Biological control in pest management in Turkey: Comparison of the attributes of participant and non-participant greenhouse farmers in government-subsidized biological control practices

IF 0.6 Q4 FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

Future of Food: Journal on Food, Agriculture and Society Pub Date : 2019-11-29 DOI:10.17170/KOBRA-20190709594

H. Yılmaz, Zuhal Asli Tanc

{"title":"Biological control in pest management in Turkey: Comparison of the attributes of participant and non-participant greenhouse farmers in government-subsidized biological control practices","authors":"H. Yılmaz, Zuhal Asli Tanc","doi":"10.17170/KOBRA-20190709594","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The adoption of biological control methods is increasing in crop production due to concerns and awareness of consumers about food safety and pesticide residue conundrum. Biological control methods are a key component in pest management practices as they minimize the usage of pesticides, hence create less environmental and health problems. Biological control practices have been supported in Turkey since the year 2010 to ensure economical greenhouse production and to reduce the consumption of pesticides for sustainable agricultural production. This solved the pesticide residue conundrum in fresh fruits and vegetables both domestically consumed and exported. The main objective of this study was to compare the attributes of the participant and non-participant farmers in government-subsidized biological control practices for pest management in greenhouse pepper cultivation. The data used in this study were collected from 84 greenhouse growers by using a face-to-face interview in Kas district, Antalya province, in the Mediterranean coastal region of Turkey. The results show a statistically highly significant (p<0.05) relationship between the government-subsidized biological control implemented farms and non-implemented farms with respect to age of farmers, educational level, retirement status of farmers, number of workers, use of agricultural credit, greenhouse working experience, pepper yield, type of greenhouse covering, type of greenhouse ventilation, crop production system, internet usage, farmers association membership, and so on. The results also show that farmers believe biological control practices improve crop quality and yield as well as improve the environment and human health. The agricultural extension agencies and government subsidy policy played an important role in motivating farmers to intensify biological control practices on their farms. \nKeywords: biological control, greenhouse production, government policy, pest management, sustainability, sweet pepper, Turkey \nData of the article \nFirst received: 29 November 2018 | Last revision received: 05 September 2019Accepted: 07 September 2019 | Published online: 29 November 2019 doi:10.17170/kobra-20190709594 \nReferences \nAbdollahzadeh G, Sharifzadeh MS, Damalas CA (2015) Perceptions of the beneficial and harmful effects of pesticides among Iranian rice growers influence the adoption of biological control. Crop Prot. 75: 124–131 \nAhangama D, Gilstrap FE (2007) Constraints to the implementation of biological control in Sri Lanka, Biocontrol Sci Techn, 17 (8): 773-795 \nBale JS, Van Lenteren JC, Bigler F (2008) Biological control and sustainable food production. Philos Trans R Soc London [Biol], 363 (1492): 761–776. \nCiccarese, L. & Silli, V. (2016). The role of organic farming for food security: local nexus with a global view. Future of Food: Journal on Food, Agriculture and Society, 4(1), 56-67. \nEC (2013) In order to evaluate controls of pesticides in food of plant origin intended for export to the European union. European Commission, Health and Consumers Directorate-General. Final Report af an Audit, Carried out in, Turkey. DG(SANCO) 2013-6684 - MR FINAL \nErkilic L, Demirbas H (2007) Biological control of citrus insect pests in Turkey. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources. (Abbreviation unknown), 2 (056): 1-6 https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c232/87abf066548b7134f7a0fbc0c7ffc625c79c.pdf \nFAO (2017) Good Agricultural Practices for greenhouse vegetable production in the South East European countries, Principles for sustainable intensification of smallholder farms, FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper, Food and Agriculture Organization of The United Nations, Rome, 2017n.230. ISSN 2070-2515. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6787e.pdf \nIsin S, Yildirim I, (2007) Fruit-growers' perceptions on the harmful effects of pesticides and their reflection on practices: the case of Kemalpasa, Turkey. Crop Prot. 26, 917-922https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261219406002250 \nKoseoglu M, Yamak R (2008). Uygulamali Istatistik. Celepler Matbaacilik, 3. Baski. Trabzon. \nPretty, J., Bharucha, Z.P., (2015). Integrated Pest Management for Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture in Asia and Africa. Insects (6): 152-182. doi:10.3390/insects6010152 \nSharma A, Diwevidi VD, Singh S, Pawar KK, Jerman M, Singh LB, Singh S, Srivastawa D (2013) Biological Control and its Important in Agriculture. IJBB, 4 (3): 175-180 https://www.ripublication.com/ijbbr_spl/ijbbrv4n3spl_03.pdf \nTOJ (2017) Bitkisel Uretimde Biyolojik ve/veya Biyoteknik Mucadele Destekleme Odemesi Uygulama Tebligi\" in 2017. Turkish Official Journal (TOJ, Publication date: 17.09.2017, number: 30183, Ankara, 2017. http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2017/09/20170917.pdf \nTopakci N, Kececi M (2017) The development of greenhouse biological control application in Turkey: From research to practice the example of Antalya. J. Turk. Bio Cont. 8 (2): 161- 174 http://www.biyolojikmucadele.org.tr/uploads/2017-2-161-174.pdf \nTURKSTAT (2017) Turkish Statistical Institute, Crop Production Statistics. https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/medas/?kn=92&locale=tr \nYamane T (2001) Basic Sampling Methods. In: Translators, Esin, A., M.A. Bakir, C. Aydin and E. Gurbuzsel (Eds.). Literatur Publishing, Istanbul. 2001.","PeriodicalId":12705,"journal":{"name":"Future of Food: Journal on Food, Agriculture and Society","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Future of Food: Journal on Food, Agriculture and Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17170/KOBRA-20190709594","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 4

Abstract

The adoption of biological control methods is increasing in crop production due to concerns and awareness of consumers about food safety and pesticide residue conundrum. Biological control methods are a key component in pest management practices as they minimize the usage of pesticides, hence create less environmental and health problems. Biological control practices have been supported in Turkey since the year 2010 to ensure economical greenhouse production and to reduce the consumption of pesticides for sustainable agricultural production. This solved the pesticide residue conundrum in fresh fruits and vegetables both domestically consumed and exported. The main objective of this study was to compare the attributes of the participant and non-participant farmers in government-subsidized biological control practices for pest management in greenhouse pepper cultivation. The data used in this study were collected from 84 greenhouse growers by using a face-to-face interview in Kas district, Antalya province, in the Mediterranean coastal region of Turkey. The results show a statistically highly significant (p<0.05) relationship between the government-subsidized biological control implemented farms and non-implemented farms with respect to age of farmers, educational level, retirement status of farmers, number of workers, use of agricultural credit, greenhouse working experience, pepper yield, type of greenhouse covering, type of greenhouse ventilation, crop production system, internet usage, farmers association membership, and so on. The results also show that farmers believe biological control practices improve crop quality and yield as well as improve the environment and human health. The agricultural extension agencies and government subsidy policy played an important role in motivating farmers to intensify biological control practices on their farms. Keywords: biological control, greenhouse production, government policy, pest management, sustainability, sweet pepper, Turkey Data of the article First received: 29 November 2018 | Last revision received: 05 September 2019Accepted: 07 September 2019 | Published online: 29 November 2019 doi:10.17170/kobra-20190709594 References Abdollahzadeh G, Sharifzadeh MS, Damalas CA (2015) Perceptions of the beneficial and harmful effects of pesticides among Iranian rice growers influence the adoption of biological control. Crop Prot. 75: 124–131 Ahangama D, Gilstrap FE (2007) Constraints to the implementation of biological control in Sri Lanka, Biocontrol Sci Techn, 17 (8): 773-795 Bale JS, Van Lenteren JC, Bigler F (2008) Biological control and sustainable food production. Philos Trans R Soc London [Biol], 363 (1492): 761–776. Ciccarese, L. & Silli, V. (2016). The role of organic farming for food security: local nexus with a global view. Future of Food: Journal on Food, Agriculture and Society, 4(1), 56-67. EC (2013) In order to evaluate controls of pesticides in food of plant origin intended for export to the European union. European Commission, Health and Consumers Directorate-General. Final Report af an Audit, Carried out in, Turkey. DG(SANCO) 2013-6684 - MR FINAL Erkilic L, Demirbas H (2007) Biological control of citrus insect pests in Turkey. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources. (Abbreviation unknown), 2 (056): 1-6 https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c232/87abf066548b7134f7a0fbc0c7ffc625c79c.pdf FAO (2017) Good Agricultural Practices for greenhouse vegetable production in the South East European countries, Principles for sustainable intensification of smallholder farms, FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper, Food and Agriculture Organization of The United Nations, Rome, 2017n.230. ISSN 2070-2515. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6787e.pdf Isin S, Yildirim I, (2007) Fruit-growers' perceptions on the harmful effects of pesticides and their reflection on practices: the case of Kemalpasa, Turkey. Crop Prot. 26, 917-922https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261219406002250 Koseoglu M, Yamak R (2008). Uygulamali Istatistik. Celepler Matbaacilik, 3. Baski. Trabzon. Pretty, J., Bharucha, Z.P., (2015). Integrated Pest Management for Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture in Asia and Africa. Insects (6): 152-182. doi:10.3390/insects6010152 Sharma A, Diwevidi VD, Singh S, Pawar KK, Jerman M, Singh LB, Singh S, Srivastawa D (2013) Biological Control and its Important in Agriculture. IJBB, 4 (3): 175-180 https://www.ripublication.com/ijbbr_spl/ijbbrv4n3spl_03.pdf TOJ (2017) Bitkisel Uretimde Biyolojik ve/veya Biyoteknik Mucadele Destekleme Odemesi Uygulama Tebligi" in 2017. Turkish Official Journal (TOJ, Publication date: 17.09.2017, number: 30183, Ankara, 2017. http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2017/09/20170917.pdf Topakci N, Kececi M (2017) The development of greenhouse biological control application in Turkey: From research to practice the example of Antalya. J. Turk. Bio Cont. 8 (2): 161- 174 http://www.biyolojikmucadele.org.tr/uploads/2017-2-161-174.pdf TURKSTAT (2017) Turkish Statistical Institute, Crop Production Statistics. https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/medas/?kn=92&locale=tr Yamane T (2001) Basic Sampling Methods. In: Translators, Esin, A., M.A. Bakir, C. Aydin and E. Gurbuzsel (Eds.). Literatur Publishing, Istanbul. 2001.

查看原文本刊更多论文

土耳其害虫管理中的生物控制：政府补贴生物控制实践中参与和非参与温室农户属性的比较

由于消费者对食品安全和农药残留难题的担忧和认识，作物生产中越来越多地采用生物控制方法。生物防治方法是害虫管理实践的一个关键组成部分，因为它们最大限度地减少了杀虫剂的使用，从而减少了环境和健康问题。自2010年以来，土耳其一直支持生物控制做法，以确保经济的温室生产，并减少可持续农业生产的农药消费。这解决了国内消费和出口新鲜水果和蔬菜中的农药残留难题。本研究的主要目的是比较政府补贴的温室辣椒种植有害生物防治措施中参与和非参与农民的属性。本研究中使用的数据是通过对土耳其地中海沿岸安塔利亚省卡斯区84名温室种植者的面对面采访收集的。结果显示，政府补贴的生物控制实施农场和非实施农场在农民年龄、教育水平、农民退休状况、工人数量、农业信贷使用、温室工作经验、辣椒产量、温室覆盖类型、，研究结果还表明，农民相信生物控制措施可以提高作物质量和产量，改善环境和人类健康。农业推广机构和政府补贴政策在激励农民加强农场生物控制方面发挥了重要作用。关键词：生物控制，温室生产，政府政策，害虫管理，可持续性，甜椒，土耳其文章数据首次收到：2018年11月29日|最后一次修订收到：2019年9月5日接受：2019年09月07日|在线发布：2019年11月28日doi:10.17170/kobra-20190709594参考文献Abdollahzadeh G，Sharifzadeh MS，Damalas CA（2015）伊朗水稻种植者对杀虫剂有益和有害影响的认识影响了生物控制的采用。作物保护。75:124-131 Ahangama D，Gilstrap FE（2007）《斯里兰卡实施生物控制的限制》，《生物控制科学技术》，17（8）：773-795 Bale JS，Van Lenteren JC，Bigler F（2008）《生物控制与可持续粮食生产》。Philos Trans R Soc London[Biol]，363（1492）：761–776。Ciccarese，L.和Silli，V.（2016）。有机农业对粮食安全的作用：从全球角度看地方关系。《食品的未来：食品、农业和社会杂志》，4（1），56-67。EC（2013），旨在评估出口至欧盟的植物源性食品中的农药控制。欧盟委员会，卫生和消费者总局。审计的最终报告，在土耳其进行。DG（SANCO）2013-6684-MR FINAL Erkilic L，Demirbas H（2007）土耳其柑橘害虫的生物防治。CAB评论：农业、兽医科学、营养和自然资源展望。（缩写未知），2（056）：1-6https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c232/87abf066548b7134f7a0fbc0c7ffc625c79c.pdf粮农组织（2017）《东南欧国家温室蔬菜生产良好农业规范》，《小农户可持续集约化原则》，粮农组织植物生产和保护文件，联合国粮食及农业组织，罗马，2017n.230。ISSN 2070-2515。http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6787e.pdfIsin S，Yildirim I，（2007）果农对杀虫剂有害影响的看法及其对实践的反思：以土耳其凯马尔帕萨为例。作物保护。917-922年https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261219406002250Koseoglu M，Yamak R（2008）。Uygulamali Istatistik。Celepler Matbaacilik，3岁。巴斯基。特拉布宗。Pretty，J.，Bharucha，Z.P.，（2015）。病虫害综合管理促进亚洲和非洲农业可持续集约化。昆虫（6）：152-182。doi:10.3390/inects601052 Sharma A，Diwevidi VD，Singh S，Pawar KK，Jerman M，Singh LB，Singh S.，Srivastawa D（2013）《生物控制及其在农业中的重要性》。IJBB，4（3）：175-180https://www.ripublication.com/ijbbr_spl/ijbbrv4n3spl_03.pdfTOJ（2017）Bitkisel Uretimde Biyolojik ve/veya Biyoteknik Mucadele Destekleme Odemesi Uygulama Tebligi“2017。土耳其官方期刊（TOJ，出版日期：2017年9月17日，编号：30183，安卡拉，2017年。http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2017/09/20170917.pdfTopakci N，Kececi M（2017）土耳其温室生物控制应用的发展：从研究到实践——以安塔利亚为例。J.特克。生物续8（2）：161-174http://www. biyolojikmucadele.org.tr/uploads/2017-2-161-174.pdf TURKSTAT（2017）土耳其统计研究所，作物生产统计。https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/medas/?kn=92&locale=trYamane T（2001）《基本采样方法》。In：译者，Esin，A.，M.A.Bakir，C.Aydin和E.Gurbuzsel（编辑）。文学出版社，伊斯坦布尔。2001 biyolojikmucadele.org.tr/uploads/2017-2-161-174.pdf TURKSTAT（2017）土耳其统计研究所，作物生产统计。https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/medas/?kn=92&locale=trYamane T（2001）《基本采样方法》。In：译者，Esin，A.，M.A.Bakir，C.Aydin和E.Gurbuzsel（编辑）。文学出版社，伊斯坦布尔。2001

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Future of Food: Journal on Food, Agriculture and Society FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY-

CiteScore

1.10

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Future of Food: Journal on Food, Agriculture & Society (FOFJ) was founded in 2012 in order to provide a platform for scientific debate on agriculture and food-related themes with the goal of a sustainable future for people and planet. The journal is aimed at contributing to debates on sustainable food production and consumption, and is most interested in tackling the most important challenges to the global agri-food system, such as hunger and malnutrition, depletion of natural resources, climate change, threats to biodiversity, and inequity in the agrarian sphere. The journal understands itself as a multi-disciplinary effort and is especially designed to foster interaction between different disciplines and approaches. Hence it invites inputs from social and natural sciences, arts and humanities, academics and scholar-activists, civil society and agroecology practitioners. The journal is attempting to reach its goal by providing open access to readers and allowing contributions without submission fees or publication fees. Contributors are kindly asked to keep in mind that the journal is a non-profit endeavour and that staff time is limited. The journal cannot provide guarantees or financial support for any submission and cannot accept legal responsibility for any stage of the submission process. The Editorial Board is made up by a range of international experts who devote time and energy to peer review and its members deserve gratitude and recognition for their excellent work. All communication between authors, editors, reviewers and editorial staff is conducted in an atmosphere of mutual respect. The journal will not tolerate racism, religious, ethnic and national chauvinism, misogynous and hate language and reserves the right to bar anyone who disrespects these principles from using the platform.