Energy 35 (2010) 2927e2933

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

A comparative study on energy use and cost analysis of potato production

under different farming technologies in Hamadan province of Iran
Morteza Zangeneh, Mahmoud Omid*, Asadollah Akram
Department of Agricultural Machinery Engineering, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering and Technology, School of Agriculture & Natural Resources, 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 aim of this study was to determine the amount of inputeoutput energy used in potato production
Received 9 October 2009 and to make an economic analysis of potato production in Hamadan province, Iran. Data for the
Received in revised form production of potatoes were collected from 100 producers by using a face to face questionnaire method.
31 January 2010
The population investigated was divided into two groups. Group I was consisted of 68 farmers (owner of
Accepted 15 March 2010
machinery and high level of farming technology) and Group II of 32 farmers (non-owner of machinery
Available online xxx
and low level of farming technology). The results revealed that 153071.40 MJ ha
1 energy consumed by
Group I and 157151.12 MJ ha
1 energy consumed by Group II. The energy ratio, energy productivity,
Keywords:
Potato
specific energy, net energy gain and energy intensiveness were calculated. The net energy of potato
Farming technology production in Group I and Group II was 4110.95 MJ ha
1 and
21744.67 MJ ha
1, respectively. Cost
Energy use efficiency analysis showed that total cost of potato production in Groups I and II were 4784.68 and 4172.64 $ ha
1,
Economic analysis respectively. The corresponding, benefit to cost ratio from potato production in the surveyed groups were
1.09 and 0.96, respectively. It was concluded that extension activities are needed to improve the effi-
ciency of energy consumption in potato production.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.) are grown worldwide under
a wide range of altitude, latitude and climatic conditions than any
other major food crop. No other crop can match the potato in its
production of food energy and food value per unit area [1]. Potatoes
have become increasingly important in the developing countries
for both sustenance and income. The United Nations called 2008 as
the International Year of the potato in order to boost its plantation
which has a significant role to decrease hunger of people all over
the world [2]. Yet, the potato plant has one of the heaviest demands
for fertilizer inputs over other vegetable crops. For instance, the
percentages of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K)
requirements for potato cultivation are, respectively, 100, 100 and
33% greater than that required for tomato or pepper productions
[3]. Potato is grown in countries where the prevailing mean air
temperature is around 15e18  C during the growing season and
rainfall or irrigation provides ample water [4e8].
Recent publications have shown the importance of the potato as
a global food crop, ranking fourth among crops with an overall
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ98 261 2801038, þ98 912 3611832(mobile); fax:
þ98 261 2808138.
E-mail address: omid@ut.ac.ir (M. Omid).
URL: http://utcan.ut.ac.ir/member/omid.aspx
annual production of nearly 327 million tonnes and about 19 million
hectares planted. In developing countries, production had actually
doubled in the past 15 years, so that, for the first time, over 50
percent of the potato crop was grown in the developing countries.
Consumption of this crop in EU countries has a decreasing trend, but
in the developing countries it has an increasing rate, per capita
consumption, from 10 kg in 1961 to 22 kg in 2003. In spite of these
trends, the average consumption of potato in developing countries
is still 25% of its EU counterpart. China, Russian Federation, India,
United States, Ukraine and Germany are the major potato producers.
The potato is also cultivated in Poland, Netherlands, France, United
Kingdom, Canada and Iran [9]. Based on FAO statistics, 350 million
tonnes of potatoes were now consumed worldwide each year. In
2008, Iran produced about 5 million tonnes of potatoes in
176,000 ha [10]. Potatoes are the single most important agricultural
commodity in Hamadan province. In 2008, the potato was planted
in 25,503 ha of this province under irrigated conditions [10].
The relation between agriculture and energy is very close.
Agriculture itself is an energy user and energy supplier in the form
of bio-energy [11]. The size of the population engaged in agricul-
ture, the amount of arable land and the level of mechanization are
the most important factors on the energy utilization in the agri-
cultural sector [12]. A wide range of energy forms are used directly
such as diesel fuel, water pumping and water for irrigation, and
indirectly such as fertilizers and pesticides. Other energy inputs are

0360-5442/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.energy.2010.03.024
2928 M. Zangeneh et al. / Energy 35 (2010) 2927e2933

sample of each stratification was determined using Eq. (1), derived

Nomenclature from Neyman technique [36].
P
d precision ðx
XÞ Nh Sh
n ¼ P (1)
D2 d2/z2 N 2 D2 þ Nh S2h
DE direct energy
where ‘n’ is the required sample size; ‘N’ is the number of all potato
FYM farmyard manure
farms in target population (Hamadan province of Iran); ‘Nh’ is the
IDE indirect energy
number of the population in the Group I and Group II; ‘Sh’ is the
n required sample size
standard deviation in the Group I and II; ‘S2h’ is the variance of
N number of holdings in target population
Group I and II; ‘d’ is the precision ðx
XÞ; z is the reliability coef-
NRE non-renewable energy
ficient (1.96 which represents the 95% reliability); D2 ¼ d2/z2.
Nh number of the population in the h stratification
The permissible error in the sample size was defined to be 5% for
RE renewable energy
95% confidence, and the sample size was calculated as 100 farms,
S2h variance of h stratification
68 farms in Group I and 38 farms in Group II.
z reliability coefficient (1.96 in the case of 95%
Firstly, the amount of inputs used in the production of potato
reliability)
(chemicals, human labor, machinery, seed, manure, fertilizers, fuel,
electricity and irrigation water) were specified in order to calculate
required for post harvest processing in food production, drying, the energy equivalences in the study. The units in Table 1 were used
packaging, storage, transportation and cooking [13]. Energy use in to find the input amounts. The amounts of input were calculated
agriculture has been intensified in response to increasing pop- per hectare and then, these input data were multiplied with the
ulations, limited supply of arable land and desire for an increasing coefficient of energy equivalent. The previous studies (cited in
standard of living. In all societies, these factors have encouraged an Table 1) were used to determine the energy equivalents’ coeffi-
increase in energy inputs to maximize yields, minimize labor- cients. The energy equivalences of unit inputs are given in Mega
intensive practices or both [14]. Effective use of energy in agricul- Joule (MJ) unit. The total input equivalent can be calculated by
ture is one of the conditions for sustainable agricultural production, adding up the energy equivalences of all inputs in MJ.
since it provides financial savings, fossil resources preservation and The energetic efficiency of the agricultural system has been
air pollution reduction [15]. Application of integrated production evaluated by the energy ratio between the outputs and the inputs.
managements are recently considered as a means to reduce Basic information on energy inputs and potato yields were entered
production costs, to efficiently use human labor and other inputs into Excel and SPSS 16 spreadsheets. Based on the energy equiva-
and to protect the environment (often in conjunction with the high lents (Table 1), the energy use efficiency, the energy productivity,
numbers of tourists present in the area). Energy budgets for agri- the net energy gain, the energy intensiveness and the specific
cultural production can be used as building blocks for life-cycle energy were calculated as [21]:
assessments that include agricultural products, and can also serve  
as a first step towards identifying crop production processes that Energy Output MJ ha
1
benefit most from increased efficiency [16]. Energy use efficiency ¼   (2)
Energy Input MJ ha
1
Many researchers have studied energy and economic analysis to
determine the energy efficiency of plant production such as sugar-  
cane [17] in Morocco, wheat, maize, soybean, sugar beet, sunflower, Potato output kg ha
1
grape, olive, almond, barley, oat, rye, orange, lemon, apple, pear, Energy productivity ¼   (3)
peach, apricot and plum [18,19] in Italy, rice [20] in Malaysia, sweet Energy Input MJ ha
1
cherry, citrus, apricot, stake-tomato, cotton, sugar beet, greenhouse
 
vegetable and some field crops [21e28] in Turkey, soybean and Energy input MJ ha
1
potato [29,30] in India, maize and sorghum [31] in United States, Specific energy ¼   (4)
cotton and sunflower [32,33] in Greece, winter oilseed rape [34] in Potato output kg ha
1
Germany and wheat and cucumber [35,36] in Iran.
The aim of the present study is to investigate the energy input
Table 1
and output per hectare for the production of potato in Hamadan Energy equivalent of inputs and output in agricultural production.
province, Iran, and to make a cost and economic analysis for two
Particulars Unit Energy equivalent (MJ unit
1) References
groups of farmers with different level of production technology and
machinery ownership status. It also identifies operations where A. Inputs
1. Human labor h 1.96 [24, 26]
energy savings could be realized by changing current practices in
2. Machinery h 62.7 [26]
order to increase the energy ratio, and proposes improvements to 3. Diesel fuel L 56.31 [24, 37]
reduce energy consumption for potato production. 4. Chemical fertilizers kg
(a) Nitrogen (N) 66.14 [12,24,38]
(b) Phosphate (P2O5) 12.44 [12,24,38]
2. Material and methods (c) Potassium (K2O) 11.15 [14,24,38]
5. Farmyard manure kg 0.3 [21,22]
Hamadan province has 1.2% of total area of the country and is 6. Electricity kWh 11.93 [42]
located in the west of Iran, within 36 400 latitude and 48 310 7. Chemicals kg [43]
(a) Insecticides 101.2
longitude. The total area of this province is 1,494,400 ha, and the
(b) Herbicides 238
farming area is 660,000 ha, with a share of 44.16% [10]. Data on (c) Fungicides 216
potato production was collected from the farmers by using a face to 8. Water for irrigation m3 1.02 [44]
face questionnaire performed in July 2009. The collected informa- 9. Seeds (potato) kg 3.6 [45]
tion belonged to the 2008e2009 production period. Farms were B. Outputs
10. Potato kg 3.6 [40]
randomly chosen from the villages in the area of study. The size of
 M. Zangeneh et al. / Energy 35 (2010) 2927e2933 2929

Table 2 Table 4
Socio-economic structure of potato farms (per farm). Amounts of inputs and output in potato production.

Item Group Ia Group IIb Inputs/output Unit Quantity per unit area (ha)
Population (person) 5.2 7.3 Group I Group II
Age of farmer (year) 42.56 40.2
A. Inputs
Total area (ha) 101.71 23.83
1. Human labor h ha
1
Potato area (ha) 23.06 6.34
a) Land preparation 16.31 19.77
Number of potato plots 1.86 1.48
b) Farmyard manure 4.67 4.2
Number of crop planted 4.12 2.88
c) Planting 51.78 47.92
Maximum yield (tonnes ha
1) 62.95 49.51
d) Hoeing and furrowing 3.79 3.8
Tractor ownership (number) 2.1 0
e) Irrigation 93.81 87.14
a
Owners of machinery and high level of farming technology. f) Chemical fertilizer application 2.16 2.47
b
Non-owners of machinery and low level of farming technology. g) Spraying 2.77 3.75
h) Harvesting 329.66 334.45
i) Transporting 30 29.16
  2. Machinery h ha
1
Net energy ¼ Energy Output MJ ha
1 a) Land preparation 11.30 15.77
  b) Planting 5.06 5

Energy Input MJ ha
1 (5) c) Chemical fertilizer application 1.33 1.11
d) Farmyard manure application 0.92 1.56
e) Spraying 2.57 3.75
 
Energy input MJ ha
1
f) Hoeing and furrowing 3.35 3.8
g) Harvesting 12.41 14.7
Energy intensiveness ¼   (6) h) Transporting 10.10 5.07
Cost of cultivation $ ha
1 3. Diesel fuel L ha
1
a) Land preparation 67.05 70.75
For the growth and development, energy demand in agricul- b) Planting 19.58 21.4
ture can be divided into direct energy (DE), indirect energy (IDE), c) Irrigation 287.38 308.06
renewable energy (RE) and non-renewable energy (NRE) [11]. The d) Farmyard manure 4.9 8.16
e) Chemical fertilizer application 7.79 6.56
IDE includes energy embodied in seeds, fertilizers, farmyard f) Spraying 15.47 20.49
manure (FYM), chemicals, machinery while the DE covers human g) Hoeing and furrowing 11.66 13.21
labor and diesel fuel used in the potato production. The NRE h) Harvesting 62.27 76.43
includes diesel, chemicals, fertilizers and machinery, and the RE i) Transporting 18.88 9.1
4. Fertilizers kg ha
1
consists of human labor, seeds and FYM.
a) Nitrogen (N) 498.16 741.93
Finally, the economic analysis of potato production was inves- b) Phosphorus (P2O5) 249.26 454.83
tigated. Net profit, gross profit and benefit to cost ratio was calcu- c) Potassium (K20) 170.58 290.8
lated. The net return was calculated by subtracting the total cost of 5. Farmyard manure kg ha
1 10,411.76 10,225.8
production from the gross value of production per hectare. The 6. Chemicals kg ha
1
a) Pesticides 1.49 2.09
gross return was calculated by subtracting the variable cost of b) Herbicides 1.44 1.62
production. The benefitecost ratio was calculated by dividing the c) Fungicides 1.50 1.5
gross value of production by the total cost of production per hectare 7. Water m3 ha
1 7470.37 6917.45
[21,22,27]: 8. Seeds kg ha
1 4190.58 3950
9. Electricity kWh 4696.01 3319.97
  B. Output
Total production value ¼ Potato yield kg ha
1 1. Potato kg ha
1 43,661.76 37,612.9
 
 Potato price $ kg
1 ð7Þ  
Gross return ¼ Total production value $ ha
1
 
Table 3
Variable cost of production $ ha
1 (8)
Management practices for potato.
 
Practices/operations Group I Group II Net return ¼ Total production value $ ha
1
Names of varieties Agria, marfona, sprit, Agria, marfona,  
boren, santia sprit, boren,
Total production costs $ ha
1 (9)
Tractor used MF285, U650 MF285, MF399, U650
Land preparation period SeptembereOctober SeptembereOctober  .
Numbers of tilling 2.95 2.74 Benefit=cost ratio ¼ Total production value $ ha
1
Planting period FebruaryeMarch FebruaryeMarch
 
Chemical fertilization period MayeJune MayeJune
Total production costs $ ha
1 ð10Þ
Numbers of chemical 1.82 2.58
fertilization
 .
Productivity ¼ Potato yield kg ha
1
Irrigation period AprileSeptember AprileSeptember
Numbers of irrigation 13.92 12.83
Barnyard manure September September
 
(poultry manure) Total production costs $ ha
1 ð11Þ
Numbers of barnyard manure 0.77 0.7
Hoeing and furrowing April April
3. Results and discussion
Numbers of Hoeing and 0.92 1
furrowing
Spraying period JuneeAugust JuneeAugust 3.1. Socio-economic structures of farms
Numbers of spraying 2.52 3.51
Harvesting period JulyeSeptember JulyeSeptember Average farm size of Group I and Group II were 23.06 and
Numbers of harvesting 1 1
6.34 ha, respectively. The corresponding areas under potato
2930 M. Zangeneh et al. / Energy 35 (2010) 2927e2933

Table 5
Amounts of inputs and output with their equivalent energy.

Quantity (inputs and output) Unit Group I Group II

Quantity per unit Total energy equivalent Quantity per unit Total energy equivalent
area (ha) (MJ ha
1) area (ha) (MJ ha
1)
A. Inputs
1. Human labor h 534.95 1048.5 532.66 1044.01
2. Machinery h 47.24 2962.42 50.76 3182.65
3. Diesel fuel L 504.98 28,435.47 534.16 30,078.92
4. Fertilizers kg 918 37,951.32 1487.56 57,972.29
(a) Nitrogen (N) 498.16 32,948.42 741.93 49,071.6
(b) Phosphate (P205) 249.26 3100.85 454.83 5658.19
(c) Potassium (K2O) 170.58 1902.05 290.8 3242.49
5. Farmyard manure kg 10,411.7 3123.52 10,225.8 3067.74
6. Chemical kg 4.43 820.7 5.21 922.36
(a) Insecticides 1.49 151.42 2.09 212.19
(b) Herbicides 1.44 343.7 1.62 386.17
(c) Fungicides 1.5 325.58 1.5 324
7. Water for irrigation m3 7470.37 7619.77 6917.45 7055.8
8. Electricity kWh 4696.01 56,023.51 3319.97 39,607.3
9. Seed kg 4190.58 15,086.11 3950 14,220
Total energy input MJ 150,371.4 15,7151.12
B. Output
Potato kg 43,661.76 157,182.35 37,612.9 135,406.45
Total energy output MJ 157,182.35 135,406.45

