SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türk Tarım ve Doğa Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Volume: 13 Issue: 4

Integrated Assessment of the Carbon Footprint, Nitrous Oxide Emissions and Water Footprint Indicators of Silage Maize Production in Malatya–Battalgazi: An Approach Based on an Average Farmer Production Inventory

Mehmet Fatih Yılmaz(MALATYA TURGUT ÖZAL ÜNİVERSİTESİ, ZİRAAT FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0003-2051-6285
Beyza Çiftci(ERCİYES ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-3080-0880
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-10-19
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings indicate that nitrogen and irrigation management are the shared levers governing the environmental burden, specific to the 2025 season and the producer group examined.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Silage maize (Zea mays L.) is a key crop for the production of high-quality forage owing to its high biomass and dry-matter yield; however, achieving high yields requires intensive nitrogen fertilization and —in semi-arid regions— intensive irrigation, which results in a considerable environmental burden.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this study, the carbon footprint, soil-derived nitrous oxide (N₂O) emissions and the green–blue–grey water footprint indicators of silage maize production were assessed within a single, consistent system boundary, based on a production inventory derived from the average input and output values compiled from 60 producers growing silage maize in the Battalgazi district of Malatya province during the 2025 production season.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicate that nitrogen and irrigation management are the shared levers governing the environmental burden, specific to the 2025 season and the producer group examined.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2025 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Silage maize · carbon footprint · nitrous oxide

Abstract

Silage maize (Zea mays L.) is a key crop for the production of high-quality forage owing to its high biomass and dry-matter yield; however, achieving high yields requires intensive nitrogen fertilization and —in semi-arid regions— intensive irrigation, which results in a considerable environmental burden. In this study, the carbon footprint, soil-derived nitrous oxide (N₂O) emissions and the green–blue–grey water footprint indicators of silage maize production were assessed within a single, consistent system boundary, based on a production inventory derived from the average input and output values compiled from 60 producers growing silage maize in the Battalgazi district of Malatya province during the 2025 production season. The analytical unit of the footprint calculation is one aggregated representative production inventory. Greenhouse-gas emissions were estimated using the IPCC (2006) Tier 1 method, and the water footprint indicators were calculated following the Water Footprint Assessment Manual (Hoekstra et al., 2011). The green component is an effective-precipitation-based green-water indicator and the blue component an applied-irrigation-water indicator; neither represents measured consumptive crop water use. The results are reported per hectare of production area and per tonne of fresh silage. On average, the production pattern received 320 kg N ha⁻¹ (500 kg urea + 500 kg DAP), 105 L diesel and 1,500 kWh of irrigation electricity per hectare, with a fresh silage yield of 57.5 t ha⁻¹. The total carbon footprint was 4,533.2 kg CO₂e ha⁻¹ (78.8 kg CO₂e t⁻¹). Estimated soil N₂O accounted for 38.9%, urea manufacture for 17.6% and irrigation electricity for 15.5% of the total. The total water footprint was 180.9 m³ t⁻¹ and was dominated by blue water (109.4 m³ t⁻¹; 60%), followed by grey water (55.7) and green water (15.9 m³ t⁻¹). Reducing total nitrogen by 20% through urea alone lowered the carbon footprint by 15.0% and the grey-water indicator by 20% (deterministic what-if calculation under constant-yield assumption). The findings indicate that nitrogen and irrigation management are the shared levers governing the environmental burden, specific to the 2025 season and the producer group examined.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yılmaz, M. F., Çiftci, B. (2026). Integrated Assessment of the Carbon Footprint, Nitrous Oxide Emissions and Water Footprint Indicators of Silage Maize Production in Malatya–Battalgazi: An Approach Based on an Average Farmer Production Inventory. Türk Tarım ve Doğa Bilimleri Dergisi, Volume: 13 Issue: 4. https://doi.org/10.30910/turkjans.2004512

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (44)

