systems research - the IDRC Digital Library - International ...
systems research - the IDRC Digital Library - International ... systems research - the IDRC Digital Library - International ...
Table 7. Returns to capital and labor for adopters and nonadopters. Rice Potato Returns to capital Returns to labor Adopter Nonadopter Adopter Nonadopter Vegetable 2.3 1.5 168 108 Annual three-crop cycle 1.8 1.5 168 161 Table 8. Estimated production functions for rice of adopters and nonadopters. Independent variable - - Constant 6.029**+* (5.52) LAREA LLB LFRT Adopt er Nonadopter Notes: l. Dependent variable is the production (kg) of rice per farm. 2. Figures in parentheses are t-values of the estimated coefficients. 3, "*** significant at l % level; *** significant at 5% level; ** significant at 10% level; and * significant at 15 % level. 4. Definition of independent variables: LAREA = log value of land area in hectares; LLB = log value of days of prel~arvest labor per hectare; and LFRT = log value of total fertilizer cost in SLR. 5. F-value of the chow test is 5.9****.
Table 9. Estimated production functions for potato of adopters and nonadopters. Independent variable Constant LAREA LFR Dummy 1 Dummy 4 -0.514" (-1.633) = 0.62 Adopter Nonadopter Notes: 1. The dependent variable is the potato production (kg) per farm. 2. Figures in Parenthesis are t-values of the estimated coefficients. 3. ****Significant at 1 % level; *** significant at 5% level; "* significant at 10% level; and * significant at l5 % level. 4. Definitions of independent variables: LAREA = log value of land area in hectares; LFR = log value of total fertilizer cost per hectal-e in SLR; Dunlmy 1 = with site = 1; without site = 0: Dunlmy 3 = irrigation once in 2 years = 0; continuous irrigation = 1; and Dummy 4 = owner operator = 1; tenant = 0. 5. F-value of the chow test is 3.41***. m,
- Page 183 and 184: Wangwacharachul (1984) examined the
- Page 185 and 186: household basis on an income and ex
- Page 187 and 188: first crop. In 1989-90, the adopter
- Page 189 and 190: Nonfarm expenses constituted the bu
- Page 191 and 192: Herbicide is essential for DSR. How
- Page 193 and 194: o The classification of farmers on
- Page 195 and 196: Table 1. List of \,ariables idc~l~l
- Page 197 and 198: Table 3. Conlparison of cash flow o
- Page 199 and 200: Table 5. Level of input use for the
- Page 201 and 202: Table 7. Production elasticities of
- Page 203 and 204: FROXl GREEN REVOLUTION TO FARhlING
- Page 205 and 206: ainfed areas. The RIARS project app
- Page 207 and 208: stability and sustainability. 1nsti
- Page 209 and 210: o Limited feedback at all levels. A
- Page 211 and 212: Table l. Chronological sequcnce of
- Page 213 and 214: Table l. Chronological sequence of
- Page 215 and 216: Impact studies A number of studies
- Page 217 and 218: some simple statistical tests to as
- Page 219 and 220: assets). Patterns of food consumpti
- Page 221 and 222: Production functions for first-seas
- Page 223 and 224: and nonadopters indicate that there
- Page 225 and 226: E~zdowr~tcnt of l~ouselrol~f assets
- Page 227 and 228: variety, inadequate attention was p
- Page 229 and 230: Table 1. Farming system research si
- Page 231 and 232: Table 4. Comparison of levels of in
- Page 233: Table-6. Compariso~i of le\.els of
- Page 237 and 238: Table 11. Factor shares of first-se
- Page 239 and 240: Table 13. Factor slirlres of third-
- Page 241 and 242: Table 15. Endownlent of farm assets
- Page 243 and 244: IAIPACT ASSESShlEhT OF FARMING SYST
- Page 245 and 246: Depending on the adequacy of rainfa
- Page 247 and 248: Demograpllic cllaractehtics. The co
- Page 249 and 250: The major farm implements owned by
- Page 251 and 252: Effect of RWCS on household cash fl
- Page 253 and 254: Table 1. Average cash expenses per
- Page 255 and 256: Table 5. Selected clia~~acteristics
- Page 257 and 258: Table 7. Comparative pcrforinance o
- Page 259 and 260: hiem bers Discussion and Recommenda
- Page 261 and 262: Guideline 4: FSR impact projects sh
- Page 263 and 264: hlem bers o The need to improve doc
- Page 265 and 266: Members what is right depends on po
- Page 267 and 268: Decentralization and farming system
- Page 269 and 270: o More program and less project fun
- Page 271 and 272: Bangladesh Mr. RaGqul Islam Banglad
- Page 273 and 274: Dr. N.F.C. Ranawecru Di\ision of .-
- Page 275 and 276: CFTSSF CLSU CSD CSSAC CVIADP CVRP-I
- Page 277 and 278: PIADP PCA PCARRD PHARLAP PSC PTA RA
- Page 279 and 280: Production Team Editor : Michael Gr
Table 7. Returns to capital and labor for adopters and nonadopters.<br />
Rice<br />
Potato<br />
Returns to capital Returns to labor<br />
Adopter Nonadopter Adopter Nonadopter<br />
Vegetable 2.3 1.5 168 108<br />
Annual three-crop<br />
cycle 1.8 1.5 168 161<br />
Table 8. Estimated production functions for rice of adopters and<br />
nonadopters.<br />
Independent<br />
variable<br />
- -<br />
Constant 6.029**+*<br />
(5.52)<br />
LAREA<br />
LLB<br />
LFRT<br />
Adopt er Nonadopter<br />
Notes: l. Dependent variable is <strong>the</strong> production (kg) of rice per farm.<br />
2. Figures in paren<strong>the</strong>ses are t-values of <strong>the</strong> estimated<br />
coefficients.<br />
3, "*** significant at l % level; *** significant at 5% level; **<br />
significant at 10% level; and * significant at 15 % level.<br />
4. Definition of independent variables: LAREA = log value of<br />
land area in hectares; LLB = log value of days of prel~arvest<br />
labor per hectare; and LFRT = log value of total fertilizer<br />
cost in SLR.<br />
5. F-value of <strong>the</strong> chow test is 5.9****.
Change language