• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 Acknowledgement
 Executive summary
 Introduction
 Purpose
 Methods
 Analysis
 Results
 Conclusions
 Reference
 Arabic summary of report






Title: Socio-economic and operational variables of Jordan Highlands custom equipment operators
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00054789/00001
 Material Information
Title: Socio-economic and operational variables of Jordan Highlands custom equipment operators
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Ministry of Agriculture, National Center for Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer, Monitoring and Evaluation Unit
Al-Kadi, A. F.
Galt, D. L.
Aldworth, W. R.
Ghraibeh, E.
El-Hadi, M. A.
Masarwa, M.
Hbahbeh, H.
Al-Kayed, O.
Publisher: Ministry of Agriculture, National Center for Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer, Monitoring and Evaluation Unit
Publication Date: 1989
 Subjects
Subject: Farming   ( lcsh )
Agriculture   ( lcsh )
Farm life   ( lcsh )
Spatial Coverage: Asia -- Jordan
 Notes
Funding: Electronic resources created as part of a prototype UF Institutional Repository and Faculty Papers project by the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00054789
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 64067452

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Title Page 1
        Page i
    Table of Contents
        Page ii
    List of Tables
        Page iii
    Acknowledgement
        Page iv
    Executive summary
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
    Introduction
        Page 6
    Purpose
        Page 6
    Methods
        Page 6
    Analysis
        Page 7
    Results
        Page 7
        Information about custom operations
            Page 7
            Personal characteristics
                Page 7
                Page 7a
            Farms of custom operators
                Page 8
            Profitability of custom operations
                Page 8
        Information about farmers served by custom operators
            Page 9
            Page 9a
            Page 10
        Age of equipment operated and condition when purchased
            Page 11
        Which equipment earns the most money for operations?
            Page 11
            Page 11a
            Page 12
            Page 12a
        Equipment operators prefer to purchase next
            Page 13
            Page 13a
            Page 14
            Page 15
        Information about farming habits
            Page 16
            Page 17
            Page 17a
            Page 18
            Page 18a
        Specifics and costs of tractor operation
            Page 19
            Some specifics of custom operator tractor operation
                Page 19
                Page 19a
                Page 19b
                Page 19c
                Page 19d
        Parameters of tractors
            Page 20
            Cost estimates of owning various combinations of implements
                Page 21
                Page 21a
                Page 21b
                Page 22
                Cost of operation based on reported (declared) value
                    Page 23
                Cost of operation based on machinery replacement cost
                    Page 23
                    Page 23a
                    Page 23b
            Cost estimates of custom operator tractor operation
                Page 24
            Break-even point analysis
                Page 24
                Page 24a
                Page 24b
                Estimate of farm implement profitability
                    Page 25
                    Page 25a
                    Page 25b
                    Page 25c
                Estimate on return on investment for selected farm implement combinations
                    Page 26
                    Return on investment: Tractor + disc plow
                        Page 26
                        Page 26a
                    Return on investment: Tractor + chisel plow + grain drill + field sprayer
                        Page 27
        Summary of custom operator training needs
            Page 27
            Page 27a
    Conclusions
        Page 28
        Page 29
    Reference
        Page 30
        Page 31
    Arabic summary of report
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
Full Text





MOA/NCARTT/Monitoring and Evaluation Unit
Research Report No. 0189








SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND OPERATIONAL VARIABLES
OF JORDAN HIGHLANDS CUSTOM EQUIPMENT OPERATORS

October 29, 1989

by

A. F. Al-Kadi
D. L. Gait
W. R. Aldworth
E. Ghraibeh
M. A. El-Hadi
M. Masarwa
H. Hbahbeh
O. Al-Kayed



Published by

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
Ministry of Agriculture
National Center for Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer
Monitoring and Evaluation Unit

Supported by

The United States Agency for International Development

Through Contract with

The Consortium for International Development via
Washington State University

Implementing

The Jordan National Agricultural Development Project (JNADP)


Amman, Jordan









MOA/NCARTT/Monitoring and Evaluation Unit
Research Report No. 0189









SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND OPERATIONAL VARIABLES
OF JORDAN HIGHLANDS CUSTOM EQUIPMENT OPERATORS

October 29, 1989

by

A. F. Al-Kadi
D. L. Gait
W. R. Aldworth
E. Ghraibeh
M. A. El-Hadi
M. Masarwa
H. Hbahbeh
O. Al-Kayed



Published by

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
Ministry of Agriculture
National Center for Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer
Monitoring and Evaluation Unit

Supported by

The United States Agency for International Development

Through Contract with

The Consortium for International Development via
Washington State University

Implementing

The Jordan National Agricultural Development Project (JNADP)


Amman, Jordan









MOA/NCARTT Monitoring and Evaluation Unit
Research Report No. 0189













SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND OPERATIONAL VARIABLES
OF JORDAN HIGHLANDS CUSTOM EQUIPMENT OPERATORS


October 29, 1989

by

1/
A. F. Al-Kadi
D. L. Gait
W. R. Aldworth
E. Ghraibeh
M. A. El-Hadi
M. Masarwa
H. Hbahbeh
O. Al-Kayed


I/
The authors are, respectively, Head, Monitoring and
Evaluation Unit (MEU), NCARTT/MOA; NCARTT/JNADP Socio-economist/FSR
Specialist; former NCARTT/JNADP/ACDI agribusiness specialist;
Ramtha RASC socio-economist; Mushaqar RASC socio-economist; Rabba
RASC socio-economist; Shoubak RASC socio-economist; and MEU
headquarters socio-economist.









TABLE OF CONTENTS


LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES . . . ... .iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . .. . iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .. . . . . 3
INTRODUCTION . . . . .. . 6
PURPOSE . . .. .......... ... 6
METHODS . . . . .. . 6
ANALYSIS . . . . .. . . 7
RESULTS . . .. .... . . 7

INFORMATION ABOUT CUSTOM OPERATORS . . 7
Personal Characteristics . . . 7
Farms of Custom Operators . . 8
Profitability of Custom Operations . . 8
INFORMATION ABOUT FARMERS SERVED BY CUSTOM OPERATORS 9
AGE OF EQUIPMENT OPERATED AND CONDITION WHEN PURCHASED 11
WHICH EQUIPMENT EARNS THE MOST MONEY FOR OPERATORS? 11
EQUIPMENT OPERATORS PREFER TO PURCHASE NEXT . .. .13
INFORMATION ABOUT FARMING HABITS . . ... .16
SPECIFICS AND COSTS OF TRACTOR OPERATION ....... 19
Some specifics of Custom Operator Tractor
Operation . . . . 19
PARAMETERS OF TRACTORS ... . . ... . 20
Cost Estimates of Owning Various Combinations of
Implements . . . . 21
Cost Estimates of Custom Operator Tractor
Operation . . . . 24
Cost of operation based on reported (declared)
value . . .. 23
Cost of operation based on machinery
replacement cost . . .. .23
Cost of operation based on the theoretical
method . . . . 24
Break-even point analysis . . 24
Estimate of Farm Implement Profitability 25
Estimate on Return on Investment for Selected
Farm Implement Combinations . .. 26
(1) Return on Investment: tractor + disc
plow . . . .. 26
(2) Return on Investment: tractor +
chisel plow + grain drill + field
sprayer . . . 27
SUMMARY OF CUSTOM OPERATOR TRAINING NEEDS . .. .27

CONCLUSION . . . . ... . 28
REFERENCES .. . . . . . .30
ARABIC SUMMARY OF REPORT . . .. ... 32









LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES


TABLE 1: Information About Custom Operators

TABLE 2: Information About Farmers Served by Custom Operators

TABLE 3: Age Of Equipment Operated

TABLE 4: Equipment Earning The Most Money For Operators

TABLE 5: Which Equipment Operators Prefer To Purchase Next

TABLE 6: Information About Moisture Conservation And Plowing

TABLE 7: Information About Planting And Grain Drills

TABLE 8: Information About Farmers' Fertilizer Use

TABLE 9: Information About Weed Control And Timing Of Sprays

TABLE 10: Specifics Of Tractor Operation

TABLE 11: Selected Parameters Of Tractors

TABLE 12: Implement Widths And Costs

TABLE 13: Frequencies And Costs Of Farm Implement Combinations

TABLE 14: Cost Of Selected Farm Machinery Operation (Using Reported
[Declared] Value)

TABLE 15: Cost Of Selected Farm Machinery Operation (Using
Replacement Cost)

TABLE 16: Cost Of Selected Farm Machinery Operation (Using The
Theoretical Method)

TABLE 17: Cost Of Selected Farm Machinery Operation (Summary Of
All Methods Used)

TABLE 18: Estimated Profit To Jordanian Custom Operators From Using
Selected Types of Farm Implements

TABLE 19: Information About Training Needs Of Custom Operators

FIGURE 1: Dunums To Cover Annually To Break Even

FIGURE 2a: Profit Per Dunum, Selected Farm Implements

FIGURE 2b: Profit Per Day, Selected Farm Implements

iii








ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of many
individuals to this report.

Firstly, those 102 farmers and farmer-custom operators in the
four RASC areas of Ramtha, Mushaqar, Rabba and Shoubak who were so
patient in allowing interviews of their operations to take place.
Without their information, this whole activity would have been
meaningless.

Secondly, the Jordan Cooperative Organization (JCO) and Dr.
Grenzebach, for providing both excellent initial advice and sets
of cost estimates for different pieces of farm equipment. These
contacts were very important for allowing the survey to be carried
out and for verifying that data collected supported cost and profit
estimates which were not far out of line with other independent
estimates.

Thirdly, individuals who provided input and reaction to either
the study or earlier drafts of this report. From this group of
individuals, Mr. Naji Haddadin, Head, Soils and Irrigation Section,
NCARTT, Dr. Sulieman Arabiat, Dean, College of Agriculture,
University of Jordan, and Mr. Tell, Director General, JCO, deserve
to be singled out for special thanks.

Finally, for their roles in facilitating logistics and travel,
from NCARTT headquarters, Dr. Y. Rushdi (on behalf of NCARTT), Dr.
J. Maguire (on behalf of the JNADP), and, from the four RASCs of
Ramtha, Mushaqar, Rabba and Shoubak, Dr. Nouriddin Al-Shbool, Mr.
Khaled Zakaria, Mr. Khaled Nawaiseh, and Mr. Omar Abu-Karaki.








EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


This summary presents (1) some of the more important findings
of the Custom Operator Survey, and (2) major recommendations from
the analysis of the data. The survey was carried out by regional
staff of the Monitoring and Evaluation Unit of NCARTT during
December, 1988, and January, 1989.

(1) IMPORTANT FINDINGS:

(A) The average Jordanian Highlands tractor owner is 47
years old, has been operating a custom agricultural equipment
operation for 14 years, and has completed five years of formal
education. He is a farmer as well: 82% of operators surveyed also
farm holdings which average about 45 ha each. He spends between
55% and two-thirds of his operating time working on farms of
others, serves about 65 other farmers per year, while covering
about 4,500 dm (450 ha). Only about 1% of registered tractor
owners serve only their own needs.

(B) The average tractor is 11.6 years old, was purchased
for JD 3,700, is of 64 Hp capacity, and has been owned for 6.7
years by its present owner. It is operated an average of eight
hours per day for five months a year.

(C) The two most commonly-owned farm implements are the
disc plow (owned by 87% of the operators) and the water tank (owned
by 65% of the operators). Operators report owning a total of 33
different combinations of farm implements. The four most common
combinations are: (1) Disc plow only, (2) Disc plow + Water tank,
(3) Disc plow + Moldboard plow + Water tank, and (tied for fourth)
(4) Disc plow + Moldboard plow and (4) Disc plow + Thresher. Very
few grain drills or chisel plows are owned in the Jordan Highlands.
These are the implements NCARTT recommends in the cultivation of
Highlands cereal crops, both to increase operational efficiency and
to conserve soil moisture.

(D) The water tank is reported to be the biggest money-
maker by the most custom operators. However, 100% of the owners
of the grain combine and the grain drill state that these
implements are the top money-making farm implements.

(E) A cost of operation analysis using three methods
(reported value, replacement cost, and the theoretical model)
revealed total operating costs respectively for an average tractor
pulling the following farm implements to be:










TOTAL COSTS, JD/DUNUM

OPERATING COST -- IN JDs --
OF TRACTOR AND: REPORTED VALUE REPLACEMENT THEORETICAL

Moldboard Plow 0.436 0.609 0.646
Chisel Plow 0.226 0.304 0.323
Grain Drill 0.363 0.379 0.426
Field Sprayer 0.136 0.177 0.066


(F) The moldboard plow is eight to 13 times less
profitable than the chisel plow, the grain drill or the field
sprayer. The field sprayer is estimated to be the most profitable
of these non-traditional implements, returning an average profit
of JD 51 per day (compared to JD 4 for the moldboard plow.)

(G) More custom operators prefer to buy a grain drill
next than any other piece of farm equipment. The following table
summarizes farmer priorities for purchasing new farm equipment:


GROUP 1: HIGHEST PRIORITY FOR PURCHASE
Grain drill
GROUP 2: HIGH PRIORITY FOR PURCHASE
Moldboard plow
Combine
Field sprayer
Thresher
GROUP 3: INTERMEDIATE PRIORITY FOR PURCHASE
Water tank
GROUP 4: LOW PRIORITY FOR PURCHASE
Cultivator
Disc plow
Chisel plow
GROUP 5: LOWEST PRIORITY FOR PURCHASE
Rototiller
Tractor


(H) Where the Jordan Cooperative Organization (JCO)
operates equipment stations, farmers generally know about new
cereals technology and the field equipment used in its practice.
When questionnaires are compared between Highland regions, however,
Shoubak stands out as the region least informed about the purpose
of the chisel plow, grain drill and field sprayer. This may partly
explain why Shoubak farmers have been the slowest to adopt new
NCARTT/MOA cereals technology.


(I) The survey revealed two important general








misconceptions which are common among custom operators: (1) the
chisel plow is often confused with the cultivator, and (2) the
majority of operators report that their farmers believe soil
moisture can be conserved by deep plowing. Farmer's understanding
in regard to soil moisture may be just the opposite of the truth:
judicious use of a chisel plow, minimizing surface disturbance of
the soil while providing for good water and plantlet root
penetration, may be much more efficient in conserving moisture in
growing cereals in the Jordan Highlands.

(J) Only 13% of the custom operators keep business
records, yet 63% of those surveyed report that their businesses
are profitable. How they determine such profit without keeping
records is a mystery, especially given the recent devaluation of
the Jordanian Dinar.

(2) MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS:

(A) This group of custom operators/farmers is a natural
group for research and technology transfer ideas which focus on
farm equipment (the grain drill, cultivator and chisel plow, as
well as the field sprayer, combine and thresher). We recommend
training this group in the following prioritized areas:

1. Maintenance of their equipment.

2. Improved agronomic techniques.

(B) These interviewed custom operators feel little need
for training in farm record keeping to quantify their costs and to
allow profit calculations to be made. Given the recent devaluation
of the Jordanian Dinar, this attitude will probably change. We
recommend a follow-up survey to determine (a) how custom operators
determine that they are making a profit without keeping records,
and (b) if more of them see the value of keeping farm record books
since the devaluation of the dinar.

(C) Since tractors are idle seven months of the year,
the availability of more appropriate farm equipment -- especially
the chisel plow, grain drill and field sprayer -- will allow custom
operators to operate their tractors longer, raising efficiency of
use. Thus, we recommend introducing, providing training for, and
innovative financing the purchase of, such implements in the
Highlands.








INTRODUCTION


This report analyzes selected practices and socio-economic
variables of a sample of 102 Jordanian highlands custom equipment
operators. The survey instrument (questionnaire) was developed by
researchers at the National Center for Agricultural Research and
Technology Transfer (NCARTT) in the Machinery Unit and the
Monitoring and Evaluation Unit (MEU). The draft questionnaire was
field-tested in Ramtha and Irbid by researchers from these two
units on November 17, 1988. The questionnaire was revised to take
into account the results of the field test, then it was duplicated
at NCARTT and distributed to regional MEU field staff.

The custom operators were interviewed by the regional field
staff of the MEU during the months of December, 1988, and January,
1989. Four Jordanian highlands Regional Agricultural Service
Centers (RASCs) were selected for these interviews. They were:
(1) Ramtha, in the northern part of the Heshemite Kingdom of
Jordan, bordering Syria to the North and East; (2) Mushaqar, in the
central part of the Kingdom immediately South of Amman; (3) Rabba,
in the South central part of the Kingdom; and (4) Shoubak, between
Rabba and Aqaba.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the survey was to provide some initial
quantitative data to NCARTT Sections and to the MOA regarding the
group which provides custom tractor-based services to Jordan
Highlands farmers. The survey was underway before "emphasis of
the private sector in agriculture" became a national priority.
For these reasons, the survey instrument was of limited scope and
not all-inclusive. For the interested reader, both Arabic and
English copies of the final version of the questionnaire are
included as the appendix to this report.

METHODS

Working with selected extension subject matter specialists
(SMSs), MEU regional field staff interviewed custom equipment
operators selected from (1) current (1988) directorate lists of
registered tractor owners, or (2) from those identified as custom
operators. The sampled group consisted in turn of (1) those
performing custom operations only, (2) those performing custom
operations and farming their own holdings, and (3) those farming
only, but owning a tractor. A total of 102 custom operators were
interviewed: 30 in Ramtha, 23 in Mushaqar, 29 in Rabba and 20 in
Shoubak.

The resulting data were entered into Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheets,
which had been developed for the analysis, during the months of
February and March, 1989. Data entry was accomplished by a
combination of each regional MEU staff member and a MEU








INTRODUCTION


This report analyzes selected practices and socio-economic
variables of a sample of 102 Jordanian highlands custom equipment
operators. The survey instrument (questionnaire) was developed by
researchers at the National Center for Agricultural Research and
Technology Transfer (NCARTT) in the Machinery Unit and the
Monitoring and Evaluation Unit (MEU). The draft questionnaire was
field-tested in Ramtha and Irbid by researchers from these two
units on November 17, 1988. The questionnaire was revised to take
into account the results of the field test, then it was duplicated
at NCARTT and distributed to regional MEU field staff.

The custom operators were interviewed by the regional field
staff of the MEU during the months of December, 1988, and January,
1989. Four Jordanian highlands Regional Agricultural Service
Centers (RASCs) were selected for these interviews. They were:
(1) Ramtha, in the northern part of the Heshemite Kingdom of
Jordan, bordering Syria to the North and East; (2) Mushaqar, in the
central part of the Kingdom immediately South of Amman; (3) Rabba,
in the South central part of the Kingdom; and (4) Shoubak, between
Rabba and Aqaba.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the survey was to provide some initial
quantitative data to NCARTT Sections and to the MOA regarding the
group which provides custom tractor-based services to Jordan
Highlands farmers. The survey was underway before "emphasis of
the private sector in agriculture" became a national priority.
For these reasons, the survey instrument was of limited scope and
not all-inclusive. For the interested reader, both Arabic and
English copies of the final version of the questionnaire are
included as the appendix to this report.

METHODS

Working with selected extension subject matter specialists
(SMSs), MEU regional field staff interviewed custom equipment
operators selected from (1) current (1988) directorate lists of
registered tractor owners, or (2) from those identified as custom
operators. The sampled group consisted in turn of (1) those
performing custom operations only, (2) those performing custom
operations and farming their own holdings, and (3) those farming
only, but owning a tractor. A total of 102 custom operators were
interviewed: 30 in Ramtha, 23 in Mushaqar, 29 in Rabba and 20 in
Shoubak.

The resulting data were entered into Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheets,
which had been developed for the analysis, during the months of
February and March, 1989. Data entry was accomplished by a
combination of each regional MEU staff member and a MEU








INTRODUCTION


This report analyzes selected practices and socio-economic
variables of a sample of 102 Jordanian highlands custom equipment
operators. The survey instrument (questionnaire) was developed by
researchers at the National Center for Agricultural Research and
Technology Transfer (NCARTT) in the Machinery Unit and the
Monitoring and Evaluation Unit (MEU). The draft questionnaire was
field-tested in Ramtha and Irbid by researchers from these two
units on November 17, 1988. The questionnaire was revised to take
into account the results of the field test, then it was duplicated
at NCARTT and distributed to regional MEU field staff.

The custom operators were interviewed by the regional field
staff of the MEU during the months of December, 1988, and January,
1989. Four Jordanian highlands Regional Agricultural Service
Centers (RASCs) were selected for these interviews. They were:
(1) Ramtha, in the northern part of the Heshemite Kingdom of
Jordan, bordering Syria to the North and East; (2) Mushaqar, in the
central part of the Kingdom immediately South of Amman; (3) Rabba,
in the South central part of the Kingdom; and (4) Shoubak, between
Rabba and Aqaba.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the survey was to provide some initial
quantitative data to NCARTT Sections and to the MOA regarding the
group which provides custom tractor-based services to Jordan
Highlands farmers. The survey was underway before "emphasis of
the private sector in agriculture" became a national priority.
For these reasons, the survey instrument was of limited scope and
not all-inclusive. For the interested reader, both Arabic and
English copies of the final version of the questionnaire are
included as the appendix to this report.

METHODS

Working with selected extension subject matter specialists
(SMSs), MEU regional field staff interviewed custom equipment
operators selected from (1) current (1988) directorate lists of
registered tractor owners, or (2) from those identified as custom
operators. The sampled group consisted in turn of (1) those
performing custom operations only, (2) those performing custom
operations and farming their own holdings, and (3) those farming
only, but owning a tractor. A total of 102 custom operators were
interviewed: 30 in Ramtha, 23 in Mushaqar, 29 in Rabba and 20 in
Shoubak.

The resulting data were entered into Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheets,
which had been developed for the analysis, during the months of
February and March, 1989. Data entry was accomplished by a
combination of each regional MEU staff member and a MEU








headquarters staff member. Since most MEU staff members had little
or no experience using Lotus, they received informal training in
data entry and the basics of spreadsheets, with emphasis on hands-
on data entry. They were then given the responsibility of entering
data collected from their own RASC.

ANALYSIS

Analysis of the data was confined to the following basic
statistical parameters: (1) means, (2) maximums, (3) minimums,
and (4) percentages. Analysis was also confined to those variables
of immediate interest to either the MEU or the Machinery Unit of
the Cereals Section.

A list of these variables includes: (1) Age of operator; (2)
Number of years as custom operator; (3) Years of formal education
of operator; (4) Average age of custom equipment owned; (5)
Equipment operators prefer to purchase next; (6) Distance travelled
to ai farmer-customer; (7) Size of holding serviced; (8) Number of
farmer-customers served;(9) Which equipment earns the most dinars?;
(10) Average dunums per hour covered by (a) Grain drills, (b)
Plows, and (c) Sprayers; (11) Number of hours to empty a full tank
of fuel in the operator's tractor; (12) Liters of fuel held in a
full tank in the operator's tractor; (13) Liters of fuel consumed
in one hour of pulling a moldboard plow with the operator's
tractor; (14)Price paid for fuel, in fils/liter; (15) Does the
operator turn a profit in his custom business? (16) Number of
tractors owned by those surveyed; (17) Age of tractors owned; (18)
Number of years tractors have been owned by operators; (19) Average
horsepower of tractors; (20) Average cost of tractors; (21) Number
of drivers hired by operators; (22) Number of hours per day
tractors are in use; (23) Number of months per year tractors are
in use; (24) Tractor driver's average monthly salary; and (25)
Training: (a) Is training a perceived need of operators? (b) If
so, what types of training do they prefer?

RESULTS

Discussion of the results of the analysis are presented along
with several tables. Each table contains the data for one (or
more) of the selected variables for each of the four RASCs. The
accompanying text highlights important findings and draws some
research and policy conclusions.

INFORMATION ABOUT CUSTOM OPERATORS

Personal Characteristics

According to the custom operators interviewed during the
survey, their average age is about 47 years. This ranges from a
low of 41 (in Shoubak) to a high of 50 (in both Ramtha and
Mushaqar) (TABLE 1). The average amount of time custom operators








headquarters staff member. Since most MEU staff members had little
or no experience using Lotus, they received informal training in
data entry and the basics of spreadsheets, with emphasis on hands-
on data entry. They were then given the responsibility of entering
data collected from their own RASC.

ANALYSIS

Analysis of the data was confined to the following basic
statistical parameters: (1) means, (2) maximums, (3) minimums,
and (4) percentages. Analysis was also confined to those variables
of immediate interest to either the MEU or the Machinery Unit of
the Cereals Section.

A list of these variables includes: (1) Age of operator; (2)
Number of years as custom operator; (3) Years of formal education
of operator; (4) Average age of custom equipment owned; (5)
Equipment operators prefer to purchase next; (6) Distance travelled
to ai farmer-customer; (7) Size of holding serviced; (8) Number of
farmer-customers served;(9) Which equipment earns the most dinars?;
(10) Average dunums per hour covered by (a) Grain drills, (b)
Plows, and (c) Sprayers; (11) Number of hours to empty a full tank
of fuel in the operator's tractor; (12) Liters of fuel held in a
full tank in the operator's tractor; (13) Liters of fuel consumed
in one hour of pulling a moldboard plow with the operator's
tractor; (14)Price paid for fuel, in fils/liter; (15) Does the
operator turn a profit in his custom business? (16) Number of
tractors owned by those surveyed; (17) Age of tractors owned; (18)
Number of years tractors have been owned by operators; (19) Average
horsepower of tractors; (20) Average cost of tractors; (21) Number
of drivers hired by operators; (22) Number of hours per day
tractors are in use; (23) Number of months per year tractors are
in use; (24) Tractor driver's average monthly salary; and (25)
Training: (a) Is training a perceived need of operators? (b) If
so, what types of training do they prefer?

RESULTS

Discussion of the results of the analysis are presented along
with several tables. Each table contains the data for one (or
more) of the selected variables for each of the four RASCs. The
accompanying text highlights important findings and draws some
research and policy conclusions.

INFORMATION ABOUT CUSTOM OPERATORS

Personal Characteristics

According to the custom operators interviewed during the
survey, their average age is about 47 years. This ranges from a
low of 41 (in Shoubak) to a high of 50 (in both Ramtha and
Mushaqar) (TABLE 1). The average amount of time custom operators








headquarters staff member. Since most MEU staff members had little
or no experience using Lotus, they received informal training in
data entry and the basics of spreadsheets, with emphasis on hands-
on data entry. They were then given the responsibility of entering
data collected from their own RASC.

ANALYSIS

Analysis of the data was confined to the following basic
statistical parameters: (1) means, (2) maximums, (3) minimums,
and (4) percentages. Analysis was also confined to those variables
of immediate interest to either the MEU or the Machinery Unit of
the Cereals Section.

A list of these variables includes: (1) Age of operator; (2)
Number of years as custom operator; (3) Years of formal education
of operator; (4) Average age of custom equipment owned; (5)
Equipment operators prefer to purchase next; (6) Distance travelled
to ai farmer-customer; (7) Size of holding serviced; (8) Number of
farmer-customers served;(9) Which equipment earns the most dinars?;
(10) Average dunums per hour covered by (a) Grain drills, (b)
Plows, and (c) Sprayers; (11) Number of hours to empty a full tank
of fuel in the operator's tractor; (12) Liters of fuel held in a
full tank in the operator's tractor; (13) Liters of fuel consumed
in one hour of pulling a moldboard plow with the operator's
tractor; (14)Price paid for fuel, in fils/liter; (15) Does the
operator turn a profit in his custom business? (16) Number of
tractors owned by those surveyed; (17) Age of tractors owned; (18)
Number of years tractors have been owned by operators; (19) Average
horsepower of tractors; (20) Average cost of tractors; (21) Number
of drivers hired by operators; (22) Number of hours per day
tractors are in use; (23) Number of months per year tractors are
in use; (24) Tractor driver's average monthly salary; and (25)
Training: (a) Is training a perceived need of operators? (b) If
so, what types of training do they prefer?

RESULTS

Discussion of the results of the analysis are presented along
with several tables. Each table contains the data for one (or
more) of the selected variables for each of the four RASCs. The
accompanying text highlights important findings and draws some
research and policy conclusions.

INFORMATION ABOUT CUSTOM OPERATORS

Personal Characteristics

According to the custom operators interviewed during the
survey, their average age is about 47 years. This ranges from a
low of 41 (in Shoubak) to a high of 50 (in both Ramtha and
Mushaqar) (TABLE 1). The average amount of time custom operators








headquarters staff member. Since most MEU staff members had little
or no experience using Lotus, they received informal training in
data entry and the basics of spreadsheets, with emphasis on hands-
on data entry. They were then given the responsibility of entering
data collected from their own RASC.

ANALYSIS

Analysis of the data was confined to the following basic
statistical parameters: (1) means, (2) maximums, (3) minimums,
and (4) percentages. Analysis was also confined to those variables
of immediate interest to either the MEU or the Machinery Unit of
the Cereals Section.

A list of these variables includes: (1) Age of operator; (2)
Number of years as custom operator; (3) Years of formal education
of operator; (4) Average age of custom equipment owned; (5)
Equipment operators prefer to purchase next; (6) Distance travelled
to ai farmer-customer; (7) Size of holding serviced; (8) Number of
farmer-customers served;(9) Which equipment earns the most dinars?;
(10) Average dunums per hour covered by (a) Grain drills, (b)
Plows, and (c) Sprayers; (11) Number of hours to empty a full tank
of fuel in the operator's tractor; (12) Liters of fuel held in a
full tank in the operator's tractor; (13) Liters of fuel consumed
in one hour of pulling a moldboard plow with the operator's
tractor; (14)Price paid for fuel, in fils/liter; (15) Does the
operator turn a profit in his custom business? (16) Number of
tractors owned by those surveyed; (17) Age of tractors owned; (18)
Number of years tractors have been owned by operators; (19) Average
horsepower of tractors; (20) Average cost of tractors; (21) Number
of drivers hired by operators; (22) Number of hours per day
tractors are in use; (23) Number of months per year tractors are
in use; (24) Tractor driver's average monthly salary; and (25)
Training: (a) Is training a perceived need of operators? (b) If
so, what types of training do they prefer?

RESULTS

Discussion of the results of the analysis are presented along
with several tables. Each table contains the data for one (or
more) of the selected variables for each of the four RASCs. The
accompanying text highlights important findings and draws some
research and policy conclusions.

INFORMATION ABOUT CUSTOM OPERATORS

Personal Characteristics

According to the custom operators interviewed during the
survey, their average age is about 47 years. This ranges from a
low of 41 (in Shoubak) to a high of 50 (in both Ramtha and
Mushaqar) (TABLE 1). The average amount of time custom operators







TABLE 1:


INFORMATION ABOUT CUSTOM OPERATORS

...........................................................................................................................

RASC


RAMTHA MUSHAQAR RABBA SHOUBAK AVERAGE ALL RASCs


VARIABLE AVG* MIN* MAX* AVG MIN MAX AVG MIN MAX AVG MIN MAX AVG** MIN** MAX**




Age of Custom Operator 50 22 70 50 36 70 47 27 70 41 27 60 47 28 68


Number Years Custom Operator 12 1 29 16 1 33 18 2 50 10 1 20 14 1 34


Number Years School Attended 5 0 14 5 0 16 5 0 16 5 0 12 5 0 15


Size of Operator's Farm, dm 314 7 2000 900 119 5641 464 64 2000 137 21 870 454 51 2599


Percent Operators Who Farm 77% 87% 83% 80% 82%


Percent Operations Profitable 50% 42% 95% 61% 63%


Percent Operations Unprofitable 50% 58% 5% 39% 37%


Percent Custom Operators Who 17% 0% 10% 29% 13%
Keep Business Records


Percent Custom Operators Who 83% 100% 90% 71% 87%
Keep No Business Records


Percent Custom Operators Wanting 53% 5% 43% 59% 41%
to Keep (or Improve) Records


Percent Operators Who Do Not Want 47% 95% 57% 41% 59%
to Keep (or Improve) Records
...........................................................................................................................


AVG = Average (mean) of values reported; MIN = The minimum value reported; MAX = The maximum value reported


** These averages, minimums and maximums are weighted by the number of custom operators interviewed in each RASC.








have spent in the custom operating business is 14 years, ranging
from a low of 10 year (in Shoubak) to a high of 18 years (in
Rabba). Likewise, the average custom operator has completed less
than a primary school education. Custom operators average five
years of schooling, and there is no difference in this parameter
between RASCs (TABLE 1).

Farms of Custom Operators

There is tremendous variability in the size of holdings of
the sampled custom operators. While the average size of holding
for the group is 454 dm, this varies from a low of seven dunums
(in Ramtha) to a high of 5,641 dm (in Mushaqar) (TABLE 1).

Regardless of this high variability between holding size, it
can be seen that most custom operators farm as well as operate
their custom equipment business. On the average, 82% of the custom
operators surveyed also farm, ranging from a low of 77% (in Ramtha)
to a high of 87% (in Mushaqar).

