Analysis of Energy Input–Output of Farms and Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Case Study of Cotton Growers
The concept of agricultural and environmental sustainability refers to minimizing the degradation of natural resources while increasing crop productions; assessment of inflow and outflow energy resources is helpful in highlighting the resilience of the system and maintaining its productivity. In thi...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2022-02-01
|
| Series: | Frontiers in Environmental Science |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2021.826838/full |
| _version_ | 1819281601618509824 |
|---|---|
| author | Adnan Abbas Chengyi Zhao Muhammad Waseem Khurshied Ahmed khan Riaz Ahmad |
| author_facet | Adnan Abbas Chengyi Zhao Muhammad Waseem Khurshied Ahmed khan Riaz Ahmad |
| author_sort | Adnan Abbas |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The concept of agricultural and environmental sustainability refers to minimizing the degradation of natural resources while increasing crop productions; assessment of inflow and outflow energy resources is helpful in highlighting the resilience of the system and maintaining its productivity. In this regard, the current study evaluated the amount of energy input–output of cotton productions and their environmental interventions. Data are randomly collected from 400 cotton farmers through face-to-face interview. Results suggested that the major energy is consumed by three culprits, i.e., chemical fertilizer, diesel fuel, and irrigation water (11,532.60, 11,121.54, and 4,531.97 MJ ha−1, respectively). Total greenhouse gas (GHG) emission is 1,106.12 kg CO2eq ha−1 with the main share coming from diesel fuel, machinery, and irrigation water. Stimulating data of energies, e.g., energy use efficiency (1.53), specific energy (7.69 MJ kg−1), energy productivity (0.13 kg MJ−1), and net energy gained (16,409.77 MJ ha−1). Further analysis using data envelopment analysis (DEA) showed that low technical efficiency, i.e., 69.02%, is the most probable cause of poor energy use efficiency. The impermanent trend in growth of energy efficiency has been witnessed with plausible potential of energy savings from 4,048.012 to 16,194.77 MJ ha−1 and a reduction of 148.96–595.96 kg CO2eq ha−1 in GHG emission. Cobb–Douglas production function is further applied to discover the associations of energy input to output, which inferred that chemical fertilizer, diesel fuel, machinery, and biocides have significant effect on cotton yield. The marginal physical productivity (MPP) values obliged that the additional use in energy (1 MJ) from fuel (diesel), biocides, and machinery can enhance cotton yield at the rate of 0.35, 1.52, and 0.45 kg ha−1, respectively. Energy saving best links with energy sharing data, i.e., 55.66% (direct), 44.34% (indirect), 21.05% (renewable), and 78.95% (nonrenewable), further unveiled the high usage of nonrenewable energy resources (fossil fuels) that ultimately contributes to high emissions of GHGs. We hope that these findings could help in the management of energy budget that we believe will reduce the high emissions of GHGs. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-24T01:02:17Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-89f0d06897ca4bb68086daa52bf58737 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2296-665X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-24T01:02:17Z |
| publishDate | 2022-02-01 |
| publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Frontiers in Environmental Science |
| spelling | doaj.art-89f0d06897ca4bb68086daa52bf587372022-12-21T17:23:20ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Environmental Science2296-665X2022-02-01910.3389/fenvs.2021.826838826838Analysis of Energy Input–Output of Farms and Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Case Study of Cotton GrowersAdnan Abbas0Chengyi Zhao1Muhammad Waseem2Khurshied Ahmed khan3Riaz Ahmad4Land Science Research Center, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing, ChinaLand Science Research Center, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing, ChinaCenter of Excellence in Water Resources, University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore, PakistanFaculty of Agricultural Sciences, Ghazi University City Campus, Dera Ghazi Khan, PakistanSchool of Energy and Power Engineering, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, ChinaThe concept of agricultural and environmental sustainability refers to minimizing the degradation of natural resources while increasing crop productions; assessment of inflow and outflow energy resources is helpful in highlighting the resilience of the system and maintaining its productivity. In this regard, the current study evaluated the amount of energy input–output of cotton productions and their environmental interventions. Data are randomly collected from 400 cotton farmers through face-to-face interview. Results suggested that the major energy is consumed by three culprits, i.e., chemical fertilizer, diesel fuel, and irrigation water (11,532.60, 11,121.54, and 4,531.97 MJ ha−1, respectively). Total greenhouse gas (GHG) emission is 1,106.12 kg CO2eq ha−1 with the main share coming from diesel fuel, machinery, and irrigation water. Stimulating data of energies, e.g., energy use efficiency (1.53), specific energy (7.69 MJ kg−1), energy productivity (0.13 kg MJ−1), and net energy gained (16,409.77 MJ ha−1). Further analysis using data envelopment analysis (DEA) showed that low technical efficiency, i.e., 69.02%, is the most probable cause of poor energy use efficiency. The impermanent trend in growth of energy efficiency has been witnessed with plausible potential of energy savings from 4,048.012 to 16,194.77 MJ ha−1 and a reduction of 148.96–595.96 kg CO2eq ha−1 in GHG emission. Cobb–Douglas production function is further applied to discover the associations of energy input to output, which inferred that chemical fertilizer, diesel fuel, machinery, and biocides have significant effect on cotton yield. The marginal physical productivity (MPP) values obliged that the additional use in energy (1 MJ) from fuel (diesel), biocides, and machinery can enhance cotton yield at the rate of 0.35, 1.52, and 0.45 kg ha−1, respectively. Energy saving best links with energy sharing data, i.e., 55.66% (direct), 44.34% (indirect), 21.05% (renewable), and 78.95% (nonrenewable), further unveiled the high usage of nonrenewable energy resources (fossil fuels) that ultimately contributes to high emissions of GHGs. We hope that these findings could help in the management of energy budget that we believe will reduce the high emissions of GHGs.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2021.826838/fullenergy input–outputGHG emissioncrop managementcotton productionDEA |
| spellingShingle | Adnan Abbas Chengyi Zhao Muhammad Waseem Khurshied Ahmed khan Riaz Ahmad Analysis of Energy Input–Output of Farms and Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Case Study of Cotton Growers Frontiers in Environmental Science energy input–output GHG emission crop management cotton production DEA |
| title | Analysis of Energy Input–Output of Farms and Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Case Study of Cotton Growers |
| title_full | Analysis of Energy Input–Output of Farms and Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Case Study of Cotton Growers |
| title_fullStr | Analysis of Energy Input–Output of Farms and Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Case Study of Cotton Growers |
| title_full_unstemmed | Analysis of Energy Input–Output of Farms and Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Case Study of Cotton Growers |
| title_short | Analysis of Energy Input–Output of Farms and Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Case Study of Cotton Growers |
| title_sort | analysis of energy input output of farms and assessment of greenhouse gas emissions a case study of cotton growers |
| topic | energy input–output GHG emission crop management cotton production DEA |
| url | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2021.826838/full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT adnanabbas analysisofenergyinputoutputoffarmsandassessmentofgreenhousegasemissionsacasestudyofcottongrowers AT chengyizhao analysisofenergyinputoutputoffarmsandassessmentofgreenhousegasemissionsacasestudyofcottongrowers AT muhammadwaseem analysisofenergyinputoutputoffarmsandassessmentofgreenhousegasemissionsacasestudyofcottongrowers AT khurshiedahmedkhan analysisofenergyinputoutputoffarmsandassessmentofgreenhousegasemissionsacasestudyofcottongrowers AT riazahmad analysisofenergyinputoutputoffarmsandassessmentofgreenhousegasemissionsacasestudyofcottongrowers |