Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

African Journal of Agricultural Research Vol. 6(25), pp. 5618-5624, 5 November, 2011 Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/AJAR DOI: 10.5897/AJAR09.

480 ISSN 1991-637X 2011 Academic Journals

Full Length Research Paper

Analysis of energy use for banana production: A case study from Turkey
Department of Agric. Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, Akdeniz University, 07070 Antalya, Turkey.
Accepted 22 July, 2011

This study was undertaken to evaluate the energy inputs for banana production to identify the highest energy consuming operations, and to examine the energy equivalents of inputs and output in banana production in the Mersin province of Turkey. Data were collected from 89 banana growers via a questionnaire. Results showed that the total energy inputs and outputs were 51560.05 and 98024.88 MJha-1, respectively. Electricity was the highest input energy responsible for 27.55% of the total energy consumed in the banana production. Electricity, farmyard manure and use of machinery were the most important inputs for banana production, while human labour (although intensively used), accounted for small energy inputs due to conversion factor used. According to research results, energy output-input ratio was calculated as 1.90 MJha-1, specific energy as 0.99 MJkg-1, energy productivity as 1.00 kgMJ-1, energy intensiveness as 1.23 MJTL-1 and net energy yield as 46464.83 MJha-1. Key words: Energy input, energy output, energy analysis, banana, Turkey. INTRODUCTION Banana (Musa sapientum) is the fourth most important staple crop in the world, and is critical for food security in many tropical countries. World banana production amounts to some 71 million tons in 2006 (FAO, 2008), concentrated in Africa, Asia, Latin America and The Caribbean. More than 85 countries produce bananas and plantains (Zereyesus, 2003). Turkey is a country that produce banana at the most north region of the world. The share of Turkeys banana production area, production amount and imports in the world was 0.20, 0.84, and 0.25% respectively. In 2002, Turkey has exported banana firstly. The major banana growing areas in Turkey are located along Antalya and Mersin province in Mediterranean Region, especially in Anamur, Bozyaz, Alanya, Gazipaa counties and microclimates that covered with Taurus Mountains in this region. These areas have the best natural conditions and climate for banana cultivation. Apart from development of greenhouse banana production, banana production in Turkey has been of importance for the last years (Anonymous, 2007). Modern agriculture is highly dependent on other sectors of the economy for most of its inputs, except for land and solar energy. It also competes with other sectors of the economy for labor, capital, water, chemicals and energy (Dvoskin, 1981, 1982). Energy use in agricultural production of Turkey is becoming more energy intensive due to the use of energy-intensive inputs. Efficient use of energy resources is vital in terms of increasing production, productivity and competitiveness of agriculture. Energy input-output analysis is usually used to evaluate the efficiency and environmental impacts of the production systems (Ozkan et al., 2004c). An energy analysis can indicate ways to decrease energy inputs and increase energy efficiency (Jansen, 2001; Mirini et al., 2002; Clements et al., 2005; Strapatsa et al., 2006; Kaltsas et al., 2007) without impairing the economics of production. Minimizing energy inputs is necessary but not sufficient to obtain an economic benefit. Low energy inputs production systems are not well accepted by farmers who are interested in economic benefits rather than in energy productivity. A combination of economic, environmental and energy analysis of a production system may be more useful for the application of best farm management strategies (Reganold et al., 2001; Pimentel et al., 2005). The energy situation appears in a different light to the scientist, engineer,

*Corresponding author. E-mail: hvurus@akdeniz.edu.tr. Tel: +90-242-310-2487. Fax: + 90-242-227-4564.



Table 1. Energy content of inputs and outputs.

Item Human labour Machinery: Tractor 50 kW Plough Sprayer Wagon Pump Fertilizers: N P K Insecticides Fungicides Farmyard manure (dry matter) Diesel Electricity Water for irrigation Fruit

Unit h

Energy content -1 (MJunit ) 1.96

Reference De et al., 2001; Mani et al., 2007; Singh, 2002

h h h h h

41.4 22.8 23.8 71.3 2.4

Tsatsarelis 1993; Fluck, 1985; Loewer et al., 1977 Tsatsarelis, 1993; Fluck, 1985; Loewer et al., 1977 Tsatsarelis, 1993; Fluck, 1985; Loewer et al., 1977 Tsatsarelis, 1993; Fluck, 1985; Loewer et al., 1977 Tsatsarelis, 1993; Fluck, 1985; Loewer et al., 1977

kg kg kg kg kg kg l kWh m3 kg

60.60 11.1 6.7 278 276 0.3 56.31 11.93 0.63 2.4

De et al., 2001; Mandal et al., 2002; Mani et al., 2007; Shrestha, 1998; Singh, 2002 De et al., 2001; Mandal et al., 2002; Mani et al., 2007; Shrestha, 1998; Singh, 2002 De et al., 2001; Mandal et al., 2002; Mani et al., 2007; Shrestha, 1998; Singh, 2002 Hlsbergen et al., 2001; Dalgaard et al., 2001, Wells 2001; Meul et al., 2007 Hlsbergen et al., 2001; Dalgaard et al., 2001, Wells 2001; Meul et al., 2007 De et al., 2001; Mandal et al., 2002; Mani et al., 2007; Shrestha, 1998; Singh, 2002 De et al., 2001; Mandal et al., 2002; Mani et al., 2007; Singh, 2002 De et al., 2001; Mandal et al., 2002, Mani et al., 2007; Singh, 2002 Yaldiz et al., 1993 Strapatsa et al., 2006

economist, environmentalist, industrialist, and farmer as well as the consumer (Schneeberger and Breimyer, 1974). Considerable research studies have been conducted on energy use pattern of field crops, fruits, vegetables in agriculture in the world (Pimentel, 1993; Hlsbergen et al., 2002; Singh et al., 2003; Venturi and Venturi, 2003; Singh et al., 2004; Ozkan et al., 2004a; Ozkan et al., 2004b, Sartori et al., 2005; Tzilivakis et al., 2005; Yilmaz et al., 2005; Mani et al., 2007; Rathke et al., 2007; Singh et al., 2007; Nautiyal et al., 2007, Akcaoz et al., 2009; Dagistan et al., 2009). However, the authors have not come across publications analyzing energy input and output in banana production in Turkey. On this basis, the main objectives of the study are to collect data on energy use pattern and to determine the energy output-input ratio in cultivation of banana in Turkey.

MATERIALS AND METHODS In this research, banana growers were surveyed in Anamur county of Mersin province. Data were collected from the growers by using a face to face survey in the 2008 production year. In addition to the survey results, previous research studies and statistical sources were also used in this research. For sampling, stratified random sampling method was used. The sample size was calculated using the Neyman method (Yamane, 1967). The permissible error in the sample size was defined to be

5 for 95% reliability. The questionnaire was implemented in January 2008 with 89 randomly selected banana producers in Anamur districts of Mersin province. The sample was selected randomly from three different villages in Anamur. The three villages were selected on the recommendation of The Anamur Agricultural office and banana production statistics. Socio-economic characteristics of the farms were also determined to support the present analysis. In the literature, there is enormous variation in energy equivalents used to express the input of energy associated with the manufacture of production means in terms of primary energy input (Rathke and Diepenbrock, 2006). This is the result of differences in the methods of calculation and in spatial and temporal system boundaries (Hlsbergen et al., 2001). Moreover, energy equivalents are not fixed once and for all, they must be adapted to local conditions and to the changes in the manufacturing process (Bonny, 1993; Uhlin, 1999). The calculation of the energy inputs was based on a work schedule (time needed for each operation), the number of workers and the machinery and inputs used (seeds, fertilizer, chemicals) (Tsatsarelis, 1993). The conversion factors used to calculate energy input and output energies are given in Table 1 and the source of the information is referenced. The working hours of the labour were determined in each operation and pooled to get total human energy. The mechanical energy used on the selected farms included tractor and diesel engines. The mechanical energy was computed on the basis of total fuel consumption (litre/ha) in different operation. The energy consumed was calculated using conversion factors (1 L diesel = 56.31 MJ) and the same was expressed in MJ/ha. The electrical energy in the study area was used mostly by motors to run the irrigation pump set for water lifting. The consumption pattern of electrical energy was computed using suitable conversion factor and was expressed in MJ/ha. The


Afr. J. Agric. Res.

Table 2. Socio-economic characteristics of Banana farms.

Features Land (ha) Farmers age Farmers experience in agriculture (year) Number of persons in family Farmers education level (person) -Illiterate -Literate -Primary school -Middle school -High school -University Production System (ha) - Banana (Musa sapientum) -Wheat (Triticum vulgare) -Apple (Malus communis L.) - Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) - Lemon (Citrus limonum) - Glevez (Colocasia esculenta) - Orange (Citrus aurantium) - Pepper (Capsicum annuum) - Eggplant (Solanum Melongena) Assets (TL1) -Land -Livestock -Machinery -Building

Means 0.69 45.3 21.2 3.4 89 2 4 48 9 16 10 62.5 49.7 4.8 3.8 1.8 0.9 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.2 379964.7 279.2 790.2 28134.8

Energy productivi ty =

Output (kgha 1 ) Energy input ( Mjha 1 )


Energy int ensiveness =

100.00 2.25 4.49 53.93 10.11 17.98 11.24 100.00 79.52 7.68 6.08 2.88 1.44 1.28 0.48 0.32 0.32

Energy input ( Mjha 1 ) (4) Cost of production (YTLha 1 )

Net energyyield = EnergyoutputMjha 1 ) Energyinput Mjha1 ) ( (

(5) The input energy was examined as direct and indirect, renewable and non-renewable, commercial and non-commercial forms. The mode wise energy sources used in agricultural production were calculated using the following criteria (Singh et al., 2007): Direct energy: Human, animal, petrol, diesel, electricity, and canal. Indirect energy: Seeds, fertilizers, farmyard manure, chemicals, and machinery. Renewable energy: Human, animal, seeds, farmyard manure, and canal. Non-renewable energy: Petrol, diesel, electricity, chemicals, fertilizers, and machinery. Commercial energy: Petrol, fertilizers, seeds, and machinery. diesel, electricity, chemicals,

Non-commercial energy: Human, animal, farmyard manure, and canal.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Socio-economic characteristics of the banana farms The average size of investigated farms was 0.69 ha. The average size of farm family in the research households was found to be 3.4 people. The average family size in the research sample is lower than the average family size (5.19 people) in the rural regions of Turkey (TSI, 2008). The average age of the farmers was 45.3 and average experience of farmers in agriculture was 21.2 years. Research results demonstrated that 2.25% of the farmers in the sample were illiterate, 4.49% literate, 53.93% primary school graduates, 10.11% middle school graduates, 17.98% high school and 11.24% university graduates. Banana (79.52%), wheat (7.68%) and apple (6.08%) were the major crops in the research area (Table 2). Energy requirements and input-output relationships of banana

TL: New Turkish Liras; * 1 US $: 1.32 TL (2007).

fertilizer and chemicals were applied in varying quantity depending upon buying capacity of farmers and their preferences. The quantities of different fertilizer and chemicals used on each farms were pooled and total energy for fertilizer and chemical energy were converted into MJ/ha. The data on energy use have been taken from a number of sources, as indicated in Table 1. Energy is primarily used in agricultural operations for tillage, hoeing, pruning, transportation, irrigation, fertilizer application, spraying, harvesting. The following different energy efficiency parameters were determined to evaluate relationship between energy consumption and total output and production per hectare. Energy ratio, specific energy, energy productivity, energy intensiveness and net energy yield were calculated using the following formula as suggested by Mandal et al. (2002), Singh et al. (1997), Mani et al. (2007), Rathke et al. (2007):

Energy ratio =

Energy output ( Mjha ) Energy input ( Mjha 1 )

Energy input ( Mjha 1 ) Specific energy = Output (kgha 1 )


Agriculture practices in banana production during the research period are shown in Table 3. In the research area, common varieties of banana were Anamur (Dwarf Cavendish), Azman, Grand Nain and Williams and tree density was around 1519.2 trees/ha. Most banana orchard in the region was irrigated by drip irrigation, but



Table 3. Agricultural practices in banana production in Antalya.

Agricultural practices Common varieties Number of trees (ha) Pruning Average number of pruning Irrigation border period Number of irrigation borders Fertilization period Average number of fertilization Spraying period Average number of spraying Ventilation period Average number of ventilation Weeding period Average number of weeding Banana binding period Average number of banana binding Seedling separation period Average number of seedling separation Reconstruction period Average number of reconstruction Harvesting period

Periods/Frequency Dwarf Cavendish (Anamur) , Azman, Grand Nain, Williams 1519.2 June-September 2 December-January 11.8 January-August 16 May-June-July-August 8.1 June-September 2 March-April-May-June-July 3 July-August-September 3 August 1 January-February-March 1 September-February

some farmers used pump to bring water to their orchard. Irrigation was the major energy intensive farm operation. The energy use in the irrigation was determined on the basis of fuel consumption litre/ha or electricity consumption. Both chemical fertilizers and farmyard manure were used among the surveyed banana growers. The research results showed that growers use fertilizer sixteen times during the January-August period. Pruning activities were performed mainly between June and September. Weeds were cut by hand-held mechanical weed cutters, but herbicides are not used. Thus, the weed control was human energy intensive farm operation. Spraying was usually done in May, June, July and August. Harvesting was another human energy intensive farm operation in the research area. As indicated in Table 4, the use of human power and machinery were 1280.8 and 1095.3 hha-1, respectively. About 248.25 kg chemical fertilizer, 1.79 kg chemicals and 37428.9 kg manure were used in banana production. -1 Average banana yield was 51592.04 kgha . Using the conversion factors of Table 1, energy inputs and outputs were determined (Table 4). The total energy used in the investigated farms for producing banana was -1 51560.05 MJha . In the research area, electricity consumed the most energy (27.55%), which is followed by farmyard manure (21.78%). As can be seen from the Table 4, human labour, machinery, chemical fertilizer, chemicals, diesel and water for irrigation consumed, respecttively, 4.87, 20.589.61, 0.96, 4.47 and 10.18%. Human work has a limited output, but humans are

versatile, dextrous and can make judgements as they work. This gives humans an advantage in skilled operations such as transplanting, weeding, harvesting of fruits and vegetables and working with fibres. Water lifting and soil preparation need less skill but more energy input (FAO, 2000). It is clear that the mean yield of these inputs remained at low levels compared to the electricity consumption and farmyard manure applications. Chemicals were the least demanding energy input for banana production in the research area. Energy use on farm varies significantly between farm types. Farm energy consumption is very responsive to changing energy prices (Scrimgeour, 2007). In this study, energy ratio was 1.90; energy productivity was 1.00 and energy intensity was 1.23 MJTL-1. In addition, according to research results, net energy yield was 46464.83 MJha 1 -1 and specific energy was 0.99 MJkg (Table 4). It must be noted that energy efficiency, productivity and intensity are based on the sequestered energy of fuel, fertilizers, machinery, human labour, etc. Solar energy, either as radiation or heat, was not taken into account, as it is considered as a free subsidy in the energetic or economic analysis of agricultural systems. That explains the values of energy efficiency being one or greater than one (Strapatsa et al., 2006). Energetic of producing banana Agricultural energy demand can be divided into direct and


Afr. J. Agric. Res.

Table 4. Energy consumption and energy input-output relationship for banana production.

Input Human labor (h): -Fertilization -Spraying -Irrigation -Cultural practices -Harvesting Machinery (h): - Tractor -Spraying -Irrigation -Cultural practices -Transportation Chemical fertilizer (kg): -Nitrogen -Phosphorus -Potassium Farm yard manure (kg) Chemicals (kg) : -Insecticides -Fungicides Diesel-oil (l) Electricity (kWh) Water for irrigation (m3) Total energy input (MJ) Yield (kg) Cost of production (TLha-1)b Energy output-input ratio Specific energy (MJkg-1) Energy productivity (kgMJ-1) Energy intensiveness (MJYTL-1) Net energy yield (MJha-1)
a b

Quantity per unit area (ha) 189.20 60.00 311.60 480.00 240.00

Energy equivalent -1 (MJunit ) 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96

Total energy equivalent (MJ) 2510.37 370.83 117.60 610.74 940.80 470.40 10613.24 993.60 1708.84 2206.80 5704.00 4953.85 3046.36 1465.76 441.73 11228.43 496.02 275.22 220.80 2304.77 14203.38 5250.00 51560.05 98024.88 1.90 0.99 1.00 1.23 46464.83

Percentage of total energy input (%) 4.87 0.72 0.23 1.19 1.83 0.91 20.58 1.93 3.31 4.28 11.06 9.61 5.91 2.84 0.86 21.78 0.96 0.53 0.43 4.47 27.55 10.18 100.00

24.00 71.80 919.50 80.00

41.40 23.80 2.40 71.30

50.27 132.05 65.93 37428.90

60.60 11.10 6.70 0.30

0.99 0.80 40.93 1190.56 8333.33 51592.04 41800.00

278.00 276.00 56.31 11.93 0.63 1.90

Active ingredients. This value calculated from statistical data for research area.

indirect energy needs. The direct energy needs include energy required for land preparation, cultivation, irrigation, harvesting, post-harvest processing, food production, storage and the transport of agricultural inputs and outputs. Indirect energy needs are in the form of sequestered energy in fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, and insecticides (FAO, 2000). The total mean energy input along with its direct and indirect, renewable and non-renewable and commercial and non-commercial forms is presented in Table 5. The indirect energy input is higher in banana production compared to direct form of energy. On an average the direct energy input remained

at 36.89% of the total energy input compared to 52.93% indirect energy. There is more of non-renewable form of energy input (on an average 63.17%) than renewable form (26.65%). The research results indicate that the current energy use pattern among the investigated farms is based on non renewable energy in the banana production. In the investigated farms, the proportion of renewable energy use is very low. This result indicates that banana production depends mainly on fossil fuels in the research region. There is more of commercial form of energy input than non-commercial form. The reduction in consumption of commercial energy has a direct bearing



Table 5. Energy consumption under different modes of energy sources for banana production.

Energy forms Direct energy Indirect energy Renewable energy Non-renewable energy Commercial energy Non-commercial energy Total energy input

MJha-1 19018.52 27291.54 13738.80 32571.26 32571.26 13738.80 51560.05

Percentage of total energy input (%) 36.89 52.93 26.65 63.17 63.17 26.65

Inputs Human, diesel, electricity Fertilizers, farmyard manure, chemicals, machinery Human, farmyard manure Diesel, electricity, chemicals, fertilizers, machinery Diesel, electricity, chemicals, fertilizers, machinery Human, farmyard manure

*Energy equivalent of water for irrigation is not included.

on the cost of cultivation (Singh et al., 2007). Conclusions In the study, the energy requirements of inputs and outputs for banana production were analyzed. Data were collected from the growers by using a face to face survey in the 2008 production year in Anamur county of Mersin province. The main conclusions of this research may be summarized as follows: Total energy inputs for banana production in Anamur county of Mersin province was 51560.05 MJha-1. Total -1 energy outputs were calculated as 98024.88 MJha . Energy output-input ratio was calculated 1.90. Non renewable energy for banana production was found 32571.26 MJha-1 (63.17%). The results indicate that, electricity (27.55%), farmyard manure (21.78%) and machinery energy (20.58%) constituted the major portion of the energy inputs used banana production in the research area. The research results indicate that the current energy use pattern among the investigated farms is based on nonrenewable energy in the banana production. In the investigated farms, the proportion of renewable energy use is very low. This result indicates that banana production depends mainly on fossil fuels in the research region. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This paper was supported by the Scientific Research Projects Administration Unit of Akdeniz University.
REFERENCES Akcaoz H, Ozcatalbas O, Kizilay H (2009). Analysis of energy use for pomegranate production in Turkey. J. Food. Agric. Environ., 7(2): 475-480. Anonymous (2007). TR6 Mediterranean Region Agriculture Master Plan, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Presidency of Strategy Development, Ankara.

Bonny S (1993). Is agriculture using more and more energy? A French case study. Agric. Syst., 43: 51-66. Clements DR, Weise SF, Brown R, Stonehouse DP, Hume DJ, Swanton CJ (2005). Energy analysis of tillage and herbicide inputs in alternative weed management systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 52: 119-128. Dagistan E, Akcaoz H, Demirtas B, Yilmaz Y (2009). Energy usage and benefit-cost analysis of cotton production in Turkey. Afr. J. Agric. Res., 4(7): 599-604. Dalgaard T, Halberg N, Porter JR (2001). A model for fossil energy use in Danish agriculture used to compare organic and conventional farming. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 87: 51-65. De D, Singh RS, Chandra H (2001). Technological impact on energy consumption in rainfed soybean cultivation in Madhya Pradesh. Appl. Energy, 70: 193-213. Dvoskin D (1981/1982). Energy dependent agriculture in Israel. Energy Agric., 1: 131-139. FAO (2000). The energy and agriculture nexus. Environment and Natural Resources Working Paper No; 4. ROME. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x8054e/ x8054e00.HTM. FAO (2008). FAO statistical databases. Available at: http://www.fao.org. Fluck RC (1985). Energy sequestered in repairs and maintenance of agricultural machinery. Trans. ASAE, 28: 738-744. Hlsbergen K J, Feil B, Biermann S, Rathke GW, Kalk WD, Diepenbrock W (2001). A method of energy balancing in crop production and its application in a long-term fertilizer trial. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 86: 303-321. Hlsbergen KJ, Feil B, Diepenbrock W (2002). Rates of nitrogen application required to achieve maximum energy efficiency for various crops: results of a long-term experiment. Field Crops Res., 77: 61-76. th Jansen J (2001). Energy analysis of early, mid and late 20 century Swedish farming systems: A local society case study. J. Sustain. Agric., 17: 9-25. Kaltsas AM, Mamolos AP, Tsatsarelis CA, Nanos GD, Kalburtji KL (2007). Energy budget in organic and conventional olive groves. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 122: 243-251. Loewer OJ, Benock G, Gay N, Smith EM, Burgess S, Wells LG, Bridges TC, Springate L, Boling JA, Brattord G, Debertin D (1977). Production of beef with minimum grain and fossil energy inputs. Vol. I, II, III. Report to NSF, pp. 555. Mandal KG, Saha KP, Ghosh PK, Hati KM, Bandyopadhyay KK (2002). Bioenergy and economic analysis of soybean based crop production systems in Central India. Biomass and Bioenergy, 23: 337-345. Mani I, Kumar P, Panwar JS, Kant K (2007). Variation in energy consumption in production of wheat-maize with varying altitudes in Hilly Regions of Himachal Pradesh, India. Energy, 32: 2336-2339. Meul M, Nevens F, Reheul D, Hofman G (2007). Energy use efficiency of specialized dairy, arable and pig farms in flanders. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 119: 135-144. Mirini M, Senhaji F, Pimentel D (2002). Energy analysis of sugar beet production under traditional and intensive farming systems and impacts on sustainable agriculture in Morocco. J. Sustainable Agric.


Afr. J. Agric. Res.

20 (4): 5-28. Nautiyal S, Kaechele H, Rao KS, Maikhuri RK, Saxena KG (2007). Energy and economic analysis of traditional versus introduced crops cultivation in the mountains of the Indian Himalayas; A case study. Energy, 32: 2321-2335. Ozkan B, Akcaoz H, Karadeniz CF (2004a). Energy requirement and economic analysis of citrus production in Turkey. Energy Conversion Mgt., 45: 1812-1830. Ozkan B, Kurklu A, Akcaoz H (2004b). An input-output energy analysis in greenhouse vegetable production: a case study for Antalya Region of Turkey. Biomass and Bioenergy, 26: 89-95. Ozkan B, Akcaoz H, Fert C (2004c). Energy input-output analysis in Turkish agriculture. Renew. Energy, 29: 39-51. Pimentel D (1993). Economics and energetics of organic and conventional farming. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics, 6(1): 53-60. Pimentel D, Hepperly P, Hanson J, Douds D, Seidel R (2005). Environmental, Energetic and Economic Comparisons of Organic and Conventional Farming Systems. Bioscience, 55: 573-582. Rathke GW, Diepenbrock W (2006). Energy balance of winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) cropping as related to nitrogen supply and preceding crop. Eur. J. Agron., 24: 35-44. Rathke GW, Wienhold BJ, Wilhelm WW, Diepenbrock W (2007). Tillage and rotation effect on corn-soybean energy balances in eastern Nebraska. Soil Tillage Res., 97: 60-70. Reganold JP, Glover JD, Andrews PK, Hinman HR (2001). Sustainability of three apple production systems. Nature, 410: 926930. Sartori L, Basso B, Bertocco M, Oliviero G (2005). Energy use and economic evaluation of a three year crop rotation for conservation and organic farming in NE Italy. Biosyst. Eng., 91 (2): 245-256. Schneeberger KC, Breimyer HF (1974). Agriculture in an energy-hungry world. Southern J. Agric. Econ., pp. 193-197. Scrimgeour F (2007). Energy and agriculture in Australia and New st Zealand: politics, prices and economic outcomes. 51 AARES Annual Conference, Queenstown, Invited Paper, p. 20. Shrestha DS (1998). Energy input-output and their cost analysis in Nepalese agriculture. Available at: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~dev/pdfdocs/Energy.PDF/. Singh MK, Pal SK, Thakur R, Verma UN (1997). Energy input output relationship of cropping systems. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 67 (6): 262-264. Singh JM (2002). On farm energy use pattern in different cropping systems in Haryana India, Master of Science Thesis (Unpublished), International Institute of Management University of Flensburg, Germany. Singh H, Mishra D, Nahar NM, Ranjan M (2003). Energy use pattern in production agriculture of a typical village in Arid Zone India: Part II. Energy Conversion Mgt., 44 (7): 1053-1067. Singh H, Mishra D, Nahar NM (2004). Energy use pattern in production agriculture of a typical village in Arid Zone-Part III. Energy Conversion Mgt., 45: 2453-2472.

Singh H, Singh AK, Kushwaha HL, Singh A (2007). Energy consumption pattern of wheat production in India. Energy, 32: 18481854. Strapatsa AV, Nanos GD, Tsatsarelis CA (2006). Energy flow for integrated apple production in Greece. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 116: 176-180. Tsatsarelis CA (1993). Energy inputs and outputs for soft winter wheat production in Greece. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 43: 109-118. TSI (2008). 2000 General Population Census. Prime Ministry Republic of Turkey, Turkish Statistical Institute, Ankara. Available at: http://www.tuik.gov.tr. Tzilivakis J, Warner DJ, May M, Lewis KA, Jaggard K (2005). An assessment of the energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions in sugar beet production in the UK. Agric. Syst., 85: 101-119. Uhlin HE (1999). Energy productivity to technological agriculturelessons from the transition of Swedish agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 73: 63-81. Venturi P, Venturi G (2003). Analysis of energy comparison for crops in European agricultural systems. Biomass and Bioenergy, 25: 235255. Wells D (2001). Total energy indicators of agricultural sustainability: dairy farming case study. Technical Paper 2001/3, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Wellington. Available at: http://www.maf.govt.nz. Yaldiz O, Ozturk HH, Zeren Y, Bascetincelik A (1993). Energy use in th field crops of Turkey, 5 International Congress of Agricultural Machinery and Energy, 12-14 October 1993, Kusadas, Turkey. Yamane T (1967). Elementary sampling theory. Prentice-Inc., Englewood. Cliffs, N. J., USA, p. 404. Yilmaz I, Akcaoz H, Ozkan B (2005). An analysis of energy use and input costs for cotton production in Turkey. Renew. Energy, 30: 145155. Zereyesus YA (2003). Chain management and marketing performance of the banana industry in Eritrea, MSc Thesis in Agriculture, Agricultural Economics, Dept. of Agr. Econ. Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences at the University of Free State.