Measuring livestock farmers' effect on sustainable agricultural and rural development

I Boz, C Akbay, G Jordan* and A Kamalak**

Assistant Professor, KSU Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Economics, Kahramanmaras Turkey 46100
ismetboz@ksu.edu.tr
*Former Lecturer, Harper Adams University College, Newport, Shropshire
**Assistant Professor, KSU Faculty of Agriculture Department of Animal Science

Abstract

This study was conducted to determine livestock raising farmers' effect on sustainable use of agricultural and natural resources in the rural areas of Kahramanmaras Province of Turkey. The minimum usable sample needed was 208 based on stratified sampling technique. A farmers' self-evaluation sustainable agricultural index was developed and applied to farmers located in four different districts of Kahramanmaras Province. In terms of sustainable agricultural practices included in the index, farmers who raised livestock were compared with farmers who grew crops only. The binary logistic regression procedure was employed to determine the influence of each selected sustainable agricultural practice on the probability that farmers raise livestock in their farms.

Results showed that as farmers grow legume crops, use animal manure, take adequate measures to protect publicly owned rangelands, personally involve in commodity marketing, not use fallow, and properly use farm machinery and equipment, they tend to raise livestock in their farms. Therefore, livestock raising farmers make significant contributions to sustainable use of agricultural and natural resources.

Keywords: livestock production, sustainability, sustainable agriculture

Introduction

"Sustainable development as a concept represents the latest step in a long evolution of public concerns with respect both to natural resources and to the environment" (Batie 1989). It is defined as "development that meets the needs for the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (The World Commission on Environment and Development 1987). This definition indicates that to meet their needs, the present generations have no right to overuse natural resources and the environment, which will ultimately threat the living standards of the future generations. Therefore, stewardship of both natural and human resources is of prime importance (Freenstra 1997). Advocates of sustainable development perceive that the biosphere imposes limits on economic growth, express a lack of faith in either science or technology as leading to human betterment, are extremely averse to environmental risks, support redistributive justice and egalitarian ethics, profess concern over population growth and have faith in the wisdom of human capital development, and have survival of species and protection of the environment and of minority cultures, rather economic growth per se, as goals (Batie 1989).

Sustainable agriculture is defined as a dynamic set of practices and technologies that minimize damage to the environment while providing income to the farm over a long time span (Flora 1992). It integrates three main goals- environmental health, economic profitability, and social and economic equity (Feenstra 1997). Although sustainable agriculture is generally defined with the negative term low input agriculture, this may not be fair because sustainable agricultural system use the very best technology in balanced, well managed, and environmentally responsible system (Hess 1991). The operational goals of sustainable agriculture, as stated by Benbrook (1991), include the following: (a) more through incorporation of natural processes such as nutrient cycling, nitrogen fixation, and beneficial pest-predator relationships into the agricultural production process; (b) reduction in the use of off-farm inputs with the greatest potential to harm the environment or the health of farmers and consumers; (c) productive use of the biological and genetic potential of plant and animal species; (d) improvement in the match between cropping patterns and the productive potential and physical limitations of agricultural lands; and (e) profitable and efficient production with emphasis on improved farm management, prevention of animal diseases, optimal integration of livestock and cropping enterprises, and conservation of soil, water, energy, and biological resources.

Agriculture in Turkey makes a contribution of 10% of the GNP, produces almost 45% of the raw materials consumed by the national industry, provides 7% of the total export revenues, nourishes of a population approximately 70 millions, and creates employment to 42% of the working population (SIS 2003). Therefore agriculture is still playing a vital role in Turkish economy.

Although agriculture plays a vital role in Turkey's economy, farmlands are subject to agricultural marginalization and desertification. Agricultural marginalization as defined by Brouwer et al (1997) is a process driven by a combination of social, economic, political and environmental factors, by which certain areas of farmland cease to be viable under an existing land use and socioeconomic structure. The principle drivers of land marginalization in Turkey are use of fertile agricultural land for unsuitable purposes such as building land for industrial sites and tourism, rural migration, fragmentation of farms, degradation of rangelands, unsuitable farming practices, and industrial pressures exaggerated as a result of growing population (Jordan et al 2002). Beside land marginalization, desertification is also a major constraint to natural resource base. According to UN statistics 109.124 km² land are desert and 374,441 km² are in danger of desertification. Desertification in Turkey is mainly caused by improper land use, excessive grazing, fuel, wood and plant collection. Moderate impacts result from improper farming and natural causes such as wind erosion and flooding (Jordan et al 2002).

Kahramanmaras is located in the Northeastern part of Mediterranean region of Turkey. It has 357,560 hectares of agricultural land, approximately 2 percent of Turkey's total sown area. The main plants cultivated in the region include grains, cotton, red pepper, sunflower, and a large variety of fruits and vegetables. It is evident that the last two decades' agricultural policies and economic development strategies have displayed little appreciation of the importance of natural resource use and environmental protection. This caused for Kahramanmaras to suffer from a high level of erosion, which is considered as the main constrain in the realization of sustainable agriculture. The main cause of erosion in the province can be identified as water, including irrigation runoff, wind and the direct effect of tillage (Jordan et al 2002). These processes are accelerated by agriculture and facilitated by steep terrain and fragile vegetative cover, creating problems such as poor soil quality a main constraint in realization of sustainable land use and resulting in "a reduced productive potential and a diminished capacity to provide benefits to humanity" (Brady and Weil 1999). Illegally and unlawful use of natural land stocks and forests, and misuse of pesticides and chemicals are also serious constrains in realization of sustainable agriculture and rural development in the region.

In order to achieve the goals of sustainable agriculture and rural development in Kahramanmaras, it can be assumed that crop and livestock production should be accompanied with proper farm management, and maintenance of publicly owned natural resources. Farm level practices may include, but are not limited to, control of chemicals, pests management, proper irrigation, crop rotation, legume rotation, use of animal manure, proper grazing of range lands, land consolidation, proper use of agricultural machinery, proper care of plant and animal health, and so on. Considering the ecology, farm system, and socioeconomic structure of a region, similar farm level practices, which aim to protection and long term utilization of farmland and other natural resources can also be applied.

Livestock production is considered as a part of agricultural production, and makes substantial contributions to Turkey's economic development. It constitutes approximately 23% of agricultural value; provides the basic meet and dairy products needed by the urban and rural households; makes significant contributions to textile and leather industries; increases cash availability for the family farms (Yurdakul et al 1999); increases organic matter of soil by providing manure; makes it possible for rural families to utilize land which is not appropriate for cultivation, as well as, to utilize publicly owned resources such as meadows and range lands; requires fodder crop production which increases soil fertility when included in a rotation pattern; increases labor productivity within a family farm; provides animal power when tractor purchase is not economical; and in terms of climatic and environmental conditions it is a less risky facility as compared to crop production alone (Duzgunes and Elicin, 1986).

Since livestock provides many benefits both for family farmers and for the economy as a whole, it can be hypothesized that it also makes significant contributions to sustainable use of agricultural potential in rural areas. However, there have been a lack of studies in Turkey, which investigate the influences and/or contributions of livestock on sustainability of agriculture. Therefore, a study identifying various sustainable agricultural practices related to farming and maintenance of publicly owned natural resources in rural areas, and investigating whether or not livestock influence the application of these identified practices was needed. The main objectives of this study were:

1. to determine if the application of each of the selected sustainable agricultural practices differs between mixed farming system (producing crop and livestock in the same farm) and farmers groving crops alone.
2. to determine the effect of each selceted sustainable agricultural practice on the probability of producing livestock in the farm.

Materials and Methods

Population and Sample

Target population for this study was defined as Kahramanmaras farm operators in the central district, Pazarcik, Turkoglu, and Elbistan counties. From these four locations, twelve villages were selected based on agricultural potential, geographic location, population intensity, and possibilities of representing socioeconomic characteristics of rural life in the region. From each village a list of farm operators showing their farm sizes was obtained from the District Agricultural Office. Lists of twelve selected villages made the accessible population of the study. Considering frequency distributions of farm sizes, accessible population was divided in three strata with 1-50 decares, 51-150 decares, and more than150 decares. Yamane's (2001) stratified sample size determination formula was used to identify the sample size. The equation for this formula is:

where

n = sample size,
N = accessible population,
Nh = number of persons in a stratum,
Sh = standard deviation within a stratum,
D² = desired variance,
e = accepted error from the mean, and
t = t value corresponding the accepted confidence interval.

Accepting 5 percent error from the mean (e) and 95 percent confidence interval (t = 1.645), the sample size was calculated as 208. This number was proportionally distributed to three strata, and respondents from each stratum were randomly selected.

