Content uploaded by Mustafa Kan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mustafa Kan on Dec 25, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Polical Economy of
the Wheat Sector in Turkey
Seed Systems, Varietal Adopon,
and Impacts
Editors:
Zewdie Bishaw
Yigezu Atnafe Yigezu
Mesut Keser
Abdoul Aziz Niane
Mut Engiz
Simon Popay
Murat Küçükçongar
November 2021
ISBN: 978-929127-5007
AGROVOC descriptors
Turkey; wheat; improved variees; breeder seed; basic seed; cered seed; seed
quality; private sector; public sector; demonstraon; food security; seed policies;
regulatory framework; instuons; research instuons; producon costs; prot;
yields; farm income;
Citaon
Zewdie Bishaw, Yigezu Atnafe Yigezu, Mesut Keser, Abdoul Aziz Niane, Mut Engiz,
Simon Popay, and Murat Küçükçongar (eds). 2021. Polical Economy of the Wheat
Sector in Turkey: Seed Systems, Varietal Adopon, and Impacts. 226 pp.
About ICARDA
Established in 1977, the Internaonal Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas
(ICARDA) is a non-prot, Consorum of Internaonal Agriculture Research Center that
focuses on delivering innovave soluons for sustainable agricultural development in
the non-tropical dry areas of the developing world. We provide innovave, science-
based soluons to improve the livelihoods and resilience of resource-poor smallholder
farmers. We do this through strategic partnerships, linking research to both development
and capacity development, and by taking into account gender equality and the role of
youth in transforming the non-tropical dry areas.
Address
Dalia Building, Second Floor, Bashir El Kasser St, Verdun, Beirut, Lebanon 1108-2010.
www.icarda.org
Disclaimer
The views expressed are those of the authors, and not necessarily those of ICARDA.
Where trade names are used, it does not necessarily imply endorsement of, or
discriminaon against, any product by the Center. ICARDA encourages fair use,
sharing, and distribuon of this informaon for non-commercial purposes with proper
aribuon and citaon.
This document is licensed for use under the Creave Commons
Aribuon-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) 4.0 Internaonal License.
To view this license, visit hp://creavecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/.
Unless otherwise noted, you are free to copy, duplicate, or reproduce and distribute,
display, or transmit any part of this publicaon or porons thereof without permission,
and to make translaons, adaptaons, or other derivave works under the following
condions:
ATTRIBUTION. The work must be aributed, but not in any way that suggests
endorsement by the publisher or the author(s).
ii
Contents
Chapter I. The Wheat Sector in Turkey
1.1 Background
1.2 The Wheat Grain Sector
1.2.1 Production
1.2.2 Wheat grain trade
1.2.3 Foreign trade
1.2.4 Institutions
1.2.5 Incentives for the wheat sector
1.2.6 Other policy directions
1.3 The Wheat Seed Sector
1.3.1 Historical development
1.3.2 Institutional arrangements
1.3.3 Seed policies and regulatory frameworks
1.3.4 Lessons learned
Chapter II. Variety Development and Evaluation
2.1 Introduction with Historical Context
2.2 Regulatory Frameworks
2.3 Institutional Arrangements
2.4 Technical Procedures
2.5 Major Achievements
2.6 Key Challenges
2.7 Lessons Learned
2.8 Recommendations
Chapter III. Variety Release and Protection
3.1 Variety Registration and Release
3.1.1 Introduction with historical context
3.1.2 Regulatory frameworks
3.1.3 Institutional arrangements
3.1.4 Technical procedures
3.1.5 Major achievements
3.1.6 Key challenges
3.1.7 Lessons learned
3.1.8 Recommendations
3.2 Plant Variety Protection
3.2.1 Introduction with historical context
1
2
3
3
5
9
10
13
16
17
18
19
22
24
28
29
29
30
31
33
36
37
38
40
41
41
41
42
42
44
46
46
47
47
47
iii
3.2.2 Regulatory frameworks
3.2.3 Institutional arrangements
3.2.4 Technical procedures
3.2.5 Major achievements
3.2.6 Royalty collection mechanism
3.2.7 Key challenges
3.2.8 Lessons learned
3.2.9 Recommendations
Chapter IV. Seed Production and Commercialization
4.1 Seed Production
4.1.1 Introduction with historical context
4.1.2 Regulatory frameworks
4.1.3 Institutional arrangements
4.1.4 Technical procedures
4.2 Seed Commercialization
4.2.1 Introduction with historical context
4.2.2 Regulatory frameworks
4.2.3 Institutional arrangements (seed dealers)
4.2.4 Technical procedures
4.3 Achievements
4.4 Key Challenges
4.5 Lessons Learned
4.6 Recommendations
Chapter V. Seed Quality Assurance and Certification
5.1 Introduction with Historical Context
5.2 Regulatory Frameworks
5.3 Institutional Arrangements
5.4 Technical Procedures
5.5 Major Achievements
5.6 Key Challenges
5.7 Lessons Learned
5.8 Recommendations
Chapter VI. Adoption, Impacts and Seed Demand Analysis
6.1 Summary
6.2 Introduction
6.3 Objective of the Study
48
48
48
51
52
53
54
54
56
57
57
58
59
59
65
65
66
66
67
72
74
75
76
79
80
80
81
82
84
87
89
89
91
92
94
97
iv
6.4 Survey Design
6.5 Methodology
6.5.1 Determination of the levels of adoption
6.5.2 Explaining farmers’ adoption decisions
6.5.3 Measuring the impacts of improved wheat varieties
6.6 Results
6.6.1 Characterization of the sample households
6.6.2 Adoption of improved wheat varieties
6.6.3 Impacts of improved wheat varieties
6.6.4 Seed demand analysis
6.7 Conclusions
Chapter VII. The Wheat Sector in Turkey: Seed System, Varietal Adoption, and Impacts
– a Synthesis
7.1 Motivation
7.2 Analysis of the Wheat Sector in Turkey
7.2.1 Trends, achievements, opportunities and challenges
7.2.2 Varietal adoption, impact and seed demand
7.2.3 Policies and institutions
7.2.4 Variety development, release, and protection nexus
7.2.5 Seed production, commercialization and quality assurance
7.2.6 The nexus between the supply and demand side factors
7.3 Conclusions and the Way Forward
Annex 1: Wheat purchase price by TMO
Annex 2: Post-harvest losses in Turkey
Annex 3: List of seed related laws, regulations and directives
Annex 4A: List of all varieties released in Turkey between 1928 and 2021
Annex 4B: Varieties included in the NVL as of September 2021
Annex 5: Adoption rate (% of growers) and adoption degree (% of area) by variety
Annex 6: Farmers’ trait preference ranking by agro-ecological zone for rainfed
environments
Annex 7: Farmers’ trait preference ranking by agro-ecological zone for irrigated
environments
98
100
100
100
102
104
104
106
130
137
146
153
154
155
155
157
158
161
162
164
165
170
171
172
174
194
220
225
226
v
List of Tables
Table 1.1: Support for domestic production and use of certified seed
Table 2.1: Public ARIs working on wheat improvement in Turkey
Table 2.2: Timeline for variety development and commercialization in Turkey
Table 3.1: Number of wheat varieties registered by public and private sectors in Turkey:
2008–2018
Table 3.2: Number of wheat varieties granted with PVP: 2008–2018
Table 4.1: Trends in wheat seed production, distribution, import and export: 2002–
2019
Table 4.2: Number of registered seed companies in 2021
Table 4.3: Trends in domestic wheat seed prices set by TİGEM: 2014–2019
Table 4.4: Trends in wheat purchase prices by TMO: 2014–2019
Table 4.5: Trends and comparision of wheat grain and seed prices: 2014–2019
Table 4.6: Wheat area planted, potential seed required and supplied by formal sector:
1995–2020
Table 5.1: Summary of bread and durum wheat field inspection: 2016-2019
Table 5.2: Summary of laboratory analyses results for seeds of bread and durum wheat:
2016-2019
Table 5.3: Suggested wheat seed standards for different seed classes in Turkey
Table 6.1: Government support program for wheat (TRY/MT)
Table 6.2: Distribution of sample households for the wheat adoption study
Table 6.3: Characteristics of household heads
Table 6.4: Household demographics
Table 6.5: Share of agriculture in family income
Table 6.6: Cumulative percentage of farmers planting wheat varieties released in or
after a given date – by province
Table 6.7: Percentage of farmers planting wheat varieties of different release dates and
cumulative adoption rates – provincial and national figures
Table 6.8: Cumulative percentage of farmers planting wheat varieties released in or
before a given date – by agro-ecological zone
Table 6.9: Percentage of farmers planting wheat varieties of different release dates and
cumulative adoption rates – by agro-ecological zone and national figures
Table 6.10: Cumulative percentage of farmers planting bread wheat varieties released
in or before a given date – by province
Table 6.11: Percentage of farmers planting bread wheat varieties of different release
15
30
32
45
51
61
64
69
71
72
73
86
87
88
96
99
104
105
105
107
108
110
111
113
vi
dates and cumulative adoption rates –provincial and national fgures
Table 6.12: Cumulative percentage of farmers planting durum wheat varieties released
in or before a given date – by province
Table 6.13: Percentage of farmers planting durum wheat varieties of different release
dates and cumulative adoption rates – provincial and national figures
Table 6.14: Cumulative percentage of wheat area under wheat varieties released in or
after a specific year – by province
Table 6.15: Area-weighted percentage of wheat area under varieties of different release
dates – provincial and national figures
Table 6.16: Cumulative percentage area under wheat varieties released in or after a
specific year –by agro-ecological zone
Table 6.17: Area-weighted percentage of wheat area under varieties of different release
dates – by agro-ecological zone and national figures
Table 6.18: Cumulative percentage of wheat area under bread wheat varieties released
in or after a specific year – by province
Table 6.19: Area-weighted percentage of wheat area under bread wheat varieties of
different release dates – provincial and national figures
Table 6.20: Cumulative percentage of wheat area under durum wheat varieties released
in or after a specific year – by province
Table 6.21: Area-weighted percentage of wheat area under durum wheat varieties of
different release dates – provincial and national figures
Table 6.22: Parameter estimates of the Double Hurdle Model for using improved
varieties
Table 6.23: 2SLS estimates of the IV model for yield (kg/ha)
Table 6.24: 2SLS estimates of the IV model for gross margins (TRY/ha)
Table 6.25: 2SLS estimates of the IV model for wheat consumption (kg/capita/year)
Table 6.26: Potential impacts of improved wheat varieties with different assumed
adoption levels
Table 6.27: Yields and gross margins by year of release and agro-ecology
Table 6.28: Total seed use and average seeding rate by province (27 sample provinces)
Table 6.29: Total national seed use by variety (27 sampled provinces)
Table 6.30: Estimated frequency of certified seed purchases
Table 6.31: Own saved seed treatment and storage
Table 6.32: Mode of storage for own saved seed
114
115
116
118
120
121
122
124
125
126
127
128
131
132
133
135
136
137
139
143
144
144
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Wheat area, yield and production in Turkey
Figure 1.2: Indexed wheat area, yield and production in Turkey
Figure 1.3: Distribution of number of holdings and land size as percentage of
national totals
Figure 1.4: The wheat grain trade in Turkey
Figure 1.5: Proportion of domestic wheat production purchased by TMO
Figure 1.6: Pasta and flour production (tons) in Turkey: 2005–2020
Figure 1.7: Wheat utilization and losses in Turkey
Figure 1.8: Wheat grain supply and demand in Turkey
Figure 1.9: The organizational structure of the seed sector in Turkey
Figure 1.10: Evolution of farm subsidies for wheat production in Turkey (constant
2003 prices)
Figure 1.11: The wheat seed and grain value chain in Turkey
Figure 1.12: Organizational structure of seed unions in Turkey
Figure 2.1: Variety development, evaluation and release scheme in Turkey
Figure 2.2: Wheat varietal release by the public sector, private sector, and
universities in Turkey by decade
Figure 2.3: Wheat varietal release and registration in the NVL by the public sector,
private sector, and universities in Turkey by year
Figure 2.4: Cumulative wheat varietal release and registration in the NVL by the
public sector, private sector, and universities in Turkey
Figure 3.1: Variety release and registration scheme in Turkey
Figure 3.2: Number of wheat varieties registered in Turkey
Figure 3.3: PVP scheme in Turkey
Figure 3.4: Mechanism of royalty collection for PVP
Figure 4.1: Potential wheat seed required and certified seed supply: 1995–2021
Figure 4.2: Certified seed production by the public and private sectors
Figure 5.1: Linkages among ministerial seed certification organizations
Figure 5.2: Seed certification and market control in Turkey
Figure 6.1: The changes in wheat cultivation area, yield, and the total production
in Turkey
4
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
16
18
21
33
34
35
35
43
45
50
53
58
73
81
84
95
viii
Preface
In Turkey, wheat is the most important crop in terms of land area, volume of
production, and monetary value. Despite varied climatic and agro-ecological conditions,
wheat is grown in almost all areas of the country. Although a significant proportion of
wheat produced is used for domestic consumption, it plays a dominant role as a source
of cash accounting; on average, making up to 45% of household income in some areas
where it is grown for market.
Over the last 30 years, wheat production has remained largely stable, in the range
of 16 to 22 million tons, with some annual variations. Wheat area has decreased from
9.3 million hectares in 1988 to 6.8 million hectares in 2019. During the same period,
there has been a 27% increase in the average yield – from 1.88 tons ha-1 to 2.78 tons
ha-1, which has almost fully offset the reduction in total wheat area, leading to only a
slight (7%) reduction in total wheat grain production. In 2019, although Turkey ranked
eleventh in global total wheat production, it was the number one wheat flour and
bourghul exporting country, with a total export of over 3.34 million tons. Turkey is also
a major producer of pasta and related products, with a total production volume of 1.3
million tons in 2016.
The establishment, in the 1930s, of regional agricultural research institutes
responsible for crop improvement, particularly cereals (wheat, barley), and state farms
responsible for production and distribution of seeds of new varieties to farmers, laid
the foundation for an organized seed sector in Turkey. The National Wheat Release and
Training Project that embarked in 1967 contributed to the start of a ‘green revolution’ in
the country, which gained momentum in the 1970s and continued, though at a slower
pace, thereafter. In 1991, the General Directorate of Agricultural Research and Policies
was established as a central coordinating body of all national agricultural research,
where 12 agricultural research institutes were involved in wheat breeding and research
in different parts of the country representing different agro-ecologies.
From its humble beginning in the 1930s, the wheat seed sector in Turkey has seen
considerable changes over the years. While most of the changes were incremental over
different phases, but sometimes radical, the most important change has been a rapid
expansion in variety registration and certified seed production by the private sector
over the last 20 years. These changes are mainly attributed to the policy changes
and structural transformation that led to the liberalization of Turkey’s seed sector.
Specifically, the Agricultural Law No. 5488 and Seed Law No 5553, both of which were
instituted in 2006, and Law No 5042 for the Protection of Breeders’ Rights of New Plant
Varieties, which was enacted in 2004. These laws introduced a regulatory framework
that encouraged private sector investment in agriculture in general, and the seed sector
in particular.
This book, Political Economy of the Wheat Sector in Turkey: Seed Systems, Varietal
Adoption, and Impacts is a second book in a series (preceded by a similar book focussing
on Morocco and to be followed by another focussing on Uzbekistan). The book series
ix
was possible through support provided by the CGIAR Research Program on Wheat. This
book compiles the studies conducted on the Turkish wheat sector, focussing mainly on
the seed value chain and covering the entire variety development process –from seed
production and marketing, to varietal adoption and impacts; and is organized as follows.
Chapter 1 highlights the historical developments of the wheat grain and seed sector,
including the policy and regulatory frameworks. Chapter 2 presents the development of
agricultural research institutes and hence, the generation of improved wheat varieties,
while Chapter 3 focuses on varietal release and protection. Chapter 4 presents a
description of the procedures and status of production and commercialization of early
generation seed (elite, original), primarily by the National Agricultural Research System,
and large-scale certified seed by the private and public sectors. Chapter 5 elaborates on
seed quality assurance and certification. Chapter 6 describes the status and identifies
the determinants of adoption, assesses the impacts of improved wheat varieties and
provides estimates of the annual quantities of wheat seed use. Chapter 7 provides a bird’s
eye view of the whole wheat sector in Turkey by synthesizing and establishing linkages
between the achievements, limitations, challenges and opportunities documented in
each of the preceding 6 chapters and makes recommendations for the way forward.
This comprehensive book, where most of the information related to the wheat
sector in Turkey is compiled into one document, is the first-of-its-kind in the country.
Therefore, we believe that it will be a ‘go to’ document and a good reference material
for several years to come. The rich experiences and possible options for mitigating
major challenges that deter the development of the sector documented in this book
are expected to inform key stakeholders – including policymakers, researchers, farmers,
private and public seed companies, and development partners, and by so doing, help in
improving the efficiency of the wheat sector in the country.
Editors
x
Acknowledgements
This book would not have been possible without the financial support obtained
from the CGIAR Research Program on Wheat. The authors would also like to thank
the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, General Directorate of Agricultural Research
and Policies (TAGEM), General Directorate of Plant Production, the Variety Registration
and Seed Certification Center, the Turkish Seed Union and several other institutions
in Turkey for providing the valuable information needed to produce this book. Special
thanks go to the kind and generous Turkish wheat farmers who willingly committed
their precious time to answer the long interviews, which also provided the basis for
this study. We also thank the Bahri Dağdaş International Agricultural Research Institute
(Konya) of TAGEM for coordinating the collection, digitization, and cleaning of survey
data.
