Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T01:15:24.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of the farms producing dry bean landraces by capital approach in the Middle Kızılırmak Valley of Turkey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 May 2019

Mustafa Kan ,
Arzu Kan ,
Ömer Sözen ,
Ufuk Karadavut  and
Mehmet Yağmur
Mustafa Kan*
Affiliation:
Agricultural Faculty, Department of Agricultural Economics, Kırşehir Ahi Evran University, Kirsehir, Turkey
Arzu Kan
Affiliation:
Agricultural Faculty, Department of Agricultural Economics, Kırşehir Ahi Evran University, Kirsehir, Turkey
Ömer Sözen
Affiliation:
Agricultural Faculty, Department of Field Crops, Kırşehir Ahi Evran University, Kirsehir, Turkey
Ufuk Karadavut
Affiliation:
Agricultural Faculty, Department of Animal Husbandry, Kırşehir Ahi Evran University, Kirsehir, Turkey
Mehmet Yağmur
Affiliation:
Agricultural Faculty, Department of Field Crops, Kırşehir Ahi Evran University, Kirsehir, Turkey
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study was conducted to determine the opinions of the farmers producing dry bean landraces (DBL) at the regional level of Turkey (eight provinces). In total, 140 questionnaire forms were filled by DBL producers. The population and then the sample size were determined according to 2016-year-preliminary-study. The capital structures of the farms according to the production types were evaluated using the Five-Capital-Model approach, and differences were tested by parametric and non-parametric statistical methods. The study showed that 37.86% of the DBL producers produce as the home-garden-type while 62.14% of them as the field-type, which is larger than 0.1 ha. While home-garden-type producers majorly produce for their own family needs, commercial ideas and concerns are at the forefront for field-type producers. While field-type producers have higher values in terms of five capitals, home-garden-type producers move within a more traditional way of production. More than half of the producers indicate that they will continue to produce DBL; this ratio is higher in home-garden-type producers. This indication of approximately 25% of both types of producers wherein their children will continue to produce DBL, there is a need for more human labour, efficiency and profitability concerns, production mostly by the elderly population increasing the risk of future depletion in DBL-genetic resources. This calls for more efforts to increase the awareness among the young population on the importance and protection of genetic resources and to make special policies for the protection of genetic resources by policy makers and develop models based on genetic resources.

Keywords

genetic resourcesnatural resourcessustainabilityTurkey
Type
Research Article
Information
Plant Genetic Resources , Volume 17 , Issue 5 , October 2019 , pp. 391 - 400
Copyright
Copyright © NIAB 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aydoğan, M, Demiryürek, K and Abacı, Nİ (2015) Türkiye'de kuru fasulye üretiminin mevcut durumu ve gelecek dönemler üretiminin tahmin edilmesi (in Turkish). Türk Tarım – Gıda Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi 3: 962–968.Google Scholar
Balkaya, A (1999) A Research on Collection of Genetic Resources, Determination of Phenological and Morphological Characteristics and Selection of Suitable Types for Fresh Consumption by Pedigree Selection in Green Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in the Black Sea Region. Ph.D. Dissertation (unpublished, in Turkish). Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun.Google Scholar
Balkaya, A and Yanmaz, R (2001) Conservation facilities of plant genetic resources and working systems of seed gene banks. Journal of Ecology and Environment 10: 25–30.Google Scholar
Belay, G, Tesemma, T, Bechere, E and Mitiku, D (1995) Natural and human selection for purple-grain tetraploid wheats in the Ethiopian highlands. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 42: 387–391.Google Scholar
Bennett, SJ, Maxted, N and Sabanci, CO (1998) The ecogeography and collection of grain, forage and pasture legumes in south-west Turkey. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 45: 253–262.Google Scholar
Birol, D, Akdemir, HA, Şili, Ş, Eralp, Ö, Metinoğlu, F, Ölmez, O, Kuzgun, M, Madanoğlu, O, Tosun, F, Küçükçongar, M, Altıntaş, G, Çankaya, A, Kadıoğlu, B, Eren Yalçın, G, Tan, S, Çobanoğlu, F, Everest, B, Kan, M and Yılmaz, Hİ (2018) Genç Çiftçi Desteklemelerine Kriter Olabilecek Parametrelerin ve Gençlerin Tarımda Kalma Eğilimlerinin Belirlenmesi (in Turkish). Project Report, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Project No. TAGEM/TEPD/17/G/A08/P03/001, Aydın, Turkey.Google Scholar
Brush, SB (1995) In situ conservation of landraces in centers of crop diversity. Crop Science 35: 346–354.Google Scholar
Carney, D (1998) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods – What Contributions Can We Make? London, UK: DFID.Google Scholar
Çömlekçi, N (2001) Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi ve İstatistiksel Anlamlılık Sınamaları (in Turkish). Eskişehir: Bilim Teknik Yayınevi.Google Scholar
Davis, PM (1985) Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Erdinç, Ç, Türkmen, Ö and Şensoy, S (2013) Determination of various vegetative characteristic of some bean genotypes of Turkey (in Turkish). Yuzuncu Yıl University Journal of Agricultural Sciences 23: 112–125.Google Scholar
Evenson, RE and Gollin, D (1994) Genetic Resources, International Organizations and Rice Varietal Improvement. Center Discussion Paper No. 713. Economic Growth Center, Yale University, New Haven, CT USA.Google Scholar
FAOSTAT (2018) Dry Bean Production Data for 2016 Year. Available at: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC (accessed 18 June 2018).Google Scholar
Fischbeck, G (2003) Diversification through breeding. In: von Bothmer, R, van Hintum, TH, Knüpffer, H and Sato, K (eds) Diversity in Barley (Hordeum vulgare). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science B.V., pp. 29–52.Google Scholar
Gauchan, D, Smale, M, Maxted, N, Cole, M, Sthapit, BR, Jarvis, DI and Upadhyay, MP (2005) On-farm conservation of crop genetic diversity: examining farmers’ and breeders’ choice of rice varieties in Nepal. In: Sthapit, BR, Upadhyay, MP, Shrestha, PK and Jarvis, DI (eds) On-farm Conservation of Agricultural Biodiversity in Nepal, vol. II. Managing diversity and promoting its benefits. Proceedings of the Second National Workshop, 25–27 August 2004, Nagarkot, Nepal. Rome, Italy: International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, pp. 17–27.Google Scholar
Harlan, JR (1995) The Living Fields: Our Agricultural Heritage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available at: http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam031/94042948.pdf (accessed 14 June 2018).Google Scholar
Jaradat, A (2017) Wheat landraces: a mini review. Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture 25: 20–29.Google Scholar
Kan, M, Küçükçongar, M, Keser, M, Morgounov, A, Muminjanov, H, Özdemir, F and Qualset, C (2015) Wheat Landraces in Farmers Fields in Turkey: National Survey, Collection, and Conservation. 2009–2014. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
Kan, M, Küçükçongar, M, Keser, M, Morgounov, A, Muminjanov, H, Özdemir, F and Qualset, C (2016a) Wheat landraces production on farm level in Turkey: who is growing in where? Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences 53: 159–169.Google Scholar
Kan, M, Kan, A, Gülçubuk, B and Peker, K (2016b) Importance of local products in regional development dynamics in Turkey (in Turkish). In: Peker, AE (ed.) Regional Development. Çanakkale, Turkey: Pradigma Akademi. pp. 231–280.Google Scholar
Karataş, A, Büyükdinç, D, İpek, A, Yağcıoğlu, M, Sönmez, K and Ellialtıoğlu, Ş (2017) An overview to morphological and molecular characterization studies of beans in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Scientific Review 10: 16–27.Google Scholar
Kaya, Z, Kün, E and Güner, A (1997) National Plan for In Situ Conservation of Plant Genetic Diversity in Turkey. Ankara, Turkey: The Ministry of Environment.Google Scholar
Keller, L, Schmid, JE and Keller, ER (1991) Are cereal landraces a source for breeding? Landwirtschaft Schweiz 4: 197–202.Google Scholar
Kesici, T and Kocabaş, Z (2007) Biostatistics (in Turkish). Ankara University Faculty of Pharmacy. Publication number: 94, Ankara, Turkey.Google Scholar
Kruzich, TJ and Meng, E (2006) Wheat Landrace Cultivation in Turkey: Household Land-Use Determinants and Implications for On-Farm Conservation of Crop Genetic Resources. International Association of Agricultural Economists Conference, 12–16 August 2006, Gold Coast, Australia. pp. 1–17. Available at: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/25617/1/cp061314.pdf (accessed 17 October 2018).Google Scholar
Madakbaş, SY, Özçelik, H and Ergin, M (2006) Çarşamba Ovası’nda Bodur Taze Fasulye Popülasyonlarından Belirlenmiş Olan Hatlar Arasındaki Farklılıkların Belirlenmesi (in Turkish). Harran Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi 10: 71–77.Google Scholar
Mathur, M and D'Cruz, M (2014) Local Exchange Systems – Designing Community Incentives: A Discussion on Alternate Economics to Strengthen Local Economy and Facilitate Sustainable Adaptation, Watershed Organisation Trust (WOTR). Pune, India. Available at: https://wotr.org/system/files/Discussion_Papers/Local%20Exchange%20Systems%20-%20Designing%20Community%20Incentives.pdf (accessed 25 September 2018).Google Scholar
Morgounov, A, Keser, M, Kan, M, Küçükçongar, M, Özdemir, F, Gummadov, N, Muminjanov, H, Zuev, E and Qualset, C (2016) Wheat landraces currently grown in Turkey: distribution, diversity, and use. Crop Science 56: 3112–3124.Google Scholar
Naqvi, SMR, Maann, AA, Khan, IA, Naqvi, SAA and Amir, RM (2016) Socio-economic impact of small farm productions: a study of district Chiniot, Punjab, Pakistan. Journal of Global Innovations in Agricultural and Social Sciences 4: 141–145.Google Scholar
NRC (National Research Council) (1993) Managing Global Genetic Resources: Agricultural Crop Issues and Policies. Washington, DC, USA: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Newton, AC, Akar, T, Baresel, JP, Bebeli, PJ, Bettencourt, E, Bladenopoulos, KV, Czembor, JH, Fasoula, DA, Katsiotis, A, Koutis, K, Koutsika-Sotiriou, M, Kovacs, G, Larsson, H, Pinheiro de Carvalho, MAA, Rubiales, D, Russell, J, Dos Santos, TMM and Vaz Patto, MC (2010) Cereal landraces for sustainable agriculture: a review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 30: 237–269.Google Scholar
Oğuz, C, Ergun, H, Kan, M, Kan, A, Demiröz, E and Küçükçongar, M (2016) The poverty phenomenon and its effect on migration in agriculture; case study of Konya. In: Efe, R, Cürebal, İ, Nyussupova, G and Atasoy, E (eds) Recent Researches in Interdisciplinary Sciences. Sofia: St. Kliment Ohridski University Press, pp. 29–52.Google Scholar
Scoones, I (1998) Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis. IDS Working Paper 72. Available at: https://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/david.harvey/AEF806/Sconnes1998.pdf (accessed 25 September 2018).Google Scholar
Smale, M, Bellon, MR and Gómez, JAA (2001) Maize diversity, variety attributes, and farmers’ choices in southeastern Guanajuato, Mexico. Economic Development and Cultural Change 50: 201–225.Google Scholar
Şehirali, S, Özgen, M, Karagöz, A, Sürek, M, Adak, S, Güvenç, İ and Kenar, D (2005) Bitki genetik kaynaklarının korunma ve kullanımı (in Turkish). Türkiye Ziraat Odası VI. Teknik Kongresi. vol. 1, Ankara, Turkey, pp. 253–273.Google Scholar
Sözen, Ö, Özçelik, H and Bozoğlu, H (2012) Artvin İli Fasulye Genetik Kaynaklarının Toplanması ve Karakterizasyonu, TAGEM/08/06/01/002. Samsun, Turkey.Google Scholar
Sözen, O, Karadavut, U, Özçelik, H, Bozoğlu, H and Akcura, M (2018) Genotype×environment interaction of some dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotypes. Legume Research 41: 189–195.Google Scholar
Tan, A (1998) Current status of plant genetic resources conservation in Turkey. In: Zencirci, N, Kaya, Z, Anikster, Y and Adams, WT (eds) Proceedings of the International Symposium on In situ Conservation of Plant Genetic Diversity. Ankara, Turkey: CRIFC, pp. 5–16.Google Scholar
Tesemma, T, Tsegaye, S, Belay, G, Bechere, E and Mitiku, D (1998) Stability of performance of tetraploid wheat landraces in the Ethiopian highland. Euphytica 102: 301–308.Google Scholar
Toklu, F, Coyne, C, Aşıklı, S, Aydın, O, Karaköy, T and Özkan, H (2016) Evaluation of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) collection for agromorphological and seed mineral concentrations. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 25: 1143–1152.Google Scholar
Turkpatent (Turkish Patent and Trademark Office) (2019) Tescilli Coğrafi İşaretler. http://www.turkpatent.gov.tr/TURKPATENT/geographicalRegisteredList/ (accessed 25 March 2019).Google Scholar
Urrea, CA, Yonts, CD, Lyon, DJ and Koehler, AE (2009) Selection for drought tolerance in dry bean derived from the Mesoamerican gene pool in Western Nebraska. Crop Science 49: 2005–2010.Google Scholar
Villa, TCC, Maxted, N, Scholten, M and Ford-Lloyd, B (2005) Defining and identifying crop landraces. Plant Genetic Resources 3: 373–384.Google Scholar
World Bank (1993) Republic of Turkey: In-situ conservation of genetic diversity. Report no. 11295-TU, Global Environment Coordination Division, World Bank, Washington, DC, USA. Available at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/373421468779368908/Turkey-In-situ-Conservation-of-Genetic-Diversity-Project (accessed 25 September 2018).Google Scholar
Zimmerer, KS (1996) Changing Fortunes: Biodiversity and Peasant Livelihood in the Andes. Berkeley, CA, USA: University of California Press.Google Scholar