- Email: [email protected]
Reply to the comment which made by Pirdashti, H., Pirdashti, M., and Niknezhad, Y., to paper entitled “An economic analysis of energy requirements and input costs for tomato production in Turkey”
Renewable Energy 71 (2014) 758e759
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Renewable Energy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene
Reply to the comment which made by Pirdashti, H., Pirdashti, M., and Niknezhad, Y., to paper entitled “An economic analysis of energy requirements and input costs for tomato production in Turkey” Bahattin Cetin Uludag University, Faculty of Agriculture, Bursa, Turkey
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 14 June 2014 Accepted 17 June 2014 Available online 16 July 2014
The research paper entitled “An economic analysis of energy requirements and input costs for tomato production in Turkey” was carried out examine the energy requirements of inputs and to make input/ output analysis for tomato production for various farm size. As a result of the research, better benefitcost ratio was given on the large farms. However, due to miscalculation of this ratio, line 6 as given in the original abstract “According to the benefit-cost ratio, large farms were more successful in economic performance” should be changed to “According to the benefit-cost ratio, small farms were more successful in economic performance”. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Energy input Tomato production costs Energy ratio Turkey
1. Introduction At the research, the ratio which was used to measure the economic performance of energy usage was assessed incorrectly by dividing total production value to the total production costs instead of calculating that value by the opposite of this process.
2. Discussion The corrected benefit-cost ratio values which are determined by considering only the size of farms and the original values that are correctly assessed are given in Table 5.
On the other hand, the weighted average values were also calculated incorrectly by the researchers that make a comment. Unfortunately they were calculated that values incorrectly as an arithmetic average values. All values that were given between Table 3 and Table 6 [1], were correctly assessed and considered as a weighted average values in the original text. The energy equivalent of tomato were missing as an output value in Table 2 at the original text. This value should be given by underneath in Table 2 such as down below.
Input(unit)
Energy equivalent(MJ unit1)
Reference
Tomato(kg)
0,80
Yaldız (7)
Original and corrected values in Table.5 Farm size groups (ha) 2.1e5.0
5.1 þ
Quantity
%
O.V. C.V.
O.V. C.V.
O.V. C.V.
O.V.
C.V.
0.79 1.27
0.82 1.22
0.89 1.12
0.85
1.18
0.1e2.0
Benefit/cost ratio
Weighted average
DOI of original article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2007.03.008. E-mail address: [email protected]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.06.040 0960-1481/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
The verifications which were obtained from randomly chosen farms by the help of a questionnaire were used at this study. In this regard, the differences between the sizes of the enterprises in some cost factors were naturally arising from this fact. For instance, while the used seed input that is shown as a production factor was the same amount for all farms, as it can be seen from Table 5, in terms of the production costs, small differences for the size of the farms were arising from the varieties of tomato seed which were used.
B. Cetin / Renewable Energy 71 (2014) 758e759
In the original text, all verifications that were given in Table 5 (1) were obtained from the research area, only three of the costs values were written incorrectly due to errata. But, that mistake was not affecting the general view of the research and the comments. This mistakes are; the given ‘pesticides value’ which were written as 265.3 at the fourth line should be……………315.3 (0.1e0.2 ha) ……………the given ‘insecticides value’ which were written as 180.5 at the fifth line should be 280.5 (0.1e0.2 ha.) ……………the given ‘general overhead value’ which were written as 185.3 at the twenty second line should be 85.3 (5.1 þ ha.). 3. Conclusion Except from the benefit/cost ratio, all comments related to considerations and values that occurred in this section are correct
759
and convenient. From this point of view, the sentence in the second paragraph at the conclusion section of the study, ‘‘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.’’ should be fixed like that, “It has espoused that large farms have a better condition in terms of energy productivity and efficiency, however small farms more succeed in the sense of benefit-cost ratio”.
Reference [1] Çetin B, Vardar A. An economic analysis of energy requirements and input costs for tomato production in Turkey. Renew Energy 2008;33:428e33.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Renewable Energy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene
Reply to the comment which made by Pirdashti, H., Pirdashti, M., and Niknezhad, Y., to paper entitled “An economic analysis of energy requirements and input costs for tomato production in Turkey” Bahattin Cetin Uludag University, Faculty of Agriculture, Bursa, Turkey
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 14 June 2014 Accepted 17 June 2014 Available online 16 July 2014
The research paper entitled “An economic analysis of energy requirements and input costs for tomato production in Turkey” was carried out examine the energy requirements of inputs and to make input/ output analysis for tomato production for various farm size. As a result of the research, better benefitcost ratio was given on the large farms. However, due to miscalculation of this ratio, line 6 as given in the original abstract “According to the benefit-cost ratio, large farms were more successful in economic performance” should be changed to “According to the benefit-cost ratio, small farms were more successful in economic performance”. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Energy input Tomato production costs Energy ratio Turkey
1. Introduction At the research, the ratio which was used to measure the economic performance of energy usage was assessed incorrectly by dividing total production value to the total production costs instead of calculating that value by the opposite of this process.
2. Discussion The corrected benefit-cost ratio values which are determined by considering only the size of farms and the original values that are correctly assessed are given in Table 5.
On the other hand, the weighted average values were also calculated incorrectly by the researchers that make a comment. Unfortunately they were calculated that values incorrectly as an arithmetic average values. All values that were given between Table 3 and Table 6 [1], were correctly assessed and considered as a weighted average values in the original text. The energy equivalent of tomato were missing as an output value in Table 2 at the original text. This value should be given by underneath in Table 2 such as down below.
Input(unit)
Energy equivalent(MJ unit1)
Reference
Tomato(kg)
0,80
Yaldız (7)
Original and corrected values in Table.5 Farm size groups (ha) 2.1e5.0
5.1 þ
Quantity
%
O.V. C.V.
O.V. C.V.
O.V. C.V.
O.V.
C.V.
0.79 1.27
0.82 1.22
0.89 1.12
0.85
1.18
0.1e2.0
Benefit/cost ratio
Weighted average
DOI of original article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2007.03.008. E-mail address: [email protected]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.06.040 0960-1481/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
The verifications which were obtained from randomly chosen farms by the help of a questionnaire were used at this study. In this regard, the differences between the sizes of the enterprises in some cost factors were naturally arising from this fact. For instance, while the used seed input that is shown as a production factor was the same amount for all farms, as it can be seen from Table 5, in terms of the production costs, small differences for the size of the farms were arising from the varieties of tomato seed which were used.
B. Cetin / Renewable Energy 71 (2014) 758e759
In the original text, all verifications that were given in Table 5 (1) were obtained from the research area, only three of the costs values were written incorrectly due to errata. But, that mistake was not affecting the general view of the research and the comments. This mistakes are; the given ‘pesticides value’ which were written as 265.3 at the fourth line should be……………315.3 (0.1e0.2 ha) ……………the given ‘insecticides value’ which were written as 180.5 at the fifth line should be 280.5 (0.1e0.2 ha.) ……………the given ‘general overhead value’ which were written as 185.3 at the twenty second line should be 85.3 (5.1 þ ha.). 3. Conclusion Except from the benefit/cost ratio, all comments related to considerations and values that occurred in this section are correct
759
and convenient. From this point of view, the sentence in the second paragraph at the conclusion section of the study, ‘‘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.’’ should be fixed like that, “It has espoused that large farms have a better condition in terms of energy productivity and efficiency, however small farms more succeed in the sense of benefit-cost ratio”.
Reference [1] Çetin B, Vardar A. An economic analysis of energy requirements and input costs for tomato production in Turkey. Renew Energy 2008;33:428e33.