Application of Artificial Neural Networks for Predicting the Yield and GHG Emissions of Sugarcane Production

ماشین های کشاورزی

Article 12, Volume 8, Issue 2 - Serial Number 16, 2018, Pages 389-401   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jam.v8i2.52870

Authors

S. Haroni; M. J. Sheikhdavoodi^* ; M. Kiani Deh Kiani

Department of Biosystem Mechanical Engineering, Shaid Chamran University of Ahvaz Ahvaz, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
One of the most important sources of the sugar production is sugarcane.Sugar is one of the eight human food sources (wheat, rice, corn, sugar, cattle, sorghum, millet and cassava). Also sugarcane is mainly used for livestock feed, electricity generation, fiber and fertilizer and in many countries sugarcane is a renewable source for the biofuel. The efficient use of inputs in agriculture lead to the sustainable production and help to reduce the fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gases emission and save financial resources. Furthermore, detecting relationship between the energy consumption and the yield is necessary to approach the sustainable agriculture. It is generally accepted that many countries try to reduce their dependence to agricultural crop productions of other countries. The being Independent on agricultural productions lead to take more attention to modern methods and the objective of all these methods is increasing the performance with the efficient use of inputs or optimizing energy consumptions in agricultural systems. Energy modeling is a modern method for farm management that this model can predict yield with using the different amount of inputs. The objective of this study was to predict sugarcane production yield and (greenhouse gas) GHG emissions on the basis of energy inputs.

Materials and Methods
This study was carried out in Khouzestan province of Iran. Data were collected from 55 plant farms in Debel khazai Agro-Industry using face to face questionnaire method. In this study, the energy used in the sugarcane production has considered for the energy analysis without taking into account the environmental sources of the energy such as radiation, wind, rain, etc. Energy consumption in sugarcane production was calculated based on direct and indirect energy sources including human, diesel fuel, chemical fertilizers, pesticides, machinery, irrigation water, electricity and sugarcane stalk. Energy values were calculated by multiplying inputs and outputs per hectare by their coefficients of energy equivalents. Input energy in agricultural systems includes both direct and indirect energy and renewable and non-renewable forms. Direct energies include human labor, diesel fuel, water for irrigation and electricity and indirect energies consisted of machinery, seed (cultivation of sugarcane has been done with cutting of sugarcane instead of seed), chemical fertilizer. Renewable energies include machinery, sugarcane stalk, chemical fertilizer while non-renewable energy consisted of machinery, chemical fertilizer, electricity and diesel fuel. Energy values were calculated by multiplying inputs and outputs per hectare by their coefficients of energy equivalents. The amounts of GHG emissions from inputs in sugarcane production per hectare were calculated by CO₂ emissions coefficient of agricultural inputs. Energy modeling is an attractive subject for engineers and scientists who are concerned about the energy management. In the energy area, many different of models have been applied for modeling future energy. An artificial neural network (ANN) is an artificial intelligence that it can applied as a predictive tool for nonlinear multi parametric. Artificial neural network has been applied successfully in structural engineering modeling ANNs are inspired by biological neural networks.

Results and Discussion
The total energy used in the farm operations during the sugarcane production and the energy output was 1742883.769 and 111000 MJha_1, respectively. Electricity (52%) and chemical fertilizers (16%) were the most influential factors in the energy consumption. The electricity contribution was the highest due to the low efficiency of energy conversion in electric motors which were used for irrigation in the study area. In some areas, inefficient surface irrigation wastes a lot of water and energy (in forms of electricity). Another reason is that electricity energy equivalent for Iranian electricity production is higher than developed countries because Iran’s electricity grid is highly dependent on fossil fuels, so that 95% of the electrical energy in Iran is generated in thermal power plants using fossil fuels sources. In addition, the electricity transmission system is too old. GHG emissions data analysis indicated that the total GHG emissions was 415337.62 kg ha^-1 (CO₂eq) kgCO₂eq ha^-1 in which burning trash with the share of 62% had the highest GHG emission and followed by electricity (32%), respectively. The ANN model with 7-5-15-1 and 5-5-1 structure were the best model for predicting the sugarcane yield and GHG emissions, respectively. The coefficients of determination (R²) of the best topology were 0.98 and 0.99 for the sugarcane yield and GHG emissions, respectively. The values of RMSE for sugarcane production and GHG emission were found to be 0.0037 and 4.52×10-6, respectively.

Conclusion
The statistical parameters of R2 and RMSE demonstrated that the proposed artificial neural networks results have best accuracy and can predict the yield and GHG emission. It is generally showed that artificial neural networks have good potential to predict the yield of the sugarcane production.

Keywords

Artificial neural networks; Energy; GHG emission; Modeling; Plant

References

Antanasijević, D., V. Pocajt, M. Ristić, and A. Perić-Grujić. 2015. Modeling of energy consumption and related GHG (greenhouse gas) intensity and emissions in Europe using general regression neural networks. Energy 84: 816-824.

2. Aydin, G. 2014. Modeling of energy consumption based on economic and demographic factors: The case of Turkey with projections. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 35: 382-389.

3. Aydinalp-Koksal, M., and V. I. Ugursal. 2008. Comparison of neural network, conditional demand analysis, and engineering approaches for modeling end-use energy consumption in the residential sector. Applied Energy 85: 271-296.

4. Change, I. P. O. C. 2006. IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories.

5. Contreras, A., G. Diaz, L. Gallardo, and R. Loaiza. 2010. Energy ratio analysis of genetically-optimized potato for ethanol production in the Chilean market. Spanish journal of agricultural research 559-569.

6. Dalgaard, T., N. Halberg, and J. R. Porter. 2001. A model for fossil energy use in Danish agriculture used to compare organic and conventional farming. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 87: 51-65.

7. Dyer, J., and R. Desjardins. 2003. Simulated farm fieldwork, energy consumption and related greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. Biosystems Engineering 85: 503-513.

8. Erdal, G., K. Esengün, H. Erdal, and O. Gündüz. 2007. Energy use and economical analysis of sugar beet production in Tokat province of Turkey. Energy: 35-41.

9. França, D. d. A., K. M. Longo, T. G. S. Neto, J. C. Santos, S. R. Freitas, B. F. Rudorff, E. V. Cortez, E. Anselmo, and J. A. Carvalho. 2012. Pre-harvest sugarcane burning: determination of emission factors through laboratory measurements. Atmosphere 3: 164-180.

10. Hatirli, S. A., B. Ozkan, and C. Fert. 2005. An econometric analysis of energy input–output in Turkish agriculture. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 9: 608-623.

11. Hatirli, S. A., B. Ozkan, and C. Fert. 2006. Energy inputs and crop yield relationship in greenhouse tomato production. Renewable Energy 31: 427-438.

12. Khan, S., M. A. Khan, M. A. Hanjra, and J. Mu. 2009. Pathways to reduce the environmental footprints of water and energy inputs in food production. Food Policy 34: 141-149.

13. Khoshnevisan, B., Sh. Rafiee, M. Omid, M. Yousefi, and M. Movahedi. 2013a. Modeling of energy consumption and GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions in wheat production in Esfahan province of Iran using artificial neural networks. Energy 52: 333-338.

14. Khoshnevisan, B., Sh. Rafiee, M. Omid, H. Mousazadeh, and P. Sefeedpari. 2013b. Prognostication of environmental indices in potato production using artificial neural networks. Journal of Cleaner Production: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.1003.1028.

15. Kiani, M. K. D., B. Ghobadian, T. Tavakoli, A. Nikbakht, and G. Najafi. 2010. Application of artificial neural networks for the prediction of performance and exhaust emissions in SI engine using ethanol-gasoline blends. Energy 35: 65-69.

16. Kitani, O., T. Jungbluth, R. M. Peart, and A. Ramdani. 1999. CIGR handbook of agricultural engineering, Volume 5: Energy and biomass engineering. American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE).

17. Mobtaker, H. G., A. Keyhani, A. Mohammadi, Sh. Rafiee, and A. Akram. 2010. Sensitivity analysis of energy inputs for barley production in Hamedan Province of Iran. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 137: 367-372.

18. Mohammadi, A., and M. Omid. 2010. Economical analysis and relation between energy inputs and yield of greenhouse cucumber production in Iran. Applied Energy 87: 191-196.

19. Nemecek, T., D. Dubois, O. Huguenin-Elie, and G. Gaillard. 2011. Life cycle assessment of Swiss farming systems: I. Integrated and organic farming. Agricultural Systems 104: 217-232.

20. Ozkan, B., A. Kurklu, and H. Akcaoz. 2004. An input–output energy analysis in greenhouse vegetable production: a case study for Antalya region of Turkey. Biomass and Bioenergy 26: 89-95.

21. Pishgar-Komleh, S., M. Ghahderijani, and P. Sefeedpari. 2012. Energy consumption and CO2 emissions analysis of potato production based on different farm size levels in Iran. Journal of Cleaner production 33: 183-191.

22. Rajaeifar, M. A., A. Akram, B. Ghobadian, Sh. Rafiee, and M. D. Heidari. 2014. Energy-economic life cycle assessment (LCA) and greenhouse gas emissions analysis of olive oil production in Iran. Energy 66: 139-149.

23. Ramedani, Z., Sh. Rafiee, and M. Heidari. 2011. An investigation on energy consumption and sensitivity analysis of soybean production farms. Energy 36: 6340-6344.

24. Samavatean, N., Sh. Rafiee, H. Mobli, and A. Mohammadi. 2011. An analysis of energy use and relation between energy inputs and yield, costs and income of garlic production in Iran. Renewable Energy 36: 1808-1813.

25. Sami, M., M. J. Shiekhdavoodi, M. Pazhohanniya, and F. Pazhohanniya. 2014. Environmental comprehensive assessment of agricultural systems at the farm level using fuzzy logic: A case study in cane farms in Iran. Environmental Modelling & Software 58: 95-108.

26. Sandhu, H. S., R. A. Gilbert, G. Kingston, J. F. Subiros, K. Morgan, R. W. Rice, L. Baucum, J. M. Shine Jr and L. Davis. 2013. Effects of sugarcane harvest method on microclimate in Florida and Costa Rica. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 177: 101-109.

27. Wang, X., Y. Chen, P. Sui, W. Gao, F. Qin, J. Zhang, and X. Wu. 2014. Emergy analysis of grain production systems on large-scale farms in the North China Plain based on LCA. Agricultural Systems 128: 66-78.

28. Zangeneh, M., M. Omid, and A. Akram. 2010. A comparative study on energy use and cost analysis of potato production under different farming technologies in Hamadan province of Iran. Energy 35: 2927-2933.