The Effects of Different Tillage Techniques on the Production Costs in Fallow-Wheat Rotation System

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 32 Sayı: 1, 143 - 151, 31.03.2022

Derya Sürek , Celal Cevher , Ufuk Türker

https://doi.org/10.29133/yyutbd.959650

Öz

The adoption and applicability of the technologies developed in agriculture by farmers are very important for agronomic studies. There are a limited number of economic studies comparing different tillage methods with each other. This study was conducted in the land of Polatlı Agricultural Enterprise between 2011 and 2017 to determine the amounts of physical production inputs and unit production costs of three different tillage operations in the fallow-wheat rotation system. The data consist of the production inputs in the Conventional Tillage, Minimum Tillage, and Direct Seeding practices. For the economic analysis, Single Product Budget Analysis was used. All the farmers’ production costs in the fallow-wheat rotation system were considered in the analysis. Among the practices, Gross Production Value (GPV) was obtained the most from the (509.63$ ha-1) practice. This practice was followed by Direct Seeding (486.13$ ha-1) and Minimum Tillage (421.92$ ha-1) practices, respectively. The profit threshold was exceeded in all practices, and production activities’ variable and total costs were fulfilled. The highest relative profit rate was obtained in Direct Seeding (1.77) practice, and it was followed by Conventional Tillage (1.30) and Minimum Tillage (1.08) practices, respectively. In order to obtain an income of $1 in wheat production, the lowest production cost was obtained in the Direct Seeding practice. With the Direct Seeding application, it can be ensured that economic wheat production, preservation of soil structure, reduction of input costs, and less economic damage to the farmer in changing climate conditions can be achieved.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Fallow-wheat, Production cost, Wheat planting method, Single product budget

Nadas-Buğday Ekim Nöbetinde Uygulanan Farklı İşleme Tekniklerinin Üretim Maliyeti Üzerine Etkilerinin İncelenmesi

Öz

Tarımda geliştirilen teknolojilerin, çiftçiler tarafından benimsenmesi ve uygulanabilirliği, agronomik çalışmalar için oldukça önemlidir. Farklı toprak işleme metotlarının birbirleri ile kıyas edildiği ekonomik çalışmalar sınırlı sayıdadır. Bu araştırmada, 2011-2017 yılları arasında yürütülen nadas-buğday ekim nöbeti sistemindeki üç farklı toprak işleme uygulamasının fiziki üretim girdi miktarları ve birim üretim maliyetlerinin tespiti amaçlanmıştır. Çalışma Polatlı Tarım İşletmesi arazisinde yürütülmüştür. Veriler, Geleneksel Toprak İşleme, Azaltılmış Toprak İşleme ve Doğrudan Ekim uygulamalarındaki üretim girdileridir. Ekonomik analizde, Tek Ürün Bütçe Analiz yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Analizde, çiftçinin nadas-buğday ekim nöbeti sistemindeki üretim maliyetlerinin tamamı dikkate alınmıştır. Uygulamalar arasında en fazla Gayri Safi Üretim Değeri Geleneksel Toprak İşleme ($509.63 ha-1) uygulamasından elde edilmiştir. Sırasıyla bu uygulamayı Doğrudan Ekim ($486.13 ha-1) ve Azaltılmış Toprak İşleme ($421.92 ha-1) uygulamaları izlemiştir. Uygulamaların tamamında kâr eşiği aşılmış ve üretim faaliyetlerinin değişen ve toplam masrafları karşılanmıştır. En fazla nispi kar oranı Doğrudan Ekim (1.77) uygulamasında elde edilmiş, bunu sırasıyla Geleneksel Toprak İşleme (1.30) ve Azaltılmış Toprak İşleme (1.08) uygulamaları takip etmiştir. Buğday üretiminde 1 $’lık net gelirin elde edilmesi için, en düşük üretim masrafı Doğrudan Ekim uygulamasında elde edilmiştir. DS uygulaması ile ekonomik buğday üretiminin sağlanması, toprak yapısının korunması, girdi maliyetlerinin azaltılması ve değişen iklim koşullarında çiftçinin ekonomik bakımından daha az zarar görmesi sağlanabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Buğday ekim yöntemi, Nadas-buğday, Üretim maliyeti, Tek ürün analizi

Kaynakça

• Anonymous. (2018). Conservation Agriculture: Economic Benefits. Retrieved January 20, 2019, from http://www.ecaf.org.
• Adeoye, I. B., Fashogbon, A. E. & Idris, B. A. (2014). Analysis of technical efficiency of pepper production among farmers under tropical conditions. International Journal of Vegetable Science, 20(2), 124-130.
• Aase, J. K., & Schaefer, G. M. (1996). Economics of tillage practices and spring wheat and barley crop sequence in the Northern great plains. Journal Soil and Water Conservation, 51 (2), 167-170.
• Ajmer, S. (2006). Economic analysis of wheat production across cropping systems in North - West India. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research, 40(3), 171-177.
• Anderson, T. H., & Domsch, K. H. (1978). A physiological method for the quantitative measurement of microbial biomass in soil. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 215-221.
• Aryal, J. P., Sapkota, T. B., Jat, M. L., & Bishnoi, D. K. (2015). On-farm economic and environmental impact of zero-tillage wheat: A case of North-West India. Experimental Agriculture, 51(1), 1-16.
• Aydin, B., & Unakitan, G. (2016). Comparatively economical analysis of farms in Trakya Region. Anadolu Journal of Agricultural Science, 31(2), 223-232, (In Turkish)
• Aytop, A., & Akbay, C. (2018). Economic analysis of spice red pepper (Maras Pepper) production. Türk Tarım ve Doğa Bilimleri Dergisi, 5(4), 455-464, (In Turkish)
• Basaran, C., & Engindeniz, S. (2015). Analysis of input use efficiency in green pepper production: A case study for Izmir Province. Turkish Journal of Agricultural Economics, 21(2), 77-84, (In Turkish)
• Bayramoglu, Z., Akturk, D., & Tatlidil, F. (2010). The effect of rational source usage on production costs: A case study of Canola production. Selcuk Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences, 24(3), 62-68, (In Turkish)
• Birinci, A., & Kucuk, N. (2004). Calculating wheat production cost on the farms in Erzurum Province. Ataturk University Journal of Agriculture Faculty 35(3-4), 177-181. (In Turkish)
• Cabrera, C. F., & Oleschko, L. K. (1995). The effect of tillage on the internal structure of soil. Agricultura-Tecnica-en-Mexico, 21(2), 139-158.
• Cevher, C., & Altunkaynak, B. (2020). Investigation of socio-economic characteristics of wheat producers on certified seed use: The case of Ankara province. Yuzuncu Yil University Journal of Agricultural Science, 30(1), 115-123.
• Cebi, U. K., Aydin, B., Cakır, R., & Altintas, S. (2017). Energy use efficiency and economic analysis in greenhouse head lettuce (Lactuca sativa cv Salinas) Farming. Turkish Journal of Agricultural and Natural Sciences, 4(4), 426-433, (In Turkish)
• Cetin, B. & A. Vardar. (2009). An analysis of energy use and input costs for wheat production in Turkey. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, 7(2), 352-356.
• Demircan, V., Yilmaz, H., & Binici, T. (2005). Determination of cost and return of apple production in Isparta Province. Turkish Journal of Agricultural Economics, 11(2), 71-80, (In Turkish)
• Erkus, A., Bulbul, M., Kiral, T., Acil, A. F., & Demirci, R. (2005). Agricultural Economics. No.5. Ankara: Ankara University Faculty of Agriculture Education Research and Development Foundation Publications, (In Turkish)
• Jekayinfa, S. O. (2006). Energy consumption pattern of selected mechanized farms in Southwestern Nigeria. Agricultural Engineering International, The CIGR Ejournal, Manuscript, EE 06 001.
• Genc, İ. (1976). Field Crops Ecology. Cukurova University Faculty of Agriculture. Adana. (In Turkish).
• Guler, K. H., Korkmaz, M. (2018). Economic analysis of lavender production in forest villages of Isparta province. Turkish Journal of Forestry, 19(2), 156-162, (In Turkish)
• Gultekin, I., Arısoy, R. S., Taner, A., Kaya, Y., Patigoc, F., & Aksoyak, S. (2011). Comparison of different soil tillage systems, under several crop rotations in wheat production at Central Anatolian Plateu in Turkey. 5th World Congress of Conservation Agriculture Incorporating 3rd Farming Systems Desing Conference, 26-29 September, Brisbane-Avustralia.
• Kaya, Y., Arisoy, R.Z., Taner, A., Aksoyak, S., Partigoc, F., & Gultekin, I. (2010). Comparison of conventional planting and direct seeding for wheat cheak pea rotations in Central Anatolian in rainfed conditions. Journal of Agricultural Machinery, 6(4), 267-272, (In Turkish)
• Kan, M., Partigoc, F., Gultekin, I., Arisoy, R. Z., Kaya, Y., Gultekin, S., Sahin, M., Aydogan, S., Ozdemir, F., & Taner, A. (2018). Economical aspects of conservation agriculture (zero tillage-direct seeding) system in Turkey. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 27, 3332-3341.
• Kral, T., Kasnakoglu, H., Tatlidil, F., Fidan, H., & Gundogmus, E. (1999). Cost calculation methodology and database guide for agricultural products. Agricultural Economics Research Institute Project Report -13, Ankara, (In Turkish)
• Malinga, N. G., Masuku, M. B., & Raufu, M. O. (2015). Comparative analysis of technical efficiencies of smallholder vegetable farmers with and without credit access in swazil and the case of the Hhohho Region. International Journal of Sustainable Agricultural Research, 2(4), 133-145.
• Ozkan, B. (1997). An economic analysis of n fertilization in double cropping maize. ANADOLU Journal of Aegean Agricultural Research Institute, 7(1), 135-145, (In Turkish)
• Ozkan, B. (2001). Agricultural product costs in Antalya province, input use and production costs for important products in some regions in Turkey. Agricultural Economics Research Institute, publication number: 64, Ankara, (In Turkish) Perrin, R., Winkelman, D., Moscardi, R., & Anderson, J. (1976). From agronomic data to farmer recommendations an economics training manual. Mexico.
• Rosli, A., Radam, A., & Rahim, K. A. (2013). Technical efficiency of pepper farms in Sarawak, Malaysia: An application of data envelopment analysis. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 4(7), 227-234.
• Sarauskis, E., Vaiciukevicius, E., Romaneckas, K., Sakalauskas, A., & Baranauskaite, R. (2009). Economic and energetic evaluation of sustainable tillage and cereal sowing technologies in Lithuania. The Fourth International Scientific Conference, Rural Development, 15-17 October, Akademija-Lithuania.
• Sqrensen, C. G., & Nielsen, V. (2005). Operational analyses and model comparison of machinery systems for reduced tillage. Biosystems Engineering, 92(2), 143-155.
• Surek, D., Ozcan, H., Yeter, T., Kosger, Y., Namli, A., Turker, U., Kilinc, E., & Koc, A. (2018). The effects of soil tillage techniques on carbon retention and sustainability of soils, project final report. TAGEM/TSKAD/11/A13/P01. (In Turkish) TUIK. (2019). Turkish Statistical Institute: Agricultural Statistics Data. Retrieved on March 15, 2020, from http://www.tuik.gov.tr, (In Turkish)
• Ulu, O., Engindeniz, S., & Altug, O. (2016). Analysis of input use efficiency in okra production in Izmir Province. Turkish Journal Agricultural Economics, 22(2), 69-76, (In Turkish)
• Yalcin, H., Cakir, E., & Aykas, E. (2005). Minimum and conventional tillage in wheat. Journal of Agronomy, 4(4), 329-332.