Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology 4(3): 227-231, 2012
ISSN: 2040-7467
© Maxwell Scientific Organization, 2012
Submitted: October 23, 2011
Accepted: November 10 , 2011
Published: February 01, 2012
Energy and Economic Analysis of Canola Production in Iran a Case Study:
Khuzestan Province
Nasim Monjezi and Hassan Zakidizaji
Agricultural Machinery Engineering and Mechanization Department, Faculty of Agriculture,
Shahid Chamran University, Ahvaz, Iran
Abstract: The aim of this research was to determine energy use and economic analysis of canola production
in Khuzestn province of Iran. The energy use pattern and economic item values were determined by a survey
including 57 farms (34 for irrigated farming and 23 for dry farming) using a face to face questionnaire. The
farms were chosen by random sampling method. Energy and economic variables were calculated using standard
equations. The survey studies indicated that the most important energy inputs were fertilizers and diesel fuel.
The output-input energy ratio for irrigated farming and dry farming was estimated to be 1.28 and 0.81,
respectively. Economic analysis showed that benefit-cost ratio for irrigated farming and dry farming was 1.11
and 0.58, respectively. Net returns calculated were 85.55 and -240.31 in the farms investigated.
Key words: Benefit-cost ratio, canola, economic analysis, energy ratio
for planning resources in the ecosystem (Samavatean
et al., 2011). Although many experimental works have
been conducted on energy use in agriculture such as
sunflower (Mousavi-Avval et al., 2011b), sweet cherry
(Demircan et al., 2006), pomegranate (Canakci, 2010),
apricot (Esengun et al., 2007), Walnut (Banaeian and
Zangeneh, 2011a), rice (Pishgarkomleh et al., 2011) and
grape (Ozkan et al., 2007).
This study aims to determine energy use patterns of
canola production and input-output energy analysis was
performed. Furthermore, this study compared economic
analysis in canola production under irrigated farming and
dry farming conditions.
INTRODUCTION
Canola refers to a cultivar of either Rapeseed
(Brassica napus L.) or Field Mustard (Brassica
campestris L. or Brassica Rapa var.). Its seeds are used to
produce edible oil suitable for consumption by humans
and livestock (Dupont et al., 1989; Zeratsky, 2009). The
oil is also suitable for use as biodiesel. Canola production
in Iran is 164000 tons in 2009 that 64.90% of irrigated
farming and 35.10% of dry farming have been obtained
(Anonymous, 2010). Also in this year, canola cultivation
was about 86000 ha that 59.56% is irrigated farming and
the rest of that was dry farming (Anonymous, 2010).
Nowadays, energy has an influencing role in the
development of key sectors of economic importance such
as industry, transport and agriculture (Baruah and Bora,
2008). Agriculture requires energy as an important input
to production. Agriculture uses energy directly as fuel or
electricity on the farm, and indirectly in the fertilizers and
chemicals produced off the farm. An increase in the
worldwide average air and ocean temperatures, prevalent
snow and ice melting and rising levels of sea waters have
been attributable to anthropogenic greenhouse gas
emissions, where the agriculture is playing a significant
role (Nielsen et al., 2007). So efficient use of energy
resources is one of the major assets of eco-efficient and
sustainable production, in agriculture (Taheri-Garavand
et al., 2010).
Therefore, research efforts have emphasized energy
and economic analysis of various agricultural productions
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study was carried out in Khuzestan province of
Iran in November 2010- April 2011. The province with an
area 64055 Km2 is located in southwest of Iran (within
29º58! and 33º04! North latitude and 47º41! and 50º39!
East longitude). In 2006, the populations of Khuzestan
province were over 4.2 million (equivalent to 6.07% of
the Iran’s population) (Anonymous, 2006).
