Pioneering Communities in Dissemination of Local Wheat Varieties and Products in Turkey

Öz

Modern wheat varieties developed since the 1960s have increased yields but have also brought with them serious ecological, social and health problems. Local wheat varieties must be produced, developed, conserved and disseminated by farmers. In this research the pioneering farmer/consumer communities in Çanakkale, Balıkesir and Kars provinces and some community supported agriculture groups in Izmir province active in dissemination of local wheat varieties and breads and other products are examined. Participatory action research methodology was used among producer groups and food communities. The research question was developed through common problems and solutions by involving producers and consumers during the field research in line with participatory action research. The local wheat production of producer groups and the processes of supplying their products to the market were carefully analyzed and this information was shared with food groups. In the food groups, ways to increase the consumption of local wheat products were sought with the information shared. As a result, it is seen that pioneer groups that ensure direct marketing of products from farmers to consumers, organize farmers, work holistically and increase women's participation are more successful in the geographical dissemination of local wheat varieties and ensuring seed sovereignty. In consumer groups, it was observed that understanding the production process and identifying problems related to consumption through focus group studies initially increased the consumption of local wheat products. However, the high cost of bread made from local wheat varieties constitutes one of the biggest obstacles. Collaboration between consumers and food groups with local producers can increase the spread of the production and consumption of local wheat. Local governments can also play an important role in promoting local wheat and its products. One of these supports could be participatory plant breeding.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Local wheat varieties
• Seed sovereignty
• Food groups
• Extension
• Participatory action research
• Sourdough bread
• Turkey.

Proje Numarası

2016-ZRF-021

Türkiye'de Yerel Buğday Çeşitlerinin ve Ürünlerinin Yaygınlaştırılmasında Öncü Topluluklar

Öz

1960'lardan bu yana geliştirilen modern buğday çeşitleri verimi arttırmış olsa da ciddi ekolojik, sosyal ve sağlık sorunlarını da beraberinde getirmiştir. Yerel buğday çeşitleri çiftçiler tarafından üretilmeli, geliştirilmeli, korunmalı ve yaygınlaştırılmalıdır. Bu araştırmada Çanakkale, Balıkesir ve Kars illerindeki öncü çiftçi/tüketici toplulukları ile İzmir ilinde yerel buğday çeşitleri ile ekmek ve diğer ürünlerin yaygınlaştırılmasında faaliyet gösteren bazı topluluk destekli tarım grupları incelenmiştir. Üretici gruplar ve gıda toplulukları arasında katılımcı eylem araştırması yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Araştırma sorusu katılımcı eylem araştırmasına uygun şekilde saha araştırması sırasında üreticilerin ve tüketiciler dahil edilerek ortak sorunlar ve çözümler üzerinden geliştirilmiştir. Üretici grupların yerel buğday üretim şekilleri ve ürünlerini pazara tedarik etme süreçleri dikkatle şekilde incelenmiş ve bu bilgiler gıda grupları ile paylaşılmıştır. Tüketici gruplarda ise paylaşılan bilgiler ile yerel buğday ürünlerinin tüketimini arttırma yolları aranmıştır. Sonuç olarak, ürünlerin çiftçiden tüketiciye doğrudan pazarlanmasını sağlayan, çiftçileri örgütleyen, bütüncül çalışan ve kadın katılımını artıran öncü grupların yerel buğday çeşitlerinin coğrafi bazda yaygınlaştırılmasında ve tohum egemenliğinin sağlanmasında daha başarılı olduğu görülmektedir. Tüketici gruplarda ise üretim sürecini anlamanın ve odak grup çalışmaları ile tüketime dair sorunların belirlenmesinin ilk olarak yerel buğday ürünleri tüketimini arttırdığı gözlenmiştir. Ancak, yerel buğday çeşitlerinden yapılan ekmek pahalı olması en büyük engellerden birini oluşturmaktadır. Tüketiciler ve gıda gruplarının yerel üreticiler ile iş birliği yapması yerel buğday üretimi ve tüketiminin yaygınlaşmasını arttırabilir. Yerel yönetimler de yerel buğday ve ürünlerinin yaygınlaştırılmasında önemli bir rol oynayabilir. Bu desteklerden biri de katılımcı bitki ıslahı olabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yerel buğday çeşitleri
• Tohum egemenliği
• Gıda grupları
• Yayım
• Katılımcı eylem araştırması
• Ekşi mayalı ekmek
• Türkiye.

Destekleyen Kurum

Ege Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Koordinasyon Birimi

Proje Numarası

2016-ZRF-021

Teşekkür

Bu çalışma, Ege Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Koordinasyon Birimi tarafından desteklenen 2016-zrf-021 nolu bilimsel araştırma projesinden elde edilmiştir.

Kaynakça

1. Akçura, M., Hocaoğlu, O. and Kılıç, H. (2002). Comparison of Local Bread Wheat Lines Belonging to the Black Sea Region with Registered Bread Wheat Varieties in terms of Grain Nutrient Content. Turkey 10th Field Crops Congress, Konya, Türkiye. (In Turkish).
2. Atalan-Helicke, N. (2019). Markets and collective action: A case study of traditional wheat varieties in Turkey. Journal of Economy Culture and Society, 59: 13–30. https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS402676
3. Boxstael, F., Aerts, H., Linssen S., Latré, J., Christiaens, A., Haesaert, G., Dierick, I., Brusselled, J. and De Keyzera, W. (2020). A Comparison of The Nutritional Value of Einkorn, Emmer, Khorasan, and Modern Wheat: Whole Grains, Processed in Bread, and Population-Level intake Implications. Journal of the Science and Food of Agriculture, 100: 4108–4118. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.10402
4. Ceccarelli, S., Grando, S., Salimi, M. and Razavi, K. (2022). Evolutionary Populations for Sustainable Food Security and Food Sovereignty. In Seeds for Diversity and Inclusion- Agroecology and Endogenous Development, edited by Yoshiaki Nishikawa and Michel Pimbert, Palgrave Macmillan, 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89405-4
5. Chambers, R. (1994). The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Development, 22(7): 953–969.
6. Chambers, R. (2004). Reflections and Directions: A Personal Note. In PLA 50: Critical Reflections, Future Directions. Edited by Robert Chambers, Nicole Kenton and Holly Ashley, London.
7. Davis, W. (2011). Wheat Belly. Rodale Inc., New York.
8. Dohan, F. C. (1966). Wheat ‘consumption’ and hospital admissions for schizophrenia during World War II. A preliminary Report, (1): 7–10.

9. Gökgöl, M. (1939). Turkey Wheat (Die Türkischen Weizen). Vol. 2. Tan Matbaası, Istanbul.
10. Gökgöl, M. (1954). General Basics of Wheat (Buğday Islahının Genel Temelleri). Vol. 1. Karınca Matbaası, Ankara.
11. Hocaoğlu, O. and Akçura, M. (2017). Evaluating mineral contents of selected bread wheat landrace pure lines derived from West Anatolia and Marmara Regions and cultivars by GGE Biplot. Journal of Tekirdag Agricultural Faculty, The Special Issue of 2nd International Balkan Agriculture Congress, 71–76.
12. IPES (2016). From Uniformity to Diversity: A Paradigm Shift from Industrial Agriculture to Diversified Agroecological Systems. International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food systems. Report 2:45–57.
13. Karakoç, U. (2008). Productivity and structure in Turkish agriculture 1950-1991. (MSc thesis) London School of Economics and Political Science, London, England.
14. Keleş, G. (2019). Analysis of factors affecting seed preferences of wheat producers in Thrace Region. Journal of Tekirdag Agricultural Faculty, 16(3): 423-431. (In Turkish)
15. Kimber, G and Feldman, M. (1987). Wild Wheat: An Introduction. In Special Report 353. College of Agriculture, University of Missouri-Columbia.
16. Koçtürk, O. N. (2009). Fear of Hunger. Özdoğan Matbaa, Ankara. (In Turkish)
17. López, V. G., Giraldo, O. F., Morales, H., Rosset P. M. and Duarte. J. M. (2019). Seed sovereignty and agroecological scaling: two cases of seed recovery, conservation, and defense in Colombia. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 43(7-8): 827–847. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1578720
18. Magdoff, F., Foster, J. B. and Buttel F. H. (2000). Hungry for Profit, The Agribusiness Threat to Farmers, Food, and The Environment. Monthly Review Press, New York.
19. Masipag (2014). Rice Yields. In Food Security and Farmer Empowerment-A study of the impacts of farmer-led sustainable agriculture in the Philippines. Cahpter 4: 53–58. https://masipag.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Chapter-4-Rice-yields.pdf (Accessed Date: 13.12.2021)
20. Nizam, D. and Yenal, Z. (2020). Seed politics in Turkey: the awakening of a landrace wheat and its prospects, The Journal of Peasant Studies, 47(4): 741–766. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2019.170872
21. Patnaik, A., Jongerden J. and Ruivenkamp G. (2017). Repossession through sharing of and access to seeds: different cases and practices. International Review of Sociology, 27(1): 179–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/03906701.2016.1235213
22. Perkins, J. H. (1997). Geopolitics and Green Revolution. Wheat Genes and The Cold War: Wheat Breeding in The Green Revolution. Oxford University Press, UK.
23. Powell, W., Wilhelm E. P., Boulton, M. I., Barber, T. E. S. and Greenland, A. J. (2013). Genotype analysis of the wheat semi dwarf Rht-B1b and Rht-D1b Ancestral Lineage. Plant Breeding, 132: 539–545.
24. Rosset, M. P. and Altieri, M. A. (2017). Agroecology: Science and Politics. Fernwood Publising, Canada.
25. Smale, M. (1997). The green revolution and wheat genetic diversity: Some unfounded assumptions. World Development, 25(8): 1257–1269.
26. Thomas, F. D., Samuel, K., Kovacs, G., Murphy, K. and Wolfe M. S. (2011). Evolutionary plant breeding in cereals-into a new era. Sustainability, 3(10): 1944–1971. https://doi.org/10.3390/su3101944
27. Uhri, A. (2011). Dietary Concerns: A Cultural History of Agriculture and Nutrition in the Light of Archaeological, Archaeobotanical, Historical and Etymological Data. Ege Yayınları, İstanbul, Türkiye. (In Turkish)
28. Vernooy, R., Sthapit, B., Otieno, G., Shrestha, P. and Gupta, A. (2017). The roles of community seed banks in climate change adaption. Development in Practice 27(3): 316–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2017.1294653
29. Wadsworth, Y. (1998). What Is Participatory Action Research? Action Research international, Institute of Workplace Research. Learning and Development, and Southern Cross University Press.
30. WWF (2016). Wheat Atlas of Turkey. https://www.wwf.org.tr/?6140/turkiyeninbugdayatlasi (Accessed Date: 25.08.2022).