Comparing Energy Indices and Water Productivity of Forage Production in Hydroponic and Conventional Conditions

Afzali Nia, Sadegh; Karimi, Abdolhamid; Shirvanian, Abdoulrasool

doi:10.22092/erams.2019.124041.1290

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

¹ Associat eProfessor, Agricultural Engineering Research Institute, Fars Research and Education Center for Agriculture and Natural Resources, AREEO, Shiraz, Iran

² Assistant Professor, Department of Animal Science Research, Fars Research and Education Center for Agriculture and Natural Resources, AREEO, Shiraz, Iran

³ Assistant Professor, Department of Eco-Social and Extension Research, Fars Research and Education Center for Agriculture and Natural Resources, AREEO, Shiraz, Iran.

https://doi.org/10.22092/erams.2019.124041.1290

Abstract

Recent drought phenomenon in Iran has limited feed supplying for livestock enterprises. In this situation, forage fodder production in hydroponic condition could be a reasonable solution to overcome the water resources limitations in forage production process; however, all aspects of this system should be investigated prior to using it. In this research, these four treatments of forage production: hydroponic barley forage, conventional corn forage, conventional irrigated barley, and conventional alfalfa forage, were compared from the point of view of water productivity and energy indices, in the form of a completely randomized experimental design with 12 replications in Niriz, Fars Province, south of Iran. Results showed that hydroponic barley forage and conventional method of producing barley had the maximum yield (1605052 kg/ha per year) and the minimum yield (6235 kg/ha per year) respectively. The highest water productivity (65.3 kg/m³) and the lowest water productivity (0.64 kg/m³) were obtained from hydroponic barley forage and the conventional method of producing alfalfa , respectively. Results also indicated that the conventional corn forage had the highest energy ratio, net energy gain, and energy productivity (1.88, 125844 MJ/ha, and 0.281 kg/MJ); the lowest amounts of energy indices (0.65, -15252661 MJ/ha, and 0.037 kg/MJ) belonged to the hydroponic barley forage. Conclusions showed that producing barley fodder in hydroponic condition could be a proper solution for supplying adequate forage for livestock in semi-arid climate condition of Niriz twonship, provided that some amendments could be made in this method of fodder producing system to reduce energy consumption and to enhance energy productivity.

Keywords

References

Al-Karaki, G. N., & Al-Hashimi, M. (2012). Green fodder production and water use efficiency of some forage crops under hydroponic conditions. ISRN Agronomy. 2012, 1-5.

Al-karaki, G. N., & Al-Momani, N. (2011). Evaluation of some barley cultivars for green fodder production and water use efficiency under hydroponic conditions. Jordan Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 7,448-457.

AlShrouf, A. (2017. Hydroponics, aeroponic and aquaponic as compared with conventional farming. American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS), 27(1), 247-255.

Barbosa, G. L., Gadelha, F. D. A., Kublik, N., Proctor, A., Reichelm, L., Weissinger, E., Wohlleb, G. M., & Halden, R. U. (2015). Comparison of land, water, and energy requirements of lettuce grown using hydroponic vs. conventional agricultural methods. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12, 6879-6891.

Bilalis, D., Kamariari, P. E., Karkanis, A., Efthimladou, A., Zorpas, A., & Kakabouk, I. (2013). Energy inputs, output and productivity in organic and conventional maize and tomato production, under Mediterranean conditions. Notulae Botanica Jorti Agrobotanici Cluj-Napoca Journal,41(1), 190-194.

Fazaeli, H. (2013). Effeciency of hydroponic green fodder as animal feed. Animal Science Journal (Pajouhesh & Sazandegi), 103, 205-214. (in Persian)

Giacomelli, G., Sabeh, N., Costa, P., & Jensen, M. (2005). Controlled environment agriculture program: a sustainable option (Ph. D. Thesis) Controlled Environment Agriculture Center, University of Arizona.

Haidari, N., Khairabi, J., Alaee, M., Farshi, A. A., Kazemi, P., Vaziri, Zh., Entesari, M. R., Dehghani-Sanich, H., Sadatmiri, M. H., & Mirlotfi, M. (2007). Water Use Effeciency in Greenhouse Production. Iranian National Commetee on Irrigation and Drainage, Tehran, Iran. (in Persian)

Kaihani, A. (2006). Perlimenary evaluation of human energy input agricultural mecanization projects. 4^th National Congress on Agricultural Engineering and Mechanization. Aug. 28-29, Tabriz, Iran. (in Persian)

Kitani, O., Jungbluth, T., Peart, R. M., & Ramdani, A. (1999). CIGR Handbook of Agricultural Engineers, Energy and Biomass Engineering. Vol. 5, ASAE Publication, MI.

Kraatz, S. (2008). Energy inputs for corn production in Wisconsin and Germany. ASABE Annual International Meeting, June 29-July 2. Rhode, Island.

Lamnganbi, M., & Surve, U. (2017). Biomass yield and water productivity of different hydroponic fodder crops. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry, 6(5), 1297-1300.

Mollahosseini, H., Allame, R., & Esmaeelkhanian, S. (2009). Forage production in hydroponic system in drought condition. 2^nd National Confrence on Drought Effects and Its Management Solutions. May 20-21, Isfahan, Iran. (in Persian)

Nasirian, N., Almasi, M., Minaee, S., & Bakhoda, H. (2006). Evaluation of energy trend in sugarcane production in an Agro-industry unit in south Ahvaz. 4^th Congress on Agricultural Engineering and Mechanization. Aug. 29-30, Tabriz, Iran. (in Persian)

Ovtit-Canavate, J., & Hernanz, J. L. (1999). Energy Analysis and Saving. In: O. Kitani (Ed.) CIGR Handbook of Agricultural Engineering,Energy and Biomass Engineering. Vol. V. ASAE Pub. MI.

Pishgar-Komleh, S. H., Keyhani, A., Raﬁee, Sh., & Sefeedpary, P. (2011). Energy use and economic analysis of corn silage production under three cultivated area levels in Tehran province of Iran. Energy, 36, 3335-3341.

Pourtareverdi, F., Almassi, M., & Bakhoda, H. (2013). Energy and economic evaluation of hydroponic and conventional production of greenhouse cucumber. 8^th National Congress on Agricultural Engineering and Mechanization. Jan. 29-31, Mashhad, Iran. (in Persian)

Safa, M., & Tabatabaeefar, A. (2002). Energy consumption in wheat production in irrigated and dryland farming. International Agricultural Engineering Conference. Nov. 28-30, Wuxi, China.

Shahin, S., Jafari, A., Mobli, H., Rafiee, S., & Karimi, M. (2008). Effect of farm size on energy ratio for wheat production: A case study from Ardabil province of Iran. American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences, 3(4), 604-608.

Shama, M., Saedi, H., Nikpour Tehrani, K., & Morvarid, A. (1989). Animal and Poultery Feeds and Methods of Their Storage (Principals of Animal and Poultery Feeds). 4^th Ed. University of Tehran Publ. Tehran, Iran, (in Persian)

Singh, S., & Mittal, J. P. (1992). Energy in Production Agriculture. Mittal Pub. New Delhi.

Smither-Kopperi, M. L., & Cantllif, D. J. (2004). Protected agriculture as a methyl bromide alternative? Current really and future promise. Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society, 117, 21-27.

Soder, K. J., Heins, B. J., Chester-Jones, H., Hafla, A. N., & Rubano, M. D. (2018). Evaluation of fodder production systems for organic dairy farms. The Professional Animal Scientist, 34(1), 75-83.

Valadiani, A., Hassanzadeh-Ghoortappeh, A., & Valadiani, R. (2005). Evaluation of energy balance in rainfed wheat seed breeding farms of East Azarbayjan and its effect on environment. Jounal of Agricultural Knowdlege, 15(2), 1-12. (in Persian)

Yarmohammadi, M. (2005). Metods of Sampling and Their Applications (Translation). Statistics Center of Iran, Tehran. (in Persian)

Agricultural Mechanization and Systems Research

Comparing Energy Indices and Water Productivity of Forage Production in Hydroponic and Conventional Conditions

References

References

Volume 21, Issue 74 - Serial Number 74
September 2020
Pages 117-134

Comparing Energy Indices and Water Productivity of Forage Production in Hydroponic and Conventional Conditions

References

References

Volume 21, Issue 74 - Serial Number 74September 2020Pages 117-134

Volume 21, Issue 74 - Serial Number 74
September 2020
Pages 117-134