Energy and water use indexes for Tobacco production under different irrigation systems in Iran

International Journal of Agriculture and Crop Sciences. Available online at www.ijagcs.com IJACS/2013/5-12/1332-1339 ISSN 2227-670X 2013 IJACS Journal Energy and water use indexes for Tobacco production under different irrigation systems in Iran Rasoul Loghmanpour-zarini *1, Rouhollah Abedi-firouzjaee 1 1.Sari Faculty of Agricultural, Technical and Vocational University, Tehran, Iran * Corresponding author email: Rloghmanpour@yahoo.com ABSTRACT: Energy in agriculture is important in terms of crop production and agro processing for value adding. This method in an agricultural product system is the energy consuming in product operations and energy saving in produced crops. In this study source wise and operation wise energy consumption for tobacco production under canal and pump irrigation system conditions were investigated. Also energy and water indicators were analyzed to better understand the main effects from utilization of different irrigation systems on water and energy use. For these purposes data were collected from 95 tobacco producers in Mazandaran province of Iran, using a face to face questionnaire method. The results revealed that under pump and canal irrigation conditions the total energy input was 19491.07 and 15322 MJ/ha and energy use efficiency was 0.08 and 0.07, respectively. The three major energy consumer inputs under pump irrigation system were electricity, fertilizers and diesel fuel while in canal irrigation conditions they were fertilizers, diesel fuel and indirect energy of irrigation, respectively. On the other hand, water energy use efficiency was calculated as 1.03 and 0.36 for pump and canal irrigation conditions, respectively. Water energy ratio under pump irrigation was found to be 43.78%, from which the shares of direct and indirect energies of irrigation were 40.8% and 2.98%, respectively while under canal irrigation conditions it was found to be 39% and the contribution of direct energy compared to indirect energy for irrigation was relatively low. In order to reduce energy consumption and improve energy use efficiency and water productivity, it is suggested to use canal irrigation systems, design suitable schemes for high irrigation efficiency and to improve the energy use efficiency for of water pumping systems. Keywords: Energy Input, Irrigation System, Water Productivity, Tobacco Production, Iran. INTRODUCTION Tobacco is one of the most valuable agricultural and industrial crops which is cultivated in more than 100 countries all over the world with different climate and has a major role in of some of economy them (Tso, 2005). Although Tobacco is counted as an important industrial plant in the world, it has not been paid much attention by researchers because of its negative aspect in cigarette production. Nevertheless, tobacco has different other usage. For instance, nicotine extraction is carried out from this plant in a large scale and tobacco is also used as a model plant in biotechnology (Chawla, 2003). This plant will be able to have more application in production of different materials based on its transgenic parameters (Dimanov, 2001). Around 3.69 million hectares of the world s lands are under tobacco cultivation. Energy has an influencing role in the development of key sectors of economic importance such as industry, transport and agriculture. This has motivated many researchers to focus their research on energy management. Energy has been a key input of agriculture since the age of subsistence agriculture. It is an established fact worldwide that agricultural production is positively correlated with energy input (Singh, 1999). Agriculture is both a producer and consumer of energy. It uses large quantities of locally available noncommercial energy, such as seed, manure and animate energy, as well as commercial energies, directly and indirectly, in the form of diesel, electricity, fertilizer, plant protection, chemical, irrigation water, machinery etc. Efficient use of these energies helps to achieve increased production and productivity and contributes to the profitability and competitiveness of agriculture sustainability in rural living (Singh et al., 2002). Energy use in agriculture has been increasing in response to increasing population, limited supply of arable land, and a desire for higher standards of living (Kizilaslan, 2009). However, more intensive energy use has brought some important

human health and environment problems so efficient use of inputs has become important in terms of sustainable agricultural production (Yilmaz et al., 2005). Recently, environmental problems resulting from energy production, conversion and utilization have caused increased public awareness in all sectors of the public, industry and government in both developed and developing countries It is predicted that fossil fuels will be the primary source of energy for the next several decades (Dincer, 2001; Demirbas, 2003). Efficient use of resources is one of the major assets of coefficient and sustainable production, in agriculture (De Jonge, 2004). Energy use is one of the key indicators for developing more sustainable agricultural practices (Streimikiene et al., 2007) and efficient use of energy is one of the principal requirements of sustainable agriculture (Kizilaslan, 2009). It is important, therefore, to analyze cropping systems in energy terms and to evaluate alternative solutions, especially for arable crops, which account for more than half of the primary sector energy consumption (Sartori et al., 2005). Numerous research studies have been conducted on energy and economic analysis to determine the energy efficiency or energy balance between the input and the output of crop production (Ozkan et al., 2004; Chaudhary et al., 2009; Mohammadi et al., 2008; Canakci et al., 2005; Mousavi-Aval et al., 2010; Tahery- Garavand et al., 2010). However, very little research has been done to investigate tobacco production energy use efficiency and no studies have been published on the energy inputs-output analysis of tobacco production in Iran. With considering the no study on energy and water use indicators for tobacco production in Iran, the main objective of this study was to investigate the energy consumption under canal and pump irrigated system conditions and to analyze the energy and water use indicators for tobacco production of Mazandaran province in Iran. Inputs A. Inputs Table 1. Energy equivalents of inputs and output in tobacco production. Unit Energy equivalents (MJ/unit) Reference 1. Human labour h 1.96 (Erdal et al., 2007) 2. Machinery kg a. Tractor 93.61 (Hetz, 1992) b. Self propelled combine 87.63 (Hetz, 1992) c. Other machinery 62.70 (Hetz, 1992) 3. Diesel fuel L 47.80 (Kitani, 1999) 4. Chemicals kg a. Herbicides 238.00 (Erdal et al., 2007) b. Insecticides 101.20 (Erdal et al., 2007) 5. Fertilizer kg a. Nitrogen 66.14 (Rafiee et al., 2010) b. Phosphate (P2O5) 12.44 (Rafiee et al., 2010) c. Potassium (K2O) 11.15 (Rafiee et al., 2010) d. Sulfur (S) 1.12 (Rafiee et al., 2010) e. Farmyard manure 0.30 (Singh and Mittal, 1992) 6. Water for irrigation M 3 1.02 (Rafiee et al., 2010) 7. Electricity kwh 11.93 (Singh and Mittal, 1992) 8. Seed kg 25 (Moraditochaee, 2012) B. Output 1. Tobacco kg 0.8 (Moraditochaee, 2012) Irrigation operation require energy for constructing the water supply source, providing the conveyance works, installing the field irrigation system on the farms, and operating and maintaining the system. Energy consumed in irrigation operations can be classified in both direct and indirect forms. Direct energy of irrigation includes energy that is consumed for pumping and operating the farm irrigation system It is used mostly in the forms of electricity, diesel fuel and human labour. On the other hand, indirect energy of irrigation consist of the energy consumed for manufacturing the materials for the dams, canals, pipes, pumps, and equipment as well as the energy for constructing the works and building the on-farm irrigation system (Khan et al., 2009). In this study both the direct and the indirect energy uses in irrigation operation had considered to evaluate the full environmental footprint. For investigating the indirect energy of irrigation the coefficient of

1.02 MJ per unit of water (m 3 ), supplied from a given source, was used So it was considered to be the same for all the farms in a given setting. The direct energy of irrigation was considered by calculating the energy equivalent of diesel fuel, electricity and human labour used in irrigation operations. MATERIALS AND METHODS Data collection and estimation of energy inputs A survey approach was used to collect quantitative information on all direct and indirect energy inputs and water inputs. The survey design included the selection of sample farms, choice of survey method, design of questionnaire, administration of questionnaire, and analysis of survey data. Study was done in Mazandaran province in Iran. Mazandaran province has 1.46% of total area of the country. Mazandaran province is located in the north of Iran, within 36 25' north latitude and 50 34' east longitude (Moazzen, 2010). A simple random sampling procedure was adopted to find the sample size (Kizilaslan, 2009). So the sample size was found to be 95. The surveyed population was divided into two groups The first group used pump for water lifting from wells and the second used canal or river water to irrigate the farms. The amount of each input used for tobacco production including chemicals, fertilizers, diesel fuel, electricity, irrigation water, human power, and machine power were evaluated per hectare. In order to evaluate output and input energy, energy conversion factors of inputs and output were used to transform them into equivalent energy units (Rafiee et al., 2010). The energy conversion factors of inputs used in this study are given in Table 1. The energy requirement for tobacco production was classified as direct and indirect as well as renewable and non-renewable energy forms. Direct energy inputs include those quantities that are consumed during the crop production period. The actual energy contained in diesel fuel, electricity and human labour is characterized as direct energy inputs. Indirect energy included energy embodied in seeds, farmyard manure, irrigation water, chemical fertilizers and chemicals Also the energy consumed by machinery is classified as indirect energy. On the other hand, the non-renewable energy sources include diesel, chemicals, chemical fertilizers, electricity and machinery, while renewable energy consists of human labour, seeds and farmyard manure. Energy obtained from sunlight was not quantified (Khan et al., 2009). Introducing water and energy indicators Based on the energy equivalents of inputs and output, the energy indices including energy use efficiency, energy productivity, energy intensity, net energy return were calculated using the following equations (Rafiee et al., 2010): Energy Ratio = (1) Energy Productivity (kg/mj) = Energy Intensity (MJ/kg) = Net Energy Gain (MJ/ha) = Total Energy Output (MJ/ha) Total Energy Input (MJ/ha) (4) Also, the water use indicators in tobacco production were assessed using the following equations (Khan et al., 2009): Water energy use efficiency = (5) Water productivity (kg/m 3 ) = Water intensity (m 3 /kg) = Water - energy productivity (kg/m 3 MJ) = Water energy ratio = Water direct energy ratio = Water indirect energy ratio =! " #$ The water- energy productivity is defined as the grain yield per unit of energy and water inputs. It combines both the effect of water and energy inputs on yield. Lower values may indicate higher environmental footprint. Water energy ratio focuses specifically on the both direct and indirect energy from irrigation water as a contribution of total energy input. These can be useful for formulating recommendations for rationalizing water consumption and help to achieve optimal environmental outcomes (Khan et al., 2009). (2) (3) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)

RESULT AND DISCUSSION Operation wise energy consumption under different irrigation systems The conversion factors given in Table 1 were used to determine energy inputs and outputs for tobacco production in the region. Table 2 shows the amounts of average operation wise energy inputs and outputs energy in tobacco production. Also energy consumption in the pump and canal irrigation systems are tabulated. Item A. Inputs Table 2. Amounts of operational inputs and output energies in tobacco production. Energy equivalent (MJ/ha) Weighted average Pump irrigated Canal irrigated 1. Tillage 988.8 1651.95 1403.2 2. Sowing 252.85 261.85 225.16 3. Irrigation 7589.35 8534.52 5971.68 4. Weeding 458.52 617.21 127.41 5. Application 835.37 980.65 670.5 6. Harvesting 1103.22 1245.91 928.8 7. Transportation 729.28 833.86 669.58 8. Seed 8.24 9.86 7.11 9. Chemical fertilizers 4111.95 4032.26 3988.8 10. Farmyard manure 894.15 918.85 690.23 11. Chemicals 421.35 404.15 636.53 Total energy input 17393.08 19491.07 15322 B. Output 1. Grain