• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Acknowledgement
 Introduction
 Part I. The partial budget
 Part II. Marginal analysis
 Part III. Variability
 Review
 Back Cover
 Copyright






Title: From agronomic data to farmer recommendations
ALL VOLUMES CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00080067/00001
 Material Information
Title: From agronomic data to farmer recommendations an economics workbook
Physical Description: iv, 59 p. : ill., forms ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: CIMMYT Economics Program
CIMMYT Economics Program
Publisher: CIMMYT Economics Program
Place of Publication: Mexico D.F. México
Publication Date: 1988
 Subjects
Subject: Agriculture -- Economic aspects -- Study and teaching   ( lcsh )
Agriculture -- Research -- On-farm   ( lcsh )
Agriculture -- Economic aspects -- Research   ( lcsh )
Agricultural innovations -- Economic aspects   ( lcsh )
Genre: international intergovernmental publication   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
General Note: Accompanied by booklet, 'Answers to workbook exercises' in pocket.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00080067
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 18538383
isbn - 9686127194

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Title Page 1
        Title Page 2
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents
    Acknowledgement
        Acknowledgement
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
    Part I. The partial budget
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
    Part II. Marginal analysis
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
    Part III. Variability
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
    Review
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
    Back Cover
        Back Cover
    Copyright
        Copyright
Full Text







/Nil,
A 0 4601^^^




,,E E,,EII^B^^^^a-I



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




IAI11 An Economic Workboo


From Agronomic Data to
Farmer Recommendations


C


MI


M


Y


T


EC N 0 CR
















































The International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) is an internationally
funded, nonprofit scientific research and training organization. Headquartered in Mexico,
the Center is engaged in a worldwide research program for maize, wheat, and triticale, with
emphasis on food production in developing countries. It is one of 13 nonprofit international
agricultural research and training centers supported by the Consultative Group on
International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), which is sponsored by the Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development (World Bank), and the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP). Donors to the CGIAR system are a combined group of 40 donor
countries, international and regional organizations, and private foundations.

CIMMYT receives core support through the CGIAR from a number of sources, including the
international aid agencies of Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, Federal
Republic of Germany, Finland, France, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands,
Norway, the Philippines, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the USA, and from
the European Economic Commission, Ford Foundation, Inter-American Development Bank,
OPEC Fund for International Development, UNDP, and World Bank. CIMMYT also receives
non-CGIAR extra-core support from Belgium, the International Development Research
Centre, the Rockefeller Foundation, and many of the core donors listed above.

Responsibility for this publication rests solely with CIMMYT.

Correct Citation: CIMMYT. 1988. From Agronomic Data to Farmer Recommendations: An
Economics Workbook. Mexico, D.F.: CIMMYT.


ISBN 968-6127-19-4




Conent


Exercise 1
Exercise 2
Exercise 3
Exercise 4
Exercise 5
Exercise 6
Exercise 7


Exercise 8
Exercise 9
Exercise 10
Exercise 11
Exercise 12
Exercise 13
Exercise 14

Exercise 15

Exercise 16
Exercise 17A
Exercise 17B
Exercise 18
Exercise 19A
Exercise 19B
Exercise 20


Exercise 21
Exercise 22
Exercise 23
Exercise 24
Exercise 25
Exercise 26A
Exercise 26B
Exercise 26C
Exercise 26D
Exercise 26E
Exercise 27
Exercise 28


Exercise 29
Exercise 30
Exercise 31
Exercise 32A
Exercise 32B


Exercise 33A
Exercise 33B


Introduction
On-Farm Research
Goals of the Farmer
On-Farm Experiments
Experimental Locations and Recommendation Domains
The Partial Budget
Marginal Analysis
Variability

Part One. The Partial Budget
Identifying Variable Inputs
Field Price and Field Cost of Purchased Inputs
Field Prices of Fertilizer and Nutrients
Equipment
Labor
Total Costs That Vary
Pooling the Results From the Same
Recommendation Domain
Assessing Experimental Results Before
Economic Analysis
Adjusted Yield
Field Price
Field Price
Gross Field Benefits
Partial Budgets
Partial Budgets
Including All Gross Benefits in the Partial Budget

Part Two. Marginal Analysis
Dominance Analysis
Net Benefit Curve
Marginal Rate of Return
Partial Budgets and Marginal Rates of Return
Minimum Acceptable Rate of Return
Interpreting Net Benefit Curves
Interpreting Net Benefit Curves
Interpreting Net Benefit Curves
Interpreting Net Benefit Curves
Interpreting Net Benefit Curves
Partial Budgets and Complete Budgets
Marginal Analysis for Planning Experiments

Part Three. Variability
Reviewing Experimental Results
Statistical Analysis and Economic Analysis
Minimum Returns Analysis
Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity Analysis

Review
Final Exercises
Final Exercises


U


Page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8


9
10
11
12
13
14

17

18
19
20
21
23
24
26
28


31
32
35
36
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45


47
48
50
52
53


54
57




A ck n wl dg e ens.


The exercises in this workbook have been developed over the past several years
for various courses and workshops on economic analysis offered by the CIMMYT
Economics Program. They build upon a set of exercises developed by Larry
Harrington, Exercises in the Economic Analysis of Agronomic Data (CIMMYT
Economics Program Working Paper, 1982). We have modified some of those
exercises and added many new ones. All have been tested extensively, and we feel
they offer good practice for learning the procedures described in the manual, From
Agronomic Data to Farmer Recommendations. We wish to thank our colleagues in
the CIMMYT Economics Program and the participants in our training activities for
their contributions to these exercises.

We also wish to thank many other people who helped produce this workbook.
Numerous drafts were typed with great efficiency by Maria Luisa Rodriguez and
Beatriz Roj6n. The workbook has been improved by the editing of Kelly Cassaday
and the imaginative design of Anita Albert. Typesetting, layout, and production
were done by Silvia Bistrain R., Maricela A. de Ramos, Miguel Mellado E., Rafael
De la Colina F., Jos6 Manuel Fouilloux B., and Bertha Regalado M.





Robert Tripp
Gustavo Sain
CIMMYT Economics Program




I Inrduto


How to Use This Workbook

This workbook is designed to be used with the manual, From Agronomic Data to
Farmer Recommendations, Completely Revised Edition, CIMMYT Economics
Program (1988). It can be used in the classroom or for individual study.

The exercises are presented in the same order as the themes of the manual. Each
exercise is keyed at the bottom of the page to the appropriate chapter or section
and pages of the manual.

A separate answer booklet is available. It is best to work through an entire
exercise before checking the answer in the booklet.



Abbreviations Used in the Workbook

The $ sign is not intended to represent any particular currency, and several
different currencies are assumed in the exercises.

Additional abbreviations include ha (hectare), kg (kilogram), and 1 (liter).




M


On-Farm Research



For each of the following pieces of information derived from on-farm research,
indicate who is the most appropriate audience: researchers, farmers, or
policymakers.


a. The most economic amount of fertilizer for maize in this area is 2 bags of
18-46-0 and 11/2 bags of urea per hectare.





b. The efficiency of fertilizer utilization in this area is limited by acid soils.





c. Fertilizer is most efficient if it is applied within 3 weeks of planting, but
fertilizer is often not available in the government shop until at least 1 month
after planting.


. 1. .- a


S rch, pp. 1-3


I Exercise 1





I Exercise 2


Goals of the Farmer



Determine which of the farmer's goals or interests (listed in the second column) is
implied in each question in the first column.


Goal/Interest


1. If I change my weeding
practices, will my chance of
failure in a year of low
rainfall increase or decrease?





2. If I change my weeding practices,
how much more yield will I get,
and how much more money will I
have to spend?





3. If I change my weeding practices,
will I have to make many other
changes as well?





4. If I change my weeding practices
in maize, will I still be able
to grow beans?


A. In order to provide for the
the needs of their families,
farmers manage systems of
various crops and animals.





B. Farmers are interested in
the economic return from
a new practice.






C. Farmers are concerned about
risks.






D. Farmers are interested in
making stepwise changes in
their practices.


--Goals of the Farmer, pp. 4-5


Question


U






On-Farm Experiments




Decide whether each of the following experiments is designed so that an economic
analysis of the results is possible. If an analysis cannot be done, what changes in
the experiment would make it possible?



a. A trial in which 4 levels of nitrogen are tested, including the level used by
farmers. The nonexperimental variables (variety, seeding rate, weed control,
etc.) are representative of farmers' practice.









b. A trial in which 5 levels of nitrogen and 3 levels of phosphorus are applied to
the crop. A treatment is included that represents farmers' current fertilizer
practice. Researchers prepare the plot where the experiment will be planted
and use seeding rates, weed control, and pest control methods identical to
those used on the experiment station.









c. An experiment that examines 2 new varieties and 2 new seeding rates (above
and below the farmers' usual rate). Farmers prepare the plot and control the
weeds and insects following representative practices.


On-Farm Experiments, pp. 5-7


I Exercise




Execis 4A


U


Experimental Locations and Recommendation Domains



The farmers of a tentative recommendation domain plant a maize-maize rotation
and prepare their fields with tractors. Their maize plants show evidence of
nitrogen deficiency. Which one(s) of the fields listed below would be appropriate
for a fertilizer experiment for the domain?


Previous crop
Maize
Maize
Tobacco
Maize


Method of land
preparation
Ox plow
Tractor
Tractor
Tractor


Field size (ha)
3
2
1
15


Experimental Locations and Recommendation Domains, pp. 7-8


Field





U


The Partial Budget




Fill in the blanks in the partial budget below with the titles of budget items (a-c)
or numbers (d-f).


Average yield (kg/ha)

(kg/ha)

Gross field
benefits (S/ha)

Cost of fertilizer (S/ha)

Cost of labor to apply fertilizer (S/ha)

(S/ha)

(S/ha)


The Partial Budget, pp. 9-11


Treatment

2
(100 kg
urea/ha)
2,100

1,680

840


80

20

100


1
(No
fertilizer)
1,500

1,200

600


0

0

0

600


3
(200 kg
urea/ha)
2,400

1,920

960


160

20


Exercise 5




I Execise


Marginal Analysis




Calculate the marginal rate of return between Treatment 1 and Treatment 2.




Treatment


Total costs that vary (S/ha)

Net benefits (S/ha)


Marginal Analysis, pp. 11-12


150

430


2
200

470







Variability




Each of the following situations is an example of how variability affects the
interpretation of experimental results. For each situation, indicate the type of
variability:

1) Variability between locations (different recommendation domains)
2) Variability due to unpredictable factors
3) Variability due to economic factors



a. The response to fertilizer was better last year, when there were good rains,
than it is this year.








b. Fertilizer use was economic last year when the price of fertilizer was 30%
lower than it is this year.








c. The response to fertilizer on one farmer's field is different from that on a
neighboring field because of differences in crop rotation.


Variability, p. 12


Exercise 7






Identifying Variable Inputs



List all variable inputs associated with the different treatments in each of the
following experiments.

a. Insect Control Experiment
Treatment 1: No insect control (farmers' practice)
Treatment 2: Insecticide X (granular) applied in hole at planting
Treatment 3: Insecticide Y (granular) applied at 20 days










b. Fertilizer Experiment
Treatment 1: 100 kg urea at planting (farmers' practice)
Treatment 2: 100 kg urea at 30 days
Treatment 3: 50 kg urea at planting; 50 kg urea at 30 days
Treatment 4: 75 kg urea at planting; 75 kg urea at 30 days


c. Weed Control by Planting Method Experiment (Maize)
Treatment 1: 30,000 plants/ha, planted randomly; one hand weeding
(farmers' practice)
Treatment 2: 30,000 plants/ha, planted randomly; one application of pre-
emergence herbicide A
Treatment 3: 50,000 plants/ha, planted in rows; one hand weeding
Treatment 4: 50,000 plants/ha, planted in rows; one application of pre-
emergence herbicide A


Identifying Variable Inputs, p. 14


U




Exercise


Field Price and Field Cost of Purchased Inputs




Insecticide A costs $10 for a 2.5-kg bag. Treatment 1 in an experiment requires
5 kg/ha of Insecticide A and Treatment 2 calls for 10 kg/ha of Insecticide A.



a. What is the field price of Insecticide A?












b. What is the field cost of Insecticide A in Treatment 1?












c. What is the field cost of Insecticide A in Treatment 2?


Costs That Vary, pp. 13-14




I E c s


Field Prices of Fertilizer and Nutrients



The following data are from one research area:
Cost of 45 kg ammonium sulphate in shop
Cost of 45 kg triple superphosphate in shop
Cost of transporting a 45-kg bag from shop to farm
(Ammonium sulphate is 21% N; triple superphosphate is 46% P205.)


Calculate:
a. The field price of ammonium sulphate








b. The field price of triple superphosphate








c. The field price of N








d. The field price of P205


Purchased Inputs, pp. 14-16


U


$740
$1,620
$95







Equipment




Two types of land preparation were examined in an experiment.

Treatment 1: One plowing and two harrowings with a tractor
Treatment 2: Plowing with a horse

Data
Tractor plowing $200/ha

Tractor harrowing $100/ha

Horse plowing $ 35/day (horse can plow /4 ha in one day)

Calculate the costs of land preparation for each treatment.


Equipment and Machinery, p. 16


E xer ise 1 1






Labor



In the analysis of a weed control experiment, it was found that five 6-hour days
are required to hand weed 1 acre (0.4 ha). The local wage rate was $35 for a
6-hour day, and the farmer was also expected to provide the laborer with one
meal, valued at about $10. Calculate the cost of weeding 1 hectare.


Labor, pp. 16-18


Exercse 1







Total Costs That Vary




Calculate the total costs that vary for each of the following experiments.



a. Insect Control Experiment


Treatment 1:
Treatment 2:
Treatment 3:


No insect control (farmers' practice)
10 kg/ha Insecticide X (granular), applied at planting
8 kg/ha Insecticide Y (granular), applied at 20 days


Data
Field price of Insecticide X
Field price of Insecticide Y
Labor to apply Insecticide X at planting
Labor to apply Insecticide Y at 20 days
Cost of labor


$3.00/kg
$1.20/kg
1.5 days/ha
1.0 days/ha
$5.00/day


Total Costs That Vary, pp. 18-19


E xer ise 1 3








Total Costs That Vary





b. Fertilizer Experiment


Treatment


Data
Market price of urea
Cost of transporting urea
Percentage N in urea
Labor to apply fertilizer at planting
Labor to apply fertilizer at 30 days
Cost of labor


Total Costs That- Var


Kg N/ha
at planting


Kg N/ha
at 30 days

0
40
20
30


$21.50/kg
$1.50/kg
46%
0.5 day/ha
0.5 day/ha
$160/day


~- ilCi~'Or~i~lllCulUI~185Y.~~ .LIJ)L-~~~CIY~4i~Yl~ I~T~


Exercise 13


r
~nlft:.a





H


Total Costs That Vary




c. Weed Control by Planting Density Experiment (Maize)


Treatment


Planting


Weeding


1 30,000 plants/ha
(random planted)

2 30,000 plants/ha
(random planted)

3 50,000 plants/ha
(row planted)

4 50,000 plants/ha
(row planted)


Data
Price of seed (1 kg of seed contains
2,500 seeds)
Labor to random plant 30,000 plants/ha
Labor to row plant 50,000 plants/ha
Labor to hand weed
Price of Herbicide A
Labor to apply Herbicide A
Labor to haul water to mix with herbicide
Sprayer rental
Cost of labor


1 hand weeding


2.5 kg/ha Herbicide A


1 hand weeding


2.5 kg/ha Herbicide A





$40/kg
2 days/ha
3 days/ha
12 days/ha
$1,000/kg
2 days/ha
1 day/ha
$600/ha
$500/day


Total Costs That Vary, pp. 18-19


Exercise 13




I Exerise 1


Pooling the Results From the Same Recommendation Domain




A variety by fertilizer experiment was planted in one research area consisting of
two recommendation domains. Recommendation Domain A was defined as those
farmers who had very sandy soils, while Recommendation Domain B consisted of
those farmers who had clay-loam soils.

Yield data from nine locations are presented below. Find the average yields for
each treatment for each recommendation domain.



Treatment yield (kg/ha)


Location

1
2
3
4
5
6
7a/
8
9


Recommendation
domain

A
A
B
A
B
B
A
B
A


1
Local
variety,
no
fertilizer

960
1,010
1,820
570
2,270
1,900
200
2,430
890


2
Improved
variety,
no
fertilizer

910
620
1,650
490
2,420
1,740
200
2,010
620


3
Local
variety
with
fertilizer

1,560
1,820
2,240
980
2,750
2,190
200
2,740
1,480


4
Improved
variety
with
fertilizer

1,380
1,450
2,920
820
3,300
2,840
200
3,210
1,370


a/ Trial lost due to drought. Yield estimated to be 200 kg/ha across treatments.


Recommendation Domain A


Treatment


Average yield
(kg/ha)



Recommendation Domain B


Treatment


Average yield
(kg/ha)


Pooling the Results From the Same Recommendation Domain, pp. 20-21


U







Assessing Experimental Results Before Economic Analysis




In one research area, farmers sometimes planted late because they had to wait to
rent an ox plow. Researchers decided to test the alternative of partial tillage using
an ox-drawn ripper tine, which would open a furrow into which farmers could
plant. The tine made tillage and planting quicker, but more weeding was required
after tillage. Experiments in eight locations gave the following yield results:


Method

Plow
Tine


Average yield (kg/ha)

3,258
3,015


After carefully examining the data and results of the statistical analysis, and
reviewing the observations made at each location, agronomists concluded that
there was no yield difference between the two treatments.


Use the following information to decide which
farmers.


practice should be recommended to


Method


Plow


Tillage time


Equipment and labor for
tillage

Planting time


Weeding time


Wage rate for planting or
weeding


2 days/ha

$5.60/day


5 days/ha

20 days/ha


$1.20/day


Tine

1 day/ha

$4.75/day


2 days/ha

35 days/ha


$1.20/day


Assessing Experimental Results Before Economic Analysis, pp. 21-22


I^^^^^^^^^ Ex ercise^^^^^ 15 ^^^^^^^^^^







Adjusted Yield



Because of their careful application of fertilizer in an experiment on potatoes,
researchers decided to reduce yields by 5% to estimate the yields that would be
expected if farmers had managed the fertilizer. They also estimated that the effect
of small plot size warranted another 5% reduction. Harvesting date and method
were the same as those of the farmers. Thus the experimental yields were
adjusted downward by 10%.

Use the data presented below to calculate the average yields and the adjusted
yields for each treatment.


Yield (kg/ha)

Treatment A B C
Location 1 11,560 14,710 18,500
Location 2 12,340 16,230 18,450
Location 3 9,400 13,760 16,150

Average yield
(kg/ha)


Adjusted yield
(kg/ha)


Exercise 16


Adjusted Yield, pp. 23-25


H




Exris 7A


Field Price




In a maize-growing region, farmers received $80 for a 50-kg bag of grain in the
local market. The cost of transporting a 50-kg bag of grain to market averaged $5.
Harvesting took about 8 days per hectare, and average yields in the area were
2,400 kg/ha. A worker was able to shell about 400 kg of maize in one day. The
wage rate was $40 per day. What is the field price of maize?


Field Price of the Crop, pp. 25-27




Exercise


Field Price



Wheat farmers harvested their crop with rented combine harvesters.
The combine operators charged $550/ha, regardless of yield. Farmers sold their
wheat at a government warehouse in town and had to pay trucking costs of
$0.16/kg. The official buying price of the wheat was $2.20/kg, but because of
discounts for quality farmers usually received 5% less than the official price.
Average wheat yields in the area were 2,000 kg/ha. What is the field price of
wheat?


Field Price of the Crop, pp. 25-27


m




I Note




Exercise


Gross Field Benefits




The average yields from a maize experiment are shown below.


Treatment


Average yield (kg/ha)


1,740


2
2,430


3
1,420


4
2,790


Because of plot size, differences in management, and time of harvest researchers
decided to adjust yields from all treatments downward by 20%. Maize was sold in
town for $12.00/kg. Transport costs from farm to town were $0.60/kg and the cost
of harvesting and shelling was $0.80/kg.

Fill in the first three lines of the partial budget.


Treatment


Average yield (kg/ha)

Adjusted yield (kg/ha)

Gross field benefits (S/ha)


Gross Field Benefits, p. 27


U9







Partial Budgets




Complete the partial budget for an insecticide experiment, using the following
data.


Treatment


Insecticide A
(One application = 8 kg/ha,
as a foliar insecticide)


1 application

2 applications

1 application


Data
Sale price of maize
Harvesting cost
Shelling cost
Transport from field
to sale point
Cost of labor
Price of Insecticide A


$0.32/kg
$0.03/kg
$0.02/kg

$0.04/kg
$6.00/day
$1.50/kg


Price of Insecticide B
Labor required to apply
Insecticide A
Labor required to apply
Insecticide B
Yield adjustment


Partial Budget


Treatment


Average yield
(kg/ha)

Adjusted yield
(kg/ha)

Gross field
benefits ($/ha)

Insecticide cost
(S/ha)

Application cost
(S/ha)

Total costs that
vary (S/ha)

Net benefits
($ha)


2,717


2


2,635


2,917


Net Benefits, p. 28


Insecticide B
(One application = 4 kg/ha.
in the hole at planting)


1 application


$4.50/kg

1 day/ha

0.5 day/ha
20%


3,233


I Exercis e l 9A




Exercise 19A I


Partial Budgets


Net Benefits, p. 28


U





U


Partial Budgets




Construct a partial budget with the following data.


Treatment


Weeding


1 hand weeding
1 hand weeding
2 hand weedings


Field price of maize


Price of urea (46% N) in town
Cost of transport of fertilizer

Cost of labor

Labor for one hand weeding
Labor for applying fertilizer

Yield adjustment


0
50 kg N/ha
50 kg N/ha


$15.00/kg

$17.00/kg
$1.40/kg

$100.00/day

12 days/ha
1 day/ha

10%


Net Benefits, p. 28


Exercse 19


Fertilizer


Average yield
(kg/ha)


Data


2,000
2,500
3,000




I Exercie19


Partial Budgets


Net Benefits, p.28


U=




Exercise 20


Including All Gross Benefits in the Partial Budget




An experiment looked at the response of wheat to different levels of nitrogen. Use
the following information to calculate gross field benefits for all of the treatments
of the experiment, and complete the partial budget.

* Both grain and straw are important products for the farmers.

* Farmers sell their wheat immediately after harvest for $4.00/kg. Harvesting and
threshing costs total $0.30/kg, and transport to place of sale costs $0.20/kg.

* Wheat straw is baled and sold as animal feed. Farmers receive $5.10 for a 18-kg
bale. The purchaser of the straw, not the farmer, pays transport costs. The
farmer pays the cost of baling ($0.60/bale).

It is estimated that researchers obtain higher wheat yields than farmers because
researchers manage the crop with greater precision and harvest earlier (15%
adjustment). It is estimated that researchers get higher straw yields as well,
because of precise management (10% adjustment).

The field price of nitrogen is $10/kg. The fertilizer is all applied at planting, at a
cost of $200/ha.



Partial Budget

Treatment

1 2 3 4
0 Kg N/ha 50 kg N/ha 100 Kg N/ha 150 Kg N/ha

Grain yield (kg/ha) 1,500 2,100 2,400 2,500
Straw yield (kg/ha) 1,800 2,520 2,880 3,000


Adjusted grain yield (kg/ha)
Adjusted straw yield (kg/ha)


Gross field benefits, grain (S/ha)
Gross field benefits, straw (S/ha)


Total gross field benefits ($/ha)


Cost of nitrogen (S/ha)
Cost of application (S/ha)
Total costs that vary (S/ha)
Net benefits ($/ha)


Including All Gross Benefits in the Partial Budget, pp. 28-29






Including All Gross Benefits in the Partial Budget


Including All Gross Benefits in the Partial Budget, pp. 28-29


Exercise 20




Notes




Exercise 21


Dominance Analysis



The last two lines of a partial budget from a fertilizer experiment are presented
below. Do a dominance analysis to show which are the dominated treatments.

Treatment
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


N (kg/ha)
P205 (kg/ha)
Total costs that
vary ($/ha)
Net benefits
($/ha)


100
0


0 450 900 300 700 1,150 550 950 1,400

1,990 2,380 2,620 1,900 2,790 2,810 1,570 2,690 2,870


Dominance Analysis, pp. 30-31


U







Net Benefit Curve





Perform a dominance analysis and draw the net benefit curve for each of the
following experiments.

a. Nitrogen by Phosphorus Experiment

Treatment


N
(kg/ha)


P205
(kg/ha)


Total costs
that vary


Net benefits
(S/ha)

640
692
722
704
688
735
731


a/ Farmers' practice


Net Benefit Curve, p. 31


Exercise 22







Net Benefit Curve





b. Tillage by Weed Control Experiment


Land preparation


Plow
Pre-emergence herbicide
Pre-emergence herbicide
Plow
Plow


Weed control


Herbicide
No weeding
Hand weeding
No weeding
Hand weeding


Net Benefit Curve, p. 31


Treatment


Total costs
that vary
(S/ha)


623
390
586
124
320


Net
benefits
($/ha)

1,190
1,480
1,150
1,210
1,280


Exercise 22







Net Benefit Curve




c. Seed Rate by Fertilizer Experiment


Treatment


Seed rate


Fertilizer


Experimental
Experimental
Farmers'
Farmers'


Experimental
Farmers'
Experimental
Farmers'


Net Benefit Curve, p. 31


Total costs
that vary
(S/ha)


Net
benefits
(S/ha)


172
35
137
0


797
812
821
832


I Exercise 22




Exercise 23 '


Marginal Rate of Return



Refer to the data in Exercise 22, and for each experiment calculate marginal rates
of return between the nondominated treatments.
a. Nitrogen by Phosphorus Experiment











b. Tillage by Weed Control Experiment











c. Seed Rate by Fertilizer Experiment


Marginal Rate of Return, pp. 31-33


U







Partial Budgets and Marginal Rates of Return





The following are the results of a nitrogen experiment (0, 50, 100, and 150 kg
N/ha.).


For recommendation domain A:

a. Construct a partial budget.
b. Do a dominance analysis.
c. Draw a net benefit curve.
d. Calculate marginal rates of return.


Treatment yields(kg/ha)a/


Recommendation
domain

A
A
B
A
B
A
A
B
A

a] Treatment

1
2
3
4


Experiment
no.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9b/


1

1,000
900
1,900
1,300
2,000
1,100
1,400
1,700


2

1,850
1,860
2,400
2,200
2,600
2,100
2,050
2,200


2,200
2,100
2,500
2,400
2,600
2,400
2,600
2,100


2,250
2,400
2,600
2,500
2,700
2,500
2,600
2,200


Kg N/ha

0
50
100
150


b/ Abandoned because of drought



Data


Yield adjustment
Maize sale price
Shelling cost
Harvest cost
Cost of transporting maize to market
Wage rate
Urea (46% N)
Transport (urea)
Fertilizer application
(Fertilizer is applied in a single application
for all treatments.)


15%
$6.50/kg
$0.50/kg
$0.75/kg
$1.00/kg
$150/day
$4.00/kg
$0.30/kg
2 days/ha


The Net Benefit Curve and the Marginal Rate of Return, pp. 30-33


Exercise 24




Exerise 4


Partial Budgets and Marginal Rates of Return


The Net Benefit Curve and the Marginal Rate of Return, pp. 30-33







Minimum Acceptable Rate of Return




a. To estimate the minimum rate of return acceptable to farmers, a range of 50%
to 100% per crop cycle may be considered acceptable, if no other information
is available.

For each of the following possible recommendations, indicate whether a
minimum rate of return closer to 50% or 100% would be most appropriate.

1. Herbicides, where farmers are currently weeding with hoes



2. A new herbicide, where farmers are already using herbicide



3. A change in seeding rate (but same seeding method)



4. Using a seed drill, where farmers are currently seeding by broadcasting




b. In one research area it was common to borrow money from shopkeepers for
agricultural purposes. The shopkeepers charged a flat rate of 8% per month. If
the agricultural cycle is about 6 months, what would be a reasonable estimate
for a minimum rate of return?








c. Farmers in a certain region have access to a government bank that caters to
small- and medium-scale farmers. The bank's loan rate is 24% per year. The
bank also charges a flat rate of 15% of the value of the loan for crop insurance
and a 10% service charge. If farmers can get loans to buy fertilizer, and if
there are about 5 months from planting to the sale of the harvest, what would
be a reasonable estimate for a minimum rate of return?


The Minimum Acceptable Rate of Return, pp. 34-37


Exercise 25 1




^^^^^^^Exe^^rci^Kfse 26A ^^^^^


Interpreting Net Benefit Curves




The following are the results of 40 fertilizer trials planted over 3 years in one
recommendation domain. There is a significant response to both nitrogen and
phosphorus. Conduct a dominance analysis, draw the net benefit curve, and use
marginal analysis to make a recommendation to farmers. Check the analysis by
using the method of residuals. The minimum rate of return is assumed to be 50%.


Treatment

1.a/
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.


N
(kg/ha)

40
40
80
80
120
120
80
120


P205
(kg/ha)

0
40
0
40
0
40
80
80


Total costs
that vary($/ha)

99
190
198
277
285
364
372
451


Net benefits
($/ha)

500
480
610
520
675
580
420
350


a/ Farmers' practice


Using Marginal Analysis to Make Recommendations, pp. 38-48


U





U0


Interpreting Net Benefit Curves




The following are the results of 5 nitrogen by phosphorus experiments planted in
1 year in a single recommendation domain. Statistical analysis shows significant
response to both nitrogen and phosphorus. Conduct a dominance analysis, draw
the net benefit curve, and use marginal analysis to help decide what levels of
fertilizer researchers should experiment with next year. Check the analysis by
using residuals. The minimum rate of return is assumed to be 100%.


Nitrogen by phosphorus experiment


Treatment

1.a/
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.


N
(kg/ha)
0
50
100
50
100
100
100


P205
(kg/ha)

0
0
0
50
50
75
100


Total costs
that vary
($/ha)
0
50
100
100
150
175
200


Net
benefits
($/ha)
800
950
965
945
1,065
1,075
1,040


a/ Farmers' practice


Using Marginal Analysis to Make Recommendations, pp. 38-48


Exrcse26




I Exerise 26


Interpreting Net Benefit Curves





The following are results of 25 trials planted over 2 years in one recommendation
domain. The trials were designed to look at the effects of improved variety, weed
control, and fertilization. If the minimum rate of return is 100%, what should be
recommended to farmers? If farmers are likely to adopt recommendations in steps,
what should be recommended to farmers?


Weed
Treatment Varietya/ controla- Fertilizationa/

1 0 0 0

2 1 0 0

3 1 1 0

4 1 0 1

5 1 1 1

a/ 0 = Farmers' practice, 1 = Improved practice)


Total costs
that vary
($/ha)


Net
benefits
($/ha)


0 625

10 685

72 807

79 782 D


907


S900


800




700


197%


3
4


( 2
600%


600


100


Total costs that vary (S/ha)


Using Marginal Analysis to Make Recommendations, pp. 38-48


Marginal
rate
of return


600%

197%


145%







Interpreting Net Benefit Curves




In one recommendation domain researchers planted 6 insecticide experiments.
The response to insecticide was statistically significant. The results of the partial
budget are shown below. If the minimum rate of return is 100%, what should
researchers do the following year? Check the interpretation by calculating
residuals.


Treatment

1. No insect control a/

2. Insecticide A (at planting)

3. Insecticide B (granular)

4. Insecticide A + Insecticide B


Total costs
that vary
($/ha)


Net
benefits
($/ha)
722


730

738

752


Marignal
rate of
return


25%

267%

44%


a/ Farmers' practice


750


740




730


720
f


10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Total costs that vary (S/ha)


Using Marginal Analysis to Make Recommendations, pp. 38-48


I Eerise26




Exercise 26E I


Interpreting Net Benefit Curves




Researchers planted 10 seeding method by fertilizer experiments in wheat in one
recommendation domain where farmers were broadcasting their wheat and
applying about 40 kg N/ha. The results of the marginal analysis are shown below.
The minimum rate of return is 100%. What should researchers recommend to
farmers?


Seeding Fertilization
method Kg N/ha Kg P205/ha


60 30


1 Broadcast

2 Drill

3 Drill


Total costs
that vary
($/ha)


240

287

319


Net
benefits
($/ha)


630


756


Marginal
rate of
return


172%

141%


(Farmers' practice = broadcast seeding and 40 kg N/ha)


750


710



670


630 V
S240
240


172%


280
Total costs that vary (S/ha)


300


320


Using Marginal Analysis to Make Recommendations, pp. 38-48


Treatment


U





U


Partial Budgets and Complete Budgets



To demonstrate the value of partial budgets, perform dominance analysis and
marginal analysis on the following two data sets drawn from the same set of
experiments. Yields and gross benefits are identical for both data sets. The only
difference is that Data Set 2 also includes costs that do not vary between
treatments. Assume a minimum rate of return of 100%.

Data Set 1, N by P Experiment
Treatment
Variable 1 2 3 4
Yield (kg/ha) 2,000 2,100 2,500 2,600
Adjusted yield (kg/ha) 1,600 1,680 2,000 2,080
Gross field benefits (S/ha) 5,600 5,880 7,000 7,280
Cost of N (S/ha) 0 0 350 350
Cost of P205 (S/ha) 0 300 0 300
Application cost (S/ha) 0 150 150 150
Total costs that vary ($/ha)
Net benefits (S/ha)





Data Set 2, N by P Experiment
Treatment
Variable 1 2 3 4
Yield (kg/ha) 2,000 2,100 2,500 2,600
Adjusted yield (kg/ha) 1,600 1,680 2,000 2,080
Gross field benefits (S/ha) 5,600 5,880 7,000 7,280
Tillage cost (S/ha) 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200
Planting cost (S/ha) 400 400 400 400
Cost of seed (S/ha) 75 75 75 75
Weeding cost (S/ha) 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600
Cost of N (S/ha) 0 0 350 350
Cost of P205 (S/ha) 0 300 0 300
Application cost (S/ha) 0 150 150 150
Total cost (S/ha)
Net benefits (S/ha)


Some Questions About Marginal Analysis, pp. 50-51


I


I xecse2




Eec s


Marginal Analysis for Planning Experiments



In one research area maize farmers were controlling weeds by hand. Researchers
were considering experimenting with a herbicide, which they felt was more
effective. Calculate the yield increase required to make herbicide adoption
acceptable to farmers.


Field price of maize $30/kg
Minimum rate of return 80%
Cost of hand weeding $1,930/ha
Cost of herbicide $6,200/ha
(including application costs)


Some Questions About Marginal Analysis, pp. 53-54


U




I Notes




I Exercise2


Reviewing Experimental Results




Ten on-farm fertilizer trials in wheat looked at the farmers' practice, which is not
to fertilize, and an alternative practice of applying 80 kg/ha each of N and P205.
Farmers plant their wheat in January or February in rotation after maize or
barley.

Review the data from the field book and decide which locations should be
eliminated from the analysis. In each case, give an explanation.

Calculate the average yields for the two treatments that would appear in the
partial budget.



