Kurdistan Regional Government Ministry of Higher Education & Scientific Research University of Sulaimani College of Agricultural Sciences
AN ANALYSIS OF CROP PRODUCTION SECTOR; A CASE STUDY OF THE GOVERNORATES OF SULAIMANI AND HALABJA A Thesis Submitted to the Council of the College of Agricultural Sciences at the University of Sulaimani in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Agribusiness and Rural Development (Management in Agriculture) By
Sara Burhan Mohammed B.Sc. in Crops Science (2011), College of Agricultural Sciences, University of Sulaimani Supervisors
Dr. Abid Ali Hassan Al-Doski Assistant Professor 2717 K.
Dr. Rezhen Harun Mohammed Lecturer 2017 A.D
Supervisor Certification
I certify that this thesis was prepared under my supervision at the University of Sulaimani, College of Agricultural Sciences, as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Agribusiness and Rural Development – Management in Agriculture.
Dr. Abid Ali Hassan Al-Doski
Dr. Rezhen Harun Mohammed
Supervisor
Supervisor
Assistant Professor
Lecturer
25 / 3 / 2017
25 / 3 / 2017
In view of the available recommendation, I forward this Thesis/Dissertation for debate by the examining committee.
Dr. Rezhen Harun Mohammed Lecturer Head of Agribusiness and Rural Development College of Agricultural Sciences 25 / 3 / 2017
Linguistic Evaluation Certification
I hereby certify that this Thesis prepared by Sara Burhan Mohammed, has been read and checked. The grammatical, spelling mistakes and writing structuring were indicated, as the candidate is required to make the adequate corrections. After the second reading, I found that the candidate has amended all the indicated mistakes. Therefore, I certify that this Thesis is ready to be submitted.
Dr. Nariman Salih Ahmad Assistant Professor Crops Science, College of Agricultural Sciences, University of Sulaimani 25 / 3 / 2017
Examining Committee Certification We certify that we have read this thesis and discussed with the Student (Sara Burhan Mohammed) in the content and the relevant. In our opinion it deserved to be accepted for granting the degree of Master of Science in Agribusiness and Rural Development, Management in Agriculture.
Dr. Felix Arion Professor Faculty of Horticulture USAMV-CLUJ 14 / 5 / 2017
(Chairman) Dr. Tahir Mohammad Laeq Assistant Professor
Dr. Shang Haseeb Abdulqadr Lecturer
College of Agricultural Sciences University of Sulaimani 14 / 5 / 2017
College of Agricultural Sciences University of Sulaimani 14 / 5 / 2017
(Member)
(Member)
Dr. Abid Ali Hassan Al-Doski Assistant Professor
Dr. Rezhen Harun Mohammed Lecturer
College of Agriculture and Forestry University of Duhok 14 / 5 / 2017
College of Agricultural Sciences University of Sulaimani 14 / 5 / 2017
(Supervisor-Member)
(Supervisor-Member)
Approved by the Council of the College of Agricultural Sciences
Dr. Karzan Tofiq Mahmood Assistant Professor 14 / 5 / 2017 (The Dean)
بسم
ميحرلا نمحرلا هللا
الَّ ِذي َخلَ َق ِِن فَ ُه َو يَ ْه ِدي ِن (َ )87والَّ ِذي ُه َو يُطْ ِع ُم ِِن ِ ِ ِ ِ ت ض ر م ا ذ إ و ) 87 ( ني ق َويَ ْس ََ َ ْ ُ فَ ُه َو يَ ْش ِف ِ ني ()78 الشعراء
صدق هللا العظيم
Dedication This thesis is dedicated to…. My supervisor Dr. Rezhen Harun…. My dearest teachers, (Dr. Iulia Muresan)…. My soul father (Burhan) who is the backbone of me and sweetest mother (Gelass) who educated me the patios in the hardest time, and my lovely sister (Ale), also my brother (Ahmed) …. My best friend (Kazhaw)…. My best person (Bahadin) who makes every step of the work easier…. My brilliant friends (Tarza, Parez, Parisa)….
SARA
Acknowledgements Foremost, I want to thank God for giving me the strength to finish this study. I would like to express the deep appreciation and special thanks to my supervisor Dr. Rezhen Harun who has the attitude and substance of genius and an excitement in regard to teaching. Without his guidance and persistent help this dissertation would not have possible. Great thanks also to the presidency of Sulaimani University and the College of Agricultural Science especially the Dean of the College Dr. Karzan Tofiq Mahmood. Grateful thanks to Dr. Iulia Muresan to her great help and encouragement she offered during my research work. Special thanks to Professor Dr. Felix A., Dr. Abid A., Dr. Tahir L., Dr. Shang H. and Dr. Chnoor H. I also extend my gratefulness to Mr. Alan, Directors of the Directorates of Agricultural Extension of Sulaimani; also Mr. Rzgar Directors of Directorates of Agricultural Planning of Sulaimani, and Mr. Hassan Directors of Directorates of Statistical Office of Sulaimani, finally Mr. Star Directors of Directorates of Agriculture of Halabja. Finally I wish to appreciate the efforts of my best friends, Mr. Bandy, Ms. Bayan, Mr. Oral M., and Mr. Omed Q. Mr. Mohamad and Ms. Kocher who helped me by their brilliant information. Sara Burhan Mohammed
SUMMARY This study concluded that; Global agricultural production is demanded, for arising out of population and income growth almost tripled, and it has been successful in meeting the increased in demand on the planet today. The Kurdistan regional government is capable of producing a wide range of agricultural products. Nowadays, agriculture and food production declined significantly due to several factors in the last decades. This study aimed to provide a clear perception to local, regional and national authorities, policy makers and researchers information about the various influences that can unite the farmers in managing crop production in the rural communities for both Governorates of Sulaimani and Halabja, to improve the understanding of the management of crop production value. The assumption of this investigation was comprising that farmers deal with a high lack of agricultural inputs, the extension programs are not enough adopted to the needs of the farmers, and the productivity of the main crops are not different in the two governorates. Both quantitative and qualitative data for the period 2006-2015 was used in the analysis of current study. However; two main sources of information were used during this research: secondary and primary data. Primary data was collected using a questionnaire implemented in both Sulaimani and Halabja governorates. About 138 farmers were interviewed, conducting a face-to-face interview, in 13 districts and 36 sub districts and 94 villages in the rural areas of both governorate; 125 farmers were in Sulaimani governorate, and only 13 farmers in Halabja governorate. Simple random sampling was conducted without replacement (continuous variable) to obtain more reliable information with a relative error of 2 %, and 99 % confidence interval during the 2015 December to 2016 March. The survey conducted here was based on a questionnaire due to its perception of agriculture situation, knowledge and behavior. Eventually, the agricultural sector suffering from lacks of farmers graduated from Agricultural Colleges. This sector is facing many impediments of natural and humanity obstacles (drought, financial crisis, pests, lacks of fertilizer, lacks of production, flooding, climate change, no marketing plan) having a negative impact on agricultural production where by the development in agricultural system will be hindered. Thus, many problems face the producer in order to obtain agricultural inputs in the study area: such as; seed, fertilizer, water sources for irrigation. Chi-square tests conducted that; there is no significant relationship between the products of wheat, barley, chickpea, tomato, cucumber and okra yield and independent variable (governorate, i
Summary
seed type, the use of pesticide, education, drought, and pests), while significant relationship was found between wheat yield and fertilizer types. Correlation tests were also conducted between the production and price selling; as significant correlation was recorded between wheat and chickpea productions and their selling prices. However, the correlation was made between production and quantity sold on a side and between total area and quantity sold on the other side. While there is a correlation coefficient between the production of each crop (wheat, barley, tomato, cucumber and okra) production and their quantity
sold, likewise there is a correlation coefficient between total area and quantity sold of wheat and tomato. Correlation coefficient was tested for production and total area. There is a significant correlation coefficient between wheat, barley, and tomato production and their total area; however no significant correlation was realized between chickpea, cucumber, and okra production, and their total area in both of the study area. Ultimately, selling products was the last process of the production. The major problems of the respondents (producers) were non- marketing plan and importing both winter and summer productions from abroad. Likewise non-tax policy on the imported products made them to be sold with lower price compared to local products such as tomato, cucumber. Moreover, depending on late maturing varieties, it’s also another factor of local market crises in both of the study area.
ii
List of Contents SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... i List of Content…………………………………………………………………………………….iii List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………………...vi List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………………...viii List of Equation…………………………………………………………………………………...ix List of Appendices…………………………………………………………………………………x List of Abbreviations…………...…………………………………………………………………xi Chapter One: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Preface ................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Mission………………………………………………………………………………….…...3 1.3 Objectives…………………………………………………………………………………...3 1.4 Research Hypothesis...………………………………………………………………………3 Chapter Two: LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................... 4 2.1 History of Crop……………………………………………………………………………...4 2.2 Global Crop………………………………………………………………………………….4 2.3 Crop in the Developed Country…………………………………………………………......5 2.4 Crop in the Developing Country…………………………………………………………….6 2.5 Crop in Middle East and North Africa (MENA)………………………………………......10 2.6 Crop in Iraq and KRG……………………………………………………………………...10 Chapter Three: MATERIALS AND METHODS ......................................................................... 11 3.1 Geographical Characteristics………………………………………………………………11 3.1.1 Location………………………………………………………………………….............11 3.1.2 Climate...…………………………………………………………………………………13 3.2 Population………………………………………………………………………………….15 3.2.1 Demography……………………………………………………………………………...15 3.2.2 Labor Force………………………………………………………………………..……..16 3.3 Economy.…………………………………………………………………………………..18 3.4 Agriculture Sector….………………………………………………………………………18 3.4.1 History of agriculture….………………………………….……………………….……..18 3.4.2 Current Situation of Agriculture…………………………………………………………18 3.4.3 Agricultural Land…………………………………………………………………….......20 iii
List of Contents
3.4.4 Production and Yield…………………………………………………………………….21 3.5 Water Resources……………………………………………………………………….......24 3.5.1 Surface water…………………………………………………………………………….24 3.5.1.1 Rivers………………………………………………………………………………......24 3.5.1.2 Dams.....……………………………………………………………………………......25 Dukan dam……………………………………………………………………………………………......25 Darbandikhan dam..………….……………………………………………………...…….26 3.5.2 Ground Water..……………………………………………………………………..........26 3.5.2.1 Groundwater basins for Kurdistan region..…………………………………….............26 Methods of Data Collection………………………………………………………………........27 3.6 Data source and methods of data collection...…………………………………………......27 3.6.1 Secondary data…………………………………………………………………………...27 3.6.2 Primary data……………………………………………………………………………...27 3.6.2.1 Designing the questionnaire……………………………………………………………28 3.6.2.2 Designing the sampling plan……………………………………………………...........28 3.6.2.3 Choosing the contact methods…………………………………………………………29 3.6.2.4 Pre-testing……………………………………………………………………………...29 3.6.2.5 Data collection and coding…………………………………………………………......30 3.7 Testing data………………………………………………………………………………...30 3.7.1 Chi-square test…………………………………………………………………………...30 3.7.2 Correlation test…………………………………………………………………………...31 Chapter Four: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS………………………………………………...32 4.1 Socio-Demographic Characteristics of the Farmer..……………………………………….32 4.1.1 Age distribution of farmer…....………………………………………………………….32 4.1.2 Education level of the farmer…..………………………………………….......................34 4.1.3 Migration of the farmer………………………………………………………..................35 4.1.4 Agricultural impediment………………………………………………………................36 4.2 Land Ownership..…………………………………………………………………………..37 4.3 Land Utilization……………………………………………………………………………38 4.4 Agricultural Activity of the Farmer………………………………………………..............40 4.4.1 Winter and summer crops in Sulaimani governorate…………………….........................40 4.4.2 Winter and summer crops in Halabja governorate……………………............................41 iv
List of Contents
4.5 Seed………………………………………………………………………………………...44 4.6 Fertilizer……………………………………………………………………………............45 4.7 Pesticide……………………………………………………………………………............48 4.8 Factors Affecting Agricultural Production………………………………………………...52 4.9 Period of Cultivation………………………………………………………………............67 4.10 Water Resources………………………………………………………………….............68 4.10.1 Source of irrigation……………………………………………………………………..69 4.10.2 Irrigation method……………………………………………………………….............70 4.11 Selling Production………………………………………………………………………..71 4.12 Efficiency of Agricultural Production……………………………………………………74 4.12.1 Crop production and utilization………………………………………………………...74 4.12.2 Production quantity sold and selling price ……………………………....……………..76 4.13 SWOT Analysis…………………………………………………………………………..78 Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………................80 Recommendations………………………………………………………………………………..82 References………………………………………………………………………………………..83 Appendices……………………………………………………………………………………….91
v
List of Tables Table 3.1 The area of Sulaimani and Halabja governorates and their districts rate.......................13 Table 3.2 Distributions of age categorizing of population regions…............................................17 Table 3.3 Distribution of agricultural labor force in Sulaimani and Halabja governorates...........17 Table 3.4 The ownership of agricultural land in both of Sulaimani and Halabja governorates….20 Table 3.5 The area of agriculture lands by donum in Sulaimani and Halabja governorate…..….21 Table 3.6 Total production and yield of winter crop of Sulaimani governorate…………………22 Table 3.7 Total production and yield of summer crop of Sulaimani governorate……….............23 Table 3.8 Total cultivated area of winter and summer crop of Sulaimani governorate….............23 Table 3.9 The annual averages of water potential of the Tigris river in Sulaimani and Halabja governorates………………………………………………………………………………………25 Table 3.10 The Ground waters Basins of the Region..…………………………………………...26 Table 3.11 Distribution of the Sample by Governorate………………………………………......29 Table 4.1 Age distribution of the farmer in both Sulaimani and Halabja governorates………….32 Table 4.2 Distribution of farmer according to age and gender……………………….…………..33 Table 4.3 Education level of the farmer according to representative sampling …………………34 Table 4.4 Migrations of farmers from country sides with urban areas according to representative sampling in both Sulaimani and Halabja……………………………………….………………...35 Table 4.5 Agricultural impediments affecting agricultural products in both Sulaimani and Halabja governorates……………………………………………………………………….……………...36 Table 4.6 Land utilizations according to farmers in both Sulaimani and Halabja governorates in 2006-2015....................................................................................................................…………...39 Table 4.7 The means of distribution of agricultural activity in both Sulaimanni and Halabja governorates………………………………………………………………………………………43 Table 4.8 Usage of seed type by farmers in Sulaimani and Halabja governorates………………45 Table 4.9 Using different fertilizer application in Sulaimani and Halabja governorates………...47 Table 4.10 The active substance of pesticides and their Kurdish name used in the production of different crops in Sulaimani and Halabja governorates………………….……………………….50 Table 4.11 The maximum and minimum using of pesticides to crops by farmers in Sulaimani and Halabja governorates…………………………….……………………………………………….51 Table 4.12 Relationship between wheat yields and independent variables……………………...53 vi
Table 4.13 Relationship between barley yield and independent variables……………………….55 Table 4.14 Relationship between chickpea yield and independent variables………………….....56 Table 4.15 Relationship between tomato yield and independent variable……………………….58 Table 4.16 Relationship between cucumber yield and independent variable…………………….59 Table 4.17 Relationship between okra yield and independent variable…………………….........61 Table 4.18 Correlation coefficient between production and selling price of different crops in both Sulaimani and Halabja……………………………………………………………………………63 Table 4.19 Correlation between total area and production with quantity sold of crops in both Sulaimani and Halabja governorates………………………………………...……………….......65 Table 4.20 Correlation between production and total area of crops in both Sulaimani and Halabja governorates…………………………………………………………...………………………….67 Table 4.21 Period of crops cultivation in both Sulaimani and Halabja governorates from October to March…………………………………………………………………………..........................68 Table 4.22 Water resources in both Sulaimani and Halabja governorates……………………….69 Table 4.23 Source of irrigation……………………………………………………………….......70 Table 4.24 The irrigation methods based on the farmers for irrigation in Sulaimani and Halabja governorates…………………………………………………………………………………........71 Table 4.25 Production sold based on farmers in the study area..………………………………...73 Table 4.26The production and yield of crops regarding the answer of respondents……………..75 Table 4.27 The mean of quantity sold and the selling price of productions……………………...77 Table 4.28 SWOT analysis of factors land, labor, water and consumer in both study area...........79
vii
List of Figures Figure 3.1 The Map of the study area by districts…………………...…………………………..12 Figure 3.2 The total precipitation of Sulaimani and Halabja governorates……………………....14 Figure 3.3 Internally displaced persons (IDPs) per district by governorate of origin……………16 Figure 3.4 Comparisons between Real Production and Actual Needs for Crops in the Region…19 Figure 4.1 Distribution of ownership land in the study area……………………………………..38 Figure 4.2 Wheat yield according to neighbor countries in 2015………………………………..76
viii
List of Equations
Equation 3.1 The sample size of population……………………………………………………...28 Equation 3.2 Chi square formula…………………………………………………………………31 Equation 3.3 Correlation formula………………………………………………………………...31
ix
List of Appendices
Appendix 1 The questionnaires in the final set for an analysis of crop production sector; a case study of the governorates of Sulaimani and Halabja……………………………………………92 Appendix 2 Total cultivated area/dunum of winter crop of Suleimani and Halabja governorate of 2014-2015.....................................................................................................................................99 Appendix 3 Total cultivated area/dunum of summer crop of Suleimani and Halabja governorate of 2015…………………………………………………………………………………….…….100
x
List of Abbreviations
BCM
Billion Cubic Meters
BLS
Based Linked System
COSIT
Central Office for Statistics and Information Technology
FAO
Food and Agriculture Organization
H0
Null hypothesis
Ha
Alternative hypothesis
ID
Iraqi dinar
IDPs
Internally displaced persons
IOM
International Organization for Migration
Kg
Kilogram
KRG
Kurdistan Regional Government
KRSO
Kurdistan Region statistical office
L
Litter
MCM
Million Cubic Meters
MENA
Middle East and North Africa region
MoAWR
Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resource
MoP
Ministry of planning
NPK
Nitrogen, Phosphorous, and Potassium
OECD
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
RFSAN
Regional Food Security Analysis Network
SRES
Special Report on Emissions Scenarios
UK
United Kingdom
UN
United Nations
UNDP
United Nations Development Program
UNFPA
United Nations Fund for Population Activities
WFP
World Food Program
xi
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1 Preface Global agricultural production demanded for arising out of population and income growth almost tripled, and it has been successful in meeting the increased in demand, because the first and last sector for producing food is agriculture. Therefore, the agricultural production is a backbone of the rural economy (Zurovec et al., 2015). Agricultural production systems are expected to produce food for a global population (UNFPA, 2011). Steady growth in agricultural output and a long-term decline in real commodity prices attest to this success (Wik et al., 2008); (Deryng et al., 2011). The current world population is around 7.5 billion, and it is expected to increase to 9.1 billion people in 2050 and over 10 billion by the end of the century (Branca et al., 2011). Thus; global food production will need to keep increasing in order to meet future demand, which is expected to be raised due to economic development and population growth in developing countries (Von Braun, 2007). There are two broad options for increasing global food production: (1) expanding the croplands at the expense of other ecosystems, or (2) increasing the yields (per unit area) of our existing croplands (Licker et al., 2010). Agriculture is the most important economic sector of many developing countries, however like all other sectors; the agricultural sector has suffered gradually enormous damage. The remaining agricultural production was plagued by weak capital equipment of family farms and obsolete technologies. Shifting in agricultural policies was recorded when much attention was paid to the development of agriculture and rural areas. Hence, managing an agricultural production process is a dynamic process in which plans revision and execution must be interleaved because the external environment changed dramatically beyond the control of the farmers, as relevant aspects are revealed incrementally. Farm management is the process by which resources and situations are manipulated improperly over time by the manager of the farm system, with less experience, to achieve his/her goals (Garcia et al., 2005). Societies are still looking for ways to increase crop production, as population and economic pressures continue to mount through the 21st century (UN, 2005). Therefore, the priority to improve the yield on existing cultivated lands is highly demanded. However, increasing crop productivity on existing lands will also have consequences for social and ecological systems; if some of the techniques of modern industrialized agriculture being practiced continuously 1
Chapter One
Introduction
(Ramankutty et al., 2002). Like other parts of the developing world the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region has experienced strong population and income growth, which has contributed to rising food consumption and shifting dietary preferences.
Growing demand,
coupled with a climate-constrained production potential, has forced the region to rely increasingly on food imports, raising its trade profile. The crops (wheat, rice, corn, and poultry) import into the Middle East and North Africa region account for a sizeable share of total world imports to these commodities (Nigatu and Motamed, 2015). Total agricultural production from 2005-2013 has increased by 23 % in Iraq, 40 % in Jordan, 24 % in Turkey, while decreased by 21 % in Syria. As a whole, agricultural production in the sub region had increased by 17 %. At the same period, cereal productions in the sub region remained stable overall, although marked differences could be observed at the national level as countries pursued different cereal production strategies. In Syria experienced 52 % drop in production in 2005, but from 2013 drop out values of production as a result of the conflict. Turkey’s production dropped by 10 %. Iraq and Jordan have compensated for the drop in production in the sub region and increased their cereal production by 64 % and 11 %, respectively (RSFAN, 2016). The Kurdistan regional government is capable of producing a wide range of agricultural produce as it possesses a suitable climate as well as significant areas of arable land and fertile soil (Baban, 2015a). The field crop production in KRG is the main source of livelihood for many rural families, serving two main crops under cultivation like wheat and barley. Wheat in the Kurdistan Region occupies approximately 570,000 hectares of rain-fed areas and produce in average, around 500,000 tons each year. However, destruction of agricultural infrastructure has resulted in reduction of wheat production in the Region (Mazid, 2015). Unfortunately, agriculture and food production declined significantly due to several factors occurring in the last decades. There is a shortage of researches on studying the area of agricultural production in the Kurdistan region of Iraq. Therefore, this study has been conducted to answer the following questions: What are the particularities of crop sector? What are the trends of crop sector? What are the factors that influence the sustainable development of the crop sector? Where the farmers valorize their agricultural products? What are the objectives and operational actions for a sustainable development strategy of crop production sector? What are the factors that influence the farmers to cultivate different crops? How is the productivity of crops, particularly rice and wheat and how the experiencing decreased growth can be improved? How the domestic production crops can be expanded? 2
Chapter One
Introduction
1.2 Mission This study aims to provide a clear perception to local, regional and national authorities, policy makers and researchers information about the various influences that can unite the farmers in managing crop production of the rural communities for both governorates of Sulaimani and Halabja. The purpose of this investigation is to improve the understanding of the management of Crop production value, and to compare the rural areas in both governorates in the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). 1.3 Objectives The main objectives of the study were to make an analysis of the crop sector, particularly the study have the following sub-objectives: 1. To understand the particularities of the crop sector. 2. To understand the principles of sustainable development. 3. To analyze the current situation and development policies of crop sector worldwide, especially in the developing countries. 4. To analyze the current development plan for the crop sector from Sulaimani and Halabja governorates. 5. To analyze the characteristics and create a database with valuable information about farmers from Sulaimani and Halabja governorates. 6. To analyze the value chain of crop production. 7. To identify the main markets (domestic and external) for agricultural (crop) products. 8. To identify the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the analyzed sectors. 9. To formulate viable proposals for the sustainable development of the crop sector. 1.4 Research Hypothesis Hypothesis: it is a specific, testable prediction, measurable, contains dependent and independent variable, it describes incorrect terms, what you expect will happen in a certain circumstance. The study brought out the following hypotheses: 1. Farmers deal with a high lack of agricultural inputs. 2. The extension programs are not adequately adapted to the needs of farmers. 3. The productivity of the main crops is not different from the two governorates. 3
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 History of Crop Wheat was one of the first domesticated food crops and for 8000 years have been the basic staple food of the major civilizations of Europe, West Asia and North Africa (Curtis, 2002). Wheat is a widely adapted crop. It is grown from temperate, irrigated to dry and high-rainfall areas and from warm, humid to dry, cold environments (Acevedo et al., 2002). Wheat adapts to all diverse climatic conditions prevailing over agricultural lands, and therefore, the main factors making wheat the most important food crop in the world are its wide adaptation to diverse environmental conditions (Pena, 2002). 2.2 Global Crop Globally, a study was conducted to combine food insurance and giving feedstock for the production in sustainable and cost at global scale. For this purpose, it should demonstrate the needs of populations of agricultural product that is increasing proportionally. Besides that; many factors have an effective role in crop production systems at marginal environment like; an integral assessment of the production capacity, the impact on resource utilization, biodiversity and socio economic factors. To develop and assess new crops and cropping systems more investment is needed to carry out under a wide range of agro ecological conditions, also to increase land productivity it should execute new cropping systems with keeping the resource base as soil quality, soil health and ecosystem health (Spiertz, 2013). Global consequences which associated with socioeconomic and climate scenarios show the importance of crop yield, production and risk of poverty. Socioeconomic has an effective role in changing crop productivity, price change and shifting comparative advantage, however Based Linked System (BLS) is used to assess the consequent changes in global cereal production, cereal prices and the number of risked people from hunger. Crop productions influenced by rising temperatures, changing amount of precipitation and increasing carbon dioxide effects resulting in change in regional crop yield. Beside that; the world can be continuing with self-feeding under Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) emissions, which is illustrated by scenario experiment (Parry et al., 2004).
