Modern intensive rice production has brought a large amount of environmental pollution and do not guarantee the safety of rice quality. Thus, to improve the farmer's rice production model to reduce agro-chemicals is of great importance to decrease pollution and to guarantee the security of food quality. Here, our experiments illustrated that nomadic rice-duck complex ecosystem (RD) could reduce energy input and increase both energy output and the values of the product safety index based on energy (PSI).
Results
According to the results of our experiments, RD and rice monoculture production system (RM) were -0.6 and -0.78, respectively, which indicated that the safety potential of products in RD was higher than that of RM. Protein yield based on RD was significantly higher than that of RM. The output/input, gross income, and net income of RD were 15.26%, 39.51%, and 44.80%, respectively, higher than that of RM; the data suggest that the economic benefits of RD were greater than that of RM.
Conclusions
Consequently, as an intermediate-type technology, RD could become a feasible alternative that could reduce agro-chemical application rate without decreasing rice yield and increasing labor intensity. Furthermore, as an inheritance and development of the Chinese farming culture, RD is a classic Chinese farming technology withstanding more than 700 years of tests.
Keywords
EnergyEconomyIntermediate-type technologyTraditional farming technology in ChinaPSI
Introduction
Modern agriculture production is a very energy-intensive industry. Fuel and fertilizers (N and P) account for the largest share (>75%) of all energy expenditures in a mixed cropping system (Hetz [1992]; Safa and Tabatabaeefar [2002]; Ahmad [1994]). In the past 50 years, crop yields have substantially increased, mainly resulting from the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, the development of new crop varieties, and the improvement in cultivation methods (Xie et al. [2011]). However, excessive use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides raised pest resistance toward pesticides and increased the production costs (Paul et al. [2002]; Tilman et al. [2002]). What is more, their excessive use and misuse, their volatility, and long-distance transports eventually result in widespread environmental contamination (Kaushik et al. [2009]). In particular, many older, non-patented, more toxic, environmentally persistent, and inexpensive chemicals were extensively used in developing nations, creating serious acute health problems and local and global environmental impacts (Ecobichon [2001]). One way to optimize energy consumption in agriculture is to determine the efficiency of methods and techniques used (Bockari-Gevao et al. [2005]). Thus, improving the farmer's rice production model to reduce the agro-chemical application rate is of great importance to decrease pollution and guarantee the security of food quality.
Recently, with land circulation system being tried out in China, a large number of small-scale trial farms have been established in the rural areas of southern China (the range of small farm areas is 8 hm2 to 100 hm2), the farm will become the main force of rice production in the future. Continually adopting modern intensive rice production will continually increase the pollution to the environment and cannot guarantee the safety of rice quality. In addition, soil quality in the past 50 years, such as fertility and toxic substances (lead, arsenic), could not achieve the standard of organic agriculture. Consequently, there was an urgent need for a feasible alternative between modern intensive agriculture and organic agriculture, which could maintain crop yield, improve soil fertility, and decrease labor intensity. As one of the trial models, rice-duck complex ecosystem is one of the traditional farming technologies in China withstanding more than 700 years of tests. Previous studies indicated that rice-duck complex ecosystem was a form of ecological engineering that makes use of the symbiotic relationship between rice and ducks to effectively utilize nutrients, reduce the quantity of chemical fertilizer and pesticide, increase product safety and overall productivity, decrease pollutants discharged from the paddy field (Wang et al. [2004]; Zhang et al. [2002]), and reduce the emission of greenhouse gas, such as methane (Huang et al. [2000]; Huang et al. [2005]) and nitric oxide (Zhang et al. [2008]; Li et al. [2009]).
In this study, energy evaluation method was applied to analyze efficiency of resource utilization and optimize energy consumption. Compared with the rice monoculture production system, ecological and economic effects were evaluated for nomadic rice-duck complex ecosystem. This work can provide scientific evidence for optimization and promotion of nomadic rice-duck complex ecosystem (RD) as a feasible alternative with reducing energy use and increasing economic benefits without decreasing yields and increasing labor intensity.