Field Book Data

Treatment yield (kg/ha)a/ Previous Planting
Location 1 2 crop date Notes
1 1,730 3,280 Maize Jan. 2
2 2,250 3,440 Maize Feb. 3
3 1,890 3,360 Maize Jan. 20
4 3,140 3,530 Barley Feb. 2 Farmer applied
manure to field
after seeding
5 1,440 3,120 Maize Jan. 25
6 2,690 3,020 Maize Jan. 8
7 3,430 3,790 Potatoes Jan. 10 High fertilizer
dosage on
previous crop
8 750 970 Barley Feb. 14 Hail damage
9 1,440 1,590 Barley Mar. 15
10 2,170 4,420 Maize Jan. 22

a/ Treatment Kg N/ha Kg P205/ha

1 0 0
2 80 80


Reviewing Experimental Results, pp. 58-59


M




E x r c s e 3


Statistical Analysis and Economic Analysis




Table 1 shows the results of three exploratory 24 factorial experiments planted in
maize. In these experiments, the four factors were tillage, plant density, nitrogen,
and phosphorus. For each of the four factors, two levels were used: the farmers'
practice and an alternative. The experiment had a total of 16 treatments.

Factors


TO = Tractor tillage
T1 = Zero tillage

DO = 40,000 plants/ha
D1 = 50,000 plants/ha


NO = 0 kg N/ha
N1 = 90 kg N/ha

PO = 0 kg P205/ha
P1 = 50 kg P205/ha


Table 2 shows the statistical analysis of the experiment. Table 3 shows relevant
data for an economic analysis.

Use the information on the statistical analysis in Table 2 to decide how to analyze
the data. Farmers currently prepare their fields with tractors, plant at 40,000
plants/ha, and use no nitrogen or phosphorus fertilizer. On the basis of the
economic analysis of these exploratory experiments, make suggestions regarding
the importance of continuing to experiment with each of these four factors the
following year.


Table 1
Results of Exploratory Experiments

Treatment Average yields
T D N P (kg/ha)

0000 3,230
1000 3,970
0100 5,300
1 100 5,830
0010 4,100
1010 3,600
01 10 5,300
1 1 10 5,600
0001 4,330
1001 4,170
010 1 6,170
1 10 1 5,370
001 1 4,100
101 1 4,030
01 1 1 5,500
1 1 1 1 6,200


Average


Table 2
Statistical Analysis of Exploratory Experiments

Source of
variation F

Location 0.47
Repetition 1.79
T 0.28
D 104.22**
N 0.01
P 4.92*
Tx D 0.30
Tx N 0.02
Tx P 1.08
DxN 0.01
DxP 0.11
Nx P 0.05


* Significant at .05
** Significant at .01


4,800


Statistical Analysis, pp. 60-62




Execs 3


Yield adjustment

Field price of maize

Minimum rate of return


Table 3
Economic Data

10%

$0.14/kg

100%


U


Total costs that vary for treatments

Total costs
Treatment that vary ($/ha)
TO 45
T1 26
DO 17
D1 26
NO 0
N1 95
PO 0
P1 35







Minimum Returns Analysis




The results of an experiment planted in 24 locations over 2 years are presented in
Table 1. The purpose of the experiment was to verify the advantages of improved
practices in weed control, plant population, and higher levels of fertilization, in
comparison with the farmers' current practice.

Table 1
Data from 36 Verification Experiments


Average yield (kg/ha)
Average net benefits ($/ha)
Total costs that vary ($/ha)


A
Farmers'
practice

1,825
2,278
350


B
Improved weed
control and plant
population


2,617
3,119
650


C
Improved weed control,
plant population, and
increased fertilization


3,098
3,486
975


The marginal rate of return A---B = 280%
B--C = 113%

Minimum rate of return = 100%



Before making a recommendation, the researchers have decided that they will do
a minimum returns analysis on the data. The first step is to calculate net benefits
for individual locations. The yield data from locations 1 and 2 are presented in
Table 2 as examples. Use these yields to calculate net benefits. Use the data on
total costs that vary from Table 1. The field price of maize is $1.60/kg and the
yield adjustment in the experiments is 10%.

Table 2
Yields (kg/ha) by Location

Treatment


Location


24
Average


2,706
3,542


1,118
1,825


3,677
4,188


1,792
2,617


4,319
4,139


3,302
3,098


Net Benefits (S/ha) by Location


Location


Minimum Returns Analysis, pp. 67-70


Exercse 3







Minimum Returns Analysis




The rest of these calculations appear in Table 3. Use these data to do a minimum
returns analysis and decide which treatment would be most appropriate to
recommend to farmers.

Table 3
Net Benefits ($/ha)

Location A B C

1 3,547 4,645 5,244
2 4,750 5,381 4,985
3 2,434 4,037 6,888
4 2,925 3,959 3,621
5 1,307 3,023 4,749
6 1,574 3,489 5,740
7 1,521 2,587 361
8 1,670 2,486 436
9 1,872 3,023 3,923
10 1,705 2,087 2,936
11 2,925 4,271 5,656
12 3,838 5,236 7,652
13 2,223 3,335 5,855
14 1,124 1,697 39
15 1,219 1,775 276
16 1,370 2,999 3,383
17 1,921 1,307 293
18 2,803 1,619 1,396
19 3,627 4,271 5,170
20 1,242 2,431 707
21 2,321 3,023 4,200
22 2,527 2,399 1,699
23 2,960 3,839 4,663
24 1,260 1,931 3,781


Minimum Returns Analysis, pp. 67-70


Exercise 31





IEecs 3A


Sensitivity Analysis





1. The yield results of 10 fertilizer experiments in wheat are shown below. If the field
price of wheat is $5.50/kg, calculate gross benefits and net benefits and do a
marginal analysis on the data. If the minimum rate of return is 100%, what would
be the recommendation? (Farmers currently use no fertilizer.)


Adjusted
yield
Kg N/ha Kg P205/ha (kg/ha)


0 1,784

0 2,564

80 2,763


3,340


2 150


75 160


Gross field
benefits
(S/ha)


Total costs
that vary
(S/ha)


Net
benefits
(S/ha)


Marginal
rate of
return (%)


0

2,803

3,253

5,105


2. The government is considering increasing the price of wheat. If this should
happen, the field price of wheat would be $7.40/kg. Use the new field price to
recalculate the gross benefits and net benefits. Identify a suitable
recommendation with the higher price of wheat.


Adjusted
yield
Kg N/ha Kg P205/ha (kg/ha)


2 150

3 75

4 75


Gross field
benefits
(S/ha)


0 1,784

0 2,564

80 2,763


160


Total costs
that vary
(S/ha)


Net
benefits
(S/ha)


Marginal
rate of
return (%)


0

2,803

3,253

5,105


3,340


Sensitivity Analysis, pp. 72-74


Treat-
ment

1


Treat-
ment

1




E x rc se 3 2


Sensitivity Analysis




In an area where farmers normally weed their maize only once, it was shown that
a second hand weeding could give higher yields. Researchers estimate that the
opportunity cost of labor is $20/day. Use the data presented below to decide if it is
worth recommending the extra weeding. If the opportunity cost of labor is really
$40/day, what should be the recommendation?


Average yield (one weeding)
Average yield (two weedings)
Yield adjustment
One weeding
Two weedings
Field price of maize
Minimum rate of return


2,450 kg/ha
2,778 kg/ha
10%
14 days/ha
24 days/ha
$1.50/kg
50%


M


4 kEg
:A







Final Exercises




After conducting experiments for several years to explore various research issues,
maize researchers in a certain area designed an experiment to be used in verifying
and demonstrating to farmers the advantages of improved planting density,
fertilization, and insect control. The experiment consisted of 3 treatments, all
managed by the farmer, planted in a single repetition per site. The size of each
plot was 200 m2. Treatments and yields are given below.


Planting method
and density


4 plants per hill
1 m between hills,
1 m between rows
(density = 40,000
plants/ha, 16 kg
seed)

3 plants per hill,
0.6 m between
hills, 1 m between
rows (density =
50,000 plants/ha,
20 kg seed)


Fertilization


Two bags of
10-30-10 and
one bag ammonium
sulfate, applied
together at
planting

Two bags of
10-30-10 and one
bag ammonium
sulfate applied
together at,
planting; two
bags ammonium
sulfate applied
at 30 days


3 Same as
Treatment 2


Same as
Treatment 2


1 application
of granular
insecticide A,
10 kg/ha


* ** ~. *?* ~ '-,


Treatment

1
(Farmers'
practice)




2


Average
yield
(kglhal
across
18 sites

2,425






3,116


Insect
control

None






None


3,405


I Exercise 33A




Exercse 3A


Final Exercises




Use the data presented below to construct a partial budget, draw a net benefit
curve, do the marginal analysis, and make a recommendation to farmers.


Labor time
Planting, farmers' method
Planting, improved method
Fertilizer application at planting
Fertilizer application at 30 days
Application of insecticide
Harvest of a field that yields
2,400 kg/ha
Shelling 500 kg of maize

Inputs
Seed
10-30-10 fertilizer
Ammonium sulfate
Insecticide A
Transport of maize to market
Transport of fertilizer
Cost of labor

Selling price of maize at market
Yield adjustment


Minimum rate of return


2 days/ha
3.5 days/ha
1 day/ha
1 day/ha
1.5 days/ha
4 days/ha

1 day


$40/kg
$450/bag
$380/bag
$120/kg
$1/kg
$30/bag
$300/day

$15/kg
5% (trials
harvested earlier
than farmers
normally harvest)


60%


*r*)~ *.o: ~. '-t ~ r.
D;? C.., -~ Z~


U




U6


Final Exercises








Final Exercises




In the first year of experimentation in a wheat-growing area, researchers decided
that it would be worthwhile to look at seeding rate by nitrogen interactions.
Farmers were applying nitrogen at low rates (30 kg N/ha) and seeding at 120 kg
seed/ha. The experiments were planted on farmers' fields. The farmers prepared
their plots in the usual way, and researchers planted the experiments and applied
the fertilizer. Farmers used their normal weed control methods. There were 3
seeding rates and 4 levels of nitrogen. The experiment had 3 repetitions per site
and was planted at 5 sites.

Seeding rates: 120, 140, and 160 kg seed/ha


Nitrogen:


Seeding rate
(kglha)


120

140

160

Average


30, 60, 90, and 120 kg N/ha
(The 30 and 60 kg N/ha treatments are a single application at
planting; the 90 and 120 kg N/ha treatments are split applications
at planting and at 30 days.)




Average treatment yields (kglha)


1 2 3- 4
30 Kg N/ha :-6 Kg N/ha 90 Kg N/ha 120 Kg MRt


2,258

2,380

2,241

2,293


2,704

2,587

2,865

2,719


3,117

2,995

3,110

3,074


3,262

3,398

3,019

3,226


Average


2,835

2,840

2,809

2,828


Statistical and agronomic analysis showed increased nitrogen use to be highly
significant and seeding rate not significant; there was no evidence of nitrogen by
seeding rate interaction.


Exercise 33B





U8


Final Exercises



Use the following economic data to do an analysis of this experiment that will help
researchers decide which experiments are appropriate for next year.


Fertilizer application at planting
Fertilizer application at 30 days
Harvesting done by machine
Cost of labor
Urea (46% N)
Fertilizer transport
Seed

Selling price of wheat (purchased
by the people who do the
harvesting)

Yield adjustment (seeding rate and
fertilizer managed by researchers,
lots harvested by hand)


0.5 day/ha
0.5 day/ha
$85/ha
$10/day
$39/50kg
$3/50kg
$1/kg

$0.35/kg



15%


Minimum rate of return


Exercse 33


80%




Exercse 33


F.
.. 'V
Mt
" ,b.


U








































































'i i~i n''k "






4t4


At,:















































iS
.. It

N -,











COPYRIGHT NOTICE

CIMMYT International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center

The CIMMYT International Maize and Wheat Improvement
Center holds all rights to the source text and shall be
considered the copyright holder for the text and images of
these publications.

The CIMMYT International Maize and Wheat Improvement
Center has made this publication available to the University of
Florida, for purposes of digitization and Internet distribution.

The CIMMYT International Maize and Wheat Improvement
Center reserves all rights to this publication. All uses,
excluding those made under "fair use" provisions of U.S.
Code, Title 17, Section 107 are restricted.

Contact the CIMMYT International Maize and Wheat
Improvement Center for additional information and
permissions.




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