Energy, environmental, and economic benefits of integrated paddy field farming

被引:1
|
作者
Fu, Hao [1 ]
Li, Na [2 ]
Cheng, Qingyue [1 ]
Liao, Qin [1 ]
Nie, Jiangxia [1 ]
Yin, Huilai [1 ]
Shu, Chuanhai [1 ]
Li, Leilei [1 ]
Wang, Zhonglin [1 ]
Sun, Yongjian [1 ,3 ]
Chen, Zongkui [1 ,3 ]
Ma, Jun [1 ,3 ]
Zhang, Xiaoli [4 ]
Li, Liangyu [4 ]
Yang, Zhiyuan [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Sichuan Agr Univ, Rice Res Inst, Chengdu 611130, Peoples R China
[2] Sichuan Agr Univ, Coll Anim Sci & Technol, Chengdu 611130, Peoples R China
[3] Crop Ecophysiol & Cultivat Key Lab Sichuan Prov, Chengdu 611130, Peoples R China
[4] Chengdu Acad Agr & Forestry Sci, Chengdu 611130, Peoples R China
关键词
Energy efficiency; Greenhouse gas; Economic benefits; Green production technology; GREENHOUSE-GAS EMISSIONS; INPUT-OUTPUT-ANALYSIS; RICE PRODUCTION; FISH COCULTURE; USE EFFICIENCY; USE PATTERN; CHINA; YIELD; PRODUCTIVITY; CONSUMPTION;
D O I
10.1016/j.energy.2024.131251
中图分类号
O414.1 [热力学];
学科分类号
摘要
Rice yields have stabilized in the Chengdu Plain, and the implementation of integrated paddy field farming has shown potential for enhancing resource utilization. However, further investigation is required to clarify its impact on production sustainability. Accordingly, this study compared grain yields, energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and economic benefits of single cropping rice (SCR), rice-duck symbiosis (RDS), and rice-fish symbiosis (RFS) over a three-year period (2018-2020). The grain yields were 16.24%-23.96 % higher in SCR than in RDS and RFS, but nitrogen fertilizer use was reduced by 31.93%-32.15 % in RDS and RFS, and the partial factor productivity of nitrogen was increased by 21.96-23.82 %. RDS and RFS required 1.87-2.00 times more energy than SCR and were only 55.36%-57.80 % as efficient as SCR. They also had higher CO2 (36.10%-42.20 %) and CH4 (8.01%-28.88 %) emissions but lower N2O (0.02%-21.18 %) emissions than SCR. Economically, RDS and RFS produced 1.30-1.48 times higher net benefits with 1.44-1.47 times higher costs than SCR. The benefit-cost ratio of RFS was comparable to SCR and 11.38%-11.87 % higher than RDS. In summary, RDS and RFS consume more energy (feed accounts for more than half) but provide higher yields and better-quality proteins, which are crucial to improving farmer motivation and ensuring protein availability.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Farmers' Response to Economic Benefits of Integrated Farming
    Maulana, M.
    Tarigan, H.
    [J]. 1ST ANIMAL SCIENCE AND FOOD TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE (ANSTC) 2019, 2019, 372
  • [2] OPTIMIZATION OF ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL BENEFITS FOR INTEGRATED ENERGY SYSTEMS
    Huynh, Duy C.
    Ho, Loc D.
    Dunnigan, Matthew W.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2021, 16 (02): : 1196 - 1212
  • [3] Analysis of environmental and economic benefits of integrated Exhaust Energy Recovery (EER) for vehicles
    Peng, Zhijun
    Wang, Tianyou
    He, Yongling
    Yang, Xiaoyi
    Lu, Lipeng
    [J]. APPLIED ENERGY, 2013, 105 : 238 - 243
  • [4] Energy efficiency equals energy economic, and environmental benefits
    Middleton, Charlie
    Murray, Pam
    Brohard, Grant
    [J]. Proceedings ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, 2000, 8 : 223 - 8
  • [5] Biochar addition in rice farming systems: Economic and energy benefits
    Mohammadi, Ali
    Cowie, Annette L.
    Cacho, Oscar
    Kristiansen, Paul
    Thi Lan Anh Mai
    Joseph, Stephen
    [J]. ENERGY, 2017, 140 : 415 - 425
  • [6] Effects of Integrated Rice-Frog Farming on Paddy Field Greenhouse Gas Emissions
    Fang, Kaikai
    Yi, Xiaomei
    Dai, Wei
    Gao, Hui
    Cao, Linkui
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH, 2019, 16 (11)
  • [7] Assessing potential nutritional and household economic benefits of developing integrated farming systems
    Ruddle, K
    Prein, M
    [J]. INTEGRATED FISH FARMING, 1998, : 111 - 121
  • [8] FERTILISATION PLANNING AS EFFECTIVE TOOL FOR BALANCED ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS IN CROP FARMING
    Popluga, Dina
    Kreismane, Dzidra
    Naglis-Liepa, Kaspars
    Lenerts, Arnis
    Rivza, Peteris
    [J]. RESEARCH FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT 2016, VOL. 1, 2016, : 23 - 29
  • [9] Economic analysis of environmental benefits of integrated pest management.
    Mullen, JD
    Norton, GW
    Reaves, DW
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, 1996, 78 (05) : 1389 - 1390
  • [10] Economic and environmental benefits of geothermal energy in industrial processes
    Palomo-Torrejon, Elisabet
    Colmenar-Santos, Antonio
    Rosales-Asensio, Enrique
    Mur-Perez, Francisco
    [J]. RENEWABLE ENERGY, 2021, 174 : 134 - 146