Methods
Study area
The study area - Changsha Wulong farm - was situated at 28° 16' N, 113° 63' E, in the northeast part of Hunan province (see Figure 1). Its arable area was 50 hm2, 90% of which was paddy fields. In 2010, it started to convert the mode of production from RM to RD. The soil was yellowish red soil with pH = 6.6 to 7.2 and organic matter = 3.0% to 3.6%, total N = 2.32 g kg-1, total P = 1.14 g kg-1, and total K = 11.6 g kg-1. Its basic climate condition was characterized by annual average sunshine time of 1,700 h, annual average temperature of 17.0°C, the coldest month (January) has an average temperature of 2.3°C and the hottest month (July) an average temperature of 30.1°C, frost-free period of 280 days, accumulated temperature (≥10°C) of 5,400°C, and an average rainfall of 1,450 mm, concentrating in the period from May to September.
Figure 1
Map of Hunan province in southern-center China.
Methods
Quantitative analysis was carried out in a 10-hm2 field for the RD, and a 10-hm2 field for the RM. Two treatment fields were separated by a fence. Data records of every input and output of these two systems were kept as raw data of energy evaluation and economic assessment. The information on the inputs and outputs of these two rice production systems, including labor (man and woman), fertilizers, diesel, electricity, electric motors, plastics-general, pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, irrigation water, rice seeds, ducklings, feeds (including formula feed and rice grain), rice grain yields, and ducks, were calculated and recorded during the 2010 to 2011 growing season. The energy content, transformity of the materials, and services were based on Table 1; the economic content was based on cash payments of these two rice production systems according to the price during the given years.
Table 1
Energy equivalences for inputs-outputs in the RD and RM
Row
Item
Units
Low-higha
Energy equivalenceb
References
Renewable source (R)
-1
Irrigation
MJ t-1
4.18
4.18
17
Renewable organic subsidiary sources (R1)
2
Labor
Man
MJ h-1
1.96
1.96
19 to 21
Woman
MJ h-1
1.57
1.57
19 to 21
3
Rice seed
MJ kg-1
16.74
16.74
22, 23
4
Duckling
MJ kg-1
10.21
10.21
Estimated
5
Feed
Formulas feedc
MJ kg-1
11.68
11.68
Estimated
Rice grain
MJ kg-1
14.70 to 16.20
15.19
17, 24, 25
Nonrenewable industrial subsidiary sources (F)
6
N
MJ kg-1
43.00 to 78.00
61.39
26 to 32
7
P2O5
MJ kg-1
11.00 to 17.00
14.31
26 to 32
8
K2O
MJ kg-1
6.00 to 14.00
9.40
26 to 15
9
Diesel
MJ l-1
47.78 to 47.80
47.79
33, 34
10
Electric
MJ kWh-1
10.59 to 11.90
11.25
35, 36
11
Electric motor
MJ kg-1
64.80
64.80
19 to 21
12
Plastics-general
MJ kg-1
90.00
90.00
Estimated
13
Insecticide
MJ kg-1 active agent
80.00 to 460.00
303.25
37 to 41
14
Herbicides
MJ kg-1 active agent
58.00 to 580.00
310.25
37 to 41
15
Fungicides
MJ kg-1 active agent
61.00 to 397.00
185.00
37 to 41
Output
16
Rice grain
MJ kg-1
14.70 to 16.20
15.19
17, 24, 25
17
Duck
MJ kg-1
10.21
10.21
Estimated
aRanges indicate the lowest and highest values found in references; benergy equivalences are taken as the average value of the ranges; cthe composition and nutrition levels of formulas feed: corn (56.6%), soybean meal (15.0%), rapeseed meal (3.0%), wheat bran (7.5%), fish meal (2.0%), wheat middling (12.0%), limestone (1.3%), CaHPO4 (1.2%), NaCl(0.3%), Met (0.1%), premix (1.0%), metabolic energy (11.68 MJ kg-1), crude protein (16.68% kg-1); 17, Scott [2000]; 19, Mandal et al. [2002]; 20, Singh [2002]; 21, De et al. [2001]; 22, Intaravichai [1998]; 23, Rutger and Grant [1980]; 24, Mitchell [1979]; 25, Pimentel [2009]; 26, Kaltcshmitt and Reinhardt [1997]; 27, Singh et al. [2002]; 28, Pimentel and Pimentel [1979]; 29, Leach [1976]; 30, Hjortshøj and Rasmussen [1977]; 31, B°Ckman et al. [1991]; 32, Mudahar and Hignett [1987]; 33, Hetz [1998]; 34, Chamsing et al. [2006]; 35, Acaroglu [2002]; 36, Pimentel and Pimentel [1996]; 37, Pimentel et al. [1996]; 38, Anon [2004]; 39, Stout et al. [1982]; 40, Fluck [1992]; 41, Green [1987].
