ArticlePDF Available

Measuring the Impact of Agricultural Research: The Case of New Wheat Varieties in Turkey

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

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.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Expl Agric.: page 1 of 18 C
Cambridge University Press 2014
doi:10.1017/S0014479714000209
MEASURING THE IMPACT OF AGRICULTURAL
RESEARCH: THE CASE OF NEW WHEAT
VARIETIES IN TURKEY
By AHMED MAZID,††, MESUT KESER, KOFFI N. AMEGBETO,
ALEXEY MORGOUNOV, AHMET BAGCI§, KENAN PEKER§,
MUSTAFA AKIN, MURAT KUCUKCONGAR, MUSTAFA KAN,
ARIF SEMERCI, SEVINC KARABAK, AHMET ALTIKAT
and SADIYE YAKTUBAY
International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), Amman, Jordan,
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT), Ankara, TurkeySelcuk
University, Faculty of Agriculture, Konya, Turkey and General Directorate of Agricultural
Research, Ankara, Turkey
(Accepted 27 June 2014)
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.
INTRODUCTION
Wheat is one of the most important agricultural commodities in Turkey, and the
country ranks among the top ten producers in the world. It is a strategic crop and an
essential component in the Turkish diet. Most of the wheat production comes from
rainfed areas and total annual wheat production fluctuated between 18 and 20 million
metric tons during the 1995–2004 period (FAO, 2008). Wheat production increased
in the late 1970s, enabling the country to become a wheat exporter. With its research
††Corresponding author. Email: a.mazid@cgiar.org
2AHMED MAZID et al.
Figure 1. (Colour online) Agricultural zones of Turkey.
infrastructure and a core of well-trained scientists, Turkey has also made significant
contributions to international efforts to improve winter wheat production.
In 1986, the Government of Turkey and CIMMYT, joined by ICARDA in 1990,
established the International Winter Wheat Improvement Program (IWWIP). More
than 40 improved wheat varieties have since been jointly developed, disseminated
and grown by producers both in Turkey and elsewhere in the world (IWWIP, 2009).
Other varieties were also introduced into the country, and both private companies
and public agencies contributed to this effort. However, there has been no systematic
monitoring of the adoption of the new varieties, and economic impacts on producers
were not evaluated. Key socio-economic research questions remain unanswered,
especially whether these improved varieties have effectively contributed to achieve
their intended impacts.
Turkish government policy stimulates agricultural production through input
subsidies, low taxation, price supports, subsidized credit, research and education
programs, and the establishment of model farms (Mazid et al.,2009). Generally and
for nearly all crops, the Government provides subsidy for the use of certified seeds.
Between 1938 and 2002, the wheat market has been state-controlled through the
Turkish Grain Board (TGB), which announces official prices and aims to purchase
all wheat grain from producers. However, since 2002, the market has been highly
liberalized, and the TGB now only announce the minimum buying prices. The actual
purchasing price of wheat has since been determined by market forces, depending on
the quality and quantity of the grain. In 2007, there was a direct subsidy to producers
of wheat of 45 TL per metric tons (around US$ 37.5) (MARA, 2008).
The objectives of this paper are to document the adoption of five new winter and
spring wheat cultivars in Turkey, and to assess their economic impacts under rainfed
and irrigated conditions in different agricultural zones in selected provinces of Turkey
(Figure 1). These varieties were developed by the national breeding program and
through international collaboration over the past 10–15 years. Specifically, the study
Measuring the impact of agricultural research 3
evaluated the technical, economic and social impacts of the monitored varieties on
the livelihoods of producers through increased wheat productivity, profitability and
household income.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Fundamental to economic analysis is the idea of a production function, which describes
the maximum output obtainable at the existing state of technological knowledge and
with given amounts of factor inputs. Production function analysis provides a theoretical
framework to estimate the comparative productivity of inputs used in a production
process. The most straightforward approach to link formally the notions of technical
change with measured rates of productivity growth is to assume that an index of the
state of technology can be incorporated directly in a production function. Hence,
technological progress is perceived as an upward shift in production function.
Many functional forms have been defined in the literature for the analytic study
of production process (Griffin et al., 1987; Semerci et al., 2012). However, economic
theory provides mainly generic conditions of specification and provides little guidance
for specifying a function. Any attempt to fit a production function immediately
confronts the specification problem, i.e. choosing arguments, and the algebraic form
of the function. Satisfactory specification must consider the technological conditions
governing each production process.
The Cobb-Douglas function is by far the most widely used in agricultural economics
because of its simplicity and ease of estimation. It permits the calculation of returns
to scale and embodies the entire marginal productivity theory of distribution.
The disadvantage is that the Cobb-Douglas function implies perfect substitutability
between the factors of production. The general form for the Cobb-Douglas function
is:
Y=An
i=1
Xβi
i
i0; i=1,2, ..., n., (1)
where Yis the output, and Xis a vector of essential inputs used in production, and n
is number of inputs used. The parameter Ais the combined effects on the production
function of all inputs (rainfall, weather, disease outbreaks, etc.) that are not under the
strict control of the farmer. Empirically, a logarithmic transformation in the following
format was made, and dummy variables included distinguishing the impact of the
improved varieties being monitored on crop productivity:
ln(Y)=ln(A)+
n
i=1
βiln(Xi)+
J
j=1
δjDj+ε;βi0,
i=1,2,...,n;j=1,2,...,J.(2)
where Yis the output measured per unit land area, Xiare variable inputs such as
seeds and fertilizers used per unit of land, Djare dummy variables for varieties,
production system, and variety type, which take the value of 1 for monitored varieties,
4AHMED MAZID et al.
irrigated system, or durum wheat variety, and zero otherwise; and εis the error term of
the regression equation. A significantly positive/negative coefficient estimated on the
dummy variable representing the improved variety reflects an upward/downward shift
in the intercept of the production function due to the new technology. Alternatively, it
means an increase/decrease in total factor productivity as a result of variety adoption.
The same interpretation is valid for other dummies included in the model. After the
estimation of the log-linear form above, the anti-log of the intercept term ln(A) gives
the actual value of A when one is interested in the contribution of factors not controlled
by the farmer such as weather condition, diseases, etc.
Agricultural research for development is largely a social process in which people
construct solutions to their problems, often by modifying both new technologies and
their own production systems to take advantage of new opportunities offered by the
technologies (Douthwaite et al., 2003). Hence, agricultural change is an immensely
complex process, with a high degree of non-linearity; therefore, an impact assessment
approach is needed.
One main point in the impact assessment is to show how a new technology affects
farmers of different socio-economic status. Cavendish (1999) in Shindi Ward of Chivi
area in Zimbabwe, and Campbell et al. (2002) in semi-arid regions of Indonesia, used
wealth index and wealth quartiles methods to study the impact of new technology
on household livelihoods in semi-arid regions in Indonesia. This can be done by
first classifying households into different socio-economic types using their assets (e.g.
human, natural, physical, social and financial) and then determining the adoption
of technology in these household types, and this allows determining whether the
technology is beneficial to both poor and better-off households. For this purpose,
the wealth index was created using factor analysis, which is a statistical technique
similar to principal components analysis. These analyses have the common objective
of reducing relationships between many interrelated variables to a small number of
factors. However, the primary purpose of factor analysis is to describe the relationships
among the many variables in terms of a few underlying but unobservable factors; thus,
many original variables are combined into a few derived variables. In calculating the
wealth index (Mazid et al.,2013), the coefficients of variables estimated by factor
analysis were multiplied by standardized values of the respective variables for each
factor (Xi). Household-specific wealth indices were constructed from scores obtained
from factor analysis, according to:
X=wiXi,
where Xis the score for each household, Xiis the value of factor iand has a mean of
zero and standard deviation of 1, and wiis weight, specified for the maximum variance
of factor i.
The analysis focused on estimates of sample averages as well as the distribution
of selected indicators on productivity, income and poverty. It also used econometric
analysis to determine productivity increases (Mazid et al.,2009). However, this paper
concentrates on descriptive analyses, which are useful techniques for organizing and
Measuring the impact of agricultural research 5
Table 1. The main agricultural characteristics of the selected provinces.
Province Agro-ecological zone Characteristics
Adana IV Warm, high rainfall, hot spring–summer, spring wheat region
Ankara I Cold, mainly rainfed, winter wheat
Diyarbakir VI Warm-mild cold, hot spring–summer, spring-facultative wheat
Edirne III Cold, high rainfall, high yield potential, winter wheat
Konya IX Cold, low rainfall, winter wheat
Table 2. Potential yields of monitored wheat varieties (kg ha1).
Variety Good Normal Dry
name season season season Characteristics
Ceyhan-99 7360 6320 5280 Spring bread wheat (BW), high yielding
Demir-2000 6000 4000 2500 Winter BW, for rainfed or supplemental irrigated (SIR) areas.
It is also resistant to leaf rust and root rot.
Karahan-99 5000 3500 2000 Winter BW, for rainfed areas
Pehlivan 7680 6740 4540 Winter BW, for high rainfall or SIR areas
Saricanak-98 8380 5000 2800 Spring durum wheat
Source: MARA Variety Registration and Seed Certification Center, Agricultural Research Institutions (2008).
summarizing the data, and are particularly useful when large amounts of data need
to be interpreted.
Multi-stage-stratified random sampling was applied to five provinces, and dominant
production systems by district or cluster of districts, communities, and wheat-producing
households. The provinces of Adana, Ankara, Diyarbakir, Edirne and Konya were
selected, based on information about the distribution and use of improved varieties
being monitored. These also have diverse agro-ecologies (Table 1), and represent the
largest wheat production provinces, accounting for 1.9 million hectares of the national
total of 8.6 million hectares of cultivated wheat in 2007.
Within each province, districts were classified into two predominant wheat
production systems (rainfed and irrigated) and to the two types of wheat (bread
or durum) predominantly cultivated. Farmers in rural communities were randomly
selected in the respective systems using lists obtained from census offices of Turkish
Statistical Institute (TSI), with distribution of farm households across production
systems proportional to their relative importance in terms of area of wheat cultivated.
The survey was implemented between January and May 2008, and a total of 781
questionnaires were completed from direct interviews of producers.
A total of 45 different wheat varieties were found during the survey. The five
monitored varieties (Ceyhan-99, Demir-2000, Karahan-99, Pehlivan and Saricanak-
98) were released a relatively short time ago compared to other cultivars grown, and
these are the most promising in much of their target areas according to agricultural
research results (Tab le 2). There were 13 wheat varieties released before 1995 that are
classified as ‘old improved varieties’, and 27 released during or after 1995 are classified
as ‘other new varieties’ (Mazid et al., 2009).
6AHMED MAZID et al.
Many impact studies focus on measuring yield increase and profitability of new
technologies. This paper, in addition, evaluates the notions of adoption, productivity,
yield stability, economic and social impacts derived from the monitored improved
wheat varieties.
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
The wealth index
A livelihood comprises the assets, activities and access to these as regulated by
institutions and social relations together they determine the living gained by
individuals or households (Chambers and Conway, 1992; Haidar, 2009). Building
livelihoods is an ongoing process with constantly changing elements, and alterations
in the quality and quantity of natural resources. These elements affect crops that
farmers can grow and have direct implications on the livelihoods of those who depend
on them. In the short-term, such changes in resources and crops grown have a great
effect on people’s livelihoods.
The wealth index was created considering human, natural, physical, social and
financial household assets for ranking households in the sample. In the wealth
ranking, variables important in distinguishing households from each other were
identified (Mazid et al., 2009). The wealth index was sorted into categories and
classified households in the sample into four welfare quartiles. Five elements were
used to represent household well-being: human, natural, financial, physical and social
capitals (Carney, 1998; Haidar, 2009); and several variables were selected as indices
for assessing welfare status. The variables included in creating the wealth index were
total holding area, number of cars owned by the household, livestock numbers, total
irrigated area in the farm, area of land planted with trees, number of tractors, number
of rooms in the house, years of agricultural experience, having a university degree,
years of education and having a satellite dish. Every variable has been increased when
wealth index is increased (Tab le 3). Even in the lowest quartile, 25% of the farmers
have tractors, which is the main asset in farming. However, the efficiency of the tractors
usage in lowest quartile is questionable, as their land is not enough to fully occupy the
tractor in their land.
Variety adoption
Variety diversity at household level. Given the high diversity of wheat varieties available
for producers in the study areas, their distribution according to the number grown
during the crop year was investigated. Results show that from the sample of 781
households surveyed, 70% of producers reported growing single variety, and 30% used
several varieties on their farm, 26% of them cultivated two varieties, and a considerably
lower number of producers produce higher number of varieties (Tabl e 4), with only
0.4% of the sampled producers cultivating five different wheat varieties during that
cropping year.
Regardless of the pool of different improved varieties, providing a great opportunity
for selection and on-farm genetic diversity in the study area, results show a tendency of
producers to specialize with respect to varieties and to stick to the most preferred one.
Measuring the impact of agricultural research 7
Table 3. Households characteristics by wealth quartiles.
Wealth quartiles
Variables Lowest 25% 25–50% 50–75% Highest 25%
Average holding area (ha) 14.4 19.8 27.5 51.1
Number of cars owned (No) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Sheep and goats number (head) 7 7 12 17
Total irrigated area in the farm (ha) 2.9 5.2 6.1 17.1
Area of land planted with trees (ha) 0.0 0.2 0.6 2.2
Number of tractors (No) 0.4 0.8 0.9 1.3
No. of rooms in the house (No) 2.9 3.5 3.9 5
Years of agricultural experience 23 31 33 36
Having university degree (%) 0 1 3 6
Years of education (year) 0 0 3 4
Having a satellite dish (%) 49 68 78 85
Source: Survey data.
Table 4. Distribution of producers by number and type of wheat varieties grown.
Distribution by variety type (% of plots)
Number of Other Old
varieties used Producers (%) Monitored new improved
1 70.3 8.6 37.2 54.3
2 25.5 18.8 37.7 43.5
3 2.9 21.7 46.4 31.9
4 0.9 25.0 25.0 50.0
5 0.4 13.3 66.6 20.0
Total 100.0 13.8 38.1 48.2
n 781 146 403 510
Source: Survey data.
Bold italic values indicate the number of observations in the sample and no statistics analysis
was done.
This pattern is observed equally across provinces and regions as well as rainfed and
irrigated systems. Thus, wheat biodiversity, although very high at country level, is very
low at the household level. A possible reason is that producers may be minimizing the
risks of on-farm grain mixing, and the potential of losing market value for their harvest
because they are priced according to strict purity and other quality characteristics.
The rate of adoption of the monitored varieties on the sample level as measured by
the percentage of wheat fields on which they were cultivated is 13.8% against 38.1%
for other new varieties, and 48.2% for the old improved varieties (Table 4).
Adoption of wheat varieties. The adoption rate is commonly measured as the proportion
of producers using the improved variety being studied, while degree of adoption
represents the proportion of area under the new varieties (Shideed and El Mourid,
2005). In the context of the present study where producers used more than one variety,
some of these producers simultaneously used a monitored variety and other varieties
that fall in other classifications. Taking advantage of the fact that different varieties are
8AHMED MAZID et al.
Table 5. Adoption rate and degree of wheat varieties.
Adoption (%)
Year of variety Rate Degree
Variety release (% producers) (% of area)
Bezostaja-1 1968 23.1 28.0
Gerek-79 1979 9.7 9.1
Pehlivan 1998 8.2 9.4
Sagettario 2001 5.7 5.1
Adana-99 1999 5.4 4.2
Kiziltan-91 1991 5.2 3.3
Flamura 1999 4.1 2.0
Ceyhan-99 1999 3.5 4.0
Karahan-99 1999 0.9 1.0
Demir-2000 2000 0.7 0.5
Saricanak-98 1998 0.5 0.5
Source: Survey data.
The bold values indicate the monitored varieties and no statistical tests were made.
rarely grown together in the same field, the proportion of fields cultivated with each
type of variety is used as a measure for adoption degree. Among all varieties cultivated
by the sampled producers, Pehlivan specifically ranks third in terms of adoption rate
(8.2%), after Bezostaja-1 (23%) and Gerek-79 (10%). The adoption rate is 3.5% for
Ceyhan-99, 0.9% for Karahan-99, 0.7% for Demir-2000 and 0.5% for Saricanak-98.
Among all 45 different varieties recorded in the survey, the variety ranking according
to adoption rate is 8th position for Ceyhan-99, 20th for Karahan-99, 21st for Demir-
2000 and 28th for Saricanak-98. The adoption degrees for individual varieties follow
a similar trend (Tabl e 5).
Adoption of the monitored varieties differs substantially across provinces, with the
highest adoption rate in Edirne (32%) and Diyarbakir (28%) and the lowest in Ankara
(Tabl e 6), whereas adoption is nearly the same across rainfed and irrigated production
systems (13–14%). Other new varieties were widely adopted in some provinces, highest
for Adana (92%), followed by Edirne (63%) and Diyarbakir (44%), and similarly, old
improved varieties are widely used in Ankara (86%) and in Konya (74%). Therefore,
there is much competition between the monitored varieties and others available,
particularly in Ankara and Konya (plateau region), and also in Adana where adoption
rates are very low (below 10%). Several factors may explain this, particularly the
criteria used by producers to define their preferences, such as agro-ecological zone
having high adoption rate in higher yield potential areas, such as in Edirne, low income
of farmers, residency outside the village and having off-farm activity.
The survey results indicated that adoption of the five monitored varieties was low
where adoption rate was 13.8% and adoption degree was 15.4% of the total growing
area, while 49% of the area under wheat is still cultivated with old varieties. Two
main reasons can explain the low adoption: these are farmers’ perceptions towards
characteristics of these varieties and the activities of the institutions responsible for
seed production and dissemination.
Measuring the impact of agricultural research 9
Table 6. Adoption rates of wheat varieties by province, production system and
the region.
Variety classification (% of plots)
No. of wheat Other Old
plots Monitored new improved
Province
Adana 158 8.2 91.8 0.0
Ankara 154 5.2 8.4 86.4
Edirne 131 32.1 62.6 5.3
Diyarbakir 188 27.7 43.6 28.7
Konya 428 7.2 18.9 73.8
Production system
Rainfed 718 14.1 38.0 47.9
Irrigated 341 13.2 38.1 48.7
Region
Plateau 582 6.7 16.2 77.1
Lowland 477 22.4 64.8 12.8
Source: Survey data.
The characteristic, which scored highest among wheat producers of the new
varieties was the high yield, reported by 65–100%. Other old improved varieties
also scored highly among producers. Farmers perceived that the variety Adana-
99, Bezostaja-1, Cesit-1252, Firat-93, Gelibolu, Flamura-85, Gerek-79, Kiziltan-91,
Konya-2002, Nurkent, Sagettario and Ukrayna are high-yielding varieties. For disease
resistance, 28–50% of producers preferred Adana-99, Golia, Cesit-1252, Guadelope
and Sagettario. For resistance to waterlogging, 38–80% listed Adana-99, Diyarbakir-
81, Golia, Pandas and Sagettario. For fetching a good market price, 60–100% listed
Aydin-93, Bezostaja-1, Dariel, Ekiz, Flamura, Gonen, Kiziltan-91, Pandas, Sagettario
and Tekirdag. For drought resistance, 60–100% preferred Dagdas-94 and Gerek-79;
this also explains why old varieties, such as Gerek79 have been grown, especially
under rainfed condition and low-yielding locations like in Ankara. In short, producers
have the choice between diverse wheat germplasm, some of which are as good as the
new varieties. On the other hand, some negative characteristics were mentioned by
producers regarding the new wheat varieties: some farmers perceived Saricanak-98
yields to decline over time, Ceyhan-99 was susceptible to cold or frost, and Pehlivan
was perceived by 11% of farmers as susceptible to diseases.
