ارزیابی هزینه چرخه حیات و انرژی بوم‌نظام‌های تولید سویا در استان مازندران

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری زراعت، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران

2 دانشیار، گروه زراعت، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران

3 استاد، گروه زراعت، پژوهشکده ژنتیک و زیست‌فناوری کشاورزی طبرستان، دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی ساری

4 دانش‌آموخته دکتری مهندسی مکانیزاسیون کشاورزی، دانشکده مهندسی و فناوری کشاورزی، دانشکدگان کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه تهران

چکیده

سابقه و هدف: انرژی به‌دلیل هزینه‌ها و امنیت عرضه، عامل محدودکننده پایداری کشاورزی است. بخش کشاورزی به‌عنوان یکی از بزرگ‌ترین تأمین‌کنندگان غذای جهان، در دوران اخیر با گرایش به افزایش مصرف انرژی منجر به افزایش هزینه‌های تولید و تأثیرات منفی بر امنیت غذایی و نگرانی‌های زیست‌محیطی شده که جهت غلبه بر این چالش‌های پیش رو، برقراری تعادل بین تقاضا و عرضه انرژی در سامانه‌های کشاورزی و همچنین بررسی عملکرد اقتصادی آن‌ها ضروری است. به‌این ترتیب با در نظر داشتن این مهم که سویا [Glycine max (L.) Merril] گیاهی مهم در برقراری امنیت غذایی است؛ پژوهشی در سال 1398 به‌منظور تحلیل جریان انرژی و بررسی اقتصادی هزینه‌های تولید سویا در سطح استان مازندران انجام شد.

مواد و روش‌ها: به‌منظور ارزیابی کارایی اقتصادی و الگوی مصرف انرژی در مزارع سویا، اطلاعات موردنیاز به‌صورت مراجعه حضوری و گفتگوی مستقیم با 301 سویاکار جمع‌آوری شد. ورودی‌هایی که برای برآورد کارایی انرژی هر هکتار زراعت سویا مورد استفاده قرار گرفتند شامل سوخت‌های فسیلی، ماشین‌آلات، نیروی انسانی، بذر، آب آبیاری، الکتریسیته، کودها و سموم شیمیایی بودند. دانه سویا تولیدی نیز به‌عنوان منبع انرژی خروجی در نظر گرفته شد. برای ارزیابی کارایی اقتصادی تولید سویا از رویکرد هزینه‌یابی چرخه حیات (LCC) استفاده شد که به‌این منظور، دروازه مزرعه به‌عنوان مرز سامانه و یک هکتار مزرعه سویا به‌عنوان واحد پایه برای تمام تجزیه و تحلیل‌ها در نظر گرفته شد. هزینه‌های اجتماعی انتشارات علاوه‌بر هزینه‌های ثابت و متغیر تولید که در بیش‌تر پژوهش‌ها به آن‌ها پرداخته می‌شود؛ ارزیابی و مورد تجزیه و تحلیل قرار گرفتند. در پژوهش حاضر، هزینه‌های اجتماعی انتشار آلاینده‌ها در بوم‌نظام‌های تولید سویا شامل دو بخش: (1) انتشارات در مزرعه و (2) آلاینده‌های ناشی از تولید برق بوده که با استفاده از ضرایب استاندارد تعیین‌شده در مطالعات قبلی برآورد شدند.

یافته‌ها: بر اساس نتایج، سوخت دیزل، کودهای شیمیایی نیتروژنه و بذر مصرفی به‌ترتیب با 47/90، 19/61 و 13/53 درصد بیش‌ترین سهم از کل انرژی نهاده‌های مصرفی در تولید سویا را دارا بودند. میانگین بهره‌وری انرژی برای سویا تولیدی در استان مازندران معادل 0/16 کیلوگرم بر مگاژول محاسبه شده که از این نظر، شهرستان‌ گلوگاه با 0/25 کیلوگرم بر مگاژول بهترین و آمل با 0/11 کیلوگرم بر مگاژول بدترین وضعیت را نسبت به سایر شهرستان‌های تحت بررسی داشتند. از نظر نوع انرژی مصرفی، نتایج نشان داد که تولید فعلی سویا در استان مازندران به‌دلیل وابستگی زیاد به منابع انرژی تجدیدناپذیری چون سوخت دیزل و کودهای شیمیایی نیتروژنه پایدار نیست. هزینه چرخه حیات تولید سویا در استان مازندران که شامل هزینه‌های متغیر، ثابت و اجتماعی حاصله از انتشارات بوده نیز به‌طور متوسط به میزان 327/90 دلار بر هکتار برآورد شده که در این بین هزینه‌های متغیر با 299/52 دلار بر هکتار (یعنی حدود 91 درصد) سهم بالایی در تولید سویای منطقه داشته است. متوسط دستمزد پرداختی به صاحبان ادوات و ماشین‌آلات کشاورزی با 141/85 دلار بر هکتار (معادل 47/36 درصد) اولین نهاده و نیروی کار انسانی با 85/77 دلار بر هکتار (معادل 28/64 درصد) دومین نهاده با بیش‌ترین هزینه در تولید بودند که در مجموع حدود 69 درصد از کل هزینه تولید (LCC) سویا را به خود اختصاص داده‌اند. نشر دی‌اکسید‌کربن با 41/16 درصد، سهم عمده‌ای در هزینه‌ اجتماعی حاصله از انتشارات (7/38 دلار بر تن) داشته که این هزینه به‌دلیل مقادیر بالای انتشار آن در پی احتراق سوخت دیزل و مصرف کود اوره در مزرعه بود.

نتیجه‌گیری: در مجموع نتایج حاصله از پیمایش 301 مزرعه تحت بررسی نشان داد که تولید سویا در استان مازندران با متوسط کارایی انرژی 2/43، به لحاظ بیلان انرژی توجیه‌پذیر و با نسبت سود به هزینه 1/86 محصولی سودآور در کشاورزی منطقه می‌باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Assessing the life cycle cost (LCC) and energy of soybean agroecosystems in Mazandaran province

نویسندگان [English]

  • Faezeh Mohammadi-Kashka 1
  • Zeinolabedin Tahmasebi Sarvestani 2
  • Hemmatollah Pirdashti 3
  • Homa Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha 4
1 Ph.D. Student of Agronomy, Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Associate Professor, Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
3 Professor, Department of Agronomy, Genetics and Agricultural Biotechnology Institute of Tabarestan, Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University, Sari, Iran
4 Ph.D. in Agricultural Mechanization Engineering, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering and Technology, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran
چکیده [English]

Background and objectives: Energy is a limiting factor for agricultural sustainability due to costs and supply security. Agriculture section as one of the world's major food suppliers, has faced challenges in recent times due to increased energy consumption trends. This rise in energy consumption has led to increased production costs, negative impacts on food security, and environmental concerns. Therefore, achieving a balance between energy demand and supply in agricultural systems and assessing their economic performance is essential. With the recognition that soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merril] plays a crucial role in ensuring food security; a study was conducted in 2019 to analyze the energy flow and economic costs of soybean production at the provincial level in Mazandaran, Iran.

Materials and Methods: To assess the economic efficiency and energy consumption pattern in soybean farms, data were collected through direct interviews with 301 soybean farmers. The inputs used for estimating energy efficiency per hectare of soybean cultivation included fossil fuels, machinery, human labor, seeds, irrigation water, electricity, fertilizers, and chemical pesticides. The produced soybean grain was also considered as an output energy source. Life Cycle Cost (LCC) methodology was employed to evaluate the economic efficiency of soybean production; for this purpose, the farm gate was defined as the system boundary, and one hectare of soybean farm was taken as the base unit for all analyses. The social costs of emissions, in addition to the fixed and variable production costs that are addressed in most studies, were evaluated and analyzed. In the current study, the social costs of pollutant emissions in soybean production agroecosystems were considered from two aspects: (1) emissions on the farm and (2) pollutants generated from electricity generation. These costs were estimated using the standard coefficients established in previous researches.

Results: Based on the results, diesel fuel, nitrogen chemical fertilizers, and consumed seeds had the highest shares of total input energy in soybean production with 47.90%, 19.61%, and 13.53% respectively. The average energy productivity for soybean production in Mazandaran province was calculated to be 0.16 kg MJ-1. From this point of view, Galugah county was the best with 0.25 kg MJ-1, while Amol was the worst with 0.11 kg MJ-1 compared to other scrutinized counties. In terms of the type of consumed energy, the results indicated that the current soybean production in Mazandaran province is not sustainable due to heavy reliance on non-renewable energy resources such as diesel fuel and nitrogen chemical fertilizers. The LCC of soybean production in Mazandaran province, including variable, fixed, and social costs resulting from emissions, was estimated to be an average of $327.90 per hectare. Among these costs, variable costs accounted for the highest share in soybean production in the region with $299.52 per hectare (approximately 91%).The average wage paid to owners of agricultural machinery and equipment was $141.85 per hectare (equivalent to 47.36%), and the average wage for human labor was $85.77 per hectare (equivalent to 28.64%). These two factors were the first and second most significant contributors to production costs for the soybean crop, respectively. Together, they accounted for approximately 69% of the total production cost (LCC). Carbon dioxide emissions, accounting for 41.16% (mainly due to diesel fuel combustion and urea fertilizer consumption on the farm), constituted a significant portion of the social cost resulting from emissions (at $7.38 per ton).

Conclusion: In general, the results of the survey of 301 farms indicated that soybean production in Mazandaran province, with an average energy efficiency of 2.43, is economically justifiable in terms of energy balance and constitutes a profitable agricultural product in the region, with a profit-to-cost ratio of 1.86.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Energy efficiency
  • Economic productivity
  • Non-renewable energy
  • Nitrous oxide (N2O)
  • Social cost of emissions
  1. Roy, P., Nei, D., Orikasa, T., Xu, Q., Okadome, H., Nakamura, N. & Shiina, T. (2009). A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products. Journal of Food Engineering, 90(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jfoodeng. 2008.06.016
  2. Skaf, L., Buonocore, E., Dumontet, S., Capone, R. & Franzese, P.P. (2019). Food security and sustainable agriculture in Lebanon: an environmental accounting framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 209, 1025-1032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.301
  3. Pratibha, G., Srinivas, I., Rao, K.V, Raju, B.M.K., Shanker, A.K., Jha, A., Kumar, M.U., Rao, K.S. & Reddy, K.S. (2019). Identification of environment friendly tillage implement as a strategy for energy efficiency and mitigation of climate change in semiarid rainfed agro ecosystems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 214, 524–535. https://doi.org /10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.251
  4. Muller, A., Jawtusch, J. & Gattinger, A. (2011). Mitigating greenhouse gases in agriculture: A challenge and opportunity for agricultural policies. Diakonisches Werk der EKD e.V. for Brot für die Welt: Stuttgart, Germany, 88 p.
  5. Esengun, K., Gündüz, O. & Erdal, G. (2007). Input–output energy analysis in dry apricot production of Turkey. Energy Conversion and Management, 48(2), 592-598. https://doi.org/10.1016 /j.enconman.2006.06.006
  6. Rathke, G.W., Wienhold, B.J., Wilhelm, W.W. & Diepenbrock, W. (2007). Tillage and rotation effect on corn–soybean energy balances in eastern Nebraska. Soil and Tillage Research, 97(1), 60-70. https://doi.org /10.1016 /j.still.2007. 08.008
  7. Hamzei, J. & Seyyedi, M. (2016). Energy use and input–output costs for sunflower production in sole and intercropping with soybean under different tillage systems. Soil and Tillage Research, 157, 73-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2015.11.008
  8. Soltani, A., Maleki, M.H.M. & Zeinali, E. (2014). Optimal crop management can reduce energy use and greenhouse gases emissions in rainfed canola production. International Journal of plant production, 8(4), 587–604.
  9. Norouzi, N. & Kalantari, G. (2020). The food-water-energy nexus governance model: a case study for Iran. Water-Energy Nexus, 3, 72-80. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.wen.2020.05.005
  10. Mandal, K.G., Saha, K.P., Hati, K.M., Singh, V.V., Misra, A.K., Ghosh, P.K. & Bandyopadhyay, K.K. (2005). Cropping systems of central India: an energy and economic analysis. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 25(3), 117-140. https://doi.org/10.1300/J064v25n03_08
  11. Mondal, M., Garai, S., Banerjee, H., Sarkar, S. & Kundu, R. (2021). Mulching and nitrogen management in peanut cultivation: an evaluation of productivity, energy trade-off, carbon footprint and profitability. Energy, Ecology and Environment, 6, 133-147. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s40974-020-00189-9

12.Šarauskis, E., Romaneckas, K., Jasinskas, A., Kimbirauskienė, R. & Naujokienė, V. (2020). Improving energy efficiency and environmental mitigation through tillage management in faba bean production. Energy, 209, 118453. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.energy.2020.118453

  1. Alluvione, F., Moretti, B., Sacco, D. & Grignani, C. (2011). EUE (energy use efficiency) of cropping systems for a sustainable agriculture. Energy, 36(7), 4468-4481. https://doi.org/10.1016 /j.energy.2011.03.075
  2. Zhang, L.W., Feike, T., Holst, J., Hoffmann, C. & Doluschitz, R. (2015). Comparison of energy consumption and economic performance of organic and conventional soybean production—a case study from Jilin Province, China. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 14(8), 1561-1572. https://doi.org/10.1016 /S2095-3119(15): 61131-5
  3. Unakitan, G., Hurma, H. & Yilmaz, F. (2010). An analysis of energy use efficiency of canola production in Turkey. Energy, 35(9), 3623-3627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.05.005
  4. Flores, E.D., Cruz, R.S.D. & Antolin, M.C.R. (2016). Environmental performance of farmer-level corn production systems in the Philippines. Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR Journal, 18(2), 133-143.
  5. Chaudhary, V.P., Singh, K.K., Pratibha, G., Bhattacharyya, R., Shamim, M., Srinivas, I. & Patel, A. (2017). Energy conservation and greenhouse gas mitigation under different production systems in rice cultivation. Energy, 130, 307-317. https://doi.org/10.1016 /j.energy.2017.04.131
  6. Mousavi-Avval, S.H., Rafiee, S., Jafari, A. & Mohammadi, A. (2011a). Investigating the energy consumption in different operations of oilseed productions in Iran. Journal of Agricultural Technology, 7(3), 557-565.
  7. Khodaei Joghan, A., Taki, M. & Matoorian, H. (2022). Evaluating energy productivity, greenhouse gas emission, global warming potential and sustainability index of wheat and rapeseed agroecosystems in Khorramshahr. Journal of Agricultural Science and Sustainable Production, 32(1), 309-324. [In Persian]

20.Mohamad, R.S., Verrastro, V., Cardone, G., Bteich, M.R., Favia, M., Moretti, M. & Roma, R. (2014). Optimization of organic and conventional olive agricultural practices from a life cycle assessment and life cycle costing perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 70, 78-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.02.033

21.Reddy, V.R., Kurian, M. & Ardakanian, R. (2015). Life-cycle cost approach for management of environmental resources: a primer. Springer, Cham, 73 p.

22.Klöpffer, W. (2008). Life cycle sustainability assessment of products: (with Comments by Helias A. Udo de Haes, p. 95). The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13, 89-95. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2008.02.376

  1. Canaj, K., Mehmeti, A. & Berbel, J. (2021a). The economics of fruit and vegetable production irrigated with reclaimed water incorporating the hidden costs of life cycle environmental impacts. Resources, 10(9), 90. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/resources10090090
  2. Canaj, K., Morrone, D., Roma, R., Boari, F., Cantore, V. & Todorovic, M. (2021b). Reclaimed water for vineyard irrigation in a mediterranean context: life cycle environmental impacts, life cycle costs, and eco-efficiency. Water, 13(16), 2242. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13162242
  3. Tamburini, E., Pedrini, P., Marchetti, M.G., Fano, E.A. & Castaldelli, G. (2015). Life cycle based evaluation of environmental and economic impacts of agricultural productions in the Mediterranean area. Sustainability, 7(3), 2915-2935. https://doi.org/10.3390 /su7032915
  4. Baum, R. & Bieńkowski, J. (2020). Eco-efficiency in measuring the sustainable production of agricultural crops. Sustainability, 12(4), 1418. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041418
  5. 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

28.Jirapornvaree, I., Suppadit, T. & Kumar, V. (2021). Assessing the economic and environmental impact of jasmine rice production: life cycle assessment and life cycle costs analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 303, 127079. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127079

  1. Kargari, N. & Khodi, M. (2005). Social costs of the energy sector. Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 7(2), 62-75. [In Persian]
  2. Energy balance sheet. (2013). Energy balance sheet for 2012. Ministry of Energy. Electricity and energy deputy, Electricity and energy macro planning office. [In Persian]
  3. Saber, Z., Esmaeili, M., Pirdashti, H., Motevali, A. & Nabavi-Pelesaraei, A. (2020). Exergoenvironmental-Life cycle cost analysis for conventional, low external input and organic systems of rice paddy production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 263, 121529.‏ https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121529

32.Nabavi-Pelesaraei, A., Rafiee, S., Mohtasebi, S.S., Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, H. & Chau, K.W. (2019). Comprehensive model of energy, environmental impacts and economic in rice milling factories by coupling adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system and life cycle assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 217, 742-756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.228

33.Hartman, G.L., West, E.D. & Herman, T.K. (2011). Crops that feed the world 2. soybean—worldwide production, use, and constraints caused by pathogens and pests. Food Security, 3, 5–17. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s12571-010-0108-x

34.Ministry of Agriculture-Jahad. (2020). Annual agricultural statistics, Vol. 1. Ministry of Agriculture Planning and Economic Deputy, Iranian's Ministry of Agriculture-Jahad. Available at Web site www.maj.ir. [In Persian]

35.Cochran, W.G. (1977). Sampling techniques (3rd Edition). John Wiley and Sons: New York, USA, 442 p.

36.Kalantari, K.H. (2017). Data Processing and Analysis in Socio-Economic Research. Farhang Saba, Tehran, Iran, 402 p. [In Persian]

37.Kitani, O., Jungbluth, T., Peart, R.M. & Ramdani, A. (1999). CIGR handbook of agricultural engineering, Volume 5: Energy and biomass engineering. ASAE Publication, St Joseph, MI, 330 p.

38.Banaeian, N. & Zangeneh, M. (2011). Study on energy efficiency in corn production of Iran. Energy, 36(8), 5394-5402. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j. energy.2011.06.052

39.Alimagham, S.M., Soltani, A., Zeinali, E. & Kazemi, H. (2017). Energy flow analysis and estimation of greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions in different scenarios of soybean production (case study: Gorgan region, Iran). Journal of Cleaner Production, 149, 621-628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.118.

40.Heidari, M.D., Omid, M. & Akram, A. (2011). Energy efficiency and econometric analysis of broiler production farms. Energy, 36(11), 6536-6541. https://doi.org/10.1016 /j.energy.2011.09.011

41.Asgharipour, M.R., Mondani, F. & Riahinia, S. (2012). Energy use efficiency and economic analysis of sugar beet production system in Iran: a case study in Khorasan Razavi province. Energy, 44(1), 1078-1084. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.energy.2012.04.023

42.IPCC. (2006). IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. In: H.S. Eggleston L. Buendia K. Miwa T. Ngara & K. Tanabe (eds.). Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Hayama, Japan. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.htm

  1. Nemecek, T. & Kagi, T. (2007). Life cycle inventories of agricultural production systems. Final report ecoinvent V2.0 No. 15a. Agroscope Reckenholz-Taenikon Research Station ART, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Zurich and Dübendorf, 360p.

44.Engineering ToolBox. (2009). Combustion of fuels and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emission, [online] Available at Web site https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/nox-emission-combustion-fuels-d_1086.html (verified 17 November 2021).

45.Majumdar, D. & Gajghate, D.G. (2011). Sectoral CO2, CH4, N2O and SO2 emissions from fossil fuel consumption in Nagpur city of central India. Atmospheric Environment, 45(25), 4170–4179. https://doi.org/10.1016 /j.atmosenv.2011.05.019

46.Ramachandra, T.V. & Shwetmala. (2012). Decentralised carbon footprint analysis for opting climate change mitigation strategies in India. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16, 5820–5833. https://doi.org/10.1016 j.rser.2012.05.035

47.Khoshnevisan, B., Rajaeifar, M.A., Clark, S., Shamahirband, S., Anuar, N.B., Mohd Shuib, N.L. & Gani, A. (2014). Evaluation of traditional and consolidated rice farms in Guilan Province, Iran, using life cycle assessment and fuzzy modeling. Science of The Total Environment, 481, 242–251. https://doi.org/10.1016 /j.scitotenv.2014.02.052

48.Pimentel, D. & Patzek, T.W. (2005). Ethanol production using corn, switchgrass, and wood; biodiesel production using soybean and sunflower. Natural Resources Research, 14(1), 65-76. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11053-005-4679-8

  1. Dehshiri, A. & Aghaalikhani, M. (2012). Input-output and economic analysis of soybean production in the main cultivation areas in Iran. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 7(35), 4894-4899. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR12.010

50.Ramedani, Z., Rafiee, S. & Heidari, M.D. (2011). An investigation on energy consumption and sensitivity analysis of soybean production farms. Energy, 36(11), 6340-6344. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.energy.2011.09.042

51.Fathi, R., Kheiralipour, K. & Azizpanah, A. (2019). Assessment of the pattern of energy consumption in dryland rape production and its environmental effects in Ilam province. Quarterly Energy Economics Review, 15(62), 155-179. [In Persian]

52.Omidmehr, Z. (2019). Comparison of energy productivity and global warming potential in rain-fed sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) production systems. Journal of Agroecology, 11(2), 739-755. [In Persian]

53.Pirdashti, H., Pirdashti, M., Mohammadi, M., Gharavi Baigi, M. & Movagharnejad, K. (2015). Efficient use of energy through organic rice–duck mutualism system. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 35, 1489-1497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0311-4

54.Janulevičius, A., Juostas, A. & Pupinis, G. (2013). Tractor’s engine performance and emission characteristics in the process of ploughing. Energy Conversion and Management, 75, 498–508. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.enconman.2013.06.052

55.Tabatabaeefar, A., Emamzadeh, H., Ghasemi Varnamkhasti, M., Rahimizadeh, R. & Karimi, M. (2009). Comparison of energy of tillage systems in wheat production. Energy, 34(1), 41-45. https://doi.org/10.1016 /j.energy. 2008.09.023

56.Safahani Langeroodi, A.R., Osipitan, O.A. & Radicetti, E. (2019). Benefits of sustainable management practices on mitigating greenhouse gas emissions in soybean crop (Glycine max). Science of the Total Environment, 660, 1593–1601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.074

57.Ray, J.D. & Fritschi, F.B. (2009). Soybean mineral nutrition and biotic relationships. P 29-56, In: L.R. Elsworth & W.O. Paley (eds.), Fertilizers: Properties, Applications and Effects, Nova Science Publishers, Inc., New York.

