Analysis of Economic and Energy Indicators in Different Methods of Protective Tillage in Wheat Cultivar (Case Study: Dasht-e Naz Sari Agro-Industrial Company)

بوم شناسی کشاورزی

Article 2, Volume 13, Issue 2 - Serial Number 48, June 2021, Pages 195-210   

Document Type: Scientific - Research

DOI: 10.22067/jag.v13i2.81534

Authors

Mohammad Sharifi^{* 1}; Shamsi Soodmand-Moghaddam¹; Mehdi Izadi¹; Rouzbeh Abbaszadeh²

¹Department of Agricultural Machinery Engineering, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering and Technology, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran

²Iran scientific and industrial research organization, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Introduction[1]
Conservation agriculture is a powerful factor in accessing future food needs. Protective agricultural practices can preserve and regenerate soil. Conservation tillage is a method for managing droughts to maintain ground water, as well as reducing agricultural production costs and increasing soil organic matter. According to the research, about 60% of the mechanical energy used in mechanized agriculture is related to soil tillage operations. The precision of the use of field implements and logs is important for any kind of tillage equipment (Larney et al., 2017). Appropriate tillage methods, depending on the soil type and climatic conditions, can be effective in achieving suitable water conditions in the soil. When the soil is facing limited water supply, tillage is done to maximize soil moisture retention. Energy consumption analysis can show how to reduce energy input into the production system and increase energy efficiency. In order to deal with and prevent such a situation, conservation is considered as an effective solution in many countries of the world. One of the basic goals of each production sector, such as agriculture, is to increase production and reduce costs. Therefore, it is important to determine economic indicators by determining production costs and yield, as well as determining the ratio of profit to cost (Erdal et al., 2007). In this research, the energy and economic indices and seed yield for different protective tillage systems of wheat cultivation with wheat yield approach were compared.
Material and Methods
In this research, the state of energy consumption and economic efficiency of different tillage systems in native conditions of agricultural plain of Naz was investigated for wheat. Tillage systems included conventional tillage (CT), no tillage and no plant remnants (NT), minimum tillage using combinate (MTCO), minimum tillage using no tillage planting machine (MTNT), no tillage with plant remnants (NTR). The purpose of this study was to study the energy consumption and economic efficiency of different soil tillage systems in native conditions of Naz Sardinia plain.
Results and Discussion
In wheat cultivation, the MTCO system had the highest wheat grain yield and energy indices, the system with a ratio of 4.84 to 4.9% energy, to 29.9 kg.MJ^-1 of energy efficiency, and to 3.42 MJ.kg^-1 of intensity Energy is the best system for wheat cultivation in terms of energy indicators. The NTR system with direct energy consumption of 4570, indirect 17163, renewable 2561 and non-renewable 19398, as well as energy systems of 4376 MJ.ha^-1, in general, was the least energy-consuming system in terms of energy, but had a low yield of 5025 kg.ha^-1 of wheat Should be. Looking at the obtained values ​​for economic indicators of protective systems in wheat cultivation, NT and NTR systems in profit and cost indicators and economic productivity are respectively 13.8 and 13.4% higher than the CT system, and also with 22 and 21% higher gross profit compared to the CT system, both showed acceptable yield for these indices. Also, in the Economic Indicators section, despite the lower cost of production for the NTR system, the MTCO system has 26% higher performance and higher sales prices and 25.5% lower than the NTR system and 35.2% more gross margin than the NTR system. MTCO system has the best status among 5 systems in terms of profit-to-cost and economic efficiency indices with 34.4% difference compared to CT system. In general, MTCO, MTNT, NT, NTR and CT systems are maximal to minimum for all gross profit, gross margin, profit-to-cost, profitability, and sales margins, respectively.
Conclusion
Eventually, the MTCO system, with its superiority in energy and economic indicators, was introduced as the optimal option for tillage and planting of wheat in the native conditions of the agricultural plains of Naz.
 

Keywords

Agricultural method; Management solution; Native conditions; Store moisture

References

Abdullah, A.S., 2014. Minimum tillage and residue management increase soil water content, soil organic matter and canola seed yield and seed oil content in the semiarid areas of Northern Iraq. Soil and Tillage Research 144: 150-155.

Afzalinia, S., Dehghanian, S.E., and Talati, M.H., 2009. Effect of conservation tillage on soil physical properties, fuel consumption, and wheat yield. 4^th Conference on Energy Efficiency and Agricultural Engineering, 1-3 October 2009. Rousse, Bulgaria.

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 conversion and Management 46(4): 655-666.

Erdal, G., Esengün, K., Erdal, H., and Gündüz, O., 2007. Energy use and economical analysis of sugar beet production in Tokat province of Turkey. Energy 32(1): 35-41.

Eskandari, I., Navid, H. and Rangzan, K., 2016. Evaluating spectral indices for determining conservation and conventional tillage systems in a vetch-wheat rotation. International Soil and Water Conservation Research 4(2): 93-98.

Heidari, M.D. and Omid, M., 2011. Energy use patterns and econometric models of major greenhouse vegetable productions in Iran. Energy 36: 220-225.

Kazemi, H., Alizadeh, P., and Nehbandani, A., 2016. Assessing energy flow in rainfed and irrigated wheat fields of Shahrekourd township under two tillage systems. Agroecology 8(2): 281-295. (In Persian with English Summary)

Khan, S., Shah, A., Nawaz, M., and Khan, M., 2017. Impact of different tillage practices on soil physical properties, nitrate leaching and yield attributes of maize (Zea mays L.). Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 17(1): 240-252.‏

Khoshroo, A., Mulwa, R., Emrouznejad, A., and Arabi, B., 2013. A non-parametric data envelopment analysis approach for improving energy efficiency of grape production. Energy 63: 189-194.

Larney, F.J., Lindwall, C.W., Izaurralde, R.C., and Moulin, A.P., 2017. Tillage systems for soil and water conservation on the Canadian prairie. In: Conservation tillage in temperate agroecosystems (305-328). CRC Press.

Loghmani, A., Asoudar, M., Nouriani, H., and Abrush, A., 2009. Effect of tillage systems and weed control on wheat yield in Dezful region. 2^nd Regional congress of Agricultural Sciences and Food Technology. Islamic Azad University of Fasa Branch, Iran. 10 December 2009. (In Persian with English Summary)

Mobtaker, H.G., Keyhani, A., Mohammadi, A., Rafiee, S., and Akram, A., 2010. Sensitivity analysis of energy inputs for barley production in Hamedan Province of Iran. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 137(3-4): 367-372.

Mohammadi, H, and Mehry, M., 2015. An analysis of improving energy use with data envelopment analysis in horticultural products in Yazd province: Case study pistahio. QEER. 2015; 11(46): 113-134.

Nabavi-Pelesaraei, A., Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, H., Qasemi-Kordkheili, P., Kouchaki-Penchah, H., and Riahi-Dorcheh, F., 2016. Applying optimization techniques to improve of energy efficiency and GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions of wheat production. Energy 103: 672-678.

Pishgar-Komleh, S.H., Keyhani, A., Mostofi-Sarkari, M.R. and Jafari, A., 2012. Energy and economic analysis of different seed corn harvesting systems in Iran. Energy 43(1): 469-476.

Sardar, M., Behdani, M., Eslami, V., and Mahmodi, S., 2015. The effect of soil disturbance methods and weeds control on the density and distribution of cotton’s (Gossypium hirsutum) weeds after wheat. Agroecology 7(2): 254-266. (In Persian with English Summary)

Shamabadi, Z., 2012. Evaluating reduced tillage methods on energy productivity and rained wheat yield. Journal of Soil and Water Resources Conservation 1(3): 69-78. (In Persian with English Summary)

Shamabadi, Z., 2013. Investigation of minimum tillage methods on energy use efficiency and yield of dryland wheat. Journal of Soil and Water Resources Conservation 3: 69-77. (In Persian with English Summary)

Sheikh-Davoodi, M.J., and Houshyar, E., 2009. Energy consumption of canola and sunflower production in Iran. American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences 6(4): 381-384.

Strapatsa, A.V., Nanos, G.D. and Tsatsarelis, C.A., 2006. Energy flow for integrated apple production in Greece. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment 116(3-4): 176-180.

Tipi, T., Çetin, B., and Vardar, A., 2009. An analysis of energy use and input costs for wheat production in Turkey. Journal of Food, Agriculture and Eenvironment 7(2): 352-356.

Unakitan, G., Hurma, H., and Yilmaz, F., 2010. An analysis of energy use efficiency of canola production in Turkey. Energy 35(9): 3623-3627.

Zhang, X.Q., Pu, C., Zhao, X., Xue, J.F., Zhang, R., Nie, Z.J., Chen, F., Lal, R., and Zhang, H.L., 2016. Tillage effects on carbon footprint and ecosystem services of climate regulation in a winter wheat–summer maize cropping system of the North China Plain. Ecological indicators 67: 821-829.