The strains of the duck were Jiangnan No. 1 in 2010 and mallard in 2011. From 7 days after transplanting or 15 days after direct seedling to 10 days after flowering stage, the ducks were put in the rice field. A 10 hm2 field in the RD was divided into 5 units, the area of every unit was 2 hm2; the ducks were shepherded and cruised back and forth in the unit in the paddy field for controlling diseases, pests, and weeds. Every time in the unit was 2 ~ 3 days; the ducks got energy through eating weeds and preying on pests in the paddy field, while inputting energy for rice growing through casting of dung. A duckling allowed outside its cage was 7 to 15 days old of breeding. Ducks have an affinity for water; the farmer attracted them to the fields and kept them there long enough to benefit the crop through irrigation in cycles and scattering feed in the field. All procedures performed in studies involving animals were carried out in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Ethical Committee of Hunan Agricultural University.
Main energy and economic indices
The indices including input energy (Ei), output energy (Eo), renewable organic subsidiary sources (R1), nonrenewable industrial subsidiary sources (F), net energy gain (NEG), energy ratio (ER = Eo/Ei), and energy productivity (EP = rice grain yield/Ei). A new index, product safety index based on energy (PSI = -C/(F + R1)), was also suggested to evaluate product safety, which was the negative value of the ratio of energy in chemical pesticides and fertilizers to the total purchased energy and in which C is the sum of chemical fertilizer and pesticide energy (Xi and Qin [2009]). In addition, economic indices used were output/input ratio, gross income, and net income.
Statistical analysis of data
The energy content and transformity of the materials and services are based on Table 1, and the economic content and transformity of the materials and services are based on cash payments of these two systems. Data collected were subjected to analysis of variance. The F-test was used to determine significant effects of these two rice production systems, and least significant difference (LSD) was used to separate means. The statistical software used was STATISTLX 8.0.
Results
Energy analysis
The energy flows calculated for the two rice production systems are itemized in Tables 2 and 3. In the RD, the ducks were shepherded to crisscross in the 10 hm2 paddy field and they got energy through artificial feeding, eating weeds, and preying on pests in the paddy field, while they released energy for rice through casting of dung and reducing the quantity of fertilizer and pesticides. Rice grain and the ducks were the output energy entering the market. However, in the RM, rice growth and development depend on how much energy is on nonrenewable industrial subsidiary sources, such as inorganic fertilizer and pesticides; rice grain was the output energy entering the market.
Table 2
Energy inputs and outputs in the RD (nomadic rice-duck complex system, MJ hm-2)
Item
Quantity
MJ
Quantity
MJ
2010
2011
Input
Renewable source (R)
Irrigation water
600.00
2,508.00(6.76)a
600.00
2,508.00(6.76)
Renewable organic subsidiary sources (R1)
Labor
Manb
116.67
228.67(0.61)
116.67
228.67(0.61)
Womanb
174.50
273.97(0.24)
174.50
273.97(0.24)
Rice seed
22.50
376.65(2.02)
15.00
251.1(1.35)
Ducklingc
50.00
510.5(0.27)
50.00
510.50(0.27)
Feed
Formulas feedd
77.70
907.54(0.49)
77.70
907.54(0.49)
Rice graind
1,165.50
17,703.95(9.51)
1,165.50
17,703.95(9.51)
Nonrenewable industrial subsidiary sources (F)
N
135.00
8,287.65(44.45)
135.00
8,287.65(44.45)
P2O5
63.00
901.53(4.84)
63.00
901.53(4.84)
K2O
120.00
1,128.00(6.06)
120.00
1,128.00(6.06)
Diesel
63.90
3,053.78(16.41)
63.90
3,053.78(16.41)
Plastics-general
3.40
306.00(0.16)
3.40
306.00(0.163)
Insecticide
0.58
175.89(0.95)
0.58
175.89(0.95)
Herbicides
0.00
0.00(0.00)
0.00
0.00(0.00)
Fungicides
0.00
0.00(0.00)
0.00
0.00(0.00)
Electric motor
6.00
388.80(0.21)
6.00
388.80(0.21)
Electric
32.18
362.03(0.19)
32.18
362.03(0.19)
Total
18,607.75g
18,482.20g
Output
Rice grain
5,954.68
90,451.59
6,187.89
93,994.05
Ducke
562.50
5,743.13
562.50
5,743.13
Proteinf
573.01
595.33
Output: input(MJ)
4.97g
5.15g
aThe numerical value of the bracket was percentage; bthe labor for feed duck was 65.0 h of man and 126.5 h of woman; cthe variety of duckling was farm duck (2010) and mallard (2011); the weight of duckling was the average weight of 50 g; dthe quantity of the feed was the quantity for feeding 500 ducks; ethe weight of duck was 500 ducks × 1.25 kg/duck(average) × 90.00%(survival ratio) = 562.50; fthe protein content per kilogram was 94.30 g (rice-duck complex system) of rice grain, 204.10 g of farm duck and 210.00 g of mallard; gthe quantity of the labor for man and woman, duckling, feed, plastics-general, electric motor, electric, and duck share equally to ten copies, which account for energy input in the system.
Table 3
Energy inputs and outputs in the RM (rice monoculture production system, MJ hm-2)
Item
Quantity
MJ
Quantity
MJ
2010
2011
Input
Renewable source (R)
Irrigation water
600.00
2,508.00(13.18)a
600.00
2,508.00(13.18)
Renewable organic subsidiary sources (R1)
Labor
Man
51.67
101.27(0.27)
51.67
101.27(0.27)
Woman
24.00
37.68(0.10)
24.00
37.68(0.10)
Rice seed
22.50
376.65(1.01)
15.00
251.10(1.01)
Duckling
0.00
0.00(0.00)
0.00
0.00(0.00)
Feed
Formulas feed
0.00
0.00(0.00)
0.00
0.00(0.00)
Rice grain
0.00
0.00(0.00)
0.00
0.00(0.00)
Nonrenewable industrial subsidiary sources (F)
N
165.00
10,129.35(53.23)
165.00
10,129.35(53.58)
P2O5
63.00
901.53(4.74)
63.00
901.53(4.77)
K2O
120.00
1,128.00(5.97)
120.00
1,128.00(5.97)
Diesel
63.90
3,053.78(16.05)
63.90
3,053.78(16.15)
Plastics-general
0.00
0.00(0.00)
0.00
0.00(0.00)
Insecticide
1.38
417.27(2.19)
1.38
417.27(2.21)
Herbicides
1.13
349.03(1.83)
1.13
349.03(1.85)
Fungicides
0.15
27.75(0.15)
0.15
27.75(0.15)
Electric motor
0.00
0.00(0.00)
0.00
0.00(0.00)
Electric
0.00
0.00(0.00)
0.00
0.00(0.00)
Total
19,030.32
18,904.77
Output
Rice grain
5,806.73
88,204.23
6,180.11
93,875.87
Duck
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Proteinb
487.18
518.51
Output : input(MJ)
4.63
4.97
aThe numerical value of the bracket was percentage; bthe protein content per kilogram was 83.90 g (rice monoculture production system) of rice grain.
Tables 2 and 3 showed that total energy input in RD was 18,607.75 MJ (2010) and 18,482.20 MJ (2011), less than that of RM (19,030.32 MJ for 2010 and 18,904.77 MJ for 2011). We further analyzed the difference of these two rice production systems in the variety of energy input. The ratio of renewable resource, purchased nonrenewable input, and purchased renewable input to the total energy input were 13.52%, 73.37%, and 12.81% in the RD, respectively, and 13.22%, 84.39%, and 2.39% in the RM, respectively. In the RD, the ratio of purchased renewable inputs was the highest, but in the RM, the highest ratio was that of purchased nonrenewable inputs, which indicated the different feature of the RD and the RM. Total energy output in RD was 91,025.90 MJ (2010) and 94,568.36 MJ (2011), higher than that of RM (88,204.23 MJ for 2010 and 93,875.87 MJ for 2011). In the RD, the purchased inputs were dominated by fuel, fertilizer, and feed, accounting for 82.37%; for instance, the energy for feeding duck took 10.72% of the total energy inputs. By contrast, in RM they were fuel, fertilizer, and pesticides, accounting for 84.39%.
Energy indices
Chemical residuals and NO3-usage are the main factors to impact the safety of products (Xi and Qin [2009]). As shown in Figure 2, the values of PSI in the RD and the RM were -0.60 and -0.78, respectively; the data suggested that the safety potential of products in the RD was higher than that of RM. There were significant differences at the 5% level between the treatments on PSI. ER, EP, and energy profitability (PE) in the RD were higher than that of RM, but there were no significant differences at the 5% level between the treatments on ER, EP, and PE. Human energy profitability (HEP) in the RM was higher than that of RD, which suggested that the RD gained yield in paddy field through increased labor intensity but decreased agro-chemical energy, which belonged to labor-intensity farming method, as it conforms to China's national conditions. Protein content of grain based on rice production system in the RD was higher than that of RM, and the difference was significant between the treatments (p value <0.05).
Figure 2
Energy indices in different systems for rice production in Hunan region, China. *represent significance at the 0.05 probability level. ER, energy ratio; PSI, product safety index based on energy; EP, energy productivity; PE, energy profitability; HPE, human energy profitability.
Economic assessment
As shown in Table 4, total input calculated by China Yuan (CNY) in the RD was 3,466.94 CNY hm-2 in 2010 and 3,718.68 CNY hm-2 in 2011, including 22% to 25% of the input for feeding ducks and 5% of the input for pesticides. Total input in the RM was 3,429.81 CNY hm-2 in 2010 and 3,566.72 CNY hm-2 in 2011, including about 11% of the input for pesticides. Total output in RD was 6,685.93 CNY hm-2 in 2010 and 7,746.04 CNY hm-2 in 2011, including 10% to 14% of the output of duck. The output/input, gross income, and net income in the RD were 15.26%, 39.51%, and 44.80% higher than that of RM, which indicated that the economic benefits of the RD were greater than that of RM.
Table 4
Comparisonof economic benefits of RD and RM based on money
Economic benefit(CNY hm-2)a
RD
RM
2010
2011
2010
2011
1. Input
Irrigation
195.00
195.00
195.00
195.00
Labor
Man
159.05
176.56
290.90
322.94
Woman
327.50
363.56
135.12
150.00
Rice seed
360.00
450.00
360.00
450.00
Duckling
75.00
175.00
0.00
0.00
Feed
Formulas feed
15.54
15.54
0.00
0.00
Rice grain
116.55
124.71
0.00
0.00
N
550.80
550.80
673.20
673.20
P2O5
330.75
330.75
330.75
330.75
K2O
612.00
612.00
612.00
612.00
Diesel
450.50
450.50
450.50
450.50
Insecticide
180.00
180.00
235.34
235.34
Herbicides
0.00
0.00
120.00
120.00
Fungicides
0.00
0.00
27.00
27.00
Electric
17.70
17.70
0.00
0.00
2. Solid costb
Plastics-general
16.56
16.56
0.00
0.00
Electric motor
60.00
60.00
0.00
0.00
Total input
3,466.94
3,718.68
3,429.81
3,566.72
3. Output
Rice grain c
5,954.68
6,621.04
5,806.73
6,371.51
Duck d
731.25
1,125.00
0.00
0.00
Total output
6,685.93
7,746.04
5,806.73
6,371.51
4. Output/input
1.93
2.08
1.69
1.79
5. Gross income
3,218.99
4,027.36
2,376.92
2,804.79
6. Net income
2,732.45
3,487.24
1,950.90
2,331.85
+40.0%
+49.5%
-
-
a1 CNY = 0.1571 US.$; bthe change of plastics-general and electric motor was 82.80 CNY and 300.00 CNY, respectively; service life of solid cost was 5 years; cthe wholesale price of rice grain was 1.00 CNY kg-1 in 2010 and 1.07CNY kg-1 in 2011; dthe wholesale price of duck was 10 CNY kg-1 in 2010 and 20 CNY kg-1 in 2011.
Discussion
Agricultural energy consumption has increased largely in response to increasing populations, a limited supply of arable land, and a desire for an increasing standard of living. In all societies, these factors have encouraged an increase in energy inputs to maximize yield, minimize labor-intensive practices, or both (Scott [2000]). In China, half of the labor force in the countryside is made up by women accompanied with labor transfer of rural young men, due to the lack of remuneration engaged in planting. However, women could not alone finish rice production based on higher labor intensity. So, what we urgently need is an intermediate-type technology to both increase yields and minimize labor-intensive practice. The input energy of women's labor in RD account for about 60.0% of total input energy for labor (see Table 2) engaged mainly in looking after and feeding ducks, which belong to low labor-intensive practice. RD was a feasible alternative that could reduce energy use without decreasing rice yield and increasing labor intensity.
More than one in seven people today still do not have access to sufficient protein and energy from their diet and even more suffer from some form of micronutrient malnourishment (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) [2009]). The duck in the RD could provide meat protein and other micronutrients. Another mission of Chinese or global planting is to guarantee the quality and safety of production by all means. Conventional energy-intensive farming depended on fossil fuel and pesticides, which is not competent now. Effectively changing the structure of purchased energy ratio for the RD, by comparison with RM, can significantly increase PSI and the quantity of protein (see Figure 2). Currently, we could not extend and realize organic farming in a large area, and advanced biotechnology for agriculture has not been used for rice production yet. Consequently, we recommend the RD as an intermediate-type technology to settle this issue.
The economic benefits of rice production seriously affect farmers' enthusiasm for rice production. Low earning in the countryside force farmers to go to the city to make a better living; thus, many farmers have to abandon their farmland. Once farmland is abandoned, the soil is exposed to sun and rain, resulting in erosion and further impoverishment of the soil. The output/input, gross income, and net income of RD were 15.26, 39.51, and 44.80%, respectively, higher than that of RM (see Table 4). Adopting the nomadic rice-duck complex ecosystem, to a certain degree, can improve farmers' enthusiasm for rice production.
Conclusions
(1)
RD as an intermediate-type technology is a feasible alternative as it could reduce energy consumption without decreasing rice yield and increasing labor intensity, and as a classic farming technology in China, it was inherited for the development of Chinese farming culture.
(2)
RD could reduce energy input, increase energy output, and change the structure of purchased energy ratio. The purchased renewable energy in the RD account for above 25%.
(3)
In RD and RM, the values of PSI were -0.60 and -0.78, respectively, which indicated that the safety potential of products in the RD was higher than that of RM, and protein yield and protein based on system in the RD were significantly higher than that of RM.
(4)
The output/input, gross income, and net income of RD were 15.26, 39.51, and 44.80%, respectively, higher than that of RM; thus, the data suggested that the economic benefits of RD were greater than that of RM.
Abbreviations
PSI:
product safety index based on energy
RD:
nomadic rice-duck complex ecosystem
RM:
rice monoculture production system
Declarations
Acknowledgements
We thank Mr. Chen and his wife in Wulong farm who gave a great deal of help to record and collect the study data. We also thank Dr. Huang Min at Hunan Agricultural University for his valuable suggestions on this paper.
Authors’ Affiliations
(1)
College of Agronomy, Hunan Agricultural University
(2)
Observation Station of Crop Cultivation in Central China, Ministry of Agriculture
(3)
College of Science, Hunan Agricultural University
References
Acaroglu M (2002) Energy balance sheets in agricultural production-I, Online J Selcuk Tech 2(2):1-18. Konya, Turkey (in Turkish)Google Scholar
Ahmad B: Energetics of major crops in mixed cropping system. AMA 1994, 25(3):52–54.Google Scholar
Anon Appendix C: units, equivalents and energy constants Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida 2004.Google Scholar
Bockari-Gevao SM, Wan Ishak WI, Azmi Y, Chan CW: Analysis of energy consumption in lowland rice-based cropping system of Malaysia. Songklanakarin J Sci Technol 2005, 27(4):819–826.Google Scholar
Bøckman OC, Kaarstad O, Lie OH: Landbruk oggjødsling, Mineralgjødsling iperspektiv. Norsk Hydro, Oslo; 1991.Google Scholar
Chamsing A, Salokhe V, Singh G (2006) Energy consumption analysis for selected crops in different regions of Thailand. Agric Eng Int: CIGRE J Manuscript EE 06013. Vol. VIII. NovemberGoogle Scholar
De D, Singh S, Chandra H: Technological impact an energy consumption in rainfed soybean cultivation in Madhya Pradesh. Appl Energy 2001, 70: 193–213. 10.1016/S0306-2619(01)00035-6View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Ecobichon DJ: Pesticide use in developing countries. Toxicology 2001, 160(1-3):27–33. 10.1016/S0300-483X(00)00452-2View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Fluck RC: Energy in farm production. Elsevier, Amsterdam; 1992.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2009) State of food insecurity in the world. 2009.Google Scholar
Green M: Energy in pesticide manufacture, distribution and use. In Energy in Plant Nutrition and Pest Control, Vol. 7. Edited by: Helsel ZR. Elsevier, Amsterdam; 1987:165–177.Google Scholar
Hetz E,J: Energy utilization in Chilean Agriculture. AMA 1992, 23(2):25–26.Google Scholar
Hetz EJ: Energy utilization in fruit production in Chile. Agric Mech Asia Africa Latin America (AMA) 1998, 298(2):17–20.Google Scholar
Hjortshøj A, Rasmussen S: Enkortlægning af den primære jordbrugssektors energy iforbrug (Mapping the energy use of the primary sector). Økonomisk Institut, Den Kongelige Veterinær-og Landbohøjskole, Copenhagen; 1977.Google Scholar
Huang H, Yang ZH, Wang H, Hu ZY, Chen SG, Chen C: A study on the pattern of methane emission in wetland rice-duck complex ecosystems. Acta Ecologica Sinica 2000, 23(5):929–934.Google Scholar
Huang Y, Wang H, Huang H, Feng ZW, Yang ZH, Luo YC: Characteristics of methane emission from wetland rice-duck complex ecosystem. Agric Ecosystems Environ 2005, 105: 181–193. 10.1016/j.agee.2004.04.004View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Intaravichai P: Energy analysis in mechanised rice production system: specifically for Central Thailand. Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia; 1998.Google Scholar
Kaltcshmitt M, Reinhardt GA: Ecological energy balance sheets in renewable energy source. Friedr. Vieweg, Sohn Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, Braunschweig, Weisbaden, Germany; 1997.Google Scholar
Kaushik G, Satya S, Naik SN: Food processing a tool to pesticide residue dissipation - a review. Food Res Int 2009, 42: 26–40. 10.1016/j.foodres.2008.09.009View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Leach G: Energy and food production. IPC Science and Technology Press Limited, Guilford, Surrey; 1976.Google Scholar
