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

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

• 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

10.22067/ijpr.v13i2.2101-1000

Abstract

 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

Keywords

• Forage plants
• Gorgan
• Partial Budgeting
• Profitability

20.1001.1.2008725.1401.13.2.13.8

---

References

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-