Assessment of the most energy-efficient crop cultivation technologies (Only in Lithuanian, English summary available)

From the perspective of energy efficiency, evaluating the most effective agricultural crop production technologies is strategically important for Lithuania.
This assessment not only provides the agricultural sector with essential data on energy-efficient practices but also supports sustainable, economically viable, and environmentally friendly farming. The findings may have long-term impacts on agricultural practices, fuel use reduction, climate change mitigation, and the improvement of farmers’ economic well-being.

Fuel consumption and economic assessments were carried out for five different technologies: conventional ploughing, minimal tillage at a 10 cm depth, strip deep tillage (30 cm) with seeding, strip shallow tillage (10 cm) with seeding, and direct seeding. Minimal tillage also included subsoiling once every four years.

Each technology was analyzed by farm size categories: very small (30–50 ha, 5 km transport operations), small (50–100 ha, 7 km), medium (100–200 ha, 10 km), large (200–500 ha, 12 km), and very large (>500 ha, 15 km). Regardless of farm size, a fixed 20 km distance was applied for transporting yields to collection points or storage facilities.

Within each technology, crops were grouped according to similar cultivation requirements. Yields increased with farm size: winter wheat and barley (4.5–6.5 t/ha); spring wheat, barley, and oats (2.5–4.5 t/ha); beans and peas (3.0–5.0 t/ha); winter rapeseed (2.5–4.5 t/ha); spring rapeseed (1.0–2.5 t/ha); buckwheat (1.0–3.0 t/ha); and maize for silage or forage (10–50 t/ha). Higher yields were assumed to require greater fertilizer and pesticide inputs.

To compare chemically intensive and non-chemical systems, an additional fuel and economic analysis was conducted for an agroecological rotation on a medium-sized farm using minimal tillage. The four-year rotation included:

• Year 1 – field beans (after cereals), yield 3.0 t/ha;

• Year 2 – winter wheat, yield 4.0 t/ha;

• Year 3 – spring barley, yield 3.0 t/ha;

• Year 4 – maize, yield 25 t/ha.

Larger farms were assumed to have access to more advanced technologies, such as drones for molluscicide application, whereas smaller farms were limited by high costs. With increasing farm size, machinery working width, tractor power, and labor efficiency were scaled accordingly.

Fuel consumption assessments considered all technological operations (tillage, seeding, spraying and fertilization, manure spreading, harvesting, loading, grain/seed drying). Criteria included: machinery design, working width and depth, speed, productivity, tractor/self-propelled power, seeding rate, number of rows, fertilizer rate, water volume, tank capacity, crop type, yield, material load, grain/seed moisture, standard moisture, and field distance from the farm.

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were calculated using the emission factor from the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report, multiplying fuel consumption by 2.88 kg CO₂ eq./l.

Economic evaluation was based on gross margin (revenue minus direct costs for diesel, fertilizers, pesticides, labor, and seeds). Revenue was calculated as production volume multiplied by market price. Direct support payments were excluded. The share of diesel in total direct costs and the impact of fuel tax exemptions were also analyzed, comparing profitability with and without the exemption.

The fuel and GHG emissions analysis showed that conventional ploughing is the least efficient in terms of both fuel use and emissions. Direct seeding was the most efficient, reducing fuel use by 32–57% and GHG emissions by 1.5 to 2.4 times compared to ploughing. The smallest reductions were observed for peas and beans. Minimal tillage and strip tillage (shallow and deep) represented intermediate solutions, with strip shallow tillage and seeding performing better than both minimal tillage and strip deep tillage. Strip deep tillage consumed more fuel than minimal tillage but less than conventional ploughing.

As farm size increased, fuel use and emissions per ton (l/t and kg CO₂ eq./t) decreased due to higher yields. However, when measured per hectare (l/ha and kg CO₂ eq./ha), they increased due to longer transport distances. Conventional tillage had the highest fuel use and emissions across all farm sizes, as it involved more intensive operations.

When comparing agroecological technologies with conventional (chemically intensive) farming, the agroecological approach used up to 50% less fuel and generated up to 50% lower GHG emissions. Transport fuel consumption decreased by as much as 72% due to fewer technological operations. These practices, however, are most effective when applied as part of a rotation system.

No-till technologies, particularly direct seeding, were found to be more economically efficient thanks to lower fuel use and higher profit margins. Larger farms benefited most from economies of scale, but the advantages of no-till practices were consistent across all farm sizes. Diesel tax relief was especially important for smaller, intensively managed farms, as removing this exemption significantly reduced profitability. Agroecological technologies, while sustainable, showed variable profitability depending on the context, and smaller farms faced barriers in adopting advanced tools.

It is therefore recommended to promote the adoption of no-till and agroecological practices through financial incentives, research support, targeted assistance for small farms, revisions to tax policy, and enhanced data analysis—strengthening the sustainability and competitiveness of the agricultural sector.