Potato Energy and Material Flow Cost Accounting in Hamadan Province, Iran

Document Type : Research Article

Author

• M. Dekamin

Department of Plant Production and Genetic Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture. University of Malayer, Malayer, Hamedan, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22067/jead.2021.17804.0

Abstract

Introduction: In recent decades, due to increase in population and demand for agricultural products, creating new forms of energy in the agricultural sector and improper use of inputs due to lack of proper management, this economic sector has become an energy consuming sector. So far, various studies have been conducted to measure energy efficiency and cost in the agricultural sector. In most studies conducted in Iran, energy efficiency for the production of various crops has been calculated based on the final product besides material wastage has not been considered in terms of energy and cost. Material Flow Cost Accounting (MFCA) is an environmental management tool that can help farmers completely understand the financial and environmental consequences of using materials and energy and provide opportunities to achieve them, as well. Unlike most environmental management systems such as ISO 14001, which, despite their impact on reducing environmental damage, do not explicitly help increase farmers' incomes and even impose additional costs on farms, the implementation of the MFCA, by striking a balance between the environment and the economy, would have significant results in increasing energy and material productivity for many farms.
The main purpose of implementing MFCA in potato production is to quantify and identify the losses of agricultural inputs, which leads to effective management of residues and emissions in different stages of crop production. All output materials, including agricultural products and wastes in different stages of production, are calculated and measured in this method.
Materials and Methods: According to ISO 14051, the MFCA is a management tool that helps farmers recognize and reduce the potential environmental and financial consequences of product development. Likewise, this tool provides opportunities for achieving environmental and financial improvements through the transparency of processes. Accordingly, MFCA can provide important information at various stages of the cycle of Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) (figure 1).
 
The use of materials and energy in the agricultural sector is tracked and evaluated through the development of the material and energy flow model (in terms of physical units such as mass and volume) in the method of MFCA (figure 2). In this phase, the raw materials consumed, the energy used, costs, as well as the emissions to atmosphere, soil, and water are quantified. Within the system boundaries, the following assumptions and limitations are adopted:
System boundaries do not include: construction of factory buildings, vehicles, machines and equipment, etc.
System boundaries do not include: transportation
Energy balance analysis is a method to identify and evaluate various energy flows that take part in the production system. This analysis determines how efficient the energy is used by establishing the relationship between energy inputs and energy output. This relationship estimates whether energy is lost, gained, or would remain the same.
 
Figure (2): Material flow model for potato production within the MFCA boundary
 
Results and Discussion: According to the results, the highest amount of energy input comes from fossil fuels and nitrogen fertilizer. Based on the energy and economic indices calculated by the two accounting methods (i.e. conventional and material flow cost accounting), it was found that the total value of potato production based on conventional accounting is 7,195$ per hectare, while this figure is 8,212$ per hectare based on material flow cost accounting method. Energy efficiency in farms, applying conventional energy accounting, was calculated to be 2.65, while this index, using material flow cost accounting, was calculated to be 2.22. The difference between energy efficiency and cost-benefit ratio is attributed to the negative production value obtained in the potato production process in Hamadan province, Iran. Potato growers can increase their income up to 1,016$ per hectare through management measures. If the negative production is reduced, the cost-benefit ratio will increase by 0.57 in the production process.
Conclusion: Costing energy and energy flows through a comprehensive assessment of energy and costs helps to foster the relationship between the economy and the environment. Using the suggested solutions can save a significant amount of money on reducing negative products. MFCA recognizes the material and energy waste, and, farmers, by applying it, enhance their awareness of the usual losses in the field. Farmers, also, can improve processes on their farm and reduce production costs based on a rational assessment.

