Determination of Energy Balance and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) of Cotton Cultivation in Turkey: A Case Study from Bismil District of Diyarbakır Province

Year 2021, , 322 - 332, 01.05.2021

Mehmet Fırat Baran , Osman Gökdoğan , Yilmaz Bayhan

https://doi.org/10.33462/jotaf.795179

Cited By: 5

Abstract

In this study, the energy balance and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) of cotton cultivation in Bismil district of Diyarbakır province in Turkey was defined. The energy balance and GHG of cotton cultivation was computed by conducting face to face surveys with 73 farms in the 2018-2019 cultivation season, which were selected by simple random sampling method. The energy input and output in cotton cultivation were computed as 54 617.62 MJ ha-1 and 65 984.42 MJ ha-1, respectively. Energy inputs occurs of electricity energy with 18 608.40 MJ ha-1 (34.06%), chemical fertilizers energy with 15 254.67 MJ ha-1 (27.93%), diesel fuel energy with 14 364.68 (26.30%), irrigation water energy with 3 559.50 MJ ha-1 (6.53%), machinery energy with 1 152.79 MJ ha-1 (2.11%), chemicals energy with 1 075.76 MJ ha-1 (1.96%), seed energy with 307.98 MJ ha-1 (0.57%), human labour energy with 293.84 MJ ha-1 (0.54%), respectively. Total energy inputs in cotton cultivation can be classified as 67.43% direct, 32.57% indirect, 7.62% renewable and 92.38% non-renewable. Energy use efficiency, specific energy, energy productivity and net energy in cotton cultivation were computed as 1.21, 9.77 MJ kg-1, 0.10 kg MJ-1 and 11 366.80 MJ ha-1, respectively. Total GHG emissions were computed as 6 482.36 kgCO2-eqha-1 for cotton cultivation with the greatest input part for electricity with 47.94% (3 107.60 kgCO2-eqha-1). The electricity followed up nitrogen with 16.29% (1 055.67 kgCO2-eqha-1), irrigation water with 14.82% (960.50 kgCO2-eqha-1), diesel fuel with 10.86% (704.08 kgCO2-eqha-1), seed with 3.07% (199.14 kgCO2-eqha-1 ), chemicals with 2.28% (147.76 kgCO2-eqha-1), phosphorous with 1.78% (115.64 kgCO2-eqha-1), human labour with 1.62% (104.94 kgCO2-eqha-1), machinery with 1.26% (81.85 kgCO2-eqha-1) and potassium with 0.08% (5.18 kgCO2-eqha-1), respectively. Additionally, GHG ratio value was computed as 1.16 kgCO2-eqkg-1 in cotton cultivation.

Keywords

energy use efficiency, energy productivity, GHG ratio, net energy, spesific energy

Supporting Institution

Yok

Project Number

Yok

Thanks

We would like to thank the cotton producers who supported us in the survey.

Determination of Energy Balance and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) of Cotton Cultivation in Turkey: A Case Study from Bismil District of Diyarbakır Province

