systems research - the IDRC Digital Library - International ...

ecause of financial difficulties and lack of awareness. At both sites, high adopters
used the highest fertilizer input, followed by medium and low adopters.
A similar trend was observed in 1990 (Table 11). At both sites, total annual
cost per hectare was highest in the case of hi h adopters followed by medium and
low adopters. Returns to family labor, hired k abor, animal draft power, and material
inputs were higher at Kamalganj. But the cost of rice production per kilogram was
lower at Kamalganj; therefore, Kamalganj farmers were more cost-effective than
Sitakund farmers. At Kamalganj, group comparisons showed no significant
differences in net returns between low and medium adopters or between medium
and high adopters. However, there were significant differences in gross return
between low and medium and between medium and high adopters (Table 12).
At Sitakund, group comparisons showed significant differences in gross
return and total cost between low and medium and low and high adopters. But the
net return was not significant.
Adoption and its impact on income and expenditure
The 1989 farm income of low adopters in Kamalganj was 58% of their total income,
medium adopters was 54%, and high adopters 63%. In 1990, low adopters' farm
income was 51%, medium adopters 59%, and high adopters 60%. While in
Sitakund, the 1989 farm income of low adopters was 34% of their total income, 59%
for medium.adopters and 50% for high adopters. The 1990 farm income of low
adopters was 4396, medium adopters 59%, and high adopters 45%.
The primary source of income for low and high ado~ters of rice technologies
in Kamalganj was farming. In Sitakund, nonfarming activities were the major source
of income and low adopters. While high adopters' dominant source of income were
both farming and nonfarming activities (Table 13).
At Kamalganj, the 1989 income from rice production was 78%, 82%, and
85% of the total farm income for low, medium, and high adopters, respectively (data
not shown). This increase in income was directly related to the adoption of the
technology. Similar results were obtained in 1990. The highest income from the sale
of rice was obtained by high adopters. Income from livestock was the second most
important source of farm income (about 10 % of the total farm income). Nonfarm
income was about 40% of the total income. This decreased with the rate of adoption
of rice technology. Service, business, and labor were the major sources of nonfarm
income. At Sitakund, income from rice production was not directly related to
adoption of technology. In 1989, the income from rice production was 65%, 32%,
and 38% of the total farm income for low, medium, and high adopters, respectively.
Again, high adopters gained the highest income from the sale of rice. Vegetable
cultivation and livestock were the two most important sources of farm income at
Sitakund. Nonfarm income at Sitakund was higher than in Kamalganj. Service,
business, and overseas employment were the most important sources of nonfarm
income.