اثر انرژی‌های ورودی بر عملکرد و برآورد اقتصادی تولید پنبه در استان خراسان رضوی

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد مکانیزاسیون، گروه مهندسی مکانیک بیوسیستم، پردیس بین‌الملل دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

2 دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

3 گروه مهندسی مکانیک بیوسیستم، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

4 باشگاه پژوهشگران جوان و نخبگان، واحد رشت، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، رشت، ایران

چکیده

سابقه و هدف: تولید پایدار پنبه (.Gossypium hirsutum L) در استان خراسان رضوی نیازمند توجه به جریان انرژی و تحلیل اقتصادی آن می‌باشد. هدف از این پژوهش بررسی روند مصرف انرژی و تحلیل اقتصادی در نظام تولید پنبه در استان خراسان رضوی می‌باشد.
مواد و روش‌ها: اطلاعات مورد نیاز به‌وسیله پرسشنامه و مصاحبه حضوری با پنبه‌کاران در سال زراعی 92-1391 جمع‌آوری شد. در این راستا، میزان نهاده‌های ورودی و خروجی تولید پنبه از جمله نهاده‌های بذر، نیروی انسانی، ماشین‌ها، سوخت دیزل، کودهای شیمیایی، سموم شیمیایی، کود حیوانی و الکتریسته و عملکرد پنبه ثبت شدند.
یافته‌ها: نتایج نشان داد که افزوده انرژی و کارایی انرژی تولید پنبه در منطقه به ترتیب 78/18683- مگاژول بر هکتار و 71/0 بود. الکتریسیته و کودهای شیمیایی به ترتیب با سهم 50/70 و 39/12 درصد به عنوان پرمصرف‌ترین منابع انرژی در تولید بودند. میزان انرژی‌های تجدیدپذیر و تجدیدناپذیر تولید پنبه در استان خراسان رضوی به ترتیب 64/5896 و 11/63299 مگاژول بر هکتار محاسبه شدند. نتایج استفاده از تابع کاب داگلاس نشان داد که تأثیر نهاده‌های انرژی بذر، نیروی انسانی، ماشین‌های کشاورزی و سوخت دیزل بر روی عملکرد مثبت و تأثیر نهاده‌های کودهای شیمیایی، سموم شیمیایی، کود حیوانی و الکتریسیته بر عملکرد پنبه منفی بود. درآمد خالص تولید و نسبت سود به هزینه به ترتیب 9039451 ریال بر هکتار و 21/1 محاسبه شد. نیروی انسانی نیز با 9/42 درصد بیش‌ترین سهم از هزینه‌های متغیر تولید را به خود اختصاص داد.
نتیجه‌گیری: میزان کارایی انرژی و اقتصادی برای تولید پنبه در استان خراسان رضوی نسبتا کم بود. از دلایل کم بودن میزان کارایی انرژی تولید پنبه در منطقه می‌توان به میزان آب آبیاری نسبتاً زیاد و به تبع آن میزان انرژی الکتریسیته مصرفی زیاد برای پمپاژ آب اشاره کرد.
سابقه و هدف: تولید پایدار پنبه (.Gossypium hirsutum L) در استان خراسان رضوی نیازمند توجه به جریان انرژی و تحلیل اقتصادی آن می‌باشد. هدف از این پژوهش بررسی روند مصرف انرژی و تحلیل اقتصادی در نظام تولید پنبه در استان خراسان رضوی می‌باشد.
مواد و روش‌ها: اطلاعات مورد نیاز به‌وسیله پرسشنامه و مصاحبه حضوری با پنبه‌کاران در سال زراعی 92-1391 جمع‌آوری شد. در این راستا، میزان نهاده‌های ورودی و خروجی تولید پنبه از جمله نهاده‌های بذر، نیروی انسانی، ماشین‌ها، سوخت دیزل، کودهای شیمیایی، سموم شیمیایی، کود حیوانی و الکتریسته و عملکرد پنبه ثبت شدند.
نتیجه‌گیری: میزان کارایی انرژی و اقتصادی برای تولید پنبه در استان خراسان رضوی نسبتا کم بود. از دلایل کم بودن میزان کارایی انرژی تولید پنبه در منطقه می‌توان به میزان آب آبیاری نسبتاً زیاد و به تبع آن میزان انرژی الکتریسیته مصرفی زیاد برای پمپاژ آب اشاره کرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Effect of energy inputs on yield and economical analysis of cotton production in Khorasan Razavi province

نویسنده [English]

  • Amin Nikkhah 4
1 MSc Student of Mechanization, Department of Biosystems Engineering, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, International Campus, Mashhad, Iran
3 Department of Biosystems Engineering, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran
4 Young Researchers and Elite Club, Rasht Branch, Islamic Azad University, Rasht, Iran
چکیده [English]

