BazEkon - The Main Library of the Cracow University of Economics

BazEkon home page

Main menu

Demircan Vecdi (University of Suleyman Demirel, Isparta, Turkey), Atasay Adem (Isparta-Turkey), Altındal Mesut (Eğirdir/Isparta-Turkey), İşçi Mesut (Isparta-Turkey), Ekinci Kamil (University of Suleyman Demirel, Isparta, Turkey)
Economic Analysis of Different Applications of Composts Obtained from Solid Wastes of Rose Oil Processing in Organic Apple Production
Infrastruktura i Ekologia Terenów Wiejskich, 2017, nr II/2, s. 757-766, tab., bibliogr. 12 poz.
Infrastructure and Ecology of Rural Areas
Ropa naftowa, Utylizacja odpadów, Produkcja owoców, Badania porównawcze
Oil, Waste utilization, Production of fruits, Comparative examination
In this study, it was aimed to compare the economic aspect of different applications of composts obtained from solid wastes of rose oil processing (RC) applications in organic apple production. The data used in the study were obtained from the experiments carried out in Egirdir Fruit Research Institute of Food, Agriculture and Livestock Ministry, Turkey. The trial was carried out with a total of 6 applications consisting of 5 different nutritional applications (RC, ERC (50%) (half dosage of the enriched RC, ERC (100%) (full dosage of the enriched RC, AB (azotobacter), and ST (standard application: 50% commercial solid organic manure +50% commercial liquid manure)) and 1 control (no nutrients applications). According to the results of the research, it was determined that apple production in all treatments was higher than control application. The result showed that the highest yield was determined for ERC (100%). The production costs per decare of the organic production in all treatments were found to be higher than the control application. Production cost was 854.97 USD da-1 in control application, while it varied between 914.61 USD da-1 and 984.79 USD da-1 in all treatments. When a comparison was made in terms of net profit, it was determined that the most advantageous application was ERC (100%). The net profit per decare for the ERC (100%) application was determined as 214.35 USD. In the control application, net profit per decare was determined as 130.42 USD. (original abstract)
Full text
  1. Aras İ., (2017). Apple Sector Report. Mevlâna Development Agency, Accessed: 16 March 2016. file:///D:/Belgeler/Indirilen/IMG10000_2917_ELMA SEKTÖRÜ RAPORU-KARAMAN (1).pdf
  2. Demircan V., Atasay A., Ekinci K., İşçi M., Altındal M., (2016). Comparison of cost and profitability of organic and conventional apple nursery tree growing. Custos e @ gronegócio on line, 12(3):180-192
  3. Demiryürek K., (2011). The concept of organic agriculture and current status of in the world and Turkey. Journal of Agricultural Faculty of Gaziosmanpasa University. 28(1): 27-36
  4. Er C., Başalma D., (2008). Developments in organic agriculture. Nobel Publications, Ankara,
  5. GTHB (2017a). Republic of Turkey Ministry of Food Agriculture and Livestock http:// Accessed: 16 March 2017.
  6. GTHB (2017b). Republic of Turkey Ministry of Food Agriculture and Livestock. Research Conclusions of organic agriculture. General Directorate of Agricultural Research and Policies.
  7. Karamürsel D., Atasay A., Öztürk F.P., Öztürk G., (2012). Economic analysis of organic and conventional apple production. V. Horticulture product storage ve marketing Symposium, 18-21 Januarry 2012, İzmir.
  8. MF (2016). Republic of Turkey Ministry of Finance. php?id=270 (Access Date: 15.12.2016).
  9. Mon P. N., Holland D. W., (2006). Organic apple production in Washington State: An input-output analysis. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems. 21(02): 134-141.
  10. Özçatalbaş O., (2009). General situation and developments of world apple sector. The Journal of Agricultural Science Research. 2(1):139-144.
  11. Swezey S. L., Werner M. R., Buchanan M., Allison, J., (1998). Comparison of conventional and organic apple production systems during three years of conversion to organic management in coastal California. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture. 13(04): 162-180.
  12. TUIK (2016). Turkish Statistical Institute,, Accessed: 16 March 2016.
Cited by
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on Pinterest Share on LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu