- Email: [email protected]
Use of energy and labour in apricot agriculture in Turkey
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Biomass and Bioenergy 24 (2003) 215 – 219
Use of energy and labour in apricot agriculture in Turkey Ibrahim Gezera , Mustafa Acaro(glub;∗ , Haydar Hacisefero(gullaric b Selc uk
a In onu University, Technical College Malatya, Malatya, Turkey University, Technical Science College, Teknik Bilimeler M.Y.O., Kampus, Konya 42031, Turkey c Selc uk University, Faculty of Agriculture Konya, Turkey
Received 4 December 2001; received in revised form 9 May 2002; accepted 19 September 2002
Abstract Turkey is the biggest apricot producer in the world with 538; 000 t production per annum and 20.15% market share. Moreover, 83% of the dried apricots in world markets are produced in Turkey. In this research; the energy budget of traditionally applied apricot agriculture—one of the means of subsistence in Malatya region of Turkey—is evaluated. Total yield, apricot mass/pit mass ratio and apricot fruit yield with respect to dried substance are found to be 20, 14/1 and 4:82 t=ha, respectively. Total energy input, total energy output, output/input ratio and net energy ratio are found to be 22341, 75265 MJ=ha, 3.37 and 2.37, respectively. ? 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Apricot agriculture; Hac:haliloglu; Biomass; Labour; Energy value; Energy input; Energy output
1. Introduction Apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) is a cultivated type of zerdali (wild apricot) which is produced by inoculation [1]. Apricots have an important place in human nutrition, the fruit can be utilized fresh, dried or processed, and the kernels are used in the production of oils, benzaldehyde, cosmetics, active carbon, and aroma perfume [2]. The Hac:halilo(glu type apricot—the most widely produced type in Turkey— contains 17.38% protein, 48.70% crude oil, 38% Na, 1:06 ppm P, 0:58 ppm K, 0:11 ppm Ca, 0:24 ppm Mg, 42:8 pmm Fe, 42:35 ppm Zn, 1:10 ppm Mn, 2:09 ppm Cu [3]. ∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +90-332-241; fax: +90-332-24101-85. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (M. Acaro(glu).
Turkey is the biggest apricot producer in the world with 538; 000 t produced per annum and 20.15% market share. Moreover, 83% of dried apricots in the world markets are produced in Turkey [4]. There are some 13.35 million apricot trees, of which 10.71 million are fruit bearing [5]. Most of the apricots are produced in the Malatya region of Turkey. This region produces 60% of the fresh apricots and 80% of the dried apricots in Turkey [6]. The trees of this type apricot are tall, grow rapidly and have spreading and upright branches. The distance between trees is approximately 10 m, average fruit weight is in the range 20 –45 g, dried substance percentage in fruit is 24 –28%, the pH is between 4.5 and 4.8 and they are yellow in colour. Properties of fruit, pit and kernel of Hac:halilo(glu apricots are given in Table 1 [1,7]. Ninety to ninety-Hve per cent of the apricots produced in Malatya region are dried. After harvesting, sulphuring, drying and pit separation operations; most
0961-9534/03/$ - see front matter ? 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 9 6 1 - 9 5 3 4 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 1 1 6 - 2
216
I. Gezer et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 24 (2003) 215 – 219
Table 1 Some fruit, pit and kernel properties of Hac:halilo(glu apricot type [1,7]
Fruit Pit Kernel
Width (mm)
Length (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Weight (g)
Shape
Taste
Dry matter(%)
Color
38.30 16.19 8.94
34.33 25.53 16.85
33.58 11.03 6.04
30 1.94 0.40
Oval Oval Oval
Sweet — Sweet
26 — 91.2
Yellow Brown Brown
of the apricots produced are then processed in conglomerates in the Malatya region and exported to 50 countries, mostly European [6]. A signiHcant objective in agricultural production is to decrease costs and increase yield. In this respect, the energy budget is important. Energy budget is the numerical comparison of the relationship between input and output of a system or agricultural business in terms of energy units. In this study, energy input and output of the apricot business in the Malatya region are determined and compared. 2. Material and methods This study was conducted on three diNerent apricot orchards with freely pruned 18-year old apricot trees having an average 200-kg yield per tree (for a period of two consecutive years) which is typical for the Malatya region in which this study is carried out. Row spacing and plant spacing is 10 m. The slope of the ground is between 0% and 10%. The altitude of the region is 940 m, annual precipitation is 383 mm, and the region has a dry climate. The processes during the year and how and when they were carried out were determined from a questionnaire applied to farmers in 20 diNerent farms. The distributions of the labour requirements were determined from the three orchards and the average values were used in analysis. A 240 Massey Ferguson brand tractor was used for tillage and other operations. The most commonly used procedures and machines were taken as a base for each process in the region. Tillage was done with ploughs with Hve-furrow and levelling with a cultivator with a nine-tine. ArtiHcial fertilizers are normally applied to circle-shaped pits excavated under the trees. Natural manure was mixed with the soil under the trees. Spraying was done with a sprayer with a 1 t tank and
two-spray lance, pulled by a tractor. Pits to keep the water around the tree trunk were built with hand tools. Most trees in the region are irrigated by water coming from dams, so only labour is taken into the cost. Pruning was done using hand tools. Harvesting was carried out using traditional methods, i.e., fruits are removed by kicking or hitting the branches and by using hitting sticks. Transport was carried out by a tractor pulled trailer, over an average of 1 km. Only a minimum amount of labour force is used. One person was employed in tillage, smoothing, making water pits, irrigation, pruning, and transporting but three persons were employed for processes such as fertilizer application, spraying and harvesting. Three replicates of each process were studied. Energy parameters used are deHned in Table 2. The energy budgets of each operation, ploughing, smoothing, fertilizer application, spraying, making water pits, irrigation, pruning, harvesting and transporting in apricot agriculture were recorded (Table 3). Production energy of tools and machines used in apricot agriculture were calculated separately using the following equation [8–10]: Mp = (Me + Fe)0:82 + Se; where Mp is the production energy of machine, MJ; Me the production energy of material, MJ; Fe the factory energy, MJ; and Se the spare part energy, MJ. Taking into consideration the energy used to produce the machines, their economic life and their efHciency, energy inputs for unit area were calculated using the following equation [8–10]: Mpe =
G Mp ; TW
where Mpe is the energy of machine for unit area, MJ/ ha; G the machinery mass, kg; and W the work success of tool and machine, ha/h.
I. Gezer et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 24 (2003) 215 – 219
217
Table 2 Energy parameters and their deHnition [10,19–26]
Parameter
DeHnition
Unit
Direct energy inputs (Ed) Indirect energy input (Ei) Total energy input (ET) Energy output (EO) Output/input ratio (O/I) Net energy ratio (NER)
Input of diesel Machines + fertilizers + pesticides, etc ET = Ed + Ei Energy in the harvested biomass EO/ET NER = EO − Et=Et
MJ=ha=year MJ=ha=year MJ=ha=year MJ=ha=year — —
Table 3 Tools and machines used in apricot agriculturea [10,19–26]
Agricultural processes
Labour (h/ha)
Tool and machinery
Characteristics
Production energy of machinery (MJ/kg)
Tillage Smoothing Fertilizer and manure Pest control Making water pits Surface irrigation Pruning Harvesting Transportation
8 ± 0:87 2:5 ± 0:20 67 ± 4:58 77:5 ± 3:12 98 ± 6:24 76 ± 5:57 33 ± 2:65 328 ± 23:81 14:5 ± 1:32
Tractor Plough Cultivator Trailer Sprayer Hand tools Labour Hand tools Hand tools Trailer
240 MF 49 HP, 1730 kg 5 furrow, B = 1:5 m, 380 kg B = 1:5 m, 342 kg, 0:4 ha=h With single axle and labour 1 t, drawn type Labour 540 m3 =ha dam water Labour Labour 1050 kg, with single axle
73.28 49.36 49.34 1:87 MJ=man 101.943 1:87 MJ=man 1:87 MJ=man 1:87 MJ=man 1:87 MJ=man 96.337
a These
values are evaluated with respect to processing values of tools and machines in Turkey conditions, work eQciency, material production, fabrication, and spare part energy condition [10].
A value 40; 055 MJ=l (density 0:83 kg=l) was used for fuel [11–15]. Many researchers have used diNerent values for the energy value of fertilizer. In this study values of 47.1; 15.8; 9.28 were used for N, P2 O5 and K2 O, respectively [12]. Five hundred and forty cubic metre of water were applied per hectare. The energy of the irrigation water was evaluated at 0:61 MJ=M3 [11,16]. Fungicides were used in spraying and calculations were made in terms of active substance. The energy value of the active substance of 216 MJ=kg [17] was used. Natural manure was applied at the rate of 6 t for 2 years with an energy value of 0:303 MJ=kg [11,16]. Transport was 10:08 MJ=t km. The energy value of the manual labour force was 1:87 MJ=h [18]. To calculate energy outputs, energy values were used 9 MJ=kg for apricot pits and 3:36 MJ=kg for apricot fruit [27–29].
3. Results and discussion Production energy of the machines used in the operations in apricot agriculture are given in Table 3. The energy budgets appear in Tables 4 and 5. Average yield of apricots was found 20 t=ha (26% dry matter) and the fruit: pits ratio was 14/1. Therefore, 1:43 t of apricot pits and 18:57 t of apricot fruit were produced per hectare each year. Apricot yield in dry matter was 4:82 t=ha. Energy budget for the basic inputs used in apricot agriculture are tabulated in Table 6. As it can be seen in Table 6, fuel input has the biggest share in total energy inputs. It is followed by energy from artiHcial and natural fertilizers, and then by fungicide. Energy of labour force has a big proportion because of lower mechanization levels in some operations such as fertilizer application, making water
218
I. Gezer et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 24 (2003) 215 – 219
Table 4 Total energy input in apricot agricultural
Agricultural processes
Production energy of tractor
Production energy of machines
Energy of fuel-oil
Energy of labour force
Tillage Smoothing Fertilizer + manure Pest control Making pits Irrigation Pruning Harvesting Transporting Total
144.88 45.275 15.846 271.65 — — — — 15.846 493.497
65.241 16.876 82.98 109.220 — — — — 82.98 357.297
1921.68 480.42 580.86 3603.15 — 329.40 — — 580.86 7496.37
14.96 4.675 125.29 434.775 183.26 142.12 61.71 1840.08 27.115 2614.385
Table 5 Energy inputs of fertilizer, manure and fungicide in apricot agriculture Inputs
Amount (kg/ha)
Energy equivalence
MJ/ha
Fertilizer N Fertilizer P Fertilizer K Manure Fungicide Total
80 60 160 3000 18.75
47.10 15.80 9.28 0.303 216
3768.0 948.0 1484.8 909.0 4050.0 11159.80
Table 6 General energy budget in apricot agriculture Energy inputs
MJ/ha
Fuel and oil energy Production energy of tractor Production energy of equipment Labour force (LF) energy Fertilizer and manure energy Fungicide energy Total
7496.370 493.497 357.297 2833.985 7109.800 4050.000 22340.949
pits, irrigation and harvesting. To decrease the labour these processes must be mechanized. The results could not be investigated comparatively due to a lack of data related to energy consumption of diNerent production techniques in apricot agriculture. From this perspective, this study is a Hrst in its Held.
Table 7 Energy consumption and energy ratio in apricot agriculture Total input (MJ/ha) Total output (MJ/ha)
O/I
NER (O-I/I)
22340.95
3.37
2.37
75265.00
The biomass energy value of 1:43 t apricot pits is 12 870 MJ=ha (1430 kg=ha×9 MJ=kg) and that of 18:57 t apricot fruit is 62395:20 MJ=ha (18570 kg=ha×3:36). Energy value of total yield (fruit + pit) is 75265 MJ=ha (Table 7). CO2 capture of apricot is 37:14 t=ha and that of O2 release is 27:855 t=ha with respect to total yield [30].
References R [1] Pektekin. Ulkemizde YetiSstirilen Kay:s: CSeSsitleri ve R Ozellikleri. Ekonomik ve Teknik Dergi STANDARD (Kay:s: R Ozel Say:s:), Ankara, 1994. p. 49 –53 (in Turkish). [2] Y:ld:z. Kay:s: iSslemede yeni teknolojiler. Standart dergisi oR zel say:s:, Ankara, 1994 (in Turkish). R [3] Ozcan. Composition of some apricot Prunus armeniaca kernels grown in Turkey. Acta Alimentaria, An International Journal of Food Science 2000;29(3):289 –94. [4] FAO. FAO production year book, 1998. [5] Anonymous. SSI agricultural indicators, 1923–1998 (January) Ankara: SSI Press, 2001. [6] Gezer. A research on the mechanical harvesting of apricots in Malatya region. Ph.D. thesis. Department of Agricultural Mechanization, SelScuk University, Graduate School of Natural Applied Sciences, Konya, 1997.
