- Email: [email protected]
An economic analysis of energy requirements and input costs for tomato production in Turkey
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 428–433 www.elsevier.com/locate/renene
An economic analysis of energy requirements and input costs for tomato production in Turkey Bahattin C - etina,, Ali Vardarb a
Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, Uludag˘ University, 16059 Bursa, Turkey Department of Agricultural Machinery, Faculty of Agriculture, Uludag˘ University, 16059 Bursa, Turkey
b
Received 16 October 2006; accepted 18 March 2007 Available online 27 April 2007
Abstract The aim of this study was to examine direct and indirect input energy in per hectare in tomato (industrial type) production and compare it with production costs. The research also sought to analyse the effect of farm size. For this purpose, the data were collected from 95 tomato farmers by questionnaire method. The results indicated that tomato production consumed a total of 45.53 GJ ha1 of which diesel energy consumption was 34.82% followed by fertilizer and machinery energy. Output–input energy ratio and energy productivity were found to be 0.80 and 0.99 kg of tomato MJ1, respectively. Cost analysis revealed that the most important cost items were labour costs, machinery costs, land rent and pesticide costs. According to the benefit–cost ratio, large farms were more successful in energy use and economic performance. It was concluded that energy use management at farm level could be improved to give more efficient and economic use of energy. r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Energy requirements; Tomato production; Input costs; Energy ratio
1. Introduction Agriculture is an important sector in Turkey, although its share in economy has diminished over time. Agricultural sector contributed 12% of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2005 and 12% of total exports (except agrifood industry). Approximately 35% of the total population of the country is engaged in agriculture, and operate 3.1 million farm holdings. Tomato (industrial type) production in Turkey is considered to be a main source of raw material for the tomato processing industry. Tomato production creates an income for many rural families and it is an important source of employment in the country. Furthermore, the Turkish tomato processing industry obtain about 300 million US $ from foreign countries by export. World tomato production is 113,308 million tonnes which is obtained from 4122 million ha of sown land. Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 2244428970; fax: +90 2244428077.
E-mail address: [email protected] (B. C - etin). 0960-1481/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2007.03.008
Turkey has the third largest tomato cultivation area after China and USA [1]. The main tomato production areas in Turkey are in the South Marmara and Aegean regions which produce about 45% and 20% of total tomatoes, respectively [2]. Some socio-economic characteristics of the farm holdings are given in Table 1. The average personnel on the surveyed farms were 5.2 people; 59.6% of them were male, and 40.4% of them were female. In the study area, average farm size was determined as 5.4 ha of which 51.8% was reserved to tomato production and the share ranging between 48% and 72% of total farm area. About 85% of the total land was irrigated and, wheat, maize (in general second crop) and sunflower were sown. The average number of tractors per farm was 0.9 (Table 1). Turkey’s energy consumption in agriculture has increased year by year, but more intensive energy use has brought some important human health and environmental problems. Thus, efficient use of energy inputs has become important in terms of sustainable farming.
ARTICLE IN PRESS B. C - etin, A. Vardar / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 428–433 Table 1 Farm and farmer characteristics of surveyed farms Items
Population (person) Female Male Total area (ha) Irrigated area (ha) Field crops area (ha) Tomato area (ha) Wheat area (ha) Other horticultural crops (ha) Second crop (ha)a Tractor (number) a
Farm size groups (ha)
Weighted average
0.1–2.0
2.1–5.0
5.1+
5.1 2.1 3.0 1.8 1.8 — 1.3 — 0.5
5.5 2.2 3.3 4.3 4.0 2.9 2.2 0.6 0.7
4.9 2.1 2.8 7.9 5.6 4.1 3.8 1.1 1.4
5.2 2.1 3.1 5.4 4.6 2.7 2.8 0.6 0.8
0.5 0.5
0.8 0.8
1.1 1.5
0.8 0.9
Wheat, maize and vegetable crops.
Nowadays, farmers use more energy to increase output but they do not have enough knowledge on more efficient energy inputs. Thus, an input–output energy analysis provides farm planners and policy makers an opportunity to evaluate economic intersection of energy use [3]. Direct and indirect types of energy are required for agricultural production. Energy input-output relation analysis is usually used to evaluate the efficiency and environmental impacts of the production systems. On the other hand, the energy ratios in agricultural production are closely related with production techniques, quantity of input, yield level and environmental factors. Some researches have been conducted on energy use in agriculture [4–13]. However, industrial type of tomato has got relatively little attention. Besides this, our research considers the effect of farm size on energy use and input costs. On this basis, the main aim of this research was to determine energy use in tomato production and compare input energy use with input costs based on tomato farms in the South Marmara region of Turkey. 2. Material and methods Data were collected from 95 tomato (industrial type) farms in the South Marmara region of Turkey by using a face-to-face questionnaire in the production year 2005/ 2006. Information was sought on socio-economic characteristics of the farms as well as inputs used for production of industry type tomato. Sample farms were randomly selected from the 22 villages in the study area by using a stratified random sampling method. The sample size was calculated by Neyman technique [14] and the farms classified into three groups as small (0.1–2.0 ha), medium (2.1–5.0 ha) and large farms (5.1 ha and more) as below: P 2 n¼ N h Sh 2 2 P h 2 , N D þ N Dh
429
where n is the required sample size; N the number of total holdings in population; Nh the number of the population in h (small, medium or large); S2h the variance of h; D2 ¼ d2/z2; d is the precision ðx¯ X¯ Þ; and, z is the reliability coefficient (1.96 which represents 95% confidence). The permissible error in sample population was defined to be 5%, and the sample size was calculated to be 95 for 95% reliability. The energy equivalents of input used in the crop production are given in Table 2. The sources of mechanical energy used on the selected farms included tractors and diesel oil. The mechanical energy was computed on the basis of total fuel consumption (l ha1) in different operations. Therefore, the energy consumed was calculated using conversion factors (1 l diesel ¼ 56.31 MJ) and expressed in MJ ha1 [3]. Collected information on energy inputs and tomato yields were entered into Excel spreadsheets. Based on the energy equivalents of the input and output (Table 2), the metabolisable energy was calculated. Besides, the energy ratio was found by dividing the total energy equivalent of the inputs to the total energy equivalent of the yield for tomato [10,16].
3. Results and discussion The input used in tomato production (physical quantity per hectare) and their energy equivalents, output energy equivalent and energy ratio are illustrated in Tables 3 and 4, respectively. Table 3 shows that tomato is one of the highest labourdemanding crops among all field crops produced in Turkey. Average labour used in tomato production was 925.8 h ha1 of which 22% was provided by family labour. Tomato crop is harvested by hand only in Turkey, China and India among the 10 major tomato producer countries [2]. Because of availability of cheap workers, this situation tends to continue in the near future. In the study region, fertilizer was typically applied four times as a basal dressing and three top dressing to give an average of 321.7 kg ha1 chemicals as total plant nutrients. The shares of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium fertilizer were 61.7%, 21.8%, and 16.5%, respectively, in the total chemical fertilizer used. One the other hand, the Table 2 Energy equivalents of inputs and outputs in agricultural production Input (unit)
Energy equivalent (MJ unit1)
Reference
Chemicals (kg) Human power (h) Machinery (h) Nitrogen fertilizer (kg) Phosphorus (kg) Potassium (kg) Seeds Water for irrigation (m3) Diesel (L)
101.20 1.96 62.70 66.14 12.44 11.15 1.00 0.63 56.31
Yaldiz [7] Yaldiz [7] Singh [4] Shrestha [15] Shrestha [15] Shrestha [15] Singh [4] Yaldiz [7] Singh [4]
ARTICLE IN PRESS B. C - etin, A. Vardar / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 428–433
430 Table 3 Input and output for tomato production Items
Farm size groups (ha)
-1
Seeds (kg ha ) Labour (h ha1) Land preparation and planting Fertilizer application Spraying Irrigation Hoeing Harvesting Transporting to tomato plant Driver Fertilizera (kg ha1) Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium Pesticidesb (g ha1) Insecticides Fungicides Herbicides Machinery (h ha1) Plough Discing Harrow Land plane Drilling Furrow cultivator Fertilizer spreader Sprayer Trailer Diesel (L ha1) Water (m3 ha1) Tomato yield (kg ha1) a
Weighted average
0.1–2.0
2.1–5.0
5.1+
0.1 934.4 14.7 7.3 18.2 62.7 198.3 570.2 7.7 55.3 361.0 225.4 75.4 60.2 2065.0 1040.0 325.0 700.0 28.7 5.6 6.3 1.7 1.8 2.5 2.4 2.8 4.2 1.4 295.7 6321.8 44,958.6
0.1 887.7 11.9 6.5 15.1 50.1 201.8 550.2 6.5 45.6 305.4 188.7 70.8 45.9 2345.0 1135.0 520.0 690.0 22.0 4.2 5.0 1.2 1.4 2.1 1.7 1.9 3.4 1.1 274.8 6115.4 45,114.3
0.1 948.6 10.4 5.1 13.8 55.4 249.7 554.1 8.9 51.2 354.1 217.5 75.2 61.4 2175.0 1075.0 425.0 675.0 20.1 4.1 4.7 1.1 1.2 1.7 1.6 1.8 3.0 0.9 272.6 6010.2 45,628.4
0.1 925.8 12.4 6.8 16.3 56.3 217.9 560.7 7.8 47.6 321.7 198.5 70.2 53.0 2273.0 1128.0 465.0 680.0 23.9 4.7 5.1 1.4 1.6 2.3 1.9 2.2 3.5 1.2 281.6 6105.2 45358.7
Total plant nutrients. Active ingredients.
b
use of human power and machinery were 925.8 and 23.9 h ha1, respectively. The parallel results were determined from some other related research [17,18]. Based on the energy equivalents of the input and output given in Table 2, the average total energy consumed per farm per year was determined as 45.53 GJ ha1 (Table 4). This result is higher than the 22.58 GJ ha1 from the other research [7]. Energy use per hectare was 15.4% higher on small farms decreasing when the farm size group increased. With respect to machinery and diesel consumption, our results showed that tractor use averaged 23.9 h per hectare of which 64.4% was devoted to land preparation, planting and hoeing. Diesel energy was 34.82% of the total input energy consumed in tomato production followed by fertilizer (28.91%) and machinery (22.90%). Energy equivalent of human labor input was 18.14 GJ ha1 or 3.98% of the total energy use. Labor used for spraying, irrigation and hoeing practice decreased as farm size increased. Harvesting accounted for 2.41% of total energy and this practice decreased as farm size increased. Fertilizer energy
(13.16 GJ ha1) was 28.91% of the total input energy, nitrogen accounting for 91.3% of total fertilizer, phosphorus 5.92% and potassium 2.78%. According to the result findings fertilizer and nitrogen use were highest on the small farms, whereas nitrogen and phosphorus were used least on the medium farms. An average of 430.7 MJ ha1 pesticide energy was used; meaning 0.95% of the total energy consumption. The share of insecticides, herbicides and fungicides of total pesticide energy were 52.3%, 37.9% and 9.8%, respectively. The diesel energy consumption was 15.85 GJ ha1, and machinery energy consumption was 10.42 GJ ha1. According to the research results machinery energy use in small farms was higher. Tomato was irrigated both by the furrow and drip method an average of 6.32 times per production season. The energy to pump the water (38.46 GJ ha1) constituted 8.45% of the total input energy. An average of the output–input ratio was determined at 0.80 and increased as the farm size increased. According to the research results (Table 4), energy was used more efficiently in large farms and gave parallel results for energy
ARTICLE IN PRESS B. C - etin, A. Vardar / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 428–433
431
Table 4 Energy consumption and output for tomato production (MJ ha1) Items
Seeds Labour (h ha1) Land preparation and planting Fertilizer application Spraying Irrigation Hoeing Harvesting Transporting to tomato plant Driver Fertilizera (kg ha1) Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium Pesticidesb (g ha-1) Insecticides Fungicides Herbicides Machinery (h ha1) Plough Discing Harrow Land plane Drilling Furrow cultivator Fertilizer spreader Sprayer Trailer Diesel (L ha1) Water (m3 ha1) Total energy input Total energy output Energy output-input ratio Energy productivity (kg seed MJ1) a
Farm size groups (ha)
Weighted average
0.1–2.0
2.1–5.0
5.1+
Quantity
(%)
0.1 1831.4 28.8 14.3 35.7 122.9 388.7 1117.6 15.1 108.4 14,899.4 13,659.2 836.9 403.3 405.3 208.0 29.3 168.0 11,791.7 3136.0 2822.4 357.0 973.8 752.5 684 2105.6 634.2 326.2 16,650.9 3982.7 49,561.5 35,966.9 0.73 0.91
0.1 1739.9 23.3 12.7 29.6 98.2 395.5 1078.4 12.7 89.4 12,528.6 11,435.2 785.9 307.5 439.4 227.0 46.8 165.6 8916.5 2352.0 2240.0 252.0 757.4 632.1 484.5 1428.8 513.4 256.3 15,474.0 3852.7 42,951.2 36,091.4 0.84 1.05
0.1 1859.3 20.4 10.0 27.0 108.6 489.4 1086.0 17.4 100.4 14,426.6 13,180.5 834.7 411.4 415.3 215.0 38.3 162.0 7997 2296.0 1836.8 231.0 649.2 511.7 456 1353.6 453.0 209.7 15,350.1 3156.4 43,204.8 36,502.7 0.85 1.06
0.1 1814.6 24.3 13.3 32.0 110.3 427.1 1099.0 15.3 93.3 13,163.4 12,029.1 779.2 355.1 430.7 225.6 41.9 163.2 10,426.6 2632.0 2284.8 294.0 865.6 752.5 684 2105.6 528.5 279.6 15,856.9 3846.3 45,538.6 36,287.0 0.80 0.99
0.0002 3.98 0.05 0.03 0.07 0.24 0.94 2.41 0.03 0.20 28.91 26.42 1.71 0.78 0.95 0.50 0.09 0.36 22.90 5.78 5.02 0.65 1.90 1.65 1.50 4.62 1.16 0.61 34.82 8.45 100.00 — — —
Total plant nutrients. Active ingredients.
b
productivity ranging from 0.91 kg tomato MJ1 to 1.06 kg MJ1 on large farms. With respect to the improving of energy efficiency, the diesel, fertilizer and machinery management seemed to be the most significant three categories. On the other hand, economic analysis was carried out by taking various cost components into consideration, including production costs and the total production value for tomato (Table 5). According to research results farmers spent 3469.9 $ ha1 to obtain 4082.2 $ ha1 production value. Labour costs were highest followed by land rent (16.96), pesticides (10.19) and diesel (8.29). The cost of labour as casual and family labour was 1226.4 $ ha1 accounting for 35.34% of the total costs. As we can see from Table 5, non-family (casual) labour costs per hectare were highest in the large farms and family labour highest on small farms. On the other hand, fertilizer cost had a small share (4.1%) of total
production costs with a value of 142.3 $ ha1. Conversely, pesticide costs had the higher share (10.19%) compared with its share of total energy inputs which is found 0.95%. The survey results and technical expertise of the research areas indicated that excess pesticide use was widespread in South Marmara region [19]. Machinery cost which includes diesel and oil, repair, depreciation and interest costs have decreased as farm size decreased. Its total share in the research was 19.76% of the total cost. The cost for the irrigation water was 30.2 $ ha1 which was rather low when compared with the irrigation energy share (0.87% and 8.45%). The energy use efficiency was found to be 0.80 in the surveyed farms. In addition, the benefit–cost ratio of the tomato production was determined to be 0.85 (Table 5). On the other hand, the share of direct input energy was 47.3% in the total energy compared to 52.7% for the
ARTICLE IN PRESS B. C - etin, A. Vardar / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 428–433
432
4. Conclusion
Table 5 Tomato production costs ($ ha1) Costs
Variable costs Seeds Fertilizers Pesticides Insecticides Herbicides Fungicides Casual workers Water Driver Diesel Oil Repairs and maintenance Aerial Spraying Others (bags etc.) Operating interest charges Fixed costs Family labour Depreciation Interest Land rent General overhead costs Total production costs Total production valuea Benefit/cost ratio
Farm size groups (ha)
Weighted average
0.1–2.0 2.1–5.0 5.1+
Quantity (%)
1838.0 74.6 125.3 265.3 180.5 25.9 8.9 671.3 28.7 33.2 270.4 60.8 98.7 20.2 3.9 135.6 1358.5 279.4 153.7 206.9 554.3 164.2 3196.5 4046.2 0.79
2116.7 78.2 142.3 353.9 317.2 20.3 16.4 966.4 30.2 35.3 287.5 14.7 39.5 20.6 4.3 143.8 1353.2 260.0 142.7 201.4 588.6 160.5 3469.9 4082.2 0.85
2067.6 78.3 139.8 367.2 326.1 25.6 15.5 805.7 31.1 36.7 301.6 56.5 79.6 21.5 4.5 145.1 1261.8 250.3 114.8 222.4 575.6 98.7 3329.4 4060.3 0.82
2459.6 80.5 165.6 437.1 339.3 63.5 34.3 1089.1 34.3 37.5 345.9 27.8 58.7 26.8 4.7 151.6 1195.2 201.3 106.8 203.8 598.0 185.3 3654.8 4106.5 0.89
61.01 2.25 4.10 10.19 9.14 0.58 0.47 27.85 0.87 1.02 8.29 0.42 1.14 0.59 0.15 4.14 38.99 7.49 4.11 5.80 16.96 4.63 100.00 — —
a Total production value ¼ tomato yield (kg ha1) multiplied by tomato price ($ kg1). 1 kg tomato ¼ 0.09 $ ¼ 0.135 YTL (New Turkish Lira).
Table 6 Total energy input in the form of direct, indirect, renewable and nonrenewable for tomato production (MJ ha-1) Type of energy
Direct energya b
Indirect energy
Renewable energyc Non-renewable energyd Total energy input
Farm size groups (ha)
The data used in this research for the production of industrial type tomato were collected from 95 farms located in the South Marmara region of Turkey. Tomato production consumed a total of 45.53 GJ ha1 energy which is mainly on fossil fuels. Diesel energy was the biggest energy input followed by indirect energy with fertilizer and machinery. Land preparation, planting and cultivating were the main input items for machinery requirements and costs. The energy output–input ratio was not at a sufficient level (0.80) because of low tomato prices. The significant cost items were labour, machinery, land rent and pesticide costs. Better energy efficiency, productivity and benefit–cost ratio were found on the large farms. According to these criteria large farms were more successful in energy use and economic performance. Energy management is an important issue in terms of efficient, sustainable and economic use of energy. For this reason, it is seen that the importance given to efficient use of energy, sustainability and economy has increased in many countries and Turkey. Nonetheless, in the research area, energy use in tomato production is not efficient and harmful to the environment due to excess input use. Therefore, reducing these inputs would provide more efficient input use of mainly machinery, fertilizer and pesticides. Application of integrated pest management techniques would improve pesticide use. In addition to these applications choosing the appropriate cropping systems would be useful not only for reducing negative effects to environment, human health, maintaining, sustainability and decreasing production costs, but also for providing higher energy use efficiency.
Weighted average
0.1–2.0
2.1–5.0
5.1+
22,465.0 (45.3)e 27,096.5 (54.7) 5814.2 (11.7) 43,747.3 (88.3) 49,561.5 (100.0)
21,066.6 (49.0) 21,884.6 (51.0) 5592.7 (13.0) 37,358.5 (87.0) 42,951.2 (100.0)
20,365.8 (47.1) 22,839.0 (52.9) 5015.8 (11.6) 38,189.0 (88.4) 43,204.8 (100.0)
References 21,517.8 (47.3) 24,020.8 (52.7) 5661.0 (12.4) 39,877.6 (87.6) 45,538.6 (100.0)
a
Includes human labour, diesel, water. Includes seeds, fertilizers, chemicals, machinery. c Includes human, seeds, water. d Includes diesel, chemical, fertilizers, machinery. e Figures in parentheses indicate percentage of total energy input. b
indirect energy (Table 6). The research results shown that on average the non-renewable form of energy input was 87.6% compared to 12.4% for renewable energy.
[1] FAO. Production yearbook. vol. 57, Rome; 2003. p. 140–2. [2] C - etin B, Rehber E, Budak S, Tipi T. Economic structure and marketing problems of tomato processing industry in Turkey. TUBITAK-Project TARP-2026, Union of Turkish Chambers of Agriculture publication no 236, Ankara; 2003. p. 81. [3] O¨zkan B, Akc- ao¨z H, Fert C. Energy input–output analysis in Turkish agriculture. Renew Energy 2004;29:39–51. [4] Singh JM. On farm energy use pattern in different cropping systems in Haryana, India. Germany: Master of Science Thesis, Sustainable Energy Systems and Management, International Institute of Management, University of Flensburg, Germany, 2002. [5] The Canadian Agricultural Energy End-Use Data and Analysis Centre (CAEEDAC). A descriptive analysis of energy consumption in agriculture and food sector in Canada. Final report, February 2000. Available from /http://www.usask.ca/agriculture/caedac/ main/tpage.htmlS. [6] Kennedy S. Energy use in American agriculture. Sustainable energy term paper 2000, 5/1/2000. Available from /http://web.mit.edu/ 10.391j/www/proceeding.htmlS. [7] Yaldız O, O¨zturk HH, Zeren Y, Bas-c- etinc- elik A. Energy usage in production of field crops in Turkey. In: Proceedings of the fifth international congress on mechanization and energy use in agriculture. Turkey: Kus-adası; 1993.
ARTICLE IN PRESS B. C - etin, A. Vardar / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 428–433 [8] Pathak BS, Binning AS. Energy use pattern and potential for energy saving in rice–wheat cultivation. Agric Energy 1985;4:271–8. [9] Singh S, Singh G. Energy input vs. crop yield relationship for four major crops of northern India. Agric Mech Asia, Afr Latin Am 1992;23(2):57–61. [10] Singh S, Verma SR, Mittal JP. Energy requirements for production of major crops in India. Agric Mech Asia, Afr Latin Am 1997;28(4): 13–7. [11] Thakur CL, Mishra BL. Energy requirements and energy gaps for production of major crops in Madhya Pradesh. Agric Situation India 1993;48:665–89. [12] Yadav RN, Singh RKP, Prasad S. An economic analysis of energy requirements in the production of potato crop in Bihar Sharif Block of Nalanda District (Bihar). Econ Affairs 1991;36:112–9. [13] Chandra H, Dipanker De, Singh RS. Spatial variation in energy use pattern for paddy cultivation in India. In: Proceedings of the national workshop on energy and environment management for sustainable
[14] [15] [16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
433
development of agriculture and agro-industrial sector, July 8–9, 2001. p. 48–51. Yamane T. Elementary sampling theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall; 1967. Shrestha DS. Energy use efficiency indicator for agriculture, 1998. /http://www.usaskca/agriculture/caedac/PDF/mcrae.PDFS, 10/10/2002. Maddal KG, Saha KP, Ghosh PK, Hati KM. Bioenergy and economic analysis of soybean-based crop production systems in central India. Biomass Bioenergy 2002;23:337–45. C - etin B. Production and marketing problems in the contract tomatoes growing for industry in the Bursa province, Uludag University. J Fac Agric 1992;9:48–56. Sermenli T. Production condition and problems of tomatoes growing in South Marmara region. MSc Thesis, Bursa, 1985, p. 76, unpublished. Muthes KM, Onul T. Agriculture in Turkey. Ankara: Agricultural Bank of Turkey; 1996 71pp.
Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 428–433 www.elsevier.com/locate/renene
An economic analysis of energy requirements and input costs for tomato production in Turkey Bahattin C - etina,, Ali Vardarb a
Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, Uludag˘ University, 16059 Bursa, Turkey Department of Agricultural Machinery, Faculty of Agriculture, Uludag˘ University, 16059 Bursa, Turkey
b
Received 16 October 2006; accepted 18 March 2007 Available online 27 April 2007
Abstract The aim of this study was to examine direct and indirect input energy in per hectare in tomato (industrial type) production and compare it with production costs. The research also sought to analyse the effect of farm size. For this purpose, the data were collected from 95 tomato farmers by questionnaire method. The results indicated that tomato production consumed a total of 45.53 GJ ha1 of which diesel energy consumption was 34.82% followed by fertilizer and machinery energy. Output–input energy ratio and energy productivity were found to be 0.80 and 0.99 kg of tomato MJ1, respectively. Cost analysis revealed that the most important cost items were labour costs, machinery costs, land rent and pesticide costs. According to the benefit–cost ratio, large farms were more successful in energy use and economic performance. It was concluded that energy use management at farm level could be improved to give more efficient and economic use of energy. r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Energy requirements; Tomato production; Input costs; Energy ratio
1. Introduction Agriculture is an important sector in Turkey, although its share in economy has diminished over time. Agricultural sector contributed 12% of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2005 and 12% of total exports (except agrifood industry). Approximately 35% of the total population of the country is engaged in agriculture, and operate 3.1 million farm holdings. Tomato (industrial type) production in Turkey is considered to be a main source of raw material for the tomato processing industry. Tomato production creates an income for many rural families and it is an important source of employment in the country. Furthermore, the Turkish tomato processing industry obtain about 300 million US $ from foreign countries by export. World tomato production is 113,308 million tonnes which is obtained from 4122 million ha of sown land. Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 2244428970; fax: +90 2244428077.
E-mail address: [email protected] (B. C - etin). 0960-1481/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2007.03.008
Turkey has the third largest tomato cultivation area after China and USA [1]. The main tomato production areas in Turkey are in the South Marmara and Aegean regions which produce about 45% and 20% of total tomatoes, respectively [2]. Some socio-economic characteristics of the farm holdings are given in Table 1. The average personnel on the surveyed farms were 5.2 people; 59.6% of them were male, and 40.4% of them were female. In the study area, average farm size was determined as 5.4 ha of which 51.8% was reserved to tomato production and the share ranging between 48% and 72% of total farm area. About 85% of the total land was irrigated and, wheat, maize (in general second crop) and sunflower were sown. The average number of tractors per farm was 0.9 (Table 1). Turkey’s energy consumption in agriculture has increased year by year, but more intensive energy use has brought some important human health and environmental problems. Thus, efficient use of energy inputs has become important in terms of sustainable farming.
ARTICLE IN PRESS B. C - etin, A. Vardar / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 428–433 Table 1 Farm and farmer characteristics of surveyed farms Items
Population (person) Female Male Total area (ha) Irrigated area (ha) Field crops area (ha) Tomato area (ha) Wheat area (ha) Other horticultural crops (ha) Second crop (ha)a Tractor (number) a
Farm size groups (ha)
Weighted average
0.1–2.0
2.1–5.0
5.1+
5.1 2.1 3.0 1.8 1.8 — 1.3 — 0.5
5.5 2.2 3.3 4.3 4.0 2.9 2.2 0.6 0.7
4.9 2.1 2.8 7.9 5.6 4.1 3.8 1.1 1.4
5.2 2.1 3.1 5.4 4.6 2.7 2.8 0.6 0.8
0.5 0.5
0.8 0.8
1.1 1.5
0.8 0.9
Wheat, maize and vegetable crops.
Nowadays, farmers use more energy to increase output but they do not have enough knowledge on more efficient energy inputs. Thus, an input–output energy analysis provides farm planners and policy makers an opportunity to evaluate economic intersection of energy use [3]. Direct and indirect types of energy are required for agricultural production. Energy input-output relation analysis is usually used to evaluate the efficiency and environmental impacts of the production systems. On the other hand, the energy ratios in agricultural production are closely related with production techniques, quantity of input, yield level and environmental factors. Some researches have been conducted on energy use in agriculture [4–13]. However, industrial type of tomato has got relatively little attention. Besides this, our research considers the effect of farm size on energy use and input costs. On this basis, the main aim of this research was to determine energy use in tomato production and compare input energy use with input costs based on tomato farms in the South Marmara region of Turkey. 2. Material and methods Data were collected from 95 tomato (industrial type) farms in the South Marmara region of Turkey by using a face-to-face questionnaire in the production year 2005/ 2006. Information was sought on socio-economic characteristics of the farms as well as inputs used for production of industry type tomato. Sample farms were randomly selected from the 22 villages in the study area by using a stratified random sampling method. The sample size was calculated by Neyman technique [14] and the farms classified into three groups as small (0.1–2.0 ha), medium (2.1–5.0 ha) and large farms (5.1 ha and more) as below: P 2 n¼ N h Sh 2 2 P h 2 , N D þ N Dh
429
where n is the required sample size; N the number of total holdings in population; Nh the number of the population in h (small, medium or large); S2h the variance of h; D2 ¼ d2/z2; d is the precision ðx¯ X¯ Þ; and, z is the reliability coefficient (1.96 which represents 95% confidence). The permissible error in sample population was defined to be 5%, and the sample size was calculated to be 95 for 95% reliability. The energy equivalents of input used in the crop production are given in Table 2. The sources of mechanical energy used on the selected farms included tractors and diesel oil. The mechanical energy was computed on the basis of total fuel consumption (l ha1) in different operations. Therefore, the energy consumed was calculated using conversion factors (1 l diesel ¼ 56.31 MJ) and expressed in MJ ha1 [3]. Collected information on energy inputs and tomato yields were entered into Excel spreadsheets. Based on the energy equivalents of the input and output (Table 2), the metabolisable energy was calculated. Besides, the energy ratio was found by dividing the total energy equivalent of the inputs to the total energy equivalent of the yield for tomato [10,16].
3. Results and discussion The input used in tomato production (physical quantity per hectare) and their energy equivalents, output energy equivalent and energy ratio are illustrated in Tables 3 and 4, respectively. Table 3 shows that tomato is one of the highest labourdemanding crops among all field crops produced in Turkey. Average labour used in tomato production was 925.8 h ha1 of which 22% was provided by family labour. Tomato crop is harvested by hand only in Turkey, China and India among the 10 major tomato producer countries [2]. Because of availability of cheap workers, this situation tends to continue in the near future. In the study region, fertilizer was typically applied four times as a basal dressing and three top dressing to give an average of 321.7 kg ha1 chemicals as total plant nutrients. The shares of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium fertilizer were 61.7%, 21.8%, and 16.5%, respectively, in the total chemical fertilizer used. One the other hand, the Table 2 Energy equivalents of inputs and outputs in agricultural production Input (unit)
Energy equivalent (MJ unit1)
Reference
Chemicals (kg) Human power (h) Machinery (h) Nitrogen fertilizer (kg) Phosphorus (kg) Potassium (kg) Seeds Water for irrigation (m3) Diesel (L)
101.20 1.96 62.70 66.14 12.44 11.15 1.00 0.63 56.31
Yaldiz [7] Yaldiz [7] Singh [4] Shrestha [15] Shrestha [15] Shrestha [15] Singh [4] Yaldiz [7] Singh [4]
ARTICLE IN PRESS B. C - etin, A. Vardar / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 428–433
430 Table 3 Input and output for tomato production Items
Farm size groups (ha)
-1
Seeds (kg ha ) Labour (h ha1) Land preparation and planting Fertilizer application Spraying Irrigation Hoeing Harvesting Transporting to tomato plant Driver Fertilizera (kg ha1) Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium Pesticidesb (g ha1) Insecticides Fungicides Herbicides Machinery (h ha1) Plough Discing Harrow Land plane Drilling Furrow cultivator Fertilizer spreader Sprayer Trailer Diesel (L ha1) Water (m3 ha1) Tomato yield (kg ha1) a
Weighted average
0.1–2.0
2.1–5.0
5.1+
0.1 934.4 14.7 7.3 18.2 62.7 198.3 570.2 7.7 55.3 361.0 225.4 75.4 60.2 2065.0 1040.0 325.0 700.0 28.7 5.6 6.3 1.7 1.8 2.5 2.4 2.8 4.2 1.4 295.7 6321.8 44,958.6
0.1 887.7 11.9 6.5 15.1 50.1 201.8 550.2 6.5 45.6 305.4 188.7 70.8 45.9 2345.0 1135.0 520.0 690.0 22.0 4.2 5.0 1.2 1.4 2.1 1.7 1.9 3.4 1.1 274.8 6115.4 45,114.3
0.1 948.6 10.4 5.1 13.8 55.4 249.7 554.1 8.9 51.2 354.1 217.5 75.2 61.4 2175.0 1075.0 425.0 675.0 20.1 4.1 4.7 1.1 1.2 1.7 1.6 1.8 3.0 0.9 272.6 6010.2 45,628.4
0.1 925.8 12.4 6.8 16.3 56.3 217.9 560.7 7.8 47.6 321.7 198.5 70.2 53.0 2273.0 1128.0 465.0 680.0 23.9 4.7 5.1 1.4 1.6 2.3 1.9 2.2 3.5 1.2 281.6 6105.2 45358.7
Total plant nutrients. Active ingredients.
b
use of human power and machinery were 925.8 and 23.9 h ha1, respectively. The parallel results were determined from some other related research [17,18]. Based on the energy equivalents of the input and output given in Table 2, the average total energy consumed per farm per year was determined as 45.53 GJ ha1 (Table 4). This result is higher than the 22.58 GJ ha1 from the other research [7]. Energy use per hectare was 15.4% higher on small farms decreasing when the farm size group increased. With respect to machinery and diesel consumption, our results showed that tractor use averaged 23.9 h per hectare of which 64.4% was devoted to land preparation, planting and hoeing. Diesel energy was 34.82% of the total input energy consumed in tomato production followed by fertilizer (28.91%) and machinery (22.90%). Energy equivalent of human labor input was 18.14 GJ ha1 or 3.98% of the total energy use. Labor used for spraying, irrigation and hoeing practice decreased as farm size increased. Harvesting accounted for 2.41% of total energy and this practice decreased as farm size increased. Fertilizer energy
(13.16 GJ ha1) was 28.91% of the total input energy, nitrogen accounting for 91.3% of total fertilizer, phosphorus 5.92% and potassium 2.78%. According to the result findings fertilizer and nitrogen use were highest on the small farms, whereas nitrogen and phosphorus were used least on the medium farms. An average of 430.7 MJ ha1 pesticide energy was used; meaning 0.95% of the total energy consumption. The share of insecticides, herbicides and fungicides of total pesticide energy were 52.3%, 37.9% and 9.8%, respectively. The diesel energy consumption was 15.85 GJ ha1, and machinery energy consumption was 10.42 GJ ha1. According to the research results machinery energy use in small farms was higher. Tomato was irrigated both by the furrow and drip method an average of 6.32 times per production season. The energy to pump the water (38.46 GJ ha1) constituted 8.45% of the total input energy. An average of the output–input ratio was determined at 0.80 and increased as the farm size increased. According to the research results (Table 4), energy was used more efficiently in large farms and gave parallel results for energy
ARTICLE IN PRESS B. C - etin, A. Vardar / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 428–433
431
Table 4 Energy consumption and output for tomato production (MJ ha1) Items
Seeds Labour (h ha1) Land preparation and planting Fertilizer application Spraying Irrigation Hoeing Harvesting Transporting to tomato plant Driver Fertilizera (kg ha1) Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium Pesticidesb (g ha-1) Insecticides Fungicides Herbicides Machinery (h ha1) Plough Discing Harrow Land plane Drilling Furrow cultivator Fertilizer spreader Sprayer Trailer Diesel (L ha1) Water (m3 ha1) Total energy input Total energy output Energy output-input ratio Energy productivity (kg seed MJ1) a
Farm size groups (ha)
Weighted average
0.1–2.0
2.1–5.0
5.1+
Quantity
(%)
0.1 1831.4 28.8 14.3 35.7 122.9 388.7 1117.6 15.1 108.4 14,899.4 13,659.2 836.9 403.3 405.3 208.0 29.3 168.0 11,791.7 3136.0 2822.4 357.0 973.8 752.5 684 2105.6 634.2 326.2 16,650.9 3982.7 49,561.5 35,966.9 0.73 0.91
0.1 1739.9 23.3 12.7 29.6 98.2 395.5 1078.4 12.7 89.4 12,528.6 11,435.2 785.9 307.5 439.4 227.0 46.8 165.6 8916.5 2352.0 2240.0 252.0 757.4 632.1 484.5 1428.8 513.4 256.3 15,474.0 3852.7 42,951.2 36,091.4 0.84 1.05
0.1 1859.3 20.4 10.0 27.0 108.6 489.4 1086.0 17.4 100.4 14,426.6 13,180.5 834.7 411.4 415.3 215.0 38.3 162.0 7997 2296.0 1836.8 231.0 649.2 511.7 456 1353.6 453.0 209.7 15,350.1 3156.4 43,204.8 36,502.7 0.85 1.06
0.1 1814.6 24.3 13.3 32.0 110.3 427.1 1099.0 15.3 93.3 13,163.4 12,029.1 779.2 355.1 430.7 225.6 41.9 163.2 10,426.6 2632.0 2284.8 294.0 865.6 752.5 684 2105.6 528.5 279.6 15,856.9 3846.3 45,538.6 36,287.0 0.80 0.99
0.0002 3.98 0.05 0.03 0.07 0.24 0.94 2.41 0.03 0.20 28.91 26.42 1.71 0.78 0.95 0.50 0.09 0.36 22.90 5.78 5.02 0.65 1.90 1.65 1.50 4.62 1.16 0.61 34.82 8.45 100.00 — — —
Total plant nutrients. Active ingredients.
b
productivity ranging from 0.91 kg tomato MJ1 to 1.06 kg MJ1 on large farms. With respect to the improving of energy efficiency, the diesel, fertilizer and machinery management seemed to be the most significant three categories. On the other hand, economic analysis was carried out by taking various cost components into consideration, including production costs and the total production value for tomato (Table 5). According to research results farmers spent 3469.9 $ ha1 to obtain 4082.2 $ ha1 production value. Labour costs were highest followed by land rent (16.96), pesticides (10.19) and diesel (8.29). The cost of labour as casual and family labour was 1226.4 $ ha1 accounting for 35.34% of the total costs. As we can see from Table 5, non-family (casual) labour costs per hectare were highest in the large farms and family labour highest on small farms. On the other hand, fertilizer cost had a small share (4.1%) of total
production costs with a value of 142.3 $ ha1. Conversely, pesticide costs had the higher share (10.19%) compared with its share of total energy inputs which is found 0.95%. The survey results and technical expertise of the research areas indicated that excess pesticide use was widespread in South Marmara region [19]. Machinery cost which includes diesel and oil, repair, depreciation and interest costs have decreased as farm size decreased. Its total share in the research was 19.76% of the total cost. The cost for the irrigation water was 30.2 $ ha1 which was rather low when compared with the irrigation energy share (0.87% and 8.45%). The energy use efficiency was found to be 0.80 in the surveyed farms. In addition, the benefit–cost ratio of the tomato production was determined to be 0.85 (Table 5). On the other hand, the share of direct input energy was 47.3% in the total energy compared to 52.7% for the
ARTICLE IN PRESS B. C - etin, A. Vardar / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 428–433
432
4. Conclusion
Table 5 Tomato production costs ($ ha1) Costs
Variable costs Seeds Fertilizers Pesticides Insecticides Herbicides Fungicides Casual workers Water Driver Diesel Oil Repairs and maintenance Aerial Spraying Others (bags etc.) Operating interest charges Fixed costs Family labour Depreciation Interest Land rent General overhead costs Total production costs Total production valuea Benefit/cost ratio
Farm size groups (ha)
Weighted average
0.1–2.0 2.1–5.0 5.1+
Quantity (%)
1838.0 74.6 125.3 265.3 180.5 25.9 8.9 671.3 28.7 33.2 270.4 60.8 98.7 20.2 3.9 135.6 1358.5 279.4 153.7 206.9 554.3 164.2 3196.5 4046.2 0.79
2116.7 78.2 142.3 353.9 317.2 20.3 16.4 966.4 30.2 35.3 287.5 14.7 39.5 20.6 4.3 143.8 1353.2 260.0 142.7 201.4 588.6 160.5 3469.9 4082.2 0.85
2067.6 78.3 139.8 367.2 326.1 25.6 15.5 805.7 31.1 36.7 301.6 56.5 79.6 21.5 4.5 145.1 1261.8 250.3 114.8 222.4 575.6 98.7 3329.4 4060.3 0.82
2459.6 80.5 165.6 437.1 339.3 63.5 34.3 1089.1 34.3 37.5 345.9 27.8 58.7 26.8 4.7 151.6 1195.2 201.3 106.8 203.8 598.0 185.3 3654.8 4106.5 0.89
61.01 2.25 4.10 10.19 9.14 0.58 0.47 27.85 0.87 1.02 8.29 0.42 1.14 0.59 0.15 4.14 38.99 7.49 4.11 5.80 16.96 4.63 100.00 — —
a Total production value ¼ tomato yield (kg ha1) multiplied by tomato price ($ kg1). 1 kg tomato ¼ 0.09 $ ¼ 0.135 YTL (New Turkish Lira).
Table 6 Total energy input in the form of direct, indirect, renewable and nonrenewable for tomato production (MJ ha-1) Type of energy
Direct energya b
Indirect energy
Renewable energyc Non-renewable energyd Total energy input
Farm size groups (ha)
The data used in this research for the production of industrial type tomato were collected from 95 farms located in the South Marmara region of Turkey. Tomato production consumed a total of 45.53 GJ ha1 energy which is mainly on fossil fuels. Diesel energy was the biggest energy input followed by indirect energy with fertilizer and machinery. Land preparation, planting and cultivating were the main input items for machinery requirements and costs. The energy output–input ratio was not at a sufficient level (0.80) because of low tomato prices. The significant cost items were labour, machinery, land rent and pesticide costs. Better energy efficiency, productivity and benefit–cost ratio were found on the large farms. According to these criteria large farms were more successful in energy use and economic performance. Energy management is an important issue in terms of efficient, sustainable and economic use of energy. For this reason, it is seen that the importance given to efficient use of energy, sustainability and economy has increased in many countries and Turkey. Nonetheless, in the research area, energy use in tomato production is not efficient and harmful to the environment due to excess input use. Therefore, reducing these inputs would provide more efficient input use of mainly machinery, fertilizer and pesticides. Application of integrated pest management techniques would improve pesticide use. In addition to these applications choosing the appropriate cropping systems would be useful not only for reducing negative effects to environment, human health, maintaining, sustainability and decreasing production costs, but also for providing higher energy use efficiency.
Weighted average
0.1–2.0
2.1–5.0
5.1+
22,465.0 (45.3)e 27,096.5 (54.7) 5814.2 (11.7) 43,747.3 (88.3) 49,561.5 (100.0)
21,066.6 (49.0) 21,884.6 (51.0) 5592.7 (13.0) 37,358.5 (87.0) 42,951.2 (100.0)
20,365.8 (47.1) 22,839.0 (52.9) 5015.8 (11.6) 38,189.0 (88.4) 43,204.8 (100.0)
References 21,517.8 (47.3) 24,020.8 (52.7) 5661.0 (12.4) 39,877.6 (87.6) 45,538.6 (100.0)
a
Includes human labour, diesel, water. Includes seeds, fertilizers, chemicals, machinery. c Includes human, seeds, water. d Includes diesel, chemical, fertilizers, machinery. e Figures in parentheses indicate percentage of total energy input. b
indirect energy (Table 6). The research results shown that on average the non-renewable form of energy input was 87.6% compared to 12.4% for renewable energy.
[1] FAO. Production yearbook. vol. 57, Rome; 2003. p. 140–2. [2] C - etin B, Rehber E, Budak S, Tipi T. Economic structure and marketing problems of tomato processing industry in Turkey. TUBITAK-Project TARP-2026, Union of Turkish Chambers of Agriculture publication no 236, Ankara; 2003. p. 81. [3] O¨zkan B, Akc- ao¨z H, Fert C. Energy input–output analysis in Turkish agriculture. Renew Energy 2004;29:39–51. [4] Singh JM. On farm energy use pattern in different cropping systems in Haryana, India. Germany: Master of Science Thesis, Sustainable Energy Systems and Management, International Institute of Management, University of Flensburg, Germany, 2002. [5] The Canadian Agricultural Energy End-Use Data and Analysis Centre (CAEEDAC). A descriptive analysis of energy consumption in agriculture and food sector in Canada. Final report, February 2000. Available from /http://www.usask.ca/agriculture/caedac/ main/tpage.htmlS. [6] Kennedy S. Energy use in American agriculture. Sustainable energy term paper 2000, 5/1/2000. Available from /http://web.mit.edu/ 10.391j/www/proceeding.htmlS. [7] Yaldız O, O¨zturk HH, Zeren Y, Bas-c- etinc- elik A. Energy usage in production of field crops in Turkey. In: Proceedings of the fifth international congress on mechanization and energy use in agriculture. Turkey: Kus-adası; 1993.
ARTICLE IN PRESS B. C - etin, A. Vardar / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 428–433 [8] Pathak BS, Binning AS. Energy use pattern and potential for energy saving in rice–wheat cultivation. Agric Energy 1985;4:271–8. [9] Singh S, Singh G. Energy input vs. crop yield relationship for four major crops of northern India. Agric Mech Asia, Afr Latin Am 1992;23(2):57–61. [10] Singh S, Verma SR, Mittal JP. Energy requirements for production of major crops in India. Agric Mech Asia, Afr Latin Am 1997;28(4): 13–7. [11] Thakur CL, Mishra BL. Energy requirements and energy gaps for production of major crops in Madhya Pradesh. Agric Situation India 1993;48:665–89. [12] Yadav RN, Singh RKP, Prasad S. An economic analysis of energy requirements in the production of potato crop in Bihar Sharif Block of Nalanda District (Bihar). Econ Affairs 1991;36:112–9. [13] Chandra H, Dipanker De, Singh RS. Spatial variation in energy use pattern for paddy cultivation in India. In: Proceedings of the national workshop on energy and environment management for sustainable
[14] [15] [16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
433
development of agriculture and agro-industrial sector, July 8–9, 2001. p. 48–51. Yamane T. Elementary sampling theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall; 1967. Shrestha DS. Energy use efficiency indicator for agriculture, 1998. /http://www.usaskca/agriculture/caedac/PDF/mcrae.PDFS, 10/10/2002. Maddal KG, Saha KP, Ghosh PK, Hati KM. Bioenergy and economic analysis of soybean-based crop production systems in central India. Biomass Bioenergy 2002;23:337–45. C - etin B. Production and marketing problems in the contract tomatoes growing for industry in the Bursa province, Uludag University. J Fac Agric 1992;9:48–56. Sermenli T. Production condition and problems of tomatoes growing in South Marmara region. MSc Thesis, Bursa, 1985, p. 76, unpublished. Muthes KM, Onul T. Agriculture in Turkey. Ankara: Agricultural Bank of Turkey; 1996 71pp.