An analytical method to survey the energy input-output and emissions of greenhouse gases from Wheat and Tomato farms in Iran

Transcription

1 Biological Forum An International Journal 7(1): 5258(2015) ISSN No. (Print): ISSN No. (Online): An analytical metod to survey te energy inputoutput and emissions of greenouse gases from Weat and farms in Iran Asadulla Mirasi, Mousarreza Samadi and Amir Hossein Rabiee *Department of Farm Macinery, Faculty of Biosystems Engineering, Islamic Azad University, Sarecord Branc, Lordegan center, Sarecord, IRAN **Department of farm Macinery, Faculty of Biosystems Engineering, Islamic Azad University, Sarecord Branc, Lordegan center, Sarecord, IRAN ***Master of Agricultural Engineering, Faculty of Biosystems Engineering, Islamic Azad University, Sarecord Branc, Lordegan center, Sarecord, IRAN (Corresponding autor: Asadulla Mirasi) (Received 14 December, 2014, Accepted 06 January, 2015) (Publised by Researc Trend, Website: ABSTRACT: Tis study survived te energy use patterns and energy inputoutput of weat and tomato productions in Isfaan province of Iran. Te facetoface questionnaire metod was used to collect te data from 75 and 35 farmers for weat and tomato, respectively. Te results sowed tat total energy input for weat and tomato production was to 46108and MJa 1, respectively. Among all inputs involved, fertilizer ad te igest energy value per ectare for weat; furtermore, diesel fuel ad te igest sare of total energy consumption for tomato production. Te value of energy ratio for cultivating weat and tomato productions were calculated at 0.95 and 0.75, respectively. Te ratio of renewable energy witin te total energy in all productions is very low. Te sare of nonrenewable energy for weat and tomato production was 80% and 85%, respectively. Te results of CO 2 emission analyzes sowed tat te total amount of CO 2 emission for weat and tomato production was 1.9 and 4.7 tonesa 1, respectively. In te researc area, use of furter energy made some environmental damages suc as global warming, nutrient loading and pesticide pollution. Terefore, tere is a need to develop a new policy to force producers to use all inputs on time and enoug undertake more energy efficient practices. Keywords: Energy utilization; environmental pollution; Energy ratio INTRODUCTION Agriculture is bot a producer and consumer of energy. It uses large quantities of locally available noncommercial energy, suc as seed, manure and animate energy, as well as commercial energies, directly and indirectly, in te form of diesel, electricity, fertilizer, plant protection, cemical, irrigation water, macinery etc. Efficient use of tese energies elps to acieve increased production and productivity and contributes to te profitability and competitiveness of agriculture sustainability in rural living (Sing et al., 2002). Energy inputoutput relationsips in cropping systems vary wit crops being grown in sequence, by type of soils, nature of tillage operations for seedbed preparation, nature and amount of organic manure, cemical fertilizer, plant protection measures, arvesting and tresing operations and, finally, yield levels (Mandal et al., 2002). Cetin and Vardar studied on differentiation of direct and indirect energy inputs in agro industrial production of tomatoes. Erdal et al., ave studied on energy consumption and economic analysis of sugar beet production. Damirjan et al., studied te energy and economic analysis of sweet cerry production. Alam, et al., studied te energy flow in agriculture of Banglades for a period of 20 years. Satori et al., studied te comparison of energy consumption on two farming system of conservation and organic in Italy. In recent years, Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) as a non parametric metod as become a central tecnique in productivity and efficiency analysis applied in different aspects of economics and management sciences. Altoug witin tis context, several researcers ave focused on determining efficiency in agricultural units and various products ranging from cultivation and orticulture to aquaculture and animal usbandry for example: surveying te quantity of inefficient resources wic are used in cotton production in Panjab in Pakistan (Safiq and Reman 2000), reviewing energy performance used in paddy production