Seed availability of new varieties for farmers at an acceptable price is essential for
technology uptake. Turkey has made major economic changes and adopted a free
market economy. These reforms affected the agricultural sector in general and the
seed sector in particular. The state monopoly on seed sector is eliminated and opening
up opportunities for the private sector and liberalizing seed prices. Farmers in this
study indicated that they faced difficulties in finding certified wheat seed for the wheat
varieties they wanted to grow and indicated that the price is relatively high, and the
private seed sector is focusing on more profitable crops such as vegetables more than
10 AHMED MAZID et al.
Table 7. Comparison of yield and standard deviations by variety and production system.
Monitored Other new Old improved
System Indicator varieties varieties varieties
Rainfed Yield (kg ha1) 3540 3685 1655
CV (%) 28 32 61
Irrigated Yield (kg ha1) 4135 4430 3735
CV (%) 28 31 40
Test of effects Source of effect System Variety System ×variety
F-statistic (df) 305 (1)∗∗∗ 224 (2)∗∗∗ 38 (2)∗∗∗
Note: F-statistics derived from univariateanalysis of variance; ∗∗∗Yield differences are significant
at 1% level.
Source: Survey data.
wheat. Other farmers mentioned that they were not aware of the existence of new
wheat varieties.
Impact of the new varieties on productivity
Comparison of wheat yields. The impact of different varieties on productivity is assessed
through a comparison of average yields between variety groupings (using data provided
by farmers). In the rainfed system, the average yield obtained from the monitored
varieties is 3540 kg ha1compared to 3685 kg ha1for other new varieties and
1655 kg ha1for old improved varieties (Tabl e 7). Under irrigation, monitored and
other new varieties gave average yields of 4135 and 4430 kg ha1, respectively, and
old improved varieties is 3735 kg ha1(Tabl e 7). There was no statistical difference
between the monitored varieties and the other new varieties under either rainfed
or irrigated conditions, but both gave higher yields than the old improved varieties.
However, for monitored varieties, if divided by region and irrigation regime, results
indicated that monitored varieties were superior in the plateau region under rainfed
conditions.
Comparative yield stability. Achieving high and stable yields is an important selection
criterion in wheat-breeding programs. Stability may be reached over time or across
several production locations. Following Barkley and Porter (1996) and Barkley and
Peterson (2008), yield stability is measured by the coefficient of variation of yields
calculated across producers who use the respective varieties. The monitored wheat
varieties have the lowest coefficients of variation among all wheat varieties under both
rainfed (28%) and irrigated (28%) production systems (Tabl e 7). Thus, they provided
more stable yields compared to other groups especially to old improved variety, and
irrigation contributes to lower yield variability and therefore to achieving greater
stability.
Production function analysis
Results of the Cobb-Douglas production function are presented in Tab le 8.
Estimated coefficients on the continuous variables represent elasticities measuring
Measuring the impact of agricultural research 11
Table 8. Parameter estimates for determinants of wheat yield using the Cobb-
Douglas function.
Variable Coefficient Standard error t-statistic
Constant 0.293 0.634 0.462
LN-rainfall 1.150∗∗∗ 0.060 19.045
LN-seed quantity 0.2350.103 2.290
LN-manure 0.020∗∗∗ 0.005 3.796
LN-N fertilizer 0.0290.013 2.250
LN-P fertilizer 0.019() 0.011 1.754
LN-No. of irrigations 0.063∗∗∗ 0.004 17.742
Wealth index 0.148∗∗∗ 0.038 3.903
Monitored varieties 0.164∗∗∗ 0.052 3.187
Durum wheat 0.0970.051 1.902
Note: Adj R-squared equals 39.4. Coefficient is statistically different from zero
at 0.1% (∗∗∗), 1% (∗∗), 5% (), and 10% () probability levels, respectively.
the percentage increase in yield in response to increases in the respective inputs. The
coefficient for monitored varieties is positive (0.164) and significantly different from
zero at the 1% level. This implies that with the same levels of other farm inputs, the
monitored varieties do indeed increase wheat yields compared to other varieties.
The other inputs that contribute significantly to increased productivity in wheat
production in Turkey are the amount of water available to the crop through rainfall
or irrigation, and the quantity of seed, manure and/or nitrogen fertilizer. The most
important is water, which increases wheat production by 11.5% for a 10% increase in
its level, or productivity may decline by 11.5% following a 10% reduction in rainfall
as a result of drought. The importance of water is additionally stressed by the positive
and significant coefficient estimate associated with the number of irrigations provided
by producers. There is also a net increase of productivity by 10% for durum wheat
varieties over the bread types.
However, wheat shows a negative response to phosphorus fertilizer application,
because in many parts of the country, the soil is rich in this mineral. In addition, wheat
productivity increases with the wealth level of the producer as indicated by the positive
and significant coefficient on the wealth index. Given that the use of external inputs
and mechanization is encouraged through government programs, it is not surprising
that producers who can afford these inputs are more likely to increase productivity over
those who cannot do so. The sum of all the main inputs is 1.45, thus suggesting there
is potential for wheat production to increase more than the proportionate increase in
these inputs.
Profitability of wheat varieties
Net return is one measure of profitability commonly used by analysts, being the
gross revenue minus operational costs and asset depreciation. Gross margin is a useful
tool in farm management for selecting crop varieties or new technologies, measuring
returns over variables costs and determining the contribution of each production
activity to the profitability of the whole farm. It indicates likely returns or losses of a
12 AHMED MAZID et al.
Table 9. Estimated revenues, costs and gross margin of wheat varieties (TLha1).
Monitored varieties
Other Old
Ceyhan Demir Karahan Saricanak new improved
Item 99 2000 99 Pehlivan 98 Mean varieties varieties
Revenue2065 1100 1150 1540 1840 1635 1685 1160
Total cost 1175 1170 885 895 925 980 1025 985
Gross margin890 70 265 645 915 655 660 175
Gov. support 390 305 295 355 380 370 365 300
Gross margin§1280 235 560 1000 1295 1025 1030 475
Gross margin§/total cost ratio 1.09 0.20 0.63 1.12 1.40 1.05 1.00 0.48
Notes: includes revenues from grain and straw; before government supports; §after government supports.
1US$ =around 1.5 TL.
particular crop, but does not account for fixed costs relating to buildings, machinery
or equipment depreciation. Tabl e 9 shows the calculated gross revenues, variable
production costs, government support received by producers and the resulting gross
margins per hectare before and after such government support. On average, the gross
margin per unit area for both the monitored varieties and other new varieties was
1030 TL ha1(1US$ =around 1.5 TL), and for old improved varieties was 475
TL ha1. The same ranking is maintained when comparing gross margins before
government support and the monitored varieties are associated with the highest
profitability per unit area. However, results show that Demir-2000 is being produced
at an economic loss of 70 TL ha1if government support is not considered and has
the lowest gross margin even with support. Saricanak-98 and Ceyhan-99 generate the
highest margins before government support, with Pehlivan and Ceyhan-99 being the
most profitable varieties with government support.
In terms of the profitability of each variety, only Ceyhan-99 and Saricanak-98
performed better than all other varieties, whereas other new varieties generated a
higher gross margin than Demir-2000, Karahan-99 and Pehlivan. Similarly, the old
improved varieties on average generated higher gross margins than Demir-2000.
In rainfed wheat production systems, the monitored varieties are more profitable
than other varieties, with gross margins of 1010 TL ha1. In both rainfed and
irrigated systems, the old improved varieties are the least profitable, thus creating an
economic incentive and opportunity for their replacement with new wheat varieties.
Gross margins for the monitored varieties are highest in Ankara, Adana and Konya
compared to other varieties, with the reverse observed in Edirne and Diyarbakir. Thus,
results provide evidence that Ceyhan-99, Pehlivan and Saricanak-98 outperform all
other wheat varieties in terms of profitability, whereas Demir-2000 is the least profitable
Impact of new varieties on household income
The analysis indicated that the monitored varieties contribute more than all other
wheat varieties to increasing household income from wheat production in Ankara,
Adana and Konya provinces, and in both rainfed and irrigated systems.
Measuring the impact of agricultural research 13
Table 10. Average household income by sources and adoption (TL/household).
Adopters Adopters Non-adopters
of of other (using old
monitored new improved
varieties varieties varieties) Mean F-statistic
TL % TL % TL % TL % (df =2)
Wheat 42 310 54 22 755 46 15 700 37 22 825 45 16.9∗∗∗
Other crops 18 870 24 15 475 31 10 780 26 13 785 27 3.5
Livestock 7040 9 4460 9 5880 14 5620 11 1.7 n.s.
Labour wage 90 0 235 0 625 1 400 1 4.9∗∗
Off-farm income 1020 1 1285 3 2605 6 1885 4 10.9∗∗∗
Money transfer 115 0 120 0 255 1 185 0 0.8 n.s.
Other income sources 680 1 490 1 1200 3 870 1 1.4 n.s.
Gov. support 8645 11 4760 10 5010 12 5585 11 22.9∗∗∗
Total household income 78 770 100 49 580 100 42 055 100 51 160 100 15.2∗∗∗
Source: Survey data.
Significance level of 5%; ∗∗significance level of 1%; ∗∗∗significance level of 0.1%.
Producers’ incomes were calculated from all reported household activities including
the production of wheat and other crops, livestock rearing, agricultural labour wage,
revenues from share-cropping, renting farm machinery and other assets, off-farm
incomes and amount of government support received. The distribution of household
incomes by source and the type of varieties grown is summarized in Tabl e 10.
Across the alternative sources and three classifications of varieties, wheat leads over
other crops, followed by payments received from government support and livestock
production, for adopters of the monitored varieties or other new varieties. The order
of importance of the latter sources is reversed for non-adopters of new varieties as they
received relatively less income from government support. Estimated average income
for adopters of the monitored varieties is the highest (TL 78 770 per household),
statistically different with that of non-adopters at the 1% level. The contribution of
wheat to their income is 54%, compared to 46% for adopters of other new varieties,
and 37% for non-adopters. Wheat and other crops are relatively more important
sources of income for adopters of new wheat varieties, whereas livestock and non-
agricultural incomes, transfers and other incomes are relatively more important for
farmers using old improved varieties.
Results suggest that non-adopters of new wheat varieties are relatively more
dependent on other sources of income and at the same time generate the lowest
level of income across the classifications. It can be concluded that adoption of the
monitored varieties significantly contributes to increased household incomes.
Wheat is relatively very important in Diyarbakir in terms of household income,
equally important in Adana and Ankara, and less important in Konya and Edirne
(Figure 2). In reverse order, other crops were more important in the respective
provinces. Income from livestock activities is particularly high in Edirne and Ankara
compared to other provinces. There is a statistically significant difference in incomes
from wheat, other crops, livestock and from government programs across the
14 AHMED MAZID et al.
Figure 2. Estimates of income sources by provinces.
three provinces. However, there is no statistically significant difference in total
household income across the provinces, with the likelihood that there is some form of
compensation effect.
Impact on poverty
Poverty line in the developing countries was defined by the World Bank under two
scenarios (US$1.25 and US$ 2.0) per capita per day. The population living below US$2
a day in Turkey was estimated by the World Bank to be 18.1% in 2009, a reduction
from 2002 levels of 27% (World Bank, 2013). Saatci and Akpinar (2007) found that the
absolute poverty line for Turkey was US$4 per capita per day, with the highest poverty
rates among agricultural workers as well as in Eastern and Southeastern Anatolia. The
Turkish Statistical Institute (2009) indicated that the poverty line in Turkey is $2.15 per
capita per day, but that only 0.63% of the Turkish population lives below this figure.
Turkey was ranked 90th out of 186 countries with moderate human development in
the 2013 Human Development Report in terms of HDI ranks (UNDP, 2013), and
rural poverty has declined in the Turkey over the past 10 years (IFAD, 2012).
Based on data collected for this study, 5.5% of the households in the survey area
live below the Turkish poverty line (i.e. $2.15 per capita per day). This percentage is
higher than the national average reported by the Turkish Statistical Institute. Farmers
in the sample were relatively better-off than other farmers in Turkey for the reason
that most of the poorest rural people are self-employed and unpaid family workers,
living in the country’s least developed areas in eastern and south-eastern Anatolia and
Measuring the impact of agricultural research 15
Table 11. Household income by varieties adoption and wealth quartiles.
Wealth Per capita income Per capita income per
Variety classification quartiles (US$/person) person per day
Monitored varieties Lowest 25% 5365 14.9
25–50% 8160 22.7
50–75% 8190 22.7
Top 25% 12 850 35.7
Mean 9330 25.9
Other new varieties Lowest 25% 4545 12.6
25–50% 6470 18.0
50–75% 7385 20.5
Top 25% 8225 22.8
Mean 6560 18.2
Old improved varieties Lowest 25% 3825 10.6
25–50% 5545 15.4
50–75% 7130 19.8
Top 25% 7170 19.9
Mean 5875 16.3
Total sample Lowest 25% 4310 12.0
25–50% 6245 17.3
50–75% 7375 20.5
Top 25% 9000 25.0
Mean 6725 18.7
Source: Survey data.
parts of the coastal regions on the Black Sea (IFAD, 2012). The target area of this
study was outside of the poorest rural areas, with most of surveyed farmers cultivating
their own land and earning incomes that are relatively higher than other households
in rural areas.
