Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5959bf8d4d-57lbh Total loading time: 0.271 Render date: 2022-12-09T17:25:57.385Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

MEASURING THE IMPACT OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH: THE CASE OF NEW WHEAT VARIETIES IN TURKEY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2014

AHMED MAZID*
Affiliation:
International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), Amman, Jordan
MESUT KESER
Affiliation:
International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), Amman, Jordan
KOFFI N. AMEGBETO
Affiliation:
International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), Amman, Jordan
ALEXEY MORGOUNOV
Affiliation:
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT), Ankara, Turkey
AHMET BAGCI
Affiliation:
Selcuk University, Faculty of Agriculture, Konya, Turkey
KENAN PEKER
Affiliation:
Selcuk University, Faculty of Agriculture, Konya, Turkey
MUSTAFA AKIN
Affiliation:
General Directorate of Agricultural Research, Ankara, Turkey
MURAT KUCUKCONGAR
Affiliation:
General Directorate of Agricultural Research, Ankara, Turkey
MUSTAFA KAN
Affiliation:
General Directorate of Agricultural Research, Ankara, Turkey
ARIF SEMERCI
Affiliation:
General Directorate of Agricultural Research, Ankara, Turkey
SEVINC KARABAK
Affiliation:
General Directorate of Agricultural Research, Ankara, Turkey
AHMET ALTIKAT
Affiliation:
General Directorate of Agricultural Research, Ankara, Turkey
SADIYE YAKTUBAY
Affiliation:
General Directorate of Agricultural Research, Ankara, Turkey
*
††Corresponding author. Email: a.mazid@cgiar.org

Summary

This paper summarizes a study initiated by the Turkish General Directorate of Agricultural Research and ICARDA/CIMMYT Wheat Improvement Program on the adoption of five new winter and spring wheat varieties developed and released by the Turkish national breeding program and through international collaboration in the past 10 years. The study results are based on a survey of 781 households selected randomly in the Adana, Ankara, Diyarbakir, Edirne, and Konya provinces of Turkey. The five new wheat varieties are compared to old improved varieties released prior to 1995 that are also still grown by farmers. Technical and biological indicators of impacts including crop productivity are measured to determine the impact of these varieties. Yield stability is assessed by comparing average yields in normal, good and dry years and by comparing the coefficients of variation of yields by variety. Profitability is measured by the gross margin generated per unit of land. Household income from wheat and for all economic activities are estimated and compared between adopters and non-adopters. Adopters of the new varieties have higher per-capita income than non-adopters as compared to the same group using old varieties. However, the overall impact of the improved varieties is generally low, mainly due to their low adoption levels. Farmers’ knowledge and perception of certain variety characteristics and unavailability of adequate and timely seed are the main reasons. Increasing adoption has the potential to improve household income and this requires revising wheat impact pathway to achieve the expected impact.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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

REFERENCES

Barkley, A. and Peterson, H. H. (2008). Wheat variety selection: an application of portfolio theory to improve returns. Proceedings of the NCCC-134 Conference on Applied Commodity Price Analysis, Forecasting and Market Risk Management. St. Louis, MO. Available at: http://www.farmdoc.uiuc.edu/nccc134.Google Scholar
Barkley, A. P. and Porter, L. L. (1996). The determinants of wheat variety selection in Kansas, 1974–1993. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78 (1): 202211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, B. M., Jeffrey, S., Kozanayi, W., Luckert, M., Mutambo, M. and Zindi, C. (2002). Household Livelihoods in Sami-Arid Region: Option and Constraints. Jakarta, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research.Google Scholar
Carney, D. (1998). Sustainable Rural Livelihoods–What Contributions Can We Make? London, UK: DFID.Google Scholar
Cavendish, W. (1999). Incomes and poverty in rural Zimbabwe during adjustment: the case of Shindi Ward, Chivi Communal Area, 1993/94 to 1996/97. Rep/99-1. Centre for the Study of African Economies, University of Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Chambers, R. and Conway, G. (1992). Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st Century. Discussion Paper 296. Brighton: Institute for Development Studies.Google Scholar
Douthwaite, B., Kuby, T., van de Fliert, E. and Schulz, S. (2003). Impact pathway evaluation: an approach for achieving and attributing impact in complex systems. Agricultural Systems 78: 243265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAO (2008). Commodities by country. Rome, Italy: Economic and Social Department, FAO. Available at: http://www.fao.org/es/ess/top/country.html.Google Scholar
IFAD (2012). Rural poverty in Turkey. Available at: http://www.ruralpovertyportal.org/country/home/tags/turkey.Google Scholar
International Winter Wheat Improvement Program (IWWIP) (2009). What is IWWIP? Available at: http://www.iwwip.org/aboutus.asp?l=english.Google Scholar
Griffin, R. C., Montgomery, J. M. and Rister, M. E. (1987). Selecting functional form in production function analysis. Western Journal of Agricultural Economics 12 (2): 216227.Google Scholar
Haidar, M. (2009). Sustainable livelihood approaches: the framework, lessons learnt from practice and policy recommendations. Paper presented at expert group meeting on adopting the sustainable livelihoods approach for promoting rural development in the ESCWA Region. Beirut, 21–22 December 2009.Google Scholar
MARA (2008). Delegation of the European Commission to Turkey. Available at: http://www.tarim.gov.tr.Google Scholar
Mazid, A., Amegbeto, K. N., Keser, M., Morgounov, A., Peker, K., Bagc, A., Akin, M., Kucukcongar, M., Kan, M., Karabak, S., Semerci, A., Altikat, A. and Yaktubay, S. (2009). Adoption and impacts of improved winter and spring wheat varieties in Turkey. Aleppo, Syria: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA).Google Scholar
Mazid, A., Shideed, K., El-Abdullah, M., Zyadeh, G. and Moustafa, J. (2013). Impacts of crop improvement research on farmers’ livelihoods: the case of winter-sown chickpea in Syria. Experimental Agriculture 49 (3): 336351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saatci, E. and Akpinar, E. (2007). Assessing poverty and related factors in Turkey. Croatian Medical Journal 48 (5): 628635.Google ScholarPubMed
Semerci, A., Mazid, A., Amegbeto, K. N., Keser, M., Morgounov, A., Peker, K., Bagci, A., Akin, M., Kucukcongar, M., Kan, M., Karabak, S., Altikat, A. and Yaktubay, S. (2012). The production functions of wheat production in Turkey. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science 18 (2): 240253.Google Scholar
Shideed, K. H. and El Mourid, M. (Eds) (2005). Adoption and impact assessment of improved technologies in crop and livestock production systems in the CWANA region. The development of integrated crop/livestock production in low rainfall areas of Mashreq and Maghreb Regions (Mashreq/Maghreb Project). ICARDA, Aleppo, Syria.Google Scholar
Turkish Statistical Institute (2009). Main Statistics: Income, Consumption, and Poverty. Available at: http://www.turkstat.gov.tr.Google Scholar
World Bank (2013). World Development Indicators. Available at: http://data.worldbank.org/country/turkey#cp_wdi.Google Scholar
3
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

MEASURING THE IMPACT OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH: THE CASE OF NEW WHEAT VARIETIES IN TURKEY
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

MEASURING THE IMPACT OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH: THE CASE OF NEW WHEAT VARIETIES IN TURKEY
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

MEASURING THE IMPACT OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH: THE CASE OF NEW WHEAT VARIETIES IN TURKEY
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *