10.57647/ijamad

Life cycle of Energy-economic Analysis for Different Cultivation Scenarios of Paddy Production (Case of Khuzestan Province)

PDF
  • Heidar Molaee Jafrodi1,
  • Mohammad Gholami Parashkoohi*2,
  • Hamed Afshari3,
  • Mohammad Zamania3,
  1. Department of Biosystem Engineering, Takestan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Takestan, Iran
  2. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Shahr-e-Qods Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
  3. Department of Food Science and Engineering, Faculty of Civil and Earth Resources Engineering, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Categories

Received: 06/10/2022

Revised: 08/01/2023

Accepted: 08/28/2023

Published in Issue 12/20/2024

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Molaee Jafrodi, H., Gholami Parashkoohi, M., Afshari, H., & Zamania, M. (2024). Life cycle of Energy-economic Analysis for Different Cultivation Scenarios of Paddy Production (Case of Khuzestan Province). International Journal of Agricultural Management and Development, 14(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.57647/ijamad
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

PDF views: 31

Abstract

In this study, energy and economic analyses of paddy production in Khuzestan province, Iran, were conducted. Paddy production was examined under three cultivation systems: Paddy-Transplanting System (PTS), Paddy Direct Seeding Flooding System (PDSFS), and Paddy-Upland Cultivation System (PUCS). PTS had the highest total input (87,993.14 MJ ha⁻¹) and output (105,400 MJ ha⁻¹) energies. Diesel fuel and nitrogen fertilizer had the largest shares of energy use. In PUCS, human labor accounted for a significant share of energy use. The energy ratio of the PUCS method (1.34) indicates that output energy greatly exceeds input energy. The productivity energy index showed no significant difference between the three methods in terms of paddy yield relative to input energy. The specific energy of the PTS method (14.19 MJ kg⁻¹) indicates high input energy relative to paddy yield. Despite this, the PTS method demonstrated a favorable benefit-to-cost ratio due to high revenue and low costs. The productivity of the PUCS method was reported at 212.65 kg $⁻¹, reflecting high paddy production and the lowest costs among the methods.

Keywords

  • Benefit to cost ratio,
  • Energy use indices,
  • Rice production,
  • Paddy
PDF