150 AT0300172

THE LEVEL OF FERTILISER USE IN SUNFLOWER PRODUCTION AND THE FACTORS AFFECTING TILE LEVEL OF FERTILISER USE (A Case Study of Province- )

KIZILASLAN, H. AKCA , H. ~0 •

Gaziosmanpasa University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Economics, 60240, Tokat / TURKEY, e-mail: halilk ~ gop.edu.tr

Summary 20

In this study, the factors; affecting the amount of fertiliser used in sunflower production have been inves'tigated. Average sunflower production area was determined as 21.91 da and sunflower was grown in irrigated conditions. Average plant nutrients was 20.92 kg N Ida, 14.33 kg P205/da, and 2.22 kg K20/da. As a result of the study, it has been determined that farmers used excess fertiliser in sunflower production. In addition, in the use of plant nutrients, the factors such as farm' size, sources of fertiliser, irrigation possibilities, credit use situation, and the quality of land were statistically significant contrary to the factors such as land usage situation, educational level of farmers and deciding on fertilisation.

1. Introduction Achieving efficiency in factor usage and getting the highest advantage from limited resources are the main aims and principles of economics. Therefore, in each production activity, determination of resource productivity and situation of factor usage need the use of present resources as suitable to *conomic conditions (Kizilaslan, 1996). Achieving production increase by having high yield per area is very important rather than expanding of production area (Kizilaslan and Giier, 1997). The use of fertiliser according to features of the products and needs of the soil has gained an importance. However, the financial possibilities of farmers, and agricultural policies followed by government are the most important two elements affecting the behaviour of the farmers' fertiliser application. When the support of governments has decreased and the price of fertiliser have increased farmers have reduced the use of fertiliser, on the contrary, increased it (Dag, 1993). The tendency of farmers to increase their income and yield in agricultural production is parallel to the objectives of the policies of governments in macro level.

2. Material and Methods Primary data have been used in this study. There are 587 farms growing sunflower intensively in County of . 7 villages (20% of 36 villages) have been determined as a research area. Data have been collected by survey from 56 farms determined at 95% significance level and 10% error. At the stage of analysis of data, the 151

following method has been used. If variables affecting fertiliser use are investigated under two groups, the method of Hypothesis Test About the Difference Between Two Population Means: Matched Pairs has been used to test the difference between two group's mean. If variables affeciting the fertiliser use have more than two groups, Variance Analysis has been used to determine whether the difference among groups' means is significant or not. As a result of variance analysis, in the determination of emerging resource of difference, the control of Least Significance Difference (LSD) has been done (Caglayan, 1983; Yid12: and Bircan, 1992).

3. Results and Discussion 3.1. General Information Related to the Use of Fertiliser in Farms

The kind of fertiliser used in sunflower growing have been shown in table 1. Compound (20-20-0) and Urea are the types of fertiliser used too much as amount. The others are Compound (15-15-15), DAP, and Ammonium.Nitrate (33%), respectively.

Table 1. The Amount and Kind of Fertiliser Used in Farms Farm Size Fertilisers Groups (da) DAP Urea Compound (20-20-0) Compound (15-15-15) A. Nitrate (33%)

- 10 7.53 12.37 24.21 8.68 5.79 11 - 25 17.50 16.25 23.13 15.94 13.13

26 - + 18.10 20.71 35.95 19.29 7.62 General 14.34 16.61 28.13 14.73 8.57

Table 2. The Level of Fertiliser Use in Farms (Plant Nutrients) ( kg/da) Farm Size Groups (da)

Plant Nutrients 1'- Group (1 -10) 2' Group (11-25) 3'O Group (26 - +) General Nitrogen (N) 15.23 21.98 25.27 20.92

Phosphorus (P205) 9.27 15.08 18.35 14.33

Potassium (K20) 1.32 2.40 2.90 2.22 1Total 25.821 39.461 46.52 37.481

For sunflower growing in the region, the amount of fertiliser suggested by Karadenizbirlik (Oilseeds Agricultural Selling Co-operatives) is 10-15 kg N/da, and 8 kg P 20,5/da (Anonymous, 1999). However, farmers used 20.92 kg N/da, 14.33 kg

P20.5/da, and 2.22 kg K 20/da (table 2). There is an excess and unconscious fertiliser use in research area. The reason of this is that only 21.7% of farmers have applied fertiliser as the results of soil analysis. 152

3.2. The Level of Fertiliser Use in Sunflower Growing According to Some Factors

3.2. 1. The Level of Fertiliser Use With Respect to Farm Size

Table 3. Distribution of Land According to Land Ownership Situation

Farm Size Groups (da) ______1-10 11-25 26 -+ General Number of farms 19 16 21 56 Average sunflower vrodu tion area *Dry 0.47 1.56 5.14 2.54 *Irrigated 6.90 16.38 32.96 19.37 *Total 7.37 17.94 38.10 21.91 The share of sunflower production area in total fann land (%) 13.97 19.68 33.91 25.46 Land ownership (%) * Land owner 83.57 80.49 76.75 78.40 * Tenant 5.00 3.48 9.00 7.26 • Sharecropper 11.43 16.03 14.25 14.34 * Total 100.00 100.00 100.001 100.00

Table 4. The Level of Fertiliser Usage According to Farm Size

______Farm Size Groups (da) 1-10 11-25 26- + General Total plant nutrients (kg) (NPK) 490.50 631.20 977.00 2 098.70 Number of farms 19 16 21 56 Ave. plant nutrients (kg/da) (NPK) 25.82 39.46. 46.52. 37.48 Table of Analysis of Variance______Source of Variation Sum of Square Degree of Freedom Mean Squares F among groups 1 4 362.621 (k-i) 2 2 181.31 10.05 within group 11 500.43 j (N-k) 53 216.99 ______GUeneral J 15 863.0Sf (N-i) 55 ______j Fcalcuied (10.05) > F.W~i (3.15), Result: Difference between groups is significant at P < 0.05 ______Table of LSD Control______Difference Standard Deviation of 'between two difference between Groups compared groups' mean groups' mean LSD (0.05) (1) (2) (3) (4=3*t) Result() 1-10 with 11-25 - 13.64 4.99 9.78 significant 1-l0 with 26- + - 20.70 4.66 9.13 significant 11-25 with 26 - + - 7.06 4.89 9.58 not significant *If the value of LSD is higher than difference as absolutely, difference is not significant, otherwise is

significant, (t = 1.96).

Average sunflower production area was calculated as 21.91 da. Sunflower production area accounted for 25.46 % of total farm land. Sunflower was grown mn irrigated (88.41 %) and dry (1 1.59%) conditions. In addition, 78.40%, 14.34%, and 7.26% of total farm land were managed by landowners, tenants, and sharecroppers, respectively (table 3).The amount of fertiliser used per area has increased as parallel to increase in farm size. As a result of variance analysis, it has been determined that this difference has not been emerged from coincidence. LSD control showed that the difference has been 153

emerged from 1l` group farms having less than 10 da land, and 3 d group farms having more than 26 da land (table 4).

3.2.2. The Level of Fertiliser Use With Respect to Situation of Land Use Plant nutrients used in farms according to situation of land use has been given in table 5.

Table 5. The Level of Fertiliser Usage With Respect to Situation of Land Use

______Land Use Situation ______

______a b c a&b a&c b&c General Total plant nutrients (kg) 1 517.10 20.10 99.90 106.30 291.80 63.50 2 098.70 Numnber of farms 40 1 3 3 7 2 56 Average plant nutrients (kgfda) 37.93 20.10 33.30 35.43 41.69. 31.75 37.48.

Table of Analysis of Variance ______Source of variation Sum of squares Degree of freedom Mean squares F *amnong groups 562.48 5 112.50 0.38 *within groups 15 300.57 50 306.01_____

General 15 863.05 55 ______Fcw~.Alc~a(0.38) < FW~i (2.37) Result: Difference between groups is not significant at P < 0.05 (a): land owner (b): tenant (c): sharecropper

Table 6. The Level of Fertiliser Use in Farm According to the Level of Education of Farmers Level of Education ______Illiterate ME(+) [Primary Secondary High school General Total plant nutrients (kg) 240.50 1.91.50 1 438.40 192.40 35.90 2 098.70 Number of farrns 5 71 37 6 1 56 Ave. plant nut. (kg/da) 48.10 27.361 38.88 32.07 35.90 37.48 Table of Analysis of variance Source of Variance Sum of squares Degree of freedom Mean Squares F *amI~ong groups 1 532.281 4 383.07 1.3S6 *within groups 14 330.77 I5 1 280.99 ____ General 15 863 .05 J55 ______Fcalcuhed (1.36) < Fble (2.53), Result: Difference among groups is not significant at P < 0.05 NE (+): Attending a course but not having a primary school certificate.

According to table 6, educational. level of farmers is low because 66.07% of them graduated from primary school. As a result of variance analysis, the difference between average plant nutrients usage is not significant according to educational level of farmers and this difference has been emerged from coincidence. In practice, the educational level of farmers do not cause privilege in terms of plant nutrients used per area.

3.2.3. The Level of Fertiliser Use According to Source which Fertiliser is Obtained Sunflower producers bought fertiliser from Karadenizbirlik used 42.03 kglda plant nutrients. Those bought it from Karadenizbirlik& private seller, private seller, and agricultural credit co-operatives followed this with amount of 36.42 kg/da, 27.62 kg/da, and 26.58 kglda plant nutrients, respectively (table 7). 154

Table 7: The Level of Fertiliser Use According to Source which is Fertiliser is Obtained Source which Fertiliser is Obtained a b c d General Nualpntnbe rifts 35) 7 17.00 13j9 61.5 5698- Totalpoflanturims 3547.1 27.0 13.9 21.5 209.7 Average plant nutrients I (kg/da) 42.03 27.62 26.58f 36.42 37.48

______Table of Analysis of Variance

Source of variation - Sum of squares Degree of freedom Mean squares

______F among groups 2 289.94 3 763.31 2.9 * within groups 13 573.11 52 261.02

General 1~58863.0 5 55 _____ Fcw~. 12e (2.92) > Fbali (2.76), Result: Difference among groups is significant at P < 0.05

Table of Control of LSD ______Difference Standard deviation of Groups compared from Mean difference of groups' LSD (0.05) (1) (2) mean (3) (4=3*t) Result a with b 14.41 5.79 11.35 significant a with c 15.45 7.72 15.13 significant a with d 5.61 7.14 13.99 not significant b with c 1.04 8.85 17.35 not significant b with d - 8.80 8.34 16.35 not significant c with d - 9.84 9.78 19.17 not significant (a):Karadenizbirlic, (b):Private seller, (c):Agr. Credit Co-operatives, (d):Karadenizbirlik & Private seller

Variance analysis has been done to determine whether the difference among plant nutrients used is significant or not according to the sources which fertiliser isobtained. As a result, the difference was statistically significant. It can be said that difference among means has been caused by the use of fertiliser obtained from Karadenizbirlik.

3.2.4. The Level of Fertiliser Use According to Irrigation Possibilities Irrigation is an important factor affecting the amount of fertiliser used. Ithas been determined that farners have used more fertiliser as parallel to having irrigation possibilities. In research area, farmers not having any irrigation problems have used more fertiliser than those having some irrigation problems. According to having or not irrigation problem, the difference among the amounts of plant nutrients used per area is statistically significant at P< 0.05. However, it is a fact that farners should apply fertiliser at optimum level suggested by extension agents and soil scientists to reach high yield level insunflower growing and lower the severe environmental effects.

Table 8: The Level of Fertiliser Use in Farms According to Irrigation Possibilities Number Total plant Ave. plant nutrients Difference Irrigation possibilities of farms nutrients (kg) per farm (kg/da) of means t Having irrigation problems 15 474.20 31.61 8.01 5.04 Not having irrigation problems 41 1 624.50 39.62 t calculated (5.04) > al (1.96), Result: Difference between groups is significant at P < 0.05 155

3.2.5. The Level of Fertiliser Use According to Situation of Credit Usage The amount of plant nutrients used. by farmers either using or not using credits was calculated as 39.66 kg/da and 29.48 kg/da, respectively. That is, Having credits helps farmers buy and use more fertiliser. In addition, the difference among the amount of average plant nutrients used by farmers has been found statistically significant.

Table 9: The Level of Fertiliser Use in Farms According to Credit Use Credit usage Number Total plant Average plant nutrients Difference of situation of farms nutrients (kg) per farm (kglda) means t Usng credits 44 1 745.00 39.66 10.18 5.51 Not using credits 12 353.70 29.48 t calculate (5.51) > t bl (1.96), Result: Difference between groups is significant at P < 0.05

3.2.6. The Level of Fertiliser Use According to the Quality of Land 50 out of 56 farms have grown sunflower in irrigated land and the rest in dry land. The amount of plant nutrients used in the former is 39.38 kg/da, that in the latter is 21.62 kglda. As a result of analysis, the difference between means has been found statistically significant. That is, the quality of land is an important factor for fertilisation (Table 10).

Table 10: The Level of Fertiliser Use in Farms According to Quality of Land Quality of Number of Total plant Average plant nutrients Difference of Land farms nutrients (kg) per farm (kg/da) meanst Irrigated 50 1 968.98 39.38 17.76 5.46 D5ry 6 129.72 21.62 t miculated (5.46) > t iie (1.96) Result: Difference between groups is significant at P < 0.05

3.2.7. The Level of Fertiliser Use According to the Decision Making of Farmers Generally farmers choose the type of fertiliser to be used according to their own ~experience, and use it in the amounts they willing. In addition, some farmers apply fertiliser by asking their relatives, neighbours, and leader farmers. After gaining experience, they can decide themselves the type and amount of fertiliser to be applied in agricultural production (Caglayan, 1983). However, it is difficult to determine -these farmers proportionally. Therefore, it is usefuil to accept that there can be some farmers who used fertiliser according to the advice of extension agents in the past, but, now they use it according to their experience. 39.29% of farmers used plant nutrients (34.22 kglda) according to their own experience. 37.50% of whom applied them (40.76 kglda) by asking their neighbours, rlatives and leader farmers (table 1 1). Only 23.21 % of farmers used plant nutrients (37.68 kglda) according to advice of extension agents. It has been determined that the difference among average plant nutrients used by farms according to deciding of farmers to the fertilisation is not statistically significant. 156

Table 1 1: The Level of Fertiliser Use in Farms According to Decision Making of Farmers to Fertilisation

Type of decision making to fertilisation _____

______~~~a Jb c General Total plant nutrients (kg) 752.801 856.001 489.90 2 098.70 Number of farms 22 j21 13 56 Av. plant nutrients (kg/da) 34.221 40.761 37.68 37.48

______Table of Analysis of Variance_ _ _ _ _ Source of variation Sunm of squares Degree of freedom Mean Squares F among groups 451.53 I21 225.77 0.79 * wihngroups 15 411.521 541 285.40 ____

General 15 863.05] 56 ______F.IC.Ja (0.79) < Fhb (3.1 5), Result: Difference among groups is not significant at P < 0.05 (a): according to their own experience, (b): by asking to relatives - neighbours- leader farmers in the region, (c) by asking to experts.

As a conclusion, it can be said that there is a problem of unconscious fertiliser use in research area rather than less fertiliser use. Therefore extension staff should advice farmers to use fertiliser according to the result of soil analysis. In addition, agricultural policies should be formed and implemented by taking account of the severe effects of unconscious fertiliser use to the environment.

4. References

ANONYMOUS, 1999. Karadenizbirlik Kayitlan, Zile- Tokat. CAGLAYAN, L., 1983. Merkez 119e Ova Kaylerinde Kimyasal Gfibrelerin Tedarik ye Kullanui (Yzerine Bir Aragunna, Karnnca Matbaacik ye Ticaret Kollektif $irketi, zmir. DAG, S., 1993. "Giibrede Destekleme Devarn Etmnelidir", (iftgi ye K6y Diinyasi, Sayi:98, . KIIZILASLAN, Hl., 1996. Tfirkdye'de Uygulainan Bitkisel Tohurnluk Politikasmmn Tokat lli Jreticileri Ozerindeki Etkileri, GOPU, Fen Bilimleri Enstitfisii, Basilmamni~ Doktora Tezi, Tokat. KIZILASLAN, H. e GORLER, A, 1997. Tokat Hli I19esinde Aygigegi Uretirnin Teknik e Ekononik Yapmnm Belirlemnesi (Izerine Bir Ara~txrma, GOPU, Ziraat Fakfiltesi, Dergisi, Cilt: 14, Sayi:l1, Tokat. YlLDIZ, N. ye BIRCAN, H., 1992. UygulanahliIstatistik, I. Baski, AXJ. Yaym No:704, Ziraat Fakiiltesi Yaym No:308, Ders Kitaplari Sern No:60, .