For the analysis of energy use in different farming,
the selected farms were classified into two groups of
irrigated farming and dry farming. Data on canola
production were collected from 57 farms (34 for irrigated
farming and 23 for dry farming) in Khuzestan province
using a face to face questionnaire. The sample size was
calculated using the Cochran method (Samavatean et al.,
2011):
Corresponding Author: Nasim Monjezi, Agricultural Machinery Engineering and Mechanization Department, Faculty of
Agriculture, Shahid Chamran University, Ahvaz, Iran. Tel.: +9809166003326
227
Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 4(3): 227-231, 2012
Table 1: Energy equivalent of inputs and output in Canola production
Unit
Energy equivalent (MJ/kg)
Inputs
Human labor
h
1.96
Machinery
kg
62.7
Diesel fuel
L
47.8
Chemicals
kg
C
Herbicide
238
C
Pesticide
101.2
C
Fungicide
216
Fertilizers
kg
C
Nitrogen (N)
78.1
C
Phosphate (P2 O5)
17.4
C
Potassium (K2 O)
13.7
0.63
Water for irrigation
m3
Electricity
k Wh
3.60
Seeds
kg
29.20
Output
Canola
kg
27.60
Table 2: Amounts of energy inputs and output for canola production
Irrigated farming
-------------------------------------------------------------------------Item
Total energy equivalent (MJ/ha )
Percentage (%)
Inputs
Human labor
174.59
0.60
Machinery
1160.93
4.01
Diesel Fue
l6902.25
23.84
Chemicals
573.81
1.98
Fertilizers
11822.66
40.84
Water for irrigation
3213
11.10
Electricity
4849.21
16.75
Seeds
248.2
0.85
Total energy input
28944.65
100
Output
Total energy output
37260
100
n
N  s2  t 2
 N  1d 2  s2  t 2 
(1)
where n is the required sample size, N is the number of
canola producers in target population, s is the standard
deviation in the pre-tested data, t is the t-value at 95%
confidence limit (1.96), and d is the acceptable error. The
permissible error in the sample size was defined to be 5%
for 95% confidence.
Energy inputs including human labor, machinery,
diesel fuel, electricity, fertilizers, chemicals, water for
irrigation and output yield values of canola have been
used to estimate the energy ratio. Energy equivalents
shown in Table 1 were used for estimation.
Based on the energy equivalents of the inputs and
output (Table 1), the energy use efficiency (energy ratio),
energy productivity, specific energy and net energy gain
were calculated (Mohammadi et al., 2008):
Reference
Taheri-Garavand et al. (2010)
Namdari et al. (2011)
Banaeian et al. (2011)
Erdal et al. (2007)
Erdal et al. (2007)
Erdal et al. (2007)
Pishgarkomleh et al. (2011)
Pishgarkomleh et al. (2011)
Pishgarkomleh et al. (2011)
Pishgarkomleh et al. (2011)
Heidari and Omid (2011b)
Unakitan et al. (2010)
Unakitan et al. (2010)
Dry farming
-------------------------------------------------------------------------Total energy equivalent (MJ/ha)
Percentage (%)
89.36
925.71
6130.32
146.39
11038.18
0
0
227.76
18557.72
0.48
4.98
33.03
0.78
59.48
0
0
1.22
100
15180
100
Specific energy = Energy input (MJ/ha) /
Canola output (kg/ha)
(4)
Net energy gain = Energy output (MJ/ha) /
Energy input (MJ/ha)
(5)
For the growth and development, energy demand in
agriculture can be divided into direct and indirect energies
or alternatively as renewable and Non-renewable energies
(Kizilaslan, 2009). Indirect energy included energy
embodied in seed, fertilizers, chemicals and machinery
while direct energy covered human labor, diesel fuel,
water for irrigation and electricity used in canola
production. Non-renewable energy includes; machinery,
diesel fuel, electricity, fertilizers and chemicals, and
renewable energy consisted of seed, human labor and
water for irrigation.
In the last part of the research, economic analysis of
canola production was investigated. Gross return, net
return, benefit-cost ratio and productivity were calculated
as (Zangeneh et al., 2010):
Energy use efficiency = Energy output (MJ/ha) /
Energy input (MJ/ha)
(2)
Total production value = Canola yield (kg/ha) ×
Canola price ($/kg)
(6)
Energy productivity = Canola output (kg/ha) /
Energy input (MJ/ha)
(3)
228
Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 4(3): 227-231, 2012
Table 3: Energetic parameters in canola production
Farming type
Energy ratio
Energy productivity (kg/MJ)
Irrigated farming
1.28
0.040
Dry farming
0.81
0.029
Specific energy (MJ/kg)
21.44
33.74
Net energy gain (MJ/ha)
8315.35
-3377.72
Table 4: Total energy input in the form of direct, indirect, renewable and non-renewable for canola production
Dry farming
Irrigated farming
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Form Of Energy
Quantity (MJ/kg)
Percentage (%)
Quantity (MJ/kg)
Percentage (%)
15139.1 0
52.3
6219.68
33.51
Direct energy(1)
13805.6 0
47.69
12338.04
66.48
Indirect energy(2)
3635.79
12.56
317.12
1.70
Renewable energy(3)
25308.86
87.43
18240.60
98.29
Non-renewable energy(4)
28944.65
18557.72
Total energy input(5)
1: Includes human labor, diesel, electricity and water for irrigation; 2, 3: Includes seeds, fertilizers, chemicals and machinery; 4: Includes human labor,
seeds and water for irrigation; 5: Includes diesel, fertilizers, chemicals, electricity and machinery
Table 5: Economic analysis of Canola production
Cost and return components
Yield
Sale price
Total production value
Variable cost of production
Fixed cost of production
Total cost of production
Gross return
Net return
Benefit to cost ratio
Productivity
Unit
Kg/ha
$/kg
$/ha
$/ha
$/ha
$/ha
$/ha
$/ha
$/kg
Irrigated farming
1350
0.625
843.75
297.52
460.68
758.2
546.23
85.55
1.11
1.78
Grossreturn = Total production value ($/ha) Variable cost of production ($/ha)
(7)
Net return = Total production value ($/ha) Total production costs ($/ha)
energy such as machinery, fertilizers, seeds, human labor,
diesel fuel, irrigation, electricity and chemicals in canola
production were 4.44, 38.93, 0.77, 1.3, 20.08, 5.52, 27.62
and 1.37%, respectively. Average annual yield of irrigated
farming and dry farming investigated was 1350 and 550
Kg/ha, respectively and calculated total energy output was
37260 and 15180 MJ/ha, respectively.
The energy use efficiency (energy ratio), specific
energy, energy productivity and net energy gain of canola
production in the Khuzestan province are tabulated in
Table 3. Energy use efficiency (energy ratio) in irrigated
farming and dry farming was calculated as 1.28 and 0.81,
respectively. In Turkey, Unakitan et al. (2010) reported
canola output/input ratio as 4.68. Taheri-Garavand et al.
(2010) calculated energy output/input ratio 1.44 for dry
farming canola in Iran. The average energy productivity
of irrigated farming and dry farming was 0.046 and 0.029
kg/MJ, respectively. This means that 0.046 and 0.029
outputs were obtained per unit energy. Calculation of
energy productivity rate is well documented in the
literature such as cotton (0.06) (Yilmaz et al., 2005),
canola (0.12) (Mousavi-Avval et al., 2011a), corn (0.17)
(Banaeian and Zangeneh, 2011b), garlic (0.41)
(Samavatean et al., 2011). The specific energy and net
energy gain of canola production in irrigated farming
and dry farming were 21.44MJ/kg, 8315.35MJ/ha and
33.74 MJ/kg-3377.72 MJ/ha, respectively. Pishgarkomleh
et al. (2011) reported specific energy for rice production
in Iran 11.09 MJ/kg.
Table 4 shows the distribution of total energy input as
direct, indirect, renewable and Non-renewable forms. As
(8)
Benifit - cost ratio = Total production value ($/ha) /
Total production costs ($/ha)
(9)
Production = Canola yield (kg/ha)/
Total production costs ($/ha)
Dry farming
550
0.625
343.75
213.57
370.79
584.06
130.81
-240.31
0.58
0.94
(10)
All estimations were carried out using the Microsoft
Excel spreadsheet and SPSS 17.0 software programs.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Analysis of input-output energy use in canola
production: Amounts of inputs used and output in canola
production for each item are illustrated in Table 2. Total
input energy in irrigated farming and dry farming was
28944.65 and 18557.72 MJ/ha, respectively. In another
study in Iran, Mousavi-Avval et al. (2011a) found that
total energy input in canola production was 17786 MJ/ha.
