| Literature DB >> 35922594 |
Amir Azizpanah1, Rostam Fathi2, Morteza Taki3.
Abstract
Environmental crises and resource depletion have adversely affected the food security around the world. Food security in the future can be guaranteed by sustainable agriculture that respects the environment. So, it is necessary to decrease the energy consumption of resources for agricultural productions to achieve the maximum sustainability. For agricultural productions, environmental and energy issues are completely interrelated, and a comprehensive evaluation is necessary to manage them in all productions. In this study, energy, environmental, and economic indicators in cantaloupe production were studied. The studied energy indices included energy efficiency, energy productivity, net energy gain, and energy intensity. Life cycle method based on ISO 14040 standard was used to evaluate the environmental impacts. This method includes goal statement, identification of inputs and outputs, and a system for assessing and interpreting the environmental impacts of various agricultural productions. Also, for economic analysis, the average prices of inputs and outputs and also net return (NR), gross return (GR), and profit-to-cost ratio were used. The results showed that nitrogen fertilizer (32.28%) and diesel fuel (30.52%) had the highest and cantaloupe seeds (0.39%), and oil consumption in tractor engines (0.43%) had the lowest share of energy consumption, respectively. Energy efficiency, energy productivity, energy intensity, and net energy gain were estimated 0.56, 0.70 kg MJ-1, 1.41 MJ kg-1, and - 11,775.86 MJ ha-1, respectively. The results of the present status of environmental impacts showed that the most effective factor in climate change is direct emissions from the diesel fuel. Also, indirect emissions from phosphorus and urea fertilizers had the highest effect on ecosystem quality. Various machine operations such as primary and secondary plowing, spraying, and transportation were the main causes of high diesel fuel consumption. Economic analysis showed that the profit-to-cost ratio and the productivity values were calculated about 1.6 and 7.27, respectively, which means that for every dollar spent in cantaloupe farms, it produced 7.27 kg of cantaloupe production. The variable costs were estimated at 1154.5 and fixed cost was 1487 $ha-1. Among the variable costs, transportation and fuel costs were the highest with 64.3%. Decreasing the diesel fuel consumption by using appropriate farm management methods and using the reduce tillage methods can play an effective role in reducing the consumption of this input and improving the energy, environmental, and economic indicators in cantaloupe production.Entities:
Keywords: Environmental effects; Human health; Mechanization; Sustainability
Year: 2022 PMID: 35922594 PMCID: PMC9362568 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-022-22307-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int ISSN: 0944-1344 Impact factor: 5.190
Questionnaire
Fig. 1The process of cantaloupe production on the farm
Energy equivalent of inputs and output in cantaloupe production
| Item | Unit | Energy equivalent | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| A. Inputs | |||
| 1. Human labor | h | 1.96 | (Soltanali et al. |
| 2. Agricultural machinery | h | 62.7 | (Mohammadi et al. |
| 3. Diesel fuel | L | 56.31 | (Kaab et al. |
| 4. Chemical fertilizers | kg | ||
| Nitrogen (N) | kg | 66.14 | (Mostashari-Rad et al. |
| Phosphate (P2O5) | kg | 12.44 | (Mobtaker et al., |
| Potassium (K2O) | kg | 11.15 | (Unakıtan and Aydın |
| 5. Chemical toxins | L | ||
| Pesticide | L | 199 | (Gündoğmuş |
| Herbicide | L | 238 | (Gündoğmuş |
| Fungicide | L | 92 | (Gündoğmuş |
| 6. Transportation | h | 62.7 | (Banaeian and Namdari |
| 7. Electricity | Kwh | 11.93 | (Ozkan et al., |
| 8. Water for irrigation | M3 | 1.03 | (Karimi et al. |
| 9. Seed | kg | 50 | (Ozkan et al. |
| B. Output | |||
| Cantaloupe | kg | 0.8 | (Ozkan et al., |
Equations used in the estimation of input and output energy in cantaloupe production
| Inputs energy | Equation | Parameters |
|---|---|---|
A = Size of farm (ha) | ||
ɸ = Water flow rate ( |
Energy indices in cropping system of cantaloupe production
| Index | Unit | Equation | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Energy use efficiency or energy ratio (ER) | – | Ebrahimi et al. ( | |
| Energy productivity (EP) | kg MJ−1 | ||
| Specific energy (SE) | MJ Kg−1 | ||
| Net energy gain (NEG) | MJ ha−1 | Output energy (MJ ha−1) − Total input energy (MJ ha−1) |
Fig. 2Life cycle assessment framework
Fig. 3Distribution of 15 midpoints based on IMPACT 2002+ method
Fig. 4The system boundary of cantaloupe production
Economic indicators used to evaluate cantaloupe production
| GR = GVP − VCP (2) | |
| GVP = CY − CP (3) | |
| NR= GPV − TCP (4) | |
| TCP = VCP − FCP (5) | |
| B to C = |
The input-output energy of cantaloupe production
| Item | Unit | Quantity per unit area (ha) | Total energy equivalent (MJ) |
|---|---|---|---|
| A. Inputs | |||
| Human labor | h | 832.98 | 1632.63 |
| Agricultural machinery | h | 27.61 | 1731.45 |
| Diesel fuel | L | 147.18 | 8287.42 |
| Lubricant oil | L | 2.42 | 115.54 |
| Nitrogen (N) | kg | 132.54 | 8766.03 |
| Phosphate (P2O5) | kg | 39.96 | 497.13 |
| Chemical toxins | L | 4.25 | 656.10 |
| Seed | kg | 106.25 | 106.25 |
| Electricity | kwh | 106.50 | 1270.55 |
| Water for irrigation | M3 | 4012.50 | 4092.75 |
| Total energy input | MJ ha−1 | – | 21792.56 |
| B. Output | |||
| Yield | kg | 19225 | 15380 |
Fig. 5The share of each input in cantaloupe production
Fig. 6The share of direct, indirect, renewable, and non-renewable energies in cantaloupe production
Energy indices for cantaloupe production in Darrehshahr Region
| Item | Unit | Value |
|---|---|---|
| Energy use efficiency | – | 0.56 |
| Energy productivity | kg mJ−1 | 0.70 |
| Specific energy | MJ kg−1 | 1.41 |
| Net energy gain | MJ ha −1 | − 11,775.86 |
| Direct energy | MJ ha −1 | 15,398.89 |
| Indirect energy | MJ ha −1 | 11,756.96 |
| Renewable energy | MJ ha −1 | 1738.88 |
| Nonrenewable energy | MJ ha −1 | 25,416.98 |
Amount of input emissions for each impact category based on 1 ton of cantaloupe production
| Indicator | Unit | Value |
|---|---|---|
| Carcinogens | kg C2H3Cl eq | 2.65 |
| Non-carcinogens | kg C2H3Cl eq | 17.95 |
| Respiratory inorganics | kg PM2.5 eq | 41.76 |
| Ionizing radiation | Bq C-14 eq | 597.85 |
| Ozone layer depletion | kg CFC-11 eq | 0.00 |
| Respiratory organics | kg C2H4 eq | 0.06 |
| Aquatic ecotoxicity | kg TEG water | 21230.62 |
| Terrestrial ecotoxicity | kg TEG soil | 51373.52 |
| Terrestrial acid/nutrients | kg SO2 eq | 4.97 |
| Land occupation | m2org.arable | 1323.60 |
| Aquatic acidification | kg SO2 eq | 0.81 |
| Aquatic eutrophication | kg PO4 P-lim | 0.01 |
| Global warming | kg CO2 eq | 155.66 |
| Non-renewable energy | MJ primary | 1210.53 |
| Mineral extraction | MJ surplus | 3.70 |
Fig. 7The effects of each input on total emissions of cantaloupe production
Fig. 8Distribution of environmental impacts of inputs in 4 endpoints based on IMPACT 2002+ method for cantaloupe production
Amount of environmental impacts at 4 endpoints based on IMPACT 2002+ method for cantaloupe production
| Endpoint | Unit | Quantity |
|---|---|---|
| Human health | DALYa | 0.03 |
| Ecosystem quality | PDF*m2*yearb | 1855.33 |
| Climate change | kg*CO2*eq | 155.67 |
| Resources | MJ primary | 1214.24 |
aDALY: An emission of 1 is equivalent to lack of 1 life year of 1 personal, or 1 person suffers 4 years from an inability with a weight of 0.25.
bPDF*m2*year: An emission of 1 is equivalent to disappearing of all species from 1 m2 throughout 1 year, or vanishing of 10% of species from 1 m2 throughout 10 years, or vanishing of 10% of species from 10 m2 throughout 1 year.
Analysis of economic indicators for summer cantaloupe production
| Index | Unit | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| Yield | kg ha−1 | 19,255 |
| Average selling price | $kg−1 | 0.22 |
| Gross value | $ha−1 | 4236.1 |
| Variable costs | $ha−1 | 1154.5 |
| Fixed costs | $ha−1 | 1487 |
| The total cost of a production period | $ha−1 | 2641.5 |
| gross revenue | $ha−1 | 3081.6 |
| net income | $ha−1 | 1594.6 |
| Benefit to cost ratio | Dimensionless | 1.6 |
| Efficiency | kg$ | 7.28 |