Geri Dön

Aşağı Seyhan ovasında tarımsal savaş ilaçlarının pazarlanması ve tarım ilaçları kullanımının ekonomik analizi

Başlık çevirisi mevcut değil.

  1. Tez No: 18051
  2. Yazar: CUMA AKBAY
  3. Danışmanlar: PROF.DR. OĞUZ YURDAKUL
  4. Tez Türü: Yüksek Lisans
  5. Konular: Ziraat, Agriculture
  6. Anahtar Kelimeler: Belirtilmemiş.
  7. Yıl: 1991
  8. Dil: Türkçe
  9. Üniversite: Çukurova Üniversitesi
  10. Enstitü: Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü
  11. Ana Bilim Dalı: Belirtilmemiş.
  12. Bilim Dalı: Belirtilmemiş.
  13. Sayfa Sayısı: 83

Özet

75 from cooperatives but 56% of the farmers met their needs from the cooperatives. The 45.8% of the farmers claimed that as the credit payment interest was very high and the payment conditions were not convenient and as 29.2*35 owed the cooperatives and 16.7% found the bureaucracy too much, and 8.3i; could not provide enough cotton for cooperatives as a result they could not get pesticides from cooperatives. 83.9% of the farmers who got pesticides from cooperatives said that the pesticides given by the cooperative was not enough. In the examined farms, 10.5% of the farmers bought pesticides by payments, 1 6.7% bought cash and i 2.8“! bought partly in cash. As the farmers don't have enough capital, instead of buying in cash they prefer to buy payments and that causes plant protection cost to be ever more expensive. In the examined farms, most of the farmers are benefiting from their own experiences in plant protection. However, when the farmers decide to struggle 54.8% of the farmers make use of their own experiences, 20.6% make use of agricultural associations, 14.5% of the farmers make use of neighbours experiences and 3.5% make use of pesticides dealers. Again, in adjusting the amount of pesticides to be used, 35.7% of the farmers made use of the tag on pesticides or agricultural associations, 28.5% from own experience, 20.2% from pesti ci dies dealers and 1 5.6% from other farmers. I n the examined farms 64.1 % of the farmers demanded increase support of state in plant protection 44.8% suggested the cooperatives to work effectively and securing payment facilities, 51% wanted to have the experts in the village more often and involve with them. in the research area, 95% of the farmers used pesticides. Whereas in all areas which cotton, second crop corn,citrus and vegetables are sown, the pesticides were used. On the other hand, 35.7 % the wheat areas, 75.9 % of second soybean crop, 83.4 % of second crop corn areas were pesticides. In the examined farms the average pesticides consumption per farm is 16.3 million TL and pesticides consumption per decar was found to be 5 J.493 TL. The average consumption of pesticides in the examined farms was determined to be 126.205 TL in cotton, 2.215 TL in wheat, 22.755 TL in second crop corn, 7.310 TLin first crop corn, 6.715 TL second crop soybean, 96.861 TL in citrus, 26.854 TL in tomate, 42.786 TL in eggplant, 33.250 TL in pepper and 35.890 TL in watermelon. As the farms enlarge, the consuption of the pesticides is also increased. As the percentage of the farmers consulting experts and then consuming72 gibi düşük bir orandadır. Diğer işletmeler ise her iki kuruluştan bu ilaçlan temin etmektedirler. Kooperatiflere ortak olan işletmelerin %44'ünün kooperatiflerden hiç ilaç almadı klan, 56'sımn ise kooperatiflerden ilaç aldıkları saptanmıştır. Kooperatife ortak olan işi etmelerin %45.8'i kooperatiflerin ilaç kredilerinin vade farkının çok yüksek ve ödeme şartlarının iyi olmaması, %29.2'si kooperatife borçlu oldukları için, %16.7'si bürokratik işlemlerin fazla olması ve %8.3'ü ise kooperatife yeterli miktarda kütlü dökemedi ki eri için kooperatiften ilaç alamadıklarını belirtmişlerdir. Kooperatiften ilaç alan işletmelerin %83.9'u kooperatiflerin verdiği ilaçların yeterli olmadığını beli r mislerdir. İncelenen işletmelerin ^70.5'i tarım ilaçlat hu vadeli olarak alırken.. %1 6.7'si peşin ve ^12.8'i kısmen peşin olarak almaktadır, üreticiler içinde bulundukları finansman sıkıntısı nedeniyle tarım ilaçlarını peşin almak yerine vadeli olarak temin etmeyi tercih etmektedirler. Bu da ilaçlama maliyetinin yüksek olmasına neden olmaktadır. Araştırma alanında, incelenen işletmelerin büyük çoğunluğu tarımsal savaş konusunda kendi tecrübelerinden yararlanmaktadırlar. Nitekim ilaçlamaya karar verme konusunda işletmelerin %54.8'i kendi tecrübelerinden, %26.8”i tarım teşkilatlan, %14.3'ü diğer üreticiler ve %3.5'i ilaç bayilerinden yararlanmaktadırlar. Yine tarımsal ilaç dosunun ayarlanmasında işletmelerin %35.7'si etiket veya tarım teşkilatlan, %28.5'i kendi tecrübeleri,“3520. 