SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Tekirdağ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 2

Determination of Energy Balance and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) of Cotton Cultivation in Turkey: A Case Study from Bismil District of Diyarbakır Province

Türkiye’de Pamuk Yetiştiriciliğinin Enerji Bilançosu ve Sera Gazı Emisyonlarının Belirlenmesi: Diyarbakır İli Bismil İlçesi Örneği

Mehmet Fırat BARAN
Osman GÖKDOĞAN
Yılmaz BAYHAN
Pages
322–332
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️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)

Additionally, GHG ratio value was computed as 1.16 kgCO2-eqkg-1 in cotton cultivation.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, the energy balance and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) of cotton cultivation in Bismil district of Diyarbakır province in Turkey was defined.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The energy balance and GHG of cotton cultivation was computed by conducting face to face surveys with 73 farms in the 2018-2019 cultivation season, which were selected by simple random sampling method.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Additionally, GHG ratio value was computed as 1.16 kgCO2-eqkg-1 in cotton cultivation.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2018-2019 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In this study, the energy balance and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) of cotton cultivation in Bismil district of Diyarbakır province in Turkey was defined. The energy balance and GHG of cotton cultivation was computed by conducting face to face surveys with 73 farms in the 2018-2019 cultivation season, which were selected by simple random sampling method. The energy input and output in cotton cultivation were computed as 54 617.62 MJ ha-1 and 65 984.42 MJ ha-1, respectively. Energy inputs occurs of electricity energy with 18 608.40 MJ ha-1 (34.06%), chemical fertilizers energy with 15 254.67 MJ ha-1 (27.93%), diesel fuel energy with 14 364.68 (26.30%), irrigation water energy with 3 559.50 MJ ha-1 (6.53%), machinery energy with 1 152.79 MJ ha-1 (2.11%), chemicals energy with 1 075.76 MJ ha-1 (1.96%), seed energy with 307.98 MJ ha-1 (0.57%), human labour energy with 293.84 MJ ha-1 (0.54%), respectively. Total energy inputs in cotton cultivation can be classified as 67.43% direct, 32.57% indirect, 7.62% renewable and 92.38% non-renewable. Energy use efficiency, specific energy, energy productivity and net energy in cotton cultivation were computed as 1.21, 9.77 MJ kg-1, 0.10 kg MJ-1 and 11 366.80 MJ ha-1, respectively. Total GHG emissions were computed as 6 482.36 kgCO2-eqha-1 for cotton cultivation with the greatest input part for electricity with 47.94% (3 107.60 kgCO2-eqha-1). The electricity followed up nitrogen with 16.29% (1 055.67 kgCO2-eqha-1), irrigation water with 14.82% (960.50 kgCO2-eqha-1), diesel fuel with 10.86% (704.08 kgCO2-eqha-1), seed with 3.07% (199.14 kgCO2-eqha-1 ), chemicals with 2.28% (147.76 kgCO2-eqha-1), phosphorous with 1.78% (115.64 kgCO2-eqha-1), human labour with 1.62% (104.94 kgCO2-eqha-1), machinery with 1.26% (81.85 kgCO2-eqha-1) and potassium with 0.08% (5.18 kgCO2-eqha-1), respectively. Additionally, GHG ratio value was computed as 1.16 kgCO2-eqkg-1 in cotton cultivation.

Özet

Bu çalışmada Türkiye’nin Diyarbakır ilinin Bismil ilçesinde pamuk yetiştiriciliğinin enerji bilançosu ve sera gazı emisyonlarının belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. 2018-2019 yetiştiricilik sezonunda basit tesadüfi örnekleme yöntemine göre seçilen 73 işletme ile yüzyüze anket yapılarak pamuk yetiştiriciliğinin enerji bilançosu ve sera gazı emisyonu hesaplanmıştır. Pamuk yetiştiriciliğinde enerji girdisi ve enerji çıktısı sırasıyla 54 617.62 MJ ha-1 ve 65 984.42 MJ ha-1 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Girdiler sırasıyla 18 608.40 MJ ha-1 (34.06%) ile elektrik enerjisi, 15 254.67 MJ ha-1 (27.93%) ile kimyasal gübre enerjisi, 14 364.68 (26.30%) ile dizel yakıt enerjisi, 3 559.50 MJ ha-1 (6.53%) ile sulama suyu enerjisi, 1 152.79 MJ ha-1 (2.11%) ile makine enerjisi, 1 075.76 MJ ha-1 (1.96%) ile kimyasal enerji, 307.98 MJ ha-1 (0.57%) ile tohum enerjisi, 293.84 MJ ha-1 (0.54%) ile insan işgücü enerjisinden oluşmaktadır. Pamuk yetiştiriciliğinde toplam girdi enerjisinin %67.43’ü doğrudan, %32.57’si dolaylı, %7.62’si yenilenebilir ve %92.38’i ise yenilenemez olarak sınıflandırılabilir. Pamuk yetiştiriciliğinde enerji kullanım etkinliği, spesifik enerji, enerji verimliliği ve net enerji sırasıyla 1.21, 9.77 MJ kg-1, 0.10 kg MJ-1 ve 11 366.80 MJ ha-1 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Pamuk yetiştiriciliğinde toplam sera gazı emisyonu 6 482.36 kgCO2-eşha-1 olarak hesaplanmış olup, en büyük oran %47.94 (3 107.60 kgCO2-eqha-1) ile elektrik olarak hesaplanmıştır. Elektriği sırasıyla %16.29 (1 055.67 kgCO2-eşha-1) ile azot, %14.82 (960.50 kgCO2-eşha-1) ile sulama suyu, %10.86 (704.08 kgCO2-eşha-1) ile dizel yakıt, %3.07 (199.14 kgCO2-eşha-1) ile tohum, %2.28 (147.76 kgCO2-eşha-1) ile kimyasallar, %1.78 (115.64 kgCO2-eşha-1) ile fosfor, %1.62 (104.94 kgCO2-eşha-1) ile insan işgücü, %1.26 (81.85 kgCO2-eşha-1) ile makine ve %0.08 (5.18 kgCO2-eşha-1) ile potasyum takip etmiştir. Ayrıca pamuk yetiştiriciliğinde GHG oranı 1.16 kgCO2-eşkg-1 olarak hesaplanmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

BARAN, M. F., GÖKDOĞAN, O., BAYHAN, Y. (2022). Determination of Energy Balance and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) of Cotton Cultivation in Turkey: A Case Study from Bismil District of Diyarbakır Province. Tekirdağ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 2, 322–332. https://ajindex.com/articles/596479

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Akdemir, S., Calavaris, C., Gemtos, T. (2017). Energy balance of sunflower production. Agronomy Research, 15(4): 1463-1473. Anonymous, (2020a).
  2. T.C. Kalkınma Bakanlığı, Karacadağ Kalkınma Ajansı. Diyarbakır ve Şanlıurfa İllerinde Pamuk Sektörü Envanterinin Hazırlanması Projesi (Başbağ, S., Ekinci, R., Akıncı, C., Akın, S., Öcal Kara, F., Tonçer, Ö.) https://www.karacadag.gov.tr/Dokuman/Dosya/www.karacadag.org.tr_8_WH3D93PC_diyarbakir_ve_sanliurfa_illerinde_pamuk_sektoru_envanterinin_hazirlanmasi_projesi.pdf, (accessed date: 21.01.2020). Anonymous, (2020b).
  3. T.C. Ticaret Bakanlığı. Esnaf, Sanatkarlar ve Kooperatifçilik Genel Müdürlüğü. 2018 Yılı Pamuk Raporu. Nisan, 2019. https://ticaret.gov.tr/data/5d41e59913b87639ac9e02e8/d0e2b9c79234684ad29baf256a0e7dce.pdf, (accessed date: 02.05.2020). Anonymous, (2020c). TMMOB. Ziraat Mühendisleri Odası. Pamuk Raporu, 2018. http://www.zmo.org.tr/genel/bizden_detay.php?kod=30467&tipi=17&sube=0, (accessed date: 21.01.2020). Anonymous, (2020d). T.C. Tarım ve Orman Bakanlığı. Tarımsal Ekonomi ve Politika Geliştirme Enstitüsü. Tarım Ürünleri Piyasaları, Pamuk. https://arastirma.tarimorman.gov.tr/tepge/Belgeler/PDF%20Tar%C4%B1m%20%C3%9Cr%C3%BCnleri%20Piyasalar%C4%B1/2019-Ocak%20Tar%C4%B1m%20%C3%9Cr%C3%BCnleri%20Raporu/2019-Ocak%20Pamuk.pdf, (accessed date: 21.01.2020). Anonymous, (2020e).
  4. T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, Diyarbakır İl Kültür ve Turizm Müdürlüğü. http://www.diyarbakirkulturturizm.gov.tr/TR-56881/cografya.html, (accessed date: 01.05.2020).
  5. Banaeian, N., Omid, M., Ahmadi, H. (2011). Energy and economic analysis of greenhouse strawberry production in Tehran province of Iran. Energy Conversion and Management 52: 1020-1025.
  6. Baran, M.F. (2016). Energy efficiency analysis of cotton production in Turkey: A case study for Adıyaman province. American-Eurasian J. Agric. & Environ. Sci. 16 (2): 229-233.
  7. Brown, L.R., Flavin, C.F., French, H. (1998). State of the world. New York: WW. Norton. p. 251. BioGrace-II. (2015). Harmonised calculations of biofuel greenhouse gas emissions in Europe. BioGrace, Utrecht, The Netherlands. (http://www.biograce.net).
  8. Clark, S., Khoshnevisan, B., Sefeedpari, P. (2016). Energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions during transition to organic and reduced-input practices: Student farm case study. Ecological Engineering 88: 186-194.
  9. Çanakcı, M., Akıncı, İ. (2006). Energy use pattern analyses of greenhouse vegetable production. Energy 86: 1354-1358.
  10. Çelen, İ.H. (2016). Tarımsal uygulamalarda