Analysis of Agricultural Support Practices in Sugar Beet Production: The Case of Çanakkale Province - Türkiye
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14039807Keywords:
Agricultural Support, Sugar beet, Diesel Fuel Support, Fertilizer Support, Çanakkale, TürkiyeAbstract
Türkiye is one of the leading sugar beet producing countries in the World. According to FAO data of the year of 2022, world sugar beet production area is estimated as 4.295.160 ha and the total production amount has reached to 260.998.614 tons. Türkiye’s share in world sugar beet production areas is determined as 6,39% (274.524 ha) and its share in production amount is 7,28% (19.000.000 tons). Among the countries that produce sugar from sugar beet throughout the world, Türkiye ranks 5th after Russian Federation, USA, Germany and France whereas it is in the 4th place in Europe. Türkiye’s share among the world’s beet sugar producing countries is 8%. As for the same year’s data, world’s yield value for the sugar beet average is 60.766 kg/ha and Türkiye’s yield value (69.211 kg/ha) is 13,90% higher than this figure. In the enterprises, which are investigated in the scope of this study, sugar beet ranks 4th with a share of 6,81% among the vegetative production area. In order to produce 7,326 kg/ha sugar beet in one unit of area in the enterprises, 94,38 kg of chemical fertilizer, 560 cc of agricultural pesticide, 5,71 hours of machine pull power, 31,03 lt of diesel are needed. In the present study, sugar beet product sale price has been calculated as 0,34 TL/kg, production value as 2.491,06 TL/da, total cost as 1.443,87 TL/da, gross revenue as 1.432,68 TL/da, net income as 1.047,14 TL/da, relative profit as 1,72. In the study, fertilizer cost per unit area in the sugar beet production has been determined as 173,43 TL/da and fertilizer support consists of the 2,31% of the total fertilizer cost. Diesel cost for the sugar beet production in the enterprises that were investigated has been determined as 203,87 TL/da. However, the diesel support that were given to the enterprises could only provide the 7,36 % of the total diesel costs. The study reveals that the supports that have been given to the producers in the sugar beet production is insufficient. Thus, while determining the unit prices of the area based supports given in the sugar beet production, the share of the support items in the total production costs needs to be considered with special care. In the examined enterprises, within scope of decreasing the sugar production costs or increasing the producers’ revenue, the supports given to the producers need to be determined certainly in realistic levels and the support of seed usage should be included in the support factors.
References
Abdullahi, A.A., Arısoy, H. (2022). Evaluation of Türkiye's agricultural support policies in terms of world trends. Selcuk Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences, 36 (Special Issue):72-78.
Aghabeygi, M., Louhichi, K., Gomez, S., Paloma. (2022). Impacts of fertilizer subsidy reform options in Iran: an assessment using a Regional Crop Programming model. Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(1): 55-73.
Ameen, F.A. (2024). Assessment of the agricultural policy of wheat and sugar beet crops under the food security conditions ın egypt. Alexandria Science Exchange Journal, 45(1): 31-55
Azik, F., Mousavi, S.N., Najafi, B. (2021). The effects of granting subsidies to agricultural inputs on Iranian households' welfare and environment by emphasis on computable General Equilibrium Model. Agricultural Marketing and Commercialization Journal, 5(1): 153-176
Başdemir, Ş. (2021). 2001-2020 Döneminde Türkiye’de tarım alanları ve bitkisel ürünlere yönelik tarımsal destekleme ödemelerinin seyri ve değerlendirmesi. Marmara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Maliye Anabilim Dalı Mali İktisat Bilim Dalı. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. 172 s. İstanbul.
Chalajour, M., Nashroodkoli, P. S. (2022). A review and analysis of agricultural support policies in OECD countries (1995-2015). International Journal of Health Sciences, 6(S1): 12685–12708.
Chen, K., Wang, Z. (2022). Evaluation of financial subsidy for agriculture based on combined algorithm. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, 2022 (ID 6587460, 8 pages). (https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/6587460).
Demir, N. (2019). Muş ilinde şeker pancarı yetiştiriciliğinin sosyo-ekonomik yönü ve sorunları üzerine bir araştırma. 4th International Symposium on Innovative Approaches in Social, Human and Administrative Sciences. SETSCI Conference Proceedings, p. 300-302. Samsun.
Demir, M. (2021). Kars ilinde tarım faaliyetlerinin coğrafi esasları. Doğu Coğrafya Dergisi, 26(45): 77-106.
Erdinç, Z. (2017). Türkiye’de şeker sanayinin gelişimi ve şeker sanayinde izlenen politikalar. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 17(3): 9-26
Erseitova, A., Muratova, D., Sarıkulova, L., Sarıkulova, L., Moldabekova, A., Moldasheva, A., Atasheva, D. (2017). Sugar beet production in the Republic of Kazakhstan. Revista Espacios, 38(24): 39-48
FAO, (2024). Faostat. United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization. Crops and livestock production. (https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL, erişim: 05.04.2023)
Fedai, R. (2016). Bir politika alanı olarak şeker ve şeker pancarı. Tarih Okulu Dergisi (TOD), 9(28): 455-471
Firouzi, S., Parashkoohi, M.G., Zamani, D.M., Ranjber, I. (2022). An Investigation of the environmental impacts and energy-economic analysis for sugar beet and sugarcane production systems. Sugar Tech, 24(6):1851–1866
Gül, İ. (2019). Kahramanmaraş ili Afşin ilçesinde şeker pancarı üreten tarım işletmelerinin ekonomik analizi. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi. Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Tarım Ekonomisi Anabilim Dalı. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, 50 s. Kahramanmaraş.
Haß, M. (2022). Coupled support for sugar beet in the European Union: Does it lead to market distortions?. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73(1): 86–111.
Herda-Kopańska, J., Kulawik, J. (2022). Key problems of using subsidies coupled with agricultural production. Zagadnienia Ekonomiki Rolnej / Problems of Agricultural Economics, 372(3): 21–44
Kadakoğlu, B., Karlı, B., Taşci, N., Özyürek, H. (2023). Şeker pancarı üretim maliyeti ve kârlılık analizi: Burdur ili örneği. KSÜ Tarım ve Doğa Derg, 26(2): 385-392
Kaya, A. (2015). Küresel ve bölgesel şeker politikalarının Türkiye şeker fabrikalarına etkilerine bir örnek; Ağrı Şeker Fabrikası. İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Coğrafya Dergisi, 31(2015): 41-61
Koday, Z., Yıldırım, K. (2021). Erzurum ve çevresinde şeker pancarı tarımı ve şeker sanayi. Doğu Esintileri, 15(2021): 121-147
Munćan, P., Božić, D. (2013). The effects of input subsidies on field crop production in Serbia. Economics of Agriculture, 60(3): 585-594
Pulkrábek, J., Kavka, M., Rataj, V., Humpál, J., Nozdrovický, L., Trávníček, Z., Pačuta, V. (2012). The assessment of the economic risks level of sugar beet growing for the farm economy. Agric. Econ. – Czech, 58 (1): 41–48
Resmi Gazete (2024). 2025-2027 Yıllarında Yapılacak Bitkisel Üretime Yönelik Desteklemeler ile Diğer Bazı Tarımsal Desteklemelere İlişkin Karar. (https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2024/08/20240829.pdf).
Rustembayev, B., Akhmetova, D.T., Zhunussova, R.M. (2024). State support for agriculture in Kazakhstan for the medium term. Problems of AgriMarket, 2024 (1). 48-58. (DOI: 10.46666/2024-1.2708-9991.04)
Seitov S. K. (2022). Subsidizing as a factor in the efficiency and innovative development of agriculture in Kazakhstan. Agrarian Bulletin of the Urals. 2022 (Spec. İss. “Economy”. Pp. 90‒104. (DOI: 10.32417/1997-4868-2022-228-13-90-104).
Seitov, S.K. (2023). Subsidy distribution among the subjects of agro-industrial complex in Kazakhstan. Agrarnaya nauka Evro-Severo-Vostoka = Agricultural Science Euro-North-East. 24(1): 152-161. (In Russ.) (https://doi.org/10.30766/2072-9081.2023.24.1.152-161).
Shestakov, R.B., Yakovlev, N.A., Lovchikova, E.I., Zvereva, G.P., Volchenkova, A.S. (2021). Results analysis of agricultural organizations subsidy. FARBA 2021, E3S Web of Conferences 254, 10005 (2021). (https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202125410005)
Svobodová, E., Redlichová, R., Chmelíková, G., Blažková, I. (2022). Are the agricultural subsidies based on the farm size justified? Empirical evidence from the Czech Republic. Agriculture, 2022 (12): 1574. (https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12101574).
Şahin, K. (2022). Kayseri ilinde şeker pancarı kota uygulamalarının şeker pancarı üretimine etkileri. Iğdır Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 12(3): 1801 – 1807
TOB, (2019). 2019 Yılı Bitkisel Üretim Destekleme Birim Fiyatları. (https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/BUGEM/Belgeler/2019%20Y%C4%B1l%C4%B1%20%20Destekleme%20Birim%20Fiyatlar%C4%B1.pdf).
TOB, (2023a). Ürün Raporu: Şeker Pancarı ve Şeker 2023. Tarım ve Orman Bakanlığı. Tarımsal Ekonomi ve Politika Geliştirme Enstitüsü (TEPGE). Yayın No:388, 20 s., Aralık, 2023, Ankara.
TOB, (2023b). Tarım ve Orman Bakanlığı Destekleme Bülteni 2023. “Bitkisel Üretimin Desteklenmesi. Mazot Ve Gübre Desteği”. (https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/TRGM/TARYAT/Belgeler/yay%C4%B1nlar/TARIM%20VE%20ORMAN%20BAKANLI%C4%9EI%20DESTEKLEME%20B%C3%9CLTEN%C4%B0%202023.pdf).
Unakıtan, G., Turak, B.S. (2022). Şeker pancarında uygulanan tarım politikalarının analizi. Balkan ve Yakın Doğu Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 08(04): 8-13
Vaitko I. A. (2023). Direct budget subsidizing as a factor of sustainable development of agricultural production in the Republic of Belarus. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus. Agrarian series, 61(2), 95–108 (in Russian). (https://doi.org/10.29235/1817- 7204-2023-61-2-95-108)
Vladu, M., Tudor, V.C., Mărcuță, L., Mihai, D., & Tudor, A.D. (2021). Study on the production and valorization of sugar beet in the European Union. Romanian Agricultural Research, 38(2021): 447-455
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 EJONS INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