Developing a Farm Level Sustainability Indicator

In order to compare farmers who raise livestock in their farms with the farmers growing crops alone, a farm level sustainable indicator was developed by the researchers. This indicator included various practices/actions, which were assumed to have positive influence on the sustainable use of agricultural lands, and socioeconomic structure of the population living in rural areas. The practices/actions included in this study were found useful by many researchers in promoting sustainable use of natural resources. For example, crop rotation (Peel 1998), growing legume crops (Boerma et al 2001), using animal manure (Johnson and Eckert 1995), proper use of pesticides (Deer 1998), not burning the residues (Suzer 2002), growing cover crops (Peet 2001), proper use of chemical fertilizers (Watschke 1998), adequate measures for soil erosion (Erpul 2004), proper use of water and irrigation (Tekinel 2002), not using fallow (Kun et al 1990) make significant contributions to sustainable use of farmland. In addition, taking adequate measures to protect publicly owned rangelands, tree planting in environmentally less advantaged farm surroundings, conducting soil test and using fertilizers accordingly, personal involvement in commodity marketing, and proper use of farm machinery and equipment are also considered useful practices for sustainable agriculture. Moreover, farmland in the research area has been subject to division, fragmentation, and use of unsuitable purposes. Therefore, each farmer's intention of purchasing more land and enlarging the farm, not selling farmland for the use of unsuitable purposes such as building industrial sites and tourism, and upon retiring leaving the farmland to only one of the children who really like farming, instead of dividing it equally among all children were also included in the indicator of sustainable use of agricultural resources.

Data Collection

The 18 farm level practices/actions included in the sustainable agriculture indicator were properly worded with two choices. If each of the practices was applied in farmers' own circumstances the answer was "yes", and "no" otherwise. These were the independent variables of the study. Respondents were also asked whether or not they raise livestock in their farms and this was treated as the dependent variable of the study. Panel of experts established validity for the data collection instrument. It was also pre-tested and slight changes were made for establishing reliability. Data were collected in October and September 2003. SPSS - Version 11.5 (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) was used for data analyses.

Analytical Procedures

The study used the Chi-square contingency test for independence to determine whether significant differences existed between livestock producers and nonproducers in terms of the selected 18 sustainable agriculture practices. The formula for this test is:

where,
n_i are the observed frequencies in the k categories and
E_i represent the expected frequencies (Freund and Wilson 1993).

Eighteen Chi-square tests were conducted to determine whether each of the sustainable agricultual practices selected was independent of producing livestock in the farm. "Although this test can describe relationships between or amaong variables, it cannot measure the combined influence of a group of explanatory varianbles on a specific dependent variable" (McLean-Meyinsse 1997). Therefore, to analyse the influence of each explanatory variable on the dependent variable, which is a dichotomous variable, the binary logistig regression was used (Maddala 1983; Greene 2000). The dependent variable was coded whether respondents raise livestock in their farms (y=1), or not (y=0). The logit model is written:

where
Prob(y=1) is the probability of 1,
e is the base of the natural logarithm,
f(xβ) is the standard logistic distribution function, and
x is the explanatory variable vector, which include the selected sustainable agricultural practices.

These were also colected as dichotomous variables with 1 = the selected sustainable agricultural practice is applied in farmers own circumstances, and 0 = otherwise.

The odds ratios for all of the explanatory variables were calculated considering the following formula:

It indicates for a single explanatory variable that when holding all other variables constant, respondents who apply the given sustainable agricultural practice, is more likely to raise livestock in their farms than respondents who don't apply the same practice.

Findings

Results of the study are presented by the objectives. Objective 1 of the study was to determine if the application of each of the selected sustainable agricultural practices differs between farmers raising livestock in their farms and farmers growing crops alone. Chi-square test of independence procedure was used to accomplish this objective. Results are showed in Table 1. From the Table, 8 of 18 factors were found significant at the 0.05 level of probability or better. The significant factors were using legume crops, using animal manure, proper use of chemical fertilizers, taking adequate measures for publicly owned rangelands, tree planting in environmentally less advantaged farmland, personal involvement in commodity marketing, using fallow, and proper use of farm machinery and equipment.

Fourty-three percent of livestock raising farmers grew legume crops and 57% grew no legume crops in their fields. The same ratios in farmers who raise no livestock were 21% and 79%, respectively. These findings show that livestock raising farmers have more tendency of growing legume crops as compared to farmers raise no livestock in their farms.

Seventy percent of livestock raising farmers used animal manure and 30% used no animal manure in their farms while the same ratios in farmers who raise no livestock were 30% and 62%, respectively. These findings show that livestock raising farmers have more tendency of using animal manure as compared to farmers raise no livestock in their farms.

In terms of proper use of chemical fertilizers 59% of livestock raising farmers perceived that they properly used chemical fertilizers and 41% perceived vice versa. On the other hand 41% of farmers who raise no livestock in their farms perceived that they didn't properly use chemical fertilizers in their fields and 59% perceived vice versa. These findings verify that livestock raising farmers have a higher perception that they properly use chemical fertilizers in comparison to crop only farmers.

Seventy-one percent of livestock raising farmers perceived that they take adequate measures to protect publicly owned rangelands and 29% perceived vice versa. The same perceptions in farmers who raise no livestock in their farms were 44% and 56%, respectively. These results indicate that farmers who raise livestock in their farms have higher perception of taking adequate measures for properly protection of publicly owned rangelands.

Sixty-one percent of livestock raising farmers indicated that they plant trees in environmentally less advantaged farm surrounding and 39% indicated vice versa. The same indication in farmers who raised no livestock in their farms were 38% and 62%, respectively. These results show that livestock raising farmers have a higher tendency of planting trees in environmentally less advantaged farm surrounding as compared to farmers raise no livestock.

Eighty-two percent of livestock raising respondents indicated that they personally involved in commodity marketing while 18% indicated vice versa. Personal involvement in commodity marketing had a 62% yes and 38% no answers in farmers who raise no livestock in their farms. According to these results farmers who raise livestock have higher level of involvement in commodity marketing than the other group farmers.

In terms of using fallow, 42% of livestock raising farmers used fallow and 58% didn't use fallow. The same ratios in farmers who raised no livestock were 68% and 32%, respectively. These results verify that livestock raising farmers had a tendency of not using fallow in their fields.

The last significant sustainable indicator was adequately use of farm machinery and equipment. This had a 76% yes and 24% no responses in livestock raising farmers. The same rates in the farmers raising no livestock were 38% and 62% respectively. According to these results farmers who raise livestock in their farms have a higher perception of properly using farm machinery and equipment as compared with farmers who raise no livestock.

Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the probability of respondents raising livestock in their farms with the 18 explanatory variables. The full model was statistically significant, X² (18, N=208) = 81.97, p < 0.01. The model had a -2Log Likelihood statistic of 173.16, a Cox and Snell R Square of 0.33, and a Nagelkerke R Square of 0.46. It was able correctly to classify 89.7% of those who raised livestock in their farms and 58.7% of those who did not, for an overall success rate of 80.3%.

The logistic binomial model estimation for whether or not raising livestock is presented in Table 2, which includes the explanatory variables, coefficients, standard error, the Wald X² , p values and odds ratios.

Of 18 explanatory variables 6 had significant partial effects at 0.05 level of probability or better. These were growing legume crops, using animal manure, taking adequate measures to protect publicly owned rangelands, proper use of irrigation water, using fallow, and proper use of farm machinery and equipment. All of the significant variables had the expected signs. The odds ratios for the significant variables can be interpreted as the following. Holding all other variables constant, legume growing farmers are 3.8 times more likely to raise livestock than farmers who didn't grow legume crops in their farms. Farmers who used animal manure are 5.7 times, farmers who perceived that they took adequate measures to protect publicly ownd range land are 2.7 times, farmers who personaly involved in commedity marketing are 3.6 times, and farmers who perceived that they properly used farm machinery and equipmeny are 3.4 times more likely to raise livestock in their farms than are farmers who didn't apply these practices. On the other hand, farmers who used fallow are 0.4 times less likely to raise livestock than are farmers who didn't use fallow.

Conclusions and recommendations

• This study found that livestock raising farmers apply various sustainable agricultural pracctices more than farmers who raise no livestock in their farms, indicating that as the rate of farmers producing livestock increases in rural areas, sustainable level of agriculture will also increase. However, "many contend that much livestock agriculture in the US today posses substantial environmental risk, and is associated with growing economic and social inequities throughout the food system", thus reduced stocking rates for animals is considered as a strategy frequently associated with sustainability (Hinrichs and Welsh 2003). This is also a strategy in the reforming process of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the European Union (EU). Since the domestic supply of beef, veal, and dairy products in EU is much larger than demand, the surpluses many times create budgetary problems, as well as, the trials and applications of new technologies to increase productivity in livestock sector may increase the risk of hygienic security of animal products. Since livestock industry in the US and EU is mostly held by large industrialized producers, these producers either own their own feed grain and animal feeding operations or form strategic alliances and joint ventures (Hansen 1996; Friedmann 1994).

