Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the energy use efficiency (EUE) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in cherry production in Kırklareli province of Turkey. It is also aimed to increase the EUE and reduce GHG emission. Furthermore, this comprehensive study conducted in Kırklareli province of Turkey will contribute to the literature. Observation, survey and data calculations are from the 2020–2021 season. Data provided in the study were acquired from 50 (reachable) farms by conducting face-to-face surveys with complete count method in 2022. This study included calculations of energy input (EI), energy output (EO), EUE, specific energy (SE), energy productivity (EP), net energy (NE), EI types, GHG emission and GHG ratio. EI and EO were calculated as 14,934.30 MJ/ha and 14,234.67 MJ/ha, respectively. Among all the energy inputs, the greatest share belong to chemical fertilisers by 34.49%. EUE, SE, EP and NE were calculated as 0.95, 3.07 MJ/kg, 0.33 kg/MJ and −699.62 MJ/ha, respectively. The consumed total EI in production has been classified as 52.94% direct energy (DE), 47.06% indirect energy (IDE), 45.94% renewable energy (RE) and 54.06% non-renewable (NRE). Total GHG emissions and GHG ratio were calculated as 295.48 kgCO2-eq/ha and 0.06 kgCO2-eq/kg, respectively. Increasing the ratio of RE by using farmyard manure and organic manure rather than chemical fertilisers is important to increase the EUE and reduce GHG emission levels. In order to reduce emission quantities, it is necessary to increase the use of RE inputs. These proposals considered in cherry production can increase EUE and reduce GHG emission.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Cherry, which has many varieties, is a rich type of fruit in this sense. Domestically consumed varieties began to come to the fore in cherry cultivation. For this reason, there are over 1500 cherry varieties in the world. In addition to the size of the fruit, bright dark colored, hard and sweet varieties are preferred by the consumers, regardless of the ripening period. New varieties are frequently introduced to the commercial market. In Turkey, which places first in the world in cherry production, approximately 50 cherry varieties are grown. According to FAO data, Turkey ranks first in the world’s cherry area and production amount with its 83,000 ha cherry planting area and approximately 725,000 tons of production in 2020. In the cherry planting area, Chile ranks second after Turkey with 40,000 ha, followed by the USA with 34,000 ha, and Syria in the fourth place with 30,000 ha. In cherry production, Turkey is followed by the USA with 295,000 tons, Chile with 255,000 tons in third place and Uzbekistan with 185,000 tons in fourth place (Anonym 2023).
Agriculture is a consumer of energy but also generates it. In agriculture, great amounts of locally actual non-trade energies are used. Then there are trade energies, whether direct or indirect, in the form of diesel, electric, fertiliser, plant protection, chemicals, water irrigation and machinery. Achieving higher yields could be possible by efficient use of energy. This consequently conduces to the economy as well as competitiveness and competitiveness of agriculture sustainability in rural living (Singh et al. 2002; Kizilaslan 2009). Intensive energy consumption causes important environmental issues such as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as well as problems affecting human health. For this reason, the efficient use of inputs becomes important for sustainable agricultural production. GHG emissions that occur in agricultural production is due to the use of machinery, consumption of diesel, use of chemical fertiliser and consumption of power. As a natural consequence of this, GHG emission rise with the rise in energy input (Karaağaç et al. 2019).
Several studies performed on determining energy use efficiency (EUE) and GHG emissions of agricultural products. Some of the examples include sweet cherry (Demircan et al. 2006), cherry (Kizilaslan 2009), lavender (Gökdoğan 2016), plum (Baran et al. 2017a), organic grape (Baran et al. 2017b), vetch (Kokten et al. 2017), pomegranate (Ozalp et al. 2018), maize (Kokten et al. 2018), nectarine (Oğuz et al. 2019), cotton (Semerci et al. 2019), organic almond (Baran et al. 2020), almond (Yılmaz and Bayav 2022), vetch (Seydoşoğlu et al. 2023), garlic (Baran et al. 2023), etc. The aim of this study was to determine the EUE, energy input (EI), energy output (EO), specific energy (SE), energy productivity (EP), net energy (NE), energy inputs (EI) types, GHG emissions, GHG ratio and GHG emissions of cherry production in Kırklareli province in Turkey. It is clear that this study will contribute to the literature in this sense. This study has also suggested some suggestions on increasing EUE and RE, reducing NRE energy and decreasing GHG levels.
