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.

2011~2012년 2년간 전북 군산과 익산 지역의 관행농 벼를 재배하는 농가를 대상으로 온실가스 배출량 산정을 위한 인벤토리 목록을 구축하였다. 2년 누적 평균 데이터를 사용하여 전과정평가를 수행하고, 탄소성적 산출 및 온실가스 배출의 주요인을 분석하였다. 분석된 온실가스 배출 주요인자들을 대상으로 민감도 분석을 수행하여 온실가스 잠재량을 산정하고, 대상지역 농가들이 적용할 수 있는 온실가스 저감 영농법을 제안하고자 하였다. 관행농 쌀 생산농가를 대상으로 전과정 목록분석을 수행한 결과 탄소성적은 쌀 1 kg 생산을 기준으로 2.21 kg $CO_2.-eq.kg^{-1}$가 발생되었다. 온실가스 중 $CO_2$ 배출량이 가장 많았으나, 지구온난화 지수를 곱하여 이산화탄소 등가 ($CO_2$-eq.)로 환산하면 벼 생산체계의 탄소성적에서 메탄발생 기여도가 가장 컸다. 전체 $CO_2$ 배출량 중 복비생산 공정에서 37%가 발생하였고, 단비생산으로 10%, 벼 재배과정 중 40%가 발생하였다. 벼 재배 중 $CO_2$ 발생원은 농기계의 화석연료 사용에 의한 불완전 연소이다. $CH_4$는 대부분 벼 재배 중에 발생되었으며, 벼논의 메탄 발생 요인은 혐기조건의 담수논이다. $N_2O$은 대부분 벼 재배과정에서 배출되었고, 벼 재배 중 $N_2O$의 발생요인은 복비, 요소 비료, 퇴비 등의 비료시용이었다. 에너지 사용량 변화에 따른 민감도 분석결과 에너지원 중 경유의 민감도가 가장 높았고, 경유사용량을 10% 줄였을 때 약 2.5%의 $CO_2$ 감축 잠재량이 산정되었다. 복비 시용량을 10% 줄였을 때 $CO_2$는 약 1%, $N_2O$는 약 1.8%의 감축잠재량이 산정되었다. 퇴비시용을 10% 줄이면 약 1.5%의 메탄발생이 감소하고, 아산화질소는 약 1% 감소효과가 나타났다. 물떼기 일수가 10일 증가하면 메탄발생량이 약 4.5% 감소되었다. 투입량의 변화에 따른 온실가스 감소 효과가 가장 큰 요인은 벼논 물떼기 일수의 증가 및 경운과 수확시 사용하는 농기계용 경유사용량 감소였다. 그에 따라 중간낙수 및 무경운 등이 탄소배출 저감 영농법으로 제시되었다.

Keywords

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