Environment Conservation Journal 24 (3): 67-78, 2023

Journal homepage: https://www.environcj.in/

Environment Conservation Journal

ISSN 0972-3099 (Print) 2278-5124 (Online)

Energy budgeting and life cycle assessment of cashew cultivation

under different planting densities
Krishnappa Manjunatha
ICAR- Directorate of Cashew Research, Puttur 574202, Dakshina Kannada, Karnataka, India
Mundakochi Gangadhara Nayak
ICAR- Directorate of Cashew Research, Puttur 574202, Dakshina Kannada, Karnataka, India
Shamsudheen Mangalassery
ICAR- Directorate of Cashew Research, Puttur 574202, Dakshina Kannada, Karnataka, India
Palpandian Preethi
ICAR- Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
Bommanahalli Munivenkata Muralidhara
ICAR- Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
Siddanna Savadi
ICAR- Directorate of Cashew Research, Puttur 574202, Dakshina Kannada, Karnataka, India

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Received : 24 August 2022 Energy budgeting is important for determining the sustainability and
Revised : 10 December 2022 vulnerability of a crop production system. In the present study, an assessment
Accepted : 03 January 2023 of the energy requirements for cashew cultivation under three different
planting densities was carried out during 2015-20. The study revealed that the
Available online: 11 April 2023 total input energy consumption for cashew cultivation ranged from 75292.68 to
120903.58 MJ/ha. The energy productivity from 0.04 to 0.13 kg/MJ and energy
Key Words: use efficiency varied from 8.46 to 24.61% under three planting densities. The
Cashew highest energy was consumed in terms of chemical fertilizers for all the
Energy input planting densities followed by fuel (diesel), machinery, farmyard manure
Energy analysis (FYM), pesticides, petrol and human energy. The analysis revealed the need to
Energy equivalents implement improved management practices to enhance the energy efficiency by
Specific energy reducing the energy consumption in inputs, by optimizing energy consumption
and/or improving the crop yield by optimizing the cultivation methods and
switching from non-renewable sources to renewable sources of energy. Among
the three different planting densities, 2.5x2.5 m spacing consumed the highest
energy followed by 5x5 m and 7.5x7.5m spacing. However, the planting density
of 2.5x2.5 m spacing was more energy efficient over the years due to more
yields per unit area.

Introduction
Cashew (Anacardium occidentale L.) is a nut crop Ivory Coast are the major cashew producers in the
native to Brazil. Currently, cashew is cultivated in world (FAOSTAT, 2018). Cultivation of cashew in
over 30 countries and has emerged as a potential India is mainly confined to the coastal areas and in
foreign-exchange earning crop in the developing recent times it has been spread to plains of
countries. Cashew is good source of carbohydrates Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and hills of the North
(22%), proteins (21%), fat (47%) and minerals Eastern States. Energy is the basic driver of
(calcium, iron and phosphorous) (Sharma, 2004) agricultural crop production and practices (Ozkan
and offers 575 kcal of energy per 100 g (Sathe, et al., 2004). Limited agricultural land availability
1994). Historically India dominated the global due to urbanization has necessitated the need for
cashew market (Nayak and Savadi, 2019) intensive agriculture. The success of sustainable
(Anonymous, 2014). Currently, Vietnam, India and agriculture depends on the utilization of energy
Corresponding author E-mail: [email protected]
Doi:https://doi.org/10.36953/ECJ.14622444
This work is licensed under Attribution-Non-Commercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)
© ASEA
 Manjunatha et al.

sources in an efficient manner (Fadavi et al., 2011). an improved energy efficiency of 1.72 and net
For agriculture, the energy needs are split into two energy of 19625 MJ/ha under the organic nutrient
categories, viz. direct and indirect. The crop management due to lower energy intake
production activities such as land preparation, (30722MJ/ha) and higher energy output
irrigation, weeding, harvesting, and threshing and (50347MJ/ha), compared to the no-manuring and
transportation of various inputs for agricultural integrated nutrient management practices.
production come under the direct energy category In India, cashew is generally grown as rainfed crop
(Singh, 2000). The energy for activities such as under wider spacing of 7.5 x 7.5 m with 178 trees
packaging of agricultural produce and per hectare. However, under wider spacing system,
transportation of the seeds, fertilizers, farm the plants take 7-8 years to cover the allotted space
machines, insecticides and pesticides are regarded as a result the resources such as land, sunlight,
as indirect energy. Yet another classification of the chemical inputs etc go wasted (Nayak et al., 2019).
energy is as non-renewable or renewable energy The adoption of high density and ultra-density
sources based on the capability of being renewed planting systems in cashew helps to utilise the land
(Rajesh et al., 2018). and input resources more effectively in the initial
An energy assessment of the crop production years of plantation establishment and as
system and practices is required to determine the consequence, increased productivity per unit area.
optimal energy input for achieving different The energy budgeting in cashew production
productivity levels. Minimizing or combining systems has received little attention and there are
machinery operations may minimize the energy no reports energy budgeting in cashew. The present
input, time and labour (Esengun et al., 2007; Karale study was undertaken to find out the energy
et al., 2008). Analysis of energy involved in requirement and life cycle assessment of cashew
agricultural production is often used as the basic cultivation under different planting densities in
components for life cycle assessments. (Piringer & coastal India. This is first report of energy
Steinberg, 2006). Several investigations have been budgeting in cashew crop production, which can
done on energy usage in different agricultural facilitate effective utilization inputs and energy
systems including fruit and nut crops (Strapatsa et resource to attain better productivity with little
al., 2006; Demircan et al., 2006; Fadavi et al., energy wastage and environmental damage.
2011; Paramesh et al., 2018; Bartzas and
Komnitsas, 2018). The energy indicators and the Material and Methods
energy expenditure per unit of apple production Experimental site
was estimated in West Azarbaijan, Iran by Fadavi The investigation was carried out at the ICAR-
et al. (2011). The values of energy productivity, net Directorate of Cashew Research Puttur, Karnataka,
energy and output-input energy were estimated to India. The study area has hot and humid climate
be 101.50 MJ/ha, 0.23 kg/MJ, –56.32 MJ/ha and with annual average precipitation of 3500 mm and
0.44, respectively. The study findings indicated that the soil is sandy clay loam with a pH of 5.25. The
96.7% of total energy input was in the form of non- present study was conducted from 2015 to 2020 to
renewable sources. Hatirli et al. (2006) analysed the assess the life cycle and energy budgeting of
correlation between energy inputs and crop yields cashew cultivation under three planting densities
for greenhouse tomato cultivation in Turkey and [2.5 x 2.5 m, 5 x 5 m and 7.5 x 7.5 m] under rainfed
developed an economic model. Likewise, in sweet condition. The experiment was designed in a
cherry production, Demircan et al. (2006) showed randomized block design (RBD) with three
that the fertilizers (45.35%) were the foremost replications. The jumbo nut cashew hybrid, H-130,
energy-consuming input source followed by diesel a pruning responsive cultivar planted during 2013
oil (21.53%). In pistachio production, the total at the three different spacings was chosen for the
energy intake under irrigated conditions in Greece study.
was found to be 41.9 GJ/ha, while the ratio of Computation of parameters
energy productivity and energy efficiency rate was The energy assessment was carried out on the basis
0.06 kg/MJ and 70%, respectively (Bartzas and of various farm operations (planting, weeding,
Komnitsas, 2018). Paramesh et al. (2019) reported harvesting) as well as on the direct (human labour
68
Environment Conservation Journal
 Energy budgeting and life cycle assessment of cashew

and fuel) and indirect (farm machines, chemical operations and energy inputs was collected and
fertilizers and pesticides) energy resources used in quantified using the energy coefficient in order to
the crop production process. Information on the estimate energy usage in a particular unit operation
duration, quantity and frequency of the unit (Table 1).
Table 1: Resource input, outputs, and their energy equivalents
Input Energy Equivalent Unit Reference
Paramesh et al. (2019); Erdal et al. (2007); Nassiri & Singh
Human labour 1.96 MJ/man h
(2009); Mohammadi et al. (2008)
Paramesh et al. (2019); Mohammadi et al. (2008); Singh & Mittal
Machinery 62.7 MJ/kg
(1992); Gündoğmuş (2006)
Paramesh et al. (2019); Taki et al. (2012); Hatirli et al. (2006);
FYM 0.3 MJ/kg
Demircan et al. (2006)
Fertilizers
N 60.6 MJ/kg Singh & Mittal (1992); Gündoğmuş (2006)
P 11.1 MJ/kg Singh & Mittal (1992); Gündoğmuş (2006)
K 6.7 MJ/kg Singh & Mittal (1992); Gündoğmuş (2006)
Chemicals
Insecticide 184.63 MJ/kg Pimentel (1980)
Petrol 48.23 MJ/l Singh & Mittal (1992)
Paramesh et al. (2019); Gündoğmuş (2006); Mohammadi et al.
Diesel 56.31 MJ/l
(2008)
Self-Propelled
68.4 MJ/kg Singh & Mittal (1992)
Machines
Cashew fruit 1.9 MJ/kg Singh & Mittal (1992)

The methodology adopted for the analysis for input material used in the plots with the energy
assessing the energy inputs used in cashewnut content of each input sources(Azam & Singh,
production is as follows. 1996; Khan & Singh, 1997).

1. The use of human energy was calculated by In the present study, useful life and average annual
taking into account the time of labour-intensive working hours were used as perIS:9164 (1979). The
activity and the total number of people following equation was used to calculate the energy
involved in that particular farm operation. The expenditure from farm machines (Rajesh et al.,
gross human energy expenditure was estimated 2018).
by multiplying the energy coefficient of the
human power for unit man-hour by the total EM = (Eqm × Wm × Whm) / (Lm × Whym) (1)
number of hours of human activity in the
particular unit operation (Sharma et al., 2020). Where,
EM = Energy from farm machines
2. In the case of the tractor, diesel engine or other Eqm= Energy equivalent for machinery
machinery, the volume of fuel used for a Wm= Weight of machine
specific field operation was determined using Whm= Machine working hours
the top-fill method. The energy consumption to Lm= Life of machine
Whym= Machine working hours/year
manufacture machineries such as tractors,
weeders and other farm equipment was
Energy indicators
determined based on their weight, useful life
The identified set of indicators was calculated
and average annual working hours.
based on the energy equivalents of inputs and
3. The quantity of input materials like farmyard
outputs to determine the energy efficiency as
manure (FYM), chemical fertilizers and
follows (Balogh & Hall, 2016; Hall, 2011; Martin
insecticides/pesticides utilized in cashew
et al., 2014; Mohammadi & Omid, 2010; Singh et
production has been converted to energy
al., 1997).
equivalent by multiplying the amount of the
69
Environment Conservation Journal
 Manjunatha et al.

Energy use efficiency MJ/ha) followed by the fuel (diesel) (27479 MJ/ha)
The energy use efficiency shows the effectiveness (Table 2). The fuel energy (diesel oil) was used
of a crop production system. It is important to mainly to run earth moving machines for the initial
remember that the energy consumed in input can be land development activities. Therefore, exact
minimized by optimizing energy consumption or to chemical fertilizer management, taking the amount
increase the crop yield by optimizing farming and frequency of fertilization into account, as well
practices in order to enhance energy use efficiency as proper selection and management of machinery
during the cultivation cycle. to reduce direct use of diesel fuel are required to
save non-renewable energy sources without
Total energy output (MJ/ha)
Energy use efficiency = (2) compromising the yield or profitability and to
Total energy input (MJ/ha)
increase the energy use efficiency of cashew
production. Proebsting (1980) estimated that the
Net energy
energy expenditure for fuel (diesel oil) was 14.87%
Net energy is one of the key performance indices
and 14.75% of the overall energy intake for the red
that show the relationship between the gross energy
tart and sweet cherry respectively. The energy
produced from the main and by-product and the
consumption for machinery, farmyard manure
total input energy required for crop production.
(FYM) chemicals, petrol and human energy were
Net Energy = Energy output (MJ/ha) − Energy input (MJ/ha) (3) found to be 22405, 6000, 5760, 1746 and 1724
MJ/ha, respectively.
Energy productivity A cashew tree starts bearing two years after
It defines the amount of product obtained per unit planting in closer spacing but widely spaced
of input energy used. The input energy sources like planting takes six to seven years for commercial
human labour and FYM comes under renewable production. The energy efficiency, specific energy,
energy sources; while non-renewable energy energy productivity and net energy of cashew
consists of energy inputs from machines, fuel, production were also estimated for 2.5x2.5 m
chemical fertilizers and chemicals. spacing (Table 2). The mean yield of cashew crop
was determined to be 1248 kg/ha in the second year
Crop yield (kg/ha) and it was significantly increased to 2432 kg/ha
Energy productivity = (4)
Total energy input (MJ/ha) during the fourth year. The energy ratio (also
known as energy use efficiency) varied from 12.2
Specific energy to 24.6% in the cashew orchards, showing the
This index represents how much of energy is used ineffective utilization of energy in the cashew
by a product to produce 1 kg and is typically used production. It is important to note that the
to compare various product categories. The entire proportion can be maximized by enhancing the crop
crop production process is more effective when the yield (the cashew apple energy coefficient is
specific energy is less. relatively less) and/or by reducing input energy
expenditure (input management). The specific
Total energy input (MJ/ha)
Specific energy = (5) energy for cashew production varied from 8.22 to
Crop yield (kg/ha)
4.06 MJ/kg. The study findings showed that energy
productivity and net energy varied from 0.06 to
0.13 kg/MJ and -17,126.66 to -14,158.49 MJ/ha
Results and discussion respectively. This means an average output of 0.10
Analysis of input-output energy use for cashew
units per unit of energy was achieved. The net
production and energy indicators
energy calculated was negative inferring that in
The total energy expenditure and different energy
cashew production, the energy was wasted. Fadavi
indices for the production of cashew at 2.5 x 2.5 m
et al. (2011) observed that net energy and energy
spacing showed that the overall energy used in
productivity for apples were –64,556 MJ/ha and
various unit operations in cashew production was
0.19 kg/MJ, respectively. The net energy
120903 MJ/ha (Table 2). The maximum energy
of tangerine (-8201 MJ/ha) and plum (-116,219 and
intake was utilized by chemical fertilizers (55788
-125,788 MJ/ha) was reported by
70
Environment Conservation Journal
 Energy budgeting and life cycle assessment of cashew

Table 2: Energy consumption and different energy indices for cashew production (2.5 x 2.5 m spacing)

Total Energy Equivalent (MJ/ha) Percentage

Total
of total
Inputs Initial Energy
I Year II Year III Year IV Year energy
establishment MJ/ha
input (%)
Human labour 295.96 226.07 339.72 451.02 411.45 1724.22 1.43
Machinery 22366.80 16.11 13.45 4.48 4.48 22405.33 18.53
FYM 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 6000.00 4.96
Chemical fertilizer 914.64 9977.62 14965.37 14965.37 14965.37 55788.38 46.14
Insecticides 354.49 1683.83 1240.71 1240.71 1240.71 5760.46 4.76
Petrol 964.6 781.326 1745.93 1.44
Diesel 23650.2 957.27 957.27 957.27 957.27 27479.28 22.73
Total Energy Consumption 48782.09 15025.49 19497.86 18818.86 18779.29 120903.58 100.00
Yield (kg/ha) 1248 2240 2432 5920
Total Energy output (MJ/ha) 2371.2 4256 4620.8 11248.00
Energy use efficiency (%) 12.16 22.62 24.61 9.30
Specific energy (MJ/kg) 8.22 4.42 4.06 10.75
Energy productivity (kg/MJ) 0.06 0.12 0.13
Net energy yield (MJ/ha) -17126.66 -14562.86 -14158.49 -109655.58
FYM: Farm yard manure
in the study region for improving the energy
Mohammadshirazi et al. (2012), and Tabatabaie et efficiency of cashew production. Energy efficiency
al. (2012). The low energy output may be due to was different from other orchard plants like cherry
the low yields during the second year and higher (0.96) (Kizilaslan, 2009) and apple (0.97)
energy consumption during the initial establishment (Hasanzadeh & Rahbar, 2005) due to the different
of cashew orchard (less output, with increased growth rates and phenology of the crops and
input). The different inputs utilized in cashew operations involved in the crop production. The
production and their energy coefficients; output calculation of energy productivity for various crops
energy equivalents and energy indicators are such as potato (0.35) (Mohammadi et al., 2008) and
represented in Table 3. The overall energy cherry (0.51) (Kizilaslan, 2009) is well
equivalent of inputs was determined to be 98532 documented. The average specific energy of
MJ/ha. Out of total energy input, energy from cashew production at 5 x 5 m spacing varied 10.73
human labour accounts for 1021.32 MJ/ha whereas to 7.72 MJ/kg, indicating that per unit of cashew
machinery, FYM, chemical fertilizers, chemicals production, an average of 9.07 MJ of energy was
petrol and diesel energy were found to be 14738.71, ingested. The findings revealed that net energy
4200.00, 55788.86, 2570.05, 2749.11 and 17463.98 varied from -16275.00 to -15482.18 MJ/ha. The net
MJ/ha, respectively. It was observed that in cashew energy calculated is negative inferring that more
production much energy was consumed from energy is consumed during the cashew production.
fertilizers followed by the fuel energy (diesel oil) Similarly, Fadavi et al. (2011) found that net
and farm machines. The energy inputs utilized in energy for apple production was about –64,556
production such as FYM, fuel, chemicals MJ/ha while the energy productivity was 0.19
(insecticide/pesticide) and human labour were kg/MJ.The unit operation wise energy requirements
considered to be comparatively less than the other in cashew production under wider spacing of 7.5 x
inputs. The average yield of cashew under 5 x 5m 7.5 m were monitored and evaluated for studying
spacing varied from 880 to 1212 kg/ha and its different patterns of energy usage and results are
energy value was found to be 1672 to 2302MJ/ha. reported in Table 4. Out of all the energy inputs,
The calculated mean values of energy productivity chemical fertilizer application recorded the largest
and energy use efficiency varied from 0.05 to 0.07 energy usage among the input variables used in
kg/MJ and 9.32 to 12.95 %, respectively. These cashew production, reaching 42215 MJ/ha
findings suggest that there is considerable potential (56.07%) in overall energy expenditure. The

71
Environment Conservation Journal
 Manjunatha et al.

Table 3: Energy consumption and different energy indices for cashew production (5 x 5 m spacing)

Total Energy Equivalent (MJ/ha) Total Percentage of

Energy total energy
0 Year I Year II Year III Year IV Year
Inputs MJ/ha input (%)
Human labour 137.20 145.04 237.14 261.41 240.54 1021.32 1.04
Machinery 14698.18 18.29 16.63 2.80 2.80 14738.71 14.96
FYM 600 600 600 1200 1200 4200.00 4.26
Chemical fertilizer 914.64 9978.11 14965.37 14965.37 14965.37 55788.86 56.62
Chemicals 88.62 465.27 465.27 775.45 775.45 2570.05 2.61
Petrol 1446.9 1302.21 2749.11 2.79
Diesel 15541.56 360.384 360.384 600.83 600.83 17463.98 17.72
Total Energy Consumption 31980.21 13013.99 17947.00 17805.86 17784.98 98532.04 100.00
Yield (kg/ha) 880 1068 1212 3160
Total Energy output (MJ/ha) 1672 2029.2 2302.8 6004.00
Energy use efficiency (%) 9.32 11.40 12.95 6.09
Specific energy (MJ/kg) 10.73 8.77 7.72 16.41
Energy productivity (kg/MJ) 0.05 0.06 0.07
Net energy yield (MJ/ha) -16275.00 -15776.66 -15482.18 -92528.04

Table 4: Energy consumption and different energy indices for cashew production (7.5 x 7.5 m spacing)

Total Energy Equivalent (MJ/ha) Total Percentage of

Energy total energy
Inputs 0 Year I Year II Year III Year IV Year MJ/ha input (%)
Human labour 97.06 128.62 188.93 197.62 205.48 817.71 1.09
Machinery 12429.55 16.36 17.33 1.24 1.24 12465.71 16.56
FYM 265.5 265.5 265.5 531 531 1858.50 2.47
Chemical fertilizer 545.79 5952.39 8929.02 11905.19 14882.87 42215.26 56.07
Chemicals 38.77 206.79 206.79 341.57 341.57 1135.47 1.51
Petrol 1360.086 1446.9 2806.99 3.73
Diesel 13142.75 159.3573 159.3573 265.7832 265.7832 13993.04 18.58
Total Energy Consumption 26519.42 8089.10 11213.83 13242.39 16227.94 75292.68 100.00
Yield (kg/ha) 499.14 663.75 723.93 1886.82
Total Energy output (MJ/ha) 948.366 1261.125 1375.467 3584.96
Energy use efficiency (%) 8.46 9.52 8.48 4.76
Specific energy (MJ/kg) 11.82 10.50 11.80 21.00
Energy productivity (kg/MJ) 0.04 0.05 0.04
Net energy yield (MJ/ha) -10265.46 -11981.27 -14852.47 -71707.72

second-largest contribution to energy consumption energy use efficiency, specific energy, energy
was the use of diesel energy (13993.04 MJ/ha) productivity and net energy were determined based
followed by machinery (12465.71 MJ/ha). Diesel on the energy output from the cashew (Table 4).
oil is primarily used for operating earth moving The calculated average energy use efficiency and
machines and tiller operated sprayers engaged in energy productivity values varied from 8.46 to
different farming activities such as land preparation 9.52% and 0.04 to 0.05 kg/MJ respectively. Energy
and spraying of plant protection chemicals. The productivity is low compared to the results reported
share of electricity was only 2806.99 MJ/ha (3.73% in other fruits such as apricot (0.24 kg/MJ)
of the overall energy intake). The FYM contributed (Esengun et al., 2007), and apple (0.49
2.47%, while chemicals and human labour kg/MJ)(Rafiee et al., 2010). It implies that extra
contributed even less i.e., 1.51% and 1.09%, energy should be spent to increase the crop yield. It
respectively. The various energy indicators viz., was also observed that energy consumption has a

72
Environment Conservation Journal
 Energy budgeting and life cycle assessment of cashew

positive correlation with crop yield. Specific energy chemical fertilizer is one of the most significant
shows the amount of energy spent to produce a unit energy input sources followed by diesel oil and
of product. It was slightly higher (11.82 to 10.50 machinery. Therefore, we need to focus more on
MJ/kg). Bartzas and Komnitsas (2018) found that efficient use of chemical fertilizers, fuel (diesel) for
the average specific energy of pistachios production various operations and energy for different
was 16.97 MJ/kg, implying that 16.97 MJ of energy machinery to reduce energy expenditure in cashew
was consumed in pistachios for the production per production compared to other factors. Special crop
unit of dry in-shell pistachios. The net energy in management practices and application procedures
cashew production system varied from -14852.47 to should be followed to minimize the inputs.
-10265.46 MJ/ha indicating that the present Mangalassery et al. (2019) reported the biomass
production system is not energy efficient. generated in mature cashew plantation can be
In this study, the total energy expenditure in cashew converted to compost with 65% recovery and about
production for different plant densities during 4 50% of the nutrient requirement of cashew
years in coastal India was assessed and presented in plantation can be met by proper recycling of
Table 5. The calculated energy consumption for biomass generated in cashew plantations
different plant densities varied from 75292.68 to (Mangalassery et al., 2019; Rupa, 2017). Other
120903.58 MJ/ha. means for reducing the reliance on chemical
The study showed that energy consumption in fertilizers without compromising on soil quality is
cashew production increases with an increase in the to go for green manuring, application of bio
number of plants per unit area. The energy use fertilizers and organic farming (Kalaivanan &
efficiency gap recommends improving the crop Rupa, 2017; Yadukumar et al., 2008). Proper
yield by optimizing the farming practices or management of critical inputs can reduce energy
minimizing the input energy utilized by optimizing use on cashew production and can improve energy
energy consumption. In cashew production, efficiency.
Table 5: Total energy equivalents (MJ/ha) in 4 years under different plant densities

Spacing (m)
Inputs 2.5 x 2.5 5x5 7.5 x 7.5
Human labour 1724.22 1021.32 817.71
Machinery 22405.33 14738.71 12465.71
FYM 6000.00 4200.00 1858.50
Chemical fertilizer 55788.38 55788.86 42215.26
Chemicals 5760.46 2570.05 1135.47
Petrol 1745.93 2749.11 2806.99
Diesel 27479.28 17463.98 13993.04
Total Energy Consumption (MJ/ha) 120903.58 98532.04 75292.68
Yield (kg/ha) 5920.00 3160.00 1886.82
Total Energy output (MJ/ha) 11248 6004 3584.958
Energy use efficiency 9.30 6.09 4.76
Specific energy (MJ/kg) 10.75 16.41 21.00
Energy productivity (kg/MJ) 0.05 0.03 0.03
Net energy yield (MJ/ha) -109655.58 -92528.04 -71707.72

Source-wise Energy Distribution Pattern

The percentage shares of total input energy for accounted for 46 percent followed by diesel (23%)
cashew production for 2.5x2.5m spacing are and machinery (19%). The contribution of farmyard
depicted in Figure 1. The energy expenditure of manure (5%), chemicals (5%), petrol (1%) and
fertilizers ranked first among the energy inputs and human energy (1%) remained at a low level. In
73
Environment Conservation Journal
 Manjunatha et al.

order to bring down the energy consumption in energy content of fertilizers. The fuel (diesel)
cashew production the management of input energy has ranked second place in energy
consumption is more important. Among the overall consumption accounting for about 18.0% of the
overall input energy followed by energy from
machinery (15 %). However, energy from FYM,
5% chemicals, petrol and human labour consumed
1% Human labour about 4, 2, 3 and 1%of the overall input energy
Machinery respectively. Similarly, in ultra-density planting
1% 23% 19% (2.5 x 2.5 m spacing), the indirect energy (77297.62
FYM
MJ/ha), sources were much greater in cashew
Chemical fertilizer
production contrast to direct energy (21234.42
Chemicals MJ/ha). The indirect energy input persisted at
5% 46%
Petrol 78.45% of the total energy input compared with
Diesel 21.60% of the direct energy. There was greater
consumption of non-renewable sources (94.7%)
than renewable form (5.3%) (Table 6).
Figure 1: Percentages of total energy input for cashew Consumption of both non-renewable sources and
production (2.5 x 2.5 m spacing) renewable sources of energy varied with various
inputs used in crop production. The decrease in the
usage of non-renewable sources has a direct impact
1% Human labour on the cultivation cost. The non-renewable energy
Machinery component is high in cashew production. The
18% 15% 4% maximum contribution of non-renewable energy
3%
FYM sources comes from the use of fertilizers, diesel,
2%
Chemical farm machines, chemical and petrol. The findings
fertilizer of the energy distribution in the present study are in
Chemicals close agreement with reports of Bartzas and
57% Petrol Komnitsas (2018) for the production of irrigated
pistachio and they also reported non-renewable
Diesel sources and indirect energy sources accounts for
about 81% and 66% of the overall energy
Figure 2: The anthropogenic energy inputs in the expenditure.Source-wise energy analysis for
production of cashew (5 x 5 m spacing) cashew production at normal planting system
(7.5 x 7.5 m) showed that the chemical fertilizers
energy utilized, 25.60% was direct energy and took a larger share of energy consumption (55.6%
74.40% was indirect energy sources whereas, non- of overall energy intake), followed by diesel energy
renewable form and renewable form of energy (19% of overall energy intake) (Figure3). The
sources were recorded as 93.61% and 6.39%, contribution of energy from machinery sources was
respectively (Table 6). It was also noted that the determined to be 17% of the total energy
impact of indirect energy was proved to be more requirements. However, energy sources like
effective than compared to direct energy sources. FYM,chemicals, petrol and human labour
Hatirli et al. (2006) observed the effect of indirect consumed about 2, 1, 4 and 1% of the total input
energy’s on yield was more significant than direct energy. Under normal planting system, 93.45% and
energy's. Hatirli et al. (2005) also observed a 76.60% of the overall input energy utilized for
greater impact of non-renewable energy sources on cashew production is non-renewable energy and
crop yield compared to renewable sources. indirect energy sources whereas, the amount of
In 5 x 5 m spacing, the energy consumption by crop renewable and direct energy sources was found to
management accounted for 57% of overall energy be 3.55 and 23.40%, respectively (Table 6). Similar
usage (Figure 2). The increased energy inputs used results were observed by Afshar et al. (2013) for
in the management of crops are due to the higher pistachio production in irrigated condition and
74
Environment Conservation Journal
 Energy budgeting and life cycle assessment of cashew

showed 86 % of total energy consumption for non- in several other fruit tree production, like apple
renewable energy sources. Likewise, the (Fadavi et al., 2011) and almonds (Beigi et al.,
distribution of sources of energy has been recorded 2016).

Table 6: Quantification of various energy sources under different plant densities

Total energy consumption for different plant density (MJ/ha)

SN Energy Sources Unit
2.5 x 2.5 5x5 7.5 x 7.5
1. Direct Energy (DE) MJ/ha 30949.42 (25.60%) 21234.42 (21.55%) 17617.73 (23.40%)
2. Indirect Energy (IDE) MJ/ha 89954.16 (74.40%) 77297.62 78.45%) 57674.95 76.60%)
3. Renewable Energy (RE) MJ/ha 7724.21 (6.39%) 5221.323 (5.30 %) 2676.205 (3.55%)
4. Non-Renewable Energy (NRE) MJ/ha 113179.36 (93.61%) 93310.72(94.70 %) 72616.47 93.45%)

The source wise energy expenditure pattern for the coastal India and is heavily reliant on non-
production of cashew under various plant densities renewable energy and indirect energy sources.
are depicted in Figure 4. Among the different plant
densities, chemical fertilizer consumed the
maximum energy, followed by diesel fuel. As
regards to the share of the total energy, expenditure
is concerned the energy consumption per unit area
was slightly higher for ultra-density plantation 1% Human labour

(2.5x2.5 m) as compared to other two spacing (i.e., 4% 19% 17% 2% Machinery

5x5 and 7.5x7.5 m). The higher energy expenditure 1% FYM

in ultra-density and high-density cashew orchards is Chemical fertilizer

mainly due to more number of plants per unit area 56%
Chemicals
and increased need for resources for the initial Petrol
establishment. Comparative analyses of the Diesel
findings obtained in the present study in terms of
energy requirements under different plant densities
indicated that the overall energy requirement is
decreased over the years, for all planting densities
and the yield was increased significantly which in Figure 3: Percentages of total energy input for cashew
turn increases the total output energy. Forms of production (7.5 x 7.5 m spacing)
renewable/non-renewable and direct/indirect energy
sources used in cashew production are also studied 70000.00
Energy Consumption (MJ/ha)

for different plant densities and presented in Figure 60000.00

5. The outcomes indicated that the contribution of 50000.00

direct input energy for different plant densities 40000.00

varied from 21.55 to 25.60% compared to 74.40 to 30000.00

2.5 x 2.5 m
78.45% for indirect energy sources. Also, non- 20000.00
5x5m
10000.00
renewable and renewable energy sources 7.5 x 7.5 m
0.00
contributed to 93.45 to 94.70% and 3.55 to 6.39%
of the overall energy intake, respectively. It is
evident that the amount of non-renewable and
indirect input energy usage in cashew production is Source of Energy
very much high. Energy analysis showed that
cashew production is relatively energy efficient in Figure 4: Source wise energy consumption pattern for
cashew production under different plant densities.

75
Environment Conservation Journal
 Manjunatha et al.

Direct Energy renewable/renewable and direct/indirect were

100
(DE)
analysed to identify the process of energy input
80
60
which causes the greatest impact in the life cycle of
40 23.4 2.5 x 2.5 cashew production. In conclusion, assessment of
20
Non-
Renewable 0
Indirect Energy
5x5 the energy flow indicated that cashew production is
(IDE)
Energy (NRE)
93.45 3.55 76.6
7.5 x 7.5 relatively less energy-efficient and is largely
dependent on non-renewable and indirect energy
sources. The source wise energy contribution
Renewable
Energy (RE)
indicated that overall energy expenditure related to
the current cashew production in the study region is
Figure 5: Distribution pattern of total energy input (MJ/ha) primarily attributed to the management of nutrients
in the form of direct energy (DE), indirect energy (IDE),
renewable (RE) and non-renewable (NRE) for Cashew (fertilizers) followed by energy from diesel fuel,
cultivation. machinery, FYM, chemicals, petrol and human
energy. In this context, different strategies have
The expenditure analysis suggested that the overall been suggested to improve the energy efficiency,
energy consumption involved in the current including the reasonable use of chemical fertilizers,
production of cashew in the study area is primarily alternatives to minimise the use of chemical
due to the increased usage of commercial energy fertilizers, and reducing diesel fuel and agricultural
sources. These results are in accordance with the machinery to the extent possible as well as the
energy sources distribution in other fruit crops encouragement of the use of renewable energy
production viz., almond (Beigi et al., 2016), pear sources.
(Tabatabaie et al., 2013), strawberry (Banaeian et
al., 2011), apple (Rafiee et al., 2010) and prune Acknowledgement
(Tabatabaie et al., 2013). The authors are thankful to Dr. P.L. Saroj, Former
Director, ICAR-Directorate of Cashew Research,
Conclusion Puttur, India and other staff of ICAR-DCR, Puttur
The rate of energy expenditure for input and output for the support provided in conducting this
energies in cashew production were investigated in experiment.
this study under different plant densities in coastal
India. In this perspective, a set of four energy Conflict of interest
indicesviz., energy use efficiency, specific energy, The authors declare that they have no conflict of
energy productivity and net energy in conjunction interest.
with various energy forms, i.e. non-

References
Afshar, R. K., Alipour, A., Hashemi, M., Jovini, M. A., & Banaeian, N., Omid, M., & Ahmadi, H. (2011). Energy and
Pimentel, D. (2013). Energy inputs-yield relationship and economic analysis of greenhouse strawberry production in
sensitivity analysis of pistachio (Pistacia vera L.) Tehran province of Iran. Energy Conversion and
production in Markazi Region of Iran. Spanish journal of Management, 52(2), 1020-1025.
agricultural research(3), 661-669.
Bartzas, G., & Komnitsas, K. (2018). Energy flow analysis in
Anonymous. (2014). Cashew Handbook - Global Perspective. agriculture; the case of irrigated pistachio production in
4th edition, Copyright, Foretell Business Solutions Private Greece. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments,
Limited. Available at www.cashewinfo.com. Retrieved from 28, 73-80.

Azam Khan, M., & Singh, G. (1996). Energy inputs and crop Beigi, M., Torki‐Harchegani, M., & Ebrahimi, R. (2016).
production in Western Pakistan. Energy, 21(1), 45-53. Sensitivity analysis of energy inputs and cost assessment
for almond production in Iran. Environmental Progress &
Balogh, S. B., & Hall, C. A. S. (2016). Food and Energy. In G. Sustainable Energy, 35(2), 582-588.
Steier & K. K. Patel (Eds.), International Food Law and
Policy (pp. 321-358). Cham: Springer International Demircan, V., Ekinci, K., Keener, H. M., Akbolat, D., &
Publishing. Ekinci, C. (2006). Energy and economic analysis of sweet
cherry production in Turkey: A case study from Isparta

76
Environment Conservation Journal
 Energy budgeting and life cycle assessment of cashew

province. Energy Conversion and Management, 47(13), Kizilaslan, H. (2009). Input–output energy analysis of cherries
1761-1769. production in Tokat Province of Turkey. Applied Energy,
86(7), 1354-1358.
Erdal, G., Esengün, K., Erdal, H., & Gündüz, O. (2007). doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.07.009
Energy use and economical analysis of sugar beet
production in Tokat province of Turkey. Energy, 32(1), 35- Mangalassery, S., Kalaivanan, D., & Philip, S. P. (2019).
41. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2006.01.007 Effect of inorganic fertilisers and organic amendments on
soil aggregation and biochemical characteristics in a
Esengun, K., Gündüz, O., & Erdal, G. (2007). Input–output weathered tropical soil. Soil and Tillage Research, 187,
energy analysis in dry apricot production of Turkey. 144-151. doi:10.1016/j.still.2018.12.008
Energy Conversion and Management, 48(2), 592-598.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2006.06.006 Mangalassery, S., Nayak, M. G., Adiga, J. D., Preethi, P., &
Muralidhara, B. M. (2019). Nutrient management in
Fadavi, R., Keyhani, A., & Mohtasebi, S. (2011). An analysis cashew, Technical bulletin No. 1/2019. Retrieved from
of energy use, input costs and relation between energy
inputs and yield of apple orchard. Research in Agricultural Martin-Gorriz, B., Soto-García, M., & Martínez-Alvarez, V.
Engineering, 57(3), 88-96. (2014). Energy and greenhouse-gas emissions in irrigated
agriculture of SE (southeast) Spain. Effects of alternative
FAOSTAT. (2018). Available at: http://www.fao.org/faostat/ water supply scenarios. Energy, 77, 478-488.
en/#data/QC(accessed 25/03/2020). doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.09.031

Hall, C. A. (2011). Introduction to special issue on new studies Mohammadi, A., & Omid, M. (2010). Economical analysis and
in EROI (Energy Return on Investment). Sustainability, relation between energy inputs and yield of greenhouse
3(10), 1773-1777. cucumber production in Iran. Applied Energy, 87(1), 191-
196. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.07.021
Hasanzadeh, A., & Rahbar, S. (2005). Study of energy flow in
apple orchards Azarbaijane Gharbi Province. Paper Mohammadi, A., Tabatabaeefar, A., Shahin, S., Rafiee, S., &
presented at the The 4th Iranian Congress on Horticultural Keyhani, A. (2008). Energy use and economical analysis of
Science, Ferdosi Mashad University, Mashad, Iran. potato production in Iran a case study: Ardabil province.
Energy Conversion and Management, 49(12), 3566-3570.
Hatirli, S. A., Ozkan, B., & Fert, C. (2005). An econometric doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2008.07.003
analysis of energy input–output in Turkish agriculture.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 9(6), 608- Mohammadshirazi, A., Akram, A., Rafiee, S., Mousavi Avval,
623. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2004.07.001 S. H., & Bagheri Kalhor, E. (2012). An analysis of energy
use and relation between energy inputs and yield in
Hatirli, S. A., Ozkan, B., & Fert, C. (2006). Energy inputs and tangerine production. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
crop yield relationship in greenhouse tomato production. Reviews, 16(7), 4515-4521.
Renewable Energy, 31(4), 427-438. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.04.047
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2005.04.007
Nassiri, S. M., & Singh, S. (2009). Study on energy use
IS:9164. (1979). Indian Standard IS 9164, Guide for estimating efficiency for paddy crop using data envelopment analysis
cost of farm machinery operation. (DEA) technique. Applied Energy, 86(7), 1320-1325.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.10.007
Kalaivanan, D., & Rupa, T. R. (2017). Organic cultivation of
cashew. In P. L. Saroj (Ed.), Cashew: improvement, Nayak, M. G., Mangalassery, S., & Preethi, P. (2019).
production and processing (pp. 295-322). New Delhi: Innovative production technologies to enhance productivity
Astral International Pvt Ltd. and income of cashew farmers. The Cashew and Cocoa
Journal, VIII(3), 8-18.
Karale, D., Khambalkar, V., Bhende, S., Amle, S. B., &
Wankhede, P. S. (2008). Energy economic of small Nayak, M. G., & Savadi, S. (2019). Global status of cashew
farming crop production operations. World Journal of production and Trade: Challenges and strategies for India
Agricultural Sciences, 4(4), 476-482. to regain world leadership. Agriculture Today: The
National Agriculture Magazine.
Khan, M. A., & Singh, G. (1997). Energy inputs and potential
for agricultural production in western Pakistan. Ozkan, B., Akcaoz, H., & Karadeniz, F. (2004). Energy
Agricultural Systems, 54(3), 341-356. requirement and economic analysis of citrus production in
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-521X(96)00067-4 Turkey. Energy Conversion and Management, 45(11),
1821-1830.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2003.10.002

77
Environment Conservation Journal
 Manjunatha et al.

Paramesh, V., Arunachalam, V., & Nath, A. J. (2019). Singh, J. M. (2000). On farm energy use pattern in different
Enhancing ecosystem services and energy use efficiency cropping systems in Haryana, India. (Master of Science),
under organic and conventional nutrient management International Institute of Management, University of
system to a sustainable arecanut based cropping system. Flensburg, Germany,
Energy, 187, 115902.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.115902 Singh, M., Pal, S., Thakur, R., & Verma, U. (1997). Energy
input-output relationship of cropping systems. Indian
Pimentel, D. (1980). Energy inputs in corn production. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 67(6), 262-264.
Handbook of energy utilization in agriculture, 67-84.
Singh, S., & Mittal, J. P. (1992). Energy in production
Piringer, G., & Steinberg, L. J. (2006). Reevaluation of energy agriculture. New Delhi, India: Mittal Publications.
use in wheat production in the United States. Journal of
Industrial Ecology, 10(1‐2), 149-167. Strapatsa, A. V., Nanos, G. D., & Tsatsarelis, C. A. (2006).
Energy flow for integrated apple production in Greece.
Proebsting, E. L. (1980). Energy inputs in cherry production. In Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 116(3), 176-180.
D. Pimentel (Ed.), Handbook of energy utilization in doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2006.02.003
agriculture (pp. 251-254): CRC Press Boca Raton, FL.
Tabatabaie, S. M. H., Rafiee, S., & Keyhani, A. (2012). Energy
Rafiee, S., Mousavi Avval, S. H., & Mohammadi, A. (2010). consumption flow and econometric models of two plum
Modeling and sensitivity analysis of energy inputs for cultivars productions in Tehran province of Iran. Energy,
apple production in Iran. Energy, 35(8), 3301-3306. 44(1), 211-216.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.04.015 doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.06.036

Rajesh, U. M., Mudasir, A., Raghuvirsinh, P. P., & Sharad, K. Tabatabaie, S. M. H., Rafiee, S., Keyhani, A., & Ebrahimi, A.
N. (2018). Energy audit application for rice-wheat (2013). Energy and economic assessment of prune
croppingsystem. Oriental Journal of Computer Science and production in Tehran province of Iran. Journal of Cleaner
Technology, 11(4), 209-218. Production, 39, 280-284.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.052
Rupa, T. R. (2017). Nutrient and water management. In P. L.
Saroj (Ed.), Cashew: improvement, production and Tabatabaie, S. M. H., Rafiee, S., Keyhani, A., & Heidari, M. D.
processing (pp. 233-252). New Delhi: Astral International (2013). Energy use pattern and sensitivity analysis of
Pvt Ltd. energy inputs and input costs for pear production in Iran.
Renewable Energy, 51, 7-12.
Sathe, S. K. (1994). Solubilization and electrophoretic doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2012.08.077
characterization of cashew nut (Anacardium occidentale)
proteins. Food Chemistry, 51(3), 319-324. Taki, M., Ajabshirchi, Y., Mobtaker, H. G., & Abdi, R. (2012).
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0308-8146(94)90033-7 Energy consumption, input–output relationship and cost
analysis for greenhouse productions in Esfahan Province of
Sharma, R. K., Bhattacharya, T. K., Akanksha, K., Priyanka, Iran. Journal of Experimental Agriculture International,
C., Sandip, M., & Deepshikha, A. (2020). Energy use 485-501.
pattern in wheat crop production system among different
farmer groups of the Himalayan Tarai region. Current Yadukumar, N., Rejani, R., & Nandan, S. L. (2008). Studies on
Science, 118(3), 444-448. green manuring in high density cashew orchards. Journal
of Plantation Crops, 36(3), 265-269.
Sharma, V. K. (2004). Trees and protection of environment.
New Delhi, India: Deep and Deep Publications. Publisher's Note: ASEA remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and figures.

78
Environment Conservation Journal