  1. Akça, Ö., Aydın, F., & Oğuz, H. (2026). Comparative life cycle assessment of bioethanol production from different maize hybrids in a semi-arid region [Preprint]. Research Square.
  2. Akın, A., & Aygül, F. C. (2022). Malatya İli kayısı bahçelerinin verimlilik durumlarının toprak analizleri ile değerlendirilmesi. Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 36(1), 197–212. https://doi.org/10.20479/bursauludagziraat.986678
  3. Anğın, N., & Çatalkaya, V. (2019). Taban suyu seviye ve tuzluluk değerlerinin CBS ile izlenmesi. Uluslararası Doğu Akdeniz Tarımsal Araştırma Enstitüsü Dergisi, 2(2), 73–83.
  4. Arrien, M. M., Aldaya, M. M., & Rodríguez, C. I. (2021). Water footprint and virtual water trade of maize in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Water, 13(13), 1769. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13131769
  5. Audsley, E., Stacey, K., Parsons, D. J., & Williams, A. G. (2009). Estimation of the greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural pesticide manufacture and use. Cranfield University.
  6. Aydın, B., Özkan, E., Gürbuz, A., Kurşun, İ., & Kayhan, İ. E. (2022). Comparative analysis of energy use efficiency and greenhouse gas emission of wheat farming in Edirne province of Türkiye. Anadolu Ege Tarımsal Araştırma Enstitüsü Dergisi, 32(2), 277–286. https://doi.org/10.18615/anadolu.1225576
  7. Balkış, E., & Gülçiçek Uysal, O. (2026). Identifying mitigation pathways for low-carbon strawberry production. Global Challenges, 10(6), e70120. https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.70120
  8. Baran, M. F., Eliçin, A. K., Bellitürk, K., & Çelik, A. (2022). Energy balance and GHG emissions of pepper production in Türkiye. International Journal of Agriculture, Environment and Food Sciences, 6(4), 605–613. https://doi.org/10.31015/jaefs.2022.4.14
  9. Boulay, A.-M., et al. (2018). The WULCA consensus characterization model for water scarcity footprints. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 23(2), 368–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1333-8
  10. Brentrup, F., & Pallière, C. (2008). GHG emissions and energy efficiency in European nitrogen fertiliser production and use. Proceedings of the International Fertiliser Society, No. 639.
  11. Dědina, M., et al. (2024). Environmental life cycle assessment of silage maize in relation to regenerative agriculture. Sustainability, 16(2), 481. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020481
  12. ETKB-EVÇED. (2023). Türkiye Ulusal Elektrik Şebekesi Emisyon Faktörü Bilgi Formu. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources.
  13. Fuksa, P., Hrevušová, Z., Szabó, O., & Hakl, J. (2023). Effect of row spacing and plant density on silage maize yield. Agronomy, 13(4), 1117. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13041117
  14. Gil de Miguel, Á., Kallache, M., & García-Calvo, E. (2015). The water footprint of agriculture in Duero River basin. Sustainability, 7(6), 6759–6780. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7066759
  15. Han, X., Xiao, X., Zhang, J., Shao, M., Jie, Y., & Xing, H. (2024). Effects of nitrogen fertilizer and planting density on silage maize. Agronomy, 14(7), 1352. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14071352
  16. Handa, D., Frazier, R. S., Taghvaeian, S., & Warren, J. G. (2019). Efficiencies, environmental impacts and economics of energy for groundwater irrigation in Oklahoma. Agriculture, 9(2), 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9020027
  17. Hoekstra, A. Y., Chapagain, A. K., Aldaya, M. M., & Mekonnen, M. (2011). The water footprint assessment manual: Setting the global standard. Earthscan.
  18. Hoekstra, A. Y., & Mekonnen, M. M. (2012). The water footprint of humanity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(9), 3232–3237. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1109936109
  19. Holka, M., & Bieńkowski, J. (2020). Carbon footprint and life-cycle costs of maize production in conventional and non-inversion tillage systems. Agronomy, 10(12), 1877. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10121877
  20. IPCC. (2006). 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, Volume 4, Chapter 11. IGES.
  21. IPCC. (2014). Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. IPCC.
  22. IPCC. (2019). 2019 refinement to the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. IPCC.
  23. IPCC. (2021). Climate change 2021: The physical science basis. Cambridge University Press.
  24. Kalkan, F., & Avcı, S. (2020). Effects of applying nitrogen on yield of silage maize grown after forage legumes. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Tarım ve Doğa Dergisi, 23(2), 336–342. https://doi.org/10.18016/ksutarimdoga.vi.646221
  25. Kaur, S., Aggarwal, R., & Lal, R. (2016). Assessment and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from groundwater irrigation. Irrigation and Drainage, 65(5), 762–770. https://doi.org/10.1002/ird.2050
  26. Kobak, O., & Taş, İ. (2021). İkinci ürün silajlık mısırda dinamik sulama programının verim üzerine etkisi. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(1), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.25308/aduziraat.795742
  27. Kongshaug, G. (1998). Energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in fertilizer production. IFA Technical Conference, Marrakech.
  28. Ledgard, S. F., Boyes, M., & Brentrup, F. (2011). Life cycle assessment of local and imported fertilisers used on New Zealand farms. FLRC Workshop, Massey University.
  29. Liao, W., van der Werf, H. M. G., & Salmon-Monviola, J. (2015). Improved environmental LCA of crop production via a process-based nitrogen simulation model. Environmental Science & Technology, 49(18), 10790–10796. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b01347
  30. Luo, D., et al. (2022). Integrated carbon footprint and economic performance of cropping systems in China's semiarid zone. Sustainability, 14(10), 5844. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14105844
  31. Malatya Valiliği Çevre, Şehircilik ve İklim Değişikliği İl Müdürlüğü. (2024). Malatya İli 2023 Çevre Durum Raporu.
  32. Malatya Valiliği. (2026a). Coğrafi konum. https://www.malatya.gov.tr/cografi-konum
  33. Mekonnen, M. M., & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2011). The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 15(5), 1577–1600. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-1577-2011
  34. MGM. (2025). Malatya ili uzun yıllar (1929–2025) ve 2025 yılı iklim verileri. Turkish State Meteorological Service.
  35. Özbek, O., Çelik, Ş. A., Ayran Çolak, İ., & Gökdoğan, O. (2024). Energy balance and GHG emissions of sesame production in Türkiye. Turkish Journal of Agriculture – Food Science and Technology, 12(6), 911–917. https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v12i6.911-917.6756
  36. Qian, Y., Ma, Q., & Zhen, R. (2023). Optimizing the growth of silage maize by adjusting planting density and nitrogen application rate. Agronomy, 13(11), 2785. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13112785
  37. Reay, D. S., et al. (2012). Global agriculture and nitrous oxide emissions. Nature Climate Change, 2, 410–416. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1458
  38. Shcherbak, I., Millar, N., & Robertson, G. P. (2014). Global metaanalysis of the nonlinear response of soil N₂O emissions to fertilizer nitrogen. PNAS, 111(25), 9199–9204. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1322434111
  39. Snyder, C. S., Bruulsema, T. W., Jensen, T. L., & Fixen, P. E. (2009). Review of greenhouse gas emissions from crop production systems and fertilizer management effects. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 133(3–4), 247–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2009.04.021
  40. Song, X., et al. (2018). Nitrous oxide emissions increase exponentially when optimum N fertilizer rates are exceeded in the North China Plain. Environmental Science & Technology, 52(21), 12504–12513. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b03931
  41. TÜİK. (2024). Bitkisel üretim istatistikleri. Turkish Statistical Institute.
  42. Wysokiński, A., & Kożuchowska, M. (2024). Increasing silage maize yield and nitrogen use efficiency as a result of combined rabbit manure and mineral nitrogen fertilization. Scientific Reports, 14, 5856. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-56669-z
  43. Yanardağ, İ. H. (2025). Evaluation of Malatya province soils for apricot cultivation. Harran Tarım ve Gıda Bilimleri Dergisi, 29(2), 269–285. https://doi.org/10.29050/harranziraat.1638039
  44. Yue, Q., et al. (2018). Re-assessing nitrous oxide emissions from croplands across Mainland China. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 268, 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2018.09.003