Economic Structure of Tomato Production in Geothermal Energy-Heated Greenhouses: Simav District Case of Kütahya Province

Year 2025, Volume: 12 Issue: 4, 1139 - 1152, 17.10.2025

Bekir Sıtkı Şirikçi , Gülendam Çetinkaya

https://doi.org/10.30910/turkjans.1759246

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the technical and economic structure of tomato production in greenhouses heated by geothermal energy in the Simav district of Kütahya province, Türkiye. The main material of the study consisted of data obtained from 40 farms through face-to-face surveys. The study examined the socio-demographic characteristics, production techniques, cost structures, and profitability indicators of the producers in detail. The study data covered the 2023-2024 production season. Tomato production in greenhouses heated by geothermal energy in the region was carried out in soilless plastic greenhouses. The average tomato production cost per hectare for the farm was calculated at 3,671,549.16 TRY. The variable costs accounted for 60.98% of production costs, while fixed costs accounted for 39.82%. The geothermal water fee per hectare was 136,740.69 TRY, which corresponds to 3.72% of production costs. The tomato yield per hectare in the region was calculated as 2,311,952.97 kg, and the cost per kilogram of tomatoes was determined as 15.88 TRY. The absolute profit, gross profit, and relative profit per hectare were determined as 817,059.59 TRY, 2,279,038.41 TRY, and 1.22, respectively. Research findings indicated that the level of agricultural organization in the interviewed agricultural enterprises was quite high. The tomatoes produced in the region were marketed under a contract production model through the Simav 4th September Eynal Agricultural Development Cooperative. The chemical fertiliser, depreciation, and capital interest accounted for the largest share of production costs. In this context, planning chemical fertiliser use based on leaf analysis and adopting balanced fertilisation practices in the plant nutrition strategy were crucial for both cost reduction and sustainable production.

Keywords

Geothermal energy , Tomato , Production costs , Profitability , Simav

Ethical Statement

The study was approved by the Yozgat Bozok University Social and Human Sciences Ethics Committee. The studies were conducted in accordance with the institutional requirements.

Supporting Institution

TUBITAK (The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye)

Thanks

The authors would like to thank TUBITAK (The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye) for their financial support through the projects of TUBITAK 2209-A (A program for university students at the undergraduate level).

References

• Anonymous (2025a). Turkish Statistical Institute, Crop Production Statistics Statistics. https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/medas/ by June 14, 2025. (Accessed date: 03.08.2025)
• Anonymous, (2025b). Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, https://enerji.gov.tr/eigm-yenilenebilir-enerji-kaynaklar-jeotermal (Accessed date: 03.08.2025)
• Anonymous, (2025c). Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Agriculture And Forestry General Directorate Of Agricultural Reform, https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/TRGM/Haber/429/Bakanimiz-Sayin-Dr-Bekir-Pakdemirli-Kutahya-Simav-Tarima-Dayali-Ihtisas-Jeotermal-Sera-Osbyi-Ziyaret-Etti (Accessed date: 29.09.2025)
• Anonymous, (2025d). Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Agriculture And Forestry General Directorate Of Agricultural Reform, https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/TRGM/Haber/760/Kutahya-Simav-Jeotermal-Kaynakli-Sera-Tdiosb-Genel-Yerlesim-Plani-Ve-Ust-Yapi-Modul-Projeleri-Tarim-Ve-Orman-Bakanligi-Tarafindan-Onaylandi (Accessed date: 29.09.2025)
• Anonymous, (2025e). The Central Bank of the Republic of Türkiye Electronic Data Delivery System https://evds2.tcmb.gov.tr/index.php?/evds/serieMarket/#collapse_2 (Accessed date: 29.09.2025) Arslan, S., Darıcı, M. & Karahan, Ç. (2001). Status of Geothermal Power Plants at Turkey. Jeotermal Enerji Semineri Bildiri Kitabı, İzmir, s. 21-28.
• Bașbuğ, T., & Gül, M. (2016). Analysis of cost and profitability for enterprises engaged in greenhouse cultivation in highland conditions: the case of Elmali, Antalya. Scientific Papers Series Management. Economic Engineering in Agriculture and Rural Development, 16(2), 19-26.
• Bayramoğlu, Z., Karakayacı, Z., Ağızan, K., Ağızan, S., & Bozdemir, M. (2021). Determination of factors affecting production costs in major vegetable products (in Turkish). Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Tarım ve Doğa Dergisi, v. 24, n. 3, p. 603-613.
• Can, A. (2023). SPSS ile Bilimsel Araştırma Sürecinde Nicel Veri Analizi. Pegem Akademi, Ankara, 436p.
• Da Silva, C. (2005). The growing role of contract farming in agrifood systems development; drivers, theory and practice"", working document, Agricultural Management, Marketing and Finance Services. FAO, www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ags/publications/AGSF_WD_9.pdf (Accessed date: 21.08.2025)
• Durmuş, E., & Semerci, A. (2023). Difference Analysis of Income, Yield and Cost Factors in Table Tomato Production: Çanakkale Province Example. ÇOMÜ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(1), 46-57. https://doi.org/10.33202/comuagri.1287922.
• Eren, G. (2017). Comparative analysis of the effects on production cost of the use geothermal energy in greenhouse tomato production. (Master's Thesis) Ankara University. Institute of Science, Department of Agriculture Economics, Ankara, Türkiye.
• Erkuş, A., Bülbül, M., Kıral, T., Açıl, F. & Demirci, R. (1995). Tarım Ekonomisi. Ankara Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi, Eğitim, Araştırma ve Geliştirme Vakfı Yayınları.
• Gül, M., & Özenç, S. (2020). The profitability and characteristics of greenhouse capia pepper farmers: A case of Kaş district, Antalya, Turkey. International Journal of Agriculture Forestry and Life Sciences, 4(1), 115-119.
• Gül, M., Değirmenci N., Şirikçi B.S., & Kadakoğlu B. (2022). Cost and Profitability Analysis of Greenhouse Eggplant Production: A Case Study of Antalya Province, Turkey. Custos e Agronegocio On Line, 18, 440-457.
• Gül, M., Topçu, F., Kadakoğlu, B., & Şirikçi, B.S. (2021). Cost and profitability analysis of tomato production in the greenhouse in highland conditions: a case study of Burdur Province, Turkey.Custos e Agronegocio,17(3), 160-175.
• Hayran, S., & Gül, A. (2020). The Profitability Analysis of the Main Vegetables in Mersin Province. Ziraat Mühendisliği, (370), 45-53. https://doi.org/10.33724/zm.708295
• Kadıoğlu, Y. (2013). Geotermal Greenhousing in Simav. Marmara Coğrafya Dergisi, (28), 64-80.
• Karadaş, K., & Güler, F. (2021). Determination of Tomato Production Cost in Iğdır Province . Journal of the Institute of Science and Technology, 11(3), 2350-2356. https://doi.org/10.21597/jist.843569.
• Karaman, S., & Yılmaz, İ. (2006). The Effects of Using Bumble Bees for Pollination on Inputs and Profitability in Glasshouse Tomatoes Production . Journal of Aegean Agricultural Research Institute, 16(2), 90-109.
• Karataş, A., Erdoğan, H., & Ünlü, H. (2005). The effect of Tomato Cultivation in Intercropping System with Some Vegetable Species on the Yield and Income in a Geothermally Heated Glasshouse. Bahçe, 34(2), 37-46.
• Karkacier, O. (2020). Comparative economic profitability analysis for greenhouses in modern and traditional conditions: tomato farming for example. Turkish Journal of Agriculture-Food Science and Technology, 8(10): 2170-2174. https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v8i10.2170-2174.3639.
• Kendirli, B., & Çakmak, B. (2010). Using of Renewable Energy Sources in Greenhouse Heating. Ankara Üniversitesi Çevrebilimleri Dergisi, 2(1), 95-103.
• Kıral, T., Kasnakoğlu, H., Tatlıdil, F.F., Fidan, H. & Gündoğmuş, E. (1999). Tarımsal Ürünler İçin Maliyet Hesaplama Metodolojisi ve Veritabanı Rehberi. Tarımsal Ekonomi ve Politika Geliştirme Ensitüsü Müdürlüğü Rapor No: 1999-13, 143s.
• Kose, R. (2007). Geothermal energy potential for power generation in Turkey: A case study in Simav, Kütahya. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11(3), 497-511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2005.03.005.
• Oğuz, C., & Arısoy, H. (2002). Estimation of Produce Costs and Functional Analysis of Tomato Production in the Enterprises Producing Yield in Protected Cultivation in Konya. Selçuk Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 16, 43-48.
• Ölmez, A. (2021). Jeotermal seralarda domates üretiminin ekonomik analizi: Afyonkarahisar ili örneği. (Master's Thesis) Isparta University of Applied Sciences. Graduate Education Institute, Department of Agriculture Economics, Isparta, Türkiye.
• Özdamar, K., 2004, Paket Programlar İle İstatistiksel Veri Analizleri-I, Kaan Kitabevi, Eskişehir, 584 p.
• Özkan, B., Hatırlı, S.A, Öztürk, E., & Aktaş, A.R. (2011). Analysis of Profit Efficiency for Greenhouse Tomato Production in Antalya Province. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1501/Tarimbil_0000001154.
• Öztürk, G., & Engindeniz, S. (2019). A Research on the Economic Analysis of Greenhouse Tomato Production in Mugla Province. Journal of Agriculture Faculty of Ege University, 56(3), 345-358. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20289/zfdergi.502941
• Rad, S., & Yarşı, G. (2005). Economic Performance and Unit Production Cost in Greenhouse Farms Producing Tomatoes in Silifke. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 11(01), 26-33.
• Şahin, G. (2011). Türkiye’de örtüaltı yetiştiriciliği. (Master's Thesis) Marmara University, Institute of Social Sciences, Department of Geography, İstanbul, Türkiye.
• Sipahioğlu, C., & Tipi, T. (2016). Cost Analysis of Farms that Produce Tomato in Soilless Greenhouses. Journal of Agricultural Faculty of Uludag University, 30(special issue), 24-32.
• Tunçbilek, Ö. F. (2015). Yenilenebilir Enerji Kaynaklarının Tarımda ve Kırsal Kalkınmada Kullanımı: Kütahya Simav Jeotermal Seracılık Örneği. (Master's Thesis) Dumlupınar University Institute of Social Sciences,Department of Public Administration, Kütahya, Türkiye.