DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Case Study to Estimate the Greenhouse-Gas Mitigation Potential on Conventional Rice Production System

  • Ryu, Jong-Hee (National Academy of Agricultural Science, RDA) ;
  • Lee, Jong-Sik (National Academy of Agricultural Science, RDA) ;
  • Kim, Kye-Hoon (Department of Environmental Horticulture, The University of Seoul) ;
  • Kim, Gun-Yeob (National Academy of Agricultural Science, RDA) ;
  • Choi, Eun-Jung (National Academy of Agricultural Science, RDA)
  • Received : 2013.10.07
  • Accepted : 2013.11.22
  • Published : 2013.12.31

Abstract

To estimate greenhouse gas (GHG) emission, we established inventory of conventional rice cultivation from farmers in Gunsan and Iksan, Jeonbuk province in 2011~2012. This study was to calculate carbon footprint and to analyse the major factor of GHGs. We carried out a sensitivity analysis using the analyzed main factors of GHGs and estimated the mitigation potential of GHGs. Also we tried to suggest agricultural methods to reduce GHGs that farmers of this case study can apply. Carbon footprint of rice production unit of 1 kg was 2.21 kg $CO_2.-eq.kg^{-1}$. Although amount of $CO_2$ emissions is largest among GHGs, methane had the highest contribution of carbon footprint on rice production system after methane was converted to carbon dioxide equivalent ($CO_2$-eq.) multiplied by the global warming potential (GWP). Source of $CO_2$ in the cultivation of rice farming is incomplete combustion of fossil fuels used by agricultural machinery. Most of the $CH_4$ emitted during rice cultivation and major factor of $CH_4$ emission is flooded paddy field in anaerobic condition. Most of the $N_2O$ emitted from rice cultivation process and major sources of $N_2O$ emission is application of fertilizer such as compound fertilizer, urea, orgainc fertilizer, etc. As a result of sensitivity analysis due to the variation in energy consumption, diesel had the highest sensitivity among the energies inputs. If diesel consumption is reduced by 10%, it could be estimated that $CO_2$ potential reduction is about 2.5%. When application rate of compound fertilizer reduces by 10%, the potential reduction is calculated to be approximately 1% for $CO_2$ and approximately 1.8% for $N_2O$. When drainage duration is decreased until 10 days, methane emissions is reduced by approximately 4.5%. That is to say drainage days, tillage, and reducing diesel consumption were the main sources having the largest effect of GHG reduction due to changing amount of inputs. Accordingly, proposed methods to decrease GHG emissions were no-tillage, midsummer drainage, etc.

Keywords

Carbon footprint;LCA;Conventional rice farming;GHG reduction

Acknowledgement

Supported by : 국립농업과학원

References

  1. Ahn, S.J. 2005. Stochastic analysis for uncertainty of life cycle assessment with Monte-Carlo simulation, p.7-9, 29-30. M.S. University of Ajou, Korea.
  2. Amlinger, F., S. Peyr, and C. Cuhls. 2008. Greenhouse gas emission from composting, and mechanical biological treatment. Waste Manage Research 26(1):47-60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X07088432
  3. Bhatia, A., H. Pathak, N.P. Jain, K. Singh, and A.K. Singh. 2005. Global warming potential of manure amended soils under rice-wheat system in the Indo-Gangetic plains. Atmos. Environ. 39:6976-6984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.07.052
  4. Blengini, G.A. and M. Busto. 2009. The life cycle of rice; LCA of alternative agri-food chain management system in Vercelli (Italy). Journal of Environmental Management 90:1512-1522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.10.006
  5. Harada, H., H. Kobayashi, and H. Shindo. 2007. Reduction in greenhouse gas emission by no-tilling rice cultivation in Hachirogata polder, nothern Japan: life cycle inventory analysis. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 53:668-677. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-0765.2007.00174.x
  6. Hossain, M.Z., K. Shibuya, and Saigusa. 2000: No-tillage transplanting system of rice with controlled availaility fertilizer in the nursery box. 1. Growth characteristics and yield of rice in three representative paddy soils. Tohoku J. Agric. Res. 50:71-86.
  7. Jeong, H.C., G.Y. Kim, D.B. Lee, K.M. Shim, and K.K. Kang. 2011. Assessment of greenhpuse gases emission of agronomic sector between 1996 and 2006 IPCC guidelines. Korean J. Soil Sci. Fert. 44(6):1214-1219. https://doi.org/10.7745/KJSSF.2011.44.6.1214
  8. Jung, S.H., J.A. Park, J.H. Huh, and K.H. So. 2011. Estimation of greenhouse gas emission of complex fertilizers production system by using life cycle assessment. Korean. J. Soil. Sci. Fert. 44(2):256-262. https://doi.org/10.7745/KJSSF.2011.44.2.256
  9. Kimura, M. 1992. Methane emission from paddy soils in Japan and Thailand, p. 43-79. In: Batjes, Bridges, E.M. (ed.), World inventory of soil emission potentials. WISE report 2, International Soil Reference and Information Centre, Wageningen.
  10. Koga, N., H. Tsuruta, H. Tsuji, and H. Hakano. 2003. Fuel composition-derived $CO_2$ emissions under conventional and reduced tillage cropping systems in northern Japan. J. of Agric., Ecos. and Environ. 99:213-219. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(03)00132-4
  11. Kramer, K.J., H.C. Moll, S. Nonhebel, and H.C. Wilting. 1999. Greenhouse gas emissions related to Dutch food consumption Energy Policy. 27(4):203-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(99)00014-2
  12. KWA (Korea Waste Association). 2007. Agricultural waste data. Korea Waste Association. Seoul, Korea.
  13. Lehugera, S., B. Gabrielleb, P. Lavillec, M. Lambonid, B. Loubetd, and P. Cellierd. 2011. Predicting and mitigating the net greenhouse gas emissions of crop rotations in western Europe. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 151:1654-1671 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2011.07.002
  14. Majumdar, D. 2003. Methane and nitrous oxide emission from irrigated rice fields: Proposed mitigation strategies. Current Science 84(10):1317-1326.
  15. MIFAFF (Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheres). 2004. A study on establishing effective management system for equipped agricultural input wastes. C2004-A1. Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheres. Seoul, Korea.
  16. Mishra, S., A.K. Rath. T.K. Adhya. V.R. Rao, and N. Sethunathan. 1997. Effect of continuous and alternate water regimes on methane efflux from under greenhouse conditions. Biol. Fertil. Soils 24:399-405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003740050264
  17. MKE (Ministry of Knowledge Economy). Software program PASS v.4.1.3.
  18. Mosier, A.R., A.D. Halvorson, G.A. Peterson, G.P. Robertson, and L. Sherrod. 2005. Measurement of net global warming potential in three agroecosystems. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosys. 72:67-76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-004-7356-0
  19. Rath, A.K., B. swain, B. Ramakrishna, D. Panda, T.K. Adhya, V.R. Rao, and N. Sethunathan. 1999. Influence of fertilizer management and water regime on methane emission from rice fields. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 76:99-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(99)00080-8
  20. Robertson, G.P. and P.R. Grace. 2004. Greenhouse gas fluxes in tropical and temperate agriculture: The need for a full-cost accounting of global warming potentials. Environ., Dev. and Sustain. 6:51-63. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ENVI.0000003629.32997.9e
  21. Ryu, J.H., K.H. Kim, G.Y. Kim, K.H. So, and K.K. Kang. 2011. Application of LCA on Lettuce Cropping System by Bottom-up Methodology in Protected Cultivation. Korean J. Soil Sci. Fert. 44(6):1195-1206. https://doi.org/10.7745/KJSSF.2011.44.6.1195
  22. Ryu, J.H., K.H. Kim, K.H. So, G.Z. Lee, G.Y. Kim, and D.B. Lee. 2011. LCA on lettuce cropping system by top-down method in protected cultivation. Korean J. Soil Sci. Fert. 44(6):1185-1194. https://doi.org/10.7745/KJSSF.2011.44.6.1185
  23. Ryu, J.H., S.C. Jung, G.Y. Kim, J.S. Lee and K.H. Kim. 2012. LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) for Evaluating Carbon Emission from Conventional Rice Cultivation System: Comparison of Top-down and Bottom-up Methodology 45(6):1143-1152. https://doi.org/10.7745/KJSSF.2012.45.6.1143
  24. Shin, S.C., and H.J. Park, 2011. A study on the feasibility of a policy mix in reducing GHG emission in Korea. Korea Environment Institute Report. 17-254 pp. 1.
  25. Smith, P., D. Martino, Z. Cai, D. Gwary, H. Janzen, P. Kumar, B. McCarl, S. Ogle, F. O'Mara, C. Rice, B. Scholes, and O. Sirotenko. 2007. Agriculture. In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
  26. Van Zeijts, H., H. Leheman, and A.W. Sleeswijk. 1999. Fitting fertilisation in LCA: allocation to carops in a cropping plan. Journal of Cleaner Production 7:69-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(98)00040-7

Cited by

  1. Greenhouse gas implications of novel and conventional rice production technologies in the Eastern-Gangetic plains vol.112, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.071
  2. A Case Study to Estimate the Greenhouse-Gas Mitigation Potential on Rice Production System in Farming without Agricultural Chemicals vol.47, pp.5, 2014, https://doi.org/10.7745/KJSSF.2014.47.5.374
  3. Environmental Implications of Eco-Labeling for Rice Farming Systems vol.10, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041050