production were 22.67% and 26.60%. Other vegetables grown
besides potato were wheat, alfalfa, corn and barley. Socio-economic
structure of studied farms is shown in Table 2. The maximum yields
in Group I and Group II were 62.95 and 49.51 tonnes ha
1,
respectively.
3.2. Analysis of inputeoutput energy use in potato production
Table 3 shows the agronomic practices during the process of
growing potatoes along with the periods relevant to these prepa-
rations. Table 4 shows the inputs used and output in potato
production in the area of survey. Energy equivalents with output
energy rates and their equivalents are illustrated in Table 5. The
results indicate 534.95 h and 532.66 h of human power and 47.24 h
and 50.76 h of machine power are required per hectare of potato
production in Group I and Group II, respectively.
Total energy used in various operations during potato produc-
tion was 153,071.4 MJ ha
1 in Group I and 157,151.12 MJ ha
1 in
Group II. Fig. 1 shows the energy use pattern. In Group I, electricity
consumes 36.6% of the total energy inputs followed by chemical
fertilizers (24.79%) during production period. In this group diesel
fuel was mainly consumed for land preparation, cultural practices
and transportation. In group II, 36.88% of the total energy input was
consumed by chemical fertilizers (mainly Nitrogen with 31.22%),
followed by electricity and diesel fuel. Average annual yield in
Group I and Group II farms were 43,661.76 and 37,612.9 kg ha
1,
respectively. The calculated total energy outputs were 157,182.35
and 135,406.45 MJ ha
1. From Table 5 it is shown that chemicals
were the least demanding energy input for potato production with
820.7 MJ ha
1 (0.53% of the total input energy) and 922.36 MJ ha
1
(0.58% of the total input energy), followed by human labor by
1048.50 MJ ha
1 (0.69%) and 1044.01 MJ ha
1 (0.66%) in the first
and second groups of farms. In another study in New Zealand,
Barber [37] found that the total energy input in potato production
was 62,300 MJ ha
1. Pervanchon et al. [38] noted that the rate of
inputs in the total amount of energy such as machinery, fertilizers,
seeds, chemicals and other inputs in potato production were 48%,
33%, 6%, 3% and 10%, respectively.
The energy input and output, yield, energy use efficiency, specific
energy, energy productivity, net energy gain and energy inten-
siveness of potato production in the Hamadan province were
calculated using Eqs. (2)e(6) and the results are tabulated in Table 6.

Fig. 1. Energy use pattern of owned of machinery and high level of farming technology vs. non-owners of machinery and low level of farming technology.
 M. Zangeneh et al. / Energy 35 (2010) 2927e2933 2931

Table 6
Energy inputeoutput ratio in potato production.

Items Unit Group I Group II

Energy input MJ ha
1 153,071.4 157,151.12
Energy output MJ ha
1 157,182.35 135,406.45
Energy use efficiency e 1.14 0.95
Energy productivity kg MJ
1 0.32 0.27
Specific energy MJ kg
1 3.97 4.72
Net energy gain MJ ha
1 4110.95
21,744.67
Energy intensiveness MJ $
1 38.84 42.43

Energy use efficiency (energy ratio) in Group I was calculated as 1.14

and in Group II as 0.95, respectively. Pimentel et al. [39] calculated
energy ratio as 1.2 and 1.6 in USA and UK, respectively. The average
energy productivity of Group I farms was 0.32, while in Group II it
was 0.27. This means that for example 0.32 kg of potatoes was
obtained per unit energy (MJ). The comparison between the two
groups shows Group I can produce 0.05 output more than Group II.
This can be attributed to the differences in the level of technology
and other characteristics of each group. Calculation of energy
productivity rate is well documented in the literature such as stake-
tomato (1.0) [21], cotton (0.06) [22] and sugar beet (1.53) [23]. The
specific energy of potato production in Group I and Group II was
3.97 MJ kg
1 and 4.72 MJ kg
1, respectively. Canakci et al. [27]
reported similar values for specific energy such as 5.24 for wheat,
11.24 for cotton, 3.88 for maize, 16.21 for sesame, 1.14 for tomato,
0.98 for melon and 0.97 for water-melon. The net energy in Group I
and Group II was 4110.95 MJ ha
1 and
21744.67 MJ ha
1, respec-
tively. Therefore, it is concluded that in Group II, energy has been
lost. The negative value for the net energy (less than zero) in potato
production in Group II has several reasons. Based on the structure of
farming system and the level of technology in this group, such as
using diesel fuel for pumping water, practicing traditional method
of irrigation, wasting chemical fertilizers (in comparison to Group I),
this negative value is reasonable. Mohammadi and Omid [36] found
a negative value for the net energy of greenhouse cucumber
production.
Table 7 shows the distribution of total energy input as direct or
indirect (DE vs. IDE), and renewable or non-renewable (RE vs. NRE)
in both groups. Percentages of these energy forms are illustrated in
Fig. 2. As it can be seen from the figure, the total energy input
consumed could be classified as DE (60.83%, 49.49%), IDE (39.17%,
51.51%), RE (17.56%, 16.16%) and NRE (82.44%, 83.84%) in these
groups, respectively. The amount of NRE in both groups is high. In
a study [36] share of NRE in cucumber production in Iran was
89.07% of the total energy input. Several researchers have found
that the ratio of DE is higher than that of IDE, and the rate of NRE
was greater than that of RE consumption in cropping systems
[40,41]. The high ratio of NRE in the total used energy inputs causes
Fig. 2. Percentages of total energy input in the form of direct (DE), indirect (IDE),
renewable (RE) and non-renewable (NRE) for potato production in Group I and Group II.
negative effects on the sustainability in vegetable production of
small-scale farms. Therefore, it is important to better utilize the RE
sources for making up for the increasing energy deficit, as they
represent an effective alternative to fossil fuels for preventing
resources depletion and for reducing air pollution. Agriculture has
the potential to become an increasingly important source of RE and
provides significant economic opportunities for producers. RE
production stimulates the agricultural and rural economy,
improves the environment and enhances national energy security.
3.3. Economic analysis of potato production
The total cost of potato production and the gross value of
production are calculated using Eqs. (7)e(11) and are shown in
Table 8 for both types of farm. The fixed and variable expenditures
included in the cost of production are calculated separately. The
total expenditure for Group I was 4784.68 $ ha
1 while in Group II
was 4172.64 $ ha
1. The gross production value was found to be
4214.72 $ ha
1 and 3363.47 $ ha
1 for the respective groups. About
63% of the total expenditures in Group I was variable costs.
However, in the second group of farms about 80% of the total
production costs were variable costs. Based on these results, the
benefit to cost ratio in the surveyed farms was calculated to be 1.09
and 0.96 for the first and second types of farms, respectively. These
findings were consistent with the results reported by other authors
such as 2.53 for sweet cherry [21], 2.37 for orange, 1.89 for lemon
and 1.88 for mandarin [22], 1.03 for stake-tomato [23], 0.86 for
cotton [24] and 1.17 for sugar beet [25]. In both groups the net
return was negative,
569.96 and
809.17 $ ha
1 in year of 2009. In
this study productivity for group I and II was 11.28 and10.65 kg $
1,
respectively. Here, the productivity (expressed by kg $
1) indicates

Table 7 Table 8
Total energy input in the form of direct (DE), indirect (IDE), renewable (RE) and non- Economic analysis of potato production.
renewable (NRE) for potato production.
Cost and return components Unit Group I Group II
Form of energy Unit Group I Group II Yield kg ha
1 43661.76 37612.9
DEa MJ ha
1 93,127.28 77,786.07 Sale price $ kg
1 0.1 0.09
IDEb MJ ha
1 59,944.12 79,365.06 Gross value of production $ ha
1 4214.72 3363.47
REc MJ ha
1 26,877.93 25,387.58 Variable cost of production $ ha
1 3014.35 3338.11
NREd MJ ha
1 126,193.47 131,763.54 Fixed cost of production $ ha
1 1770.33 834.53
Total energy input MJ ha
1 153,071.4 157,151.12 Total cost of production $ ha
1 4784.68 4172.64
a Total cost of production $ kg
1 0.13 0.12
Includes human labor, diesel oil, electricity, water for irrigation.
b Gross return $ ha
1 1200.37 25.36
Includes seeds, chemical fertilizers, barnyard manure, chemical poisons,
Net return $ ha
1
569.96
809.17
machinery.
c Benefit to cost ratio e 1.09 0.96
Includes human labor, seeds, barnyard manure, water for irrigation.
d productivity kg $
1 11.28 10.65
Includes diesel oil, chemical poisons, chemical fertilizers, machinery, electricity.
2932 M. Zangeneh et al. / Energy 35 (2010) 2927e2933
how much potato per each dollar expending is produced in potato
production. According to the results of economical analysis, Group I
has a better condition than Group II.
The results of this study indicate that potato production is a not-
profitable business. The capital requirements of farm enterprisers
should be overcome by input and credit subsidies. With the
appropriate input and price policy applications, excessive fertilizers
and chemicals usage must be intercepted. Extension activities are
needed to improve the efficiency of energy consumption in potato
production and to employ environmentally friendly agricultural
management practices and production methods. Due to high
production costs in Iran, the competitive strength of potato
producers is low. Potato production should be encouraged for self
sufficiency and entrance into foreign markets.
4. Conclusions
In this study, energy use pattern in potato production in Ham-
adan province of Iran were investigated. The population investi-
gated was divided into two strata based on tractor and farm
machinery ownership and level of farming technology. Group I
farmers were owners of agricultural machinery and practiced high
level of farming technology, whereas Group II were non-owners of
machinery and exercised low level of farming technology. Total
energy consumption of Group I and group II was 157.151and
153.071 GJ ha
1, respectively. In group I, the energy input of elec-
tricity (36.6%) had the biggest share within the total energy inputs
followed by chemical fertilizers (24.79%). The amount of non-
renewable energy (NRE) in both groups was rather high. Therefore,
a reduction in the total NRE ratio, specifically in chemical fertilizer
usage would have positive effects on the sustainability of potato
production as well as other positive environmental effects.
Energy use efficiency, specific energy, energy productivity,
energy intensiveness and net energy of Group I and Group II were
calculated and discussed. The benefitecost ratio of Group I was
found to be higher than that of Group II. The net returns from
potato production were negative in both groups. This result shows
that potato production is a not-profitable business. This situation
occurred because of high volume of production and low price of
potato in the year of study. Energy use in potato production is not
efficient and detrimental to the environment due to excessive use
of inputs. Optimal consumptions of fertilizers, diesel fuel and other
major inputs would be useful not only in reducing negative effects
to environment and human health, but maintaining sustainability
and decreasing production costs. Agricultural advising should also
be activated.
Acknowledgement
The financial support provided by the Research Department of
University of Tehran, Iran, is duly acknowledged.
References
[1] Sieczka JB, Thornton RE. Commercial potato production in North America:
potato association of America handbook. Orono, Maine: Potato Association of
America; 1993.
[2] United Nations (U.N), <http://www.un.org>; 2008.
[3] Maynard DN, Hochmuth GJ. Knott’s handbook for vegetable growers. 4th ed.
New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1997.
[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
Potato J 1985;62:537e54.
[5] Borah MN, Milthrope FL. Growth of the potato as influenced by temperature.
Indian J Plant Physiol 1962;5:53e72.
[6] Marinus J, Bodlaender KBA. Response of some potato varieties to temperature.
Potato Res 1975;18:189e204.
[7] Menzel CM. The control of storage organ formation in potato and other
species, a review part 1. Field Crop Abstr 1985;38(9):527e37.
[8] Caldiz DO, Gaspari FJ, Haverkort AJ, Struik PC. Agroecological zoning and
potential yield of single or double cropping of potato in Argentina. Agric For
Meteorol 2001;109(4):311e20.
[9] Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), <www.fao.org>; 2005.
[10] Anonymous. Annual agricultural statistics. Ministry of Jihad-e-Agriculture of
Iran, <www.maj.ir>; 2005.
[11] Ozkan B, Akcaoz H, Fert C. Energy inputeoutput analysis in Turkish agricul-
ture. Renew Energy 2004;29:39e51.
[12] Alam MS, Alam MR, Islam KK. Energy flow in agriculture: Bangladesh. Am J
Environ Sci 2005;1(3):213e20.
[13] The Energy and Agriculture Nexus. Environment and natural resources.
working paper No. 4. Rome: FAO; 2000.
[14] Esengun K, Gunduz O, Erdal G. Inputeoutput energy analysis in dry apricot
production of Turkey. Energy Convers Manage 2007;48:592e8.
[15] Uhlin H. Why energy productivity is increasing: an IeO analysis of Swedish
agriculture. Agric Syst 1998;56(4):443e65.
[16] Piringer GJ, Steinberg L. Reevaluation of energy use in wheat production in the
United States. J Ind Ecol 2006;10:149e67.
[17] Mrini M, Senhaji F, Pimentel D. Energy analysis of sugarcane production in
Morocco. Environ, Dev Sustainability 2001;3:109e26.
[18] Triolo L, Unmole H, Mariani A, Tomarchio L. Energy analyses of agriculture:
the Italian case study and general situation in developing countries. October
26e29. In: Third international symposium on mechanization and energy in
agriculture, Izmir, Turkey; 1987. p. 172e84.
[19] 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):245e56.
[20] 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):819e26.
[21] 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;47:1761e9.
[22] Ozkan B, Akcaoz H, Karadeniz F. Energy requirement and economic analysis
of citrus production in Turkey. Energy Convers Manage 2004;45:
1821e30.
[23] 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;32:1873e81.
[24] Yilmaz I, Akcaoz H, Ozkan B. An analysis of energy use and input costs for
cotton production in Turkey. Renew Energy 2005;30:145e55.
[25] 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:
35e41.
[26] Ozkan B, Kurklu A, Akcaoz H. An inputeoutput energy analysis in greenhouse
vegetable production: a case study for Antalya region of Turkey. Biomass
Bioenergy 2004;26:189e95.
[27] 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;46:655e66.
[28] Dagistan E, Akcaoz H, Demirtas B, Yilmaz Y. Energy usage and benefit-cost
analysis of cotton production in Turkey. Afr J Agric Res 2009;4
(7):599e604.
[29] 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):337e45.
[30] 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;36:112e9.
[31] Franzluebbers AJ, Francis CA. Energy outputeinput ratio of maize and
sorghum management systems in Eastern Nebraska. Agric Ecosyst Environ
1995;53(3):271e8.
[32] Tsatsarelis CA. Energy requirements for cotton production in central Greece. J
Agric Eng Res 1991;50:239e46.
[33] Kallivroussis L, Natsis A, Papadakis G. The energy balance of sunflower
production for biodiesel in Greece. Biosyst Eng 2002;81(3):347e54.
[34] 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;24:35e44.
[35] Safa M, Tabatabaeefar A. Energy consumption in wheat production in irrigated
and dry land farming. November 28e30. In: Proceedings of International
Agricultural Conference, Wuxi, China; 2002.
[36] Mohammadi A, Omid M. Economical analysis and relation between energy
inputs and yield of greenhouse cucumber production in Iran. Appl Energy
2010;87(1):191e6.
[37] Barber AA. 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.
[38] Pervanchon F, Bockstaller C, Girardin P. Assessment of energy use in arable
farming systems by means of an agroecological indicator: the energy indi-
cator. Agric Syst 2002;72:149e72.
[39] Pimentel D. Energy inputs in production agriculture. In: Fluck RC, editor.
Energy in farm production. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1999. p. 13e29.
 M. Zangeneh et al. / Energy 35 (2010) 2927e2933 2933

[40] 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;32:1873e81.
[41] Kizilaslan H. Inputeoutput energy analysis of cherries production in Tokat
province of Turkey. Appl Energy 2009;86(7e8):1354e8.
[42] Singh S, Mittal JP. Energy in production agriculture. New Delhi: Mittal Pub.; 1992.
[43] Ozkan B, Fert C, Karadeniz CF. Energy and cost analysis for greenhouse and
open-field grape production. Energy 2007;32:1500e4.
[44] Canakci M, Akinci I. Energy use pattern analyses of greenhouse vegetable
production. Energy 2006;31:1243e56.
[45] Ozkan B, Akcaoz H, Fert C. Energy inputeoutput analysis in Turkish agricul-
ture. Renew Energy 2004;29:39e51.