Energy utilization in unpuddled transplanting of wet season rice

enamul haque

Energy utilization in unpuddled transplanting of wet season rice

enamul haque

visibility

…

description

5 pages

link

1 file

M URD OCH RESEARCH REPOSI TORY ht t p: / / researchreposit ory.m urdoch.edu.au/ 11184/ I sla m , A.K. M .S., H ossa in, M .M ., Sa r k e r , R.I ., Sa le que , M . A., Ra h m a n, M .A., H a que , M .E. a nd Be ll, R.W . ( 2 0 1 1 ) Ene r gy ut iliz a t ion in unp uddle d t r a nsp la nt ing of w e t se a son r ice . I n: W or ld Congr e ss on Con se r va t ion Agr icult ur e , 2 6 - 2 9 Se pt e m be r , Br isba ne , Au st r a lia . I t is post ed here for y our personal use. No furt her dist ribut ion is perm it t ed. Energy utilization in unpuddled transplanting of wet season rice Islam AKMS1, Hossain MM1, Sarker, RI1, Saleque MA2, Rahman MA2, Haque ME3, Bell RW4 1 Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, Bangladesh 2 Bangladesh Rice Research Institute, Gazipur, Bangladesh 3 Former affiliation: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT), Bangladesh; Current affiliation: International Development Enterprise (IDE), Dhaka, Bangladesh; [email protected] 4 Murdoch University, WA, Australia Keywords: direct energy, indirect energy, Versatile Multi-crop Planter, two wheel tractor, tillage Introduction Energy is the key input in modern agriculture. Productivity of agriculture depends on adequate inputs such as power, improved seeds, fertilizers and irrigation water. One way to optimize energy consumption in agriculture is to use efficient crop production methods (Kitani, 1999). Crop yield is directly linked with energy input (Srivastava, 1982). In a conventional cropping system, the greatest energy consumer is soil tillage. In comparison to conventional cultivation fuel consumption can be reduced by 3 to 4 fold with the no-till system (Moitzi, 2005). Sayre (2000) summarized the potential advantages of reduced tillage planting systems as reduced fossil fuel use; reduced production cost; increased profit; reduced crop turn-around time; increased land-use efficiency; reduced drudgery in planting, especially suitable for female household members; more efficient crop water use (for both rainfed and irrigated conditions); improved soil physical, chemical and biological activities; enhanced carbon sequestration; and enhanced flora and fauna biodiversity. A change in soil tillage method also causes a slow, but substantial modification to the soil physico-chemical characteristics (bulk density, porosity, infiltration, moisture content and temperature), which becomes apparent in the medium to long term. Rice establishment under unpuddle transplanting system is the new phenomenon which was first time evaluated under the project "Addressing constraints to pulses in cereals-based cropping systems, with particular reference to poverty alleviation in north-western Bangladesh" during the dry cool boro rice season in 2009 in 8 farmers filed of Rajshahi district. These trials had provided some exciting results on irrigation water saving and reduction of tillage and cost without grain yield penalty. Therefore, the present study was undertaken to compare the operating energy involved in wet season transplanted rice culture under conventional puddling and a range of non-puddled (“unpuddled”) systems. Materials and Methods The experiment was conducted at the Bangladesh Rice Research Institute (BRRI) Regional Station, Rajshahi, in the wet season of 2009. The 2-wheel tractor (2-WT) operated Versatile Multi-Crop Planter –VMP (Islam, 2010) was used for land preparation of all tillage types except the puddled treatments, which involved 2 dry tillage passes followed by additional 2 wet tillage passes using the 2-WT rotary tiller. Tillage treatments were conventional tillage and puddling (CT); puddling and then beds formed manually (BP1); 58 cm dry bed formed by the VMP in a single pass (BP2); and dry strip tillage by the VMP in a single pass (ST). Rice seedlings were transplanted under puddle condition in CT and BP1 and unpuddled condition for BP2 and ST. A randomized complete block design with three replications was used for this experiment. Thirty five-day-old rice seedlings of BR 11 were transplanted in all treatments by hand. Both direct and indirect energy inputs were estimated (Table 1). The chemical and biological energy inputs were considered as indirect energy inputs, whereas physical energy inputs were allocated across both indirect and direct energy inputs (Singh et al., 1994). The amounts of labor, fuel, fertilizer and pesticides (herbicide, insecticide and fungicide) were recorded and used in the determination of the fertilizer and chemical energy inputs in the crop production process. These amounts were converted to energy input using energy conversion factors from Gopalan et al. 1978; Bala and Hussain,1992; Mandal et al., 2002; Singh, 2002; Canakci et al., 2005; Yilmaz et al., 2005; Erdal et al., 2007; Esengun et al., 2007. Grain and straw yields were converted to energy output using a conversion factor of 14.57 MJ kg-1 for grain and 12.5 MJ kg-1 for straw (Bala and Hussain, 1992; Ozkan et al., 2004). The energy use was calculated for all operations in the crop production process, namely, (i) seedling raising; (ii) land preparation; (iii) transplanting; (iv) weeding; (v) fertilizer and pesticide application; and (vi) harvesting and threshing. Results and Discussion Direct energy consumption accounted for only a small proportion of the total energy consumption, ranging from around 9 % in CT, BP1 and BP2 to 4 % in ST (Table 1). Direct energy use was highest in CT and BP1 (2.35 and 2.41 GJ ha-1) and least in ST (0.78 GJ ha-1). Fuel was the main direct energy input. Human input was low, even with manual bed formation. Indirect energy accounted for 91.2 % of total energy use in CT, 90.8 % in BP1, 91.3 % in BP2 and 95.9 % in ST. The largest source of indirect energy consumption was from fertilizer (37 to 52 % of the total energy consumption). The other major forms of energy consumption were in irrigation, machinery (in conventionally tilled systems), and plant protection. Reduced tillage decreased energy consumption as fuel use by machine. Avoidance of puddling almost halved irrigation energy use in rice production. The operational energy input was highest for the treatments of CT and BP1 (26 -27 GJ ha-1) and least for BP2 and ST (19-20 GJ ha-1). Energy savings in BP2 and ST were 19 and 24 %, respectively, compared to CT, mainly due to low fuel consumption in tillage operation, lesser machinery use and reduced irrigation. Grain yields were statistically similar i.e. 4.43, 4.56, 4.55 and 4.30 t ha-1 which was equivalent to energy outputs of 64.52, 66.50, 66.23 and 62.73 GJ ha-1 for CT, BP1, BP2 and ST, respectively. Table 2 showed that the energy output/input ratio was least in CT and BP1 (4.6- 4.8) and 40 % higher in BP2 and ST (6.0-6.5). The results showed that the reduced number of tillage operations resulted in about a 25 % energy saving and a 40 % increase in energy use efficiency, and that the energy consumption for mechanization accounts for less than one fifth of the total balance. Table 1: Energy consumption (GJ ha-1) based on energy sources under different tillage options Puddling and 58 cm dry bed Dry strip tillage then beds Conventional formed by the by the VMP in tillage and formed VMP in a single a single pass puddling (CT) manually pass (BP2) (ST) (BP1) Direct energy Fuel 2.20 (8.2) 2.24 (8.5) 1.51 (7.5) 0.54 (2.8) Human 0.16 (0.6) 0.17 (0.6) 0.25 (1.2) 0.25 (1.3) Subtotal 2.35 (8.8) 2.41 (9.2) 1.76 (8.7) 0.78 (4.1) Indirect energy Seed 0.44 (1.6) 0.44 (1.7) 0.44 (2.2) 0.58 (3.0) Machinery 4.39 (16.4) 3.89 (14.8) 1.01 (5.0) 0.60 (3.1) Fertilizing 9.93 (37.1) 9.93 (37.8) 9.93 (49.0) 9.93 (52.0) Plant 3.93 (14.7) 3.93 (14.9) 3.93 (19.4) 3.93 (20.6) protection Irrigation 5.71 (21.3) 5.71 (21.7) 3.21 (15.8) 3.28 (17.2) Subtotal 24.40 (91.2) 23.88 (90.8) 18.51 (91.3) 18.31 (95.9) Total 26.75a (100) 26.30a (100) 20.27b (100) 19.10c (100) Figures in the parenthesis indicate the percentage. In a row, means followed by a common letter(s) are not significantly different at 5 % level by LSD test. LSD0.05 = 0.73, CV (%) = 1.57 Table 2: Energy input-output relationship under different tillage options Puddling Conventio 58 cm dry Dry strip and then nal tillage bed formed tillage by the beds LS and by the VMP VMP in a CV, formed Parameter D0.0 puddling in a single single pass % manually 5 (CT) pass (BP2) (ST) (BP1) GJ ha-1 GJ ha-1 GJ ha-1 GJ ha-1 Output (grain + straw) 123.08 125.92 121.80 122.79 8.88 NS Energy output/input ratio 4.6b 4.8b 6.0a 6.5 a 8.70 0.95 In a row, means followed by a common letter(s) are not significantly different at 5 % level by LSD test. Acknowledgements The authors are acknowledging the funding support from NATP- Phase 1, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council, Murdoch University, ACIAR, and AusAID to conduct the research and present the paper in the congress. References Bala, B.K. and Hussain, M.D. 1992. Energy Use Pattern for Crop Production in Bangladesh. Vol. 9.No.1.pp 23-25. Canakci, M., Topakci, M., Akinci, I. and Ozmerzi, A. 2005. Energy use pattern of some field crops and vegetable production: case study for Antalya region, Turkey. Energy Convers Manage 46: 655–66. Erdal, G., Esengun, K., Erdal, H. and Gunduz, O. 2007. Energy use and economical analysis of sugar beet production in Tokat province of Turkey. Energy 32: 35–41. Esengun, K., Erdal, G., Gunduz, O. and Erdal, H. 2007. An economic analysis and energy use in stake-tomato production in Tokat province of Turkey. Renewable Energy 32: 1873–1881. Gopalan, C., B. Sastri V. R. and Balasubramaniam S. C. 1978. Nutritive Value of Indian Foods. National Institute of Nutrition, ICMR, Hyderabad. Kitani, O. 1999. CIGR Handbook of Agricultural Engineering, Volume V - Energy and Biomass Engineering. ASAE Publication. Mandal, K.G., Saha, K.P., Ghosh, P.K., Hati, K.M. and Bandyopadhyay, K.K. 2002. Bioenergy and economic analysis of soybean-based crop production systems in central India. Biomass Bioenergy 23(5): 337–345. Moitzi G. 2005. Kraftstoffeinsatz in der Pflanzenproduktion. In: Kraftstoffkostensparen in der Landwirtschaft. ÖKL-Kolloquium an der Universität für Bodenkultur, Wien. Sayre, K. 2000. New conservation tillage techniques for surface irrigated production systems. In bed planting training course. 19 May -21 June 2003. Int. Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre. Mexico. Singh, J.M. 2002. On farm energy use pattern in different cropping systems in Haryana, India. Master of Science. Germany: International Institute of Management, University of Flensburg. Srivastava, A.C. 1982. A Comparative Study of Conventional and Mechanized Farming Relative to Energy Use and Cost. AMA. Spring 1982. pp. 42-46. Yilmaz, I., Akcaoz, H. and Ozkan, B. 2005. An analysis of energy use and input costs for cotton production in Turkey. Renewable Energy 30: 145–155.

Log In

Energy utilization in unpuddled transplanting of wet season rice

Related papers

Related papers

Related topics