Evaluation of cotton production in Şanlıurfa province in terms of harvesting methods and economic costs

Year 2025, Volume: 9 Issue: 1, 34 - 40, 17.03.2025

Ferhat Küp

https://doi.org/10.31015/2025.1.5

Abstract

The present study was conducted to analyze the economic revenues/costs for 2020/2021 period in Şanlıurfa, where cotton production is intense. The main source of this study was the data obtained from 15 cotton farmers in the area. It was determined in the study that the cotton yield per decare varied between 450 kg and 660 kg, and the average yield was 562 kg/da, and the average costs were spraying, fertilizing, harvesting, irrigation, sowing and soil preparation, respectively. The cost of producing one kilogram of cotton was found to be 1.68 TL/kg. The average revenue per decare was found to be 3970 TL/da and the production cost was 945 TL/da. It has been determined that the mechanized harvesting system is more advantageous than manual harvesting according to harvesting cost, total cost and net profit values. For cotton production to be commercially sustainable, it is essential to enhance efficiency in production, determine support measures for cotton that do not adversely affect farmers in the current period, and prioritize mechanized harvesting methods.

Keywords

Cotton , Harvest , Yield , Cost , Profitability

References

• Ali, H., Aslam, M., & Ali, H. (2012). Economic analysis of input trend in cotton production process in Pakistan. Asian Economic and Financial Review, 2(4), 553-561.
• Anonymous (2021a). Official Gazette of the Republic of Turkey. Decision on Agricultural Supports to be Made in 2020. (Access date: 14 August 2021).
• Anonymous (2021b). Official Gazette of the Republic of Turkey. Decision to Amend the Decision on Agricultural Supports to be Made in 2020. (Access date: 16 August 2021).
• Belay, G., Yami, M., & Bekele, A. (2020). Analysis of costs of production and profitability for irrigated cotton under smallholder production systems; the case of middle awash valley. Ethiopian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 30(1), 1-16.
• Candemir, S., Kızılaslan, N., Kızılaslan, H., Uysal, U., & Aydoğan, M. (2017). Comparative analysis in terms of entry requirements and profitability in grain maize and cotton production in Kahramanmaraş province. Turkish Journal of Agricultural and Natural Sciences, 4(1), 1-8.
• Erdal, G., & Erdal, H. (2008). The effects of premium payment in Turkey agricultural supports system. Journal of Agricultural Faculty of Gaziosmanpasa University, 25(1), 41-51.
• Gencer, O., Özüdoğru, T., Kaynak, M. A., Yılmaz, A., & Ören, N. (2005). Cotton production and its problems in Turkey. Turkey Agricultural Engineering VI. Technical Congress, (pp. 459-480), 3-7 January 2005. Ankara, Türkiye.
• ICAC, (2020a). International Cotton Advisory Committee. https://www.icac.org/DataPortal/ProductionDetails?country=WLD (Access date: 8 July 2021).
• ICAC, (2020b). International Cotton Advisory Committee. https://icac.org/Content/PublicationsPdf%20Files/d77a4022_9008_40f6_a972_c8c8e5d43d2f/Cotton_subsidies2020.pdf.pdf. (Access date: 12 September 2021).
• National Cotton Council, (2021a). Socio-economic importance of cotton for Turkey. http://www.upk.org.tr/User_Files/editor/file/Pamug%CC%86un%20Tu%CC%88rkiye%20ic%CC%A7in%20O%CC%88nemi-2017-HUE.pdf (Access date: 20 August 2021).
• National Cotton Council (2021b): 2018 Cotton Sector Report. Ankara, Republic of Turkiye. http://www.upk.org.tr/User_Files/editor/file/pamuksektorraporu.pdf. (Access date: 16 September 2021).
• Özüdoğru, T., & Miran, B. (2015). The effects of agricultural support policies on cotton supply in Turkey. The Journal of Agricultural Economics Researches, 1(2), 9-19.
• Parlakay, O., Semerci, A., & Çelik, A. D. (2021). Determination of technical efficiency in cotton production by using data envelopment and stochastic frontier analysis methods: a case study of Hatay Province in Turkey. Custos e @gronegocio on line, v. 17(4), 188-2021.
• Reddy, A. R., Blaise, D., & Anuradha, N. (2018). Cost escalation in cotton cultivation: an analysis. Economic Affairs, 63(4), 833-838.
• Republic of Turkey Ministry of Trade, (2022). Cotton report in 2019. http://www.upk.org.tr/User_Files/editor/file/2019%20Pamuk%20Raporu.pdf. (Access date: 3 March 2021).
• Sağlam, R., Uyguner, Z., & Küp, F. (2021). Determination of factors affecting fiber quality of cotton ginned in different years in Şanlıurfa region. Journal of the Institute of Science and Technology, 11(2), 709-721.
• Terzi, M., & Kaynak, M. A. (2019). The Effect of Harvesting on Quality in Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Adnan Menderes University Faculty of Agriculture Journal, 16(1), 27-33.
• TOB, (2021). Republic of Turkey ministry of agriculture and forestry. https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/Haber/4773/Kutlu-Pamuk-Primini-375-Artirarak-Kilogram-Basina-11-Liraya-Cikardik. (Access date: 21 February 2021).
• TSI, (2021). Turkish standards institution. https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/medas/?kn=92&locale=tr. (Access date: 10 July 2021).
• Uğurlu, M. (2020). Economic analysis of cotton production: Manisa province case. Journal of the Faculty of Agriculture Türkiye 13th National 1st International Field Crops Congress Special Issue, 206-217.
• Yılmaz, H., & Demircan, V. A. (2005). Comparative investigation of raw cotton production cost in interregional. GAP IV. Agriculture Congress, (pp. 381-388), 21-23 September 2005, Şanlıurfa, Türkiye.
• Yılmaz, S. G., & Gül, M. (2015). Evaluation of cotton production costs and profitability level in agricultural farms: The case of Antalya province. J