Determination of the Main Socio-Economic Factors of the Sustainable Production of Forage Crops: Research of Kayseri Province

Year 2019, Volume: 25 Issue: 4, 474 - 480, 05.12.2019

Celal Cevher

https://doi.org/10.15832/ankutbd.453983

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Today, about 21% of the Turkey’s population lives engage plant production and animal husbandry; the most crucial aspect of livestock breeding is producing forage crops. Since 2000, growers in Turkey have been subsidized and encouraged to increase both their production and quality of forage crops. However, despite all this support and assistance, desired production levels have not yet been achieved. Therefore, it is equally crucial analyze the effects of factors other than the subsidies provided on forage crops production. This study aims to determine the socio-economic factors that affect sustainable forage crops production. The study was carried out in the province of Kayseri, specifically in 11 villages where both plant production and animal husbandry systems are common. The subjects of the study were selected through the Random Sampling Method and data was collected by surveying 310 forage crops growers. To identify dependency relationships between qualitative variables used mainly based on a statistical chi-square statistic. According to the analysis results, 35.5% of growers found forage crops production sustainable, whereas 64.5% of them thought that it was unsustainable. When both socio-economic variables and the answers to survey questions were taken into account, variables such as grower’s age, education level, income level, land for fodder crops, livestock count, recent increase in livestock count, subsidies, and the conditions under which sustainability may be maintained were found to be related to forage crops production sustainability.

Keywords

Sustainability, forage crops, subsidies, Kayseri-Turkey

References

• Aksu N & Dellal I (2016). An evaluation for Afyonkarahisar province on relationship of feed crops subsidy with bovine livestock activities. Yuzuncu Yil University Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 26 (1): 52-60
• Anonymous (2017). Activities of BUGEM General Directorate of Vegetative Production. Retrieved in March, 20, 2017 from http://www.tarim.gov.tr
• Cevher C & Tatlıdil H (2001). Evaluation of publication activities in the development of roughage feeds. 4. Congress of Field Crops, 17-21 September, Tekirdağ, pp. 109-115
• Cevher C, Köksal Ö & Ceylan I C (2012). Effects of agricultural support on fodder production and the sustainability: The case of Kayseri province. X. National Agricultural Economics Congress Books, 5-7 September, Samsun, pp. 37-43
• Cukur T & Isin F (2008). Industrial tomato producers’ practices on sustainable agriculture in Torbali district of İzmir. Journal of Agricultural Faculty of Ege University, 45 (1): 27-36
• Demir N & Yavuz F (2010). A regional comparative analysis of farmers’ approaches to livestock support policies. Journal of Agricultural Faculty of Atatürk University, 41 (2): 113-121
• Karadavut U, Genc A, Palta C, Carkacı D A & Kokten K (2011). Socioeconomic structure of meadow plants producers in Konya province and determination of success on affecting factors. Science Journal of Bingol University, 1 (2): 38-50
• Kaya T E & Atsan T (2013). Factors affecting rural women's adoption of organic agriculture (TRA1 of Sample). Atatürk University Journal of the Agricultural Faculty, 44 (1): 43-49
• Kılıc Y & Kiymaz T (2014). The relationship between education and labor productivity in agriculture: regional differences. Turkish Journal of Agricultural Economics, 20 (1): 53-64
• Kusvuran A, Nazli R İ & Tansi V (2011). Current situation of meadow-rangelands, animal existence and cultivation for forage crops in turkey and east black sea region. Journal of Agricultural Faculty of Gaziosmanpasa University, 28 (2): 21-32
• Mac H & Yilmaz H (2016). Analysis of factors related with farmers’ benefiting from forage crops production support: Evidence from a survey for the Central Anatolia Region of Turkey. Rev. Fac. Agron (LUZ). 33: 232-254
• Ozkan U, Gamgam H & Altunkaynak B (2016). SPSS Uygulamalı Temel İstatistik Yöntemler. Seçkin Yayınevi, 1th. 710, Ankara
• Peters M, Horne P, Schmidt A, Holmann F, Kerridge P C, Tarawali S A, Schultze-Kraft R, Lascano C E, Argel P, Stür W, Fujisaka S, Müller-Sämann K & Wortmann C (2001). The role of forages in reducing poverty and degradation of natural resources in tropical production systems. Agricultural Research & Extension Network, Network Paper number: 117, 1-12
• Temel S & Sahin K (2011). The current situation, problems and suggestions for forage crops in Iğdır Province. Yuzuncu Yıl University Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 21 (1): 64-72 Topcu Y (2008). Effective factors’ analysis on willingness to utilize from farmers’ agricultural support policies: The case study of Erzurum province. Akdeniz University Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 21 (2): 205-212
• Yamane T (2001). Basic sampling methods, translation. Translated by Esin A, Aydin C, Bakir M.A, Gurbuzsel E. Literature Yayinlari, 53, 1th ed, 580, Turkey
• Yildiz O & Boyacı M (2017). Sustainability of farmers' practices according to extensionits: case of aegean region. Turkish Journal of Agricultural Economics, 23 (2): 271-280
• Yilmaz H & Mac H (2013). Evaluation of the effects on production of forage crops production support policies in Turkey. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on New Directions in Business, Management, Finance and Economics (ICNDBM 2013) Famagusta, Northern Cyprus, September, 12-14
• Yolcu H & Tan M (2008). General view to Turkey forage crops cultivation. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 14 (3): 303-312
• Ward P S, Bell A R, Parkhurst G M, Droppelmann K & Mapemba L (2016). Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment, 222: 67-79