Materials and Methods
Kırklareli is located in the Thrace Region, covering the European part of Turkey. It is among the 41° 44′–42° 00′ northern latitudes and 26° 53′–41° 44′ eastern longitudes. Kırklareli has a land area of 6555 km2, with 48% of the land being mountainous, 35% undulating land and 17% is plains (Anonym 2022). This study was performed for the 2020–2021 production season in Kırklareli province of Turkey. The study was performed in agricultural farms that were determined on the basis of 2021 data provided by the Kırklareli Provincial Directorate of Agriculture and Forestry. The data was collected from 50 farms (reachable) and 2022 by using a face-to-face questionnaire and complete count method, as proposed by Karagölge and Peker (2002). According to survey data averages, average farm size of the surveyed farms was 0.45 ha. Flood irrigation was applied in the farms. Planting spacing of trees was 4 m × 4 m on average. Trees were ‘0900 Ziraat’ cherry variety.
Energy equals used in cherry production are given in Table 1. EUE, SE, EP and NE were calculated by using the following four formulas (Mandal et al. 2002; Mohammadi et al. 2008, 2010). Energy input types are classified as DE, IDE, RE and NRE (Mandal et al. 2002; Singh et al. 2003; Koctürk and Engindeniz 2009). GHG equals of inputs in production are given in Table 2. Energy balance (EB), EUE, DI, IDE, RE, NRE, GHG and GHG ratio calculations are given in Tables 3, 4, 5 and 6.
The calculation results are given in Table 2. A greenhouse gas emission schedule has been created in production and the GHG emission rate calculation has been performed. The Eqs. 5 and 6, adapted by Hughes et al. (2011), were used to determine the GHG (Karaağaç et al. 2019). The GHG ratio has the index determined as the amount of GHG emissions per kg yield. In the calculation of GHG ratio, the following formula has been used, proposed by Houshyar et al. (2015) and Khoshnevisan et al. (2014), based on the recommendation of Karaağaç et al. (2019):
where R(i): amount of input I (unitinput/ha), EF(i): GHG equal of input i (kgCO2eq/unitinput) and Y: yield (kg/ha).
Results and Discussion
The cherry orchards yielded an average of 4858.25 kg/ha during the 2020–2021 production season. The EB is given in Table 3 and Fig. 1. EI and EO are calculated as 14,934.30 and 14,234.67 MJ/ha, respectively. With regards to the energy inputs: 10.30% consisted of human labor energy (1537.73 MJ/ha), 5.49% consisted of machinery energy (819.23 MJ/ha), 34.49% of the energy inputs consisted of chemical fertilisers energy (5149.70 MJ/ha), 0.33% consisted of chemicals energy (49.82 MJ/ha), 12.81% consisted of diesel fuel energy (1913.43 MJ/ha), 1.11% consisted of FYM energy (165.18 MJ/ha), 4.71% consisted of organic fertiliser energy (703.60 MJ/ha), 29.83% consisted of water irrigation energy (4454.34 MJ/ha) and 0.95% consisted of transportation energy (141.27 MJ/ha).
The contribution of chemical fertilisers has the highest among all energy inputs consumed (34.49%). Similar results have been achieved in other studies on cherry and agricultural production: Demircan et al. (2006) reported that chemical fertilisers were responsible for 45.35% of energy inputs in sweet cherry; Kizilaslan (2009) reported the chemical fertilisers’ energy use as 42% of the total EI in cherry; Ozalp et al. (2018) reported the chemical fertiliser energy use as 35.80% of the total EI in pomegranate; Oğuz et al. (2019) reported the chemical fertiliser energy use as 43.15% of the total EI in nectarine; and Gökduman et al. (2022) reported the chemical fertiliser energy use as 39.96% of the total EI in avocado production.
EUE, SE, EP and NE in cherry production were calculated as 0.95, 3.07 MJ/kg, 0.33 kg/MJ and −699.62 MJ/ha, respectively (Table 4). In other studies, Demircan et al. (2006) calculated EUE as 1.23 in sweet cherry, Kizilaslan (2009) calculated EUE as 0.96 in cherry, Oğuz et al. (2019) calculated EUE as 1.86 in nectarine, Gökduman et al. (2022) calculated EUE as 2.19 in avocado, and Yılmaz and Bayav (2022) calculated EUE between 0.38 and 1.22 in almond production, etc.
The dispersion of inputs used in cherry production in terms of DE, IDE, RE, and NRE types is shown in Table 5. Accordingly, consumed total energy input were classified as 52.94% DE, 47.06% IE, 45.94% RE and 54.06% NRE. In other studies related to production, Demircan et al. (2006) in sweet cherry, Kizilaslan (2009) in cherry, Baran et al. (2017a) in plum, Ekinci et al. (2020) in apple, Yılmaz and Bayav (2022) in almond, and Gökduman et al. (2022) in avocado calculated NRE energy ratio to be higher than RE.
The calculations of GHG are given in Table 6. Total GHG and GHG ratio were calculated as 295.48 kgCO2‑eq/ha and 0.06 for cherry production, respectively. GHG emission took place due to machinery 58.17 kgCO2‑eq/ha, nitrogen 66.27 kgCO2‑eq/ha, phosphorous 9.27 kgCO2‑eq/ha, potassium 8.06 kgCO2‑eq/ha, microelements 48.37 kgCO2‑eq/ha, chemicals 6.84 kgCO2‑eq/ha, diesel fuel 93.79 kgCO2‑eq/ha, and transportation 4.71 kgCO2‑eq/ha, respectively. Chemical fertilisers rank first by 44.66% inside all GHG.
In other studies, Taghavifar and Mardani (2015), Ozalp et al. (2018), Ekinci et al. (2020), Gökduman et al. (2022), and Seydoşoğlu et al. (2023) calculated the total GHG in apple as 1195.79 kgCO2‑eq/ha, in pomegranate as 1730 kgCO2‑eq/ha, in apple (organic and conventional) production as 1344.27 and 1464.07 kgCO2‑eq/ha, in avocado as 6145.31 kgCO2‑eq/ha, in vetch as 205.19 kgCO2‑eq/ha, respectively.
Conclusion
In this study, the EUE, GHG emissions and GHG ratio of cherry in the 2020–2021 production season were determined and are summarized below. EI and EO were reported as 14,934.30 MJ ha−1 and 14,234.67 MJ ha−1, respectively. EUE, SE, EP and NE were reported as 0.95, 3.07 MJ/kg, 0.33 kg/MJ and −699.62 MJ/ha, respectively. The used total energy input was classified as 52.94% DE, 47.06% IDE, 45.94% RE and 54.06% NRE. Total GHG and GHG ratio were calculated as 295.48 kgCO2‑eq ha−1 and 0.06, respectively. The presented results show that cherry production is not a beneficial activity in terms of energy usage (0.95). The use of RE is not high. Chemical fertilisers had the highest share by 34.49% among all inputs. Increasing the ratio of RE, such as using farmyard manure and organic manure rather than chemical fertilisers, is important to increase EUE and reduce GHG emission levels. In order to reduce emission quantities, it is necessary to increase the use of RE inputs. These proposals considered in cherry production can increase EUE and reduce GHG. Additionally, according to Demircan et al. (2006), correct fertilization management, frequency of fertilization (particularly nitrogen) (Kitani 1999), suitable tractor selection and management of machinery to reduce direct usage of diesel fuel (Isik and Sabanci 1991) are needed to save non-renewable energy sources without impairing the yield or profitability to develop the energy use efficiency of production. Similarly, these suggestions are considered in cherry production.
References
Acaroglu M (1998) Energy from biomass, and applications. University of Selcuk; 1998. Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences (Textbook)
Anonym (2022) T.C. Kırklareli İl Özel İdaresi. http://www.kirklareliilozelidaresi.gov.tr/cografi-konumu
Anonym (2023) T.C. Tarım ve Orman Bakanlığı, Strateji Geliştirme Başkanlığı, TEPGE, Tarım Ürünleri Piyasaları, Kiraz (S. Demircan). https://arastirma.tarimorman.gov.tr/tepge/Belgeler/PDF%20Tar%C4%B1m%20%C3%9Cr%C3%BCnleri%20Piyasalar%C4%B1/2022-Ocak%20Tar%C4%B1m%20%C3%9Cr%C3%BCnleri%20Rapor%C4%B1/Kiraz,%20Ocak-2022,%20Tar%C4%B1m%20%C3%9Cr%C3%BCnleri%20Piyasa%20Raporu--+.pdf (Created 2022)
Baran MF, Oğuz Hİ, Gökdoğan O (2017a) Determination of energy input-output analysis in plum (Prunus domestica L.) production. Erwerbs-Obstbau 59(4):331–335
Baran MF, Lüle F, Gökdoğan O (2017b) Energy input-output analysis of organic grape production: a case study from Adiyaman province. Erwerbs-Obstbau 59:275–279
Baran MF, Eren O, Gökdoğan O, Oğuz HI (2020) Determination of energy efficiency and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in organic almond production in Turkey. Erwerbs-Obstbau 62:341–346
Baran MF, Demir C, Eliçin AK, Gökdoğan O (2023) Energy use efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) analysis of garlic cultivation in Turkey. Int J Agric Biol Eng 16(4):63–67
Bilalis D, Kamariari PE, Karkanis A, Efthimiadou A, Zorpas A, Kakabouki I (2013) Energy inputs, output and productivity in organic and conventional maize and tomato production, under Mediterranean Conditions. Not Bot Horti Agrobot 41(1):190–194
BioGrace-II (2015) Harmonised calculations of biofuel greenhouse gas emissions in Europe. BioGrace, Utrecht (http://www.biograce.net)
Demircan V, Ekinci K, Keener HM, Akbolat D, Ekinci C (2006) Energy and economic analysis of sweet cherry production in Turkey: a case study from Isparta province. Energy Convers Manag 47:1761–1769
Dyer JA, Desjardins RL (2006) Carbon dioxide emissions associated with the manufacturing of tractors and farm machinery in Canada. Biosyst Eng 93(1):107–118
Ekinci K, Demircan V, Atasay A, Karamursel D, Sarica D (2020) Energy, economic and environmental analysis of organic and conventional apple production in Turkey. Erwerbs-Obstbau 62(1):1–12
Eren O, Baran MF, Gokdogan O (2019a) Determination of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in the production of different fruits in Turkey. Fresenius Environ Bull 28(1):464–472
Eren O, Gokdogan O, Baran MF (2019b) Determination of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in the production of different plants in Turkey. Fresenius Environ Bull 28(2A):1158–1166
Fluck RC, Baird CD (1982) Agricultural energetics. AVI, Connecticut
Gökdoğan O (2016) Determination of input-output energy and economic analysis of lavender production in Turkey. Int J Agric Biol Eng 9(3):154–161
Gökduman E, Gökdoğan O, Yılmaz D (2022) Determination of energy-economic balance and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of avocado (Persea americana Mill.) production in Turkey. Erwerbs-Obstbau 64(4):759–766
Guzman GI, Alonso AM (2008) A comparison of energy use in conventional and organic olive oil production in Spain. Agric Syst 98:167–176
Houshyar E, Dalgaard T, Tarazgar MH, Jorgensen U (2015) Energy input for tomato production what economy says, and what is good for the environment. J Clean Prod 89:99–109
Hughes DJ, West JS, Atkins SD, Gladders P, Jeger MJ, Fitt BD (2011) Effects of disease control by fungicides on greenhouse gas emissions by UK arable crop production. Pest Manag Sci 67:1082–1092
Isik A, Sabanci A (1991) A research on determining basic management data and developing optimum selection models of farm machinery and power for the mechanization planning in the irrigated farming of the Cukurova region. Turkish J Agric For 15:899–920
Karaağaç HA, Aykanat S, Çakır B, Eren Ö, Turgut MM, Barut ZB, Öztürk HH (2011) Energy balance of wheat and maize crops production in Hacıali undertaking. In: 11th International Congress on Mechanization and Energy in Agriculture Congress Istanbul, 21–23 September, pp 388–391
Karaağaç HA, Baran MF, Mart D, Bolat A, Eren Ö (2019) Nohut üretiminde enerji kullanım etkinliği ve sera gazı (GHG) emisyonunun belirlenmesi (Adana ili örneği). Avrupa Bilim Teknol Derg 16:41–50 (in Turkish)
Karagölge C, Peker K (2002) Tarım ekonomisi araştırmalarında tabakalı örnekleme yönteminin kullanılması. Atatürk Üniv Ziraat Fak Derg 33(3):313–316 (in Turkish)
Khoshnevisan B, Shariati HM, Rafiee S, Mousazadeh H (2014) Comparison of energy consumption and GHG emissions of open field and greenhouse strawberry production. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 29:316–324
Kitani O (1999) Energy for biological systems. In: The International Commission of Agricultural Engineering, editor. CIGR handbook of agricultural engineering: energy and biomass engineering, vol 5. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, pp 13–42
Kizilaslan H (2009) Input-output energy analysis of cherries production in Tokat province of Turkey. Appl Energy 86:1354–1358
Koctürk OM, Engindeniz S (2009) Energy and cost analysis of sultana grape growing: a case study of Manisa, west Turkey. Afr J Agric Res 4(10):938–943
Kokten K, Cacan E, Gokdogan O, Baran MF (2017) Determination of energy balance of common vetch (Vicia sativa L.), hungarian vetch (Vicia pannonica C.) and narbonne vetch (Vicia narbonensis L.) production in Turkey. Legum Res 40:491–496
Kokten K, Kaplan M, Gokdogan O, Baran MF (2018) Determination of energy use efficiency of maize (Zea mays intendata) production in Turkey. Fresenius Environ Bull 27(4):1973–1978
Lal R (2004) Carbon emission from farm operations. Environ Int 30(7):981–990
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 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 hill regions of Himachal Prades. India Energy 32:2336–2339
Meisterling K, Samaras C, Schweizer V (2009) Decisions to reduce greenhouse gases from agriculture and product transport: LCA case study of organic and conventional wheat. J Clean Prod 17(2):222–230
Mohammadi A, Tabatabaeefar A, Shahin S, Rafiee S, Keyhani A (2008) Energy use and economical analysis of potato production in Iran a case study: Ardabil province. Energy Convers Manag 49:3566–3570
Mohammadi A, Rafiee S, Mohtasebi SS, Rafiee H (2010) Energy inputs-yield relationship and cost analysis of kiwifruit production in Iran. Renew Energy 35(5):1071–1075
Mondani F, Aleagha S, Khoramivafa M, Ghobadi R (2017) Evaluation of greenhouse gases emission based on energy consumption in wheat Agroecosystems. Energy Rep 3:37–45
Oğuz HI, Erdoğan O, Gökdoğan O (2019) Energy use efficiency and economic analysis of nectarine (Prunus persica var. nucipersica) production: a case study from Niğde Province. Erwerbs-Obstbau 61:323–329
Ortiz-Cañavate J, Hernanz JL (1999) Energy for biological systems. Part 2.1: Energy analysis and saving. In: Kitani O (ed) Energy and biomass engineering. CIGR handbook of agricultural engineering, vol 5. ASAE, ST Joseph, pp 13–42
Ozalp A, Yilmaz S, Ertekin C, Yilmaz I (2018) Energy analysis and emissions of greenhouse gases of pomegranate production in Antalya province of Turkey. Erwerbs-Obstbau 60(4):321–329
Ozkan B, Kurklu A, Akcaoz H (2004) An input-output energy analysis in greenhouse vegetable production: a case study for Antalya region of Turkey. Biomass Bioenergy 26:89–95
Proebsting EL (1980) Energy inputs in cherry production. In: Pimentel D (ed) Handbook of energy utilization in agriculture. CRC, Boca Raton
Semerci A, Baran MF, Gokdogan O, Celik AD (2019) Determination of energy use efficiency of cotton production in Turkey: a case study from Hatay province. Fresenius Environ Bull 28(3):1829–1835
Seydoşoğlu S, Baran MF, Turan N, Alfarraj S, Albasher G (2023) Greenhouse gas emission and energy analysis of vetch (Vicia sativa L.) cultivation. J King Saud Univ 35:102541
Singh JM (2002) On farm energy use pattern in different cropping systems in Haryana, India. International Institute of Management University of Flensburg, Sustainable Energy Systems and Management (Master of Science)
Singh H, Mishra D, Nahar NM (2002) Energy use pattern in production agriculture of a typical village in arid zone, India-part I. Energy Convers Manag 43(16):2275–2286
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 Convers Manag 44:1053–1067
Taghavifar H, Mardani A (2015) Prognostication of energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions analysis of apple production in West Azerbayjan in Iran using artificial neural network. J Clean Prod 87:159–167
Taylor EB, O’Callaghan PW, Probert SD (1993) Energy audit of an English farm. Appl Energy 44:315–335
Vahid-Berimanlou R, Nadi F (2021) Investigating the energy consumption and economic indices for sweet-cherry and sour-cherry production in Northeastern Iran. J Agric Mach 11(1):97–110
Venkat K (2012) Comparison of twelve organic and conventional farming systems: a life cycle greenhouse gas emissions perspective. J Sustain Agric 36(6):620–649
Yaldiz O, Ozturk HH, Zeren Y, Bascetincelik A (1993) Energy usage in production of field crops in Turkey. 5th International Congress on Mechanization and Energy in Agriculture, Kusadasi, October, 11–14, pp 527–536 (in Turkish)
Yılmaz A, Bayav A (2022) Determination of energy efficiency in almond production according to variety: a case study in Turkey. Erwerbs-Obstbau 65(4):971–979
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
O. Gökdoğan, C. Demir and M. F. Baran declare that they have no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Gökdoğan, O., Demir, C. & Baran, M.F. Energy Balance and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Cherry Production in Turkey. Applied Fruit Science 66, 1269–1274 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10341-024-01113-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10341-024-01113-9