Year 2020, Volume 23 , Issue 1, Pages 221 - 229 2020-02-28

The Relationships Between Carrot Marketing Costs, Strategies and Scales of Enterprises in Hatay, Turkey
Comparison of Carrot (Daucus carota L.) Producing Farms with regards to Marketing Structures, Costs and Applications in Hatay Province

Nuran TAPKI [1] , Aybüke KAYA [2] , Erdal DAĞISTAN [3] , Dilek BOSTAN BUDAK [4]


Bu çalışmanın temel amacı, havuç üreten işletmelerde işletme büyüklükleri ile pazarlama masrafları ve stratejileri arasındaki ilişkileri belirlemektir. İşletmelerin genelinde ortalama havuç üretim alanı 8.253 ha, havuç verimi 31366 kg/ha, üretim maliyeti 14911 $ ve satış geliri 28859 $ olarak belirlenmiştir. İşletmeler genelinde 1 kg havucun pazarlanması için 0.0031625 $ işçilik, 0.005085 $ nakliye, 0.00138 $ soğuk hava deposunda muhafaza ve 0.0022625 $’ da paketleme masrafı olmak üzere toplamda 0.001189 $ pazarlama masrafı yapılmıştır. Pazarlama masraf, birinci grup işletmelerde 0.0121, ikinci grup işletmelerde 0.0107 ve üçüncü grup işletmelerde ise 0.0135 $ olarak gerçekleşmiştir. Araştırma sonuçları, havuç üreten işletmelerde üretimi ve pazarlama gücünü artırmak ve girdi maliyetlerini düşürebilmek; bir çiftçi örgütü altında bir araya gelmeleri, ürünlerini doğrudan tüketicilere ulaştırabilmeleri, soğuk hava deposu kapasitesinin artırılması, destek miktarı ve çeşitliliğinin (markalaşma ve promosyon gibi) artırılması, havucun katma değeri yüksek ürünlere dönüştürülmesi gerektiğini ortaya koymuştur. 

The main objective of this study was to examine the relationships between marketing costs, applications and scales of the carrot farms in Hatay province. The average carrot cultivation area, carrot yield, production costs, sales revenues, record-keeping rate, members of farmers’ organization rate were 8.253 ha, 31366 kg/ha, 14911 US$, 28859 US$, %46.23, %14 in the all farms, respectively. Labor, transportation, storage and packaging costs in all farms were calculated as 0.0031625, 0.005085, 0.00138 and 0.0022625 US$, respectively. The average total marketing cost in all farms was determined as 0.001189 US$. The marketing costs for the first, second and third group farms were calculated as 0.0121, 0.0107 and 0.0135 US$, respectively. The research recommended that the farms should be subsidized so that they can increase production, improve their market share and decrease their input costs. Farmers should be organized under farmers’ organization. Marketing channels should be created to ensure direct carrots deliveries to consumers resulting increase in revenues. Increasing the number and capacity of cold storage should be encouraged. Farmers should be subsidized to minimize their production expenses. The support to be provided by various stakeholders should involve branding and promotion in carrot production. Producers should be encouraged to process carrot as high value-added products. 

  • Acar M, 2013. Production Costs, Profitability Level and Determination of Marketing Structure in Carrot Breeding Farms in Konya Province. Suleyman Demirel University, Natural and Applied Sciences Institute, Department of Agricultural Economics, Master Thesis, Isparta, Turkey, 2013.
  • Ahmad T, Amjad M, Nawaz A, Iqbal Q, Iqbal J, 2012. Socio-economic study of carrot cultivation at farm level in the Punjab province of Pakistan. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 7(6): 867-875.
  • Anonymous, 2018a. Statistics of Plant Production. Turkish Statistical Institute. http://www.tüik.gov.tr. (Accessed on 13 January, 2018).
  • Anonymous, 2018b. Plant production statistics. T.C. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Hatay Provincial Directorate of Agriculture and Forestry. https:// hatay.tarimorman.gov.tr. (Accessed on 13 January, 2018).
  • Anoymous, 2019a. Production Guidelines for Carrot. Agriculture. Forestry and Fisheries Republic of South Africa. http://www.nda.agric.za/docs/ Brochures/prodGuideCarrot.pdf (Accessed on 03 January, 2019).
  • Anonymous, 2019b. Production manual of carrots (Daucus carota L.). http://C:/Users/hpelitebook/Downloads/carrot-manual.pdf. (Accessed on 20 September, 2019).
  • Baranski R, Grzebelus D, Czeladzka B, Zukowska E, Simon PW, Michalik B, 2003. Pływ metody oznaczania na różnice w zawartości karotenów w odmianachmarchwi. Folia Horticulture, 1: 41–43.
  • Dere HE, 2006. A Research on Agricultural Marketing Problems and Sultandagi Cherry. Afyon Kocatepe University, Social Sciences Institute, Master Thesis, 117 p, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey.
  • Emeksiz F, Albayrak M, Güneş E, Özçelik A, Özer OO, Taşdan K, 2019. Marketing Channels of Agricultural Products in Turkey. Turkey Chamber of Agricultural Engineers Technical Conference. http//www.zmo.org.tr/resimler/ekler/7968ad196a5085f ek.pdf. (Accessed on 28 January, 2019).
  • FAO, 2017. The Food and Agriculture Organization of The United Nations (FAO). http://www.fao.org/faostat/. (Accessed on 28 December, 2018).
  • Güneş T, 1996. Agricultural Marketing. Ankara University Faculty of Agriculture Publications, No:1467, Ankara, Turkey.
  • İnan İH, 2016. Agricultural Economics and Management. The first edition. Ideal Culture Publishing. 415 p, Turkey.
  • Khokhar KM, 2019. Carrot production practices in Pakistan and future strategies. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281111515_ Carrot_production_practices_in_ Pakistan_and_future_strategies. (Accessed on 03 January, 2019).
  • McLeod SA, 2008. Likert scale. Retrieved from https://www.simplypsychology.org/likert-scale.html (Accessed on 08 September 2019)
  • Noori NM, 2019. Carrot production. https://afghanag.ucdavis.edu/fruits-nuts-vegetables/Vegetables/files/carrots/exthortafgcarrotproductioneastregideappt.pdf. (Accessed on 03 January, 2019).
  • Nunez J, Hartz T, Suslow T, Mcgiffen M, Natwick ET, 2008. Carrot Production in California. University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, publication no: 7226.
  • Ozkan B, Yilmaz S, Yılmaz I, 1999. Fresh fruit and vegetable marketing in Turkey: Problems and solutions. Akdeniz University Journal of Agriculture Faculty, 12 (1), 157-168.
  • Simon PW, 1992. Genetic improvement of vegetable carotene content. Biotechnology and Nutrition, Third International Symposium, 1: 293–300.
  • SPSS 2015. SPSS for Windows, Version 22,0. SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL., USA.
  • Stolarczyk J, Janick J, 2011. Carrot: History and Iconography. Chronica Horticulturae, 51(2): 13-18.
  • Szwejkowska B, Winnicki T, Duchovskis P, 2009. Scientific works of the Lithuanian Institute of Horticulture and Lithuanian University of Agriculture. Sodınınkyste Ir Darzininkyste, 28(4): 489-497.
  • Yamane T, 1967. Elementary sampling theory. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., US.
  • Yılmaz İ, Aydoğmuş F, 2007. Cooperatives and producer associations in the production and marketing of fresh vegetables and fruits. Basic problems of cooperatives and ways of solutions in Turkey. Gazi University COOP-CEN 2007 National Cooperatives Symposium, 25-26 May 2007, 151-162, Ankara, Turkey.
  • Yilmaz S, Yilmaz I, 2008. Evaluation of the wholesale market system for fresh fruits and vegetables in Turkey: A case study from Antalya Metropolitan Municipality. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science, 36 (2), 85-95.
  • Yilmaz I, Ozalp A, Yilmaz S, 2015. Marketing structure of pomegranate in Turkey. Acta Horticulturae, 1089, 205-212. DOI: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2015.1089.25.
  • Yurdakul O, 2014. Agricultural Products Marketing. Çukurova University, Faculty of Agriculture General Publication Number. 127, Textbooks Publication Number: A-39, 145 p, Adana, Turkey.
Primary Language en
Subjects Agriculture
Journal Section RESEARCH ARTICLE
Authors

Orcid: 0000-0001-5044-795X
Author: Nuran TAPKI (Primary Author)
Institution: Hatay Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi, Ziraat Fakültesi, Tarım Ekonomisi Bölümü
Country: Turkey


Orcid: 0000-0002-6866-1951
Author: Aybüke KAYA
Institution: Hatay Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi, Ziraat Fakültesi, Tarım Ekonomisi Bölümü
Country: Turkey


Orcid: 0000-0003-0987-9034
Author: Erdal DAĞISTAN
Institution: HATAY MUSTAFA KEMAL ÜNİVERSİTESİ, ZİRAAT FAKÜLTESİ, TARIM EKONOMİSİ BÖLÜMÜ, TARIM İŞLETMECİLİĞİ ANABİLİM DALI
Country: Turkey


Orcid: 0000-0001-6318-698X
Author: Dilek BOSTAN BUDAK
Institution: ÇUKUROVA ÜNİVERSİTESİ, ZİRAAT FAKÜLTESİ, TARIM EKONOMİSİ BÖLÜMÜ
Country: Turkey


Supporting Institution Hatay Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Koordinatörlüğü
Project Number 16699
Thanks Hatay Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Koordinatörlüğüne maddi desteklerinden dolayı çok teşekkür ederiz.
Dates

Application Date : June 28, 2019
Acceptance Date : October 24, 2019
Publication Date : February 28, 2020

APA TAPKI, N , KAYA, A , DAĞISTAN, E , BOSTAN BUDAK, D . (2020). Comparison of Carrot (Daucus carota L.) Producing Farms with regards to Marketing Structures, Costs and Applications in Hatay Province. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Tarım ve Doğa Dergisi , 23 (1) , 221-229 . DOI: 10.18016/ksutarimdoga.vi.582399