Quality Problems in Wheat Varieties and Solutions: The Case of Central Anatolia
Öz
Objective: The aim of this study is to examine wheat varieties and quality values coming to Ankara, Eskişehir and Konya commodity exchanges by comparing them with the quality purchasing table of Turkish Grain Board.
Material and Methods: Wheat and quality values purchased in Eskişehir, Konya and Polatlı Commodity Exchanges (2018 year). Implementation of production techniques, 425 producers were interviewed face-to-face and data were collected by questionnaire.
Results: The wheat with the highest protein value was obtained from Konya and Polatlı commodity exchanges (90-95% good and very good) according to the purchasing table of the Turkish Grain Board. This was followed by the Eskişehir commodity exchange (86-88% good and very good). However, other quality values (hectolitre, gluten index, sedimentation value) were found to be low. It was concluded that this situation was caused by the wrong practices and climatic conditions in the cultivation technique. In the study area, 44.9% of the producers did not apply the cultivation technique, 30.1% of the applicants were partially applied and 24.9% of the applicants were identified.
Conclusion: It was concluded that the most important problem in quality wheat production was insufficient cultivation techniques.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Wheat quality,wheat commodity exchange,quality criteria,production techniques
Kaynakça
- Anonim. 2018. Borsada işlem gören Buğday Çeşitleri ve Kalite Değerleri (ETB, KTB ve PTB)
- TMO. 2018. Toprak Mahsülleri Ofisi. http://www.tmo.gov.tr. Erişim: Agustos 2018
- Anonymous. 1990. Cereals. PBI Cambridge, Plant Breeding International. Cambridge.
- Boyacı M. and Yıldız Ö. 2015. Evaluation of Information Society Skills of Extension Staff in the Different Organizations. Journal of Agriculture Faculty of Ege Universite, 52(1): 57-62.
- Cevher C, Altunkaynak B. 2019. Investigation of socio-economic characteristics of wheat producers on certified seed use: The case of Ankara province. International Conference on AgroSnomy and Food Science and Technology (20-21 June 2019, İstanbul/Turkey), Vol: 1, pp. 28-39.
- Cook R.J, Veseth R.J. 1991. Wheat Health Management. The American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, Minnesota 55121, USA.
- Doğan Y, Kendal E. 2012. Ekmeklik Buğday (TriticumaestivumL.) Genotiplerin Tane Verimi ve Bazı Kalite Özelliklerinin Belirlenmesi. Gaziosamanpaşa Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 29(1): 113-121
- Açıkgöz F.E, Adiloğlu S, Solmaz Y, Adiloğlu A. 2017. The Influence of potassium fertilizer practices on some macro and micro nutrient element ingredient of rocket (Eruca vesicaria subsp. sativa) plant. Oxidation Communications, 40(3): 1209-1218.
- Gerek R. 1970. Türkiye de Buğday Islahı ve Problemleri. Türkiye’de Buğday Yetiştiriciliği ve Problemleri Sempozyumu, 28-30 Nisan, Tarım ve Ormancılık Türkiye Bilimsel Araştırma Grubu Teknik Araştırma Kurumu Yayınları 8: 45-53.
- Güleç T.E, Sönmezoğlu Ö.A, Yıldırım A. 2010. Makarnalık Buğdaylarda Kalite ve Kaliteyi Etkileyen Faktörler. Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 27(1): 113-120.