From data reported later in the report (Custom Operator
Survey, Section III), the hypothesis that custom operators are
major farmers as well, who often use their custom operation
business to help pay for their farm implements, receives even
greater validity. While these data must be interpreted with
caution (as they are based on a one-time recall questionnaire),
the custom operators in Ramtha estimate that they spend 31% of
their tractor operating time annually (58 of 185 days) on their
own farm. Estimates for custom operators in Rabba are even more
striking: they estimate that they spend 46% of their tractor
operating time annually (121 of 261 days) on their own farms.
(Estimates from custom operators in Mushaqar and Shoubak were not
forthcoming, as the interviewees were unwilling to provide daily
tractor use estimates on a monthly basis from recall alone).

Profitability of Custom Operations

It is revealing that very few operators keep systematic
records of their custom operating business. The percentage of
those keeping records averages only 13%, ranging from a low of 0%
(in Mushaqar) to a high of 29% (in Shoubak), but that more than
40% of those interviewed indicate a need to either start keeping
records or to improve the records they do keep (TABLE 1).

How do the custom operators view their business with respect
to profit? It is revealing that more than 60% of these operators
consider their operations are profitable (63%), while 37% of them
believe their operations are not profitable (TABLE 1). The
question must be asked: if only 13% of custom operators keep
records, how do the rest determine whether their custom operations
are profitable or not?








have spent in the custom operating business is 14 years, ranging
from a low of 10 year (in Shoubak) to a high of 18 years (in
Rabba). Likewise, the average custom operator has completed less
than a primary school education. Custom operators average five
years of schooling, and there is no difference in this parameter
between RASCs (TABLE 1).

Farms of Custom Operators

There is tremendous variability in the size of holdings of
the sampled custom operators. While the average size of holding
for the group is 454 dm, this varies from a low of seven dunums
(in Ramtha) to a high of 5,641 dm (in Mushaqar) (TABLE 1).

Regardless of this high variability between holding size, it
can be seen that most custom operators farm as well as operate
their custom equipment business. On the average, 82% of the custom
operators surveyed also farm, ranging from a low of 77% (in Ramtha)
to a high of 87% (in Mushaqar).

From data reported later in the report (Custom Operator
Survey, Section III), the hypothesis that custom operators are
major farmers as well, who often use their custom operation
business to help pay for their farm implements, receives even
greater validity. While these data must be interpreted with
caution (as they are based on a one-time recall questionnaire),
the custom operators in Ramtha estimate that they spend 31% of
their tractor operating time annually (58 of 185 days) on their
own farm. Estimates for custom operators in Rabba are even more
striking: they estimate that they spend 46% of their tractor
operating time annually (121 of 261 days) on their own farms.
(Estimates from custom operators in Mushaqar and Shoubak were not
forthcoming, as the interviewees were unwilling to provide daily
tractor use estimates on a monthly basis from recall alone).

Profitability of Custom Operations

It is revealing that very few operators keep systematic
records of their custom operating business. The percentage of
those keeping records averages only 13%, ranging from a low of 0%
(in Mushaqar) to a high of 29% (in Shoubak), but that more than
40% of those interviewed indicate a need to either start keeping
records or to improve the records they do keep (TABLE 1).

How do the custom operators view their business with respect
to profit? It is revealing that more than 60% of these operators
consider their operations are profitable (63%), while 37% of them
believe their operations are not profitable (TABLE 1). The
question must be asked: if only 13% of custom operators keep
records, how do the rest determine whether their custom operations
are profitable or not?








We would argue that the most positive statements which can be
made in answer to this question are: (1) the vast majority of
custom operators keep no farm record books, and therefore do not
know if their businesses operate at a profit or loss, and (2) while
about 40% of the custom operators interviewed indicated an interest
in learning to keep farm records, it is surprising that more did
not indicate such an interest. This is especially true given the
recent and current instability of the Jordanian Dinar, an
instability which introduces more uncertainty into pricing
operations and more need for a systematic set of records. Finally,
it is also of interest to note that the region with the lowest
percentage of record-keepers (Mushaqar) is also the region with the
least interest (only 5% of the custom operators surveyed) in
keeping formal business records (TABLE 1).

INFORMATION ABOUT FARMERS SERVED BY CUSTOM OPERATORS

The custom operators surveyed reported that they serve, on
average, 65 farmers per year. As expected, there is great
variability in the average number of customers served, ranging from
a low of three (in Mushaqar) to a high of 400 (also in Mushaqar)
(TABLE 2). Even the average number of farmers served varies a good
deal, from a low of 30 (Rabba) to a high of 153 (Shoubak) ((TABLE
2).

It should be kept in mind that a given custom operator seldom
serves all the needs of his customer farmers. Often, the custom
operator hired for land preparation and planting is not the
operator who is hired to spray weeds. Finally, a third custom
operator may be hired to harvest the crop, or thresh it. We assume
that it takes one custom operator to uniquely serve 30 Jordanian
farmers in the Highlands. Assuming (1) there are 60,000 farmers
in Jordan, (2) 30,000 of them operate in the Highlands, and (3)
very few farmers own agricultural equipment which is not used on
other farms, it is calculated that a minimum of approximately 1,000
custom operators are needed to serve the cultivation needs of these
Highland farmers (30,000/30 = 1,000).

The greatest distance traveled by an operator to a farm is
quite variable around an average of 39 km, ranging from a low of
two km (in Ramtha) to a high of 300 km (in Mushaqar). Of course,
the accuracy of a number such as 300 km should be questioned, as
Jordan only measures about 400 km from the northern to the southern
border. Even the "average" greatest distance traveled varies from
a low of 15 km in Shoubak to a high of 82 km in Mushaqar (TABLE 2).

What are the smallest and largest parcels served by custom
operators? The average-sized smallest parcel which would be served
by custom operators is reported to be 17 dm (1.7 ha), ranging from
a low of two dm (0.2 ha) in Shoubak to a high of 400 dm (40 ha) in
Mushaqar. Similarly, the average-sized largest parcel a custom
operator would serve is 432 dm, ranging from a low of 15 dm (1.5







TABLE 2:


INFORMATION ABOUT FARMERS SERVED BY CUSTOM OPERATORS




RASC


RAMTHA MUSHAQAR RABBA SHOUBAK AVERAGE ALL RASCs


VARIABLE AVG* MIN* MAX* AVG MIN MAX AVG MIN MAX AVG MIN MAX AVG** MIN** MAX**



Number of Farmers Served Annually 47 10 150 58 3 400 30 5 200 153 10 200 65 7 230
by Custom Cperators


Greatest Distance Travelled to a 19 2 150 82 10 300 21 10 40 46 15 100 39 9 143
Field by Custom Operators, km


Smallest Size of Field Served 3 1 20 53 5 400 14 4 50 2 1 15 17 3 113
by Custom Operators, dm


Largest Size of Field Served 134 15 500 1224 200 6000 291 150 1000 174 40 800 432 100 1941
by Custom Operators, dm
...........................................................................................................................


AVG = Average (mean) of values reported; MIN = The minimum value reported; MAX = The maximum value reported


** These averages, minimums and maximums are weighted by the number of custom operators interviewed in each RASC.








ha) in Ramtha to a high of 6000 dm (600 ha) in Mushaqar (TABLE 2).


The questionnaire did not ask operators to estimate the
average farm size of the farmers they served, nor did it ask for
the total dunums served. However, previous studies (El-Hurani,
1984; Oglah and Jaradat, 1988) do provide estimates for the average
size of cultivated holding devoted to cereals in parts of the
Jordan Highlands. These holdings are given as 61 dm barley and 33
dm wheat for the Mafraq area (Oglah and Jaradat, 1988) and as 65
dm of cereals for the Irbid (Ramtha) area and 94 dm of cereals for
the Kerak (Rabba) area (El-Hurani, 1984). The latter source also
provides an estimate for the average cereals holding across the
Jordan Highlands as being about 80 dm. Using these figures and
those provided in TABLE 2, it is assumed that the average cereals
holding in the four RASC areas are:

1. Ramtha: 65 dm (6.5 ha),
2. Mushaqar: 120 dm (12 ha),
3. Rabba: 94 dm (9.4 ha), and
4. Shoubak: 40 dm (4 ha).

We can use these assumed average holding sizes to estimate
how many dunums the "average" custom operator can serve on an
annual basis in any of the regions surveyed. For the four RASC
areas, the average custom operator serves 3,055 dm in the Ramtha
area (65 dm x 47 farmers), 6,960 dm in the Mushaqar area (120 dm
x 58 farmers), 2,820 in the Rabba area (94 dm x 30 farmers), and
6,120 dm in the Shoubak area (40 dm x 153 farmers). Again assuming
the custom operators surveyed are representative of their areas and
the Jordan Highlands, the average area served by a given custom
operator in the Highlands is about 4500 dm (450 ha) across the four
regions.

Since we have already determined that very few of the farmers
in the Jordan Highlands who own tractors are only farmers (1% among
the custom operators surveyed), we can conclude that custom
operators form a natural and large focal group for targeting
agricultural research and technology transfer ideas based on the
current or potential use of farm implements. Some of these
technologies may include cereal crop technologies (early planting,
proper seed placement and fertilization attributable to the use of
grain drills, for example), spraying of weeds in cereals and pests
in fruit trees and vegetables, and threshing grain crops.

While it is true that working to strengthen this area of the
private sector is a non-traditional role for the MOA, it is easier
if we remember that just as Jordanian farmers are all private
entrepreneurs, so are custom operators. Finally, it must be
remembered that most custom operators -- 82% of those surveyed
(TABLE 1) -- are also farmers themselves.








AGE OF EQUIPMENT OPERATED AND CONDITION WHEN PURCHASED

The data on average age of equipment is incomplete. For each
type of implement, the custom operators were asked how long they
had owned each piece. However, only in the case of tractors were
the custom operators asked both the date of manufacture and how
long they had owned the equipment. These dates may be quite
different. For example, the average tractor is 11.6 years old,
while the average time it has been owned by the interviewed custom
operator is only 6.7 years (TABLE 3). However, most of the farm
implements owned by those operators surveyed are less than 10 years
of age. The average amount of time these operators have owned
their equipment is about five years (TABLE 3).

As all surveyed custom operators owned at least one licensed
tractor in 1988, it is not surprising that slightly more tractors
are owned (108) than operators surveyed (102) (TABLE 3). In terms
of the frequency of farm implements owned in addition to tractors,
the two most common are the disc plow (90 operators, about 87% of
them have one), and the water tank (66 operators, about 65% of them
have one), followed by the moldboard plow, which is owned by 58
(56%) of the custom operators interviewed (TABLE 3). Very few
grain drills (five in all four regions), cultivators (one in all
four regions), or rototillers (none in all four regions) are owned
by the surveyed custom operators (TABLE 3). Yet the grain drill
is one of the very implements that NCARTT scientists believe should
be used by farmers to plant and cultivate their cereal crops.
There is obviously room for a campaign to train owners in the use
of these implements, accompanied by increasing their availability
(through imports or construction here in Jordan) and increasing
their purchase (through innovative loans to custom operators).

There are important regional differences among farm equipment
owned. For example, custom operators in Rabba own eight field
sprayers, or more than 60% of all sprayers owned in the four
regions. This may be an indication of the importance of cereals
in the Ramtha area. Similarly, while 25 of the custom operators
surveyed in Ramtha own moldboard plows (83% of operators), only two
in Shoubak own this implement (10% of operators) (TABLE 3). This
may be because the Shoubak area is characterized more by fruit
trees than cereals, and the disc plow (100% of Shoubak custom
operators own them) is the more appropriate tool for cultivation
in fruit orchards (TABLE 3).

WHICH EQUIPMENT EARNS THE MOST MONEY FOR OPERATORS?

Farm records would be necessary to demonstrate the
profitability of any piece of agricultural equipment. While we
have already seen that less than 20% of the custom operators
interviewed keep farm records, they all offer opinions as to
whether or not their businesses are profitable. In designing the
questionnaire, it was hypothesized that most custom operators did








AGE OF EQUIPMENT OPERATED AND CONDITION WHEN PURCHASED

The data on average age of equipment is incomplete. For each
type of implement, the custom operators were asked how long they
had owned each piece. However, only in the case of tractors were
the custom operators asked both the date of manufacture and how
long they had owned the equipment. These dates may be quite
different. For example, the average tractor is 11.6 years old,
while the average time it has been owned by the interviewed custom
operator is only 6.7 years (TABLE 3). However, most of the farm
implements owned by those operators surveyed are less than 10 years
of age. The average amount of time these operators have owned
their equipment is about five years (TABLE 3).

As all surveyed custom operators owned at least one licensed
tractor in 1988, it is not surprising that slightly more tractors
are owned (108) than operators surveyed (102) (TABLE 3). In terms
of the frequency of farm implements owned in addition to tractors,
the two most common are the disc plow (90 operators, about 87% of
them have one), and the water tank (66 operators, about 65% of them
have one), followed by the moldboard plow, which is owned by 58
(56%) of the custom operators interviewed (TABLE 3). Very few
grain drills (five in all four regions), cultivators (one in all
four regions), or rototillers (none in all four regions) are owned
by the surveyed custom operators (TABLE 3). Yet the grain drill
is one of the very implements that NCARTT scientists believe should
be used by farmers to plant and cultivate their cereal crops.
There is obviously room for a campaign to train owners in the use
of these implements, accompanied by increasing their availability
(through imports or construction here in Jordan) and increasing
their purchase (through innovative loans to custom operators).

There are important regional differences among farm equipment
owned. For example, custom operators in Rabba own eight field
sprayers, or more than 60% of all sprayers owned in the four
regions. This may be an indication of the importance of cereals
in the Ramtha area. Similarly, while 25 of the custom operators
surveyed in Ramtha own moldboard plows (83% of operators), only two
in Shoubak own this implement (10% of operators) (TABLE 3). This
may be because the Shoubak area is characterized more by fruit
trees than cereals, and the disc plow (100% of Shoubak custom
operators own them) is the more appropriate tool for cultivation
in fruit orchards (TABLE 3).

WHICH EQUIPMENT EARNS THE MOST MONEY FOR OPERATORS?

Farm records would be necessary to demonstrate the
profitability of any piece of agricultural equipment. While we
have already seen that less than 20% of the custom operators
interviewed keep farm records, they all offer opinions as to
whether or not their businesses are profitable. In designing the
questionnaire, it was hypothesized that most custom operators did







TABLE 3:


AGE OF EQUIPMENT OPERATED



RASC
............................................................

TOTAL,
RAMTHA MUSHAQAR RABBA SHOUBAK ALL RASCs
YEARS OPERATOR HAS OWNED THE ----------- ---------- -------.--- ------.... ----------
TRACTOR OR PIECE OF EQUIPMENT AVG* NUM* AVG NUM AVG NUM AVG NUM AVG** NUM



Tractor 5 30 10 24 7 34 5 20 6.7 108


(Age of Tractor) 12 30 13 24 10 34 12 20 11.6 108


Grain Drill 0 2 3 1 2 0 1.6 5


Moldboard Plow 5 25 7 18 7 14 2 1 6.1 58


Disc Plow 6 25 9 18 7 27 13 20 8.5 90


Chisel Plow 3 6 5 6 4 14 5 2 4.1 28


Cultivator 0 0 0 7 1 7.0 1


Water Tank 5 19 7 14 4 30 6 3 5.0 66


Field Sprayer 2 2 2 2 6 8 2 1 4.5 13


Thresher 4 9 4 2 7 6 13 12 8.3 29


Rototiller 0 0 0 0 0


Other (Trolley) 0 0 0 0 0



AVG = Average (mean) of values reported; NUM = The number of operators owning the
tractor or piece of equipment


** These averages are weighted by the number of pieces of equipment owned in each RASC.








not keep records. Because of this, it was decided to ask custom
operators which piece of equipment earned the most money, not which
piece was most profitable.

We have seen that most custom operators do not keep business
records. Therefore, since most of these responses are based on
recall and not balance sheets, the data presented in the remainder
of this section must be interpreted with special caution.

In terms of numbers, the piece of farm machinery which the
surveyed custom operators believe earns the most money for them is
the water tank. This farm implement is selected as earning the
most money by 21 custom operators (TABLE 4), representing 29% of
all implements believed to earn the most money for custom
operators. Overall, 43% of operators who owned water tanks
responded that it earned them the most money, ranging from a low
of 21% (in Mushaqar) to a high of 74% (in Ramtha). Perhaps the
value of a water tank should not be underestimated in a country
where water is often the most scarce natural resource.

Other farm implements which were perceived as earning the most
money for their owners were the disc plow, in second place with 22%
of operators proclaiming it the biggest money-maker; the moldboard
plow, in third place with 15% of operators proclaiming it the
biggest money-maker; and the thresher, in fourth place with 14% of
operators proclaiming it the biggest money-maker (TABLE 4).

There is another way to analyze which farm implements earn
the most money for their owners. This is to look at the percentage
of owners of a given implement who think it is the biggest money-
maker. This method of analysis tends to even out those pieces of
equipment owned be a large proportion of operators with those owned
by only a few operators. The final column of TABLE 4 shows that
such an analysis provides a much different interpretation of the
data. Using this method, the two pieces of equipment selected as
earning the most money for their custom operator owners were the
grain combine (100% of those owning combines selected them as the
biggest money-maker) and the grain drill (also selected by 100% of
those owning them as the biggest money-maker) (TABLE 4).

This type of analysis gives us yet another indicator that
providing incentives to custom operators to purchase one of these
pieces of equipment -- grain drills in this case -- may lead to
greatly increased earnings for their businesses. Providing
incentives for the purchase of more grain drills would also result
in an increase in the efficiency of cereal production in the Jordan
Highlands and a reduction in erosion and water run-off.

There was regional variability between those farm implements
perceived to be the biggest money-makers. For example, in Ramtha,
the water tank is seen to make an extraordinarily high proportion
of its owners the most money (selected as representing 48% of all







TABLE 4:


EQUIPMENT EARNING THE MOST MONEY FOR OPERATORS


RASC


RAMTHA* MUSHAQAR RABBA SHOUBAK AVERAGE ALL RASCs


PIECE OF FARM EQUIPMENT


NO. RE-
PORTING
"EARNS
NO. MOST
OWNED MONEY"


NO. RE-
PORTING
"EARNS
NO. MOST
OWNED MONEY"


NO. RE-
PORTING
"EARNS
NO. MOST
OWNED MONEY"


NO. RE-
PORTING
"EARNS
NO. MOST
OWNED MONEY"


NO. RE-
PORTING
"EARNS
NO. MOST
OWNED MONEY"


0 0 1 1 100% 0 0


3 3 100% 2 2 100% 0 0


1 1 100%


5 5 100%


Moldboard Plow


Disc Plow


Chisel Plow


Cultivator


Water Tank


Field Sprayer


Thresher


Rototitler


25 9 36% 18 1 6% 14 1 7% 1 0 0% 58 11 19%


25 3 12% 18 1 6% 27 2 7% 20 10 50% 90 16 18%


6 2 33% 6 0 0% 14 3 21% 2 0 0% 28 5 18%


0 0


0 0


0 0


1 0 0% 1 0 0%


19 14 74% 14 3 21% 13 3 23% 3 1 33% 49 21 43%


0 0


2 0 0% 8 3 38% 1 0 0% 11 3 27%


9 1 11% 2 1 50% 6 2 33% 12 6 50% 29 10 34%


0 0


0 0


0 0


0 0


0 0


NO. OWNED = The number of implements of this type owned in each RASC; NO. REPORTING "EARNS MOST MONEY"
The number of custom operators who reported that this implement was the one which earned him the most money
among all of the implements that he owned; % = The percentage of "earned most money" to "number owned", by implement.
For example, each entry in the third Column divided by each corresponding entry in the second Column for Ramtha RASC.
The process of determining this percentage is the same for each RASC.


Interpretation: in general, the higher the percentage, the more money (dinars) is perceived by the custom operators
interviewed to be brought into his business by each specific piece of equipment.


Combine


Grain Drill


0 0


0 0








"most money-earners" in that region, and by 74% of water tank
owners as being the biggest money-maker), while in the other three
regions, this latter figure decreases to 21%, 23% and 33%,
respectively (TABLE 4). Only in Shoubak is the water tank not one
of the biggest money-makers. Here, 50% of those owning disc plows
(or 59% of all "most money-makers") report this implement to earn
them the most money on average.

EQUIPMENT OPERATORS PREFER TO PURCHASE NEXT

One interesting question which was asked was, "which piece of
equipment would you like to buy next?" When asking this question,
the survey placed no limits on the operators. They were free to
list any piece of agricultural equipment for next purchase --
including a new tractor -- regardless of price. After the
operators had responded with a list of equipment (limited to the
first five items they named), they were asked to rank the equipment
as to which piece they would buy first, which second, etc., ending
up with which they would buy fifth.

In analyzing this question, the column labeled "WEIGHTED
OPERATOR SCORE" (TABLE 5 for each RASC) provides the weighted mean
of preference scores given by those custom operators selecting each
piece of equipment as the one they wished to purchase next./ In
interpreting the weighted scores in TABLE 5, remember that the
lower the weighted score, the more preferred for "next purchase"
is that piece of farm equipment.

Very few custom operators -- only 2% overall -- indicate they
would buy a tractor as one of their next purchases (TABLE 5).
Since the average age of tractors in the Jordan Highlands is about
12 years, but only 2% of operators wish to buy a new one, the
average useful life of a tractor -- or salvage value time may be
as high as 15 or 20 years, not 10 years as assumed as standard for
tractors (Castle et al., 1987).

1/
The weighted mean score is derived by dividing the average
preference score for each implement by the number of operators
who placed that implement on his "preference to purchase" list.
For example, in the Ramtha RASC area, select "tractor" as the
next piece of farm equipment to purchase. From column 2, TABLE
5, it is seen that three operators selected tractor as one of
their next purchases. The "% OF TOTAL" column (column 3)
presents the percentage of operators selecting each piece of
equipment, compared to the total number of implements placed on
their "prefer to purchase" list. In addition, the weighted
operator score of "0.90" (column 4) represents the weighted
average of their three preferences. In this example, the average
score is 2.7 ([3+3+2]/3 = 2.7), and the weighted average score is
0.90 (2.7/3 = 0.90).







TABLE 5:


WHICH EQUIPMENT OPERATORS PREFER TO PURCHASE NEXT


RASC


RAMTHA* MUSHAQAR RABBA SHOUBAK AVERAGE ALL RASCs


OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT
(FARM IMPLEMENTS)
FOR OPERATOR PURCHASE
-------------------------------


NO.
SELEC-
TING
IMPLE-
MENT 1


WEIGH- NO.
TED SELEC-
OPERA- TING %
TOR IMPLE- OF
SCORE MENT TOTAL


WEIGH- NO.
TED SELEC-
OPERA- TING %
TOR IMPLE- OF
SCORE MENT TOTAL


WEIGH- NO.
TED SELEC-
OPERA- TING %
TOR IMPLE- OF
SCORE MENT TOTAL


Grain Drill


Moldboard Plow


Combine


Field Sprayer


Thresher


Water Tank


Cultivator


Disc Plow


Chisel Plow


Rototiller


Tractor 3


TOTALS: ERR
TOTALS: ERR


19 21% 0.09 14 24% 0.10 25 29% 0.06 2 3% 0.75 60 20% 0.10


9 10% 0.20 1 2% 1.00 7 8% 0.21 13 22% 0.14 30 10% 0.20


11 12% 0.23 4 7% 0.25 19 22% 0.08 5 9% 0.64 39 13% 0.21


18 20% 0.11 9 16% 0.31 11 13% 0.25 5 9% 0.40 43 15% 0.22


13 14% 0.21 8 14% 0.30 8 9% 0.29 10 17% 0.14 39 13% 0.23


5 5% 0.60 6 10% 0.33 4 5% 0.50 12 21% 0.19 27 9% 0.34


3 3% 0.67 6 10% 0.30 2 2% 2.00 7 12% 0.43 18 6% 0.60


9 10% 0.24 1 2% 2.00 2 2% 1.50 2 3% 0.75 14 5% 0.62


1 1% 5.00 8 14% 0.26 6 7% 0.40 1 2% 3.00 16 5% 0.78


1 1% 1.00 0 0%


0 0%


3% 0.90 1 2% 3.00 2 2% 0.50


ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR


0 0%


1 2% 2.00


ERR ERR


1 0% 1.00


7 2% 1.24


ERR ERR


NO. SELECTING IMPLEMENT = The number of custom operators choosing the implement as 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th
implement they would buy next; % OF TOTAL = The percent of operators preferring the given implement (compared to all
preferences); WEIGHTED OPERATOR SCORE = The weighted mean of preference scores per implement, obtained by dividing the
average score by the number of operators selecting the implement for their preference list (i.e., for Ramtha RASC, the
tractor" was given a 2.7 average score on the list of 3 operators, so the weighted operator score is 2.7/3 = 0.90)


Interpretation of WEIGHTED OPERATOR SCORES: the LOWER the number (the closer to zero), the HIGHER is the overall
operator preference for the piece of equipment. Likewise, the HIGHER this score, the LESS preference operators place on
purchasing this piece of equipment.


WEIGH- NO.
TED SELEC-
OPERA- TING
TOR IMPLE-
SCORE MENT


WEIGH-
TED
% OPERA-
OF TOR
TOTAL SCORE









The greatest percentage given to an implement for next
purchase -- 20% of the total -- was for a grain drill (column 16,
TABLE 5). This high response came in spite of the fact that less
than 25% of those interviewed knew anything about a grain drill
(data summarized later from Section III of the questionnaire).2/
Across the four RASCs, the piece of farm equipment which received
the best weighted score from the operators -- meaning that this is
the piece they would most like to purchase -- was also the grain
drill with an overall score of 0.10 (column 16, TABLE 5.)
It is difficult to distinguish between the next four pieces
of equipment preferred for purchase, as their weighted scores
(respectively 0.20, 0.21, 0.22 and 0.23) are nearly identical.
Therefore, these four pieces of equipment -- the moldboard plow,
the combine, the field sprayer and the thresher -- can be grouped
together as the types of equipment operators would prefer to
purchase after the grain drill (column 16, TABLE 5). Of
intermediate need among all farm equipment is the water tank, with
a weighted average score of 0.34. Finally, at the bottom of the
priority purchase lists of operators come three implements and the
tractor (lowest of all with an weighted average score of 1.24).
These implements are the cultivator (0.60), the disc plow (0.62),
the chisel plow (0.78) (column 16, TABLE 5).

In summarizing these weighted scores of preference for the
next piece of farm equipment to be purchased by custom operators
in the Jordan Highlands, the implements arrange themselves into
five groups. Each successive group of implements is of lower
priority for purchase. These five groups contain the following
pieces of farm equipment:

GROUP 1: HIGHEST PRIORITY FOR PURCHASE
Grain drill

GROUP 2: HIGH PRIORITY FOR PURCHASE
Moldboard plow
Combine
Field sprayer
Thresher

GROUP 3: INTERMEDIATE PRIORITY FOR PURCHASE
Water tank

2/
Next to the grain drill, the piece of farm equipment
selected by the most custom operators on their shopping list is
the field sprayer, selected by 15% of the total. Following the
field sprayer, the combine and the thresher were next, selected
by 13%, followed by the moldboard plow (selected by 10%), the
water tank (selected by 9%) and the cultivator (selected by 6%)
(column 16, TABLE 5).









GROUP 4: LOW PRIORITY FOR PURCHASE
Cultivator
Disc plow
Chisel plow

GROUP 5: LOWEST PRIORITY FOR PURCHASE
Rototiller
Tractor

These rankings should be interpreted with some caution. In
the first place, they are based on a weighted averaging process
which makes the best of a situation which is less than ideal
mathematically.3/ In the second place, there is considerable
variability in responses from region to region. This would argue
against using a highlands total (or average) at the level of the
equipment dealer. The rankings of operator purchase needs which
are important for this group are those provided separately for each
RASC (Columns 4, 7, 10 and 13, TABLE 5). The average overall
preferences for the Jordan Highlands are important at the level of
decision-makers in the GOJ responsible for formulating import
policy and affecting import incentives and disincentives. Finally,
the survey size (102 interviews) is just too small to allow small
apparent differences between preference rankings to be
statistically significant.

In addition, the questions about the chisel plow and the
cultivator caused a difficulty during the survey process. Using
current Jordanian Arabic, it is impossible to distinguish between
these two farm implements. It is of further interest to note that
these two implements, which are also among the least recognizable
to custom operators, rank very near the bottom of the list of
implements operators prefer to purchase (TABLE 5). There was some
additional confusion on the part of some of the field enumerators
in distinguishing between the disc plow (a heavier piece of
equipment with normally three large discs) and the disc harrow (a
lighter-framed implement with between 8-10 smaller discs) during
the interview process.

As before, regional differences occur in equipment preferred
by farmers for next purchase. For example, in Shoubak, the region
where the smallest percentage of custom operators own water tanks,
this implement was selected second (behind the moldboard plow and
the thresher) (column 13, TABLE 5). Likewise of all the RASCs,
only in Shoubak, an area more dominated by fruit than others, was

3/
This mathematical difficulty is based on the fact that
preferences are given inversely to the natural assumption that
"bigger is better": that is, the larger the number, the better
the score.








the grain drill toward the bottom of the operator's shopping lists.
At each of the other three RASCs, the grain drill was the most
preferred implement for next purchase, scoring 0.09, 0.10 and 0.06,
respectively, in Ramtha, Mushaqar and Rabba (columns 4, 7 and 10,
TABLE 5).4/


INFORMATION ABOUT FARMING HABITS

The purpose of this section is twofold: (1) to determine some
selected cultural practices in rainfed cereal production in the
Jordan Highlands, and (2) to determine custom operator opinions
about why certain cereal cultural practices should be performed.
A large variation in cereals practices exists in the surveyed
regions. Besides the variability in climate and soils, probably
the most valid reason for this variation is the local influence of
the Jordan Cooperative Organization (JCO).

The JCO offers proper farm equipment to growers so that new
cereal technologies can be practiced easier and more efficiently.
In areas where the JCO has equipment stations, farmers know about
the new technology and the field equipment used in its practice.
When questionnaires are compared between Highland regions, Shoubak
stands out as the least informed area about the purpose of the
chisel plow, grain drill and field sprayer. This may be a partial
explanation as to why Shoubak area farmers have been the slowest
to adopt new cereals technology.

Across all regions, much confusion exists about the chisel
plow. Before the enumerators went into the field, they were shown
the difference between a chisel plow and a cultivator (or duckfoot)
used for weed control and told that, because of its lightweight
construction, the cultivator cannot be used for deep plowing as can
a chisel plow.

When the enumerators went to the field, however, confusion
arose between the two types of equipment. As a result of this
confusion, the pieces of equipment recorded as "chisel plows" in


4/
It is of interest that 14 of the 16 operators who included
the chisel plow on their shopping lists work in either the
Mushaqar or Rabba RASC areas (TABLE 5). So, while this implement
overall receives low priority with operators for purchase (an
average weighted score of only 0.78), the chisel plow is near the
top or the middle of the lists of operators in Mushaqar and
Rabba, with scores of 0.26 and 0.40 respectively (Columns 7 and
10, TABLE 5). The policy implications of this be that a loan
incentive program to encourage the purchase of chisel plows is
most likely to succeed in the regions of Mushaqar and Rabba.








the farm equipment inventories sections of the questionnaire may
not have chisel points and may not be heavy enough to plow to a
depth of 15 cm. TABLES 3 and 12 show that 28 custom operators
reported owning chisel plows, while only one reported owning a
cultivator. From simple field observations, however, the actual
ratio between these two pieces of equipment is probably just the
reverse: approximately one chisel plow is owned for ever 28
cultivators! This means that information based on the numbers of
cultivators and chisel plows from this survey cannot be used to
make conclusions or recommendations.

For this reason, we recommend that future groups dealing with
such farm equipment depend on a set of unambiguous pictures to
assist in the interview process.5/

The custom operators surveyed reported that 85% of the farmers
they serve feel that moisture can be conserved by tillage. At the
same time, 85% of those surveyed in Ramtha and Rabba, who believe
plowing results in the retention of moisture, also believe this
moisture retention is due to deep plowing (TABLE 6). Observation
indicates, however, that many of these fields are in fact plowed
only shallowly (to a depth of no more than 6 cm). Apparently, deep
plowing has given better cereal yields, but no satisfactory
explanation for such higher yields has been put forward.

In terms of the original question, "can moisture be conserved
in the soil?", deep plowing actually hastens moisture loss from
soil. Nevertheless, deep plowing does a good job of fracturing the
soil, resulting in less water run-off, better water penetration,
and easier root penetration. Further research is necessary to
determine whether these valid reasons for deep plowing outweigh the
more efficient and economical job done with a chisel plow. If soil
moisture is the most critical factor determining yield in the
cereal part of the rotation, however, a chisel plow will do a
better job of conserving it than either a moldboard or a disc plow.


Thirty-nine per cent of the custom operators interviewed said
that they knew about the chisel plow, but there was great variation
among the regions. Rabba was the highest with 86% reporting that
they had knowledge of the chisel plow, while only 15% of those at
Shoubak said they knew about it (TABLE 6). Only 28% of those
surveyed responded that there were advantages to a chisel plow.
Of these respondents, an almost equal percentage -- ranging between
5-8% -- stated that the chisel plow's advantages were that it (1)
was wider (and could cover more dunums/hour); (2) could be used for

5/
A set of implement pictures was used to assist the
enumerators during farmer interviews at some, but not all, RASCs
during this survey process.






TABLE 6:


INFORMATION ABOUT MOISTURE CONSERVATION AND PLOWING


RASC

RAMTHA MUSHAQAR RABBA SHOUBAK ALL RASCs
CUSTOM OPERATOR RESPONSES --------- ------------------------


ABOUT PLOWS AND PLOWING %


Custom operators sampled 29%

Moisture can be conserved 97%

Best way to conserve is:
By deep plowing 100%
Using moldboard plow
Using disc plow

You know the chisel plow 17%


# % # % # % # % #


30 23% 23 28% 29 20% 20 100% 102

29 83% 19 69% 20 95% 19 85% 87


30


69% 20


57% 13
30% 7


85%
57%
30%


5 39% 9 86% 25 15% 3 39% 40


The advantages of a
chisel plow are:
Performing last plow
It gives wider swath
It is "better"
For deep plowing
To conserve moisture

The number of days farmers
plow in the month of:
October
November
December
January


3%
10%
7%


4%
9%
9%
13%
22%


4%
5% 1 8%
7%
10% 2 10%
22%


22
** 47
40
30


The percentage in the "ALL RASCs" column is calculated for
those RASCs reporting, not for the whole sample of 102 custom operators.

** As there are 30 days in November and 31 in December, these
custom operator estimates are obviously high.








deep plowing; (3) is "better" to use (more economical or faster or
deeper); and (4) conserved moisture (TABLE 6).

The plowing operation is performed throughout the year in all
regions except Shoubak, where plowing is done from October through
December (TABLE 6). There are very few summer crops grown in
Shoubak, which might account for this difference. In other parts
of the Highlands, the heaviest use of the plow occurs during the
fall, with a considerable amount again in the early spring (TABLE
6).

The Monitoring and Evaluation Unit has been pointing out some
of the dangers of using a one-time survey instrument to quantify
annual costs. One of the largest components of farmer's costs is
labor. To assign a value to labor, an estimate of the number of
days worked by task and laborer is necessary. However, if farmers
or custom operators do not keep records, estimating labor use is
virtually impossible with a one-time recall survey instrument.
This fact is confirmed by the data contained in the last section
of TABLE 6. Here, all of the average figures reported for "number
of days farmers plow during the month" appear to be high. However,
in the case of three of these averages -- those for November in
Mushaqar and Rabba and that for December in Rabba -- the figures
reported exceed the total number of days in the month. In the case
of November in Rabba, custom operators report that they plow an
average of 17 more days than exist in that entire month.6/

Seventy-nine per cent of cereal seeding was reported to
be done in November (TABLE 7). If this is in fact true, then why
do the custom operators report doing so much plowing in December
and January? It would be interesting to know if December-January
plowing is related to the seeding of lentils and chick peas, not
cereals. Further research is needed to answer this question.

Of the custom operators surveyed, 24% of them know about grain
drills (TABLE 7). But 29% of these operators stated that one
advantage of the grain drill was "even seed distribution", so
apparently more than 24% know something about this piece of

6/
Because of systematic over-estimation of labor use, the
reader must use figures which include either labor estimates (or
costs derived from such estimates) obtained from one-time surveys
with a great deal of caution in support of official research.
Such figures should only be used to show possible trends. They
cannot be relied on for absolute estimates. These data remain in
this report to demonstrate one of the real dangers of collecting
certain types of socio-economic data using the wrong professional
tool (in this case, the one-time survey).






TABLE 7:

INFORMATION ABOUT PLANTING AND GRAIN DRILLS


RASC

RAMTHA MUSHAQAR RABBA SHOUBAK ALL RASCs
CUSTOM OPERATOR RESPONSES --------- -------------------------
ABOUT PLANTING AND DRILLS % # % # % # % # % #


Custom operators sampled

Cereals are planted in
the month of:
November
December
January

You know the grain drill

The advantages of a
grain drill are:
Even seed distribution
Proper planting depth


102


100%


92%
8%


49%
51%


10% 3 43% 10 31%


7% 2 39% 9
9% 2


75%
15%
10%


9 15%


59%
14%


10% 2
15% 3


79%
19%
2%


3 24% 24


29% 30
13% 9


The disadvantages of a
grain drill are:
It needs level ground 7% 2 13% 3 7% 2 10% 7
It costs a lot 9% 2 3% 1 15% 3 8% 6


The percentage is of those RASCs reporting, not of the total
sample (102 custom operators).








equipment. In addition, 13% gave "proper planting depth" as an
advantage of the grain drill (TABLE 7). On the negative side, 10%
indicated that one disadvantage of the grain drill is that "it
needs level ground", while 8% mentioned that "it costs a lot"
(TABLE 7). Of the five grain drill owners surveyed, one gave no
advantages, four listed even distribution as an advantage, two
listed depth, and one said that a disadvantage was that the drill
needed level ground.

Eighty-five per cent of the custom operators in Ramtha,
Mushaqar, and Rabba reported that their farmers used fertilizer
(TABLE 8). In Shoubak, no fertilizer was reported as being used.
The kinds of fertilizer use reported is equally split between three
products: (1) Mekafos, (2) Urea, and (3) DAP (diammonium
phosphate). With Jordan producing large amounts of DAP (18%
nitrogen and 46% phosphorus), one might ask policy makers whether
more emphasis should be placed on encouraging Jordanian farmers to
use it instead of Mekafos, especially if the latter must be
imported.

Eighty-eight per cent of the custom operators in the three
northern directorates said their farmers sprayed their cereal crops
with 2,4-D for weed control (TABLE 9). In contrast, Shoubak custom
operators reported no spraying of 2,4-D. In Ramtha, spraying is
all done in February; in Mushaqar, 67% of the fields are sprayed
in February and the rest in March; in Rabba, all fields are sprayed
in March (TABLE 9). In terms of crop size at time of spraying,
most fields are sprayed when the crop is between 7 and 30 cm in
height (TABLE 9).


SPECIFICS AND COSTS OF TRACTOR OPERATION

Some specifics of Custom Operator Tractor Operation

This sub-section presents a summary of some of the specifics
of custom operator tractor operation. Topics covered include the
amount of area covered and variables surrounding fuel capacity,
consumption and price.

In overall terms, the average tractor and moldboard plow cover
6.9 dunums, or slightly more than one-half hectare, every hour.
This ranges from a low of 4.7 dm/hr in Shoubak to a high of 10.2
dm/hr in Rabba (TABLE 10).

Tractors operate about one work day on a tank of fuel. The
average number of hours of tractor use before emptying a full tank
of fuel is 11.1. Again, this ranges from a low of 10 hr in Ramtha
to a high of 12.6 hr in Shoubak. The average tractor fuel tank
holds 72.6 liters (TABLE 10). The custom operators estimate that
an average of seven liters of fuel are consumed per hour of field
operation, ranging from a low of 6.4 in Rabba to a high of 7.4 in








equipment. In addition, 13% gave "proper planting depth" as an
advantage of the grain drill (TABLE 7). On the negative side, 10%
indicated that one disadvantage of the grain drill is that "it
needs level ground", while 8% mentioned that "it costs a lot"
(TABLE 7). Of the five grain drill owners surveyed, one gave no
advantages, four listed even distribution as an advantage, two
listed depth, and one said that a disadvantage was that the drill
needed level ground.

Eighty-five per cent of the custom operators in Ramtha,
Mushaqar, and Rabba reported that their farmers used fertilizer
(TABLE 8). In Shoubak, no fertilizer was reported as being used.
The kinds of fertilizer use reported is equally split between three
products: (1) Mekafos, (2) Urea, and (3) DAP (diammonium
phosphate). With Jordan producing large amounts of DAP (18%
nitrogen and 46% phosphorus), one might ask policy makers whether
more emphasis should be placed on encouraging Jordanian farmers to
use it instead of Mekafos, especially if the latter must be
imported.

Eighty-eight per cent of the custom operators in the three
northern directorates said their farmers sprayed their cereal crops
with 2,4-D for weed control (TABLE 9). In contrast, Shoubak custom
operators reported no spraying of 2,4-D. In Ramtha, spraying is
all done in February; in Mushaqar, 67% of the fields are sprayed
in February and the rest in March; in Rabba, all fields are sprayed
in March (TABLE 9). In terms of crop size at time of spraying,
most fields are sprayed when the crop is between 7 and 30 cm in
height (TABLE 9).


SPECIFICS AND COSTS OF TRACTOR OPERATION

Some specifics of Custom Operator Tractor Operation

This sub-section presents a summary of some of the specifics
of custom operator tractor operation. Topics covered include the
amount of area covered and variables surrounding fuel capacity,
consumption and price.

In overall terms, the average tractor and moldboard plow cover
6.9 dunums, or slightly more than one-half hectare, every hour.
This ranges from a low of 4.7 dm/hr in Shoubak to a high of 10.2
dm/hr in Rabba (TABLE 10).

Tractors operate about one work day on a tank of fuel. The
average number of hours of tractor use before emptying a full tank
of fuel is 11.1. Again, this ranges from a low of 10 hr in Ramtha
to a high of 12.6 hr in Shoubak. The average tractor fuel tank
holds 72.6 liters (TABLE 10). The custom operators estimate that
an average of seven liters of fuel are consumed per hour of field
operation, ranging from a low of 6.4 in Rabba to a high of 7.4 in






TABLE 8:

INFORMATION ABOUT FARMERS' FERTILIZER USE


RASC

CUSTOM OPERATOR RAMTHA MUSHAQAR RABBA SHOUBAK ALL RASCs
RESPONSES ABOUT -------------------------
FERTILIZER USE % # % # % # % # % #


Custom Operators Sampled 29% 30 23% 23 28% 29 20% 20 100% 102

Farmers using fertilizer 80% 24 78% 18 97% 28 n.a. 0 85% 70 *

Type of fertilizer used
Mekafos ** 20% 6 43% 10 55% 16 n.a. n.a. 39% 32 *
Urea ** 50% 15 48% 11 24% 7 n.a. n.a. 40% 33 *
DAP ** 23% 7 30% 7 52% 15 n.a. n.a. 35% 29 *


The percentage in the "ALL RASCs" column is calculated for those
RASCs reporting, not for the total sample of 102 custom operators.

** The composition of these three fertilizers is, respectively,

Mekafos: 18% N, 18% P, 5% K, and 1.5% Mg;
Urea: 46% N; and
DAP (Diammonium phosphate): 18% N and 46% P.

n.a. = does not apply.






TABLE 9:

INFORMATION ABOUT WEED CONTROL AND TIMING OF SPRAYS


RASC

RAMTHA MUSHAQAR RABBA SHOUBAK ALL RASCs
CUSTOM OPERATOR RESPONSES -----------------------------------------
ABOUT WEED CONTROL % # % # % # % # % #


Custom operators sampled 29% 30 23% 23 28% 29 20% 20 100% 102

Farmers spray for weeds 80% 24 83% 19 100% 29 88% 72 *

Farmers spray for weeds
during the months of:
February 100% 24 68% 13 51% 37 *
March 32% 6 100% 29 49% 35 *

Crop size when sprayed is:
< 7 cm 7% 2 4% 1 7% 2 9% 5 *
7 10 cm 30% 9 17% 5 25% 14 *
10 30 cm 40% 12 13% 3 66% 19 62% 34 *
> 30 cm 7% 2 4% 2 *

Weed size when sprayed is:
Small 7% 2 4% 1 90% 26 55% 29 *
Medium 73% 22 9% 2 45% 24 *


The percentage in the "ALL RASCs" column is calculated for
those RASCs reporting, not for the total sample of 102 custom operators.







TABLE 10:


SPECIFICS OF TRACTOR OPERATION


.........................................................................................................................

RASC
.........................................................................................

RAMTHA MUSHAQAR RABBA SHOUBAK AVERAGE ALL RASCs


TRACTOR AND IMPLEMENT VARIABLE AVG MIN MAX AVG MIN MAX AVG MIN MAX AVG MIN MAX AVG MIN MAX


Average Dunums/Hour Covered by:


Tractors and Grain Drills 17.5 15 20 10 10 10 15.0 13.3 16.7


Tractors and Moldboard Plows 5.7 3 20 6.1 2.5 10 10.2 6 20 4.7 2 6 6.9 3.6 14.7


Tractors and Field Sprayers 21.5 18 25 18 5 30 10 10 10 17.9 7.6 27.5


Number Hours to Empty a Tank of 10 6 18 12 6 24 10.8 6.5 16 12.6 8 16 11.1 6.5 18.2
Fuel in Operator's Tractor


Liters Fuel Held in Tractor Tank 73.3 30 100 76.5 60 120 67.1 50 130 75 60 80 72.6 48.5 109.2


Liters Fuel Used, One Hour of 7.4 3 10 7.4 3.5 15 6.4 4 12 6.6 4 8.8 7.0 3.6 11.5
Pulling a Moldboard Plow


Fuel Price, Fits/Liter Paid ** 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70




AVG = Average (mean) of values reported; MIN = The minimum value reported; MAX = The maximum value reported.


** 70 fits per liter is the price of diesel after April, 1989. This figure was used instead of the 65 fits per
liter during the survey to make the subsequent cost of operation calculations more realistic.











TABLE 11:

SELECTED PARAMETERS OF TRACTORS

RASC TOTAL, ALL RASCs

VARIABLE RAMTHAMUSHAQAR RABBA SHOUBAK AVERAGE* NUMBER


Number Of Tractors 30 24 34 20 27.0 108

Age Of Tractors 12 13 10 12 11.6

# Years Owned 5 10 7 5 6.7 ---

Horsepower (HP) Of 60 64 63 72 64

Cost Of, In Dinars 2808 3828 4160 4110 3701

# Of Drivers Hired 2 9 15 6 9 35

# Hours Used/Day 8.8 8.3 9.6 8.3 8.2

# Months Used/Yr 5 7.6 3.9 6.7 5.1

Driver's Salary/Mo 42 83.3 88.1 106.7 80


*Averages based on number of tractors (Age Of Tractors;
# Years Owned; Horsepower (HP) Of; Cost Of, In Dinars) are
weighted by the number of tractors owned by the operators
interviewed in each RASC.
Averages which depend on the number of hired drivers (# Hours
Used/Day; # Months Used/Yr; Driver's Salary/Mo) are weighted by the
number of drivers hired by the operators interviewed in each RASC.








both Ramtha and Mushaqar.7/ Farm-level fuel cost 70 fils (JD
0.070) per liter (TABLE 10) as of April, 1989.

PARAMETERS OF TRACTORS

Before estimating the costs associated with operating various
combinations of farm machines in the Jordan Highlands, certain
parameters of the tractors owned by the custom operators are
considered. The 102 surveyed tractor owners owned a total of 108
tractors (six operators own two [TABLE 11]). These operators hire
a total of 35 drivers, ranging from a low of only two in Ramtha to
a high of 15 in Rabba. This indicates that most custom operators
drive their own tractors to do work for themselves and others
(TABLE 11).

Each tractor is used about eight hours per day and, across
the four RASCs, an average of about five months per year (TABLE
11). However, the estimates of months used varies widely, from a
low of 3.9 in Rabba to a high of 7.6 in Mushaqar.

Difficulties in asking such questions in a one-shot
questionnaire become obvious when these figures are compared to
those which can be derived from another part of the survey.
Section III of the survey form allowed custom operators to indicate
on a monthly basis how many days they spent plowing, spraying,
threshing, hauling water, etc. An analysis of some of the
parameters of this section reveals the following:

(1) In Shoubak and Mushaqar, custom operators were unable to
provide interviewers with estimates of the time they
spent on tractors using different farm implements.

(2) In Ramtha and Rabba, custom operators estimated that they
spend between 7.3 and 9 months per year (Ramtha) and
between 10.5 and 13 months per year (Rabba) operating
their tractors with farm implements. 8/

Note that these figures are much greater than the internal check
estimates provided for these two regions by TABLE 11, which are 5

7/
As an internal check on data reliability, this average of
seven liters compares well with the number of liters held in the
average tank, divided by the number of hours required to empty
the average fuel tank (72.6/11.1, or 6.5) (TABLE 10).
8/
The first figure above was derived assuming a 20-day work
month; the second figure assumes a 25-day work month.








months per year for Ramtha and 3.9 months per year for Rabba.
Indeed, in Rabba, the upper range of 13 months per year is greater
than any year is long!9/

Cost Estimates of Owning Various Combinations of Implements

Which combinations of farm implements do the operators
surveyed tend to own most often? What has the average operator
spent on his particular combination of implements? Are there
differences between combinations of implements owned by region?

In answering these questions, it is important first to provide
some of the basic physical and financial parameters of the farm
implements which are owned by the interviewed operators. These
physical and financial parameters of equipment are provided in
TABLE 12. Here, widths and numbers of bottoms for the plows,
drills and cultivators encountered in the survey have been
averaged.

This table also presents the average costs of implements by
region and for the Jordan Highlands. It can be seen, for example,
that the most costly implement is the grain drill, averaging
slightly less than JD 1800 apiece (TABLE 12). At the other end of
the cost spectrum, four implements -- the moldboard plow, the disc
plow, the cultivator and the water tank -- cost an average of less
than JD 400 (TABLE 12).

Among the 102 operators surveyed, a total of 33 different farm
implement combinations are owned (TABLE 13). Of these
combinations, the four which are most commonly owned are:

(1) Disc plow only (owned by 15 operators in all 4 RASCs);
(2) Disc plow + Water tank (owned by 12 operators in 3
RASCs);
(3) Disc plow + Moldboard plow + Water tank (owned by 10
operators in 3 RASCs); and (tied for fourth)
(4) Disc plow + Moldboard plow (owned by 8 operators in 3
RASCs);
(4) Disc plow + Thresher (owned by 8 operators in 1 RASC).


9/
Only cautious use of such estimates from this study can be
made. This type of detailed information provides another good
example of the kinds of socio-economic data better obtained
through a systematic series of representative farm record books.
Comparing these same two questions from our Custom Operator
Survey yields variability of over 100% in the same group of
interviewees for the exactly the same information.







TABLE 12:


IMPLEMENT WIDTHS AND COSTS


RAMTHA MUSHAQAR RABBA SHOUBAK AVERAGE, ALL RASCs
--- -- -- --- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ----.. .. ... ... .. ... ... ... ... .. ... ....-.. ... ..-----... ...--... ... ... .. ... ..


# OF
BOT-
TONS
OR WIDTH
DISCS m.


AVER-
AGE
COST


# OF # OF
IM- BOT-
PLE- TOMS
MENTS OR
OWNED DISCS


AVER-
WIDTH AGE
m. COST


# OF
IM-
PLE-
MENTS
OWNED


# OF
BOT-
TOMS
OR WIDTH
DISCS m.


# OF
IM-
AVER- PLE-
AGE MENTS
COST OWNED


# OF
BOT -
TOMS
OR WIDTH
DISCS m.


AVER-
AGE
COST


# OF # OF
IM- BOT-
PLE- TOMS
MENTS OR
OWNED DISCS


WIDTH
m.


AVER-
AGE
COST


3 2.8 2050 2 2.3 1400 0


5 0 3 1790


MP 25 3 263 18 7 429 14 3 298 1 7 250 58 4 0 323


DP 25 4


291 18 3 309 27 5 443 20 3 428 90 4 0 371


CP 6 7 3.0 321


6 6 2.2 1116 14


9 1.8 301


2 5 1.3 350 28


8 2 483


C 0


WT 19


1 10


272 14


FS 2 13.0 225 2


T 9


1300 2


477 13


800 8


1450 6


329 3


571 1


625 12


300 1 10 0 300


400 49


1.5 500 13


675 29


GD = Grain Drill; MP = Moldboard Plow; DP = Disc Plow; CP = Chisel Plow; C = Cultivator; WT = Water Tank;
FS = Field Sprayer; T = Thresher.


# OF
IM-
IMP- PLE-
LE- MENTS
MENT* OWNED


GD 0







TABLE 13:


FREQUENCIES AND COSTS OF FARM IMPLEMENT COMBINATIONS


COMBIN-
ATION
NUMBER


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33


TOTALS:
AVERAGE:


COMBINATION OF
IMPLEMENTS
OWNED:*


C+CU+D+T+W
C+D
C+D+G
C+D+G+M
C+D+G+M+S+T+W
C+D+M
C+D+M+S
C+D+M+S+T
C+D+M+T
C+D+M+T+W
C+D+M+W
C+D+S
C+D+S+T
C+D+S+W
C+D+W
C+M
C+S+W
D
D+G
D+M
D+M+T
D+M+T+W
D+M+W
D+S
D+T
D+W
M
M+S+W
M+T
M+T+W
M+W
T+W
W


*C=Chiset plow (JO 483); CU=Cuttivator (JD 300); D=Disc plow (JD 371);
G=Grain drill (JD 1790); M=Moldboard plow (JD 323); S=Field sprayer (JD 548);
T=Thresher (JD 912); W=Water tank (JD 354).


NUMBER OF OPERATORS OWNING
GIVEN IMPLEMENT COMBINATION IN:
---------------------------------------------
ALL FOUR C
RAMTHA MUSHAQAR RABBA SHOUBAK RASCS


1 1 2
1 1
1 1 2
1 1
2 1 3
1 1
1 1 2
1 1
1 1 2
1 1 2
1 1 2
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 2 3
1 1
1 1 2
1 3 10 14
3 1 4
2 2 3 7
3 3
8 8
1 1 2
1 2 3
2 8 10
6 4 10
1 1 2
1 1
1 1
2 1 3
1 1
1 1
2 2


30 21 29 20 100
n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.


REPORTED
COST OF
IMPLEMENT
COMBINATION,
IN JDs


2420
854
2644
2967
4781
1177
1725
2637
2089
2443
1531
1402
2314
1756
1208
806
1385
371
2161
694
1606
1960
1048
919
1283
725
323
1225
1235
1589
677
1266
354


n.a.
1110








All of the most commonly-owned implement combinations include as
one component the disc plow. It is remarkable that after these
top four combinations of implements, there is no other combination
which is owned by more than three operators (TABLE 13).

In terms of cost, the weighted average cost across all
operators of the combinations of implements owned is about JD 1150
(TABLE 13). This means that the average operator interviewed has
equipment -- in addition to his tractor which is worth an average
of JD 3,700 -- worth JD 1150. Thus, the total amount invested by
an average operator is about JD 4,850.

The four most common implement combinations cost,
respectively, JD 371 (disc plow only), JD 725 (disc plow + water
tank), JD 1048 (disc plow + moldboard plow + water tank), and JD
694 (disc plow + moldboard plow) and JD 1283 (disc plow + thresher)
(TABLE 13). The least costly implement combination is JD 323 (for
moldboard plow only), while the most expensive combination
(consisting of chisel, disc and moldboard plows, grain drill, field
sprayer, thresher and water tank) was JD 4781 (TABLE 13).

Of the 33 implement combinations owned, 24 of them include
the disc plow, 17 each the chisel plow or moldboard plow, 15 the
water tank, 12 the thresher, eight the field sprayer, four the
grain drill, and one the cultivator (TABLE 13).

Finally, the Shoubak RASC area contains combinations of
implements different from the other RASCs. This may be because
there is a higher proportion of fruit trees in this region. Ten
of the 15 solely-owned disc plows are in Shoubak. In the other
RASCs, other differences in equipment owned occur, but these
differences appear to be less significant than the differences
between Shoubak and the other three regions.

The other three RASCs are characterized more by the diversity
of farm implements owned. The 30 operators surveyed in Ramtha
owned 15 different combinations; the 23 operators surveyed in
Mushaqar owned 14 different combinations; the 29 operators surveyed
in Rabba owned 20 different combinations; the 20 operators surveyed
in Shoubak owned only four different combinations (TABLE 13).

Cost Estimates of Custom Operator Tractor Operation

This sub-section presents cost estimates of operating
tractors. Standard cost-of-operation formulas were used to make
the cost estimates (Boehlje and Eidman, 1984; Castle et al., 1987;
Herbst, 1970). The three different analyses include those based
on (1) reported (declared) value of farm equipment (calculated from
survey data), (2) machinery replacement cost (calculated from the
cost of replacing the equipment based on prices in Amman in early
1989), and (3) the theoretical method (Castle et al., 1987). Each
analysis is considered in turn. First, it is necessary to define








some farm management terms.
1. Total costs, abbreviated TC, for operating selected farm
equipment in the Jordan Highlands are obtained by adding total
fixed costs to total variable costs, using the formula

(1) TC = FC + VC.

2. Fixed costs, abbreviated FC, consist of depreciation,
interest and insurance. Of these three traditional costs,
operators consider only insurance to be a cost. In these analyses,
insurance 'includes the cost of licensing a tractor (JD 5).

3. Variable costs, abbreviated VC, consist of the costs of
fuel, lubrication, repairs and labor, or, in other words, what
custom operators normally consider as their normal costs.

Cost of operation based on reported (declared) value

Using survey data, fixed cost and variable cost calculations
were made fdr tractors, moldboard plows, chisel plows, grain drills
and field sprayers (TABLE 14). Total costs can be derived from
formula (1) on an hourly basis or on a per dunum basis for each of
these pieces of farm machinery. The costs calculated in this first
sub-section are those based on the costs of tractors and farm
implements reported by the surveyed custom operators.

The hourly total costs range from approximately JD 3.60 for
the grain drill through JD 1.84 for the tractor and JD 0.61 for
the sprayer to JD 0.41 for the chisel plow and JD 0.34 for the
moldboard plow (TABLE 14). On a per dunum basis, it makes no sense
to calculate the total cost for the tractor alone, as it only
operates across land when pulling an implement or water tank. Per
dunum total costs range from approximately JD 0.44 for the
moldboard plow through JD 0.36 for the grain drill and JD 0.23 for
the chisel plow to JD 0.14 for the sprayer (TABLE 14).

Cost of operation based on machinery replacement cost

How are total cost of operation calculations affected by
substituting current estimates of the replacement price of each of
these pieces of farm machinery? To answer this question, we
substitute estimates of current replacement costs (as of March,
1989) for the value of each farm implement, then re-calculate the
fixed cost, variable cost and total cost of each. These
replacement cost calculations are contained in TABLE 15.

First, the current price of a 65 hp tractor, JD 6,550 in
Amman, is nearly double the average price reported by operators
for their tractors in current use. Only the field sprayer does
not show a price increase of nearly 100% (JD 548 compared to JD
600) (compare Row 2 of TABLE 15 with Row 2 of TABLE 14).








some farm management terms.
1. Total costs, abbreviated TC, for operating selected farm
equipment in the Jordan Highlands are obtained by adding total
fixed costs to total variable costs, using the formula

(1) TC = FC + VC.

2. Fixed costs, abbreviated FC, consist of depreciation,
interest and insurance. Of these three traditional costs,
operators consider only insurance to be a cost. In these analyses,
insurance 'includes the cost of licensing a tractor (JD 5).

3. Variable costs, abbreviated VC, consist of the costs of
fuel, lubrication, repairs and labor, or, in other words, what
custom operators normally consider as their normal costs.

Cost of operation based on reported (declared) value

Using survey data, fixed cost and variable cost calculations
were made fdr tractors, moldboard plows, chisel plows, grain drills
and field sprayers (TABLE 14). Total costs can be derived from
formula (1) on an hourly basis or on a per dunum basis for each of
these pieces of farm machinery. The costs calculated in this first
sub-section are those based on the costs of tractors and farm
implements reported by the surveyed custom operators.

The hourly total costs range from approximately JD 3.60 for
the grain drill through JD 1.84 for the tractor and JD 0.61 for
the sprayer to JD 0.41 for the chisel plow and JD 0.34 for the
moldboard plow (TABLE 14). On a per dunum basis, it makes no sense
to calculate the total cost for the tractor alone, as it only
operates across land when pulling an implement or water tank. Per
dunum total costs range from approximately JD 0.44 for the
moldboard plow through JD 0.36 for the grain drill and JD 0.23 for
the chisel plow to JD 0.14 for the sprayer (TABLE 14).

Cost of operation based on machinery replacement cost

How are total cost of operation calculations affected by
substituting current estimates of the replacement price of each of
these pieces of farm machinery? To answer this question, we
substitute estimates of current replacement costs (as of March,
1989) for the value of each farm implement, then re-calculate the
fixed cost, variable cost and total cost of each. These
replacement cost calculations are contained in TABLE 15.

First, the current price of a 65 hp tractor, JD 6,550 in
Amman, is nearly double the average price reported by operators
for their tractors in current use. Only the field sprayer does
not show a price increase of nearly 100% (JD 548 compared to JD
600) (compare Row 2 of TABLE 15 with Row 2 of TABLE 14).









TABLE 14:


COST OF SELECTED FARM MACHINERY OPERATION
(USING REPORTED [DECLARED] VALUE)

FARM MACHINE TYPE:


VARIABLE:

Machine Size, HP or m
Reported Machine Value, JD
Useful Life, Yrs
Salvage Value*, JD
Hours Used, lifetime
Area Covered, dunums/hr
Repairs, % of cost when new
Driver's Salary, JD/month
Fuel Consumed, Liters/hr
Fuel Price, JD/liter

Fixed Costs
-----------


TRACTOR

64
3701
10
1110
10660
n.a.
120
80
7
0.070


OLDBOARD
PLOW

1
323
10
55
2500
5
120
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.


Depreciation, JD/yr
Interest, 10%
Insurance + license, JD/yr
Total Fixed Cost, JD/yr:
Fixed Cost, JD/hr

Variable Costs

Fuel, JD/hr
Lubrication, JD/hr
Repairs, JD/hr
Labor, JD/hr
Total Variable Cost, JD/hr

Total Cost, JD/hr


Total Cost, JD/dunum


259
241
25
525
0.492



0.490
0.070
0.417
0.375
1.352

1.844


n.a.


27
19
n.a.
46
0.183



n.a.
n.a.
0.155
n.a.
0.155

0.338

0.436


40
28
n.a.
68
0.171



n.a.
n.a.
0.240
n.a.
0.240

0.411

0.226


149
105
n.a.
253
2.111



n.a.
n.a.
1.492
n.a.
1.492

3.603

0.363


*Salvage value for tractors is assumed to be 30%; salvage
value for all other farm machines is assumed to be 17%.


n.a. = not applicable.


CHISEL
PLOW

2.5
483
10
82
4000
10
120
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.


GRAIN
DRILL

2.5
1790
10
304
1200
15
100
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.


FIELD
SPRAYER

10
548
10
93
2000
18
80
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.


46
32
n.a.
78
0.388



n.a.
n.a.
0.219
n.a.
0.219

0.607


0.136






TABLE 15:


COST OF SELECTED FARM MACHINERY OPERATION
(USING REPLACEMENT COST)

FARM MACHINE TYPE:


VARIABLE: TRACTOR
- - - - - - - -


Machine Size, Hp or m
Replacement Cost, JD
Useful Life, Yrs
Salvage Value*, JD
Hours Used, lifetime
Area Covered, dunums/hr
Repairs, % of Cost when new
Driver's Salary, JD/month
Fuel Consumed, Liters/hr
Fuel Price, JD/liter
-----------
Fixed Costs
-----------
Depreciation, JD/yr
Interest, 10%
Insurance + license, JD/yr
Total Fixed Cost, JD/yr
Fixed Cost, JD/hr

Variable Costs
--------------
Fuel, JD/hr
Lubrication, JD/hr
Repairs, JD/hr
Labor, JD/hr
Total Variable Cost, JD/hr

Total Cost, JD/hr

Total Cost, JD/dunum


64
6550
10
1965
10660
n.a.
120
8C
7
0.070


459
426
25
909
0.853


0.490
0.068
\0.737
0.373
1.668

2.521

n.a.


MOLDBOARD
PLOW

1
500
10
85
2500
5
120
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.


42
29
n.a.
71
0.283


n.a.
n.a.
0.240
n.a.
0.240

0.523

0.609


CHISEL
PLOW

2.5
800
10
136
4000
10
120
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.


66
47
n.a.
113
0.283


n.a.
n.a.
0.240
n.a.
0.240

0.523

0.304


GRAIN
DRILL

2.5
2500
10
425
1200
15
100
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.


208
146
n.a.
354
2.948


n.a.
n.a.
0.210
n.a.
0.210

3.158

0.379


FIELD
SPRAYER

10
600
10
102
2000
18
80
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.


50
35
n.a.
85
0.424


n.a.
n.a.
0.240
n.a.
0.240

0.664

0.177


*Salvage value for tractors is assumed to be 30%; salvage
value for all other farm machines is assumed to be 17%.


n.a. = not applicable.








Based on these replacement cost estimates, the hourly total
costs range from approximately JD 3.16 for the grain drill through
JD 0.66 for the field sprayer to about JD 0.52 for both the
moldboard plow and the chisel plow (TABLE 15). Per dunum costs
range from approximately JD 0.61 for the moldboard plow through JD
0.38 for the grain drill and JD 0.30 for the chisel plow to JD 0.18
for the sprayer (TABLE 15).

Cost of operation based on the theoretical method

How do these two total cost estimates relate to those provided
by estimates of farm machinery operating costs based on use of the
theoretical model? Substituting farm machinery operating
parameters from traditional farm management sources, these
operating costs are re-calculated (Boehlje and Eidman, 1984; Castle
et al., 1987; Herbst, 1970). The calculations are presented in
TABLE 16.

Using the parameters from calculations based on this
theoretical model, the hourly total costs range from JD 3.16 for
the grain drill through JD 0.66 for the field sprayer to JD 0.52
for both the moldboard and the chisel plow (TABLE 16). Per dunum
costs range from approximately JD 0.65 for the moldboard plow
through JD 0.43 for the grain drill and JD 0.32 for the chisel plow
to JD 0.07 for the field sprayer (TABLE 16).

TABLE 17 provides a quick overview summary of fixed costs,
variable costs, and total costs estimations of selected farm
machinery operated under Jordan Highlands conditions. These cost
summaries are listed by type of analysis: (1) reported (declared)
value, (2) replacement cost, and (3) use of the theoretical model.

Break-even point analysis

A very practical economic concept for farmers and custom
operators is that of the break-even point. The break-even point
is defined as either (1) the amount of annual usage a piece of farm
machinery must have to justify owning it (in hours/year), or (2)
the land area such a machine must cover annually to justify owning
it (in acres/year, hectares/year, or dunums/year). If the break-
even point is not reached for a piece of equipment, the
interpretation is that farmers or custom operators would be better
off financially if they were to rent the services it provides.

The break-even point is expressed mathematically as follows:

(2) BEP = FC/(CR-VC), where

BEP = break-even point,
FC = fixed cost,
CR = Custom rate = (1.2)(TC/dm), (where TC = total cost and dm =
dunum), and








Based on these replacement cost estimates, the hourly total
costs range from approximately JD 3.16 for the grain drill through
JD 0.66 for the field sprayer to about JD 0.52 for both the
moldboard plow and the chisel plow (TABLE 15). Per dunum costs
range from approximately JD 0.61 for the moldboard plow through JD
0.38 for the grain drill and JD 0.30 for the chisel plow to JD 0.18
for the sprayer (TABLE 15).

Cost of operation based on the theoretical method

How do these two total cost estimates relate to those provided
by estimates of farm machinery operating costs based on use of the
theoretical model? Substituting farm machinery operating
parameters from traditional farm management sources, these
operating costs are re-calculated (Boehlje and Eidman, 1984; Castle
et al., 1987; Herbst, 1970). The calculations are presented in
TABLE 16.

Using the parameters from calculations based on this
theoretical model, the hourly total costs range from JD 3.16 for
the grain drill through JD 0.66 for the field sprayer to JD 0.52
for both the moldboard and the chisel plow (TABLE 16). Per dunum
costs range from approximately JD 0.65 for the moldboard plow
through JD 0.43 for the grain drill and JD 0.32 for the chisel plow
to JD 0.07 for the field sprayer (TABLE 16).

TABLE 17 provides a quick overview summary of fixed costs,
variable costs, and total costs estimations of selected farm
machinery operated under Jordan Highlands conditions. These cost
summaries are listed by type of analysis: (1) reported (declared)
value, (2) replacement cost, and (3) use of the theoretical model.

Break-even point analysis

A very practical economic concept for farmers and custom
operators is that of the break-even point. The break-even point
is defined as either (1) the amount of annual usage a piece of farm
machinery must have to justify owning it (in hours/year), or (2)
the land area such a machine must cover annually to justify owning
it (in acres/year, hectares/year, or dunums/year). If the break-
even point is not reached for a piece of equipment, the
interpretation is that farmers or custom operators would be better
off financially if they were to rent the services it provides.

The break-even point is expressed mathematically as follows:

(2) BEP = FC/(CR-VC), where

BEP = break-even point,
FC = fixed cost,
CR = Custom rate = (1.2)(TC/dm), (where TC = total cost and dm =
dunum), and






TABLE 16:


COST OF SELECTED FARM MACHINERY OPERATION
(USING THE THEORETICAL METHOD)

FARM MACHINE TYPE:

MOLDBOARD CHISEL GRAIN FIELD
VARIABLE: TRACTOR PLOW PLOW DRILL SPRAYER

Machine Size, Hp or m 64 1 2.5 2.5 10
Cost, JD 6550 500 800 2500 600
Useful Life, Yfs 10 10 10 10 10
Salvage Value*, JD 1965 85 136 425 102
Hours Used, lifetime 12000 2500 4000 1200 2000
Area Covered, dunums/hr n.a. 5.1 10.2 13.9 52.2
Repairs, % of Cost when new 120 120 120 100 80
Fuel Consumed, Liters/hr 12.8 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
-----------
Fixed Costs

Depreciation, JD/yr 459 42 66 208 50
Interest, 10% 426 29 47 146 35
Insurance + license, JD/yr 25 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Total Fixed Cost, JD/yr 909 71 113 354 85
Fixed Cost, JD/hr 0.758 0.283 0.283 2.948 0.424
--------------
Variable Costs
--------------
Fuel, JD/hr 0.832 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Lubrication, JD/hr 0.125 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Repairs, JD/hr 0.655 0.240 0.240 0.210 0.240
Labor, JD/hr 0.400 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Total Variable Cost, JD/hr 2.012 0.240 0.240 0.210 0.240

Total Cost, JD/hr 2.770 0.523 0.523 3.158 0.664

Total Cost, JD/dunum n.a. 0.646 0.323 0.426 0.066


*Salvage value for tractors is assumed to be 30%; salvage
value for all other farm machines is assumed to be 17%.


n.a. = not applicable.








TABLE 17:


COST OF SELECTED FARM MACHINERY OPERATION*
(SUMMARY OF ALL METHODS USED)

FARM MACHINE TYPE:

COST OF OPERATION VARIABLE MOLDBOARD CHISEL GRAIN FIELD
BY CALCULATION METHOD USED: TRACTOR PLOW PLOW DRILL SPRAYER


--------- --------------------^
(1) Reported Value Method:

Fixed Cost, JD/yr 525.000 46.000 68.000 253.000 78.000
Fixed Cost, JD/hr 0.492 0.183 0.171 2.111 0.388
Variable Cost, JD/hr 1.352 0.155 0.240 1.492 0.219
Total Cost, JD/hr 1.844 0.338 0.411 3.603 0.607
Total Cost, JD/dunum n.a. 0.436 0.226 0.363 0.136


(2) Replacement Cost Method:

Fixed Cost, JD/yr 909.000 71.000 113.000 354.000 85.000
Fixed Cost, JD/hr 0.853 0.283 0.283 2.948 0.424
Variable Cost, JD/hr 1.668 0.240 0.240 0.210 0.240
Total Cost, JD/hr 2.521 0.523 0.523 3.158 0.664
Total Cost, JD/dunum n.a. 0.609 0.304 0.379 0.177


(3) Theoretical Method:

Fixed Cost, JD/yr 909.000 71.000 113.000 354.000 85.000
Fixed Cost, JD/hr 0.758 0.283 0.283 2.948 0.424
Variable Cost, JD/hr 2.012 0.240 0.240 0.210 0.240
Total Cost, JD/hr 2.770 0.523 0.523 3.158 0.664
Total Cost, JD/dunum n.a. 0.646 0.323 0.426 0.066


*These summaries assume Jordanian costs and prices as of May, 1989.


n.a. = not applicable.








VC = variable cost.


Break-even points can be calculated for various combinations
of equipment pulled by a tractor. Using equation (2) above, the
equations for the break-even points of three equipment combinations
in Jordan can be expressed as follows for a tractor and (3) a
moldboard plow [BEP(m)], (4) a moldboard plow and a grain drill
[BEP(m+g)], and (5) a moldboard plow, a grain drill, and a field
sprayer [BEP(m+g+s)]:

(3) BEP(m) = 567/0.233 = 2,433 dunums;

(4) BEP(m+g) = 790/0.463 = 1,706 dunums; and

(5) BEP(m+g+s) = 844/0.488 = 1,729 dunums (FIGURE 1).

Thus, to break even under current conditions in the Jordan
Highlands, each year a farmer or custom operator must cover more
than 2,400 dm with his tractor and moldboard plow, and more than
1,700 dm with his tractor and plow plus grain drill or tractor plus
plow, grain drill and field sprayer. If this amount of area cannot
be covered annually, it is more profitable for the farmer or custom
operator to rent these equipment combinations rather than owning
the'.

Estimate of Farm Implement Profitability

Finally, what profit can operators or farmer owners of farm
implements expect to make? By combining the results of this survey
with informal data estimates provided by the GTZ and JCO, profit
calculations have been carried out for four farm implements: (1)
the moldboard plow, (2) the chisel plow, (3) the grain drill and
(4) the field sprayer (Grenzebach, 1989; Boehlje and Eidman, 1984.)
The assumed parameters needed to carry out this analysis are (1)
the expected charge per dunum per implement, (2) the cost of
operating each piece of equipment per dunum, and (3) the average
number of dunums covered by each piece of equipment in an hour.
Estimates of these parameters for each farm implement are presented
in TABLE 18.

Using these estimates, it is demonstrated that the largest
profit per dunum in the Jordan Highlands can be obtained using the
grain drill (JD 0.42). Profit per dunum decreases through use of
the chisel plow (JD 0.40) and the field sprayer (JD 0.32) to the
moldboard plow, which earns an estimated profit of only JD 0.09
(TABLE 18 and FIGURE 2A).

Hourly and daily expected profits are even more skewed away
from the moldboard plow toward the other three implements. While
the average operator can expect to earn less than one-half dinar
per hour with his moldboard plow, he could earn about six dinars
per hour -- about 12 times as much -- with either the grain drill















FIGURE 1


Dunums To Cover Annually To Break Even

3000

2 5 0 0 .. .. ... ... ............

2000 ................-----
1706 1
E 1500

500 -




0
M M+GD M+GD+FS


Combinations of Farm implements







TABLE 18:


ESTIMATED PROFIT TO JORDANIAN CUSTOM OPERATORS FROM USING
SELECTED TYPES OF FARM IMPLEMENTS

(IN JORDANIAN DINAR)
------------------------------------
FARM MACHINE TYPE:
-------------------------------m-----
MOLDBOARD CHISEL GRAIN FIELD
VARIABLE: PLOW PLOW DRILL SPRAYER


Expected charge per dunum

Cost of operation per dunum

Dunums worked per hour

Estimated profit per dunum

Estimated profit per hour


0.700

0.609


0.091

0.455


0.700

0.304

10

0.396

3.960


0.800

0.379


0.421

6.315


0.500

0.177


0.323

5.814


Expected daily profit 3.640 31.680 50.520 46.512


An average workday is assumed to be 8 hours long. No
allowance has been made for the time required to move equipment
to and from farmers' fields.















FIGURE


Profit/Dunum, Selected Farm Implements


I-,,


0.4


0.3


0.2


0.1 --


Mddboard Plow


Grain Dril


Chisel Plow Field Sprayer
Farm kplement Used with Tractor


2A


-- 7


2 --7


I/








or the field sprayer (TABLE 18). Even the chisel plow is nine
times as profitable as is the moldboard plow on an hourly basis
(JD 4.00 compared to JD 0.46) (TABLE 18).

Daily expected profit combines profitability per dunum with
that of hourly profit. Comparing the grain drill with the
moldboard plow, the former can be expected to earn the average
operator 14 times as much profit per day -- JD 50.52 compared to
JD 3.64 (TABLE 18 and FIGURE 1). Likewise on a daily basis, the
field sprayer is 13 times more profitable (and the chisel plow nine
times more'profitable) than the moldboard plow (TABLE 18 and FIGURE
2B).

Given that grain drills and chisel plows are also more
efficient and technically better for use with recommended cereals
practices than are regular moldboard or disc plows, and that these
preliminary analyses show them to be between nine and 14 times more
profitable, there is excellent justification for pursuing an active
policy which promotes the purchase and better use of these farm
implements Which are not traditionally owned and operated in the
Jordan Highlands.10/

Estimate on Return on Investment for Selected
Farm Implement Combinations

Another way to look at the financial aspects of farm equipment
is the return on investment for individual implements. What are
some estimates for return on investment for selected combinations
of farm implements in the Jordan Highlands? Using replacement cost
estimates for the types of farm implements which have been
considered above (chisel plow, grain drill, and field sprayer), an
estimated return on investment has been calculated. For this
example, comparisons of returns on investments are calculated for
two sets of equipment: (1) tractor + disc plow (the most common
implement combination in the Jordan Highlands), and (2) tractor +
chisel plow + grain drill + field sprayer. As we have seen above,
this second combination places all the most profitable implements
together in what is hypothesized to be the most desirable economic
unit from the standpoint of the custom operator.

(1) Return on Investment: tractor + disc plow


i0/
It has been observed by one of the authors that the
"traditional" plow pulled for centuries behind a donkey in the
Middle East is much more similar to a single tine of a chisel
plow than it is to either a moldboard or a disc plow. For this
reason, the argument can be made that more use of the modern
chisel plow is actually a return to the traditional land
cultivation practices of the Jordan Highlands.








or the field sprayer (TABLE 18). Even the chisel plow is nine
times as profitable as is the moldboard plow on an hourly basis
(JD 4.00 compared to JD 0.46) (TABLE 18).

Daily expected profit combines profitability per dunum with
that of hourly profit. Comparing the grain drill with the
moldboard plow, the former can be expected to earn the average
operator 14 times as much profit per day -- JD 50.52 compared to
JD 3.64 (TABLE 18 and FIGURE 1). Likewise on a daily basis, the
field sprayer is 13 times more profitable (and the chisel plow nine
times more'profitable) than the moldboard plow (TABLE 18 and FIGURE
2B).

Given that grain drills and chisel plows are also more
efficient and technically better for use with recommended cereals
practices than are regular moldboard or disc plows, and that these
preliminary analyses show them to be between nine and 14 times more
profitable, there is excellent justification for pursuing an active
policy which promotes the purchase and better use of these farm
implements Which are not traditionally owned and operated in the
Jordan Highlands.10/

Estimate on Return on Investment for Selected
Farm Implement Combinations

Another way to look at the financial aspects of farm equipment
is the return on investment for individual implements. What are
some estimates for return on investment for selected combinations
of farm implements in the Jordan Highlands? Using replacement cost
estimates for the types of farm implements which have been
considered above (chisel plow, grain drill, and field sprayer), an
estimated return on investment has been calculated. For this
example, comparisons of returns on investments are calculated for
two sets of equipment: (1) tractor + disc plow (the most common
implement combination in the Jordan Highlands), and (2) tractor +
chisel plow + grain drill + field sprayer. As we have seen above,
this second combination places all the most profitable implements
together in what is hypothesized to be the most desirable economic
unit from the standpoint of the custom operator.

(1) Return on Investment: tractor + disc plow


i0/
It has been observed by one of the authors that the
"traditional" plow pulled for centuries behind a donkey in the
Middle East is much more similar to a single tine of a chisel
plow than it is to either a moldboard or a disc plow. For this
reason, the argument can be made that more use of the modern
chisel plow is actually a return to the traditional land
cultivation practices of the Jordan Highlands.















FIGURE 2B

Profit/Day, Selected Farm Implements

60



Q2 40

(330

20 .


Moldboard Pow Grain Dril
Chisel Plow Field Sprayer
Form tnplenent Used with Tractor








The value of equipment needed for this calculation is JD 7050
(JD 6550 for the tractor and JD 500 for the disc plow). Assuming
a typical custom operator should cover 4000 dm per year with this
combination11/, charging farmers 700 fils (JD 0.700) per dm, this
results in an annual estimated income of JD 2800 (JD 0.700 x 4000
dm). Likewise, using a total cost estimate of JD 0.609 for
operating the disc plow per dm (TABLE 15, entry for Moldboard
Plow), it would cost an operator an average of JD 2436 to cover
this area (JD 0.609 x 4000 dm), leaving him with a return on his
investment of 5% (JD 364/JD 7050).12/

(2) Return on Investment: tractor + chisel plow +
grain drill + field sprayer

The value of equipment needed for this calculation is JD 10450
(JD 6550 for the tractor, JD 800 for the chisel plow, JD 2500 for
the grain drill and JD 600 for the field sprayer.) Assuming this
operator will cover 4000 dm with his chisel plow3/ and 2000 dm
each with his grain drill and field sprayer, charging farmers 700
fils per dm for the chisel plow, 800 fils per dm for the grain
drill, and 500 fils per dm for the field sprayer, this results in
an annual estimated income of JD 5400 ([JD 0.700 x 4000 dm + JD
0.800 x 2000 dm + JD 0.500 x 2000 dm). Likewise, his costs of
operation per dm (from TABLE 15) are JD 0.304 for the chisel plow,
JD 0.379 for the grain drill, and JD 0.177 for the field sprayer.


Using these per dunum cost estimates, the total cost to an
operator using this combination of equipment would be JD 3072
annually ([(JD .700 x 4000 dm) (JD 0.304 x 4000 dm)] + [{JD 0.800
x 2000 dm) (JD 0.379 x 2000 dm)] + [{JD 0.500 x 2000 dm) (JD
0.177 x 2000 dm)]). This leaves the operator with an annual return
on investment of 29% (JD 3072/JD 10450), or, in relative terms, six
times the return on investment expected from using only a tractor
and a disc plow.

SUMMARY OF CUSTOM OPERATOR TRAINING NEEDS

11/
This assumes two passes over 2000 dm with a disc plow.
12/
Since detailed cost estimates for operating the disc plow
were not carried out as part of the analysis for this report,
this figure of JD 0.609 represents the cost of operating a
moldboard plow per dm of area. The assumption is that the cost
of operating the disc plow and the moldboard plow is the same in
the Jordan Highlands.
13/
This assumes two passes over 2000 dm with a chisel plow.








The value of equipment needed for this calculation is JD 7050
(JD 6550 for the tractor and JD 500 for the disc plow). Assuming
a typical custom operator should cover 4000 dm per year with this
combination11/, charging farmers 700 fils (JD 0.700) per dm, this
results in an annual estimated income of JD 2800 (JD 0.700 x 4000
dm). Likewise, using a total cost estimate of JD 0.609 for
operating the disc plow per dm (TABLE 15, entry for Moldboard
Plow), it would cost an operator an average of JD 2436 to cover
this area (JD 0.609 x 4000 dm), leaving him with a return on his
investment of 5% (JD 364/JD 7050).12/

(2) Return on Investment: tractor + chisel plow +
grain drill + field sprayer

The value of equipment needed for this calculation is JD 10450
(JD 6550 for the tractor, JD 800 for the chisel plow, JD 2500 for
the grain drill and JD 600 for the field sprayer.) Assuming this
operator will cover 4000 dm with his chisel plow3/ and 2000 dm
each with his grain drill and field sprayer, charging farmers 700
fils per dm for the chisel plow, 800 fils per dm for the grain
drill, and 500 fils per dm for the field sprayer, this results in
an annual estimated income of JD 5400 ([JD 0.700 x 4000 dm + JD
0.800 x 2000 dm + JD 0.500 x 2000 dm). Likewise, his costs of
operation per dm (from TABLE 15) are JD 0.304 for the chisel plow,
JD 0.379 for the grain drill, and JD 0.177 for the field sprayer.


Using these per dunum cost estimates, the total cost to an
operator using this combination of equipment would be JD 3072
annually ([(JD .700 x 4000 dm) (JD 0.304 x 4000 dm)] + [{JD 0.800
x 2000 dm) (JD 0.379 x 2000 dm)] + [{JD 0.500 x 2000 dm) (JD
0.177 x 2000 dm)]). This leaves the operator with an annual return
on investment of 29% (JD 3072/JD 10450), or, in relative terms, six
times the return on investment expected from using only a tractor
and a disc plow.

SUMMARY OF CUSTOM OPERATOR TRAINING NEEDS

11/
This assumes two passes over 2000 dm with a disc plow.
12/
Since detailed cost estimates for operating the disc plow
were not carried out as part of the analysis for this report,
this figure of JD 0.609 represents the cost of operating a
moldboard plow per dm of area. The assumption is that the cost
of operating the disc plow and the moldboard plow is the same in
the Jordan Highlands.
13/
This assumes two passes over 2000 dm with a chisel plow.






TABLE 19:


INFORMATION ABOUT TRAINING NEEDS OF CUSTOM OPERATORS


RASC

RAMTHA MUSHAQAR RABBA SHOUBAK ALL RASCs
CUSTOM OPERATOR RESPONSES --------- -------------------------
ABOUT THEIR TRAINING NEEDS % # % # % # % # % #


Custom operators sampled

Interested in training


29% 30 23% 23 28% 29 20% 20 100% 102

87% 26 83% 19 100% 29 85% 17 89% 91


Training types operators
are interested in:
--Improved cereals 13% 4 52% 12 45% 13 85% 17 45% 46
technology
--Equipment maintenance 73% 22 70% 16 45% 13 60% 12 62% 63
and proper operation
--Improved record keeping 28% 8 25% 5 27% 13 *


The percentage in the "ALL RASCs" column is calculated for
those RASCs reporting, not for the total sample of 102 custom operators.









The final section of the questionnaire consisted of three
simple questions asking custom operators to indicate their interest
or need in attending training seminars. The three topics proposed
to the operators were (1) rainfed cereal production (including
improved cereal technology), (2) farm equipment operation and
maintenance, and (3) record keeping.

Eighty-nine per cent of the operators surveyed expressed
interest in at least one of these training (TABLE 19).
Specifically, 62% of the operators indicated that they would like
training in equipment operation and maintenance, 45% indicated
interest in crop production, while only 27% of the operators in
Rabba and Shoubak wanted training in record keeping, and no
operators in either Ramtha or Mushaqar expressed an interest in
training to keep records on their custom operation business (TABLE
19).

An attempt was made to find a relationship between years of
schooling completed, profitability of custom operation, and
training requested. Also, the relationship between equipment
owned, profitability of operation, and training requested was
examined. No apparent relationship exists between any of these
factors.

An explanation for this lack of relationship, statistical or
otherwise, may be that some of the custom operators interviewed
did not or could not answer the profitability questions
honestly. / This is still another reason why there is no
substitute for the use of a systematic set of farm record books to
allow the empirical generation of profitability estimates.

CONCLUSION

This report presents a summary of selected variables from a
one-time survey of 102 Jordan Highlands agricultural custom
operators. These operators are defined as those owning licensed
tractors in the regions of Ramtha (Irbid), Mushaqar (Madaba), Rabba
(Kerak), and Shoubak. Contrary to the belief that the JCO and
farmer equipment owners provide most of the farm implement services
for Jordanian farmers, the findings of this study point to the
extreme dependency of Jordan Highlands farmers on custom operators.
Fortunately these findings come at a time when the private sector
is receiving renewed interest within the Government of Jordan (GOJ)
and by various donors to Jordan's agricultural sector.

14/
It is also possible that the sample size of 102 custom
operators was not large enough to allow these relationships
between variables to be expressed at a statistically significant
level.









The average Jordanian Highlands tractor owner is 47 years old,
has been operating a custom agricultural implement operation
business for 14 years, and has completed five years of formal
education. Eightv-two percent of these custom operators are also
farmers. In their role as farmers, the operators surveyed have
holdings that average about 450 dunums. As custom operators, they
spend between 55-67% of their annual tractor operating time working
on farms of others. The average number of other farmers served by
custom operators is large: 65 per year. The average area covered
per operator is about 4,500 dunums. Only about 1% of licensed
tractor owners serve only their own needs.

Recent inquiries have revealed that JCO plants at most 5% of
Jordanian cereals (planting being the JCO activity which covers
the greatest number of dunums annually).15/ Given that few tractor
owners operate only on their own lands, it is reasonable to
hypothesize that at least 90% of cereal cultural practices could
be performed by Jordanian custom operators. While this conclusion
ignores cereals grown on lands which are inappropriate for
mechanized equipment operation (those too steep or too rocky or
both), there is ample reason to refocus agricultural research and
technology transfer activities to explicitly include this group of
farmer-custom operators in development activities.

Finally, this report has shown that expected profitability of
non-traditional farm implements -- the grain drill, the chisel plow
and the field sprayer -- are much higher than those of traditional
implements such as the moldboard plow. This finding lends weight
to the argument that more GOJ emphasis should be go toward
innovative ways in which to make such implements more widely
available to custom operators. Given that many operators,
particularly in the regions of Mushaqar and Rabba, expressed
interest in purchasing grain drills, it seems that stimulating the
import, purchase, and training of operators in the use of, these
implements is logical from a financial standpoint and also fits in
with the needs of Jordanian custom operators and expressed GOJ
emphasis on the private sector.










15/
Personal communication, GTZ professional staff, 1989.









REFERENCES


Boehlje, M. D. and V. R. Eidman. 1984. Farm Management. John
Wiley & Sons, New York.

Castle, E. N., M. H. Becker, and A. G. Nelson. 1987. Farm
Business Management, The Decision-Making Process. 3rd
Edition, MacMillan Publishing Company, New York.

Duwayri, Mt 1985. Farm systems in rain-fed areas.

Duwayri, M., A. Baqueen, N. Fanek, and M. Sheqwara. 1988.
Constraints to the adoption of modern technologies in the
rain-fed (semi-arid) agriculture of Jordan.

Eastman, C., A. F. Al Kadi, M. L. Bibars, and W. Aldworth. 1988.
"Adoption of Grain Drills in the Jordan Highlands: Results
of a Survey of Custom Operators." the National Center for
Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Jordan National
Agricultural Development Project (JNADP) Technical Report No.
1. JNADP Publication #7. 11 pp.

El-Hurani, M. H. 1984. Analysis of improving Jordan's rainfed
agriculture. Dept. of Economics, Iowa State University,
U.S.A. 39 pp.

El-Hurani, M. H. 1988. Report on the wheat baseline data survey
conducted in 1988. JNADP Publication #10. Amman, Jordan.
125 pp.

Grenzebach, E. 1989. Cost of operation calculations for Jordan
rain-fed agriculture (unpublished).

Henderson, H. D. and S. Fanash. 1984. "Tractor Costs and Use Data
in Jordan." Transactions of the ASAE: 1003-1008.

Herbst, J. H. 1970. Farm Management Principles, Budgets, Plans.
Stipes Publishing Company, Illinois.

"Nebraska Tractor Test Data." In National Farm Tractor and
Implement Blue Book. 1989. Maclean Hunter Market Reports,
Inc. Vol. 50, No. 1. 80-40 pp.

Oglah, M. A. 1984. "Infrastructural Constraints to Technological
Change in Wheat Production in Jordan." A collaborative
project between the Ministry of Agriculture, Jordan, the
University of Jordan, and ICARDA. Aleppo, Syria. 38 pp.

Oglah, M. and A. Jaradat. 1988. Main features of farming systems
in Mafraq area in Jordan. ICARDA/JUST, Ramtha, Jordan.
28 pp.









Snobar, B. A. and S. M. Arabiat. 1984. The mechanization of
agriculture and socio-economic development in Jordan. DIRASAT
XI:7, 159-196.


Winters, E. P. 1975. "Wheat Research and Extension Program in
Jordan." End of Tour Report prepared for USAID. Amman,
Jordan. 28 pp.































ARABIC SUMMARY OF REPORT









A L.-j. I5J I Ij J


a? .a..\lA jI iL JI ,J L*J 1 3AI 1 lM i JI 4h.A i
a J- i L.a a- I --14 0 4 LM IJ I 2i- t JI fl JI VSJL&J
x J Aj( r -. ...( _* --~' &= .V uil iJ I til l ft ._xs-. aIj l Ja-J
I Ail a-" a. I & I L I* LI j-*a
L (, l > t L a 1 ,tT T* J1Am 1y .il A-.., J 1 A.a3 JlS 1
*p jl .

: aj-IL I ..l.Ajl g.,t-. -


~ hJaj"ius, > 1ygi~~t Lni LaJ tj i Lj a jiy^I- )( 1
y CJ I .IJI1 4 &J
& p i X A A-J j % FA -1 1 Jl L IQ ijh**- m i a f ^



ec..S. 3 y 3 ,.l uadrl lta i5 =.L .>of(p ,-
-. I a A) I _sz -)* I, LA:L.. aa _& a1 I"a
X &llJ LCl Ii %j I J J-3


a* lA-u*I I 'J LA ^ %L1L 1 L0 a a TY'**

al.Isa J L- (. A i JlI PLA I l .1 ,i l ..J .JI aJ.sl l -t




aIl J1 IJI I a <" I' I e L1a J< a* I &|L- .I .i'I W1--JI
>at 13. .) 1J 111 LsI .o.= y^ a-rL: .1. f = 1 s l,. -,
* J91 g ylaJ L(_ ,. ,-(_.L L .A5 zt-Lj. J UJa n"1 j-l (j-iJ Ty..

^ *. l /' .1 f a .,, .l 1 Pt0aJ< .^_, .l ,.,=til II.., of ^A Yj a ,zl AL- l -i
I ^ 1 T I 0- 1 (j--^. I J A3-l :L. 1 II J OI j .j-Jl .<' I ->J l
L._J ..,ljjI ,-, f J.-i 0- ? .LIjJ,)_I ,lgij11,. _


~~ IA (.l ) fI J. I I J I- a L La j)J I ,)lJ A I L ,I (I)

,L,,,_ ,j L.xg -i 1 -M a 1 &,%Jl~
Lt-:* u0>J AmLs a gthy LU:1









- j,_l U.Ls 1.L JI ,l J L.
jL,L, +CI-J I
---- -----------------------


S3Is~la -xOJ-JI --^-L-^ j a..' 1 i^A-11 t>- aJ I atJI ^r(
.#hJi ,_JL ,. J t,:,+ -, ,J-l jM v.JI gy



*M jTYI *jTT AJl
*j'Il "jT -j T u 3 ,- 11
- - - - - - - - - -


J I 11 .. "JL I M-'I JLS I I '- J -Lj a j ] TI

J I ,I J -I I .-- --- I i I p L I I I .1


Ij %j I I .,l I AL AI a I 1 <. KLt I a -, s I
J 1,i .. 1 AJ-J I j. aJ l ",r-- ij a I ',-.AJ Ij .VlJl 14 .,JI
cLjal JI PljAJ Imp-l l a l(aJI L P JI *^**- alr3 tJ a-JL-Ji l as Jl



y .l I La." ,,, --.,J I ,- J I.,_ J 1 1 J 1,_ViJI lILIt. -t" I ,-_ I -I

U~say a gxyg r J lI al ama 3(J~(I Lt3I qi 4c J I


tLlra y'.. aj_ -,jI ,._1 I,*.. n I ,l (J_.+ ,31# I .,I,.. d ..ll. < p.J_
(JaI L aI Ai ) 2l a1 Ll J 611 rJI d Y I ljJI Z ->LuVJ-I t1 o^-i1 i
1Y** -> u .1 II Al l JI I JL> -9 1ays 61I .I** y IJp A L-.%.

Ja-IL IJA jIcl *b Ci ^ j-> I J1 a rI t, m? ly- L J <.,I JjL



ari I .ll .- II L l ,I .& l _Il j.l I ..JI. l J-- I" "o I-l


-1*












a 3. 1 )JI s1..\A.JI IJ I 2tllao LhS L f 0I pJI 1 J _UrJL* tjza. -1


JA ... .l 3jjJI I.. I .. ~I l ,.. ,. (I i-tL..J. I) ... La.. l -...jA -T
<- I



p.... t.=,....J..<1 IL LJa I-, .f sJ I, xo I ",..sA-JL_<-
a_,. t pi. :1yJ J( I iL._ .. i .. l .d ,Jl i -It -i L -


ZL 6=. L.6 ",. 1 LP- J..y ..- ." c jI jl L..L,= J I J ti. -i
2* i-< t .I Y. S ..ac,1I VJ I Ly 1. l- ai J L I I LL-.tAJI -Y


,,1 l',._l ,",jl c12 a.LE(tj.J._lIl ,", ~ljj. U&I,.I C..L L. ( J L11.--JI -8
.4 u- n sp i L jJI C I ..J I 'lJ ILt jI E .-.l I Aail j j-Lj I

u. j..t l ..-. .4I a- .. t .-.l e .. ~ a lJ I :l .-l ..I ,J
,a,_ ... -). 1 I t..




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs