Çeltik, Kanola ve Pamuk Üretimde Kimyevi Gübre Kullanım Etkinliği: Türkiye Örneği

Öz

Bu çalışma, Türkiye’de çeltik, kanola ve pamuk üretiminde gübre kullanımının ekonomik etkinliğini analiz etmektedir. Yürütülen araştırmada örnekleme yöntemi olarak pamukta basit tesadüfi örnekleme, çeltikte tabakalı örnekleme, kanolada ise tam sayım yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Analizlerde 74 çeltik, 83 kanola ve 136 pamuk üreticisine ait birincil veriler kullanılmıştır. Araştırmada kullanılan veriler pamukta 2016 yılı, çeltik ve kanolada 2018 yılı üretim dönemine aittir. Üretim fonksiyonları, ilgili üretim girdilerine göre tahmin edilmiştir. Çeltik üretimi için oluşturulan modelde belirleme katsayısı (R²) 0.972, üretim faktörlerine ait esneklik katsayıları toplamı (Σbi) 1.002 ve gübre girdisinin esneklik katsayısı 0.243 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Gübre kullanımının marjinal etkinlik katsayısı ise 13.67 olarak belirlenmiştir. Kanola üretimi için elde edilen sonuçlara göre, belirleme katsayısı 0.919, gübre girdisinin esneklik katsayısı 0.662 ve toplam esneklik değeri 1.004’tür. Gübre faktörünün marjinal etkinlik katsayısı bu ürün için 9.39 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Pamuk üretimi için oluşturulan modelde ise R² değeri 0.915, gübre esnekliği 0.263 ve toplam esneklik değeri 0.976’dır. Bu üründe gübrenin marjinal etkinlik katsayısı 4.18 olarak bulunmuştur. Üç ürün özelinde yapılan analizlerde, gübre girdisinin %5 anlamlılık düzeyinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı olduğu görülmüştür. Ayrıca tahmin edilen üretim fonksiyonlarının yüksek R² değerlerine ve anlamlı F istatistiklerine sahip olması, modellerin güvenilirliğini desteklemektedir. Bu çalışma kapsamında ürünler için hesaplanan marjinal etkinlik katsayıları, incelenen işletmelerde çeltik, kanola ve pamuk üretiminde gübre faktörünün etkin bir şekilde kullanılmadığını göstermektedir. Bu durum, işletmelerin birim alandan elde ettiği verimi ve gelir düzeyini artırma potansiyelinin bulunduğunu işaret etmektedir. Sonuç olarak, çeltik, kanola ve pamuk üretiminde gübre kullanım düzeyinin artırılması hem tarımsal verimliliği hem de üretici kârlılığını artırmak açısından önemli bir strateji olarak değerlendirilmektedir.Üç ürün özelinde yapılan analizlerde, gübre girdisinin %5 anlamlılık düzeyinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı olduğu görülmüştür. Ayrıca tahmin edilen üretim fonksiyonlarının yüksek R² değerlerine ve anlamlı F istatistiklerine sahip olması, modellerin güvenilirliğini desteklemektedir. Elde edilen bulgular, gübre kullanımının incelenen tüm ürünlerde ekonomik optimum düzeyin altında kaldığını ortaya koymaktadır. Başka bir ifadeyle, mevcut durumda üreticilerin gübre kullanım düzeyleri yeterli verim artışını sağlamamakta ve kaynakların etkin kullanılmadığını göstermektedir. Bu durum, işletmelerin birim alandan elde ettiği verimi ve gelir düzeyini artırma potansiyelinin bulunduğunu işaret etmektedir. Sonuç olarak, çeltik, kanola ve pamuk üretiminde gübre kullanım düzeyinin artırılması, hem tarımsal verimliliği hem de üretici kârlılığını artırmak açısından önemli bir strateji olarak değerlendirilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çeltik
• Pamuk
• Kanola
• Gübre
• Etkinlik
• Türkiye

Economic Efficiency of Fertilizer Use in Paddy, Canola, and Cotton Production: Evidence from Türkiye

Öz

This study analyzes the economic efficiency of fertilizer use in the production of paddy, canola, and cotton in Türkiye. The sampling methods used were; simple random sampling for cotton, stratified sampling for rice, and a complete enumeration method for canola. Primary data were collected from 74 paddy, 83 canola, and 136 cotton producers. The data used in the research pertain to the 2016 production season for cotton and the 2018 production season for rice and canola. Production functions were estimated based on the main input variables for each crop. In paddy production, the coefficient of determination (R²) was found to be 0.972, the sum of input elasticities (Σbi) was 1.002, and the elasticity coefficient of the fertilizer input was 0.243. The marginal efficiency of fertilizer use in paddy was calculated as 13.67. For canola production, the R² value was 0.919, the fertilizer elasticity coefficient was 0.662, and the total input elasticity (Σbi) was 1.004. The marginal efficiency coefficient of fertilizer in canola was found to be 9.39. In the cotton model, the coefficient of determination was 0.915, the elasticity of fertilizer input was 0.263, and the total input elasticity was 0.976. The marginal efficiency of fertilizer in cotton production was calculated as 4.18. In all three models, the fertilizer variable was statistically significant at the 5% level. Additionally, the high R² values and statistically significant F-statistics indicate the reliability of the estimated production functions. The results show that fertilizer is not used at an economically optimal level in the examined enterprises for any of the three crops. These findings imply that there is potential to increase both yield per unit area and farm income through improved fertilizer use. In conclusion, increasing the amount of fertilizer applied per unit area in paddy, canola, and cotton production can be considered an important strategy to enhance agricultural productivity and producer profitability.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Paddy
• Cotton
• Canola
• Chemical fertilizer
• Efficiency
• Türkiye

Kaynakça

1. Abid, M., Ashfaq, M., Quddus, M. A., Tahir, M. A. and Fatima, N. A. (2011). Resource use efficiency analysis of small Bt cotton farmers in Punjab, Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 48(1): 75-81.
2. Adedoyin, A.O., Shamsudin, M. N., Radam, A. and Latif, I. A. (2016). Resource-use and allocative efficiency of paddy rice production in Mada, Malaysia. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 7(1): 49-55.
3. Ahmad, D., Chani, M. I., Rauf, A. and Afzal, M. (2016). Economic analysis of cotton cultivation under agro-climatic conditions of district Muzaffargarh. American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences, 16(8): 1498-1503.
4. Amiri, Z., Asgharipour, M. R., Campbell, D. E. and Sabaghi, M. A. (2020). Comparison of the sustainability of mechanized and traditional rapeseed production systems using an emergy-based production function: A case study in Lorestan Province, Iran. Journal of Cleaner Production, 258: 120891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120891
5. Babangida, A.U. (2016). Profitability and production efficiency in cotton production in North-West Nigeria. (PhD. Thesis) Ahmadu Bello University, Kaduna State, Nigeria.
6. Bakri, R., Salam, M., Darma, R. and Saadah, R. A. A. (2021). Efficiency analysis of using production factors in paddy rice farming in Macope Sub-District, Awangpone District, Bone Regency. The 3rd International Conference on Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture in the Tropics, 8th–9th January, Indonesia.
7. Baran, M. F., Gökdoğan, O., and Bayhan, Y. (2021). Determination of energy balance and greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) of cotton cultivation in Turkey: A case study from Bismil District of Diyarbakır Province. Journal of Tekirdag Agricultural Faculty, 18(2), 322-332. https://doi.org/10.33462/jotaf.795179
8. Beattie, B. R., Taylor, C. R. and Watts, M. J. (2009). The Economics of Production (Second Edition). Krieger Publishing Company, Florida, U.S.A.

9. Bulut, F. and Erdal, İ. (2023). Fertilizer use efficiencies of some greenhouse plants grown under farmer practices. Journal of Agriculture and Nature, 26(3): 639-649.
10. Canan, S. and Dansoko, I. (2022). Economic analysis and competitiveness of cotton farms in Mali, The case of Founia District of Kita Province. Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology, 10(10): 1987-1996.
11. Candemir, S. (2021). Efficiency and functional analysis of cotton production in Turkey: Case of Kahramanmaraş Province. Custos e Agronegócio On Line, 17(2): 100-122.
12. Çelik, Y. and Bayramoğlu, Z. (2007). Functional analysis of cotton in the Harran Plain of Şanlıurfa Province. Selcuk Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences, 21(41): 42-50.
13. Chaudhry, I.S. and Khan, M.B. (2009). Factors affecting cotton production in Pakistan: Empirical evidence from Multan District. Journal of Quality and Technology Management, 5 (2): 91-100.
14. Çiçek, A. and Erkan, O. (1996). Tarım Ekonomisinde Araştırma ve Örnekleme Yöntemleri. Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Yayınları: Tokat.
15. Dass, D., Singh, V., Khatkar, R.K., Singh, J., Singh, B. and Singh, P. (2014). Economic analysis of Bt cotton production in Haryana. Journal of Cotton Research and Development, 28(1): 167-169.
16. Dawson, P.J. and Lingard, J. (1982). Management bias and returns to scale in a Cobb-Douglas production function for agriculture. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 9 (1): 7-24.
17. Dolatabadi, S.R. and Ghahremanzadeh, M. (2016). Measuring the technical efficiency of canola farmers and determining the effective factors in Tabriz County, Iran. International Journal of Agricultural Management and Development, 6 (4): 505-513.
18. Doll, J. P. and Orazem, F. (1984). Production economics theory with applications. John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York. U.S.A.
19. Gaddi, G.M., Mundinamani, S.M. and Patil, S.A. (2002). Yield gaps, constraints and potential in cotton production in North Karnataka: An Econometric Analysis. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 57(4): 722-734.
20. Garai, S., Mondal, M. and Mukherjee, S. (2020). Smart Practices and Adaptive Technologies for Climate Resilient Agriculture. New Delhi Publishers, Kolkata, India.
21. Gözener, B. (2016). Functional analysis of paddy farming and paddy farming cost. Custos e Agronegócio On Line, 11 (4): 154-166.
22. Green, S. B., Salkind, N. J. and Akey, T. M. (2000). Using SPSS for Windows, Analyzing and Understanding Data (Second Edition). Prentice Hall Inc., New Jersey, U.S.A.
23. Gujarati, D. N. and Porter, D. (2009). Basic Econometrics (5th Edition). McGraw-Hill Irwin, New York, U.S.A.
24. Hacıoğlu, H., Altuntaş, E., and Baran, M. F. (2024). Çeltik üretiminde enerji bilançosunun belirlenmesi (Çorum İli Osmancık İlçesi Örneği). Tekirdağ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(2), 468-481. https://doi.org/10.33462/jotaf.1294152
25. Heady, E.O. and Dillon, J.L. (1966). Agricultural Production Functions. Iowa State Universty Press, Iowa, U.S.A.
26. Hoque, F., Joya, T.A., Akter, A., Anny, S.A., Khatun, M. and Rungsuriyawiboon, S. (2022). Profit efficiency and technology adoption of boro rice production in Bangladesh. Iranian Economic Review, 26 (3): 511-524.
27. Ida, F. C. and Azhar, M. (2018). Efficiency Analysis of production factors of wetland paddy farming in West Aceh Regency. Russian Journal of Agricultural and Socio-Economic Sciences (RJOAS), 9(81): 424-428. https://doi.org/10.18551/rjoas.2018-09.50
28. Işgın, T., Özel, R., Bilgiç, A. and Sevinç, M.R. (2023). Factors affecting technical efficiency scores estimated for the cotton sector of the Harran plain in Turkiye: A stochastic frontier analysis. ITEGAM-JETIA, 9(40): 18-26.
29. Kaka, Y., Shamsudin, M.N., Radam, A. and Latif, I.A. (2016). Profit efficiency among paddy farmers: A Cobb-Douglas Stochastic Frontier Production Function Analysis. Journal of Asian Scientific Research, 6 (4): 66-75.
30. Kamanga, B.C., Kanyama-Phiri, G. and Minae, S. (2000). Maize production under tree-based cropping systems in Southern Malawi: A Cobb-Douglas approach. African Crop Science Journal, 8(4): 429-440.
31. Kanthilanka, H. and Weerahewa, J. (2016). Resource-use Pattern in Paddy Cultivation in Sri Lanka: A Production Function Approach. 5th International Conference of Sri Lanka Forum of University Economists, 22-23 December, Sri Lanka.
32. Kashem, M. A. and Singh, B. R. (2002). The effect of fertilizer additions on the solubility and plant-availability of Cd, Ni and Zn in soil. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 62: 287–296.
33. Mobtaker, H. G., Keyhani, A., Mohammadi, A., Rafiee, S. and Akram, A. (2010). Sensitivity analysis of energy inputs for barley production in Hamedan Province of Iran. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 137(3-4): 367- 372.
34. Mousavi-avval, S. H., Rafiee, S., Jafari, A. and Mohammadi, A. (2011). Energy flow modeling and sensitivity analysis of inputs for canola production in Iran. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19 (13): 1464-1470.
35. Neill, R. J. (2003). Production and production functions: Some implications of a refinement to process analysis. Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organization, 51(4): 507-521.
36. Nimoh, F., Tham-agyekum, E. K. and Nyarko, P. K. (2012). Resource use efficiency in rice production: The case of Kpong Irrigation Project in the Dangme West District of Ghana. International Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 2 (1): 35-40.
37. Örük, G. (2020). Measurement of ınput usage efficiency in cotton production in Diyarbakir Province, Turkey. Custos e Agronegócio On Line, 16(2): 55-71.
38. Özpınar, S. (2023). Analysis of energy use efficiency and greenhouse gas emission in rainfed canola production (Case study: Çanakkale Province, Turkey). Journal of Tekirdag Agricultural Faculty, 20 (1), 197-210. https://doi.org/10.33462/jotaf.1121863
39. Pudaka, D. L. and Rusdarti, P. E. P. (2018). Efficiency analysis of rice production and farmers' income in Sengah Temila District Landak Regency. Journal of Economic Education. 7(1): 31-38.
40. Rafiee, S., Mousavi-avval, S. H. and Mohammadi, A. (2010). Modeling and sensitivity analysis of energy inputs for apple production in Iran. Energy, 35(8): 3301-3306.
41. Sarker, J. R. and Alam, F. (2016). Efficiency and economics in cotton production of Bangladesh. Journal of Agriculture and Environment for International Development, 110 (2): 325-348.
42. Siagian, V., Siregar, H., Fariyanti, A. and Nainggolan, K. (2019). Analysis of factors that influence the production of wetland rice in Banten Province. The 1st International Seminar on Natural Resources and Environmental Management, 15 August, Indonesia.
43. Sikdar, M. M. H., Alam, M. A. and Hossain, M. I. (2008). Factors affecting the technical efficiency of Boro rice production in Bangladesh a Cobb-Douglas stochastic frontier analysis. Journal of the Bangladesh Agricultural University, 6(1): 215-226.
44. Singh, G., Singh, S. and Singh, J. (2004). Optimization of energy inputs for wheat crop in Punjab. Energy Conversion and Management, 45 (3): 453-465.
45. Sonawane, K. G., Nirgude, R. R. and Kadam, S. A. (2017). Impact assessment of paddy production technology on farm income and productivity. Trends in Biosciences. 10(29): 6111-6118.
46. Suresh, A and Reddy, T. R. K. (2006). Resource-use efficiency of paddy cultivation in Peechi Command area of Thrissur District of Kerala: An economic analysis. Agricultural Economics Research Review. 19 (1): 159-171.
47. Taheri-garavand, A., Asakereh, A. and Haghani, K. (2010). Energy elevation and economic analysis of canola production in Iran a case study: Mazandaran province. International Journal of Environmental Sciences, 1(2): 236-242.
48. Ulveling, E. F. and Fletcher, L. B. (1970). A Cobb-Douglas production function with variable returns to scale. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 52(2): 322-326.
49. Vural, H. and Turhan, Ş. (2011). Econometric analysis of peach production in Bursa Province. Journal of Agricultural Faculty of Uludag University, 25(2): 1-6.
50. Wambui, C.M. and Majiwa, E. (2020). Evaluation of technical efficiency of edible oil production: The case of canola production in Kieni West Constituency, Kenya. Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics, 12(1): 59-66.
51. Wei, W., Mushtaq, Z., Faisal, M. and Wan-li, Z. (2020). Estimating the economic and production efficiency of cotton growers in Southern Punjab, Pakistan. Custos E Agronegócio On Line, 16(2): 2-21.
52. Yamane, T. (1967). Elementary Sampling Theory. Prentice- Hall, Inc., New Jersey, U.S.A.
53. Yilmaz, İ., Akcaöz, H. and Özkan, B. (2005). An analysis of energy use and input costs for cotton production in Turkey. Renewable Energy, 30(2): 145–155.
54. Yumnam, A., Kumar, A. and Chauhan, S. K. (2016). Comparative economics of rice cultivation in Himachal Pradesh and Manipur States of India. Indian Journal of Hill Farming, 30(2): 227-232.
55. Yüzbaşıoğlu, R. and Abacı, N. İ. (2023). Paddy rice production costs and factors affecting paddy rice productivity: Case study in Sinop province, Turkey. Custos E Agronegócio On Line, 19(1): 147-162.
56. Zahedi, M., Eshghizadeh, H. R. and Mondani, F. (2014). Energy use efficiency and economical analysis in cotton production system in an arid region: A case study for Isfahan Province, Iran. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 4(1): 43-52.
57. Zulfiqar, F. and Thapa, G. B. (2016). Is ‘Better Cotton’ better than conventional cotton in terms of input use efficiency and financial performance? Land Use Policy, 52(2016): 136–143.