Global Warming Potential (GWP 100 Years): Global Warming Potential is
calculated in terms of kg CO 2 eq./1 ton of cotton seed. The combustion of fossil fuel
for agricultural machinery, irrigation and other upstream processes are major
contributors for GWP. Carbon dioxide emissions are mostly induced by irrigation
and agriculture-machinery for all three practices and field emissions are due to N 2 O
and CH 4 . Conventional cotton cultivation depicts the highest among the three
practices for carbon dioxide emissions, followed by BCI and organic cultivation.
The difference in results is mainly due to the contribution of agricultural inputs, i.e.
fertilizer production, provision of pesticides, tractor operations and energy use for
irrigation in the conventional system. For all three practices GWP from N 2 O
emissions from field is the highest. This is mainly due to the various fertilizers used,
water management system and soil use pattern. BCI and organic practices shows
some advantages compared to conventional cotton because of reduced field air
emissions of Nitrous oxide due to reduction of inorganic fertilizers use, savings of
CO 2 emissions due to production of less inorganic fertilizers and less CO 2 emissions from tractor operation.
Eutrophication Potential (EP): Eutrophication Potential is calculated in terms
of kg PO 4 eq./1 ton of cotton seed. Ammonia, nitrogen oxides, nitrous oxide are the
major air emissions and nitrate, nitrogen and phosphate are major water emissions
resulting in eutrophication potential. Ammonia emissions from field is the highest
contributor for BCI and conventional cultivation. This is mainly due to the use of
fertilisers in these practices. Nitrogen oxides are major contributors for Organic
cultivation. When comparing with the eutrophication potential of all three production practices, conventional cotton scores are much higher (7.07 kg PO 4 -eq.)
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Organic
BCI
Conv.
Organic
BCI
Conv.
Organic
BCI
Conv.
Organic
BCI
Conv.
AP
EP
GWP(100
years)
PED
Agriculture Machinery Basic Emissions
FerƟliser
Field Emissions
IrrigaƟon
Tractor
Fig. 2 Comparative analysis of the three cotton cultivation practices
74
P. Shah et al.
Précédent

- 80/498

Suivant