مقایسه اقتصادی کاشت ارقام مختلف لگوم‌های علوفه‌ای (باقلا، خلر، ماشک، نخود) در استان گلستان

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار پژوهش تحقیقات اقتصاد کشاورزی، موسسه تحقیقات اصلاح و تهیه نهال و بذر، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، کرج، ایران

2 استادیار پژوهش بخش تحقیقات ذرت و گیاهان علوفه ای، موسسه تحقیقات اصلاح و تهیه نهال و بذر ، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی،

3 دانشیار پژوهش بخش تحقیقات زراعی و باغی، مرکز آموزش و تحقیقات کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی استان گلستان، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج

4 دانشیار پژوهش بخش تحقیقات زراعی و باغی، مرکز آموزش و تحقیقات کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی استان گلستان، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، گرگان

چکیده

به منظور مقایسه اقتصادی تولید ارقام مختلف لگوم‌­های علوفه­ای، این پژوهش برای سال­های1397 و 1398 در استان گلستان انجام شد. در این پژوهش برای تعیین عملکرد کمّی، آزمایش به صورت طرح بلوک­های کامل تصادفی در سه تکرار و جهت ارزیابی اقتصادی از روش بودجه­‌بندی جزئی، نسبت فایده به هزینه، درصد بازده فروش و درصد بازده هزینه استفاده شد. لگوم­‌های علوفه‌­ای شامل چهار رقم باقلا (برکت، فیض، شادان و مهتا)، خلر (توده محلی)، سه رقم ماشک (معمولی رقم لامعی، گل‌­خوشه‌­ای و پانونیکا) و دو رقم نخود علوفه­ای (داخلی (محلی) و پایونیر) بودند که از نظر عملکرد علوفه‌­تر و خشک بررسی شدند. طبق نتایج، از نظر اقتصادی به دلیل هزینه تولید پایین و سودآوری بیشتر، تولید علوفه­‌تر ماشک گل خوشه­ای با عملکرد 48755 کیلوگرم در هکتار و علوفه خشک ماشک معمولی با عملکرد 8730کیلوگرم در هکتار در منطقه، توصیه شد. میانگین هزینه تولید ارقام ماشک داخلی و خارجی به ترتیب 2/22 و 5/35 میلیون ریال در هکتار برآورد شد. میانگین ارزش کنونی خالص علوفه‌­تر ماشک گل­‌خوشه‌­ای و علوفه خشک ماشک معمولی در سال­‌های آزمایش به­‌ترتیب 9/221 و 1/128 میلیون ریال در هکتار محاسبه شد، به طوری­‌که نسبت به سایر لگوم­‌های علوفه­‌ای بیشتر بوده است. نسبت فایده هزینه محاسبه‌شده برای تولید علوفه‌­تر ماشک گل­‌خوشه‌­ای و علوفه خشک ماشک معمولی به­‌ترتیب 2/10 و 3/6 ریال منفعت برای تولیدکننده به همراه دارد. بازده فروش برآوردشده برای علوفه‌­تر ماشک گل‌­خوشه­‌ای و علوفه خشک ماشک معمولی به‌­ترتیب 2/90 و 1/84 درصد سود به همراه دارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Economical comparison of planting of different forage legumes cultivars (Faba bean, Grass pea, Vetch, Green Pea ) in Gholestan province

نویسندگان [English]

  • Hormoz Asadi 1
  • Vida Ghotbi 2
  • Mohammad Taghi Feyzbakhsh 3
  • fatemeh sheikh 4
1 Assistant Professor in Agricultural Economic researches, Seed and Plant Improvement Institute (SPII), Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran
2 Assistant Professor in Maze and Forage research department. Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran,
3 Associate Professor Golestan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Gorgan, Iran,
4 Associate Professor Golestan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Gorgan, Iran
چکیده [English]

 Introduction
Legumes are the main source of protein in developing countries, so that its protein content is about twice that of cereals and a cheap source of protein of good quality and a good supplement to cereal protein. These plants are very important in low-input agricultural systems and have a special place in the rotation of some agricultural systems in the world, especially in arid areas, and play a significant role in food production in these countries.
 
Materials and Methods
In order to economical comparison of different cultivars production forage legumes and selecting of suitable legume, this research carried out in 2018 and 2019 in Golestan province. In this research, for determination of legumes quantity yield, randomized complete block design in three replications and for economic assessment used partial budgeting method, benefit cost ratio, the percent of sale return and the percent of cost return was used. Forage legumes including four cultivars of faba bean (Barkat, Feyz, Shadan and Mahta cultivars), grass pea (local cultivar), three cultivars of vetch (common, hairy and hungarian cultivars) and two cultivars of fodder green pea (internal and Pioneer cultivars) were evaluated in terms of quantitative traits of fresh, dry forage yield. In the partial budgeting method, the following calculations are required to decide on the choice of the most economical treatment among the different treatments in the form of a pilot project:

A) Calculating the benefits of performing different treatments: (Bi + C1)

1- Increase of income: Calculation of increase of income that is obtained as a result of the implementation of the new treatment (Bi).
2- Reduction of costs: Calculation of the cost of the control treatment, which will no longer be necessary due to the implementation of the rival treatment (C1).

B) Calculation of the cost of different treatments: (Ci + B1)

Increase of expenses: calculation of costs that result from the implementation of the new treatment (Ci).
Income reduction: Calculation of income related to the control treatment that is lost due to the implementation of the competitor treatment (B1).
If the benefits of the treatment in question are more than its costs or in other words (Bi + C1)> (Ci + B1), it shows that the study is more economically profitable than the control treatment and Otherwise, the control treatment will be superior to the desired treatment. In order to select the best treatment from the studied treatments and rank the treatments, it is possible to act based on the amount of net benefits of the treatment or based on the ratio of benefit to cost of different treatments. In economic context, usually when the results of a project are related to different years, it is not possible to sum up the projected results of costs / revenues directly, but first the time value of money at the deposit rate. Banks should be determined at present value and then net present value (NPV) and cost-benefit ratio as profitability indicators. For this purpose, was used engineering economics creteria.
 
Results and Discussion
According to the results, the yield of fresh forage production of hairy vetch variety and dry forage production of common vetch variety was estimated 48755 and 8730 kg/ha, respectively, in target regions. The mean of production cost of domestic and external vetch was estimated 22.2 and 35.5 Iranian million rials/ha, respectively. The mean of production cost of internal and external of fodder green pea was estimated as 28.3 and 46.4 Iranian million rials/ha, respectively. The mean of production cost of domestic of faba bean and grass pea was estimated as 34.6 and 26.2 Iranian million rials/ha, respectively. The mean of net present value of the fresh forage production of hairy vetch and dry forage production of common vetch was estimated as 221.9 and 128.1 Iranian million rials/ha, respectively, that is more than others forage legumes. The mean of benefit cost ratio of the fresh forage production of hairy vetch and dry forage production of common vetch was estimated 10.2 and 6.3 unit, respectively. The mean of sale return of the fresh forage production of hairy vetch and dry forage production of common vetch was estimated 90.2 and 84.1 percent, respectively.
 
Coclusion
In generally, economic results show that, due to low production costs and higher profitability, the fresh forage production of hairy vetch variety and dry forage production of common vetch variety were recommended to target region

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Forage plants
  • Gorgan
  • Partial Budgeting
  • Profitability
  1. Ahmadi, K., Ebadzadeh, H.R., Hatami, F., Abdshah, H., and Kazemian, A. 2020. Agricultural statistics of the crop year 2018-2019. Volume One: Crops. Information and Communication Center, Deputy of Planning and Economy, Ministry of Jihad Agriculture. 89 pages. (in Persian).
  2. Alizadeh, KH. 2015. Drought tolerant forage plants in rainfed conditions. Publication of Eslamic Azad University. (in Persian).
  3. Alizadeh, KH. 2019. Annual forage plants in rainfed conditions-Review article. Iranian Journal of Rainfed Agriculture 8(1): 95-120. (in Persian).
  4. Ates, S., Feindel, D., ELmoneim, A., and Ryan, J. 2014. Annual forage legumes in dryland agricultural systems of the West Asia and North Africa regions: Research achievements and future perspective. Grass and Forage Science 69: 17-31.
  5. Bagheri, A., Nezami, A., and Soltani, M. 2000. Improvement of cool season pulse crops for tolerance against stresses. Agriculture Education and General Researches Organization Press, 445 p. (in Persian).
  6. Cheragh Wesi, S., Zarafshani, K., and Sharafi, L. 2020. Investigating the innovation characteristics of acceptance of autumn Chickpea cultivation in Ravansar, Kermanshah: Application of rogers t Iranian Agricultural Extension and Education Sciences 16(1): 113-130. (in Persian).
  7. Chowdhury, S.D., Sultana, Z., Ahammed, M., Chowdhury, B.L., Das, S.C., and Roy, B.C. 2005. The nutritional value of Khesari (Lathyrus sativus) for growing and laying pullets. Journal Poultry Science 42: 308-320.
  8. Ghorbani, M., and Bagheri, A. 2018. The value of pulses goods and services in agronomic systems of Iran. Iranian Journal of Pulses Research 9(1): 78-98. (in Persian).
  9. Ghotbi, V., Shahverdi, M., Feizbakhsh, M.T., and Sarparast, R. 2020. The comparison of qualitative and quantitative yield of annual forage legumes in autumn cultivation. Final Repot. Seed and Plant Improvement Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization, 96 p. (in Persian).
  10. Gupta, Y.P., and Kapoor, A.C. 1980. Chemical composition and protein quality of grain legumes. Indian Journal of Agricultural Science 50: 393-398.
  11. Haciseferogullari, H., Gezer, I., Bahtiyarca, Y., and Menges, H.O. 2003. Determination of some chemical and physical properties of Sakiz faba bean (Vicia faba var major). Journal of Food Engineering 60: 475-479.
  12. Jelenic, S., Mitrikeski, P.T., Papes, D., and Jelaska, S. 2000. Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of broad bean (Vicia faba). Food Technology and Biotechnology 38: 167-172.
  13. Karadağ, Y., Özkurt, M., Akbay, S., and Kır, H. 2012. The determination of the yield and yield characteristics of some grasspea lines under Tokat-Kazova ecological conditions. Tarim Bilimleri Arastirma Dergisi 5: 11-13.
  14. McVay, K.A., Radcliffe, D.E., and Hargrove, W.L. 1989. Winter legume effects on soil properties and nitrogen fertilizer requirements. Soil Science Society of America Journal 53: 1856-1862.
  15. Saberi, A.R., Abyar, N.M., and Baseri, N. 2017. Economic study of production of new and forgotten fodder products in Golestan province. Research Results in Improving Crop 3(1): 1-20.
  16. Saxena, M.C. 1993. The challenge of developing biotic and abiotic stress resistance in cool season food legumes. In: K.B. Singh and M.C. Saxena (E). Breeding for Stress Tolerance in Cool-Season Legumes, John Viley and Sons. Newyork, p: 3-14.
  17. Soltani, G.R 2008. Engineering Economics. Volume 11, Publication of Shiraz University, 328 p. (in Persian).
  18. Smulikowska, S., Rybinski, W., Czerwinski, J., Taciak, M., and Mieczkowska, A. 2008. Evaluation of selected mutants of grass pea (Lathyrus sativus) var. Crab as an ingredient in broiler chicken diet. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences 17: 75-87.
  19. Tekeli, A.S.,and Ates, E. 2003. Yield and its components in field pea (Pisumarvense) lines. Journal of Central European Agriculture (online). Volume 4.
  20. Vaz Patto, M.C., Skiba, B., Pang, E.C.K., Ochatt, S.J., Lambein, F., and Rubiales, D. 2006. Lathyrus improvement for resistance against biotic and abiotic stresses: From classical breeding to marker assisted selection. Euphytica 147: 133-147.
  21. Wang, F., Chen, X., Chen, Q., Qin, X.C., and Li, Z.X., 2000. Dedermination of neurotoxin 3-N-oxalyl-L-2,3-diamino propionic acid and non-protein amino acids in Lathyrus sativus by precolumn derivatization with 1-fluoro-2,4-dinitrobenzene. Journal of Chromatography A 883: 113-
CAPTCHA Image