yield (kg) 1796,5 1951,6 1386,8 Total energy output 1437.2 1561.28 1109.44 The results revealed that the total energy input and output energy for tobacco production in the region were averagely as 17393.08 and 1437.2 MJ/ha, respectively. Also it is evident that tobacco production under pump irrigation conditions (19491.07 MJ/ha) had higher total energy input than that of canal irrigation systems (15322 MJ/ha). On the other hand the production yield and consequently output energy for pump irrigation system were greater than that of canal irrigation systems. Also, energy consumption by irrigation operation including energy sequestered in electricity, diesel fuel, human labour and indirect energy of irrigation was 7589.35 MJ/ha, averagely from which the share of electricity energy by 73.3% was the highest. Also it was found to be 8534.52 and 5971.68 MJ/ha for pump and canal irrigation system, respectively which was about 6 times higher under pump irrigation conditions. The energy consumption in different operations under pump and canal irrigated systems comparatively illustrated in Fig. 1 and 2. From the results it is clear that, in the case of pump irrigation system the major component of total energy input was the irrigation operation (43.1%), indicating that significant energy savings may be possible through better irrigation management. Apart from irrigation operation energy, fertilizer and chemical application (32.6%) and harvesting operations (6.5%) were the major energy users. On the other hand, under canal irrigation conditions the main energy consumers were fertilizer and chemical applications (39.08%), irrigation (38.9%) and tillage (9.15%) operations, respectively. However, the shares of weeding and sowing operational energy inputs from total energy input for tobacco production under both irrigation systems were relatively low. Sheikh Davoodi and Houshyar (2009) investigated the energy consumption for canola and sunflower Production in Iran. They reported that total energy requirement for canola and sunflower were as 30889.098 and 22945.3 MJ/ha, respectively. Also the three main energy consuming inputs were fertilizer, electricity and diesel fuel for both crops. These inputs contribute to the total energy consumption at more than 80%.

3.35%Weeding 43.10%Irrigation 32.60%Application 6.50%Harvest 4.40%Transport 1.45%Sowing 8.60%Tillage Figure1. Contributions of operation wise energy inputs in pump irrigated systems. 0.93%Weeding 38.90%Irrigation Application 39.08% 1.51%Sowing 9.15%Tillage 4.37%Transport 6.06%Harvest Figure2. Contributions of operation wise energy inputs in canal irrigated systems. Source wise energy consumption under different irrigated systems The estimates of source wise energy inputs for tobacco production under different irrigation systems are given in Fig. 3. Clearly the main energy consumer input under pump irrigation system is electricity energy input, consumed as 6.25 GJ per hectare of tobacco production. This is because that, in surveyed region the farmers under pump irrigation conditions extensively use electricity to pump water from wells for irrigation of crops. Also fertilizer energy (4.95 GJ/ha) and diesel fuel energy (4.11 GJ/ha) inputs were the second and third energy consumers by priority. The results revealed that under canal irrigation systems the electricity energy usage was found to be zero. So, the fertilizer energy input (6.68 GJ/ha) was the major component of total energy input, followed by diesel fuel energy (3.52 GJ/ha) and water energy input (indirect energy of irrigation) by 3.05 GJ/ha, respectively. On the other hand utilization of all of the energy inputs under canal irrigation system were lower than that of pump irrigation system However, use of machinery, chemicals, seed and

human labour energy inputs for tobacco production under two irrigation systems had not considerable differences. From these results it is suggested that, employing canal irrigation systems, improving efficiency for converting energy to lifted water, using renewable energy such as manure instead of chemical fertilizer could be a pathway to make the use of aforementioned inputs more environmental friendly and thus reduce its environmental risks. 8 7 6.68 6.25! "# $%&'( 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0.01 0.01 0.52 0.32 0.63 0.4 1.12 1.74 3.52 3.05 1.51 4.11 4.95 0 *)!) Figure 3. Comparison of the source wise energy inputs under canal and pump irrigation systems. Investigating the water and energy indicators In this section the water and energy indices for tobacco production had presented Also these indicators had compared for crop production under two irrigation systems. Table 3 shows the indices of energy and water on average. The results indicate that the contribution of direct energy was more than that of indirect energy Also it was found to be greater for non-renewable energy with respect to that of renewable energy. Table 3. Analysis of energy and water indicators in tobacco production Items Unit Quantity Direct energy MJ/ha 10804.58 (62.12%) Indirect energy MJ/ha 6588.5 (37.88%) Renewable energy MJ/ha 2878.55 (16.55%) Non-renewable energy MJ/ha 14514.53 (83.45%) Energy use efficiency - 0.08 Energy productivity kg/mj 0.1 Energy intensity MJ/kg 10 Net energy return MJ/ha 15956.08 Water energy use efficiency - 0.19 Water productivity kg/m 3 0.9 Water intensity m 3 /kg 1 1.11 Water- energy productivity g/m 3 MJ 0.05 Water energy ratio % 43.63 Water direct energy ratio % 39.86 Water indirect energy ratio % 3.77 On the other hand, water energy use efficiency was 0.08. This indicates that on average an increase

of 1 MJ in both irrigation direct or indirect energy inputs, would lead to an additional increase in output energy by 0.08 MJ/ ha. Also the water productivity and water intensity were calculated as 0.9 kg/ m 3 and 1.11 m 3 /kg, respectively. Water energy ratio was found to be 43.63%, from witch 39.86% consumed in direct form and the reminder of 3.77% was the contribution of irrigation indirect energy. Table 4 present the water and energy indicators for two different irrigation systems. It is evident that in pump irrigation system the share of direct energy is more than that of indirect energy but in the case of canal irrigation the contribution of indirect energy is higher. Also use of non-renewable energy inputs in pump irrigation condition is more than canal irrigation, while in renewable energy sources it is inverted. Also water energy use efficiency in pump and canal irrigation system was found to be 1.03 and 0.36, respectively. Water energy ratio in pump irrigation system was found to be 43.78%, from which the hares of direct and indirect were 40.8% and 2.98%, respectively While in canal irrigation system it was 39% and the contribution of water direct energy compared to that of water direct energy was relatively low. Table 4. Analysis of energy and water indicators for pump and canal irrigated systems. Items Unit Pump irrigated Canal irrigated Direct energy MJ/ha 10880 (55.82%) a 3840 (22.06%) Indirect energy MJ/ha 8611.15 (44.18%) 11482 (77.94%) Renewable energy MJ/ha 1448.71 (7.43%) 1017.34 (6.64%) Non-renewable energy MJ/ha 18042.36 (92.57%) 14304.66 (93.36%) Energy use efficiency - 0.08 0. Energy productivity Energy intensity kg/mj MJ/kg 0.1 10 0. 1. Net energy return MJ/ha -17929.79-14212.56 Water energy use efficiency - 1.03 0.3 Water productivity kg/m 3 1.31 0. Water intensity m 3 /kg 0.76 2. Water- energy productivity g/m 3 MJ 0.06 17 0. Water energy ratio % 43.78 03 39 Water direct energy ratio % 40.8 6. Water indirect energy ratio % 2.98 33. a Figures in parenthesis indicate percentage from total energy input. CONCLUSION This research presents a case study of energy and water inputs for tobacco production under canal and pump irrigation system conditions in Mazandaran province of Iran. Also energy and water indicators were analyzed. The comparisons thus showed that in pump irrigation condition the three major energy consumer inputs were electricity, fertilizers and diesel fuel. Also, in canal irrigation condition fertilizers, diesel fuel and indirect energy of irrigation were the main energy users. Furthermore, total energy consumption for tobacco production under pump irrigation condition was higher than that of canal irrigation, suggesting that significant energy savings may be possible through employing canal irrigation system. Pump irrigation system showed higher energy use efficiency and water productivity So it is suggested to shift the canal irrigation systems to pump irrigation system for tobacco production in the region. Also in the pump irrigation conditions, improving efficiency for converting energy to lifted water, using renewable energy such as solar and wind energy instead of electricity or diesel fuel, using hybrid fuels and improving timing, amount, and reliability of water applications could be a pathway to improve energy use efficiency and to make the use of inputs more efficiently and environmental friendly and thus reduce their environmental risks problems. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of this study by University of Tehran. Also, Special thanks go to all farmers who took part in this study. REFERENCES Canakci M, Topakci M, Akinci I, Ozmerzi A. 2005. Energy use pattern of some field crops and vegetable production: Case study for Antalya Region, Turkey, Energy Conversion and Management 46:655 666. Chaudhary VP, Gangwar B, Pandey DK, Gangwar KS. 2009. Energy auditing of diversified rice-wheat cropping systems in Indo-gangetic plains, Energy 34:1091-1096. Chawla HS. 2003. Plant biotechnology a practical approach. Science publisher s Inc. p. 302. De Jonge AM. 2004. Ecoefficiency improvement of a crop protection product: the perspective of the crop protection industry. Crop Protect 23(12):1177-1186. Demirbas A. 2003. Energy and environmental issues relating to greenhouse gas emissions in Turkey. Energy Conversion and Management 44:203-213. Dimanov D. 2001. Hereditability, correlation and regression coefficients of some quantitative characters in somaclonal oriental tobacco +

progenies. Tutun 51:325-329. Dincer I. 2001. Environmental issues: I energy utilization. Energ Source 23:69-81. Erdal G, Esengün K, Erdal H, Gündüz O. 2007. Energy use and economical analysis of sugar beet production in Tokat province of Turkey. Energy 32(1):35-41 Hetz E. 1992. Energy utilization in Chilean agriculture. Agric Mech Asia Africa Latin America (AMA) 23(2):52-56 Khan S, Khan A, Hanjra A, Mu J. 2009. Pathways to reduce the environmental footprints of water and energy inputs in food production. Food Policy 34(2):141-149 Kitani O. 1999. CIGR handbook of agricultural engineering. Volume 5: Energy and biomass engineering. ASAE Publications, St Joseph, MI Kizilaslan H. 2009. Input-output energy analysis of cherries production in Tokat Province of Turkey. Applied Energy 86(7-8):1354-1358 Moazzen AA. 2010. Annual Agricultural Statistics, Ministry of Jihad-e-Agriculture of Iran, available at: http://www.maj.ir. 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. Moraditochaee M. 2012. Study Energy Indices of Tobacco Production in North of Iran. J. Agric. Bio. Sci 7(6):462-465 Mousavi-Avval SH, Rafiee S, Jafari A. 2010. A comparative study on energy and water use indicators for soybean production under different irrigation systems in Iran, International Journal of Environmental Sciences 1(4):419-428. Ozkan B, Akcaoz H, Karadeniz F. 2004. Energy requirement and economic analysis of citrus production in Turkey, Energy Conversion and Management 45:1821 1830. Rafiee S, Mousavi Avval H, Mohammadi A. 2010. Modeling and sensitivity analysis of energy inputs for apple production in Iran. Energy 35(8):3301-3306 Sartori L, Basso B, Bertocco M, Oliviero G. 2005. Energy Use and Economic Evaluation of a Three Year Crop Rotation for Conservation and Organic Farming in NE Italy. Biosystems Engineering 91(2):245-256 Sheikh Davoodi J, Houshyar E, 2009. Energy Consumption of Canola and Sunflower Production in Iran. American-Eurasian J Agric Environ Sci. 6(4):381-384 Singh G. 1999. Relationship between mechanization and productivity in various parts of India. A paper presented during the XXXIV Annual Convention. Indian Society of Agricultural Engineers, CCSHAU, Hisar, December, 16-18. Singh H, Mishra D, Nahar NM. 2002. Energy use pattern in production agriculture of typical village in arid zone. India-part-I. Energ. Convers. Manage. 43:2275-2286. Singh S, Mittal P. 1992. Energy in production agriculture. Mittal Publications, New Delhi, India Streimikiene D, Klevas V, Bubeliene J. 2007. Use of EU structural funds for sustainable energy development in new EU member states. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 116:1167-1187. 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(2):236-242. Tso TC. 2005. Production, physiology and biochemistry of tobacco plant, institute of international development and education in agricultural and life sciences, USA. Yilmaz I, Akcaoz H, Ozkan B. 2005. An analysis of energy use and input costs for cotton production in Turkey. Renewable Energy 30:145-155,