Abstract

Bu çalışmada Türkiye’nin Diyarbakır ilinin Bismil ilçesinde pamuk yetiştiriciliğinin enerji bilançosu ve sera gazı emisyonlarının belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. 2018-2019 yetiştiricilik sezonunda basit tesadüfi örnekleme yöntemine göre seçilen 73 işletme ile yüzyüze anket yapılarak pamuk yetiştiriciliğinin enerji bilançosu ve sera gazı emisyonu hesaplanmıştır. Pamuk yetiştiriciliğinde enerji girdisi ve enerji çıktısı sırasıyla 54 617.62 MJ ha-1 ve 65 984.42 MJ ha-1 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Girdiler sırasıyla 18 608.40 MJ ha-1 (34.06%) ile elektrik enerjisi, 15 254.67 MJ ha-1 (27.93%) ile kimyasal gübre enerjisi, 14 364.68 (26.30%) ile dizel yakıt enerjisi, 3 559.50 MJ ha-1 (6.53%) ile sulama suyu enerjisi, 1 152.79 MJ ha-1 (2.11%) ile makine enerjisi, 1 075.76 MJ ha-1 (1.96%) ile kimyasal enerji, 307.98 MJ ha-1 (0.57%) ile tohum enerjisi, 293.84 MJ ha-1 (0.54%) ile insan işgücü enerjisinden oluşmaktadır. Pamuk yetiştiriciliğinde toplam girdi enerjisinin %67.43’ü doğrudan, %32.57’si dolaylı, %7.62’si yenilenebilir ve %92.38’i ise yenilenemez olarak sınıflandırılabilir. Pamuk yetiştiriciliğinde enerji kullanım etkinliği, spesifik enerji, enerji verimliliği ve net enerji sırasıyla 1.21, 9.77 MJ kg-1, 0.10 kg MJ-1 ve 11 366.80 MJ ha-1 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Pamuk yetiştiriciliğinde toplam sera gazı emisyonu 6 482.36 kgCO2-eşha-1 olarak hesaplanmış olup, en büyük oran %47.94 (3 107.60 kgCO2-eqha-1) ile elektrik olarak hesaplanmıştır. Elektriği sırasıyla %16.29 (1 055.67 kgCO2-eşha-1) ile azot, %14.82 (960.50 kgCO2-eşha-1) ile sulama suyu, %10.86 (704.08 kgCO2-eşha-1) ile dizel yakıt, %3.07 (199.14 kgCO2-eşha-1) ile tohum, %2.28 (147.76 kgCO2-eşha-1) ile kimyasallar, %1.78 (115.64 kgCO2-eşha-1) ile fosfor, %1.62 (104.94 kgCO2-eşha-1) ile insan işgücü, %1.26 (81.85 kgCO2-eşha-1) ile makine ve %0.08 (5.18 kgCO2-eşha-1) ile potasyum takip etmiştir. Ayrıca pamuk yetiştiriciliğinde GHG oranı 1.16 kgCO2-eşkg-1 olarak hesaplanmıştır.

Keywords

enerji kullanım etkinliği, enerji verimliliği, GHG oranı, net enerji, spesifik enerji

Project Number

Yok

References

• Akdemir, S., Calavaris, C., Gemtos, T. (2017). Energy balance of sunflower production. Agronomy Research, 15(4): 1463-1473.
• Anonymous, (2020a). T.C. Kalkınma Bakanlığı, Karacadağ Kalkınma Ajansı. Diyarbakır ve Şanlıurfa İllerinde Pamuk Sektörü Envanterinin Hazırlanması Projesi (Başbağ, S., Ekinci, R., Akıncı, C., Akın, S., Öcal Kara, F., Tonçer, Ö.) https://www.karacadag.gov.tr/Dokuman/Dosya/www.karacadag.org.tr_8_WH3D93PC_diyarbakir_ve_sanliurfa_illerinde_pamuk_sektoru_envanterinin_hazirlanmasi_projesi.pdf, (accessed date: 21.01.2020).
• Anonymous, (2020b). T.C. Ticaret Bakanlığı. Esnaf, Sanatkarlar ve Kooperatifçilik Genel Müdürlüğü. 2018 Yılı Pamuk Raporu. Nisan, 2019. https://ticaret.gov.tr/data/5d41e59913b87639ac9e02e8/d0e2b9c79234684ad29baf256a0e7dce.pdf , (accessed date: 02.05.2020).
• Anonymous, (2020c). TMMOB. Ziraat Mühendisleri Odası. Pamuk Raporu, 2018. http://www.zmo.org.tr/genel/bizden_detay.php?kod=30467&tipi=17&sube=0, (accessed date: 21.01.2020).
• Anonymous, (2020d). T.C. Tarım ve Orman Bakanlığı. Tarımsal Ekonomi ve Politika Geliştirme Enstitüsü. Tarım Ürünleri Piyasaları, Pamuk. https://arastirma.tarimorman.gov.tr/tepge/Belgeler/PDF%20Tar%C4%B1m%20%C3%9Cr%C3%BCnleri%20Piyasalar%C4%B1/2019-Ocak%20Tar%C4%B1m%20%C3%9Cr%C3%BCnleri%20Raporu/2019-Ocak%20Pamuk.pdf, (accessed date: 21.01.2020).
• Anonymous, (2020e). T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, Diyarbakır İl Kültür ve Turizm Müdürlüğü. http://www.diyarbakirkulturturizm.gov.tr/TR-56881/cografya.html, (accessed date: 01.05.2020).
• Banaeian, N., Omid, M., Ahmadi, H. (2011). Energy and economic analysis of greenhouse strawberry production in Tehran province of Iran. Energy Conversion and Management 52: 1020-1025.
• Baran, M.F. (2016). Energy efficiency analysis of cotton production in Turkey: A case study for Adıyaman province. American-Eurasian J. Agric. & Environ. Sci. 16 (2): 229-233.
• Brown, L.R., Flavin, C.F., French, H. (1998). State of the world. New York: WW. Norton. p. 251.
• BioGrace-II. (2015). Harmonised calculations of biofuel greenhouse gas emissions in Europe. BioGrace, Utrecht, The Netherlands. (http://www.biograce.net).
• Clark, S., Khoshnevisan, B., Sefeedpari, P. (2016). Energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions during transition to organic and reduced-input practices: Student farm case study. Ecological Engineering 88: 186-194.
• Çanakcı, M., Akıncı, İ. (2006). Energy use pattern analyses of greenhouse vegetable production. Energy 86: 1354-1358.
• Çelen, İ.H. (2016). Tarımsal uygulamalarda enerji kullanımı üzerine bir değerlendirme. Electronic Journal of Vocational Colleges. December 2016: 18-29.
• Çiçek, A., Erkan, O. (1996). Tarım Ekonomisinde Araştırma ve Örnekleme Yöntemleri. GOPÜ, Ziraat Fakültesi Yayınları No: 12, Ders Notları Serisi No: 6, Tokat.
• Dağıstan, E., Akçaöz, H., Demirtaş, B., Yılmaz, Y. (2009). Energy usage and benefit-cost analysis of cotton production in Turkey. African Journal of Agricultural Research 4 (7): 599-604.
• Demircan, V., Ekinci, K., Keener, H. M., Akbolat D. & Ekinci, C. (2006). Energy and economic analysis of sweet cherry production in Turkey: A case study from Isparta province. Energy Conversion and Management 47: 1761-1769.
• Erdal, G., Esengun, K., Erdal, H., Gunduz, O. (2007). Energy use and economical analysis of sugar beet production in Tokat province of Turkey. Energy 32: 35-41.
• Eren, Ö., Gökdoğan, O. Baran, M.F. (2019). Determination of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in the production of different plants in Turkey. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 28 (2A): 1158-1166.
• Karademir, E., Karademir, Ç., Ekinci, R , Sevilmiş, U. (2015). İleri generasyondaki pamuk (Gossypium hirsutum L.) hatlarında verim ve lif kalite özelliklerinin belirlenmesi. Türkiye Tarımsal Araştırmalar Dergisi 2 (2): 100-107.
• Khoshnevisan, B., Rafiee, S., Omid, M., Yousefi, M., Movahedi, M. (2013). Modeling of energy consumption and GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions in wheat production in Esfahan province of Iran using artificial neural networks. Energy 52: 333-338.
• Kızılaslan, H. (2009). Input-output energy analysis of cherries production in Tokat province of Turkey. Applied Energy 86: 1354-1358.
• Koçtürk, O.M., Engindeniz, S. (2009) Energy and cost analysis of sultana grape growing: A case study of Manisa, west Turkey. African Journal of Agricultural Research 4 (10): 938-943.
• Lal, R. (2004). Carbon emission from farm operations. Environment International 30: 981-990.
• Mani, I., Kumar, P., Panwar, J. S., Kant, K. (2007). Variation in energy consumption in production of wheat-maize with varying altitudes in hill regions of Himachal Prades, India. Energy 32: 2336-2339.
• Mandal, K. G., Saha, K. P., Ghosh, P. K., Hati, K. M. & Bandyopadhyay, K. K. (2002). Bioenergy and economic analysis of soybean based crop production systems in central India. Biomass and Bioenergy 23: 337-45.
• Maraseni, T.N., Deo, R.C., Qu, J., Gentle, P., Neupane, P.R. (2018). An international comparison of rice consumption behaviours and greenhouse gas emissions from rice production. Journal of Cleaner Production 172: 2288-2300.
• Mohammadi, A., Tabatabaeefar, A., Shahin, S., Rafiee, S., Keyhani, A. (2008). Energy use and economical analysis of potato production in Iran a case study: Ardabil province. Energy Conversion and Management 49: 3566-3570.
• Mohammadi, A., Rafiee, S., Mohtasebi, S.S., Rafiee, H. (2010). Energy inputs-yield relationship and cost analysis of kiwifruit production in Iran. Renewable Energy 35: 1071-1075.
• Mousavi-Avval, S.H., Rafiee, S., Mohammadi, A. (2011). Optimization of energy consumption and input costs for apple production in Iran using data envelopment analysis. Energy 36: 909-916.
• Mohammadi-Barsari, A., Firouzi, S., Aminpanah, H. (2016). Energy-use pattern and carbon footprint of rain-fed watermelon production in Iran. Information Processing in Agriculture 3: 69-75.
• Mukherjee, K. (2008). Energy use efficiency in the Indian manufacturing sector: an interstate analysis. Energy Policy 36 (2): 662-72.
• Nemecek, T., Dubois, D., Huguenin-Elie, O., Gaillard, G. (2011). Life cycle assessment of Swiss farming systems: I. Integrated and organic farming. Agriculture Systems 104: 217-32.
• Nguyen, T.L.T., Hermansen, J.E. (2012). System expansion for handling co-products in LCA of sugar cane bio-energy systems: GHG consequences of using molasses for ethanol production. Applied Energy 89: 254-261.
• Özkan, B., Kürklü, A., Akçaöz, H. (2004). An input-output energy analysis in greenhouse vegetable production: A case study for Antalya region of Turkey. Biomass and Bioenergy 26: 89-95
• Ören, M.N., Öztürk, H.H. (2006). An analysis of energy utilization for sustainable wheat and cotton production in Southeastern Anatolia Region of Turkey. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 29 (1): 119-130.
• Öztürk, H.H. (2011). Bitkisel Üretimde Enerji Yönetimi. Hasad Yayıncılık, Ankara. 256, ISBN:978-975-8377-78-7.
• Pishgar-Komleh, S.H., Sefeedpari, P., Ghahderijani, M. (2012a). Exploring energy consumption and CO2 emission of cotton production in Iran. J Renewable Sustainable Energy 4 (3): 33115.
• Pishgar-Komleh, S.H., Ghahderijani, M., Sefeedpari, P. (2012b). Energy consumption and CO2 emissions analysis of potato production based on different farm size levels in Iran. Journal of Cleaner Production 33: 183-191.
• Polat, R., Çopur, O., Sağlam, R. & Sağlam, C. (2006). Energy use pattern and cost analysis of cotton agriculture: A case study for Sanliurfa, Turkey. The Philippine Agricultural Scientist 89 (4): 368-371.
• Saltuk, B. (2019). Energy efficiency of greenhouse tomato production in Turkey: A case of Siirt province. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 28 (8): 6352-6357.
• Semerci A., Baran, M.F., Gokdoğan, O. Çelik, A.D. (2019). Determination of energy use efficiency of cotton production in Turkey: A Case Study From Hatay Province, Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 27 (4): 1829-1835.
• Singh, S., Singh, S., Pannu, C.J.S., Singh, J. (2000). Optimization of energy input for raising cotton crop in Punjab. Energy Conversion & Management 41: 1851-1861.
• Singh, J. M. (2002). On farm energy use pattern in different cropping systems in Haryana, India. International Institute of Management University of Flensburg, Sustainable Energy Systems and Management. Master of Science Thesis, Germany.
• Singh, H., Mishra, D., Nahar, N. M. & Ranjan M. (2003). Energy use pattern in production agriculture of a typical village in Arid Zone India (Part II). Energy Conversion and Management 44: 1053-1067.
• Şehri, M. (2012). Adana yöresi pamuk üretiminde enerji kullanım etkinliği ve maliyet analizi. (MSc Thesis) Çukurova University. The Institute of Natural and Applied Sciences, Adana, Turkey.
• Yaldız, O., Öztürk, H.H., Zeren, Y., Başçetinçelik, A. (1993). Energy usage in production of field crops in Turkey. 5th international congress on mechanization and energy in agriculture, Kusadasi, Turkey. October, 11-14, pp. 527-536 (in Turkish).
• Yılmaz, I., Akçaöz, H., Özkan, B. (2005). An Analysis of energy use and input costs for cotton production in Turkey. Renewable Energy 30 (2005): 145-155.
• Zahedi, M., Eshghizadeh, H.R., Mondani, F. (2014) Energy use efficiency and economical analysis in cotton production system in an arid region: A case study for Isfahan province, Iran. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy 4 (1): 43-52.