Background and objectives: The sustainable production of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) in Khorasan Razavi province of Iran requires the consideration of energy and economic analysis in the production. Therefore, the aims of this study were to investigate the energy flow and economical analysis of cotton production in Khorasan Razavi province.
Materials and methods: Data were collected through questionnaires and also interviews with cotton producers during 2012-2013. Each farmer was asked to detail the activities in cotton production as inputs that recorded as seed used (kg), human labor (hr), machinery use (hr), diesel fuel (lit), chemical fertilizer (kg) biocides (kg), farmyard manure (kg) and electricity (kWh), and as the output yield (kg). The energy associated with each input was estimated by multiplying the activity data for each farm by a characterization factor. The Cobbe-Douglas model was then used to find the relationship between energy inputs and yield for the region using data compiled from all the farms.
Results: The results revealed that the net energy and energy efficiency of cotton production in the region were 18683.78 MJha-1 and 0.71, respectively. Electricity and chemical fertilizer inputs were 70.50 and 12.39 percent respectively, as highest energy inputs consumed in the cotton production. The renewable energy and non-renewable energy of cotton production were calculated as 5896.64 and 63299.11 MJha-1, respectively. The Cobb-Douglas model results showed that the effects of inputs including seed, human labor, machinery and diesel fuel were positive on the yield while the effect of inputs including chemical fertilizers, biocide, and farmyard manure and electricity on cotton yield were negative. The net return and benefit-cost ratio were calculated as 9039451 Rial ha-1 and 1.21, respectively. Labor inputs were 42.9, as highest variable costs consumed in the cotton production.
Conclusion: The energy use efficiency and benefit to cost ratio for cotton production were relatively low. The reason of relatively low energy use efficiency of cotton production was related to high consumption of water for irrigation and its electricity consumption.
Background and objectives: The sustainable production of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) in Khorasan Razavi province of Iran requires the consideration of energy and economic analysis in the production. Therefore, the aims of this study were to investigate the energy flow and economical analysis of cotton production in Khorasan Razavi province.
Materials and methods: Data were collected through questionnaires and also interviews with cotton producers during 2012-2013. Each farmer was asked to detail the activities in cotton production as inputs that recorded as seed used (kg), human labor (hr), machinery use (hr), diesel fuel (lit), chemical fertilizer (kg) biocides (kg), farmyard manure (kg) and electricity (kWh), and as the output yield (kg). The energy associated with each input was estimated by multiplying the activity data for each farm by a characterization factor. The Cobbe-Douglas model was then used to find the relationship between energy inputs and yield for the region using data compiled from all the farms.
Conclusion: The energy use efficiency and benefit to cost ratio for cotton production were relatively low. The reason of relatively low energy use efficiency of cotton production was related to high consumption of water for irrigation and its electricity consumption.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Benefit-cost ratio
  • Energy efficiency
  • Energy modeling
  • Labor
Akhtari, A., Homaee, M., and Hoseini, Y. 2014. Modeling plant response to
salinity and soil nitrogen deficiency. J. Water Soil Resour. Conserv., 3: 4. 33-
50. (In Persian)
2. Asadi Kapourchal, S., Homaee, M., and Pazira, E. 2013. Modeling leaching
requirement for desalinization of saline soils. J. Water Soil Resour. Conserv., 2:
2. 65-83. (In Persian)
3. Baghani, J., Alizadeh, A., Ansari, H., Azizi, M., and Sadr Ghaen, S.H. 2013.
The Effect of Water Salinity Variation on Some of the Agronomic Traits of
Late Summer Melon. Iran. J. Irrig. Drain., 2: 7. 222-230. (In Persian)
4. Bar, Y., Apelbaum, A., Kafkafi, U., and Goren, G. 1997. Relationship between
chloride and nitrate and its effects on growth and mineral composition of
