INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Volume 3, No 4, 2013 Copyright by the authors - Licensee IPA- Under Creative Commons license 3.0 Research article ISSN 0976 4402 use efficiency and cost analysis of tomato under greenhouse and open field production system at Nubra Naval K. Sepat 1, Saroj R. Sepat 1, Seema Sepat 2, Avinash Kumar 3 1- Senior Scientist, Defense Research and Development Organization, New Delhi 2- Scientist, Division of Agronomy, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 3- Director, Defense Research and Development Organization, New Delhi seemasepat12@gmail.com doi:10.6088/ijes.2013030400002 ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to estimate the amount of input and output energy per unit area and to make an economic analysis of tomato production in green house and open field conditions at Nubra valley of Ladakh (J & K) in India. Data were collected from 72 open farm and 8 green house tomato growers by using face to face questionnaire during 2009-11. The energy index, energy ratio, net energy gain, energy input-output relationships were calculated for both production systems. The results showed that the total energy requirement was lower under open field (60492.21MJ ha -1 ) as compared to greenhouse production system (312055.90MJ ha -1 ). The share of direct, indirect and non-renewable energies from the total energy input in open field were 66, 34, and 66.88 percent, respectively as compared greenhouse production system 90.25, 9.75, 90 and 7 per cent, respectively. use efficiency was higher in open field (2.74) as compared to greenhouse production system (1.36). The benefit: cost ratio in open field was 16.52. Based on the findings, it is concluded that open field tomato production system had higher productivity as compared to greenhouse tomato production system. Results revealed that energy inputs were higher in green house production system leads to higher energy outputs and fruit yield over open field production system. Keywords: Economics, intensiveness, productivity, Ladakh and Tomato Introduction India is the third largest producer of tomato in the world having 4.97 lakh hectares with annual production of 86 lakh tons which is about 73% of the total cropped area under vegetables. Tomato mostly considered as "protective foods" based on nutritive value (antioxidant molecules such as carotenoids, particularly lycopene, ascorbic acid, vitamin E and phenol compounds, particularly flavonoids. Tomato widely cultivated at Nubra vally in Jammu and Kashmir with annual production of tomato is 8 thousand tons which is 28.5 % of the total vegetable production. An increasing trend in greenhouse production system was noticed at Nubra valley during 2006 to 2011. Tomato cultivation under greenhouse production is one of the most intensive and energy-consuming production systems in Trans- Himalyan region. Agriculture is a man made ecosystem in which energy recycling occurs in closed system (Ozkan et al., 2004). Study of energy flux in agriculture at Nubra valley is important as agriculture is transforming from traditional to modern by consuming and producing various forms of energy at Nubra valley of Ladakh. Efficient use and study impacts of these energies on crop production at fragile ecosystem of Nubra, Ladakh helps to achieve increased system sustainability, production and productivity; and help the economy, profitability and competitiveness of agriculture at Nubra valley of Ladakh (Yadav 2007). Received on January 2013 Published on January 2013 1233
input-output analysis of tomato production system could be used to access the environmental impacts at Nubra valley of Ladakh. However, very limited research has been done to find out energy use efficiency in tomato production system and no studies have been published on the energy, productivity and economical relationship of open field and green house production system in tomato from the Nubra valley of Ladakh (J & K), India. The aim of this study was to compare energy use efficiency and economics under different tomato production systems at Nubra valley of Ladakh (J & K), India. Material and methods The Nubra valley is located in the north of Ladakh, Jammu and Kashmir state of the India, within 34 15 to 35 30 N latitude and 76 55 to 78 05 E longitude. The topography of the valley is entirely different from other valleys of Jammu and Kashmir. There is a great variation in altitude and ranges approximately between 8000 ft to 24000 ft mean sea level. Data were collected from tomato growers by using face to face questionnaire during October 2011. Eight tomato growers were selected for greenhouse system and 72 growers were randomly selected from Nubra valley to represent open field conditions. The data collected belonged to the production period of 2009 2011. The size of each sample was determined using the following equation: n= N h S h )/(N 2 D 2 + (N h S 2 h) Where n represents sample size; N is the number of holdings in target population; N h is number of population from every production system; S h is the standard deviation from the production system; S 2 h is the variance of production system; z is the reliability coefficient at 95% confidence limit (1.96); d is the acceptable error (permissible limit 5%) and; D 2 =d 2 /z 2. Thus calculated sample size in this study was 72 and 8 for open and greenhouse production system. In addition to present survey, results of previous studies were also used to draw valid result. Table 1 indicates management practices which were followed by the tomato growers in open field as well as in greenhouse production systems. A Massey Ferguson 35 hp tractor along with moldboard plow and disc harrow was used for field preparation in open field. Man power was used in greenhouse for soil tillage and land preparation. The average farm sizes in open field and greenhouse production systems were 2.1 and 0.005 ha, respectively. Tomatoes were transplanted in both the production systems. Inputs in both the tomato production are human labour, machinery, diesel fuel, chemical fertilizers, farmyard manure, chemicals and irrigation water; and output was tomato fruit yield. The energy equivalences of unit inputs are given in Mega Joule (MJ) unit by multiplying inputs with the coefficient of energy equivalent. equivalents coefficients were calculated based on previous studies. Table 2 show energy equivalents were used for estimating inputs and output energies in tomato production systems. The energy use efficiency (energy ratio), the energy productivity, the specific energy and net energy gain were calculated based on the energy equivalents (Table 2) of the inputs and outputs as described below (Ghorbani et al., 2011). use efficiency = output (MJ ha -1 )/ input (MJ ha -1 ) productivity = Tomato output (kg ha -1 )/ input (MJ ha -1 ) Specific energy= input (MJ ha -1 )/Tomato output (t ha -1 ) intensiveness= input (MJ ha -1 )/Total cost of cultivation (Rs ha -1 ) 1234
Net energy= output (MJ ha -1 ) - input (MJ ha -1 ) In agriculture viz., direct, indirect, renewable and non-renewable energies are consumed to produce economic yields (Ozkan et al., 2004). Indirect energy consists of energy embodied by fertilizers, farmyard manure, chemical, seed and machinery. Direct energy includes human labour, diesel fuel, and water for irrigation used in tomato production. Non-renewable energy consists of diesel, chemicals, fertilizers and machinery energies and renewable energy includes human labour, seeds, farmyard manure and water for irrigation energies. The economic inputs of tomato production systems were consist of fixed and variable costs. The fixed costs of production include land value, water value, cost of construction of green house, rent of equipments and depreciation of properties. The variable costs of production consist of current costs such as chemicals, fuel, human labour and electricity. The economic output of tomato production systems was fruit. The gross value of production, gross and net returns, total cost of production, benefit to cost ratio and productivity indices were calculated by using following formula (Mohammadi et al., 2008; Mrini et al., 2001). Gross value of production = Tomato yield (kg ha -1 ) Tomato price (` ha -1 ) Gross return = Gross value of production (` ha -1 ) -Variable cost of production (` ha -1 ) Net return = Gross value of production (` ha -1 ) -Total cost of production (` ha -1 ) Total cost of production = Variable cost of production (` ha -1 ) + Fixed cost of production (` ha -1 ) Benefit to cost ratio = Gross value of production (` ha -1 ) / Total cost of production (` ha -1 ) Productivity = Tomato yield (kg ha -1 ) / Total cost of production (` ha -1 ) Result and discussion The results of this study are discussed under the following headings: input- output use in open field and greenhouse production systems Table 3 illustrated the energy input and output used in both tomato production system in the Nubra valley, Ladakh and their energy equivalents with output energy equivalent are described in Table 4. Chemical fertilizer consumption per hectare was 300 kg and 636.6 kg for open field and green house production system, respectively (Table3). In open field production system diesel energy consumes 37.23 % of total energy inputs followed by water for irrigation (24.89 %) and chemical fertilizer (23 %) during production system. Diesel energy was used for field preparation and transportation. In open field seed was the lowest demanding energy input for tomato production followed by chemicals (978.74 MJ ha -1 ). Similar results were depicted in green house production system. Table 4 also depicted that the most energy consuming input in green house production system for different operations was found for diesel fuel consumption 83.51 %), followed by nitrogen (6.05 %) and human labor (4.24 %). In greenhouse system diesel fuel energy was mainly used for pumping, irrigating water and heating chambers. Total energy used in various farm operations during tomato production was 60492.2 MJ -1 ha in open field production system and 312055.90 in green house production system. In open filed and green house production total energy outputs were 165724.3 and 425751.4 MJ -1 respectively. 1235
A drastic reduction in water for irrigation was found, when we compared these two production systems. Under greenhouse system irrigation water requirement was 1.57 % as compared to open field (24.89 %). Energetic of producing tomato Table 5 shows the distribution of total energy input as direct, indirect, renewable and non renewable forms. The total energy input consumed classified as direct energy (66.04 and 90.25 %), indirect energy (33.96 and 9.75 %), renewable energy (33.46 and 7.15 %) and nonrenewable energy (66.88 and 92.85 %) in open field and green house production system, respectively. The amount of non-renewable energy in both systems is high, which resulted from more consumption of fertilizer, diesel and machinery. In both the production system it was found that ratio of direct energy is higher than that of indirect energy. Further, among the system percent share of direct energy and non-renewable energy was higher in green house over open field production system. Average annual yield of tomato fruit was 117056.8 kg -1 ha and 289926.40 kg -1 ha and calculated total energy output was 165724.30 and 425751.4 MJ -1 ha respectively in open filed and green house production system (Table 6). use efficiency (energy ratio) in open field was 2.74 and in green house as 1.36, respectively. productivity of open field and open farm were 2.42 and 1.16 kg MJ -1 kg, respectively. This could be described as that 2.42 kg of tomato was obtained per unit energy (MJ) in open field conditions and 1.16 kg in green house. The comparison between the two production system shows that open field can produce 1.26 times more outputs than green house. This can be attributed to the difference in the level of technology and more over to capture sun light and harness into productive biomass. The specific energy, and net energy of tomato production in open field and green house were (0.41 and 2.42 MJ kg - ) and (0.86 and 1.16 MJ kg -1 ), respectively. It was found that net energy was high with open field than green house in the green house production system higher use of diesel fuel and fertilizer use (in comparison to open field ) this difference is reasonable. Economical analysis of tomato production systems The cost of the inputs used in the production of tomato and the gross value of production were calculated and shown in Table 8 for both type of production system. The tomato sale price and gross value of production for open and green house production system were calculated as 40 and 55 `/ kg, 5852840.0 `-1 ha and 21059940.0 `-1 ha respectively (Table 8).The variable and fixed costs of tomato production in open field were 565881.5 and 55000 ` ha -1 and greenhouse system 1120156.4 and 1023000.0 ` ha -1, respectively. This may be due to lower consumption of diesel fuel and other inputs under open field than green house production system. The total cost of production per hectare in open field was 620881.53 ` ha -1, lower than greenhouse system 2143156.4 ` ha 1 ). The total cost of production in green house tomato production system was higher due to high variable and fixed cost of production. In addition higher construction cost of greenhouse is main reason for higher cost of production. The gross and net return/ ha in open field production system (5286958.48 and 5231958.48 ` ha -1, respectively) were considerably higher than greenhouse production system (19939783.36 and 18916793.6 ` ha -1, respectively). Benefit to cost ratio in open field 9.43 was higher than greenhouse system (9.83). In this study productivity for open field and greenhouse systems was 0.24 and 0.18 kg `-1, respectively. Therefore tomato production was a cost effective business based on the data of the 2009-2011 production season for both production system. 1236
Conclusion In this study, the level of energy input and output in tomato production system was investigated in Nubra valley, Jammu and Kashmir of India. The production systems investigated were divided into open field and greenhouse system. The results indicated that diesel fuel, water for irrigation, fertilizers, machinery and electricity energies contributed the major portion of the energy inputs used in tomato production systems. Total energy used in the open field was lower than green house system. Present study showed that in green house production system by using higher level of inputs improved energy indexes, reduced costs of tomato production and showing higher sustainability of green house production system in tomato at Nubra valley, Ladakh (J & K) in India. Acknowledgment For this survey I acknowledge Defense Research and Development Organization, Jammu and Kashmir, India. Reference 1. Alam, M. S., Alam, M. R., and Islam, K. K., (2005), flow in agriculture: Bangladesh. American Journal of Envi. Sci., 1(3), pp 213-220. 2. Canakci, M. Topakci, M., Akinci, I., and Ozmerzi, A., (2005), use pattern of some field crops and vegetable production: case study for Antalya Region, Turkey, Ener. Conver. and Manag., 46, pp 655-666. 3. Esengun, K., Erdal, G., Gundugmus, O., and Erdal, H., (2007), An economic analysis and energy use in stake-tomato production in Tokat province of Turkey. Rene. Ener., 32, pp 1873-1881. 4. Ghorbani, R., Mondani, F., Amirmoradi, S., Feizi, H., Khorramdel, S., Teimouri, M., Sanjani, S., Anvarkhah, S., and Aghel, H., (2011), A case study of energy use and economical analysis of irrigated and dryland wheat production systems. Appl. Ener., 88, pp 283-288. 5. Mohammadi, A., Tabatabaeefar, A., Shahin, S., Rafiee, S., and Keyhani, A., (2008), use and economical analysis of potato production in Iran, a case study: Ardabil province. Ener. Conver. and Manag., 49, pp 3566-3570. 6. Mrini, M., Senhaji, F., and Pimentel, D., (2001), analysis of sugarcane production in Morocco. Env. Develop. Susta., 3, pp 109-126. 7. Ozkan, B., Kurklu, A., and Akcaoz, H., (2004), An input-output energy analysis in greenhouse vegetable production: a case study for Antalya region of Turkey. Bio. Bioener., 26 (1), pp 189-195. 8. Yadav, R., (2007), Basin specificity of climate change in western Himalaya, India : Tree- ring evidences. Curr. Sci., 92 (10), p 1424. 9. Singh, H., Mishra, D., and Nahar, N. M., (2002), use pattern in production agriculture of a typical village in Arid Zone India-Part I. Ener. Conver. Manage., 43, (16), pp 2275-2286. 1237
10. Taylor, E. B., Callaghan, P. W., and Probert, S. D., (1993), audit of an English farm. Appli. Ener., 44 (4), pp 315-335. Table 1: Management practices for open field and green hose tomato production systems. Operations Open field Greenhouse Name of tomato varieties Pusa Ruby, Siox, Pusa Early Dwarf, Avinash Tolstoy, Sioux, Pusa Ruby, Sultan Land preparation Tractor Manual Land preparation period April March Average tilling number 3.2 + 0.1 - Planting period April April Average number of 5.2+ 1.6 22+ 7.4 fertilization Irrigation period April-September April-October Average number of irrigation 27.1+ 2.7 96+ 8.4 Spraying period May-July May-October Average number of spraying 3+ 0.8 7+ 2.2 Harvesting period July- September June- October Average number of harvesting 6.4+ 1.4 16+ 2.7 Table 2: equivalent of inputs and outputs in tomato production system Particulars Unit equivalent Reference (MJ unit -1 ) A. Inputs 1. Human labour h 1.95 Canakci et al., 2005 2. Machinery h 62.7 Canakci et al., 2005 3. Diesel fuel L 56.31 Mohammadi et al.,2008 4. Chemical fertilizers 4 a) Nitrogen (N) kg 75.46 Taylor et al., 1993 4 b) Phosphate (P 2 O 5) kg 13.07 Taylor et al., 1993 4 C) Potassium (K 2 O) kg 11.15 Mohammadi et al.,2008 4 d) Sulphur (S) kg 1.12 Mohammadi et al.,2008 4 e) mixed micro kg 120 Alam et al., 2005 nutrients 5. Farmyard manure kg 0.3 Canakci et al., 2005 6. Chemicals kg or L 6 (a) Herbicides 238.3 Esengun et al., 2007 6 (b) Pesticides 101.2 Esengun et al., 2007 6 (c) Fungicides 181.9 Esengun et al., 2007 7. Electricity kwh 3.6 Mohammadi et al.,2008 8. Water for irrigation m 3 1.02 Mohammadi et al.,2008 9. Seeds kg 1.0 Esengun et al., 2007 B. Outputs 1. Fruit yield kg 0.8 Esengun et al., 2007 2. Foilage yield kg 7.5 Esengun et al., 2007 1238
Table 3: consumption and energy input-output relationship in tomato production system equivalent (MJ unit -1 ) Percentage of total energy input (%) Quantity per unit area ha -1 Total energy equivalent (MJ) Inputs Human labour (h) 808.2 1.95 1575.99 2.61 Machinery (h) 32.6 62.7 2044.02 3.38 Diesel fuel (l) 400 56.31 22524 37.23 Nitrogen (kg) 150 75.46 11319 18.71 Phosphate (P 2 O 5 ) 75 13.07 980.25 1.62 Potassium (K 2 O) 75 11.15 836.25 1.38 Cattle manure (kg) 12020 0.3 3606 5.96 Micronutrient (kg or l) 6.5 120 780 1.29 Herbicides (kg or l) 3.3 238.32 786.456 1.30 Pesticides (l) 1.9 101.2 192.28 0.32 Fungicides (l) 0 181.9 0 0.00 Electricity (kwh) 220 3.6 792 1.31 Water for irrigation (m 3 ) 14760 1.02 15055.2 24.89 Seeds (kg) 0.76 1 0.76 0.00 Total energy inputs (MJ) 60492.2 100.00 Outputs Fruit yields (kg) 146321 0.8 117056.8 70.63 Straw yield (kg) 6489 7.5 48667.5 29.37 Total energy output (MJ) 165724.3 efficiency 2.74 Table 4: Total energy equivalent and percentage in tomato production system. Quantity per unit area ha -1 equivalent (MJ unit -1 ) Total energy equivalent (MJ) Percentage of total energy input (%) Inputs Human labour (h) 6780.2 1.95 13221.39 4.24 Machinery (h) 0 62.7 0 0.00 Diesel fuel (l) 4628 56.31 260602.68 83.51 Nitrogen (kg) 250 75.46 18865 6.05 Phosphate (P 2 O 5 ) 150 13.07 1960.5 0.63 Potassium (K 2 O) 150 11.15 1672.5 0.54 Cattle manure (kg) 14011 0.3 4203.3 1.35 Micronutrient 13.6 120 1632 0.52 1239
(kg or l) Sulphur (kg) 73 1.12 81.76 0.03 Herbicides (kg or l) 0 238.32 0 0.00 Pesticides (l) 4.6 101.2 465.52 0.15 Fungicides (l) 8.5 181.9 1546.15 0.50 Electricity (kwh) 808 3.6 2908.8 0.93 Water for irrigation (m 3 ) 4800 1.02 4896 1.57 Seeds (kg) 0.76 1 0.76 0.0002 Total energy inputs ( MJ) 312055.90 Outputs Fruit yields (kg) 362408 0.8 289926.40 68.10 Straw yield (kg) 18110 7.5 135825.00 31.90 Total energy output ( MJ) - - 425751.40 efficiency - - 1.36 Table 5: Total energy input in the form of direct, indirect, renewable energy for open field and green house tomato production systems. Type of energy Open field Greenhouse (MJ ha -1 ) % (MJ ha -1 ) % Direct energy 39947.19 66.04 281628.87 90.25 Indirect energy 20545.02 33.96 30427.03 9.75 Renewable energy 20237.95 33.46 22320.99 7.15 Non renewable energy 40254.26 66.88 289734.91 92.85 Total energy inputs 60492.21 312055.90 Table 6: Tomato production energy index in open field and greenhouse system Items Unit Open field Greenhouse inputs MJ ha -1 60492.21 312055.90 outputs MJ ha -1 165724.30 425751.40 use efficiency - 2.74 1.36 intensiveness MJ Rs -1 13.66 8.01 Specific energy MJ kg -1 0.41 0.86 productivity kg MJ -1 2.42 1.16 Net energy MJ ha -1 105232.09 113695.50 1240
Table 7: Economics of tomato production in open field and greenhouse systems Cost and return components Open field Greenhouse Fruit yield (kg/ha) 146321 362408 Sale price (`/kg) 40 55 Gross value of production (` ha -1 ) 5852840.0 19932440.0 Variable cost of production (` ha -1 ) 188627.18 1120156..4 Fixed cost of production (` ha -1 ) 55000 1023000.0 Total cost of production (` ha -1 ) 243627.18 2143156.4 Gross return (` ha -1 ) 5664212.83 18812283.6 Net return (` ha -1 ) 5609212.83 17789283.6 B:C ratio 24.02 9.30 Productivity (kg `-1 ) 0.60 0.17 1241