Analysis of Energy Use Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Emission in Rainfed Canola Production (Case study: Çanakkale Province, Turkey)

Year 2023, Volume: 20 Issue: 1, 197 - 210, 19.01.2023

Sakine Özpınar

https://doi.org/10.33462/jotaf.1121863

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Agriculture and energy are two closely related issues, agriculture not only consumes energy, but it also supplies energy. While increasing energy use in agriculture causes environmental problems such as greenhouse gas emissions, it also leads to the depletion of non-renewable energy resources. On the other hand, decreasing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancement the efficiency of energy use is among the important issues of sustainable agriculture. Therefore, this study was done to determine the energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions in rainfed canola production. Data were collected by conducting face-to-face interviews in the period of 2021-2022 in 42-farm in Çanakkale province, located in the northwest of Turkey. Results introduced that the energy use efficiency and net energy gain were 3.63 and 72786.16 MJ ha-1, respectively. In energy consumption, the highest rate of 46.62% belongs to fuel, and then nitrogen with 40.44%. The consumption of total energy is obtained as direct (46.46%), indirect (53.54%), renewable (1.07%) and non-renewable (98.93%). It has been determined that the energy requirements of the farms belong to non-renewable energy with an amount of 27384.03 MJ ha-1, and this is especially prominent in diesel fuel and nitrogen fertilizer. The results show that the agricultural production in the area where the study is carried out mostly depends on non-renewable energy sources, whereas the use of renewable energy is very low. Total greenhouse gas emissions per hectare were equivalent to 1921.66 kg CO2, and the highest amount was determined to belong to machinery and diesel fuel, with 53.20% and 32.66%, respectively. According to the results obtained in the farms where the study was carried out, it was revealed that the economic use and sustainability of energy can be strongly recommended in rainfed canola production using mechanization, especially considering the non-renewable energy inputs.

Keywords

Energy use in agriculture, Input energy, Output energy, Carbon dioxide emission, Canola

Analysis of Energy Use Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Emission in Rainfed Canola Production (Case study: Çanakkale Province, Turkey)

Abstract

Tarım ve enerji birbiriyle yakından ilişkili iki konu olup, tarım sadece enerji tüketmekle kalmıyor, aynı zamanda tarımsal üretim için gerekli enerji üretimini de sağlıyor. Tarımda enerji kullanımının artması, sera gazı emisyonları gibi çevresel sorunlara neden olurken, yenilenemeyen enerji kaynaklarının da tükenmesine yol açmaktadır. Öte yandan, sera gazı emisyonlarının azaltılması ve enerji kullanım verimliliğinin artırılması sürdürülebilir tarımın önemli konuları arasında yer alıyor. Bu nedenle, bu çalışma, kuru koşullarda kanola üretiminde enerji girdilerini ve sera gazı emisyonlarını belirlemek amacıyla ele alınmıştır. 2021-2022 üretim döneminde Türkiye'nin kuzeybatısında yer alan Çanakkale ilinde bulunan 42 kanola üretimi yapan çiftlikte yüz yüze görüşmeler yapılarak gerekli olan veriler elde edilmiştir. Sonuçlar, enerji kullanım verimliliği ve net enerji kazancının sırasıyla 3.63 ve 72786.16 MJ ha-1 olduğunu göstermiştir. Enerji tüketiminde en yüksek oran %46.62 ile dizel yakıtına ait olup, onu %40.44 ile azotlu gübrenin izlediği saptanmıştır. Toplam enerji tüketimi doğrudan (%46.46), dolaylı (%53.54), yenilenebilir (%1.07) ve yenilenemez (%98.93) olarak elde edilmiştir. Kanola üretimi yapan çiftliklerin enerji ihtiyacının 27384.03 MJ ha-1 miktarı ile yenilenemeyen enerjiye ait olduğu ve bunun özellikle dizel yakıtı ve azotlu gübre ile öne çıktığı belirlenmiştir. Elde edilen veriler, çalışmanın yürütüldüğü alanda tarımsal üretimin büyük ölçüde yenilenemeyen enerji kaynaklarına bağlı olduğunu, yenilenebilir enerji kullanımının ise çok düşük düzeyde kaldığını göstermiştir. Hektar başına toplam sera gazı emisyonu 1921.66 kg CO2 eşdeğer olduğu, en yüksek miktarın sırasıyla %53.20 ve %32.66 ile makine ve dizele yakıtına ait olduğu saptanmıştır. Çalışmanın yürütüldüğü çiftliklerde elde edilen sonuçlara göre, özellikle yenilenemeyen enerji girdileri dikkate alındığında, mekanizasyon kullanılarak kuru koşullarda kanola üretiminde enerjinin ekonomik kullanımının ve sürdürülebilirliğinin tavsiye edilebileceği sonucu ortaya çıkmıştır.

Keywords

Energy use in agriculture, Input energy, Output energy, Carbon dioxide emission, Canola

References

• Alimagham, S.M., Soltani, A., Zeinali, E., Kazemi, H. (2017). Energy flow analysis and estimation of greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions in different scenarios of soybean production (Case study: Gorgan region, Iran). Journal of Cleaner Production, 149: 621-628.
• Baran, M.F., Gökdoğan, O., Bayhan, Y. (2021). Determination of energy balance and greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) of cotton cultivation in Turkey: A case study from Bismil district of Diyarbakır province. Journal of Tekirdag Agricultural Faculty, 18(2):322-332.
• Bonari, E., Mazzoncini, M., Peruzzi, A. (1995). Effect of conservation and minimum tillage on winter oilseed rape in a sand soil. Soil and Tillage Research, 33: 91-108.
• Choudhary, M., Rana, K.S., Bana, R.S., Ghasal, P.C., Choudhary, G.L., Jakhar, P., Verma, R.K. (2017). Energy budgeting and carbon footprint of pearl millet e mustard cropping system under conventional and conservation agriculture in rainfed semi-arid agro-ecosystem. Energy, 141: 1052-1058.
• Dyer, J.A., Desjardins, R.L. (2003). Simulated farm fieldwork, energy consumption and related greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. Biosystems Engineering, 85(4): 503-513.
• FAOSTAT (2020). Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Available on: www.fao.org. Accessed on November 2020.
• IPCC (2014). Climate Change 2014 Mitigation of Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415 416.
• Kazemi, H., Bourkheili S.H., Kamkar, B., Soltani, A., Gharanjic, K., Nazari, N.M. (2016). Estimation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission and energy use efficiency (EUE) analysis in rainfed canola production (case study: Golestan province, Iran). Energy, 116(1): 694-700.
• Khoshnevisan, B., Rafiee, S., Omid, M., Yousefi, M., Movahedi, M. (2013). Modelling of energy consumption and GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions in wheat production in Esfahan province of Iran using artificial neural networks. Energy, 52: 333-338.
• Kitani, O. (1999). Energy and Biomass Engineering. In: CIGR Handbook of Agricultural Engineering. St. Joseph, MI: ASAE. p. 330.
• Kosemani, B.S., Bamgboye, A.I. (2020). Energy input-output analysis of rice production in Nigeria. Energy, 207: 118258.
• Lal, R. (2004). Carbon emission from farm operations. Environment International, 30(7):981-990.
• Mohammadzadeh, A., Damghani, A.M., Vafabakhsh, J., Deihimfard, R. (2017). Assessing energy efficiencies, economy, and global warming potential (GWP) effects of major crop production systems in Iran: a case study in East Azerbaijan province. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24(20): 16971-16984.
• Mohammadi, A., Rafiee, S., Jafari, A., Keyhani, A., Mousavi-Avval, S.H., Nonhebel, S. (2014). Energy use efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions of farming systems in north Iran. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 30: 724-733.
• Mousavi-Avval, S.H., Rafiee, S., Jafari, A. (2010). A comparative study on water and energy indicators for irrigated and rain-fed canola production systems in Iran. Journal of Sustainable Energy & Environment, 1: 197-201.
• Mousavi-Avval, S.H., Rafiee, S., Sharifi, M., Hosseinpour, S., Shah, A. (2017). Combined application of life cycle assessment and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system for modelling energy and environmental emissions of oilseed production. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 78: 807-820.
• 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(1): 254-261.
• Ozpinar, S. (2006). Effects of tillage systems on weed population and economic for winter wheat production under the Mediterranean dry land conditions. Soil and Tillage Research, 87:1-8.
• Ozpinar, S. (2022). A comparative study on energy use of rice (Oriza sativa L.) cultivars under mechanized cropping systems in west of Turkey. Scientific Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 3: 23-24.
• Ozpinar, S., Baytekin, H. (2006). Effects of tillage on biomass, roots, N-accumulation of vetch (Vicia sativa L.) on a clay loam soil in semi-arid conditions. Field Crops Research, 96: 235-242.
• Ozpinar, S., Ozpinar, A. (2015). Tillage effects on soil properties and maize productivity in western Turkey. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 61(7): 1029-1040.
• Özpınar, S. (2020). Energy use and cost analysis of olive under flat and sloping growing conditions. COMU Journal of Agriculture Faculty, 8(1): 125-135.
• Özpınar, S., Ürkmez, Ü. (2017). Determination of structural properties of agriculture in Çanakkale province. Journal of Tekirdag Agricultural Faculty, 14(1):103-113.
• Pimentel, D., Pimentel, M. (2007). Energy use in grain and legume production. In:Food, Energy and Society, chapter 10, 3rd Edition, pp.22.
• Pishgar-Komleh, S.H., Ghahderijani, M., Sefeedpari, P. (2012). Energy consumption and CO2 emissions analysis of potato production based on different farm size levels in Iran. Journal of Cleaner Production, 33: 183-191.
• Rabiee, M., Majidian, M., Alizadeh, M.Z., Kavoos, M. (2021). Evaluation of energy use efficiency and greenhouse gas emission in rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) production in paddy fields of Guilan province of Iran. Energy, 217: 119411.
• Rathke, G.W., Diepenbrock, W. (2006). Energy balance of winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) cropping as related to nitrogen supply and preceding crop. European Journal of Agronomy, 24: 35-44.
• Saljnikov, E., Saljnikov, A., Rahimgalieva, S., Cakmak, D., Kresovic, M., Mrvic, V., Dzhalankuzov, T. (2014). Impact of energy saving cultivations on soil parameters in northern Kazakhstan. Energy, 77: 35-41.
• Sheikh-Davoodi, M.J, Houshyar, E. (2009). Energy consumption of canola and sunflower production in Iran. American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Science, 6(4): 381-384.
• Soltani, A., Maleki, M.H.M., Zeinali, E. (2014). Optimal crop management can reduce energy use and greenhouse gasses emissions in rainfed canola production. International Journal of Plant Production, 8(4): 587-604.
• Taheri-Garavand, A., Asakereh, A., Haghani, K. (2010). Energy elevation and economic analysis of canola production in Iran a case study: Mazandaran province. International Journal of Environmental Sciences, 1: 236-242.
• TUIK (2021). Turkish Statistical Institute. Statistical Data Base of Plant Production. https://www.tuik.gov.tr/. Accessed in February 2022.
• Unakitan, G., Hurma, H., Yilmaz, F. (2010). An analysis of energy use efficiency of canola production in Turkey. Energy, 35: 3623-3627.
• Yamane, T. (1967). Elementary Sampling Theory. Engle Wood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall Inc.
• Yadav, G.S., Das, A., Lal, R., Babu, S., Meena, R.S., Saha, P., Singh, R., Datta, M. (2018). Energy budget and carbon footprint in a no-till and mulch based rice-mustard cropping system. Journal of Cleaner Production, 191: 144-157