avocado and citrus plants. J. Plant Nutr., 20: 6. 715-731.
5. Botella, M.A., Martinez, V., Nieves, M., and Cerda, A. 1997. Effect of salinity
on the growth and nitrogen uptake by wheat seedlings. J. Plant Nutr., 20: 6.
793-804.
6. Bresler, E. 1987. Application of conceptual model to irrigation water
requirement and salt tolerance of crops. Soil Sci. Soc. Am., J. 51: 788-793.
7. Brugnoli, E., and Jorkman, B. 1992. Growth of cotton under continuous salinity
stress: influence on allocation pattern, stomatal and non-stomatal components of
photosynthesis and dissipation of excess light energy. Planta., 187: 335-345.
8. Eshghizadeh, H.R., Kafi, M., Nezami, A., and Khoshgoftarmanesh, A.H. 2014.
Effect of water irrigation salinity on some morphological characters, yield and
water use efficiency of blue panic grass (Panicum antidotale Retz). Agron. J.
(Pajouhesh and Sazandegi). 101: 180-191. (In Persian)
9. Eskandari, M., Homaee, M., Asadi Kapourchal, S., and Mirnia, S.Kh. 2014.
Barley seed germination in NaCl + CaCl2 solution, natural saline water and
saline soil. Cereal Res., 3: 4. 335-347. (In Persian)
10. Esmaili, E., Homaee, M., and Malakouti, M.J. 2005. Interactive effect of
salinity and nitrogen fertilizers on growth and composition of sorghum. Iran. J.
Soil Water Sci., 19: 1. 131-144. (In Persian)
11. Esmaili, E., Asadi Kapourchal, S., Malakouti, M.J., and Homaee, M. 2008.
Interactive Effect of Salinity and Two Nitrogen Fertilizers on Growth and
Composition of Sorghum. Plant Soil Environ., 56: 12. 537-546.
12. Hester, M.W., Mendelesoln, I.A., and Mckee, K.L. 2001. Species and
Population varation to salinity stress in Panicum hemitomon, Spartina patens,
and Spartina alterniflora: morphological and physiological constrains. Environ.
Exp. Bot., 46: 277-297.
13. Homaee, M. 2002. Plant Response to Salinity. IRNCID Press, 97p. (In Persian)
114. Homaee, M., and Feddes, R.A. 1999. Water uptake under non-uniform transient
salinity and water stress. P 416-427, In: J. Feyen and K. Wiyo (eds), Modeling
of Transport Processes in Soils at Various Scales in Time and Space.
15. Homaee, M., and Feddes, R.A. 2001. Quantification of water extraction under
salinity and drought. P 376-377, In: W.J. Horst et al. (eds), Plant Nutrition-Food
Security Sustainability of Agro-ecosystems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The
Netherlands.
16. Homaee, M., Feddes, R.A., and Dirksen, C. 2002a. A macroscopic water
extraction mode for nonuniform transient salinity and water stress. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. J. 66: 6. 1764- 1772.
17. Homaee, M., Dirksen, C., and Feddes, R.A. 2002b. Simulation of root water
uptake. I. Nonuniform transient salinity stress using different macroscopic
reduction functions. Agric. Water Manage., 57: 2. 89-109.
18. Homaee, M., Feddes, R.A., and Dirksen, C. 2002c. Simulation of root water
uptake. II. Nonuniform transient water stress using different reduction
functions. Agric. Water Manage., 57: 2. 111-126.
19. Homaee, M., Feddes, R.A., and Dirksen, C. 2002d. Simulation of root water
uptake. III. Nonuniform transient combined salinity and water stress. Agric.
Water Manage., 57: 2. 127-144.
20. Homaee, M., and Feddes, R.A. 2002. Modeling the sink term under variable soil
water osmotic heads. P 17-24, In: Hassanizadeh et al. (eds), developments in
Water Resources 47(1); Computational methods in water resources. Elsevier
Science B.V., The Netherlands.
21. Homaee, M., and Schmidhalter, U. 2008. Water integration by plants root under
non-uniform soil salinity. Irrigation Sci., 27: 83-95.
22. Hosaini, Y., Homaee, M., Karimian, N.A., and Saadat, S. 2009. Modeling
vegetative stage response of canola to combined salinity and Boron stress. Int. J.
Plant Prod., 3: 1. 91-104.
23. Hosseini, Y., Homaee, M., Karimian, N.A., and saadat, S. 2009. Modeling of
Canola Response to Combined Salinity and Nitrogen Stresses. J. Sci. Technol.
Agri. Nat. Resour. (Water Soil Sci.). 12: 46. 721-735. (In Persian)
24. Hosseini, Y., Homaee, M., and Saadat, S. 2009. The Effects of Phosphorus and
Salinity on Growth, Nutrient Concentrations, and Water Use Efficiency in
Canola (Brassicanapus L.). Agr. Res. 9: 5. 1-18. (In Persian)
25. Hosseini, Y., Homaei, M., Karimian, N., and Saadat, S. 2014. Effect of salinity
and boron on seed germination and emergence of canola (Brassicanapus L.).
Environ. Stress. Crop Sci., 7: 1. 79-91. (In Persian)
26. Hosseini, S., Jalali, V.R., and Homaee, M. 2015. Macroscopic Simulation of
Durum Wheat Response to Salinity on Vegetative Growth Stages. Cereal Res.,
4: 4. 319-331. (In Persian)
27. Hussain, G., and Al-Jaloud, A.A. 1998. Effect of irrigation and nitrogen on
yield, yield components and water use efficiency of barley in Saudi Arabia.
Agric. Water Manage., 36: 55-70.
28. Jalali, V.R., Homaee, M., and Mirnia, S.Kh. 2007. Effects of different Salinity
levels in the Growing Medium on Germination and seeding growth of Canola
(Brassica Napus L.). Iran. J. Soil Waters Sci., 21: 2. 209-217. (In Persian)
29. Jalali, V.R., Homaee, M., and Mirnia, S.Kh. 2008a. Modeling Canola Response
to Salinity in Productive Growth Stages. J. Sci. Technol. Agri. Nat. Resour.
(Water Soil Sci.). 12: 44. 111-122. (In Persian)
30. Jalali, V.R., Homaee, M., and Mirnia, S.Kh. 2008b. Modeling Canola Response
to Salinity on Vegetative Growth Stages. J. Agric. Engin. Res. 8: 4. 95-112. (In
Persian)
31. Jalali, V.R., and Homaee, M. 2010. Modeling the effect of salinity application
time of root zone on yield of canola (Brassicanapus L.). Agric. Crop Manage.
12: 1. 29-40. (In Persian)
32. Khademi, Z., Rezaee, H., and Mahajer Millani, P. 2000. Optimum Nutrition in
Canola. Agricultural Ministry, Tehran, Iran. (In Persian)
33. Kafkafi, U., Valoras, N., and Letey, J. 1982. Chloride interaction with nitrate
and phosphate nutrition in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.). J. Plant Nutr.
5: 12. 1369-1385.
34. Kiani, A.R., Mirlatifi, M., Homaee, M., and Cheraghi, A. 2005. Water use
efficiency of wheat under salinity and water stress. J. Agric. Engin. Res., 6: 24.
47-64. (In Persian)
35. Kiani, A.R., Homaee, M., and Mirlatifi, M. 2006. Evaluation yield reduction
functions under salinity and water stress conditions. Iran. J. Soil Res. (Formerly
Soil Water Sci.). 20: 1. 73-83. (In Persian)
36. Mostafavi Rad, M. 2013. Study of seed yield and seed macro elements content
of three winter rapeseed varieties as affected by different nitrogen sources.
EJCP., 6: 1. 109-123. (In Persian)
37. Moameni, A. 2009. The geographic distribution of soil salinity surfaces in Iran.
Iran. J. soil Res. (Formerly Soil Water Sci.). 24: 3. 203-215. (In Persian)
38. Noroozi, A.A., Homaee, M., and Farshad, A. 2014. Estimating Topsoil Salinity
from LANDST Data: A Comparison between Classic and Spatial Statistics. J.
Range Watershed Manage., 66: 4. 609-620. (In Persian)
39. Pansu, M., and Gautheyrou, J. 2006. Handbook of Soil Analysis, Mineralogical,
Organic and Inorganic Methods. Springer Pub., 993p.
40. Rasouli, S.F., Galeshi, S., Pirdashti, H., and Zeinali, E. 2014. Evaluation of
waterlogging stress effect on yield and yield components of rapeseed. EJCP., 7:
2. 23-41. (In Persian)
41. Saadat, S., Homaee, M., and Liaghat, A.M. 2005. Effect of soil solution salinity
on the germination and seedling growth of sorghum plant. Iran. J. Soil Waters
Sci., 19: 2. 243-254. (In Persian)
42. Saadat, S., and Homaee, M. 2015a. Modeling Sorghum Response to Salinity at
Germination Stage. J. Water Res. Agric., 28: 3. 503-516. (In Persian)
43. Saadat, S., and Homaee, M. 2015b. Modeling sorghum response to irrigation
water salinity at early growth stage. Agric. Water Manage., 152: 119-124.
44. Shani, U., and Dudley, L.M. 2001. Field studies of crop response to drought and
salt stress. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 65: 1522-1528.
45. Shenker, M., Ben-Gal, A., and Shani, U. 2003. Sweet corn response to
combined nitrogen and salinity environmental stresses. Plant Soil., 256: 139-
147.
46. Tahmasebi Sarvestani, Z., and Mostafavi Rad. 2012. Effect of organic and
inorganic nitrogen sources on quantitative and qualitative characteristics in
three winter rapeseed cultivars in Arak. EJCP., 4(4): 177-194. (In Persian)
47. Taylor, A.J., Smith, C.J., and Wilson, I.B. 1991. Effect of irrigation and
nitrogen fertilizer on yield, oil content, nitrogen accumulation and water use of
canola (Brassica napus L.). Fert. Res. J., 29: 249-260.
48. Thomas, J.R., and Langdale, G.W. 1980. Ionic balance in coastal bermudagrass
influenced by nitrogen fertilization and soil salinity. Agron. J., 72: 3. 449-452.
49. Torres, B.C., and Bingham, F.E. 1973. Salt tolerance of Mexican wheat. Ι.
Effect of NO3
- and NaCl on mineral nutriton, growth, and grain production of
wheat. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 37: 711-715.