Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 3566–3570

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Energy use and economical analysis of potato production in Iran a case study:
Ardabil province
Ali Mohammadi *, Ahmad Tabatabaeefar, Shahan Shahin, Shahin Rafiee, Alireza Keyhani
Department of Agricultural Machinery Engineering, Faculty of Biosystems Engineering, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The purpose of this study is to determine energy consumption of input and output used in potato produc-
Received 12 December 2007 tion, and making an economical analysis in Ardabil, Iran. For this purpose, the data were collected from
Accepted 21 July 2008 100 potato farms in Ardabil, Iran. Inquiries were conducted in a face-to-face interviewing November–
Available online 2 September 2008
December 2006 period. Farms were selected based on random sampling method. The results indicated
that total energy inputs were 81624.96 MJ ha1. About 40% of this was generated by chemical fertilizers,
Keywords: 20% from diesel oil and machinery. About 82% of the total energy inputs used in potato production was
Energy ratio
indirect (seeds, fertilizers, manure, chemicals, machinery) and 18% was direct (human labor, diesel).
Economical analysis
Potato
Mean potato yield was about 28453.61 kg ha1, it obtained under normal conditions on irrigated farming,
Iran and taking into account the energy value of the seed, the net energy and energy productivity value was
estimated to be 20808.03 MJ ha1 and 0.35, respectively, and the ratio of energy outputs to energy inputs
was found to be 1.25. This indicated an intensive use of inputs in potato production not accompanied by
increase in the final product. Cost analysis revealed that total cost of production for one hectare of potato
production was 3267.17 $. Benefit–cost ratio was calculated as 1.88.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.) are grown worldwide under a
wider range of altitude, latitude, and climatic conditions than
any other major food crop—from sea level to over 4000 m eleva-
tion. No other crop can match the potato in its production of food
energy and food value per unit area [1]. It is also high in Vitamin C,
niacin and Vitamin B6. Yet, the potato plant has one of the heaviest
production demands for fertilizer inputs of all vegetable crops, i.e.,
its nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) requirements
are, respectively, 100, 100 and 33% greater than that required for
tomato or pepper plant production [2]. Being a temperate crop, po-
tato growth and yield are highly affected by higher temperature,
especially a mean temperature above 17 °C [3]. Tuberization oc-
curs at low temperatures and is delayed or even inhibited at higher
temperatures, tubers rarely being formed above 30 °C. As a result,
potato is grown in countries where the prevailing mean air tem-
perature is around 15–18 °C during the growing season and rainfall
or irrigation provides ample water [4–8]. Recent publications have
shown the importance of the potato as a global food crop, ranking
fourth among other crops with an overall annual production of
nearly 327 million tonnes and about 19 million ha planted. China,
Russian Federation, India, United States, Ukraine and Germany are
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 261 2801011; fax: +98 261 2808138.
E-mail address: mohammadi_017@yahoo.com (A. Mohammadi).
the main potato producer countries. The potato is also cultivated in
Poland, Netherlands, France, United Kingdom, Iran, and Canada [9].
Based on FAO statistics [9], Iran, produced about 4,830,120 tonnes
of potato in 2005, more than 15% of which is produced in Ardabil
province [10]. Potatoes are the single most important agricultural
commodity in Ardabil province. In 2005, for example, the crop
was planted in 25,503 ha. Potatoes are grown throughout Ardabil,
Iran under irrigated conditions [10].
The relation between agriculture and energy is very close. Agri-
culture itself is an energy user and energy supplier in the form of
bio-energy [11]. Energy use in agriculture has developed in re-
sponse to increasing populations, limited supply of arable land
and desire for an increasing standard of living. In all societies, these
factors have encouraged an increase in energy inputs to maximize
yields, minimize labor-intensive practices, or both [12]. Effective
energy use in agriculture is one of the conditions for sustainable
agricultural production, since it provides financial savings, fossil
resources preservation and air pollution reduction [13]. Applica-
tion of integrated production methods are recently considered as
a means to reduce production costs, to efficiently use human labor
and other inputs and to protect the environment (often in conjunc-
tion with high numbers of tourists present in the area). Energy
budgets for agricultural production can be used as building blocks
for life-cycle assessments that include agricultural products, and
can also serve as a first step towards identifying crop production
processes that benefit most from increased efficiency [14]. Many

0196-8904/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2008.07.003
 A. Mohammadi et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 3566–3570 3567

Nomenclature

N required sample size d precision ðx  XÞ

N number of holdings in target population z reliability coefficient (1.96 in the case of 95% reliability)
Nh number of the population in the h stratification D2 d2/z2
S2h variance of h stratification

researchers have studied energy and economic analysis to deter-
mine the energy efficiency of plant production, such as sugarcane
in Morocco [15], wheat, maize, sugar beet, sunflower, grape, olive,
almond, barley, oat, rye, orange, lemon, apple, pear, peach, apricot
and plum in Italy [16], rice in Malaysia [17], sweet cherry, citrus,
apricot, stake-tomato, cotton, sugar beet, greenhouse vegetable
and some field crops and vegetable in turkey [18–24], wheat in
Iran [25], soybean, maize and wheat in Italy [26], soybean based
production system, potato in India [27,28], maize and sorghum
in United States [29], cotton and sunflower in Greece [30,31], win-
ter oilseed rape in Germany [32]. However, no studies have been
published on the energy and economical analysis of potato produc-
tion in Iran.
The aim of the present paper is to study the energy input and
output per hectare for the production of potato, and to make a cost
analysis in Ardabil, Iran. It also identifies operations where energy
savings could be realized by changing applied practices in order to
increase the energy ratio, and propose improvements to reduce en-
ergy consumption for potato production.
2. Material and methods
The study was carried out in 100 potato producer in Ardabil,
Iran. Twelve villages were chosen to represent the whole study
area. The province is located in the northwest of Iran, within 34°
040 and 39° 420 north latitude and 47° 020 and 48° 550 east longi-
tude. The total area of the Ardabil province is 1,795,200 ha, and
the farming area is 718,614 ha, with a share of 40.03%. Data were
collected from the growers by using a face-to-face questionnaire
performed in November–December 2006. The data collected be-
longed to the production period of 2005–2006. The secondary
material used in this study was collected from the previous studies
P
ð N h Sh Þ
n¼ P ð1Þ
N 2 D2 þ N h Sh2
where n is the required sample size; N is the number of holdings in
target population; Nh is the number of the population in the h strat-
ification; Sh is the standard deviation in the h stratification, S2h is the
variance of h stratification; d is the precision (x  X); z is the reli-
ability coefficient (1.96 which represents the 95% reliability);
D2 = d2/z2.
The permissible error in the sample size was defined to be 5%
for 95% confidence, and sample size was calculated as 100 farms.
For the growth and development, energy demand in agriculture
can be divided into direct and indirect, renewable, and non-renew-
able energies [11]. The energetic efficiency of the agricultural sys-
tem has been evaluated by the energy ratio between output and
input. Human labor, machinery, diesel oil, fertilizer, pesticides
and seed amounts and output yield values of potato crops have
been used to estimate the energy ratio. Energy equivalents shown
in Table 1 were used for estimation. The sources of mechanical en-
ergy 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 die-
sel = 56.31 MJ) and expressed in MJ ha1 [30].
Basic information on energy inputs and potato yields were en-
tered into Excel spreadsheets, SPSS 15 spreadsheets. Based on the
energy equivalents of the inputs and output (Table 1), the energy
ratio (energy use efficiency), energy productivity and the specific
energy were calculated [18,26].
1
Energy output ðMJ ha Þ
Energy use efficiency ¼ 1
ð2Þ
Energy input ðMJ ha Þ
Potato output ðkg ha Þ
1

