Investigation of agricultural supports on forage crop production: a perspective of the effects of supports on the basis of regions

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 59 Sayı: 1, 1 - 15, 30.03.2022

Celal Cevher , Bülent Altunkaynak , Yener Ataseven , Özdal Köksal , Zeki Bayramoğlu , Gonca Gül Yavuz

https://doi.org/10.20289/zfdergi.898219

Cited By: 1

Öz

Objective: Although the farmers producing forage crops have been supported since 2000, the targeted level of forage crop production has not been reached. Hence a study was conducted and the objective of this t was to determine the factors affecting the increase in forage crop production at the regional level.
Material and Methods: The Central Anatolia and Eastern Anatolia Regions, where forage crop production is common in Turkey, were selected. Data were collected through face-to-face interviews with randomly selected 980 forage crop producers. Linear regression analysis was used to analyze the data.
Results: It has been determined that the most important variables affecting the increase in forage crop production in both regions are the presence of land and the number of animals. An increase of 1 hectare in the irrigated land led to an increase in the production of 2.77 hectares of vetch crop (Vicia sativa L.) in the Central Anatolia Region. In the Eastern Anatolia Region, it was determined that this situation caused an increase in the production of 4.69 hectares of alfalfa crops (Medicago sativa L.). After the subsidies, the forage crop production of the non-animal farmers was approximately 2.14 times higher than the livestock farmers.
Conclusion: Giving forage crops supports considering the crops production pattern and geographical conditions of the regions will contribute more to the increase in forage crops production.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Agricultural subsidies, Forage crop production, Regression analysis, Turkey, Turkey, Turkey, Turkey, Turkey, Turkey

Yem bitkileri üretimine yönelik tarımsal desteklerin araştırılması: Desteklerin bölgeler temelinde etkilerine bir bakış

Öz

Amaç: 2000 yılından itibaren yem bitkisi üreten çiftçilerin desteklenmesine rağmen, yem bitkisi üretimi hedeflenen seviye ulaşılamamıştır. Bu çalışmada, bölgeler düzeyinde yem bitkisi üretim artışına etki eden faktörlerin belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır.
Materyal ve Yöntem: Türkiye’de yem bitkisi üretiminin yaygın olarak yapıldığı Orta Anadolu ve Doğu Anadolu Bölgesi seçilmiştir. Rastgele seçilen 980 yem bitkisi üreticisiyle yüz yüze görüşülerek anket yoluyla veriler toplanmıştır. Verileri analiz etmek için doğrusal regresyon analizi kullanılmıştır.
Araştırma Bulguları: Her iki bölgede de yem bitkisi üretim artışına etki eden en önemli değişkenlerin arazi varlığı ve hayvan sayısı olduğu saptanmıştır. Sulu arazideki 1 hektarlık artış, İç Anadolu Bölgesi’nde 2,77 hektar fiğ bitkisi (Vicia sativa L.) üretiminde artışa neden olmuştur. Doğu Anadolu Bölgesi’nde ise bu durumun 4,69 hektar yonca bitkisinin (Medicago sativa L.) üretim artışına neden olduğu saptanmıştır. Desteklerden sonra, hayvancılık yapmayan çiftçilerin hayvancılık yapanlara kıyasla yem bitkisi üretimi yaklaşık olarak 2,14 kat daha fazla olmuştur.
Sonuç: Yem bitkisi desteklerinin bölgelerin bitkisel üretim deseni ve coğrafik şartları dikkate alınarak verilmesi, yem bitkisi üretim artışına daha fazla katkı sağlayacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

regresyon analizi, Tarımsal destekler, yem bitkisi üretimi, Turkey, Turkey, Turkey, Turkey, Turkey, Turkey, Turkey, Turkey

Kaynakça

• Abah, R.C. & B.M. Petja, 2015. The socio-economic factors affecting agricultural development in the Lower River Benue Basin. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare, 5 (24): 84-94.
• Acar, Z., M. Tan, I. Ayan, O.O. Asci, H. Mut, U. Basaran, E. Gulumser, M. Can & G. Kaymak, 2020. Türkiye’de yem bitkileri tarımının durumu ve geliştirme olanakları. Turkey Agricultural Engineering IX. Technical Congress (January 13-17, 2020, Ankara, Turkey).
• Adam, M.K., A.W. Scott & G.B. Colin, 2012. An exploration of livestock-development policies in western China. Food Policy, 37(1): 12-20. Ahn, B. & S. Han, 2016. Analysis on the effects of government's support for forage production. The Korean Journal of Agricultural Economics, 57(3): 55-78.
• Agirbas N.C., K. Sapmaz & A. Koc. 2017, The effects of agricultural supports on forage crops of cultivation area and amount of production in Eskişehir Province. Atatürk University, Journal of the Agricultural Faculty, 48(1): 65-72.
• Agostinho, F., M.W. Oliveira, F.M. Pulselli, C. Almeida & B.F. Giannetti, 2019. Emergy accounting as a support for a strategic planning towards a regional sustainable milk production. Agricultural Systems, 176: 102647.
• Aksu, N. & I. Dellal, 2016. An evaluation for Afyonkarahisar Province on relationship of feed crops subsidy with bovine livestock activities. Yuzuncu Yil University Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 26 (1): 52-60.
• Alene, A.D. & V.M. Manyong, 2007. The effects of education on agricultural productivity under traditional and improved technology in Northern Nigeria: An endogenous switching regression analysis. Empirical Economics, 32(1): 141-159.
• Altındeger, M. & B. Hekimoglu, 2017. TR831 Samsun ili hayvancılık sektörü üretim, sorunlar ve çözüm önerileri. Working Paper, Samsun Gıda Tarım ve Hayvancılık İl Müdürlüğü.
• Asfaw, A. & A. Admassie, 2004. The role of education on the adoption of chemical fertiliser under different socioeconomic environments in Ethiopia. Elsevier, Agricultural Economics, 30(3): 215-228.
• Aslan M. & I. Boz. 2005, Factors ınfluencing the agricultural use of direct income support. Turkish Journal of Agricultural Economics, 11(2): 61-70.
• Ata, N. & H. Yılmaz, 2015. Reflections of implementations of livestock production support polices on dairy farms in Turkey: The Case of Burdur Province. SDU Journal of the Faculty of Agriculture, 10(1): 44-54.
• Avazov, S. 2013. Socio-economic features of the agro-pastoralists in the Zarafshan Valley, NW Tajikistan. Young Researchers’ Forum of the International Conference- Natural Resource Use in Central Asia: Institutional Challenges and the Contribution of Capacity Building (1 October 2013, Giessen, Germany).
• Aydogdu, M., I. Aydogdu, C. Cevheri, M.R. Sevinc & N. Kucuk, 2020. Analysis of the socio-economic profile of fodder crops producer farmers’ in Şanlıurfa. Journal of Ekonomi, 1. Special Issue, 10-15.
• Bai, M., W. Ma, L. Ma, G.L. Velthof, Z. Wei, P. Havlik, O. Oenema, M.R.F. Lee & F. Zhang, 2018. China’s livestock transition: Driving forces, impacts, and consequences. Science Advances, 4(7): eaar8534.
• Balabanlı, C., Y. Cirit, S. Kayacan, E. Bicakci & O. Yuksel, 2016. Determination of forage crops producer behaviour in agriculture; Example of Isparta Province. Journal of Central Research Institute for Field Crops, 25 (Special Issue-2): 259-264.
• Bartzas, G. & K. Komnitsas, 2020. An integrated multi-criteria analysis for assessing sustainability of agricultural production at regional level. Information Processing in Agriculture, 7(2): 223-232.
• Benni, N. & R. Finger, 2013. The effect of agricultural policy reforms on income inequality in Swiss agriculture-An analysis for valley, hill and mountain regions. Journal of Policy Modeling, 35(4): 638-651.
• Bernues A., R. Ruiz, A. Olaizola, D. Villalba & I. Casasus, 2011. Sustainability of pasture-based livestock farming systems in the European Mediterranean context: Synergies and trade-offs. Livestock Science, 139(1-2): 44-57.
• Bhat, P.N. & P.C. Bansil, 1999. Grains and roughage production and its utilization in Asian-Australasian Region. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 12(3): 481-492.
• Bicakci, E. & S. Acikbas, 2018. Determination of Roughage Production Potential for Farm Animals in Bitlis Province. BEU Journal of Science, 7(1): 180-185.
• Bontkes, T.S. & H. Keulen, 2003. Modelling the dynamics of agricultural development at farm and regional level. Agricultural Systems, 76(1): 379-396.
• Boyacı, M. 2020. Agricultural extension and ınnovative culture in the aegean region. Journal of Agriculture Faculty of Ege University, 57 (2):191-207.
• BUGEM. 2021. Bitkisel üretim destekleme birim fiyatları. (Web page: https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/BUGEM/Belgeler) (Date accessed: May, 2021).
• Cevher, C. & B. Altunkaynak, 2020. Socioeconomic factors and sustainable forage crops production in Turkey Aegean Region: A Multivariate Modeling. Sustainability, 12, 8061.
• Cevher, C. 2019. Determination of the main socio-economic factors of the sustainable production of forage crops: Research of Kayseri Province. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 25(4): 474-480.
• Chang J.B. 2018. The effects of forage policy on feed costs in Korea. Agriculture, 8(6): 72.
• Coque, J.M.G.A., T.L.G Usach & M.S.G. Garcia, 2013. Territory and innovation behaviour in agri-food firms: does rurality matter. New Medit, 12(3): 2-10.
• D’amico, M., A. Coppola, G. Chinnici, G. Di Vita & G. Pappalardo, 2013. Agricultural systems in the European Union: an analysis of regional differences. New Medit, 12(4): 28-34
• Demir, N. & F. Yavuz, 2010. An analysis on factors effective in benefiting from forage crops support. Scientific Research and Essays, 5(15): 2022-2026.
• Dogan, H.G. & B. Altuntas, 2017. Searching agricultural policy towards problems and solutions of fattening cattle farms in Kırşehir Province Conditions (Case of Körpınar and Taşlıtepe Villages). KMU Journal of Social and Economic Research, 19(32): 55-64.
• Erdal H., G. Erdal & B. Ayyildiz, 2021. Are support policies for sustainable livestock important? causality between animal existence and support polıcies: Vecm analysis for Turkey. The Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences, 31(1): 54-264.
• Galko, E. & P.A. Jayet, 2011. Economic and environmental effects of decoupled agricultural support in the EU. Agricultural Economics, 42(5): 531-630.
• Gupta, J.J., K.M. Singh, B.P. Bhatt & A. Dey, 2014. A Diagnostic study on livestock production system in Eastern Region of India. Munich Personal RePEc Archive, Paper No. 59517.
• Lehtonen, H. & J.S. Niemi, 2018. Effects of reducing EU agricultural support payments on production and farm income in Finland. Agricultural and Food Science, 27: 124-137.
• Mac, H. & H. Yılmaz, 2016. Analysis of factors related with farmers' benefiting from forage crops production support: evidence from a survey for the Central Anatolia region of Turkey. Revista de la Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad del Zulia, 33(2): 232-254.
• Mittal, S. & M. Mehar, 2016. Socio-economic factors affecting adoption of modern ınformation and communication technology by farmers in India: Analysis Using Multivariate Probit Model. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 22(2): 199-212.
• Mut, H., M. Gezer, E. Gulumser, U. Basaran, M. Copur Dogrusoz & I. Ayan, 2016. Yozgat’ta yem bitkileri tarımının genel durumu. I. Uluslararası Bozok Sempozyumu (5-7 May 2020, Yozgat)
• Nakano, Y., Y. Tanaka & K. Otsuka, 2018. Impact of training on the intensification of rice farming: evidence from rainfed areas in Tanzania. The journal of the International Association of Agricultural Economics, 49(2): 193-202.
• Onojah D.A., J.J. Aduba & O.A. Oladunni, 2013. Relationship between farmers socio-economic characteristics and maize production in Nigeria: The chasm. Global Journal of Current Research, 1(4): 124-131.
• Ozkan, U. 2020. Comparative overview and evaluation of Turkey’s forage crops agriculture. Turkish Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 1: 29-43.
• Ozturk, O. 2020. Comparison of forage plants production according to the regions in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Agricultural and Natural Sciences, 7(4): 1065-1071.
• Prokopy, L.S., K. Floress, D. Klotter-Weinkauf & A. Baumgart-Getz, 2008. Determinants of agricultural best management practice adoption: Evidence from the literatüre. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 63(5): 300-311.
• Reddy, P.P. 2016. Integrated crop–livestock farming systems. Sustainable Intensification of Crop Production, 357-370.
• Reheul, D., M. Cougnon, M. Kayser, J. Pannecoucque, J. Swanckaert, B. De Cauwer, A. Van Den Pol & A. De Vliegher, 2017. Sustainable intensification in the production of grass and forage crops in the low Countries of north‐west Europe. Grass and Forage Science, 72(3): 369-381.
• Republic of Turkey Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (TOB). 2020. Mera Yönetmeliği. (Web page: https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/Belgeler/Mevzuat/Yonetmelikler/mera_yonetmeligi. pdf) (Date accessed: September, 2020).
• Sami, U.A., A.A. Khan, A. Burkert & M. Wachendorf, 2014. Socio-economic aspects of fodder production in urban and peri-urban areas of Faisalabad. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural. Sciences, 51(2): 483-490.
• Sayar, M.S., A.E. Anlarsal & M. Başbag, 2010. Current situation, problems and solutions for cultivation of forage crops in the Southeastern Anatolian Region. Harran Journal of Agricultural and Food Science, 14(2): 59-67.
• Saygı, Y.D. & O.F. Alarslan, 2012. The effect of coarse feed subvention practices on dairy cattle breeding in Yozgat Region. Journal of Turkish Veterinary Medical Society, 83(2): 25-35.
• Stanek, P., P. Żółkiewski, W. Teter, W. Chabuz, Z. Litwińczuk & A. Bochniak, 2018. The role of main fodder area as a factor limiting the development of farms under conditions of sustainable agriculture. A case study from the Podkarpacie region (Southern Poland, Western Carpathians). Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 42(5): 477-492.
• Storstad, O. & H. Bjorkhavg, 2003. Foundations of production and consumption of organic food in Norway: Commun attitudes among farmers and consumers. Agriculture and Human Valves. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 20: 151-163.
• Swathy, A.H. & U.C. Thomas, 2020. Mechanization in Fodder Crop Productıon–A Review. Indian Society of Forage Research, 46(1): 1-9
• Teklay, Y. & Z. Teklay, 2015. Assessment on farmers’ willingness to adopt improved forage production in South Tigray, Ethiopia. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 6(15): 47-57.
• Todorovic, S., R. Papic, P. Ciaian & N. Bogdanov, 2020. Technical efficiency of arable farms in Serbia: Do subsidies matter? New Medit, 19(4): 81-97.
• Topcu, G. & S. Ozkan, 2017. General view to meadow-rangelands and forage crops cultivation of Aegean Region and Turkey. COMU Journal of Agriculture Faculty, 5: 21-28.
• Topcu, Y. 2008. Effective factors’ analysis on willingness to utilize from farmers’ agricultural support policies: The Case Study of Erzurum Province. Mediterranean Agricultural Sciences, 21(2): 205-212.
• Torgut, E., S. Annayev, B. Türkekul & M.C.O. Kart, 2019. The impact of animal husbandry policies on dairy farms: The Case of Izmir Province. SDU Journal of the Faculty of Agriculture, 14(1): 29-45.
• Turkish Statistical Institute (Turkstat). 2019. Livestock Statistics. (Web page: http://www.tuik.gov.tr) (Date accessed: September, 2019).
• Vanslembrouck, I., G.V. Huylenbroeck & W. Verbeke, 2002. Determinants of the willingness of belgian farmers to participate in agri‐environmental measures. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 53(3): 489-511.
• Yavuz, T., H. Kir & V. Gul, 2020. Evaluation of roughage production potential in Turkey: The Case of Kırşehir Province. Turkish Journal of Agricultural Research 7(3): 345-352.
• Yılmaz, A., E. Yenice, I. Yavas & A. Cenesiz, 2020. Current situation and future in animal nutrition. Turkey Agricultural Engineering IX. Technical Congress (13-17 January 2020, Ankara).
• Yılmaz, H. & H. Koknaroglu, 2007. Assessment of Livestock Policies in Turkey in the Harmonization Process to European Union Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). V. Animal Science Congress (5-8 September 2007, Van).
• Yilmaz, H. & H. Mac, 2013. Evaluation of the effects on production of forage crops production support policies in Turkey. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on New Directions in Business, Management, Finance and Economics (ICNDBM 2013) (12-14 September 2013, Northern Cyprus).