Keywords

• ISO 14051
• Energy Accounting
• Environmental Management
• Energy Efficiency

20.1001.1.20084722.1400.35.2.1.3

Main Subjects

• Agricultural Economics

References

1. Ahmadi K., Gholizadeh H., and Ebadzadeh H. 2016. Agricultural Statistics of 2014-2015 Crop Year. Ministry of Agriculture Jihad, Tehran. In Persian.
2. Banaeian N., Omid M., and Ahmadi H. 2011. Application of data envelopment analysis to evaluate efficiency of commercial greenhouse strawberry. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology 3: 185-193.
3. Dagistan E., Demirtas B., and Yilmaz Y. 2009. Energy usage and benefit-cost analysis of cotton production in Turkey. African Journal of Agricultural Research 4: 599-604.
4. Dekamin M. 2020. 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, (Articles in Press).
5. Dekamin M., and Barmaki M. 2019. Implementation of material flow cost accounting (MFCA) in soybean production. Journal of Cleaner Production 210: 459-465.
6. Dekamin M., Barmaki M., Kanooni A., and 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: 178-185.
7. Erdal G., Esengün K., Erdal H., and Gündüz O. 2007. Energy use and economical analysis of sugar beet production in Tokat province of Turkey. Energy 32: 35-41.
8. 2011. Environmental management — Material flow cost accounting — General framework.
9. Mohammadi A., Tabatabaeefar A., Shahin S., Rafiee S., and Keyhani A. 2008. Energy use and economical analysis of potato production in Iran a case study: Ardabil province. Energy Conversion and Management 49: 3566-3570.
10. Pishgar-Komleh S., Ghahderijani M., and Sefeedpari P. 2012. Energy consumption and CO₂ emissions analysis of potato production based on different farm size levels in Journal of Cleaner Production 33: 183-191.
11. Pishgar-Komleh S.H., Akram A., Keyhani A., Sefeedpari P., Shine P., and Brandao M. 2020. Integration of life cycle assessment, artificial neural networks, and metaheuristic optimization algorithms for optimization of tomato-based cropping systems in Iran. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 25(3): 620-632.
12. Mousavi-Avval S.H., Rafiee S., Jafari A., and Mohammadi A. 2011. Energy flow modeling and sensitivity analysis of inputs for canola production in Iran. Journal of Cleaner Production 19(13): 1464-1470.
13. Mousavi-Avval S. H., Rafiee S., Sharifi M., Hosseinpour S., and Shah A. 2017. Combined application of Life Cycle Assessment and Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System for modeling energy and environmental emissions of oilseed production. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78: 807-820.
14. Silalertruksa T., and Gheewala S.H. 2013. A comparative LCA of rice straw utilization for fuels and fertilizer in Thailand. Bioresource Technology 150: 412-419.
15. Martinho V.J.P.D. 2020. Relationships between agricultural energy and farming indicators. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 132, p.110096.
16. Nabavi-Pelesaraei A., Rafiee S., Mohtasebi S.S., Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha H., and 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.
17. Fathollahi H., Mousavi-Avval S.H., Akram A., and Rafiee S. 2018. Comparative energy, economic and environmental analyses of forage production systems for dairy farming. Journal of Cleaner Production 182: 852-862.
18. Rajaeifar M.A., Akram A., Ghobadian B., Rafiee S., and Heidari M.D. 2014. Energy-economic life cycle assessment (LCA) and greenhouse gas emissions analysis of olive oil production in Iran. Energy 66: 139-149.
19. Yagi M., and Kokubu K. 2018. Corporate material flow management in Thailand: The way to material flow cost accounting. Journal of Cleaner Production 198: 763-775.
20. Razavi J.K.K. 2013. Iran Agriculture Statistics (Vol. 2). Ministry of Jihad-Keshavrzi, Iran.
21. Huang S.Y., Chiu A.A., Chao P.C., and Wang N. 2019. The Application of Material Flow Cost Accounting in Waste Reduction. Sustainability 11(5): 1270.
22. ISO14051 I.S.O. 2011. Environmental management-Material flow cost accounting-General framework. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
23. Zangeneh M., Omid M., and Akram A. 2010. A comparative study on energy use and cost analysis of potato production under different farming technologies in Hamadan province of Iran. Energy 35(7): 2927-2933.
24. Mohammadi A., Tabatabaeefar A., Shahin S., Rafiee S., and Keyhani A. 2008. Energy use and economical analysis of potato production in Iran a case study: Ardabil province. Energy Conversion and Management 49(12): 3566-3570.
25. Khoshnevisan B., Rafiee S., Omid M., Mousazadeh H., and Rajaeifar M.A. 2014. Application of artificial neural networks for prediction of output energy and GHG emissions in potato production in Iran. Agricultural Systems 123: 120-127.
26. Hatirli S.A., Ozkan B., and Fert C. 2005. An econometric analysis of energy input–output in Turkish agriculture. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 9(6): 608-623.
27. Hamedani S.R., Shabani Z., and Rafiee S. 2011. Energy inputs and crop yield relationship in potato production in Hamadan province of Iran. Energy 36(5): 2367-2371.
28. Ghaderzadeh H., and Pirmohamadyani Z. 2019. Evaluation Efficiencies of Energy for Potato Production in Hamedan Province of Iran. Agricultural Economics Research 11(42): 167-202. (In Persian)
29. Feyzbakhsh M.T., Dorri M.A., and Rezvantalab N. 2019. Evaluation of energy indices and its impact on global warming potential for potato production: a case study, Golestan province. Journal of Agroecology 11(1): 53-68. (In Persian)
30. Hosseinpanahi F., and Kafi M. 2012. Evaluation of energy budget and productivity of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) farm of Kurdistan province; case study: Dehgolan Plain. Journal of Agroecology 4(2): 159-169. (In Persian)
31. Dekamin M., and 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.