Out of all the inputs, the fertilizer has the biggest share in
the total energy with a 40.84 and 59.48% in irrigated
farming and dry farming, respectively. From Table 2 it is
shown that human labor was the least demanding energy
input for canola production. Sheikhdavoodi and houshyar
(2009) noted that the rates of inputs in the total amount of
229
Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 4(3): 227-231, 2012
it can be seen from the Table, the total energy input
consumed in irrigated farming could be classified as
direct energy (52.3%), indirect energy (47.69%) and
renewable energy (12.56%) and Non-renewable energy
(87.43%). Because of high diesel and fertilizers
consumption the amount of Non-renewable energy was
quite high. Several researchers have found that the rate of
Non-renewable was greater than that of renewable
consumption in cropping systems (Erdal et al., 2007;
Kizilaslan, 2009; Banaeian et al., 2011). The high ratio of
Non-renewable in the total used energy inputs causes
negative effects on the sustainability in agricultural
production. Therefore, it is important to better utilize the
renewable sources for making up for the increasing
energy deficit, so renewable production stimulates the
agricultural and rural economy, improves the environment
and enhances national energy security (Banaeian et al.,
2011).
energy gain in irrigated farming were 1.28, 0.046 kg/MJ,
21.44 MJ/kg and 8315.35 MJ/ha, respectively. Also these
energy indicators in dry farming were 0.81, 0.029 kg/MJ,
33.74 MJ/kg and -3377.72 MJ/ha, respectively. An
economic analysis revealed that benefit-cost ratio of
irrigated farms was 1.11 and for dry farms was 0.58. The
net return from canola production in irrigated farming and
dry farming was obtained 85.55 and -240.31 $/ha,
respectively. Energy management is an important issue in
terms of efficient, sustainable and economic use of
energy.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The financial support provided by the Shahid
Chamran University of Ahvaz in Iran, is gratefully
acknowledged.
REFERENCES
Economic analysis of canola production: In this study
economic analysis of canola production was carried out
by taking the costs of various inputs into consideration.
The results obtained from economic analysis are
presented in Table 5. Based on the evaluation of collected
data, total production value in irrigated farming and dry
farming were calculated as 843.75 and 343.75 $/ha,
respectively also the cost of production 758.2 and 584.06
$/ha, respectively. The net return values for irrigated
farming and dry farming were found to be 85.55 and 240.31$/ha, respectively. The benefitcost ratio of canola
production was calculated to be 1.11 for irrigated farming
that was lower than Mousavi-Avval et al. (2011a)
research results of benefit-cost ratio. Similar studies have
been reported the benefit-cost ratio for different crops
such as 1.17 for sugar beet (Erdal et al., 2007), 1.10 for
soybean, 2.03 for wheat, 1.98 for mustard and 2.30 for
chickpea (Mandal et al., 2002), 1.88 for potato
(Mohammadi et al., 2008) and 2.09 for canola production
(Unakitan et al., 2010). The results indicate that benefitcost ratio for dry farming is less than 1; the reason is that
there was a drought in this year and canola yield was low.
The economical productivity of canola production in
irrigated farming and dry farming was found to be 1.78
and 0.94 $/kg, respectively.
Anonymous, 2010. Annual Agricultural Statistics.
Ministry of Jihad-e-Agriculture of Iran. Retrieved
from: http://www.maj.ir.
Anonymous, 2006. Statistical Yearbook. Static Center of
Iran Press.
Banaeian, N., M. Omid and H. Ahmadi, 2011. Energy and
economic analysis of greenhouse strawberry
production in Tehran province of Iran. Energ.
Convers. Manage., 52: 1020-1025.
Banaeian, N. and M. Zangeneh, 2011a. Modeling energy
flow and economic analysis for walnut production in
Iran. Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 3(3): 194-201.
Banaeian, N. and M. Zangeneh, 2011b. Study on energy
efficiency in corn production of Iran. Energ., 36:
5394-5402.
Baruah, D.C. and G.C. Bora, 2008. Energy demand
forecast for mechanized agriculture in rural India.
Energ. Policy, 36: 2628-2636.
Canakci, M., 2010. Energy use pattern and economic
analysis of pomegranate cultivation in Turkey. Afr.
J. Agric. Res., 5(7): 491-499.
Demircan, V., K. Ekinci, H.M. Keener, D. Akbolat and
C. Ekinci, 2006. Energy and economic analysis of
sweet cherry production in Turkey: A case study
from Isparta province Energ. Convers. Manage., 47:
1761-1769.
Dupont, J., P.J. White, H.A. Johnston, B.E. Mc-Donald,
S.M. Grundy and A. Bonanome, 1989. Food safety
and health effects of canola oil. J. Am. College Nutr.,
8(5): 360-375.
Erdal, G., K. Esengun, H. Erdal and O. Gunduz, 2007.
Energy use and economic analysis of sugar beet
production in Tokat province of Turkey. Energ., 32:
35-41.
Esengun, K., Z.O. Gundu and G. Erdal, 2007. Inputoutput energy analysis in dry apricot production of
Turkey. Energ. Convers. Manage., 48: 592-598.
CONCLUSION
In order to analysis the energy and economic of
canola production in Khuzestan province, Data were
collected from 57 farms (34 for irrigated farming and 23
for dry farming) which were selected based on random
sampling method. Face-to-face questionnaire method was
used in data collecting. The use of chemical fertilizers
was the most energy consuming input. Energy use
efficiency, energy productivity, specific energy and net
230
Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 4(3): 227-231, 2012
Ozkan, B., C. Fert and C. Feyza Karadeniz, 2007. Energy
and cost analysis for greenhouse and open-field grape
production. Energ., 32: 1500-1504.
Pishgarkomleh, S.H., P. Sefeedpari and S. Rafiee, 2011.
Energy and economic analysis of rice production
under different farm levels in Guilan province of
Iran. Energ., 36: 5824-5831.
Sheikhdavoodi, M. J. and E. Houshyar, 2009. Energy
Consumption of Canola and Sunflower Production in
Iran. American-Eurasian J. Agric, and Environ. Sci.,
6 (4): 381-384.
Samavatean, N., S. Rafiee, H. Mobli and A. Mohammadi,
2011. An analysis of energy use and relation
between energy inputs and yield, costs and income of
garlic production in Iran. Renew. Energ., 36:
1808-1813.
Taheri-Garavand, A., A. Asakereh and K. Haghani, 2010.
Energy elevation and economic analysis of canola
production in Iran a case study: Mazandaran
province. Inter. J. Environ. Sci., 1(2): 236-242.
Unakitan, G., H. Hurma and F. Yilmaz, 2010. An
analysis of energy use efficiency of canola
production in Turkey. Energ., 35: 3623-3627.
Yilmaz, I., H. Akcaoz and B. Ozkan, 2005. An analysis of
energy use and input costs for cotton production in
Turkey. Renew. Energ., 30: 145-155.
Zangeneh, M., M. Omid and A. Akram, 2010. A
comparative study on energy use and cost analysis of
potato production under different farming
technologies in Hamadan province of Iran. Energ.,
35: 2927-2933.
Zeratsky, K., 2009. Canola Oil: Does it Contain Toxins?
Mayo Clinic, Retrieved from: http://www.
mayoclinic.com/health/canola-oil/AN01281.
Heidari, M.D. and M. Omid, 2011b. Energy use patterns
and econometric models of major greenhouse
vegetable productions in Iran. Energ., 36: 220-225.
Kizilaslan, H., 2009. Input-output energy analysis of
cherries production in Tokat province of Turkey.
Appl. Energ., 86(7-8): 1354-1358.
Mandal, K.G., K.P. Saha, P.L. Gosh, K.M. Hati and
K.K. Bandyopadhyay, 2002. Bioenergy and
economic analysis of soybean based crop production
systems in central India. Biomass Bioenerg., 23:
337-345.
Mohammadi, A., A. Tabatabaeefar, S. Shahin, S. Rafiee
and A. Keyhani, 2008. Energy use and economic
analysis of potato production in Iran a case study:
Ardabil province. Energ. Convers. Manage., 49:
3566-3570.
Mousavi-Avval, S.H., S. Rafiee, A. Jafari and
A. Mohammadi, 2011a. Energy efficiency and cost
analysis of canola production in different farm sizes.
Energ. Environ., 2(5): 845-852.
Mousavi-Avval, S.H., S. Rafiee, A. Jafari and
A. Mohammadi, 2011b. Econometric modeling and
sensitivity analysis of costs of inputs for Sunflower
production in Iran. Inter. J. Appl. Eng. Res., 1(4):
759-766.
Namdari, M., A. Mohammadi and H. Ghasemi Mobtaker,
2011. Assessment of energy requirements and
sensitivity analysis of inputs for watermelon
production in Iran. Inter. J. Plant Anim. Environ.
Sci., 1(1): 102-110.
Nielsen, J.B., H.P. Oleskowicz-Popiel and T. Al Seadi,
2007. Energy crop potentials for bio-energy in EU27. Nordic Assoc. Agric. Sci., 3(4): 9-21.
231