Li CF, Cao CG, Wang JP, Zhan M, Yuan WL, Ahmad S: Nitrous oxide emissions from wetland rice-duck cultivation systems in Southern China. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 2009, 56: 21–29. 10.1007/s00244-008-9159-9View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Mandal KG, Saha KP, Gosh PL, Hati KM, Bandyopadhyay KK: Bioenergy and economic analyses of soybean-based crop production systems in central India. Biomass Bio-energy 2002, 23: 337–45. 10.1016/S0961-9534(02)00058-2View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Mitchell R: An analysis of India agro-ecosystem. Interprint, New Delhi, India; 1979.Google Scholar
Mudahar MS, Hignett TP: Energy requirements, technology and resources in fertilizer sector. In Energy Plant Nutrition and Pest Control: Energy in World Agriculture, Vol. 2. Edited by: Helsel ZR. Elsevier, Amsterdam; 1987:25–61.Google Scholar
Paul M, Fließbach A, Dubois D, Gunst L, Fried P, Niggli U: Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science 2002, 296: 1694–1697. 10.1126/science.1071148View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Pimentel D: Energy input in food crop production in developing and developed nations. Energies 2009, 2: 1–24. 10.3390/en20100001View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Pimentel D, Pimentel M: Food, energy and society. Resource and environmental science series. Edward Arnold, London; 1979.Google Scholar
Pimentel D, Pimentel M (1996) Food, energy, and society. University Press of ColoradoGoogle Scholar
Pimentel D, Houser J, Preiss E, White O, Fang H, Mesnick L, Barsky T, Tariche S, Schreck J, Alpert S: Water resources: agriculture, the environment, and society. Bio Science 1996, 47(2):97–106.Google Scholar
Rutger JN, Grant WR: Energy use in rice production. In Handbook of energy utilization in agriculture. Edited by: Pimentel D. CRC Press, Inc, Boca Raton, Florida; 1980:475.Google Scholar
Safa M, Tabatabaeefar A: Energy consumption in wheat production in irrigated and dry land farming. Proc. Intl. Agric. Engg. Conf., Wuxi, China, Nov. 28-30, 2002 2002.Google Scholar
Scott K: Energy use in American agriculture. 2000. Sustainable energy term paper, 1-26Google Scholar
Singh JM: On farm use pattern in different cropping systems in Haryana, India. Dissertation for master thesis. International Institute of Management, University of Flensburg, Germany; 2002.Google Scholar
Singh H, Mishra D, Nahar NM: Energy use pattern in production agriculture of a typical village in arid zone, India-part-I. Energy Convers Manage 2002, 43: 2275–86. 10.1016/S0196-8904(01)00161-3View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Stout BA, Myers C, Schwab G: Energy management in US production agriculture. In Energy Management and Agriculture. Edited by: Robinson DW, Mollan RC. Royal Dublin Society, Dublin; 1982:67–84.Google Scholar
Wang QS, Huang PS, Zhen R, Jing L, Tang H, Zhang C: Effect of rice-duck mutualism on nutrition ecology of paddy field and rice quality. Chin J Appl Ecol 2004, 25(4):639–645.Google Scholar
Xi YG, Qin P: Energy evaluation of organic rice-duck mutualism system. Ecol Eng 2009, 35: 1677–1683. 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2007.11.006View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Xie J, Hu LL, Tang JJ, Wu X, Li NN, Yuan YG, Yang HS, Zhang JE, Luo SM, Chen X: Ecological mechanisms underlying the sustainability of the agricultural heritage rice-fish co-culture system. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2011, 108(47):1–7.Google Scholar
Zhang JE, Lu JX, Zhang GH, Luo SM: Study on the function and benefit of rice-duck agro-ecosystem. Ecol Sci 2002, 21(1):6–10.Google Scholar
Zhang JE, Ouyang Y, Huang ZX: Characterization of nitrous oxide emission from a rice-duck farming system in South China. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 2008, 54: 167–172. 10.1007/s00244-007-9014-4View ArticleGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.
