.g. pigs, poultry. water pumping. partly outdoors. poultry litter at
• Solar and wind for
• Tractor fuel diesel. • High if feed grown, community scale.
water pumping.
low if bought-in.

Examples of specific applications of renewable energy include solar crop drying, solar space and
water heating, solar irrigation and using biomass for heating purposes and electricity generation.
Other applications include off-grid electric fences, lighting, irrigation, livestock water supply,
wastewater treatment pond aeration, communication and remote equipment operation and others
(Chen et al. 2014).
At present, the main barrier to the adoption of renewable energy is often economics, since up-front
investment costs for renewable technologies are often higher when compared with conventional
technologies. The viability of renewable energy may also be subject to uncertainty in government
policies. Further research is thus still required to identify suitable pathways and policy frameworks to
encourage future market uptake (Bundschuh et al. 2014).
94
Overall, the long-term future for renewable energy is positive, since the long-term prices of fossil
fuels will continue to rise as the resources are depleted, while the prices of renewable energy will
continue to decrease. Where the opportunities are appropriate, integrating renewable energies into
farming operations can save energy, costs, and greenhouse gas emissions (Bundschuh et al. 2014). At
the present, reducing the dependence of the agri-food system on fossil fuels by substituting renewable
energy, at least in part, is feasible. Renewable energy has been demonstrated to be feasible and cost-
effective for a number of on-farm operations as well as transportation activities.
In Australia, an online renewable energy calculator (Schmidt et al. 2010; Chen et al. 2011) has been
developed to provide a first indication of the potential for solar or wind systems to replace purchased
electricity and feed electricity into the grid (Fig. 7.1). The calculator can select the appropriate size of
solar or wind turbine system and provide a simple cost benefit analysis based on available information
of expected energy demand, renewable energy to be generated, electricity costs and system capital
and operating costs.

Figure 7.1: An example of NCEA online renewable energy calculator output sheets (Source: Chen et
al. 2011)

7.7 Implications for relevant stakeholders
The success of energy efficiency programs is dependent on good quality data. Recent literature on
direct on-farm energy use in agriculture in Australia is relatively limited. There are still
inconsistencies and access issues for the on-farm energy use data in and between different industries.
Baber (2015) found that literature based energy studies may sometimes underestimate real energy use
compared to those obtained through farmer surveys, because the energy use for general/running may
often only be picked up when surveying an operation’s total fuel use. This will be improved through
further research and also data sharing across agricultural sectors. It is suggested that this could be
achieved via the national life cycle inventory (LCI) dataset for Australian agricultural processes
(AusAgLCI) (Eady et al, 2013; Eady et al. 2014). The relevant data in that database should be updated
based on the research results of this report as soon as possible.
To promote the adoption of energy-saving technologies, there is a need for specific knowledge and
technology transfer programs in the agricultural industries. It is recommended that in order to promote
industry awareness and implement improved practices, this report should be further developed and
converted into a series of easy-to-read farmer-friendly summary reports for different regions and
sectors (Barber et al. 2014; Baber, 2015). The industry will maximise benefits by getting these short
reports.
95
It is also recommended that further monitoring and characterization of major energy uses for different
farming systems, particularly for those sectors not covered in this report. There needs to be a clear
definition of what is included and what is excluded from the analysis for different production systems.
To be effective, energy saving measures will need to be modified/customised to suit the particular
situations of each industry and farm. This will best be performed by regional-based personnel familiar
with the industry and who have appropriate training. Development of suitable templates will not only
improve the quality but also reduce the cost of energy audits. Where feasible and cost-effective, it
would also be important to deploy renewable energy in parallel with appropriate energy efficiency
measures.
96
8 Appendix
8.1 Appendix 1 - Australian crop production (ABARES, 2014)
Crops Area planted Yield (t/ha) Production (kt)

average a 2011–12 2012–13 s 2013–14 f average a 2011–12 2012–13 s 2013–14 f average a 2011–12 2012–13 s 2013–14 f
'000 ha '000 ha '000 ha '000 ha t/ha t/ha t/ha t/ha kt kt kt kt
Winter crops
Wheat 13 518 13 902 12 773 13 512 1.82 2.15 1.76 2.00 24 606 29 905 22 461 27 013
Barley 4 092 3 718 3 622 3 957 1.96 2.21 2.06 2.41 7 909 8 221 7 466 9 545
Canola 2 226 2 461 3 203 2 567 1.20 1.39 1.25 1.38 2 709 3 427 4 010 3 548
Chickpeas 490 456 574 507 1.22 1.48 1.42 1.24 586 673 813 629
Faba beans 154 151 203 152 1.68 1.77 1.86 2.15 264 268 377 328
Field peas 286 249 281 245 1.16 1.38 1.14 1.40 330 342 320 342
Lentils 155 173 164 168 1.29 1.67 1.12 1.50 212 288 184 253
Lupins 633 689 450 387 1.19 1.42 1.02 1.62 756 982 459 625
Oats 795 731 699 744 1.48 1.73 1.60 1.69 1 165 1 262 1 115 1 259
Triticale 253 145 258 230 1.64 1.97 1.66 1.74 395 285 429 400
Summer crops
Grain sorghum 630 659 595 492 3.27 3.40 3.37 2.60 2 076 2 239 2 005 1 278
Cottonseed b 401 600 442 392 2.75 2.89 3.25 3.39 1 090 1 732 1 438 1 330
Cotton lint b 401 600 442 392 1.95 2.04 2.30 2.40 777 1 225 1 017 940
Rice paddy 64 103 114 101 9.51 8.91 10.24 8.98 613 919 1 166 907
Corn maize 67 70 81 58 5.94 6.47 6.13 5.78 401 451 496 335
Sunflower 37 40 30 27 1.28 1.17 1.46 1.18 46 47 44 32
a Five-year average to 2012–13.
b Cotton area is estimated harvested area.
f ABARES forecast.
s ABARES estimate. Includes ABS preliminary estimates for barley, canola, grain sorghum, oats and wheat. Note: The crop year refers to crops planted during the 12 months to 31 March.
Slight discrepancies may appear between tables as a result of including of the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory in the Australian totals. Rice, cottonseed and cotton lint include
northern dry and wet season crops.
97
8.2 Appendix 2 - Australian grains and oilseeds prices
2012 2012 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013
Crop Apr–Jun Jul-Sep Oct–Dec Jan–Mar Apr–Jun Jul–Sep Oct–Dec
A$/t A$/t A$/t A$/t A$/t A$/t A$/t
Wheat
Domestic: feed, del. Sydney 228 299 306 314 307 293 300
International: US No.2 hard red winter, fob Gulf a 279 351 355 321 327 341 341
Barley
Domestic: 2 row feed, del. Sydney 202 262 305 301 293 265 241
Export: feed b 251 258 275 294 300 314 263
Export: malting b 275 262 301 319 319 329 327
International: feed, fob Rouen a 269 291 302 288 272 260 271
Grain sorghum
Export b 248 249 286 267 313 357 383
Oats
Export b 264 307 318 350 391 601 278
International: CME oats nearby contract 220 250 248 250 269 269 257
Corn maize
International: US No.2 yellow corn, fob Gulf a 269 319 307 295 296 270 215
Oilseeds
Domestic: canola, del. Melbourne 536 557 566 550 565 550 513
Domestic: sunflowers, del. Melbourne 520 520 520 520 520 520 540
International: US soybeans, fob Gulf a 545 627 563 545 588 595 568
Pulses
Domestic: lupins, del. Kwinana 247 305 336 331 299 288 309
Domestic: chickpeas, del. Melbourne 612 640 514 518 532 439 390
Domestic: field peas, del. Melbourne 345 369 343 370 396 403 335
Export: chickpeas b 634 710 623 595 612 617 513
Export: field peas b 409 418 411 431 444 489 437
a Average of daily offer prices made in US$, converted to A$ using quarterly average of daily exchange rates.
b Export unit values reflect the average price received for grain exported over the quarter, not current market prices. These prices
are the average unit value free on board of Australian exports recorded by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. A long lag time can
exist between when exporters negotiate prices and when the product is exported.
Note: Prices used in these calculations exclude GST.
98
8.3 Appendix 3 - Available overseas research and energy data for
grape production
Limited research has been undertaken on energy use for grape production overseas (Tables 8.1 and 8.2).
By analysing the data from 135 grape industries in Iran, Sattari-Yuzbashkandi et al. (2013) reported that
in Iran, the total energy inputs for the grape industry was 82 GJ/ha, of which about 30% was due to use of
electricity, 22% chemical fertilizers and 21% due to the use of diesel fuels.
Table 8.1: Grape energy performance data from the overseas published literature

Input Input Input
Sattari-Yuzbashkandi
Open-field grape 82 Iran
et al. (2013)
Open-field grape 8.5 CAE (1996) NZ
Open-field grape 14.6 9.0 23.6 Ozkan et al. (2007) Turkey
Greenhouse grape 14.9 9.6 24.5 Ozkan et al. (2007) Turkey
The direct fuel energy use for various activities in grape production was also reported by CAE (1996),
Sims (2014) and Barber et al. (2014) in New Zealand, totalling 220L/ha or 8.5 GJ/ha (Table 8.2). In
comparison, the total energy input for greenhouse grape production in Turkey was found to 24.5 GJ/ha,
with 61% being direct energy use. For open-field grape production, Ozkan et al. (2007) also found that a
total of 23.64 GJ/ha energy was consumed, of which 62% was direct and 37% was in indirect energy
form.
Table 8.2: Direct liquid fuel energy use for activities in grape production in New Zealand
(CAE, 1996; Sims, 2014).
Field activity Fuel use (L/ha)

Vine/tree spraying 35
Inter-row cultivation 16
Mowing -
Trimming and pruning 20
Weed spray 11
Topdressing 3
Shelter maintenance 2
Harvest 44
Materials handling 8
Product transport 18
On-farm staff transport 28
Total 220
99
Using the definition one Functional Unit of 0.75 L wine, Gazulla et al. (2010) carried out a life cycle
analysis of wine production in the region of La Rioja in Spain. They reported that the energy requirements
for viticulture, wine making, barrel production, bottle production, domestic distribution and disposal were
1 MJ/FU, 0.6 MJ/FU, 0.7 MJ/FU, 5 MJ/FU and 1.3 MJ/FU, respectively.
In Australia, a breakdown of energy use for the winemaking process (Fig.8.1) is also shown at:
http://www.awri.com.au/industry_support/environment/energy-audits-4/. However, no further detail is
available. A paper was also published on the greenhouse gas emissions for the winery industry (Connect
Innovation, 2003). It was found that the following percentages applied to the GHG emissions from this
industry: 1) electricity consumption 60–75%; 2) natural gas 2–5%; 3) LPG consumption 10–15%; 4)
fermentation 10–15%; 5) CO2 venting 1–6%; and waste-related emissions 2–12%. Again, this research
does not provide actual absolute GHG emissions figures.
Figure 8.1: Energy use breakdown for the winemaking process
100
9 References
ABARES, 2008, Chapter 3 Update – Impact of higher petroleum, diesel and gas prices on rural
Australia, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra,
http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/fuelenergy_ctte/submissions/sub0065a
_pdf.ashx
ABARES, 2012, AGSURF Database. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and
Sciences, http://apps.daff.gov.au/AGSURF/
ABARES, 2012, Agricultural Commodities Australia 7121.0, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and
Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra.
ABARES, 2013, Australian crop reports and agricultural commodities (formerly Australian commodities
reports), Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra.
ABARES, 2014, Australian crop report: February 2014, No.169, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and
Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra.
ABS, 2007, Water consumption by sector, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/5B7279AC135904A4CA2573C6001043E0?opendocu
ment
ABS, 2013, Value of agricultural commodities produced, Australia 7503.0, 2011-12, Australian Bureau
of Statistics, Canberra.
ACMF, 2011, The Australian chicken meat industry: an industry in profile. Australian Chicken Meat
Federation Inc. Sydney.
ADIC, 2014, Submission for energy green paper, Australian Dairy Industry Council.
http://www.australiandairyfarmers.com.au/PDF/submissions/2014/ADIC%20Submission_Energy
%20Green%20Paper_5%20Nov%202014.pdf
AGO, 2006, Reducing GHG emissions from Australian agriculture: the role of benchmarking in driving
best management practice. Australian Greenhouse Office, Canberra.
AGREE, 2012, State of the art on energy efficiency in agriculture. Country data on energy consumption
in different agro production sectors in the European countries, http://www.agree.aua.gr/index-
4.html
Agriculture and Food Development Authority, 2011, Energy Use in Agriculture, UK.
Ahokas, J. (ed), 2013, Maatilojen energiankäyttö. Enpos-hankkeen tulokset. (In Finnish, Energy Use on
Farms. Results of ENPOS-project), Department of Agricultural Sciences, Publications 15.
Univerisity of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Ahokas, J., Rajaniemi, M., Mikkola, H., Frorip, J., Kokin, E., Praks, J., Poikalainen, V., Veermae, I. Schäfer,
W. 2014, ‘Energy use and sustainability of intensive livestock production’, In Bundschuh, J. and Chen,
101
G. (eds). Sustainable Energy Solutions in Agriculture, pp. 195-214, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis
Books.
Aland, A. and Banhazi, T. (eds.), 2013. Livestock Housing: Modern Management to Ensure Optimal Health
and Welfare of Farm Animals, Wageningen Academic Publishers.
Albright, L.D., and de Villiers, D.S. 2008. ‘Energy investments and CO2 emissions for fresh produce
imported into New York State compared to the same crops grown locally’, Cornell University,
USA.
ALFA, 2014, Australian feedlot industry statistics. http://www.feedlots.com.au/images/Briefs/stats.pdf
ALFA/MLA, 2014 Feedlot Survey 2014. http://www.feedlots.com.au/images/MR/mrjune14.pdf
ALFA/MLA, 2014 Quarterly feedlot survey, 2014.

http://www.feedlots.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54&Itemid=80
Alford, A.R., Griffith, G.R., and Davies, B.L., 2003. ‘Livestock farming systems in the Northern
Tablelands of NSW: An Economic Analysis’, Economic Research Report No. 12, NSW Agriculture,
Orange, NSW, October 2003.
Alvarenga, R. A. F. d., da Silva Júnior, V. P., Soares, S. R. 2012, ‘Comparison of the ecological footprint
and a life cycle impact assessment method for a case study on Brazilian broiler feed production’.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 28, pp. 25-32.
APL, 2011-2012, Australian Pig Annual, Australian Pork Limited, Canberra.
APL, 2014, Fact sheet - piggery total energy usage, energy efficiency information fact sheet series,
Australian Pork Limited, Canberra.
APL, 2015, The impact of Australia's temporary work visa programs on the Australian labour market and
on the temporary work visa holder, Australian Pork Limited, Canberra.
Australian Government, 2014, The emissions reduction fund white paper, Canberra.
Australian Wool Innovation, 2014,

http://www.wool.com/en/market-intelligence/sheep-numbers-by-state
Axaopoulos, P., Panagakis, P., Axaopoulos, I. 2014, ‘Effect of wall orientation on the optimum insulation
thickness of a growing-finishing piggery building’, Energy and Building, 84, pp. 403-411.
AWI Wool Production Forecasting Committee, 2014,

http://www.wool.com/en/market-intelligence/wool-production-forecasts
Baillie, C. 2009, ‘Energy and carbon accounting case study on Keytah, a project report for the Cotton
Research and Development Corporation CRDC’, National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture,
University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba.
Banhazi, T. M. 2013, ‘Controlling the concentrations of airborne pollutants in three different livestock
facilities’, In A. Aland and T. Banhazi (eds). Livestock Housing, Vol. 1, 281-295, Wageningen
Academic Publishers.
102
Banhazi, T. M., Aarnink, A., Thuy, H., Pedersen, S., Hartung, J., Payne, H., Mullan, B. Berckmans, D.
2009, ‘Review of the consequences and control of high air temperatures in intensive livestock
buildings’, Australian Journal of Multi-disciplinary Engineering, 7, 1, pp.63-78.
Banhazi, T. M., Rutley, D. L. 2013, ‘Constructing better piggery buildings by identifying factors
contributing to improved thermal control under hot climatic conditions’, In A. Aland and T.
Banhazi (eds). Livestock Housing, Vol. 1, 237-257, Wageningen Academic Publishers.
Banhazi, T. M. Santhanam, B. 2013, ‘Practical evaluation of cleaning methods that could be implemented
in livestock buildings’, In A. Aland and T. Banhazi (eds). Livestock Housing, Vol. 1, 355-376,
Wageningen Academic Publishers.
Banhazi, T. M., Stott, P., Rutley, D., Blanes-Vidal, V., Pitchford, W. 2011. ‘Air exchanges and indoor
carbon dioxide concentration in Australian pig buildings: Effect of housing and management
factors’, Biosystems Engineering, 110, 3 pp. 272-279.
Barber, A. 2004a, ‘Energy use and carbon dioxide emissions in the New Zealand vegetable & flower
greenhouse industries’, AgriLINK NZ Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand.
http://maxa.maf.govt.nz/sff/about-projects/search/L03-016/vege-and-flower-greenhouse-industry-
survey.pdf
Barber, A. 2004b, ‘Seven case study farms: total energy and carbon indicators for New Zealand arable
and outdoor vegetable production’, Agrilink NZ Limited, Auckland, New Zealand.
http://www.climatecloud.co.nz/CloudLibrary/Arable_Vegetable_Energy_Use_Main_Report.pdf
Baber, A. 2015, Personal communication.
Barber, A. and Pellow, G. 2006, ‘LCA: New Zealand merino wool total energy use’,
http://www.conference.alcas.asn.au/2006/Barber%20Pellow.pdf
Barber, A., Gasso, V., Moller, H., Manhire, J., Oudshoorn, F.W., Sørensen, C.G. 2014, ‘Eco-verification
and incentivising improvement using the New Zealand Sustainability Dashboard. Benchmarking
energy and water efficiency in New Zealand wine production’, IHC - 29th International
Horticultural Congress, Brisbane, Australia.
Barber, E. M., Classen, H. L.,Thacker, P. A. 1989, ‘Energy use in the production and housing of poultry
and swine – an overview’. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 69, 1, pp.7-21.
Basset-Mens, C., van der Werf, H. 2005, 'Scenario-based environmental assessment of farming systems:
The case of pig production in France', Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 10, 5 pp.127-144.
Batzias, F. A., Sidiras, D. K. Spyrou, E. K. 2005, ‘Evaluating livestock manures for biogas production: a
GIS based method’, Renewable Energy, 30, 8, pp1161-1176.
Baughman, G.R., Parkhurst, C.R. 1977, ‘Energy consumption in broiler production’, Transact. ASAE, 20,
2, pp.341–344.
Bazen, E. F., Brown, M. A. 2009, ‘Feasibility of solar technology photovoltaic adoption: A case study on
Tennessee's poultry industry’, Renewable Energy, 34, 3, pp.748-754.
103
Biswas, W.K., Barton L., Carter, D. 2008, ‘Global warming potential of wheat production in Western
Australia: a life cycle assessment’, Water and Environment Journal, 22, pp.6-16.
Biswas, W.K., Graham, J., Kelly, K., John, M.B. 2010, ‘Global warming contributions from wheat, sheep
meat and wool production in Victoria, Australia - a life cycle assessment’, Journal of Cleaner
Production. 18, 14, pp.1386-1392.
Bogdanski, A., Dubois, O., Jamieson, C., Krell, R. 2010, ‘Making integrated food/energy systems work
for people and climate – an overview’. Environment and Natural Sources Management working
paper 45, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i2044e/i2044e00.htm.
Boulard, T., Raeppel, C., Brun, R., Lecompte, F., Hayer F., Carmassi, G., Gaillard G. 2011,
‘Environmental impact of greenhouse tomato production in France’, Agronomy for Sustainable
Development, 31, pp.757–777.
BREE, 2012, Energy in Australia 2012. Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics. Canberra.
Brock, P.M., Graham, P., Madden, P., Alcock, D.J. 2013, 'Greenhouse gas emissions profile for 1 kg of
wool produced in the Yass Region, New South Wales: a life cycle assessment approach', Animal
Production Science, vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 495-508.
Brown, E. and Elliot, R.N. 2005, ‘Potential energy efficiency savings in the agriculture sector’, The
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Washington, D.C.
http://www.aceee.org/pubs/ie053.htm
Brown, R. and Macdonald, D. 2010, ‘DairyTas climate change mitigation for tasmanian dairy farmers’.
http://www.dairytas.com.au/files/projects/dairytas_climate_change_mitigation_for_tasmanian_dair
y_farmers_201007.pdf
Bullock, N. 2013, ‘Energy savings in SA dairy’, Dairying for Tomorrow Newsletter September 2013,
Dairy Australia.
http://www.dairyingfortomorrow.com/uploads/documents/file/DfT%20newsletters/DfT%20newslet
ter%20September%202013%20Issue22.pdf
Bundschuh, J. and Chen, G. (eds), 2014, Sustainable Energy Solutions in Agriculture, CRC Press, Taylor
& Francis Books, http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781138001183
Bundschuh, J., Chen, G., and Mushtaq, S. 2014, ‘Towards a sustainable energy technologies based
agriculture’. In Bundschuh, J. and Chen, G. (eds). Sustainable Energy Solutions in Agriculture, pp.3-
15, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Books.
Burrow, R.P. and Mackenzie, A.J. 1978, ‘The energy input to wool production’, Conference on Agricultural
Engineering, Toowoomba, Queensland,
CAE, 1996, Energy efficiency – a guide to current and emerging technologies, Vol. 2, industry and
primary production. Centre for Advanced Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch,
New Zealand.
104
Cantrell, K.B., Ducey, T., Ro, K.S., Hunt, P.G. 2008, ‘Livestock waste-to-bioenergy generation
opportunities’, Bioresource Technology, 99, pp.7941–7953.
Capareda, S. C., Mukhtar, S., Engler, C., Goodrich, L. B. 2010, ‘Energy usage survey
of dairies in the South-western United States’, Applied Engineering in Agriculture. 26, 4,
pp.667-675.
Carr, L., Rigakos, C., Joseph, S. 1997, ‘Evaluation of the efficacy of cleaning and disinfection equipment
for poultry transport systems’. In R. W. Bottcher and S. J. Hoff. (eds). Livestock Environment V -
5th International Symposium, Vol. I, pp.115-121, Bloomington, Minnesota, American Society of
Agricultural Engineers.
Cederberg, C. and Flysjö, A. 2004a, ‘Life cycle inventory of 23 dairy farms in South-Western
Sweden’. Report No 728. SIK, The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Gothenburg,
Sweden.
Cederberg, C., Flysjö, A. 2004b, ‘Environmental assessment of future pig farming systems -
quantifications of three scenarios from the FOOD 21 synthesis work’, Report No 723. SIK, The
Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Centre for Energy Research, 2004, Energy use in the New Zealand agricultural industry - with emphasis
on the dairy sector, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
Chen, G., Baillie, C. 2009, ‘Development of a framework and tool to assess on-farm energy uses of cotton
production’, Energy Conversion & Management, Vol. 50, No.5, pp.1256-1263.
Chen, G., Baillie, C., Eady, S., Grant, T. 2013a, ‘Developing life cycle inventory for life cycle assessment
of Australian cotton’, Australian Life Cycle Assessment Conference, Sydney.
Chen, G., Baillie, C., Kupke, P. 2009, ‘Evaluating on-farm energy performance in agriculture’, Australian
Journal of Multi-Disciplinary Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.55-61.
Chen, G., Kupke, P., Baillie, C. 2008, ‘Opportunities to enhance energy efficiency and minimise
greenhouse gases in Queensland’s intensive agricultural sector', in A Knapp & P Perkins (eds),
Improving the Capacity of Queensland Intensive Agriculture to Manage Climate Change,
Queensland Farmer's Federation, Brisbane.
Chen, G. Maraseni, T., Bundschuh, J. Zare, D. 2014, ‘Agriculture: alternative energy sources’, accepted
for publication in Encyclopedia of Energy Engineering and Technology, CRC Press.
Chen, G., Maraseni, T., and Yang, Z. 2010. ‘Life-cycle energy and carbon footprint assessments:
agricultural and food products’. In: Capehart, B. (ed). Encyclopedia of Energy Engineering and
Technology, 1:1,1-5, Taylor & Francis Books, London, UK.
Chen, G., and Maraseni, T.N. 2011, ‘Energy use and conservation in agriculture’. In: Jorgensen, S.E.
(ed). Encyclopedia of Environmental Management, Taylor & Francis Books, London, UK.
Chen, G., Orphant, S., Kenman, S.J. and Chataway, R.G. 2005, ‘Life cycle assessment of a
representative dairy farm with limited irrigation pastures’, Proceedings of Fourth Australian
Conference on Life Cycle Assessment, Sydney.
105
Chen, G., Sandell, G., Yusaf, T., Baillie, C, 2013b, ‘Evaluation of alternative energy sources for cotton
production in Australia’, 2013 Australian Society for Engineering in Agriculture SEAg Conference,
22-25 September 2013, Western Australia.
Chen, G., Schmidt, E., Symes, T., Zhao, B., Cameron, R. 2011. ‘Energy use and development of online
energy calculators for the nursery industry’, 2011 CIGR International Symposium of the Australian
Society for Engineering in Agriculture, 29-30 September, Gold Coast, Queensland.
Chianese, D. S., Rotz, C. A., Richard, T. L. 2009, ‘Whole-farm greenhouse gas emissions: a review with
application to a Pennsylvania dairy farm’. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 25, 3, pp.431-442.
Christie, K., Gourley, C., Rawnsley, R., Eckard, R., Awty, I. 2012, “Whole-farm systems analysis
of Australian dairy farm greenhouse gas emissions’, Animal Production Science, 52, pp.998–1011.
Christie, K., Rawnsley, R., Donaghy, D. 2008, ‘Whole farm systems analysis of greenhouse gas emission
abatement strategies for dairy farms’, Tasmanian Institute of Agricultural Research, University of
Tasmania.
Christie, K.M., Rawnsley, R,P., Eckard, R.J., 2011, ‘A whole farm systems analysis of greenhouse gas
emissions from 60 Tasmanian dairy farms’, Animal Feed Science and Technology. Vol. 166–167,
pp.653–662.
Clark, T. 2006, ‘Guidelines for the establishment and operation of cattle feedlots in South Australia’, 2nd
Edition, Primary Industries and Resources SA.
Commonwealth of Australia, 2013, The national greenhouse and energy reporting (measurement)
technical guidelines (NGER Technical Guidelines), Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate
Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education, Canberra.
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/sites/climatechange/files/documents/07_2013/nger-
measurement-technical-guidelines-july-2013.pdf
Connect Innovation, 2003, A guide to energy efficiency innovation in Australian wineries, prepared for
the Energy Efficiency Best Practice EEBP program of the Department of Industry, Tourism and
Resources, Canberra, 78p.
Connecticut Farm Energy Best Management Practices Guide, 2010,

http://www.ctfarmenergy.org/Pdfs/CT_Energy_BMPGuide.pdf
Cordeau, S., Barrington, S. 2010, ‘Instrumentation strategies for energy conservation in broiler barns with
ventilation air solar pre-heaters’, Energy and Buildings, 42, 8, pp.1301-1308.
Cormack, W. F. 2000, ‘Energy use in organic farming systems’, Report OF0182, Terrington, ADAS
Consulting Ltd, UK, http://orgprints.org/8169/1/OF0182_181_FRP.pdf
Costa, A., Brecht, A. V., Porro, M., Berckmans, D. Guarino, M. 2009, ‘Quantification of three-
dimensional light distribution in pig houses’. Transactions of the ASABE, 52, 5, pp.1677-1682.
Czarick, M., Lacy, M. 1999, ‘Dirty fan shutters hamper proper ventilation’. World Poultry, 15, 3, p.21.
Dairy Australia, 2010, Australian dairy industry in focus 2010, Dairy Australia, Melbourne.
106
Dairy Australia 2013, Saving energy on dairy farms. ISBN 978-0-9871000-5-4
http://frds.dairyaustralia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Smarter_Energy_Use_booklet_final-
artwork_LR.pdf
Dairy Research and Development Corporation, 2001, Sustaining our natural resources - dairying for
tomorrow, Melbourne.
Dalgaard, R., Halberg, N., Hermansen, J. 2007. ‘Danish pork production: An environmental assessment’,
DJF Animal Science, No. 82.
Dalgaard, T., Halberg, N., Porter, J. R. 2001, ‘A model for fossil energy use in Danish agriculture used to
compare organic and conventional farming’, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 87, 1, pp.
51-65.
Dawson, J. R. 1990, ‘Minimizing dust in livestock buildings: Possible alternatives to mechanical

separation’, Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 47, pp.235-248.
Davis, C., Maddocks, A., and Gaschignard, J., 2014. ‘Two case studies of commercial viability for solar
photovoltaic systems on meat chicken farms’, RIRDC Publication No 14/106, Rural Industries
Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.
Davis, R.J. and Watts, P.J. 2011, ‘Environmental sustainability assessment of the Australian feedlot
industry part B report – energy usage and greenhouse gas emission estimation at Australian
feedlots’, Meat & Livestock Australia, North Sydney, NSW.
Davis, R.J., Wiedemann, S.G. and Watts, P.J., 2009, ‘Energy usage of individual activities within
Australian cattle feedlots’. Biennial Conference of the Australian Society for Engineering in
Agriculture, Brisbane.
DCC, 2009, National greenhouse gas accounts NGA factors. Department of Climate Change, Canberra.
DCCEE, 2012, Australia’s emissions projections 2012, Department of Climate Change and Energy
Efficiency, Canberra.
Department of Climate Change, 2008, Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Green Paper, Canberra.
Department of Environment, 2014, Carbon farming initiatives news, February, 2014.
Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources, 2003, A guide to energy efficiency innovation in
Australian wineries – energy efficiency best practice, ISBN: 0-646-42528-5.
de Vries, M. de Boer, I. J. M. 2010, ‘Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: A review
of life cycle assessments’, Livestock Science,128, 1–3: pp.1-11.
Deuter, P, 2008, Vegetable Industry Carbon Footprint Scoping Study - Discussion Paper 5: Who will use
the vegetable carbon tool? HAL Project Number and Title - VG08107, Horticulture Australia Ltd.
Dharma, S., Shafron, W. and Oliver, M. 2012, ‘Australian dairy: farm technology and management
practices, 2010-11’, ABARES, Canberra.
107
Down, M. J., Foster, M. P. McMahon, T. A. 1990, ‘Experimental verification of a theory for ventilation
of livestock buildings by natural convection’, Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 45,
pp. 269-279.
DPI Victoria, 2010, Northern Victoria irrigated cropping gross margins 2009-10, Department of Primary
Industries, Victoria, 42p.
Eady, S.J., Grant, T., Cruypenninck, H., Renouf, M., and Mata, G. 2014. ‘AusAgLCI - A Life Cycle
Inventory database for Australian agriculture’, Rural Industries Research and Development
Corporation, Canberra, ISBN: 978-1-74254-661-2.
Eady, S.J., Grant, T., Winter, S. 2013, ‘AusAgLCI – the business case for investment in national lifecycle
inventory for Australian agriculture to support industry development and competitiveness’, 8th
Australian LCA Conference, Sydney.
Eastop, T.D. and Croft, D.R. 1990, Energy Efficiency for Engineers and Technologists, Longman
Publishing Group, ISBN-10: 0582031842.
Eastwood, C., and Sims, R. E. H., 2003. ‘Value added electricity services in the rural market’. Massey
University. A report compiled for Meridian Energy Ltd.,Wellington, New Zealand.
EC, 2011. Pilot reference document on best environmental management practice in the retail trade sector
- Draft June 2011. European Commission - Joint Research Centre (Institute for Prospective
Technological Studies, IPTS), Seville, Spain.
http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/activities/emas/documents/RetailTradeSector.pdf
ECU, 2011. Benchmarking Policy. Edith Cowan University, Western Australia.

http://www.ecu.edu.au/GPPS/policies_db/tmp/ad075.pdf
Edwards, S. A., Lightfoot, A. L., Armsby, A. W. Nicholls, A. 1987. ‘Heating systems for piglet creep
boxes’. Occasional Publications No 11, British Society of Animal Production, pp.129-130.
Eriksson, I. S., Elmquist, H., Stern, S., Nybrant, T. 2005. ‘Environmental systems analysis of pig
production - the impact of feed choice’, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 10,
2, pp.143-154.
FAO, 2012, Advancement and impact of conservation agriculture/no-till technology adoption in

Kazakhstan. FAO Information Note. http://www.fao.org/ag/ca/doc/Importance_Zero_
Tillage_Northern_Kazakhstan.pdf.
Fay, A. 2013. Smarter energy use on Australian dairy farms. Dairying for Tomorrow Newsletter March
2013, Dairy Australia.
Flysjö, A. 2012. ‘Greenhouse gas emissions in milk and dairy product chains - improving the carbon
footprint of dairy products’, PhD thesis, Aarhus University, Denmark.
Focus on Energy, 2006, Dairy processing energy best practice guidebook, Wisconsin, USA
https://focusonenergy.com/sites/default/files/dairyprocess_guidebook.pdf
Foster, M. P. , Down, M. J. 1987. ‘Ventilation of livestock buildings by natural convection’, Journal of

Agricultural Engineering Research, 37, 1, pp.1-13.
108
Frater, T.G. 2010, ‘Energy in New Zealand apple production’. PhD Thesis, Massey University Library,
New Zealand.
Gale, M., Leavesley, A., Clancy, J., Farquhar, S., Kendall, D., Cooper, N. and Lambie, B. 2014, ‘The use
of grazing for fuel management in the Australian capital territory’. ACT Parks and Conservation
Service.
Gazulla, C., Raugei, M., Fullana-i-Palmer, P. 2010, ‘Taking a life cycle look at crianza wine production
in Spain: where are the bottlenecks?’, International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 5, pp.330–
337
Giles, L. R., Furley, G. R., Collins, D. P., Nicholls, P. J. &Love, R. J. 2001.’Varying light pattern with
on/off switching does not affect pig growth from 40 to 110kg live weight’. In P. D. Cranwell (ed).
Manipulating Pig Production VIII, Vol. VIII, 37, Adelaide, Australia: Australasian Pig Science
Association, Victorian Institute of Animal Science, Werribee, Victoria, Australia.
Goodrich, P. R., and D. Schmidt. 2002, ‘Anaerobic digestion for energy and pollution control’. ASAE
Paper No. 024188. St. Joseph, Mich. ASAE.
Grant, T., Beer, T. 2008, ‘Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from irrigated maize and
their significance in the value chain’, Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 48, pp.375–
381.
Graham Centre for Agriculture Innovation, 2014. 2014 Graham Centre beef forum.
http://www.csu.edu.au/research/grahamcentre/downloads/Beef_Sheep_Presentations/2014/2014-
Beef-Forum-Proceedings-WEB.pdf
GRDC, 2013. Annual report 2012-13, Grain Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.
Green, G., Sunding, D., Zilberman, D. 1996. ‘Explaining irrigation technology choices: a micro-
parameter approach’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 78, 4, pp.1064–1072.
Haas, G., Wetterich, F., Köpke, U. 2001. ‘Comparing intensive, extensified and organic grassland
farming in southern Germany by process life cycle assessment’, Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment, 83, pp. 43-53.
Hall, B., Ferguson, M., Curnow, M. and Thompson, A. 2012. ‘The simple guide to making more money
with less work. Cereal-sheep zone of Australia’. Government of Western Australia, Department
of Agriculture and Food. Contributing editor Ian McFarland, Rural Solutions SA.
Hatirli, S.A., Ozkan, B., Fert, C. 2006,’Energy inputs and crop yield relationship in greenhouse tomato
production’, Renewable Energy, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp.427-438.
Henry, B. 2012, ‘Understanding the environmental impacts of wool: A review of life cycle assessment
studies’, A report prepared for Australian Wool Innovation & International Wool Textile
Organisation, Beverley Henry, Agri. Escondo. Pty Ltd.
Hong, S. W., Lee, I. B., Seo, I. H., Kwon, K. S. 2013. ‘The design and testing of a small-scale wind
turbine fitted to the ventilation fan for a livestock building’, Computers and Electronics in
Agriculture, 99, pp.65-76.
109
Hörndahl,T. 2008, ‘Energy use in farm buildings – a study of 16 farms with different enterprises’,
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Faculty of Landscape Planning, Horticulture and
Agricultural Science, Report 2008:8, Alnarp, Sweden.
Houszka, H. M. 2002. ‘Thermal conditions within a piglet creep area with different cover constructions
and different surface of cover materials’. Agricultural Engineering International: the CIGR
Journal of Scientific Research and Development, 4, pp.1-8.
IPCC, 2013, Climate change 2013: the physical science basis -summary for policymakers, observed
changes in the climate system. IPCC AR5 WG1 2013. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change.
Jackson, T., Hanjra, M.A. 2014. ‘Energy, water and food: exploring links in irrigated cropping systems’,
In Bundschuh, J. and Chen, G. (eds). Sustainable Energy Solutions in Agriculture, pp. 171-193, CRC
Press, Taylor & Francis Books.
Jackson, T.M., Khan, S., Hafeez, M. 2010. ‘A comparative analysis of water application and energy
consumption at the irrigated field level’, Agriculture Water Management, 97, 10, pp.1477–1485.
Jacob, S., 2006. ‘Comparison of life cycle energy consumption of alternative irrigation systems’,
University of Southern Queensland, http://eprints.usq.edu.au/authstats1.php.
Katajajuuri, J.M., Gronroos, J. Usva, K. 2008, ‘Environmental impacts and related options for improving
the chicken meat supply chain’. In T. Nemecek and G. Gaillard (eds). 6th International
Conference on LCA in the Agri-Food Sector - Towards a sustainable management of the Food
chain , Vol. 1, pp.370-380, Zurich, Switzerland.
Kaygusuz, K. 2002. ‘Renewable and sustainable energy use in Turkey: a review’. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 6, 4, pp.339-366.
Khan, S., Abbas, A., Rana, T. and Carroll, J. 2010a. ‘Dairy water use in Australian dairy farms: past
trends and future prospects’. CSIRO: Water for a Healthy Country National Research Flagship,
81 pp.
Khan, S., Khan, M.A., Latif, N. 2010b. ‘Energy requirements and economic analysis of wheat, rice and
barley production in Australia’, Soil and Environment, 29, 1, pp.61 – 68.
Kitani, O. 1999. “CIGR Handbook of Agricultural Engineering,” Vol. V, Energy and Biomass
Engineering, ASAE Publication, ST Joseph, USA.
Kythreotou, N., Florides, G., Tassou, S.A. ‘Direct energy use in the livestock breeding sector of Cyprus’,
World Renewable Energy Congress, Linköping, Sweden.
Lahrmann, K. H. Horst, H., 1998. ‘Influence of light intensity on health status and growth performance of
weaned pigs’. 15th International Pig Veterinary Society Congress, Vol. Vol. III: Poster
Presentations, 14 Birmingham, England.
Lal, R. 2004. ‘Carbon emissions from farm operation’. Environment International, 30, pp.981-990.
110
Liang,Y., Tabler. G.T., Watkins, S.E., Xin, H., Berry, I.L. 2009, ‘Energy use analysis of open-curtain vs.
totally enclosed broiler houses in northwest Arkansas’. Appl. Eng. Agr. 25, 4, pp. 577–584.
Lammers, P. J., Honeyman, M. S., Harmon, J. D., Helmers, M. J. 2010. ‘Energy and carbon inventory of
Iowa swine production facilities’. Agricultural Systems,103, 8, pp.551-561.
Lammers, P. J., Kenealy, M. D., Kliebenstein, J. B., Harmon, J. D., Helmers, M. J., Honeyman, M. S.
2012. ‘Energy use in pig production: An examination of current Iowa systems’. Journal of
Animal Science, 90, 3, pp.1056-1068.
Le Dividich, J., Herpin, P. 1994. ‘Effects of climatic conditions on the performance, metabolism and
health status of weaned piglets: a review’. Livestock Production Science, 38, 2, pp. 79-90.
Lessler, L. and Ranells, N. 2007. ‘Grower guidelines for poultry and fowl processing’. North Carolina
State University. http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/chatham/ag/SustAg/GrowerGuidelines.pdf
Little, S. 2010, ‘Feeding systems used by Australian dairy farmers’, Dairy Australia.
Lorusso, A., Maraziti, F. 1998. ‘Heating system projects using the degree-days method in livestock
buildings’, Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 71, 3, pp.285-290.
Ludington D.C., Johnson E.L. 2003. ‘Dairy farm energy audit summary report’. New York State Energy
Research and Development Authority.
Ludington, D.C. Johnson E.L., Kowalski, J.A. Mage, A.L. 2004. ‘Dairy Farm Energy Management
Guide: California’, Southern California Edison.
http://www.mnproject.org/resourcecenter/Dairy%20Farm%20Energy%20Management%20Guide
.pdf
Madec, F. 2013.’Aiming at building cleanliness to keep livestock healthy’, In A. Aland and T. Banhazi
(eds). Livestock Housing, Vol. 1, 331-354, Wageningen Academic Publishers.
Maraseni, T.N, Cockfield, G. 2011a. ‘Does the adoption of zero tillage reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
An assessment for the grains industry in Australia’, Agriculture Systems, 104, pp.451-458
Maraseni, T.N., Cockfield, G. 2011b. ‘Crops, cows or timber? Including carbon values in land use
choices', Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 140, pp.280-288.
Maraseni, T.N., Cockfield, G. 2012. ‘Including the costs of water and greenhouse gas emissions in a
reassessment of the profitability of irrigation’, Agriculture Water Management, 103, pp.25-32.
Maraseni, T.N., Cockfield, G., Apan, A. 2007. ‘A comparison of greenhouse gas emissions from inputs
into farm enterprises in Southeast Queensland, Australia’, Journal of Environmental Science and
Health, Part A, 42, pp.11-19.
Maraseni, T.N., Cockfield, G., Maroulis, J. 2010a. ‘An assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from the
Australian vegetables industry’, Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part B, 45, pp.578–
588.
Maraseni, T.N., Cockfield, G., Maroulis, J. 2010b. ‘An assessment of greenhouse gas emissions:
implications for the Australian cotton industry’, Journal of Agricultural Science, 148, pp.501-510.
111
Maraseni, T.N., Mushtaq, S., Maroulis, J. 2009a. ‘Greenhouse gas emissions from rice farming inputs: a
cross country assessment’. Journal of Agricultural Science, 147, pp.117-126.
Maraseni, T.N., Maroulis, J., Cockfield, G. 2009b. ‘An analysis of Australia’s carbon pollution reduction
scheme’, International Journal of Environmental Studies, 66 5, pp.591-603.
Maraseni, T.N., Mushtaq, S., Reardon-Smith, K. 2012a. ‘Integrated analysis for a carbon- and water-
constrained future: an assessment of drip irrigation in a lettuce production system in eastern
Australia’, Journal of Environmental Management, 111, pp.220-226.
Maraseni, T.N., Mushtaq, S., Reardon-Smith, K. 2012b. ‘Climate change, water security and the need for
integrated policy development: the case of on-farm infrastructure investment in the Australian
irrigation sector’, Environmental Research Letter, 7, pp.1-12
Martin, P. 2003. ‘Farm financial performance’. Outlook Speakers Papers 2003. National Convention
Centre, Canberra.
Massé, D. I., Talbot, G., Gilbert, Y. 2011. ‘On farm biogas production: A method to reduce GHG
emissions and develop more sustainable livestock operations’, Animal Feed Science and
Technology, Vol.166–167, pp.436-445.
Mattsson, B., Wallén, E., 2003. ‘Environmental LCA of organic potatoes’. The 26th International
Horticultural Congress, ISHS, Acta Horticulturae 691.
McChesney, I. G., Bubb, J. W., and Pearson, R. G., 1978. ‘Energy use on Canterbury mixed cropping
farms: a pilot survey’. New Zealand Energy Research and Development Committee, occasional
paper no. 5. Joint Centre for Environmental Sciences, Lincoln College, Canterbury.
McChesney, I. G., 1979. ‘Energy use on hill country sheep and beef farms near Cheviot, North
Canterbury’. New Zealand Energy and Research Development Committee, occasional paper no. 7.
Joint Centre for Environmental Sciences, Lincoln College, Canterbury.
McChesney, I. G., 1982. ‘Energy requirements of a meal-fed piggery’. Report, New Zealand Energy
Research and Development Committee. Joint Centre for Environmental Sciences, Lincoln College,
Canterbury.
McGahan, E.J., Davis, R.J., Poad, G., 2014. ‘Quantifying on-farm energy usage in the Australian meat
chicken industry’, RIRDC Publication No 14/124, Rural Industries Research and Development
Corporation, Canberra.
McHugh, A.D., Erol, C. and Eberhard, J. 2010. ‘SEQ irrigation futures R&D support: horticulture.
development of a framework and tools for packing shed water and energy audits’. National Centre
for Engineering in Agriculture Publication 1003530/16, USQ, Toowoomba.
McHugh, G. 2000. ‘Strip grazing increases paddock productivity’. Farming Ahead, No 103, July 2000.
McIntyre, B. 2007. ‘Yield of saleable meat in beef cattle’. Department of Agriculture, Western Australia.
http://archive.agric.wa.gov.au/objtwr/imported_assets/content/aap/bc/m/fn026_2004.pdf
112
McLaughlin, N.B., Drury, C.F., Reynolds, W.D., Yang, X.M., Li, Y.X., Welacky, T.W., Stewart, G.
2008. ‘Energy inputs for conservation and conventional primary tillage implements in a clay loam
soil’. Trans. ASABE. 51, 4, pp.1153–1163.
Meat and Livestock Australia, 2012, National guidelines for beef cattle feedlots in Australia. 3rd Edition.
Meat & Livestock Australia, North Sydney, NSW.
Meta Economics Consulting Group, 2013, Electricity supply issues for farmers 2013. Report to the
Consumer Advocacy Panel, http://www.advocacypanel.com.au/media/docs/AP-442-Meta-
Economics-Farmers-electricity-supply-report-6ea60faf-364f-47b1-a55a-9ae28febc384-0.pdf
Meul, M; Nevens, F; Reheul, D; Hofman, G., 2007, ‘Energy use efficiency of specialised dairy, arable
and pig farms in Flanders’. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment, 119, 1-2, pp.135-144.
Mikkola, H. J., Ahokas, J. 2009. ‘Energy ratios in Finnish agricultural production’. Agricultural and Food
Science, 18, pp.332-346.
Miller, R.G., and Sorrell, S.R. (2013), ‘The future of oil supply’. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 2014 372,
20130179. http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/372/2006/20130179
Mushtaq, S., Maraseni, T.N. 2011. ‘Technological change in the Australian irrigation industry:
Implications for future resource management and policy development’, a report to the National
Water Commissions.
Mushtaq, S., Maraseni, T.N., Reardon-Smith, K. 2013. ‘Climate change and water security: estimating the
greenhouse gas costs of achieving water security through investments in modern irrigation
technology’, Agriculture System, 117, pp.78-89
NBA Consulting, 2013, Energy efficiency upgrades in dairy sheds.

http://www.dairyaustralia.com.au/~/media/Documents/Environment%20and%20Resources/220720
14-NBA-carbon%20abatement%20project-section%20B-energy%20efficiency%20upgrades-
Dec13.pdf
Neiber, J., Neser, S. 2010, ‘Energy consumption and energy saving potentials in piglet production’,
Landtechnik, 65, 6, pp. 421–425.
Neuman, L., 2008), ‘Kartläggning av energianvändning på lantbruket 2008. (In Swedish, Survey of
energy is in agriculture 2008)’. LRF KONSULT AB, Stockholm, Sweden.
Nguyen T.L.T., Hermansen J.E. and Mogensen L. 2010, ‘Environmental consequences of different beef
production systems in the EU’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 18, 8, pp.756-766.
Nicol, R. 2005. ‘A life cycle view of Australian dairy products - lessons & opportunities from Dairy
Australia research’, 4th Australian Conference on Life Cycle Assessment, Sydney.
Norton, T., Hay, F., Lambert, S., Sparrow, L. & Kirkwood, I. 2008. Enhancing environmental
sustainability in the processing potato industry in Australia. Final Report (HAL Project
PTO7060). Sydney: Horticulture Australia Limited (HAL).
NSW Department of Primary Industries, 2013. Potato fresh summer gross margins budget, 2p.
113
NSW Department of Primary Industries, 2013. Potato fresh winter gross margins budget, 2p.
NSW Government, Trade and Investment, 2013. The contribution of primary industries to the NSW
economy, key data 2013.
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/463763/Contribution-of-PI-to-the-NSW-
economy-2013.pdf
O’Halloran, N., Fisher P., Rab A., 2008. ‘Options for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions for the
Australian vegetable industry’. Report No. VG08107: Vegetable Industry Carbon Footprint
Scoping Study Discussion Papers and Workshop. Horticulture Australia Ltd.
https://www.daff.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/55299/Hort-Fruit-Drought-Carbon-
Report4.pdf
Ogino A., Orito H., Shimada K., Hirooka H. 2007, ‘Evaluating environmental impacts of the Japanese
beef cow–calf system by the life cycle assessment method’, Animal Science Journal, 78, 4,
pp.424-432.
Oregon Association of Nurseries, 2011, Best management practices for climate friendly nurseries.
http://www.climatefriendlynurseries.org/resources/best_management_practices_for_climate_friend
ly_nurseries.pdf
Ozkan, B., Fert, C., Karadeniz, C.F. 2007, ‘Energy and cost analysis for greenhouse and open-field grape
production’, Energy, 32, pp.1500–1504.
Page, G., Bellotti, B. and Ridoutt, B. 2011, ‘Exploring hotspots in the carbon footprint and energy use
profile of tomatoes grown for the Sydney market’, Proceedings of the 5th World congress on
Conservation Agriculture incorporating 3rd International Farming Systems Design Conference,
Brisbane.
Page, G., Ridoutt, B., Bellotti, B. 2012, 'Carbon and water footprint trade-offs in fresh tomato production',
Journal of Cleaner Production, 32, pp 219 - 226.
Page, G., Ridoutt, B., Bellotti, B. 2014. 'Location and technology options to reduce environmental
impacts from agriculture', Journal of Cleaner Production, 81, pp.130-136.
Panikar, I. 2000. ‘The bacterial contamination of poultry houses for hens: circulation and influence of
disinfection’. 10th International Congress on Animal Hygiene, Vol. 1, 410-411 Maastricht, The
Netherlands: International Society for Animal Hygiene.
Pathak, B.S. and Bining, A.S. 1985, ‘Energy use pattern and potential for energy saving in rice-wheat
cultivation’, Energy in Agriculture, 4, pp.271-278.
Pelletier, N. 2008. ‘Environmental performance in the US broiler poultry sector: Life cycle energy use
and greenhouse gas, ozone depleting, acidifying and eutrophying emissions’. Agricultural
Systems, 98, 2, pp.67-73.
Pelletier, N., Lammers, P., Stender, D., Pirog, R. 2010a. ‘Life cycle assessment of high- and low-
profitability commodity and deep-bedded niche swine production systems in the Upper
Midwestern United States’, Agricultural Systems, 103, 9, pp.599-608.
114
Pelletier N., Pirog R., Rasmussen R. 2010b. ‘Comparative life cycle environmental impacts of three beef
production strategies in the Upper Midwestern United States’, Agricultural Systems, 103, 6,
pp.380-389.
Pellizzi, G; Cavalchini, A.G., Lazzari, M. 1998, Energy Savings in Agricultural Machinery and
Mechanization. Elsevier Science Publishing Co. New York, USA.
Philippe, F. X., Nicks, B. 2015. ‘Review on greenhouse gas emissions from pig houses: production of
carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide by animals and manure’, Agriculture, Ecosystems &
Environment, 199, pp.10-25.
Pimentel, D., Doughty, R., Carothers, C., Lamberson, S., Bora, N., Lee, K. 2002, ‘Energy inputs in crop
production in developing and developed countries’. In Lal, R., Hansen, D., Uphoff, N., Slack, S.
(eds). Food Security and Environmental Quality in the Developing World, pp. 129-151, CRC
Press.
Pimentel, D.; Williamson, S.; Alexander, C.; Gonzalez-Pagan, O.; Kontak, C.; and Mulkey. S. 2008,
‘Reducing energy inputs in the US food system’, Human Ecology. 36, pp.459-471.
Pointon, A. M., Cargill, C. F. Slade, J. 1995. The Good Health Manual for Pigs. Pig Research and
Development Corporation, Canberra, Australia.
Prescott, N. B. Wathes, C. M. Jarvis, J.R. ‘Light, vision and the welfare of poultry’, Animal Welfare, 12,
2, pp.269-288.
Price, J. 2014. ‘Biogas: powering the future of the Australian pork industry’, Australian Pork Limited.
Potatoes South Australia and VICSPA, 2014. Submission to the taskforce for the Australian
Government’s white paper on agricultural competitiveness, 20p.
PwC, 2011. The Australian Dairy Industry, PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Rab, M.A., Fisher, P.D., O’Hallora, N.J. 2008. ‘Preliminary estimation of the carbon footprint of the
Australian vegetable industry, Discussion paper 4’, Horticulture Australia Ltd.
Rajaniemi, M., Ahokas, J. 2012, ‘Energy consumption in broiler production’. International Conference of
Agricultural Engineering, CIGR-AgEng2012, Valencia, Spain.
Randall, J. M., Moulsley, L. J. 1990. ‘Propeller fans for ventilating livestock buildings: 3. Selection for
least cost’. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 47, pp.115-122.
Renouf, M.A, Fujita-‐Dimas, C. 2013, ‘Application of LCA in Australian agriculture – a review’.
Proceeding of the 8th Australian Life Cycle Assessment Conference 2013, 16-‐18th July 2013,
Sydney.
RIRDC, 2010. Tomatoes, Case Study 34, RIRDC Publication No 10/141, ISBN 978-1-74254-111-2.
Riva, G., Pedretti, E. F., Fabbri, C. 2000. ‘Utilization of a heat pump in pig breeding for energy saving
and climate and ammonia control’. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 77, 4, pp.449-
455.
115
Roop D. J., Shrestha, D. S.; Saul, D. A. and Newman, S. 2014. ‘Cradle-to-Gate Life Cycle Assessment of
Regionally Produced Beef in the Northwestern U.S.’, Transactions of the ASABE, Vol. 57(3):
pp.927-935.
Roy, P., Nei, D., Orikasa, T., Xu, Q., Okadome, H., Nakamura, N., Shiina, T. 2009. ‘A review of life
cycle assessment LCA on some food products’. Journal of Food Engineering, 90, 1, pp.1-10.
Rural Solutions SA (2012). GRDC - Farm business management 2012 - Farm gross margin and
enterprise planning guide. http://www.grdc.com.au/uploads/documents/GRDC-Farm-Gross-
Margin-and-Enterprise-Planning-Guide-2012.pdf
Safa, M. and Samarasinghe, S. 2011. ‘Determination and modelling of energy consumption in wheat
production using neural networks: A case study in Canterbury province, New Zealand’, Energy.
vol. 36, issue 8, pp.5140-5147.
Sandell, G.R., Hopf, J., Chen G., Yusaf, T., 2014. ‘The feasibility and development of alternative energy
sources for cotton.’ National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture, Publication 1004527/1, USQ,
Toowoomba.
Sandell, G.R., Szabo, P.M., Baillie, C.P., Woodhouse, N.P. and Schmidt, E., 2013. ‘North-east farming
futures R&D support: Increasing the knowledge and adoption of energy saving initiatives amongst
farming enterprises in Western Australia’. National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture,
Publication 1005089/1, USQ, Toowoomba.
Saunders, C. and Barber, A. 2008. ‘Comparative energy and greenhouse gas emissions of New Zealand's
and the UK's dairy industry’. Lincoln University, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Saunders C., Barber A., Taylor G., 2006, ‘Food miles - comparative energy / emissions performance of
New Zealand's agriculture industry’, Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit, Lincoln
University, New Zealand, Monograph no. 285. ISBN: 0-909042-71-3
Saunders, C., Hayes, P, 2009. ‘Air freight transport of fresh fruit and vegetables’, Research report 299,
Agribusiness and Economic Research Unit, Lincoln University, New Zealand.
http://researcharchive.lincoln.ac.nz/dspace/bitstream/10182/248/1/aeru_rr_299.pdf
Rssell, K. 2008. ‘Zero waste Australia. A letter submitted to the Garnaut Climate Change Review’,
Melbourne, www.zerowasteaustralia.org
Sattari-Yuzbashkandi, S., Khalilian, S. and Mortazavi, S. A. 2013, ‘Energy and economic analysis of
open-field grape production in East Azerbaijan Province of Iran’, International Journal of
Agronomy and Plant Production, 4, 11, pp.2847-2855.
Schmidt, E., Chen, G., Symes, T., Zhao, B., Cameron, R. 2010. ‘Calculator for Renewable Energy
Resources for Nursery Production’, National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture Report,
University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Australia.
Seedorf, J., Hartung, J., Schroder, M., Linkert, K. H., Pedersen, S., Takai, H., Johnsen, J. O., Metz, J. H.
M., Groot Koerkamp, P. W. G., Uenk, G. H., Phillips, V. R., Holden, M. R., Sneath, R. W., Short,
J. L., White, R. P., Wathes, C. M. 1998. ‘Temperature and moisture conditions in livestock
buildings in Northern Europe’. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 70, 1, pp.49-57.
116
Sefeedpari, P., Rafiee, S., Akram, A., Komleh, S. H. P. 2014. ‘Modeling output energy based on fossil
fuels and electricity energy consumption on dairy farms of Iran: Application of adaptive neural-
fuzzy inference system technique’. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 109, pp.80-85.
Seguin, F., van derWerf, H., Bouvarel, I., Pottiez, E. 2011, ‘Environmental analysis of organic broiler
productionin France and improvement options’. LCM 2011 Conference, Berlin.
Seifert, C., Wietzke, D., Fritzsche, S. 2009, ‘Energy for heating and ventilation in pig production on
farms’. Landtechnik, 6.
Sims, R.E.H. 2014, ‘Energy efficiency and management’, In Bundschuh, J. and Chen, G. (eds). Sustainable
Energy Solutions in Agriculture, pp.19-52, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Books.
Sims, R.E.H. and Flammini, A. 2014, ‘Energy-smart food - technologies, practices and policies’, In
Bundschuh, J. and Chen, G. (eds). Sustainable Energy Solutions in Agriculture, pp.123-169, CRC
Press, Taylor & Francis Books.
Singh, A., Mmishra, N., Ali, S.I. Shukla, N., Shankar, R. 2015, ‘Cloud Computing Technology Reducing
carbon footprint in beef supply chain’, International Journal of Production Economics, 164, 462-471.
Smil, V. 2008, Energy in Nature And Society – General Energetic of Complex Systems. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Smith, P., Martino, D., Cai, Z., Gwary, D., Janzen, H.H., Kumar, P., McCarl, B., Ogle, S., O’Mara, F.,
Rice, C., Scholes, R.J., Sirotenko, O., Howden, M., McAllister, T., Pan, G., Romanenkov, V.,
Schneider, U., Towprayoon, S., Wattenbach, M., Smith, J.U. 2008, ‘Greenhouse gas mitigation in
agriculture’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B. 27, pp.89-813.
South Australian Wine Industry Association, 2013. Winery energy saver toolkit,
http://www.winesa.asn.au/_r1925/media/system/attrib/file/469/SA-Wine-Industry-Toolkit-
Web_v1.pdf
Strom, J. S., Morsing, S. 1984. ‘Automatically controlled natural ventilation in a growing and finishing
pig house’, Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 30, pp.353-359.
Stout, B.A., 1990. Handbook of Energy for World Agriculture. Elsevier Science Publications Ltd,
London.
Swann, C. 2012. ‘Economic analysis of technologies to reduce dairy energy consumption’.

http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/agriculture-and-food/dairy/energy-in-dairy/economic-analysis-of-
technologies-to-reduce-dairy-energy-consumption
Sweeten, J. 1990, ‘Energy efficiency in the feedyard’, in: RC Albin and GB Thompson) (eds), Cattle
Feeding: a Guide to Management, pp. 84-103. Trafton Printing, City.
Sweeten J. and McDonald R. 1979, ‘Results of TCFA environmental and energy survey’, Texas Cattle
Feeders Association, Amarillo, College Station, Texas. pp. 23.
Szabo, P.M. Montgomery, J., and Sandell, G. 2013, ‘Development of a pump efficiency monitor for use in
cotton irrigation’. Irrigation Australia’s 2013 Regional Conference, Griffith, NSW.
117
Teagasc. 2011. Energy Use in Agriculture. Teagasc, Oak Park, County Carlow, Ireland.
ten Hoeve, M., Hutchings, N. J., Peters, G. M., Svanström, M., Jensen, L. S., Bruun, S. 2014. ‘Life cycle
assessment of pig slurry treatment technologies for nutrient redistribution in Denmark’. Journal
of Environmental Management, 132, pp.60-70.
Thomson, T. and Martin, P. 2012. ‘Australian beef, financial performance of beef cattle producing farms,
2009-10 to 2011-12’. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences,
Canberra.
Timmons, M. B., Gates, R. S., Bottcher, R. W., Carter, T. A., Brake, J., Wineland, M. J. 1995,
‘Simulation analysis of a new temperature control method for poultry housing’, Journal of
Agricultural Engineering Research, 62, 4, pp.237-245.
Tsatsarelis, C.A. 1993, ‘Energy inputs and outputs for soft winter wheat production in Greece’,
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, Vol.43, Issue 2, pp.109-118.
Tullberg, J.N. 2000. ‘Traffic effects on tillage energy’. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research,
75, 4, pp.375–382.
United Nations, 2012. Energy efficiency in agriculture: the poultry sector, 12-0252, New York
http://www.escwa.un.org/information/publications/edit/upload/E_ESCWA_SDPD_12_TP-5_E.pdf
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, 2014. World
population prospects: the 2012 revision, methodology of the United Nations population
estimates and projections. Working Paper No. ESA/P/WP.235.
Upton, J., Humphreys, J., Groot Koerkamp, P.W., French, P., Dillon, P., De Boer, I.J. 2013. ‘Energy
demand on dairy farms in Ireland’. J. Dairy Science, 96, 10, pp.6489–6498.
Van Wagenberg, A. V., Aerts, J. M., Van Brecht, A., Vranken, E., Leroy, T. , Berckmans, D. 2005.
‘Climate control based on temperature measurement in the animal-occupied zone of a pig room
with ground channel ventilation’, Transactions of the ASAE, 48, 1, pp.355-365.
Victoria DEPI, 2012, http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/agriculture-and-food/dairy/energy-in-dairy/economic-

