Comparison of conventional and good agricultural practices farms: A socio-economic and technical perspective Osman Kılıç a, * , _ Ismet Boz a , Gamze Aydın Eryılmaz b a Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, Ondokuz Mayıs University, 55139, Samsun, Turkey b Samsun Vocational School, Ondokuz Mayıs University, 55139, Samsun, Turkey article info Article history: Received 23 July 2019 Received in revised form 8 February 2020 Accepted 18 February 2020 Available online 20 February 2020 Handling Editor: Baoshan Huang Keywords: Conventional agriculture Good agricultural practices Fertilizer and pesticide use Sustainability abstract The retailers dominating the fresh fruit and vegetable markets in Europe came together in 1997 to initiate a program that minimizes threats to human health from fruit and vegetable products. They developed the foundations of today’s Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) program, which has been adopted by all countries. The regulations on GAP in Turkey were first published in 2004 and revised in 2010 and 2014, with the inclusion of a more comprehensive set of standards. The primary purpose of this study was to compare farms operating on a conventional basis and farms applying GAP, with respect to their use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and also their yields and gross profits. The research was conducted in the Bafra District of Samsun Province, Turkey, which is a highly productive agricultural area. The data were collected through structured and unstructured questionnaires administered to a stratified sample of 56 farmers operating conventionally and 30 farmers engaged in GAP. The average applications of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium on conventional agricultural (CA) farms were 142.3 kg, 81.2 kg and 3.7 kg per hectare, respectively. These amounts were less on the GAP farms by 31.1%, 49.4% and 18.9%, respectively. The average applications of insecticides, fungicides and herbicides on CA farms were 0.8 kg, 0.4 kg and 0.1 kg per hectare, which on GAP farms were lower by 50.0%, 25.0% and 70.0%, respectively. Depending on crop type, converting to GAP decreased yields in the range of 3.3%e20.6%, and gross profits decreased in the range of 2.0%e14.3%, due to the utilization of lower inputs. Therefore, in order to increase the adoption of GAP by farmers, it is important to compensate them for the decreases in yield and gross profit by providing governmental subsidies and support programs. The social benefit of the GAP program is that it reduces the harm caused by pesticides to consumers and also the environ- mental damage caused by agricultural activities, and therefore makes them more sustainable. The government support, especially financial support given to the GAP program in Turkey, has been highly influential in the adoption of GAP by farmers. However, in order to raise public awareness of the availability of GAP products and increase the demand for them, projects involving all stakeholders, including consumer and marketing groups, are needed. © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Recent trends and developments indicate that more educated and sensitive customers pressurize producers and sellers of agri- cultural commodities to adopt sustainable agricultural practices. In 1997, the retailers dominating fresh fruit and vegetable marketing in Europe came together to instigate a program that minimizes threats to human health from fresh fruit and vegetables and products derived from them. They established the standards of Good Agricultural Practices (GAP). These standards, which were revised in 2007 and named GLOBALGAP, were accepted by all countries worldwide. Under these standards, retailers receive as- surances from the producers and suppliers that the products they put on their supermarket shelves will not harm their customers. The GAP program began in Turkey when the enabling regulation was published in 2004, with production on participating farms to be based on the rules and principles of GAP. Farm subsidies were introduced after the updated regulation of 2010, and further changes in the regulation were made in 2014 to extend the area to which the GAP program applies. These legislative amendments and * Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: okilic@omu.edu.tr (O. Kılıç), ismet.boz@omu.edu.tr ( _ I. Boz), gamzeaydin@omu.edu.tr (G.A. Eryılmaz). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Cleaner Production journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120666 0959-6526/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Journal of Cleaner Production 258 (2020) 120666