58.Rao, A.S. & Reddy, K.S. (2010). Nutrient management in soybean. P 161–190, In: G. Singh (eds.), The Soybean: Botany, Production and Uses, CAB International.

59.Fageria, N.K., Baligar, V.C. & Jones, C.A. (2011). Growth and mineral nutrition of field crops (3rd Edition). CRC press, 550 p.

60.McNeil, D.L. (2010). Biological nitrogen fixation in soybean. P 227–246, In: G. Singh (eds.). The Soybean: Botany, Production and Uses, CAB International.

61.Ohyama, T., Minagawa, R., Ishikawa, S., Yamamoto, M., Hung, N.V.P., Ohtake, N., Sueyoshi, K., Sato, T., Nagumo, Y. & Takahashi, Y. (2012). Soybean seed production and nitrogen nutrition. P 115-157, In: J.E. Board (eds), A Comprehensive Survey of International Soybean Research-Genetics, Physiology, Agronomy and Nitrogen Relationships, InTech.

62.Ozkan, B., Fert, C. & Karadeniz, C.F. (2007). Energy and cost analysis for greenhouse and open-field grape production. Energy, 32(8), 1500-1504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2006.09.010

63.Pervanchon, F., Bockstaller, C. & Girardin, P. (2002). Assessment of energy use in arable farming systems by means of an agro-ecological indicator: the energy indicator. Agricultural Systems, 72(2), 149-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-521X(01)00073-7

  1. Mousavi-Avval, S.H., Rafiee, S., Jafari, A. & Mohammadi, A. (2011b). The functional relationship between energy inputs and yield value of soybean production in Iran. International Journal of Green Energy, 8(3), 398-410. https://doi.org/10.1080/15435075.2011.557842

65.Mohammadi Kashka, F., Tahmasebi Sarvestani, Z., Pirdashti, H., Motevali, A. & Nadi, M. (2022a). Assessing the environmental impacts of soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merril] cultivation in the eastern and central regions of Mazandaran province using life cycle assessment. Journal of Agroecology, 14(2), 309-330. [In Persian]

66.Kazemi, H., Bourkheili, S.H., Kamkar, B., Soltani, A., Gharanjic, K. & Nazari, N.M. (2016). Estimation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission and energy use efficiency (EUE) analysis in rainfed canola production (case study: Golestan province, Iran). Energy, 116, 694-700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.10.010

67.Rathke, G.W. & Diepenbrock, W. (2006). Energy balance of winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) cropping as related to nitrogen supply and preceding crop. European Journal of Agronomy, 24(1), 35-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2005.04.003

68.Signor, D. & Cerri, C.E.P. (2013). Nitrous oxide emissions in agricultural soils: a review. Pesquisa Agropecuária Tropical, 43(3), 322–338. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1983-
40632013000300014

69.Mohammadi Kashka, F., Tahmasebi Sarvestani, Z.A., Pirdashti, H., Motevali, A. & Nadi, M. (2022b). Evaluation of management factors affecting soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merril] yield gap in Mazandaran province using comparative performance analysis (CPA). Crop Production, 15(1), 73-100. [In Persian]

  1. Singh, K.P., Prakash, V., Srinivas, K. & Srivastva, A.K. (2008). Effect of tillage management on energy-use efficiency and economics of soybean (Glycine max) based cropping systems under the rainfed conditions in North-West Himalayan Region. Soil and Tillage Research, 100(1-2), 78-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.still. 2008.04. 011