In this study, on average, per capita income per day was estimated at $18.70
for the sampled population and higher for households who adopted the monitored
varieties or other new varieties. Across provinces, the highest per capita per day
income was obtained in Edirne ($25.90), Konya ($19.10) and Diyarbakir ($18.50).
Analysis by wealth quartiles and variety classification (Table 11 ) shows that relatively
poor households increased their per capita income to $14.90 by adopting monitored
varieties, relative to those in the same wealth quartile using other new varieties ($12.60)
or older improved varieties ($10.60). Better-off farmers derived the highest per capita
income per day in each variety classification or adoption group.
There is no significant difference in per capita income per day between adopters
of the monitored varieties and other new varieties, but there is between these groups
and farmers who used the old improved varieties. Similarly, the distribution of per
capita income based on the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test is nearly the same for adopters
of monitored varieties and other new varieties. On the contrary, there is a statistically
significant difference in the distribution of per capita income between these two groups
and the group of farmers using old improved varieties (Tab le 12).
While the sample farmers cannot be classified as living below the World Bank
classification of a poverty line, this paper accepts the notion that poverty is multifaceted
16 AHMED MAZID et al.
Table 12. Comparison of Kolmogorov–Smirnov statistics of
per capita income distribution by variety adoption.
Variety adoption groups KS statistic
Monitored varieties ×Other new varieties 1.479
Monitored varieties ×Old improved varieties 2.385∗∗∗
Other new varieties ×Old improved varieties 1.312
Significance level of 5%; ∗∗∗significance level of 0.1%.
and relative. The average income of US$18.70 is well above the poverty line, but still
at a level that restricts access to basic social services and long-term household security.
It is posited that increased income obtained by the household due to adoption of new
agricultural technologies can be directed to enhancing quality of life through better
coping strategies for household food security, better access to education, primary and
tertiary health care, and when agricultural innovation is designed appropriately, to
improved measures of inter-household empowerment.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
This study documents and assesses the impacts of five improved varieties developed
under the national and international programs in both rainfed and irrigated
production systems in five provinces of Turkey, where located in different agro-
ecological zones of Turkey. It specifically evaluated the technical and economic impacts
of the varieties on the livelihoods of producers. The findings of this research indicated
that the ability of varieties to produce high yields, and their resistance to drought, their
ability to demand a good market price, adaptation to local conditions, frost resistance
and good bread or durum quality are the most important characteristics indicated
by farmers to choose any variety. The constraints to the adoption of the monitored
varieties, based on farmers’ perceptions, are seed availability and awareness of new
varieties. These perceptions may be specific to the study areas and need further
investigation of the causes in order to increase their adoption rates.
Yield comparisons show that wheat productivity following the adoption of the
monitored varieties was doubled under rainfed systems and increased by 11% in
irrigated systems. The analysis by region indicated that monitored varieties were
only superior in the plateau region under rainfed conditions, but other new varieties
were superior in the lowlands and in the plateau region under irrigated conditions.
However, the monitored varieties and other new varieties give higher yields, on
average, compared to old improved varieties in most situations. Overall, the adoption
of the monitored varieties generated a net increase of 18% in total factor productivity
of wheat among producers. The increase in productivity is also accompanied by a
substantial improvement in yield stability in the respective production systems and
across the provinces.
Ceyhan-99, Pehlivan and Saricanak-98 outperform all wheat varieties cultivated
by farmers in terms of profitability, measured by gross margin per unit of land. The
monitored varieties contribute substantially to poverty reduction in the study area.
Measuring the impact of agricultural research 17
The analysis by wealth quartiles and by variety classification shows that households
which belong to the lowest wealth quartile (relatively poor farmers) increased their
per capita income to $14.90 per day through the adoption of the monitored varieties
compared to those in the same wealth quartile using other new varieties ($12.60) or
old improved varieties ($10.60). The results show that both poor and high income
farmers benefit from new variety adoption.
The distributions of per capita income from the monitored varieties and from
the other new varieties dominate the distribution of income from old improved
varieties, providing evidence of poverty reduction through variety adoption. The policy
implication is that if existing government programs to increase wheat production are
targeted specifically the monitored varieties, production increase could be achieved
more rapidly.
Among all varieties cultivated by the sampled producers, Pehlivan ranks third in
terms of adoption rate (8.2%), after Bezostaja-1 (23%) and Gerek-79 (10%). Other
adoption rates are 3.5% for Ceyhan-99, 0.9% for Karahan-99, 0.5% for Saricanak-98
and 0.7% for Demir-2000. Among all 45 different varieties analysed in the survey, the
variety ranking according to adoption rate is 8th for Ceyhan-99, 20th for Karahan-99,
21st for Demir-2000, and 28th for Saricanak-98. The adoption rates for individual
varieties follow a similar trend. There is a need for more extension efforts to disseminate
and increase the adoption rates of the monitored varieties in the respective provinces.
The study results suggest that the new wheat varieties are superior to the old
varieties in terms of productivity and profitability and that adoption has the potential
to substantially improve household income. While the yield potential and profitability
of the new varieties over the old ones were clearly demonstrated through the survey
results, their adoption was low. The five new varieties were grown on an aggregate
15% of the total wheat-growing area, and 49% of the area is still cultivated with
old varieties. The main reasons for the low adoption rate are farmers’ perception for
certain characteristics of the variety and the weak seed production systems. Increasing
both adoption rate and adoption degree of the new varieties is needed. This will include
improvements in the seed production system and in the information dissemination
process, led by the national extension agency in Turkey in close cooperation with
research institutes.
Addressing the needs for reviewing and recognition of Wheat Impact Pathway
in Turkey is an essential part of any successful diffusion strategy to achieve impact.
Impact pathway is described how the research interventions and who outside the
project needs to use them to achieve developmental outcomes and impact. Part of the
process of developing impact pathways involves mapping how knowledge and research
products must scale out and scale up to achieve the development goals. Scaling up
involves building a favourable institutional environment for the emerging change
process through such mechanisms as positive word of mouth, organized publicity,
political lobbying and policy change.
However, results of this study were deemed to be important in establishing research
efforts to generate the expected positive impacts at the household level, and will
therefore demonstrate to different stakeholders the positive impacts of the national and
18 AHMED MAZID et al.
international breeding programs associated with improved soil and crop management
and quality seed production on rural livelihoods.
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.
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): 202–211.
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.
Carney, D. (1998). Sustainable Rural Livelihoods–What Contributions Can We Make? London, UK: DFID.
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.
Chambers, R. and Conway, G. (1992). Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st Century. Discussion Paper
296. Brighton: Institute for Development Studies.
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: 243–265.
FAO (2008). Commodities by country. Rome, Italy: Economic and Social Department, FAO. Available at: http://www.
fao.org/es/ess/top/country.html.
IFAD (2012). Rural poverty in Turkey.Availableat:http://www.ruralpovertyportal.org/country/home/tags/turkey.
International Winter Wheat Improvement Program (IWWIP) (2009). What is IWWIP? Available at:
http://www.iwwip.org/aboutus.asp?l=english.
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): 216–227.
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.
MARA (2008). Delegation of the European Commission to Turkey.Availableat:http://www.tarim.gov.tr.
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).
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): 336–351.
Saatci, E. and Akpinar, E. (2007). Assessing poverty and related factors in Turkey. Croatian Medical Journal 48(5):
628–635.
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
Tur key . Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science 18(2): 240–253.
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.
Turkish Statistical Institute (2009). Main Statistics: Income, Consumption, and Poverty. Available at:
http://www.turkstat.gov.tr.
UNDP (2013). Human Development Report.Availableat:http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/14/hdr2013_
en_complete.pdf.
World Bank (2013). World Development Indicators. Available at: http://data.worldbank.org/country/turkey#cp_wdi.
... The results of the alternative ordinary least squares (OLS) regression also showed comparable yield gains from adopting the improved wheat varieties -indicating the strength of our results. These are consistent with many studies that found clear advantage of using improved varieties on crop productivity (Yigezu et al.2019b, Mazid et al., 2015. The rest of our analysis considers the results of the 2SLS as they're consistent with the OLS results and also account for possible endogeneity of treatment in case the tests failed to capture it. ...
... UZS 18 or 93.7 USD (16.2%) and 367,364 UZS or 129.3 USD (25.1%) higher gross margins per ha in the three revisited provinces in 2012/13 and 2016/17 cropping seasons, respectively. These results are consistent with the findings of Yigezu et al., (2019b) and Mazid et al., (2015). Table 6.24 below provides estimates of the instrumental variables (IV) regression model for consumption. ...
Book
Full-text available
This book compiles several studies conducted on different aspects of the wheat sector in Uzbekistan. It focuses mainly on the seed value chain and covers the entire continuum from variety development– to seed production, and marketing – to varietal adoption and impacts.
... There are several approaches to measure impact. A formal impact study was undertaken in Turkey by Mazid et al. [21] to evaluate the adoption of five new winter and spring wheat cultivars developed and released by the Turkish national breeding program and through international collaboration. The study results were based on a survey of 781 households selected randomly in the Adana, Ankara, Diyarbakir, Edirne and Konya Provinces of Turkey. ...
Article
Full-text available
International Winter Wheat Improvement Program (IWWIP) was established in 1986 between the Government of Turkey and CIMMYT with three main objectives: (1) develop winter/facultative germplasm for Central and West Asia, (2) facilitate global winter wheat germplasm exchange, and (3) training wheat scientists. ICARDA joined the program in 1991 making it a three-way partnership that continues to work effectively. The germplasm developed by IWWIP as well as the winter wheat cultivars and lines received from global cooperators are assembled into international nurseries. These nurseries are offered annually to public and private entities (IWWIP website) and distributed to more than 100 cooperators in all continents. IWWIP impact has primarily been in new winter wheat cultivars combining broad adaptation, high yield potential, drought tolerance and disease resistance. A total of 93 IWWIP cultivars have been released in 11 countries occupying annually an estimated 2.5-3.0 Mha. IWWIP cooperation with researchers in Turkey, Central and West Asia and several US universities has resulted in a number of publications reviewed in this paper. Important IWWIP impacts include national inventories of wheat landraces in Turkey, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, their collection, characterization, evaluation and utilization.
... While such linkages are well understood in theory, they have rarely been examined in empirical research with data from farmers' fields. Many studies on the adoption of improved crop varieties have evaluated yield effects in general, yet without differentiating between different crop traits and varietal characteristics (Di Falco et al. 2007;Matuschke et al. 2007;Mazid et al. 2015;Teklewold et al. 2013;Walker and Alwang 2015). We contribute to this literature by unpacking yield differentials of three varietal traits: disease resistance, yield potential, and adaptation to local abiotic stresses. ...
Article
Breeding crops for disease resistance is a sustainable approach to reduce yield losses. While significant research on the adoption and impacts of improved crop varieties exists, most studies have analyzed yield effects in general without distinguishing between different varietal traits and characteristics. Here, panel data from wheat farmers in Ethiopia were used to compare improved varieties that are resistant to stripe rust (caused by Puccinia striiformis f. sp. tritici) with improved susceptible and traditional susceptible varieties. Production function estimates suggest that improved resistant varieties raise effective yields by 8% in comparison to local susceptible varieties. The yield difference between improved resistant and improved susceptible varieties is positive but small because rust levels were not very high in the years under study. However, under drought and other abiotic stresses, improved varieties – with and without resistance to stripe rust – performed notably worse than local varieties. The worse performance under abiotic stress may explain why many farmers have recently switched back to growing traditional varieties. Sustainable adoption needs a combination of various traits in the same varieties, including high yield potential, grain quality, disease resistance and tolerance to drought and other production stresses.
... Among West Asian countries, only the WA of Turkey had improved, from more than 14 years in 1997 to 12-14 in 2014. Mazid et al. (2014) link low adoption of newer improved varieties in Turkey to farmers' knowledge and perception of certain varietal attributes, together with the unavailability of adequate or timely seed. 21 Other WANA countries have remained in the slowest WA category. ...
Technical Report
Full-text available
This study documents for 1994-2014 the global use of improved wheat germplasm and the economic benefits from international collaboration in wheat improvement research funded by CGIAR and involving national agricultural research systems,1 CGIAR organizations, and advanced research institutes. Conducted by the CGIAR Research Program on Wheat (WHEAT), this is the fourth in a series of global wheat impact assessments (Byerlee and Moya 1993; Heisey et al. 2002; Lantican et al. 2005) initiated by the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT). It updates data and earlier analyses from the most recent, previous study, covering 1988-2002 (Lantican et al. 2005).
Article
Full-text available
It is essential to increase food production to meet the projected population increase while reducing environmental loads. Biological nitrification inhibition (BNI)-enabled wheat genetic stocks are under development through chromosome engineering by transferring chromosomal regions carrying the BNI trait from a wild relative (Leymus racemosus (Lam.) Tzvelev) into elite wheat varieties; field evaluation of these newly developed BNI-wheat varieties has started. Ten years from now, BNI-enabled elite wheat varieties are expected to be deployed in wheat production systems. This study aims to evaluate the impacts of introducing these novel genetic solutions on life cycle greenhouse gas (LC-GHG) emissions, nitrogen (N) fertilizer application rates and N-use efficiency (NUE). Scenarios were developed based on evidence of nitrification inhibition and nitrous oxide (N2O) emission reduction by BNI crops and by synthetic nitrification inhibitors (SNIs), as both BNI-wheat and SNIs slow the nitrification process. Scenarios including BNI-wheat will inhibit nitrification by 30% by 2030 and 40% by 2050. It was assumed that N fertilizer application rates can potentially be reduced, as N losses through N2O emissions, leaching and runoff are expected to be lower. The results show that the impacts from BNI-wheat with 40% nitrification inhibition by 2050 are assessed to be positive: a 15.0% reduction in N fertilization, a 15.9% reduction in LC-GHG emissions, and a 16.7% improvement in NUE at the farm level. An increase in ammonia volatilization had little influence on the reduction in LC-GHG emissions. The GHG emissions associated with N fertilizer production and soil N2O emissions can be reduced between 7.3 and 9.5% across the wheat-harvested area worldwide by BNI-wheat with 30% and 40% nitrification inhibition, respectively. However, the present study recommends further technological developments (e.g. further developments in BNI-wheat and the development of more powerful SNIs) to reduce environmental impacts while improving wheat production to meet the increasing worldwide demand.
Article
Full-text available
The efficiency of inputs’ level and monetary size of production factors were determined for wheat production in Turkey. In the study Cobb-Douglas, type production function was used and multi-determination coefficient of acquired estimating equation (R2) was estimated at 0.825. It has been proved that there is increasing return to scale (Σβi=1.089) in wheat production, based on the sum of elasticity coefficient of variables in the function. The coefficients of factors have been considered that when some factors such as land quantity, fertilizer cost and pesticide cost increase the wheat production also increase due to increasing return of scale. In the provinces where this research has been conducted, the average yield of wheat varies between 1.893-4.384 ton ha-1. For the average research provinces, it has been proved that gross production value of the wheat varies between 533.83€ - 1192.45€ ha-1 and gross profit varies between 205.43€-826.95€ ha-1. Also agricultural subsidies which were taken by the provinces, according to their yield per unit area, varies between 95.18€ - 145.00€ ha-1. It has been concluded from the research that despite of the support payments to encourage the agricultural production, the competitive power of Turkey is low in wheat and agricultural support unit price is insufficient because of the higher production cost of wheat in proportion to other countries.
Article
Full-text available
The purpose is to provoke discussion by exploring and elaborating the concept of sustainable livelihoods. It is based normatively on the ideas of capability, equity, and sustainability, each of which is both end and means. In the 21st century livelihoods will be needed by perhaps two or three times the present human population. A livelihood comprises people, their capabilities and their means of living, including food, income and assets. A livelihood is environmentally sustainable when it maintains or enhances the local and global assets on which livelihoods depend, and has net beneficial effects on other livelihoods. A livelihood is socially sustainable which can cope with and recover from stress and shocks, and provide for future generations. Current and conventional analysis both undervalues future livelihoods and is pessimistic. Ways can be sought to multiply livelihoods by increasing resource-use intensity and the diversity and complexity of small-farming livelihood systems, and by small- scale economic synergy. The objective of sustainable livelihoods for all provides a focus for anticipating the 21st century, and points to priorities for policy and research. -from Authors
Article
This study presents farmers’ evaluations of the performance of winter-sown chickpea technology developed by ICARDA relative to traditional spring planting, and assesses impacts of this technology on farmers’ livelihoods in Syria. Ascochyta blight, insects and weeds were the most important factors affecting productivity of winter-sown chickpea, according to 480 farmers. Among package components, crop varieties were widely adopted and most farmers adopted other components. The winter-sown chickpea area is expanding, particularly in drier regions that do not traditionally grow chickpea. Adoption was higher for better-off farmers – poorer farmers generally prefer to see positive effects first. Adoption over time is accelerating, with obvious benefits: yields have increased by 18% in drier areas and 32% elsewhere in Syria. Winter-sown chickpea technology increased incomes for all adopting households with greatest impact among poorer farmers. All gains are important because chickpea contributes 22% of total household income and should increase with further increases in package adoption.
Article
In 1993, over one-third of Kansas wheat acres were seeded to varieties with milling and baking qualities ranked “less desirable,” stimulating interest in the determinants of wheat variety selection. Regression analysis is used to quantify the relationship between planted varieties and wheat characteristics relating to production and end-use qualities. Results indicate that Kansas wheat producers consider end-use qualities, production characteristics, relative yields, yield stability, and past production decisions when selecting wheat varieties. Simulation results reveal potential tradeoffs facing wheat breeders and seed dealers. Time paths of adoption are projected for potential improvements in wheat yields and quality characteristics.
Article
Agricultural development is fundamentally a social process in which people construct solutions to their problems, often by modifying both new technologies and their own production systems to take advantage of new opportunities offered by the technologies. Hence, agricultural change is an immensely complex process, with a high degree of non-linearity. However, current ‘best practice’ economic evaluation methods commonly used in the CGIAR system ignore complexity. In this paper we develop a two-stage monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment approach called impact pathway evaluation. This approach is based on program-theory evaluation from the field of evaluation, and the experience of the German development organization GTZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit GmbH). In the first stage of this approach, a research project develops an impact pathway for itself, which is an explicit theory or model of how the project sees itself achieving impact. The project then uses the impact pathway to guide project management in complex environments. The impact pathway may evolve, based on learning over time. The second stage is an ex post impact assessment sometime after the project has finished, in which the project's wider benefits are independently assessed. The evaluator seeks to establish plausible links between the project outputs and developmental changes, such as poverty alleviation. We illustrate the usefulness of impact pathway evaluation through examples from Nigeria and Indonesia.
Article
World Development Indicators, the World Bank's respected statistical publication presents the most current and accurate information on global development on both a national level and aggregated globally. This information allows readers to monitor the progress made toward meeting the goals endorsed by the United Nations and its member countries, the World Bank, and a host of partner organizations in September 2001 in their Millennium Development Goals. The print edition of World Development Indicators 2005 allows you to consult over 80 tables and over 800 indicators for 152 economies and 14 country groups, as well as basic indicators for a further 55 economies. There are key indicators for the latest year available, important regional data, and income group analysis. The report contains six thematic presentations of analytical commentary covering: World View, People, Environment, Economy, States and Markets, and Global Links.
Article
Previously published as an Appendix to the World development report. Incl. users guide, list of acronyms, bibl., index. The Little data book is a pocket edition of WDI