Research Article

Wheat marketing in Hatay province and determining producers' perspectives on agricultural subsidies

Volume: 29 Number: 3 December 18, 2024
EN TR

Wheat marketing in Hatay province and determining producers' perspectives on agricultural subsidies

Abstract

This study was conducted in Hatay province, a key agricultural region in Turkey. The study’s primary data were gathered from 104 farms, selected with a 90% confidence interval and a 10% standard deviation. The average wheat cultivation area in the study region was 159 decares, accounting for 36.78% of the crop production pattern. The average wheat yield was found to be 555 kg da-1. In the research area, most of the producers in the research area (54.81%) market the wheat to factories in the province. In terms of inputs, the primary cost factors in wheat production were identified as energy (diesel fuel and electricity) and fertilizer. The study also aimed to assess wheat producers' perspectives on agricultural supports and their satisfaction with wheat production. The findings indicated that while producers were generally satisfied with wheat production, they deemed agricultural supports insufficient in light of recent increases in input prices. These insights suggest that for sustaining wheat production in Turkey, agricultural support policies need reevaluation. Enhanced support that accounts for rising input costs could help maintain producer satisfaction and prevent further reductions in wheat cultivation areas.

Keywords

References

  1. Badem, M., & Hurma, H. (2021). Temel stratejik ürün olan buğdayda destekleme politikalarına genel bir bakış. Trakya University Journal of Engineering Sciences, 22 (1), 21-30.
  2. Çelik, A.D. (2022). Contributions of agricultural subsidies to increase producer income in cotton and milk productions: A case study of Hatay province-Turkey. The Philippine Agricultural Scientist, 105 (1), 92-99.
  3. Çiçek, A., & Erkan, O. (1996). Tarım Ekonomisinde Araştırma ve Örnekleme Yöntemleri. Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Yayınları No:12, Ders Notları Serisi No: 6, Tokat, 62 s.
  4. Çini, M.E., Erdal, G., & Erdal, H. (2022). Bitkisel üretim desteklemelerinin ayçiçeği ve buğday ekiliş alanlarına etkisinin incelenmesi; Tokat ili Zile ilçesi örneği. Gaziosmanpasa Journal of Scientific Research, 11 (2), 73-82.
  5. Eraktan, G. (2001). Tarım politikası temelleri ve Türkiye’de tarımsal destekleme politikası. Uzel Yayınları, ISBN 975-8437-01-1, İstanbul.
  6. FAO. (2022). The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Crops and Livestock Products Data. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/TP
  7. FAO. (2023). The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Crops and Livestock Products Data. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/TP
  8. Kalabak, A.Y., & Aslan, R. (2020). Bazı alan bazlı tarımsal desteklerin buğday üretimi üzerindeki etkisi: Balıkesir örneği (2009-2015). Hacettepe University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 39 (1), 85-102.

Details

Primary Language

Turkish

Subjects

Agricultural Economics (Other)

Journal Section

Research Article

Early Pub Date

December 3, 2024

Publication Date

December 18, 2024

Submission Date

June 1, 2024

Acceptance Date

July 23, 2024

Published in Issue

Year 1970 Volume: 29 Number: 3

APA
Çelik, A. D., & Sarıoğlu, T. (2024). Hatay yöresinde buğdayın pazarlanması ve üreticilerin tarımsal desteklemelere bakış açılarının belirlenmesi. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 29(3), 746-754. https://doi.org/10.37908/mkutbd.1494053