هزینه‌یابی جریان مواد و انرژی (MEFCA) تولید انگور در شهرستان ملایر

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی

نویسندگان

• مجید دکامین ¹
• کامران خیرعلی پور ²

¹ گروه تولید و ژنتیک گیاهی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه ملایر، ملایر، ایران

² گروه مهندسی مکانیک بیوسیستم، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه ایلام، ایلام، ایران

https://doi.org/10.22067/jead.2023.80448.1174

چکیده

به‌منظور دستیابی به تولید پایدار در بوم­سازگان­های کشاورزی، داشتن درک درستی از اقتصاد تولید، اثرات محیط‌زیستی و نحوه استفاده از انرژی در تولید محصول کشاورزی ضروری است. هدف از این مطالعه تعیین نقاط بحرانی از نظر انرژی و هزینه در تولید انگور ملایر با رویکرد هزینه‌یابی جریان مواد و انرژی است. تمرکز اولیه هزینه‌یابی جریان مواد و انرژی بر روی هدررفت‌ها (هدررفت انرژی، مواد و ظرفیت بالقوه انسانی) است. براساس استاندارد ایزو ۱۴۰۵۱ واحد کارکردی در این مطالعه، فرایند تولید انگور در واحد سطح یک هکتار در یک سال انتخاب شد. مرز سامانه شامل فرایندهای پیش‌زمینه‌ای بود که کشاورز دخالت مستقیم در استفاده و مدیریت آن­ها داشت. داده‌های انگور در سال زراعی ۱۴۰۰-۱۳۹۹ و از تاکستان‌های ملایر جمع‌آوری شد. بر اساس نتایج مطالعه، میانگین انرژی ورودی شامل انرژی تجدیدپذیر، تجدیدناپذیر، مستقیم و غیرمستقیم برای تولید انگور MJ ha^-1 42234 به دست آمد. انرژی منفی حاصل از هدررفت کودهای شیمیایی، انگور، آبیاری و آفت‌کش‌ها برابر با MJ ha^-128650 به دست آمد. کل انرژی خروجی مثبت برابر با MJ ha^-1 296180 محاسبه شد. کود نیتروژن با ۲۷ درصد و کود دامی با ۱۹ درصد بیشترین سهم را در انرژی ورودی برای تولید انگور در اختیار داشتند. از نظر انرژی‌های منفی هدررفت انگور با ۸۲ درصد بیشترین سهم را به خود اختصاص داد. هدررفت آب آبیاری با ۱۶ درصد در رتبه بعدی قرار داشت. شاخص‌های انرژی شامل کارایی مصرف انرژی (۳۳/۶)، بهره‌وری انرژی kgMJ^-1)۵۹/۰)، انرژی مخصوص (MJkg^-11/68) و بهره انرژی خالص ( MJha^-1225295) برای تولید انگور محاسبه شد. هزینه تولید انگور در سطح یک هکتار، ۲۷۷۹ دلار (با قیمت آزاد) به دست آمد. بیشترین هزینه‌های ورودی مربوط به نیروی کار و آب آبیاری بود که به‌ترتیب برابر با ۱۶۴۴ و ۶۸۰ دلار در هکتار برای کشاورز هزینه داشتند. تولید منفی محاسبه شده در تولید انگور معادل ۲۵۶۰ دلار در هکتار بود. اصلی‌ترین تولید منفی در تولید انگور مربوط به هدررفت انگور و آب آبیاری بود که به‌ترتیب برای کشاورز هزینه‌های پنهان ۲۱۰۸ و ۴۴۲ دلاری به همراه داشت. مقادیر شاخص‌های اقتصادی درآمد ناخالص $ha^-1 13954 و نسبت فایده به هزینه (۴/۵) محاسبه شد. با اصلاح روش آبیاری از غرقابی به قطره‌ای می‌توان انتظار داشت که کارایی آبیاری تا ۵۰ درصد افزایش یابد که به‌واسطه آن ۲۲۱ دلار به درآمد کشاورز اضافه و هزینه‌های کارگری کاهش می­یابد. آموزش کارگران نقش تعیین‌کننده‌ای در کاهش هدررفت عملکرد انگور در منطقه می‌تواند داشته باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

• استاندارد ایزو ۱۴۰۵۱
• بهره‌وری انرژی
• حسابداری انرژی
• کارایی انرژی
• مدیریت محیط‌زیستی

موضوعات

• اقتصاد منابع طبیعی و محیط زیست

عنوان مقاله [English]

Material and Energy Flow Cost Accounting (MEFCA) of Grape Production in Malayer City

نویسندگان [English]

• M. Dekamin ¹
• K. Kheiralipour ²

¹ Plant Production and Genetics Department, Malayer University, Malayer, Hamadan, Iran

² Department of Mechanical Engineering of Biosystems, Faculty of Agriculture, Ilam University, Ilam, Iran

چکیده [English]

Introduction
Grape (Vitis vinifera L.) is one of the most important agricultural products in the Mediterranean. Today, grapes are grown in a large area of the world's gardens. The world production of grapes was about 77.8 million tons in 2018, of which 1.3 million tons were converted into raisins. According to the latest data of FAO, Iran has an annual production of 24.45 million tons of grapes in an area of 213 thousand hectares, accounting for 3% of the world's grape production. The average yield per hectare of vineyard is reported to be 15.5 tons. The purpose of this study is to determine hot spots in terms of energy and cost in the production of Malayer grapes with the approach of material and energy flow costing (MEFCA). The primary focus of material and energy flow cost accounting is on waste (waste of energy, materials and potential human capacity).
 
Materials and Methods
Material flow cost accounting was introduced in the late 1990s in Augsburg, Germany as a tool for green productivity management. This is known as a tool to increase productivity by reducing the use of materials, energy and human resources. Unlike life cycle assessment, which only weighs the environmental impacts of production and does not provide a solution for simultaneously reducing environmental impacts and increasing economic profit, material flow costing is recognized as an efficient tool for managing resources, wastes, and environmental impacts, and has covered the shortcomings of life cycle assessment. Material flow cost accounting helps to discover hidden costs and waste by objectifying the flow of materials in the production process. Based on ISO 14051 material flow analysis occurs in quantitative centers (QCs). In general, each quantitative center divides the production process into several parts. The basis of material flow and energy costing is material flow balance. This means that the inputs must be the same as the outputs. Based on this balance, positive inputs (i.e. consumable inputs) and positive outputs (i.e. product performance) and negative outputs (i.e. wastes and emissions during production) should be equal. The primary focus of material and energy flow costing is on waste (e.g. waste of energy, materials and potential human capacity). Allocation of costs to positive and negative products in each quantitative center is done in the following way:
- Material cost (including raw and industrial materials used in the production process)
- Energy costs (including electricity or buying diesel fuel)
- System costs (including labor costs, transportation costs and system maintenance)
- Waste cost (including waste management costs)
The system boundary included the background processes that the farmer was directly involved in using and managing. Grape data was collected in the crop year of 2020-2021 from Malayer vineyards.
 
Results and Discussion
Based on the results of the study, the average energy input including renewable, non-renewable, direct and indirect energy for grape production was 42234 MJ ha^-1. The negative energy resulting from the wastage of chemical fertilizers, grapes, irrigation water and pesticides was 28650 MJ ha^-1. The total positive output energy was calculated as 296180 MJ ha^-1. Nitrogen fertilizer with 27% and animal manure with 19% had the largest share in input energy for grape production. In terms of negative energy, grape waste accounted for the largest share with 82% and the Irrigation water wastage was the next with 16%. Energy indices including energy efficiency (6.33), energy productivity (0.59) kgMJ^-1), energy intensity (1.68 MJkg^-1) and net energy gain (1225295 MJha^-1) were calculated for grape production. The cost of grape production per hectare was $2,779. The highest input costs were related to labor and irrigation water, which cost the farmer 1644 and 680 dollars per hectare, respectively. The calculated negative production in grape production was equal to 2560 dollars per hectare. The main negative production in grape was related to wastage of grapes and irrigation water, which brought hidden costs of 2108 and 442 dollars to the farmer, respectively. The economic indicators of gross income (13954 $ha^-1) and cost-benefit ratio (4.5) were calculated.
 