2'si ilaç bayileri ve %î5.6'sı diğer üreticilerden yararlanmışlardır. İncelenen işletmelerin %64A 'i tarımsal savaş konusunda devlet desteğinin artmasını, %44.8'i kooperatiflerin daha etkin çalışmaları ve ödeme kolaylığı sağlamalarım, %5i”i teknik elemanları n köye daha sık gelmelerini ve kendileriyle daha fazla ilgilenilmesini önermişlerdir. İncelenen işletmelerin S595'i tarımsal ilaçlan kullanmaktadırlar. Araştırma alanında, pamuk, ikinci ürün mısır,turunçgil ve sebze ekim alanlarının tamamı ilaçlanırken, buğday ekim alanları m n“^35.7'si, birinci ürün mısır ekim alanlarının %83.4'U, ikinci ürün soya ekim alanlarının ^75. 9'urtda ilaçlama yapılmışlır. Araştırma alanında, incelenen işletmelerde, işletme başına ortalama ilaç kullanımı 16.3 milyon TL'dir. Dekara ilaç. kullanımı ise, 51.493 TL olarak saptanmıştır. İncelenen işletmelerde dekara tarımsal savaş ilacı kullanımı, pamukta ortalama 126.205 TL, buğdayda 2.575 TL, birinci ürün mısırda 10,968 TL, ikinci ürün75 from cooperatives but 56% of the farmers met their needs from the cooperatives. The 45.8% of the farmers claimed that as the credit payment interest was very high and the payment conditions were not convenient and as 29.2*35 owed the cooperatives and 16.7% found the bureaucracy too much, and 8.3i; could not provide enough cotton for cooperatives as a result they could not get pesticides from cooperatives. 83.9% of the farmers who got pesticides from cooperatives said that the pesticides given by the cooperative was not enough. In the examined farms, 10.5% of the farmers bought pesticides by payments, 1 6.7% bought cash and i 2.8”! bought partly in cash. As the farmers don't have enough capital, instead of buying in cash they prefer to buy payments and that causes plant protection cost to be ever more expensive. In the examined farms, most of the farmers are benefiting from their own experiences in plant protection. However, when the farmers decide to struggle 54.8% of the farmers make use of their own experiences, 20.6% make use of agricultural associations, 14.5% of the farmers make use of neighbours experiences and 3.5% make use of pesticides dealers. Again, in adjusting the amount of pesticides to be used, 35.7% of the farmers made use of the tag on pesticides or agricultural associations, 28.5% from own experience, 20.2% from pesti ci dies dealers and 1 5.6% from other farmers. I n the examined farms 64.1 % of the farmers demanded increase support of state in plant protection 44.8% suggested the cooperatives to work effectively and securing payment facilities, 51% wanted to have the experts in the village more often and involve with them. in the research area, 95% of the farmers used pesticides. Whereas in all areas which cotton, second crop corn,citrus and vegetables are sown, the pesticides were used. On the other hand, 35.7 % the wheat areas, 75.9 % of second soybean crop, 83.4 % of second crop corn areas were pesticides. In the examined farms the average pesticides consumption per farm is 16.3 million TL and pesticides consumption per decar was found to be 5 J.493 TL. The average consumption of pesticides in the examined farms was determined to be 126.205 TL in cotton, 2.215 TL in wheat, 22.755 TL in second crop corn, 7.310 TLin first crop corn, 6.715 TL second crop soybean, 96.861 TL in citrus, 26.854 TL in tomate, 42.786 TL in eggplant, 33.250 TL in pepper and 35.890 TL in watermelon. As the farms enlarge, the consuption of the pesticides is also increased. As the percentage of the farmers consulting experts and then consuming

Özet (Çeviri)

75 from cooperatives but 56% of the farmers met their needs from the cooperatives. The 45.8% of the farmers claimed that as the credit payment interest was very high and the payment conditions were not convenient and as 29.2*35 owed the cooperatives and 16.7% found the bureaucracy too much, and 8.3i; could not provide enough cotton for cooperatives as a result they could not get pesticides from cooperatives. 83.9% of the farmers who got pesticides from cooperatives said that the pesticides given by the cooperative was not enough. In the examined farms, 10.5% of the farmers bought pesticides by payments, 1 6.7% bought cash and i 2.8“! bought partly in cash. As the farmers don't have enough capital, instead of buying in cash they prefer to buy payments and that causes plant protection cost to be ever more expensive. In the examined farms, most of the farmers are benefiting from their own experiences in plant protection. However, when the farmers decide to struggle 54.8% of the farmers make use of their own experiences, 20.6% make use of agricultural associations, 14.5% of the farmers make use of neighbours experiences and 3.5% make use of pesticides dealers. Again, in adjusting the amount of pesticides to be used, 35.7% of the farmers made use of the tag on pesticides or agricultural associations, 28.5% from own experience, 20.2% from pesti ci dies dealers and 1 5.6% from other farmers. I n the examined farms 64.1 % of the farmers demanded increase support of state in plant protection 44.8% suggested the cooperatives to work effectively and securing payment facilities, 51% wanted to have the experts in the village more often and involve with them. in the research area, 95% of the farmers used pesticides. Whereas in all areas which cotton, second crop corn,citrus and vegetables are sown, the pesticides were used. On the other hand, 35.7 % the wheat areas, 75.9 % of second soybean crop, 83.4 % of second crop corn areas were pesticides. In the examined farms the average pesticides consumption per farm is 16.3 million TL and pesticides consumption per decar was found to be 5 J.493 TL. The average consumption of pesticides in the examined farms was determined to be 126.205 TL in cotton, 2.215 TL in wheat, 22.755 TL in second crop corn, 7.310 TLin first crop corn, 6.715 TL second crop soybean, 96.861 TL in citrus, 26.854 TL in tomate, 42.786 TL in eggplant, 33.250 TL in pepper and 35.890 TL in watermelon. As the farms enlarge, the consuption of the pesticides is also increased. As the percentage of the farmers consulting experts and then consuming73 mısırda 23.919 TL, ikinci ürün soyada 10.614 TL, turunçgillerde 97.767 TL, domatesde 26.854TL, patlıcanda 42.786 TL, biberde 33.250 TL ve karpuzda 35.890 TL olarak saptanmıştır. Genel olarak, bu ürünlerde işletme genişliği arttıkça dekara ilaç kullanımı da artmaktadır. Teknik elemanlara danışarak ilaç kullanan işletmelerin oranının düşük olması, tarımsal savaşta arzulanan teknik ilerlemelerin yeterince sağlanamamasına neden olmaktadır. Nitekim, araştırma alanında, sadece kullanılan tarımsal ilaç dozu incelendiğinde pamukta 13.2 oranında fazla ilaç kullanıldığı saptanmıştır. Sadece bu oranının Aşağı Seyhan Ovası alanında yaptığı israf 6.2 milyar TL'dir. Ayrıca araştırma alanında ilaçlama sayısının fazla olması ve ter ilaçlamada birden fazla ilacın karıştırılarık kullanıldığını varsayarsak, bu rakamın yaklaşık 2 ile 4 katına çıkacağı tahmin edilmektedir. Sonuç olarak araştırma alanında gereksiz yere (önerilenden fazla) ilaç kullanımı ile önemli sayılabilecek ölçülerde kaynak israfı söz konusudur. Ayrıca bu araştırmada, incelenen işletmelerde, tarımsal savaş masrafları run toplam değişen masraflar ve tarımsal üretim değeri içindeki payı tespit edilmeye çalışılmıştır. Buna göre, pamukta ilaçlama masraflarının toplam değişen masraflar içindeki payı %39.1, üretirn değeri içindeki payı ise %22. 2 olarak tespit edilmiştir. Bu oranlar; buğdayda 10.4ve %4.Z, birinci ürün mısırda %Î0.2 ve %3.9, ikinci ürün mısırda %1 9.4 ve %1 1.2, İkinci ürün soyada '^1 3.5 ve %\ 0.7, turunçgillerde ise ^35.4 ve %13.1 olarak saptanmıştır.76 pesticides is very few, results with the failure of desired technical development in plant protection. However, when the pesticides consumed in the study area is examined it was found out 1 3.2% surplus pesticides was used. Only this amount caused a waste of 6.2 billion inASO. As the number of plant protection is really high and presuming in every plant protection more than one pesticide ü. üm^j^.! U> ii.~. ”«vV l,/o fold or quardrupple. As a result, the excessive corruption of pesticides more than recommended will cause great waste of sources. In this study it was also aimed to determine, the share of plant protection cost in total variable cost and production value. According to this, the total share of cotton plant protection cost comes to 39.1%, the share in production value has been deter mined to be 22.2%. This percentages were determined to be 10.4% and 4.3% in wheat and fir st crop corn 1 0.2% and 3.9%, in second crop corn 1 9.4% and 1 1.2%, in second crop soybean i 3.5% and i 0.7%, in citrus 35.4% and i 3. i %.

Benzer Tezler

  1. Tez No

    343352

    Aşağı Seyhan ovasında uzaktan algılama ve coğrafi bilgi sistemleri yardımıyla tarımsal alan kullanım uygunluğunun belirlenmesi

    Determining the agricultural land use suitability using remote sensing and gis in lower Seyhan plane

    ONUR ŞATIR

    Doktora

    Türkçe

    Türkçe

    2013

    Jeodezi ve FotogrametriÇukurova Üniversitesi

    Peyzaj Mimarlığı Ana Bilim Dalı

    PROF. DR. SÜHA BERBEROĞLU

  2. Tez No

    28160

    Aşağı Seyhan ovasında drenaj katsayısının belirlenmesi

    Başlık çevirisi yok

    ABDULLAH KADAYIFÇI

    Yüksek Lisans

    Türkçe

    Türkçe

    1993

    ZiraatAnkara Üniversitesi

    Tarımsal Yapılar ve Sulama Ana Bilim Dalı

    DOÇ. DR. A. ZEKİ ERÖZEL

  3. Tez No

    809507

    Aşağı seyhan ovasında toprak kalitesinin değerlendirilmesi ve izlenmesinde amenajmana hassas indikatörlerin belirlenmesi

    Determination of management-sensitive indicators in assessment and monitoring of soil quality in lower seyhan plain

    MERT ACAR

    Doktora

    Türkçe

    Türkçe

    2023

    ZiraatÇukurova Üniversitesi

    Toprak Bilimi ve Bitki Besleme Ana Bilim Dalı

    PROF. DR. İSMAİL ÇELİK

  4. Tez No

    621450

    Aşağı Seyhan ovasında açık ve kapalı sulama sistemlerinin üreticiler tarafından değerlendirilmesi

    Evaluation of open and closed irrigation systems in the Lower Seyhan plain by farmers

    SAMET SALABĞİR

    Yüksek Lisans

    Türkçe

    Türkçe

    2020

    ZiraatÇukurova Üniversitesi

    Tarım Ekonomisi Ana Bilim Dalı

    PROF. DR. DİLEK BOSTAN BUDAK

  5. Tez No

    493771

    Aşağı Seyhan Ovası sulama birliklerinin değerlendirilmesi

    Assesment of Lower Seyhan Plain irrigation associations

    CUMALİ DİKER

    Yüksek Lisans

    Türkçe

    Türkçe

    2018

    ZiraatKahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi

    Biyosistem Mühendisliği Ana Bilim Dalı

    DOÇ. DR. ÇAĞATAY TANRIVERDİ

Geri Dön