Content uploaded by Mozhgan Sabet Teimouri
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mozhgan Sabet Teimouri on Jul 28, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
A case study of energy use and economical analysis of irrigated and dryland
wheat production systems
Reza Ghorbani
*
, Farzad Mondani, Shahram Amirmoradi, Hassan Feizi, Surror Khorramdel,
Mozhgan Teimouri, Sara Sanjani, Sepideh Anvarkhah, Hassan Aghel
Faculty of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, P.O. Box 91775-1163, Mashhad, Iran
article info
Article history:
Received 7 November 2009
Received in revised form 24 April 2010
Accepted 28 April 2010
Available online xxxx
Keywords:
Cereals
Energy efficiency
Low-input systems
Rain-fed
Triticum aestivum
abstract
Current conventional agricultural systems using intensive energy has to be re-vitalized by new integrated
approaches relying on renewable energy resources, which can allow farmers to stop depending on fossil
resources. The aim of the present study was to compare wheat production in dryland (low input) and irri-
gated (high input) systems in terms of energy ratio, energy efficiency, benefit/cost ratio and amount of
renewable energy use. Data were collected from 50 irrigated and 50 dryland wheat growers by using a
face-to-face questionnaire in 2009. The results showed that the total energy requirement under low input
was 9354.2 MJ ha
1
, whereas under high input systems it was 45367.6 MJ ha
1
. Total energy input
consumed in both dryland and irrigated systems could be classified as direct, indirect, renewable and
non-renewable energies which average in two wheat production systems were 47%, 53%, 24% and 76%,
respectively. Energy ratios of 3.38 in dryland and 1.44 in irrigated systems were achieved. The bene-
fit–cost ratios were 2.56 in dryland and 1.97 in irrigated wheat production systems. Based on the results
of the present study, dry-land farming can have a significant positive effect on energy-related factors
especially in dry and semi-dry climates such as Iran.
Ó2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In agricultural section, energy is an input which is used for var-
ious reasons such as increasing productivity, enhancing food secu-
rity and contributing to rural economic development [1].Itis
mostly needed for cooking, lighting and heating by households;
for tilling, irrigation, crop protection, weed management, harvest-
ing and processing by agriculture, and for mechanical tools by the
rural industry [2]. Energy use in agriculture has been increased in
response to increasing population, limited supply of arable lands,
and a desire for higher standards of living. Tendency towards
intensive use of energy in agricultural systems is profoundly due
to mechanization, using chemical fertilizers, high-yielding seeds
and synthetic pesticides. On the other hand, dependence of con-
ventional agricultural systems to intensive using of energy is one
of the main reasons creating environmental problems such as glo-
bal warming in the most developing and developed countries. Re-
source and energy use efficiency is one of the principal
requirements of eco-efficient and sustainable agriculture [3]. High
energy use efficiency in agriculture will help to minimize the envi-
ronmental problems, prevent destruction of natural resources, and
promote sustainable agriculture as an economical production sys-
tem. Energy use is one of the key indicators for developing more
sustainable agricultural practices. Wider use of renewable energy
sources, increase in energy supply and efficiency of use can make
a valuable contribution to meeting sustainable energy develop-
ment targets [4]. Therefore, agriculture and energy have a comple-
mentary structure and are affected each other [5].
There are many references regarding energy input and output
rates in various agricultural crops. Low input agricultural systems
compared to high input systems have greater energy use efficiency
and lower emissions of greenhouse gasses [6]. Tabatabaeefar et al.
[7] showed that energy consumed in a wheat field was 8.8 MJ kg
1
for no-till and 11.8 MJ kg
1
for moldboard plow plus roller plus drill.
They also reported that energy consumed for tillage using mold-
board plow plus roller plus drill was 32.5% of the total energy. Kuest-
ers and Lammel [8] concluded that in the absence of Nfertilization,
total energy input was 7.5 GJ/ha for winter wheat and 8 GJ/ha for
sugar beet. This increased to 17.5 GJ/ha and 16 GJ/ha at the highest
rates of Nfertilization. In this study, energy output/input ratio
was varied between 6 and 13 for winter wheat and 11 and 29 for
sugar beet. This variation was dependent on reduction intensities
and growing conditions. Highest energy output/input ratio was
observed at low production intensity. Bailey et al. [9] showed that
in conventional production system using 14,667 MJ/ha and in the
integrated production system using 13,428 MJ/ha were needed.
Therefore, limited available natural resources of energy and the
0306-2619/$ - see front matter Ó2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.04.028
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 5118795616.
E-mail address: bot155@yahoo.com (R. Ghorbani).
Applied Energy xxx (2010) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article in press as: Ghorbani R et al. A case study of energy use and economical analysis of irrigated and dryland wheat production systems.
Appl Energy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.04.028
impact of using such non-renewable energy on environment and
human health have drawn great attention towards studying energy
use patterns in agricultural systems [10].
Over the past two decades production of field crops in Iran has
significantly increased from 38.26 million metric tons (MT) in 1986
to 71.26 million MT in 2006 and Iranian agriculture has increas-
ingly aimed at grain cultivation, especially wheat and barley,
which in 2006 occupied 65% of the entire agricultural area [11].
Lack of adequate water is the main problem in drylands, however,
if the small amount of available rain water is harvested and used
sensibly, it can support higher agricultural productivity and also
higher energy efficiency. There are very limited reports regarding
energy productivity and efficiency in various cropping systems
especially wheat production systems in irrigated and rain-fed or
drylands of Iran. Therefore, the objectives of the present study
were to determine the input and output energy rates, energy use
efficiency and other energy-related factors in irrigated and dryland
wheat fields in North Khorasan Province of Iran.
2. Materials and methods
The study was carried out in 50 irrigated and 50 dryland wheat
farms, in North Khorasan, Iran. The province is located in the
northeast of Iran, within 36°42
0
and 38°16
0
north latitude and
56°03
0
and 58°03
0
east longitude. The total area of the province is
295,524 ha and the total farming area of wheat is 161446 ha con-
sists of 55409 ha irrigated and 106037 ha drylands, with a share of
68.03%. Data were collected from wheat growers by using a face-
to-face questionnaire in 2009. In addition to the data obtained by
surveys, previous studies of related organizations such as Food
and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and Ministry of Jihad-e-
Agriculture of Iran (MAJ) were also utilized during this study.
The number of operations involved in the wheat production, and
their energy requirements influence the final energy balance. Farm
random sampling was done within whole population and sample
size was determined by Ozkan et al. [12]:
n¼ðPN
h
S
h
Þ
N
2
D
2
þPN
h
S
2
h
where nis the required sample size, Nis the number of holdings in
target population, N
h
is the number of the population in hstratifica-
tion, S
h
is standard deviation in the hstratification, S
2
h
is variance of
hstratification, dis the precision where ðxXÞ,zis the reliability
coefficient (1.96 which represents the 95% reliability), and D
2
=
d
2
/z
2
.
A criterion of 5% deviation from population mean and 95% con-
fidence level were used to calculate sample size. Based on this cal-
culation a size of 50 was considered as sampling size for each
wheat production system.
The energetic efficiency of the agricultural system has been
evaluated by the energy ratio between output and input. Human
labor, machinery, diesel oil, fertilizer, pesticides and seed amounts
and output yield values of wheat crops have been used to estimate
the energy ratio [13]. Energy equivalents shown in Table 1 were
used for estimation. The sources of mechanical energy used on
the selected farms included tractors and diesel oil. The mechanical
energy was computed on the basis of total fuel consumption
(L ha
1
) in different operations. Therefore, the energy consumed
was calculated, using conversion factors (1 L diesel = 56.31 MJ)
and expressed in MJ ha
1
[14].
Basic information on energy inputs and wheat yields were
transferred into Excel spreadsheets, and analyzed by SPSS program.
Based on the energy equivalents of the inputs and output (Table 1),
the energy ratio or energy use efficiency, energy productivity and
the specific energy were calculated [15,16].
Energy use efficiency ¼Energy output ðMJ ha
1
Þ
Energy input ðMJ ha
1
Þð1Þ
Energy productivity ¼Wheat output ðkg ha
1
Þ
Energy input ðMJ ha
1
Þð2Þ
Specific energy ¼Energy input ðMJ ha
1
Þ
Wheat out put ðtha
1
Þð3Þ
Net energy ¼Energy outputðMJ ha
1
Þ
Energy input ðMJ ha
1
Þð4Þ
Indirect energy included energy embodied in seeds, chemical
fertilizers (NPK), herbicide (Topic and 2,4-D), pesticide (Phenite-
riteyon), fungicide (Carboxin) and machinery while direct energy
covered human labor, diesel, electricity and water used in the
wheat production. Non-renewable energy includes diesel, electric-
ity, chemical pesticides, chemical fertilizers and machinery, and
renewable energy consists of human labor, seeds and water. Eco-
nomic analysis of wheat production was evaluated, and net profit
and benefit–cost ratio were calculated. Gross return was calculated
by subtracting the total return of production from the grain and
straw production per hectare. Net return was calculated by sub-
tracting the total cost of production from the gross value of pro-
duction per hectare. Benefit–cost ratio was calculated by dividing
the gross value of production by the total cost of production per
hectare [15,17,18].
Soil tillage and seedbed preparations are performed during
November. Planting date was in November–December for irrigated
and November–January for dryland farms. All other necessary cul-
tural practices applied from November through July; the harvest
period was June–July for irrigated and May–June for dryland farms.
Chemicals were sprayed 3.8 times (starting from February to May)
in irrigated wheat farms and 1 time (starting during May) in dry-
land farms. Irrigated operations were performed in average of 5.7
times starting from November to June. Land preparation and soil
tillage were mostly accomplished by a Massey Ferguson
28,575 hp tractor along with using moldboard plow, disc harrows,
land leveler (for irrigated) and chisel (for dryland). The average
farm size was 4.2 ha and wheat production occupied 68.03% of to-
tal farm lands. Agronomic practices during the growing season of
Table 1
Energy equivalent of inputs and outputs in wheat production.
Particulars Unit Energy equivalent
(MJ unit
1
)
Refs.
A. Inputs
1. Human labor H 1.95 [24]
2. Machinery H 62.70 [21,25]
3. Diesel fuel L 50.23 [24]
4. Chemical fertilizers kg [24]
(a) Nitrogen (N) kg 75.46 [24]
(b) Phosphate (P
2
O
5
) kg 13.07 [24]
(c) Potassium (K
2
O) kg 11.15 [26,27]
5. Chemicals [24]
(a) Topic L 271.38 [24]
(b) 2,4-D L 84.91 [24]
(c) Pesticide (Phenitrition) L 280.44 [24]
(d) Fungicide (Carboxin) kg 181.90 [24]
6. Electricity KWH 3.60 [24]
7. Water for irrigation M
3
1.02 [28,29]
8. Seeds (wheat) kg 20.10 [24]
B. Outputs
1. Wheat grain yield kg 14.48 [8]
2. Wheat straw yield kg 2.25 [8]
2R. Ghorbani et al. / Applied Energy xxx (2010) xxx–xxx
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article in press as: Ghorbani R et al. A case study of energy use and economical analysis of irrigated and dryland wheat production systems.
Appl Energy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.04.028
wheat along with the periods relevant to these preparations are
shown in Table 2.
3. Results
3.1. Input energy in high and low-input systems
Results revealed that 108 and 34.5 h of human labor and 18 and
10.5 h of machinery (tractor) power per hectare were needed in
high and low input wheat systems, respectively. Cultural practices
in low-input systems were 0.46% and in high input farms was
0.72% of total energy input. The total energy used in various pro-
duction processes for producing irrigated and dryland wheat sys-
tems were 45367.6 and 9354.2 MJ/ha, respectively (Tables 3 and
4). Among all the production practices in irrigated wheat produc-
tion, nitrogen consumed was the most energy consuming input
(33.27%), followed by diesel fuel (24.14%), water (13.49%), seed
(11.08) and electricity (9.52). In dryland farms, diesel fuel
(45.05%) consumed the most energy of total energy input, followed
by seed (23.64%), nitrogen (20.17%), and machinery (7.04) (Tables
3 and 4). In irrigated and dryland systems, nitrogen and diesel en-
ergy were mainly utilized for fertilizing and machinery.
3.2. Output energy in high and low-input systems
Grain yield in high and low input wheat were calculated as
2865 kg ha
1
and 1044 kg ha
1
and straw yields of high and low
systems were calculated as 2578.5 kg ha
1
and 1789.7 kg ha
1
,
respectively. Total energy output per hectare was 65336.32 MJ in
high input and 31671.98 MJ in low-input systems. Energy effi-
ciency in dryland systems was nearly 2.06 times more than irri-
gated systems; energy efficiency of dryland was higher than
irrigated systems which could be due to using low energy input
in dryland wheat fields.
3.3. Energetics of producing wheat
The total energy input consumed could be classified as direct
(47.61%), indirect (52.39%), renewable (25.03%) and non-renew-
able (74.97%) energy in irrigated wheat fields (Table 5). Total en-
ergy input used in dryland production was 79.4% lower than
irrigated fields. In other words, total input energy needed in low in-
put system was 20.6% compared with the high input system. The
share of indirect energy input was higher than direct in high and
low-input systems. The share of renewable energy input use in to-
tal energy input was 25.03% in irrigated wheat and 24.35% in dry-
land wheat fields (Table 5).
3.4. Net income and benefit/cost ratio of wheat production systems
The production cost and gross product values of both studied
systems are shown in Table 6. The production costs per hectare
in irrigated systems (572.3) were higher than dryland production
system (200.8). The total cost of production in dryland systems
was 63.6% lower than the irrigated wheat systems. The gross re-
turn and net return per hectare in irrigated production system
(1126.4, 554.05, respectively) was higher than dryland production
systems (513.4, 312.56, respectively). Also, the mean gross and net
returns in irrigated wheat were calculated as 54.4% and 43.7%
higher than dryland fields, respectively. Benefit–cost ratio of irri-
gated wheat production was calculated by dividing the gross re-
turn value into the total production cost in order to determine
the economic efficiency. Benefit–cost ratio in dryland wheat pro-
duction systems (2.56) was higher than irrigated systems (1.97).
Table 2
Management practices for irrigated and dryland wheat farms.
Practices/operations Wheat production systems
Irrigated Dryland
Name of varieties Sayonz Sardari
Average farm size (ha) 4.5 ± 0.8 3.9 ± 1.6
Land preparation tractor used:
285 MF 75 hp
Moldboard plow, disc
harrows, land leveler
Chisel
Land preparation period November November
Average tilling number 2.2 ± 0.2 1.2 ± 0.2
Planting period November–December November–
January
Fertilization period (Before
planting)
(August–November) _
Fertilization period (Top
dressing)
February _
Average number of fertilization 1.2 ± 0.2 _
Irrigation period November-June _
Average number of irrigation 5.7 ± 1.12 _
Spraying period February–May May
Average number of spraying 3.8 ± 1.2 1 ± 0.06
Harvesting period June–July May–June
Table 3
Energy consumption and energy input–output relationship in irrigated wheat production.
Energy Quantity per unit area (ha) Energy equivalent (MJ unit
1
) Total energy equivalent (MJ) Percentage of total energy input (%)
A. Input
Human labor (hr) 108.00 1.95 210.60 0.46
Machinery (hr) 18.00 62.70 1128.60 2.49
Diesel fuel (l) 218.00 50.23 10950.14 24.14
Nitrogen (kg) 200.00 75.46 15092.00 33.27
Phosphate (P
2
O
5
) (kg) 70.00 13.07 914.90 2.01
Potassium (K
2
O) (kg) 75.00 11.15 836.25 1.84
Topic (l) 1.00 271.38 271.38 0.60
2,4-D (l) 1.5 84.91 127.36 0.28
Pesticide (Phenitrition) (l) 1.00 280.44 280.44 0.62
Fungicide (Carboxin) (kg) 0.50 181.90 90.95 0.20
Electricity (kWh) 1200.00 3.60 4320.00 9.52
Water for irrigation (m
3
) 6000.00 1.02 6120.00 13.49
Seed (kg) 250.00 20.10 5025.00 11.08
Total energy input (MJ) 45367.63 100.00
B. Outputs
Wheat grain yield (kg) 2865.00 14.48 41485.2 63.50
Wheat straw yield (kg) 2578.50 9.25 23851.12 36.50
Total energy output (MJ) 65336.32
Energy efficiency 1.44
R. Ghorbani et al. / Applied Energy xxx (2010) xxx–xxx 3
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article in press as: Ghorbani R et al. A case study of energy use and economical analysis of irrigated and dryland wheat production systems.
Appl Energy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.04.028
3.5. Productivity and specific energy in high and low-input systems
Energy input and output, energy use efficiency, specific energy,
energy productivity and net energy of wheat production in the
North Khorasan province are summarized in Table 7. Energy use
efficiency (energy ratio) was calculated as 1.44 for high input
and 3.38 for low input production systems. Average energy pro-
ductivity of high and low input production systems were
0.06 kg MJ
1
and 0.11 kg MJ
1
, respectively. This means that 0.06
and 0.11 outputs were obtained per unit energy in high and low in-
put production systems.
Calculation of energy productivity rate is well documented in the
literature such as in stake-tomato (1.0) [19], cotton (0.06) [20],
sugar beet (1.53) [21]. The specific energy was 15.83 MJ kg
1
in high
input and 8.96 MJ kg
1
in low input production systems. Net energy
was 19968.69 MJ ha
1
in high input and 22317.73 MJ ha
1
in low
input production systems. Canakci et al. [22] reported specific
energy for field crops and vegetable production in Turkey, such as
16.21 for Sesame, 11.24 for cotton, 5.24 for wheat, 3.88 for maize,
1.14 for tomato, 0.98 for melon and 0.97 for water-melon.
4. Discussions
4.1. Energy requirements and input–output relationships in wheat
production
Total energy input used in irrigated wheat production was
about 45367.63 MJ ha
1
, which is five times more than that of dry-
land fields (9354.2 MJ ha
1
). The main factor resulting in excessive
energy use in irrigated production was application chemical fertil-
izers. Also the amount of energy used in different agricultural prac-
tices such as machinery, irrigation, electricity and diesel in
irrigated production system was higher than those of dryland sys-
tems, however, the ratio of energy use of total energy for diesel,
seed, machinery and labor were higher in dryland production sys-
tems. Three year mean wheat grain yield in low-input systems was
174% lower than that in high input systems.
While wheat yield was lower in low input farms, the energy
output–input ratio was higher in it with the value of 3.38. In an-
other study in Iran, reported by Tabatabaeefar et al. [7], the least
Table 4
Energy consumption and energy input–output relationship in dryland wheat production.
Energy Quantity per unit area (ha) Energy equivalent (MJ unit
1
) Total energy equivalent (MJ) Percentage of total energy input (%)
A. Input
Human labor (hr) 34.50 1.95 67.27 0.72
Machinery (hr) 10.50 62.70 658.35 7.04
Diesel fuel (l) 83.90 50.23 4214.30 45.05
Nitrogen (kg) 25.00 75.46 1886.50 20.17
Phosphate (P2O5) (kg) – – – –
Potassium (K2O) (kg) – – – –
Topic (l) – – – –
2,4-D(l) – – – –
Pesticide (Phenitrition) (l) 1.00 280.44 280.44 3.00
Fungicide (Carboxin) (kg) 0.20 181.90 36.38 0.39
Electricity (kWh) – – – –
Water for irrigation (m
3
)– – – –
Seed (kg) 110.00 20.10 2211.00 23.64
Total energy input (MJ) 9354.20
B. Outputs
Wheat grain yield (kg) 1044.00 14.48 15117.10 47.73
Wheat straw yield (kg) 1789.70 9.25 16554.90 52.27
Total energy output (MJ) 31671.98
Energy efficiency 3.38
Table 5
Total energy input in the form of direct, indirect, renewable energy for irrigated and
dryland wheat.
Types of energy Irrigated wheat Dryland wheat
(MJ ha
1
)%
a
(MJ ha
1
)%
Direct energy
b
21600.74 47.61 4281.57 45.77
Indirect energy
c
23766.89 52.39 5072.67 54.23
Renewable energy
d
11355.6 25.03 2278.27 24.35
Non-renewable energy
e
34012.03 74.97 7075.97 75.71
Total energy input 45367.63 9354.25
a
Indicate percentage of total energy input.
b
Indicates human labor, diesel, electricity and water.
c
Indicates seeds, chemical fertilizers (NPK), herbicide (Topic and 2,4-D), pesti-
cide (Pheniteriteyon), fungicide (Carboxin) and machinery.
d
Indicates human labor, seeds and water.
e
Indicates diesel, electricity, chemical fertilizers (NPK), herbicide (Topic and 2,4-
D), pesticide (Pheniteriteyon), fungicide (Carboxin) and machinery.
Table 6
Economic analysis of wheat production in irrigated fields and dryland in Iran.
Cost and return components Irrigated (value) Dryland (value)
Grain yield (kg ha
1
) 2865 1044
Sale price ($ kg
1
) 0.28 0.28
Straw yield (kg ha
1
) 2578.5 1789.714
Sale price ($ kg
1
) 0.12 0.12
Total cost of production ($ ha
1
) 572.3474 200.8158
Total cost of production ($ kg
1
) 020 0.19
Total cost production ($ MJ
1
) 0.01 0.02
Gross return ($ ha
1
) 1126.397 513.3654
Gross return ($ kg
1
) 0.39 0.49
Gross return ($ MJ
1
) 0.02 0.05
Net return ($ ha
1
) 554.05 312.56
Net return ($ kg
1
) 0.19 0.30
Net return ($ MJ
1
) 0.01 0.03
Benefit to cost ratio 1.97 2.56
Table 7
Energy input–output ratio in wheat production.
Items Unit Irrigated Dryland
Energy input MJ ha
1
45367.63 9354.2
Energy output MJ ha
1
65336.32 31671.98
Energy use efficiency – 1.44 3.38
Specific energy MJ kg
1
15.83 8.96
Output energy productivity MJ kg
1
22.80 30.33
Energy productivity kg MJ
1
0.06 0.11
Net energy MJ ha
1
19968.69 22317.73
4R. Ghorbani et al. / Applied Energy xxx (2010) xxx–xxx
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article in press as: Ghorbani R et al. A case study of energy use and economical analysis of irrigated and dryland wheat production systems.
Appl Energy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.04.028
energy consumed for wheat production was 8.8 MJ kg
1
in no-till
fields and 11.8 MJ kg
1
in fields with moldboard plow plus roller
plus drill. They reported that energy consumed for tillage using
moldboard plow plus roller plus drill was 32.5% of the total energy.
Of the total energy input used in low input wheat fields,
2278.27 MJ ha
1
was renewable energy, which was 9077.33 MJ
ha
1
lower than that of high input wheat fields. On the other hand,
although the share of renewable energy from the total energy used
in high input system was 1% higher than low-input systems, their
ratio was 25.03% in high input systems. Reducing consumption of
diesel fuel and fertilizer (mainly nitrogen) had a major role in en-
ergy consumption. Saving in diesel by changing tillage, harvest
and other agronomic operations could help field energy efficiency.
Using direct and local marketing improves profitability for growers
while reducing energy needed for their transport.
Due to the highly mechanized agricultural system in Iran, fuel
consumption has risen by 10% in recent years [11]. Beheshti Tabar
et al. [11] stated that with higher yields and improved agricultural
practices in the wheat irrigated systems, the unit of land used per
unit of output, reduced by 32% in 2006 compared to 1990. It can be
inferred that improvements in the irrigation efficiency together
with the promotion of targeted application of fertilizers can have
a significant effect on the energy efficiency of Iranian agriculture.
Advances in irrigation will also alleviate the effect of droughts on
energetic parameters. Employment of more productive cultivars
and more intense crop management will cause higher outputs,
and will consequently lead to a higher energy ratio.
Optimum energy use in agriculture is reflected in two ways, i.e.
an increase in productivity with the existing level of energy inputs
or conserved energy without affecting the productivity. In practice,
a wheat grower can not take advantage of the conserved energy
due to the high mis-consumption of energy. Input energy in dry-
land wheat production systems is lower than irrigation systems
and therefore applying dryland production patterns in other agri-
cultural systems could lead to the enhancement of sustainable
agriculture.
4.2. Net return and benefit/cost ratio in wheat production systems
The returns based on land area (ha) were 119.4% (gross) and
77.3% (net) greater in high input systems, however, the benefit–
cost ratios were 2.56 in dryland systems compared to 1.97 in irri-
gated systems. This condition is considerably the result of low cost
of input in dryland systems.
The results showed that the energy input use in low input pro-
duction system was 79.38% lower than high input production sys-
tem of wheat. In low production systems, the energy input of diesel
(45.05%) had the most shares in the total energy inputs. On aver-
age, the value of renewable energy was 2278.3 MJ ha
1
of the total
energy input used in low production systems. The value was calcu-
lated as 11355.6 MJ ha
1
on high input systems. The application of
non-renewable energy in high input production systems was great,
indicating the fact that these systems are relying highly on fossil
fuels. In irrigated production systems, high consumption of fossil
resources is considered to achieve higher yields. The utilization
of fossil resources in agriculture threatens fertility of the soil and
weakens the economic independence of farmers.
5. Conclusions
Irrigated wheat production system consumed a total energy of
45367.63 MJ ha
1
, which was mainly due to the application of
chemical fertilizers and diesel fuels. The energy input of chemical
fertilizer (37%) and diesel fuel (24.14%) had the first and secondary
share within the total energy inputs. In this production system en-
ergy output was 65336.32 MJ ha
1
. Dryland or rain-fed wheat
production systems consumed a total energy of 9354.20 MJ ha
1
,
which was mainly due to diesel fuel (45.1%) and seed (23.6%).
Energy output in dryland wheat systems was 31671.98 MJ ha
1
.
Energy use efficiency, benefit–cost ratio, energy productivity,
specific energy, net energy and mean net return were 1.44, 1.97,
0.06 kg MJ
1
, 15.83 MJ kg
1
, 19968.69 MJ ha
1
and 554.1 $ ha
1
in
the irrigated wheat, and 3.38, 2.56, 0.11 kg MJ
1
, 8.96 MJ kg
1
,
22317.73 MJ ha
1
and 312.5 $ ha
1
in the dryland wheat systems,
respectively. Although net return per ha in drylands was less than
irrigated farms, energy efficiency and benefit-cost ratio in drylands
were much higher than irrigated systems, meanwhile, there was at
least a minimum crop production in areas with water deficiency. In
terms of energy use efficiency, drylands reflected more than twice
the rate compared to irrigated systems, resulting in a growing trend
towards higher sustainability. Attaining minimum production with
high energy efficiency in present market where crop prices rise rap-
idly and as Moria et al. [23] predicted will grow even higher in the
later half of this century, seems to be fundamental for governments
and policy makers in order to prevent the growth of a vulnerable
food market and low income individuals. Other positive aspects of
dry-land farming in Iran are reducing erosion by covering the soil
and minimum or no contribution of biocides and chemical syn-
thetic fertilizers which cause lower using energy input and also
more environmental friendly production systems.
It can be inferred from the results that wheat rain-fed or dry-
land farming systems in the studied area are significant production
methods which are highly efficient and recommendable strategies
on the view of energy-related factors. Future researches should ap-
ply energy analysis in various low and high input systems along
with long term economical, environmental and societal analysis
which further explain the suitability and compatibility of produc-
tion system for establishing sustainable development.
References
[1] FAO. The energy and agricultural nexus. Environment and natural resources
working paper no. 4, Rome; 2000.
[2] Al-Mohammad A. Renewable energy resources in Syria. Renew Energy
2001;24:365–7.
[3] Jonge AM. Eco-efficiency improvement of a crop protection product: the
perspective of the crop protection industry. Crop Protect 2004;23:1177–86.
[4] Streimikiene D, Klevas V, Bubeliene J. Use of EU structural funds for sustainable
energy development in new EU member states. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2007;116:1167–87.
[5] Ozkan BH, Akcaoz Karadeniz F. Energy requirement and economic analysis of
citrus production in Turkey. Energy Convers Manage 2004;45:1821–30.
[6] Dalgaard T, Halberg N, Porter JR. A model for fossil energy use in Danish
agriculture used to compare organic and conventional farming. Agric Ecosyst
Environ 2001;87:51–65.
[7] Tabatabaeefar A, Emamzadeh H, GhasemiVarnamkhasti M, Rahimizadeh R,
Karimi M. Comparison of energy of tillage systems in wheat production.
Energy 2009;34:41–5.
[8] Kuesters J, Lammel J. Investigations of the energy efficiency of the production
of winter wheat and sugar beet in Europe. Eur J Agron 1999;11:35–43.
