Implications for the Conservation of Wheat Landraces in Turkey from a Household Model of Varietal Choice

  • E. C. H. Meng
  • J. E. Taylor
  • S. B. Brush


The implementation of in situ conservation methods in conjunction with ex situ conservation efforts has been increasingly promoted and accepted in recent years (Maxted, Ford-Lloyd, and Hawkes, 1997). Despite the potential advantages of conserving traditional varieties on farms, however, a large gap remains between the observation of de facto conservation by farmers in areas of crop diversity and the establishment of a viable, long-term framework for on-farm conservation. De facto conservation refers to the decision by some farmers to continue cultivating landraces, even though modern varieties are available to them. The evidence of de facto conservation found in a number of detailed studies in areas of crop diversity (Brush, 1992; Dennis, 1987; chapter 7) is promising but provides insufficient assurance that society can rely indefinitely on farm households to conserve these resources.


Modern Variety Traditional Variety Crop Breeding Wheat Landrace Inverse Mill Ratio 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bellon, M. R. 1996. The dynamics of crop infraspecific diversity: A conceptual framework at the farmer level. Economic Botany50: 26 – 39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bellon, M. R., and J. E. Taylor. 1993. Folk soil taxonomy and the partial adoption of new seed varieties. Economic Development and Cultural Change41: 763 – 786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brush, S. 1992. Reconsidering the green revolution: Diversity and stability in cradle areas of cropdomestication. Human Ecology20: 145 – 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. de Janvry, A., M. Fafchamps, and E. Sadoulet. 1991. Peasant household behaviour with missing markets: Some paradoxes explained. Economic Journal10: 1400 – 1417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. de Janvry, A. and E. Sadoulet. 1994. Structural adjustment under transaction costs. In F. Heidhues and B. Kerr (eds.), Food and Agricultural Policies under Structural Adjustments. Frankfurt, Germany, and New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  6. Dennis, J. V. 1987. Farmer management of rice variety diversity in northern Thailand. Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Engels, M. M. 1994. Genetic diversity in Ethiopian barley in relation to altitude. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution41: 67 – 73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fafchamps, M. 1992. Cash crop production, food price volatility, and rural market integration in the third world. American Journal of Agricultural Economics74: 90 – 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Feder, G. 1980. Farm size, risk aversion and the adoption of new technology under uncertainty. Oxford Economic Papers32: 263 – 283.Google Scholar
  9. Finkelshtain, I., and J. Chalfant. 1991. Marketed surplus under risk: Do peasants agree with Sandmo American Journal of Agricultural Economics73: 557 – 567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goetz, S. 1992. A selectivity model of household food marketing behavior in sub-Saharan Africa. American Journal of Agricultural Economics74: 444 – 452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jansen, H. P., T. Walker, and R. Barker. 1990. Adoption ceilings and modern coarse cereal cultivars in India. American Journal of Agricultural Economics72: 653 – 663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Just, R. E., and R. D. Pope, R. 1979. Production function estimation and related risk considerations. American Journal of Agricultural Economics61: 276 – 284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Just, R. E., and Zilberman, D. 1983. Stochastic structure, farm size, and technology adoption in developing agriculture. Oxford Economic Papers35: 307 – 328.Google Scholar
  14. Loss, S., and Siddique, K. H. M. (1994) Morphological and physiological traits associated with wheat yield increases in Mediterranean environments. Advances in Agronomy52: 229 – 276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Maxted, M., B. V. Ford-Lloyd, and J. G. Hawkes (eds). 1997. Plant Genetic Conservation: The In Situ Approach London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  16. Meng, E. C. H. 1997. Land allocation decisions and in situconservation of crop genetic resources: The case of wheat landraces in Turkey. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Davis, California.Google Scholar
  17. Meng, E. C. H., J. E. Taylor, and S. B. Brush. 1998. Technology Adoption and the On-Farm Conservation of Crop Genetic Resources. CIMMYT Economics Working Paper. Mexico, D.F.: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT).Google Scholar
  18. Pecetti, L., A. B. Damania, and G. Kashour. (1992) Geographic variation for spike and grain characteristics in durum wheat germplasm adapted to dryland conditions. Genetic Resources and Crop Evaluation39: 97 – 105.Google Scholar
  19. Perrin, R., and D. Winkelmann. 1976. Impediment to technical progress on small versus large farms. American Journal of Agricultural Economics58: 888 – 894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Zanatta, A. C. A., M. Keser, N. Kilin?, S. B. Brush, and C.O. Qualset. 1996. Agronomic performance of wheat landraces from western Turkey: bases for in situ conservation practices by farmers. In Fifth International Wheat Conference, June 1014, 1996, Ankara, Turkey. Book of Abstracts Ankara: Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (Turkey), International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), International Center for Research in Dry Areas (ICARDA), Oregon State University, US Agency for International Development (US AID), and German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. C. H. Meng
  • J. E. Taylor
  • S. B. Brush

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations