Greenhouse Gas Mitigation

Options from Rice Field

Sirintornthep Towprayoon
The Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment
King Mongkuts University of Technology Thonburi
Bangmod, Bangkok, Thailand 10140
Presented at In-session workshop on Climate Change Mitigation 19 Bonn 2004, Maritim Hotel,Bonn
Background
Rice fields contribute approximately 9-13
percent of the global greenhouse gases
Methane and nitrous oxide are the dominant
GHG emission

Mechanism
To implement mitigation options need well understanding
of the emission mechanisms
Interaction between rice plant, microbe, the environmental
condition in the soil, and the cultural condition of the
farmer
Methane produced by methanogen under anaerobic
condition in the rice field
Nitrous oxide produced by nitrifying and denitrifying
bacteria under the anoxic condition
Rice plant, during reproductive growth excrete some
essential nutrient and activated microbial growth
Denier van der Gon, 1996].

Production
Emission
soil properties
Rice varieties
fertilizer
Indigenous Microorganisms
Root exudates
Growth and development Height, mass,density
Production
Emission
Anaerobic and anoxic condition
Rice varieties
water regimes
Indigenous Microorganisms
Height, mass,density
Mitigation options
Factor affecting GHG emission
Land preparation
Seed preparation
Rice varieties
Fertilizer application
Water management
Harvesting and fallow period

Land preparation
Wet land level
Dry land level
Plowing
Seed preparation
Direct seeding
Pre-germinated seed and seedlings
Transplanting or Casting
Harvesting
The choice of mitigation options
Ultimate goal : High yield and GHGs reduction
Economic aspect
Low cost : investment, labor, machinery
Market : positive expandable market, good price
Governmental subsidy
Social aspect
Acceptable by farmers
Easy to implement
Undisturbed farmer way of life
Impact of mitigation options on rice
cultivation
Mitigation
options
GHG
reduction
Increased
investment
Increase
Labor
cost
Influence
cultural
practice
Easy to
implement
Land
preparation
Yes yes Yes/no yes no
Seedling
practice
Not clear no yes yes no
Rice varieties
Not clear yes no no yes
Fertilizer
Application
yes yes/no no no yes
Water
Management

yes no no no yes
Options chosen
Water management
Reduce GHG
Economic : not involved with investment
Easy to implement and being accepted by
farmer

Shifting fertilizer application
Reduce GHG
Economic : less invesment



Options of water management
In common practice, water was drained out
of the field during vegetative period.
Drainage reduce methane but promote
nitrous oxide
Shifting drainage time from vegetative
period to reproductive period help reduce
methane production and emission
Shorten drainage day also help reduce
nitrous oxide emission

Methane emission and soil redox potential
from 4 different drainage rice fields


Nitrous oxide and methane emission
from 4 different drainage rice fields
Comparison to local method
Net
GHGs
Methane
Emission
Nitrous
oxide
Emission
Grain
yield

Mid
season
drainage
<25.86% <27.52% >55.5% <6.86%
Multiple
Drainage
<33.53% <34.55% >16.47% <11.43%
Yield and GHG Emission
Area of irrigated rice field (local practice) is
3 times greater than area of rain fed rice
field ( continuous flooding)
Three scenarios have been set up
Continuous flooding and local practice (base
case)
Continuous flooding and midseason drainage
Continuous flooding and multiple drainage
All midseason drainage
Estimated economic comparison
Scenarios
Total GWP
(million tons
CO2
equivalent)
Yield (
million
tons/year)
Local Price
(million
Baht/year )
World
market Price
(million US$)
Base case 54.4 45.6 341,678 10,706
Continuous
+ Midseason
50.0(4.4) 44.6 334,310 10,475(231)
Continuous
+ Multiple
48.7(5.7) 43.9 329,384 10,320(386)
All
Midseason
39.8(14.6) 42.6 319,519 10,011(695)
Option of fertilizer application
Two time of fertilizer application : basal
fertilizer and top dressing fertilizer
In general, urea is use as the common
fertilizer
Ammonium sulphate (inhibit methanogen)
and ammonium phosphate ( promote rice
plant growth ) was applied in substitute to
urea
Economic comparison
Scenarios
Total GWP
(million tons
CO2
equivalent)
Yield (
million
tons/year)
Local Price
(million
Baht/year )
World
market Price
(million US$)
Base case 26.7 50.6 379,651 11,891
Ammonium
sulphate
22.5(4.2) 48.5 364,352 11,397(494)
Ammonium
phosphate
21.6(5.1) 49.0 367.547 11,515(376)
No fertilizer 20.6(6.1) 34.7 260,110 8,154(3737)
Reduction and trading
Percentage
of GHG
reduction
Amount of
GHG
Reduction
(Million tons
CO2
equivalent)
Percentage
of trading
price
reduction
Range of
trading price
reduction
(Million US$)
Water
management
8-27 % 4.4-14.6 2-6 `% 231-695
Fertilizer
application
16-23 % 4.2-6.1 3-30 % 494-3737
Conclusion(1)
GHG emission from rice field is survival
emission
The implementation need to be carefully
considered
The options should not impact on the
farmers way of life as well as theirs
investment but should promote theirs
income
Conclusion(2)
Aprox. 25 percent of GHG reduction could
achieve in comparison to base case
Options to reduce GHGs impact on rice
yield
Optimizing between GHG reduction and
yield need to be concerned

Acknowledgement
Thailand research fund
Ms. Saipin Poonkaew and Ms. Kruamas
Smaghan
Thank you for your attention