2 (Nassiri and Sing 2009), surveying improving energy efficiency for garlic production (Samavatian et al., 2009), evaluation and development of optimum consumption of energy resources in greenouse cultivation in Teran province (Gocebeyg et al., 2009), cecking te efficiency and returning to te scale of rice farmers in four different areas of Panjab state in India by using Nonparametric metod of data envelopment analysis (Nassiri and Sing 2010), determination of te amount of energy consumption in weat cultivation of Fars province wit te approac of data envelopment analysis (Housyar et al., 2010). A furter comparative review of frontier studies on agricultural products can be found in (Sarma et al., 1999), (Iraizoz et al., 2003), ( Galanopoulos et al., 2006), (Sing et al., 2004), (Cauan et al., 2006). Te Isfaan region is one of te most important agricultural production areas in Iran. Different geograpical and climatic caracteristics increase te variety of crop patterns, and irrigated farms ave an important economic value in te province. Te farmers grow many agricultural products, suc as field crops, vegetables, fruits, flowers, etc. Te main objective of tis researc was to investigate te energy use patterns, Mirasi, Samadi and Rabiee 53 examine te greenouse gas emission and analyze te energy inputoutput in te cultivation of weat and tomato production in tis part of Iran. MATERIALS AND METHODS Table 1. Energy equivalences of inputs and outputs. Energy source Units MJ 1. Human power Man 1.96 Woman Cemical fertilizer N P 2 O K 2 O Diesel fuel L Tractor Agricultural macinery Combine Cemical poison Herbicides 238 Fungicides 216 Insecticides Farmyard manure Nylon Seed 11. Water for irrigation m Electricity kw Weat (seed) (seed) 13. Output Weat Tis study was conducted in Isfaan province of Iran. Tis province is located witin 30 42' and 34 30' nort latitude and 49 36' and 55 32' east longitude. Data were collected troug personal interview metod in a specially designed scedule for tis study. Te collected data belonged to te 2012/13 production year. Before collecting data, a pretest survey was conducted by a group of randomly selected farmers. Te required sample size was determined using simple random sampling metod. Te equation is as below (Mousavi Avval et al., 2011): (1) were n is te required sample size; s, te standard deviation; t, te t value at 95% confidence limit (1.96); N, te number of olding in target population and d, te acceptable error (permissible error 5%)

3 Consequently calculated sample size in tis study was 75 and35 for weat and tomato, respectively. Consequently, based on te number of weat producers and tomato greenouses in eac village te 75 field crops farmers and 35 greenouses from te population were randomly selected. Energy is primarily used in agricultural operations for autumn tillage, seedbed preparation, sowing, planting, oeingweeding, bund making (ridging), irrigation, fertilizer application, spraying, arvestingtresing and transportation. Te energy equivalents given in Table 1 were used to calculate te input amounts. Te production energy of tractors and agricultural macines was calculated by using te following equation (Gezer et al., 2003): G M p M pe = (2) TW Were Mpe is te energy of te macine per unit area, MJa 1, G is te mass of macine, ; Mp is te energy consumption for production 1 of macine, MJ 1 ; T is te economic life, ; and W is te effective field Mirasi, Samadi and Rabiee 54 capacity, ar 1. Te Diesel energy requirement was determined on te basis of fuel consumption, la 1. Te data were converted into energy units and expressed inmja 1. Te following equation was used in te calculation of fuel consumption (Canakci et al., 2005): FC = Pm R SFC Table 2. Indices of energy in Agriculture production. (3) Were FC is te fuel consumption, la 1 ; Pm is te tractor power, kw; R is te loading ratio, decimal; and SFC is te specific fuel consumption (0.300lkW 1 ). In tis study te fuel requirements of water pumps (stationary type) and combine arvesters were measured by te following metod: te fuel tank of te engine was completely filled before starting te field test, and te quantity of fuel required to fill te tank after performing te field test was measured using a 1 L graduated cylinder. Tus, te fuel consumed during te test was determined (Canakci et al., 2005). Based on te energy equivalents of te inputs and output (Table 1), te energy ratio (energy use efficiency), energy productivity, specific energy and net energy gain were calculated in Table 2. Indicator Definition Unit Energy ratio 1 Energy Output (MJ a) ratio (4) Energy Input (MJ a) Energy productivity 1 Yield ( a) Energy Input (MJ a) Specific energy 1 Energy input (MJ a) Yield ( a) Kg MJ 1 (5) MJ 1 (6) Net energy gain 1 1 Energy Output (MJ a) Energy Input (MJ a) MJ a 1 (7) Te outputinput energy ratio (energy use efficiency) is one of te indices tat sow te energy efficiency of agriculture. In particular, tis ratio, wic is calculated by te ratio of input fossil fuel energy and output food energy, as been used to express te ineffectiveness of crop production in developed countries. An increase in te ratio indicates improvement in energy efficiency, and vice versa. Canges in efficiency can be bot sort and long term, and will often reflect canges in tecnology, government policies, weater patterns, or farm management practices. By carefully evaluating te ratios, it is possible to determine trends in te energy efficiency of agricultural production, and to explain tese trends by attributing eac cange to various occurrences witin te industry (Unakitan et al., 2010). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION A. Energy use pattern Te components of te energy use pattern for cultivating te weat and tomato are sown in Table 3. As it can be seen in te Table 3, 330 nitrogen, 300 Pospate, 300 potassium, 17 tons of farm fertilizer, 1000 l diesel fuel, 4150 m 3 water, 9.2 cemical spraying agents, 5710 uman power, 48 macinery, 1170 Kw electrical energy per ectare are used for te production of tomato in Isfaan province of Iran. Te average tomato output were found to be a 1 in te enterprises tat were analyzed. Te energy equivalent of tis is calculated as MJa 1.

4 Omid et al., concluded tat te input energy for cucumber production was to be MJa 1 and te Similar results ave been reported in te literature tat te energy input of diesel fuel and cemical fertilizers as te biggest sare of te total energy input in agricultural crops production (Erdal et al., 2007, Barami et al., 2011, Monjezi et al., 2011, Taki et al., 2012). For te weat crop, te total energy requirement consumed in various energy sources was calculated to Mirasi, Samadi and Rabiee 55 average inputs energy consumption was igest for diesel fuel, total cemical fertilizer and electricity. be 46108MJa 1. Te fertilizer application was found to be te igest energy source in total inputs. It was followed by diesel fuel and water for irrigation. All of te field operations are performed using agricultural implements. So, te sare of uman power usage remained at te lowest level. Also, seeds and cemical energies were found to be low. Te average yield of te weat crop was determined to be 3700 a 1. Table 3. Te pysical inputs used in te production of tomato and weat and teir energy equivalences. Inputs 1. Cemicals Herbicides Fungicides Insecticides 2. Human power 3. Macinery 4. Fertilizer Nitrogen fertilizer 5. Manure 6. Seed Pospate Potassium 7. Diesel fuel 8. Electricity 9. Water Total energy input Yield Amount Weat Unit B. Energy indices in field crops and vegetables Te energy ratio (energy use efficiency), energy productivity, specific energy, net energy gain and te distribution of inputs used in te production of weat l m 3 MJ Amount Unit ton l kw m 3 MJ and tomato production according to te direct, indirect, renewable and nonrenewable energy groups, are given in Table 4. Table 4. Energy output input ratio and type of energy forms for crop field and vegetables productions. Items Unit Weat Energy ratio Energy productivity MJ Specific energy MJ Net energy MJa Direct energy a MJa Indirect energy b MJa Renewable energy c MJa Non renewable energy d MJa Total energy input MJa Energy output MJa a include uman power, fuel, water for irrigation and electricity power, b include te Cemical poisons, fertilizers, seeds and macinery, c include uman power, seeds and manure fertilizers, d include fuel, electricity, Cemical poisons, water for irrigation, fertilizers and macinery.

5 Te ratio of renewable energy including te energies of uman power, seed and farm fertilizer inputs, witin te total energy in all productions is very low. Renewable energy resources (solar, ydroelectric, biomass, wind, ocean and geotermal energy) are inexaustible and offer many environmental benefits over conventional energy sources. Eac type of renewable energy also as its own special advantages tat make it uniquely suited to certain applications Taki et al., 2012). Te use of renewable energy offers a range of exceptional benefits, including: a decrease in external energy dependence; a boost to local and regional component manufacturing industries; promotion of regional engineering and consultancy services specializing in te use of renewable energy, decrease in impact of electricity production and transformation; increase in te level of services for te rural population; creation of employment, etc Miguez et al., 2006). Witin te enterprises tat were analyzed, te sare of nonrenewable energy for weat and tomato production was 80% and 85%, respectively. Several researcers ave found similar results tat te sare of nonrenewable energy is greater tan tat of renewable energy consumption Kaya et al., 2006). Te energy ratio in Table 4 was calculated as 0.95 and 75for weat and tomato production. Te iger value of energy ratio for weat in tis region can be explained by te efficiency of irrigation kennel and optimization of cemical fertilizer tat affect in total energy consumption. Te results of Table 4 sowed tat te energy ratio was low for vegetable production in Isfaan Province. Te reason of low energy ratio in tis researc in comparison wit oter researces may be including: low yield, using ig energy inputs consumption, not being insulate for roof and walls, etc. It is clear tat te use of renewable energy in tis region is very low, indicating tat tomato and cucumber production depends mainly on fossil fuels. By raising Input Inputs Diesel fuel Mirasi, Samadi and Rabiee 56 te crop yield, decreasing energy inputs consumption, insulate te roof and walls, use of renewable energy and optimization of energy consumption te energy ratio can be increased. Oter autors reported similar results for vegetable production suc as 0.69 (Ozkan et al., 2004), 0.76 (Heidari and Omid 2011), and 0.64 (Moammadi and Omid 2010), Energy productivity for weat and tomato production was calculated 0.06 and 0.94 MJ 1, respectively. Te net energy of weat and tomato were negative. In literature, similar results ave been reported (Mandal et al., 2002, Erdal et al., 2007). Pisgar Komle et al., studied energy efficiency, energy productivity, specific energy and net energy for corn silage wic amount of above indices were reported as 2.27, 0.28 MJ 1, 3.76 MJ 1 and MJ a 1, respectively. C. Greenouse gas emission for field crops and vegetable productions In tis researc GHG emissions were te scope of tis analysis and te corresponding amount was calculated. Te diesel fuel combustion can be expressed as fossil CO 2 emissions wit equivalent of gl 1. Also, te macinery and fertilizer supply terms can be expressed in terms of te fossil energy required to manufacture and transport tem to te farm wit CO 2 equivalents of TgPJ 1 and TgPJ 1 for macinery and cemical fertilizers, respectively. Table 5 sows te CO 2 emission for weat and tomato production in actual energy use. Results of tis table indicated tat vegetable productions are mostly depending on diesel fuel sources. Diesel fuel ad te igest sare (58% for tomato) followed by cemical fertilizer and macinery. As it can be seen in Table 5, te total amount of CO 2 emission was 4.75 and 1.92 tones a1 for tomato and weat, respectively. Finally, Table 5 sowed tat te CO 2 emission for vegetable productions is more tan field crops. Table 5. Amount of greenouse gas emission for weat and tomato production. Equivalent (Tg (CO 2 ) PJ 1 ) Amount of energy usage (MJ/a) Weat Quantity of CO 2 emission (/a) Weat Macinery Cemical fertilizer and poison Total

6 Using etanol and biodiesel as biofuel is essential in te 21st century to reduce te ig GHG emissions. Field operations wit minimum macinery use (especially tillage operation) and macinery production are needed to be considered to reduce te amount of CO 2. Eady et al., 2011 applied te Life cycle assessment modeling of complex agricultural systems wit multiple food and fibre coproducts. Tey reported tat amongst te crops, estimates of emissions for te cereal grains averaged 202 CO 2 e/tonne grain, canola 222 CO 2 e/tonne and lupins 510 CO 2 e/tonne, wen modeled to include te benefits of te mixed farming system. Gunady et al., used te Life Cycle Assessment for evaluating te global warming potential of te fres produce supply cain for strawberries, romaine/cos lettuces and button musrooms in Western Australia. Results sowed tat te life cycle GHG emissions of strawberries and lettuces were iger tan musrooms due to intensive agricultural macinery operations during te onfarm stage. Musrooms, owever ave significantly iger GHG emissions during prefarm stage due to transport of peat, spawn, and compost. CONCLUSION Based on te results of tis paper it can be stated tat: 1. Te total energy requirements for cultivating te weat and tomato were found MJ a 1 and MJa 1 respectively. In energy sources, fertilizer ad te maximum energy values for weat and diesel fuel ad te igest sare of total energy consumption for tomato production. 2. Te values of te energy ratio for cultivating te weat and tomatowere0.95 and 0.75, respectively. Also, te values of specific energy consumption for weat and tomato cultivation were found to be 17and 1.06 MJ 1 respectively. 3. In tis researc te ratio of renewable energy witin te total energy in all productions is very low. Te sare of nonrenewable energy for weat and tomato production was 80%, and 85%, respectively. 4. Te results of CO 2 emission analyzes sowed tat te diesel fuel ad te igest sare of total CO 2 emission for tomato production. Te total amounts of CO 2 emission were 4.7 and 1.9 tona 1 for weat and tomato, respectively. REFERENCES Sing H., Misra D., Naar NM. (2002). Energy use pattern in production agriculture of typical village in arid zone, IndiapartI. Energy Convers Management. 43: Mandal KG, Saa KP, Gos PL, Hati KM, Bandyopadyay KK. (2002). Bioenergy and economic analyses of soybean based crop production systems in central India. Biomass Bio energy. 23: Mirasi, Samadi and Rabiee 57 Cetin B, Vardar A. (2008). An economic analysis of energy requirements and input cost for tomato production in Turkey. Renewable Energy, 33: Erdal G, Esengun K, Guduz O. (2007). Energy use and economic analysis of sugar beet production in Tokat province of Turkey. Energy, 32: 345. Demirjan V, Ekinci KK, Akbolat DHM, Ekinci C. (2006). Energy and economic analysis of sweet cerry production in Turkey: A case study from Isparta province. Energy Conversion and Management. 47: Alam MS, Alam MR, Islam KK. (2005). Energy flow in Banglades agriculture. American Journal of Environmental Science. 1: Satori L, Basso M, Bertocco B, Oliviero G. (2005). Energy use economic evaluation of a tree years crop production and organic farming in NE Italy. Bio system Engineeringy, 91(2): Safiq M, Reman M. (2000). Te extent of resource use inefficiencies in cotton production in Pakistan's Punjab: An application of Data Envelopment Analysis. Agric. Econ., 22: Nassiri SM, Sing S. (2009). Study on energy use efficiency for paddy crop using data envelopment analysis (DEA) tecnique. Applied Energy, 86: Samavatian N, Rafiis, Mobli M. (2009). Evaluation of developing te energy consumption for garlic production by using data envelopment analysis. Te 6t national conference of mecanic and mecanization of agricultural macinery, Agriculture and natural resources faculty, University of Teran. Gocebeyg F, Omid M, Amadi H, Delsad D. (2009). Evaluation and development of efficient usage of energy recourses in cucumber production in green ouses in Province of Teran, by using data envelopment analysis, Te 6t national conference of mecanic and mecanization of agricultural macinery, Agriculture and natural resources faculty, University of Teran. Nassiri SM, Sing S. (2010). A comparative study of parametric and nonparametric energy efficiency in paddy production. Journal of agricultural science and tecnology, 12: Housyar E, SeikDavoodi MJ, Nassiri SM. (2010). Energy efficiency for weat production using data envelopment analysis (DEA) tecnique. Journal of Agricultural Tecnology, 6(4): Sarma KR, Leung PS, Zaleski HM. (1999). Tecnical, locative and economic efficiencies in swine production in Hawaii: A comparison of parametric and nonparametric approaces. Agric. Econ. 20: 2335.

7 Iraizoz B, Rapun M, Zabaleta I. (2003). Assessing te tecnical efficiency of orticultural production in Navarra Spain. Agric. Sys. 78: Galanopoulos K, Aggelopoulos S, Kamenidou I, Mattas K. (2006). Assessing te effects of managerial and production practices on te efficiency of commercial pig farming. Agric. Sys. 88: Sing G, Sing S, Sing J. (2004). Optimization of energy inputs for weat crop in Punjab. Energy Conversion and Management. 45: Cauan NS, Moapatra PKJ, Pandey KP. (2006). Improving energy productivity in paddy production troug bencmarking an application of data envelopment analysis. Energy Conversion and Managemen. 47: MousaviAvval S.H., Rafiee S., Moammadi A. (2011). Optimization of energy consumption and input costs for apple production in Iran using data envelopment analysis. Energy, 36: Gezer I, Acaroglu M, Hacseferogullari H. (2003). Use of energy and labor in apricot agriculture in Turkey. Biomass Bio energy, 24: Canakci M, Topakci M, Akinci I, Ozmerzi A. (2005). Energy use pattern of some field crops and vegetable production: Case study for Antalya Region, Turkey. Energy Conversion and Management. 39: De D., Sing S., Candra H. (2001). Tecnological impact energy consumption in rain fed soybean cultivation in Madya Prades. Applied Energy. 70: Hetz EJ. (1998). Energy utilization in fruit production in Cile. AgrMec Asia Africa Latin Am (AMA). 298(2): Sing JM. (2002). On farm energy use pattern in different cropping systems in Haryana, India. Master of Science, International Institute of Management University of Flensburg, Germany, Sresta D.S. (2008). Energy use efficiency indicator for agriculture. See also <ttp:// rae.pdf>, 10/10/2002. Pisgar Komle S.H., Omid M., Keyani A. (2011). Study on Energy use Pattern and Efficiency of Corn Silage in Iran by using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) Tecnique. International Journal of Environmental Science. 1(6): Barami, H., M. Taki and N. Monjezi. (2011). Optimization of energy consumption for weat production in Iran using data envelopment analysis (DEA) tecnique. African Journal of Agricultural Researc. 6(27): Yaldiz O, Ozturk HH,Zeren Y, Bascetincelik A. (1993). Energy use in 7eld crops of Turkey. 5. Mirasi, Samadi and Rabiee 58 International Congress of Agricultural Macinery and Energy. Kusadasi, Turkey, (in Turkis). Moammadi A, Omid M. (2010). Economical analysis and relation between energy inputs and yield of greenouse cucumber production in Iran. Applied Energy. 87(1): Unakitan G, Hurma H, Yilmaz F. (2010). An analysis of energy use efficiency of canola production in Turkey. Energy. 35: Omid M, Gojabeige F, Delsad M, Amadi H Energy use pattern and bencmarking of selected greenouses in Iran using data envelopment analysis. Energy Conversion and Management. 52: Monjezi N, Seikdavoodi MJ, Taki M. (2011). Energy Use Pattern and Optimization of Energy Consumption for Greenouse Cucumber Production in Iran Using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). Modern Applied Science. 5(6): Taki M, Ajabsirci Y, Mamoudi A. (2012). Application of Parametric and Nonparametric Metod to Analyzing of Energy Consumption for cucumber Production in Iran.Modern Applied Science. 6(1): Miguez JL, LopezGonzalez LM, Sala JM, Porteiro J, Granada E, Moran JC. (2006). Review of compliance wit EU2010 targets on renewable energy in Galicia (Spain). Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 10: Kaya D. (2006). Renewable energy policies in Turkey. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 10: Ozkan B, Akcaoz H, Fert C. (2004). Energy inputoutput analysis in Turkis agriculture. Renewable Energy. 29: Heidari MD, Omid M. (2011). Energy use patterns and econometric models of major greenouse vegetable productions in Iran. Energy. 36: Eady S., Carre A., Grant T. (2011). Life cycle assessment modelling of complex agricultural systems wit multiple food and fibre coproducts. Journal of Cleaner Production.ttp://dx.doi.org/ /j.jclepro Gunady M.J.A., Waidul K., Vicky A., Antony P. (2011). Evaluating te global warming potential of te fres produce supply cain for strawberries, romaine/cos lettuces ( Lactuca sativa), and button musrooms (Agaricusbisporus) in Western Australia using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Journal of Cleaner Production. doi: /j.jclepro