ACTA SCIENTIARUM POLONORUM - SGGW

24 R. Hryniewski, W. Mądry, D. Gozdowski, B. Roszkowska-Mądrations were in the form of quantitative as well as categorized variables (nominal or ordinal,expressed on a discrete numerical (i.e. rating) scale. On the basis of the answers obtainedin the survey more than 40 diagnostic variables were created.Diagnostic variablesIn order to identify the typology of the studied farms in terms of the farming systems,a relatively small number of key diagnostic variables is chosen, making sure that theyare essential in every aspect of the farming systems for the specific purpose of identifyingtheir typology [Kostrowicki 1977, Duvernoy 2000, Köbrich et al. 2003, Iraizoz et al.2007, Blazy et al. 2009, Chavez et al. 2010, Zawadka 2010]. In addition, these variablesshould not be strongly correlated; they should, however, show significant variation, suchthat the coefficient of variation is not lower than 50% [Köbrich et al. 2003, Serrano Martínezet al. 2004a, Thapa and Rasul 2005, Ruiz et al. 2009]. Taking into consideration theaim of this work and the methodological and statistical principles, 15 diagnostic variableswere chosen (Table 1).Table 1. Definitions of the diagnostic variables included in the analysis of the diversity andtypology of the farming systems on tobacco farmsTabela 1. Określenie badanych zmiennych uwzględnianych w analizie zróżnicowania i typologiisystemów produkcji w gospodarstwach rolniczych zajmujących się uprawą tytoniuVariableNaturalresourcesHumanResourcesTechnicalresourcesStructure ofproductionProductioninputVariabledesignationDefinition of the variable UnitsX1 Soil quality (weighted average soil quality class) rational numberX2 Share of grasslands in utilized agricultural area (UAA) %X3 Farm owner’s level of education a) ordinal scaleX4X5Workers employed in farm agricultural production per 1 haof UAANumber of innovative investments and productionimprovements made on the farm in the last 5 yearsrational numbernatural numberX6 Farm area haX7 Share of cereals in arable area (AA) %X8 Share of tobacco in AA %X9 Cattle density LSU ha –1 AAX10 Supply of organic fertilizers ton ha –1 yr –1X11 Supply of NPK fertilizers kg ha –1 yr –1X12 Agricultural production intensity index b)Yields X13 Yield of dried tobacco leaves from 2009 harvest ton ha –1 yr –1IncomestructureX14Contribution of agricultural production to total farmhousehold incomes%X15 Contribution of tobacco production to total farm incomes %a) 1 – elementary, 2 – vocational secondary, 3 – secondary, 4 – post-secondary, 5 – universityb) Agricultural production intensity index calculated on the basis of the normalized variables: cattle and pigsdensity, supply of NPK fertilizers, share of tobacco in AA (Herzog et al. 2006, Mądry et al. 2010)Source: Author’s elaboration.Źródło: Opracowanie własne.Acta Sci. Pol.