[9] Bailey AP, Basford WD, Penlington N, Park JR, Keatinge JDH, Rehmana T, et al. A
comparison of energy use in conventional and integrated arable farming
systems in the UK. Agric Ecosys Environ 2003;97:241–53.
[10] Taylor EB, O’Callaghan PW, Probert SD. Energy audit of an English farm. Appl
Energy 1993;44:315–35.
[11] Beheshti Tabar I, Keyhani A, Rafiee S. Energy balance in Iran’s agronomy
(1990–2006). Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:849–55.
[12] Ozkan B, Kurklu A, Akcaoz H. An input–output energy analysis in greenhouse
vegetable production: a case study for Antalya region of Turkey. Biomass
Bioenergy 2004;26:189–95.
[13] Alam MS, Alam MR, Islam KK. Energy flow in agriculture: Bangladesh. Am J
Environ Sci 2005;1:213–20.
[14] Tsatsarelis CA. Energy requirements for cotton production in central Greece. J
Agric Eng Res 1991;50:239–46.
[15] Demircan V, Ekinci K, Keener HM, Akbolat D, Ekinci C. Energy and economic
analysis of sweet cherry production in Turkey: a case study from Isparta
province. Energy Convers Manage 2006;47:1761–9.
[16] Sartori L, Basso B, Bertocco M, Oliviero G. Energy use and economic evaluation
of a three year crop rotation for conservation and organic farming in NE Italy.
Biosyst Eng 2005;91:245–56.
R. Ghorbani et al. / Applied Energy xxx (2010) xxx–xxx 5
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article in press as: Ghorbani R et al. A case study of energy use and economical analysis of irrigated and dryland wheat production systems.
Appl Energy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.04.028
[17] Ozkan B, Akcaoz H, Fert C. Energy input–output analysis in Turkish agriculture.
Renew Energy 2004;29:39–51.
[18] Yamane T. Elementary sampling theory. Englewood Cliffs. NJ (USA): Prentice-
Hall Inc.; 1967.
[19] Esengun K, Erdal G, Gunduz O, Erdal H. An economic analysis and energy use in
stake–tomato production in Tokat province of Turkey. Renew Energy
2007;32:1873–81.
[20] Yilmaz I, Akcaoz H, Ozkan B. An analysis of energy use and input costs for
cotton production in Turkey. Renew Energy 2005;30:145–55.
[21] Erdal G, Esengun K, Erdal H, Gunduz O. Energy use and economical analysis of
sugar beet production in Tokat province of Turkey. Energy 2007;32:35–41.
[22] Canakci M, Topakci M, Akinci I, Ozmerzi A. Energy use pattern of some
fieldcrops and vegetable production: case study for Antalya region, Turkey.
Energy Convers Manage 2005;46:655–66.
[23] Moria S, Katob M, Idoc T. GISELA–GIS-based evaluation of land use and
agriculture market analysis under global warming. Appl. Energy 2010;87:
236–42.
[24] Mohammadi A, Tabatabaeefar A, Shahin S, Rafiee S, Keyhani A. Energy use and
economical analysis of potato production in Iran a case study: ardabil
province. Energy Convers Manage 2009;49:3566–70.
[25] Singh JM. On farm energy use pattern in different cropping systems in
Haryana, India. Master of Science. Germany: International Institute of
Management, University of Flensburg; 2002.
[26] Esengun K, Gunduz O, Erdal G. Input–output energy analysis in dry apricot
production of Turkey. Energy Convers Manage 2007;48:592–8.
[27] Shrestha DS. Energy use efficiency indicator for agriculture; 1998. <http://
www.usaskca/agriculture/caedac/PDF/mcrae>. PDF [10.10.02].
[28] Acaroglu M. Energy from biomass, and applications. University of Selc-uk,
Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences. Textbook (unpublished-
Turkish); 1998.
[29] Acaroglu M, Aksoy AS. The cultivation and energy balance of
Miscanthus_giganteus production in Turkey. Biomass Bioenergy 2005;29:42–8.
6R. Ghorbani et al. / Applied Energy xxx (2010) xxx–xxx
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article in press as: Ghorbani R et al. A case study of energy use and economical analysis of irrigated and dryland wheat production systems.
Appl Energy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.04.028