Introduction

Nectarine is known as a fruit that is performing better than peach in dry and warm climate zones with low precipitation and humidity. Peach and particularly nectarines are the fruit types whose cultivation is most rapidly spreading with the new cultivars acquired by fruit breeders (Bolat and İkinci 2016). Being a subtype of peach, nectarines (Prunus persica var. nectarina, Maxim.) display a similar growth and development to peach (Özelkök et al. 1997; Koyuncu et al. 2005). Known as “hairless peach” in public, nectarine is a type that is related to peach. The areas for this type is mostly juice, cake, marmalade but it is also used for table consumption. Being juicy and aromatic particularly increases the sale and economic importance of the fruit. In addition, it is also a lovely alternative for people who love to enjoy the tasty peach but cannot do so due to its hair. When compared to peach, it has about a month of longer storage duration, therefore putting a smile on the faces of people selling it (Anonymous 2017a). Again compared to peach, nectarine is more suitable for transportation too, and this increases the possibility of sending it to long-distance markets, thus making sales to abroad (Ağar et al. 1994; Koyuncu et al. 2005). In Turkey, the production area and quantity of nectarine are 62,213 decares and 88,926 tons. The province of Niğde in Turkey in terms of nectarine production and 1728 tons of production are made from an area of 1560 decares (Anonymous 2017b).

Energy analyses to be performed in relation to agricultural production is an important approach in terms of identifying and grouping agricultural systems for energy consumption. In order to increase efficiency and reduce inputs when producing it, it is necessary to carefully analyse the inputs and outputs used for production (Sabah 2010; Çelen 2016). Even though it supports and increases production, energy production is not part of the conversion process. The unwanted side effects that occur due to lack and careless use of energy resources, makes it necessary to have a good planning and a careful assessment of energy consumption (Öztürk et al. 2015; Çelen 2016). The input and output of energy are two important factors for defining the energetic and ecological efficiency of agricultural production. The energy analysis is important to ascertain more efficient and environment sociable production systems (Schroll 1994; Özkan et al. 2004a; Rathke and Diepenbrock 2006). Rathke and Diepenbrock (2006) reported that “Energy indicators depict the efficiency of production systems but also allow comparison of different production intensities (Hacıseferoğulları et al. 2003) and are therefore a suitable supplement to economic analyses (Jones 1989)”. Economic sustainability in agriculture contributes to profitability, compatibility, energy efficiency, yields and productivity (Singh et al. 2000; Özkan et al. 2007; Özgöz et al. 2017).

Different studies were done on energy use efficiency of agricultural and animal products. For example, studies were done on energy use efficiency analysis of nectarine (Qasemikordkheili et al. 2013), peach (Göktolga et al. 2006; Gündoğmuş 2014; Yıldız et al. 2016), apricot (Gezer et al. 2003; Gündoğmuş 2006; Esengün et al. 2007), grape (Özkan et al. 2007; Koçtürk and Engindeniz 2009; Baran et al. 2017), apple (Dilay et al. 2010; Yılmaz et al. 2010; Çelen et al. 2017), rape (Unakıtan et al. 2010; Eren et al. 2011; Rathke and Diepenbrock 2006), wheat (Tipi et al. 2009; Çiçek et al. 2011; Abbas et al. 2017), sunflower (Sabah et al. 2011; Akdemir et al. 2017; Bayhan 2016), corn (Öztürk et al. 2006; Barut et al. 2011; Baran and Gokdogan 2016a), cotton (Yılmaz et al. 2005; Polat et al. 2006; Dagistan et al. 2009), sugar beet (Hacıseferoğulları et al. 2003; Asgharipour et al. 2012; Baran and Gokdogan 2016b), sweet sorghum (Eren and Öztürk 2011), vetchs (Kökten et al. 2017), lettuce (Kamburoğlu Çebi et al. 2017), tomato (Bayramoglu and Gundogmuş 2009), broiler (Atılgan and Koknaroglu 2006; Incı et al. 2016; Kılıç 2016), layer (Kılıç 2016), lamb (Koknaroglu et al. 2007), egg (Ojo 2003), beef cattle (Demircan and Koknaroglu 2007) etc. Although many experimental studies were done on energy use efficiency analysis in agriculture, there is no study on the energy use efficiency analysis of nectarine production in Turkey in literature reviews. In this study, it was aimed to determine the energy use efficiency and economic analysis of nectarine production.

Materials and Method

The province of Niğde is located in the south-eastern part of the Central Anatolian Region and in the northern part of the area where Bolkarlar and Aladağlar mountains of central Taurus Mountains curl towards the north. Mathematically, the location of the province is between 37o 25′ and 38o 58′ north latitudes and 33o 10′ile 35o 25′ east longitudes. The land area of the province is 7795.22 km2. The average temperature in Niğde for the year 2016 was 12 °C, average relative humidity was 56.7% while average total precipitation was 293.9 mm (Anonymous 2017c). This study was practiced to determine the energy use efficiency and economic analysis of nectarine production for the 2015–2016 production seasons in Niğde province in Turkey. A survey data were collected in 2017 and the farms were selected according to the full counting method (Karagölge and Peker 2002) and the survey was applied (face to face) to these farms. In order to determine the energy use efficiency and economic analysis in the production of nectarine, a survey was made with 8 farms that can be reached over 20 decares of nectarine production in Niğde province. According to results of study, human labour energy, machinery energy, chemical fertilizers energy, chemicals energy, organic fertilizers energy, diesel fuel energy, irrigation water energy and electricity energy were calculated as energy inputs. Nectarine fruit was calculated as output.

The units shown in Table 1 were used to calculate the values of the inputs of nectarine production. Input data analysis was conducted by using Microsoft Excel program; before the results were tabulated Table 2 and related to nectarine production input-output values and the suitable calculations were provided in Table 3. Economic analysis of nectarine production was given in Table 4. Previous energy use efficiency analysis studies were used when determining the energy equivalent coefficients and energy equivalent was determined by adding energy equivalents of all inputs in MJ unit. In order to determine the energy use efficiency analysis in nectarine production, “Energy use efficiency, energy productivity, specific energy and net energy were calculated by using the following formulates (Mandal et al. 2002; Mohammadi et al. 2008, 2010)”.

$$\text{Energy efficiency}\,=\,\text{Energy output }(\text{MJ ha}^{-1})/\text{Energy input}\,(\text{MJ ha}^{-1})$$
(1)
$$\text{Energy productivity}=\,\text{Yield output}\,(\text{kg ha}^{-1})/\text{Energy input}\,(\text{MJ ha}^{-1})$$
(2)
$$\text{Specific energy}\,=\,\text{Energy input}\,(\text{MJ ha}^{-1})/\text{Yield output}\,(\text{kg ha}^{-1})$$
(3)
$$\text{Net energy}=\text{Energy output}\,(\text{MJ ha}^{-1})-\text{Energy input}\,(\text{MJ ha}^{-1})$$
(4)
Table 1 Energy equivalents in agriculture production
Full size table
Table 2 Energy balance in nectarine production
Full size table
Table 3 Energy use efficiency indicators in nectarine fruit production
Full size table
Table 4 Net return and benefit-cost ratio of the nectarine fruit production
Full size table

Results and Discussion

In the nectarine farms, the average amount of nectarine produced per hectare for 2015–2016 production seasons was calculated as 29,332.15 kg. According to the study results (Table 2) the energy inputs in nectarine production were calculated respectively as chemical fertilizers energy 12,900.69 MJ ha−1 (43.15%), electricity energy 6698.27 MJ ha−1 (22.41%), irrigation water energy 4142.05 MJ ha−1 (13.86%), human labour energy 1826.29 MJ ha−1 (6.11%), chemicals energy 1660.69 MJ ha−1 (5.56%), diesel fuel energy 1479.26 MJ ha−1 (4.95%), machinery energy 1134.65 MJ ha−1 (3.80%) and organic fertilizers energy 51.45 MJ ha−1 (0.17%). Similarly, in previous agricultural studies related to fruit production, Qasemikordkheili et al. (2013) calculated that the fertilizer application energy had the biggest share by 36.93%, Mohammadi et al. (2010) calculated that fertilizer application energy had the biggest share by 47.23%, Demircan et al. (2006) calculated that fertilizer application energy had the biggest share by 45.35%, Kızılaslan (2009) calculated that fertilizer application energy had the biggest share by 42%, Akçaöz et al. (2009) calculated that fertilizer application energy had the biggest share by 40.22%.

Nectarine fruit, energy input, energy output, energy output-input ratio, specific energy, energy productivity and net energy in nectarine fruit production were calculated as 29,332.15 kg ha−1, 29,893.35 MJ ha−1, 55,731.09 MJ ha−1, 1.86, 1.02 MJ kg−1, 0.98 kg MJ−1 and 25,837.74 MJ ha−1, respectively (Table 3). In previous agricultural production studies, Qasemikordkheili et al. (2013) calculated (nectarine) energy output-input ratio as 1.36, Göktolga (2006) calculated (peach) energy output-input ratio as 0.93, Yılmaz et al. (2010) calculated (apple) energy output-input ratio as 2.69, Aydın et al. (2017) calculated (applied good agriculture pear) energy output-input ratio as 1.20, Çelik et al. (2010) calculated (conventional-organic carrot) energy output-input ratio as 1.30–1.90, Beigi et al. (2016) calculated (almond) energy output-input ratio as 0.62, Koçtürk and Engindeniz (2009) calculated (grape) energy output-input ratio as 8.64, Gündoğmuş (2013) calculated (quince) energy output-input ratio as 1.07, Çanakcı et al. (2005) calculated (tomato) energy output-input ratio as 0.70, Gokdogan et al. (2016) calculated (cotton) energy output-input ratio as 1.92, Gökdoğan and Erdoğan (2017) calculated (olive) energy output-input ratio as 2.72.

Economic analysis of nectarine fruit production was given in Table 4. The total cost of nectarine fruit production per kg was explained in Turkish Lira (TL), which was equal to 0.33 US dollars (US$) in 2016 (on average). Demircan et al. (2006) reported that, “The net return was calculated by subtracting the total cost of production per hectare (variable + fixed cost) from the gross value of production”. The gross return was calculated by subtracting the variable cost of production per hectare (23,097.25 TL ha−1) from the gross value of production (49,864.66 TL ha−1) and was calculated as 26,767.41 TL ha−1. In the evaluation study, the profit margin per kg of nectarine fruit (TL kg−1) was calculated as 0.86. This situation can be explained that the net return of 2.02 TL was obtained per 1 TL invested and was a cost effective business for 2016 season of nectarine fruit production. In previous agricultural studies, Qasemikordkheili et al. (2013) calculated (nectarine) benefit-cost ratio as 16.74, Banaeian et al. (2011) calculated (strawberry) benefit-cost ratio as 1.74, Demircan et al. (2006) calculated (sweet cherry) benefit-cost ratio as 2.53, Esengün et al. (2007) calculated (apricot) benefit-cost ratio as 1.11–1.19, Çelik et al. (2010) calculated (conventional-organic carrot) benefit-cost ratio as 1.83–2.05, Mohammadi et al. (2010) calculated (kiwi) benefit-cost ratio as 1.94.

In this study, the energy use efficiency and economic analysis in nectarine production was determined. According to the results, nectarine fruit production is a profitable activity in terms of energy output-input ratio (1.86). In this study, economic analysis results, the net return from nectarine production, when compared to the total cost of production in the nectarine farms, was at a satisfactory level (2.02). The benefit-cost ratio was calculated by dividing the gross value of production by the total cost of production per hectare, resulting in 2.02. Nectarine production was a cost effective business based on the data from the 2015–2016 production season. Among the inputs used for nectarine production, the highest input is chemical fertilizers with a ratio of 43.15%. And the reason for the ratio of chemical fertilizers being high is because the use of organic fertilizers in nectarine production has a very low ratio of 0.17%.

In the agricultural sector, the economic feasibility and application method of renewable energy resources differ, depending on the regional conditions. With the use of ecologic and organic agricultural production systems, which are becoming more and more popular, it can be possible to reduce the agricultural use of fossil based fuels. In those production systems, the partial reduction in efficiency can be compensated by a reduction in the use of input (Ekinci et al. 2005). The current problem of land use and management is important in terms of the sustainability of the system. Carbon is a dense input. Therefore, reducing the use of nitrogen by lowering erosion, leakage and evaporation, using more bio-nitrogen, using animal fertilizers and other bio-fuels, implementing waste and left-over management in harvest residues and having minimum soil processing are compulsory (Çelen 2016).