- Email: [email protected]
Energy analysis and agriculture: an application to U.S. corn production
86 U.S. CORN PRODUCTION
Energy Analysis and Agriculture: an Application to U.S. Corn Production. V. Smil, P. Nachman and T.V. Long II. Bowker, Epping, Essex, Great Britain/Westview Press, Boulder, CO, U.S.A., 1983. 191 pp., US$32.50. ISBN 0-86531-167-6. Improvements in Pimentel's et al. (1973) landmark paper on energy requirements for U.S. corn production have been suggested by many and almost continually since its publication. This monograph is certainly the most thorough and comprehensive updating. It begins with background information and description of production practices, continues through an in-depth, 30-year energy analysis of the crop, and terminates with conclusions and predictions. Strengths of the b o o k are its emphasis on temporally based and technologically dependent changes in energy requirements for certain agricultural inputs and operations, its discovery and treatment of errors in the original analysis, its results and conclusions contrasting with the original, its use of energy productivity (termed mass--energy ratio by the authors) in addition to energy ratio, and the resultant implications for agricultural and energy policy. Weakness of the b o o k are its less than totally inclusive boundary, the mixing of English and metric units, its omission of some of the relevant references, and perhaps a less accurate than desirable determination of certain energy inputs. Omission of energy inputs due to the boundary placement chosen by the authors includes capital energy for all inputs except field machinery, energy to produce fuels, and fuel for handling and distributing manure. These energy inputs, if included, would likely increase total energy requirements and decrease energy productivity by 5--10%. Conclusions and predictions form the w o r t h y kernel of this corn-energy monograph. Attributing reduced energy efficiency from 1945 to 1954 to modernization is insightful as well as reasonable. The conclusions that U.S. corn production has shown constant energy efficiency from 1954 to 1974 and will show improved energy efficiency to 1984 are in stark b u t heartening contrast to indications for much increasingly-intensive agricultural production. The changing energetics of corn farming are capsulized by the conclusion that "machinery and fuels to operate it have become less prominent, and fertilizers, irrigation, and drying more prominent". Despite the distractions of the book's weaknesses, it must be considered a very useful and significant contribution to the literature. RICHARD C. FLUCK
Agricultural Engineering Department, University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611, U.S.A.
87 REFERENCE Pimentel, D., Hurd, L.E., Bellotti, A.C., Forster, M.J., Oka, I.N., Sholes, O.D. and Whitman, R.J., 1973. Food production and the energy crisis. Science, 182: 443--449.
AGRICULTURE IN PAKISTAN E n e r g y for A g r i c u l t u r e in Pakistan. Muhmmad Jameel. International Insti-
tute for Applied Systems Analysis, IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria, 1982. 39 pp., US$5.00. ISBN 3-7045-0040-2. The above report published by IIASA, May 1982, is an analysis of alternatives for agricultural development for Pakistan. The report analyzes the nutrient requirements for the future of the Pakistani people and the goals set for agriculture in order to meet the nutrient requirements. The study uses conventional methods of trend forecasting and thus comes short of taking into account changing economic environments in prices, interest rates, energy costs and other opportunities for labor. It is not clear whether the development plan set by the author is feasible from the social and cultural point of view. Clearly increased cultivation, especially when it involves mechanization, requires a social change, which involves cutting down on man-power. It also requires increased mechanical skills of the farmers. But most of all, mechanization means commercialization. This step requires a major evolution of the traditional family farm into a commercial operation. As for energy, the report does not say much about the subject, except for evaluation of the energy needs for the various alternatives examined. Here too, the study does not a t t e m p t to evaluate the economic implications of the agricultural developments on energy. It just computes the energy quantities. In short, this booklet says very little about energy in agriculture. It is mostly a normative evaluation of agricultural development in Pakistan. It should be considered a bench mark for the agricultural requirements of Pakistan in the future. DAN DOVSKIN Heshev, The Inter Kibbutz Unit for Management Services P.O. Box 40021, Tel-Aviv, Israel
Energy Analysis and Agriculture: an Application to U.S. Corn Production. V. Smil, P. Nachman and T.V. Long II. Bowker, Epping, Essex, Great Britain/Westview Press, Boulder, CO, U.S.A., 1983. 191 pp., US$32.50. ISBN 0-86531-167-6. Improvements in Pimentel's et al. (1973) landmark paper on energy requirements for U.S. corn production have been suggested by many and almost continually since its publication. This monograph is certainly the most thorough and comprehensive updating. It begins with background information and description of production practices, continues through an in-depth, 30-year energy analysis of the crop, and terminates with conclusions and predictions. Strengths of the b o o k are its emphasis on temporally based and technologically dependent changes in energy requirements for certain agricultural inputs and operations, its discovery and treatment of errors in the original analysis, its results and conclusions contrasting with the original, its use of energy productivity (termed mass--energy ratio by the authors) in addition to energy ratio, and the resultant implications for agricultural and energy policy. Weakness of the b o o k are its less than totally inclusive boundary, the mixing of English and metric units, its omission of some of the relevant references, and perhaps a less accurate than desirable determination of certain energy inputs. Omission of energy inputs due to the boundary placement chosen by the authors includes capital energy for all inputs except field machinery, energy to produce fuels, and fuel for handling and distributing manure. These energy inputs, if included, would likely increase total energy requirements and decrease energy productivity by 5--10%. Conclusions and predictions form the w o r t h y kernel of this corn-energy monograph. Attributing reduced energy efficiency from 1945 to 1954 to modernization is insightful as well as reasonable. The conclusions that U.S. corn production has shown constant energy efficiency from 1954 to 1974 and will show improved energy efficiency to 1984 are in stark b u t heartening contrast to indications for much increasingly-intensive agricultural production. The changing energetics of corn farming are capsulized by the conclusion that "machinery and fuels to operate it have become less prominent, and fertilizers, irrigation, and drying more prominent". Despite the distractions of the book's weaknesses, it must be considered a very useful and significant contribution to the literature. RICHARD C. FLUCK
Agricultural Engineering Department, University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611, U.S.A.
87 REFERENCE Pimentel, D., Hurd, L.E., Bellotti, A.C., Forster, M.J., Oka, I.N., Sholes, O.D. and Whitman, R.J., 1973. Food production and the energy crisis. Science, 182: 443--449.
AGRICULTURE IN PAKISTAN E n e r g y for A g r i c u l t u r e in Pakistan. Muhmmad Jameel. International Insti-
tute for Applied Systems Analysis, IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria, 1982. 39 pp., US$5.00. ISBN 3-7045-0040-2. The above report published by IIASA, May 1982, is an analysis of alternatives for agricultural development for Pakistan. The report analyzes the nutrient requirements for the future of the Pakistani people and the goals set for agriculture in order to meet the nutrient requirements. The study uses conventional methods of trend forecasting and thus comes short of taking into account changing economic environments in prices, interest rates, energy costs and other opportunities for labor. It is not clear whether the development plan set by the author is feasible from the social and cultural point of view. Clearly increased cultivation, especially when it involves mechanization, requires a social change, which involves cutting down on man-power. It also requires increased mechanical skills of the farmers. But most of all, mechanization means commercialization. This step requires a major evolution of the traditional family farm into a commercial operation. As for energy, the report does not say much about the subject, except for evaluation of the energy needs for the various alternatives examined. Here too, the study does not a t t e m p t to evaluate the economic implications of the agricultural developments on energy. It just computes the energy quantities. In short, this booklet says very little about energy in agriculture. It is mostly a normative evaluation of agricultural development in Pakistan. It should be considered a bench mark for the agricultural requirements of Pakistan in the future. DAN DOVSKIN Heshev, The Inter Kibbutz Unit for Management Services P.O. Box 40021, Tel-Aviv, Israel