Dergiler / International Journal of Agriculture Environment and Food Sciences / 2020 / Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 1

Mechanization and agricultural farm structure in the agricultural area of the Dardanelles region

Sayfa
39–56
Yayın Tarihi
2020-03-15
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Machinery per tractor was 7.67 for all farms, but Kumkale (8.78) had the highest, and then followed by Bayramic (6.58) and Ezine (5.87).

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:This study was conducted to determine the current mechanization in agricultural farms of the Bayramic-Ezine-Kumkale agricultural plains, in Canakkale (Dardanelles) region of west of Turkey.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:For this purpose, a questionnaire was carried out for 401 farms capable of growing both field and horticulture crops.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Machinery per tractor was 7.67 for all farms, but Kumkale (8.78) had the highest, and then followed by Bayramic (6.58) and Ezine (5.87).
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Mechanization · Farmer Status · Crop Pattern

Abstract

This study was conducted to determine the current mechanization in agricultural farms of the Bayramic-Ezine-Kumkale agricultural plains, in Canakkale (Dardanelles) region of west of Turkey. For this purpose, a questionnaire was carried out for 401 farms capable of growing both field and horticulture crops. Results indicated that each farm having small size characteristic has at least one tractor, but 19.20% of farms had more than one tractor. The status of having one (91.67%) or more (41.67%) tractors in a farm was higher in Bayramic, due to field and horticulture crops, than both others. However, the highest number of tractors was recorded in Kumkale farms (60.00%), followed by Ezine (31.65%) and Bayramic (8.35%). Most of them are young, but 12.00% are older than 24-year, especially Massey Ferguson-135, Universal and Fiat (54C, 480). The most used tractor brand has been New Holland (32.15%), followed by Massey Ferguson (18.99%), Fiat (9.11%), John Deere (8.10%), Case IH (7.85%), Same (5.05%), Deutz (4.05%), Steyr (3.54%), Valtra (2.28%) and others (Ford, Hattat, Erkunt, Basak, Tumosan, Universal, Kubota and Landini). On average three-plain, 77.03% of farms were preferred to purchase the new tractors, 22.97% preferred the second-hand ones. Tractor was 0.99 per farm, but it was the highest in Ezine (1.17). Agricultural area per tractor was 117 decare on average three-plain, the highest for Kumkale (136 decare) and the lowest for Ezine (83 decare tractor-1). Machinery per tractor was 7.67 for all farms, but Kumkale (8.78) had the highest, and then followed by Bayramic (6.58) and Ezine (5.87).

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

ÖZPINAR, S. (2020). Mechanization and agricultural farm structure in the agricultural area of the Dardanelles region. International Journal of Agriculture Environment and Food Sciences, Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 1, 39–56. https://ajindex.com/articles/765318

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (12)

  1. Abdikoğlu, D.I. (2019). Determining of agricultural mechanization level in Thrace Region by provinces. KSU J Agriculture Natural, 22(6), 865-871.
  2. Akdemir, B. (2013). Agricultural mechanization in Turkey. IERI Procedia, 5, 41-44.
  3. Aybek, A., Senel, H. (2009). Mechanization properties and users’ evaluations of farm tractors in Eastern Mediterranean Turkey. Journal of Agricultural Machinery Sci, 5(1), 21-27.
  4. Aydın, B., Özkan. E. Hurma. H., Aktaş, E., Azabağaoğlu. Ö., Özdemir, G. (2017). Efficiency analysis of irrigation administration (Cases of Kirklareli. Edirne. Tekirdag and Çanakkale Provinces). Turkish J of Agricultural and Natural Sci, 4(1), 70-78.
  5. Compagnone, C., Lemery, B., Petit, S., Kockmann, F., Moretty, P. (2013). Form and Reform in the Organization of Chambers of Agriculture. http://journals.openedition.org/economierurale/4095 (Date of Access: November 2017).
  6. Civelek, Ç. (2016). Turkey’s demand for agricultural tractors and machinery. Scholars J of Agriculture and Veterinary Sci, 3(1), 51-57. Eurostate, 2018. Agriculture, forestry and fishery statistics. Statistical book. (in Editor). https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents. Accessed in November 2019. GMKA, 2016. South Marmara Development Agency. Agricultural and Livestock Sectors Investment Guide. https://www.gmka.gov.tr (Date of access: September 2019).
  7. Gunes, E., Movassaghi, H. (2017). Agricultural credit market and farmers’ response: A case study of Turkey. Turkish Journal of Agriculture-Food Science and Technology, 5(1), 84-92.
  8. Hazell. P., Poulton, C., Wiggins, S., Dorward, A. (2007). The Future of small farms for poverty reduction and growth. International Food Policy Research Institute 2033 K Street. Washington DC 20006-1002.
  9. USA. Spiewak, R., Milczarek, D., Ciechomska, A. (2016). Agricultural Organizations in Poland-An Attempt Towards A Typology. https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/ 253979/2/92-4-2016.pdf (Date of access: October 2017).
  10. Keleş, I., Hacıseferoğulları, H. (2016). Determination of agricultural structure and mechanization lLevels of agricultural enterprises located in Cumra distract of Konya province. Selçuk Tarim Bilimleri Dergisi, 3(1), 48-58.
  11. Marandi, L.T., Rashidpour, L. (2017). Impact of credit on agricultural mechanization and development in Urmia country. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Sci, 23 (6), 922-928.
  12. Matthews, G.A. (2008). Attitudes and behaviours regarding use of crop protection products-A survey of more than 8500 smallholders in 26 countries. Crop Protectio