While the Bahri Dağdaş International Agricultural Research Institute coordinated
the overall survey, the authors would like to acknowledge the support provided by
the agricultural research institutions and provincial directorates through the following
people who coordinated, collaborated and provided information for the study. These
include:
1. Dr. Fah Özdemir, Bahri Dağdaş Internaonal Agricultural Research Instute (Bahri
Dağdaş Uluslararası Tarımsal Araşrma Enstüsü), Konya, Turkey
2. Mustafa Önder, Bahri Dağdaş Internaonal Agricultural Research Instute (Bahri
Dağdaş Uluslararası Tarımsal Araşrma Enstüsü), Konya, Turkey
3. Özkan Kayacan, Kayseri Provincial Directorate of Agriculture and Forestry (Kayseri
Tarım Ve Orman İl Müdürü)
4. İhsan Arslan Sivas Provincial Directorate of Agriculture and Forestry (Sivas Tarım
Ve Orman İl Müdürü)
5. Gülşah Ertekin Polat, Sivas Provincial Directorate of Agriculture and Forestry (Sivas
Tarım Ve Orman İl Müdürlüğü)
6. Ender Muhammed Gümüş Kütahya Provincial Directorate of Agriculture and
Forestry (Kütahya Tarım Ve Orman İl Müdürü)
7. Fah Ahmet Yentür, Kütahya Provincial Directorate of Agriculture and Forestry
(Kütahya Tarım Ve Orman İl Müdürlüğü)
8. Dr Hakan Hekimhan, Aegean Agricultural Research Instute (Ege Tarımsal
Araşrma Enstü Müdürlüğü)
9. Oğuzhan Ulucan and Soner Yüksel, Transional Zone Agricultural Research
Instute (Geçit Kuşağı Tarımsal Araşrma Enstü Müdürlüğü)
10. Dr Alla Alntaş and Dr Gülçin Alntaş, Mid-Black Sea Agricultural Research
Instute (Orta Karadeniz Geçit Kuşağı Tarımsal Araşrma Enstü Müdürlüğü)
11. Dr Mehmet Aydoğan and Yunus Emre Terzi, Black Sea Agricultural Research
Instute (Karadeniz Tarımsal Araşrma Enstü Müdürlüğü)
12. Dr Serhan Candemir (Eastern Transional Zone Agricultural Research Instute
(Doğu Akdeniz Geçit Kuşağı Tarımsal Araşrma Enstü Müdürlüğü)
13. Şahinde Şili, Adnan Akcan and Mahmut Çebi, Thrace Agricultural Research Instute
(Trakya Tarımsal Araşrma Enstü Müdürlüğü)
xi
14. Yakup Turgut, Antalya Provincial Directorate of Agriculture and Forestry (Antalya
Tarım Ve Orman İl Müdürlüğü).
xii
Contribung Authors (in alphabecal order(
Bishaw, Zewdie, International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA),
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; e-mail: z.bishaw@cgiar.org
Engiz, Mufit, Consultant, Union of Turkish Agricultural Chambers, Ankara, Turkey; e-mail:
mufitengiz@gmail.com
Kan, Mustafa, Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agricultural, Kırşehir Ahi
Evran University, Kırşehir, Turkey; e-mail: mustafa.kan@ahievran.edu.tr
Keser, Mesut, ICARDA, Ankara, Turkey; e-mail: m.keser@cgiar.org
Küçükçongar, Murat, Bahri Dağdaş International Agricultural Research Institute, Konya,
Turkey; e-mail: kucukcongar@gmail.com
Niane, Abdoul Aziz, ICARDA, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; e-mail: a.niane@cgiar.org
Özdemir, Fatih, Bahri Dağdaş International Agricultural Research Institute (Bahri Dağdaş
Uluslararası Tarımsal Araştırma Enstitüsü), Konya, Turkey
Popay, Simon, Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience, Coventry University, Coventry,
United Kingdom; e-mail: spopay@gmail.com
El-Shater, Tamer, consultant at ICARDA, P.O. Box 5644, Aleppo, Syria; e-mail: tamer_149@
hotmail.com
Yigezu, Yigezu A., ICARDA, P.O. Box 950764, 11195, Cairo, Egypt; e-mail: y.yigezu@cgiar.org
xiii
List of Abbreviaons
2SLS Two-stage least squares
ARIP Agricultural Reform Implementation Project
ARI Agricultural research institute (Kamu Tarimsal Araştirma Enstitüleri)
BÜGEM Bitkisel Üretim Genel Müdürlüğü (General Directorate of Plant
Production)
CIMMYT The International Center for Maize and Wheat Improvement
CKS Çiftçi Kayıt Sistemi (Farmer Registration System)
DUS Distinctness, uniformity and stability
EU European Union
FAO The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GKGM Gida ve Kontrol Genel Müdürlüğü (General Directorate of Food and
Control)
GMO Genetically modied organism
GTHB Gida Tarim ve Hayvancilik Bakanliği (Ministry of Food, Agriculture and
Livestock)
ICARDA The International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas
IPARD Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance Rural Development
IPR Intellectual property rights
ISTA International Seed Testing Association
IV Instrumental variables
IWWIP The International Winter Wheat Improvement Program
MARA Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs
MTP Milli Tarım Projesi (National Agriculture Project)
NARS National Agricultural Research System
NSAG The National Seed Advisory Group
NVL National Varieties List
OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
PVP Plant variety protection
R&D Research and development
xiv
TAGEM Tarımsal Araştırmalar ve Politikalar Genel Müdürlüğü (General
Directorate of Agricultural Research and Policies)
TİGEM Tarım İşletmeleri Genel Müdürlügü (General Directorate of Agricultural
Enterprises)
TMO Toprak Mahsulleri Osi (Turkish Grain Board)
TOB Tarım ve Orman Bakanlığı (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry)
TÜİK Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (Turkish Statistical Institute)
TRY Turkish lira
TTSM Tohumluk Tescil ve Sertikasyon Merkez Müdürlüğü (Variety Registration
and Seed Certication Centre)
TUSAF Türkiye Un Sanayicileri Federasyonu (Turkish Flour Manufacturers
Federation)
TÜRK-TED Türkiye Tohumculuk Endüstrisi Derneği (Turkish Seed Industry
Association)
TÜRKTOB Türkiye Tohumcular Birliği (Turkish Seed Union) and its sub-unions
BİSAB-Bitki Islahçıları Alt Birliği (Plant Breeders Sub-Union)
TSÜAB-Tohum Sanayicileri ve Üreticileri Alt Birliği (Seed Industrialists
and Producers Sub-Union)
FÜAB-Fidan Üreticileri Alt Birliği (Sapling Producers Sub-Union)
FİDEBİRLİK-Fide Üreticileri Alt Birliği (Seedling Producers Sub-Union)
SÜSBİR- Süs Bitkileri Üreticileri Alt Birliği (Ornamental Plant Producers
Sub-Union)
TYAB-Tohum Yetiştiricileri Alt Birliği (Seed Growers Sub-Union)
TODAB-Tohum Dağıtıcıları Alt Birliği (Seed Distributors Sub-Union)
TVYS Tohumluk Veri Yönetim Sistemi (Seed Data Management System)
UPOV International Union for Protection of New Varieties of Plants
VCU Value for cultivation and use
WANA West Asia and North Africa region
WTO World Trade Organization
Chapter VI
Adopon, Impacts and Seed Demand Analysis
Tamer El-Shater*, Yigezu Atnafe Yigezu, Murat Küçükçongar, Mustafa
Kan, Zewdie Bishaw, Abdoul Aziz Niane, Mesut Keser, Mut Engiz, and
Fah Ozdemir
92
CHAPTER VI: Adopon, Impacts and Seed Demand Analysis
Summary
The seed sector in Turkey has grown rapidly since the new Seed Law entered into
force in 2006. Both the public and private sectors’ production capacity has increased
with the help of government policies supporting domestic production of seed and
certified seed usage. Despite the country’s importance in terms of genetic diversity,
size of the wheat improvement program, total wheat area, and its contribution to the
world market, there has not been a comprehensive study to document the adoption
and impacts of improved wheat varieties, their regional distribution, and farmers’ seed
demand. This study aims at providing: i) credible estimates of current national and
provincial adoption levels of improved varieties with particular attention to their release
dates; ii) analysis of factors influencing farmers’ decision and intensity of adoption of
improved wheat varieties; iii) estimates of impacts on farmers’ livelihood indicators,
particularly yield, gross margins, and wheat consumption; and iv) estimation of seed
demand at farm, provincial and national levels. By doing so, the study aims at generating
useful information and policy guidance for enhancing the viability, sustainability, and
socio-economic benefits of wheat production in Turkey. To this effect, the study used
a nationally representative sample of 2,560 farm households, drawn from 687 villages
that are distributed across 123 districts and 27 provinces. This sample constitutes about
62% of the total 7.86 million hectares of national wheat area, and a similar percentage
of the 1.04 million wheat-growing families in the country. Data analysis was carried out
using descriptive statistics, a double hurdle model, and the instrumental variables (IV)
regression approach.
Survey results show that 135 different wheat varieties were under cultivation
by Turkish farmers during the 2014/2015 growing season. More than 80% of these
varieties were either local landraces or more than 10-year-old improved varieties.
Varieties released in the last 5, 10, and 15 years were cultivated by 14.8%, 20.4%, and
47.1% of all wheat growers, respectively, covering 19.14%, 25.3%, and 50.7% of the
total national wheat area. About 14.5% of all farmers were still cultivating varieties
that were at least 40 years old – on 11.12% of the total wheat-growing area. All these
figures show that varietal replacement is slow in Turkey, with an area-weighted average
varietal age of 20.82, which is much higher than the 12-14 years estimated in 2014
and shows that old varieties still dominate the wheat landscape in the country. The
top 10 and top 5 wheat varieties are cultivated by 55.8% and 35.4% of wheat growers,
respectively, on 58.2 % and 37.2% of the total wheat area, which, with the large number
of varieties found in farmers hands, shows fairly high diversity of wheat varieties in
the country(5). Sadly, most (38%) of the top 10 varieties covering about 35.1% of the
national wheat-growing area were released before 2000. The top three varieties in
terms of the number of growers are CEYHAN99, ESPERİA, and BEZOSTAJA-1, which
were cultivated by 23.3% of all Turkish farmers. The top three varieties in terms of area
coverage are CEYHAN99, ESPERIA, and ÇEŞİT1252 which are cultivated on 25.6% of
the total wheat area.
The Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) through
93
CHAPTER VI: Adopon, Impacts and Seed Demand Analysis
its two centers, namely CIMMYT and ICARDA have been actively working in Turkey
supporting the country’s efforts to develop improved wheat varieties. Particularly, the
joint ICARDA, CIMMITY, and Turkey International Winter Wheat Improvement Program
(IWWIP) based in Turkey has been actively developing winter wheat varieties some of
which were released in Turkey and other countries in the CWANA region. During the
survey, a total of 27 CGIAR varieties (14 from CIMMYT, 1 from ICARDA, and 12 from
IWWIP) were found in Turkish farmers’ hands with a total combined area coverage of
20.33% of the total wheat area. The top 5 CGIAR varieties in Turkey are Ceyhan99,
Konya2002, Firat93, Ekiz, and Sönmez2001, which together are cultivated on 16.65%
of total wheat area in the country. Particularly, with an area coverage of 10.18% of
total wheat area in the country, Ceyhan99 ranks 1st from among all varieties under
cultivation in the country. These results clearly show the importance of the Turkey-
CGIAR collaboration.
Among many other factors, access to credit has a significant effect on adopting
improved wheat varieties, as farmers with better access to credit facilities are likely to
have the needed financial liquidity to purchase certified seeds and other complementary
inputs. Therefore, policymakers need to improve current credit systems to ensure that
smallholders can have better access to credit. Hosting demonstration trials on farmers’
own farms and the number of farmer contacts with extension personnel, specifically
targeting wheat production, increase farmers’ propensity to adopt improved wheat
varieties.
The adoption of improved wheat varieties leads to a 1,136kg/ha (32.4%) increase
in yields, a TRY 1,282.2 Turkish Lira or US$337.4 (41.7%) per ha increase in gross
margins(6), and a 11.5 kg/capita/year (19.7%) increase in wheat consumption from own
production – all clearly showing that the improved varieties are contributing to livelihood
improvements. Nationally, the introduction of improved wheat varieties has led to the
additional production of 4.53 million tons of wheat every year, which is associated with
an increase in wheat availability from domestic production of about 56.8 kg/capita/year,
and a total national income gain of about TRY 5.11 billion or US$1.346 billion per year.
The average seeding rate for wheat in Turkey is 182.5kg/ha, which, given the total
area of 7.84 million hectare of wheat in 2015, translates to a national seed utilization
rate of 1.43 million tons per year. Official certified seed distribution data shows that a
total of 484,204 tons (176,588 tons from the public and 307,616 tons from the private
sectors) was distributed in 2015. This shows that certified seed use rate in the country
is only 33.93%, indicating an average seed replacement rate of once every three years.
Of the total seed utilized, Konya leads all other provinces using 148 thousand tons of
wheat seed, followed by Diyarbakır, Yozgat, Sivas, and Çorum, which have used 80,
70, 60, 50, and 40 thousand tons of wheat seed respectively. CEYHAN99, ESPERIA,
ÇEŞİT1252, KIZILTAN91 and BAYRAKTAR2000 are the top five varieties with the
highest seed use in Turkey. These results are consistent with the official statistics on the
total amount of certified seed produced and distributed.
During the survey year, about 47.67% of Turkish wheat farmers purchased certified
(6) The exchange rate in 2016-2017 was: 1 US$ = 3.8 Turkish Lira (TRY) while in 2021, 1 US$ = 7.5 (TRY)
94
CHAPTER VI: Adopon, Impacts and Seed Demand Analysis
seed for one or more of their wheat fields. The area-weighted average seed replacement
rate in a given wheat field is 2.1(7) years, where seed is being replaced every year in most
fields (18.3%), while seed is not replaced for over 10 years on 25.7% of the fields. Farmers
stated that absence or non-availability of seeds in sufficient quantities in the market at
the right time, followed by the absence of varieties suitable for the changing climate, and
seeds that can withstand disease and pests as the most critical seed-related problems.
Farmers proposed the following solutions to solve the current seed-related
problems: i) choosing the right varieties for the climate (31%); ii) timely distribution
of seed (25.6%); iii) purchasing seeds from ‘special companies’, which we suspect as
meaning ‘private companies’(16.5%) – with which farmers emphasized on the need for
strengthening the informal sector to fill the gap; and iv) government action to solve all
seed-related problems (12%).
Introducon
Due to its favorable climate, geographic position, rich soils, and biological diversity,
agriculture plays a vital role in Turkey, both in social and economic terms. With a total of
over 24.4 million hectares of arable land (of which 18.4% has access to irrigation), Turkey
is one of the few food self-sufficient countries in the world (FAOSTAT, 2020). Despite the
decreasing share in GDP from about 55% in the 1960s to 5.82% in 2018, the total volume
and value of agricultural production rose throughout the period, where the total value
reached 86.4 billion Turkish lira (TRY) in 2018 (TÜİK, 2018; FAOSTAT, 2020).
In 2011, Turkey was the world’s seventh largest agricultural producer and one of
the biggest producers of a wide range of agricultural commodities (Handan, 2012). The
country is believed to have maintained its global leadership position, as attested by its
rising exports in almost every agricultural product. As a result, the sector continues to
play a vital role in foreign trade. The Turkish agricultural sector also employs about 5
million people, which constitutes approximately 20% of total employment in Turkey
(TÜİK, 2021) – providing means of livelihoods to a sizeable size of the population
directly or indirectly.
Currently, 67.8% (16.3 million hectares) of total arable land is under cultivation, of
which, 74.2% (12.1 million hectares) is sown with cereals. With a share of 66.9% of the
total cereal area (8.21 million hectares), wheat ranks first among all crops cultivated in
the country (FAOSTAT, 2020).
Wheat is one of Turkey’s most important agricultural commodities both in terms of
area and value, and the country ranks among the top 10 producers in the world. It is a
strategic crop because it is a staple and an essential food in the Turkish diet, consumed
primarily as bread, bulgur, yufka (flat bread), and cookies. Approximately 21.5 million
tons of wheat are produced every year (FAOSTAT, 2020).
The trend in wheat area, production, and yield in Turkey since the 1960s is shown
(7) This is slightly less than the three years calculated above using the total certified seed production and the total wheat area
in the country. These results are consistent because the official statistics do not include seed used from unofficial sources which,
if included, would increase the speed of seed replacement (i.e. reduce the number of years before seed is replaced).
95
CHAPTER VI: Adopon, Impacts and Seed Demand Analysis
in Figure 6.1. Relative to the levels in 1961, while the cultivated area has decreased by
2.35%, yield levels have seen dramatic increases of over 208%, leading to increased
total production by over 200%. The wheat area was about 8 million hectares in 1961,
which expanded until the mid-90s, reaching a little over 9 million in 1994. Between
1994 and 2017, the cultivated area reduced by 21.3%, while yield increased by 56.11%,
resulting in an overall production increase of 22.86%.
Figure 6.1: The changes in wheat culvaon area, yield, and the total producon in Turkey
Source: (FAOSTAT, 2020)
The Turkish Government’s agricultural support programs also played an essential
role in enhancing the speed and extent of growth in productivity and total production.
Grain production in Turkey is highly dependent on governmental policies because grains
are considered strategic commodities and hence, are within the scope of state support
procurements. As a result, different field-based agricultural subsidies are implemented in
Turkey (TUGEM, 2012; Giray, 2012). The combination of public policy support, national
and international research, and national and international market developments have
made grains the most important crop group in Turkey, accounting for over 20% of the
total value of national agricultural production (TÜİK, 2012).
A goal of national self-sufficiency in wheat production and stability of bread prices
are always hot topics and important indicators among politicians for the performance
of agricultural policies. Consequently, Turkish Government administrations have
been formulating and implementing special policies on wheat, including agricultural
subsidies, intervention prices, and high protective tariffs. As part of such interventions,
the Government of Turkey continues to support wheat production with production
premium programs. According to the 2018 production bonus announcements, the
96
CHAPTER VI: Adopon, Impacts and Seed Demand Analysis
wheat premium remained at TRY 50/MT (equivalent to US$13/MT). The government
also provides several other benefits to farmers, including subsidies for the use of
certified seed, soil analysis, diesel and fertilizer (Table 6.1).
The deficiency payment premiums were determined based on the supported crops
for every basin, and suitable products were supported in their basins (GTHB, 2012).
According to the model, wheat is a unique crop supported in every basin in Turkey
(USDA, 2018a).
Table 6.1: Government support program for wheat (TRY/MT)
Year Cered seed
(TRY/ha)
Price support
from government
(TRY/ton)
Soil analysis
(TRY/ton)
Diesel
(TRY/ha)
Ferlizer (TRY/
ton)
2009 50 45 22.5 29.3 38.3
2010 50 50 25 32.5 42.5
2011 60 50 25 37.5 47.5
2012 60 50 25 40 50
2013 75 50 25 43 55
2014 75 50 25 46 60
2015 85 50 25 48.5 66
2016 85 50 110*
2017 85 50 8 130 40
2018 85 50 8 150 40
Source: Turkish Ocial Gazee
Note: * The Government of Turkey paid TRY110 for these three categories combined in 2016.
In addition to government incentives promoting wheat, the growth in yield and total
production volume over the years is attributed to the growing use of new improved
varieties and the adoption of planting techniques, irrigation, fertilization, and plant
protection technologies (Altuntaş and Demirtola 2004). The scientific advances made
by national public and international research centers were instrumental in making the
needed technologies available. From the beginning of its ‘green revolution’ in 1969 (Kan
et al., 2015), Turkey made major changes transitioning from a predominantly public to a
private sector-led seed industry, and from heavy reliance on seed imports to domestic
production involving both public and private plant breeding programs. With its research
infrastructure and a core of well-trained scientists, Turkey has released several improved
wheat varieties which are adopted by farmers (Kan et al., 2015). The implementation of
new agricultural policies in the 1980s in particular enabled private companies and public
agencies to introduce several new varieties at an accelerated rate. After 1990, many
97
CHAPTER VI: Adopon, Impacts and Seed Demand Analysis
new cultivars which are high yielding and possess good quality traits such as resistance
to yellow rust (caused by Puccinia striiformis Westend. f.sp. tritici) were released (Akar
et al., 2007).
A new seed law entered into force in Turkey in 2006 led to the rapid growth of the
seed sector in the succeeding years. The new policy supported certified seed usage and
helped increase the production capacity of both the government and private seed sectors.
Within 10 years of its introduction, the new policy succeeded in increasing certified seed
production by about threefold – from 169.116 tons in 2006 to 484,204 tons in 2015,
covering about an equivalent of 32.3% of total annual seed requirement for the year.
During the same period, the private sector share in total wheat seed production increased
from 20% in 2006 to about 64% in 2015 (USDA, 2018b). The amounts of seed saved
from own production by Turkish farmers for the following years’ planting season have
consistently reduced for all crops. However, own-saved seeds still represent over half of
the wheat seed planted every year, although wheat seed is the largest amount of certified
seed produced in 2015 – which is no surprise as it is the most widely grown crop in Turkey.
Quality seed is an agricultural input and an income-generating product produced and
processed using advanced technologies (Adem et al., 2017; Güngör et al., 2016). Given
the strategic nature of seeds, every country tries to be self-sufficient in the seeds of
important crops (Adem et al., 2017). In terms of producing more reliable, less costly, and
more competitive and quality products, along with increasing the yield and production of
agricultural products, quality seed is important (Adem et al., 2017; Hazneci and Ceyhan,
2016). Quality seed can help in increasing productivity by up to 20–30% (Elçi, 2000).
Despite the success in transforming the seed sector and hence, the development and
dissemination of several improved varieties of wheat, and the increase in the amount of
certified seeds produced and sold by both the public and private sectors in the country,
there has been no systematic nationwide monitoring of the adoption of improved
varieties. As such, there has also been no estimation of their socio-economic impacts,
and more importantly, the impacts of certified wheat seeds on producers, particularly
smallholders. Though there are some studies conducted on this issue at the regional or
district level, key socio-economic questions remain unanswered at the national level.
The present study will focus on proving credible evidence on: i) the levels of adoption of
improved wheat varieties at national, regional, and district levels; ii) if there are regional
and/or agro-ecological differences in general and variety-specific adoption of improved
varieties; and; iii) whether these improved varieties and the wider use of certified seeds
have contributed to productivity growth, and if so, by how much; and iv) the impacts of
adoption of improved technologies on the livelihoods of smallholder famers.
Objecve of the Study
This report aims at generating credible statements of the current levels of adoption
of improved wheat varieties, and the use of certified seeds and their impacts using
statistically representative national data. Particularly, the report attempts to:
98
CHAPTER VI: Adopon, Impacts and Seed Demand Analysis
• Provide an exhausve list of variees that are in farmers’ hands and try to determine
whether they are improved or landraces by comparing them with the list in the naonal
variety release catalogue.
• Determine the current levels of use (in terms of both % of area and % of farmers) of
each improved variety and local landrace that is currently under culvaon at naonal,
provincial, and agro-ecological levels.
• Idenfy the major determinants of the decision and intensity of adopon of improved
wheat variees.
• Determine the types (cered vs. uncered) and quanes of seed from the dierent
sources used by farmers and the reasons for farmers’ decision to use these sources.
• Determine the total naonal seed use.
• Measure the impacts of adopng new improved wheat variees on wheat producvity,
gross margins, farm household income, and wheat consumpon from own producon.
Survey Design
This study is based on data collected using a large nationally representative sample
household survey carried out in Turkey in 2015. All the 79 major wheat-producing
provinces of Turkey were grouped using a combination of three stratification criteria,
namely: i) source of water (irrigated vs. rainfed); ii) types of wheat produced (bread wheat
vs. durum wheat); and ii) agro-ecology or season of wheat production (spring, facultative,
or winter). Based on these stratification criteria, the 29 top wheat-growing provinces
representing 65% of the total wheat area and equivalent percentage of farmers in the
country were systematically selected for inclusion into the sample, with due attention to
the need for ensuring a fair representation of each stratum in the sample.
Using power analysis, the minimum sample size required to ensure 95% confidence
and at least 2% precision levels for capturing up to 50% adoption of improved wheat
varieties (an estimate by experts prior to the survey) from among a total of 657,067
farmers in the 29 sample provinces was determined to be 2,393 households. The sample
was inflated upwards by about 18% to buffer the effects of possible higher adoption
levels, missing values, non-response, erroneous entries, and to ensure a certain minimum
sample size at the village level, which is the primary sampling unit. Therefore, a sample
of 2,928 farm households was determined to be the minimum sample size needed.
Proportional to the number of wheat farmers in each administrative unit, the sample
was then distributed among 128 districts and 691 villages. Shortly after the survey
started, the study team decided to drop two provinces, namely Adana and Mersin, in the
eastern parts of the country close to the Syrian border for security reasons. Therefore,
the total number of provinces covered by the sample became 27, representing 62% of
the total national wheat area. The sample size was also reduced to 2,560, which was
then distributed (proportional to size) into 123 districts and 687 villages (Table 6.2).
Table 6.2: Distribuon of sample households for the wheat adopon study
99
CHAPTER VI: Adopon, Impacts and Seed Demand Analysis
Province Wheat area (ha) Total number of
wheat growers Sample stascs
No. of
districts
No of
villages
Number of households
Female-
headed
Male
headed
Total
Adıyaman 87,192 34,415 3 10 0 72 72
Afyon 165,811 45,937 9 51 2 107 109
Aksaray 85,881 23,642 6 11 0 51 51
Amasya 107,653 22,289 3 13 0 62 62
Ankara 456,804 48,167 6 51 2 187 189
Antalya 105,871 35,007 4 29 1 76 77
Balıkesir 117,376 49,269 6 19 0 98 98
Çorum 221,475 45,028 4 39 0 122 122
Diyarbakır 386,714 47,944 5 22 0 170 170
Edirne 137,236 31,937 3 17 0 86 86
Eskişehir 182,736 29,108 9 37 1 91 92
Erzurum 115,705 36,938 5 18 0 82 82
İzmir 33,540 44,988 8 22 1 43 44
Kahramanmaraş 137,523 31,991 3 23 0 79 79
Karaman 103,769 17,941 3 12 0 30 30
Kayseri 157,743 31,700 5 66 1 85 86
Konya 719,393 109,585 14 64 0 238 238
Kütahya 139,449 26,691 4 15 0 79 79
Manisa 104,290 71,286 6 33 2 69 71
Nevşehir 112,439 24,167 4 10 0 46 46
Niğde 69,356 15,139 3 8 0 43 43
Samsun 108,2,35 61,542 3 38 0 105 105
Sivas 296,708 33,010 4 22 1 123 124
Tekirdağ 184,184 27,713 3 18 0 88 88
Tokat 129,961 33,989 3 17 0 84 84
Van 80,494 36,871 3 8 0 68 68
Yozgat 326,753 50,591 6 60 0 165 165
Total sample 4,874,290
4.874.289 1,066,885 123 687 11 2,549 2,560
100
CHAPTER VI: Adopon, Impacts and Seed Demand Analysis
Methodology
Determinaon of the levels of adopon
Adoption degrees (as % of the wheat area) are generated first at household levels,
which are then aggregated to generate the village level estimates of adoption degrees
using the wheat area cultivated by each sample farmer as weight. The adoption rate
at the village level is generated as the ratio of the number of adopters to the total
sample size from the village converted into a percentage. The village level estimates
of adoption rates and adoption degrees are then aggregated up to district levels using
the district-level total wheat farmer population and total wheat area as weights. The
same procedure is used to aggregate the district-level estimates into provincial, and
ultimately, into national levels.
Explaining farmers’ adopon decisions
Previous empirical studies on the adoption and diffusion of agricultural innovations
found that a wide variety of different factors affect farmers’ adoption decisions (Akinbode
et al., 2015; Finger and Benni, 2013; Mariano et al., 2013; Mignouna et al., 2011; Asfaw
et al., 2011). Particularly, literacy level and farming experience (Okunlola et al., 2011),
household size (Uaiene et al., 2009; Wiggins, 2009), physical and financial capital,
including access to credit (Muzari et al., 2012; Simtowe & Zeller, 2006); landholding size
(Uaiene et al., 2009; Wiggins, 2009) are important determinants of adoption. Moreover,
farm income (Diiro, 2013), availability and accessibility of the technology components
such as seeds, and distance to input sources (Tefera et al., 2016) also influence adoption
decisions.
Diiro (2013), Doss (2003), and Wale and Yallew (2007) hypothesized that the
probability of adoption of a new technology would depend on farmers’ ability to
perceive its advantages and compatibility with their existing socioeconomic conditions.
There is a general agreement that farmers’ level of knowledge on improved agricultural
technologies influences their technology preference. For example, Doss (2003) reported
that adopters had a better understanding of fertilizer application than non-adopters.
Farmers’ attitude towards risk, access to information on the productivity effects of
the technology, and yield and price stability are all critical factors (Muzari et al., 2012).
Those technologies that involve lower risk have a greater appeal to smallholders who
tend to be more risk-averse (Meinzen-Dick et al. 2004).
Many studies, including Mignouna et al. (2011) and Akudugu et al. (2012) have
reported a positive relationship between extension services and technology adoption.
This is the case because extension agents usually target specific farmers who are
recognized as progressive and hence, have higher chances of adopting. Moreover, such
farmers tend to be opinion leaders exerting direct or indirect influences on their peers
and the whole population of farmers in their respective areas (Genius et al., 2010).
The use of binomial and multinomial qualitative choice models in the analysis of
101
CHAPTER VI: Adopon, Impacts and Seed Demand Analysis
the adoption of technologies is well established in the adoption literature (Ahmed,
2015). One purpose of qualitative choice models is to determine the probability that an
individual with a given set of attributes will make one choice rather than an alternative
(Green, 2000). The two most popular functional forms used for adoption models are the
probit and logit models (Finger and Benni, 2013; Mariano et al., 2012; Ahmed, 2015;
Wafula et al., 2015). Feder et al. (1985) define individual adoption (adoption at the level
of the farm or firm) as the degree of use of new technology in the long-run equilibrium
– when the farmer has full information about the new technology and its potential.
Dimara and Skuras (2003) argued that the basic tenet of a single stage decision-making
process, characterizing dichotomous adoption decision models, is a direct consequence
of the complete information assumption embedded in the definition of adoption.
However, the full information assumption is often violated and hence, analysis of the
adoption decision using logit, probit, and the associated tobit models may suffer from
model misspecification.
Over the years, many authors have tried to overcome these limitations in several
ways. Byerlee and de Polanco (1986) suggested a sequential adoption decision model.
Assuming that previous adoption models did not adequately consider the dynamic
learning process, Abadi and Pannell (1999) suggested using a dynamic adoption decision
model, including farmers’ perceptions, managerial abilities, and risk preferences. Dimara
and Skuras (2003) proposed a partial observability model based on the assumption
that adoption of innovations is a multistage process. The sample population in previous
adoption studies did not have the necessary information and awareness concerning the
new technology (violating the complete information assumption).
In order to account for differential exposure among farmers, Diagne and Demont
(2007) used the ‘treatment effect’ framework to consistently estimate population
adoption rates and their determinants for new rice varieties in Côte d’Ivoire. This study
applied the two-stage regression method to correct for selectivity bias and endogeneity
problems in the data, which represents an improvement compared to past technology
adoption and impact studies. Accordingly, the estimates of the probability of adoption
is derived from the first-stage estimation, which accounts for farmers’ prior exposure to
the new varieties by including a participation variable. Results are subsequently used to
correct for the treatment effect in a second-stage income equation.
In this study, we used the double hurdle model approach (Cragg, 1971) to identify
the determinants of farmers’ decision-making process and intensity of adoption. Unlike
dichotomous choice models, this method permits the determination of the intensity of
use of agricultural technology once the decision to adopt has been made. The double
hurdle approach, which perceives the adoption decision as a two-step decision, first
analyses the causal relationship between the adoption decision and different factors,
including farm and farmer characteristics, institutions, policy, infrastructure, and other
factors. In the first stage, the model uses a binary outcome dependent variable, which
takes a value of 1 when a given farmer’s observed decision is to adopt and 0 if the
farmer is observed to have not adopted the improved varieties under consideration.
102
CHAPTER VI: Adopon, Impacts and Seed Demand Analysis
Then, in the second stage, the model estimates a regression model with a continuous
variable (in our case, the wheat area cultivated using the improved varieties under
consideration) as the dependent variable with the same or different factors used in the
first step as explanatory variables. In the second stage regression, the coefficients on
each of the explanatory variables are estimated as the extent of change in the area used
for the improved varieties in response to a unit change in the value of a given variable
(factor), conditional on the fact that the farmer has already made the decision to use
the improved varieties. This means farmers who have made the decision not to use the
improved varieties or those who would not adopt the improved varieties (i.e. farmers
with propensity score of zero) in the first step are, in effect, excluded from the analysis
in the second step.
Several studies used the double hurdle approach to study adoption of different
agricultural technologies (Kapalasa, 2014; Mignouna et al., 2011; Asfaw et al., 2010;
Getachew et al., 2009; Shiferaw et al., 2008). In our case, the decision to adopt an
improved variety is modeled as a binary variable; the latent variable underlying a
household’s decision to use the improved variety ITi* is specified as:
(1)
Where the vector x’1i constitutes determinants of the adoption decision, are β
parameters, and ε1i is a normally distributed error term with mean zero and constant
variance. The corresponding probit is estimated on the observed outcome ITi*=1 if
ITi*>0 and 0 otherwise. Area planted to the improved variety (Ai*)is also an unobserved
latent value that can be specified as:
(2)
Where x2i’ are determinants of the decision on the area allocated to the improved
varieties of wheat, β2 are parameters. Since Ai* is a latent variable, we work with observed
area (Ai). Ai = Ai* if ITi*>0 and Ai=0 if ITi* ≤ 0. Because we use observed area, the error
term (ε2i) is assumed to have a truncated normal distribution. The parameters β1 and β2
can be estimated separately because the Cragg likelihood function is separable.
Measuring the impacts of improved wheat variees
Estimation of treatment effects (Imbens and Angrist, 1994) has been the focus
of the program evaluation literature. One of the main challenges in this pursuit is
establishing counterfactuals as selection bias is often inherent in program participation.
Several econometric approaches can be used to address selection bias in program
evaluation using quasi-experimental and observational data. Imbens and Wooldridge
(2009) provide a good review of the literature and the developments in causal inference
and impact assessment. Propensity score matching (Rosenbaum and Robin, 1983) is
by far the most widely used for improving causal inference and estimation of average
ITi*= x’1i β1+ε1i
Ai*= x’2i β2+ε2i
103
CHAPTER VI: Adopon, Impacts and Seed Demand Analysis
treatment effects (El-Shater et al., 2016; Morgan and Winship, 2014; Henderson and
Chatfield, 2011; Jalan and Ravallion, 2003). Propensity score matching helps correct
biases introduced only by observable covariates (Heckman and Vytlacil, 2007).
Therefore, results from propensity score matching can sometimes be misleading – since
unobservable factors such as skills and motivation can influence the outcome and the
program participation decision, thereby leading to confounding errors (See Austin 2008
for critical review of propensity score matching). The endogenous switching regression
(Maddala and Nelson, 1975) and IVs (Angrist and Pischke, 2009) have been proposed to
overcome this problem. Both methods account for the endogeneity of the participation
decision and are potent to correct selection bias introduced by both observable and
unobservable factors.
In this study, the IV regression approach is used to estimate the impacts of adoption
of improved varieties among Turkish farmers. IV is designed to remove both overt and
hidden biases and deal with the problem of endogenous treatment in the estimation
of causal effects of a treatment on an outcome (Angrist and Rubin, 1996). IV methods
are becoming common in program evaluation and comparative effectiveness research
(He and Perloff, 2016; Kumar and Mangyo, 2011; Heckman and Vytlacil, 2005; Manski
and Pepper, 2000). The IV method requires that the ‘instrument’ meets three important
conditions: (i) the instrument has to be associated with the treatment, (ii) the instrument
does not affect the outcome except through the treatment – also known as the
exclusion restriction assumption, and (iii) there aren’t omitted variables which affect
both the instrument and the outcome variables. The reliability of the results from IV
regression depends on the fitness of the instrument in fulfilling the above conditions
(Imbens, 2004). Therefore, for measuring the impacts of agricultural technologies, it
is important to identify an instrument(s) which is (are) correlated with the decision to
adopt but is (are) uncorrelated with the unobserved factors that influence the outcome
(Shiferaw et al. 2014; Alene and Manyong, 2007; Heckman, 1996).
Suppose that there is endogeneity between the treatment variable X and the
outcome variable Y. Suppose also that Z is a matrix of exogenous covariates which
qualify as valid instruments for X. Then the IV model can be described by equations 1
and 2.
(1)
(2)
Where β and П are vectors of coefficients and ϑ and μ are the error terms; and,
E[X^T ϑ] ≠ 0, E[Z^T μ] = E[Z^T ϑ] = 0, Var(ϑ) = σϑ^2 ,Var(μ) = σμ^2 and Cov(ϑ,μ) = σμϑ
which is a measure of the level of endogeneity between the treatment and outcome
variables. The two-stage least squares (2SLS) estimation procedure is then used to
estimate equations 1 and 2 jointly, where equation 2 is estimated first and then the
predicted values used in equation 1 in place of the observed values of X.
To estimate a variant of the Cobb-Douglas production function, which takes a log-
linear form, a logarithmic transformation has been made on all continuous variables
such as gross margins, consumption, farmer age, years of education, wheat area, and
y=Xβ+ϑ
X=ZП+μ
104
CHAPTER VI: Adopon, Impacts and Seed Demand Analysis
all quantities of inputs included either as dependent or explanatory variables in the
IV regression. Several factors such as the amounts of fertilizers, seed, and labor are
important in determining yield, affecting income and consumption. Therefore, all these
variables are included as explanatory variables in the model.
Tests of over-identifying restrictions are also carried out to test two different things
simultaneously. First, it is used to test whether the instruments are uncorrelated with
the error term. Second, the test is used to detect if the equation is mis-specified and that
one or more of the excluded exogenous variables should be included in the structural
equation. Thus, a significant test statistic could represent either an invalid instrument
or an incorrectly specified structural equation. The Hausman test for endogeneity and
the Durbin (1954) and Wu-Hausman (Wu, 1974; Hausman, 1978) statistics, which are
reported after 2SLS estimation with a robust variance-covariance matrix (VCE) were
also evaluated if endogeneity is a problem. In all cases, if the test statistic is significant
and hence, the null hypothesis of exogenous treatment is rejected, then the treatment
variable must be treated as endogenous – justifying the use of the IV or any other
approach which is potent in correcting for endogeneity. Version 15 of the Stata software
(StataCorp, 2017) was used for all econometric estimations in this study.
Results
Characterizaon of the sample households
Out of the total sample of 2,560 households, only 11 (0.4 %) were women-headed.
The vast majority of the household heads were relatively old and married men. For
more than 76.8 % of the households, agriculture is their main source of employment.
Most (64.9 %) of the household heads were members of local organizations and/or
associations, while only 13.3% had community leadership roles (Table 6.3).
Table 6.3: Characteriscs of household heads
Variable Minimum Average Maximum
Percentage of respondents which are household heads 97.7%
Percentage of female household heads 0.4%
Percentage of married household heads 95.4%
Percentage of household heads for which agriculture is the main
source of employment 76.8%
Is the household head a member of any community leadership 13.3%
Is the household head a member of any organization or association 64.9%
Age of household head (years) 18 48 87
Number of years the respondent has been living in this village 1 50.2 85
The average family size is 4.84, out of which, 51.9% are male and 48.1% female.
The age structure is an important indicator to know the proportions of the producer
and dependent populations. The typical Turkish farm household is composed of family
members in a wide range of age distribution where the majority, i.e. an average of 3.3
105
CHAPTER VI: Adopon, Impacts and Seed Demand Analysis
(about 68%) are in the productive age of 15-65 years of age, which are the economically
active and able to work (Table 6.4).
Table 6.4: Household demographics
Age group Minimum Mean Maximum
Family size 1 4.84 34
<7 years old 0 0.41 10
8–15 years old 0 0.75 10
15–65 years old 0 3.3 14
>65 years old 0 0.4 10
Total Male 1 2.51 16
male <7 years old 0 0.22 6
male 8–15 years old 0 0.39 7
male 15–65 years old 0 1.72 9
male > 65 years old 0 0.2 5
Total female 0 2.3 18
Female <7 years old 0 0.2 5
Female 8–15 years old 0 0.4 7
Female 15–65 years old 0 1.6 8
Female >65 years old 0 0.22 10
The majority (76.8%) of the wheat-growing farm households in the sample
derive their income mainly from agriculture. For some households in the survey, the
contribution of agriculture to family income goes up to as high as 100%, while for few
others, it goes as low as only 5% (Table 6.5). For the typical wheat-growing sample farm
household, crop production constitutes 63.5% of total family income from agriculture.
For the wheat-growing households, wheat represents 62.5% of their total income from
the cultivation of all crops.
Table 6.5: Share of agriculture in family income
Minimum Mean Maximum
Share of agriculture in total family income 5 76.8 100
Share of crop producon in total agricultural income (%) 5 63.5 100
Share of income from wheat producon in total crop producon 5 62.5 100
106
CHAPTER VI: Adopon, Impacts and Seed Demand Analysis
Adopon of improved wheat variees
Adopon rates (percentage of farmers culvang improved variees)
Adopon rate by variety
Out of the 135 wheat varieties found to be used by farmers, the top 10 varieties are
being cultivated by 55.8% of wheat growers. The majority (61.6%) of the top 10 varieties
were released after 1999, while only 20.64% of the top 10 varieties were released after
2004. Similarly, the top five varieties are being cultivated by 35.4% of farmers. The top
three varieties with the highest number of growers are Ceyhan99 (released in 1999),
Esperia (released in 2011), and Bezostaja-1 (released in 1968), which have a combined
adoption rate of 23.3%, i.e. 23.3% of all Turkish farmers are cultivating these three
varieties (Annex 5).
Adopon rate by province
The adoption rate for varieties released in, and after, 2000 (i.e. less than 15-year-
old varieties) is the highest (84.6 %) in the Tekirdağ province, followed by Edirne, Sivas
and Samsun, which have adoption rates for such varieties of 83.6%, 82%, and 73.9 %
respectively (Table 6.6). Whereas, the adoption rate for varieties released in the last 10
years was the highest (79.5%) in Edirne, which is in line with the findings of Mazid et
al. (2015) followed by Tekirdağ and Ankara, which have adoption rates of 72.1% and
53.8 % respectively. Likewise, the adoption rate for more recently released varieties
is the highest in Ankara, with 52.3 % of farmers cultivating varieties released within
the previous five years, followed by Tekirdağ, Niğde, and Edirne, which have adoption
rates for such varieties of 45.6%, 42.2%, and 33.6 % respectively. On the contrary,
Erzurum is the province most dominated by very old varieties, where 62.5% of growers
are cultivating more than 40-year-old varieties (Table 6.7).
Van is the province most dominated by landraces, where 100% of growers are
cultivating landraces. This is consistent with the recent research (Morgounov et
al., 2016), which found that wheat production in this area is challenging because of
severe cold in winter and short and hot summers. The bread wheat landraces Kırik and
Karakılçık are predominantly cultivated on relatively large scales in Van as a result of
their specific adaptation and excellent grain quality.
Adopon rate – naonal level
The national adoption rates for more recent varieties generally stand at low levels.
Out of the total 1.07 million wheat growing families in the country, only 158,000
(14.8%) cultivated varieties were released in the last preceding five years (after 2010).
The adoption rate for varieties released in the previous 10 years also stands at a low
level of 20.4%. The national adoption rate for varieties released in the past 15 years
(after 2000) is 47.1% while about 14.5% of Turkish wheat growers are still cultivating
varieties that were released over 40 years ago (Table 6.7).
107
CHAPTER VI: Adopon, Impacts and Seed Demand Analysis
Year of release
Çorum
İzmir
Adıyaman
Afyon
Aksaray
Amasya
Ankara
Antalya
Balıkesir
Diyarbakır
Edirne
Erzurum
Eskişehir
Kütahya
Kahramanmaraş
Karaman
Kayseri
Konya
Manisa
Niğde
Nevşehir
Sivas
Samsun
Tekirdağ
Tokat
Van
Yozgat
landrace 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
1967 90.4 98.8 100 98.6 95.6 85.3 98.9 83.5 99.4 100 100 87.5 95.5 97.1 87.5 97.4 98.4 99.7 100 98.4 98.6 91.9 97.4 100 85.9 0 99.2
1968 90.4 98.8 100 98.6 95.6 85.3 98.9 83.5 99.4 100 100 87.5 95.5 97.1 70.6 97.4 98.4 99.7 100 98.4 98.6 91.9 97.4 100 85.9 0 99.2
1970 78.7 98.8 100 86.4 94.1 80.4 83.6 60.4 99.4 98.1 100 50.7 95.5 90.0 70.6 94.7 81.4 97.5 100 64.1 94.5 87.2 89.6 100 71.1 0 90.2
1976 78.7 98.8 100 86.4 94.1 80.4 83.2 60.4 99.4 98.1 100 37.5 95.5 87.1 70.6 94.7 81.4 97.5 100 62.5 94.5 87.2 89.6 100 71.1 0 90.2
1979 78.7 91.7 100 86.4 94.1 80.4 83.2 41.7 99.4 98.1 100 37.5 95.5 85.9 70.6 94.7 81.4 97.5 89.2 62.5 94.5 87.2 89.6 100 71.1 0 90.2
1984 78.7 91.7 100 84.4 83.8 80.4 83.2 41.7 99.4 98.1 100 36.0 93.6 82.9 69.9 94.7 78.3 96.7 89.2 62.5 75.3 84.8 89.6 100 71.1 0 88.6
1985 78.7 91.7 100 84.4 83.8 80.4 83.2 41.7 98.8 98.1 100 36.0 93.6 82.9 69.9 94.7 78.3 96.7 89.2 62.5 75.3 84.8 89.6 100 71.1 0 88.6
1990 78.7 91.7 100 83.0 83.8 80.4 83.2 41.7 98.8 98.1 100 36.0 91.0 82.4 69.1 94.7 78.3 96.7 89.2 62.5 75.3 84.8 89.6 100 71.1 0 88.6
1991 73.4 91.7 100 83.0 83.8 80.4 82.8 41.7 98.8 98.1 100 25.7 91.0 82.4 69.1 94.7 78.3 96.7 89.2 62.5 75.3 84.8 89.6 100 71.1 0 88.6
1994 67.6 91.7 100 68.0 82.4 80.4 79.4 36.0 98.8 98.1 100 25.0 91.0 52.9 38.2 63.2 69.8 88.1 89.2 62.5 74.0 84.8 89.6 100 71.1 0 72.0
1995 67.6 91.7 100 68.0 82.4 80.4 79.4 36.0 98.8 98.1 100 25.0 91.0 45.3 38.2 63.2 69.8 87.8 89.2 62.5 74.0 84.8 89.6 100 71.1 0 70.5
1996 67.6 83.3 100 68.0 82.4 80.4 79.4 36.0 91.9 98.1 100 25.0 91.0 45.3 38.2 63.2 69.8 87.8 48.6 62.5 74.0 83.9 89.6 100 71.1 0 70.5
1997 67.6 83.3 100 66.0 77.9 80.4 79.4 36.0 91.9 98.1 100 25.0 91.0 45.3 38.2 63.2 68.2 87.8 48.6 62.5 74.0 83.9 89.6 100 71.1 0 65.9
1998 67.6 83.3 100 64.6 77.9 80.4 79.4 36.0 91.3 98.1 100 25.0 91.0 45.3 38.2 63.2 68.2 87.8 48.6 62.5 74.0 83.9 89.6 100 71.1 0 65.9
1999 52.1 83.3 96.7 63.9 76.5 76.5 70.2 35.3 75.0 80.6 98.6 25.0 53.2 45.3 38.2 63.2 68.2 84.2 46.8 62.5 49.3 83.9 89.6 99.3 67.2 0 31.1
2000 25.0 57.1 9.9 41.5 54.4 14.7 67.9 35.3 60.0 43.7 83.6 25.0 51.3 35.3 8.8 28.9 65.1 61.7 30.6 62.5 49.3 82.0 73.9 84.6 46.1 0 23.1
2001 23.9 56.0 9.9 29.9 44.1 13.7 65.3 31.7 60.0 43.7 82.9 25.0 48.7 14.1 6.6 23.7 20.9 48.3 29.7 57.8 23.3 24.6 53.0 84.6 42.2 0 21.6
2002 23.9 32.1 9.9 28.6 39.7 12.7 64.9 4.3 31.9 23.1 82.2 25.0 30.1 12.4 6.6 21.1 20.9 44.7 11.7 57.8 17.8 24.6 14.8 78.7 42.2 0 16.3
2003 23.9 29.8 0 25.2 38.2 12.7 64.9 4.3 30.0 9.7 82.2 25.0 30.1 8.8 6.6 21.1 19.4 34.2 5.4 57.8 17.8 24.6 14.8 77.9 42.2 0 16.3
2004 23.9 29.8 0 24.5 38.2 12.7 64.9 4.3 30.0 9.7 79.5 25.0 30.1 8.2 6.6 21.1 17.8 34.2 5.4 57.8 12.3 24.6 14.8 72.1 42.2 0 16.3
2005 19.1 29.8 0 8.2 27.9 4.9 53.8 4.3 30.0 9.7 79.5 25.0 26.3 4.1 5.9 2.6 10.1 30.3 5.4 42.2 11.0 3.8 11.3 72.1 10.9 0 4.2
2006 19.1 29.8 0 8.2 27.9 3.9 53.8 4.3 30.0 9.7 52.1 25.0 26.3 4.1 5.9 2.6 10.1 30.3 4.5 42.2 11.0 3.8 6.1 50.7 7.8 0 4.2
2007 19.1 11.9 0 8.2 27.9 3.9 53.8 4.3 30.0 9.7 52.1 25.0 26.3 4.1 5.9 2.6 10.1 30.3 4.5 42.2 11.0 3.8 6.1 50.7 7.8 0 4.2
2008 19.1 11.9 0 8.2 27.9 3.9 53.8 4.3 28.8 9.7 52.1 25.0 26.3 4.1 5.9 2.6 10.1 30.3 4.5 42.2 11.0 3.8 6.1 50.7 7.0 0 4.2
2009 17.6 11.9 0 6.8 25.0 2.0 53.1 2.9 28.8 6.3 51.4 16.9 25.0 4.1 5.9 2.6 7.0 27.2 4.5 42.2 1.4 0 6.1 50.7 7.0 0 3.4
2010 14.9 11.9 0 2.7 25.0 1 52.3 2.9 28.8 6.3 33.6 16.9 23.1 2.4 5.1 2.6 7.0 26.4 4.5 42.2 1.4 0 6.1 45.6 7.0 0 1.9
2011 13.8 11.9 0 2.0 23.5 1 52.3 2.2 28.8 6.3 29.5 16.9 23.1 2.4 5.1 2.6 7.0 26.4 4.5 42.2 1.4 0 6.1 41.9 7.0 0 1.9
2012 5.9 8.3 0 1.4 4.4 0 8.0 0 26.9 4.4 8.2 8.1 16.0 2.4 5.1 0 7.0 6.9 4.5 0 1.4 0 6.1 14.0 3.9 0 1.5
2013 4.8 8.3 0 1.4 4.4 0 7.6 0 9.4 4.4 1.4 8.1 3.8 2.4 5.1 0 7.0 5.0 4.5 0 1.4 0 6.1 5.1 1.6 0 1.5
2014 4.8 8.3 0 1.4 0 0 7.3 0 1.3 0.2 0.7 0 1.3 0 4.4 0 0.8 1.4 3.6 0 1.4 0 6.1 3.7 0.8 0 1.1
NA* (1) 4.8 7.1 0 0 0 0 6.9 0 0 0.2 0.0 0 1.3 0 4.4 0 0 0 3.6 0 0.0 0 5.2 2.2 0 0 1.1
Note: While there could be variees which were released before 1967 in Turkey, the earliest improved variety found to be used by farmers was released in 1967
(1) NA stands for ‘Not Applicable’ as these are advanced lines which are not registered yet but are still used by farmers
Table 6.6: Cumulave percentage of farmers planng wheat variees released in or aer a given date – by province
108
CHAPTER VI: Adopon, Impacts and Seed Demand Analysis
Year of release
Çorum
İzmir
Adıyaman
Afyon
Aksaray
Amasya
Ankara
Antalya
Balıkesir
Diyarbakır
Edirne
ERZURUM
Eskişehir
Kütahya
Kahramanmaraş
Karaman
Kayseri
Konya
Manisa
Niğde
Nevşehir
Sivas
Samsun
Tekirdağ
Tokat
Van
Yozgat
Naonal Total
Cumulave
Landraces 9.57 1.19 0 1.36 4.41 14.71 1.15 16.55 0.63 0 0 12.50 4.49 2.94 12.50 2.63 1.55 0.28 0 1.56 1.37 8.06 2.61 0 14.06 100 0.76 5.94 100
1967 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.56 94.06
1968 11.70 0 0 12.24 1.47 4.90 15.27 23.02 0 1.94 0 36.76 0 7.06 0 2.63 17.05 2.22 0 34.38 4.11 4.74 7.83 0 14.84 0 9.09 7.38 93.51
1970 00 0 0 0 0 0.38 0 0 0 0 13.24 0 2.94 0 0 0 0 0 1.56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.60 86.12
1976 0 7.14 0 0 0 0 0 18.71 0 0 0 0 0 1.18 0 0 0 0 10.81 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.11 85.52
1979 00 0 2.04 10.29 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.47 1.92 2.94 0.74 0 3.10 0.83 0 0 19.18 2.37 0 0 0 0 1.52 1.23 84.41
1984 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 83.18
1985 00 0 1.36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.56 0.59 0.74 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.19 83.16
1990 5.32 0 0 0 0 0 0.38 0 0 0 0 10.29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.60 82.96
1991 5.85 0 0 14.97 1.47 0 3.44 5.76 0 0 0 0.74 0 29.41 30.88 31.58 8.53 8.61 0 0 1.37 0 0 0 0 0 16.67 5.86 82.36
1994 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.65 0 0 0 0.28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.52 0.43 76.50
1995 08.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40.54 0 0 0.95 0 0 0 0 0 1.57 76.06
1996 0 0 0 2.04 4.41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.55 0.48 74.49
1997 00 0 1.36 0 0 0 0 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.07 74.01
1998 15.43 0 3.31 0.68 1.47 3.92 9.16 0.72 16.25 17.48 1.37 0 37.82 0 0 0 0 3.61 1.80 0 24.66 0 0 0.74 3.91 0 34.85 8.54 73.94
1999 27.13 26.19 86.78 22.45 22.06 61.76 2.29 0 15.00 36.89 15.07 0 1.92 10 29.41 34.21 3.10 22.50 16.22 0 0 1.90 15.65 14.71 21.09 0 7.95 18.32 65.40
2000 1.06 1.19 0 11.56 10.29 0.98 2.67 3.60 0 0 0.68 0 2.56 21.18 2.21 5.26 44.19 13.33 0.90 4.69 26.0357.35 20.87 0 3.91 0 1.52 8.88 47.08
2001 023.81 0 1.36 4.41 0.98 0.38 27.34 28.13 20.63 0.68 0 18.59 1.76 0 2.63 0 3.61 18.02 0 5.48 0 38.26 5.88 0 0 5.30 8.01 38.20
2002 0 2.38 9.92 3.40 1.47 0 0 0 1.88 13.35 0 0 0 3.53 0 0 1.55 10.56 6.31 0 0 0 0 0.74 0 0 0 3.19 30.19
2003 00 0 0.68 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.74 0 0 0.59 0 0 1.55 0 0 0 5.48 0 0 5.88 0 0 0 0.48 27.00
2004 4.79 0 0 16.33 10.29 7.84 11.07 0 0 0 0 0 3.85 4.12 0.74 18.42 7.75 3.89 0 15.63 1.37 20.85 3.48 0 31.25 0 12.12 6.11 26.52
2005 00 0 0 0 0.98 0 0 0 0 27.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.90 0 0 0 5.22 21.32 3.13 0 0 1.95 20.42
2006 0 17.86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.36 18.46
2007 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.78 0 0 0.07 18.10
2008 1.60 0 0 1.36 2.94 1.96 0.76 1.44 0 3.40 0.68 8.09 1.28 0 0 0 3.10 3.06 0 0 9.59 3.79 0 0 0 0 0.76 1.76 18.03
2009 2.66 0 0 4.08 0 0.98 0.76 0 0 0 17.81 0 1.92 1.76 0.74 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0 5.15 0 0 1.52 1.47 16.26
2010 1.06 0 0 0.68 1.47 0 0 0.72 0 0 4.11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.68 0 0 0 0.39 14.79
2011 7.98 3.57 0 0.68 19.12 0.98 44.27 2.16 1.88 1.94 21.23 8.82 7.05 0 0 2.63 0 19.44 0 42.19 0 0 0 27.94 3.13 0 0.38 8.64 14.41
2012 1.06 0 0 0 0 0 0.38 0 17.50 0 6.85 0 12.18 0 0 0 0 1.94 0 0 0 0 0 8.82 2.34 0 0 1.98 5.77
2013 00 0 0 4.41 0 0.38 0 8.13 4.13 0.68 8.09 2.56 2.35 0.74 0 6.20 3.61 0.90 0 0 0 0 1.47 0.78 0 0.38 1.95 3.79
2014 0 1.19 0 1.36 0 0 0.38 0 1.25 0 0.68 0 0 0 0 0 0.78 1.39 0 0 1.37 0 0.87 1.47 0.78 0 0 0.43 1.83
NA 4.79 7.14 0 0 0 0 6.87 0 0 0.24 0 0 1.28 0 4.41 0 0 0 3.60 0 0 0 5.22 2.21 0 0 1.14 1.40 1.40
Table 6.7: Percentage of farmers planng wheat variees of dierent release dates and cumulave adopon rates – provincial and naonal gures
Note: naonal adopon rates are generated by using number of growers in each province as weights.
109
CHAPTER VI: Adopon, Impacts and Seed Demand Analysis
Adopon rate by agro-ecological zones
Among the three major wheat-growing agro-ecological zones in Turkey (i.e. spring
wheat growing, winter wheat growing, and facultative wheat growing zones), the
facultative zone is surprisingly leading the rest of the agro-ecologies in terms of the
percentage of farmers cultivating the more recent varieties. For example, 25.4% of
wheat growers in the facultative zone cultivate varieties that are 10 years old or less. The
corresponding figure for the winter and spring zones is 20.2% and 10.54%, respectively.
Likewise, the adoption rate for more recently released varieties is the highest in the
winter agro-ecology, with 16.47% of farmers cultivating varieties released within the
preceding five years, followed by facultative and spring, which have adoption rates for
such varieties of 16.2% and 5.75%, respectively (Table 6.8).
The Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) through
its two centers, namely CIMMYT and ICARDA have been actively working in Turkey
supporting the country’s efforts to develop improved wheat varieties. Particularly, the
joint ICARDA, CIMMITY, and Turkey International Winter Wheat Improvement Program
(IWWIP) based in Turkey has been actively developing winter wheat varieties some of
which were released in Turkey and other countries in the CWANA region. During the
survey, a total of 27 CGIAR varieties (14 from CIMMYT, 1 from ICARDA, and 12 from
IWWIP) were found in Turkish farmers’ hands with a total combined area coverage of
20.33% of the total wheat area. The top 5 CGIAR varieties in Turkey are Ceyhan99,
Konya2002, Firat93, Ekiz, and Sönmez2001, which together are cultivated on 16.65%
of total wheat area in the country. Particularly, with an area coverage of 10.18% of
total wheat area in the country, Ceyhan99 ranks 1st from among all varieties under
cultivation in the country. These results clearly show the importance of the Turkey-
CGIAR collaboration.
110
CHAPTER VI: Adopon, Impacts and Seed Demand Analysis
Table 6.8: Cumulave percentage of farmers planng wheat variees released in or before a given date – by agro-eco-
logical zone
Agro-ecological zone
Year of release Winter wheat growing Spring wheat growing Facultave wheat growing
Landrace 100.00 100.00 100
1967 91.90 96.17 97
1968 91.63 96.17 95
1970 82.52 89.78 90
1976 81.42 89.78 90
1979 81.32 84.82 89
1984 79.58 84.82 88
1985 79.58 84.82 88
1990 79.25 84.82 88
1991 78.20 84.82 88
1994 69.96 83.55 84
1995 69.32 83.55 83
1996 69.32 82.43 79
1997 68.49 82.43 79
1998 68.40 82.43 79
1999 58.83 70.77 73.51
2000 45.81 42.97 51.04
2001 33.44 42.01 44.12
2002 30.54 19.65 34.52
2003 28.15 10.54 32.81
2004 27.83 10.54 31.85
2005 20.19 10.54 25.37
2006 20.15 10.54 19.42
2007 20.15 8.31 19.35
2008 20.15 8.31 19.12
2009 17.62 5.75 18.97
2010 16.47 5.75 16.29
2011 16.28 5.59 15.48
2012 5.38 3.35 7.51
2013 4.05 3.35 3.57
2014 1.98 0.64 2.16
NA 1.52 0.48 1.64
111
CHAPTER VI: Adopon, Impacts and Seed Demand Analysis
Table 6.9: Percentage of farmers planng wheat variees of dierent release dates and cumulave adopon rates – by
agro-ecological zone and naonal gures
Year of release Winter Spring Facultave Naonal total Cumulave
Landrace 8.10 3.83 3.42 5.94 100.00
1967 0.28 0.00 1.26 0.56 94.06
1968 9.11 6.39 5.06 7.38 93.51
1970 1.10 0.00 0.07 0.60 86.12
1976 0.09 4.95 0.97 1.11 85.52
1979 1.75 0.00 0.97 1.23 84.41
1984 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.02 83.18
1985 0.32 0.00 0.07 0.19 83.16
1990 1.06 0.00 0.15 0.60 82.96
1991 8.23 1.28 4.17 5.86 82.36
1994 0.64 0.00 0.30 0.43 76.50
1995 0.00 1.12 4.32 1.57 76.06
1996 0.83 0.00 0.15 0.48 74.49
1997 0.09 0.00 0.07 0.07 74.01
1998 9.57 11.66 5.43 8.54 73.94
1999 13.02 27.80 22.47 18.32 65.40
2000 12.37 0.96 6.92 8.88 47.08
2001 2.90 22.36 9.60 8.01 38.20
2002 2.39 9.11 1.71 3.19 30.19
2003 0.32 0.00 0.97 0.48 27.00
2004 7.64 0.00 6.47 6.11 26.52
2005 0.05 0.00 5.95 1.95 20.42
2006 0.00 2.24 0.07 0.36 18.46
2007 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.07 18.10
2008 2.53 2.56 0.15 1.76 18.03
2009 1.15 0.00 2.68 1.47 16.26
2010 0.18 0.16 0.82 0.39 14.79
2011 10.90 2.24 7.96 8.64 14.41
2012 1.33 0.00 3.94 1.98 5.77
2013 2.07 2.72 1.41 1.95 3.79
2014 0.46 0.16 0.52 0.43 1.83
NA 1.52 0.48 1.64 1.40 1.40
Note: As described in secon 4.1, naonal adopon rates are generated by using number of growers in each agro-eco-
logical zone as weights
112
CHAPTER VI: Adopon, Impacts and Seed Demand Analysis
Adopon rate – by wheat species
Provincial adoption levels for bread wheat varieties generally follow similar patterns
with the provincial adoption levels for total wheat (regardless of species) reported in
section 5.2.1.2 above. Edirne leads all provinces in terms of the percentage of farmers
adopting recent bread wheat varieties (Table 6.10). 79.5% of the farmers in this
province cultivate varieties that are 10 or less years old, followed by Tekirdağ (72.1%),
Ankara (57.1%), and Konya (43.6%). Likewise, the adoption rate for more recently
released varieties is the highest in Ankara, with 55.5 % of farmers cultivating varieties
released within the previous 5 years, followed by Tekirdağ, Niğde, and Konya, which
have adoption rates for such varieties of 44.6%, 42.2% and 38.2% respectively. When it
comes to old varieties, 62.5% of farmers in Erzurum province still cultivate over 40 years
old varieties, followed by Kahramanmaraş (60.7%).
At the national level, farmers cultivating improved bread wheat varieties of 5 or less
years old account for 16.42% of the total national number of bread wheat growers.
While the figure improves when the cut-off points increase to 10 years (22.2%) and 15
years (50.5%), more than 16.4% of the total national number of bread wheat growers
still are cultivating varieties that are older than 40 years (Table 6.11).
Amasya, Antalya, Edirne, Erzurum, Eskişehir, Niğde, Sivas, Samsun, Tekirdağ, Tokat
and Van planted only bread wheat, while the other provinces planted both bread and
durum wheat. İzmir leads all provinces in terms of the percentage of farmers adopting
recent durum wheat varieties (Table 6.12). Almost all farmers (100%) in this province
cultivate five or less years old varieties, followed by Manisa (80%) and Diyarbakır
(19.5%). With varieties that are 10 or less years old, İzmir and Balıkesir lead with 100 %
of farmers cultivating durum varieties which are 10 or less years old, followed by Manisa
(80%) and Nevşehir (37.5%).
The national figures show that adoption rates of improved durum wheat varieties
released in the last 5 years (6.02%) are much lower (by 10 percentage points) compared
to those for bread wheat (16.4%). However, when the cutoff is raised to 10 and 15
years, 10.8% of durum wheat farmers cultivate 10 or less years old varieties and 28.7%
cultivate varieties that are 15 or less years old. In contrast, only (4%) are still cultivating
varieties which are older than 40 years (Table 6.13).
113
CHAPTER VI: Adopon, Impacts and Seed Demand Analysis
Year of release
Çorum
izmir
Adıyaman
Afyon
Aksaray
Amasya
Ankara
Antalya
Balıkesir
Diyarbakır
Edirne
Erzurum
Eskiİehir
Kütahya
Kahramanmaraİ
Karaman
Kayseri
Konya
Manisa
Niİde
Nevİehir
Sivas
Samsun
Tekirdaİ
Tokat
Van
Yozgat
landrace 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
1967 89.5 98.7 100 97.7 100.0 85.3 98.8 81.9 99.4 100 100 87.5 95.5 95.4 39.3 91.7 98.2 99.6 100.0 98.4 98.5 91.9 97.4 100 85.9 0 99.1
1968 89.5 98.7 100 97.7 100.0 85.3 98.8 81.9 99.4 100 100 87.5 95.5 95.4 39.3 91.7 98.2 99.6 100.0 98.4 98.5 91.9 97.4 100 85.9 0 99.1
1970 76.6 98.7 100 77.3 98.3 80.4 82.6 56.7 99.4 97.2 100 50.7 95.5 84.4 39.3 83.3 78.6 96.3 100.0 64.1 93.8 87.2 89.6 100 71.1 0 87.7
1976 76.6 98.7 100 77.3 98.3 80.4 82.2 56.7 99.4 97.2 100 37.5 95.5 79.8 39.3 83.3 78.6 96.3 100.0 62.5 93.8 87.2 89.6 100 71.1 0 87.7
1979 76.6 91.0 100 77.3 98.3 80.4 82.2 39.4 99.4 97.2 100 37.5 95.5 78.0 39.3 83.3 78.6 96.3 89.6 62.5 93.8 87.2 89.6 100 71.1 0 87.7
1984 76.6 91.0 100 73.9 86.7 80.4 82.2 39.4 99.4 97.2 100 36.0 93.6 73.4 35.7 83.3 75.0 95.0 89.6 62.5 72.3 84.8 89.6 100 71.1 0 85.8
1985 76.6 91.0 100 73.9 86.7 80.4 82.2 39.4 98.7 97.2 100 36.0 93.6 73.4 35.7 83.3 75.0 95.0 89.6 62.5 72.3 84.8 89.6 100 71.1 0 85.8
1990 76.6 91.0 100 71.6 86.7 80.4 82.2 39.4 98.7 97.2 100 36.0 91.0 72.5 32.1 83.3 75.0 95.0 89.6 62.5 72.3 84.8 89.6 100 71.1 0 85.8
1991 70.8 91.0 100 71.6 86.7 80.4 81.8 39.4 98.7 97.2 100 25.7 91.0 72.5 32.1 83.3 75.0 95.0 89.6 62.5 72.3 84.8 89.6 100 71.1 0 85.8
1994 70.8 91.0 100 71.6 86.7 80.4 81.8 39.4 98.7 97.2 100 25.0 91.0 72.5 32.1 83.3 75.0 95.0 89.6 62.5 72.3 84.8 89.6 100 71.1 0 85.3
1995 70.8 91.0 100 71.6 86.7 80.4 81.8 39.4 98.7 97.2 100 25.0 91.0 60.6 32.1 83.3 75.0 94.6 89.6 62.5 72.3 84.8 89.6 100 71.1 0 83.4
1996 70.8 82.1 100 71.6 86.7 80.4 81.8 39.4 91.8 97.2 100 25.0 91.0 60.6 32.1 83.3 75.0 94.6 47.2 62.5 72.3 83.9 89.6 100 71.1 0 83.4
1997 70.8 82.1 100 68.2 81.7 80.4 81.8 39.4 91.8 97.2 100 25.0 91.0 60.6 32.1 83.3 73.2 94.6 47.2 62.5 72.3 83.9 89.6 100 71.1 0 77.7
1998 70.8 82.1 100 68.2 81.7 80.4 81.8 39.4 91.1 97.2 100 25.0 91.0 60.6 32.1 83.3 73.2 94.6 47.2 62.5 72.3 83.9 89.6 100 71.1 0 77.7
1999 53.8 82.1 96.4 67.0 80.0 76.5 72.1 38.6 74.7 72.3 98.6 25.0 53.2 60.6 32.1 83.3 73.2 89.2 45.3 62.5 44.6 83.9 89.6 99.3 67.2 0 34.1
2000 25.1 53.8 2.7 61.4 60.0 14.7 72.1 38.6 59.5 19.7 83.6 25.0 51.3 52.3 32.1 83.3 73.2 88.0 28.3 62.5 44.6 82.0 73.9 84.6 46.1 0 27.0
2001 25.1 52.6 2.7 42.0 50.0 13.7 69.2 34.6 59.5 19.7 82.9 25.0 48.7 19.3 28.6 75.0 24.1 70.5 27.4 57.8 21.5 24.6 53.0 84.6 42.2 0 27.0
2002 25.1 26.9 2.7 39.8 45.0 12.7 68.8 4.7 31.0 0.7 82.2 25.0 30.1 16.5 28.6 66.7 24.1 65.1 8.5 57.8 15.4 24.6 14.8 78.7 42.2 0 20.4
2003 25.1 24.4 0 34.1 43.3 12.7 68.8 4.7 29.1 0.7 82.2 25.0 30.1 11.0 28.6 66.7 22.3 49.4 1.9 57.8 15.4 24.6 14.8 77.9 42.2 0 20.4
2004 25.1 24.4 0 33.0 43.3 12.7 68.8 4.7 29.1 0.7 79.5 25.0 30.1 10.1 28.6 66.7 20.5 49.4 1.9 57.8 9.2 24.6 14.8 72.1 42.2 0 20.4
2005 19.9 24.4 0 5.7 31.7 4.9 57.1 4.7 29.1 0.7 79.5 25.0 26.3 3.7 25.0 8.3 11.6 43.6 1.9 42.2 7.7 3.8 11.3 72.1 10.9 0 5.2
2006 19.9 24.4 0 5.7 31.7 3.9 57.1 4.7 29.1 0.7 52.1 25.0 26.3 3.7 25.0 8.3 11.6 43.6 0.9 42.2 7.7 3.8 6.1 50.7 7.8 0 5.2
2007 19.9 5.1 0 5.7 31.7 3.9 57.1 4.7 29.1 0.7 52.1 25.0 26.3 3.7 25.0 8.3 11.6 43.6 0.9 42.2 7.7 3.8 6.1 50.7 7.8 0 5.2
2008 19.9 5.1 0 5.7 31.7 3.9 57.1 4.7 29.1 0.7 52.1 25.0 26.3 3.7 25.0 8.3 11.6 43.6 0.9 42.2 7.7 3.8 6.1 50.7 7.0 0 5.2
2009 18.1 5.1 0 3.4 28.3 2.0 56.3 3.1 29.1 0.7 51.4 16.9 25.0 3.7 25.0 8.3 8.0 39.0 0.9 42.2 1.5 0 6.1 50.7 7.0 0 4.3
2010 16.4 5.1 0 2.3 28.3 1.0 55.5 3.1 29.1 0.7 33.6 16.9 23.1 3.7 25.0 8.3 8.0 38.2 0.9 42.2 1.5 0 6.1 45.6 7.0 0 2.4
2011 15.2 5.1 0 1.1 26.7 1.0 55.5 2.4 29.1 0.7 29.5 16.9 23.1 3.7 25.0 8.3 8.0 38.2 0.9 42.2 1.5 0 6.1 41.9 7.0 0 2.4
2012 6.4 1.3 0 0 5.0 0 8.5 0 27.2 0.7 8.2 8.1 16.0 3.7 25.0 0 8.0 9.1 0.9 0 1.5 0 6.1 14.0 3.9 0 1.9
2013 5.3 1.3 0 0 5.0 0 8.1 0 9.5 0.7 1.4 8.1 3.8 3.7 25.0 0 8.0 6.2 0.9 0 1.5 0 6.1 5.1 1.6 0 1.9
2014 5.3 1.3 0 0 0 0 7.7 0 1.3 0 0.7 0 1.3 0.0 21.4 0 0.9 2.1 0 0 1.5 0 6.1 3.7 0.8 0 1.4
NA 5.3 0 0 0 0 0 7.3 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 0.0 21.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.2 2.2 0.0 0 1.4
Table 6.10: Cumulave Percentage of Farmers Planng Bread Wheat Variees Released in or Before a Given Date – By Province
114
CHAPTER VI: Adopon, Impacts and Seed Demand Analysis
Year of release
Çorum
İzmir
Adıyaman
Afyon
Aksaray
Amasya
Ankara
Antalya
Balıkesir
Diyarbakır
Edirne
Erzurum
Eskişehir
Kütahya
Kahramanmaraş
Karaman
Kayseri
Konya
Manisa
Niğde
Nevşehir
Sivas
Samsun
Tekirdağ
Tokat
Van
Yozgat
Naonal Total
Cumulave
Landraces 10.53 1.28 0 2.27 0 14.71 1.21 18.11 0.63 0 0 12.50 4.49 4.59 60.71 8.33 1.79 0.41 0 1.56 1.54 8.06 2.61 0 14.06 100 0.95 6.95 100
1967 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93.05
1968 12.87 0 0 20.45 1.67 4.90 16.19 25.20 0 2.77 0 36.76 0 11.01 0 8.33 19.64 3.32 0 34.38 4.62 4.74 7.83 0 14.84 0 11.37 8.75 93.05
1970 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.40 0 0 0 0 13.24 0 4.59 0 0 0 0 0 1.56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.72 84.30
1976 0 7.69 0 0 0 0 0 17.32 0 0 0 0 0 1.83 0 0 0 0 10.38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.17 83.58
1979 0 0 0 3.41 11.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.47 1.92 4.59 3.57 0 3.57 1.24 0 0 21.54 2.37 0 0 0 0 1.90 1.46 82.41
1984 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.03 80.95
1985 0 0 0 2.27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.56 0.92 3.57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.23 80.92
1990 5.85 0 0 0 0 0 0.40 0 0 0 0 10.29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.72 80.69
1991 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.74 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.47 0.06 79.98
1994 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.93 0 0 0 0.41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.90 0.51 79.92
1995 0 8.97 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42.45 0 0 0.95 0 0 0 0 0 1.86 79.41
1996 0 0 0 3.41 5.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.69 0.57 77.55
1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.03 76.97
1998 16.96 0 3.57 1.14 1.67 3.92 9.72 0.79 16.46 24.91 1.37 0 37.82 0 0 0 0 5.39 1.89 0 27.69 0 0 0.74 3.91 0 43.60 10.13 76.95
1999 28.65 28.21 93.75 5.68 20 61.76 0 0 15.19 52.60 15.07 0 1.92 8.26 0 0 0 1.24 16.98 0 0 1.90 15.65 14.71 21.09 0 7.11 16.33 66.82
2000 0 1.28 0 19.32 10 0.98 2.83 3.94 0 0 0.68 0 2.56 33.03 3.57 8.33 49.11 17.43 0.94 4.69 23.08 57.35 20.87 0 3.91 0 0 9.90 50.49
2001 0 25.64 0 2.27 5.00 0.98 0.40 29.92 28.48 19.03 0.68 0 18.59 2.75 0 8.33 0 5.39 18.87 0 6.15 0 38.26 5.88 0 0 6.64 8.64 40.59
2002 0 2.56 2.68 5.68 1.67 0 0 0 1.90 0 0 0 0 5.50 0 0 1.79 15.77 6.60 0 0 0 0 0.74 0 0 0 1.95 31.95
2003 0 0 0 1.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.74 0 0 0.92 0 0 1.79 0 0 0 6.15 0 0 5.88 0 0 0 0.57 30.01
2004 5.26 0 0 27.27 11.67 7.84 11.74 0 0 0 0 0 3.85 6.42 3.57 58.33 8.93 5.81 0 15.63 1.54 20.85 3.48 0 31.25 0 15.17 7.24 29.43
2005 0 0 0 0 0 0.98 0 0 0 0 27.40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.94 0 0 0 5.22 21.32 3.13 0 0 2.32 22.20
2006 0 19.23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.43 19.88
2007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.78 0 0 0.03 19.45
2008 1.75 0 0 2.27 3.33 1.96 0.81 1.57 0 0 0.68 8.09 1.28 0 0 0 3.57 4.56 0 0 6.15 3.79 0 0 0 0 0.95 1.60 19.42
2009 1.75 0 0 1.14 0 0.98 0.81 0 0 0 17.81 0 1.92 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0 5.15 0 0 1.90 1.40 17.82
2010 1.17 0 0 1.14 1.67 0 0 0.79 0 0 4.11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.68 0 0 0 0.46 16.42
2011 8.77 3.85 0 1.14 21.67 0.98 46.96 2.36 1.90 0 21.23 8.82 7.05 0 0 8.33 0 29.05 0 42.19 0 0 0 27.94 3.13 0 0.47 10.01 15.96
2012 1.17 0 0 0 0 0 0.40 0 17.72 0 6.85 0 12.18 0 0 0 0 2.90 0 0 0 0 0 8.82 2.34 0 0 2.35 5.95
2013 0 0 0 0 5.00 0 0.40 0 8.23 0.69 0.68 8.09 2.56 3.67 3.57 0 7.14 4.15 0.94 0 0 0 0 1.47 0.78 0 0.47 1.80 3.60
2014 0 1.28 0 0 0 0 0.40 0 1.27 0 0.68 0 0 0 0 0 0.89 2.07 0 0 1.54 0 0.87 1.47 0.78 0 0 0.46 1.80
NA 5.26 0 0 0 0 0 7.29 0 0 0 0 0 1.28 0 21.43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.22 2.21 0 0 1.42 1.34 1.34
Table 6.11: Percentage of Farmers Planng Bread Wheat Variees of Dierent Release Dates and Cumulave Adopon Rates –Provincial and Naonal Figures
Note: Naonal adopon rates are generated by using number of growers in each province as weights.
115
CHAPTER VI: Adopon, Impacts and Seed Demand Analysis
Year of release
Çorum
İzmir
Adıyaman
Afyon
Aksaray
Amasya
Ankara
Antalya
Balıkesir
Diyarbakır
Edirne
Erzurum
Eskişehir
Kütahya
Kahramanmaraş
Karaman
Kayseri
Konya
Manisa
Niğde
Nevşehir
Sivas
Samsun
Tekirdağ
Tokat
Van
Yozgat
landrace 100 100 100 100 100 0 100 0 100 100 0 0 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100
1967 100 100 100 100 63 0 100 0 100 100 0 0 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100
1968 100 100 100 100 63 0 100 0 100 100 0 0 0 100 79 100 100 100 100 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100
1970 100 100 100 100 63 0 100 0 100 100 0 0 0 100 79 100 100 100 100 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100
1976 100 100 100 100 63 0 100 0 100 100 0 0 0 100 79 100 100 100 100 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100
1979 100 100 100 100 63 0 100 0 100 100 0 0 0 100 79 100 100 100 80 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100
1984 100 100 100 100 63 0 100 0 100 100 0 0 0 100 79 100 100 100 80 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100
1985 100 100 100 100 63 0 100 0 100 100 0 0 0 100 79 100 100 100 80 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100
1990 100 100 100 100 63 0 100 0 100 100 0 0 0 100 79 100 100 100 80 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100
1991 100 100 100 100 62.5 0 100.00 0 100 100 0 0 0 100 78.70 100 100 100 80 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100
1994 35.29 100 100 62.71 50 0 40.00 0 100 100 0 0 0 18.03 39.81 53.85 35.29 73.95 80 0 87.50 0 0 0 0 0 18.87
1995 35.29 100 100 62.71 50 0 40.00 0 100 100 0 0 0 18.03 39.81 53.85 35.29 73.95 80 0 87.50 0 0 0 0 0 18.87
1996 35.29 100 100 62.71 50 0 40.00 0 100 100 0 0 0 18.03 39.81 53.85 35.29 73.95 80 0 87.50 0 0 0 0 0 18.87
1997 35.29 100 100 62.71 50 0 40.00 0 100 100 0 0 0 18.03 39.81 53.85 35.29 73.95 80 0 87.50 0 0 0 0 0 18.87
1998 35.29 100 100 59.32 50 0 40.00 0 100 100 0 0 0 18.03 39.81 53.85 35.29 73.95 80 0 87.50 0 0 0 0 0 18.87
1999 23.53 100 100 11.86 13 0 0.00 0 100 100 0 0 0 4.92 2.78 3.85 11.76 8.40 80 0 87.50 0 0 0 0 0 7.55
2000 23.53 100 100 11.86 12.5 0 0.00 0 100 100 0 0 0 4.92 2.78 3.85 11.76 8.40 80 0 87.50 0 0 0 0 0 7.55
2001 11.76 100 100 11.86 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 4.92 0.93 0 0 3.36 80 0 37.50 0 0 0 0 0 0
2002 11.76 100 100 11.86 0 0 0 0 100 75.61 0 0 0 4.92 0.93 0 0 3.36 80 0 37.50 0 0 0 0 0 0
2003 11.76 100 0 11.86 0 0 0 0 100 30.89 0 0 0 4.92 0.93 0 0 3.36 80 0 37.50 0 0 0 0 0 0
2004 11.76 100 0 11.86 0 0 0 0 100 30.89 0 0 0 4.92 0.93 0 0 3.36 80 0 37.50 0 0 0 0 0 0
2005 11.76 100 0 11.86 0 0 0 0 100 30.89 0 0 0 4.92 0.93 0 0 3.36 80 0 37.50 0 0 0 0 0 0
2006 11.76 100 0 11.86 0 0 0 0 100 30.89 0 0 0 4.92 0.93 0 0 3.36 80 0 37.50 0 0 0 0 0 0
2007 11.76 100 0 11.86 0 0 0 0 100 30.89 0 0 0 4.92 0.93 0 0 3.36 80 0 37.50 0 0 0 0 0 0
2008 11.76 100 0 11.86 0 0 0 0 0 30.89 0 0 0 4.92 0.93 0 0 3.36 80 0 37.50 0 0 0 0 0 0
2009 11.76 100 0 11.86 0 0 0 0 0 19.51 0 0 0 4.92 0.93 0 0 3.36 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2010 0.0 100 0 3.39 0 0 0 0 0 19.51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.52 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2011 0.0 100 0 3.39 0 0 0 0 0 19.51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.52 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2012 0.0 100 0 3.39 0 0 0 0 0 13.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.52 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2013 0.0 100 0 3.39 0 0 0 0 0 13.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.52 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2014 0.0 100 0 3.39 0 0 0 0 0 0.81 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NA 0.0 100 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0.81 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table 6.12: Cumulave Percentage of Farmers Planng Durum Wheat Variees Released in or Before a Given Date – By Province
116
CHAPTER VI: Adopon, Impacts and Seed Demand Analysis
Year of release
Çorum
İzmir
Adıyaman
Afyon
Aksaray
Amasya
Ankara
Antalya
Balıkesir
Diyarbakır
Edirne
Erzurum
Eskişehir
Kütahya
Kahramanmaraş
Karaman
Kayseri
Konya
Manisa
Niğde
Nevşehir
Sivas
Samsun
Tekirdağ
Tokat
Van
Yozgat
Naonal Total
Cumulave
Landraces 0 0 0 0 37.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.46 100
1967 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21.30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.55 99.54
1968 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95.99
1970 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95.99
1976 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.77 95.99
1979 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95.22
1984 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95.22
1985 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95.22
1990 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95.22
1991 64.71 0 0 37.29 12.50 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 81.97 38.89 46.15 64.71 26.05 0 0 12.50 0 0 0 0 0 81.13 37.19 95.22
1994 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58.02
1995 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58.02
1996 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58.02
1997 0 0 0 3.39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.31 58.02
1998 11.76 0 0 47.46 37.50 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.11 37.04 50 23.53 65.55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.32 29.01 57.72
1999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28.70
2000 11.76 0 0 0 12.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.85 3.85 11.76 5.04 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 7.55 3.40 28.70
2001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24.39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.63 25.31
2002 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 44.72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.88 20.68
2003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.80
2004 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.80
2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.80
2006 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.80
2007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.31 10.80
2008 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.62 10.49
2009 11.76 0 0 8.47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.92 0.93 0 0 0.84 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.85 7.87
2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.02
2011 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.23 6.02
2012 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.78
2013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.78 4.78
2014 0 0 0 3.39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.31 2.01
NA 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.81 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.70 1.70
Table 6.13: Percentage of Farmers Planng Durum Wheat Variees of Dierent Release Dates and Cumulave Adopon Rates –Provincial and Naonal Figures
Note: Naonal adopon rates are generated by using number of growers in each province as weights.
117
CHAPTER VI: Adopon, Impacts and Seed Demand Analysis
Adopon degree (percentage of wheat area under improved variees)
Adopon degree by variety
The top 10 varieties out of the total 135 found in the Turkish farmers’ hands cover
more than 58.2% of the total area. This finding is consistent with the result presented
in section 5.1.1.1, in which 55.8 % of all farmers are cultivating the top 10 varieties.
The balance in adoption rate and adoption degree indicates the absence of systematic
differences between large and small farms in adopting improved wheat varieties. About
39.7% of the area covered by the top 10 varieties is under varieties released after 2000
– showing that older varieties still dominate the Turkish wheat fields. About 51.6% of
the area under the top 10 varieties is covered by varieties released between 1991 and
1999. The top three varieties in terms of area are Seyhan99, Esperia and Çeşit1252.
These three varieties together constitute over 25.6% of the total national wheat area.
In terms of area coverage, Çeşit1252 is the third most important variety, replacing
Bezostaja-1, which was the third most popular varieties in terms of number of farmers
(Annex 5).
Adopon degree by province
With an adoption degree for improved wheat varieties released in or after 2000 (i.e.
less than 15 years old varieties) of 88.5% of the total provincial wheat area, Tekirdağ is
leading all the provinces, followed by Sivas (88.4%) and Edirne (87.13%). The adoption
degree for varieties released in the last 10 years is the highest in Edrine (85.1%) – which
is in line with the findings of Mazid et al. (2015) – followed by Tekirdağ (73.2%) and
Ankara (63.5%). Likewise, regarding the adoption degree for varieties released more
recently (within the previous five years), Ankara, Balıkesir, Tekirdağ have adoption
degrees of 60.8%, 50.9%, and 48.5%, respectively, and are leading all other provinces. In
contrast, Van is the only province where 100% of wheat area is cultivated with landrace
varieties (Table 6.14).
118
CHAPTER VI: Adopon, Impacts and Seed Demand Analysis
Çorum
İzmir
Adıyaman
Afyon
Aksaray
Amasya
Ankara
Antalya
Balıkesir
Diyarbakır
Edirne
Erzurum
Eskişehir
Kütahya
Kahramanmaraş
Karaman
Kayseri
Konya
Manisa
Niğde
Nevşehir
Sivas
Samsun
Tekirdağ
Tokat
Van
Yozgat
Landraces 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
1967 93.41 98.66 100 99.87 98.37 91.24 99.73 88.36 99.85 100 100 91.86 96.26 98.17 91.87 99.81 97.82 99.82 100 99.05 97.75 94.38 98.29 100 89.32 0 99.49
1968 93.41 98.66 100 99.87 98.37 91.24 99.73 88.36 99.85 100 100 91.86 96.26 98.17 73.78 99.81 97.82 99.82 100 99.05 97.75 94.38 98.29 100 89.32 0 99.49
1970 88.75 98.66 100 94.42 97.57 88.90 89.68 58.84 99.85 98.91 100.00 60.13 96.26 91.37 73.78 97.95 84.03 96.72 100 74.81 94.59 91.78 89.63 100 74.89 0 93.91
1976 88.75 98.66 100 94.42 97.57 88.90 89.46 58.84 99.85 98.91 100.00 48.53 96.26 90.24 73.78 97.95 84.03 96.72 100 72.42 94.59 91.78 89.63 100 74.89 0 93.91
1979 88.75 95.04 100 94.42 97.57 88.90 89.46 45.99 99.85 98.91 100.00 48.53 96.26 89.95 73.78 97.95 84.03 96.72 94.30 72.42 94.59 91.78 89.63 100 74.89 0 93.91
1984 88.75 95.04 100 94.13 90.46 88.90 89.46 45.99 99.85 98.91 100.00 47.71 93.05 87.28 71.82 97.95 80.35 96.38 94.30 72.42 76.97 90.65 89.63 100 74.89 0 92.24
1985 88.75 95.04 100 94.13 90.46 88.90 89.46 45.99 99.43 98.91 100.00 47.71 93.05 87.28 71.82 97.95 80.35 96.38 94.30 72.42 76.97 90.65 89.63 100 74.89 0 92.24
1990 88.75 95.04 100 92.54 90.46 88.90 89.46 45.99 99.43 98.91 100.00 47.71 90.71 87.07 71.67 97.95 80.35 96.38 94.30 72.42 76.97 90.65 89.63 100 74.89 0 92.24
1991 83.94 95.04 100 92.54 90.46 88.90 89.19 45.99 99.43 98.91 100.00 26.81 90.71 87.07 71.67 97.95 80.35 96.38 94.30 72.42 76.97 90.65 89.63 100 74.89 0 92.24
1994 75.93 95.04 100 82.10 88.86 88.90 87.88 42.95 99.43 98.91 100.00 26.30 90.71 46.42 48.85 70.14 68.46 87.70 94.30 72.42 76.75 90.65 89.63 100 74.89 0 68.79
1995 75.93 95.04 100 82.10 88.86 88.90 87.88 42.95 99.43 98.91 100.00 26.30 90.71 41.54 48.85 70.14 68.46 87.54 94.30 72.42 76.75 90.65 89.63 100 74.89 0 68.47
1996 75.93 90.48 100 82.10 88.86 88.90 87.88 42.95 96.81 98.91 100.00 26.30 90.71 41.54 48.85 70.14 68.46 87.54 58.94 72.42 76.75 90.41 89.63 100 74.89 0 68.47
1997 75.93 90.48 100 80.43 87.25 88.90 87.88 42.95 96.81 98.91 100.00 26.30 90.71 41.54 48.85 70.14 67.47 87.54 58.94 72.42 76.75 90.41 89.63 100 74.89 0 64.78
1998 75.93 90.48 100 77.16 87.25 88.90 87.88 42.95 96.70 98.91 100.00 26.30 90.71 41.54 48.85 70.14 67.47 87.54 58.94 72.42 76.75 90.41 89.63 100 74.89 0 64.78
1999 66.73 90.48 96.76 76.95 82.93 84.41 82.53 42.42 87.04 81.81 99.33 26.30 44.69 41.54 48.85 70.14 67.47 83.10 57.96 72.42 49.17 90.41 89.63 99.39 72.59 0 37.11
2000 38.95 68.11 5.75 49.56 67.75 16.69 81.82 42.42 77.97 44.72 87.13 26.30 42.44 32.49 10.08 28.00 63.06 64.01 37.00 72.42 49.17 88.38 73.08 88.46 51.02 0 27.22
2001 37.90 66.00 5.75 42.45 39.73 16.02 80.70 38.23 77.97 44.72 86.66 26.30 40.21 15.16 6.93 23.03 17.40 53.00 36.34 68.61 21.05 18.33 51.16 88.46 47.38 0 25.84
2002 37.90 41.44 5.75 39.27 37.42 15.39 80.65 8.97 53.22 22.54 86.09 26.30 28.16 11.61 6.93 22.28 17.40 49.53 17.54 68.61 16.36 18.33 14.76 79.71 47.38 0 18.38
2003 37.90 37.54 0.00 36.43 35.82 15.39 80.65 8.97 51.75 12.67 86.09 26.30 28.16 8.90 6.93 22.28 16.26 36.00 5.12 68.61 16.36 18.33 14.76 77.68 47.38 0 18.38
2004 37.90 37.54 0.00 36.11 35.82 15.39 80.65 8.97 51.75 12.67 85.06 26.30 28.16 8.65 6.93 22.28 15.46 36.00 5.12 68.61 13.02 18.33 14.76 73.19 47.38 0 18.38
2005 34.72 37.54 0.00 14.29 28.55 7.55 63.54 8.97 51.75 12.67 85.06 26.30 25.59 4.90 6.39 3.10 7.34 30.15 5.12 38.55 12.53 5.26 10.01 73.19 9.19 0 3.00
2006 34.72 37.54 0.00 14.29 28.55 4.63 63.54 8.97 51.75 12.67 51.83 26.30 25.59 4.90 6.39 3.10 7.34 30.15 3.73 38.55 12.53 5.26 5.48 54.57 6.59 0 3.00
2007 34.72 15.37 0.00 14.29 28.55 4.63 63.54 8.97 51.75 12.67 51.83 26.30 25.59 4.90 6.39 3.10 7.34 30.15 3.73 38.55 12.53 5.26 5.48 54.57 6.59 0 3.00
2008 34.72 15.37 0.00 14.29 28.55 4.63 63.54 8.97 50.91 12.67 51.83 26.30 25.59 4.90 6.39 3.10 7.34 30.15 3.73 38.55 12.53 5.26 5.48 54.57 5.49 0 3.00
2009 32.99 15.37 0.00 11.75 25.35 1.26 62.10 6.08 50.91 9.35 51.19 17.46 24.60 4.90 6.39 3.10 3.37 27.64 3.73 38.55 1.80 0.00 5.48 54.57 5.49 0 2.09
2010 31.34 15.37 0.00 1.71 25.35 0.36 60.85 6.08 50.91 9.35 30.81 17.46 23.56 1.65 5.41 3.10 3.37 26.44 3.73 38.55 1.80 0.00 5.48 48.54 5.49 0 1.10
2011 30.64 15.37 0.00 1.67 24.55 0.36 60.85 5.56 50.91 9.35 20.62 17.46 23.56 1.65 5.41 3.10 3.37 26.44 3.73 38.55 1.80 0.00 5.48 44.72 5.49 0 1.10
2012 16.39 8.69 0.00 1.59 6.92 0.00 13.55 0.00 50.33 5.97 8.05 6.88 16.02 1.65 5.41 0.00 3.37 9.40 3.73 0.00 1.80 0.00 5.48 13.77 2.55 0 1.01
2013 11.38 8.69 0.00 1.59 6.92 0.00 10.83 0.00 17.80 5.97 0.59 6.88 2.20 1.65 5.41 0.00 3.37 8.16 3.73 0.00 1.80 0.00 5.48 6.36 1.30 0 1.01
2014 11.38 8.69 0.00 1.59 0.00 0.00 8.12 0.00 6.30 0.10 0.08 0.00 0.37 0.00 4.52 0.00 0.50 0.34 2.75 0.00 1.80 0.00 5.48 1.89 0.95 0 0.64
NA 11.38 5.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.01 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 4.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.36 1.08 0.00 0 0.64
Table 6.14: Cumulave percentage of wheat area under wheat variees released in or aer a specic year – by province
119
CHAPTER VI: Adopon, Impacts and Seed Demand Analysis
Adopon degree (percentage of wheat area) – naonal level
Out of the total wheat area of 7.87 million hectares in Turkey, only 1.51 million
hectares (19.14%) is estimated to be covered with varieties released in the past five
years (Table 6.15). While the estimates increase to about 25.3% and 50.7% when the
cutoff for varietal age is increased to 10 and 15 years, respectively, one can see that
varietal replacement in the country is not as fast as breeders would like to see. Assuming
that the landraces have been in the country for 100 years, varietal replacement rate, as
proxied by area-weighted varietal age in the country, is 20.82 which is in contrast with
the 8-10 years reported in Lantican et al. (2016). Given that our estimates are based on
primary data from a large sized sample, representing above 62% of the total national
wheat area, while the estimate in Lantican et al. (2016) is based on a global wheat
impacts survey (mostly relying on expert estimates), we believe that our estimate is
more reliable and credible.
120
CHAPTER VI: Adopon, Impacts and Seed Demand Analysis
Çorum
İzmir
Adıyaman
Afyon
Aksaray
Amasya
Ankara
Antalya
Balıkesir
Diyarbakır
Edirne
Erzurum
Eskişehir
Kütahya
Kahramanmaraş
Karaman
Kayseri
Konya
Manisa
Niğde
Nevşehir
Sivas
Samsun
Tekirdağ
Tokat
Van
Yozgat
Total
Cumulave
Landraces 0.30 0.01 0 0 0.03 0.19 0.03 0.25 0 0 0 0.19 0.14 0.05 0.23 0 0.07 0.03 0 0.01 0.05 0.34 0.04 0 0.28 1.65 0.03 4.58 100
1967 000000000000000.5100000000000 0 1.04 95.42
1968 0.21 0 0 0.19 0.01 0.05 0.94 0.64 0 0.09 0 0.75 0 0.19 0 0.04 0.45 0.46 0 0.34 0.07 0.16 0.19 0 0.38 0 0.37 5.03 94.38
1970 000000 0.02 0 0 0 0 0.28 0 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.57 89.35
1976 0 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0.28 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0.12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.23 88.78
1979 0 0 0 0.01 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.12 0.08 0.06 0 0.12 0.05 0 0 0.41 0.07 0 0 0 0 0.11 0.94 88.55
1984 000000000.010000000000000000000.0187.61
1985 0 0 0 0.05 0 00000000.090.01000000000000 0 0.15 87.60
1990 0.22 0 0 0 0 0 0.03 0 0 0 0 0.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.14 87.45
1991 0.36 0 0 0.36 0.03 0 0.12 0.07 0 0 0 0.01 0 1.16 0.64 0.59 0.38 1.28 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 1.57 5.70 86.31
1994 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.14 0 0 0 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.10 80.61
1995 0 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.76 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0.43 80.51
1996 0 0 0 0.06 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.34 80.08
1997 0 0 0 0.11 0 000000000000000000000 0 0.12 79.74
1998 0.42 0 0.06 0.01 0.08 0.10 0.50 0.01 0.23 1.36 0.02 0 1.73 0 0 0 0 0.66 0.02 0 0.64 0 0 0.02 0.06 0 1.85 8.58 79.62
1999 1.26 0.15 1.63 0.93 0.27 1.50 0.07 0 0.22 2.94 0.34 0 0.08 0.26 1.09 0.90 0.14 2.82 0.45 0 0 0.12 0.37 0.41 0.58 0 0.66 20.33 71.04
2000 0.05 0.01 0 0.24 0.49 0.01 0.10 0.09 0 0 0.01 0 0.08 0.50 0.09 0.11 1.48 1.62 0.01 0.05 0.65 4.26 0.49 0 0.10 0 0.09 7.78 50.71
2001 0 0.17 0 0.11 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.64 0.60 1.76 0.02 0 0.45 0.10 0 0.02 0 0.51 0.40 0 0.11 0 0.81 0.33 0 0 0.50 7.28 42.93
2002 0 0.03 0.10 0.10 0.03 0 0 0 0.04 0.78 0 0 0 0.08 0 0 0.04 2.00 0.27 0 0 0 0 0.08 0 0 0 3.85 35.65
2003 0 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.03 0 0 0.01 0 0 0.03 0 0 0 0.08 0 0 0.17 0 0 0 0.24 31.80
2004 0.14 0 0 0.74 0.13 0.17 1.60 0 0 0 0 0 0.10 0.11 0.02 0.41 0.26 0.86 0 0.43 0.01 0.80 0.11 0 1.02 0 1.03 6.31 31.57
2005 000000.06 0 0 0 0 0.94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.03 0 0 0 0.10 0.70 0.07 0 0 1.82 25.26
2006 00.1500000000000000000000000000.2223.44
2007 000000000.020000000000000000.030 0 0.03 23.21
2008 0.08 0 0 0.09 0.06 0.07 0.14 0.06 0 0.26 0.02 0.21 0.04 0 0 0 0.13 0.37 0 0 0.25 0.32 0 0 0 0 0.06 2.25 23.18
2009 0.08 0 0 0.34 0 0.02 0.12 0 0 0 0.57 0 0.04 0.09 0.03 0 0 0.18 0 0 0 0 0 0.23 0 0 0.07 1.79 20.93
2010 0.03 0 0 0 0.01 0 0 0.01 0 0 0.29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.14 0 0 0 0.52 19.14
2011 0.65 0.05 0 0 0.31 0.01 4.43 0.12 0.01 0.27 0.35 0.25 0.28 0 0 0.07 0 2.52 0 0.55 0 0 0 1.17 0.08 0 0.01 10.76 18.63
2012 0.23 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0 0.78 0 0.21 0 0.52 0 0 0 0 0.18 0 0 0 0 0 0.28 0.03 0 0 2.48 7.87
2013 0 0 0 0 0.12 0 0.25 0 0.28 0.47 0.01 0.16 0.07 0.05 0.02 0 0.09 1.15 0.02 0 0 0 0 0.17 0.01 0 0.02 3.28 5.39
2014 0 0.02 0 0.05 0 0 0.01 0 0.15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.05 0 0 0.04 0 0.02 0.03 0.03 0 0 0.39 2.12
NA 0.52 0.04 0 0 0 0 0.75 0 0 0.01 0 0 0.01 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.06 0 0 0 0.10 0.04 0 0 0.04 1.73 1.73
Table 6.15: Area-weighted percentage of wheat area under variees of dierent release dates – provincial and naonal gures
121
CHAPTER VI: Adopon, Impacts and Seed Demand Analysis
Adopon degree (percentage of area) by agroecological zone
Similar to the number of growers presented in section 5.2.1.3, the facultative zone
leads the rest of the agro-ecologies in terms of percentage of wheat area covered by
more recent varieties. While 30.7% of all wheat areas in the facultative zone are planted
with 10 years or younger varieties, only 26.8% and 13.7% of wheat areas in the winter
and spring zones are covered with varieties released up to 10 years ago. In contrast,
the adoption degree for more recently released varieties is the highest in the winter
zone, with 22.4 % of farmers cultivating varieties released within the preceding five
years, followed by facultative and spring agro-ecologies that have adoption degrees for
such varieties of 18.94% and 9.4 %, respectively. In contrast, the winter zone has the
largest proportion (14.7%) of wheat area growing old varieties of more than 40 years
old, followed by the facultative zone, where the adoption rate of varieties older than 40
years stands at 8.9% (Table 6.16).
Table 6.16: Cumulave percentage area under wheat variees released in or aer a specic year –by agro-ecological
zone
Year of release Winter Spring Facultave
Landrace 100 100 100
1967 93.33 99.26 97.51
1968 93.13 99.26 93.60
1970 86.28 96.58 91.16
1976 85.32 96.58 91.10
1979 85.31 95.65 90.88
1984 83.94 95.65 90.28
1985 83.94 95.65 90.23
1990 83.69 95.65 90.19
1991 81.75 95.65 90.12
1994 74.15 95.47 84.72
1995 74.00 95.47 84.65
1996 74.00 95.23 83.01
1997 73.46 95.23 82.92
1998 73.26 95.23 82.91
1999 65.42 79.95 77.79
2000 52.43 45.67 50.48
2001 40.95 45.32 45.90
2002 38.48 22.67 38.93
2003 35.45 13.66 37.17
2004 35.33 13.66 36.47
2005 26.77 13.66 30.70
2006 26.71 13.66 23.13
2007 26.71 12.51 23.09
2008 26.71 12.51 22.95
2009 23.88 9.38 22.82
2010 22.37 9.38 18.94
2011 22.30 9.35 16.95
2012 7.79 5.65 9.83
2013 5.85 5.65 4.07
2014 2.69 0.42 2.06
NA 2.44 0.27 1.14
122
CHAPTER VI: Adopon, Impacts and Seed Demand Analysis
Table 6.17: Area-weighted percentage of wheat area under variees of dierent release dates – by agro-ecological zone
and naonal gures
Year of release Winter Spring Facultave Naonal total Cumulave
Landrace 4.56 0.08 0.52 4.58 100
1967 0.14 0.00 0.82 1.04 95.42
1968 4.68 0.28 0.51 5.03 94.38
1970 0.66 0.00 0.01 0.57 89.35
1976 0.00 0.10 0.04 0.23 88.78
1979 0.94 0.00 0.13 0.94 88.55
1984 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 87.61
1985 0.17 0.00 0.01 0.15 87.60
1990 1.32 0.00 0.01 1.14 87.45
1991 5.20 0.02 1.13 5.70 86.31
1994 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.10 80.61
1995 0.00 0.03 0.34 0.43 80.51
1996 0.37 0.00 0.02 0.34 80.08
1997 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.12 79.74
1998 5.36 1.62 1.07 8.58 79.62
1999 8.88 3.64 5.74 20.33 71.04
2000 7.85 0.04 0.96 7.78 50.71
2001 1.68 2.41 1.46 7.28 42.93
2002 2.07 0.96 0.37 3.85 35.65
2003 0.08 0.00 0.15 0.24 31.80
2004 5.85 0.00 1.21 6.31 31.57
2005 0.04 0.00 1.59 1.82 25.26
2006 0.00 0.12 0.01 0.22 23.44
2007 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 23.21
2008 1.94 0.33 0.03 2.25 23.18
2009 1.03 0.00 0.82 1.79 20.93
2010 0.05 0.00 0.42 0.52 19.14
2011 9.92 0.39 1.50 10.76 18.63
2012 1.32 0.00 1.21 2.48 7.87
2013 2.16 0.56 0.42 3.28 5.39
2014 0.17 0.02 0.19 0.39 2.12
NA 1.67 0.03 0.24 1.73 1.73
123
CHAPTER VI: Adopon, Impacts and Seed Demand Analysis
Adopon degree (percentage of area) – by wheat species
Bread wheat
With an adoption degree of 85.1%, Edirne leads all provinces in terms of the
percentage of bread wheat fields covered by more recent varieties of 10 years old or
less (Table 6.18). Tekirdağ, Ankara and Balıkesir follow with 73.2%, 64.8%, and 51.3%,
respectively. The adoption degree for more recently released varieties is the highest
in Ankara, where 62.1% of wheat areas are covered by varieties released within the
previous five years, followed by Balıkesir, Tekirdağ and Niğde, which have adoption
degrees for such varieties of 51.3%, 48.5% and 38.6 % respectively.
At the national level, the adoption degree for cultivating improved bread wheat
varieties of five years old or less stands at 21.53% of total national bread wheat areas.
While the figure improves when the cutoff increases to 10 years (27.74%) and 15 years
(54.83%), more than 12.6% of the bread wheat areas are still covered by varieties older
than 40 years (Table 6.19).
Durum wheat
İzmir leads all provinces in terms of the percentage of durum wheat areas cultivated
with more recent varieties (Table 6.20) – with 100% of areas cultivating varieties that
are five years old or younger. This is followed by Manisa (73.7%), Diyarbakır (29.5%) and
Konya (4.2%). İzmir and Balıkesir also have the highest percentage of areas grown with
durum varieties of 10 years old or younger (100%), followed by Manisa (73.7%) and
Nevşehir (45.8%).
At the national level, the adoption degree for durum wheat varieties of five years old
or less stands at a very low level of 9.11% (Table 6.21). A comparison between national
degrees of adoption of durum wheat and bread wheat varieties shows that a relatively
higher percentage of total bread wheat areas are covered with more recent varieties
than durum wheat.
124
CHAPTER VI: Adopon, Impacts and Seed Demand Analysis
Çorum
İzmir
Adıyaman
Afyon
Aksaray
Amasya
Ankara
Antalya
Balıkesir
Diyarbakır
Edirne
Erzurum
Eskişehir
Kütahya
Kahramanmaraş
Karaman
Kayseri
Konya
Manisa
Niğde
Nevşehir
Sivas
Samsun
Tekirdağ
Tokat
Van
Yozgat
Landraces 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
1967 92.6 98.6 100 99.8 100.0 91.2 99.7 87.8 99.9 100 100 91.9 96.3 96.5 55.2 99.3 97.4 99.7 100.0 99.0 97.5 94.4 98.3 100.0 89.3 0 99.3
1968 92.6 98.6 100 99.8 100.0 91.2 99.7 87.8 99.9 100 100 91.9 96.3 96.5 55.2 99.3 97.4 99.7 100.0 99.0 97.5 94.4 98.3 100.0 89.3 0 99.3
1970 87.4 98.6 100 90.2 99.1 88.9 89.5 57.0 99.9 98.4 100 60.1 96.3 83.5 55.2 92.2 80.7 95.3 100.0 74.8 94.1 91.8 89.6 100.0 74.9 0 91.5
1976 87.4 98.6 100 90.2 99.1 88.9 89.2 57.0 99.9 98.4 100 48.5 96.3 81.3 55.2 92.2 80.7 95.3 100.0 72.4 94.1 91.8 89.6 100.0 74.9 0 91.5
1979 87.4 94.7 100 90.2 99.1 88.9 89.2 44.9 99.9 98.4 100 48.5 96.3 80.8 55.2 92.2 80.7 95.3 95.1 72.4 94.1 91.8 89.6 100.0 74.9 0 91.5
1984 87.4 94.7 100 89.7 91.5 88.9 89.2 44.9 99.9 98.4 100 47.7 93.0 75.7 44.4 92.2 76.3 94.8 95.1 72.4 74.8 90.7 89.6 100.0 74.9 0 89.1
1985 87.4 94.7 100 89.7 91.5 88.9 89.2 44.9 99.4 98.4 100 47.7 93.0 75.7 44.4 92.2 76.3 94.8 95.1 72.4 74.8 90.7 89.6 100.0 74.9 0 89.1
1990 87.4 94.7 100 86.9 91.5 88.9 89.2 44.9 99.4 98.4 100 47.7 90.7 75.3 43.6 92.2 76.3 94.8 95.1 72.4 74.8 90.7 89.6 100.0 74.9 0 89.1
1991 82.0 94.7 100 86.9 91.5 88.9 89.0 44.9 99.4 98.4 100 26.8 90.7 75.3 43.6 92.2 76.3 94.8 95.1 72.4 74.8 90.7 89.6 100 74.9 0 89.1
1994 82.0 94.7 100 86.9 91.5 88.9 89.0 44.9 99.4 98.4 100 26.3 90.7 75.3 43.6 92.2 76.3 94.8 95.1 72.4 74.8 90.7 89.6 100.0 74.9 0 89.0
1995 82.0 94.7 100 86.9 91.5 88.9 89.0 44.9 99.4 98.4 100 26.3 90.7 66.0 43.6 92.2 76.3 94.6 95.1 72.4 74.8 90.7 89.6 100.0 74.9 0 88.5
1996 82.0 89.9 100 86.9 91.5 88.9 89.0 44.9 96.8 98.4 100 26.3 90.7 66.0 43.6 92.2 76.3 94.6 58.4 72.4 74.8 90.4 89.6 100.0 74.9 0 88.5
1997 82.0 89.9 100 83.9 89.8 88.9 89.0 44.9 96.8 98.4 100 26.3 90.7 66.0 43.6 92.2 75.1 94.6 58.4 72.4 74.8 90.4 89.6 100.0 74.9 0 83.4
1998 82.0 89.9 100 83.9 89.8 88.9 89.0 44.9 96.7 98.4 100 26.3 90.7 66.0 43.6 92.2 75.1 94.6 58.4 72.4 74.8 90.4 89.6 100.0 74.9 0 83.4
1999 71.8 89.9 96.6 83.6 85.2 84.4 83.5 44.3 86.9 74.0 99.3 26.3 44.7 66.0 43.6 92.2 75.1 88.3 57.3 72.4 44.6 90.4 89.6 99.4 72.6 0 44.5
2000 41.3 66.1 1.6 68.7 72.0 16.7 83.5 44.3 77.8 21.0 87.1 26.3 42.4 55.9 43.6 92.2 75.1 87.1 35.6 72.4 44.6 88.4 73.1 88.5 51.0 0 36.2
2001 41.3 63.9 1.6 56.2 42.5 16.0 82.4 39.9 77.8 21.0 86.7 26.3 40.2 22.8 32.8 87.5 21.0 73.3 34.9 68.6 18.7 18.3 51.2 88.5 47.4 0 36.2
2002 41.3 37.8 1.6 50.6 40.1 15.4 82.3 9.4 52.8 0.7 86.1 26.3 28.2 16.0 32.8 84.7 21.0 68.4 15.4 68.6 13.6 18.3 14.8 79.7 47.4 0 25.8
2003 41.3 33.6 0 45.6 38.3 15.4 82.3 9.4 51.3 0.7 86.1 26.3 28.2 10.8 32.8 84.7 19.6 49.1 2.5 68.6 13.6 18.3 14.8 77.7 47.4 0 25.8
2004 41.3 33.6 0 45.0 38.3 15.4 82.3 9.4 51.3 0.7 85.1 26.3 28.2 10.3 32.8 84.7 18.6 49.1 2.5 68.6 9.9 18.3 14.8 73.2 47.4 0 25.8
2005 37.8 33.6 0 6.7 30.6 7.5 64.8 9.4 51.3 0.7 85.1 26.3 25.6 3.1 29.8 11.8 8.9 40.8 2.5 38.5 9.4 5.3 10.0 73.2 9.2 0 4.2
2006 37.8 33.6 0 6.7 30.6 4.6 64.8 9.4 51.3 0.7 51.8 26.3 25.6 3.1 29.8 11.8 8.9 40.8 1.0 38.5 9.4 5.3 5.5 54.6 6.6 0 4.2
2007 37.8 10.1 0 6.7 30.6 4.6 64.8 9.4 51.3 0.7 51.8 26.3 25.6 3.1 29.8 11.8 8.9 40.8 1.0 38.5 9.4 5.3 5.5 54.6 6.6 0 4.2
2008 37.8 10.1 0 6.7 30.6 4.6 64.8 9.4 51.3 0.7 51.8 26.3 25.6 3.1 29.8 11.8 8.9 40.8 1.0 38.5 9.4 5.3 5.5 54.6 5.5 0 4.2
2009 35.8 10.1 0 2.2 27.1 1.3 63.4 6.4 51.3 0.7 51.2 17.5 24.6 3.1 29.8 11.8 4.1 37.2 1.0 38.5 2.0 0 5.5 54.6 5.5 0 2.9
2010 35.0 10.1 0 0.2 27.1 0.4 62.1 6.4 51.3 0.7 30.8 17.5 23.6 3.1 29.8 11.8 4.1 35.9 1.0 38.5 2.0 0 5.5 48.5 5.5 0 1.5
2011 34.2 10.1 0 0.1 26.3 0.4 62.1 5.8 51.3 0.7 20.6 17.5 23.6 3.1 29.8 11.8 4.1 35.9 1.0 38.5 2.0 0 5.5 44.7 5.5 0 1.5
2012 18.3 3.0 0 0 7.4 0 13.8 0 50.8 0.7 8.1 6.9 16.0 3.1 29.8 0 4.1 11.6 1.0 0 2.0 0 5.5 13.8 2.5 0 1.4
2013 12.7 3.0 0 0 7.4 0 11.1 0 18.0 0.7 0.6 6.9 2.2 3.1 29.8 0 4.1 9.8 1.0 0 2.0 0 5.5 6.4 1.3 0 1.4
2014 12.7 3.0 0 0 0 0 8.3 0 6.4 0 0.1 0 0.4 0 24.9 0 0.6 0.5 0 0 2.0 0 5.5 1.9 0.9 0 0.9
NA 12.7 0 0 0 0 0 8.2 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0 24.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.4 1.1 0 0 0.9
Table 6.18: Cumulave percentage of wheat area under bread wheat variees released in or aer a specic year – by province
125
CHAPTER VI: Adopon, Impacts and Seed Demand Analysis
Çorum
İzmir
Adıyaman
Afyon
Aksaray
Amasya
Ankara
Antalya
Balıkesir
Diyarbakır
Edirne
Erzurum
Eskişehir
Kütahya
Kahramanmaraş
Karaman
Kayseri
Konya
Manisa
Niğde
Nevşehir
Sivas
Samsun
Tekirdağ
Tokat
Van
Yozgat
Total
Cumulave
Landraces 0.37 0.01 0 0.01 0 0.24 0.03 0.31 0 0 0 0.24 0.17 0.06 0.28 0 0.09 0.03 0 0.02 0.06 0.42 0.05 0 0.35 2.04 0.04 5.64 100
1967 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94.36
1968 0.26 0 0 0.23 0.02 0.06 1.17 0.79 0 0.11 0 0.93 0 0.24 0 0.05 0.55 0.57 0 0.43 0.09 0.20 0.24 0 0.48 0 0.46 6.23 94.36
1970 00 0 0 0 0 0.03 0 0 0 0 0.34 0 0.04 0 0 0 0 0 0.04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.70 88.13
1976 0 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 0.31 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0.12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.26 87.43
1979 00 0 0.01 0.16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.15 0.09 0.07 0 0.15 0.06 0 0 0.50 0.08 0 0 0 0 0.14 1.16 87.17
1984 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 86.01
1985 00 0 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.11 0.01 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.19 86.00
1990 0.27 0 0 0 0 0 0.03 0 0 0 0 0.61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.41 85.81
1991 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.03 84.40
1994 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0 0 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.03 0.13 84.37
1995 00.04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.94 0 0 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0.54 84.24
1996 0 0 0 0.07 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.31 0.42 83.70
1997 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83.29
1998 0.52 0 0.07 0.01 0.09 0.12 0.62 0.01 0.29 1.68 0.02 0 2.14 0 0 0 0 0.81 0.03 0 0.79 0 0 0.03 0.08 0 2.30 10.62 83.28
1999 1.53 0.19 2.02 0.36 0.27 1.85 0 0 0.27 3.64 0.43 0 0.10 0.19 0 0 0 0.15 0.56 0 0 0.15 0.45 0.51 0.71 0 0.49 17.83 72.66
2000 0 0.02 0 0.30 0.60 0.02 0.13 0.11 0 0 0.02 0 0.10 0.61 0.07 0.03 1.80 1.77 0.02 0.07 0.68 5.28 0.60 0 0.12 0 0 9.07 54.83
2001 00.21 0 0.13 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.79 0.74 1.40 0.02 0 0.56 0.13 0 0.02 0 0.64 0.50 0 0.13 0 1.00 0.41 0 0 0.62 7.38 45.76
2002 0 0.03 0.03 0.12 0.03 0 0 0 0.04 0 0 0 0 0.10 0 0 0.05 2.47 0.33 0 0 0 0 0.10 0 0 0 2.54 38.38
2003 00 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.04 0 0 0.01 0 0 0.03 0 0 0 0.10 0 0 0.21 0 0 0 0.29 35.84
2004 0.18 0 0 0.92 0.16 0.21 1.99 0 0 0 0 0 0.12 0.13 0.02 0.51 0.33 1.07 0 0.53 0.01 0.99 0.13 0 1.26 0 1.28 7.81 35.55
2005 00 0 0 0 0.08 0 0 0 0 1.16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.04 0 0 0 0.12 0.87 0.09 0 0 2.26 27.74
2006 0 0.19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.28 25.49
2007 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.04 0 0 0.02 25.21
2008 0.10 0 0 0.11 0.07 0.09 0.17 0.08 0 0 0.02 0.26 0.05 0 0 0 0.16 0.46 0 0 0.19 0.40 0 0 0 0 0.08 2.04 25.19
2009 0.04 0 0 0.05 0 0.02 0.15 0 0 0 0.71 0 0.05 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0 0 0 0 0.28 0 0 0.08 1.62 23.15
2010 0.04 0 0 0 0.02 0 0 0.01 0 0 0.36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.18 0 0 0 0.64 21.53
2011 0.80 0.06 0 0 0.38 0.01 5.49 0.15 0.02 0 0.44 0.31 0.35 0 0 0.08 0 3.11 0 0.68 0 0 0 1.45 0.10 0 0.01 12.62 20.90
2012 0.28 0 0 0 0 0 0.32 0 0.97 0 0.26 0 0.64 0 0 0 0 0.23 0 0 0 0 0 0.35 0.04 0 0 3.06 8.27
2013 00 0 0 0.15 0 0.32 0 0.34 0.05 0.02 0.20 0.09 0.06 0.03 0 0.12 1.20 0.03 0 0 0 0 0.21 0.01 0 0.03 2.78 5.21
2014 0 0.02 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0.19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.06 0 0 0.05 0 0.03 0.04 0.03 0 0 0.41 2.43
NA 0.64 0 0 0 0 0 0.93 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 0 0.16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.12 0.05 0 0 0.05 2.02 2.02
Table 6.19: Area-weighted percentage of wheat area under bread wheat variees of dierent release dates – provincial and naonal gures
126
CHAPTER VI: Adopon, Impacts and Seed Demand Analysis
Çorum
İzmir
Adıyaman
Afyon
Aksaray
Amasya
Ankara
Antalya
Balıkesir
Diyarbakır
Edirne
Erzurum
Eskişehir
Kütahya
Kahramanmaraş
Karaman
Kayseri
Konya
Manisa
Niğde
Nevşehir
Sivas
Samsun
Tekirdağ
Tokat
Van
Yozgat
Landraces 100 100 100 100 100 0 100 100 100 100 0 0 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100
1967 100 100 100 100 75 0 100 100 100 100 0 0 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100
1968 100 100 100 100 75 0 100 100 100 100 0 0 0 100 78 100 100 100 100 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100
1970 100 100 100 100 75 0 100 100 100 100 0 0 0 100 78 100 100 100 100 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100
1976 100 100 100 100 75 0 100 100 100 100 0 0 0 100 78 100 100 100 100 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100
1979 100 100 100 100 75 0 100 72 100 100 0 0 0 100 78 100 100 100 74 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100
1984 100 100 100 100 75 0 100 72 100 100 0 0 0 100 78 100 100 100 74 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100
1985 100 100 100 100 75 0 100 72 100 100 0 0 0 100 78 100 100 100 74 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100
1990 100 100 100 100 75 0 100 72 100 100 0 0 0 100 78 100 100 100 74 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100
1991 100 100 100 100 75.12 0 100.00 71.60 100 100 0 0 0 100 77.90 100 100 100.00 73.68 0 100.00 0 0 0 0 0 100
1994 23.92 100 100 75.80 50.73 0 35.04 0.00 100 100 0 0 0 14.77 50.02 62.26 30.15 70.83 73.68 0 97.40 0 0 0 0 0 18.63
1995 23.92 100 100 75.80 50.73 0 35.04 0 100 100 0 0 0 14.77 50.02 62.26 30.15 70.83 73.68 0 97.40 0 0 0 0 0 18.63
1996 23.92 100 100 75.80 50.73 0 35.04 0 100 100 0 0 0 14.77 50.02 62.26 30.15 70.83 73.68 0 97.40 0 0 0 0 0 18.63
1997 23.92 100 100 75.80 50.73 0 35.04 0 100 100 0 0 0 14.77 50.02 62.26 30.15 70.83 73.68 0 97.40 0 0 0 0 0 18.63
1998 23.92 100 100 68.22 50.73 0 35.04 0 100 100 0 0 0 14.77 50.02 62.26 30.15 70.83 73.68 0 97.40 0 0 0 0 0 18.63
1999 23.92 100 100 68.22 50.73 0 35.04 0 100 100 0 0 0 14.77 50.02 62.26 30.15 70.83 73.68 0 97.40 0 0 0 0 0 18.63
2000 18.78 100 100 24.35 7.32 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 6.82 2.64 5.05 4.26 9.36 73.68 0 97.40 0 0 0 0 0 4.80
2001 8.80 100 100 24.35 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 6.82 1.20 0 0 5.00 73.68 0 45.83 0 0 0 0 0 0
2002 8.80 100 100 24.35 0 0 0 0 100 73.43 0 0 0 6.82 1.20 0 0 5.00 73.68 0 45.83 0 0 0 0 0 0
2003 8.80 100 0 24.35 0 0 0 0 100 40.55 0 0 0 6.82 1.20 0 0 5.00 73.68 0 45.83 0 0 0 0 0 0
2004 8.80 100 0 24.35 0 0 0 0 100 40.55 0 0 0 6.82 1.20 0 0 5.00 73.68 0 45.83 0 0 0 0 0 0
2005 8.80 100 0 24.35 0 0 0 0 100 40.55 0 0 0 6.82 1.20 0 0 5.00 73.68 0 45.83 0 0 0 0 0 0
2006 8.80 100 0 24.35 0 0 0 0 100 40.55 0 0 0 6.82 1.20 0 0 5.00 73.68 0 45.83 0 0 0 0 0 0
2007 8.80 100 0 24.35 0 0 0 0 100 40.55 0 0 0 6.82 1.20 0 0 5.00 73.68 0 45.83 0 0 0 0 0 0
2008 8.80 100 0 24.35 0 0 0 0 0 40.55 0 0 0 6.82 1.20 0 0 5.00 73.68 0 45.83 0 0 0 0 0 0
2009 8.80 100 0 24.35 0 0 0 0 0 29.48 0 0 0 6.82 1.20 0 0 5.00 73.68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2010 0 100 0 3.68 0 0 0 0 0 29.48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.18 73.68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2011 0 100 0 3.68 0 0 0 0 0 29.48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.18 73.68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2012 0 100 0 3.68 0 0 0 0 0 18.20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.18 73.68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2013 0 100 0 3.68 0 0 0 0 0 18.20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.18 73.68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2014 0 100 0 3.68 0 0 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 73.68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NA 0 100 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0.34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 73.68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table 6.20: Cumulave percentage of wheat area under durum wheat variees released in or aer a specic year – by province
127
CHAPTER VI: Adopon, Impacts and Seed Demand Analysis
Çorum
İzmir
Adıyaman
Afyon
Aksaray
Amasya
Ankara
Antalya
Balıkesir
Diyarbakır
Edirne
Erzurum
Eskişehir
Kütahya
Kahramanmaraş
Karaman
Kayseri
Konya
Manisa
Niğde
Nevşehir
Sivas
Samsun
Tekirdağ
Tokat
Van
Yozgat
Total
Cumulave
Landraces 0 0 0 0 0.15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.15 100
1967 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.39 99.85
1968 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94.46
1970 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94.46
1976 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.11 94.46
1979 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94.35
1984 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94.35
1985 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94.35
1990 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94.35
1991 1.89 0 0 1.85 0.15 0 1 0.34 0 0 0 0 0 6.05 3.35 3.08 2.00 6.66 0 0 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 8.15 29.51 94.35
1994 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64.83
1995 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0