Investigating the energy pattern of tomato production in Khorasan Razavi province

ماشین های کشاورزی

Article 22, Volume 6, Issue 2 - Serial Number 12, 2016, Pages 524-536   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jam.v6i2.37724

Authors

M. Shabanzadeh^{* 1}; R. Esfanjari Kenari²; A. Rezaei³

¹Faculty of Agricultural Economics and Development, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

²Agriculture College, Guilan University, Rasht, Iran

³Agriculture College, Zabol University, Zabol, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
While the world's population is growing, agricultural production is still based on the use of limited and non-renewable resources. In addition to the scarcity of resources, their continuous using over the long term, causes the widespread pollution, loss of soil fertility and low agricultural production capacity, eventually. The main causes of the increase in energy consumption include the increase of world population, limited arable land, low price of fuel and fertilizer and noted increased levels of human life. Attention to limited resources and adverse effects resulting from the appropriate use of different energy sources on human health and the environment, has been required examining the energy consumption patterns and the flows of energy in the agricultural sector. Checking the share of input and output energy in different agricultural ecosystems, with attention to the type of product and the type of materials used in production, can help to identifying defects and play a fundamental role in the sustainable production, optimization of economic system, maintaining reserves of fossil fuels and mitigate air pollution. With this approach, in this present study energy consumption and energy indices for tomato production in Khorasan Razavi were studied.
Materials and Methods
The energy efficiency of units was analyzed using the stochastic frontier technique (SFA). Energy inputs from two perspectives have also been divided. In the first view of energy inputs, including inputs that have a direct energy (DE) and indirect energy (IDE). The second approach as well includes inputs that have renewable energy (RE) and non renewable energy (NRE).The data for this study was collected through interviews and completing 156 questionnaires using two-stage random sampling from tomato producer of Khorasan Razavi province in 2012.
Results and Discussion
The results showed that the energy consumption for tomato production in Khorasan razavi province of Iran were 43.2 GJha-1. Water for Irrigation was attributed the greatest share of energy inputs (30%). The average amount of diesel fuel consumption was 152 lha-1, Human resources and machinery were 987 hha-1 and 44.6 hha-1 respectively. The average amount of water needed for irrigation was 12,596 m3ha-1. Average energy output of the system was determined to be 35.3 GJha-1. The share of different forms of energy inputs such as direct energy was 53.9 %, indirect energy was46.1renewable energy was 50.5, and renewable energy was49.5%. According to the results, the share of indirect energy was higher than direct energy and the share of renewable energy was higher than renewable energy. Also the result of the study revealed that energy productivity and efficiency in the investigated units were 0.68 and 0.82MJha-1, respectively. The results show that the Cobb-Douglas function to calculate the efficiency has more consistency and adaptation with the data. In other words, Cobb-Douglas function is superior to the translog function. Average of technical efficiency was calculated 57%.
Conclusions
The results indicated that although a significant percentage of the investigated farms are inefficient, farmers with higher acreage have favorable energy consumption and technical efficiency of these farms was higher than that the other ones. Considering the obtained results, the main drawback associated with the technical efficiency of energy use and production of tomato in Khorasan Razavi is inappropriate use of inputs due to mismanagement, lack of information and also the small size of the farms. Based on the results the better management in the use of inputs and the enlargement of the size of agricultural land can improve energy efficiency in the region. Also, for improving the measures of energy flows in growing tomatoes, determining the appropriate amount of fertilizer (particularly phosphates) to grow tomatoes, conducting classes and printing the brochures for farmers to implement correct procedures in the use of inputs and the use of machines, correction of the system to reduce water consumption and cultivation of new varieties of tomato seeds in the region are recommended.

Keywords

Energy productivity; Energy ratio; Renewable Energy; Tomato

References

1. Banaeian, N., M. Omid, and H. Ahmadi. 2011. Application of data envelopment analysis to evaluate efficiency of commercial greenhouse strawberry. Engineering and technology 3 (3): 185-193. (In Farsi).

2. Battese, G. E., D. S. P. Rao, and C. O’Donnell. 2004. A metafrontier production functions for estimation of technical efficiencies and technology gaps for firms operating under different technologies. Journal of Productivity Analysis 21: 91-103.

3. Canakci, M., and I. Akinci. 2006. Energy use pattern analysis of greenhouse vegetable production. Energy 31: 1243-1256.

4. Chauhan, N. S., P. K. Mohapatra, and K. P. Pandey. 2006. Improving energy productivity in paddy production through benchmarking- an application of data envelopment analysis. Energy conversation management 47: 1063-1085.

5. Cetin, B., and A.Vardar. 2008. An economic analysis of energy requirements and input costs for tomato production in Turkey. Renewable energy 33: 428-433.

6. Cochran, W. G. 1963. Sampling techniques. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York.

7. Davani, D., and A. Hasanzadeh. 2010. Energy flow in dryland wheat fields of the Boshehr province and its impact on the environment. 6th national conference of agricultural machinery and mechanization, University of Tehran, Tehran. (In Farsi).

8. Ebrahim, H. Y., and H. I. Ebrahim. 2012. Energy use analysis for rice production in Nasarawa state, Nigeria. Tropical and subtropical agro ecosystems 15: 649-655.

9. Esengun, K., G. Erdal, O. Gunduz, and H. Erdal. 2007. An economic analysis and energy use in stake- tomato production in Tokat province of Turkey. Renewable energy 32: 1873-1881.

10. Esfanjari Kenari, R., and M. Zibaei. 2012. Evaluation of technical efficiency and technology gap in the laying hen farms of Iran. Journal of agricultural economics and development 4: 252-260. (In Farsi).

11. Halirli, S. A. 2005. An econometricanalysis of energy input-output in Turkish agriculture. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews 9: 608-623.

12. Hatirli, S. A., B. Ozkan, and C. Fert. 2006. Energy inputs and crop yield relationship in greenhouse tomato production. Renew energy 31: 427-38.

13. Jadidi, M. R., M. S. Sabuni, M. Homayounifar, and A. Mohammadi. 2012. Assessment of energy use pattern for tomato production in Iran: A case study from the Marand region. Agricultural engineering 58: 119-130. (In Farsi).

14. Jami al-Ahmadi, M., B. Kamkar, and A. MahdaviDamghani. 2005. Agriculture, fertilizers and environment, first edition, Mashhad. (In Farsi).

15. Khan, M. A., S. Khan, and S. Mushtaq. 2009. Energy and economic efficiency analysis of rice and cotton production in China. Sarhad journal of agriculture 25 (2): 291-300.

16. Kennedy, S. 2001. Energy use in American agriculture. Sustainable energy term paper. Available from: www.web.mit.edu،energylab،proceeding.

17. Loghmanpour Zarini, R. 2014. Energy consumption and economic analysis for peach production in Mazandaran province of Iran. The experiment 20 (5): 1427-1435. (In Farsi).

18. Meeusen, W., and J. VandenBroeck. 1977. Efficiency estimation from Cobb- Douglas production functions with composed error. International economic reviews 18: 435-449.

19. Mousavi, H., and Sh. Rafiee. 2011. The functional relationship between energy inputs and yield value of soybean production in Iran. International journal of green energy 8 (3): 398-410. (In Farsi).

20. Ozkan, B., H. Akcaoz, and F. Karadeniz. 2004. Energy requirement and economic analysis of citrus production in Turkey. Energy conversion management 45: 1821-1830.

21. Pashaei, F., M. Rahmati, and P. Pashaei. 2007. Review and determine the energy consumption for the production of greenhouse tomatoes in Kermanshah province. 5th national conference of agricultural machinery and mechanization, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad. (In Farsi).

22. Sengar, S. H., and S. Kothari. 2008. Economic evaluation of greenhouse for cultivation of rose nursery. African journal of Agricultural Research 3 (6): 435-439.

23. Shabani, Z., Sh. Rafiee, and H. Mohebi. 2010. Examining mechanization indices rose in greenhouse cultivation. 5‌th national conference of agricultural machinery and mechanization, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad. (In Farsi).

24. Singh, H., D. Mishra, and N. M. Nahar. 2010. Energy use pattern in production agriculture of a typical village in arid zone India – Part I. Energy convers manage 43 (16): 2275-2286.

25. Yilmaz, I., H. Akcoaz, and B. Ozkan. 2004. An analysis of energy use and input costs for cotton production in Turkey. Renewable Energy 30: 145-155.

26. Zangeneh, M., M. Omid, and A. Akram. 2010. A comparative study on energy use and cost analysis of potato production under different farming technologies in Hamadan province of Iran. Energy 35: 2927-2933. (In Farsi).