I. Gezer et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 24 (2003) 215 – 219 [7] DikilitaSs S. A research on eQciency analysis and improvements of prototype apricot pit breaking machine. Harran University, Science Institue, SS.Urfa, Turkey, 1997. R ˙I, Tozan M. Energy budget and work requirements of [8] Onal the alternative production systems in the processing tomato production. Tar:msal Mekanizasyon 10. Ulusal kongresi, adana, 1986. p. 216 –28 (in Turkish). R [9] Yavuzcan. Enerji Teknolojileri. A.U.Z.F. Yay:nlar:, Ankara, 1994 (in Turkish). [10] Acaro(glu. Energy from biomass, and applications. University of SelScuk, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences. Textbook (unpublished—Turkish), 1998. R urk HH, Zeren Y, BaSs cS etinScelik A. Energy [11] Yald:z O, OztR usage in production of Held crops in Turkey. Fifth International Congress on Mechanization and Energy in Agriculture, 11–14 October 1993. p. 527–36. [12] Kaltschmitt M, Reinhardt A. Nachwachsende EnergietrRager. R Grundlagen, Verfahren, Okologische Bilanzierung. Wiesbaden: Vieweg Verlag Braunschweig, 1997. [13] Studer R, Wolfensberger U. Energie-und CO2 Bilanzen uR ber den Alternativ-TreibstoN Biodiesel. Landwirtschaft Shweiz 1991;4(12):637–40. [14] Refsgaard K, Halberg N, Kristensen ES. Energy utilization in crop and dairy production in organic and conventional livestock production systems. Agricultural Systems 1998;57:599–630. [15] Sholz V, Kaulfuss P. Energiebilanz fRur BiofestbrennstoNe. Forschungsbericht 1995/3 des Insituts fRur Agrartechnik Bornim e.V. (ATB) Postdam, 1995. [16] Mrini M, Senhaji F, Pimentel D. Energy analysis of sugarcane production in Morocco. Environment, Development and Sustainability 2001;3:109–26. [17] HRulsbergen K-J, Feil B, Biermann S, Rathke G-W, Kalk W-D, Diepenbrock W. A method of energy balancing in crop production and its applications in a long-term fertilizer trial. Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment 2001;86: 303–21.
219
[18] Smil V. Energy analysis and agriculture. An application to US. corn production. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1983. [19] Diepenbrock W, Pelzer B, Radtke J. Energiebilanz im Ackerbaubetrieb. Kuratorium fRur Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft (KTBL), Darmstadt, Arbeitspapier 211. Landwirtschaftsverlag MRunster-Hiltrup, 1995. [20] Doering III OC. Accounting for energy in farm machinery and buildings. In: Pimentel D, editor. Handbook of energy utilization in agriculture. Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press, 1980. p. 9 –24. [21] Heyland K-U, Solansky S. Energieeinsatz und Energieumsetzung im Bereich der PVanzenproduktion. Berichte ueber Landwirtschaft 1979;195:15–30. [22] Born. Energie-CO2 -und Arbeitsaufwand zur Herstellung von GRutern, BWK Bd. 44 Nr. 5 Mai, 1992. p. 209 –14. [23] Grosse W. Zum energetischen Herstellungsaufwand von Landmaschinen. Agrartechnik 1984;34:21–3. [24] Von Oheimb R. Indirekter Energieeinsatz im agrarischen erzeugerbereich in der BRD. In: KTBL (Hrsg.), Energie und Agrarwirtschaft. KTBL-Schrift 320. MRunster-Hiltrup: Landwirtschaftsverlag, 1987. p. 50 –91. [25] Moerscher J, Gerowitt B. Direct and indirect energy use in arable farming-an example on Winter Wheat production in Northern Germany, 1999. [26] Moerschner J, Gerowitt B. Energiebilanzen von Raps bei unterschiedlichen AnbauintensitRaten. Landtechnik 6/98, 1998. p. 384 –5. R [27] YRucesan S. Kay:s:n:n Beslenmemizdeki Yeri ve Onemi. R Teknik Dergi STANDARD (Kay:s: Ozel Say:s:) TSE, Ankara, 1994 (in Turkish). [28] Chisholm. 2001 (http://solstice.crest.org). [29] ASckurt F. Importance of apricot in healthy diet and new products. Result Report of First Apricot Symposium, Malatya, 1999. p. 21–9. [30] Schweiger P, editor. Absorption of CO2 and release of O2 by growth of plants. March CARMEN, 1998 (http://www.carmen-ev.de).
Biomass and Bioenergy 24 (2003) 215 – 219
Use of energy and labour in apricot agriculture in Turkey Ibrahim Gezera , Mustafa Acaro(glub;∗ , Haydar Hacisefero(gullaric b Selc uk
a In onu University, Technical College Malatya, Malatya, Turkey University, Technical Science College, Teknik Bilimeler M.Y.O., Kampus, Konya 42031, Turkey c Selc uk University, Faculty of Agriculture Konya, Turkey
Received 4 December 2001; received in revised form 9 May 2002; accepted 19 September 2002
Abstract Turkey is the biggest apricot producer in the world with 538; 000 t production per annum and 20.15% market share. Moreover, 83% of the dried apricots in world markets are produced in Turkey. In this research; the energy budget of traditionally applied apricot agriculture—one of the means of subsistence in Malatya region of Turkey—is evaluated. Total yield, apricot mass/pit mass ratio and apricot fruit yield with respect to dried substance are found to be 20, 14/1 and 4:82 t=ha, respectively. Total energy input, total energy output, output/input ratio and net energy ratio are found to be 22341, 75265 MJ=ha, 3.37 and 2.37, respectively. ? 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Apricot agriculture; Hac:haliloglu; Biomass; Labour; Energy value; Energy input; Energy output
1. Introduction Apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) is a cultivated type of zerdali (wild apricot) which is produced by inoculation [1]. Apricots have an important place in human nutrition, the fruit can be utilized fresh, dried or processed, and the kernels are used in the production of oils, benzaldehyde, cosmetics, active carbon, and aroma perfume [2]. The Hac:halilo(glu type apricot—the most widely produced type in Turkey— contains 17.38% protein, 48.70% crude oil, 38% Na, 1:06 ppm P, 0:58 ppm K, 0:11 ppm Ca, 0:24 ppm Mg, 42:8 pmm Fe, 42:35 ppm Zn, 1:10 ppm Mn, 2:09 ppm Cu [3]. ∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +90-332-241; fax: +90-332-24101-85. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (M. Acaro(glu).
Turkey is the biggest apricot producer in the world with 538; 000 t produced per annum and 20.15% market share. Moreover, 83% of dried apricots in the world markets are produced in Turkey [4]. There are some 13.35 million apricot trees, of which 10.71 million are fruit bearing [5]. Most of the apricots are produced in the Malatya region of Turkey. This region produces 60% of the fresh apricots and 80% of the dried apricots in Turkey [6]. The trees of this type apricot are tall, grow rapidly and have spreading and upright branches. The distance between trees is approximately 10 m, average fruit weight is in the range 20 –45 g, dried substance percentage in fruit is 24 –28%, the pH is between 4.5 and 4.8 and they are yellow in colour. Properties of fruit, pit and kernel of Hac:halilo(glu apricots are given in Table 1 [1,7]. Ninety to ninety-Hve per cent of the apricots produced in Malatya region are dried. After harvesting, sulphuring, drying and pit separation operations; most
0961-9534/03/$ - see front matter ? 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 9 6 1 - 9 5 3 4 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 1 1 6 - 2
216
I. Gezer et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 24 (2003) 215 – 219
Table 1 Some fruit, pit and kernel properties of Hac:halilo(glu apricot type [1,7]
Fruit Pit Kernel
Width (mm)
Length (mm)
Thickness (mm)
Weight (g)
Shape
Taste
Dry matter(%)
Color
38.30 16.19 8.94
34.33 25.53 16.85
33.58 11.03 6.04
30 1.94 0.40
Oval Oval Oval
Sweet — Sweet
26 — 91.2
Yellow Brown Brown
of the apricots produced are then processed in conglomerates in the Malatya region and exported to 50 countries, mostly European [6]. A signiHcant objective in agricultural production is to decrease costs and increase yield. In this respect, the energy budget is important. Energy budget is the numerical comparison of the relationship between input and output of a system or agricultural business in terms of energy units. In this study, energy input and output of the apricot business in the Malatya region are determined and compared. 2. Material and methods This study was conducted on three diNerent apricot orchards with freely pruned 18-year old apricot trees having an average 200-kg yield per tree (for a period of two consecutive years) which is typical for the Malatya region in which this study is carried out. Row spacing and plant spacing is 10 m. The slope of the ground is between 0% and 10%. The altitude of the region is 940 m, annual precipitation is 383 mm, and the region has a dry climate. The processes during the year and how and when they were carried out were determined from a questionnaire applied to farmers in 20 diNerent farms. The distributions of the labour requirements were determined from the three orchards and the average values were used in analysis. A 240 Massey Ferguson brand tractor was used for tillage and other operations. The most commonly used procedures and machines were taken as a base for each process in the region. Tillage was done with ploughs with Hve-furrow and levelling with a cultivator with a nine-tine. ArtiHcial fertilizers are normally applied to circle-shaped pits excavated under the trees. Natural manure was mixed with the soil under the trees. Spraying was done with a sprayer with a 1 t tank and
two-spray lance, pulled by a tractor. Pits to keep the water around the tree trunk were built with hand tools. Most trees in the region are irrigated by water coming from dams, so only labour is taken into the cost. Pruning was done using hand tools. Harvesting was carried out using traditional methods, i.e., fruits are removed by kicking or hitting the branches and by using hitting sticks. Transport was carried out by a tractor pulled trailer, over an average of 1 km. Only a minimum amount of labour force is used. One person was employed in tillage, smoothing, making water pits, irrigation, pruning, and transporting but three persons were employed for processes such as fertilizer application, spraying and harvesting. Three replicates of each process were studied. Energy parameters used are deHned in Table 2. The energy budgets of each operation, ploughing, smoothing, fertilizer application, spraying, making water pits, irrigation, pruning, harvesting and transporting in apricot agriculture were recorded (Table 3). Production energy of tools and machines used in apricot agriculture were calculated separately using the following equation [8–10]: Mp = (Me + Fe)0:82 + Se; where Mp is the production energy of machine, MJ; Me the production energy of material, MJ; Fe the factory energy, MJ; and Se the spare part energy, MJ. Taking into consideration the energy used to produce the machines, their economic life and their efHciency, energy inputs for unit area were calculated using the following equation [8–10]: Mpe =
G Mp ; TW
where Mpe is the energy of machine for unit area, MJ/ ha; G the machinery mass, kg; and W the work success of tool and machine, ha/h.
I. Gezer et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 24 (2003) 215 – 219
217
Table 2 Energy parameters and their deHnition [10,19–26]
Parameter
DeHnition
Unit
Direct energy inputs (Ed) Indirect energy input (Ei) Total energy input (ET) Energy output (EO) Output/input ratio (O/I) Net energy ratio (NER)
Input of diesel Machines + fertilizers + pesticides, etc ET = Ed + Ei Energy in the harvested biomass EO/ET NER = EO − Et=Et
MJ=ha=year MJ=ha=year MJ=ha=year MJ=ha=year — —
Table 3 Tools and machines used in apricot agriculturea [10,19–26]
Agricultural processes
Labour (h/ha)
Tool and machinery
Characteristics
Production energy of machinery (MJ/kg)
Tillage Smoothing Fertilizer and manure Pest control Making water pits Surface irrigation Pruning Harvesting Transportation
8 ± 0:87 2:5 ± 0:20 67 ± 4:58 77:5 ± 3:12 98 ± 6:24 76 ± 5:57 33 ± 2:65 328 ± 23:81 14:5 ± 1:32
Tractor Plough Cultivator Trailer Sprayer Hand tools Labour Hand tools Hand tools Trailer
240 MF 49 HP, 1730 kg 5 furrow, B = 1:5 m, 380 kg B = 1:5 m, 342 kg, 0:4 ha=h With single axle and labour 1 t, drawn type Labour 540 m3 =ha dam water Labour Labour 1050 kg, with single axle
73.28 49.36 49.34 1:87 MJ=man 101.943 1:87 MJ=man 1:87 MJ=man 1:87 MJ=man 1:87 MJ=man 96.337
a These
values are evaluated with respect to processing values of tools and machines in Turkey conditions, work eQciency, material production, fabrication, and spare part energy condition [10].
A value 40; 055 MJ=l (density 0:83 kg=l) was used for fuel [11–15]. Many researchers have used diNerent values for the energy value of fertilizer. In this study values of 47.1; 15.8; 9.28 were used for N, P2 O5 and K2 O, respectively [12]. Five hundred and forty cubic metre of water were applied per hectare. The energy of the irrigation water was evaluated at 0:61 MJ=M3 [11,16]. Fungicides were used in spraying and calculations were made in terms of active substance. The energy value of the active substance of 216 MJ=kg [17] was used. Natural manure was applied at the rate of 6 t for 2 years with an energy value of 0:303 MJ=kg [11,16]. Transport was 10:08 MJ=t km. The energy value of the manual labour force was 1:87 MJ=h [18]. To calculate energy outputs, energy values were used 9 MJ=kg for apricot pits and 3:36 MJ=kg for apricot fruit [27–29].
3. Results and discussion Production energy of the machines used in the operations in apricot agriculture are given in Table 3. The energy budgets appear in Tables 4 and 5. Average yield of apricots was found 20 t=ha (26% dry matter) and the fruit: pits ratio was 14/1. Therefore, 1:43 t of apricot pits and 18:57 t of apricot fruit were produced per hectare each year. Apricot yield in dry matter was 4:82 t=ha. Energy budget for the basic inputs used in apricot agriculture are tabulated in Table 6. As it can be seen in Table 6, fuel input has the biggest share in total energy inputs. It is followed by energy from artiHcial and natural fertilizers, and then by fungicide. Energy of labour force has a big proportion because of lower mechanization levels in some operations such as fertilizer application, making water
218
I. Gezer et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 24 (2003) 215 – 219
Table 4 Total energy input in apricot agricultural
Agricultural processes
Production energy of tractor
Production energy of machines
Energy of fuel-oil
Energy of labour force
Tillage Smoothing Fertilizer + manure Pest control Making pits Irrigation Pruning Harvesting Transporting Total
144.88 45.275 15.846 271.65 — — — — 15.846 493.497
65.241 16.876 82.98 109.220 — — — — 82.98 357.297
1921.68 480.42 580.86 3603.15 — 329.40 — — 580.86 7496.37
14.96 4.675 125.29 434.775 183.26 142.12 61.71 1840.08 27.115 2614.385
Table 5 Energy inputs of fertilizer, manure and fungicide in apricot agriculture Inputs
Amount (kg/ha)
Energy equivalence
MJ/ha
Fertilizer N Fertilizer P Fertilizer K Manure Fungicide Total
80 60 160 3000 18.75
47.10 15.80 9.28 0.303 216
3768.0 948.0 1484.8 909.0 4050.0 11159.80
Table 6 General energy budget in apricot agriculture Energy inputs
MJ/ha
Fuel and oil energy Production energy of tractor Production energy of equipment Labour force (LF) energy Fertilizer and manure energy Fungicide energy Total
7496.370 493.497 357.297 2833.985 7109.800 4050.000 22340.949
pits, irrigation and harvesting. To decrease the labour these processes must be mechanized. The results could not be investigated comparatively due to a lack of data related to energy consumption of diNerent production techniques in apricot agriculture. From this perspective, this study is a Hrst in its Held.
Table 7 Energy consumption and energy ratio in apricot agriculture Total input (MJ/ha) Total output (MJ/ha)
O/I
NER (O-I/I)
22340.95
3.37
2.37
75265.00
The biomass energy value of 1:43 t apricot pits is 12 870 MJ=ha (1430 kg=ha×9 MJ=kg) and that of 18:57 t apricot fruit is 62395:20 MJ=ha (18570 kg=ha×3:36). Energy value of total yield (fruit + pit) is 75265 MJ=ha (Table 7). CO2 capture of apricot is 37:14 t=ha and that of O2 release is 27:855 t=ha with respect to total yield [30].
References R [1] Pektekin. Ulkemizde YetiSstirilen Kay:s: CSeSsitleri ve R Ozellikleri. Ekonomik ve Teknik Dergi STANDARD (Kay:s: R Ozel Say:s:), Ankara, 1994. p. 49 –53 (in Turkish). [2] Y:ld:z. Kay:s: iSslemede yeni teknolojiler. Standart dergisi oR zel say:s:, Ankara, 1994 (in Turkish). R [3] Ozcan. Composition of some apricot Prunus armeniaca kernels grown in Turkey. Acta Alimentaria, An International Journal of Food Science 2000;29(3):289 –94. [4] FAO. FAO production year book, 1998. [5] Anonymous. SSI agricultural indicators, 1923–1998 (January) Ankara: SSI Press, 2001. [6] Gezer. A research on the mechanical harvesting of apricots in Malatya region. Ph.D. thesis. Department of Agricultural Mechanization, SelScuk University, Graduate School of Natural Applied Sciences, Konya, 1997.
