Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Energy input–output modeling and sensitivity analysis for on-farm mechanically paddy straw bales formation

  • Article
  • Published:
Paddy and Water Environment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paddy straw was collected in the form of bales with three mechanical process CI (stubble shaver + rectangular baler), CII (stubble shaver + rake + rectangular baler), and CIII (stubble shaver + round baler) and straw yield prediction modelling and sensitivity analysis based on input and output energy is investigated using the Cobb–Douglas production function and marginal physical productivity (MPP) method. For each process, model I is divided into direct and indirect energies and model II consisted of renewable and non-renewable energies sources. The MPP value of direct, indirect, renewable and non-renewable energy sources was found to be 1.79, 1.38, − 10.57, and 1.36; 1.77, 3.32, 6.03, and 1.87; 5.86, 2.31, − 4.69, and 6.01 for CI, CII and CIII, respectively. Model I was more sensitive towards direct energy, whereas model II was sensitive towards non-renewable energy sources in each process. For CIII, the return to scale was increasing, but for CI and CII, it was declining. The contribution of direct and non-renewable energy sources was fairly dominating over indirect and renewable energy sources for each selected process. The maximum energy productivity and minimum specific energy were observed in CI whereas maximum net energy gain was observed in CII. The GHG emission was minimum in CII for the baler machine as compared to CI and CIII. The results of the study will aid academics and policymakers in optimising energy inputs to increase output energy while reducing pollution by avoiding the burning of paddy straw.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Cbalabi ZS, Bailey BJ (1991) Sensitivity analysis of a non-steady state model of the greenhouse microclimate. Agric for Meteorol 56:111–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer JA, Desjardins RL (2006) Carbon dioxide emissions associated with the manufacturing of tractors and farm machinery in Canada. Biosyst Eng 93(1):107–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerrieri AS, Alexandros Sotirios Anifantis AS, Santoro F, Pascuzzi S (2019) Study of a large square Baler with innovative technological systems that optimize the baling effectiveness. Agric MDPI Open Access J 9(5):1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatirli SA, Ozkan B, Fert C (2005) An econometric analysis of energy input–output in Turkish agriculture. Renew Sust Energy Rev 9:608–623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heidari MD, Omid M (2011) Energy use patterns and econometric models of major greenhouse vegetable productions in Iran. Energy 36:220–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kepner RA, Bainer R, Barger EL (1972) Principles of farm machinery management, chapter 2. The AVI publishing Co. Inc., Westport, p 17

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemos SV, Denadai MS, Guerra SPS, Esperancini MST, Bueno OC, Takitane IC (2014) Economic efficiency of two baling systems for sugarcane straw. Ind Crops Prod 55:97–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lianga QM, Fana Y, Wei YM (2007) Multi-regional input–output model for regional energy requirements and CO2 emissions in China. Energy Policy 35:1685–1700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malik A, Kumar V, Sharma A, Kumar A (2017) Performance evaluation of strip till seed drill for wheat crop. Int J Sci Eng Res 8:81–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandal KG, Saha KP, Gosh PL, Hati KM, Bandyopadhyay KK (2002) Bioenergy and economic analyses of soybean-based crop production systems in central India. Biomass Bioenergy 23:337–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manes GS, Singh S (2005) Sustainability of cotton cultivation through optimal use of energy inputs in Punjab. IE (i) J AG 86:61–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Mani I, Patel SK (2012) Energy consumption pattern in production of paddy crop in Haryana State in India. Agric Mech Asia Africa Latin Am 43(2):39–42

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin O, Mawhood B, Jamieson C, Slade R (2016) Rice straw for bioenergy: the effectiveness of policymaking and implementation in Asia. Proceedings of the 24th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition at Amsterdam, Netherlands, 6–9 June, 2016, pp 1–16. https://doi.org/10.5071/24thEUBCE2016-4AV.3.20

  • Mobtaker HG, Akram A, Keyhani A (2011) Energy use and sensitivity analysis of energy inputs for alfalfa production in Iran. Energy Sustain Dev 16(10):84–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohammadi A, Omid M (2010) Economic analysis and relation between energy inputs and yield of greenhouse cucumber production in Iran. Appl Energy 87:191–196

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen TLT, Gheewala SH, Garivait S (2007) Energy balance and GHG–abatement cost of cassava utilization for fuel ethanol in Thailand. Energy Policy 35:4585–4596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nguyena HV, Nguyenb CD, Tranb TV, Haub HD, Nguyenb NT, Martin Gummert M (2016) Energy efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions, and cost of rice straw collection in the Mekong river delta of Vietnam. Field Crop Res 198:16–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozkan B, Akcaoz H, Fert C (2004a) Energy input–output analysis in Turkish agriculture. Renew Energy 29:39–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozkan B, Akcaoz H, Karadeniz F (2004b) Energy requirement and economic analysis of citrus production in Turkey. Energy Convers Manag 45:18211830

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimentel D (1992) Energy inputs in production agriculture. Energy World Agric 6:13–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Rafiee S, Mousavi Avval SH, Mohammadi A (2010) Modeling and sensitivity analysis of energy inputs for apple production in Iran. Energy 35:3301–3306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar N, Aikat K (2013) Kinetic study of acid hydrolysis of rice straw. ISRN Biotechnol. https://doi.org/10.5402/2013/170615

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Sidhu HS, Singh M, Singh Y, Blackwellc J, Lohan SK, Humphreys E, Jat ML, Singh V, Singh S (2015) Development and evaluation of the Turbo Happy Seeder for sowing wheat into heavy rice residues in NW India. Field Crops Res 184:201–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siemens JC, Bowers W (1999) Machinery management, 5th edn. Deere and Company, Litho

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh S, Mittal JP (1992) Energy in production agriculture, 1st edn. Mittal Publications, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh G, Singh S, Singh J (2004) Optimization of energy inputs for wheat crop in Punjab. Energy Convers Manag 45:453–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh H, Singh AK, Kushwaha HL, Singh A (2007) Energy consumption pattern of wheat production in India. Energy 32:1848–1854

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma A, Chandel R (2016) Comparative field and economic evaluation of baler. Agric Eng 3:69–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabil L, Adapa P, Kashaninejad M (2011) Biomass feedstock preprocessing—part 2: densification. In: Bernardes MADS (ed) Biofuel’s engineering process technology. McGraw-Hill Education, pp 439–464

    Google Scholar 

  • Ullah A (2009) A comparative analysis of energy use patterns in small and large scale irrigated rice farming systems: a case study in Ayutthaya Province in the Central Region of Thailand. M.Sc. Thesis, Asian Institute of Technology, School of Environment, Resources and Development, Thailand

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors gratefully acknowledged cooperative farmers of Moga district, Punjab, India in recognition of their honest and sincere help in conducting the presented work.

Funding

No funding was received for conducting this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Punjab Agricultural University (PAU), Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK), Moga, Punjab, India

    Ankit Sharma & Amandeep Singh Brar

Authors
  1. Ankit Sharma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amandeep Singh Brar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: AS, Methodology: AS, Formal analysis: AS, Investigation: AS, Resources: AS and ASB, Data curation: AS, Writing original draft preparation: AS, Writing, review, and editing: AS and ASB, Visualization: AS, Supervision: AS and ASB, Funding acquisition: ASB.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ankit Sharma.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author has no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sharma, A., Brar, A.S. Energy input–output modeling and sensitivity analysis for on-farm mechanically paddy straw bales formation. Paddy Water Environ 20, 255–264 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-021-00888-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-021-00888-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation