Meranın besin değerine dayalı gübrelemenin ekonomik analizi: Yeni bir görüş

Öz

Mera iyileştirme uygulamaları ile ilgili kavramlar, sosyal ve çevresel etkilerin yanında üretim ve ekonomikliği de kapsamaktadır. Mineral gübrelemesi, meraların verimliliğini arttırabilse de, gübre uygulama maliyetindeki artış nedeniyle üretim maliyeti artabilir ve sonuç olarak, net fayda azalabilir. Çalışmada, bozulmuş merada N (0, 60 ve 120 kg ha^-1), P (0, 60 ve 120 kg ha^-1) ve K (0 ve 80 kg ha^-1)  gübre (NPK) uygulamasının ekonomik hususlarını vurgulamak için i) kuru ot verimi (KOV), ii) tüketilen ham proteinin et ırkı sığırlarda can ağırlığa dönüşüm oranı (HPD) ve iii) yeni bir analiz modeli olarak verim ve nispi yem değeri (NYD) endeksi esasına dayalı toplam gelirleri esas alan üç ekonomik analiz modeli (EAM) arasındaki farklılıklar incelenmiştir. Bu amaçla, bozulmuş bir meranın gübreleme ile verimliliğini artırmak için yürütülen bir araştırmaya ait bir dizi veriler analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular, en çok 'gelir' değişkeni bakımından farklılık göstermiş ve bu farklılığın, üç EAM’ın da gelirleri farklı şekillerde tahmin ettiği gerçeğinden kaynaklandığı belirlenmiştir. Farklı gelir ölçümleri nedeniyle, HPD, en yüksek net kara sahip olurken, KOV en düşük değere sahip olmuştur. KOV ve yeni bir görüş olarak NYD esaslı EAM, NPK gübreleri ile hayvansal üretim için kârlı olacak kadar kaba yem üretilemediğini göstermiştir. Bu çalışma, bir EAM' nin bir diğerine üstünlüğünü göstermek yerine, farklı verilerle ilgili modelleri incelemekte ve net faydada belirli bir artış elde etmek için EAM' lerin temel özelliklerini açıklamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ekonomik gübreleme,Ham protein verimi,Mera ıslahı,Net karlılık,Yem değeri

Economic analysis of fertilization based on nutritional value of rangeland: A new opinion

Öz

Concepts behind the best management practices of rangeland improvement include production, economics, as well as social and environmental aspects. Although revenue in rangelands can be increased by fertilization, total production cost can increase and as a result, net benefit may reduce due to increase in fertilizer application cost. This study examined differences between three economic analysis models (EAM): total revenue based on i) hay yield (HY), ii) conversion rate of consumable crude protein to meat on the hoof in cow-calf (CPM) and iii) yield and relative feed value (RFV) index as a new opinion to highlight the economic aspects related to the N (0, 60 and 120 kg ha^-1), P (0, 60 and 120 kg ha^-1) and K (0 and 80 kg ha^-1) fertilization (NPK) in degraded rangelands. For this purpose, a series of data, gathered from an experiment conducted to increase the productivity of degraded rangelands by fertilization were analyzed. The results were most dissimilar for ‘the revenue’ variable and this difference lies in the fact that the EAMs estimated income in different ways. Due to the different revenue measurements, net benefit of CPM was the highest, while that of HY was the lowest. The HAY and RFV models indicate that NPK fertilizers did not increase forage production enough to be profitable for animal production. This study does not strive to suggest one EAM over another; however, it examines the respective models concerning various data and describes underlying characteristics of EAMs to obtain a given increase in net benefit.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Crude protein yield,Economic fertilization,Feed value,Improving rangeland,Net benefit

Kaynakça

1. Adjesiwor, A.T., Islam, M.A., Zheljazkov, V.D., Ritten, J.P., Garcia y Garcia, A., 2017. Grass-legume seed mass ratios and nitrogen rates affect forage accumulation, nutritive value, and profitability. Crop Science, 57(5): 2852-2864. doi:10.2135/cropsci2016.09.0776.
2. Algan, D., Aydın, İ., Olfaz, M., 2017. Nutritive value of rangeland in the grazing maturity on the family basis (in Turkish). Anadolu Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 32(3): 367-373. doi: 10.7161/omuanajas.296511.
3. Amiri, F., Shariff, A.R.B.M., 2012. Comparison of nutritive values of grasses and legume species using forage quality index. Songklanakarin Journal of Science and Technology, 34(5): 577-586.
4. Anderson, P.M.L., Hoffman, M.T., 2007. The impacts of sustained heavy grazing on plant diversity and composition in lowland and upland habitats across the Kamiesberg mountain range in the Succulent Karoo, South Africa. Journal of Arid Environments, 70(4): 686-700. doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2006.05.017.
5. Arzani, H., Basiri, M., Khatibi, F., Ghorbani, G., 2006. Nutritive value of some Zagros Mountain rangeland species. Small Ruminant Research, 65(1-2): 128-135. doi:10.1016/j.smallrumres.2005.05.033.
6. Aydın, İ., Olfaz, M., Algan, D., 2016. Effects of some improvement procedures on potantial disease risks caused by yield, botanical composition and mineral balance of natural ranges (in Turkish). The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey, TOVAG- 112O742, Final Report of the Project, Samsun.
7. Aydin, I., Uzun, F., 2005. Nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization of rangelands affects yield, forage quality and botanical composition. European Journal of Agronomy, 23(1): 8-14. doi:10.1016/j.eja.2004.08.001.
8. Balabanli, C., Albayrak, S., Yuksel, O., 2010. Effects of nitrogen phosphorus and potassium fertilization on the quality and yield of native rangeland. Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 15(2): 164-168.

9. Brum, O.B., López, S., García, R., Andrés, S., Calleja, A., 2009. Influence of harvest season, cutting frequency and nitrogen fertilization of mountain meadows on yield, floristic composition and protein content of herbage. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 38(4): 596-604. doi:10.1590/S1516-35982009000400002.
10. du Toit, J.C.O., 2014. Growth and tiller production of Themeda triandra as affected by NPK fertilisation. African Journal of Range and Forage Science, 31(3): 229-232. doi:10.2989/10220119.2014.899272.
11. du Toit, J.T., Cross, P.C., Valeix, M., 2017. Managing the Livestock–Wildlife Interface on Rangelands. In Rangeland Systems. Springer International Publishing. pp. 395-425. Frame J., Laidlaw, A.S., 2011. Improved grassland management, 2nd ed. The Crowood Press Ltd., p. 352 Ramsbury, UK.
12. Gentner, B., Tanaka, J.A., 2002. Classifying federal public land grazing permittees. Journal of Range Management, 55(1): 2-11. doi:10.2307/4003256.
13. Guevara, J.C., Carlos, R.S., Oscar, R.E., Le Houerou, H.N., 2000. N and P fertilization on rangeland production in Midwest Argentina. Journal of Range Management, 53(4): 410-414. doi:10.2307/4003752.
14. Interrante, S.M., Biermacher, J.T., Kering, M.K., Butler, T.J., 2012. Production and economics of steers grazing tall fescue with annual legumes or fertilized with nitrogen. Crop Science, 52(4): 1940-1948. doi:10.2135/cropsci2011.11.0610.
15. Islam, M.A., Adjesiwor, A.T., 2005. Grass, legumes, and grass-legume mixtures: yield, nutritive value, and soil water use. Western Alfalfa&Forage Symposium. Reno, Nevada. http://alfalfa.ucdavis.edu/ +symposium/proceedings/2015/Islam.pdf (Accessed: 5 June 2017).
16. Kohestani, N., Yeganeh, H. 2016. Study the effects of range management plans on vegetation of summer rangelands of Mazandaran province Iran. Journal of Rangeland Science, 6(3): 195-204.
17. Kowaljow, E., Mazzarino, M.J., Satti, P., Jiménez-Rodríguez, C., 2010. Organic and inorganic fertilizer effects on a degraded Patagonian rangeland. Plant and Soil, 332(1-2): 135-145.
18. Kroeger, T., Casey, F., Alvarez, P., Cheatum, M., Tavassoli, L., 2009. An economic analysis of the benefits of habitat conservation on California rangelands. Conservation economics white paper. Conservation Economics Program, p. 91. Washington, DC: Defenders of Wildlife.
19. Louhaichi, M., Salkini, A.K., Petersen, S.L., 2009. Effect of small ruminant grazing on the plant community characteristics of semiarid Mediterranean ecosystems. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 11(6): 681-689.
20. Manyeki, J.K., Kirwa, E.C., Ogillo, P.B., Mnene, W.N., Kimitei, R., Mosu, A., Ngetich, R., 2015. Economic analysis of natural pasture rehabilitation through reseeding in the southern rangelands of Kenya. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 27, Article #49. http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd27/3/many27049.html (Accessed: 2 February 2018).
21. Newman, Y.C., Adesogan, A.T., Vendramini, J., Sollenberger, L., 2014. Defining forage quality. UF/IFAS Extension, SS-AGR-322. pp. 1-5.
22. Nohong, B., Ako, A., 2016. Raising, sustaining productivity and quality in mixtures imperata Cylindrica-Stylosanthes Guyanensis pastures with phosphorus fertilization and defoliation management. American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences 16(1): 66-73.
23. NRC, 2000. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle (7th Ed.). National Academy Press, p. 248 Washington, D.C. doi:10.17226/9791.
24. Polat, T., Bükün, B., Okant, M., 2007. Dose response effect of nıtrogen and phosphorus on forage qualıty, yıeld and economıc return of rangelands. Pakistan Journal of Botany, 39(1): 151-160.
25. Rubio, H.O., Wood, M.K., Gomez, A., Reyes, G., 1996. Native forage quality, quantity, and profitability as affected by fertilization in northern Mexico. Journal of Range Management, 49(4): 315-319.
26. Şahinoğlu, O., Uzun, F., 2016. Efficiency of different methods in improvement of base rangeland: I. Agronomic Traits (in Turkish). Anadolu Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 31(3): 423-432. doi:10.7161/ omuanajas.269997.
27. Samuel, M.J., Hart, R.H., 1998. Nitrogen fertilization, botanical composition and biomass production on mixed-grass rangeland. Journal of Range Management, 51(4): 408-416.Snyman, H.A., 2005. Rangeland degradation in a semi-arid South Africa—I: influence on seasonal root distribution, root/shoot ratios and water-use efficiency. Journal of Arid Environments, 60(3): 457-481. doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2004.06.006.
28. Torell, L.A., Rimbey, N.R., Tanaka, J.A., Taylor, D.T., Wulfhorst, J.D., 2014. Ranch-level economic impact analysis for public lands: A guide to methods, issues, and applications. Journal of Rangeland Applications, 1: 1-13.
29. Unterschultz, J.R., Miller, J., Boxall, P.C., 2004. The on-ranch economics of riparian zone cattle grazing management. Environmental Management, 33(5): 664-676.Uzun, F., Ocak, N., Şenel, M.Z., Karadağ, Y., 2016. The rates of desirable grazing plant species in rangelands: Effect of different animal species and grazing pressures. Options Méditerranéennes. Série A, Séminaires Méditerranéens, A114, pp. 83-86.
30. Workman, J.P., Tanaka, J.A., 1991. Economic feasibility and management considerations in range revegetation. Journal of Range Management, 44(6): 566-573. doi:10.2307/4003037.
31. Uzun, F., Ocak, N., Şenel, M.Z., Karadağ, Y., 2016. The rates of desirable grazing plant species in rangelands: Effect of different animal species and grazing pressures. Options Méditerranéennes. Série A, Séminaires Méditerranéens, A114, pp. 83-86.
32. Workman, J.P., Tanaka, J.A., 1991. Economic feasibility and management considerations in range revegetation. Journal of Range Management, 44(6): 566-573.
33. Snyman, H.A., 2005. Rangeland degradation in a semi-arid South Africa—I: influence on seasonal root distribution, root/shoot ratios and water-use efficiency. Journal of Arid Environments, 60(3): 457-481.
34. Frame J., Laidlaw, A.S., 2011. Improved grassland management, 2nd ed. The Crowood Press Ltd., p. 352 Ramsbury, UK.