上海种养结合型生态农场碳足迹及氮素流动分析

Carbon footprint and nitrogen flow in integrated crop-livestock ecological farms in Shanghai

  • 摘要: 种养结合型生态农场通过将种植业和养殖业有机结合, 实现了农业废弃物资源化高效利用和环境绿色发展, 是我国可持续农业模式的典范。本研究通过对比上海多元种养循环型(MCLS)、种养循环型(CLS)、有机水稻种植型(OR) 3种生态农场和常规水稻种植型(CK)农场, 采用生命周期评价结合物质流分析方法, 对比了不同类型农场的碳足迹及其氮循环利用效率, 并针对农场的碳排放现状, 以养殖业规模为基础, 通过设置不同有机肥替代化肥比例(有机肥全替代及30%替代)来优化农场的碳排放情况。结果表明, 不同类型农场总碳足迹为CLS>MCLS>OR>CK, 分别为3 508.24、1 736.47、232.60和104.21 t CO2; 单位面积碳排放量为MCLS>CLS>OR>CK, 分别为76.69、50.29、21.04和13.63 t(CO2)·hm−2; 单位产值碳足迹为CLS>OR>CK>MCLS, 分别为4.14、3.79、3.11和2.10 t(CO2)·万元−1; 单位营养密度单元碳足迹为CLS>OR>MCLS>CK, 分别为0.044、0.042、0.020、0.019 kg(CO2)·NDU−1; 单位面积碳固定量为MCLS>CLS>OR>CK, 分别为11.58、9.08、8.57和6.47 t(CO2)·hm−2。与种植型农场相比, 种养结合型生态农场(MCLS、CLS)同时提高了碳排放量和碳固定量。种养结合型生态农场能源消耗和养殖过程的直接排放为主要的排放源, 两者占比达75%以上; 种植型农场物资投入碳排放占总碳排放量的40.61%~50.78%。除OR外, 其余农场种植部分普遍存在氮肥过量投入的情况, 因此氮素利用效率低于30%, 种养结合模式将农场的氮素利用效率提高至50%左右。在肥料减量及30%有机肥替代化肥情景下, 各类型农场碳排放强度减少约30%。通过调整施肥措施及能源利用等方式, 生态农场有进一步减排的潜力。

     

    Abstract: Ecological farms adopt environmentally friendly agricultural techniques such as green manure, straw return to the field, integrated farming and breeding, and organic fertilizer substitution. These technologies can reduce fertilizer application and decrease non-point source pollution, but there is limited research on their impact on carbon footprint and nutrient utilization. Measuring the ecological benefits of ecological farms is crucial to promote the application of composite ecological technology. Therefore, this study focused on ecological farms in Shanghai, and used a combination of life cycle assessment and material flow analysis methods to compare the carbon footprints and nitrogen cycling efficiencies of different types of ecological farms, including diversified crop-livestock integrated eco-farm (MCLS), crop-livestock integrated eco-farm (CLS), organic rice farm (OR) and conventional rice farm (CK). Different proportions of organic fertilizer substituting for chemical fertilizer (full substitution and 30% substitution) with reduced fertilization amount were established based on the scale of crop farming to optimize farm carbon emissions. The results showed that compared with plantation farms, integrated crop-livestock eco-farms simultaneously increased both carbon emissions and sequestration, with higher carbon footprints per unit area. The rank of total carbon emissions for four types of farm was CLS (3 508.24 t CO2) > MCLS (1 736.47 t CO2) > OR (232.60 t CO2) > CK (104.21 t CO2), that of carbon footprint per unit area was MCLS 76.69 t(CO2)·hm−2 > CLS 50.29 t(CO2)·hm−2 > OR 21.04 t(CO2)·hm−2 > CK 13.63 t(CO2)·hm−2. Among these, MCLS had the highest carbon sequestration per unit area 11.58 t(CO2)·hm−2 and the lowest carbon emissions per unit output 2.10 t(CO2)·(104¥)−1, but its carbon emission intensity 76.69 t(CO2)·hm−2 was the highest due to the scale of livestock farming and input of energy and materials. Integrated crop-livestock ecological farms did not exhibit clear advantages in terms of carbon footprint per unit nutrient density unit and yield. Emissions from energy use and livestock farming processes accounted for more than 75% of the total emissions in the integrated crop-livestock ecological farms; while carbon emission from materials input of the plantation farms accounted for 40.61%−50.78% of the total emission. Except for OR, other farms generally had excessive nitrogen fertilizer inputs, resulting in lower than 30% nutrient utilization efficiency for the cultivation part. However, the integrated crop and livestock mode can improve nitrogen utilization efficiency to approximately 50% through waste resource recycling, indicating that integrated crop-livestock eco-farms can make more efficient use of the resources invested. The carbon footprint intensity of all farms decreased by approximately 30% under the scenarios of fertilizer reduction and a 30% substitution of organic fertilizer for chemical fertilizers. This suggested that ecological farms have great potential for emission reduction through adjusting fertilization practices and energy utilization methods.

     

/

返回文章
返回