and publications by some institutions like FAO. Energy productivity ¼ 1

ð3Þ
Energy input ðMJ ha Þ
Farms were randomly chosen from the villages in the area of
1
study. The size of each sample was determined using Eq. (1) de- Energy input ðMJ ha Þ
Specific energy ¼ 1
ð4Þ
rived from Neyman technique [33]. Potato output ðt ha Þ
1 1
Net energy ¼ Energy output ðMJ ha Þ  Energy Input ðMJ ha Þ
ð5Þ
Indirect energy included energy embodied in seeds, fertilizers, man-
Table 1
ure, chemicals, machinery while direct energy covered human labor
Energy equivalent of inputs and outputs in agricultural production
and diesel used in the potato production. Non-renewable energy in-
Particulars Unit Energy equivalent (MJ unit1) Ref. cludes diesel, chemical, fertilizers and machinery, and renewable
A. Inputs energy consists of human labor, seeds, manure. In the last part of
1. Human labor h 1.96 [19,21,34] the research, economic analysis of potato production was investi-
2. Machinery h 62.7 [22,34,35]
gated, and net profit and benefit–cost ratio was calculated. The
3. Diesel fuel L 56.31 [22,34,35]
4. Chemical fertilizers kg net return was calculated by subtracting the total cost of production
(a) Nitrogen (N) 66.14 [12,21,36] from the gross value of production per hectare. The benefit–cost ra-
(b) Phosphate (P2O5) 12.44 [12,21,36] tio was calculated by dividing the gross value of production by the
(c) Potassium (K2O) 11.15 [12,21,36] total cost of production per hectare [18,19].
(e) Sulphur (S) 1.12 [12,37]
(d) Zinc (Zn) 8.40 [38,39]
5. Farmyard manure kg 0.30 [18,19,34] 3. Results and discussion
6. Chemicals kg 120 [24,27,35]
7. Water for irrigation m3 1.02 [40,41]
3.1. Socio-economic structures of farms
9. Seeds (potato) kg 3.6 [42]
B. Outputs
Average farm size was 5.08 ha and potato production occupied
1. Potato kg 3.6 [42]
27.66% of total farm lands. The other vegetables grown besides
3568 A. Mohammadi et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 3566–3570

Table 2 Table 3
Management practices for potato Amounts of inputs and output in potato production

Practices/operations Potato Quantity per unit area (ha)