analysis-of-technologies-to-reduce-dairy-energy-consumption
Victoria DEPI, 2013, Dairy farm monitor project, Victoria annual report 2012/13, Department of
Environment and Primary Industries, Melbourne.
Vox, G., Teitel, M., Pardossi, A., Minuto, A., Tinivella, F., Schettini, E. 2010. ‘Sustainable grennhouse
systems’. In Sustainable Agriculture, Nova Science Publishers, Inc. ISBN 978-1-60876-269-9.
Warwick HRI (2007). AC0401: Direct energy use in agriculture: opportunities for reducing fossil fuel
inputs, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), UK.
http://ukerc.rl.ac.uk/pdf/AC0401_Final.pdf.
Watson, P; Watson, D. 2012. ‘Dairying for tomorrow survey of natural resource management on dairy
farms’, Dairy Australia.
http://www.dairyingfortomorrow.com/uploads/documents/Dft%202012%20report%20FINAL.pdf
118
Watts, P. 2013. ‘Thermal energy recovery from feedlot manure’. FSA Update, Toowoomba, Queensland.
http://www.fsaconsulting.net/fsa/docs/april_june_newsletter.pdf
Wells, C. 2001, ‘Total energy indicators of agricultural sustainability: dairy farming case study’, New
Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Wellington.
Whish-Wilson, C. 2013.’Cost-benefit analysis of energy efficient and renewable energy technology in

Tasmanian dairies’.
http://www.dairyaustralia.com.au/~/media/Documents/Environment%20and%20Resources/2207
2014-Vaurena-cost%20benefit%20analysis%20and%20carbon%20footprint-05Nov13.pdf
White, D.J., 1975. ‘Energy in Agricultural Systems’, Agricultural Engineering, 303, pp.52-58.
Wiedemann, S. G., Cottle, D.J. and Cowie, A.L. (unpublished). ‘Resource use and greenhouse gas
emissions from two wool production systems in Australia’, FSA Consulting, 11 Clifford Street,
Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia.
Wiedemann, S.G., Henry, B.K., McGahan, E.J., Grant, T., Murphy, C.M. and Niethe, G. 2014, ‘Resource
use and greenhouse gas intensity of Australian beef production 1981–2010’. Agricultural
Systems, 133, pp.109–118.
Wiedemann, S., McGahan, E., Grist, S. Grant, T. 2010. ‘Environmental assessment of two pork supply
chains using life cycle assessment’, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation.
Wiedemann, S., McGahan, S. Poad, G. 2012a. ‘Using life cycle assessment to quantify the environmental
impact of chicken mean production’. Rural Industries Research and Development cooperation.
Wiedemann, S. G., McGahan, E. J. Murphy, C. M. 2012b. ‘Energy, water and greenhouse gas emissions
in Australian pork supply chains: a life cycle assessment’. SA Cooperative Research Centre for
an Internationally Competitive Pork Industry.
Wigginton, D.W. and Raine, S.R. 2001. ‘Measuring irrigation system performance in the queensland
dairy industry’. National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture Publication
179729/5.Toowoomba, Australia.
Williams, A. G., Audsley, E. &Sandars, D. 2006. ‘Determining the environmental burdens and resource
use in the production of agricultural and horticultural commodities’. 97 Bedford, UK: D.L. Main
Report. Defra Research Project IS0205.
Williams, J., Heid, W., Murphy, J., Robbins, F. 1985. ‘Solar heating systems for swine housing:
sensitivity of critical variables on economic analysis’. Transactions of the ASABE, 28,6, pp.2006-
2010.
Woods, J., Williams, A., Hughes, J.K., Black, M., Murphy, R. 2010, ‘Energy and the food system’, Phil.
Trans. R. Soc. B, 365 (2010), pp. 2991–3006.
Yusaf, T., Goh, S., Borserio, J.A. 2011. ‘Potential of renewable energy alternatives in Australia’,
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15, 5, pp. 2214-2221.
119
Zehnder, A.J.B., Yang, H., Schertenlieb, R. 2003, ‘Water issues: the need for action at different levels’,
Aquatic Sciences, 65, pp.1–20.
Zhang, Y., Wang, X., Riskowski, G. L., Christianson, L. L. 2001, ‘Quantifying ventilation effectiveness
for air quality control’, Transactions of the ASAE, 44, 2, pp.385-390.
120
RIRDC’s
NATIONAL RURAL ISSUES
R&D program
Benchmarking Energy Use on Farm
by Guangnan Chen, Tek Maraseni , Thomas Banhazi , Jochen Bundschuh
RIRDC Publication No 15/059

RIRDC Project No: PRJ-009235
Trusted insights.
Independent analysis.
Phone: 02 6271 4100

Fax: 02 6271 4199
Bookshop: 1300 634 313
Email: rirdc@rirdc.gov.au
Postal Address: PO Box 4776,
Kingston ACT 2604
Street Address: Level 2, 15 National Circuit,
Barton ACT 2600
www.rirdc.gov.au

Benchmarking Energy Use Online

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Benchmarking Energy Use Online

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Benchmarking Energy

by Guangnan Chen, Tek Maraseni , Thomas Banhazi , Jochen Bundschuh

RIRDC Publication No 15/059

Benchmarking Energy Use on Farm

Researcher Contact Details

Phone: 07 4631 2518

RIRDC Contact Details

Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation

Phone: 02 6271 4100

Electronically published by RIRDC in June 2015

List of tables and figures .......................................................................................... x

Executive summary ................................................................................................ xv

2 Energy Use in the Grain Sector ........................................................................... 8

4 Energy Use in the Dairy Sector .......................................................................... 37

5 Energy Use in the Pig and Poultry Industries ................................................... 50

7 Conclusions and recommendations for further work....................................... 90

9 References .......................................................................................................... 101

Table 1.1: Project objectives and tasks

Table 1.2: Classification of energy sources

Table 3.1: Values of some horticultural crops in 2011-12

Table 3.2: Key attributes of five different nurseries in Queensland

Table 3.7: Energy consumption at Nursery B, Brisbane

Table 3.8: Energy consumption at Nursery C, Sunshine Coast

Table 3.9: Energy consumption at Nursery D, Sunshine Coast

Table 3.10: Energy consumption from Nursery E, Brisbane

Table 4.2: Direct on-farm energy input from different countries

Table 4.4: Estimated electricity use in a dairy shed in Ireland

Table 5.4: Total energy consumption in different activities of broiler production

Table 6.2: Australian Wool Production Forecast 2014

Table 6.6: Energy source per unit of production

Table 6.8: Itemised energy usage for key processes

Table 6.10: Total energy budget for intensive wool production

Table 6.11: On-farm direct energy use in sheep wool production

Table 6.12: Benchmark energy use for feedlot cattle production

Table 7.1: Some of the generic energy management measurements

Figure 1.2: Electricity consumption by sector (PJ)

Figure 1.3: Various inputs of farm production

Figure 1.4: Emission intensities for different types of energy sources

Figure 2.2: Cropping systems and conditions investigated in this project

Figure 4.1: Australia's Dairy Farming regions

Figure 4.2: Australian dairy farming systems

Figure 4.3: Energy uses in dairy animal production system

Figure 4.5: Typical breakdown of dairy shed energy costs

Figure 5.1: Overview of Australian pig industry

Figure 5.3: Consumption of various meat types in Australia

Figure 5.4: State distribution of volume of chicken meat produced

Figure 6.2: Layout of a typical cattle feedlot operation

Figure 6.3: Sheep numbers by State

Figure 6.6: Electricity consumption as a proportion of farm variable costs in 2011

Figure 6.7: Water supply energy usage (MJ/Head-On-Feed/Month)

Figure 6.8: Feed processing energy usage (MJ/t of grain)

Figure 6.10: Feed delivery component energy usage (MJ/tonne of ration)

Figure 6.11: Waste management energy usage (MJ/head-on-feed/month)

Figure 6.16: Life cycle of wool from farm to fabric formation

Figure 8.1: Energy use breakdown for the winemaking process

Where are the relevant industries located in Australia?

This research is relevant to all states and territories in Australia.

From this project, it has been found that:

Implications for relevant stakeholders

Table 1.1: Project objectives and tasks

Overall Project Objectives Specific Project Objectives and Tasks

1.1 Energy and agriculture

Table 1.2: Classification of energy sources (Source: Chen et al. 2103b)

Non-renewable Renewable Biological Renewables