I. Gezer et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 24 (2003) 215 – 219 [7] DikilitaSs S. A research on eQciency analysis and improvements of prototype apricot pit breaking machine. Harran University, Science Institue, SS.Urfa, Turkey, 1997. R ˙I, Tozan M. Energy budget and work requirements of [8] Onal the alternative production systems in the processing tomato production. Tar:msal Mekanizasyon 10. Ulusal kongresi, adana, 1986. p. 216 –28 (in Turkish). R [9] Yavuzcan. Enerji Teknolojileri. A.U.Z.F. Yay:nlar:, Ankara, 1994 (in Turkish). [10] Acaro(glu. Energy from biomass, and applications. University of SelScuk, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences. Textbook (unpublished—Turkish), 1998. R urk HH, Zeren Y, BaSs cS etinScelik A. Energy [11] Yald:z O, OztR usage in production of Held crops in Turkey. Fifth International Congress on Mechanization and Energy in Agriculture, 11–14 October 1993. p. 527–36. [12] Kaltschmitt M, Reinhardt A. Nachwachsende EnergietrRager. R Grundlagen, Verfahren, Okologische Bilanzierung. Wiesbaden: Vieweg Verlag Braunschweig, 1997. [13] Studer R, Wolfensberger U. Energie-und CO2 Bilanzen uR ber den Alternativ-TreibstoN Biodiesel. Landwirtschaft Shweiz 1991;4(12):637–40. [14] Refsgaard K, Halberg N, Kristensen ES. Energy utilization in crop and dairy production in organic and conventional livestock production systems. Agricultural Systems 1998;57:599–630. [15] Sholz V, Kaulfuss P. Energiebilanz fRur BiofestbrennstoNe. Forschungsbericht 1995/3 des Insituts fRur Agrartechnik Bornim e.V. (ATB) Postdam, 1995. [16] Mrini M, Senhaji F, Pimentel D. Energy analysis of sugarcane production in Morocco. Environment, Development and Sustainability 2001;3:109–26. [17] HRulsbergen K-J, Feil B, Biermann S, Rathke G-W, Kalk W-D, Diepenbrock W. A method of energy balancing in crop production and its applications in a long-term fertilizer trial. Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment 2001;86: 303–21.
219
[18] Smil V. Energy analysis and agriculture. An application to US. corn production. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1983. [19] Diepenbrock W, Pelzer B, Radtke J. Energiebilanz im Ackerbaubetrieb. Kuratorium fRur Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft (KTBL), Darmstadt, Arbeitspapier 211. Landwirtschaftsverlag MRunster-Hiltrup, 1995. [20] Doering III OC. Accounting for energy in farm machinery and buildings. In: Pimentel D, editor. Handbook of energy utilization in agriculture. Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press, 1980. p. 9 –24. [21] Heyland K-U, Solansky S. Energieeinsatz und Energieumsetzung im Bereich der PVanzenproduktion. Berichte ueber Landwirtschaft 1979;195:15–30. [22] Born. Energie-CO2 -und Arbeitsaufwand zur Herstellung von GRutern, BWK Bd. 44 Nr. 5 Mai, 1992. p. 209 –14. [23] Grosse W. Zum energetischen Herstellungsaufwand von Landmaschinen. Agrartechnik 1984;34:21–3. [24] Von Oheimb R. Indirekter Energieeinsatz im agrarischen erzeugerbereich in der BRD. In: KTBL (Hrsg.), Energie und Agrarwirtschaft. KTBL-Schrift 320. MRunster-Hiltrup: Landwirtschaftsverlag, 1987. p. 50 –91. [25] Moerscher J, Gerowitt B. Direct and indirect energy use in arable farming-an example on Winter Wheat production in Northern Germany, 1999. [26] Moerschner J, Gerowitt B. Energiebilanzen von Raps bei unterschiedlichen AnbauintensitRaten. Landtechnik 6/98, 1998. p. 384 –5. R [27] YRucesan S. Kay:s:n:n Beslenmemizdeki Yeri ve Onemi. R Teknik Dergi STANDARD (Kay:s: Ozel Say:s:) TSE, Ankara, 1994 (in Turkish). [28] Chisholm. 2001 (http://solstice.crest.org). [29] ASckurt F. Importance of apricot in healthy diet and new products. Result Report of First Apricot Symposium, Malatya, 1999. p. 21–9. [30] Schweiger P, editor. Absorption of CO2 and release of O2 by growth of plants. March CARMEN, 1998 (http://www.carmen-ev.de).