Names of varieties Agriya-Marfona Inputs
Land preparation tractor used: Moldboard plow, Disc harrows, Land leveller Labor (h ha1) 770.64
285 MF 75 hp Land preparation 18.01
Land preparation period October–March Farmyard manure 12.36
Average tilling number 3.20 Planting 15.47
Planting period April–November Hoeing 292.98
Fertilization period April–August Irrigation 160.74
Average number of fertilization 4.63 Fertilizer application 9.93
Hoeing period June–September Spraying 8.11
Average number of hoeing 2.85 Harvesting 209.28
Irrigation period April–September Transporting 43.76
Average number of irrigation 10.62 Machinery (h ha1) 51.14
Spraying period June–August Land preparation 13.06
Average number of spraying 2.77 Planting 10.31
Harvesting period September Hoeing –
Average number of harvesting 1.0 Irrigation –
Fertilizer application 3.27
Spraying 1.52
potato were wheat, sugar beet, barley. 100% of total land in each Harvesting 8.33
farm was irrigated; Land in the selected farms was owned (100%). Transporting 14.67
Diesel (L ha1) 229.04
Table 2 shows the agronomic practices during the growing pro-
Land preparation 93.34
cess of potato along with the periods relevant to these prepara- Farmyard manure –
tions. Soil tillage and seedbed preparations are performed during Planting 10.43
October and March. The Planting are done in April–November per- Hoeing –
iod. All other necessary cultural practices are accomplished from Irrigation 72.33
Fertilizer application 6.14
April through September; the harvest period was September.
Spraying 5.71
Chemicals were sprayed 2.77 times a year starting from June to Au- Harvesting 12.52
gust. Hoeing operations were done manually by farmers an aver- Transporting 28.57
age of 2.85 times a year between June and September. Irrigated Fertilizers (kg ha1) 1191.59
Nitrogen (N) 402.58
operations were performed 10.62 times a year starting Planting
Phosphorus (P2O5) 284.23
period to Harvesting period (April–September). Land preparation Potassium (K2O) 204.53
and soil tillage were mostly accomplished by a Massey Ferguson Sulphur (S) 297.94
28,575 hp tractor along with using moldboard plow, disc harrows Zinc (Zn) 2.31
and land leveller. All practices applied for potato production in Manure (kg ha1) 27845.36
Chemicals (kg ha1) 3.02
the area studied were listed in Table 2.
Water (m3 ha1) 11145.50
Table 3 shows the inputs used and output in potato production Seeds (kg ha1) 3091.75
in the area of survey, and their energy equivalents with output en-
Output
ergy rates and their equivalents are illustrated in Table 4. The re- Potato yield (kg ha1) 28453.61
sults revealed that 770.64 h of human power and 51.14 h of
machine power are required per hectare of potato production in
the research area. The amount of fertilizers used for potato grow- The energy input and output, yield, energy use efficiency, spe-
ing was 1191.59 kg ha1. cific energy, energy productivity and net energy of potato produc-
Of all chemical fertilizers, share of nitrogen (N), phosphorus tion in the Ardebil province are tabulated in Table 5. Energy use
(P2O5), potassium (K2O), sulphur (S) and Zinc (Zn) were 33.79%, efficiency (energy ratio) was calculated as 1.25. In Iran, Haj Seyed
23.85%, 17.16%, 25.01 and 0.19%, respectively. Hadi [43] reported potato output/input ratio as 0.98. Pimentel et
al. [46] calculated in USA and UK energy output/input ratio 1.2
3.2. Analysis of input–output energy use in potato production and 1.6, respectively. The average energy productivity of farms
was 0.35. This means that 0.35 output was obtained per unit en-
Total energy used in various farm operations during potato pro- ergy. Calculation of energy productivity rate is well documented
duction was 81624.96 MJ ha1. Chemical fertilizer consumes in the literature such as stake-tomato (1.0) [20], cotton (0.06)
40.17% of total energy inputs followed by diesel energy 15.80% dur- [21], sugar beet (1.53) [22]. The specific energy, net energy of po-
ing production period. Diesel energy was mainly consumed for land tato production were 2868.7 MJ tonnes1 and 208080.03 MJ ha1,
preparation, cultural practices, and transportation. Average annual respectively. Canakci et al. [24] reported specific energy for field
yield of farms investigated was 28453.61 kg ha1 and calculated to- crops and vegetable production in Turkey, such as 5.24 for wheat,
tal energy output was 102432.99 MJ ha1. From Table 4 it is shown 11.24 for cotton, 3.88 for maize, 16.21 for Sesame, 1.14 for tomato,
that Chemicals was the least demanding energy input for potato 0.98 for melon and 0.97 for water-melon.
production with 362.40 MJ ha1 (only 0.44% of the total seques- Table 6 shows the distribution of total energy input as direct,
tered energy), followed by human labor by 1510.45 MJ ha1(1.85%). indirect, renewable and non-renewable forms. As it can be seen
In another study in Iran, reported by [43], yield, total energy in- from the table, the total energy input consumed could be classified
put and output, in potato farming were 25,817 kg ha1, 78363.23, as direct energy (17.65%), indirect energy (82.35%) and renewable
77375.1 MJ ha1, respectively. In another study in New Zealand, energy (25.73%) and non-renewable energy (74.27%).
Barber [44] found that total energy input in potato production
were 62,300 MJ ha1. Pervanchon et al. [45] noted that the rates 3.3. Economic analysis of potato production
of other inputs in the total amount of energy such as machinery,
fertilizers application, seeds, chemicals, and other inputs in potato The total cost of production potato and the gross value of pro-
production were 48%, 33%, 6%, 3%, 10%, respectively. duction were calculated and shown in Table 7. The fixed and
 A. Mohammadi et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 3566–3570 3569

Table 4 Table 7
Amounts of inputs and output in potato production Economic analysis of potato

Quantity (inputs Quantity per Total energy Percentage of the total Cost and return components Value
and outputs) unit area (ha) equivalent energy input (%) 1
Yield (kg ha ) 28453.61
(MJ ha1)
Sale price ($ ha1) 0.22
A. Inputs Gross value of production ($ ha1) 6130.64
1. Human labor 770.64 1510.45 1.85 Variable cost of production ($ ha1) 2219.56
(h) Fixed cost of production ($ ha1) 1047.62
2. Machinery (h) 51.14 3206.48 3.93 Total cost of production ($ ha1) 3267.17
3. Diesel fuel (L) 290.04 12897.24 15.80 Total cost of production ($ kg1) 0.11
4. Chemical 1191.59 40.17 Gross return ($ ha1) 3911.08
fertilizers (kg) Net return ($ ha1) 2863.47
(a) Nitrogen (N) 402.58 26626.64 32.62 Benefit to cost ratio 1.88
(b) Phosphate 284.23 3535.82 4.33
(P2O5)
(c) Potassium 204.53 2280.51 2.79
(K2O)
for lemon and 1.88 for mandarin [19], 1.03 for stake-tomato [20],
(e) Sulphur (S) 297.94 333.69 0.41
(d) Zinc (Zn) 2.31 19.40 0.02 0.86 for cotton [21], 1.17 for sugar beet [22].
5. Farmyard 27845.36 8353.61 10.24
manure (kg) 4. Conclusions
6. Chemicals (kg) 3.02 362.40 0.44
7. Water for 11145.50 11368.41 13.93
irrigation In this study, energy use of inputs and output in potato produc-
(m3) tion in Ardabil province of Iran were determined. Data were col-
8. Seeds (potato) 3091.75 11130.30 13.64 lected from 100 farms which were selected based on random
(kg)
sampling method. Face-to-face questionnaire method was used in
Total energy 81624.96 100
input (MJ) data collecting. Total energy consumption in potato production
was 115.9 GJ ha1. The energy input of chemical fertilizer (40.17%),
B. Outputs
1. Potato (kg) 28453.61 102432.99 mainly nitrogen, has the biggest share within the total energy inputs
Total energy 102432.99 followed by diesel fuel (15.80%). Energy use efficiency, specific en-
output (MJ) ergy, energy productivity and net energy were 1.25, 2868.70 MJ ton-
nes1, 0.35 kg MJ1, 208080.03 MJ ha1, respectively. About 82.35%
of the total energy inputs used in potato production was indirect,
Table 5
while only about 17.65% was direct. Approximately 74.27% of total
Energy input–output ratio in potato production
energy input from non-renewable and only 25.73% from renewable
Items Unit Potato energy forms. The benefit–cost ratio was found to be 1.88 in the re-
1
Energy input MJ ha 81624.96 sult of economical analysis of potato. The net return from potato pro-
Energy output MJ ha1 102432.99 duction was obtained 2863.47 $ ha1. Energy management is an
Yield kg ha1 28453.61
important issue in terms of efficient, sustainable and economic use
Energy use efficiency – 1.25
Specific energy MJ tonnes1 2868.70 of energy. Energy use in potato production is not efficient and detri-
Energy productivity kg MJ1 0.35 mental to the environment due to mainly excess input use. There-
Net energy MJ ha1 208080.03 fore, reducing these inputs would provide more efficient Fertilizer
application, and diesel. Furthermore, integrated pest control tech-
niques should be put in practice widely to improve pesticide use. It
Table 6 can be expected that all these measurements would be useful not
Total energy input in the form of direct, indirect, renewable and non-renewable for
only for reducing negative effects to environment, human health,
potato production (MJ ha1)
maintaining sustainability and decreasing production costs, but also
Form of energy (MJ ha1) Potato %a for providing higher energy use efficiency.
b
Direct energy 14407.69 17.65
Indirect energyc 67217.27 82.35 References
Renewable energyd 20994.36 25.73
Non-renewable energye 60630.60 74.27 [1] Sieczka JB, Thornton RE. Commercial potato production in North America:
Total energy input 81624.96 100.0 Potato Association of America handbook. Orono, Maine: Potato Association of
a America; 1993.
Indicates percentage of total energy input.
b [2] Maynard DN, Hochmuth GJ. Knott’s handbook for vegetable growers. 4th
Includes human labor, diesel.
c
ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1997.
Includes seeds, fertilizers, manure, chemicals, machinery. [3] Mendoza HA, Estarda RN. Breeding potatoes for tolerance to stress: heat and
d
Includes human labor, seeds, manure. frost. In: Mussell H, Staples RC, editors. Stress physiology in crop plants. John
e
Includes diesel, chemical, fertilizers, machinery. Wiley and Sons; 1979. p. 227–62.
[4] Ben Khedher M, Ewing EE. Growth analysis of eleven potato cultivars grown in
the greenhouse under long photoperiods with and without heat stress. Am
variable expenditures included in the cost of production were cal- Potato J 1985;62:537–54.
[5] Borah MN, Milthrope FL. Growth of the potato as influenced by temperature.
culated separately.
Indian J Plant Physiol 1962;5:53–72.
The total expenditure for the production was 3267.17 $ ha1 [6] Marinus J, Bodlaender KBA. Response of some potato varieties to temperature.
while the gross production value was found to be 6130.64 $ ha1 Potato Res 1975;18:189–204.
[7] Menzel CM. The control of storage organ formation in potato and other species,
according to the results of the research. About 68% of the total
a review Part 1. Field Crop Abstr 1985;38(9):527–37.
expenditures was variable costs whereas 32% was fixed expendi- [8] Caldiz DO, Gaspari FJ, Haverkort AJ, Struik PC. Agroecological zoning and
tures. Based on these results, the benefit–cost ratio from potato potential yield of single or double cropping of potato in Argentina. Agric Forest
production in the surveyed farms was calculated to be 1.88. The re- Meteorol 2001;109(4):311–20.
[9] Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO); 2005. <www.fao.org>.
search results were consistent with finding reported by other [10] Anonymous. Annual Agricultural Statistics. Ministry of Jihad-e-Agriculture of
authors, such as: 2.53 for sweet cherry [18], 2.37 for orange, 1.89 Iran; 2005. <www.maj.ir>.
3570 A. Mohammadi et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 3566–3570
[11] Alam MS, Alam MR, Islam KK. Energy flow in agriculture: Bangladesh. Am J
Environ Sci 2005;1(3):213–20.
[12] Esengun K, Gunduz O, Erdal G. Input–output energy analysis in dry apricot
production of Turkey. Energy Convers Manage 2007;48:592–8.
[13] Uhlin H. Why energy productivity is increasing: an I–O analysis of Swedish
agriculture. Agric Syst 1998;56(4):443–65.
[14] Piringer GJ, Steinberg L. Reevaluation of energy use in wheat production in the
United States. J Ind Ecol 2006;10:149–67.
[15] Mrini M, Senhaji F, Pimentel D. Energy analysis of sugarcane production in
Morocco. Environ, Dev Sustainability 2001;3:109–26.
[16] Triolo L, Unmole H, Mariani A, Tomarchio L. Energy analyses of agriculture: the
Italian case study and general situation in developing countries. In: Third
international symposium on mechanization and energy in agriculture, Izmir,
Turkey, October 26–29; 1987. p. 172–84.
[17] Bockari-Gevao SM, Wan Ishak WI, Azmi Y, Chan CW. Analysis of energy
consumption in lowland rice-based cropping system of Malaysia. Sci Technol
2005;27(4):819–26.
[18] Demircan V, Ekinci K, Keener HM, Akbolat D, Ekinci C. Energy and economic
analysis of sweet cherry production in Turkey: a case study from Isparta
province. Energy Convers Manage 2006;47:1761–9.
[19] Ozkan B, Akcaoz H, Karadeniz F. Energy requirement and economic analysis of
citrus production in Turkey. Energy Convers Manage 2004;45:1821–30.
[20] Esengun K, Erdal G, Gunduz O, Erdal H. An economic analysis and energy use in
stake-tomato production in Tokat province of Turkey. Renew Energy
2007;32:1873–81.
[21] Yilmaz I, Akcaoz H, Ozkan B. An analysis of energy use and input costs for
cotton production in Turkey. Renew Energy 2005;30:145–55.
[22] Erdal G, Esengun K, Erdal H, Gunduz O. Energy use and economical analysis of
sugar beet production in Tokat province of Turkey. Energy 2007;32:35–41.
[23] Ozkan B, Kurklu A, Akcaoz H. An input–output energy analysis in greenhouse
vegetable production: a case study for Antalya region of Turkey. Biomass
Bioenergy 2004;26:189–95.
[24] Canakci M, Topakci M, Akinci I, Ozmerzi A. Energy use pattern of some field
crops and vegetable production: case study for Antalya region, Turkey. Energy
Convers Manage 2005;46:655–66.
[25] Safa M, Tabatabaeefar A. Energy consumption in wheat production in irrigated
and dry land farming. In: Proc. Intl. Agric. Eng. Conf., Wuxi, China, November
28–30; 2002.
[26] Sartori L, Basso B, Bertocco M, Oliviero G. Energy use and economic evaluation
of a three year crop rotation for conservation and organic farming in NE Italy.
Biosyst Eng 2005;91(2):245–56.
[27] Mandal KG, Saha KP, Ghosh PK, Hati KM, Bandyopadhyay KK. Bioenergy and
economic analysis of soybean-based crop production systems in central India.
Biomass Bioenergy 2002;23(5):337–45.
[28] Yadav RN, Singh RKP, Prasad S. An economic analysis of energy requirements
in the production of potato crop in bihar sharif block of nalanda districh
(Bihar). Econ Affair Kalkatta 1991;36:112–9.
[29] Franzluebbers AJ, Francis CA. Energy output–input ratio of maize and sorghum
management systems in Eastern Nebraska. Agric Ecosyst Environ
1995;53(3):271–8.
[30] Tsatsarelis CA. Energy requirements for cotton production in central Greece. J
Agric Eng Res 1991;50:239–46.
[31] Kallivroussis L, Natsis A, Papadakis G. The energy balance of sunflower
production for biodiesel in Greece. Biosyst Eng 2002;81(3):347–54.
[32] Rathke GW, Diepenbrock W. Energy balance of winter oilseed rape (Brassica
napus L.) cropping as related to nitrogen supply and preceding crop. Eur J
Agron 2006;24:35–44.
[33] Yamane T. Elementary sampling theory. Engle wood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice-
Hall Inc.; 1967.
[34] Singh H, Mishra D, Nahar NM. Energy use pattern in production agriculture of
a typical village in Arid Zone India—Part I. Energy Convers Manage
2002;43(16):2275–86.
[35] Singh JM. On farm energy use pattern in different cropping systems in
Haryana, India. Master of Science. Germany: International Institute of
Management, University of Flensburg; 2002.
[36] Shrestha DS. Energy use efficiency indicator for agriculture, 1998. Available
from: <http://www.usaskca/agriculture/caedac/PDF/mcrae>. PDF,10/10/2002.
[37] Nagy CN. Energy coefficients for agriculture inputs in western Canada; May 31,
1999, Available from: <http://www.csale.usask.ca/ PDF. Documents/energy
CoefficientsAg.pdf>.
[38] Pimentel D. Handbook of energy utilization in agriculture. Boca Raton, FL: CRC
Press; 1980.
[39] Argiro V, Strapatsa A, George D, Nanos A, Tsatsarelis Constantinos A. Energy
flow for integrated apple production in Greece. Agric, Ecosyst Environ
2006;116:176–80.
[40] Acaroglu M. Energy from biomass, and applications. University of Selc-uk,
Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences. Textbook (unpublished-
Turkish); 1998.
[41] Acaroglu M, Aksoy AS. The cultivation and energy balance of
Miscanthus_giganteus production in Turkey. Biomass Bioenergy 2005;29:
42–8.
[42] Ozkan B, Akcaoz H, Fert C. Energy input–output analysis in Turkish agriculture.
Renew Energy 2004;29:39–51.
[43] Haj Seyed Hadi MR. Energy efficiency and ecological sustainability in
conventional and integrated potato production. Advanced Technology in the
Environmental Field; 2006. p. 501–34. Available from: <www.actapress.Com>.
[44] Barber A.A. Case study of total energy and carbon indicators for New Zealand
arable and outdoor vegetable production. Agricultural Engineering Consultant
Agril INK. New Zealand Ltd.; 2003.
[45] Pervanchon F, Bockstaller C, Girardin P. Assessment of energy use in arable
farming systems by means of an agroecological indicator: the energy indicator.
Agric Syst 2002;72:149–72.
[46] Pimentel D. Energy inputs in production agriculture. In: Fluck RC, editor.
Energy in farm production. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1999. p. 13–29.