4
Chapter Two
Literature Review
Wheat crop is grown on more land area than any other commercial crop and continues to be the most important karnel food source for human including rice (Curtis, 2002). 2.3 Crop in the Developed Country In Australia the primary strategic objective of innovative agronomic study is sustainable crop production intensification for the coming decades. Agronomic management practices supporting sustainable crop production systems and intensification, and testifying the developments in the selection of crops and cultivars. Approaches and technologies that can strengthen sustainability and at the same time intensify crop production in terms of increased output and productivity. The crop farming systems taking a predominate ecosystem approaches and pest management, in addition, it including the improvements in fertilizer and nutrient management which are at the basis of productivity growth (Pisante et al., 2012). In the UK, greater and more immediate threat is potentially present to sustainable food production than climate change. Farmers also face a range of non-climate risks. Clearly, it presents both threats and opportunities to the UK crop production, but the key to tackling climate change will be an adaptation. Securing access to the relevant skills, resources and knowledge increases the production efficiency, improve management and embrace new technology (Knox et al., 2010). In the developed country, the grown cereals of wheat, rice, and maize provide about two-thirds of all energy in human diets. Yield per unit time and land have increased during the past 30 years. The result of intensified crop management involving the improved germplasm, greater inputs of fertilizer, production of two or more crops per year on the same piece of land, and irrigation. In the developed countries the crop production fields have more variability as crop, soil and pests that assist in trying to understand differences and to manage crop production accordingly. Spatially variable crop production is a method contains integrated system and component technologies as sensors, actuators, locators, geostatistics, and geographic information systems, to reduce crop production costs, to be environmentally advantageous and extend the research performance (Schueller, 1992).
5
Chapter Two
Literature Review
A study determined the production cost and return through an economic analysis of melon grown in open field; due to better product traditionally in Cankiri province of Turkey. However, there are many factors have an effective role in cost determination such as: human, machine power, land rent, seed and fertilizer costs. However, the farmers grow melon under the term of agricultural business principles because it is an important source of a farmer’s income in Cankiri province (Yilmaz et al., 2011). Farmers depend on seed as an essential input to crop production. The quality of the seed and variety determines the success in productivity and stability (resilience to pests, disease, and drought) (Ojiewo et al., 2015). Utilizing manure as a fertilizer for crop production can be a key component of the economic success of an animal feeding operation (Lory et al., 2006). The role of pesticides has become critically important with modernization of agriculture. Modernization of agriculture implies the increased use of modem inputs such as chemical fertilizer, irrigation and elite variety seeds, which provide a favorable climate for rapid growth of pests. The uses of pesticides carry several dangers related to both losses of their effectiveness in the long run and certain externalities like pollution and health hazards (Sabur and Molla, 2001). A study assessed external cost of crop production in the United States which focused on natural resources, wildlife, ecosystem biodiversity and human health, also contained additional public costs of agricultural production such as: promote and support mechanisms for farmers, although, agricultural producers call to be internalizing many of these external costs, furthermore restructuring of agricultural policy resulting in societal burden of these cost that shift production towards a pathway to decline external impact (Tegtmeier and Duffy, 2004). 2.4 Crop in the Developing Country The term "yield" means the quantity of products produced by one donum. The word "production" also means any human activity that achieves or increases benefit, aimed to satisfy human needs. Production tools are lands, labor, capital and planning (MoP, 2012). Crop production depends on the availability of arable land and is affected in particular by yields, as well as consumption patterns; it also has a great incidence on agricultural commodity prices. The importance of crop production is referred to harvested areas and quantities produced. Crop yields are the harvested production per unit of harvested area for crop products.
6
Chapter Two
Literature Review
Yield influenced by factors such as the crop's genetic potential, the amount of sunlight, water and nutrients absorbed by the crop, the presence of weeds and pests. In most of the cases yield data are not recorded, but it can obtain by dividing the production data by the data on area harvested. This indicator is presented for wheat and barley and other crops. Crop production is measured in tones per hectare, in thousand hectares in the study area of the governorates (OECD, 2017). A study represented that the main crops like wheat testified a persistent increase in instability over the two periods, in developing countries. The instability of area, yield and production were determined, in addition to different components of the sources of change in production. The change in production indicated that changes in yield accounted for large shares of the change in production of wheat. The instability in area and yield of all crops moved in the same direction and their increasing/decreasing trend resulted in an increase/decrease in instability (Mahir and Abdelaziz, 2011). An analysis indicated that agricultural production was impacting the favorable trend of economic growth in developing countries. Thus the focus was on poverty reduction through providing empirical information on the relationship between agricultural production and the growth of the economy. Despite the growth of the economy, poverty is still on the increase and these calls for a shift from monolithic oil-based economy to a more plural one with agriculture being the lead sector (Oyakhilomen and Zibah, 2014). The study clarifies major lumper of crop production in the rain fed sector, and to demonstrate the major factor influencing crop production in developing countries. All crop production influenced by many factors, like; labor, total cultivated area, crop rotation, the amount of rainfall, period of cropping. However, it is giving the farmers all agricultural inputs, encourage the agricultural extension to be more effective in transferring information and knowledge, solution of issues that facing agricultural production such as marketing grazing and desertification. While cash crops have dramatically role in food production due to the powerful of agricultural region, despite of suffering the region from many trouble issues, which is obstacles in front of progressing program like economical, technological, environmental and social program resulting in fluctuating in yield and income (Abdel Aziz et al., 2010). The factors affecting input- output relation for small farmers that influencing crop production in developing country was recognized by low productivity through shifting cultivation and limited resource due to relying on rain fed subsector to obtain cash crops and food grains. Besides, more farmers have participated in the formal education to rely on experience and new technology in 7
Chapter Two
Literature Review
their farm management practice. To increase household size and man power to farm practice in rural areas the marriage is necessary and important (Hassan and Suliman, 2011). The effect of arable crop production practices on environmental degradation determined any gaps in the exits farming practices by farmers in developing country. However, complete tillage practice did not affect the environmental degradation but bush burning have a negative impact on it. There are many factors which contribute in sustained low productivity such as; soil nutrient depletion, erosion, and weed and pest invasion. Even in a study sustained growth in agricultural productivity and farmer’s prosperity is possible without environmental degradation. The farmers cannot stay under the economic-social-political structure, due to lack in the utilization of knowledge, which has led to many problems like poverty, for this purpose, the farmers should be learned to use economic planning and technical pathway in cultivating and harvesting crops (Osabuomen and Okoedo-Okojie, 2011). A study conducted in agricultural zone to determine the sustainable crop production practices in area which included crop rotation, mixed cropping, mulching and planting of cover crop that used by farmers (producers) in developing country. The utilization of sustainable practices was affected by many factors such as: excessive use of farmland, visibility of the practice, high population pressure, more farmland fragmentation, high relative advantage and limited arable land among others, moreover many restrictions hinders the effective utilization of sustainable practices contains: longer process, effects of inorganic fertilizer on the soil, labor intensiveness, farmland liable to erosion, high rate of weed emergence and competition between crops. All of these shed light on significant interaction between utilization of sustainable practices and socioeconomic characteristics as well as ecology system (Ayanwuyi and Ogunlade, 2010). The highest growth of agricultural productivity has occurred in the last two decades, which has closed the broad gap between Latin America and developed economies. This achievement mostly refers to improvement in efficiency and introducing new technologies in the developing regions, like Latin America and the Caribbean. Within agriculture, crops and non-ruminant sectors have displayed the strongest growth between 1961- 2001 (Ludena, 2010). A study sheds light on the analysis of food crop production efficiency by farmers in developing countries. The findings elucidate that most of the farmers are relatively educated and still in their active age.
8
Chapter Two
Literature Review
However; Policy option is necessary for farmers to decrease the utilization of herbicide, likewise to ensure the efficient use of resources farm amplification is needed. Besides, the determinants of technical efficiency of farmer food crop contain; age, education, farming experience and extension visit. Finally, formal education and adult literacy education should be strengthened among farmers (Ambali et al., 2012). A study applies a comparative and determinants of crop production intensification spatially cropbased households among developing country. Continuous increasing in population expansion and demands for agricultural land over time resulting in worsening the arable land situation and lack of arable land fertility. This made a shortage in food production in the past. However the main motivations of crop production intensification are household income, adoption of land management practices and access to extension agents. The important variables are household income, adoption of land management practices and market access among farming households. Furthermore; the policy option is necessary for sustainability of crop production that addresses the provision of qualitative extension education and farming household's access to markets (Salau et al., 2011). A study concerned the factors operating the supply side of the wheat economy of Pakistan.A very little comparison was conducted between the developed and developing countries, like Pakistan also being too late for their farm sector. The analysis is carried out to determine the performance of the agricultural policy of the country in securing a sustainable measure of self-sufficiency in food production. Indeed, the agricultural performance of the developing countries is directly influenced by the high subsidies paid to the rich country farmers (producer) by their governments. The support prices policy, adequate water availability and technology together helped enhance the wheat production of the country (Khan et al., 2003). A study showed that age, education, labor and the cost of non-labor inputs was positively related to the output while farm size and years of experience carried negative signs. However, only labor force input had significant influence on output (Olujenyo, 2008). An economy and food security of people with the situational analysis that contribute to primary agricultural crops produced in Northern Mindanao. These crops like sugarcane, pineapple and bananas have formed a change in the land use and hence counted with rice and corn. This area is one of the leading producers of tomatoes, carrots and potatoes, yet farmers have encountered deterring factors in achieving potential income from these products (Dejarme-Calalang et al., 2015). 9
Chapter Two
Literature Review
2.5 Crop in Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Jordanian agriculture production trends have represented that Jordan has a comparative advantage lack in field crops such as wheat and barley, in comparison with neighbors like Syria (Norton and Jaberin, 2006). A study described the crops of wheat and barley that grown in farmer’s fields in Syria. Analyses explained farm level surveys and showed a low spatial diversity of wheat and barley where only a few dominants varieties occupied a large proportion of wheat and barley areas (Bishaw et al., 2015). 2.6 Crop in Iraq and KRG In Iraq crop production is the major source of income for the majority (75 %) of farmers in Iraq, while the rest depends on livestock or mixed crop and livestock enterprises. Most farming in Iraq includes planting and harvesting a single crop per year. The winter crops primarily grains, is planted in the rain-fed areas. The intensity of cultivation is usually 50 % in the rain-fed areas because of the practice of leaving about half the arable land in fallow. In the irrigated area summer crops predominate, especially in the central and southern Iraq. Cereals, primarily wheat and barley, are Iraq’s most important crop occupied approximately 80 % of the cultivated area. The north and central rain-fed areas are the principal wheat producers. Farmers in Iraq cultivate about 3 million hectares of combined wheat and barley each year. Between 0.7 to 1 million hectares of wheat and 0.4-0.8 million hectares of barley might be irrigated each year. Barley requires less water than wheat and it is more tolerant to soil salinity (FAO, 2012). In Iraq by regional standards, yields are low, largely owing to the lacks availability of improved seeds and fertilizer, increased soil salinity, and the poor state of the irrigation and drainage system, including the widespread use of flood irrigation. Generally farmers regard rice production as a profitable cash crop and the panted areas are expanding (FAO, 2008). In Kurdistan Region the crop production is the main source of livelihood for many rural families. These crops (wheat and barley) are winter crops, account for around 50 % and 48 % of all cultivated land, though the yields vary greatly according to rainfall. Crops like wheat and barley are the two main crops under cultivation, occupying about 567,625 ha for wheat producing 381,284 tons and 10,806 ha for barley producing 4382 tons. Other major crops are chickpeas, lentils, and sunflowers can be cultivated in the summer, especially under irrigation (MoP and UNDP, 2012). 10
CHAPTER THREE MATERIALS AND METHODS 3.1 Geographical Characteristics 3.1.1 Location The research area is located in the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in Iraq. The Republic of Iraq is in the South West of Asia it forms the Eastern frontier of the Arab countries. Lies between latitudes 29°5' N - 37°22' N and longitudes 38°45' E - 48°45' E; border with Turkey to the North, Iran to the East, Jordan, Syria to North East and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the West and the Arab Gulf, Kuwait and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the South. The total area of Iraq is 438,317.000 km2 (Omer, 2011). The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) is located in the Northern part of the Federal Republic of Iraq; mainly lengthen across from Zagross Mountain in North up to the Taurus Mountains in Turkey (Harun et al., 2015). The Kurdistan Regional Government administers the three governorates of Erbil (Hawler), Sulaimani and Duhok, and recently proclaimed Halabja as its fourth governorate (Pring, 2015). At the beginning of February 2015 Halabja proclaimed as a fourth governorate of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) (Kurdistan Parliament, 2015) (Legislation No.1). The Kurdistan Region lies between latitudes 34°42' N - 37°22' N and longitudes 42°25' E, - 46°15' E. The area of the Kurdistan Region is 42,812.000 km2 (Harun, 2014). Sulaimani governorate locates between the mountains, of Kurdistan which is natural mountains border with Iran includes a group of Mountains that stretch from North to South such as Series Mountains of Qandil in Northern as shown in Figure 3.1. Border with Iran and Blfat Mountain in the Northeast of the study area and Kaskopan, Harmin and Jaswsan Mountains is extended in the boundaries between the areas of Rawandwz and Little Zab. Sulaimani governorate lies between latitudes 34°56' N - 36°29' N and longitudes 44°31' E - 46°20' E. The total area of Sulaimani is 14,562.000 km2; also the smallest district is Sharazwr, with a surface of 481.000 km2, representing 3.0 % of the total surface of the study area (Fuoad, 2014). In Table 3.1 it is shown that the largest district is Chamchamal, with a surface area of 3733.000 km2, representing 25.6 % of the total surface of the research area (General Directorate of Survey, 2009). Halabja governorate is located in the North East of Iraq and South Eastern of Sulaimani 11
Chapter Three
Materials and Methods
governorate bounded on the North by Penjwen district also surround with Hawraman and Swren Mountain from the North; Sirwan River and Balambo Mountain located in the South of study area. Hawraman and Swren are Series Mountains and Sirwan River forms a natural border between Iran and the boundaries of the study area. Darbandikhan Lake located in the South West of the area while bounded on the West by Sharazwr district (Jahan, 2013). Halabja governorate lies between latitudes 35°04' N - 35°20' N and longitudes 45°37' E - 46°07' E (Hasan, 2015). The area of Halabja is estimated to be 1,162.000 km2 (Fuoad, 2014).
Figure 3.1 The Map of the study area by districts, cited from Harun (2014) Last accessed 10.5.2016 Source: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=195023 http://www.mot.gov.iq/engli/index.php?name=mktbapicture#
12
Chapter Three
Materials and Methods
Table 3.1 The area of Sulaimani and Halabja governorates and their districts rate
No.
Districts of Sulaimani Gov.
Area (Km2)
Rate of Area (%)
1
Sulaimani Center
1549.000
10.600
2
Qaradagh
728.000
4.900
3
Penjwen
1131.000
7.700
4
Saidsadiq
992.000
6.800
5
Sharazwr
481.000
3.000
6
Sharbazher
1039.000
7.100
7
Mawat
588.000
4.000
8
Dukan
1604.000
11.000
9
Rania
884.000
6.000
10
Pshdar
1302.000
8.900
11
Darbandikhan
531.000
4.400
12
Chamchamal
3733.000
25.600
Total
14562.000
100.000
Districts of Halabja Gov.
1162.000
100.000
13
Source: (Fuoad, 2014) Source: (General Directorate of Survey, 2009), Last accessed 27.6.2016 http://www.cosit.gov.iq/AAS/AAS2012/section_10/1.htm
3.1.2 Climate In Iraq the mean of annual rainfall is less than 100 mm in the South-Western half of the country, increasing to about 140 mm in the centre near Baghdad and to about 200 mm along a line passing about 25 kilometers east of Sinjar in the North, about 40 kilometers West of Mandali and about 80 kilometers east of Baghdad. The 400 mm isohyet passes through Mosul, Erbil, Khanaqin and Mandali. The whole country has an arid or desert, subtropical continental climate. Summer is hot and completely dry; clouds are very rare during four months of summer. Winter is generally cool (Omer, 2011). In Kurdistan Region precipitation (rainfall and snow) as internal water is the most important renewable water resource (Harun, 2014). The Region is divided into three areas of assured 13
Chapter Three
Materials and Methods
rainfall area (over 500 mm); semi assured rainfall area (350-500 mm); and un-assured rainfall area (less than 350 mm) (MoP, 2012). The climate of Kurdistan Region is determined as a semidry area climate and characterized with large temperature differences between day and night and between winter and summer. In summer, the temperature reaches beyond 45º in daytime at the Southern boundaries of the two governorates; the hottest months are June, July and August while the coldest months are December, January and February (Harun, 2014). In Sulaimani governorate the rainfall season starts in October with light rainfall, it intensifies during November and continues until May (Zakaria et al., 2013). The data were obtained by Directorate of Sulaimani Metrology; total rainfall of 329 mm was record in the driest season of 2007-2008 and the maximum rainfall depth was in 2015-2016 recording 830.8 mm. The geographic location of Sulaimani area imposed a dry and warm summer for the period June, July, and August with an average temperature of 31.5 ˚C during summer for the studied period (Zakaria et al., 2013). Likewise, in Halabja governorate data were obtained by Directorate of Sulaimani metrology; the driest season was recorded in 2007-2008 to have 309.3 mm rain and the maximum rainfall of 880.5 mm was in 2009-2010 as shown in Figure 3.2. Halabja area characterizes by a distinct continental interior climate with hot summer and cold winter of the Mediterranean type (Abdullah et al., 2015).
Figure 3.2 The total precipitation of Sulaimani and the Halabja governorates Source: (General Directorate of Metrology and Seismology in Sulaimani, 2016)
14
Chapter Three
Materials and Methods
3.2 Population 3.2.1 Demography In Iraq the estimated population in 2014 is 32,585,692 inhabitants (Cordesman, 2015). During the last decade of last century, the population growth was rapid, continuous and systematic in the Kurdistan Region. Since the beginning of the national government in Iraq and the inclusion of the Kurdistan region, several censuses were carried out by WFP and UN (Khaiat, 2001). The population of Kurdistan Region Governorates (KRG) in 2015 was around 5,472,436 inhabitants, where the male was 2,747,992 people, and the female was 2,724,444 people (KRSO, 2015). Sulaimani governorate, which is the first governorate of the study area, had the population size of 1,936,883 inhabitants in 2015. Likewise Halabja governorate, which is the second governorate of study area the population size in 2015, was estimated to be around 102,802 inhabitants (KRSO, 2015). Moreover, the population growth increased in compared to past years in both of Sulaimani and Halabja governorates due to the arrival of new internally displaced persons (IDPs) fleeing in the aftermath of three security incidents crises such as Anbar, Mosul and Sinjar stable security of Sulaimani and Halabja governorates was the main pull factor for those who displaced there. However population growing has placed a strain on the local economy, services and local infrastructure, abnormal internal displacing has resulted in the raising the housing costs by 5.4 %, electricity by 11 % and the price of fuel by 26.5 %.6 in the Sulaimani and Halabja, as explained in Figure 3.3 (IOM, 2015). http://iomiraq.net/reports/sulaymaniyah-governorate-profile-may-2015
15
Chapter Three
Materials and Methods
Figure 3.3 Internally displaced persons (IDPs) per district by governorate of origin Source: (IOM Iraq .Governorate, 2015), Last accessed 12.5.2016 http://iomiraq.net/reports/sulaymaniyah-governorate-profile-may-2015
3.2.2 Labor Force In Iraq, the entering labor force annually for male is 332,194.000 and female is 322,010.000 in 2010 (Cordesman, 2015). In Kurdistan Region there is a variation in the population growth rates (according to age) between urban and rural areas. The economic active population is considerate to be within the boundaries of the age group of 15-64 years, as explained in Table 3.2, in 2007 the rate of age less than 15 years was 44.600 %, besides that the rate is decreased to 38.540 % in 2014. However, the rate of age 15-64 years were increased from 50.500 % in 2007 to 58.450 % in 2014 and the rate of age more than 65 decrease from 4.900 % in 2007 to 3.010 % in 2014 (Mousa, 2014).
16
Chapter Three
Materials and Methods
The available labor force in the economy is classified as workers or unemployed in the light of their primary activity (Harun, 2014). The rate of labor force of Kurdistan region was 39.8 % in 2013, the rate of male was 67.1 % and female was 12.7 % and unemployed rate was 6.5 % (KRSO, 2013). In Sulaimani governorate the agricultural labor force as shown in Table 3.3 had the highest level of 6922.000 in Pshdar district with rate of 22.700 %, while the lowest level was in the Saidsadiq district 974.000 with rate of 3.100 %. In Halabja governorate the agricultural labor force was 4034.000 (Fuoad, 2014).
Table 3.2 Distributions of age categorizing of population regions
2007
2014
< 15 years
15-64 Years
> 65 years
< 15 years
15-65 years
> 65 years
44.600 %
50.500 %
4.900 %
38.540 %
58.450 %
30.100 %
Source: (Mousa, 2014). Note: The data table also includes Sulaimani and Halabja governorates. Table 3.3 Distribution of agricultural labor force in Sulaimani and Halabja governorates
No.
Districts of Sulaimani Gov.
Agricultural Labor Force
Rate (%)
1
Sulaimani Center
4676.000
15.300
2
Qaradakh
1177.000
3.800
3
Penjwen
4020.000
13.100
4
Saidsadiq
974.000
3.100
5
Sharbazher
2582.000
8.400
6
Dukan
5032.000
16.500
7
Rania
4002.000
13.100
8
Pshdar
6922.000
22.700
9
Darbandikhan
1093.000
3.400
Total
30478.000
99.400
Districts of Halabja Gov.
4034.000
100.000
10
Source: (Fuoad, 2014).
17
Chapter Three
Materials and Methods
3.3 Economy The economy of the Kurdistan Region Government suffered several changes during the last 10 years. The missions of the government during the previous years were to improve the life standard of the citizens of the Kurdistan Region Government. The local production was more diverse, which led to increase the national average income per capita. The national income was increased by seven times in five years, from 4,373 billion Iraqi dinars (ID) in 2003 to 30,224 billion Iraqi dinar (ID) in 2008, which represents an average growth rate of 47.22 %. The national average income per capita increased from 976 thousand Iraqi dinar (ID) to 6837 thousands Iraqi dinar (ID) (Harun, 2014). 3.4 Agriculture Sector 3.4.1 History of Agriculture The famous site that had been particularly well studied was Jarmo in Northeastern of Iraq, in the foothills of the Zagros Mountains, specially located in Chamchamal district that belonging to Sulaimani governorate. This area was inhabited approximately 9,000 years ago; it was a permanent farming village with about 24 mud-walled houses and a population of about 150 people. The charred grains of wheat and barley found there were cultivated types already domesticated from the wild type (Levetin and McMahon, 2008). Bestansur is located in the South East of Sulaimani governorate in the foothills of the Central Zagros especially on the Sharazwr Plain (Richardson, 2014). The modern settlement of Bestansur was a rural farming village of approximately 50 households (Elliott et al., 2015). 3.4.2 Current Situation of Agriculture The Kurdistan region is famous with its rich agricultural and natural resources (MoP, 2012). The Region is fundamentally agricultural zone in nature and tradition, the agricultural sector is deeply rooted aspect of the society and economy (Baban, 2015b). However, the region had suffered campaigns of repression, displacement, and sustainable infrastructure destruction in the past years. Now, in this current, agriculture situation is an effective contributor to the economy of the Kurdistan Region and Iraq as a whole. The agriculture sector is the second contribution to the national economy after the oil sector. The agriculture can serve as the cornerstone to poverty 18
Chapter Three
Materials and Methods
reduction and economic stability (UNSCR, 1995). It could become an important public revenue stabilizer at a time when the oil revenue is particularly volatile putting the government and its programs at risk. In fact, current agricultural production is not able to meet the actual requirements of the nation. This fact is expressed in Figure 3.4, which represents a comparison between real production and the actual needs of the region for crops during 2012 (Baban, 2015b). Besides, the KRG planned to raise taxes on food imports from Turkey and Iran in 2015. While this will raise food prices in the short term, the Kurdistan Region hopes that the increased market price for agricultural product will encourage farmers to return to their fields and boost production, stabilizing prices within two years (Soderberg and Phillips, 2015).
Figure 3.4 Comparisons between Real Production and Actual Needs for Crops in the Region Source: (Baban, 2014), cited from Baban (2015b), Last accessed 10.7.2016
19
Chapter Three
Materials and Methods
3.4.3 Agricultural Land There are three different land tenures in Iraq and Kurdistan Region: (i) private ownership, (ii) land leased from the government on a long-term basis; and (iii) inherited land (MoA, 2007). Land classified in to two types as state land and ownership (Fuoad, 2014). Iraq as an agricultural country and as a considerable portion of its agricultural lands is under irrigation, it still depends highly on rain-fed agriculture for grain production (Omer, 2011). The Kurdistan Regions cultivated land, rain fed and irrigated lands are over 6,143,176 donum (MoP, 2010). Total area of Sulaimani rate is 7379536.000 donum, as shown in Table 3.5. The total cultivable lands of rain fed and irrigated lands are over 2,431,888.000 donum (MoP, 2010). In Halabja the total area is 348,715.000 donum and the total cultivable lands which are rain fed and irrigated lands are 97,604.500 donum (Jahan, 2013). As shown in Table 3.4 the state land of Sulaimani is 649478.000 donum with rate of 99.600 % and ownership land is 526169.000 donum with rate of 99.400 % (Fuoad, 2014). The state land of Halabja is 101,584.000 donum and ownership land is 33,996.000 donum that representing 100.000 % of Halabja governorate (Fuoad, 2014). Table 3.4 The ownership of agricultural land in both of Sulaimani and Halabja governorates
No. Districts of Sulaimani Gov.
State Land (Donum)
Rate (%)
Owner Land (Donum)
Rate (%)
1
Sulaimani Center
93116.000
14.300
190645.000
36.200
2
Qaradakh
36270.000
5.500
45747.000
8.600
3
Penjwen
65637.000
10.100
14170.000
2.600
4
Saidsadiq
100823.000
15.500
21849.000
4.100
5
Sharazwr
46212.000
7.100
24702.000
4.600
6
Sharbazher
80417.000
12.300
26412.000
5.000
7
Mawat
707.000
0.100
30045.000
5.700
8
Dukan
60047.000
9.200
107243.000
20.300
9
Rania
46770.000
7.200
31720.000
6.000
10
Pshdar
87002.000
13.300
23960.000
4.500
11
Darbandikhan
32477.000
5.000
9671.000
1.800
Total
649478.000
99.600
526164.000
99.400
Districts of Halabja Gov.
101584.000
100.000
33996.000
100.000
12
Source: (Fuoad, 2014).
20
Chapter Three
Materials and Methods
Table 3.5 The area of agriculture lands by donum in Sulaimani and Halabja governorate
Governorates
Total Area Donum
Rain fed
Irrigated
Total Cultivable
Uncultivable
Lands
Lands
Lands
Lands
Donum
Donum
Donum
Donum
Sulaimani
7379536.000
2131404.000
300484.000
2431888.000
2468492.000
Halabja
348715.000
58370.000
39234.5.000
97604.500
251110.500
Source: (Jahan, 2013) and (MoP, 2010)
3.4.4 Production and Yield In Iraq the major portion of the agricultural land is cultivated with winter crops and summer crops. Wheat and barley are the most important field crops with the production of 1,700,000 ton wheat and 502,000 ton barley; occupy 5,048,000 donum and 2,816,000 donum, of total cultivated land in 2009 respectively. Other crops of significance and major importance are that include production of chickpea by 748 ton with cultivated area of chickpea is 3,740 donum. The summer production of tomato is 913,000.5 ton with cultivated area of tomato 204,003.6 donum (Omer, 2011). In Kurdistan regions the total production of wheat is 1,000,355.5 ton, barley is 133,031.5 ton and chickpea is 3,156 ton with the yield of wheat is 414.8 kg/donum, barley is 352.4 kg/donum and chickpea is 92.6 kg/donum for the total cultivated areas of 2,259,672.5 donum, 409,348.5 donum and 30,698.7 donum for wheat, barley and chickpea respectively. The summer’s production of tomato is 90,930 ton, cucumber is 37,016 ton and okra is 7,229 ton with the yield of tomato is 15,073 kg/donum, cucumber is 13,767 kg/donum and okra is 86,676 kg/donum for the cultivated areas of 24,390 donum, 8,743 donum, 3,989 donum for tomato, cucumber and okra respectively (KRSO, 2013). The higher production of wheat is located in Dohuk governorate of the Kurdistan region is 369,296.2 ton with the cultivated area of 710,008 donum. The higher production of barley is located in Sulaimani governorate to be 42,288 ton with the cultivated area of 146,413 donum. The higher production of tomato is located in Erbil governorate 37,011 ton with a cultivated area of 9,232 donum. The higher production of cucumber is located in Erbil governorate 20,744 ton with a cultivated area of 3,615 donum (KRSO, 2013). 21
Chapter Three
Materials and Methods
In both governorate due to Halabja governorate was one of the districts of Sulaimani governorate in 2012-2013 the production and yield of winter crops as shown in Table 3.6 for wheat is 311,203.500 ton, barley is 56,067.400 ton and chickpeas is 652.500 ton with the yield of wheat 687.100 kg/donum, barley is 581.900 kg/donum and chickpea is 149.800 kg/donum for the cultivated areas of 912,836.000 donum, 219,082.000 donum and 7,526.000 donum for wheat, barley and chickpea respectively as shown in Table 3.8. The production of summer crop as shown in Table 3.7 of tomato is 32,602.000 ton, cucumber is 5,892.000 ton and okra is 4,274.000 ton with a yield of tomato is 5,114.000 kg/donum, cucumber is 3,609.000 kg/donum and okra is 3,057.000 kg/donum for the cultivated areas of 11,578.000 donum, 2,773.000 donum and 2,881.000 donum for tomato, cucumber and okra respectively as shown in Table 3.8.
Table 3.6 Total production and yield of winter crop of Sulaimani governorate
Winter production (Ton) Years
Wheat
Barley
Winter yield (Kg/Donum)
Chickpea
Wheat
Barley
Chickpea
2005-2006
131,006.000 104,310.000 10,685.000
272.000
241.000
138.000
2006-2007
283,608.000 199,982.000 11,145.000
480.000
351.000
164.000
2007-2008
121,084.000
55,484.000
0.000
287.270
269.000
0.000
2008-2009
130,602.000
81,342.000
7,629.000
147.000
224.640
170.000
2009-2010
171,682.000
94,315.000
3,752.000
196.060
205.230
173.000
2010-2011
150,777.000 107,957.000
1,584.000
203.570
341.860
297.000
2011-2012
163,749.000
22,406.000
1,310.000
175.970
125.080
104.170
2012-2013
311,203.500
56,067.400
652.500
687.100
581.900
149.800
Source: (FAO, MoAWR, 2006-2011) and (KRSO, 2012-2013). Note: The data of Halabja was a part of the Sulaimani governorate in 2006-2013 1 ton = 1000 kg, 1 hectare = 4 donum (Iraqi donum), 1 donum = 2500 m 2
22
Chapter Three
Materials and Methods
Table 3.7 Total production and yield of summer crop of Sulaimani governorate
Summer production (Ton) Years
Cucumber
Okra
Tomato
Cucumber
Okra
2006
59,825.000 18,482.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2007
28,835.000 12,482.000
0.000
1,119.000
1,479.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2008
Tomato
Summer yield (Kg/Donum)
0.000
0.000
2009
36,917.000 28,461.000
5,729.000
5,985.000
5,285.000
3,050.000
2010
17,391.000 14,092.000
1,455.000
3,584.000
2,698.000
7,17.000
2011
43,041.000 20,504.000
5,390.000
6,000.000
5,500.000
3,250.000
2012
43,994.000
6,683.000
31,963.000
2,281.000
2,187.000
1,468.000
2013
32,602.000
5,892.000
4,274.000
5,114.000
3,609.000
3,057.000
Source: (FAO, MoAWR, 2006-2011) and (KRSO, 2012-2013). Note: The data of Halabja was a part of the Sulaimani governorate in 2006-2013 1 ton = 1000 kg, 1 hectare = 4 donum (Iraqi donum), 1 donum = 2500 m2 Table 3.8 Total cultivated area of winter and summer crop of Sulaimani governorate
Years
Winter cultivated area (Donum)
Summer cultivated area (Donum)
Wheat
Tomato
Cucumber
Okra
0.000
0.000
0.000
Barley
Chickpea
2005-2006
481,638.000 432,822.000 77,430.000
2006-2007
590,850.000 569,750.000 86,809.000 25,760.000
8,440.000
0.000
2007-2008
421,500.000 206,260.000 79,535.000 19,547.000 10,359.000
0.000
2008-2009
885,645.000 362,100.000 44,830.000 10,891.000
9,717.000
6,283.000
2009-2010
875,650.000 459,550.000 21,710.000
9,177.000
10,033.000
5,112.000
2010-2011
740,652.000 315,794.000
14,374.000
9,291.000
4,655.000
2011-2012
930,527.000 179,140.000 12,579.000 19,287.000
3,056.000
21,773.000
2012-2013
912,836.000 219,082.000
2,773.000
2,881.000
5,341.000
7,526.000
11,578.000
Source: (FAO, MoAWR, 2006-2011) and (KRSO, 2012-2013). Note: The data of Halabja was a part of the Sulaimani governorate in 2006-2013 1 ton = 1000 kg, 1 hectare = 4 donum (Iraqi donum), 1 donum = 2500 m 2
23
Chapter Three
Materials and Methods
3.5 Water Resources Water resources in Iraq are controlled by the Twin Rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates. Both are international Rivers originating their source in Turkey (Omer, 2011). The Kurdistan Region Governorates (KRG) accesses water from Tigris, Great Zab, Little Zab, Khabur, Sirwan, and Awa Sipi Rivers for crop irrigation and hydroelectricity. About 60 percent of Kurdistan’s water flow originates in Kurdistan (Soderberg and Phillips, 2015). Sulaimani governorate access water from Little Zab is located in the Eastern of Sulaimani governorate and North East and North West. Halabja governorate access water from Sirwan River is located in South East of Sulaimani governorate (Fuoad, 2014). 3.5.1 Surface water The main source of water in Kurdistan Region is the surface water, although the instinct of this source in the region still not exploited for drinking and agriculture (Harun, 2014). Surface water resources consist of rivers and streams. About 40% of the surface water comes from outside the Kurdistan region. In addition, there are lakes and reservoirs such as Dokan, Derbandikhan, and Dohuk. The most important water resource is rainfall and snow. Little Zab tributary passes through Sulaimani governorate; it is an international River between Iraq and Iran. Little Zab originate from mountains in Iran. The River enters the border of Iraq, Kurdistan region at Bedrazhour region. It is the main River that provides the major water source to Dukan Dam in Sulaimani Governorate. The length of little river is 400 km, and its catchment area is around 22,250 km2. The annual discharge rate of Little Zab is 7.07 Million Cubic Meters (MCM). Sirwan tributary originates from Iran and has a length of 385 km in Kurdistan region. Its catchment area is approximately 17,850 km2. Nearly 70 % of this area is located in Iran and only 30 % is in Kurdistan. The annual discharge of Sirwan River is 5.86 Billion Cubic Meters (BCM) which is 13.5 % of the Tigris River discharge (Hameed, 2013). 3.5.1.1 Rivers The surface water can be divided in two parts: (A) permanent (continual) rivers and (B) seasonal streams and branches. (A) The Permanent (continual) rivers are those flowing continuously, and they not dry up during the drought years. The most important permanent River is represented by the Tigris River. 24
Chapter Three
Materials and Methods
From upstream to downstream there are some Rivers and streams together, joining with Tigris as explained in Table 3.9 (B) Seasonal Stream: The streams in Kurdistan region are numerous. The snow and rain are providing the sources of streams, during spring; the size of streams increases a lot (Harun, 2014).
Table 3.9 The annual averages of water potential of the Tigris River in Sulaimani and Halabja governorates
Flow from
River or
Country of
% of basin
Tributary
origin
in Iraq
Little Zab
Iran
74
2.4
6.7
Sirwan
Iran
75
3.6
6.1
outside Iraq BCM
Average flow into Tigris in Iraq BCM
Source: World Bank, 2006, annex 2, pp. 50, Hydrological data of Tigris tributaries, cited from Harun (2014)
3.5.1.2 Dams Dam is one of the most significant mass to confine and barrier water in Kurdistan Region. Therefore, the location of the region in the upstream was helping the rest of Iraq to save and harvest water (Harun, 2014). This made them less prone to think about solving their water supply problem in the long-term (Heshmati, 2009). Several major dams and barrages have been built on the Rivers and its tributaries over the past century to control the flow of water for beneficial uses were explained as follows (Harun, 2014). Dukan dam Dukan Dam is one of the largest dams in Kurdistan region built on Dukan Lake, on the Little Zab. The total approximate average volume of water capacity of this dam is 6.8 BCM (Stevens and Alwash, 2003). The crest length of the dam is 350 m and has a maximum height of 116 m (World Bank, 2006). Height of the dam is 116.5 m. The Dukan dam has eight spillway gates and two gates for irrigation. Mainly used for hydroelectric power generation and holding water to be release of during summer months (MoAWR, 2009).
25
Chapter Three
Materials and Methods
Darbandikhan dam Darbandikhan Dam is located about 65 km South East of Sulaimani governorate. The Lake is one of the three largest Lakes in Kurdistan (Iraq Nature, 2013). Two main tributaries feed it: the Tanjero River, which flows from the North West, and Sirwan River which flows in from the East from Iran (Ararat et al., 2008). Darbandikhan Dam is located on the Sirwan River in a narrow valley between Baranan Mountain (World Bank, 2006). Height of the dam is 128 m, long 535 m. Its crest is 17 m wide and at an elevation of 495 m (MoAWR, 2008). It is currently threatened by the current severe drought affecting the region as a whole and by installing a dam on Sirwan River from Iran side (Ararat et al., 2008). 3.5.2 Ground Water Ground water is vital and the sole resource in the region. The major source of drinking water, in both urban and rural areas, relies on the ground water. The landscape and the formation of the land's layers in the region have led to large variation in well discharge levels (Harun, 2014). Ground water is considered as the main portion of the water supply in arid and semi-arid regions. In these environments, the complexity of the ground water management is increased when these regions face scarcity of data (Rahmati et al., 2015). 3.5.2.1 Ground water basins for Kurdistan region The sedimentary lowland areas of the Region form large, inter-granular aquifers are subdivide into a series of contiguous ground water basins in Table 3.10. Each ground water basin is characterized by common characteristics and is hydraulically connected (Harun, 2014). Table 3.10 The ground waters basins of the Region
Governorates
Sulaimani
Halabja
Basin name
Districts
Area (Km²)
Dukan Lake
Rania, Dukan, Pshdar
765
Chamchamal
Chamchamal
4906
Kalar
Kalar, Kfry, Khanaqin
4514
Arbat-Sharazwr
Sharazwr
606
Source: (MoAWR and MoP, 2010), cited from Harun (2014), Last accessed 11.7.2016
26
Chapter Three
Materials and Methods
Methods of Data Collection 3.6 Data source and methods of data collection The study made use of both quantitative and qualitative data for the period 2006-2015 for the analysis. Two main sources of information were used during this research are secondary and primary data. Since the collection of secondary data offers only a broad picture of the current situation which does not lead to the achievement of the established objectives of this study, primary data were also collected using a questionnaire implemented in both Sulaimani and Halabja governorates. 3.6.1 Secondary data Secondary data represent the starting point for any research. Researcher’s use this type of data if the problem can be partially or wholly solved without collecting primary data. Secondary data offer the advantage of low cost and ready availability. Secondary sources (relevant bibliography, credible database, official documents) were analyzed to obtain the most reliable information about crop production in general in both Sulaimani and Halabja governorates, the agriculture and development strategies, the current economy situation, the demographics and workforce, and crop availability in Sulaimani and Halabja governorates. (i) Agricultural data collection from Kurdistan Region Statistics Office about the cultivated area, production and yield of winter crop (wheat, barley, chickpeas and lentil) and summer crop (tomato, cucumber, okra and watermelon). (ii) Meteorological data collection from Sulaimani Metrological Station about raining falls from 2006-2015. 3.6.2 Primary data The survey conducted based on a questionnaire was chosen for this research because it offers the opportunity to collect more information about people, which refers to their perception about agriculture situation, knowledge and behavior. The survey also provides necessary data for analysis.
27
Chapter Three
Materials and Methods
3.6.2.1 Designing the questionnaire The questionnaire is widely used to collect primary data because it offers the opportunity to obtain various information about the research population. The questionnaire surveys used in this study was structured to obtain two types of main information: I. The first information collected was about the socio-demographic and economic profile of the farmer (age, gender, education and employment) and the main characteristics of the farm (socioeconomic situation, land tenure and crop production process to know how much they produce from agricultural production. II. The second part of the questionnaire offered information about production input. 3.6.2.2 Designing the sampling plan The steps followed to find the samples were: 1. Sampling unit: the researcher should determine the target population that will be sampled. 2. Sample size: large samples give more reliable information than small samples. The sample size of the research was 138 farmers. 3. Sampling procedure: The sampling procedures can be probabilistic or non-probabilistic. From all the sampling methods presented above the most proper for this study was considered the simple random sample, without replacement, continuous variable, with a relative error of 2 %, and confidence interval 99 % was used. Equation 3.1 The sample size of population
k 2 * x2 (2.58) 2 * 75.25 n 138 farmers .......... E. (3.1) k 2 * x2 (2.58) 2 * 75.25 2 2 (1.9) x 11,365 N Where n is the size of the sample, k is the probability guarantee, x2 is the variance, N the volume of population, ~x and is the absolute error (Kotler and Keller, 2006). The field of 138.000 farmers was interviewed, as represented in Table 3.11. The selection of farmers was a difficult process. This criterion of selection was chosen due to the particularities and the purpose of the research.
28
Chapter Three
Materials and Methods
Table 3.11 Distribution of the Sample by Governorate
No.
Sulaimani
Halabja
Total
Number of farmer
10,271.000
1,094.000
11,365.000
%
90.370
9.630
%
Sample
125.000
13.000
138.000
Source: (KRSO, 2013)
3.6.2.3 Choosing the contact methods In this research, various methods were implemented by the questionnaire surveys, depending upon the measures used (traditional paper-and-pencil interviewing), and the degree of the interviewer's contact with the respondent (direct-face-to-face interview). 3.6.2.4 Pre-testing The pretesting was performed on a small group of respondents with 13 farmers 9 farmers were in Sulaimani governorate at various places, especially in (Sulaimani center, Saisadiq, Sharbazher and Chamchaml) districts. The other four farmers were in Halabja governorate especially in the Xwrmal and Sirwan districts. During the pre-test it was observed that the farmers have difficulties in understanding the question related to the production cost because they do not have the list of the production cost, especially for inputs. The farmer did not buy the seed, fertilizer and pesticide with cash. Thus, they did not have any idea about amount spent. In some cases the farmer needs to increase amount of their inputs without focusing on the amount obtained. During the pretesting process it was also noticed that farmers of Chamchamal district do not keep appropriate information about the scale that used to measure the yield and production (e.g. kg and ton) in fact they use some local unit for measuring the products, for e.g, qznakh. Adding the source of plant seed, fertilizer, and pesticide for each type of crop, and plant disease, its causing sources were not clear by farmers. Due to the lacks of these information’s, this part of questionnaire was removed. 29
Chapter Three
Materials and Methods
3.6.2.5 Data collection and coding The data collection represents the most difficult and expensive part of the survey. For the data collection, the researcher has conducted a face-to-face interview with 138 farmers, 125 farmers in Sulaimani governorate and only 13 farmers in Halabja governorate. The interview was implemented in 94 villages of the rural areas of Sulaimani and Halabja Governorates. The survey, conducted during the 2015 December to 2016 March. The questionnaire was written in Kurdish, to facilitate the data collection, which was absolutely requisite for understanding the questions been the respondents. The local currency was used in the cases were information about the value requested. During the research, the exchange rate was $1: 1475 Iraqi Dinar (ID). The measurement of the agricultural land was dealt with Iraqi dunum. After coding the information, the data were checked, then arranged and tabulated in table according to the research objectives, then analyzed by SPSS statistics program with version 22. 3.7 Testing data 3.7.1 Chi-square test The chi-square test was used to verify the relationship between two categorical variables. In this test a two-way table is created and the observed counts were compared with the expected counts of the cells. The chi-square statistic is a measure of how much the observed cell counts in a twoway table diverge from the expected cell counts. Therefore, the chi-square tests the following hypothesis: Ho: Row and column variables are independent – there is no relationship Ha: Row and column variables are not independent – there is a relationship If the difference between expected and observed counts is large, there will be enough evidence against the null hypothesis (small P-value) and in favor of the alternative one. The chi-square distribution is an approximation to binomial distribution. The approximation is more accurate as the cell counts increase. In order to validate the test, it is necessary that at least 80 % of the expected cell counts must be greater than 5, with the exception of 2 X 2 tables where all four expected cell counts have to be 5 or more. In order that it is not always possible to achieve the required cell counts, cells are combined or excluded for some tests (Debella and Murad, 2004).
30
Chapter Three
Materials and Methods
Chi-square's purposes: (a) To test the hypothesis of no association between two or more groups, population or criteria (e.g, to check independence between two variables). (b) To test how likely the observed distribution of data fits with the distribution that is expected (Rana and Singhal, 2015). Equation 3.2 The Chi-square formula
2 (O E)2
..….E. (3.2)
E
(Where O = the observed frequency and E = the expected frequency) Source: http://www.statisticshowto.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/chi-square-formula.jpg
3.7.2 Correlation test Correlation Analysis is one of those methodologies which are used in Descriptive research. It was applied to indicate the extent of the relationship between different related variables. The correlation between two variables might be none (no correlation), positive correlation or negative correlation (Walliman, 2010).
Equation 3.3 Correlation formula r
x2
x y xy n ( x) ( y) . y n n 2
2
2
........ E. (3.3)
The extreme values of r (when r = ±1) indicate that there is perfect (positive or negative) correlation between X and Y, however, if r is 0, none or zero correlation is present. Source: http://www.statisticshowto.com/how-to-compute-pearsons-correlation-coefficients
31
CHAPTER FOUR RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS 4.1 Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Farmer 4.1.1 Age distribution of farmer The socio-demographic data were collected from two different governorates by the survey, which conducted by face to face with the farmers; as a head of the household in the study area. Analyzing data shed light on: the age, gender, distribution of education level and the main activity of the farmers. The results of this research revealed that study area of Sulaimani and Halabja governorates is suffering from economic, environment, and social crisis, having a negative impact on agricultural production. The result showed the age distribution of the respondents in the study area as shown in Table 4.1. Ranges were between 25.000-85.000 years, the youngest one, which is the minimum age located in Halabja governorate, especially in Xwrmal district with the average age of 51.920 years, and the older one, which is the higher age located in Sulaimani governorate especially in Rania district with the average age of 55.720 years, while the average of modal age groups were 46.000-55.000 and 56.000-65.000 years, Table 4.2.
Table 4.1 Age distribution of farmer in both Sulaimani and Halabja governorates
Governorates
No. of Respondent
Min
Max
Mean
Std. Deviation
Sulaimani
125.000
30.000
85.000
55.720
9.920
Halabja
13.000
25.000
67.000
51.920
11.870
Total
138.000
55.000
152.000
107.640
21.790
32
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
The result of gender distribution by age group is shown in Table 4.2. The farmers that have an active role in agricultural activity were male without female in both governorates, as female shared her activity as a labor force in the entire farming process. The male participation, within the age group of 56.000-65.000 years was higher with the rate of 40.800 % in Sulaimani governorate; whereas this ratio was lowest by 38.500 % in Halabja governorate. Also the lower age group was 25.000-35.000 years with the rate of 2.000 % in Sulaimani governorate; particularly in Sulaimani centre and Chamchamal district; while this ratio was lower 1.000 % especially in Xwrmal district in Halabja governorate. Due to the work of young people as a labor in their own farm or having own work. Besides, the rate of labor force in Halabja governorate is higher than Sulaimani governorate as shown in Table 3.3.
Table 4.2 Distribution of farmer according to age and gender
Gov.
25-35
Age *Gender
36-45
No.
%
No.
%
46-55 N o.
56-65
%
No.
%
66-75 N o.
76-85
Total
%
No.
%
%
Sulaimani
Male
2
1.600
17
13.600
41
32.800
51
40.800
10
8.000
4
3.200
100.000
Halabja
Male
1
7.700
3
23.100
2
15.400
5
38.500
2
15.400
0
0.000
100.000
Total No.
Male
3
2.200
20
14.500
43
31.200
56
40.600
12
8.700
4
2.900
138.000
*: The all of respondents were male
33
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
4.1.2 Education level of the farmer The data, analyzed showed that, the study area of both governorates suffers from lack of education; also the majority of farmers are without formal education in the study area, as shown in Table 4.3. The higher rate of illiterate 51.200 % means that farmers cannot read and wrote in Sulaimani governorate for all districts, except Sulaimani Centre. While this rate was lower in Halabja governorate convening 30.800 %. Also, the rate of farmers attended primary education was 32.8 % in Sulaimani governorate. Besides, the higher rate of those attending primary education in Halabja governorate was 46.200 %, means had basic information on read and write. However; the rate of the farmers attended secondary school were 15.200 % and 23.100 % in Sulaimani and Halabja governorates respectively. Moreover; the result observed that the farmers rarely graduated Diploma study with rate 0.800 % in Sulaimani governorate, especially in Qaradakh district and this rate in Halabja governorate was found to be zero percent. Besides, there were no respondents of university graduated in the study area and the rate of this level was zero percent in both Sulaimani and Halabja governorates. There is no relationship between farmers and agricultural engineers, hence it makes the biggest obstacle that facing farmers; this could have a negative impact on adopting new techniques of agricultural production.
Table 4.3 Education level of the farmer according to representative sampling
Education level
Sulaimani
Halabja
No.
%
No.
%
Illiterate
64.000
51.200
4.000
30.800
Primary school
41.000
32.800
6.000
46.200
Secondary school
19.000
15.200
3.000
23.000
Preparatory school
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Institutions
1.000
0.800
0.000
0.000
University
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Total
125.000
100.000
13.000
100.000
34
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
4.1.3 Migrations of the farmer The study area of the two governorates deprived of life and well-being in general as economic, cultural, social and politic due to frequent migration of the rural household due to the political situation, civil war, challenges, and farming reason as shown in Table 4.4. The rate of respondents who migrated for the short-term in Sulaimani governorate were 27.200 %, while this rate has decreased to 7.700 % in Halabja governorate because of two reasons: one of them was farming in the rented areas where have more water irrigation sources for summer crops in the Sulaimani than Halabja governorate. The second reason was feeding livestock in the natural pasture to be expanded in Sulaimani more than Halabja governorate. Besides, during the last decades the number of respondents who migrated for a long-time with different reasons of political situation and civil war in many districts, have decided to stay permanently in the study area and the rate was increased to 100.000 %.
Table 4.4 Migration of farmers from country sides with urban areas according to representative sampling in both Sulaimani and Halabja governorates
Governorates
Sulaimani
Halabja
Total
No. of
Short-term
No. of
Long-term
Respondent
Migration (%)
Respondent
Migration (%)
Yes
34.000
27.200
125.000
100.000
No
91.000
72.800
0.000
0.000
Yes
1.000
7.700
13.000
100.000
No
12.000
92.300
0.000
0.000
Yes
35.000
25.400
138.000
100.000
No
103.000
74.600
0.000
0.000
Yes-No
35
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
4.1.4 Agricultural impediment The study area of both governorates was facing many impediments, hindering agricultural production as shown in Table 4.5. The impediments include both naturals and humanity obstacles (drought, pests, financial crises, lack of production, poor soil, flooding, lack of fertilizer, lack of agricultural area, lack of equipment, lack of marketing plan and climate change). Among these impediments droughts had the high impact on agricultural production in Sulaimani governorate for all districts, particularly in Chamchamal districts having the rate of 54.400 %. While; this rate was decreased to 46.100 % in Halabja governorate, as metrological data of Halabja governorate had a linear trend with this result as shown in Figure 3.2. The results revealed that only 0.800 % of the respondents have financial crises in Sulaimani governorate; while this rate was zero percent in Halabja governorate. The rate of impediments by pests was 17.600 % in Sulaimani governorate; however, this rate increased up to 23.100 % in Halabja governorate owing to improper pest management. The rate of impediments by lacking of fertilizer application was zero percent, which had no effect on the agricultural production in Sulaimani governorate; despite having a lack in production by fertilizer shortage with the rate of 15.400 %, according to the respondents influenced on the lack of production with a rate of 30.800 % in Halabja governorate. The rate of the natural impediments like flooding was 0.800 % and climate change had contributed by 3.200 % in Sulaimani governorate while it has no effect in Halabja governorate. Table 4.5 Agricultural impediments affecting agricultural products in Sulaimani and Halabja governorates
Agricultural impediment
Sulaimani No. of
Halabja %
Respondent
No. of Respondent
%
Drought
68.000
54.400
6.000
46.100
Pests
22.000
17.600
3.000
23.100
Financial crises
1.000
0.800
0.000
0.000
Lack of production
0.000
0.000
4.000
30.800
Flooding
1.000
0.800
0.000
0.000
Lack of fertilizer
0.000
0.000
2.000
15.400
Lack of marketing plan
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Climate change
4.000
3.200
0.000
0.000
36
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
4.2 Land Ownership In the study area the agricultural land owned by farmers with a range of 2 - 20 donum in 20062015. The land owning comes in two forms as shown in Table 3.4. The rate of respondents who own less than 2 donum was 1.600 % in Sulaimani Centers and Sharazwr district in 2006, while this rate decreased to 0.800 % in Sulaimani centre in 2015. Besides, there is no surface less than 2 donum in Halabja governorate from 2006-2015 as shown in Figure 4.1. The rate of the respondents having 2-5 donum was 7.200 % in 2006; while in 2015 this rate increased to 8.800 % in Sulaimani centre, Penjwen, Sharbazher, Dukan, Rania and Pshdar districts. However, in Halabja governorate the rate of respondents having owning surface with 25 donum was 7.700 % in 2006; while the rate remained as it is in Xwrmal district in 2015. The rate of respondents owning 5-10 donum was 17.600 % in 2006; while this rate increased up to 19.200 % in 2015 particularly in all districts of Sulaimani governorate. Whereas in Halabja governorate the rate of respondents owning surface with 5-10 donum was 15.400 % in 2006 while this rate remained as it is in 2015. The rate of respondents possessing 1020 donum was 25.600 % in 2006, while this rate increased up to 27.200 % in 2015 in all districts of Sulaimani governorate. However, the rate of respondents who possessing 10-20 donum was 46.200 % in 2006, while this rate remained as it is in 2015 in Halabja governorate. It can be observed that; 42.400 % of the respondents owning more than 20 donum in 2006, while this rate increased to 43.200 % in all districts of Sulaimani governorate in 2015, because of receiving wheat production by silo. Precipitation is environmentally supported the cultivation which encouraged farmers to increase their owner land to obtain more agricultural production in the last years. In Halabja governorate the rate of respondents owning more than 20 donum was 30.800 % in 2006, while this rate remained as it is in 2015 in all districts. Moreover, the rate of land owning from 2006-2015 in Halabja governorate was remained stable, a cause for this situation was explained in Figure 4.1, also there are many cases in which farmers do not have enough resources and they decide not to cultivate the entire surfaces, this situation is more obvious in Halabja governorate.
37
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
Figure 4.1 Distribution of ownership land in the study area
4.3 Land Utilization During 2006-2015, the result revealed that the cultivated land, hillside and pond area of the study. Site was significantly increased, as explained in Table 3.5. Also, shown in Table 4.6 that in Sulaimani governorate the maximum irrigated area was 50.000 donum, un-irrigated area was 100.000 donum; the cultivated area was 150.000 donum with the mean of the cultivated area was 18.520 donum in 2006, While the maximum irrigated area increased up to 170.000 donum, unirrigated area was 300.000 donum; the cultivated area was 300.000 donum with the mean of the cultivated area was 27.170 donum in 2015. The mean of cultivated area increased with 8.650 donum in Sulaimani governorate. In Halabja governorate the maximum irrigated area was 8.000 donum, un-irrigated area was 50.000 donum; the cultivated area was 50.000 donum with the mean 12.380 donum cultivated area in 2006, while the maximum irrigated area increased up to 15.000 donum, un-irrigated area was 50.000 donum; the cultivated area was 50.000 donum with the mean of cultivated was 38
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
18.000 donum in 2015. The mean of cultivated area increased with 5.620 donum in Halabja governorate. It can be observed that the higher cultivated area located in Sulaimani governorate with expansion reasons of the area of Ranya district. The area of hillsides was 80.000 donum with the mean of 3.400 donum in Sulaimani governorate from 2006-2015. In Halabja governorate the area of hillsides was 5.000 donum with the mean 0.380 donum from 2006-2015. In 2006 Sulaimani governorate had no pond area, but in 2015 the pond area increased up to 6.000 donum because of the drought occurrence frequently in the study area, The irrigated area was expanded from 50.000 donum to 170.000 donum, particularly in Rania district and the farmers demand for water led to establish pond area to harvest water and reused it for irrigation during the period of water deficit in summer season, while Halabja governorate had no pond area during last decades, as Halabja area is not affected by drought like Sulaimani governorate. Thus, the amount of precipitation in Halabja is more prompt to have green water compare to Sulaimani governorate; also to show data of cultivated areas of other products of 2015; see (appendix 2 & 3)
Table 4.6 Land utilizations according to farmers in both Sulaimani and Halabja governorate in 2006-2015
2015
2006
Year
Sulaimani
Land utilization
Halabja
Donum
Min
Max
Mean
Min
Max
Mean
Irrigated area
0.000
50.000
2.340
0.000
8.000
0.610
Un irrigated area
0.000
100.000
16.160
0.000
50.000
11.760
Cultivated area
0.000
150.000
18.520
0.000
50.000
12.380
Hillside
0.000
80.000
3.400
0.000
5.000
0.380
Pond area
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Irrigated area
0.000
170.000
3.850
0.000
15.000
2.300
Un irrigated area
0.000
300.000
23.320
0.000
50.000
15.690
Cultivated area
1.000
300.000
27.170
0.000
50.000
18.000
Hillside
0.000
80.000
3.630
0.000
5.000
0.380
Pond area
0.000
6.000
0.0481
0.000
0.000
0.000
39
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
4.4 Agricultural Activity of the Farmer 4.4.1 Winter and summer crops in Sulaimani governorate The main activity of farmers (producers) was farming they cultivated major winter crops (wheat, barley and chickpea) and summer crops (tomato, cucumber and okra). In 2006 the surface area was limited, whereas the area expanded in 2015 with both winter and summer crops, particularly in Rania district due to raising the price of receiving wheat product by silo to 792,000 ID/TON. The wheat production receiving by silo had the direct effect to encourage the farmers to cultivate wider areas of wheat crop that lead to expand the cultivated area in the last 10 years. The result was achieved in Table 4.7, the mean of surface cultivated with wheat was 19.180 donum which consists of 1.070 donum of irrigated area and 18.110 donum of un-irrigated areas with the amount of production of 6,572.460 Kg yield 474.080 Kg/donum in 2006. While the surface cultivated with wheat has increased up to 29.250 donum which consists of 2.570 donum of irrigated area and 26.670 donum of un-irrigated area with the amount of production increased 15,857.220 Kg; yield was 537.050 Kg/donum in 2015. The variance of the cultivated surface from 2006-2015 was 10.700 donum with the amount of 9,285.000 Kg production was; with yield was 62.970 Kg/donum due to increasing the income. The farmers have been encouraged to use more amount of fertilizer, providing irrigation system in some small district however; the precipitation amount has supported the cultivation in the last 10 years, as shown in Figure 3.2. Barley had a significant effect on livestock feeding, thus the mean of barley surface area cultivated of 8.500 donum of un-irrigated area with the amount of 4,413.000 Kg production giving the yield 671.160 Kg/donum in 2006. The surface area cultivated with barley had increased to 9.140 donum consisting of 0.560 donum of irrigated areas and 8.580 donum of unirrigated area with the amount of production increased to 5,435.400 Kg; giving the yield of 763.120 Kg/donum in 2015. The variance of the cultivated surface from 2006-2015 was 0.640 donum with 1,0224.000 Kg production and yield was 91.960 Kg/donum. The increased income in barley crop refer to the extreme use of barley to produce green fodder and straw, more amount of fertilizer, providing irrigation system in some small districts; also the adequate amount of precipitation that supported the cultivation of barley. The mean of surface cultivated with chickpea was 15.570 donum which consists of 12.000 donum of irrigated area and 3.570 donum of un-irrigated area with the amount of 3,000.000 Kg product that yielded 282.570 Kg/donum in 2006. While in 2015 the mean of surfaces cultivated 40
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
with chickpea was dropped to 2.660 donum one donum of irrigated area and 1.660 of un-irrigated area, also the amount of production was 1,032 Kg; yield 309.660 Kg/donum. The variance of the cultivated surface from 2006-2015 was 12.910 donum and the amount of production was 1,968.000 Kg; yield 27.090 Kg/donum. Lack of labor and fertilizer might be the reason of yield drop. The mean of surface cultivated with tomato was 3.350 donum of area irrigated area with the amount of 6,620.000 Kg production having the rate of yield 2,750.000 Kg/donum in 2006. While in 2015 the mean of surface area cultivated with tomato had increased to 4.350 donum of irrigated areas and the amount of production was 11,400.000 Kg to give yield 3,693.110 Kg/donum. The variance of cultivated surface was 1.000 donum and the amount of production was 4,780.000 Kg; yield 943.110 Kg/donum due to increased income. The farmers were encouraged to use the more amounts of fertilizer and providing drip irrigation system. The mean of surface cultivated with cucumber was 3.000 donum of irrigated area with 25,000.000 Kg production giving yield 8,333.000 Kg/donum in 2006. In 2015 the mean of cultivated area with cucumber increased to 4.000 donum of irrigated area and the amount of production was 27,500.000 Kg, yield 6,589.250 Kg/donum. The variance of cultivated surface was 1.000 donum and the amount of production was 2,500.000 Kg; yield 1,744.000 Kg/donum, because of more using of fertilizer and providing suitable irrigation system. The mean of surfaces cultivated with okra was 0.000 in 2006 due to lack of labor, lack of water and disease, while the mean of surfaces area cultivated with okra increased to 2.120 donum of irrigated area and the amount of production was 2,250.000 Kg; yield 1,216.000 Kg/donum in 2015. 4.4.2 Winter and summer crops in Halabja governorate From 2006-2015 the surface area cultivated with wheat had expanded due to receiving wheat by silo, whereas the surface area cultivated with tomato dropped with reason of having pests in the area. In spite of receiving wheat production by silo, but this step had not an active role due to the lack of production as show in Table 4.7. The result revealed that increasing in production of wheat and tomato was significant during the last 10 years. The mean of surface area cultivated with wheat was 15.300 donum of un-irrigated area with amount of production 7,710.000 Kg; yield 636.000 Kg/donum in 2006, while the mean of surface area cultivated with wheat was increased up to 20.000 donum of un-irrigated area with the 41
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
amount of production was 12,485.000 Kg; yield 671.200 Kg/donum in 2015. The variance of cultivated surface was 4.700 donum and the amount of production was 4,775.000 Kg; yield 35.200 Kg/donum in 2015; because of increasing income, use of fertilizer in a small amount also the precipitation is environmentally supported the cultivation. In 2006 barley was not cultivated. While in 2015, the mean of surface area cultivated with barley was 4.000 donum of un-irrigated areas and the amount of production was 2,000.000 Kg; yield 500.000 Kg/donum with reason due to extreme use of barley to produce green fodder and straw. The chickpea was not cultivated in last decades owing to lack of labor and fertilizer. The first summer cultivation was tomato the mean of surface area cultivated with tomato was 8.000 donum of irrigated areas with the amount of production 2,000.000 Kg; yield 250.000 Kg/donum in 2006. While the mean of surface area cultivated with tomato dropped to 5.000 donum of irrigated areas, but the amount of production was significantly increased to 7,433.330 Kg; yield 966.660 Kg/donum in 2015. The variance of cultivated surface was 3.000 donum and the amount of production was 5,433.000 Kg; yield 716.660 Kg/donum because of increasing income, it means to encourage the farmers to use the amount of fertilizer. Ultimately cucumber and okra not cultivated in rural areas of Halabja governorate; because of lack of labor force and higher prices of pesticide management.
42
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
Table 4.7 The means of distribution of agricultural activity in both Sulaimani and Halabja governorates during 2006-2015
2015
2006
Years
Sulaimani
Crops
Area Donum
Irrigated area Donum
Halabja
Unirrigated Production area
Kg
Yield
Area
Kg/Donum Donum
Donum
Irrigated area Donum
Un irrigated Production area
Yield
Kg
Kg/Donum
Donum
Wheat
19.180
1.070
18.110
6572.460
474.080
15.300
0.000
15.300
7710.000
636.000
Barley
8.500
0.000
8.500
4413.000
671.160
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Chickpea
15.570
12.000
3.570
3000.000
282.570
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Tomato
3.350
3.350
0.000
6620.000
2750.000
8.000
8.000
0.000
2000.000
250.000
Cucumber
3.000
3.000
0.000
25000.000
8333.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Okra
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Wheat
29.250
2.570
26.670
15857.220
537.050
20.000
0.000
20.000
12485.000
671.200
Barley
9.140
0.560
8.580
5435.400
763.120
4.000
0.000
4.000
2000.000
500.000
Chickpea
2.660
1.000
1.660
1032.000
309.660
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Tomato
4.350
4.350
0.000
11400.000
3693.110
5.000
5.000
0.000
7433.330
966.660
Cucumber
4.000
4.000
0.000
27500.000
6589.250
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Okra
2.120
2.120
0.000
2250.000
1216.750
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
43
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
4.5 Seed In the rural area of both governorates; the farmers generally focused on two types of seed, the first is the kind of seed that farmers collected from previous harvesting. The second one is certified seed which quite rare for the farmers to use this kind of seeds spatially in such strategic crop like wheat. The farmer used the last harvested seed in higher level than the certified seed with high quality, but in the lowest level because of the limited income. The comparison between both governorates in the farmer’s ratio for relying on last harvested seed of wheat was 64.800 % in Sulaimani governorate, while this rate was lower 61.500 % in Halabja governorate, as shown in Table 4.8. Also, the farmer’s ratio for certified seed of wheat was 31.200 % in Sulaimani governorate, while this rate was lower 23.100 % in Halabja governorate. The farmers were using certified seed when there are not enough amounts of grain seed from previous harvesting. Sometimes farmers used the plant in seeds from both sources, resulting in reducing the quantity and quality of agricultural production. The farmer’s ratio for the last harvested seed of barley was 17.600 % in Sulaimani governorate; while this ratio was lower 7.700 % in Halabja governorate. However the farmer’s ratio of certified grain seed of barley was very low 4.800 % in Sulaimani governorate, while this ratio was 0.000 percent in Halabja governorate. The chickpea was cultivated only in Sulaimani governorate. The farmer’s ratio for the last harvested seed of chickpea was 0.800 %; while the ratio of certified seed was higher 1.600 %; owing to there are no enough amounts of seed from previous harvesting due to sell whole the production. The farmer’s ratio for last harvests seed of tomato was 4.800 % in Sulaimani governorate, while this ratio was higher 15.400 % in Halabja governorate. However the farmer’s ratio of certified seed of tomato was 9.600 % in Sulaimani governorate; this ratio was lower 7.700 % in Halabja governorate. In Sulaimani governorate the farmer’s ratio of certified seed of cucumber was 2.400 %, higher than last harvests seed were 0.800 %; because in such crops the certified seed gives the production with high quality and quantity. The farmer’s ratio for the last harvesting seed of okra was higher 2.400 %, while the farmer’s ratio of certified seed was low 0.800 %.
44
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
Halabja
Sulaimani
Governorate
Table 4.8 Usage of seed type by farmers in both Sulaimani and Halabja governorates
Seed type Crops
Last harvested seed
Certified seed
Hybrid seed
Basic seed
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
Wheat
81.000
64.800
39.000
31.200
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Barley
22.000
17.600
6.000
4.800
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Chickpea
1.000
0.800
2.000
1.600
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Tomato
6.000
4.800
12.000
9.600
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Cucumber
1.000
0.800
3.000
2.400
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Okra
3.000
2.400
1.000
0.800
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Wheat
8.000
61.500
3.000
23.100
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Barley
1.000
7.700
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Chickpea
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Tomato
2.000
15.400
1.000
7.700
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Cucumber
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Okra
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
4.6 Fertilizer The result revealed that, the farmers used two main types of fertilizer; animal manure and chemical fertilizers, which consist of diammonium phosphate (DAP) and uric acid. It is observed the farmers used the chemical fertilizer more than animal manure in Table 4.9. The farmer’s ratio for animal manure use in wheat production was 9.600 % in Slulaimani governorate, while this manure was not applied in Halabja governorate. However; the farmer’s ratio for chemical fertilizer use for wheat grows was 76.800 % in Sulaimani governorate, and this ratio was 76.900 % in Halabja governorate.
45
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
The farmer’s ratio for animal manure use in barley growing was 5.600 %, the ratio for chemical fertilizer use in barley production was higher than animal manure 15.400 % in Sulaimani governorate. In Halabja the farmers did not use any type of fertilizer for the barley because of the higher cost of fertilizer application in the study area. Thus the farmers were focused on using fertilizer for strategic crop like wheat; also the barley has ability to endure to drought, climate change and disease. The farmers did not use any type of fertilizer in growing chickpea in Sulaimani governorate. The reason of this task is the high cost of chemical fertilizer in the research area, also according to Mallarino (2008) fertilizer prices have increased significantly in the world during the last two years. Chickpea has not been cultivated in Halabja governorate, due to high labor cost, especially for harvesting, high rate of pest infection and lack of production. The farmer’s ratio for applying animal manure in tomato field was 1.600 % in Sulaimani governorate, while this ratio was 0.000 percent in Halabja governorate. The farmer’s ratio for applying of chemical fertilizer in tomato was higher than animal manure by 12.800 % in Sulaimani governorate; also the farmer’s ratio for using chemical fertilizer in tomato was 23.100 % in Halabja governorate; because of chemical fertilizer is easier to use than animal manure, also the perception of the farmers is willingness to use the chemical fertilizer. On the other hand, the data obtained from the survey shows that the farmers use more chemical fertilizer, ultimately it’s better to educate the farmers to sustain their land. The farmer’s ratio for using animal manure in the production of cucumber was very low 0.800 %, while the farmer’s ratio for using chemical fertilizer was 3.200 %, in Sulaimani governorate. Likewise the farmer’s ratio for applying animal manure for okra was very low 0.800 %, while the ratio for using chemical fertilizer for okra was 2.400 % in Sulaimani governorate. According to the study data cucumber and okra were not cultivated in Halabja, due to the absent of the proper marketing policies to sell their production and importing these crops from a broad (according to farmers answer). There was not any sign to use bio fertilizer in both governorates, considering being a new technique. Hence, farmers still not well informed to implement this application that consists of bacteria and fungus with plant waste in order to increase soil fertility, through increasing the availability of different nutrient to the plant.
46
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
Governorates
Table 4.9 Using different fertilizer application in Sulaimani and Halabja governorates
Fertilizer Crops
Wheat
Sulaimani
Barley
Chickpea
Tomato
Cucumber
Okra
Wheat
Halabja
Barley
Chickpea
Tomato
Cucumber
Okra
Yes-No
Animal Manure
Chemical Fertilizer
Bio Fertilizer
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
Yes
12.000
9.600
96.000
76.800
0.000
0.000
No
89.000
71.200
5.000
4.000
0.000
0.000
Yes
7.000
5.600
19.000
15.200
0.000
0.000
No
18.000
14.400
6.000
4.800
0.000
0.000
Yes
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
No
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Yes
2.000
1.600
16.000
12.800
0.000
0.000
No
15.000
12.000
1.000
0.800
0.000
0.000
Yes
1.000
0.800
4.000
3.200
0.000
0.000
No
3.000
2.400
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Yes
1.000
0.800
3.000
2.400
0.000
0.000
No
3.000
2.400
1.000
0.800
0.000
0.000
Yes
0.000
0.000
10.000
76.900
0.000
0.000
No
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Yes
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
No
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Yes
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
No
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Yes
0.000
0.000
3.000
23.100
0.000
0.000
No
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Yes
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
No
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Yes
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
No
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
47
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
4.7 Pesticides & Herbicides The results presented that, most of the farmers were used various types of pesticides for winter and summer crops in both of the study areas; according to the respondents of 125.000 farmers in Sulaimani governorate, while in Halabja governorate they were 13.000 farmers as showed in Table 4.10. The maximum quantity of Raxil used for dusting wheat was 30.000 Kg. in Saidsadiq district that mixed with seeds before planting process, also the Raxil price was 10,000.000 ID/Kg; Whereas in Halabja governorate 4.000 Kg was used for dusting wheat which was in Xwrmal district having lower prices (5.000 ID/Kg) compared to Sulaimani governorate. In Sulaimani governorate the maximum quantity of 2.4-D pesticide was used for controlling the broad leaf weeds in the field of wheat 19.000 L. It means (19.000 holders: 1 L/400.000 L water). In Rania district it was sprayed on plants using holder. The 2.4-D price was (45.000 ID/L or 1.000 holder). In Halabja governorate 4.000 L was used to controlling the broad leaf weeds in the field of wheat, especially in Xwrmal district, using holder. 2.4-D price there was lower by (30.000 ID/L). In Sulaimani governorate the maximum quantity of 18.000 L Haloxyfop-R-Methyl pesticide was used for controlling the narrow leaf weeds inside wheat field. The Haloxyfop-R-Methyl price was (45.000 ID/L or 1.000 holder). Whereas in Halabja governorate 4.000 L was used to control narrow leaf weeds, especially in Xwrmal district having lower price of (30.000 ID/L). In Sulaimani governorate the maximum quantity of 18.000 L Humic acid+NPK was used to stimulate growth of wheat, especially in Rania district, having the price of (45.000 ID/L). While in Halabja governorate amount of 2.000 L Humic acid+NPK, was used especially in Xwrmal district, having the price of (30.000 ID/L). Differences in price of the same application for wheat in both governorates was realized that refer to the difference in renting prices of machines and the brand of chemicals. In Sulaimani governorate the maximum quantity of 2.000 Kg Raxil was used for dusting barley, especially in Dukan and Chamchamal districts that mixed with seeds before sowing. Raxil had the price of (10.000 ID/Kg). The maximum quantity of 3.000 L 2.4-D was used for to control broad leaf weeds in barley field, especially in Chamchamal district, having the price of (45.000 ID/L). The maximum quantity of 3.000 L Haloxyfop-R-Methyl pesticide was used to control narrow leaf weeds of barley, especially in Penjwen district having the price of (5.000 ID/L). Whereas in 48
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
Halabja governorate the producer did not use any type of application for barley production due to the producer limited income. Also, they focused on feeding their livestock. In Sulaimani governorate the maximum quantity of 1.000 L Humic acid+NPK was used to stimulate growth of chickpea, especially in Sulaimani centre, having the price (10.000 ID/L). In Halabja governorate the farmers did not cultivate chickpea, as show in Table 4.11. In Sulaimani governorate the maximum quantity of 2.000 L Haloxyfop-R-Methyl pesticides were used to controlling the narrow leaf weeds in the field of tomato, especially in Penjwen district, having the price of pesticides (15.000 ID/L). The maximum quantity of 2.000 L Humic acid+NPK were used to stimulating growth of tomato, especially in Penjwen and Dukan districts, having the price of (40.000 ID/L). The maximum quantity of 3.000 L Granstar was used to control broad leaf weeds in the fields of tomato, especially in Penjwen district, having the price of (20.000 ID/L). Whereas in Halabja governorate the maximum quantity of 2.000 L Granstar was used to controlling broad leaf weeds in narrow leaf fields of tomato, especially in Sirwan district, having the price of (20.000 ID/L). In Sulaimani governorate the maximum quantity of 3.000 L Runup 480 pesticides was used to complete control of annual and perennial grass and broad leaf weeds in the field of tomato, especially in Penjwen district having the price of (15.000 ID/L). The maximum quantity of 200.000 Kg Mancozeb pesticide was used to controlling diseases of tomato, especially in Penjwen district, having the price of (1.200 ID/Kg). The maximum quantity of 2.000 L Zamactin 360 pesticides was used to control spider mites of tomato, especially in Saidsadiq district; having the price of (35.000 ID/L). In Sulaimani governorate the maximum quantity of 1.000 L 2.4-D pesticide were used to controlling the broad leaf weeds in the field of cucumber, especially in Sharazwr district, having the price of (45.000 ID/L). The maximum quantity of 2.000 L Humic acid+NPK was used to stimulating growth of cucumber, especially in Dukan district, having the price of (40.000 ID/L). The maximum quantity of 3.000 L Runup 480 pesticides was used to complete control of annual and perennial grass and broad leaf in the field of cucumber, especially in Penjwen district, having the price of (15.000 ID/L). In Halabja governorate the farmers did not cultivate cucumber. In Sulaimani governorate the maximum quantity of 1.000 L 2.4-D pesticide were used for okra, especially in Sharazwr district, having the price of (45.000 ID/L).
49
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
The maximum quantity of 9.000 L Granstar was used for okra, especially in the Pshdar district; having the price of (20.000 ID/L). In Halabja governorate; the farmers did not cultivate okra in the area. Different pesticides (herbicides) were used for controlling weed inside the fields as represented in the table (4.10), with the active ingredient of each pesticide and herbicides.
Table 4.10 The active ingredient of pesticides (herbicides) and their Kurdish name used in the production of different crops in Sulaimani and Halabja governorate
Pesticides & herbicides
Active ingredient
Kurdish name
Raxil
Tebuconazol
خومرة
2.4-D
2.4-D
طةلَا ثان
Haloxyfop-R-Methyl
Haloxyfop
طةلَا باريك
Humic acid+NPK
Humic acid+NPK
طةشة
Granstar
Tribenuron-Methyl
توَمة
Runup 480
Glyphocid
ِسةوزي بر
Mancozeb
Mancozeb
طرِة
Zamactin 360
Abamactin
جالَجالَوَكة
name
50
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
Halabja
Sulaimani
Governorates
Table 4.11 The maximum and minimum using of pesticides & herbicides to crops by farmers in Sulaimani and Halabja governorates
Crops Pesticides
Wheat
(Herbicides)
Barley
Chickpea
Tomato
Quantity of use / L
Cucumber
Okra
Quantity of use / L
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Raxil
1.000
30.000
1.000
2.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.4-D
1.000
19.000
1.000
3.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
1.000
Haloxy fop-R-Methyl
1.000
18.000
1.000
3.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
2.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Humic acid+NPK
1.000
18.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
2.000
0.000
2.000
0.000
0.000
Granstar
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
3.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
9.000
Runup 480
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.000
3.000
0.000
3.000
0.000
0.000
Mancozeb
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
50.000 200.000 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Zamactin 360
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Raxil
1.000
4.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.4-D
1.000
4.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Haloxy fop-R-Methyl
1.000
4.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Huic acid+NPK
1.000
2.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Grandstar
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
2.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Runup 480
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Mancozeb
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Zamactin 360
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Pesticides & herbicides: (Raxil and Mancozeb /Kg) and (2.4-D, Haloxy fop-R-Methyl, Huic acid+NPK, Grandstar and Runup 480/L) 51
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
4.8 Factors Affecting Agricultural Production Chi square test were conducted to determine the relationship between dependent variable like yield of wheat, barley, chickpea, tomato, cucumber and okra and independent variable in both Sulaimani and Halabja governorates as show in Table 4.12. H01: There is no relationship between wheat yield and governorates H11: There is a relationship between wheat yield and governorates
The result represented that, there is no significant relationship between wheat yield and the governorates because of p value = 0.307 is greater than 0.05 level. Hence, accept the null hypothesis (H01) and reject the alternative hypothesis (H11). It is concluded that, the area where the wheat is cultivated does not have any influence on the yield. Thus, there is no priority of both governorates for farmers in cultivate wheat also the yield are similar. H02: There is no relationship between wheat yield and seed type H12: There is a relationship between wheat yield and seed type
The result represented that there is no significant relationship between wheat yield and seed type because of p value = 0.903 is greater than 0.05 level. Hence, accept the null hypothesis (H02) and reject the alternative hypothesis (H12). It is concluded that, the seed type does not have any influence on the yield. Generally the types of seed, used by farmers were last harvesting and certified seed because of using a certain type of seed by farmers in both governorates. H03: There is no relationship between wheat yield and fertilizer type H13: There is a relationship between wheat yield and fertilizer type
The result represented that, there is a significant relationship between wheat yield and fertilizer type because p value = 0.05 is equal to 0.05 level. Hence, accept the alternative hypothesis (H13) and reject the null hypothesis (H03). It is concluded that the fertilizer type influenced the yield. Indeed, the farmer interested in use of fertilizer for strategic cops as wheat more of other crops. H04: There is no relationship between wheat yield and use pesticide and herbicides H14: There is a relationship between wheat yield and use pesticide and herbicides
The result represented that, there is no significant relationship between wheat yield and use pesticides and herbicides because of p value = 0.178 is greater than 0.05 level. Hence, accept the null hypothesis (H04) and reject the alternative hypothesis (H14). From this point it can be concluded that the pesticides and herbicides do not have any influence on the yield, due to farmer’s lack of education to use the amount of pesticides and herbicides with their standards. H05: There is no relationship between wheat yield and education H15: There is a relationship between wheat yield and education
52
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
The result shows there is no significant relationship between wheat yield and education because of p value = 0.795 is greater than 0.05 level. Hence, accept the null hypothesis (H05) and reject the alternative hypothesis (H15). It is concluded that the education does not have any influence on the yield of wheat. Basically from the survey conducted it is realized that the majority of the farmers were illiterate. H06: There is no relationship between wheat yield and drought H16: There is a relationship between wheat yield and drought
The result represented that, there is no significant relationship between wheat yield and drought because p value = 0.457 is greater than 0.05 level. Hence, accept the null hypothesis (H06) and reject the alternative hypothesis (H16). It is concluded that the drought does not have any influence on the yield. One cause of drought for this situation from 2006-2015 was occurred in 2007-2008 and it was not influenced the production generally, compared to other years of the last 10 years. H07: There is no relationship between wheat yield and pests H17: There is a relationship between wheat yield and pests
The result shows non-significant relationship between wheat yield and pests because p value = 0.573 is greater than 0.05 level. Hence, accept the null hypothesis (H07) and reject the alternative hypothesis (H17). It is concluded that pests do not have any influence on the yield. Table 4.12 Relationship between wheat yields and independent variables
Dependent variable Yield (wheat) No.
Independent variable
N
DF
X2
P-
Cramer’s
Value
V
1
Governorates (1.Sulaimani, 2.Halabja)
111
69
74.403
0.307
-
2
Seed type (1.lasty harvested, 2.certified, 3.mix)
111
138
116.898
0.903
-
3
Fertilizer type (1.animal, 2.chemical, 3.mix)
111
207
241.465
0.050
0.852
4
Use pesticides and herbicides (1.yes, 2.no)
111
69
79.709
0.178
-
5
Education
111
138
124.127
0.795
-
6
Drought
111
69
69.589
0.457
-
7
Pests
111
69
66.196
0.573
-
H01: There is no relationship between barley yield and governorates H11: There is a relationship between barley yield and governorates
53
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
The result represented that, there is no significant relationship between barley yield and governorates because of p value = 0.967 is greater than 0.05 level. Hence, accept the null hypothesis (H01) and reject the alternative hypothesis (H11). It is concluded that the area where the barley is cultivated do not have any influence on the yield. Thus, there is no favorability of both governorates for the farmer as represented in Table 4.13. H02: There is no relationship between barley yield and seed type H12: There is a relationship between barley yield and seed type
The result represented that, there is no significant relationship between barley yield and seed type because p value = 0.162 is greater than 0.05 level. Hence, accept the null hypothesis (H02) and reject the alternative hypothesis (H12). It is concluded that the seed type do not have any influence on the yield. Generally the farmers used the certain seed type for barley because the farmers not interested in quality of barley in both governorate. H03: There is no relationship between barley yield and fertilizer type H13: There is a relationship between barley yield and fertilizer type
The result represented that, there is no significant relationship between barley yield and fertilizer type because of p value = 0.119 is greater than 0.05 level. Hence, we can accept the null hypothesis (H03) and reject the alternative hypothesis (H13). It is concluded that the fertilizer type do not have any influence on the yield. Indeed, the farmers rarely used fertilizer for barley due to the higher price of fertilizer application. H04: There is no relationship between barley yield and use pesticides and herbicides H14: There is a relationship between barley yield and use pesticides and herbicides
The result represented that, there is no significant relationship between barley yield and use pesticides and herbicides because p value = 0.217 is greater than 0.05 level. Hence, accept the null hypothesis (H04) and reject the alternative hypothesis (H14). It is concluded that the pesticides and herbicides do not have any influence on the yield. The farmer not well-informed to use pesticides and herbicides management for barley. H05: There is no relationship between barley yield and education H15: There is a relationship between barley yield and education
The result shows there is no significant relationship between the yield of barley and education because p value = 0.075 is greater than 0.05 level. Hence, accept the null hypothesis (H05) and reject the alternative hypothesis (H15). It is concluded that the education do not have any influence on the yield. The farmers not concerned to barley, this made the real production of barley is lower than actual need. 54
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
H06: There is no relationship between barley yield and drought H16: There is a relationship between barley yield and drought
The result shows there is no significant relationship between barley yield and drought because of p value = 0.331 is greater than 0.05 level. Hence, accept the null hypothesis (H06) and reject the alternative hypothesis (H16). It is concluded that the drought do not have any influence on the yield due to resistance barely to a dry environment. H07: There is no relationship between barley yield and pests H17: There is a relationship between barley yield and pests
The result represented that there is no significant relationship between barley yield and pests because of p value = 0.652 is greater than 0.05 level. Hence, accept the null hypothesis (H07) and the alternative hypothesis (H17) is rejected. It is concluded that the pests do not have any influence on the yield. Ultimately barley is adopted as resistance to pests. Table 4.13 Relationship between barley yields and independent variable
Dependent variable Yield (barley) No.
Independent variable
N
DF
X2
P-
Cramer’s
Value
V
1
Governorates (1.Sulaimani, 2.Halabja)
26
17
7.973
0.967
-
2
Seed type (1.lasty harvested, 2.certified, 3.mix)
26
34
42.033
0.162
-
3
Fertilizer type (1.animal, 2.chemical, 3.mix)
26
51
63.111
0.119
-
4
Use pesticides and herbicides (1.yes, 2.no)
26
17
21.220
0.217
-
5
Education
26
34
46.463
0.075
-
6
Drought
26
17
18.958
0.331
-
7
Pests
26
17
14.218
0.652
-
H02: There is no relationship between chickpea yield and seed type H12: There is a relationship between chickpea yield and seed type
The result represented that, there is no significant relationship between chickpea yield and seed type because p value = 0.223 is greater than 0.05 level. Hence, accept the null hypothesis (H02) and reject the alternative hypothesis (H12). It is concluded that the seed type do not have any influence on the yield. The farmers used a certain type of seed as show in Table 4.14. H04: There is no relationship between chickpea yield and use pesticides and herbicides H14: There is a relationship between chickpea yield and use pesticides and herbicides
55
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
The result represented that, there is no significant relationship between chickpea yield and use pesticides and herbicides because of p value = 0.232 is greater than 0.05 level. Hence, accept the null hypothesis (H04) and reject the alternative hypothesis (H14). It is concluded that the pesticides and herbicides does not have any influence on the yield. Due to the farmers rarely use pesticides and herbicides for chickpea. H05: There is no relationship between chickpea yield and education H15: There is a relationship between chickpea yield and education
The result represented that, there is no significant relationship between chickpea yield and education because p value = 0.332 is greater than 0.05 level. Hence, accept the null hypothesis (H05) and reject the alternative hypothesis (H15). It is concluded that the education do not have any influence on the yield. The farmer did not consider about the education. H06: There is no relationship between chickpea yield and drought H16: There is a relationship between chickpea yield and drought
The result represented that, there is no significant relationship between the yield of chickpea and drought because of p value = 0.332 is greater than 0.05 level. Hence, accept the null hypothesis (H06) and reject the alternative hypothesis (H16). It is concluded that the drought do not have any influence on the yield. Owing to the average of precipitation was affected on chickpea. Table 4.14 Relationship between chickpea yields and independent variable
Dependent variable Yield (chickpea) No.
Independent variable
N
DF
X2
P- Value
Cramer’s V
1
Seed type (1.lasty harvested, 2.certified, 3.mix)
3
2
3.000
0.223
-
2
Use pesticides and herbicides (1.yes, 2.no)
3
2
3.000
0.223
-
3
Education
3
2
3.000
0.223
-
4
Drought
3
2
3.000
0.223
-
H01: There is no relationship between tomato yield and governorates H11: There is a relationship between tomato yield and governorates
The result represented that, there is no significant relationship between tomato yield and governorates because of p value = 0.837 is greater than 0.05 level. Hence, accept the null hypothesis (H01) and reject the alternative hypothesis (H11). It is concluded that the area where the
56
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
tomato is cultivated do not have any influence on the yield. Thus, there is no priority for the farmer in both governorates as represented in Table 4.15. H02: There is no relationship between tomato yield and seed type H12: There is a relationship between tomato yield and seed type
The result represented that, there is no significant relationship between tomato yield and seed type because of p value = 0.480 is greater than 0.05 level. Hence, accept the null hypothesis (H02) and reject the alternative hypothesis (H12). It is concluded that the seed type do not have any influence on the yield. Generally the farmers use certain type of seed in both governorates. H03: There is no relationship between tomato yield and fertilizer type H13: There is a relationship between tomato yield and fertilizer type
The result shows there is no significant relationship between tomato yield and fertilizer type because of p value = 0.754 is greater than 0.05 level. Hence, accept the null hypothesis (H03) and reject the alternative hypothesis (H13). It is concluded that the fertilizer type do not have any influence on the yield. The farmers use fertilizer in certain amount due to higher prices of fertilizer application. H04: There is no relationship between tomato yield and use pesticides and herbicides H14: There is a relationship between tomato yield and use pesticides and herbicides
The result represented that, there is no significant relationship between tomato yield and use pesticides and herbicides because of p value = 0.490 is greater than 0.05 level. Hence, accept the null hypothesis (H04) and reject the alternative hypothesis (H14). It is concluded that the pesticides and herbicides do not have any influence on the yield within reason the farmer’s lack of knowledge to use the amount of pesticides and herbicides with their standard. H05: There is no relationship between tomato yield and education H15: There is a relationship between tomato yield and education
The result represented that, there is no significant relationship between tomato yield and education because of p value = 0.560 is greater than 0.05 level. Hence, accept the null hypothesis (H05) and reject the alternative hypothesis (H15). It is concluded that the education do not have any influence on the yield owing to the majority of the farmers had no formal education. H06: There is no relationship between tomato yield and drought H16: There is a relationship between tomato yield and drought
The result represented that, there is no significant relationship between tomato yield and drought because of (p value = 0.176, which is greater than 0.05 level). Hence, we can accept the null hypothesis (H06) and the alternative hypothesis (H16) is rejected. From here it is concluded that the
57
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
drought does not have any influence on the yield. Thus, the average of the precipitation has no influence to accrue drought due to summer crops depend on irrigation source. H07: There is no relationship between tomato yield and pests H17: There is a relationship between tomato yield and pests
The result represented that, there is no significant relationship between tomato yield and pests because of (p value = 0.777, which is greater than 0.05 level). Hence, we can accept the null hypothesis (H07) and the alternative hypothesis (H17) is rejected. From here it is concluded that the pests do not have any influence on the yield, due to use certain amount of pesticides and herbicides management. Table 4.15 Relationship between tomato yields and independent variables
Dependent variable Yield (tomato) No.
Independent variable
N
DF
X2
P- Value
Cramer’s V
1
Governorates (1.Sulaimani, 2.Halabja)
20
9
4.967
0.837
-
2
Seed type (1.lasty harvested, 2.certified, 3.mix)
20
18
17.639
0.480
-
3
Fertilizer type (1.animal, 2.chemical, 3.mix)
20
18
13.611
0.754
-
4
Use pesticides and herbicides (1.yes, 2.no)
20
9
8.444
0.490
-
5
Education
20
27
25.250
0.560
-
6
Drought
20
9
12.708
0.176
-
7
Pests
20
9
5.621
0.777
-
H02: There is no relationship between yield of cucumber and seed type H12: There is a relationship between yield of cucumber and seed type
The result represented that, there is no significant relationship between cucumber yield and seed type because of p value = 0. 261 is greater than 0.05 level. Hence, accept the null hypothesis (H02) and reject the alternative hypothesis (H12). It is concluded that the seed type do not have any influence on the yield. The farmers use certain types of seed in both governorates as shown in Table 4.16. H03: There is no relationship between cucumber yield and fertilizer type H13: There is a relationship between cucumber yield and fertilizer type
The result represented that, there is no significant relationship between cucumber yield and fertilizer type because of p value = 0.261 is greater than 0.05 level. Hence, accept the null 58
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
hypothesis (H03) and reject the alternative hypothesis (H13). It is concluded that the fertilizer type do not have any influence on the yield, due to higher prices of fertilizer management also it’s not good in quality. H04: There is no relationship between cucumber yield and use pesticides and herbicides H14: There is a relationship between cucumber yield and use pesticides and herbicides
The result represented that, there is no significant relationship between cucumber yield and use pesticides and herbicides because of p value = 0.261 is greater than 0.05 level. Hence, accept the null hypothesis (H04) and the alternative hypothesis (H14) is rejected. It is concluded that the pesticides and herbicides do not have any influence on the yield. The farmers not trained how to use it by the scientific method. H05: There is no relationship between cucumber yield and education H15: There is a relationship between cucumber yield and education
The result represented that, there is no significant relationship between cucumber yield and education because of p value = 0.261 is greater than 0.05 level. Hence, accept the null hypothesis (H05) and reject the alternative hypothesis (H15). It is concluded that the education do not have any influence on the yield. The farmers did not concern about education in both governorates. H06: There is no relationship between yield of cucumber and drought H16: There is a relationship between yield of cucumber and drought
The result represented that, there is no significant relationship between the yield of cucumber and drought because of p value = 0.261 is greater than 0.05 level. Hence, accept the null hypothesis (H06) and reject the alternative hypothesis (H16). It is concluded that the drought do not have any influence on the yield owing to the average of precipitation did not influenced on summer crops. Table 4.16 Relationship between cucumber yields and independent variables
Dependent variable Yield (cucumber) No.
Independent variable
N
DF
X2
P-
Cramer’s
Value
V
1
Seed type (1.lasty harvested, 2.certified, 3.mix)
4
3
4.000
0.261
-
2
Fertilizer type (1.animal, 2.chemical, 3.mix)
4
3
4.000
0.261
-
3
Use pesticides and herbicides (1.yes, 2.no)
4
3
4.000
0.261
-
4
Education
4
3
4.000
0.261
-
5
Drought
4
3
4.000
0.261
-
59
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
H02: There is no relationship between okra yield and seed type H12: There is a relationship between okra yield and seed type
The result represented that, there is no significant relationship between okra yield and seed type because of p value = 0. 261 is greater than 0.05 level. Hence, accept the null hypothesis (H02) and reject the alternative hypothesis (H12). It is concluded that the seed type does not have any influence on the yield, due the farmer use certain types of seed as shown in Table 4.17. H03: There is no relationship between okra yield and fertilizer type H13: There is a relationship between okra yield and fertilizer type
The result represented that, there is no significant relationship between okra yield and fertilizer type because of p value = 0.238 is greater than 0.05 level. Hence, accept the null hypothesis (H03) and reject the alternative hypothesis (H13). It is concluded that the fertilizer type do not have any influence on the yield with reason the farmers focus on strategy crop as wheat to use fertilizer. H04: There is no relationship between okra yield and use pesticides and herbicides H14: There is a relationship between okra yield and use pesticides and herbicides
The result represented that, there is no significant relationship between okra yield and use pesticides and herbicides because of p value = 0.261 is greater than 0.05 level. Hence, accept the null hypothesis (H04) and reject the alternative hypothesis (H14). It is concluded that the pesticides and herbicides do not have any influence on the yield. The farmer not trained to use pesticides and herbicides in appropriate approach. H05: There is no relationship between okra yield and education H15: There is a relationship between okra yield and education
The result shows there is no significant relationship between the yield of okra and education because of p value = 0.261 is greater than 0.05 level. Hence, accept the null hypothesis (H05) and reject the alternative hypothesis (H15). It is concluded that the education do not have any influence on the yield. The farmers not interested in formal education. H06: There is no relationship between okra yield and drought H16: There is a relationship between okra yield and drought
The result represented that, there is no significant relationship between okra yield and drought because of p value = 0.261 is greater than 0.05 level. Hence, accept the null hypothesis (H06) and reject the alternative hypothesis (H16). It is concluded that the drought do not have any influence on the yield. During last decades the average of precipitation has no influence on summer crop.
60
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
Table 4.17 Relationship between okra yields and independent variables
Dependent variable Yield (okra) No.
Independent variable
N
DF
X2
P-
Cramer’s
Value
V
1
Seed type (1.lasty harvested, 2.certified, 3.mix)
4
3
4.000
0.261
-
2
Fertilizer type (1.animal, 2.chemical, 3.mix)
4
6
8.000
0.238
-
3
Use pesticides and herbicides (1.yes, 2.no)
4
3
4.000
0.261
-
4
Education
4
3
4.000
0.261
-
5
Drought
4
3
4.000
0.261
-
Finally another test correlation coefficient was conducted to present the relationship between two variables as follows: H01: There is no significant correlation between production and selling price of wheat H11: There is a significant correlation between production and selling price of wheat
The result shows that there was highly significant correlation between the production and selling price of wheat because of p-value < 0.001 at level 0.01. Hence, accept the alternative hypothesis (H11) and reject the null hypothesis (H01). It is concluded that the production influenced on selling price of wheat due to the central governmental policy regarding wheat receive in the silo with the attractive price Table 4.25. Thus, that price was higher than the market price for wheat. The government has implemented this plan to encourage the farmers to have more production from wheat as represented in Table 4.18. H02: There is no significant correlation between production and selling price of barley H12: There is a significant correlation between production and selling price of barley
The result shows non significant correlation between the production and selling price of barley because of p-value = 0.740. Hence, accept the null hypothesis (H02) and reject the alternative hypothesis (H12). It is concluded that the production has no any influence on selling price of barley due to the central governmental; farmers are not being supported to produce barley and has no receiving policy like wheat product. Also the livestock sector is not progressing incredibly in the study area, thus the farmers were not afford producing more barley compare with wheat, therefore the demand on producing barley is less than the wheat. Indeed, barley is not be invested for food processing in the research area.
61
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
H03: There is no significant correlation between production and selling price of chickpea H13: There is significant correlation between production and selling price of chickpea
The result shows a strong significant correlation between the production and selling price of chickpea because r = 1.000 with no p-value. Hence, accept the alternative hypothesis (H13) and reject the null hypothesis (H03). It is concluded that the production influenced the selling price of chickpea due to the higher cost of its producing and low income in addition to the absent of proper market to chickpea marketing. H04: There is no significant correlation between production and selling price of tomato H14: There is a significant correlation between production and selling price of tomato
The result shows there is no significant correlation between the production and selling price of tomato because p-value = 0.764. Hence, accept the null hypothesis (H04) and reject the alternative hypothesis (H14). It is concluded that the production have no any influence on the selling price of tomato due to the higher cost of its producing and low income in addition to the absent of proper market to marketing chickpea, it means the farmers problem is not having a proper market to cell their tomato, ultimately the tomato production will be losses and then throw it. H05: There is no significant correlation between production and selling price of cucumber H15: There is a significant correlation between production and selling price of cucumber
The result shows there is no significant correlation between the production and selling price of cucumber because p-value = 0.265. Hence, accept the null hypothesis (H05) and reject the alternative hypothesis (H15). It is concluded that the production have no any influence on selling price of cucumber due to the farmers focus on the plastic house for producing cucumber according to data of agricultural directories are around 10,000 of the houses where farmers having in both governorates. Utmost of the owner houses focused cucumber in a specific period of time. Therefore; due to accumulate the huge amount of cucumber lead to decrease price of cucumber. H06: There is no significant correlation between production and selling price of okra H16: There is a significant correlation between production and selling price of okra
The result shows there is no significant correlation between the production and selling price of okra because p-value = 0.893. Hence, accept the null hypothesis (H06) and reject the alternative hypothesis (H16). It is concluded that the production have no any influence on the selling price of okra due to the farmers problem is marketing price except of wheat and barley, for selling their products in the market, because of producers (farmers) were producing the products, only path to sell is the local middlemen or wholesalers near their fields. Thus, both of producers and consumers were using many because of putting extra price on the product by their middlemen. 62
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
According to Demaree (2017a) global wheat price selling plummeted, in the past two years; whereas the Egyptian government continued to maintain high procurement prices in an attempt to provide a safety net to over 2.5 million tons of wheat for farmers (producers), while aggressively expanded its procurement targets from an average of 3.5 million tones to over 5 million tons in 2015-2016. http://www.worldgrain.com/articles/news_home/World_Grain_News/2017/02/Egypts_local_whe at_procurement.aspx?ID={71952187-F948-4986-88C4-0B9A172F07C1} Demaree (2017b), Australia’s winter Production of wheat was, estimated by 45 % of 35.1 million tons. It has increased to 49 % of 58.9 million tons in 2016-2017, according to; http://www.worldgrain.com/articles/news_home/World_Grain_News/2017/02/Australias_wheat_ production_re.aspx?ID={F2395AD1-B005-4CD4-996B-60E52AB54338} Table 4.18 Correlation coefficient between production and selling price of different crops in both Sulaimani and Halabja governorates
Independent variable No.
Dependent variable (price selling)
(production)
Correlation coefficient
Crops
N
1
Wheat
76
0.473**
0.000
2
Barley
6
- 0.175
0.740
3
Chickpea
2
1.000**
-
4
Tomato
19
- 0.074
0.764
5
Cucumber
4
0.735
0.265
6
Okra
4
0.107
0.893
(r)
p-value
H01: There is no significant correlation between total area, production and quantity sold of wheat H11: There is a significant correlation between total area, production and quantity sold of wheat
The result shows a significant correlation between total area, production and quantity sold of wheat because of p-value < 0.001 at level 0.01. Hence, accept the alternative hypothesis (H11) and reject the null hypothesis (H01). It is concluded that the total area and production influenced on the quantity sold of wheat because of the farmers insure that if they will produce more wheat, the agricultural policy made some kind facility to receive their wheat Table 4.19. H02: There is no significant correlation between total area, production and quantity sold of barley
63
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
H12: There is a significant correlation between total area, production and quantity sold of barley
The result shows a significant correlation just between the production and quantity sold of barley because of p-value < 0.001 at level 0.01; but there is no significant correlation between total area and quantity sold of barley because of (p-value = 0.899). Hence, accept the alternative hypothesis (H12) and reject the null hypothesis (H02). It is concluded that the production influenced on the quantity sold of barley due to the farmers producing barley for self-consumption and selling in a small amount; also accept the null hypothesis (H02) and reject the alternative hypothesis (H12). It is concluded that the total area have no any influence on the quantity sold of barley because the farmers main purposes is producing barley for livestock feeding. H03: There is no significant correlation between total area, production and quantity sold of chickpea H13: There is a significant correlation between total area, production and quantity sold of chickpea
The results show no significant correlation between total area, production and quantity sold of chickpea because of (p-value < 0.930). Hence, accept the null hypothesis (H03) and reject the alternative hypothesis (H13). It is concluded that the total area and production have not any influence on the quantity sold of chickpea because of it takes more cost, the farmer producing chickpea in a small amount. H04: There is no significant correlation between total area, production and quantity sold of tomato H14: There is a significant correlation between total area, production and quantity sold of tomato
The result shows a significant correlation between total area, production and quantity sold of tomato because of p-value < 0.001 at level 0.01. Hence, accept the alternative hypothesis (H14) and reject the null hypothesis (H04). It is concluded that the total area and production influenced on the quantity sold of tomato because when the total area of surfaces cultivated with tomato expanding the amount of production will be increasing the farmers selling the product, but in a small amount due to importing the production from other places. H05: There is no significant correlation between total area, production and quantity sold of cucumber H15: There is a significant correlation between total area, production and quantity sold of cucumber
The result shows a strong significant correlation just between production and quantity sold of cucumber because of (p-value < 0.001 at level 0.01); but there is not significant correlation between total area and quantity sold of cucumber because (p-value = 0.805). Hence, accept the alternative hypothesis (H15) and reject the null hypothesis (H05). It is concluded that the production influenced on the quantity sold of cucumber because of according to the data of agricultural directories, the total area changed to plastic house; also accept the null hypothesis
64
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
(H05) and reject the alternative hypothesis (H15). It is concluded that the total area have no any influence on the quantity sold of cucumber due to higher labor force during the cultivation. H06: There is no significant correlation between total area, production and quantity sold of okra H16: There is a significant correlation between total area, production and quantity sold of okra
The result shows a significant correlation just between production and quantity sold of okra because of p-value = 0.041 at level 0.05; but there is no significant correlation between total area and quantity sold of okra because (p-value = 0799). Hence, accept the alternative hypothesis (H16) and reject the null hypothesis (H06). It is concluded that the production influenced on the quantity sold of okra because of the farmers producing okra production for selling; also accept the null hypothesis (H06) and reject the alternative hypothesis (H16). It is concluded that the total area have not any influence on the quantity sold of okra because of higher labor force during the cultivation. Table 4.19 Correlation between total area and production with quantity sold of crops in both Sulaimani and Halabja governorates
Dependent variable (quantity sold) No.
Crops
Independent variable N
1
Wheat
2
Barley
3
Chickpea
4
Tomato
5
Cucumber
6
Okra
Correlation coefficient (r)
p-value
111.000
0.888**
0.000
Production
111.000
**
0.000
Total area
26.000
0.026
0.899
Production
26.000
0.712**
0.000
Total area
3.000
0.108
0.931
Production
3.000
- 0.110
0.930
Total area
20.000
0.754**
0.000
Production
20.000
1.000**
0.000
Total area
4.000
0.195
0.805
Production
4.000
1.000**
0.000
Total area
4.000
- 0.201
0.799
4.000
*
0.041
Total area
Production
65
0.993
0.959
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
H01: There is no significant correlation between production and total area of wheat H11: There is a significant correlation between production and total area of wheat
The result shows a significant correlation between production and the total area of wheat because of p-value < 0.001 at level 0.01. Hence, accept the alternative hypothesis (H11) and reject the null hypothesis (H01). It is concluded that the production influenced on the total area of wheat due to expanding surface area lead to increasing the production. H02: There is no significant correlation between production and total area of barley H12: There is a significant correlation between production and total area of barley
The results show a significant correlation between production and the total area of barley because of p-value = 0.015 at level 0.05. Hence, accept the alternative hypothesis (H12) and reject the null hypothesis (H02). It is concluded that the production influenced on the total area of barley due to expanded surface area lead to increasing the production, but actually the farmers cultivated the surfaces with a small amount of barley for self-consumption and selling. H03: There is no significant correlation between production and total area of chickpea H13: There is significant correlation between production and total area of chickpea
The results show no significant correlation between production and the total area of chickpea because of (p-value = 0.140). Hence, accept the null hypothesis (H03) and reject the alternative hypothesis (H13). It is concluded that the production have not any influence on chickpea due to higher labor force during cultivation until harvesting. H04: There is no significant correlation between production and total area of tomato H14: There is significant correlation between production and total area of tomato
The result shows a significant correlation between production and total area of tomato because of p-value< 0.001 at level 0.01. Hence, accept the alternative hypothesis (H14) and the null hypothesis (H04) is rejected. It is concluded that the production influenced on total area of tomato due to expanding surface area lead to increasing the production. H05: There is no significant correlation between production and total area of cucumber H15: There is significant correlation between production and total area of cucumber
The results show no significant correlation between production and the total area of cucumber because of (p-value = 0.796). Hence, accept the null hypothesis (H05) and reject the alternative hypothesis (H15). It is concluded that the production have not any influence on cucumber due to higher labor force during cultivation until harvesting and importing the cucumber production from other places. H06: There is no significant correlation between production and total area of okra H16: There is significant correlation between production and total area of okra
66
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
The result shows no significant correlation between production and the total area of okra because of p-value = 0.843. Hence, accept the null hypothesis (H06) and reject the alternative hypothesis (H16). It is concluded that the production have no any influence on okra due to higher labor force during cultivation until harvesting and importing the cucumber production from other places. Table 4.20 Correlation between production and total area of crops in both Sulaimani and Halabja governorates
Independent variable No.
Dependent variable (total area)
(production)
Correlation coefficient
Crops
N
1
Wheat
111.000
0.909**
0.000
2
Barley
26.000
0.470*
0.015
3
Chickpea
3.000
0.976
0.140
4
Tomato
20.000
0.751**
0.000
5
Cucumber
4.000
0.204
0.796
6
Okra
4.000
- 0.157
0.843
(r)
p-value
4.9 Period of Cultivation The period of cultivating the winter crops wheat, barley and chickpea is determined to be from October to November after rainfall with 30 cm. The summer crops as tomato, cucumber and okra is determined to be from February to March as shown in Table 4.21. The farmer’s ratio for wheat cultivation was 80.800 % in Sulaimani governorate, while this ratio was 76.900 % in Halabja governorate. The farmer’s ratio for barley cultivation was 20.000 % in Sulaimani governorate, while this ratio was lower 7.700 % in Halabja governorate. The farmer’s ratio for chickpea cultivation was 2.400 % in Sulaimani governorate, while the farmers did not cultivate chickpea in Halabja governorate. The farmer’s ratio for tomato cultivation was 13.600 %; however, this ratio increased in Halabja governorate to be 23.100 %. Moreover, cucumber and okra were cultivated only in Sulaimani governorate. The farmer’s ratio for cucumber and okra cultivation was 3.200 % each.
67
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
Table 4.21 Period of crops cultivation in both Sulaimani and Halabja governorate from October to March
Crops
Period of Cultivation
Sulaimani No. of
Halabja %
Respondent
No. of Respondent
%
Wheat
Winter
101.000
80.800
10.000
76.900
Barley
Winter
25.000
20.000
1.000
7.700
Chickpea
Winter
3.000
2.400
0.000
0.000
Tomato
Summer
17.000
13.600
3.000
23.100
Cucumber
Summer
4.000
3.200
0.000
0.000
Okra
Summer
4.000
3.200
0.000
0.000
4.10 Water Resources The result revealed that; the main source of water for agriculture was the spring in Sulaimani governorate, while the stream was abundant in Halabja governorate as shown in Table 4.22. The farmer ratio for the river dependence was 0.800 % in Sulaimani governorate, and this ratio was 0.000 percent in Halabja governorate. The second water source was stream with ratio 24.800 % in Sulaimani governorate, while this ratio was higher 30.800 % in Halabja governorate. The third water resource was a spring with the ratio of 39.200 % in Sulaimani governorate, while this ratio was lower 15.400 % in Halabja governorate. Well took the fourth rank with rate of 25.600 % in Sulaimani governorate, and this ratio was 23.100 % in Hallabja governorate. However, the rain ratio was 32.0 % in Sulaimani governorate, but this ratio was the lower 23.100 % in Halabja governorate. Karez ratio was 7.200 % in Sulaiamni and this ratio represented 7.700 % in Halabja governorate.
68
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
Table 4.22 Water resources in both Sulaimani and Halabja governorates
Sulaimani Water resources
No. of Respondent
Halabja %
No. of Respondent
%
River
1.000
0.800
0.000
0.000
Stream
31.000
24.800
4.000
30.800
Spring
49.000
39.200
2.000
15.400
Well
32.000
25.600
3.000
23.100
Rain
40.000
32.000
3.000
23.100
Karez
9.000
7.200
1.000
7.700
4.10.1 Source of irrigation From the survey it is conducted that the majority of farmers were dependent on the un-irrigated farming for the winter crops as shown in Table 4.23. The farmers who not used any source of irrigation had the ratio of 69.600 % in Sulaimani governorate, while this ratio in Halabja governorate was higher than Sulaimani by 76.900 %. Besides that; canal ratio was 20.000 % in Sulaimani governorate, while in Halabja governorate canal ratio represented a higher level of 23.100 %. However; the farmer’s ratio for public tube was 1.600 %, and the ratio of privet tube was 2.400 %, in Sulaimani governorate, while this ratio was 0.000 percent in Halabja governorate. The common source for irrigation, which used by the farmers was another source (saving water in a small pond and drilling the surface of the soil) with the ratio of 6.400 % in rural area of Sulaimani governorate, but the farmers in Halabja governorate did not use this source for irrigation which mainly depended on the canal source for agriculture.
69
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
Table 4.23 Source of irrigation
Sulaimani
Source of irrigation
No. of Respondent
Halabja %
No. of Respondent
%
Canal
25.000
20.000
3.000
23.100
Public tube
2.000
1.600
0.000
0.000
Privet tube
3.000
2.400
0.000
0.000
Other
8.000
6.400
0.000
0.000
Non
87.000
69.600
10.000
76.900
4.10.2 Irrigation method Farmers in the study research of both governorates; used the traditional irrigation method, which is a waste of water from the economic value. Nowadays; there are many techniques for higher surfaces irrigation, but the cost of the method is also high; the majority of farmers cannot use it because of limited income. Hence, the small group of the farmers in Sulaimani area conducted dripping and sprinkler method, being an economical method for irrigation. As it represented in Table 4.24 the rate of the farmers who used other method was 72.000 % in Sulaimani governorate, while this rate was higher by 76.900 % in Halabja governorate because it is easy to use and no need to use tools and labors. The rate of the farmers who used furrow was 15.200 % in Sulaimani governorate, while this rate was higher by 23.100 % in the Halabja governorate. The farmers who used the basin method were 4.800 % in Sulaimani governorate; while this rate was 0.000 in Halabja governorate. The farmers in the rural area of Sulaimani governorate were used the new irrigation method of dripping with rate 5.600 %. Despite the high cost of this method, farmers were tried to use it due to its economical aspect in using water, delivering water directly into the field. This method was not used in Halabja governorate because they were dependent on the traditional irrigation method. Moreover, the sprinkler method used was 0.800 %, but this rate represented zero percent in Halabja governorate, because the surface area of Halabja was limited and this method fits wide area. Also, wild flooding rate was 3.200 % in Sulaimani governorate; since this rate represented zero in Halabja governorate. 70
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
Table 4.24 The irrigation methods based on the farmers for irrigation in Sulaimani and Halabja governorates.
Sulaimani
Irrigation method
No. of Respondent
Halabja %
No. of Respondent
%
Furrow
19.000
15.200
3.000
23.100
Basin
6.000
4.800
0.000
0.000
Dripping
7.000
5.600
0.000
0.000
Sprinkler
1.000
0.800
0.000
0.000
Wild flooding
4.000
3.200
0.000
0.000
Other
90.000
72.000
10.000
76.900
4.11 Selling Production Economically, there are major problems which farmer has to tackle like; how to produce, where and when to produce and for whom to produce. To prolong to answer those questions and the same questions for selling before sowing the seeds, the farmer should solve these questions. A good marketing plan is an absolute action for a successful farm business. Hence, from the survey conducted with farmers in the study area these answers were derived; farmers in both governorates are suffering from non-marketing plan and production management, having some reasons that describe in the following: farm problems were made by farmers, decision makers, legislation. Furthermore, exploiting the lands in small area by land lords to produce amount of products, means high input area. The ratio of farmers for selling wheat production to the silo was 21.600 %, and middlemen which represented around 21.600 %, in Sulaimani governorate, as shown in Table 4.25. In the governorate of Halabja; the farmer’s ratio for selling wheat production to the silo was 30.800 %, which was higher than middlemen of 15.400 %. One cause for this case was receiving wheat production in the silo with a higher price than market (792,000ID.ton-1), considering wheat as a real production was higher than an actual need for wheat production as explained in Figure 3.4. The process of receiving wheat was very hard waiting in the silo makes farmers to be disappointed because of routine, even more have to be paid (100,000 ID.day-1) until the wheat production received.
71
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
Also, the farmer’s ratio of selling wheat production at the local shop of 11.200 % is due to delay in receiving the money of sold wheat from the government that led to sell wheat production from their farm and shop in Sulaimani governorate. While this ratio decreased to 7.700 % in Halabja governorate. The farmer’s ratio for selling barley production was 4.000 % in the local shop and 0.800 % by middlemen in Sulaimani governorate, while in the Halabja the ratio was 0.000 percent due to use the barley production for livestock feeding. In fact; the real production of barley is lower than the actual need for barley, it will need to produce larger amounts of barley in both of the study research. The farmer’s ratio of selling chickpea was quite the same in the whole retail store and shop 0.800 % in Sulaimani governorate, whereas the ratio of farmers in the Halabja governorate was 0.000 percent because of the farmers did not cultivating chickpea. Although the farmer’s ratio of selling tomato production in whole retail store was 12.800 % in Sulaimani governorate this ratio was higher 23.100 % in the whole retail store of Halabja governorate. During the period of cultivation, most of tomato producers were not sold and they were spoiled. Thus, the farmers could not sell the products, because of importing tomato production and the real production of tomato is higher than actual need of the population for tomato in the study research. Also, the farmer’s ratio of selling cucumber in the whole retail store was 3.200 %, and the ratio of selling okra production in whole retail store was 2.400 % and 0.800 % in the shop in Sulaimani governorate, while in Halabja governorate the cucumber and okra have not cultivated to be sold in the market.
72
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
Table 4.25 Production sold based on farmers in both of the study area
Governorates
Crops Places
Wheat
Barley
Chickpea
Tomato
Cucumber
Okra
%
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
whole retail store
0
0
0
0
1
0.8
16
12.8
4
3.2
3
2.4
Shop
14
11.2
5
4
1
0.8
0
0
0
0
1
0.8
Silo
27
21.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Middlemen
27
21.6
1
0.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
whole retail store
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
23.1
0
0
0
0
Shop
1
7.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Silo
4
30.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Middlemen
2
15.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Halabja
Sulaimani
No.
Production sold/ Kg
73
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
4.12 Efficiency of Agricultural Production 4.12.1 Crop production and utilization The production of Sulaimani governorate, especially the wheat has recorded the highest level compare to Halabja governorate; it gives the idea that there is a huge surface area for producing wheat than Halabja governorate. According to the survey that conducted in the study area the number of the respondent were 125 farmers in Sulaimani governorate, while the numbers of the respondents were 13 farmers in Halabja governorate for producing wheat production; as represented in Table 4.26. The mean of wheat production was 15,857.230 Kg; with the mean of wheat yield was 537.050 Kg/donum in Sulaimani governorate. Whereas in Halabja governorate the mean of wheat production was 12,485.000 Kg; with the mean of wheat yield was 671.200 Kg/donum. In Sulaimani governorate the mean of barley production was 5,435.400 Kg; with the mean of barley yield were 763.120 Kg/donum. Whereas in Halabja governorate the mean of barley production was 2,000.000 Kg; also the mean of barley yield was 500.000 Kg/donum. Chickpea was cultivated in Sulaimani governorate; the mean of chickpea production was 1,032.000 Kg; with the mean of chickpea yield was 309.660 Kg/donum in Sulaimani governorate. However chickpea did not cultivate in Halabja governorate because of its high input and having lowers return. The mean of tomato production was 11,400.000 Kg; with the mean of tomato yield was 3,693.120 Kg/donum in Sulaimani governorate, in comparison to Halabja governorate the mean of tomato production was 7,433.330 Kg; with the mean of tomato yield was 966.660 Kg/donum in Halabja governorate. Ultimately, both cucumber and okra are cultivated in Sulaimani governorate. The mean of cucumber production was 27,500.000 Kg; with the mean of cucumber yield was 6,589.250 Kg/donum in Sulaimani governorate. Also, the mean of okra production was 2,250.000 Kg; while the mean of okra yield was 1,216.750 Kg/donum in Sulaimani governorate. Cucumber did not cultivate in Halabja governorate as the producer are focused on planting cucumber inside the plastic house, but the producer in Halabja suffering from financial crises. Also okra did not cultivate because of requiring more labor force, saline water source and warm and humidity place to cultivate okra. 74
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
According to the organization for economic cooperation and development (OECD) data in 2016, there is a comparison of wheat yield between the study area and the neighbor countries, as represented in Figure 4.2. The wheat yield of the Saudi Arabia has recorded the lowest level among the neighbor country 75.000 Kg/donum; in compare to the study area the mean of wheat yield was higher 537.050 Kg/donum in Sulaimani while the mean of wheat yield was 671.200 Kg/donum in Halabja area. Also, the wheat yield of the Iran was higher giving 475.000 Kg/donum than Saudi Arabia; but still Iran has lower level in compare to the study area. The wheat yield of Turkey was 725.000 Kg/donum, higher than both neighbor’s country and also the study area. The attractive wheat yield level was realized in the Egypt by 1625.000 Kg/donum that were higher than wheat yield of other countries and the study area.
Table 4.26 The production and yield of crops regarding the answer of respondents
Halabja
Sulaimani
Go.
Production (Kg)
Yield (Kg/Donum)
Crops Min
Max
Mean
SD
Min
Max
Mean
SD
Wheat
0.000
150,000.000
15,857.230
27933.480
0.000
2083.000
537.050
391.470
Barley
300.000
16000.000
5435.400
4520.880
150.000
2333.000
763.120
536.090
Chickpea
96.000
2000.000
1032.000
952.400
96.000
500.000
309.660
203.008
Tomato
500.000
35000.000
11400.000
12571.240
333.000
12000.000
3693.120
4041.450
Cucumber
3000.000
84000.000
27500.000
38509.730
1000.000
21000.000
6589.250
9639.140
Okra
500.000
4000.000
2250.000
1554.560
167.000
2000.000
1216.750
773.720
Wheat
1050.000
35000.000
12485.000
11368.520
105.000
1571.000
671.200
430.890
Barley
2000.000
2000.000
2000.000
-
500.000
500.000
500.000
-
Chickpea
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Tomato
800.000
20000.000
7433.330
10888.670
400.000
2000.000
966.660
896.280
Cucumber
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Okra
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
75
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
Figure 4.2 Wheat yield according to neighbor countries in 2015 Source: OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook (Edition 2016) https://data.oecd.org/agroutput/crop-production.htm
4.12.2 Production quantity sold and selling price According to the respondents in Sulaimani and Halabja governorates which were 125.000 and 13.000 producers representing the mean of wheat quantity sold was 13,714.550 Kg with the mean of selling price of 552.570 ID/Kg in Sulaimani governorate. Whereas the mean of wheat quantity sold was 11,000.000 Kg with the mean of selling price of 575.500 ID/Kg in Halabja governorate; as represented in Table 4.27. The mean of barley quantity sold was 2,040.000 Kg with the mean of selling price of 438.330 ID/Kg in Sulaimani governorate. While, barley produced was not sold in Halabja governorate the respondents answered that they produce a certain amount of barley only for feeding their 76
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
livestock. Chickpea was cultivated in Sulaimani governorate; the mean of the amount of chickpea sold was 363.330 Kg with the mean of selling price of 1,250.000 ID/Kg in Sulaimani governorate. Chickpea production was not cultivated in Halabja governorate because of requiring high labors for harvesting the product therefore, decision makers for agricultural sector did not help them as subsidies. The mean of tomato quantity sold was 10,911.760 Kg with the mean of selling price of 550.000 ID/Kg in Sulaimani governorate. Whereas the mean of tomato quantity sold was 6,866.660 Kg with the mean of selling price of 466.660 ID/Kg in Halabja governorate. Cucumber was cultivated in Sulaimani governorate and the mean of quantity sold was 27000.000 Kg with the mean of selling price of 550.000 ID/Kg in Sulaimani governorate. The mean of okra quantity sold was 1,307.660 Kg with the mean of okra price selling of 1,625.000 ID/Kg in Sulaimani governorate.
norate
Halabja
Sulaimani
Gover
Table 4.27: The mean of quantity sold and the selling price of productions
Quantity sold (Kg)
Price selling (ID)
Crops Min
Max
Mean
SD
Min
Max
Mean
SD
Wheat
0.000
150000.000 13714.550 27779.870
250.000
885.000
552.570
161.890
Barley
0.000
15000.000
2040.000
4568.730
350.000
500.000
438.330
63.770
Chickpea
0.000
1000.000
363.330
553.200
1000.000 1500.000 1250.000 353.550
Tomato
0.000
34000.000
10911.760 12186.350
350.000
1000.000
550.000
190.610
84000.000
27000.000 38790.000
500.000
600.000
550.000
57.730
1000.000 2500.000 1625.000 750.000
Cucumber 2000.000 Okra
300.000
3000.000
1307.660
1950.000
Wheat
0.000
30000.000
11000.000 10832.050
Barley
0.000
0.000
0.000
Chickpea
-
-
Tomato
600.000
Cucumber Okra
430.000
792.000
575.500
156.440
-
0.000
0.000
0.000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
19000.000
6866.660
10509.670
400.000
500.000
466.660
57.730
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
77
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
4.13 SWOT Analysis SWOT Analysis: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats were used as a framework for organizing and using data and information gained from situational analysis of the internal and external environment.
The aim of SWOT analysis is represented in the following: 1. Help decision makers to share and compare ideas. 2. Bring a clear common purpose and understanding factors of success. 3. Organize the important factors linked to success and fail in the business. 4. Analysis issues that have led to failure in the past. 5. Provide linearity to decision making process, allowing complex ideas to be presented systematically.
Eventually, the most important part of this thesis is an SWOT matrix, because it can inform later steps in planning to obtain other objectives that decision makers should concern about those objectives or to find the others. It specifying the research area during the investigation, it comes up with the framework for managing crop production in both Sulaimani and Halabja Governorates as an advantages over others like; Land, labor, water, and consumer behavior towards local products, and disadvantages, related to others internally. While, for external factors, it contained some exploitation which could take it as advantages, lastly some external factors that could cause trouble. After concluding the results from the study it revealed that; these comprise some objectives shown in Table 4.28, according to:
https://www.scribd.com/document/178370757/SWOT-Analysis-by-ManagementStudyGuide
78
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
Table 4.28 SWOT Analysis of factors land, labor, water and consumer in both study area
Strengths
Weaknesses
1. There is a wide area of rich land in structure 1. Distribution of land tenure is bad by small area and fertility; likewise using crop rotation is in random zone in both of the study area; helpful to maintain lands healthy in both of the moreover the pollution of land has occurred due study areas.
to reusing pesticides in both of the study areas.
2. The labor forces have an experience in 2. Farmers lack education is hinder in developing agricultural scope in both of the study areas.
agricultural sector in both of the study areas.
3. There is a reasonable water source for 3. Shortage of water sources for irrigation in the irrigation and using new method for irrigating in summer seasons for irrigating crops in both of both of the study areas.
the study areas.
4. The consumers have a high demand on local 4. Lacks of using certified seed led to lacks of production in both of the study areas.
local production that not meeting the population demands in both of the study areas.
Opportunities
Threats
1. Establishing a strong agricultural policy for 1. Drought and desertification of land in both of both of the study areas.
the study areas.
2. Extension organization work on farmer’s 2. Farmers are leaving agricultural sector in the awareness about sustainable development in both rural area and they migrated to urban area trying of the study areas.
to practice different kinds of job in both of the
3. Providing an economic method for irrigation study areas. by government as farmers cannot afford their 3. Lacks of ponds and reserves to deposit water making high cost in both of the study areas.
shortage threats on sustainability agriculture in
4. Establishing the gene bank and seed bank by the future for both of the study areas. government in future to preserve the germplasm 4. Farmer products cannot competitive those of from distinction and maintaining seed originally neighbor country, being the main cause for the in both of the study areas.
current situation; the population demand is now on fast food in both of the study areas.
79
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Conclusions To conclude the result during the survey of both governorates, it conducted as follows: 1. The agricultural sector suffering from lack of farmers who graduate from Agricultural Colleges which faced hinder for developing agricultural system. 2. The study area of the both governorates were facing many impediments as natural and humanity obstacles like (drought, financial crisis, pests, lack of fertilizer, lack of production, flooding and climate change); among these impediments drought had the high impact on agriculture production. 3. A. winter and summer crops of Sulaimani governorate: The mean of surface cultivated with wheat was 19.000 donum, also the amount of production 6,572.000 Kg; yield 474.000 Kg/donum in 2006, whereas the surface cultivated with wheat increased up to 29.000 donum, also the amount of production increased 15,857.000 Kg; yield was 537.000 Kg/donum in 2015. The mean of surface cultivated with tomato was 3.000 donum, the amount of production was 6,620.000 Kg; yield 2,750.000 Kg/donum in 2006, while the mean of surface cultivated with tomato increased to 4.000 donum, the amount of production 11,400.000 Kg; yield 3,693.000 Kg/donum in 2015. B. winter and summer crops of Halabja governorate: The mean of surface cultivated with wheat was 15.000 donum, amount of production 7,710.000 Kg; yield 636.000 Kg/donum in 2006, while the mean of surface cultivated with wheat was increased up to 20.000 donum, amount of production was 12,485.000 Kg; yield 671.000 Kg/donum in 2015. While, the mean of surface cultivated with tomato dropped to 5.000 donum the amount of production was significantly increased to 7,433.000 Kg; yield 966.500 Kg/donum in 2015. Ultimately cucumber and okra not cultivated in rural areas of Halabja governorate. 4. The result revealed that there is no significant relationship between wheat yield and independent variables as (governorate, seed type, use of pesticide, education, drought and pests), while there is a significant relationship between wheat yield and fertilizer type. Also, there is no significant relationship between barley, chickpea, tomato, cucumber and okra yield and other independent variable.
80
Conclusions
5. A. Correlation test conducted between production and selling price. There is a significant correlation between wheat productions and selling price of wheat also there is a strong correlation between chickpea production and selling price of chickpea. B. However the correlation made between production and quantity sold and total area and quantity sold. While there is a correlation between wheat production and wheat quantity sold, also between total area and quantity sold of wheat. There is a correlation between barley production and the quantity sold but there is no correlation between total area and quantity sold of barley. Also for chickpea there is no correlation between production and total area with the quantity sold of chickpea. There is a correlation between tomato production and total area with the quantity sold of tomato. There is a correlation between cucumber production and quantity sold; but there is no correlation between total area and quantity sold of cucumber. Ultimately, there is a correlation between okra production and quantity sold; but there is no correlation between the total area of okra and quantity sold of okra. C. Correlation tested between production and total area. There is a correlation between wheat, barley and tomato production and total area of wheat, barley and tomato. Also, there is no correlation between chickpea, cucumber and okra production and total area of chickpea, cucumber and okra in the study area.
81
Recommendations 1. The decision makers or agricultural sector should identify research institutions involved in productivity estimates and create a collaborative organization to gain access to data sources about production in the research area. 2. There is no agricultural calendar for planning to increase agricultural production; the government should provide the process of determining agricultural areas to have production through the year. 3. There is no clear legislation to allow the companies to import agricultural inputs like seed, fertilizer and pesticide and herbicide. Therefore, the government should allow the companies to import agricultural input to capture some aspects of temporal or spatial nature of production. 4. Ministry of agriculture and planning should improve the agriculture sector at the base of knowledge, building the knowledge base of the agriculture sector is vital for the development of agriculture and food production in the study area. 5. Agricultural directories should focus on training the producers in the research area, training and capacity building of stakeholders engaged in agriculture and food processing for improved the production. This training has many levels ranging from media awareness programs and workshops to field trials. 6. The Kurdistan Regional Government should facilitating the farmer access to the farming and processing equipment to make an available purchase of agriculture equipment and supplies; establish an agreement with a private company 7. Producers are rarely use certified seed sufficiently in the research area, due to the fact that, farmers use their own seed causing the yield to be low. Therefore, farmers should encourage using certified seed. 8. The farmers (producer) should grow early varieties in order to guarantee market and price advantages. There is no production and marketing organization among the farmers. These kinds of organizations could increase the income of the farmers by lowering the cost of inputs and facilitate transportation in both of the study area. 9. In future, the idea of this research might extend to all, the entire of Kurdistan Region, to find out the main and specific characteristics of crop production in the region. However, the original contribution of this research is valid and there was no such investigation previously.
82
References - Abdelaziz, H.H., Abdalla, A.A. and Abdellatif, M.A. (2010) 'Economic Analysis of Factors Affecting Crop Production in North Darfur State a Study of Umkdada District', Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 6(3), pp.224-228. - Abdullah, T., Salahalddin, A. and Al-Ansari, N. (2015) 'Effect of agricultural activities on groundwater vulnerability: case study of Halabja Saidsadiq Basin, Iraq', Journal of Environmental Hydrology, 23(10). - Acevedo, E., Silva, P. and Silva, H. (2002) 'Wheat Growth and Physiology. FAO corporate document repository', Agriculture and Consumer Protection, 28 pages - Ambali, O.I., Adegbite, D.A., Ayinde, I.A. and Idowu, A.O. (2012) 'Analysis of production efficiency of food crop farmers of bank of agriculture loan scheme in Ogun State Nigeria', Asian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 4(6), pp.383-389. - Ararat, K., Mehdi, R.A., Falih, H.A., Maher, A.M. and Bachmann, A. (2008) 'Darbandikhan Lake Poisoning Event', Nature. - Ayanwuyi, E. and Ogunlade, I. (2010) 'Analysis of Sustainable Crop Production Practices among Farmers In Shaki Agricultural Zone Of Oyo State, Nigeria', Global Journal of Human-Social Science Research, 10(6). - Baban S.M.J. (2014) 'Achieving Food and Water Sufficiency and Security for Kurdistan Region, Iraq. Kurdistan Regional Government Printers, Erbil, Kurdistan Regional Government', May 2014 264 pages, Catalogue Record in the General Directorate of Public Libraries, Ministry of Culture and Youth, Kurdistan Regional Government, Iraq: 1 – 2014. - Baban, S. (2015a) 'Managing the Impacts of Planned Urbanization on Sustainable Agriculture in the Kurdistan Region, Iraq, Athens': ATINER'S Conference Paper Series, No: GEL2015-1654. - Baban, S. (2015b) 'Revitalizing Agriculture and Water Sectors in the Kurdistan Region, Iraq', Athens: ATINER'S Conference Paper Series, No: GEO2015-1618. - Bishaw, Z., Struik, P.C. and van Gastel, A.J.G. (2015) 'Wheat and barley seed system in Syria: How diverse are wheat and barley varieties and landraces from farmer’s fields', International Journal of Plant Production, 9(1), pp.117-150. - Branca, G., McCarthy, N., Lipper, L. and Jolejole, M.C. (2011) 'Climate-smart agriculture: a synthesis of empirical evidence of food security and mitigation benefits from improved cropland management', Mitigation of climate change in agriculture series, 3, pp.1-42. - Cassman, K.G. (1999) 'Ecological intensification of cereal production systems: yield potential, soil quality, and precision agriculture', Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 96(11), pp.5952-5959.
83
References
- Cordesman, A. H. (2015) 'Trends in Iraqi Violence, Casualties and Impact of War', Center for Strategic and International Studies. - Curtis, B. C. (2002) 'Wheat in the World, FAO corporate document repository', Agriculture and Consumer Protection, 15 pages. - Debella, C. and Murad, D. (2004). 'Construction Delivery Systems: A Comparative Analysis of the Performance of Systems within School Districts'. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh. - Dejarme-Calalang, G., Bock, L. and Colinet, G. (2015) 'Crop production of Northern Mindanao, Philippines: Its contribution to the regional economy and food security', Tropicultura, 33(2), pp.77-90. - Demaree, H. (2017a) 'Egypt's local wheat procurement policy increases farmers' profits'. http://www.worldgrain.com/articles/news_home/World_Grain_News/2017/02/Egypts _local_wheat_procurement.aspx?ID={71952187-F948-4986-88C4-0B9A172F07C1}
- Demaree, H. (2017b) 'Australia's wheat production reaches record high'. http://www.worldgrain.com/articles/news_home/World_Grain_News/2017/02/Austra lias_wheat_production_re.aspx?ID={F2395AD1-B005-4CD4-996B60E52AB54338}
- Deryng, D., Sacks, W.J., Barford, C.C. and Ramankutty, N. (2011) 'Simulating the effects of climate and agricultural management practices on global crop yield', Global biogeochemical cycles, 25(2). - Elliott, S., Bendrey, R., Whitlam, J., Aziz, K.R. and Evans, J. (2015) 'Preliminary ethnoarchaeological research on modern animal husbandry in Bestansur', Iraqi Kurdistan: Integrating animal, plant and environmental data, Environmental Archaeology, 20(3), pp.283-303. - FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization) and MoAWR (Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources). (2006-2011) 'Total Cultivated area, Production and Yield of Winter and Summer crops'. - FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), (2008) Available on http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/ena/wfp192521.pdf
- FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), (2012) Available on http://www.fao.org/docrep/017/i2877e/i2877e.pdf 84
References
- Fuoad, M. N. (2014). 'Sulaimany Government Regional Geography Study. Doctorate of Philosophy. Geography school, The University of Sulaimany, Sulaimani' - Garcia, F., Guerrin, F., Martin-Clouaire, R. and Rellier, J.P. (2005) 'The human side of agricultural production management-the missing focus in simulation approaches'.
- General Directorate of Survey, 2009. Available on http://www.cosit.gov.iq/AAS/AAS2012/section_10/1.htm
- Hameed, H. (2013) 'Water harvesting in Erbil Governorate, Kurdistan region, Iraq: detection of suitable sites using geographic information system and remote sensing', Student thesis series INES. - Harun, R. (2014). The Use of Water for Sustainable Rural Development: A Case Study in the Kurdistan Regional Government. Doctorate school, College of Agriculture, The University of Agricultural Sciences And Veterinary Medicine, Cluj-Napoca - Harun, R., Mureşan, I., Arion, F. and Dumitraş, D. (2015) 'The State Fact of the Rural Area of the Kurdistan Regional Government', Bulletin UASVM Horticulture, 72, p.1. - Hassan, K. J. (2015) Knowledge, and Implementation Level of Tomato Farmers on Post Harvest Techniques in Halabja Governorate. Master's Degree, Agricultural Extension, University of Sulaimani - Hassan, T.A. and Suliman, S.E. (2011) 'Economic Analysis of Factors Affecting Crop Production in South Darfur State-Sudan'. - Heshmati, A. (2009) 'Integrated water resource management in the Kurdistan region', Nova Science Publishers, Inc (pp. 1-225) - Iraq nature, (2013) 'Water keeper Iraq Lesser Zab Threat Assessment and action plan', (TAAP) Report - Jahan, S. A. (2013) Spatial, Analysis of the Uses of Agricultural Land in the District of Halabja Using Geographic Information Systems GIS. Master's Degree, Geography School, University of Mosul. - Khaiat Kamal M.S. (2001) 'Socio-economic profile of Suleimani governorate', Suleimani. - Khan, N.Z., Ahmad, M. and Rasheed, A. (2003) 'Wheat production in Pakistan: Saga of policy disincentives, Pakistan Development Review', 42(1), pp.1-27 - Knox, J., Morris, J. and Hess, T. (2010) 'Identifying future risks to UK agricultural crop production: putting climate change in context', Outlook on Agriculture, 39(4), pp.249256. 85
References
- Kotler, P. and Keller, K. L. (2006) Marketing Management, Pearson Education, Printed in the United States of America Inc, 12th Edition, ISBN 0-13-145757-8 - KRSO (Kurdistan Region Statistics Office), (2013) Available on http://www.krso.net/Default.aspx?page=article&id=893&l=3&#krso2
- KRSO (Kurdistan Region Statistics Office), (2015) Available on http://www.krso.net/Default.aspx?page=article&id=893&l=3&#krso2
- Levetin, E., and McMahon, K. (2008) Plants and Society Plants as a Source of Food, Origins of Agriculture. McGraw−Hill, 5/e: ISBN: 0072970065. - Licker, R., Johnston, M., Foley, J.A., Barford, C., Kucharik, C.J., Monfreda, C. and Ramankutty, N. (2010) 'Mind the gap: how do climate and agricultural management explain the ‘yield gap’of croplands around the world', Global ecology and biogeography, 19(6), pp.769-782. - Lory, J., Massey, R. and Joern, B. (2006) 'Using Manure as a Fertilizer for Crop production, in EPA, in Water, in Our Waters, in Watersheds, in publications, in Symposium, in session', (Vol. 8). - Ludena, C.E. (2010) 'Agricultural productivity growth, efficiency change and technical progress in Latin America and the Caribbean'. - Mahir, M.E.A.E. and Abdelaziz, H.H. (2011) 'Analysis of agricultural production instability in the Gezira scheme', Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences, 10(2), pp.53-58. - Mallarino, A.P. (2008) 'Fertilizing Crops in the New Price Age–Phosphorus and Potassium', In Proc. 2008 Integrated Crop Management Conference, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. - Mazid A. (2015) 'Status of Wheat Production in Kurdistan Region of Iraq: Results of Baseline Survey', Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and International Center for Agricultural Research in Dry Area (ICARDA). Doi 10.13140 - MoA (Ministry of Agriculture), (2007) 'Real Statistics is the base of Scientific Decisions in the Region of Kurdistan, general directorate of planning and follow up', directorate of statistics, KRG. - MoA (Ministry of Agriculture), (2008) 'The, Real Statistics is the base of Scientific Decisions in the Region of Kurdistan, general directorate of planning and follow up', directorate of statistics, KRG. - MoAWR (Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources), (2009) 'The strategic of Agriculture and water resources in the Kurdistan Region', KRG 86
References
- MoAWR (Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources) and MoP (Ministry of Planning), (2010) 'To achieve food and water security in the Region of Kurdistan', the Seventh Cabinet the Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources’ Business Plan, KRG. - MoAWR (Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources), (2010) 'The strategic of Agriculture and water resources in the Kurdistan Region', KRG. - MoP (Ministry of Planning), (2010) 'The State of Agricultural Land'. - Mop (Ministry of Planning), (2012) 'Regional Development Strategy for Kurdistan Region'. - MoP and UNDP (Ministry of Planning and United Nations Development Program), (2012). http://www.mop.gov.krd/resources/MoP%20Files/Newsletter/SEINA-FINAL.pdf
- Mousa, A. K. A. (2014) Federal Kurdistan Region of Iraq: A Study in Political Geography. Master of Degree. Geography School, University of Sulaimani, Sulaimani - Nigatu, G. and Motamed, M. (2015) 'Middle East and North Africa Region: An Important Driver of World Agricultural Trade', A Report from the Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, (p. 4). - Norton, R.D. and Jaberin, A., 2006. Toward more efficient agricultural production and marketing in Jordan. - OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), (2017) 'Crop production (indicator) ', doi: 10.1787/49a4e677-en (Accessed on 23 February 2017) - OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook (Edition 2016) https://data.oecd.org/agroutput/crop-production.htm
- Ojiewo, C.O., Kugbei, S., Bishaw, Z. and Rubyogo, J.C. (2015) 'Community Seed Production', (Workshop Proceedings). - Olujenyo, F.O. (2008) 'The determinants of agricultural production and profitability in Akoko Land, Ondo-State, Nigeria', Journal of social Sciences, 4(1), pp.37-41. - Omer, T. M. A. (2011) 'Country pasture/forage resource profiles', FAO Available http://www.fao.org/ag/agp/agpc/doc/counprof/PDF%20files/iraq.pdf
- Osabuomen, J.I. and Okoedo-Okojie, D.U. (2011) 'Analysis of the effect of arable crop production practices among farmers on environmental degradation in Edo State, Nigeria', Archives of Applied Science Research, 3(2), pp.353-360
87
References
- Oyakhilomen, O. and Zibah, R.G. (2014) 'Agricultural Production and Economic Growth in Nigeria: Implication for Rural Poverty Alleviation', Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, 53(3), pp.207-223. - Parry, M.L., Rosenzweig, C., Iglesias, A., Livermore, M. and Fischer, G. (2004) 'Effects of climate change on global food production under SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios', Global Environmental Change, 14(1), pp.53-67 - Pena, R. J. (2002) 'Wheat for Bread and other Foods. Bread Wheat Improvement and Production', Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, pp.483-542 - Pisante, M., Stagnari, F. and Grant, C.A. (2012) 'Agricultural innovations for sustainable crop production intensification', Italian Journal of Agronomy, 7(4), p.40. - Pring, C. (2015) 'Kurdistan Region of Iraq: Overview of Corruption and Anti-Corruption, U4 Expert Answer', U4 Anti-Corruption Centre and Transparency International. http://www.u4.no/publications/kurdistan-region-of-iraq-overview-of-corruption-andanti-corruption - Rahmati, O., Samani, A.N., Mahdavi, M., Pourghasemi, H.R. and Zeinivand, H. (2015) 'Groundwater potential mapping at Kurdistan region of Iran using analytic hierarchy process and GIS', Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 8(9), pp.7059-7071. - Ramankutty, N., Foley, J.A., Norman, J. and McSweeney, K. (2002) 'The global distribution of cultivable lands: current patterns and sensitivity to possible climate change', Global Ecology and biogeography, 11(5), pp.377-392. - Rana, R. and Singhal, R. (2015) 'Chi-square test and its application in hypothesis testing', Journal of the Practice of Cardiovascular Sciences, 1(1), p.69. - Richardson, A. (2014) 'Early Clay Technologies: Studies In Early Neolithic Clay Usage From The Central Zagros', (1) 525-37 - RSFAN (Regional Food Security Analysis Network), (2016) 'Syria Agricultural Production and Cross-Border Trade Study Roundtable policy Discussions', Report Amman, Jordan, Pp.2-28 - Sabur, S.A. and Molla, A.R. (2001) 'Pesticide use, its impact on crop production and evaluation of IPM technologies in Bangladesh', Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Economics, 24(1-2), pp.21-38. - Salau, S.A., Adewumi, M.O., Omotesho, O.A. and Ayinde, O.E. (2011) 'A Comparative Analysis of Crop Production Intensification and its Determinants among Kwara and Niger States Maize-Based Farming Households'. - Schueller, J. K. (1992) 'A review and integrating analysis of spatially-variable control of crop production', Fertilizer Research, 33(1), 1-34. - Soderberg, N., and Phillips, D. (2015) 'State-Building in Iraqi Kurdistan'. 88
References
- Spiertz, H. (2013) 'Challenges for crop production research in improving land use, productivity and Sustainability', 5(4), pp.1632-1644. - Stevens, M.L. and Alwash, S. (2003) 'Draft report biological characteristics, Mesopotamian marshlands of southern Iraq. Background Material for Technical Advisory Panel', Eden Again Project. The Iraq Foundation, Washington, DC - Tegtmeier, E.M. and Duffy, M.D. (2004) 'External costs of agricultural production in the United States', International Journal of agricultural sustainability, 2(1), pp.1-20. - UN (United Nations), (2005) 'World population prospects: the 2004 revision', Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division ESD/P/WP193.PP.1-91. - UNPFA (United Nations Fund for Population Activities), (2011) 'State of the World Population 2011', United Nations Population Fund. - UNSCR (United Nations, Security Council, Resolution 986), (1995) 'Adopted by the Security Council at its 3519thmeeting', http://www.undemocracy.com/S-RES-986 (1995).pdf. - Von Braun, J. (2007) 'The world food situtation: new driving forces and required actions', Intl Food Policy Res Inst. - Walliman, N. (2010) 'Research methods: The basics. Routledge' - Wik, M., Pingali, P. and Broca, S. (2008) 'Global agricultural performance: past trends and future prospects', Background paper for the WDR. - World Bank, (2006) 'Iraq: Country Water Resource Assistance Strategy: Addressing Major Threats to People’s Livelihoods, Water, Environment, Social and Rural Development Department Middle East and North Africa Region', Report No. 36297-IQ. - Yilmaz, H., Demircan, V. and Kurtluk, S. (2011) 'An economic analysis of openfield melon (Cucumis melo L.) production in Cankiri province of Turkey', Bulg. J. Agric. Sci, 17, pp.484-90. - Zakaria, S., Mustafa, Y.T., Mohammed, D.A., Ali, S.S., Al-Ansari, N. and Knutsson, S. (2013) 'Estimation of annual harvested runoff at Sulaymaniyah Governorate, Kurdistan region of Iraq', Natural Science, 2013. - Zurovec, O., Vedeld, P.O. and Sitaula, B.K. (2015) 'Agricultural Sector of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Climate Change—Challenges and Opportunities. Agriculture', 5(2), pp.245-266 -*** http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=195023 http://www.mot.gov.iq/engli/index.php?name=mktbapicture# -*** http://iomiraq.net/reports/sulaymaniyah-governorate-profile-may-2015 -*** http://www.kurdistan-parliament.org/Default.aspx?page=byyear&c=LDD-Yasa&id=2015 -*** http://www.statisticshowto.com/how-to-compute-pearsons-correlation-coefficients 89
References
-*** http://www.statisticshowto.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/chi-square-formula.jpg -*** https://www.scribd.com/document/178370757/SWOT-Analysis-byManagementStudyGuide
90
APPENDICES 91
Appendix 1 The questionnaire in the final set for an analysis of crop production sector; a case study of Sulaimani and Halabja governorates
UNIVERSITY OF SULAIMANI COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES DEPARTMENT OF AGRIBUSINESSES AND RURAL DEVELOPING (ARD)
Dear Madam/ Sir, Thank you for participating in this study. Your responses to this questionnaire will be used to (Analysis of Crop Production sector; a case study of Sulaimany and Halabja Governorates. Your opinion will help me to develop management strategies for agricultural production sector in the rural areas. The interview will take about ( 1.30 ) minutes. Your responses to this questionnaire are absolutely confidential and will be used only for scientific research purposes. You will not be identified in any way.
Msc. student: Sara Burhan, Sulaimani University. Survey period: Date of survey: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Governorate City District Sub district Village Near from Location
Long
Lat
Elevation
92
Appendices 1
General services 1.Asphalt
2.Mixture
3.Stony
4.Clay
Road 1.Generator
Electricity
2.Public
Primary School Secondary School Preparatory School
1. Personal information Person
Gender 1.Male 2.Female
Age Year
Relation
Educational level
Employment
1.Father
1.Non educate
1.Farmer
2.Mother
2.Primary school
2.Factory labor
3.Child
3.Secondary school
3.Private business
4.Grand child
4.Preparatory school
4.Student
5.Other
5.Institutions
5.Teacher
6.University
6.House wife 7.Employee
1 2 3 4
2. Migrations Migration
1. Yes
2. No.
1. Short-term migrations 2. Long-term migrations 3. Migration to other states
93
If yes explain the reason
Appendices 1
3. Agricultural impediment What are the barriers in front of agriculture? 1.Drought 2.Pests 3.Financial crises 4.Flooding 5.Lack of fertilizer 6.Lack of production 7.Non of market plan 8.Climate change
4. House hold and land ownership Code
Land area Under 2 donum
1
2006
2015
How many donum do you rent? 2006
2015
2-5 donum
2
5-10 donum
3
10-20 donum
4 5
How many donum do you own?
Above 20 donum
5. House hold and land utilization
Year
1.Cultivated Area (2+3) donum
2.Irrigated area (donum)
3.Unirrigated Area (donum)
2006 2015
94
4. Hillside (donum)
5. Pond area (donum )
Appendices 1
6. Agriculture and related activities in 2006 Crop
Area (donum)
Irrigated area (donum)
Time irrigation h/day
Un irrigated area (donum)
production Kg
Where is sold?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Agriculture and related activities in 2015
Crop
Area (donum)
Irrigated area (donum)
Time irrigation h/day
Un irrigated area (donum)
Production Kg
Where is sold?
plan
Factor
1 2 3 4 5 6 Notes: (plan*) 1. Increase 2. Decrease 3.maintaine current level. (Reason**) 1. Increase income 2. Full use of household labor 3. Full use of grain 4. Full use of crop by product (straw and green feed) 5. Adding fertilizer 6. Provider of irrigation systems 7. Low profitability 8. Marketing problem 9. Lack of space 10. Lack of labor 11.Taxes too high 12. Lack of water 13. Increasing amount of rain 14. Livestock feeding 15. Lack of fertilizer 16. Diseases 17. No marketing 18. Lack of fertility of soil.
8. Plant seed Type of seed Cod
1.Last harvested
2.Certified seeds
3.Hybrid seeds
Source of seed 4.Basic seed
1 2 3 4 5 6 95
1.Mine
2.Shop
3.Agricultural center
4.Other farmer
Appendices 1
9. Fertilizer Do you use fertilizer?
Crop
Yes
Type of fertilizer Animal manure
No
Chemical fertilizer
Source of fertilizer
Bio fertilizer
1.mine
3.Agricultural center
2.shop
1 2 3 4 5 6 Quantity of using fertilizer Crop
Animal manure
Chemical fertilizer
Price Animal manure
Bio fertilizer
Chemical fertilizer
Bio fertilizer
1 2 3 4 5 6
10. Pesticides (Herbicides)
Crop 1
Type of pesticides and
Quantity of using
Price of pesticide and
herbicides
pesticides and herbicides
herbicides
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
1 2 3 4 5 6
96
5
6 7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Appendices 1
Source of pesticides and herbicides
Crop
shop
Agricultural center
Other place
Ability of pesticide and herbicides 1.Very good
2.Good
3.Medium
4.Bad
5.Very bad
1 2 3 4 5 6
10. Period of cultivation Crop
1.Winter crop production
2.Summer crop production
11. Water resources Water resources
Irrigation resources
Irrigation method
1.River
1.Chanel
1. Furrow
2.Stream
2.Public tube
2. Basin
3.Spring
3.Private tube
3. Dripping
4.Well
4.Any other
4.Sprinkler
5.Rain
5. Non
5.Wild flooding 6. Any other
6. Karez
97
Appendices 1
12. Selling production Do importing external Crop
Where are the places for selling production?
production impact on local production?
1.whole retail store
2.shop
3.silo
1 2 3 4 5 6
98
4.middlemen
1.Yes
2.No
Appendice2
Appendix 2 Total cultivated area\dunum of winter crop of Suleimani and Halabja governorate of 2014 – 2015
99
Appendice3
Appendix 3 Total cultivated area\dunum of summer crop of Suleimani and Halabja governorate of 2015
100
حكومةتي هةريَمي كوردستان وةزارةتي خويَندني باالَ و تويَذينةوةي زانسيت زانكوَي سليَماني كوَليَذي زانستة كشتوكالَيةكان
شيكاركردني سيَكتةري كشتوكالَي لة بةرهةم هيَناني بةروبومة كشتوكالَييةكان :ليَكوَلَينةوةيةكة لةسةر بارودوَخي ثاريَزطاي سليَماني و هةلَةجبة نامةيةكة ثيَشكةش كراوة بة ئةجنومةني كوَليَذي زانستة كشتوكالَيةكان لة زانكؤي سليَماني وةك بةشيَك لة ثيَداويستيةكاني بةدةستهيَناني برِوانامةي ماستةرلة
كارط َيرِي كاري كشتوكالَي و طةشةثيَداني ناوضةي طوندنشني (كارط َيرِي كشتوكالَي) لةاليةن
سارا برهان حممد بةكالوَريوَس لة زانسيت بةروبومي كيَلَطةيي ( ,)1122كوَليَذي زانستة كشتوكالَيةكان ,زانكوَي سليَماني سةرثةرشتياران
د .عابد علي حسن دوَسكي ثرِوَفيسوَري ياريدةدةر 1127زايين
د .رِيَذين هارون حممد ماموَستا 1727كوردي
ثوختة ئةم تويَذينةوةية ئةجنام درا ,كاتيَك خواست لةسةر بةرهةمة كشتوكالَي ية جيهانييةكان سيَ هيَندة بوو لة ئةجنامي زيادبوني دانيشتوان و طةشةسةندني داهات ,ئةمةش سةركةوتوو بووة لة بةدةستهيَناني زيادبووني خواست لةسةر طوَي زةوي لة ئةمروَدا .حكومةتي هةريَمي كوردستان تواناي بةرهةم هيَناني مةودايةكي فراواني بةرهةمة كشتوكالَييةكاني هةية .لة رِوَذطاري ئةمرِوَدا بةرهةمة كشتوكالَيي و خوَراكييةكان بة شيَوةيةكي بةرضاو نزم بوونةوةي بة خوَيةوة ديوة بةهوَي رِووداني ضةند هوَكاريَك لة ماوةي دة سالَي رِابردوودا .ئاماجني ئةم تويَذينةوةية ثيَداني بوَضونيَكي رِوونة بوَ دةسةالَتداراني ناوخوَ و هةريَمي و نيَودةولَةتي وة ناوةندي برِياري سياسي و زانياري تويَذةرةوةكان دةربارةي كاريطةريية جياوازةكان كة ئةتوانيَ جوتياران يةك خبات لة بةرِيَوةبردني بةرهةم لة ناوضة طوندنشينةكاني هةردوو ثاريَزطاي سليَماني و هةلَةجبة و باشرتكردني تيَطةيشنت لة بةهاي بة ِريَوةبردني بةرهةم. طرميانةكاني ئةم بةدةست هيَنانة بريتيية لة :مامةلَةكردني جوتياران لةطةلَ كةمبونةوةيةكي طةورة لة داهاتة كشتوكالَييةكان و ثرِوَطرامة رِيَنماييةكان ثيَويستيي جوتياران ث ِر ناكاتةوة هةروةها بةرهةمي بةرهةمة سةرةكييةكان جياواز نني لة هةردوو ثاريَزطاكةدا .لةم تويَذينةوةيةدا داتاي جوَريَيت و ضةنديَيت بةكارهيَنرا بوَ شيكاركردن لة ماوةي ساالَني .1122 -1112 هةرضةندة دوو سةرضاوةي سةرةكيي زانياري بةكارهيَنرا لة ماوةي ليَكوَلينةوةكةدا كة بريتيني لة داتايي يةكةمي و داتاي دووةمي .داتا يةكةمييةكان كوَكرانةوة بة بةكارهيَناني ف َورِمي رِاثرسي لة هةردوو ثاريَزطاي سليَماني و هةلَةجبة جيَبةجيَ كرا ,نزيكةي 231جوتيار ضاوثيَكةوتنيان لةطةلَ ئةجنام درا 212 ,جوتيار لة ثاريَزطاي سليَماني و تةنها 23جوتيار لة ثاريَزطاي هةلَةجبة وة تويَذةر ضاوثيَكةوتين رِوبةرِوي (رِاستةوخوَ) ئةجنام دا ,لة 23قةزاو 32 ناحية و 49طوند لة هةردوو ثاريَزطاكةدا بوَ ثيَداني زانياري زياتر باوةرِثيَكراو ,لةسةر بناغةي منونةي هةرِةمةكي سادة بيَ ط َورِيين ط َورِدراوي سةربةخوَ لةطةلَ هةلَةي ِريَذةيي 1 %و مةوداي دلَنيايي ,44 %رِوثيَوييةكة ماوةي 9مانطي خاياند؛ بةفرانبار 1122بوَ نةوروَز .1122
رِوثيَوييةكة ئةجنام درا لةسةر بناغةي ف َورِمي رِاثرسي كة هةلَبذيَردراوة بوَ ئةم تويَذينةوةية ,كة ئةطة ِريَتةوة بوَ بوَضووني جوتياران دةربارةي بارودوَخي كشتوكالَ و زانياري و رِةفتاريان. لة كوَتاييدا سيَكتةري كشتوكالَ دةنالَيَينَ بة هوَي كةمي ئةو جوتيارانةي دةرضووي كوَليَذي كشتوكالَن بةمةش ئةم سيَكتةرة رِوبةرِوي ِريَطري دةبيَتةوة لة طةشةسةندني سيستةمي كشتوكالَ هةروةها رِوبةرِوي ضةند بةربةستيَك دةبيَتةوة وةكو كوَسثي سروشيت و دةستكرد وةك (وشكةسالَي ,قةيراني دارايي ,دةردة كشتوكالَيةكان ,كةمي ثةين, كةمي بةرهةم ,الفاو ,ط َورِاني كةش و هةوا ,نةبوني ثالني بازارِكردن) كة كاريطةريي نيَطةتظي هةية لةسةر بةرهةمة كشتوكالَييةكان هةروةها زوَر كيَشة رِوبةرِووي بةرهةمهيَن بوَتةوة لة بةدةستهيَناني داهاتة كشتوكالَييةكان لة ناوضةي تويَذينةوةكةدا وةك (توَو ,ثةين ,كةمي سةرضاوة ئاوييةكان ب َو ئاودان). لة تويَينةوةكةدا تيَسيت ضوارطوَشةي كاي بةكارهيَنرا ,ئةجنامةكةي بريتيي بوو لة :نةبووني هيض ثةيوةندييةكي بةرضاوو لة نيَوان (طةمن ,جوَ ,نوَك ,تةماتة ,خةيار ,باميَ) لةطةلَ ط َورِاوة ثةيوةستةكان وةك (ثاريَزطا ,جوَري توَو, جوَري ثةين ,دةرماني قرِكةري ميَروو ,خويَندن ,وشكةسالَي ,دةردة كشتوكالَييةكان) ,بةالَم تةنها ثةيوةندي بةرضاو لة نيَوان برِشيت طةمن و جوَري ثةين دا هةبوو. تيَسيت ثةيوةندبوون ئةجنام درا لة نيَوان بةرهةم و نرخي فروَشنت ,دةركةوت ثةيوةندي بةرضاو هةية لة نيَوان بةرهةمي طةمن و نوَك لةطةلَ نرخي فروَشتنيان .هةروةها تيَسيت ثةيوةندبوون كرا لة نيَوان بةرهةم و برِي فروَشراو لةاليةك و رِووبةري طشيت و برِي فروَشراو لةاليةكي تر ,بةمةش دةركةوت ثةيوةندي هةية لة نيَوان بةرهةمي (طةمن ,جوَ ,تةماتة ,خةيار ,باميَ) و برِي فروَشتنيان ,وة لة هةمان كاتدا ثةيوةندي هةية لة نيَوان رِوبةري طشيت طةمن و تةماتة لةطةلَ برِي فروَشتنيان .هةروةها تيَسيت ثةيوةندبوون كرا لة نيَوان بةرهةم و رِووبةري طشيت وة ثةيوةندي هةية لة نيَوان بةرهةمي (طةمن ,جوَ ,تةماتة) لةطة َل رِوبةري طشتيان ,هةروةها ثةيوةندي نية لة نيَوان بةرهةمي (نوَك ,خةيار ,باميَ) و رِوبةري طشتييان. لة كوَتاي دا فروَشتين بةرهةمةكان كة كوَتا هةنطاوي بةرهةم هيَنانة تيَيدا سةرةكيرتين كيَشةي جوتياران نةبوني ثالني بازارِكردن بوة هةروةها هاوردةكردني هةردوو بةرهةمي زستانةو هاوينة لة والَتاني دراوسيَوة هةروةها
نةبوني باج لةسةر بةرهةمة هاوردة كراوةكان واي كرد نرخي بةروبوم لة بازارِي ناوخوَ بةرزتر بيَ لة ضاو نرخي بةرهةمة هاوردة كراوةكان وةك (تةماتة ,خةيار) وة هوَكاريَكي تر ضاندني جوَري درةنط ثيَطةيشتوو بووة.
حكومة إقليم كردستان وزارة التعليم العالي و البحث العلمي جامعة السليمانية كلية العلوم الزراعية
حتليل القطاع الزراعي يف إنتاج احملاصيل الزراعية :دراسة حالة حمافظيت السليمانية و احللبجة رسالة مقدمة اىل جملس كلية العلوم الزراعية يف جامعة السليمانية كجزء من متطلبات نيل شهادة املاجستري يف
إدارة األعمال الزراعية و تنمية املناطق الريفية (إدارة يف الزراعة) من قبل
سارا برهان حممد بكالوريوس يف علوم حماصيل احلقلية ( ,)1122كلية العلوم الزراعية ,جامعة السليمانية
بأشراف
د .عابد علي حسن الدوسكي استاذ املساعد 1122م
د .ريزين هارون حممد املدرس 2341ه
اخلالصة أجريت هذه الدراسة ,حيث ازدياد الطلب على اإلنتاج الزراعي العاملي الناجم من النمو السكاني و زيادة الدخل الفردي لثالث اضعاف تقريبا ,و قدرة االنتاج الزراعي على تلبية الزيادة يف الطلب على املستوى العاملي .حكومة اقليم كردستان قادرة على إنتاج مدى واسع من املنتجات الزراعية .يف الوقت احلاضر ,اخنفض اإلنتاج الزراعي والغذائي بشكل كبري بسبب عدة عوامل الذي كان حيدث يف العقود املاضي .وتهدف هذه الدراسة إىل تعزيز تصور واضح للسلطات احمللية واإلقليمية والوطنية وصانعي القرارات السياسة واملعلومات الباحثني حول خمتلف التأثريات اليت ميكن أن توحد املزارعني يف إدارة إنتاج احملاصيل يف اجملتمعات الريفية على حد سواء حمافظيت السليمانية وحلبجة .وحتسني الفهم حول قيمة إدارة إنتاج احملاصيل .فرضيات هذا التحقيق كان يضم تعامل املزارعني مع نقص كبري من املدخالت الزراعية ,وبرامج اإلرشاد ليست كافية تكييفها وفقا الحتياجات املزارعني ,و إن إنتاجية احملاصيل الرئيسية ال ختتلف يف احملافظتني .واستخدمت الدراسة لالستفادة من البيانات الكمية والنوعية للفرتة 1122 -1116للتحليل. مع ذلك؛ استخدمت اثنني من املصادر الرئيسية للمعلومات خالل هذا البحث :بيانات أولية وثانوية .مت مجع البيانات األولية أيضا باستخدام استبيان نفذت يف كل من حمافظيت السليمانية و حلبجة ,وأجريت مقابالت مع 241مزارع212 , من املزارعني كانوا يف حمافظة السليمانية ,و إن 24من املزارعني فقط يف حمافظة حلبجة ,وقد أجرى الباحث مقابالت وجها لوجه (مباشر) ,يف 24قضاء و 46ناحية و 43قرية يف كلتا احملافظتني إلعطاء معلومات أكثر موثوقة ,األمر الذي جعلهن تستند إىل عينة عشوائية بسيطة ,دون استبدال ,املتغري املستمر ,مع خطأ نسيب ,٪ 1و مت استخدام حدود الثقة ,٪ 44إستمر املسح أربعة أشهر؛ خالل كانون االول عام 1122حتى اّذار .1126وأجريت الدراسة على أساس استبيان الذي مت اختياره هلذا البحث الذي يشري إىل تصور املزارع حول الوضع الزراعي و معرفة و سلوكهم .يف نهاية املطاف ,ظهرت إن القطاع الزراعي يعاني من عدم وجود املزارعني املتخرجني من كليات الزراعة و إن هذا القطاع يواجه عقبات كثرية كعوائق طبيعية وبشرية تعرقل تطوير نظام زراعي مثل( :اجلفاف ,أزمة املالية ,اآلفات ,نقص األمسدة ,قلة اإلنتاج ,الفيضانات ,تغري املناخ ,عدم وجود خطة التسويق) اليت هلا تأثري سليب على اإلنتاج الزراعي. واجهه املنتج العديد من املشاكل من أجل احلصول على املدخالت الزراعية يف منطقة الدراسة :مثل :البذور واألمسدة
ونقص مصادر املياه ألغراض الري .طبقت اختبار مربع كاي ,ونتيجة لذلك ,ال توجد عالقة معنوية بني غلة القمح والشعري واحلمص والطماطم واخليار و البامية مع املتغري املستقل كما إن (احملافظة ,نوع البذور ,واستخدام املبيدات, والتعليم ,واجلفاف ,واآلفات) ,ولكن هناك عالقة معنوية بني غلة حمصول القمح ونوع السماد. أيضا طبق اختبار االرتباط بني اإلنتاج وسعر البيع ,كان هناك ارتباط كبري بني إنتاج القمح و احلمص وسعر البيع من القمح و احلمص .ومع ذلك ,طبق اختبار االرتباط فإن هناك العالقة بني اإلنتاج والكمية املباعة يف جهة واملساحة الكلية والكمية املباعة يف جهة اخرى .يف حني أن هناك عالقة بني إنتاج القمح والشعري والطماطم واخليار والبامية واملتغريات املستقلة األخرى ,و ايضا هناك عالقة بني املساحة الكلية والكمية املباعة من القمح و الطماطم .كانت ليست هناك عالقة بني اإلنتاج واملساحة اإلمجالية مع الكمية املباعة من احلمص ,يف حني أن اختبار االرتباط بني اإلنتاج واملساحة الكلية .حيث كان هناك عالقة بني القمح والشعري ,وإنتاج الطماطم واملساحة اإلمجالية من القمح والشعري والطماطم .أيضا ,ليست هناك عالقة بني احلمص ,واخليار ,وإنتاج البامية وعلى مساحة إمجالية قدرها احلمص, واخليار ,والبامية يف منطقة الدراسة. أيضا اختبار االرتباط طبقت بني اإلنتاج وسعر البيع ,هناك ارتباط كبري بني إنتاج القمح و احلمص و سعر البيع من القمح واحلمص .ومع ذلك ,طبق ايضا اختبار االرتباط لتحديد العالقة بني اإلنتاج والكمية املباعة من جانب واملساحة الكلية والكمية املباعة يف جانب االخر .يف حني أن هناك عالقة بني إنتاج القمح والشعري والطماطم واخليار والبامية واملتغريات املستقلة األخرى ,و كانت هناك عالقة بني املساحة الكلية والكمية املباعة من القمح و الطماطم .يف حني أن اختبار االرتباط بني اإلنتاج واملساحة الكلية .هناك عالقة بني إنتاج القمح والشعري ,الطماطم واملساحة اإلمجالية من القمح والشعري والطماطم .أيضا ,ليست هناك عالقة بني إنتاج احلمص ,واخليار ,البامية وعلى مساحة إمجالية قدرها احلمص ,واخليار ,والبامية يف منطقة الدراسة. يف نهاية املطاف ,فان عملية بيع املنتجات هو اخر عملية من عملية اإلنتاج؛ ولكن مع ذلك كانت املشكلة الرئيسية املزارعني هو عدم وجود خطة التسويق و ايضا اسرتاد كل من االنتاج الشتوي والصيفي من البلدان اجملاورة .أخريا
هناك عدم وجود الضريبة على اإلنتاج الزراعي املستورد االمر الذي جيعل سعر املنتجات يف السوق احمللي أعلى من تلك املنتجات املستوردة مثل الطماطم واخليار وأيضا هناك عامل آخر و هو زراعة اصناف متأخرة النضج.
