Introduction

Turkey is located in the most suitable climate zone for culture vine (Vitis vinifera L.) production in the world. Furthermore, it is located in the motherland of viticulture and has a rich source of varieties and types due to the rich gene potential, suitable climate conditions for viticulture, and heterozygous structure of vine. The variety identification studies carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry have shown that there are 1200 grape types in Turkey (Anonym 2021a). According to data from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations for 2019 (FAO 2019), world grape production is 7.7 million ha, and 22.7% of this grape production area is located in Spain, followed by France, China, Italy, and Turkey. World fresh grape production decreased by 3.6% in 2019 compared with the previous year and decreased to 77.1 million tons. In the global fresh grape production ranking, China ranks first, with a production of 14.3 million tons; Italy ranks second, with 7.2 million tons of production; and the United States ranks third, with 6.7 million tons of production (Anonym 2021b). Table grape production in Nevşehir was 28,997 tons, wine grape production was 42,623 tons, and raisin grape production was 29,404 tons in 2020 (Anonym 2020). A vineyard and the most commonly grown grape varieties in the study area are shown in Figs. 1, 2, 3, and 4. In the study, it was determined that ‛Emir’ is the variety used for the most wine grape production in Nevşehir province, and ‛Dimrit’ and ‛Finger’ were the varieties used for the most table grape production.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Vineyard

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

‛Dimrit’

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Finger grape

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

‛Emir’ (Anonym 2021c)

Full size image

Energy analyses to be done for agricultural production are important in grouping agricultural systems in terms of energy consumption. It is important to carefully analyse the inputs and outputs used in production in order to increase efficiency and reduce inputs in production (Sabah 2010; Çelen 2016). The benefits of energy consumption studies are many. They include ensuring that energy resources are used more effectively, determining the values and places of wastes and losses in production systems, developing more effective practices for existing production methods, ensuring sustainable development by aiming at sustainable use of energy resources and areas of use of high- and low-quality energy resources, determining priorities in terms of utilization, and determining the areas where improvement can be achieved by making use of effective technologies (Dinçer et al. 2004; Öztürk 2005).

Several local and international studies have been conducted in relation to energy use efficiency. These include energy use in agriculture (Öztürk and Barut 2005), grape (Ozkan et al. 2007; Koctürk and Engindeniz 2009; Rasouli et al. 2014; Baran et al. 2017), apricot (Gezer et al. 2003), apple (Ekinci et al. 2005), sweet sorghum (Eren 2011), strawberry (Banaeian et al. 2011), pear (Aydın et al. 2017), chickpea (Baran et al. 2019), pumpkin seed (Baran and Gökdoğan 2020), olive (Gökdoğan and Erdoğan 2021), and others. In recent years, there has been a significant increase in vineyard input costs in Nevşehir province. Therefore, the calculation of energy inputs is extremely important to ensure profitable grape production. In this study, energy use efficiency calculations of grape production in the vineyard areas of Nevşehir province were done, and evaluations were made. A detailed study should be conducted on the efficiency of energy use, determination of renewable or nonrenewable energy use, and efficiency in vineyard areas in Nevşehir province. Such a study will contribute to the literature.

Materials and Method

Located in the central Kızılırmak section of the central Anatolian region of Turkey, Nevşehir’s coordinates are 38° 12′ and 39° 20′ north latitudes and 34° 11′ and 35° 06′ east longitudes (Anonym 2021d). The material of the study consisted of information obtained from the Nevşehir Provincial Directorate of Agriculture and Forestry (Anonym 2018) and from 165 producers and businesses in Nevşehir province, where the most grape production is carried out and where face-to-face surveys were conducted. In the study, all data were calculated in Microsoft Office Excel 2007 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) and then evaluated. The number of enterprises examined in the study was determined according to the proportional sampling method. For a finite population, the sample volume is given in the following formula (Eq. 1) according to the known or estimated proportion of those with a certain characteristic. In order to reach the maximum sample volume and in cases where p is not known, p = 0.5 should be taken, as working with the maximum sample volume will reduce the possible error (Miran 2003; Aksoy and Yavuz 2012). The number of viticulture enterprises to be studied was calculated using a 95% confidence interval and 5% deviation.

$$n=\frac{\left(N\cdot p\cdot \left(1-p\right)\right)}{\left(N-1\right)\cdot \upalpha 2p+p\cdot \left(1-p\right)}$$
(1)

In the formula, n: sample size, N : number of enterprises in the population, α2p: variance of ratio (0.0346), and p : ratio of grape growers among the population. Face-to-face surveys, observations, and field studies were conducted with 59 enterprises related to viticulture in Nevşehir Province Centre district, 42 enterprises in Gülşehir district, and 64 enterprises in Ürgüp district. For the calculations of energy input and output, it is necessary to know the energy equivalents of the inputs and outputs. Previous studies were used to determine the energy equivalent coefficients. The energy equivalents of the inputs and outputs used in agricultural production are given in Table 1. Energy output/input ratio (energy use efficiency), energy productivity, specific energy, and net energy were calculated using the following formulas (Eq. 2–5) (Mandal et al. 2002; Mohammadi et al. 2008, 2010).

$$\textit{Energy}\,use\,\textit{efficiency}=\frac{\textit{Energy}\,\textit{output}\,\left(MJha^{-1}\right)}{\textit{Energy}\,\textit{input}\,\left(MJha^{-1}\right)}$$
(2)
$$\textit{Energy}\,\textit{productivity}=\frac{\textit{Yield}\,\textit{output}\,\left(kgha^{-1}\right)}{\textit{Energy}\,\textit{input}\,\left(MJha^{-1}\right)}$$
(3)
$$\textit{Specific}\,\textit{energy}=\frac{\textit{Energy}\,\textit{input}\,\left(MJha^{-1}\right)}{\textit{Yield}\,\textit{output}\,\left(kgha^{-1}\right)}$$
(4)

 

$$Net\,\textit{energy}=\textit{Energy}\,\textit{output}(MJha^{-1})-\textit{Energy}\,\textit{input}(MJha^{-1})$$
(5)
Table 1 Energy equivalents of inputs and outputs used in agricultural production
Full size table

The input energy is classified as direct or indirect and as nonrenewable or renewable. Indirect energy consists of pesticides and fertilisers, while direct energy includes human and animal power, diesel, and electricity. Nonrenewable energy consists of oil, diesel, electricity, chemicals, fertilisers, and machinery. Renewable energy consists of human and animal power (Mandal et al. 2002; Singh et al. 2003; Koctürk and Engindeniz 2009). The energy balance, energy use efficiency calculations, and classification of energy input types in grape production as direct or indirect and renewable or nonrenewable are given in Tables 2–4.

Table 2 Energy balance in grape production
Full size table

Results and Discussion

A total of 165 viticulture enterprises were examined in the study, 62 of them (37.57%) with a size between 5 decares and 20 decares. The average grape yield per hectare of the 165 enterprises was calculated as 10,118.53 kg ha−1. It was determined that only three of the enterprises are irrigated, and the other enterprises are not irrigated. The energy balance in grape production is given in Table 2. As shown in Table 2, the inputs in grape production are diesel fuel energy at 4273.88 MJ ha−1 (30.04%), chemical fertiliser energy at 3927.24 MJ ha−1 (27.60%), machinery energy at 2105.38 MJ ha−1 (14.80%), farm manure energy at 2013.11 MJ ha−1 (14.15%), irrigation water energy at 1592.17 MJ ha−1 (11.19%), human labour energy at 205.69 MJ ha−1 (1.45%), chemical energy at 79.65 MJ ha−1 (0.56%), and lime energy at 29.86 MJ ha−1 (0.21%).

In other studies conducted on grape production, Ozkan et al. (2007) calculated energy input as 23,640.9 MJ ha−1 and energy output as 120,596 MJ ha−1; Koctürk and Engindeniz (2009) calculated energy input as 37,488 MJ ha−1 and energy output as 323,910 MJ ha−1; and Baran et al. (2017) calculated energy input as 24,875.06 MJ ha−1 and energy output as 163,430 MJ ha−1. Energy use efficiency calculations in grape production are given in Table 3. The grape yield, energy input, energy output, energy use efficiency, specific energy, energy productivity, and net energy were respectively calculated as 10,118.53 kg ha−1, 14,226.97 MJ ha−1, 119,398.64 MJ ha−1, 8.39, 1.41 MJ kg−1, 0.71 kg MJ−1, and 105,171.67 MJ ha−1.

Table 3 Calculations of energy use efficiency in grape production
Full size table

In other studies conducted on grape production, Ozkan et al. (2007) calculated energy use efficiency as 5.10, Koctürk and Engindeniz (2009) calculated it as 8.64, and Baran et al. (2017) calculated it as 6.57. Energy input type calculations in grape production are given in Table 4. Direct energy input was calculated as 6071.74 MJ ha−1 (42.68%), indirect energy input as 8155.23 MJ ha−1 (57.32%), renewable energy input as 3810.96 MJ ha−1 (26.79%), and nonrenewable energy input as 10,416 MJ ha−1 (73.21%).

Table 4 Calculations of energy input types in grape production
Full size table

Direct energy input was calculated as 6071.74 MJ ha−1 (42.68%), indirect energy input as 8155.23 MJ ha−1 (57.32%), renewable energy input as 3810.96 MJ ha−1 (26.79%), and nonrenewable energy input as 10,416 MJ ha−1 (73.21%). In previous studies, Ozkan et al. (2007) and Koctürk and Engindeniz (2009) have similarly concluded a higher ratio of nonrenewable energy than renewable energy in energy inputs.

Conclusion

The outcomes of this study can be summarised as follows:

The first three energy inputs in grape production were respectively determined to be diesel fuel energy at 4273.88 MJ ha−1 (30.04%), chemical fertiliser energy at 3927.24 MJ ha−1 (27.60%), and machinery energy at 2105.38 MJ ha−1 (14.80%).

Grape yield, energy input, energy output, energy use efficiency, specific energy, energy productivity, and net energy were respectively calculated to be 10,118.53 kg ha−1, 14,226.97 MJ ha−1, 119,398.64 MJ ha−1, 8.39, 1.41 MJ kg−1, 0.71 kg MJ−1, and 105,171.67 MJ ha−1. In terms of energy use efficiency (8.39), grape production can be considered to be economical.

Direct energy input was calculated as 6071.74 MJ ha−1 (42.68%), indirect energy input as 8155.23 MJ ha−1 (57.32%), renewable energy input as 3810.96 MJ ha−1 (26.79%), and nonrenewable energy input as 10,416 MJ ha−1 (73.21%).

To reduce energy inputs in viticulture, it is necessary to increase the rate of renewable energy among energy inputs. In addition, it is important to increase the use of farm manure or organic fertilisers and to encourage organic viticulture in order to reduce the rate of chemical fertiliser use.