See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273636139

Greenhouse gas emissions from rice production in the Philippines based on

life-cycle inventory analysis

Article  in  Journal of Food Agriculture and Environment · January 2016

CITATIONS

2 authors, including:

Masanori Saito
Tohoku University
102 PUBLICATIONS   2,137 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Molecular Basis of Symbiotic Networks and its Application View project

Maximizing the Potential of Rice By-Products, Farm Biomass, and Biotics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Masanori Saito on 09 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 WFL Publisher
Science and Technology

Meri-Rastilantie 3 B, FI-00980 Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment Vol.13 (1): 139-144. 2015 www.world-food.net
Helsinki, Finland
e-mail: info@world-food.net

Greenhouse gas emissions from rice production in the Philippines based on

life-cycle inventory analysis
Elmer G. Bautista 1 and Masanori Saito 2*
1
Rice Engineering and Mechanization Division, Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice), Maligaya, Science City of Muñoz,
Nueva Ecija, Philippines. 2 Field Science Center, Graduate School of Agricultural Science, Tohoku University, Osaki, Miyagi,
989-6711 Japan. *e-mail: msaito@bios.tohoku.ac.jp, bautista_elmerg@yahoo.com.ph.

Received 8 September 2014, accepted 28 December 2014.

Abstract
In the Philippines, the latest national inventory of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for rice production has been submitted to the UNFCCC using
data of 1994. In the present study, we estimated GHG emissions from rice production in the Philippines—from seedbed preparation to harvesting
and threshing—based on 2006–2007 national statistics. Because the rice production area in this country is mostly dichotomized into either irrigated
or rainfed areas cultivated twice a year, we used different emission factors for the soil processes in each area. Emissions from farming activities
included emissions from fertilizers, agricultural machinery manufacture, and fuel as well as emissions from water buffaloes (carabaos), a draft animal
widely used among Philippine rice farmers. We estimated the total GHG emissions from rice production in the Philippines to be 13.3 Tg CO2 eq.
yr-1, which comprised 3,920 kg CO2 eq. ha-1 crop-1 in irrigated areas and 1,381 kg CO2 eq. ha-1 crop-1 in rainfed areas. These corresponded, respectively,
to 0.93 kg CO2 eq. kg grain-1 and 0.47 kg CO2 eq. kg grain-1. A large proportion of the emissions was derived from soil processes such as CH4 and N2O
emissions from soil. Emission from carabaos was 50 kg CO2 eq. ha-1 irrespective of the water management regime. Emissions from fuel and other
farming activities were 140 kg CO2 eq. ha-1 crop-1 in irrigated areas and 111 kg CO2 eq. ha-1 crop-1 in rainfed areas.

Key words: GHG emissions, methane, nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, straw burning, straw incorporation, rainfed, irrigation, carabao, hand tractor, life-
cycle inventory analysis.

Introduction
Climate change, an outcome of human activities that has been
described as the biggest threat to humanity, can be stabilized
through reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions responsible
for the increase in temperatures. The Philippines will probably be
one of the regions most affected by climate change as it has been
experiencing severe natural calamities such as floods, typhoons,
and droughts today. These phenomena will become more
devastating in the tropics than in other climatic zones 23. With the
effects already being felt, immediate action to protect the
environment is needed.
Agriculture, especially rice cultivation, is very important to the
Philippine economy. It comprises about 13% of the gross domestic
product and employs 35% (12.9 million) of the total labor force 7.
The Philippines is among the world’s top 10 rice producers. Rice
cultivation occupies 34% of its total agricultural area of 12.64
million hectares, the largest area of any crop 4. Despite attempts to
achieve self-sustainability in rice, domestic production still
struggles to meet the demands of the rapidly growing population
(2% annual growth), and the country imported 1.5 million tons of
rice in 2012 12. To increase rice production, cultivation needs to be
intensified, which will inevitably increase the use of fertilizer, agro-
chemicals, fuel, and other production inputs, as well as increase
GHG emissions 8, 18. The Philippine national inventory of GHG
emissions in agricultural activities submitted to the UNFCCC used
1994 data 23. However, it is important to use most recent national
statistics to quantify the GHG emissions from rice production,
which accounts for the largest proportion of agricultural production
in the Philippines. GHG emissions from rice production have been
estimated based on lifecycle inventory analysis in Japan 11, 14, 19
and other countries such as India 21, Italy 3, and Thailand 16.
In terms of cultivation environments and agricultural practices,
rice production in the Philippines is different from rice production
in temperate countries such as Japan. In the Philippines, most rice
fields are cultivated twice a year for rice, and a large proportion of
the rice-growing area is cultivated under rainfed conditions.
Methane, one of the main GHGs emitted through anaerobic
decomposition of organic matter in submerged rice fields, is emitted
less in rainfed rice fields than in irrigated ones 24. Although
mechanization of rice production is becoming the norm, the
carabao, a domesticated water buffalo, is still widely used as a
draft animal for ploughing and harrowing. Carabaos are ruminants
and emit methane through enteric fermentation. Rice straw burning
is the most popular rice straw management practice in the
Philippines 9. Burning rice straw in the field is proven to be the
fastest, most economical, and easiest way of helping eradicate
diseases, but may cause environmental and health hazards.

Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.13 (1), January 2015 139
Assessing GHG emissions from rice cultivation is vital to help carabaos, as well as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O)
identify potential mitigation processes. Knowing the sources of emissions from the soil were estimated based on 2006 IPCC
emissions will help us better understand measures for mitigating guidelines 13. GHG emissions from different rice straw management
environmental effects and to formulate better management practices (burning or incorporation into the soil) were also taken
practices. This study uses lifecycle inventory analysis to into account. Activity data and GHG emission factors of the above
comprehensively quantify GHG emissions from current Philippine items were gathered from the Philippine national surveys of 2006–
rice production practices, from land preparation to harvesting. 2007 4 and other references 7. The global warming potential (GWP)
of CH4 and N2O was taken to be 21 and 310, respectively. The total
Methods GHG emission of rice production in the Philippines was calculated
Rice production systems in the Philippines: In the Philippines, in terms of carbon dioxide equivalence by using the following
the rice production area can be classified into irrigated or rainfed formula:
areas. Rice is usually cultivated twice a year. During the dry season,
however, the area under cultivation is limited, especially in rainfed GHGr = Σ(GHGrc + GHGf + GHGcm + GHGfuel + GHGsm+ GHGp + GHGmach)
areas. Table 1 shows the areas of irrigated and rainfed rice fields
and yields in 2006–2007 4. The following analyses were made for where
the areas shown in Table 1. GHGr = total GHG emissions of the rice production systems in the
Philippines, kg CO2 eq.
Table 1. Area of rice cultivation and yield in the Philippines a. GHGrc = GHG emissions from soil during rice cultivation, kg CO2 eq.
GHGf = GHG emissions from fertilizer production and application, kg
Water CO2 eq.
Season b Area (ha) Yield (t ha−1)
management GHGcm = GHG emissions from carabao enteric fermentation and carabao
manure, kg CO2 eq.
Dry season 1,336,045 4.18
Irrigated 4.21 GHGfuel = GHG emissions from fuel used by machinery, kg CO2 eq.
Wet season 1,580,967 4.23 GHGsm = GHG emissions from rice straw management, kg CO2 eq.
GHG p = GHG emissions from pesticides, kg CO 2 eq.
Dry season 467,935 2.46
GHGmach = GHG emissions from machinery manufacture, kg CO2 eq.
Rainfed 2.93
Wet season 887,942 3.18 GHG emissions from soil during rice cultivation: Emissions of
Total 4,272,889 3.8 methane (CH4) from the soil were estimated by using the emission
a
Available online at http://countrystat.bas.gov.ph/selection.asp
factors for irrigated and rainfed areas according to the 2006 IPCC
b
Dry season: December–April, Wet season: May–November guidelines 13. Irrigated areas were considered to be flooded from
the time of land preparation until before harvesting time, whereas
System boundaries: This study covered the GHG emissions of all
rainfed areas were dependent on rainfall and were sometimes dry.
rice production activities on the farm. The system boundary
Rice straw management is crucial in terms of CH4 emissions. In the
included seedbed preparation, land preparation, transplanting,
Philippines, 95% of rice straw is burnt in the field after harvest 9
crop care, harvesting, and threshing (Fig. 1). In the Philippines,
because burning is considered the fastest and most economical
harvested rice is usually stored as unhulled grain and milled
way of disposal. On the other hand, when rice straw is not burnt
immediately before consumption.
but incorporated into the soil, it increases CH4 emissions in the
next cultivation period. In the present study, we assumed that
95% of straw is burnt in the rice fields irrespective of water
management. The adjusted emission factors were 1.3 kg CH4 d-1
ha-1 for irrigated areas and 0.35 kg CH4 d-1 ha-1 for rainfed areas
when rice straw is not incorporated into soil, and 2.08 kg CH4 d-1
ha-1 for irrigated areas and 0.51 kg CH4 d-1 ha-1 for rainfed areas
when rice straw is incorporated into the soil. The CH4 emissions
were computed by multiplying the adjusted emission factors by
total harvested area for a 120-day cultivation period 25. The GHG
emissions of irrigated and rainfed areas were computed separately
and then summed to obtain the national level. Although rice
cultivation practices vary among the regions of the country,
computations were only based on actual rainfed and irrigated rice
areas; all other conditions were assumed to be similar for all areas.
The following formula was used:

GHGrc= Σ(((EFi × Ai × 0.95) + (EFrf × Arf× 0.95)) +((EFi+s × Ai× 0.05) +

(EFrf+s × Arf× 0.05))) × t × 21

Figure 1. System boundary of rice production in the present study. where

GHGrc = the total GHG emission from soil during rice cultivation,
Estimation of GHG emissions: The GHG emissions from farming kg CO2 eq.
inputs (fertilizer, pesticide, fuel for machines, and irrigation) and EFi and EFrf = emission factors for CH4 from irrigated and rainfed rice

140 Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.13 (1), January 2015
 without rice straw, respectively
EFi+s and EFrf+s = emission factors for CH4 from irrigated and rainfed rice
with rice straw, respectively
t = cultivation period of rice, 120 days/season
Ai and Arf = area of irrigated and rainfed rice fields, respectively; ha
GHG emissions from fertilizers: Although fertilizers can be organic
(decomposed organic matter) or inorganic (made of simple
inorganic chemicals or minerals), only inorganic fertilizer that
supplies nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium was considered in
this paper. In 2005 alone, approximately 978,000 tons of fertilizer
was used for agriculture in the Philippines. Around 60% of the
total quantity of fertilizers was utilized for rice and corn
production24. Table 2 lists the emission factors for the production
of chemical fertilizers, with each component of N, P, and K estimated
separately 17. The amounts of N, P, and K were separately calculated
from the four fertilizers commonly applied to rice in the Philippines:
urea (46-0-0), ammonium sulfate (21-0-0), ammonium phosphate
(16-20-0), and complete (14-14-14) fertilizers. N2O emissions of N
fertilizers applied to paddy soil were calculated by multiplying the
N2O emission factor of the N content by the amount of nitrogen
applied in rice production and the rice field area 13. The following
formula was used:
GHGf= Σ((EFa × AF) × 310 + (EFp × AF))
where
GHG f = GHG emission of fertilizer applied, kg CO 2 eq.
EFa and EFp = emission factor of N2O due to N fertilizer application and
that due to production of NPK fertilizers, respectively
(see Table 2)
AF = amount of fertilizer applied to rice production, kg
GHG emissions from pesticides: Pesticides include insecticides,
herbicides, fungicides, and various other substances used to
control pests. Since the 2006-2007 national survey 4 presented the
total amounts of pesticides as a whole (herbicides and
insecticides), the emission factor for production and application
of pesticides was taken to be the average of the insecticide and
herbicide factors at 5.5 kg CO2 kg-1 17. The pesticide emission was
computed by multiplying the actual amount of pesticide used in
rice production by the specific emission factor and total harvested
area. The following formula was used:
GHGp = EFp × Ap
where
GHG ac = the GHG emission of pesticides, kg CO 2 eq.
EF ac = emission factor of pesticides, g CO 2 kg -1 (see Table 2)
Aac = amount of pesticides used in rice production, kg
GHG emissions from carabaos (working water buffaloes): In the
Philippines, many rice growing areas still depend on carabao power
for land preparation and hauling of inputs and paddy during
harvesting. Carabaos are a very important substitute for expensive
machinery that is not appropriate in specific field conditions such
as in deep mud and on inaccessible farms. Carabaos are specifically
raised to primarily serve as draft animals 1 throughout almost the
entire rice production area. Therefore, GHG emissions from
carabaos were included among emissions from rice production.

Table 2. Sources of activity data and emission factors.

Sources of GHG emissions during rice production Data and sources Emission factors Source

Non-CO2 Irrigated rice cultivation w/ straw amended after harvest 2.08 kg CH4 d−1 ha−1 6, 13

GHG Rainfed rice cultivation w/ straw amended after harvest 0.51 kg CH4 d−1 ha−1 6, 13

Irrigated rice cultivation w/o straw amended 1.3 kg CH4 d−1 ha−1 6, 13

Rainfed rice cultivation w/o straw amended 0.35 kg CH4 d−1 ha−1 13

Rice straw burning 2.7 g CH4 kg−1 13

Fertilizer application, N 248 kg N ha−1 4 0.003 kg N2O-N kg N−1 13

Carabao enteric emission 364,627 head (irrigated) & 169,485 head (rainfed) 4 55 kg CH4 yr−1 head−1 13

Carabao manure emission 364,627 head (irrigated) & 169,485 head (rainfed) 4 3 kg CH4 yr−1 head−1 13

CO2 from Fertilizer production, N 248 kg N ha−1 4

1.3 kg CO2 eq. kg N−1 20

fossil energy Fertilizer production, P 66 kg P ha−1 4 0.2 kg CO2 eq. kg P−1 20

Fertilizer production, K 39 kg K ha−1 4

0.2 kg CO2 eq. kg K−1 20

Pesticide (assumed average of insecticide and herbicide) 2.3 L (irrigated), 2.1 L (rainfed) 4 5.5 kg CO2 eq. kg−1 17

Diesel oil 34 L irrigated, 12 L rainfed 4 20.2 t C TJ−1 13

Manufacture of farm machinery (hand tractor and axial 286 kg hand tractor & acc., 500 kg hand tractor w/ trailer, 505 kg 12.8 kg CO2 eq. kg−1 18

flow thresher) thresher 2; 6.62 days land prep, 1.62 days hauling, 2.93 days
threshing, 4; Lifespan 12,000 h 18

Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.13 (1), January 2015 141
Carabaos are ruminant herbivores that digest plant-based food
and emit CH4 through enteric fermentation. Carabao manure is
also a source of CH4 emissions.
In 2007, carabaos in the Philippines numbered 3.36 million 4.
Based on national statistics, the rental cost of these animals was
25% of machine rental 4. We assumed that the rental costs reflected
the dependency of rice farmers on carabaos or machinery, and
that, correspondlingly, 25% of the land was solely managed by
carabao. A native Philippine carabao can plough at a speed of 0.5
m s–1 and cover an area of 2,500 m2 in 8 hours 10, indicating that a
carabao can manage 2 ha of land with two passes of harrowing
and one of leveling within the 20-day land preparation period in
every crop growing season. Based on the above information, the
number of carabaos involved in rice production was estimated.
The following formula was used to calculate the GHG emissions
from carabaos:
GHGcm=Σ((EFc × C) + (EFm × C)) × t × 21
where
GHGcm= the GHG emission of carabao enteric fermentation and manure,
kg CO2 eq.
EFc and EFm = emission factor for carabao enteric fermentation and carabao
manure, respectively (see Table 2)
t = cultivation period of rice, 120 days/season
C = number of carabaos involved in rice production
GHG emissions from diesel fuel used by machinery: Farmers’
expenditure for fuel for rice production is the only data available.
In this paper, all fuels used for water pumping, land preparation,
and threshing were considered to be diesel. The amount of diesel
used was estimated from the expenditure data in the 2006-2007
national survey and a diesel oil price of 34.46 Philippine pesos per
litre. The following formula was used in the calculation:
GHGfuel = EFd × Ad × NCV
where
GHGfuel = GHG emissions from fuel used by machinery, kg CO2 eq.
EF d = emission factor of diesel oil, t C TJ -1 (see Table 2)
A d = amount of diesel used by machinery, L ha -1
NVC = Net calorific value, TJ t-1
GHG emissions from the manufacture of farm machinery (hand
tractors and threshers): This paper assumed the use of a two-
wheeled hand tractor (also commonly called a power tiller) weighing
286 kg including plough and harrow accessories for land
preparation; this became 500 kg if a trailer was included during the
hauling of farm inputs and the paddy harvest 2. The 2006-2007
national survey showed that 6.62 days are needed to plough and
prepare 1 ha of rice field before transplanting, and 1.62 days are
needed to haul farm inputs and yield using a hand tractor. Based
on the rental costs of carabaos (mentioned above) we assumed
that machinery was used for land preparation and hauling of farm
inputs in 75% of the land are.
We assumed the use of an axial flow thresher weighing about
505 kg and having a capacity of 2–3 t h-1. This thresher takes 2.93
days to thresh rice harvested from 1 ha. A GHG emission factor of
12.8 kg CO2 eq. kg-1 for farm machinery 18 was used for both the
hand tractor and the axial flow thresher since local data were not
available. The lifespans of the machines were considered to be
12,000 h. To calculate the GHG emissions of the hand tractor and
142
axial flow thresher, the following formula was used:
GHGmach=Σ((EFmc × Wmc × Tu)/(LS))
where
GHGmach = GHG emissions of machinery manufacture, kg CO2 eq.
EFmc = emission factor for farm machinery, kg CO2 kg–1 (See Table 2)
Wmc = weight of machine, kg
Tu = Total time of operation, h ha–1
LS = life span of machine, h
GHG emissions from burning rice straw: About 95% of rice straw
in the Philippines is burnt in the field 9, so this value was assumed
in this study. The weight of rice straw left in the field is
approximately that of the grain yield, so this study adopted the
paddy yield reported in the 2006-2007 national survey to represent
the weight of rice straw. Burning of rice straw emits approximately
2.7 g CH4 kg-1 straw 13. The following formula was used to calculate
the emissions from rice straw burning, by adopting a combustion
factor 0.8 for agricultural residues 13.
GHGsm= Σ((EFCH4 × SAsm × 0.8 ×0.95 × 21)
where
GHG sm = GHG emissions from burning rice straw, kg CO 2 eq.
EFCH4 = Emission factor for straw burning, kg CH4 kg-1 (see Table 2)
SAsm = Amount of straw burnt, kg
Results and Discussion
GHG emission of rice production in Philippines: Our results
showed that the total GHG emissions from rice production in the
Philippines was 13.3 Tg CO2 eq. yr-1, comprising 3,920 kg CO2 eq.
ha-1 crop-1 in irrigated areas and 1,380kg CO2 eq. ha-1 crop-1 in
rainfed areas (Table 3). These corresponded, respectively, to 0.93
kg CO2 eq. kg grain-1 and 0.47 kg CO2 eq. kg grain-1 (Table 4).
Table 3. GHG emissions from rice production in the Philippines.
Total kg CO2 eq. yr-1 kg CO2 eq. ha-1 yr-1
Irrigated areas 1.14 x 1010
3.92 x 103
Rainfed areas 1.87 x 109 1.38 x 103
Total 1.33 x 1010 3.11 x 103
Rice production from irrigated areas in the Philippines was around
75.5% of the total rice production, while GHG emissions from the
irrigated areas amounted to 11.4 Tg CO2 eq. yr-1, which was 86%
of the total GHG emissions. On the other hand, rainfed areas
produced 24.5% of the total rice production with GHG emissions
of 1.87 Tg CO2 eq. yr-1 or 14% of the total GHG emissions.
Table 4 shows GHG emissions from each source. The largest
proportion of the emissions was derived from soil processes such
as CH4 and N2O emissions from the soil, followed by emissions
from fertilizer utilization. GHG emissions from soil processes in
rainfed areas were 31% of that in irrigated area on an area basis, or
45% on a grain weight basis. Emissions from carabaos were 50 kg
CO2 eq. ha-1 irrespective of water management practices. Emissions
from fertilizer, fuel, and other farming activities were 140 kg CO2
eq. ha-1 in irrigated areas, while 111 kg CO2 eq. ha-1 was emitted in
rainfed areas. These are much lower than those reported in
temperate countries such as Japan (Table 5).
Table 5 shows GHG emissions from rice production systems in
other countries. GHG emissions were much lower in the Philippines
Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.13 (1), January 2015
 Table 4. GHG emissions from rice production in the Philippines.
kg CO2 eq. ha-1 kg CO2 eq. kg grain-1
Irrigated Rainfed Irrigated Rainfed
CH4 emissions from soil 3,625 1,141 0.861 0.389
CH4, N2O from carabaos 50 50 0.012 0.017
N2O from N fertilizer applied 105 79 0.025 0.027
Fertilizer 99 74 0.024 0.025
Pesticides 5 2 0.01 0.01
Fuel for irrigation and machinery 6 5 0.01 0.02
Manufacture of threshers 13 13 0.03 0.04
Manufacture of hand tractors 17 17 0.04 0.06
(power tiller)
Total 3,920 1,781 0.931 0.471

Table 5. GHG emissions from rice production in various countries.

Emissions per kg
brown rice Emissions per area
Country Conditions Sources
(kg CO2 eq. kg−1) (kg CO2 eq. ha−1)

Italy 2.76
2.76 19,000
19,000 Blengini and Busto 3
Japan 1.46
1.46 6,300 Conventional farming Hokazono and Hayashi11
Japan 1.58
1.58 7,000 Environment-friendly farming Hokazono and Hayashi11
Japan 2.0
2.0 7,000 Organic farming Hokazono and Hayashi11
Philippines 0.93*
1.9 3,990 Irrigated Present study
Philippines 0.47*
62 1,445 Rainfed Present study
*Rice grain

than in other temperate countries. Although the system boundaries
used in those other studies included the rice milling process, the
proportion of GHG emissions from the rice milling process is very
small 11. The lower GHG emissions in the Philippines compared to
emissions in other countries is mainly due to the much lower use
of fertilizers, agro-chemicals, fuel, and other inputs.
Increasing rice productivity in the future will mean increased
inputs. In turn, this may increase GHG emissions on an area basis.
However, if the increase in yield is comparable with the increase in
inputs from fossil sources, then the GHG emission per grain weight
might be kept at the same level.
Mitigation of CH4 and N2O emissions from soil processes: The
major source of GHG emissions in rice production systems is soil
processes. It is therefore of greatest importance to mitigate
emissions from the soil. Irrigated areas in the country are expected
to increase to meet the increased demand for food. This may cause
further increases in CH4 emissions from irrigated rice fields. From
various mitigation options 5, farmers will need to adopt practices
such as alternate wetting and drying as occurs in rainfed areas.
Although emissions under rainfed conditions are lower due to
the limited supply of water, yield is also low 24. It will be very
important, especially in the Philippines, to both increase rice
productivity and mitigate GHG emissions 5.
Land preparation and hauling operations: Based on the current
number of carabaos used in rice field cultivation (534,111 head per
year), carabaos produced 50 kg CO2 eq. ha-1, which is not negligible.
The total emissions from rice production carried out with both
hand tractors and carabaos was 13.3 Tg CO2 eq. per year, whereas
if carabaos were to be replaced with hand tractors, the estimated
amount would be 13.1 Tg CO2 eq. per year, representing a total
annual reduction in emissions of 0.19 Tg CO 2 eq. The
corresponding field operations that are carried out with carabao
could be replaced by using agricultural machinery.
Since carabaos remain in the field even during farm operation
downtimes, GHGs emitted even during non-working periods are
also considered. Carabaos emit NH4 even while at rest, whereas a
hand tractor’s emission at rest is zero. Hand tractors prepare the
rice fields much faster than the carabao. The use of hand tractors
could also shorten the time of work such as during land preparation,
thereby reducing emissions from soil organic decomposition
between work periods. Thus, the use of hand tractors for land
preparation and hauling in place of carabaos could mitigate GHG
emissions. Activities such as hauling paddy, ploughing, and
harrowing could be accomplished by using hand tractors, which
can totally replace carabaos during rice production.
However, in terms of conservation of traditional farming
practices, the carabao may not be simply replaced by agricultural
machinery. Carabaos have a multi-functional role in traditional
farming areas: in additional to working [difficult-to-access] terraced
farms and farms with deep mud, they provide a daily source of
milk for low-income famers in rural areas 22. It is important to study
the significance of draft animals such as carabaos in sustainable
agricultural systems.

Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.13 (1), January 2015 143
Straw management: Straw management greatly affects CH4
emissions from the soil. The present status of straw management
in the Philippines as adopted in this study is that 95% of straw is
burnt. This may be beneficial in terms of mitigation of CH4
emissions from soil as well as pest management. In terms of soil
nutrient management, organic matter decomposes so rapidly under
tropical conditions that accumulation or maintenance of soil
organic matter by incorporating straw may not be expected 15.
Therefore, even though rice straw is burnt, returning the ash
containing minerals such as potassium and phosphorus to the
field may contribute to maintaining soil fertility. However, burning
of straw may cause serious environmental and health hazards. In
fact, local governments in Japan request that farmers not burn
rice straw in the field after harvest.
Conclusions
GHG emissions from rice production in the Philippines were
comprehensively quantified considering the irrigation methods
and cropping season and emissions from other sources connected
with rice production. GHG emission from rice production in 1994
was 13.3 Tg CO2 eq. which was equivalent to 40% of total emissions
from agriculture 23. Similar to what has been reported in other rice
producing countries 11, 14, 16, the major GHGs emitted from rice
production were CH 4 and N 2 O produced through soil
microbiological processes and GHGs from fertilizer utilization.
Mitigation of emissions from these processes should be prioritized.
Also, it is noteworthy that GHG emissions from rainfed rice were
much smaller than from irrigated rice. Since the Philippines is
increasing its productivity in rice by extending irrigation and
increasing inputs such as fertilizer, machinery, and so on, GHG
emissions will also inevitably increase. Therefore, it will be
important to satisfy increasing rice productivity while mitigating
GHG emissions 5.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the JSPS RONPAKU fellowship
program of Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. The
fellowship was given to E.G.B.
References
1
Arrienda, FQ. II, Cruz, C.V., Perilla, M.V. and Setiawan, B.M. 2010.
Feasibility study of establishing an artificial insemination center for
carabaos in San Ildefonzo, Bulacan, Philippines. Journal of the
Indonesian Tropical Animal Agriculture 35:134–141.
2
Bautista, E.G. and Minowa, T. 2010. Analysis of the energy of different
rice production systems in the Philippines. Philipp. Agri. Scientist
93(3):322–333.
3
Blengini, G.A. and Busto, M. 2009. The life cycle of rice: LCA of
alternative agri-food chain management systems in Vercelli (Italy). J.
Environl. Manag. 90 :1512–1522.
4
CountrySTAT Philippines 2007. Palay and Corn: Volume of production
by ecosystem/crop type, geolocation, year and period. http://
countrystat.bas.gov.ph/selection.asp (Accessed April 2, 2014)
5
Burney, J.A., Davis, S.J. and Lobell, D.B. 2010. Greenhouse gas
mitigation by agricultural intensification. Proc. Natl Acad Sci. 107:
12052–12057.
6
Corton, T.M., Bajita, J.B., Grospe, F.S., Pamplona, R.R., Asis, C.A.J.,
Wassmann. R., Lantin, R.S. and Buendia, L.V. 2000. Methane emission
from irrigated and intensively managed rice fields in Central Luzon
(Philippines). Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosystems 58:37–53.
144
View publication stats
7
FAOSTAT 2012. FAO Statistical database. http://www.fao.org. Accessed
June 15, 2012
8
FAO 2014. Agriculture, forestry and other land use emissions by sources
and removals by sinks. FAO Statistics Division Working Paper Series
ESS/14–02, http://www.fao.org/docrep/019/i3671e/i3671e.pdf
(Accessed May 15, 2014)
9
Gadde, B., Menke, C. and Wassmann, R. 2009. Rice straw as a renewable
energy source in India, Thailand, and the Philippines: Overall potential
and limitations for energy contribution and GHG mitigation. Biomass
Energy Bioenergy 33:1532–1546.
10
Garillo, E.P., Ranjham, S.K. Neric, S. P. and Salas, C. G. 1986.
Comparative draftability of carabao and crossbred steers. (MB × PC)
under wet and dry land tillage condition. Phil. Journal Vet. & Animal
Sci. 12(3–4):70.
11
Hokazono, S. and Hayashi, K. 2012. Variability in environmental
impacts during conversion from conventional to organic farming: A
comparison among three rice production systems in Japan. J. Cleaner
Product. 28:101–112.
12
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI). World Rice Statistics.
http://www.irri.org/. Accessed October 3, 2013.
13
IPCC 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/ (Accessed
October 10, 2013)
14
Harada, H., Kobayashi, H. and Shindo, H. 2007. Reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions by no-tilling rice cultivation in Hachirogata
polder, northern Japan: Life-cycle inventory analysis. Soil Sci. Plant
Nutr. 53:668–677.
15
Javier, E.F., Marquez, J. M., Grospe, F. S., Mamucod, H.F. and Tabien,
R. E. 2002. Three-year effect of organic fertilizer use on paddy rice.
Philippine J. Crop Sci. 27(2):11–15.
16
Kasmaprapruet, S., Paengjuntuek, W., Saikhwan, P. and Phungrassami,
H. 2009. Life cycle assessment of milled rice production: Case study
in Thailand. Europ. J. Sci. Res. 30(2):195–203.
17
Lal, R. 2004. Carbon emission from farm operations. Environment
International 30:981–990.
18
Maraseni, T.N., Mushtaq, S. and Maroulis, J. 2009 Greenhouse gas
emissions from rice farming inputs: A cross-country assessment. J.
Agric. Sci. 147:117–126.
19
NIAES 2003. Lifecycle assessment for sustainable agricultural system.
National Institute for Agro-Environmental Sciences, Tsukuba, Japan,
96 p. (in Japanese).
20
Pathak, H. and Wassmann, R. 2007. Introducing greenhouse gas
mitigation as a development objective in rice-based agriculture: I.
Generation of technical coefficients. Agricultural Systems 94 :807–
825.
21
Pathak, H., Li, C. and Wassmann, R. 2005. Greenhouse gas emission
from Indian rice fields: Calibration and upscaling using DNDC model.
Biogeosciences Discussion 2:77–102.
22
Thrupp, L. A. 2000. Linking agricultural biodiversity and food security:
The valuable role of agrobiodiversity for sustainable agriculture.
International Affairs 76:263–281.
23
UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change) 1999. The Philippines initial national communication on
climate change. 1994 National GHG inventory. Chapter 2, 28 p.
24
Wassmann, R., Neue, H. U., Lantin, R. S., Aduna, J. B., Alberto, M.
C. R., Andales, M. J., Tan, M. J., Denier van der Gon, H. A. C. ,
Hoffmann, H., Papen, H., Rennenberg, H. and Seiler, W. 1994.
Temporal patterns of methane emissions from wetland rice fields
treated by different modes of N application. J. Geophys. Res.
Atmospheres 99(D8):16457–16462.
25
Yoshida, S. 1981. Growth and development of rice plant. In Yoshida,
S. (ed.). Fundamental of Rice Crop Science. International Rice
Research Institute, Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines, pp. 1-63.
Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.13 (1), January 2015