(Received 3 January, 2010; accepted 27 May, 2010) ABSTRACT. Key Words: Cicer arietinum, Cobb Douglas function, energy efficiency, Iran RÉSUMÉ

Transcription

1 Africn Crop Science Journl, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp ISSN /2010 $4.00 Printed in Ugnd. All rights reserved 2010, Africn Crop Science Society ENERGY INPUTS AND OUTPUTS IN A CHICKPEA PRODUCTION SYSTEM IN KURDISTAN, IRAN PAYMAN SALAMI nd HOJAT AHMADI Deprtment of Agriculturl Mchinery Engineering, Fculty of Agriculturl Engineering nd Technology, University of Tehrn, P.O. Box 4111, Krj , Irn Corresponding uthor: pymn.slmi@gmil.com, slmi@ut.c.ir (Received 3 Jnury, 2010; ccepted 27 My, 2010) ABSTRACT Chickpe (Cicer rietinum L.) is one of the most importnt grin legumes which trditionlly cultivted in mrginl res nd sline soils. In this study, chickpe production in Kurdistn, Irn nd the energy equivlences of input used in production were investigted. The ims of this study were to determine the mount of input output energy used in chickpe production, to investigte the efficiency of energy consumption, to mke n economic nlysis of chickpe production, nd to estlish reltion etween energy inputs nd yield. Dt were collected through survey using fce-to-fce questionnire. Diesel energy engrossed 37.9% of totl energy, followed y chemicl fertiliser 29.6% during production period. Energy efficiency ws 1.04, nd energy productivity ws 0.07 kg MJ -1. The profit-cost rtio of the frms ws Clculted net return ws 42.2 $ -1 in the investigted frms. The Co Dougls function,, nd the liner function,, were selected to estlish the est fitness reltions etween the production nd vrious energy inputs. Wheres the R squres in oth models re close, ut it s shown tt the Co Dougls model ws etter tn liner model. Key Words: Cicer rietinum, Co Dougls function, energy efficiency, Irn RÉSUMÉ Le Chickpe (Cicer rietinum L.) est l un de plus importntes grines de légumineuses trditionnellement cultivées dns les zones mrginles et les sols slins. Dns cette étude, l production du chickpe, u Kurdistn, en Irn et les équivlences des énergies liées ux intrnts utilisés dns l production ont été ordées. L étude vient pour ojectifs de déterminer le montnt des intrnts et des produits de l énergie utilisée dns l production du chickpe, d exminer l efficcité de l consommtion d énergie, de procéder à une nlyse économique de l production du chickpe, et d étlir une reltion entre les pports d énergie et le rendement. Les données étient collectées à trvers une enquête utilisnt une interview fce -à -fce. L énergie à diesel occupit 37.9% de l énergie totle, suivi des engris chimiques (29.6%) durnt l période de production. L efficcité de l énergie étit de 1.04% et l productivité énergétique étit de 0.07 kg MJ -1. Le rpport profit-coût des fermes étit de Le énéfice net clculé étit de 42.2 $ -1 dns les fermes soumises à l enquête. L fonction de Co Dougls et l fonction linéire étient sélectionnées pour étlir les meilleures reltions entre l production et les intrnts énergétiques vriés. Alors que les R 2 étient proches dns les deux modèles, il été montré que le modèle de Co- Dougls étit meilleure que le modèle linéire. Mots Clés: Cicer rietinum, fonction de Co Dougls, efficcité de l energie, Irn

2 52 INTRODUCTION Chickpe (Cicer rietinum L.) is one of the most importnt grin legumes which is trditionlly cultivted in mrginl res nd sline soils (Ro et l., 2002). The gronomicl importnce of chickpe is sed on its high protein content ( %) in humn nd niml diet (Hulse, 1991). Chickpe cultivrs, which re grown in Irn, include ntive (Desi) or Mediterrnen (Koli) types (Sohri et l., 2008). Energy in griculture is importnt in terms of crop production nd gro processing for vlue dding (Krimi et l., 2008). The reltion etween griculture nd energy is very close. Agriculture itself is n energy user nd energy supplier in the form of io-energy. At present, productivity nd profitility of griculture depends on energy consumption (Alm et l., 2005). Energy use in griculture s developed in response to incresing popultions, limited supply of rle lnd nd desire for n incresing stndrd of living. In ll societies, these fctors ve encourged n increse in energy inputs to mximise, yields, minimise lour-intensive prctices, or oth (Esengun et l., 2007). Energy in one form or nother form is crucil input to griculturl production. Continuously rising prices, incresing proportion of commercil energy in the totl energy input to griculture nd the growing scrcity of commercil energy sources, such s fossil fuels, ve necessitted the more efficient use of these sources for different crops (Singh et l., 1999). Agriculture uses lrge quntities of loclly ville non-commercil energies, such s seed, mnure nd nimte energy, nd commercil energies directly nd indirectly in the form of diesel, electricity, fertiliser, plnt protection, chemicls, irrigtion wter, mchinery, etc. Efficient use of these energies helps to chieve incresed production nd productivity nd contriute to economy, profitility nd competitiveness of griculture sustinility to rurl living (Singh et l., 2002). The im of this study ws to determine the mount of input-output energy used in chickpe production, determine the efficiency of energy PAYMAN SALAMI nd HOJAT AHMADI consumption nd mkes n economic nlysis of chickpe production. MATERIALS AND METHODS The study involved 72 frmers growing chickpe in Kurdistn province, Irn. A fce-to-fce questionnire ws used in Decemer The province is locted in the west of Irn, within north ltitude nd est longitude. The totl re of the Kurdistn province is 2,820,300. The men nnul rinfll of the province is 450 millimeters (Njfi, 1996). For the growth nd development, energy demnd in griculture cn e divided into direct nd indirect, nd into renewle nd nonrenewle energies (Alm et l., 2005). Energy efficiency of griculturl system ws evluted y the energy rtio etween output nd input. Humn lour, mchinery, diesel oil, fertiliser, pesticides, hericides, fungicides, nd seed mounts nd yield vlues of chickpe crops were used to estimte the energy rtio. The mounts of input were clculted per hectre nd then, these input dt were multiplied with the coefficient of energy equivlent. Energy equivlents shown in Tle 1 were used for estimtion. The Co Dougls function nd the liner function were used to estlish the est fitness reltions etween the production nd vrious energy inputs. The rw dt were screened t the 95% confidence intervl using the residul plot method to delete extreme oservtions. Bsic informtion on energy inputs nd chickpe yields were entered into Excel nd SPSS 17 spredsheets. Bsed on the energy equivlents of the inputs nd output (Tle 1), the energy rtio (energy use efficiency) nd energy productivity were clculted y using the eqution 4 nd 5 (Mndl et l., 2002; Singh et l., 1997). Output - input rtio = Energy output (MJ -1 )... (1) Energy input (MJ -1 ) Energy productivity = Chickpe output (kg -1 ).. (2) Energy input (MJ -1 )

3 TABLE 1. Energy equivlent of inputs nd outputs in griculturl production Prticulrs Unit Energy equivlent (MJ unit -1 ) Source Energy inputs nd outputs in chickpe 53 Inputs Humn lor h 1.96 (Singh nd Mittl, 1992; Erdl et l., 2007) Mchinery kg Trctor 138 (Kitni, 1999) Plow 180 (Kitni, 1999) Disk Hrrow 149 (Kitni, 1999) Fertiliser 129 (Kitni, 1999) Diesel fuel l (Kizilsln, 2009; Singh nd Mittl, 1992; Erdl et l., 2007) Fertilisers kg Nitrogen (N) 78.1 (Kitni, 1999) Chemicls kg Pesticides 454 (Kitni, 1999) Hericides 290 (Kitni, 1999) Fungicides 115 (Kitni, 1999) 6. Seeds kg 14.7 (Kitni, 1999) Outputs Chickpe kg 14.7 (Kitni, 1999) Indirect energy included energy emodied in seeds, fertilisers, mnure, chemicls, mchinery, while direct energy covered humn lour nd diesel used in the chickpe production. Nonrenewle energy included diesel, chemicl, fertilisers nd mchinery; nd renewle energy consisted of humn lour, seeds, nd mnure. Also, economic nlysis of chickpe production ws performed, nd net profit nd enefit cost rtio were clculted. The net return ws clculted y sutrcting the totl cost of production from the gross vlue of production per hectre. The enefit cost rtio ws clculted y dividing the gross vlue of production y the totl cost of production per hectre (Demircn et l., 2006; Ozkn et l., 2004). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Amounts of inputs nd outputs in chickpe production for ech item re illustrted in Tle 2. Inputs, energy equivlences nd rtio of inputs to output in the chickpe production re illustrted in Tle 3. Totl used energy in vrious frm opertions during chickpe production ws 5880 MJ -1. According to the evlution of dt in Tle 2, the verge humn lour required in the study re ws h -1, nd mchine power ws 5.87 h -1. Almost 82.2% of totl humn lour ws required for the rvesting opertion, ecuse in the study re the rvesting opertion ws done only y humn lour without using mchinery. Aout 46.7% of mchine power ws consumed for lnd preprtion, 41.9% for other griculturl prctices, nd 11.4% for trnsporting of rvested chickpe. The distriution of the energy input rtios in the chickpe production re given in Figure 1. Totl energy consumed in vrious frm opertions during chickpe production ws 5880 MJ -1. Diesel energy consumed 37.9% of totl energy, followed y chemicl fertiliser 29.6% during production period. Diesel energy ws minly consumed for lnd preprtion, other griculturl prctices, nd trnsporttion. Totl energy output ws 6130 MJ -1, nd verge nnul yield of investigted frms ws 417 kg

4 54 PAYMAN SALAMI nd HOJAT AHMADI TABLE 2. Amounts of inputs nd output in chickpe production TABLE 3. Amount of inputs nd output in chickpe production Inputs Quntity per unit re () Lour (h ) Lnd preprtion 2.74 Plnting 0.83 Hoeing 1.71 Fertiliser ppliction 0.81 Sprying 1.23 Hrvesting Threshing 4.92 Trnsporting 1.25 Mchinery (h) 5.87 Lnd preprtion 2.74 Hoeing 1.71 Sprying 0.75 Trnsporting 0.67 Diesel (L) Lnd preprtion Hoeing Sprying 5.74 Trnsporting 3.86 Fertilisers (kg) 22.5 Nitrogen (N) Chemicls (kg) 3.12 Hericides 0.84 Pesticides 0.85 Fungicides 1.42 Seeds Output Chickpe yield (kg) 417 Inputs nd output Quntity Totl Perce- () energy ntge of equivlent inputs (MJ -1 ) A. Inputs 1. Humn lor (h) Mchinery (h) Diesel fuel (L) Chemicl fertilisers (kg) Nitrogen (N) Chemicls (kg) Hericides Pesticides Fungicides Seeds (chickpe) (kg) Totl energy input (MJ) B. Output 1. Chickpe (kg) Totl energy output (MJ) Output-input rtio Energy productivity (kg MJ -1 ) Figure 1. The distriution of energy input rtios in the chickpe production.

5 -1. Tle 3 shows tt humn lour ws the lest demnding energy input for chickpe production, with MJ -1 (only 2.5% of the totl energy input). This ws followed y fungicides y MJ -1 (2.8%). Slmi et l. (2009) estimted the energy efficiency nd energy productivity for red en crop production in three lnd types in Kurdistn, Irn. The output-input rtio nd energy productivity were 0.18 nd 0.01 kg in the first lnd type, 0.42 nd 0.03 kg in the second lnd type, nd 044 nd 0.03 kg in the third lnd type, respectively (Slmi et l., 2009). Singh et l. (1999) evluted the energy efficiency in study for three kinds of crops in Rjstn, Indi. They estimted the energy efficiency for perl millet, green grm, nd whet production. The output-input rtios were 4.8, 6.8, nd 3.2, respectively (Singh et l., 2002). In nother study in Turkey, Esengun et l. (2002) evluted the energy efficiency nd energy productivity for dry pricot production in two lnd types. The output-input rtios nd energy productivity were 1.24 nd 0.24 kg in the first lnd type, nd 1.31 nd 0.25 kg in the second lnd type (Esengun et l., 2007). Energy output-input rtio (energy efficiency) in this study ws 1.04, nd energy productivity ws 0.07 kg MJ -1. This mens tt 0.07 of output otined per unit energy. Tle 4 shows, the totl consumed energy input could e clssified s direct energy (40.4%) nd indirect energy (59.6%), nd lso s TABLE 4. Totl energy input in the form of direct, indirect, renewle nd non-renewle fo r chickpe production (MJ -1 ) Energy inputs nd outputs in chickpe 55 renewle energy (13.3%) nd non-renewle energy (86.7%). Dt otined from economic nlysis re presented in Tle 5. The profit/cost rtio, productivity, nd Net profit in the chickpe production were 1.17, 1.59, nd 46.2 $ -1, respectively. The rtio of vrile costs ws higher tn tt of fixed costs. Vrile costs were 51.4% of totl production cost, nd 48.6% of totl costs. Both the Co Dougls nd liner functions were used to estlish the est fitness reltions etween the production nd vrious energy inputs. These equtions show the reltion etween direct energy, indirect energy, nd the yield, nd lso show the reltion etween renewle energy, non-renewle energy, nd the yield. Regression results for eqution 3 nd 4 re shown in Tle 6 nd 7, respectively. Liner model Y = E E E E E 7, R 2 = (3) Co Dougls model In(Y) = In(E 1 ) In(E 2 ) In(E 5 ) In(E 6 ) In(E 7 ), R 2 = (4) kg MJ MJ where, Y= Yield ( ), E 1 = Seed energy ( ), E 2 = Fertiliser energy ( ), E= 3 MJ MJ MJ Fungicide energy ( ), E 4 = Hericide energy ( ), E 5 =Pesticide energy ( ), E 6 = MJ MJ MJ Diesel energy ( ), E 7 = Mchinery energy ( ), nd E 8 = Humn energy ( ) Wheres the R squres in oth liner nd Co Dougls models re close, ut it is cler tt the TABLE 5. Economic nlysis of chickpe production Form of energy Quntity (MJ -1 ) Percentge Cost nd return items Vlue Direct energy Indirect energy c Renewle energy d Non-renewle energy e Totl energy input Indictes percentge of energy input Includes humn lour nd diesel c Includes seeds, fertilisers, mnure, chemicls, nd mchinery d Includes humn lor, seeds, nd mnure e Includes diesel, chemicl, fertilisers, nd mchinery Totl production costs ($ -1 ) Fixed costs ($ -1 ) Vrile costs ($ -1 ) Gross production vlue ($ -1 ) Benefit/cost rtio 1.17 Productivity (kg $ -1 ) 1.59 Net return ($ -1 ) 46.2 Gross production vlue=chickpe yield (kg -1 )*price ($ kg -1 ) Productivity (kg $ -1 )=chickpe yield (kg -1 )/Totl production costs ($ -1 )

6 56 PAYMAN SALAMI nd HOJAT AHMADI TABLE 6. Regression results for liner model TABLE 7. Regression results for Co Dougls model Exogenous vriles (MJ -1 ) Coefficient t-rtio Constnt c Seed energy Fertiliser Energy Hericide Energy Diesel Energy Mchinery Energy Indictes significnce t 1% level Indictes significnce t 5% level c Indictes significnce t 10% level Exogenous vriles (MJ -1 ) Coefficient t-rtio Constnt c Seed energy Fertiliser Energy Pesticide Energy Diesel Energy Mchinery Energy Indictes significnce t 1% level Indictes significnce t 5% level c Indictes significnce t 10% level Co Dougls model is etter tn liner model in this study. It lso estlishes the est fitness reltions etween the production nd vrious energy inputs. The p-vlue in the liner model for fungicide energy, pesticide energy nd humn energy ws higher tn 0.05 nd ws excluded from the model. Also the p-vlue in the liner model for fungicide energy, hericide energy, nd humn energy ws higher tn 0.05 nd ws excluded from the model. According to the Tle 6, the regression results of liner model reveled tt the impct of energy inputs could e ssessed positive on yield (except mchinery energy). Seed energy d the highest impct (0.245) mong the other inputs in chickpe production. This indictes tt y increse in the energy otined from seed input, the mount of output level improves in present condition. This impct ws significnt t 1% level, with respect to the ssessed results; 1% increse in the energy of seed input led to 0.245% increse in yield. The second importnt input ws found s hericide energy with the elsticity of 0.091, followed y fertiliser energy nd diesel fuel energy with the elsticity of nd 0.038, respectively. The regression results of Co Dougls model is shown in Tle 7. It unveiled tt the impct of energy inputs could e ssessed positive on yield (except mchinery energy). Seed energy d the highest impct (0.329) mong the other inputs in chickpe production. This shows tt y increse in the energy otined from seed input, the mount of output level improves in present condition. This impct ws significnt t 1% level, with respect to the ssessed results; 1% increse in the energy of seed input led to 0.329% increse in yield. The second importnt input ws found s fertiliser energy with the elsticity of 0.260, followed y diesel fuel energy nd pesticide energy with the elsticity of nd 0.006, respectively. CONCLUSION Diesel energy monopolizes 37.9% of totl energy followed y chemicl fertiliser 29.6%. Totl energy consumption in vrious frm opertions during chickpe production is 5880 MJ -1. Totl energy output is 6130 MJ -1, nd verge nnul yield is 417 kg -1. Energy use efficiency is 1.04, nd energy productivity is determined s 0.07 kg MJ -1 in the study re. The humn lor is the lest demnding energy input for chickpe production with MJ -1 (only 2.5% of the totl energy input), followed y fungicides y MJ -1 (2.8%). The totl energy input consumption cn e clssified s direct energy (40.4%) nd indirect energy (59.6%), nd lso renewle energy (13.3%) nd non-renewle energy (86.7%). The economic nlysis shows tt the profit-cost rtio is Clculted net return is 42.2 $ -1 in the investigted frms. REFERENCES Alm, M.S., Alm, M.R. nd Islm, K.K Energy flow in griculture: Bngldesh. Americn Journl of Environmentl Sciences 1 (3): Demircn, V., Ekinci, K., Keener, H.M., Akolt, D. nd Ekinci, C Energy nd economic

7 nlysis of sweet cherry production in Turkey: cse study from Isprt province. Energy Conversion nd Mngement 47: Erdl, G., Esengün, K., Erdl, H. nd Gündüz, O Energy use nd economicl nlysis of sugr eet production in Tokt province of Turkey. Energy 32: Esengun, K., Gündüz, O. nd Erdl, G Input output energy nlysis in dry pricot production of Turkey. Energy Conversion nd Mngement 48: Hedy, E.O. nd Dillon, J.L Agriculturl production functions. Ames, Iow: Iow Stte University Press. pp Hulse, J.H Nture composition nd utiliztion of grn legumes. In: Uses of tropicl legumes: Proceeding of consultnts meeting, Mrch 1989, ICRISAT Centre. ICRISAT, Ptncheru, A.P , Indi. pp Krimi, M., Beheshti Tr, I. nd Khukht, G.M Energy production in Irn s gronomy. Americn-Eursin J.Agric. & Environ.Sci. 4 (2): Kitni, O CIGR Hndook of Agriculturl Engineering. Vol. V., Energy nd Biomss Engineering. ASAE Puliction, St Joseph, MI. 330pp. Kizilsln, H Input output energy nlysis of cherries production in Tokt Province of Turkey. Applied Energy 86: Mndl, K.G., S, K.P., Ghosh, P.K., Hti, K.M. nd Bndyopdhyy, K.K Bioenergy nd economic nlysis of soyen-sed crop production systems in Centrl Indi. Biomss Bioenergy 23 (5): Energy inputs nd outputs in chickpe 57 Njfi, Y Kurdistn Geogrphy. (In Persin). Ozkn, B., Akcoz, H. nd Krdeniz, F Energy requirement nd economic nlysis of citrus production in Turkey. Energy Conversion nd Mngement 45: Ro, D.L.N., Giller, K.E., Yeo, A.R. nd Flowers, T.J The effects of slinity nd sodicity upon nodultion nd nitrigen fixtion in chickpe (Cicer rietinum L.). Ann. Bot. 89 (5): Slmi, P., Keyni, A. nd Rfiee, S.H The impct of frm size on energy use nd profitility of red en production in Irn: A cse study in Kurdistn province. Nture nd Science 7(9): Singh, S. nd Mittl, J.P Energy in Production Agriculture. Mittl pu. New Delhi, Indi. 166pp. Singh, M.K., Pl, S.K., Tkur, R. nd Verm, U.N Energy input output reltionship of cropping systems. Indin J. Agric. Sci. 67 (6): Singh, S., Singh, Su., Pnnu, C.J.S. nd Singh, J Energy input nd yield reltions for whet in different gro-climtic zones of the Punj. Applied Energy 63: Singh, H., Mishr, D. nd Nr, N.M Energy use pttern in production griculture of typicl villge in rid zone, Indi-prt I. Energy Conversion nd Mngement 43: Sohri, Y., Heidri, G.. nd Esmilpoor, B Effect of slinity on growth nd yield of Desi nd Kuli Chickpe cultivrs. Pkistn Journl of Biologicl Sciences 11 (4):