Analysis of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) of transplanting and broadcast seeding wetland rice cultivation

Elsoragaby, Suha; Yahya, Azmi; Mahadi, Muhammad Razif; Nawi, Nolila Mohd; Mairghany, Modather

doi:10.1016/j.energy.2019.116160

Cited by 32 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Figure 4 shows that the average value of renewable and non-renewable energy in grain corn harvesting are 0.36% and 99.64%, respectively. Recent research in paddy harvesting showed that the renewable and non-renewable energy are 0.17 and 99.83%, respectively (Elsoragaby et al, 2019b). Similar research conducted by Muazu et al (2014b) in wet land paddy harvesting revealed that the renewable and non-renewable energy were 0.23% and 99.76%, respectively.…”

Section: Energy Classificationmentioning

confidence: 55%

“…From the result presented in Figure 3, the average value of direct and indirect energy distribution from the total energy input in grain corn harvesting were 75.23 and 24.77%, respectively. Elsoragaby et al (2019b) reported that the average values of direct and indirect energies from the total energy input in paddy harvesting were 76.25 and 23.75%, respectively. For sweet sorghum, rapeseed and sunflower harvesting, the direct and indirect energy were 72.76 and 27.33%, respectively (Gemtos et al, 2013).…”

Section: Energy Classificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Performance of Mid-Size Combine Harvester of Grain Corn on the Field Efficiency and Energy Consumption at the Northern Johor of Malaysia

Masroon

Nawi

Yahya

et al. 2020

JST

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A mid-size combine harvester with 2.76 m reaping width and 103.53 hp engine output has been employed in grain corn production, especially by small-scale grain corn farmers. This study attempted to determine field performances of a typical mid-size combine harvester by measuring its effective field capacity (EFC), field efficiency (FE), fuel consumption (FC) and field machine index (FMI). Different types of energy inputs such as fuel, machinery, human, included direct, indirect, renewable and non-renewable energy involved in grain corn harvesting were also measured. The field measurements were carried out in 3 ha of grain corn farm, under similar field conditions using a typical mid-size combine harvester. The average values of EFC, FE, FC and FMI for the mid-size combine harvester were found to be 0.23 ha/h, 34.97%, 37.25 lit/ha and 0.91, respectively. The average equivalent energy values of fuel, machinery and human energy were 1780.70 MJ/ha, 587.73 MJ/ha and 8.53 MJ/ha, respectively. The average values of the direct and indirect energy were 1789.23 MJ/ha and 587.73 MJ/ha, respectively. The average values of renewable and non-renewable energy were recorded at 8.53 MJ/ha and 2368.42 MJ/ha, respectively. The mid-size combine harvester investigated in this study exhibited good field performance characteristic using a reasonable amount of energy consumption as compared to harvesting operation for other grain crops. From the results, it can be concluded that good practice in harvesting operation could improve field performance, and minimise operational costs and energy consumption.

show abstract

Section: Energy Classificationmentioning

confidence: 55%

Section: Energy Classificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance of Mid-Size Combine Harvester of Grain Corn on the Field Efficiency and Energy Consumption at the Northern Johor of Malaysia

Masroon

Nawi

Yahya

et al. 2020

JST

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In literature, the authors calculated the human energy expenditure by a conventional method like Chaichana et al. (2014) for rice production in Thailand, Elsoragaby et al. (2019b) in Malaysia, Yuan and Peng (2017) in China, Nassiri and Singh (2009) in India, Islam et al.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… Country Human Energy References Thailand 13.1 ( Chaichana et al.,. 2014 ) Malaysia 31.8 ( Elsoragaby et al.,. 2019b ) China 484 ( Yuan and Peng, 2017 ) India 902 ( Nassiri and Singh, 2009 ) Bengladesh 1306 ( Islam et al.,.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In literature, the authors calculated the human energy expenditure by a conventional method like Chaichana et al (2014) for rice production in Thailand, Elsoragaby et al (2019b) in Malaysia, Yuan and Peng (2017) in China, Nassiri and Singh (2009) in India, Islam et al (2001) in Bengladesh, Nabavi-Pelesaraei et al (2018) in Iran, Truong et al (2017) in Vietnam, and Soni and Soe (2015) in Myanmar. No study calculated the human energy expenditure by physical method.…”

Section: Comparison Of Conventional Versus Garmin Measured Human Energymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison between conventional human energy measurement and physical human energy measurement methods in wetland rice production

Elsoragaby

Yahya

Nawi

et al. 2020

Heliyon

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Measurement of human energy expenditure during crop production helps in the optimization of production operations and costs by identifying steps which that can benefit from the use of appropriate mechanization technologies. This study measures human energy expenditure associated with all 6 major rice (Oryza sativa L.) cultivation operations using two measurement methods-i.e. conventional human energy expenditure method and direct measurement with a Garmin forerunner 35 body media. The aim of this study was to provide a detailed comparison of these two methods and document the human energy costs in a manner that will identify steps to be taken to help optimize agricultural practices. Results (mean þ 95%CL) revealed that the total human energy expenditure obtained through the conventional method was 25.5% higher (33.3 AE 1 versus 26.6 AE 1.3) in transplanting and 26.1% higher (30.3 AE 1.9 versus 24.0 AE 2.1) than the human energy expenditure recorded using the Garmin method in broadcast seeding method. Similarly, during the harvesting operation, the conventional measurement and Garmin measurement methods differed significantly, with the conventional method the human energy expenditure was 89.9% higher (3.2 AE 0.4 versus 1.68 AE 0.2) in the fields using the transplanting and 88.7% higher (3.3 AE 0.5 versus 1.8 AE 0.3) in the fields using the broadcast seeding than the human energy expenditure recorded using the Garmin method. When using Garmin method, the human energy expenditure in the case of using the midsize combine harvester was 13.49% lesser (592.4 AE 67.2 versus 522.0 AE 75.1) than the case of using conventional one. Results based on heart rate also indicated that operations such as tillage were less intensive (72 AE 3.3 bpm) compared with operations such as chemicals spraying (135 AE 4 bpm). Although we did not have a criterion measure available to determine which method was the most accurate, the Garmin measurement gives an estimate of actual physical human energy expended in performing a specific task with consider all conditions and thus more information to aid in identifying critical operations that could be optimized and mechanized.

show abstract

Sensitivity analysis of greenhouse gas emissions at farm level: case study of grain and cash crops

Abbas

Waseem

Ahmad

et al. 2022

Environ Sci Pollut Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Analysis of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) of transplanting and broadcast seeding wetland rice cultivation

Cited by 32 publications

References 46 publications

Performance of Mid-Size Combine Harvester of Grain Corn on the Field Efficiency and Energy Consumption at the Northern Johor of Malaysia

Performance of Mid-Size Combine Harvester of Grain Corn on the Field Efficiency and Energy Consumption at the Northern Johor of Malaysia

Comparison between conventional human energy measurement and physical human energy measurement methods in wetland rice production

Sensitivity analysis of greenhouse gas emissions at farm level: case study of grain and cash crops

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About