• In Turkey, on the other hand, concerns about sustainability are not raised because of over-production of livestock. On the contrary, there have been major shortages of livestock products since the domestic production couldn't meet the demand; for this reason imports have been inevitable, especially, in the last decade. From a socioeconomic standpoint, the majority of livestock is produced in family farms where the owner undertakes most of the duties from production to marketing. Livestock is produced for both family consumption and for cash to correspond the other necessities of the rural family. It can be considered as a contributing and risk reducing sector when applied with crop production.

• In the Mediterranean region of Turkey, major changes have occurred in land use which have influences on livestock production and therefore on the potential of sustainable agriculture. For example, since 1950, both of the agricultural land and cultivated land have increased by 39.1%, and 72.0%; while fallow land, and pasture and meadows decreased by 78.4% and by 70.8%, respectively (Tanrivermiş 2003). In the last decade, similar to the rest of Turkey, Kahramanmaras has faced an important decline in the number of livestock. Since 1991, the number of animals has decreased by 12% in Turkey, and 13% in Kahramanmaras, respectively. Beside this decline has caused dramatic increases in the prices of meet and dairy products, and it has negatively affected both consumers and producers; further declines in the number of livestock may reduce the sustainable potential of Turkey's agriculture. This goal will be threatened unless serious measures are taken to encourage and/or support crop producing farms to raise livestock and operate mixed production. However, in order to prevent land degradation and erosion, adequate measures should be taken and long term planning should also be made available to refrain from early and excessive use of privately owned pastures and publicly used grazing lands.

• In the research area small livestock are predominant with farmers cultivating few crops. Small livestock production, especially goat is largely depends on rangelands and forests. "Almost all year long, goats graze on range land, in the forests and mountainous lands with shrubs" (Ozturk 1999). A large proportion of livestock is supervised by roaming shepherds grazing animals for cotton and wheat farmers. After wheat and cotton harvests, land is also grazed freely without any formal agreement being in place. Livestock numbers in the area are insufficient to meet demand and currently dealers are importing animals from other regions (Jordan et al 2002). Dramatic decreases in Governmental support for livestock production, rural migration, reforestation and decreasing rangelands are the main factors in the decline of livestock numbers in the region. If this decline continues it will probably have adverse effect on crop rotation, legume crops growing, cover crops growing, and use of animal manure, which have contributions to sustainable use of agricultural land.

• Besides income from crop sales, livestock producing farmers in the locality reduce the risk and enhance their income sources by livestock sales, as well as, sales of dairy products. Especially, goat milk in the locality faces an increasing demand due to it is the row material of the unique ice cream produced in the province.

• The results of this study show that in order to increase the sustainable use of farmland and other rural environment, first, livestock production should be combined with crop production. Second, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, through its farmers education and extension service should develop and implement various programs to educate farmers regarding various sustainable crop and livestock production practices.

References

Batie S 1989 Sustainable development: Challenges to the profession of agricultural economics. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. Volume 71, Article # 1.

Benbrook C M 1991 Introduction. In: BANR's Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education in the Field: A Procedings. National Academic Press, Washington D.C.

Boerma H R, John J S and Molen J Y 2001 US Legume crops genomics workshop executive summary. 30-31 July Hunt Valley Maryland. Retrieved December 1, 2004 from  http://129.186.26.94/Legume_Initiative/LegGenomicsPaper10Oct01.html

Brady N C and Weil R R  1999 The Nature and Properties of Soils. 12th Edition London: Prentice Hall, 0-13-852444-0.

Brouwer F, Baldock D, Godeschalk F and Beaufoy G 1997 Marginalisation of agricultural land in Europe. In: J Laker and J Milne, ed. Livestock systems in European rural development. Aberdeen: Macaulay Land Use Research Institute. 0-7084-0595-9 pp 25-33.

Deer H M 1998 Restricted use of pesticides. Electronic publishing Utah State University Extension Service.Retrieved November 26, 2004 from http://extension.usu.edu/files/agpubs/pesti02.pdf

Düzgüneş O andEliçin A 1986 Hayvan Yetiştirme İlkeleri. Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi Ziraat Fakültesi Yayınları 978, Ders Kitabı 288.

Erpul G 2004 Toprak erozyonu ders notları. Ankara Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Toprak Bölümü Ankara Retrieved December 14, 2004 from http://www.agri.ankara.edu.tr/soil_sciences/notebooks/to308/to308.html

Flora C B 1992 Building sustainable agriculture: A new application of farming system research and extension. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture. Volume 2 Article # 3

Freenstra G 1997 What is sustainable agriculture? Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. University of California. Retrevied December 14, 2004 from http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/staff/staff7.html

Freund R J and Wilson W J 1993 Statistical Methods. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

Friedmann H 1994 "Distance and durability. Shaky foundations of the world food economy." In P. McMichael (Editor) The global restructuring of Agro-Food Systems (pp.258-276). Ithaca, New York Cornell University Press.

Greene W H 2000 Econometric Analysis 4^th edition. Prentice Hall

Johnson J and Eckert D 1995 Best management practices: Land application of animal manure. Ohio State University Extension, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science 2021 Coffey Road Columbus Ohio 43210-1044. Retreived December 15, 2004 from http://ohioline.osu.edu/agf-fact/0208.html

Jordan GNM, Alderson M, Hall NW and Boz I 2002 Kahramanmaraş'ta fiğ üretiminin sürdürülebilir tarım potansiyeline katkıları. Türkiye V. Tarım Ekonomisi Kongresi 18-20 Eylül, Erzurum

Hansen W J 1996 Is agricultural sustainability a useful concept? Agricultural Systems Volume 50, Article # 1.

Hess C E 1991 The US Department of Agriculture Commitment to Sustainable Agriculture. In: BANR's Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education in the Field: A Procedings. National Academic Press, Washington D.C.

Hinrichs C C and Welsh R 2003 The effects of the industrialization of US livestock agriculture on promoting sustainable production practices. Agriculture and Human Values Volume 20, Article # 2.

Kün E, Altay F, Kalaycı M, Adak M S, Tüsüz M S, Açıkgöz N, Tugay M E, Sencar Ö, Meyveci K, Tan A, Kurt Ö and Karagöz A 1990 Türkiye'de nadas alanlarının daraltılması ve ikinci ürün çalışmaları. Türkiye Ziraat Mühendisliği III. Teknik Kongresi Yayın No. 12, s. 62. Ankara.

Maddala G S 1983 Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge University Press.

McLean-Meyinsse P E 1997 Factors influencing early adoption of new food products in Louisiana and Texas. Journal of food distribution research Volume 28, Article # 2.

Ozturk D 1999 The characteristics of goat farming system in Kahramanmaraş, North Eastern Region Mediterranean Region of Turkey: proceedings of the 7^th International conference on goats held at Tours France 15-20 May.

Peel M D 1998 Crop rotation for increasing productivity. North Dakota State University. NDSU Extension Service. Retrieved November 2, 2004 from http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extpubs/plantsci/crops/eb48-1.htm

Peet M 2001 Cover crops and living mulches. Sustainable Practices for Vegetable Production in the South NCSU. Retrieved November 14, 2004 from http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/sustainable/peet/cover/cover.html

SIS-State Institute of Statistics 2003 Statistical Yearbook of Turkey. State Institute of Statistics Prime Ministry of Republic of Turkey, Ankara

Suzer M 2002 Anız yangınları. Çevreye zararları ve anızlı toprak işlemenin sürdürülebilir tarıma etkileri. Cinetatım Dergisi Sayı 41. Retrieved December 20, 2004 from http://www.cine-tarim.com.tr/dergi/arsiv41/sektorel03.htm

Tanrıvermiş H 2003 Agricultural land use change and sustainable use of land resources in the Mediterranean region of Turkey. Journal of Arid Environments. Volume 54, Article # 8. Retrieved October 12, 2004 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science

Tekinel O 2002 The importance of participatory irrigation system for water and food security. 40^th Anniversary of the Foundation of CHIEAM and Follow-up Meeting on Towards a Sustainable Agriculture Development: New Approaches. Antalya Turkey.

Watschke T L 1998 Proper use of fertilizers minimizes environmental effects. Retrieved January 2, 2005 from http://grounds-mag.com/mag/grounds_maintenance_proper_fertilizers_minimizes/

World Comission on Environment and Development (WCED) 1987 Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Yamane T 2001 Elementary Sampling Methods (Turkish translation) Literatür: Yayıncılık, Dağıtım, Pazarlama, Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. Şti

Yurdakul O, Smith D, Koç A, Fuller F, Şengül H, Akdemir Ş, Ören N, Aksoy Ş, Yavuz F, Saner G, Akbay A Ö and Yalçın İ 1999  Livestock supply and feed demand in Turkey: An evaluation of the current situation and alternative policy scenarios. Agricultural Economics Research Institute Publication # 17, ISBN 975-407-035-0 Ankara Turkey