ارزیابی بودجه انرژی شدت‌های مختلف مصرف نهاده در ارقام مختلف لوبیا

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشگاه زابل

2 ایستگاه ملی تحقیقات لوبیای کشور، مرکز تحقیقات و آموزش کشاورزی

چکیده

این آزمایش به‌صورت کرت‌های خردشده با طرح پایه بلوک‌های کامل تصادفی با 3 تکرار در ایستگاه ملی تحقیقات لوبیای کشور واقع در خمین با هدف ارزیابی بودجه انرژی شدت‌های مختلف مصرف نهاده در ارقام مختلف لوبیا اجرا شد. شدت‌های مختلف مصرف نهاده؛ شامل اکولوژیک، تلفیقی، کم نهاده، متوسط نهاده و پر نهاده به‌عنوان کرت‌های اصلی و ارقام مختلف لوبیا (لوبیا سفید رقم درسا، لوبیا قرمز لاین امید بخش Ks-31169، لوبیا چیتی رقم صدری) به‌عنوان کرت‌های فرعی آزمایش بودند. برای ارزیابی شاخص‌های انرژی ابتدا مجموع انرژی خروجی، مجموع انرژی ورودی، انرژی دانه، انرژی کاه اندازه‌گیری و سپس شاخص‌های کارآیی انرژی، انرژی خالص، انرژی مخصوص، فشردگی انرژی، شدت انرژی تولیدی، مصرفی و جاری ارزیابی شد. مقدار انرژی ورودی در نظام های زراعی اکولوژیک، تلفیقی، کم نهاده، متوسط نهاده و پرنهاده به ترتیب 14121، 32432، 24260، 37118 و 57390 مگاژول در هکتار و انرژی خروجی در نظام های زراعی اکولوژیک، تلفیقی، کم نهاده، متوسط نهاده و پرنهاده به ترتیب 40135، 51382، 33824، 46417 و 60142 مگاژول در هکتار تخمین زده شد. بیشترین کارایی انرژی و کارایی زیست محیطی انرژی کمکی مربوط به نظام اکولوژیک رقم صدری به ترتیب به میزان 3/3 و 5/3 بود، که در مقایسه با نظام پرنهاده رقم صدری به‌ترتیب 155 و 169 درصد افزایش کارایی داشته است. نتایج این مطالعه نشان داد باوجود کاهش شدت انرژی تولیدی و شدت انرژی مصرفی نسبت به سایر نظام ها باعث کاهش کل ارزش خدمات کشاورزی اکولوژیک می شود؛ اما حرکت به سمت کشاورزی پایدار خدمات غیر بازاری بیشتری همچون حفظ سلامت نظام تولیدی و تولید غذای سالم را در بر خواهد داشت.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Energy budget of different input intensity for bean varieties

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad Reza Asgharipour 1
  • Hasan Shahgholi 1
  • Issa Khamari 1
  • Adel Ghadiri 2
1 University of Zabol
2 National Bean Research Station of Khomeyn, Khomeyn, Iran
چکیده [English]

Extended Abstract
Introduction: Today, in all farming systems, the basic objective is to reduce dependence on auxiliary energy. Potential production of different agricultural ecosystems based on scientific research assists to improve the production efficiency. Since energy consumption is one of the most important necessities in different production systems (ecologic, low-input, medium-input, high-input and integrated), introduction of an efficient system of agriculture will contribution to the economic cycle of agriculture. So far, a few studies have been conducted to evaluate energy consumption of different production systems of beans in Iran, therefore this study examine energy budget of different input intensity for bean varieties. There have been many attempts to define agricultural sustainability in recent decades; In fact, the concept of sustainable agriculture has been common since the late twentieth century. But in the first decades of this century it was used as synonymous with terms such as organic agriculture, ecological, precision agriculture, biodynamic, organic and low input agriculture (De-Koeijer et al., 2002). The main objectives of sustainable agriculture are optimal production of food with increased quality and quantity of it, conserving water and soil conservation and increased economic benefits for farmers, agricultural activity accordance with ecological processes and environmental protection, the use of appropriate technologies, non-deployment of harmful inputs to the environment, human health and animal (Qiu et al., 2007).
Materials and Methods: The experimental design was a split plot with five intensities of inputs: ecologic, low-input, medium-input, high-input and integrated comprising the main treatments, and different bean varieties (navy bean cv. Dorsa, kidney bean cv. Ks-31169 and pinto bean cv. Sadri) as sub-treatments that were applied with three replications. The experiment was conducted in 2016 in National Bean Research Station at Khomeyn, Iran. Based on the energy equivalents of the inputs and outputs, energy use efficiency, energy productivity, specific energy, energy intensiveness, net energy and energy intensity of production were calculated.
Results and Discussion: The total energy input for ecologic, low-input, medium-input, high-input and integrated system was 14121, 32432, 24260, 37118 and 57390 MJ ha-1, respectively. The total energy output for ecologic, low-input, medium-input, high-input and integrated systems was estimated as 40135, 51382, 33824, 46417 and 60142 MJ ha-1, respectively. Averaged over five evaluated systems and three varieties of bean, the greatest and the least direct energy used in ecologic system of Sadri and integrated system of Ks-31169 (58% vs. 36%), indirect energy used in integrated system of Ks-31169 and ecological system of Sadri (64% vs. 42%), renewable energy used in ecological system of Ks-31169 and high-input system of Sadri (37 vs. 6) and non-renewable energy used in high-input system of Sadri and ecological system of Ks-31169 (94 vs. 63). The greatest energy efficiency and environmental efficiency of support energy was observed in ecologic system of Sadri (3.3 and 3.5, respectively), indicating 155 and 169 percent greater efficiency compared with the high-input system of Sadri.
Zare-Faizabad and Kocheki (2000) compared conventional and ecological systems of wheat and concluded that yield of low-input and organic system is lower than other systems, but efficiency of energy is higher in this system. In a study to evaluate the energy efficiency of organic and conventional systems in corn and wheat reported that energy use efficiency of organic system was 29-70 percent greater than conventional system (Pimental et al., 1983). Ozkan et al. (2004) on their study on different agronomic systems reported that, in integrated management systems urea fertilizer and machinery are the most important inputs and efficient use of them are essential to improve energy use efficiency of these systems. Nassi et al. (2011) stated that low-input systems had less energy inputs compared to conventional systems. This decrease in input energy resulted in greater energy use efficiency in these systems.
Conclusion: It could be concluded that ecologic system improved ecosystem service, especially non-market service in comparison with other systems. Although reduction of energy intensity of production (output energy) and energy intensity of consumption (input energy) reduced total value of the services in ecological agriculture, however moving toward sustainable and ecologic agriculture resulted in more non-market services such as health maintenance system of production and the production of healthy food.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Pulse crops
  • Integrated systems
  • Environmental efficiency
  • Renewable Energy

مراجع

1. Alfoldi, T., Spiess, E., Niggli, U., and Besson, J.M. 1995. Energy input and output for winter wheat in biodynamic, bio-organic and conventional production systems. In: Soil Management in Sustainable Agriculture. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Sustainable Agriculture. Wye College, University of London, UK, 31 August to 4 September 1993, 574-578.
2. Asgharipour, M.R., Mondani, F., and Riahinia, S. 2012. Energy use efficiency and economic analysis of sugar beet production system in Iran: A case study in Khorasan Razavi province. Energy 44: 1078-1084.
3. Behbahani, N. 2012. The role and importance of sustainable agriculture. News, Analysis, Research 55: 1- 5. (In Persian with English Summary).
4. Berardi, G.M. 1977. An energy and economic analysis of conventional and organic wheat farming. In: Food Fertiliser and Agricultural Residues. Proceedings of the 1977 Cornell Agricultural Waste Management Conference, Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc. Ann Arbor, Michigan; USA. 439-447.
5. Clements, D.R., Weise, S.F., Brown, R., Stonehouse, D.P., Hume, D.J., and Swanton, C.J. 1995. Energy analysis of tillage and herbicide inputs in alternative weed management systems. Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment 52: 119-128.
6. Cormack, W.F. 2000. Energy Use in Organic Farming Systems (OF0182). ADAS Consulting Ltd, Terrington.
7. Erda, G., Esengun, K., Erdal, H., and Gunduz, O. 2007. Energy use and economic analysis of sugar beet production in Tokat province of Turkey. Energy 32:35-41.
8. Ghadiri, A. 2010. Evaluation of Conventional and Ecological Crop Management and Energy Efficiency in Bean in Khomein. Final Report of Research Project. Publications of Research, Education and Extension. Registration number: 44/355. (In Persian with English Summary).
9. Halberg, N., Kristensen, E.S., and Refsgaard, K. 1994. Energy use in crop production on Danish mixed farms: systemic modelling of data from farm studies. In: Researches System Agriculture Development Rural. International Symposium, Montpellier, France, 21-25 November 1994, 360-365.
10. Hatirli, S., Ozkan, B., and Fert, C. 2006. Energy inputs and crop yield relationship in greenhouse tomato production. Renewable Energy 31: 427-438.
11. Koocheki, A., and Hosseini, M. 1994. Energy Efficiency in Agricultural Ecosystems. Publication of Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. (In Persian).
12. Koocheki, A., and Hosseini, M. 1995. Agroecology. Publication of Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. (In Persian).
13. Koocheki, A., Hosseini, M., and Khazaei, A. 1996. Sustainable Agroecosystems. Publication of Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. (In Persian).
14. Kouhnavard, P., Jalilian, J., and Pirzad, A. 2011. The effect of foliar application of micronutrients on some agronomic characteristics of safflower in the conventional and ecological systems. Journal of Agronomy 4(6): 25-14. (In Persian with English Summary).
15. Locke, M.A., Reddy, K.N., and Zablotowicz, R.M. 2002. Weed management in conservation crop production systems. Weed Biology and Management 2(3): 123-132.
16. Mahdavi-Damghani, A.M., Koocheki, A., Rezvany-Moghadm, P., and Nasiri-Mahalati, M. 2006. The study of ecological sustainability of cotton in Khorasan wheat farming system. Journal of Agricultural Researches 3: 129-143. (In Persian with English Summary).
17. Moerschner, J., and Gerowitt, B. 2000. Direct and indirect energy use in arable farming- An example on winter wheat in Northern Germany. In: B.P. Weidema and M.J.G. Meeusen (Eds.). Agricultural Data for Life Cycle Assessments. The Hague, Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI), 1:195 p.
18. Nassi, N.D.N., Bosco, S., Bene, C.D., Coli, A., Mazzoncini, M., and Bonari, N. 2011. Energy efficiency in long-term Mediterranean cropping systems with different management intensities. Energy 36: 1924-1930.
19. Ozkan, B., Akcaoz, H., and Fert, C. 2004. Energy input-output analysis in Turkish agriculture. Renewable Energy 29: 39-51.
20. Pimental, D., Berardi, G., and Fast, S., 1983. Energy efficiency of farming system: organic and conventional agriculture. Journal of Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 9: 359-372.
21. Qiu, H.J., Zhu, W.B., Wang, H.B., and Cheng, Xu. 2007. Analysis and design of agricultural sustainability indicators system. Agricultural Sciences in China 6(4): 475-486.
22. Rajabi, M.H. 2010. Evaluation of Energy Balance and Greenhouse Gases Emission in Wheat Production in Gorgan. Agronomy M.Sc. Thesis, Islamic Azad University of Bojnourd Branch. p 110 (In Persian with English Summary).
23. Rathke, G.W., Korschens, M., and Diepenbrock, W. 2002. Substance and energy balances in the static fertilization experiment bad Lauchstadt. Germany Journal of Agronomy 48: 423-433.
24. Sayadi, Z., Siadat, S.A., and Poursiah-Bidi, M.M. 2010. The impact of different food systems (low input, high input and organic) on beans varieties in north of Ilam province. Journal of Crop Physiology 7(3): 119: 107. (In Persian with English Summary).
25. Sedighi, H., and Rousta, K. 2003. Study of affecting factors on knowledge of sustainable agriculture in corn farmers of Fars province. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 4: 924-913. (In Persian with English Summary).
26. Stolze, M., Piorr, A., Häring, A., and Dabbert, S. 2000. The environmental impacts of organic farming in Europe. Organic Farming in Europe: Economics and Policy, University of Hohenheim 6: 127-132.
27. Zare, Sh., and Shahbazi, H. 2005. Comparison the Economic Viability Between High-input, Low-input and Medium-input of Sugar Beet Systems. The Final Report of the Research Project. Publications Agriculture and Natural Resources Research Center of Khorasan Razavi Province. Registration number, 312/84. (In Persian with English Summary).
28. Zare-Faizabad, A.S., and Koocheki, A. 2000. The efficiency of conventional farming and ecological systems at different frequencies wheat. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences 1(4): 1-12. (In Persian with English Summary).
ارسال نظر در مورد این مقاله
CAPTCHA Image

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار