Calculating the energy input and carbon emission of chili production in Zamboanga City, Philippines
Paper Details
Calculating the energy input and carbon emission of chili production in Zamboanga City, Philippines
Abstract
One of the major concerns of today’s agricultural sectors is sustainability, which aims to address issues with crop processing as well as environmental repercussions. As the population’s need for resources grows, so does the demand for energy to provide these resources, which is now at an all-time high. This is where the accounting of energy and carbon emissions is needed to limit energy inputs as much as possible, thus increasing the output of such goods. However, the focus of the study was on calculating the energy input and carbon emission of Chili Production in Zamboanga City, Philippines. The study revealed that out of all the farm operations involve in the said production the crop establishment is considered as the energy hotspot with 3,092.93 Mcal ha-1 or 56.10% (270.98 LDOE) and with 1,073.08 CO2e. Thus, indirect energy input was also recorded with high energy inputs and considered as the energy hotspot with 5,399.37 Mcal ha-1 or 97.93% (473.05 LDOE) and with 1,873.28 CO2e. Thus, the lowest energy inputs revealed in the study is embedded energy inputs with 46.33 Mcal ha-1 or 0.84% (4.06 LDOE) as well carbon emission with 16.078 CO2e.The farm operation with lowest energy inputs and carbon emission is said to be the crop management with 118.19 Mcal ha-1 or 2.14% (10.36 LDOE) and 41.03 CO2e. Concerned agencies should seek out alternative methods of carrying out farm operations involving agents or conditions that influence crop output. This is done to boost production yields while lowering energy consumption.
Asadnabizadeh M. 2019. Development of UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Negotiations under COP25: Article 6 of the Paris Agreement perspective. Open Political Science 2(1), 113–119. https://doi.org/10.1515/openps-2019-0012
Beddington JB, Asaduzzaman M, Clark ME, Bremauntz AF, Guillou M, Howlett DJB, Jahn MM, Lin E, Negra C, Nobre CA, Scholes RJ, Van Bo N, Wakhungu J. 2012. What next for agriculture after Durban? Science 335(6066), 289–290. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1217941
Bodansky D, Diringer E. 2010. The Evolution of International Regimes: Implications for climate change. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1773828
Butler CD, Ewald B, McGain F, Kiang K, Sanson A. 2021. Climate change and human health. In Springer eBooks (pp. 51–68). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78795-0_4
Friman M, Hjerpe M. 2014. Agreement, significance, and understandings of historical responsibility in climate change negotiations. Climate Policy 15(3), 302–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2014.916598
Gliessman SR. 2014. Agroecology. In CRC Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1201/b17881
Gundogmus E. 2013. Energy efficiency and econometric analysis of HOPs production in Turkey. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences 12(2), 71–78. https://doi.org/10.3923/ajps.2013.71.78
Hoffman E, Cavigelli MA, Camargo G, Ryan M, Ackroyd VJ, Richard TL, Mirsky S. 2018. Energy use and greenhouse gas emissions in organic and conventional grain crop production: Accounting for nutrient inflows. Agricultural Systems 162, 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.01.021
Kastner T, Rivas MJI, Koch W, Nonhebel S. 2012. Global changes in diets and the consequences for land requirements for food. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109(18), 6868–6872. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1117054109
Ledgard S, Basset-Mens C, Mclaren S, Boyes M. 2007. Energy use, “food miles” and greenhouse gas emissions from New Zealand dairying – how efficient are we? Proceedings of the New Zealand Grassland Association 69, 223–228. https://doi.org/10.33584/jnzg.2007.69.2665
Lockeretz W. 1981. On-farm fuel alcohol production: Economic considerations and implications for farm management. Energy in Agriculture 1, 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-5826(81)90015-2
McNutt M. 2013. Climate change impacts. Science 341(6145), 435. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1243256
Mendoza TC. 2014. Reducing the carbon footprint of sugar production in the Philippines. Journal of Agricultural Technology 10(1), 289–308.
Pimentel D. 2019. Handbook of Energy Utilization in Agriculture. In CRC Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781351072519
Singh H, Mishra D, Nahar N. 2002. Energy use pattern in production agriculture of a typical village in arid zone, India—part I. Energy Conversion and Management 43(16), 2275–2286. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0196-8904(01)00161-3
Tabal EP, Mendoza TC, Paelmo RF, Garcia JNM, Visco RG. 2021. Energy inputs of selected agroforestry systems in Zamboanga City, Philippines. American Journal of Agriculture and Forestry 9(3), 106. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajaf.20210903.12
Tabal EP. 2022. Carbon emission equivalent of net energy use to produce white corn in Zamboanga City, Philippines. International Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Research 8(3), 462–475. https://doi.org/10.51193/ijaer.2022.8306
The carbon footprint of sugar production in eastern Batangas, Philippines. 2015. In CRC Press eBooks pp. 470–491. https://doi.org/10.1201/b18929-24
Yilmaz I, Akcaoz H, Ozkan B. 2005. An analysis of energy use and input costs for cotton production in Turkey. Renewable Energy 30(2), 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2004.06.001
Guiller A. Ellomer, 2024. Calculating the energy input and carbon emission of chili production in Zamboanga City, Philippines. J. Biodiv. Environ. Sci., 25(2), 136-143.
Copyright © 2024 by the Authors. This article is an open access article and distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) license.