That is the bold title of the work. Not so detailed, but maybe comprehensive. I intend to add more links to add to the contents.

Main points.

It is necessary to be ecologically efficient. Reduce nutrient losses, use chemicals with care and restraint.

Have high production. That is good for both the soil and the economy.

Put prices on secondary effects. Example: soil organic matter is beneficial. But it should be quantified in economic terms to come into the planning process.  “Soft” information is difficult to use.

But there is a lot we all can do in our different positions. If you can do nothing else – write a book.

There is a link to the book to the right downwards.  Blogroll.

It is possible to combine these issues by including environmental costs in the optimum calculations.

Let us do it!

Cont.

Now the issue seems to be ripe. There is a discussion about a discipline “Agroecology”.  At last.  But the situation is more difficult. For mainstream agriculture international competitiveness is vital. We should produce at the same costs as the leading producers in the world for our most important products. Is it possible?  In fact no.

That sharpens the issue. Production ecology needs to consider production economy, at least if the discipline should be more than abstract science.

Nitrogen experiments on good sites show the following.

Yield increases with 30-40 kg grain for each additional kg N. This continues until the yield is about 500 kg/hectare below the maximum. If we consider this stage:

Economy: 1 kg N (SEK 10) has given 30 kg grain (SEK 1,5).  That is more than 12 times the investment.

Energy: about 35 MJ are needed for one kg N. The energy content of grain is about 15 MJ/kg. For input of 35 we get 450. Nitrogen fertilization is a very energyefficient measure.

Greenhouse gases: 1 kg N means release of about 8 kg CO2eq (manufacture 0 soil). That means about 0,2 CO2eq per kg grain. With diesel etc the sum will be 0,25-0,30.

Nitrogen leaching: Both old and new experiments show that in this stage no nitrogen residues are left.

But – there is more to gain. First one step. say 30 N with in average 15 kg grain/kg N. Then a final step with 20 kg N giving in average 8 kg grain/kg N. Let us consider the last step.

Economy: for 1 kg N (SEK 10) we get 8 kg grain and a  total of SEK 12. Still profitable.

Greenhouse gases: we got 8 kg grain for the input. We use 1 kg CO2eq per kg grain. This is inefficient. It is almost better to cultivate new land.

Leaching: according to experiments and models nitrogen additions at this level will increase longterm losses with about 30% of added N. That means 0.3 kg for the addition of 1. In other situations the society pays about SEK 100 pre kg N to reduce lieaching. That is a value of SEK 30.  The profit from the fertilizer at the top was 2.

The issue is a “book” (or whatever): Soil and crop management for today and tomorrow.

My intention is to compile it directly on the net. See link in Blogroll to the right . Welcome to comment. Below is the Introduction.

We have deep knowledge in soil and crop  science as well as in environmental sciences and ecology.  It forms a base for advanced models on the behaviour of soils and crops, the growth processes and environmental consequences of various kinds.  Contiunuous development is going on, The main problem is the variability of  soil and weather parameters.

 We have field experiments giving a base for recommendations to farmers.

This is transformed to actions in the fields, by advisors and farm managers. Their  main task and interest is to optimize the economic result of the farming enterprise.

 We also have a global and political environment listing demands or in any case environmental problems to work on:

Food production should increase

Water is scarce

Climate gases should be reduced

Nitrogen flows should be reduced.

Chemicals in general should be reduced

Agricultrual land may be needed for bioenergy

Biodiversity needs consideration.

The practical agricultrure are influenced by economic factors, various administrative measures and, not least, by the knowledge and interest of the farmer

The intention with this work is to try to summarize and discuss this complex and ways to handle it.

 The Baltic Sea is perfect for storage of carbon dioxide.  Not the sea itself, but the geological sediments below

 A new small car goes 100 km on 0,9 l. A Volkswagen hybrid, 2-seater. Somewhat special but still an indication of what is going on.

Fuel cells get longer life. The goal is 40 000 hours, which means a new technological level, according to researchers at Chalmers in Gothenburg.

 Molybdenum disulfide will beat both silicium and graphene. More effecient and energy saving electronics.

 There is a discussion on cold fusion. Very sceptical, but interesting. An Italian inventor/scientist has presented a new device and publicly demonstrated that an energy excess is produced. But everything is secret so the source of the energy cannot be proven. Unexpected chemical reactions, a falsification or maybe the start of a new epoch?

In any case much interesting development is going on. We should not stick to old ”truths” or even the data of today when trying to judge future development.  But catch the opportunities.

There is a lot of residues in the system. Normally returned to the soil providing soil organic matter maintenance. But they are also a potentioal bioenergy source. Now – if the soil C maintenance is taken care of by cover crops a large part of the residues can be used for bioenergy. The beet tops for biogas. Already at this stage there is enough energy produced to compensate in excess all input energy.

We could go one step further: upgrade the cover crop to a biomass-producing second crop för biogas. That will give full energy compensation with refined biogas and in addition 5-10 Mwh of bioenergy to the society.

A system for maximizing the solar energy.

The market economy favours specialization and growth. This is almost a general rule. In for instance animal production you try to maximize according to your circumstances.

 However, we have also the ecology to consider in agricultural production. To a large extent economy and ecology go together. Efficient resource utilization is also economically favourable. Sweden has come far in this development. But in that situation further environmental work will generate costs and diminish competitiveness.

The other day we had a meeting with a group of farmers. An animal intensive area. In general there is an excess of phosphorus compared to agronomically correct recommendations.

What to do? To reduce the number of animals will badly harm the farm economy. The current phosphorus application is in fact not in excess of the offtake by crop products. If only the phosphorus content in the soil were lower there could be balance in the system. A temporary effort (tens of years) to reduce the phophorus in soils? Maybe.

 But this could not be the responsibility of the farmer, who has developed his enterprise according to the rules given by the society.

What is the importance of agriculture today? I summed it up for a community workshop. 7000 hectares of crop production, annual sale value about  SEK 70 million. That means about  SEK 2000 per inhabitant, not much more than a day´s salary on good job.

And this should be an agricultural community! It is an illustration of the efficiency of the agricultural production and the low prices.

Economically agriculture is unimportant – but cut it off …..

Sharp competition in production based on ecological systems with necessity will put press on these systems, be it soils or animals.

In fact it is odd that economists and politicians do not recognize this problem. Some  believe that the Market takes care of everything. But the commodity based market does not put value on environmentally benign production.

Branding? Yes, for small segments, for some producers and the retail market it might be favourable. But a brand with premium price cannot be large enough to make a large scale environmental difference. It is more cosmetics in the discussion. Or an alibi.

What could work? Economical compensation to the producer is one possibility. Another is to fully utilize the market economy. Environmental work might pay in better production. Encourage more longterm considerations and put a price on both costs and gains.