Conclusion
Transitioning from flood irrigation to drip irrigation is anticipated to enhance irrigation efficiency by 50%, resulting in an incremental addition of $221 to the farmer's income while concurrently reducing labor costs. Additionally, emphasizing training for workers can prove pivotal in minimizing grape yield wastage within the region.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• Energy accounting
• Energy efficiency
• Energy productivity
• Environmental management
• ISO 14051 standard

مراجع

1. Afshar, R.K., & Dekamin, M. (2022). Sustainability assessment of corn production in conventional and conservation tillage systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 351, 131508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131508
2. Allesch, A., & Brunner, P.H. (2015). Material flow analysis as a decision support tool for waste management: A literature review. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 19(5), 753-764. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12354
3. Arieftiara, D., Theresa, R.M., & Sari, R. (2021). Sustainability in health service industry: The implementation of material flow cost accounting (MFCA) as an eco-efficient analysis. Journal Southeast Asian Research, 2021, 747009.
4. Barros, M.V., Salvador, R., do Prado, G.F., de Francisco, A.C., & Piekarski, C.M. (2021). Circular economy as a driver to sustainable businesses. Cleaner Environmental Systems, 2, 100006.
5. Bierer, A., Götze, U., Meynerts, L., & Sygulla, R. (2015). Integrating life cycle costing and life cycle assessment using extended material flow cost accounting. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 1289-1301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.036
6. Bux, C., & Amicarelli, V. (2022). Material flow cost accounting (MFCA) to enhance environmental entrepreneurship in the meat sector: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Environmental Management, 313, 115001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115001
7. Bouwman, A.F., Van der Hoek, K.W., & Olivier, J.G.J. (1995). Uncertainties in the global source distribution of nitrous oxide. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 100(D2), 2785-2800.
8. Dechampai, D., Homrossukon, S., Wongthatsanekorn, W., & Ekkachai, K. (2021). Applying material flow cost accounting and two-dimensional, irregularly shaped cutting stock problems in the lingerie manufacturing industry. Applied Sciences, 11(7), 3142. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11073142
9. Dekamin, M. (2021). A New Approach to Material and Energy Flow Accounting of Agricultural Systems: A Case Study of Canola in Ardabil Province. Iranian Journal of Biosystems Engineering, 51(4), 757-768. https://doi.org/10.22059/ijbse.2020.298532.665286
10. Dekamin, M., & Barmaki, M. (2019). Implementation of material flow cost accounting (MFCA) in soybean production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 210, 459-465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.057
11. Dekamin, M., Kheiralipour, K., & Afshar, R. K. (2022). Energy, economic, and environmental assessment of coriander seed production using material flow cost accounting and life cycle assessment. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-14.
12. Dekamin, M., & Barmaki, M. (2018). Selecting the best environmental friendly oilseed crop by using Life Cycle Assessment, water footprint and analytic hierarchy process methods. Journal of Cleaner Production, 198, 1239-1250.
13. Dekamin, M., Barmaki, M., Kanooni, A., & Meshkini, S.R.M. (2018). Cradle to farm gate life cycle assessment of oilseed crops production in Iran. Engineering in Agriculture, Environment and Food, 11(4), 178-185.
14. Dekamin, M., Barmaki, M., Kanooni, A., & Mosavi, R. (2019). Environmental impact assessment of Soybean cultivation in Ardabil farms. Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 21(8), 175-184.
15. Dekamin, M. (2017). Environmental Impact Assessment in Aquaculture: Life Cycle Assessment Meta-analysis. Environmental Researches, 7(14), 103-144.
16. Eggleston, H. S., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T., & Tanabe, K. (2006). 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories.
17. Elhami, B., Raini, M.G.N., & Soheili-Fard, F. (2019). Energy and environmental indices through life cycle assessment of raisin production: A case study (Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad Province, Iran). Renewable Energy, 141, 507-515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.04.034
18. Fakoya, M.B., & van der Poll, H.M. (2013). Integrating ERP and MFCA systems for improved waste-reduction decisions in a brewery in South Africa. Journal of Cleaner Production, 40, 136-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.09.013
19. Eranki, P.L., El-Shikha, D., Hunsaker, D.J., Bronson, K.F., & Landis, A.E. (2017). A comparative life cycle assessment of flood and drip irrigation for guayule rubber production using experimental field data. Industrial Crops and Products, 99, 97-108.
20. Guinée, J.B. (2002). Handbook on life cycle assessment: operational guide to the ISO standards (Vol. 7). Springer Science & Business Media.
21. Hamedani, S.R., Keyhani, A., & Alimardani, R. (2011). Energy use patterns and econometric models of grape production in Hamadan province of Iran. Energy, 36(11), 6345-6351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.09.041
22. Ho, J.Y., Ng, D.K., Wan, Y.K., & Andiappan, V. (2021). Synthesis of wastewater treatment plant based on minimal waste generation cost: A material flow cost accounting (MFCA) approach. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 148, 559-578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2020.10.013
23. Kheiralipour, K. (2022). Sustainable Production: Definitions, Aspects, Elements. 1^st, Nova Science Publishers, New York, USA.
24. Kheiralipour, K. (2020). Environmental Life Cycle Assessment. 1^st, Ilam University Publication. Ilam, Iran.
25. Kheiralipour, K., Rafiee, S., Karimi, M., Nadimi, M., & Paliwal, J. (2023). The environmental impacts of commercial poultry production systems using life cycle assessment: a review. World's Poultry Science Journal, https://doi.org/10.1080/00439339.2023.2250326
26. Kokubu, K., & Kitada, H. (2015). Material flow cost accounting and existing management perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 1279-1288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.037
27. Mardani, A., & Taghavifar, H. (2016). An overview on energy inputs and environmental emissions of grape production in West Azerbayjan of Iran. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 54, 918-924.
28. Marras, S., Masia, S., Duce, P., Spano, D., & Sirca, C. (2015). Carbon footprint assessment on a mature vineyard. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 214, 350-356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.08.270
29. May, N., & Guenther, E. (2020). Shared benefit by Material Flow Cost Accounting in the food supply chain–The case of berry pomace as upcycled by-product of a black currant juice production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 245, 118946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118946
30. Michael, B. F., & Breggie, v. d. P. (2012). The feasibility of applying material flow cost accounting as an integrative approach to brewery waste-reduction decisions. African Journal of Business Management, 6(35), 9783-9789.
31. Mohseni, P., Borghei, A.M., & Khanali, M. (2018). Coupled life cycle assessment and data envelopment analysis for mitigation of environmental impacts and enhancement of energy efficiency in grape production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 197, 937-947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.243
32. Nemecek, T., Kägi, T., & Blaser, S. (2007). Life cycle inventories of agricultural production systems. Final report ecoinvent v2. 0 No, 15, 1-360.
33. Nyide, C.J. (2016). Material flow cost accounting as a tool for improved resource efficiency in the hotel sector: A case of emerging market. Risk governance & control: financial markets & institutions (Online).
34. Prashar, A. (2019). Towards sustainable development in industrial small and Medium-sized Enterprises: An energy sustainability approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 235, 977-996.
35. Rahmani, A., Parashkoohi, M.G., & Zamani, D.M. (2022). Sustainability of environmental impacts and life cycle energy and economic analysis for different methods of grape and olive production. Energy Reports, 8, 2778-2792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.01.197
36. Roth, R. L., Sanchez, C. A., & Gardner, B. R. (1995). Growth and yield of mature ‘Valencia’oranges converted to pressurized irrigation systems. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 11(1), 101-105.
37. Sahu, A. K., Padhy, R., Das, D., & Gautam, A. (2021). Improving financial and environmental performance through MFCA: A SME case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 279, 123751.
38. Sharmasarkar, F.C., Sharmasarkar, S., Miller, S.D., Vance, G.F., & Zhang, R. (2001). Assessment of drip and flood irrigation on water and fertilizer use efficiencies for sugarbeets. Agricultural Water Management, 46(3), 241-251.
39. Standardization, I. O. f. (2011). Environmental management-Material flow cost accounting-General framework. ISO. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123751
40. Vázquez-Rowe, I., Villanueva-Rey, P., Iribarren, D., Moreira, M. T., & Feijoo, G. (2012). Joint life cycle assessment and data envelopment analysis of grape production for vinification in the Rías Baixas appellation (NW Spain). Journal of Cleaner Production, 27, 92-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.12.039
41. Wagner, B. (2015). A report on the origins of Material Flow Cost Accounting (MFCA) research activities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 1255-1261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.020