Maize production practices and problems in Egypt

Material Information

Maize production practices and problems in Egypt results of three farmer surveys
Series Title:
CIMMYT Economics Program working paper
Fitch, James B
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center
Place of Publication:
Mexico D.F. Mexico
Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
66 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.


Subjects / Keywords:
Corn -- Egypt ( lcsh )
Cropping systems -- Egypt ( lcsh )
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )
Spatial Coverage:


Includes bibliographical references (p. 65-66).
CIMMYT economics program working paper ;
Statement of Responsibility:
James B. Fitch.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact Digital Services ( with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
14514687 ( OCLC )

Full Text

Results of Three Farmer Surveys
James B. Fitch
CIMMYT Economics Program
Working Paper 03/83
This report is the result of several years of cooperation in Egypt between the Egyptian Ministry of Agriculture, CIMMYT, The Ford Foundation and scientists from Zagazig University. Personnel from the Department of Agricultural Economics of Zagazig University conducted most of the field research. Representatives of the Maize Research Section of the Ministry of Agriculture made valuable suggestions and provided support, as did the Ministry's Agricultural Economics Research Institute. The Ford Foundation and CIMMYT provided support for field logistics. The Economics and Maize programs of CIMMYT were responsible for much of the conceptualization of the survey research.

I. Introduction ................................ 1
The Surveys ................................. 2,
Organization of the Report .................. 4
Ii. Maize in the National Economy ............... 6
III. Maize in the Egyptian Farming System ........ 8
IV. Maize Seed: Varieties and Sources ........... 13
V. Land Preparation and Planting ............... 18
Vi. Fertilization and Irrigation ................ 27
VII. Weed, Insect and Disease Control ............ 42
VIII. Maize as a Dual-Purpose Crop ................ 46
Ix. The Egyptian On-Farm Trial System:
Findings of the 1979 Maize Survey ........... 52
Yield ....................................... 54
Variety ..................................... 58
Previous Crop ............................... 58
Planting Date ............................... 59
Seedbed Preparation and Seeding ............. 59
Thinning and Weeding ........................ 60
Fertilizer Use .............................. 61
Stripping and Topping ....................... 62
X. Conclusions ................................. 63
References .................................. 65

This report describes on-farm research on maize in Egypt. In 1976, concerned that maize yield was not increasing in the country and aware of CIMM's interest in technology generation through on-farm research, the Egyptian National Maize Program staff invited CIMYT's Econanics Program to work with national researchers. At that time, it was planned that the research would have certain characteristics-collaboration between biological and social scientists (mostly economists), attention to the needs of representative farmers and concentration on analysis in specific areas.
The work in Egypt was among ClnAYT's early efforts to develop a cost-effective approach to on-farm research. The process which emerged from those efforts featured: 1) the identification of potential research areas in terms of national priorities, 2) the delineation of tentative recommendation domains, 3) the organization of exploratory survey work, 4) the implementation of more intensive surveys where needed, 5) the pre-screening of information to identify leverage points for biological research, 6) the initiation of on-farm experimentation under the conditions of representative farmers and oriented by the survey process, 7) the adjustment of subsequent experimentation in terms of yearly results and 8) the orientation of relevant experiment station research in terms of the findings from survey work and on-farm experiments.
Throughout the period covered by the study, CIMYT's Maize Program wap represented in Egypt by Dr. Wayne L. Haag, who actively supported tine on-farm research effort and figured in the preparation of this report. The partnership that evolved included Haag, a selection of national program researchers, agricultural economists frm Zagazig University, CDhMYT Economics Program staff in Mexico, and James Fitch who was in Egypt with the Ford Foundation. Fitch worked with the second Lnd third surveys and played the leading role in analyzing and writing up survey and trial results; those studies are the basis of this report.

While the paper gives -evidence of much useful work, the initial expectations of the participants were rnot realized. As the conclusions showi, the connection between farmer circumstances and experimental trials was not as strong, as it might have been. Moreover, the thrust of the biological research did not accord well with the priorities that seemed to emrge from assessment of farer circumstances. Perhaps these operational difficulties occurred because biology and economics were not firmly enough joined within the Egyptian Maize Program. We can hope that current efforts, under the auspices of the Egyptian Major Cereals Inprovement Program, will have more success in organizing tightly knit research aime~d at representative farmers.
Even though initial expectations were not iret, the results reported are of considerable interest. The paper presents useful data on Egyptian maize producers and production, it conveys a sense of what on-farm research is all about and it offers suggestions on how~ the research process may be made more effective. Finally, the tone of the paper is one of advocacy. CIDWT firmly believes that collaborative, on-farm, area-specific research, focused on the needs of representative farmers, is an essential step in the development of effective agricultural technologies.
Donald Winkelmann, Director
Economics Program

This report examines the production system for maize in Egypt. It is based mainly on the findings of three farmer surveys conducted in 1976, 1977 and 1979. Its objective is the summarization of what has been learned from t-hose surveys about the production problems and practices of Egyptian maize farmers, with the resulting information intended for the use of maize research scientists and agricultural policy makers. Also, methods and materials actually used by farmers in maize production are compared to the recommendations of the government's National Maize Program. Problems experienced by farmers in following recommended practices and in obtaining improved production inputs are examined and research needs discussed.
Maize is a crop of major importance to Egypt, occupying almost one-third of the arable crop area in the summer months. It is the main staple in the rural human diet and also provides valuable feed for livestock. National. maize production has not kept pace with consumption, however, and recent growth in imports has used up ever larger amounts of the nation's foreign exchange.
The Maize Research Program of the Egyptian Ministrv of Agriculture is of long standing. As early as the middle 1960s, the International Maize and, Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) began to cooperate with maize scientists in the Agricultural Research Center. Their breeding program was emphasized, first for the development of open-pollinated maize varieties and later for hybrid development. Cooperative efforts also focused on soil and water problems and on agronomy. Research was concentrated on experiment stations until, in 1976, a system of on-farm trials-was established to test maize varieties and fertilizer application under more representative conditions.

Despite the growing emphasis on conductinq research under realistic farming conditions, very little specific information had been available about the maize farmer in Egypt or his production practices. Therefore, in 1976, the year that on-farm trials were begun, a survey program was initiated to obtain more information about farmer circumstances and practices in the Maize Belt governorates of the Delta. In 1977, a survey was made of Middle Egypt maize growers and, in 1979, a survey of trial and nontrial farmers was made in an effort to help monitor the on-farm trial system.
Egyptian average maize yields had held steady at around
1.5 tons per feddan (3.6 tons per hectare) for the past decade. Given the natural richness of Egyptian soils, the availability of water for irrigation, the favorable climate and the high levels of fertilizer being applied by Egyptian farmers, the obvious question was why their yields were not at least 30 to 40 percent higher, to be in line with yields in other countries with similar conditions. As that would still be less than on-farm trial yields in Egypt, an important research goal was to find ways to increase farmer yields.
The Surveys
The 1976 Maize Survey included villages in the six
southernmost provinces of the Nile Delta. The Delta accounts for 60 percent of all of the maize grown in Egypt, and those six governorates, Sharkia, Menonfia, Beheira, Gharbia, Qaliobia and Dakahlia, are the heaviest producers. A random sample of 40 villages was first chosen, with the number of villages chosen in each governorate in proportion to its farming area. 160 farmers were in turn chosen; after stratifying the list of farmer names provided by village

cooperatives, four farmers were chosen at random from each of the villages.
Questions on the 1976 survey were adapted from
questions on earlier CIMMYT-sponsored surveys in other countries and from discussions of problems and information needs expressed by Egyptian maize researchers. The questionnaire and the survey methods were set up by economists from Zagazig University. Farmers were contacted and interviewed during July through September, the peak months of the maize-growing season. Results of the ].976 survey were reported in Arabic in a paper by A.A. Goueli, M.Z. Gomaa and A.S. Attia (1977).
The second Maize Survey was conducted in 1977 in the
Middle Egypt governorates of Fayoum, Giza, Bani Suef, Menia, Assuit and Sohag. Middle Egypt is distinct from the Delta in terms of maize production. The climate is somewhat warmer, the season begins from one to two weeks earlier and irrigation methods and planting practices differ. A higher proportion of Middle Egypt maize is marketed. In the survey, 31 villages were chosen at random, and 185 farmers were chosen in the same stratified random fashion as for the first one. A special survey of 36 Nili maize growers (see page 10) in Fayoum Governorate was also made in the autumn season, to determine the production characteristics and problems of that crop.
The 1977 survey questionnaire was an adaptation ane improvement of that used in 1976. More input and feedback were also obtained from biological scientists, based on preliminary findings of the first survey. Results of the second survey were reported in two papers in Fnglish by J.B. Fitch, A.A. Goueli and M. El Gabely (1979); a report in Arabic was made by Goueli, Gomaa and Attia (1979).

A third survey was conducted in summer, 1979. It was
somewhat different from the first two as it was designed to monitor the on-farm trial program for maize and to compare what was being done on trial farms with the practices of nearby farmers. Trials were carried out on two farms in each of 13 governorates, on a total of 26 farms in 26 different villages. The participating farmer was surveyed in each case, and information was obtained about his trial plot as well as about a field of nontrial maize, if he had one. In addition, three other farmers were selected at random from each of the villages.
Questions in the 1979 survey were adapted from those used in the previous surveys, again with feedback from biological scientists. Special questions were also asked, related to the on-farm trial process. In all, 96 farmers were interviewed. With the participation of the Maize Program in all of the surveys, results were quickly available to those who were working on improved varieties and crop management. A summary of sample survey characteristics is shown in Table 1.
Organization of the Report
In the later sections of this report, survey findings are discussed in detail, proceeding more or less in the order of the crop production cycle. Part IV discusses current maize seed varieties and sources and Part V methods of land preparation and planting. Part VI considers findings on fertilization and irrigation practices and part VII, weed, insect and disease control. Part VIII discusses the dual-purpose nature of maize, with particular emphasis on the farmers' system of planting, stripping and topping to obtain feed for their livestock. Part IX looks at Egypt's maize research with emphasis on the on-farm trial system and the findings of the 1979 survey which monitored that system.

TABLE 1. Characteristics of the Egyptian Farmer Surveys
1976 SUMMER 1977 SUMMER 1977 NILI 1979 TRIAL
Area Included 6 Governorates 6 Governorates Fayoum Total of 13
in the Delta in M. Egypt Governorate Governorates
Number of Villages 40 31 6 24
Trial Nontrial
Number of Farmers 160 185 36 24 72
Farm Size: (p e r c e n t)
Under 1 Feddan 13.1 22.2 22.2 0 4.2
1 to 3 Feddans 59.5 54.0 50.0 16.6 62.5
3 to 5 Feddans 23.9 18.7 11.1 29.2 20.8
Over 5 Feddans 3.5 5.1 16.7 54.2 12.5

Agricultural products account for 30 percent of gross domestic product in Egypt. Within agriculture, maize is a major crop in terms of land area; at current domestic prices, it also ranks second in value of production (Table 2).
The importance of maize in the economy is also
reflected in ways other than monetary value. Its role in the rural diet has already been mentioned. Unlike urban residents, whose main staple is bread made from wheat flour, rural residents depend on maize, especially bread made from mixed maize and wheat flours.
Egyptians produce and consume white maize. Livestock production has been spurred by imports, mainly of yellow maize, which are sold, at government-subsidized prices, to farmers and to government feed-mix factories.
In terms of international trade, maize is the country's second most important import after wheat. Through a series of area and price controls, plus import decisions, the government has managed to keep maize and wheat prices well below their international levels. Prices paid to farmers for export crops such as cotton and rice have also been held below their international equivalent values. It is important to note, however, that maize has never been subject to the direct area or-price controls which have been applied to other trade crops.
A recent study by Habashy and Fitch (1981) shows that, while farm level maize prices averaged 65 percent of their international trade equivalents during 1976-79, wheat prices were only 51 percent, rice prices 47 percent and cotton prices 36 percent of their respective international levels.

TABLE 2. Areas and Values of Mai7e and Other Major Crops in Egypt CROP AREA* NET REVENUE PER FEDDAN NET VALUE FOR ENTIRE CROP
feddans) (Egyptian pounds) (million pounds)
Maize 1.88 46 47 86.48 88.36
Berseem clover 1.77 209 130 432.93 229.10
Wheat 1.39 37 87 51.43 120.93
Cotton 1.20 49 408 58.80 489.60
Rice 1.04 51 206 53.04 214.24
Source: Habashy and Fitch (1981)
* Total agricultural land area in Egypt, six million feddans

While all of these major crops have been subject to heavy indirect taxation, maize has been taxed less than the others. In this sense, maize has been a favored crop, policywise, in Egypt.
Total maize production in Egypt has continued to
increase fairly steadily, as Figure 1 illustrates. From the early fifties to the late seventies, production almost doubled, from 1.4 million tons to 2.9 million tons. This represented a 3.7 percent average annual rate of growth, which was well ahead of the 2.2 percent rate of national population growth during the same period. Nevertheless, production has not kept pace with total consumption, particularly in recent years. Maize imports rose from 136 thousand tons per year in the early 1960s to over 500 thousand tons by the late seventies and to one million tons in 1980. Where the country produced 97 percent of the maize consumed in the early seventies, the proportion dropped to 15 percent by 1980. These rising import costs have'added an ever-increasing foreign exchange burden to the government budget.
Before discussing the specific maize production practices-and problems revealed by the surveys, it is necessary to consider some. general characteristics of Egyptian farmers and maize producers.
Since the land reforms of the 1950s and 60s, land tenure has tended heavily toward operator ownership. National figures show that over 60 percent of Egyptian farm land is now owner operated. Farm decision-makers tend to be older and not highly educated; the rate of illiteracy is very high.

188 187
174 174
167 170
- 163 162
145 -117 116
105 106 118 103
100 1-- 98 100 0 100 97 100 1
86 87
188 1.56 2938
1746 1840 1727 1510 15191746 1858 .90 .88 1.06 1.50 1.57 1.46 1.59 1568 1624 1828 2269 238422502963
1950- 55- 60- 65- 70-73-76-79 1950- 55- 60- 65- 70-73-76-79 1950- 55- 60- 65- 70-73-76- 79
1954 59 64 69 72 75 78 1954 59 64 69 72 75 78 1954 59 64 69 72 75 78
Average Area in Maize Average Maize Yields Average Maize Production
(/000 feddons) (tons/feddon) (/000 tons)
94% 97% 90% 83 13 7291 593
1 136 I
1965- 70-73-76-79 1965- 70-73-76-79
1969 72 75 78 1969 72 75 78
Domestic Production Imports
(percent of total (000 tons)
FIGURE 1. Maize Production and Imports

The prin cipal characteristics of Egyptian agriculture are the predominant rural population ana small average farm size. of the country's 45 million inhabitants, about 22 million (53 percent) live in rural areas; of these, some 12 to 13 million are in farm families while another 5 to 6 million are in agricultural worker households. The land base in Egypt is limited and has remained relatively static for the past 30 years; additions of newly reclaimed farm lands have been offset by losses to urbanization. One recent study has pointed out that the number of farms has continued to expand in Egypt, which means that, with the almost fixed land base, farm size has declined. In 1961, the average farm size was.3.8 feddans, whereas by 1975 it had declined to an estimated 2.1 feddans (Fitch, Aly and Mostafa, 1980).
Egyptian farmers normally follow a two- or three-year rotation, with two crops being grown each year. Maize is usually planted following wheat, clover or broad beans. The most common two-year rotation is berseem clover followed by maize in the first year, and clover followed by cotton in the second. In the three-year rotation, wheat/maize is grown after either the clover/maize or the clover/cotton year. Among summer crops, maize competes directly for land with cotton which is grown throughout Egypt, with rice which is grown in the northern part of the Delta and with sorghum which is grown in Upper Egypt. (The Middle Egypt and Southern Delta zone, where maize does not compete with rice or sorghum, is known As the Maize Belt.)
The building of the Aswan High Dam led to a major
revolution in the way in which maize was grown. Until the middle 1960s, when the dam was completed, maize was grown as a "Nili" crop. That is to say, it was planted in the late summer, usually July or August, when Nile flood waters were available for irrigation. Once the dam made irrigation water available throughout the summer, however, farmers shifted to

earlier planting. As Figure 1 indicates, only 7 percent of the land area was planted to summer maize in 1962-64, whereas 25 percent was in Nili maize. By 1.972-74, these figures were almost completely reversed, with only 6 percent in Nili and 23 percent in summer maize. This is a clear indication of the extent to which Egyptian farmers can respond to changing technical opportunities when there is a benefit from doing so; maize yields were improved substantially by the shift to earlier summer cropping.
Given the Egyptian rotation system, a typical farmer
could be expected to have less than a feddan--many, in fact, much less--to devote to maize production. With national yields averaging about 1,560 kg per feddan, this understandably leaves many farm families with scarcely enough to feed their five or six members, particularly when the necessity of feeding farm animals is taken into account.
The amount of land planted to maize seems to be little influenced by maize prices; maize area increased steadi>v throughout the seventies, despite a fairly consistent drop in real and relative prices for the crop (Figure 2). Maize grain prices have scarcely managed to hold their own, relative to rice and cotton, and yet maize acreage has increased while acreage for the other two crops has declined. The fact that maize is such an important subsistence crop may help to explain this fact.
Maize area has varied substantially in the years since the 1952 revolution. The 1.88 million feddans planted in 1979 was only seven percent greater than the 1.75 million planted in 1952-54. However, the area planted dropped considerably in the sixties, after the dam was built, but then began to increase again in the seventies. The probable reason for the drop in area during the sixties was the large increase in yields which was brought about by the shift to

Maize Area
Roel prices 0
(/967 po~wds) j
Reel Price, 4
FIGURE 2. Maize Area and Related Prices 12

summer cropping. It appears that farmers shifted to other crops when they found they could meet their subsistence needs with smaller areas of maize. Following the large 43 percent yield increase in the sixties, yields remained almost constant at around 1.5 tons per feddan throughout the seventies. As yield increases leveled off, maize area rose again, climbing to slightly above what it had been in the fifties. It would appear that, due to the decline in farm size, making them more subsistence oriented, maize plantings were increased to keep up with the needs of the growing rural population.
Another factor which cannot be overlooked in Egyptian maize agriculture is the value of maize by-products. Parts of the maize plant are used for animal feed, and stalks can be used as fuel for cooking. Price series for these items are difficult to obtain since many of them are home consumed and so do not have well-organized markets. However, the Ministry of, Agricultrue maintains a series on maize stalks, which converted to real prices is shown in Figure 2. It suggests that an increase in maize area may be related to increased prices of maize by-products.
The farmer surveys make it clear that, until now, --here has been little in the way of seed of genetically improved maize varieties used by the Egyptian farmer. More than 80 percent reported using local varieties, although most of those varieties have probably been influenced to some degree by cross pollination with the hybrids and open-pollinated varieties which have been introduced or developed locally in the Maize Program. Even so, just over half of the farmers interviewed in the Delta reported having experimented with planting at least one other variety in the past, as did over 40 percent in Middle Egypt.

A number of names were used by the farmers for the
different local varieties, but only nab-el-gamal (camel's ,tooth) and sabaieny were mentioned with any great frequency; nab-el-gamal is a favorite and is identified by the very large, flat shape of the grain.
"Hybrid" was a term sometimes used by the farmers to
designate seeds, either hybrid or open-pollinated, purchased from either the agricultural cooperatives or one of the other agencies of the Ministry. The only hybrid name mentioned was American Early, a dent, open-pollinated variety, and it has been in Egypt for so long that it is probably more "local" than "improved" by current standards. It is also probable that many of the varieties identified as hybrid were in reality seed which had been derived from hybrids rather than true hybrids (Table 3).
TABLE 3. Varieties Used by Sample Farmers, Year of Survey DELTA MIDDLE EGYPT
Various Local Varieties 70.4 68.7
Nab-el-gammal, Local 14.6 14.8
Sabaeiny, Local 0.7 4.2
"Hybrid" (American Early, AE) 12.5 2.4
"Hybrids" (Other than AE) 1.9 9.8
The main source of new genetic material for the Egyptian farmer is the government, particularly the Agricultural Cooperative Society in each village or cluster of villages. The cooperatives distribute certified government seed which is produced on contract by farmers or on state farms, as well as any improved seed imported by government agencies; only recently have there been any private seed production and distribution companies.
In general, farmers do not have a very good knowledge of what seed is available from the cooperatives. In the

Del-ta, 45 percent of the farmers surveyed did. not know anything about the variety available, while 36 percent stated that it was "hybrid" or "synthetic" but could not give it a specific name. The only specific one named was American Early (10.4 percent), but that variety was probably not actually available at the-time.
In Middle Egypt, 35 percent of those interviewed did not know whether seed was available that year at the cooperative, 27 percent were sure that it was available and 19 percent said that it definitely was not available. It seems obvious that supplies of seed are not available at all cooperatives, and that supplies for many cooperatives arrive late..76 percent of those farmers who reported asking for seed at their cooperatives said that it was not available. In the Delta, 60 percent of farmers who had planted government seed in the past said that it was not available when they asked for it again.
Farmer's lack of knowledge about the government's seed distribution program, together with availability problems, is one reason why S o few rely on the government for seed. Their main source of seed, as shown in Table 4, is what they have saved from their previous year's crop.
TABLE 4. Source of Seed Used by Sample Farmers, Year of Survey DELTA MIDDLE EGYPT
(percent of farmers)
Saved from Own Crop 9.6.6 62.5
Procured from Neighbor or Relative 2.2 14.7
Purchased from Market 0.9 18.0
Purchased from Cooperative or Other Government Agency 0.4 4.7
While farmers attempt to save their better grain for seed, its quality is not very high. Selection procedures tend to be faulty and storage facilities inadequate. In

Middle Egypt, only 72 percent of those interviewed said that they made a special selection of maize for seed, and 86 percent of those so reporting said they selected at home rather than in the field. Thus, important characteristics of the maize plant itself are not taken into consideration. of those who followed special selection procedures, 81 percent stored the seed in a separate location or container from maize destined for consumption. When questioned about their criteria for selecting seed, most farmers in both Middle Egypt and the Delta mentioned large ears and kernels; some said they looked for resistance to disease and weevil attack. There was no mention of other plant characteristics.
Those Middle Egypt farmers who reported storing their
seed separately indicated a variety of storage locations and methods. For the most part, there was no special protection for the seed, except perhaps with those farmers who used mud silos. The majority stored their maize oft the cob with very few reporting storage in shelled-grain form. While 57 percent in Middle Egypt stored in the ear with husks removed, 76 percent of the farmers in the Delta reported storage with husks on; otherwise, their practices were quite similar.
As to improvements farmers see as desirable in maize varieties, they most often named higher yield. of those Middle Egypt farmers who had tried government seed and decided not to plant it again, almost half claimed that it was because of low yields. When farmers in the Delta were asked whether they would forego two ardebs per feddan (280 kg or about 18 percent o- average yield) for a variety that could be harvested in 3.5 months instead of the prevailing four months, 72 percent said no. Thus, the government fourmonth varieties would seem to fulfill the needs of most farmers. Still, a significant number (28 percent) were willing to sacrifice some yield for earlier maturity.

Various plant characteristics other than yield were
also important to the farmer. one of the most important was a plant that could be planted and harvested earlier without serious reduction in yield. Part V of this report, a discussion of planting methods and dates, shows that a number of farmers plant earlier than the recommended date.: undoubtedly, they often do so to be able to work in an extra crop. Farmers also mentioned the desirability of a plant of medium height, with thick stalks and with large ears and kernels.
Tn considering desirable varietal characteristics, it is necessary to take into account the end use of the maize crop. The grain itself is used in human consumption, mainly in breadmaking. Table 5 shows farmer preferences in bread flours. Those of Middle Egypt prefer bread made of one-grain flours, whereas Delta farmers prefer mixtures.
TABLE 5. Type of Bread Flour Preferred by Survey Farmers DELTA MIDDLE EGYPT
Maize Only 5.9 19.0
Wheat Only 13.0 28.5
Maize and Wheat Mix 81.1 35.1
Maize and Sorghum Mix 12.2
Maize, Wheat and Sorghum Mix 5.3
Not all maize is produced for grain and, even when it is, it is expected to yield valuable forage by-products. It is often recommended that farmers who need forage for animals plant a separate plot of maize. Although maize scientists believe that the practice is growing in importance, only 3 percent of the farmers interviewed in Middle Egypt reported growing a crop specifically for that

purpose. Since most farmers continue to strip and top the maize plant for forage, it would be worthwhile to breed plants that would not be too sensitive' to the practice. An alternative would: he a sufficiently productive forage crop--such as maize, sorghum, sorghum-Sudan grass or elephant grass--so that farmers might rely less on maize stripping.
Two new varieties which show promise for Egyptian farmers are Giza 2 and Pioneer 514. Giza 2 (formerly Composite 2EV2), which is open pollinated and not a hybrid, was developed in the National Maize Program; 514 is a hybrid import of the Pioneer Seed Company. Both are white maize varieties characterized by tall plants which resist late wilt, and both mature in four months. The 514 appears to have better resistance to turcicum leaf blight, an important potential. problem, but both varieties have been successful in on-station and on-farm trials.
While the Pioneer seed has the advantage of being
produced by a private company with an effective production and distribution mechanism, it is a hybrid which requires annual renewal to maintain yield. Pioneer representatives have been extremely active in disseminating information to farmers and government technical officers about the variety and have worked with many farmers in demonstration trials. While Giza 2 does not have the advantage of vigorous private promotion, it should be distributed by the National Seed Company by 1981 at a lower price.
Land preparation and planting methods are areas where many farmer practices differ from those recommended and utilized by the government in its trials and experiments. This would seem to be one of the logical places to look in

seeking to explain the gap between experimental yields and those of farmers.
The Ministry recommends planting maize between May 15 and June 15, except for Middle Egypt. There the climate is warmer, and the recommendation is to plant before the first of June. These recommendations derive mainly from pest control considerations. For maize planted before the tenth of May, there is danger of sesamia. corn borer attack in the Delta and Middle Egypt, and after June 15 there is danger from ostrinia borer in the Delta. Farmers also have considerations other than pest control in selecting planting dates; in particular, planting dates for maize are heavily influenced by the preceding crop in their rotation. In the Delta, some 15 percent of the farmers surveyed planted earlier than the recommended date and 20 percent later. Nearly 60% planted later than recommended in Middle Egypt.
In the Delta survey, most farmers iteported that early planting helped control insects. Some 135 farmers (84 percent) said. they planted early to escape aphids and 1 8 farmers (74 percent) to avoid corn borers. 1.09 farmers (68 percent) said that planting dates depended on their rotation; 38 farmers (24 percent) reported that the winter crop had little influence on planting date.
That there is a relationship in Middle Egypt between planting date and preceding crop can be clearly seen from the data in Figure 3. In cases where maize is planted after berseem clover, it is planted later than after broad beans, winter vegetables or other crops. The time in which clov,;er stavs on the ground depends on the farmer's forage needs, and the fact that almost half of the maize that is planted late follows clover shows the importance of forage in farmer decision-making.

Broad son Whiter MetoCfrop Pecee*~ g A ze P/enfed before
\.crop / 'ocropsu
Crop Preceding M ize PAonfed bO e or LA er
FIGURE 3. The Relationship of Preceding Crop to Date of Maize Planting Source: Middle Egypt Maize Survey, 1977, as Reported by Fitch, Goueli and
48 %
and other
Cr~w Broo Wheat
Brons 29 %
/4 %
Cro Preeding Malze Planted Ah Jun or Later
FIGURE 3. The Relationship of Preceding Crop to Date of Maize Planting Source: Middle Egypt Maize Survey, 1977, as Reported by Fitch, Goueli and
El Gabely (1979, Table 2)

The Ministry recommends planting maize on ridges, a
procedure used on experiment stations and in on-farm trialIs. In the trials the soil is prepared with a chisel plow and then with a ridging implement, both tractor drawn. The tractor has to be powerful enough to work Egypt's heavy clay soils, even when fairly dry. Maize is seeded in hills located about 1/3 of the way up the sides of the ridges, ani irrigation applied on the same day to facilitate germination. After three weeks, the soil is hoed and fertilizer applied. The soil from the unplanted side of the opposing ridge is pulled over against the maize plants, leaving them closer to the centers of the altered ridges; this helps control weeds by cutting them on the unplanted side and covering them on the planted side. About three weeks later there is a second cultivation and fertilizer application, with still more soil being moved from the opposing ridge. After this second cultivation, the maize plants are in the center of the new ridges (Figure 4).
When questioned about the value of ridging, 75 percent of the Middle Egypt farmers said that they believed it increased yields, whereas 21 percent felt that they were decreased. Most of the sample farmers said that following the ridging system was difficult; many mentioned the high cost in money or labor, and a few mentioned the absence of tractors. However, a review of the costs of land preparation reported by farmers in the 1979 survey did not reveal any significant differences according to the methods used.
There are several advantages to this recommended system of ridging and planting. Initial planting on the side of the ridge places the young plants close enough to water for needed moisture but gives protection against oversaturation. The movement of the soil aids in weed control, and the ridges provide flexibility in water management, particularly where fields are not level.

Befi Fftf After FScn
Cultivation / N // 7- -, After First
---------- Position ofRiOdges before Cultivation FIGURE 4. The Recommended System of Planting and Ridging

It would seem safe to say that only about half of Egypt's maize farmers follow this recommended system. Alternative methods vary, depending on farmer circumstances. Many follow the so-called heraty (wet) method, irrigating several days prior to plowing, planting in the still-moist soil as it is plowed and then irrigating again seven to ten days later. The preplanting irrigation causes weed seed to germinate before the planting, thus leading to better weed control. In the afeer (dry) system, maize is planted in dry soil which is irrigated immediately afterward. The heratv method is most often used by farmers who use animals for plowing as it makes the soil easier to work; most farmers who use the afeer method have access to tractors for plowing.
Fitch and Afaf (1980) show how land preparation
technology varies according to farm size. Farms of less than one feddan still rely heavily on animal power for plowing; only 46 percent of the land on those farms is tractor plowed. On the other hand, about 65 percent of the land on farms larger than one feddan is tractor plowed (Table 6).
TABLE 6. Relationship of Maize Planting Method to Field Size
p e r c e n t ) SIZE CATEGORY
Less than 1 Feddan 64.6 71.4 88.2 73.8
1 to 3 Feddans 18.2 22.9 11.8 19.9
3 to 5 Feddans 4.0 2.9 0 3.5
More than 5 Feddans 3.0 2.9 0 2.8
Source: Middle Egypt Survey, 1977
Most farmers who use afeer also use the ringing system recommended by the Ministry. With heraty, the ground is usually left flat. Some farmers neither pre-irrigate nci

plow; in effect, they use afeer with no tillage. They hoe the soil to prepare it, and make holes for the seeds with a stick. For those fields, the soil configuration which was used for the previous crop is carried over, almost always resulting in an absence of ridges.
The use of afeer versus heraty varies widely from
region to region, as well as within regions. In general, more Delta farmers use heraty than do Middle Egypt farmers; as Table 7 shows, over 45 percent of Delta farmers used heraty whereas only 11 percent of the Middle Egypt farmers did. Middle Egypt maize yields are higher than those of the Delta, a fact which may be related to the higher percentage of Middle Egypt farmers using afeer.
TABLE 7. Planting Methods Used by Survey Farmers DELTA MIDDLE EGYPT
Afeer (Dry)
With Tillage 35.5 63.1
Without Tillage 19.3 26.9
Heraty (Wet) 45.5 11.0
The recommended seeding practice is to place three to four seeds in holes made with a stick or hoe, the holes at 30-centimeter intervals along ridges 70 centimeters apart. This gives a plant density of about 20 thousand plants per feddan. When asked how they placed seed in the ground, most of the nontrial farmers in the 1979 survey indicated that they placed the seed in holes, although some said they dropped it in a furrow behind an animal-drawn plow. A very few (4 percent) said they hand broadcast. Of those same farmers, some said they covered the seed with a small hoe, some used their feet and some employed an animal- or

hand-drawn compacting board. The compacting board method can only be used with heraty and without ridging.
The amount of seed recommended is about 1.5 kaylas !kg) per feddan. The 1979 survey found that some 40 percent. of the farmers placed four or more seeds in each hole, necessitating more than the recommended amount of seed. 37 percent used more than 2 kaylas of seed, and four farmers reported using 4 kaylas. The high rate of Feed used did not appear to result from the fact that farmers had experienced poor germination; most farmers reported high numbers of emerging plants, and 36 percent claimed that four or more seeds emerged from each hole. It seems likely that the higher seed use is for extra plants to thin and feed to livestock.
From an economic point of view, there is probably
little incentive for farmers to conserve on seed. Since most seed is homegrown or merely selected from regular grain stocks, the cost is low. Once higher quality--and higher priced--seed becomes more available, farmers may be forced to switch to planting methods which use less seed.
Even though initial densities after emergence are high, ultimate densities in farmers' maize fields are lower than government recommendation. The 1979 survey teams took counts of plants in randomly picked field areas to estimate densities, and estimated that densities ranged from 12 thousand plants per feddan to slightly more than 20 thousand--with 44 percent of the fields in the under 18-thousand-plant category. Thus, even though farmers are using greater quantities of seed than recommended, many are getting plant population densities which are lower than desirable.

It is common practice to thin after the plants have
established themselves, both to avoid unnecessary crowding and to obtain plants for feeding; the government recommends thinning only once, although in practice many farmers thin twice. On experiment stations and in on-farm trials, thinning is usually done the third or fourth week after planting.
Farmers in the 1979 maize survey were asked about
thinning, and the practices of trial farmers (who followed the practice of one thinning only) were compared to those of the nontrial farmers. It was found that 64 percent of the 72 nontrial farmers were thinning twice.
In 65 percent of the cases, nontrial farmers who
thinned twice reported that the second thinning occurred more than 30 days after planting, with the height of the thinned plants ranging between 45 and 110 centimeters. This compared with the 16- to 40-centimeter height for thinned plants reported by trial farmers who thinned only once and early.
Nontrial farmers reported that plants from the first thinning were fed to livestock in 30 percent of the cases; 80 percent of the farmers who thinned a second time reported using those plants as feed. Plants from the first thinning, being less mature, can be toxic to animals, which is not the case with those of the second thinning.
It seems likely that the second thinning, pulling out plants with such well-developed root systems, may well disturb the growth of plants remaining for grain production. In any case, allowing the plants to become so large before removal leads to their competition for nutrients with those plants which are to remain.

Here it has been seen how far land preparation and planting practices diverge from what is recommended; however, it has not been clearly established that these practices actually cause lower yields. Additional research is required to determine just which of the various farmer procedures are responsible and what improvements can be made in those practices. Also more work needs to be done with small farmers who do not have access to tractors--to develop better tillage-planting systems for them.
Fertilization and plant nutrition are areas where, in some ways, Egyptian farmers appear to be ahead of the government. They view the use of fertilizer as the best way for increasing yields and apply heavy doses of chemical fertilizer and manure from their livestock. The main nutrient used is nitrogen, which is recommended and supplied in various forms by the government. As survey data show, application levels vary widely among farmers, with some using less and others more than the recommended amounts; some farmer application practices also differ from the recommendations. Given Egypt's high nitrogen use and modest yields, there is reason to believe that nitrogen-use efficency is low. This leads to the question of which fertilization practices, or related factors such as water management, may be responsible for the Tow efficienov.
Since early in this century, the Institute of Soil an Water Research (ISWR) of the Ministry of Agriculture has conducted fertilizer response experiments on all of Egvptis major crops. These experiments took on a new dimension after 1960 when the government assumed full responsibility for fertilizer production, import and distribution. ISWR research results then became the basis, albeit subject co the limits of financial realities and fertilizer

availability, for setting recommended fertilizer aplication rates; these rates were in turn used to determine the amounts of fertilizer for allocation and distribution through the government's agricultural cooperative system. This system was accompanied by a dramatic increase in fertilizer application levels on all crops, but particularly on maize. National average application levels of nitrogen on maize rose from an estimated 13 kg per feddan in 1950 to 63 kg per feddan in 1975 (Gomaa, 1980).
The current national average application level of 60 kg of N per feddan is equivalent to 143 kg of N per hectare. Egyptian and international maize research workers contend that Egyptian maize yields, which average 3700 kg per hectare, are low for the level of N applied. An accepted norm among plant nutrition experts is that a maize crop yielding 3000 kg per hectare would remove 72 kg of N from the soil, and much of that would be available from the soil itself. While average N application in Egypt is double this norm, maize yields are only 25 percent higher. Thus, it would appear that there is a substantial margin of N which is lost.
Leaching and denitrification due to excess moisture are possible causes for low nitrogen efficiency, as is nitrogen volatilization at the time of application. It is also possible that farmers purposely cultivate their maize and use fertilizer in such a way as to encourage vegetative growth which can be used for livestock feed, to the detriment of grain yields. Another explanation is that other nutrients, such as phosphates or zinc, may not be in proper balance, thus reducing nitrogen efficiency.
Although the government has tried to distribute
chemical fertilizer in increasing quantities, it is clear that farmers want still.more. Some 65 percent of the smaller

farmers cited the use of more fertilizer, or fertilizer plus other factors, as the best way to increase crop yields; 5F percent of the larger farmers also named fertilizer in their response to the question.
It is clear that the government pricing policy has
played a prominent role in inducing farmers to use more N on their maize. Although fertilizer was taxed in the si-ties, it has been heavily subsidized since 1.973. Gomaa has shown that there is a strong inverse relationship between the amount of N used per feddan and the fertilizer-to-maize price ratio (Figure 5). Since 1973, N price has been kept quite stable by the government, first at about 14.5 piastres per kg and, after 1979, at about 15.5 piastres per kg, less than half the world market price.
The government-controlled system has been very successful to date in promoting increased nitrogen application rates on maize. To continue to be, it is important that fertilizer response experiments be well designed and their results properly interpreted, and that national production be sufficient and government financial resources available to back official recommendations.
In 1975, the ISWR published the results of 26 maize
fertilization experiments which it had conducted from 1966 to 1968 at different locations in the Delta, Middle Egypt and Upper Egypt. The purpose of the trials was to determine optimum rate of fertilizer application, and the resulting figure for the country as a whole was 45 kg of nitrogen Der feddan of maize.
Gomaa (1980) was critical of the experimental
procedures and interpretations which were based on them, for several reasons. He found that there was often little uniformity in conditions (control factors) amona the

QOumtity of N
so # -r~
tpO -~~7.0 :
40- /.614.
k0 b&
(PrVce of N) +(Price of Maize)
i0' -1.4
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I l l
a so a s4 70 7 74 76 r7r
FIGURE 5. National Average Nitrogen Use on Maize and the Nitrogen-toMaize Price Ratio
Source: Gomaa (1980)

experiments which were conducted in different locations in different years--aside from controlling for preceding crop, for example, there was no attempt to insure that soils were uniform or that initial nutrient levels were comparable. He further criticized the procedures which were followed in economic interpretation of results, pointing out that only the profitability of widely spaced fixed levels was considered and that this permitted only very rough findings--for example, in the Nile Delta 60 kg. of N per feddan is more profitable than 45. Gomaa was further perplexed to observe that, while experiments were interpreted by the ISWR to distinguish only between broad regions, the Ministry of Agriculture always developed recommendations for each governorate, or in some cases for distinct areas in each governorate. Furthermore, he pointed out, experiments found differences in response depending upon the preceding crop, but official recommendations never took this into account.
Nevertheless, the government's fertilizer policy is
based on these research findings. To arrive at an estimate of national needs, the recommended levels for each crop are multiplied by the area which is expected to be planted. If national financial resources are insufficient, recommendations are revised downward, as happened after the 1967 war. In theory, the amounts which are planned are procured, either from domestic sources or through importation, and these supplies allocated to farmers at the recommended levels. Farmers receive credit from village banks to cover the recommended amount; additional quantities can be procured from the cooperative for cash, supplies permitting. In practice, distribution is sometimes erratic, and not all cooperatives receive adequate or timely fertilizer supplies. Even when fertilizer is available in the cooperatives, policy can prevent its distribution to some farmers, and credit is not always a-7ailable.

A tour of village cooperatives (gamaeyas) reveals that of the three main inputs which these agencies supply, seed, fertilizer and chemical pesticides, fertilizers are most likely to be available. Nevertheless, farmers complain that they cannot always find the fertilizer they need, when it is needed, at the gamaeyas. In the Middle Egypt survey, 40 percent of the sample farmers claimed that fertilizer was not available at their gamaeya. When asked why they did not use more fertilizer, however, only 4 percent of the Middle Egypt farmers cited nonavailability at the cooperative as a reason; 55 percent said they did not use more due to cost.
Of the 160 farmers interviewed in the 1976 Delta
survey, 71 percent said they would apply more nitrogen if it were available, and 14 percent said they lacked credit to apply more; only 15 percent said they were applying enough. It is well-known that the credit system is used as an instrument to force farmer compliance with the government's planned cropping pattern. Farmers who do not plant as much of a specific crop as required by the official plan sometimes have difficulty in obtaining supplies from the gamaeya or credit from the village bank.
Although the government is the sole supplier of
fertilizer, farmers have recourse to a parallel market to obtain supplies over and above what is available through the gamaeya. This is because a substantial amount of supplies from the government system eventually arrive on the free market. This happens in a number of ways. Allocations to some farms and/or regions are in excess of their needs, and some of those supplies are transferred to farmers or regions which did not obtain sufficient amounts. Undoubtedly, some of the supplies on the free market are the result of questionable practices either at the local level or higher up in the system. Although it is expensive compared to

official prices (Table 8), the market fills a need by shifting supplies around to places where they are needed, and farmers are willing to pay for the additional supplies.
TABLE 8. Sources and Prices of Nitrogen Used on Maize SOURCE PROPORTION AVERAGE PRICE
(percent) (piastres/kg)
Lower Egypt
Cooperatives 83.0 16.3
Private Sales 17.0 25.9
Upper Egypt
Cooperatives 67.3 15.6
Private Sales 32.7 26.8
Source: 1979 Survey
The average N application level for the 160 farmers in the 1976 Delta Survey was 63.2 kg per feddan, higher than the 54 kg-per-feddan average recommendation for various governorates in the area at the time (Gomaa, 1980). The gap between recommendations and practices was even greater in Middle Egypt. The 1977 survey found that the 182 sample farmers in that region applied an average of 96.2 kg per feddan to maize, almost 50 percent more than the average 66kg-per-feddan recommendation for governorates in the zone (Table 9).
TABLE 9. Nitrogen Application Levels of Survey Farmers NITROGEN DELTA MIDDLE EGYPT
(kg/feddan) (percent of farmers)
0-50 22.3 9.9
50-100 63.9 42.9
100+ 13.8 47.1
Average Application 63.2 kg/feddan 96.2 kg/fed6an

Nitrogen is not the only nutrient farmers apply to their maize. Most apply animal manure, a practice not followed on experiment stations, and some farmers also apply phosphates, although government experiments and on-farm trials have not shown response to its use.
In the Delta it was found that 96 percent of the
farmers interviewed applied manure to their fields. The average was about 363 donkey loads per feddan, with each load estimated to measure about 0.1 cubic meter in volume. About half reported applying new manure while the other half used old (rotted or composted) manure. In the Middle Egypt survey, over 70 percent reported that they manured their fields. About 16 percent of the Middle Egypt farmers used phosphate fertilizers with an average application rate of just over 23 kg of P 20 5 per feddan. Analysis of the data revealed that farmers used either phosphate or manure, not both (Fitch et al, 1979).
One of the most striking results of the Middle Egypt
survey was the prevalence of split applications of N with an average of 2.3 applications. Forty-one percent of the farmers reported three applications, and over 4 percent made 5 or 6. There was a strong positive relationship between the number of applications and the total amount of N applied. It may be that farmers who want to apply more N find it necessary to split their applications, or it may be that the belief in the value of making many applications leads to higher amounts of N. The number of applications may be related to supply factors at the gamaeya, in that there is never quite enough fertilizer available to meet the demand and so farmers are forced to apply it in smaller doses as it comes in. The farmers also may split up the N in order to minimize leaching or denitrification. At any rate, there is a positive correlation between maize yields and the number of N applications (Table 10).

'ABLE 10. Fertilizer Use by Survey Farmers
(kg P2O5/ (percent
(kg/feddan) feddan) farmers)
Average*: 97.99 2.79 3.63 70.2
High 268.00** 6 45.00 -Low 1.69** 1 0 -Yield Categories:
Less than 8 Ardebs 80.69 2.55 1.86 75.0
8-11 Ardebs 95.69 2.64 1.82 75.9
More than 11 Ardebs 114.66 3.11 6.74 67.3
Giza 94.55 2.00 4.62 95.8
Fayoum 72.75 2.57 1.76 76.4
Beni Suef 92.83 2.52 0 85.7
Menia 110.70 3.25 2.09 51.3
Assuit 123.77 3.29 10.76 57.1
Sohag 117.84 3.82 10.86 45.5
Source: Middle Egypt Survey, 1977
* Averages based on 141 farmers with one maize plot only
** Maize researchers are skeptical of these extremes

Fertilizer application varies according to
circumstances. An analysis of the Middle Egypt data showed that larger farms tended to apply relatively less N than smaller farms. It also showed that N levels varied among governorates and depended upon the preceding crop (Fitch, Goueli and El Gabely, 1979). A surprising factor in the latter case is that farmers apply more N--and also more manure--to maize planted after berseem clover than after other crops. Clover, being a legume, is normally expected to be a nitrogen supplier but, evidently, Egyptian farmers believe otherwise; perhaps, too, not all Egyptian berseem has favorable rhizobial bacteria.
All of the farmers reported applying N by hand. In
Middle Egypt, 91.0 percent reported applying it "far" from the plants, whereas 9.1 percent said they placed it "near" the plants; the remaining few said that they broadcast fertilizer.
Timing of irrigation after N application is an
important consideration, from the point of view of N-use efficiency. When fertilizer absorbs moisture from the soil or from dew, and then is exposed to high temperatures from the sun before irrigation, there is danger of loss of N through volatilization. This is particularly true for urea fertilizer, but there is also a chance of loss from ammonium nitrate under the same conditions. The volatilization occurs in all soils, but most readily in alkaline soils. (Studies conducted by IRRI in the Philippines show that N loss due to volatilization gan reach as high as 70 percent for handbroadcast urea on rice fields.)
In 1975, 36 percent of the N applied in Egypt was
derived from urea fertilizer and 54 percent from ammonium nitrates of various strengths. Urea use has been increasing more rapidly than other sources--it accounted for only 2

percent of the N in 1965--and it is expected to increase in importance even further as a result of Egypt's new urea plants at Abu Khir and Talkha. Therefore, Egypt will be depending even more heavily on sources of N that are subject to volatilization loss.
In the 1979 survey, maize farmers were asked to
indicate how much time elapsed between N application and irrigation. Almost 50 percent of the farmers reported delays in excess of six hours, while almost a quarter had delays of more than 12 hours. At this point, evidence is not sufficiently complete to say whether this degree of delay is sufficient to lead to substantial N loss, but it provides a possibility for further investigation.
A 1978 wheat survey points to evidence suggesting that the delay in irrigation following N application is related to the type of irrigation device used by the farmer. The surprising factor from that survey was that farmers who depended on the most ancient and labor intensive of irrigation devices, the Archimedian screw, reported shorter delays than farmers using motor pumps. To explain this fact, survey enumerators stated that motor pumps tend to be used in areas where water supply is a problem--a pump can often lift water from ditches with lower water levels than can other devices--and that pumps are also usually in short supply, resulting in farmers waiting longer periods for them to become available.
There is one other aspect of timing that is crucial with respect to nitrogen-use efficiency, and that is the time of application in the plant's life cycle. The recommended practice is to make a first application of N (about half of the total to be applied) within 10 to 25 days of planting to support early plant development. It is recommended that the second half be applied 35 to 45 days

after planting, well before the flowering period which usually occurs 55 to 60 days following planting.
As pointed out earlier, farmers in Middle Egypt were found to average between two and three separate N applications. In the 1979 maize survey, more detailed questions were asked about the timing of the applications, and the farmers were found to have departed far from the recommended norms (Table 11). More than 20 percent reported making the first application later than 25 days after planting; more than 10 percent reported making the second application later than 50 days after planting and about 38 percent reported making a third application later than 50 days after planting. Thus, it appears that a substantial portion of farmers made first N applications which were too late to support early plant growth, while an even greater proportion made a second or a third application after the flowering period, too late to be effectively assimilated for optimum plant growth and grain yield.
The cross tabulation with yields, shown in Table 8, supports the belief that higher N applications lead to higher yields. In a previous paper, Fitch et al used the same Middle Egypt data to make a regression analysis with maize yields as the dependent variable, and utilizing fertilizer, application practices, preceding crop and planting methods as independent variables. It must be pointed out that credibility of this analysis was subject to some doubt to begin with, since the only yield variable available from the survey was the farmer's expected yield at midseason. Nevertheless, the results did have some interest.
Based on the regression, Fitch and his colleages used marginal analysis and assumed a variety of possible conditions, in order to derive the optimum levels of N which would apply. Their results are shown in Table 10. These

1"'TE 11. Nitrogen Application Timing, 72 Nontrial Farmers
Percent of Farmers
Applying N 2.8 34.7 51.4 11.1
Average Percentage of
Total N Applied 40.6 39.0 14.8 5.6
Timing of Application
(Days after Planting) (percent of farmers)
With Planting 4.2
11-15 16.7
16-20 30.6 2.8
21-25 25.0 2.8
26-30 12.5 9.7
31-35 8.3 20.8
36-40 2.8 27.8 2.8
41-45 15.3 6.9
46-50 6.9 12.5
51-55 6.9 11.1
56-60 1.4 15.3
61-65 2.Q 4.2
66-70 4.2
71-75 1.4
76-80 1.4
81-85 2.8
Source: 1979 survey
* Timing information not collected for fourth application
results suggest that those farmers who are forced to rely on free market sources (high prices) would logically choose to apply lower levels of N and that they might also apply 'ess N following broad beans. This is consistent with the lower application levels after broad beans which were actually observed in the Middle Egypt survey. Based on the results shown in Table 10, farmers with very low costs of N application--small farms with surplus family labor, for example--might choose to use more N, provided, of course, that funds to buy the extra fertilizer are not a limiting factor. Surplus labor or low application costs would certainly favor splitting the N into a greater number of applications.

An attempt to corroborate these findings with regressions based on 1979 maize survey data was not successful. Even so, survey results suggest that application rates are influenced by preceding crop, planting method, fertilizer price and application costs. This is only suggestive of some of the factors and circumstances which cause farmer fertilizer application levels and practices to vary as widely as they do in Egypt and of reasons why these practices diverge as far as they do from government recommendations. These findings suggest a number of avenues for needed future research.
With the growing recognition that farmers are applying more N to their maize, on average, than has been recommended in the past, on-farm fertilizer trials have already been redirected to focus on higher levels. Until now, the trials have shown little response to application levels above 90 kg per feddan; however the two-application approach should be considered from the point of view of the potential benefits of split applications under typical on-farm irrigation systems. Greater use of split applications may be one way to raise N-use efficiency in Egypt.
The three farmer surveys did not delve deeply into irrigation practices, other than the kind of irrigation devices used and the frequency and timing of irrigation. Irrigation technology was found to vary by region (Table 12) and by parcel size, with Middle Egypt farmers relying on the Archimedian screw and gravity flow to obtain their water, whereas the water wheel dominated in the Delta. In Middle Egypt, also, smaller parcels of land were found to be served more by the Archimedian screw while larger parcels relied on motor pumps.

TABLE 12. Irrigation Systems Used by Survey Farmers DELTA MIDDLE EGYPT
(percent of farms)
Sakia (Persian Wheel) 80.1 6.8
Tamboor (Archimedian Screw) 5.8 23.4
Motor (Fixed or Movable) 1.7 12.9
Gravity Flow 3.9 37.6
Other 8.5 19.3
As mentioned earlier, farmers irrigate a week to ten days before planting (heraty system) or immediately after (afeer); these are referred to as the planting irrigations. The first irrigation following the planting irrigation is timed to reach the fields after the plants have emerged; it is recommended that it take place about three weeks after planting. Thereafter, irrigation depends on soil conditions, and normally would take place every two to three weeks.
A study conducted at three of Egypt's experiment
stations in the late 1950s concluded that the optimum timing for the first irrigation following planting was 14 days, with subsequent irrigations at 12-day intervals (Mustafa, Ahmed and Fatah, 1962).
In all three of the surveys, farmers were found to irrigate between 7 and 8 times, including the planting irrigation. This means that, on average, irrigations occur at about 16-day intervals which would appear to be an adequate number. The number of irrigations varied substantially, nevertheless, with some 9.2 percent of farmers reporting as few as five irrigations in Middle Egypt. There was also an indication that often the irrigation following the planting irrigation (referred to by farmers as the mohiya or "wetting" irrigation) does not take place as soon as it should for optimum benefit.

In the M1iddle Egypt survey, more than 85 percent of the farmers stated that increasing the number of irrigations resulted in increased yields, and more than 95 percent stated that heavy irrigations had a harmful. impact on maize yields. Thus, farmers appeared to have a reasonable understanding of the basic moisture needs of the maize plant.
Relatively little attention has been paid to the
problems caused Egyptian maize farmers by weeds, insects and disease. When asked their opinion 'about weed problems, farmers in the 1979 maize survey did not, in general, believe that yields were greatly reduced by weeds. Sixty-two percent stated that weeds had no effect and 27 percent some impact; only 13. percent said that weeds had a great yield-reducing effect.
Methods used for weed control are very labor intensive, which may be economically sound in view of the abundant available family labor. The surveys found no farmers to be using chemical herbicides, and the village cooperatives did not stock them. The majority of farmers weeded twice during the growing season, as recommended, although there was a marked difference in the number of weedings between Middle Egypt and the Delta (Table 13). Survey farmers in the Delta averaged 1.6 weedings, compared to 2.3 for farmers in Middle Egypt. Almost all farmers reported using the hoe; one farmer in the Delta reported hand pulling. In the 1979 survey, farmers were asked to estimate the number of man hours required to weed a feddan, and the quantity varied from 15 to 65 hours, with an average of 29.2 hours.

TADE 13. Number of Weed i nqs Reported by Survoy F arnier; DELTA MI DDLE 1.97 q
(percent of farmers)
No Weeding 1.5 0.9 4.4
One Weeding 37.3 3.5 21.1
Two Weedings 56.2 58.3 54.5
Three Weedings 4.0 37.3 20.0
More than Three 1.0 -- -Average Number of Weedings 1.62 2.32 1.90
It will be recalled that one reason for irrigating before planting is to control weeds by causing their germination prior to planting. The recommended weeding practice is to weed first shortly before the first irrigation, at about three weeks after planting. Just over 30 percent of the 1979 survey farmers reported the first weeding as later than 21 days after planting, however, and about 10 percent reported weeding more than 30 days after planting. This may allow weeds to develop to the point where they seriously compete for plant nutrients and moisture, and they also may have developed such large roots that their removal disturbs the soil enough to interfere with maize plant growth. The only clues as to why farmers delay weeding is that many are known to use weeds for livestock feed; in the Middle Egypt survey, some 36 percent of the farmers reported using them as feed.
There are several insects and diseases which present
problems for Egyptian farmers. Late wilt is a problem in all zones, whereas the sesamia and ostrinia corn borers are a threat in the Delta and the red spider in Middle Egypt. Aphids are known to present problems, especially in Middle Egypt, and whorl worms are also recognized as a threat.

Tables 14 and 15 show a tabulation of farmer responses concerning insects and diseases, and how they control them. It appears that there may have been some confusion among the farmers as to whether they were responding about their problems during the year of the survey or whether they were responding as to whether they had ever experienced a particular pest. Furthermore, some of the differences shown between regions in the tables probably represent differences in survey years. Nevertheless, the results are suggestive of the problems which exist and how they vary between the Delta and Middle Egypt.
TABLE 14. Insect, Disease Problems Reported by Survey Farmers
(percent farmers)
Aphids 41.1 30.4 35.6
Late Wilt 64.3 10.8* 4.4
Borers 27.9 0.8 15.6
Whorl Worms 22.2 1.4?
Green Worms 2.5 4.3?
Downy Mildew -- 0.8 -Red spider --0.7 8.9
Smut ??2.2
* A figure this low may be an indication that farmers did
not know how to identify late wilt or that there was
confusion in coding
TABLE 15. Pest Control Measures Used by Survey Farmers
(percent of farmers)
No Control 48.2 17.4 47.6 50.3
Hand Removal 33.0 67.4* 18.2 40.1*
Chemical Control 16.2 15.2 34.2 .*
Removal of Affected
Plant Parts 0.4 -Other 2.2 -Source: Middle Egypt Survey, 1977
* Hand removal possible for Sesamia but not Ostrinia corn
borer and not applicable for late wilt, another indication
farmers not identifying disease properly
** Chemical control not appropriate for late wilt

Aphids appear to be the most widely recognized pest problem among farmers, although late wilt was also frequently cited by Delta maize growers. Delta farmers also reported a higher incidence of borers and whorl worms than did Middle Egypt farmers.
As to how badly these attacks affect the maize plant
and yield, of the 22 1979 survey farmers who reported aphid problems in the survey year, three indicated that they expected no loss in yield, six reported an expected loss of one ardeb (140 kg) or less, eight reported expectations of two ardebs or less, and five from 2 to 4 ardebs. Of 13 farmers who reported borer attacks in the survey year, two expected no loss, three expected an ardeb or less, five expected from 1 to 2 ardebs, and three expected a 2-to-3ardeb loss. The four farmers who reported red spider attacks said that they expected losses of from 0.5 to 4 ardebs.
Farmers do not appear to be very actively interested in obtaining chemical pesticides to treat their insect and disease problems. Chemicals are used in only 10 to 15 percent of the cases, most often for green worms; the rest reported hand control techniques. When Middle Egypt farmers were asked whether chemicals were available through the local village cooperatives, seventy-six percent of the respondents said that thay had not asked for them, 14 percent said that chemicals were available and 10 percent that they were not available.
The village cooperatives are supposed to stock three insecticides, Malathion (for aphids), Sevin (for whorl worms) and DDT. Table 16 shows the results of a query of 20 village cooperatives in the Delta, made during the 1976 maize survey. Insecticides were often not available, so farmers could not have obtained them if they had wanted to; they seem to use some chemicals when available.

TABLE 16. Availability of Insecticides Reported by Twenty
Delta Village Cooperatives*
Malathion 10 0
Sevin 11 9
DDT 2 18
1 97~6
It is important that pesticides be made more available to the Egyptian farmer and that he see the role that they can play in helping him to increase maize yields.
The maize plant contributes more in Egypt than just
grain for human and livestock consumption. One aspect of the dual-purpose nature of maize, the practice of making a late second thinning for livestock forage, has already been discussed in Part V of this report. In addition, the leaves and tops of the maize plant--removed while the plant is still growing and before the ear is harvested--are also used for livestock feed. These materials are available during the midsummer period, when feed is scarce. At the end of the season, the dry stalks are loaded on donkeys and taken to the farmer's house in the village, where they are an important source of fuel for cooking and heating. Thus, strictly speaking, maize is a multiple-purpose crop, and it is the two primary uses, grain production and livestock fodder, whi ch appear to be in conflict.
Stripping and topping have long been thought to reduce maize grain yields, and thus have been discouraged by agricultural officials. Experiment station research conducted in the early 1960s showed that yield reductions of up to 25 percent resulted from various combinations of

stripping and topping (Fawzi, Iskandar and Gouda, no date). As a result of such evidence, the government has discouraged the practices, encouraging farmers to set aside a small portion of their crop land to grow densely planted forage maize (darawa) or other forage crops for their animals.
The 1979 maize survey provided some information about the value of fodder resulting from the growing maize plant. Of the 90 farmers interviewed about their own (as opposed to trial) maize fields, more than 60 percent stripped. Most of those placed a value on the strippings, even though the vast majority did not market stripped leaves. The values reported ranged from 1.50 to 10 Egyptian pounds per feddan, with an average value of 4.19 pounds. A similar proportion reported topping and gave values similar to those of stripping.
The 1979 survey farmers who stripped reported that it
took at least eight hours to strip a feddan, with 40 percent indicating times in excess of 27 hours. All but three of the 55 strippers reported that stripping was the work of men, rather than women or children. Thus, it appears that it takes a substantial amount of adult male effort to strip, probably reflecting the importance of experience for stripping properly.
The majority of farmers believe that stripping and
topping do not cause a decrease in maize yields; of the 1979 survey farmers reporting stripping, more than half reported no resultant drop in yield. One-fourth said the loss was only one ardeb per feddan or less, 16 percent said that it was between one and two ardebs, and only 5 percent said the loss was between two and three ardebs. On average, including those farmers who thought the loss to be zero, the expected loss from stripping was just over 0.5 ardebs or, at 1979 prices, about 5 Egyptian pounds.

In rough terms, then, based upon what farmers reported in the 1979 survey, one would expect stripped leaves to have a value of mo re than 4 pounds per feddan and a cost, in terms of reduced yield, of roughly the same amount or perhaps somewhat more. In addition to this, there would be the cost of the two to three days of labor which stripping requires. Clearly, the farmer places little if any value on his labor if he strips. Stripping is time consuming, but it is not heavy work and it occurs in the latter part of the summer, after the planting of summer crops but before the heavy labor demands of harvest.
If surplus labor is a key factor, stripping could be
expected to be more common on small farms than on large and, truly, the Middle Egypt survey showed that 66 percent of the farms of less than five feddans stripped in contrast to only 41 percent of those of more than five feddans. This would tend to confirm the theory that stripping is related to surplus labor; also, however, smaller farms have higher livestock densities so the demand for fodder must be considered as well.
If wages continue to rise in rural Egypt and if
seasonal slacks in the labor force diminish, the practice of stripping may disappear. Similarly, if livestock numbers and the demand for summer feed decrease, stripping and topping should decline in importance. A recent study by Fitch and Soliman (1981), however, shows that, although Egyptian agriculture has become more and more mechanized, livestock is on the increase, due to its subsistence role on small farms.
The surveys showed a considerable difference between
zones in the extent to which farmers practiced stripping. In the Delta survey, 80 percent of the farmers reported stripping, compared to less than 70 percent in Middle Egypt.

In the Delta, most farmers who stripped reported stripping two or three times, whereas most in Middle Egypt stripped only once (Table 17).
TABLE 17. Survey Farmers Reporting Stripping DELTA MIDDLE EGYPT
No Stripping 20 39
One Stripping 28 36
Two Strippings 32 24
Three Strippings 20 1
The Middle Egypt maize survey proved, beyond a doubt, that farmers strip in a carefully planned manner. Furthermore, their method was not the same as that of the experiments which showed that stripping reduced yields. The experiments had entailed dividing the maize plant into four quarters (the ear representing the half point) and removing leaves from one, two, three or four of the quarters in an effort to detect impact. All of the leaves which were removed were taken at one time, either 20 or 35 days after silking. While these experiments were useful, they did not duplicate farmer practice. The field surveys showed thai:-farmers started from the bottom of the plant and worked upward, usually stopping before the ear leaf.
A tabulation of the Middle Egypt data is indicative of why stripping, as practiced by farmers, may have little effect on grain yields. Table 18 lists various stripping practices. Of those farmers who strip, the majority (59 percent) strip only once. The first stripping most often results in the taking of four leaves and the second, when employed, three. Few farmers take the leaf next to the ear leaf, and none take the ear leaf itself or those above it.
The first stripping seldom occurs earlier than 40 (lays before harvest (11-20 days after flowering), and the second,

TABLE 18. Maize Stripping Practices of Survey Farmers FARMERS FARMERS
(number). (percent) STRIPPING Taking Only Green Leaves 28 15.1 25.0
Taking Green and Dry Leaves 70 37.8 62.5
Taking Only Dry Leaves 14 7.6 12.5
Stripping Only Once 66 35.7 58.9
Stripping Twice 46 24.9 41.1
Stripping Ear Leaf or Above 0 0.0 0.0
Taking up to Ear Leaf 24 13.0 21.4
Average No. of Leaves Taken on First Stripping 4.2 Average No. of Leaves Taken on Second Stripping: 3.4 Average Total Leaves Taken 5.6
Source: Middle Egypt Survey, 1977 30 days before (21-30 days after flowering). Many farmers strip within 20 days of harvest (31-40 days after flowering) (Table 19). In other words, farmers strip in such a manner that plant vigor is not lessened during the grain-filling period.
The 1977 survey also served to clarify farmers' maize topping practices. Almost all farmers reported removing the whole top, the majority (63 percent) 12 days or less before harvest. Thus, topping, like stripping, seems carefully executed to have a minimal effect on yields.
TABLE 19. Time of Stripping Reported by Survey Farmers DAYS BEFORE DAYS AFTER FIRST STRIPPING SECOND STRIPPING HARVEST* FLOWERING" (no.) (percent) (no.) (percent)
Less than 20 31-50 17 15.2 16 34.8
20 to 29 21-30 36 32.1 22 47.8
30 to 39 11-20 41 36.6 4 8.7
40 or More -10 12 10.7 4 8.7
Total Farms 112 46
Source: Middle Egypt Survey, 1977
Harvest expected to occur at about 105 days after planting
Flowering at about 55 days after planting

Since 1978, Agricultural. Research Center maize
scientists have redesigned their stripping experiments to more closely follow farmers' practices. 'Fewer leaves are taken, the ear leaf is not disturbed and stripping is conducted later in the plant's life cycle. While the results of these experiments have not been officially released, research workers feel that yields are little affected.
While stripping may not greatly reduce the yields of
the common local maize varieties, there is always the chance that it could reduce the yields of new varieties being developed. This could cause such varieties to be rejected by the many small farmers who must, for the time being, continue to rely on stripped leaves as a vital source of summer forage for their livestock. Therefore, as long as farmers rely on stripping for fodder, it is recommended that maize breeders ensure that qrrain yields of new varieties are not too sensitive to stripping as it is practiced by farmers.
Aside from the issue of the physical effects of
stripping and topping mer se, there is the broader issue of maize as a single-purpose versus maize as a dual-purpose crop. So far, there is insufficient. physical or economic evidence available to demonstrate that raising two singlepurpose crops (maize as a strictly grain crop and maize or some other crop as a forage crop) is superior to raising maize as a dual-purpose crop. The clear challenge to researchers in the future is to explore this issue more thoroughly.
More research must be pointed toward the benefits and costs of alternative forage crops. Recently, Ministry agencies have promoted elephant grass as a permanent forage crop and have distributed a limited amount of seed for forage sorghums and Sudan grass.1Neverthel-ess, in 1981,

there was still little sound information available as to forage production alternatives for the summer months.
It has been noted that farmers in Egypt are not
achieving yields which are as high as their circumstances seem capable of producing. One of the reasons for deducing that farmers are not achieving up to potential is that on-farm trials conducted in the National Maize Program consistently produce higher yields than most farmers achieve on their own. of course, if the on-farm trial procedure is not valid--that is, if the trials are not conducted under circumstan ces which are representative for most Egyptian farmers, and if they do not employ inputs and procedures which typical farmers can be expected to adopt--then the results are not valid representations of farmer potential. The 1979 Maize Survey was designed to monitor the on-farm trial system. Some results of that survey have been cited earlier in this paper; here they are examined again, with specific emphasis on the validity of the trial process itself, in order to examine the reasons for the yield gap between trial and nontrial farmers.
on-farm trials can be a means for testing varieties and technologies which are often first developed on experiment stations under controlled farming conditions. In this case, the purpose of the trial system was to verify that higher yields could be obtained using available technology applied under typical or representative farming conditions. Trials could show which factors made the adoption of new practices difficult. By involving farmers in the research process, a means of feedback would be provided for the research system,

permitting it to develop inputs and technologies appropriate for typical farming situations and easy for farmers to adopt.
The procedures used in these on-farm trials were based on the recommended practices of the National Maize Program. Seedbed preparation followed the recommended ridging system, which the trial farmer carried out under the supervision of the Maize Program farm trial. teams. An irrigation was applied immediately after seeding, utilizing whatever irrigation system and devices were available to the farmer. Ninety kilograms of N, supplied by the government, were applied in two equal applications, the first 10 to 25 days after planting, and the second 35 to 45 days after planting. The trials did not include the application of phosphate or manure. Trial farmers were directed to thin once, in the third or early in the fourth week after planting; they were instructed to weed twice, once in the third week and once in the fith week after planting. All of these operations were supervised or verified by the Maize Program's trial team. No topping of maize plants was permitted.
For the trials, twenty-four maize farmers were chosen
from throughout Egypt--one from each of two villages Ircated in the twelve maize producing governorates of the country. While some effort was made to select representative farmers, other criteria were also considered in the selection of trial farmers. Because of the need to monitor and collect data about trial results, and because trials can also serve as demonstrations for nontrial farmers, readily accessible fields adjacent to roads were selected. Farm and field size were also considered. It was believed that larger farmers would find it easier to allocate a small parcel for trials without seriously disrupting their normal cropping cycle, and that they were better able to afford to risk loss, should the trial fail.

One of the purposes of the 1979 Maize Survey was to determine the extent to which trial maize farms were representative of average or typical conditions. For the survey, three farmers were selected at random from the same villages as the trial farms. This provided a sample of 72 nontrial farmers who were interviewed along with the 24 trial farmers. Table 20 shows how some of the basic attributes of the trial farmers compared to those of the nontrial farmers. The age distribution of the two groups was about the same. More than 60 percent of the nontrial farmers were illiterate, compared to just half of the trial farmers; a much higher proportion of the trial farmers had school graduation certificates. Table 20 also shows the difference in farm size, with trial farms averaging 10.1 feddans, compared to 3.36 feddans for the sample of nontrial farms. A much higher proportion of trial farmers were land owners; more than 70 percent of the trial maize plots were owned by the farmer, whereas more than half of the fields of nontrial farmers were rented.
While trial farmers, as a group, appear to be somewhat different from nontrial farmers, none of the characteristics noted above is necessarily related to differences in maize yields. Investigations based on the earlier surveys did not show yield differences to be related to differences in literacy, farm size or land tenure per se. The recent study by Khedr, Petzel and Monke (1981) also confirms that farm size and literacy are not directly contributing factors to production performance. Nevertheless, it is possible that some of the differences in farmer characteristics are indirectly responsible for differences in maize yields.
Table 21 summarizes the yield results of the 1979
on-farm variety trials. It compares these to yields obtained

TABLE 20. Characteristics of Trial and Nontrial Farmers TRIAL NONTRIAL
FARMERS (24) FARMERS (72) (percent)
Age of Farmers
21-40 33.3 32.3
41-60 45.9 50.0
Over 60 20.8 17.7
Literacy of Farmers
Illiterate 50.0 61.1
Can Read and Write 33.3 37.5
Read and Write Plus
School Certificate 16.7 1.4
Farm size
Under 1 Feddan -- 4.2
1 to 3 Feddans 16.6 62.5
3 to 5 Feddans 25.0 20.8
5 to 15 Feddans 29.2 12.5
Over 15 Feddans 29.2 -Average Farm Size 10.1 feddans 3.36 feddans
Source: 1979 Survey
by 18 of the trial farmers on their own nontrial fields and to yields obtained by the 72 nontrial farmers. The highest average yield for an improved variety in the trials was 18.7 ardebs per feddan, compared to 17.0 ardebs for the "best" local variety raised on the trial plots. These results suggest that the high on-farm trial yields are far more than a matter of variety, since the local variety, used as a trial control, averaged almost as high as several of the improved varieties. In the 1980 on-farm trials, farmers provided their own local variety for use as a trial control; although the gap between their average yields was somewhat greater, local varieties used in the trial still averaged 17.8 ardebs per feddan (Table 22), much higher than national average maize yields.
Average yields of 12.8 ardebs were reported by trial farmers who raised their own maize varieties on their own

TABLE 21. Average Yields of Trial Farms and Nearby Nontrial Farms
(ardebs/feddan) VARIETIES
Delta 16.32 18.87 16.07 19.11 19.61 14.9 12.1
Egypt 12.93 16.97 14.09 18.37 14.43 8.7 8.5
Source: 1979 Maize Survey
* The "best" local for each area selected by researchers, based on past performance
TABLE 22. Average Yields in On-Farm Variety Trials, 1980
2EV2 5 G4787W
Delta 21.82 19.71 20.79 19.51 16.64
Egypt 24.88 21.31 22.96 19.41 19.75
* Farmer's own local variety used as trial control

separate plots, compared to yields of 10.7 ardebs reported by farmers in the same villages who were randomly selected for the survey. This suggests that trial farmers employed superior practices independently of anything imposed on ".hem. by the trial process itself, or that they enjoyed superior circumstances. However, the 12.8 ardebs achieved by trial farmers on their own maize plots was still below those obtained in the trials.
Are the differences between the yields obtained on trial plots and those obtained on nontrial plots significant? Given the nature of the data obtained in the survey, it is difficult to say. The yields for the trial plots were those of a complete harvest, measured by the farmers with accurate weighing equipment and under the careful supervision of the on-farm trial teams. Those yields may also have been biased upward due to border effects of the small trial plots. The yields reported for the nontrial plots, on the other hand, were based on reports of the farmers who probably did not have accurate weighing equipment; thus, their yield reports could be expected to contain errors. Nevertheless, the gap between the yields reported for nontrial and trial maize plots were larger than might readily be explained by errors in farmer yield estimates. It is believed that trial plots actually aid produce higher yields, and that trial farmers obtained higher yields with their own maize than did other farmers.
The analysis of the reasons for the yield differences is highly subjective and in most cases is backed up by little more than simple tables. However, attempts were made to explain the differences through the use of statistical regression analysis. In most cases, such analysis failed to produce significant results. Evidently kinds and quality of survey data was not of sufficient quality to support sophisticated statistical analysis. Nevertheless, the

analysis was considered to be a necessary step in searching for reasons for the yield differences which were observed.
While trial results affirmed that high yields were more than a function of improved variety alone, they also suggest that it can be an important factor. This is especially clear from the 1980 trial results (Table 22), where the local variety used as a control was the trial farmer's own local, rather than the "best" local for the region, as used in 1979. In 1980, all of the improved varieties used in the trials produced higher average yields than the locals. Composite 2EV2, the synthetic which was produced by the National Maize Program and which has now been released as Giza 2, produced yields which averaged more than five ardebs higher than the locals provided by trial farmers.
Previous Crop
The previous crop can be expected to affect maize yields in two ways, through nutrient carryover and the influence of the crop on the maize planting date. Trial plots were not chosen to be representative with respect to previous crop, as can be seen in Table 23. More trial maize
TABLE 23. A comparison of Previous Crop for Trial and
Nontrial Maize Plots
Wheat 58.3 41.2
Berseem Clover 20.8 42.1
Broad Beans 12.5 7.9
Flax 4.2 0.9
Winter Vegetables 4.2 7.9
Source: 1979 Survey

plots were planted following wheat and fewer following berseem clover than was the case for nontrial plots.
Planting Date
As was discussed in Part V of this report, recommended planting date may be difficult for farmers to follow, particularly if they raise berseem clover prior to maize and need to prolong its availability for livestock feed. Nevertheless, the 1979 survey found that only three (4 percent) of the nontrial farmers planted their maize either before May 1 or after June 15, the times which would normally be considered too early or too late for planting. In contrast, three (13 percent) of the trial plots were planted after June 15. Therefore, it does not appear that failure to adhere to recommended planting dates could be cited as a reason for the low nontrial maize yields observed in the 1979 survey.
Seedbed Preparation and Seeding
This is an area where there are substantial differences between trial and nontrial maize plots. While the recommended practices are to seed in holes on ridges, as described earier, the ridging system normally requires a tractor for land preparation. Whereas 87 percent of trial plots were plowed with a tractor, less than half of the nontrial farmers' plots were tractor plowed; a third were plowed with animals and almost 20 percent were not plowed at all (Table 24).
The heraty system of irrigating prior to seedbed
preparation is normally required to soften the land so as to facilitate animal plowing, and indeed some 24 percent of the

TABLE 24. Plowing Practices, Trial and Nontrial Maize Plots TYPE OF PLOWING TRIAL NONTRIAL PLOTS OF
(24) FARMERS (18) FARMERS (72)
Tractor 87.5 66.7 45.9
Animal 12.5 5.6 33.3
Hoe -- 1.4
No Plowing -- 27.7 19.4
nontrial farmers employed heraty, whereas the afeer system was followed for all of the trial plots.
When animal plowing is used, it is common to scatter
seed in the furrows behind the plow, rather than to plant in holes on ridges, as is recommended. Whereas all of the trial plots were seeded in holes on ridges, 29 percent of the nontrial farmers reported seeding their maize in furrows. In contrast, only 6 percent of the trial farmers reported seeding behind animal-drawn plows on their own maize plots.
The differences reported for seedbed preparation and seeding practices thus appear to be significant. The contrast between the practices followed by nontrial farmers and by trial farmers on their own plots suggest one dimension in which the circumstances of trial farmers may differ from those of ordinary farmers. The fact that trial farmers tend to have larger farms and larger fields probably explains why they are able to employ a higher degree of tractor plowing, and thus why more of them are able-to follow the recommendation of ridge planting.
Thinning and Weeding
The methods followed by farmers in thinning and weeding were discussed in Parts V and VII of this report. All of the trial plots were thinned only once, as recommended, but half of the trial farmers thinned their own maize plots a second

time and 64 percent of the nontrial farmers thinned twice. Whereas all of the trial plots were weeded twice, 25 percent of the nontrial plots were weeded only once. The first weeding was completed by the 21st day after planting on all of the trial plots, but one-third of the nontrial farmers delayed their first weeding beyond that date. Thus, there is a substantial variance between the thinning and weeding practices used on trial and nontrial plots.
Fertilizer Use
As previously noted, the trial plots received a 90 kgper-feddan application of N, but no phosphate or manure was recommended. The average N application reported in the survey for nontrial plots was 97 kg per feddan. The survey showed that manure was applied to 29 percent of the nontrial maize plots and to 33 percent of the trial plots. Phosphate was applied to 21 percent of the nontrial plots and to only
8 percent of the trial plots. Presumably, some trial farmers believed so strongly in the need for manure or phosphate that they applied these materials even though they were not recommended.
Although nontrial farmers were found to apply only
slightly more N than the amount used on the trials, there was a marked contrast in the number and timing of the applications. Whereas all of the trial plots received two applications of N, as recommended, more than 60 percent of the nontrial farmers applied N to their maize in three or four separate applications, and a similar percentage of trial farmers made three or four applications to their own nontrial plots of maize. Whereas all of the trial plots received their last (second) application of N at least 55 days before harvest, 33 percent of the nontrial farmers applied their last N application 45 days or less before

harvest. Only 11 percent of the trial farmers applied N this late to their own maize plots.
There also appears to have been more opportunity for the N to volatilize on nontrial plots--while 95 percent of the trial plots received irrigation water 12 hours or less after N application, 25 percent of all nontrial plots received irrigation more than 12 hours after the N was applied.
There was an interesting difference in the source of
the fertilizer used by the nontrial farmers and that used by trial farmers on their own plots. Whereas all of the trial farmers obtained the N used for the first application on their own plots from the village cooperative, only 87 percent of the nontrial farmers received theirs from the cooperative; the remainder had to procure theirs on the open market. Thus, it appears that trial farmers had greater access to fertilizer at the low prices offered by the cooperatives.
Stripping and Topping
There was no stripping or topping of maize plants on the trial plots. Whereas more than two-thirds of the nontrial farmers followed the practice of stripping, only one-third of the trial farmers followed that practice on their own maize plots. Similarly, more than 70 percent of the nontrial farmers reported topping, while less than 40 percent of the trial farmers topped their own nontrial maize plants.
The procedures and timing followed by farmers in
stripping and topping were discussed in Part VIII of this report. Little evidence could be found in survey data to indicate that the particular procedures used by farmers had

neqative impacts on yields, although many farmers stated that the practices reduced yields. Earlier in this chapter it was noted that most of the attempts to explain yield differences in the 1979 survey data with regression analysis were not successful. It is worth noting, however, that the dummy variable for stripping was one of the few that consistently proved to be significant. The sign of the coefficient was negative, lending more credence to the idea that it may well have a negative impact on yields.
This discussion has shown that the on-farm trial system in Egypt is producing worthwhile evidence about the potential benefits of both improved maize varieties and production practices. The surveys have disclosed several areas where farmer practices could be improved, among them the timing of the application of fertilizer and irrigation water, seed selection techniques for those farmers planting seed from earlier production, the timing of the second weeding and the entire question of thinning including thinning techniques. Also brought out are opportunities for improving the distribution of seed, insecticides and fertilizer, although fertilizer use is already widespread. Questions still remain as to tillage practices for farmers with little access to tractors.
There is a continuing need to focus research on these
and other questions relative to the circumstances of Egypt's small-farmers. They produce the bulk of the country's maize and, with their small resource base, would be most helped by such research.
Information from surveys conducted in conjunction with the 1979 trials suggest that farmers may find some of the improved practices difficult to follow, for example, seedbed

preparation. This may also be true of other elements of apparently improved technology. Trials tend to be held on larger farms and, therefore, may not be representative of typical Egyptian farming conditions.
The fact that trial farms tend to be larger, and trial farmers better educated than the average, suggest that they may enjoy certain advantages which others do not. In addition to having better access to tractors for plowing, trial farmers may also have advantages in the acquiring of seed and fertilizer; the fact that they are more timely in their application of nitrogen may reflect that supplies at the cooperatives are more available to them. As a result, it may not be realistic to expect trial yields to be matched by all farmers.
While there is an understandable need to select trial
plots for a number of characteristics other than that of how representative they are, the trial process would surely benefit from increasing the proportion Of small farms. It would be revealing to include some farms of less than one feddan in size, so that maize researchers could reach a better understanding of the needs of those farmers. And, as well as the researcher, Egyptian policy makers and extension personnel would benefit from a clearer understanding of their representative farmers.

Abdou, Dyaa, and Mohamed El Gabely, "Marketable Surplus of
Maize in Upper Egypt," mimeographed paper. Zagazig
University, 1980.
El Tobgy, Hassan A., Contemporary Egyptian Agriculture,
second edition. Cairo: The Ford Foundation, 1976.
Habashy, Nabil T., and James B. Fitch, "Egypt's Agricultural
Cropping Pattern: A review of the System by Which It Is
Managed," Micro-Economic Study of the Egyptian Farm
System, Project Research Paper No.4. Cairo: Ministry of
Agriculture, 1981.
Fawzi, Abdel Latif, Azmy Z. Iskandar and Abdel Aziz E.
Gouda, "Effectiveness of Topping and Stripping on Yield
of Maize," mimeographed paper. Agricultural Research
Center, Ministry of Agriculture of Egypt, undated.
Fitch, J.B., A.A. Goueli, M. El Gabeli and S. Imam,
"Prices, Technical Response, and the Benefits and Costs
of Fertilizer Application," paper presented to the
Fifth Regional Cereals Workshop. Algiers, Algeria, May
5-9, 1979.
Fitch, J.B., A.A. Goueli and M. El Gabeli, "The Cropping
System for Maize in Egypt: Survey Findings and
Implications for Policy and Research," paper presented
to FAO Workshop on Improved Farming Systems in the Nile
Valley. Cairo, May 8-14, 1979.
Fitch, J.B., and Afaf Abdel-Aziz, "Cropping Intensity in
Egyptian Agriculture: An Assessment of its
Determinants," Micro-Economic Study of the Egyptian
Farm System, Project Research Paper No.5. Cairo:
Ministry of Agriculture, 1980.
Fitch, James B., and Ibrahim Soliman, "The Livestock Economy
in Egypt: An Appraisal of the Current Situation,"
Economics Working Paper, No. 29, Agricultural
Development Systems Project/Egypt-California, June
Gomaa, Mohamed Z., "Maize Yield Response and Fertilizer Use
Under Farm Conditions in Egypt," Research Bulletin No.
48 (Arabic). Zagazig: Zagazig University, 1979.
Goueli, A.A., M.Z. Gomaa and A.S. Attia, "The Technology of
Maize Production in Egypt: A Survey of Delta Farmers in
1979," Research Bulletin (Arabic). Zagazig: Zagazig
University, 1977.

Goueli, A.A., M. El Gabeli, M.Z. Gomaa and A.S. Attia, "The
Technology of Maize Production in Egypt: A Survey of
Middle Egypt Farmers," Research Bulletin (Arabic).
Zagazig: Zagazig University, 1979.
Khedr, Hassan Aly, Todd E. Petzel and Eric Monke,
"Efficiency in the Production of Egyptian Maize,"
Draft, October, 1981.
Mustafa, Adly M., Aly Syed Ahmed and Mahmoud S. Abdel
Fattah, "Influence of Irrigation Intervals on Maize
Yield," al-Filaha, Vol. 1. Jan-Feb 1962.

Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
fcla fda yes
!-- Maize production practices and problems in Egypt ( Book ) --
METS:mets OBJID UF00080096_00001
xmlns:METS http:www.loc.govMETS
xmlns:xlink http:www.w3.org1999xlink
xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance
xmlns:daitss http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss
xmlns:mods http:www.loc.govmodsv3
xmlns:sobekcm http:digital.uflib.ufl.edumetadatasobekcm
xmlns:lom http:digital.uflib.ufl.edumetadatasobekcm_lom
METS:name UF,University of Florida
Go UFDC FDA Preparation Tool
METS:dmdSec DMD1
mods:accessCondition The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact Digital Services ( with any additional information they can provide.
mods:genre authority marcgt bibliography
mods:identifier type OCLC 14514687
mods:languageTerm text English
code iso639-2b eng
mods:physicalLocation University of Florida
mods:url access object context
mods:name personal
mods:namePart Fitch, James B
given James B
family Fitch
mods:roleTerm Main Entity
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center
mods:note bibliography Includes bibliographical references (p. 65-66).
funding CIMMYT economics program working paper ;
statement of responsibility James B. Fitch.
mods:publisher Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo
mods:placeTerm marccountry mx
mods:dateIssued 1983
marc 1983
point start 1983
mods:recordIdentifier source sobekcm UF00080096_00001
mods:recordCreationDate 861024
mods:recordOrigin Imported from (OCLC)14514687
mods:recordContentSource University of Florida
marcorg DJB
mods:relatedItem original
mods:extent 66 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
mods:title CIMMYT Economics Program working paper
mods:subject SUBJ752_1
mods:country Egypt
SUBJ650_1 lcsh
mods:topic Corn
mods:geographic Egypt
Cropping systems
Maize production practices and problems in Egypt
mods:subTitle results of three farmer surveys
mods:typeOfResource text
sobekcm:Aggregation ALL
sobekcm:MainThumbnail 00000thm.jpg
sobekcm:BibID UF00080096
sobekcm:VID 00001
sobekcm:EncodingLevel I
sobekcm:Name Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo
sobekcm:PlaceTerm Mexico D.F. Mexico
sobekcm:statement UF University of Florida
sobekcm:SortDate 723910
DAITSS Archiving Information
File Technical Details
sobekcm:File fileid JP21 width 3935 height 5295
JPEG1 630 848
JPEG2 888
JP22 2258 3181
JPEG10 447
JPEG21 852
JP221 2414 3263
JPEG22 847
JP222 2404 3233
JPEG23 834
JP223 2430 3216
JPEG24 850
JP224 2401 3240
METS:fileGrp USE archive
METS:file GROUPID G1 TIF1 imagetiff CHECKSUM 241be831c96a67c1911aad98b706aaf0 CHECKSUMTYPE MD5 SIZE 62527096
G2 TIF2 8f8c434528d9b5fb95289ca8e14c360a 7202960
G3 TIF3 dffb4e4af2c1ac2346f7d6e3746e77ab 7203728
G4 TIF4 dad2c710f17df0cd7932beecdaf1a300 7206852
G5 TIF5 df26cdb8aadaaf7ecdebcacb3b11aad3 7204840
G6 TIF6 6fdf1cf660f2b55bec5ac9eafa016528 7206128
G7 TIF7 7d2bded6e4d95892df4dcac954c41371 7205956
G8 TIF8 72b8fbe3ce60debd88f9056e7ea7e857 7206024
G9 TIF9 c6ae9f943f56ad1e58b48c274c80a9a6 7206372
G10 TIF10 1ef39aa6b24f23764c82d0ecdb482ddb 7203724
G11 TIF11 90a0e7d03eb4ebda047a7aa009578b34 7206284
G12 TIF12 c4965b6506d10fd4f847787473f724d8 7203204
G13 TIF13 1b64873d549e7219bdb62b47d788ece1 7205888
G14 TIF14 fb924f2aadeaef41e3e64cfbc5683cb0 7204024
G15 TIF15 753cf2a6285b227fa0f71762a3fa5545 7206828
G16 TIF16 efd86af42aef9bcf63c2504080beb260 7206188
G17 TIF17 b99c4d95be199abf3c9eb60de4e3b46a 7204032
G18 TIF18 ba943bfd3a9ec25f271bf3d310a2353b 7206044
G19 TIF19 31fa80f386feedbc1236f3bd78e75eeb 7206604
G20 TIF20 89732a8da96cdc2754ffe694a70072c4 7206036
G21 TIF21 ec993b620d9062f8478ee82dee8838b5 7900972
G22 TIF22 0670ab52502aed9abdbec2b2853a83ee 7795016
G23 TIF23 783b65f6eb0242a4f4686f44b3e1e6af 7838700
G24 TIF24 508921b5258ee7320b4be3bb35333904 7802416
G25 TIF25 cde1dc5ea45941a8de7f5e062f509ecc 7204676
G26 TIF26 a1f72b9b466ad571e4bcbc59a17dbe52 7206220
G27 TIF27 6d1baed262ef8cd9c31be32049260b26 7203920
G28 TIF28 53fa3af6ce1456b3a3ca9a27a395c336 7205716
G29 TIF29 776e11a71e6d9b6c548135004ae50cf9 7206072
G30 TIF30 5cbffcbb330c607b4eed1ad503427ef4 7205408
G31 TIF31 b90dc8b1d3ecada3d086623448bb67ae 7206136
G32 TIF32 7332390b8aee56be0889c6171ea3d8ae 7205632
G33 TIF33 5bc07e887a70ac0d5db3229dd0911095 7206508
G34 TIF34 d8cf8fdfe64e789e80e07fd8b4eade71 7205552
G35 TIF35 7b509c94d15f244ee61d3937955e6602 7203504
G36 TIF36 08452be5f4b9f42f9fe3729cd17c9083 7205908
G37 TIF37 7b0e4b7cfea61d6113540df8f4a96d9a 7206712
G38 TIF38 5122bd6d02d0ef1952f933a55c25701d 7205088
G39 TIF39 204a83e06b13160a9896533c442956b1 7206776
G40 TIF40 655b08074856f3734691f3d72b4fa850 7203532
G41 TIF41 ee1f11e4b607cee3ab666f8b002978bb 7206292
G42 TIF42 f82f1c2e573a773058033ab835870d42 7206124
G43 TIF43 859ab4b9fb22278e335264f4b879cd7b 7206568
G44 TIF44 967b5664fcca472da7075cfd5d53a5f3 7204892
G45 TIF45 703ab852f4c8a61fb21dab433a9fd191 7205932
G46 TIF46 1dac58fd0a302fc1572f1bda3e16c1db 7205700
G47 TIF47 e34b681d8c9c09ed906eaf081b106562 7205544
G48 TIF48 231a67573d508669b694f225e9087129 7205452
G49 TIF49 09f155a593cf5507dc57f7145dcba46e 7206412
G50 TIF50 0a49d5726f8323566a229189d5ab72e3 7206288
G51 TIF51 3dcd64c66fdd21b69aa48fad53a60847 7205976
G52 TIF52 9ee101a88e50c84b138b2e68c7c4d108 7206216
G53 TIF53 498399cb8df1132c9be18d0b47c16aef 7206544
G54 TIF54 6e12d64ea30fa808d4eeeff1818d43fe 7206112
G55 TIF55 d670b92b965d13ce34cc03df0e0c7e2b 7206248
G56 TIF56 f27732f8a80533bad203a4ffa76410a9 7205684
G57 TIF57 4b9ee9bf33d73ca27ddd9e128967dc85 7206452
G58 TIF58 c04010e6268a7324816a170b1b328455 7205872
G59 TIF59 fbe6be8df87eca9c66f092b7d3658f77 7206548
G60 TIF60 ebc8b900f1275403a06adca0cc793ca7 7205516
G61 TIF61 ebb66f57b430e968d33963c29ebf46de 7204860
G62 TIF62 07f5ba5b50baf18301e88a886472eccb 7206000
G63 TIF63 3fd1055b80747d2e4d6e403fc92a7279 7205968
G64 TIF64 e85ff17eb34bde41b0a707613d24a258 7205428
G65 TIF65 87dfcf49b7aed68da629262537f54615 7206600
G66 TIF66 4ad5bc0bc48b2b80783141d475b994c7 7206028
G67 TIF67 d202bf327e3542504919fe6a0df47925 7206384
G68 TIF68 18c13915d9523202f9691a448dadb44d 7205788
G69 TIF69 1b14c274fb3450bc2f10fdfca613512f 7205160
G70 TIF70 3fa53fad4620d52e91423c1c14e363c4 7206012
G71 TIF71 d74cd4b7287233e59dd8af819f6cb607 7202748
imagejp2 3c54339e0d757d5d376312e3022ef45a 2604572
f164ddf658c2ad1e8b64def0db65ef01 508148
f57a1c1c165d5db337961ae4bed5106f 708438
812dac841ae96f696c591d3d4727e8ec 897923
d7692ec61adef995438414a9fed96561 897920
b08cae9031be7f979e6d46294906904b 897940
1d7e377d55104aab480c1b0a52ed1c10 897917
c834d599314ef447a387e218c4fa5a9a 897944
7303bf049f131daa36a686093c12cdd6 897938
eb4f28d38ff7865ead6bb97f009e0c9b 547189
94573e04ff8ff300d76229ee8f3d06f9 481514
4ab2eb408cf1a59bc1f9377160e4fd04 897943
d09f001466bbe88c29212ea4dac68d30 623406
e55786d3a5a97c38dfb382c18ac9bd7b 897947
f46adf789a4d59996f7b277be4cd1cd1 897936
617da51ea3ea29a0b3eb9e1da5c3023e 389651
1184237ac8285573eb35927c5d82547f 897948
5c063dc5af8128d5e4920ec9f7dd3e66 897945
99ea6bde18293d7e5a8a295339accb56 897937
1c2f4f8e313ac723e3decabf22f49470 984645
86fb73dfc5a589ad13ef03851a117a17 971626
885c957bb544e38fd2a224dabad129e7 976940
11d2452d47e51e3638507e2b6f7ac59a 972494
57a553da3508910bbb6141174c176b5a 590230
a4e209f899f4053c1b0e8f78ea60c5e6 897931
37e80055187b1a8c29c745ace5db9b49 432039
fd9e5ee276c3b39b3ddae8f69379a545 897934
aa6509bb314fd4be612c18f6da74f9ca 368312
ede6709cb1d4090925f65ea2f93ec448 897924
48de1b309faf65ad3fd710f7eff019dc 628031
88392d4bde7c96c28f3d313bc6256259 897929
a08dfc84285b11a6ceb0912e07350954 897946
94dc98a99994ede9324903f80fe42532 897916
379f67e5e25af89a7c2a6c855497bda5 897915
743b8043515a453bb33d56290a7cb9cb 897926
0e1466e841656484145f0ad7b1a41320 897862
8ad8a34b375b547ed0eb6a75c3c4f9e7 897939
d7c4d2afea56d904f81dd1fe59b894df 897942
79174401287849c22743dff83e639b61 897912
e0f10afbfbb5ea6828800fcb9e4f2104 897941
e83aabaa667750ffcdba30199305785f 897878
2f33f84d4de0b82446372d5ec844a7e8 795772
bf8377ad28b5e3aef11c0f6e3caf8400 897891
095dd38a8f06311edc8c0703a48e4348 897913
37f4e78e4217f06bc94b8822109fbc96 897890
78fe652e9cfd00760aa5ecf083ce4eb1 897850
c7c7e45d66cdc728813ae1a00a2c033a 434465
imagejpeg f57fc3df2ec6518bdcc3cabd912597f5 180402
JPEG1.2 ef083b895a6a12ee5ab8a1ec4a8f9223 48999
a46be1e90e2eefa8cb7a0ac6eb5151f0 75466
JPEG2.2 879e3dde89e6c2a6251e77c61070864d 34915
7a02e45c6eb3bc78337271457ceb954d 110646
JPEG3.2 bd4fee1e81063f980cfa77fa79885b32 50999
02885ae61111fa064f4ec4ee02fe6a94 197107
JPEG4.2 99872f1e622c24ec7045e898323ec152 79349
cec1985ae668fcfa5714cbe0db268511 134655
JPEG5.2 0954a8c3d0e7462930ecad325a0959ba 59085
3b2676a19727663ddbe5a0810e548841 183622
JPEG6.2 5356b4bd20b9325f2164d207fa021606 75452
76dbddc794d31215f4f7ad06f6c40f45 177454
JPEG7.2 54308bb9edb19afd17bc1ed140530a5a 72756
7b13a1ae008bdeaa9cb05e7c881f5471 178125
JPEG8.2 baf94280bf64f9794c3f040666dfef6d 74491
a5508b6805520f4210dbd3b47914adf8 186950
JPEG9.2 cdd8082f87b5c3bd99296930c3fbbf24 76775
1aa901fe1530a4c9c5a86e6baefa58c2 58077
JPEG10.2 f7cee3c8a2641965d28bb4e5cbc4ccab 33070
bd54dd31ec34bab183642a3783911331 171630
JPEG11.2 4fdbcbae22e6ec0f7abb772f2ea95b4f 71755
8dd62e7dd8468f91b39025dfd9545df5 53619
JPEG12.2 d242eefd9f57bec36e45bb252740b680 31030
7b8e8ac1a463a5f8a62689685f0bf298 170301
JPEG13.2 0c77dbb768c001288e4102b41951b3d9 71610
176a7b7a538682196483c24c35f01afa 62601
JPEG14.2 3705fbc7fbd1c5ae25e53a36d9752d76 33519
51a70eae9984ff9e86b74c035f3ec67f 203005
JPEG15.2 c35cb5eea8d8decf8b7c8fb4a6c8bfa3 81929
45af8fc99f2c30ad8af18939c5fca80c 186222
JPEG16.2 26ee4baf90c67e088ca7c3d4e1596cfe 77678
ba09b4bd8b2469e6adf4839166cdb146 67509
JPEG17.2 86d5d424bb407213c4de780a1146f0b5 38532
3dd8fa9171a4242dd82ca78eeb203b8b 184589
JPEG18.2 15923198a6f50087433998489adc0cae 74839
897ab592d9960eb61b62d9b32673ed8a 179621
JPEG19.2 c8729b759588c276433a9640e60d72a9 75488
d645e80725d23825fe2643ce0fa4c81d 179793
JPEG20.2 2ffb238ae531aaf3c2e9e927dab76405 74871
0414ab43f5017c91060abd8570c40cd7 182837
JPEG21.2 0ed176ca823c52ff9eddb8601aa26caa 75239
b31d93b1c58ef9ae497e1b237682a564 148026
JPEG22.2 4cc8245b058bfb3d170b165188390588 62907
21502d39fa39b40431846b938043d536 163622
JPEG23.2 a1a5730ae4329b97cc139815762411b9 69438
22c17a05ccce39186a46cdcc35ac95d5 170029
JPEG24.2 a9574359ab8b3100974a68bcefc3142b 69139
d1b52f6110915c7f08a85c3545b5b899 88511
JPEG25.2 a8648813ab3df3a72b7e5d81c0f28ad2 45550
6e34de6ae8f0f72a948848f1d248098c 192106
JPEG26.2 748db145e5eef60848952c29282ecd90 79088
2d94746b5b44f44fd67be5837a6c4815 71325
JPEG27.2 873aa53c274fde809167cfcdb7651602 39303
62803277ba0badb78b3131bb805b6e3c 167791
JPEG28.2 b222aa4c10c45dc89bcd78c3307bb6ba 69770
631ef7dccb19a5381355a9f64c8d0083 167535
JPEG29.2 481cbf15c405ee535a2540d6d94dcf73 70836
56ed276764b36c1f977d69f4dcbc758d 167759
JPEG30.2 4af959e69bd0035c9185ce0ef90f3786 70079
2330efda80a56d6d639e2211811f1f26 173772
JPEG31.2 7b3829a6caaa6c5a3b01fdc5289105fc 72998
JPEG32.2 037d9eb695c4e204945242a231db76a4 73807
e939b4768ede20a83b493ca82338951c 188743
JPEG33.2 2d0be78fdb36ea2196ce1020c0a4b620 77927
342d8ba94c91900ad308dccfe8fa020a 171251
JPEG34.2 72eb5731beffcf7988985a11fa710f15 70899
e1e44903d613a1ea92a09dbd9d98214d 64052
JPEG35.2 037fb7d46e23e8301841ff05f6005b4e 36164
e184febf8ca65af9de2640ddd604466d 193905
JPEG36.2 aefe3789a0930f1bf41ce12abbd2dd7b 77267
1e66a4d7530eb31baf80e203deaa9706 194153
JPEG37.2 f9f5a2062b0c83fb84a03234843887df 80351
2cfe99c38eeb990c6d383946a4fd4de1 142521
JPEG38.2 503279bf914b095cddcdf9936c1ff777 61786
798e63740133a80ca0abc6638f0012c5 199856
JPEG39.2 0f360a32167b7710e4cce142e3855d0b 81263
0117a3b27385f84e1894e3310efb3f6b 62546
JPEG40.2 b6185e568f22f863195a9fc81cc3bc80 32431
85925d0086b407cf8919b8477f969dfd 185274
JPEG41.2 1c7e4df231633d481791e606001a02ad 77060
1bc9e5aa89dd6263b6d59f471d44d4fb 180489
JPEG42.2 2d6c683a3e3496eafdf9d93c7d947e3f 73746
ef5e89d5c348df7c9b7393003fd10df1 197377
JPEG43.2 a96870a614647d1835789f2e50a8ab1a 79850
3403c508af6708631592b63beb6aeee8 139580
JPEG44.2 d4a833c71172f093983669f5c47fb931 60543
ac4385dfa4d0d289ebadfed17cfdbc4c 181347
JPEG45.2 ded7c514d2d9a2ef0024c922247066a7
e703fc78c30b1f278a78944406325f83 167441
JPEG46.2 2c7d954564720c7cba1a62cc0902a526 69546
c06e432adf1e08cfab5862333116c614 170026
JPEG47.2 da3766baf319200d8443647e8bbd6cfb 70675
8b6337ffe65b62f43d2d2b38545e614e 163220
JPEG48.2 91d4b63a3a6d7be851d88f1a4bb40318 68431
90d2504cc93b9232699ef6516ea0d8c9 177291
JPEG49.2 0b0fcce0336c6734a9459d453f98dafe 70933
e6e29ef8aa8950d42fcafc0698f21204 179245
JPEG50.2 a134520efc9d8b9295e001260bec2715
cac665ed940fc633178a1aa391fe142f 165971
JPEG51.2 bd1629e49653089f64df4d8c0f18bfd8 70249
312d5d5980d6d3edc756090a97a1c439 184101
JPEG52.2 e59b1f3ae4a9b813f4a9c6d46dd33468 75178
6f58799f940a1bc2a9aef0440a2579ed 186679
JPEG53.2 8c2519816de0ccd0412d8b6b05b2c43c 77046
67210bf416301e3d9ff79525b5fff3df 172672
JPEG54.2 2c429190024fd593bbae475b3386b9c9 72231
1193e63f9def9f628c7293b9a61c2c4b 171423
JPEG55.2 9e280aba0e6bb9bab06affe568a4587b 69913
c75cc7e7b6fb8f1dbcaa27104def1829 183326
JPEG56.2 7127ebe391daa9a7b9c355bc14d09342 74001
311226290c55e6438a0e6934b1ab047b 182498
JPEG57.2 4d09f062fe35f71b874d769bbf26044c 75687
60deb482840a1f62fc835aef6109660a 192071
JPEG58.2 1ce836105a66955788e07a76603046be 76447
72db7caff36b8e5285ca0dc652918af6 190606
JPEG59.2 24c378f0a37e3def37893e4194bda5a9 78524
6ee825d591cbba68e6f38ccf81b20322 158275
JPEG60.2 b0fcb8f6be3eced7e126ecf7fa75e853 65820
7e46dbbfb137326c9db1cb50322f60ce 77314
JPEG61.2 ef2b321b554fa84f943fe11dd964e61d 40199
d6ecd267da1edcae93b3f22b9761a23f 192198
JPEG62.2 0fe3330a3ff2b0e6bc2da8c9a3c46d2c 77965
6f4eba3bd5e23e63fd551a90c64a4201 160326
JPEG63.2 226a4b86edaf7369cbac17a2e1766b1b 67976
e3991fb1415f6f7c103ea1e21efc5b92 161600
JPEG64.2 9e7ce6b6903213752ce3750c000544e0 67124
484a41ffc862a5e90d638d2584defd33 175702
JPEG65.2 2373d404c9a42eabd9d31e13c9eb0d65 73471
3114bb33066f46a6d881f3e9f773d80b 181978
JPEG66.2 a1f35554da8be671b1e366d5fe0508e2 75257
ebee8a5de8b74c7baa1b3b55f6434209 172777
JPEG67.2 f6682cb62292bf2b6c74fbf923b2a2d9 72813
b00e2d71103d4d5511f27c44e05412c8 181131
JPEG68.2 441487ff45e085f3279db4c939a696aa 74489
748b739bb1d28aef27655f3e35bb0a62 144992
JPEG69.2 91b01c4e85e9920bdb14e05203382af7 62542
2fac89ee86f0f3406df605b61a900c0a 193712
JPEG70.2 2fbec3f391255814b0acbe8a3b1bd72d 72306
5f1e6ad421977d894c5addc212479ca5 71378
JPEG71.2 a8525d0fa528258bd7334aa9dfb6084d 34266
THUMB1 imagejpeg-thumbnails 2f92aa034ed58bf32f657d92c490355e 25714
THUMB2 37a7fac5948e3c1ce042d391fca19fdd 24018
THUMB3 0f3324440e1ee3fd7840306acb232945 27505
THUMB4 33cdc2d226137abde252ac0097101ae8 35877
THUMB5 ea0d645ab724269ca2988769cf17f0c7 30211
THUMB6 9ca3a844cb35db17bdcf051ed2335de5 35016
THUMB7 0de2fd2972d4496edd376110fced88b8 34238
THUMB8 d02784b950d02a05d9f253fad6850c99 35133
THUMB9 cc3e260fcc178b62af5a46e434d2a89b 35392
THUMB10 52c37a559784db0fd8b67088f735d1da 24095
THUMB11 d1bbee4b15be5a0f3e0e978131391dd1 34873
THUMB12 140668aeedc2221f8d3f8c452a520090 23150
THUMB13 97ffb57e175d932988d75488a86a60be 34219
THUMB14 8023072e2a482ac25330d1c3a9f918f9 24865
THUMB15 57459f6e5c5934191002804b5c91495a 37133
THUMB16 4cd07a7ada7db62136a6378e2f391228 35323
THUMB17 bfbf40642831da565b28ce3c490f0435 27084
THUMB18 d3c33b8fc8ed6700230b62732db7734e 34706
THUMB19 873a8f46f6aaa818ac06b7b21217df5d 35611
THUMB20 59bd3c8578c64ac9f799c6fb460856ca 35091
THUMB21 42f0433636cf12083d3a505d36492498 35608
THUMB22 362cb0c7a85ed334ce5cd9dc4796cfa6 32281
THUMB23 e19192fc93e1916901173c45a98a8841 34605
THUMB24 1544c64c34dd5d5ee05475ea3e55eede 33358
THUMB25 9b308505c81df7f3bfc3190376f530c9 28962
THUMB26 e74a19f5123c1c22457fc2ee95ab2c54 35325
THUMB27 2444597db66e458bb69321c1d91aac3b 26658
THUMB28 167fb5e8dbe1f61605c210b6ff1c428f 33595
THUMB29 b19f784618ebc8e450b141773e4911d9 34601
THUMB30 1068471fa5aa69928840457844571cf6 33030
THUMB31 02eaba643558c991546658dc1f324cef 34628
THUMB32 1f2a89f0a88afa1b6e1910a98e2317e3 34260
THUMB33 0fe677ce967b894fb47aa6411ff511b7 35939
THUMB34 4f2009efa5b1b0b64dac0d4ddbbf3087 33622
THUMB35 9868be5fa732f3a151e88232053bd6b1 25685
THUMB36 b342f25f99fa03ad8c251e864669ed6e 34968
THUMB37 f1567558bfd2bb7b821e645d15c99510 36501
THUMB38 d85d4c176381a3d693f06e95550b6889 31860
THUMB39 67bfe875863d46cd0d65905ee1fd0295 36687
THUMB40 0bb262141cb2cec4e588c14fc5bffa0c 24087
THUMB41 695b7c8b443c0b7d278425d5182f8e6e 35253
THUMB42 0b658432b30669caf74df31a572c60dd 35015
THUMB43 cca63f35d038361f3d452791298afa12 36202
THUMB44 439da34c8ce7f964153ee51b9dcfc292 30797
THUMB45 bac9c0f365513b5deb713429d9dc8631 34462
THUMB46 d15e69959cdc6264f03641426ef7f422 34069
THUMB47 34cd3ee548735a7f9481e9b9847384ba 33868
THUMB48 05f4001140da102087f739b462e58835 32987
THUMB49 258386af80adcc1ce979bbc574f1cd18 35342
THUMB50 2d2165fe3dd94ee422c71696522d11fe 35779
THUMB51 66664680ae2979971eeb6b1164213a6d 34105
THUMB52 e968c37ee8b0dc2520aea0bbf7a4bee6 35131
THUMB53 d054f2c7192954fbb1edd67ca51b025b 36081
THUMB54 07aeee603a276b7ee5e7cafee3bfd146 34700
THUMB55 95ed17d359e75520877716013a556790 34850
THUMB56 3e171a5c863a8d5946c1aa4910850fdf
THUMB57 5f9b44e4c0159a4af0d60eb4afe65573 35499
THUMB58 b0f3be2f68e758b3da4a29c2aa8ce1c2 34849
THUMB59 2e23b6612a78c217f27696be7b6be7f4 36171
THUMB60 640dfc9c9b4511e5d09147dee4e03330 32667
THUMB61 a0c95bee2fa125ef3c7183ac7db35df1 26595
THUMB62 83ff07a587a5be84205e5aa533878e48 35223
THUMB63 9817c7544c0cfccf1c95296d1c05d688 33823
THUMB64 57e64c8330d2143c7631941696364efa 33173
THUMB65 008f715d3d8fa6b1884810909b44226d 35670
THUMB66 180c99fb4d5d73ab33e1172f54a3877d 34246
THUMB67 86198334c5109487fbfdb98c524c995a 34900
THUMB68 b168bb0cd9715e595de00dab43a3c488 34664
THUMB69 7d67315f09f7c5600ae62782ff88ac29 31147
THUMB70 c937f0aee8b7bbe6dec8699aca6185e5 34600
THUMB71 51e71052a5146cfd17818174e74fec4d 23196
TXT1 textplain 81051bcc2cf1bedf378224b0a93e2877 2
TXT2 cb1b3fdb524659876f3c417ea26ddca9 826
TXT3 c199d1430614d53409e1bc516596fb12 1225
TXT4 821ebcfc04a04874c2aaeaf12dc99fbf 2047
TXT5 fdec9e74ff9e61f0bf282efed84e4b0a 1387
TXT6 25700557ab9e93f9ac2b0f2db977894a 1799
TXT7 519c8d81a4f8014d79d5c035073a89b0 1708
TXT8 8b264dd7b99c7c1d283d5b1a456ae813 1722
TXT9 5cc0efc7832e484baeac5caf5a7ad373 1810
TXT10 24d1c5c1a4e24ea448890c99da5846d3 927
TXT11 9577b0747001f5a4848015046b155598 1637
TXT12 313075d56cb3ced5cc462ea10fce848e 839
TXT13 7ffd69758fe9bd7d9c608b46baaa1a59 1590
TXT14 2b03d66efbe60191bd93c92ee2a83987 1277
TXT15 bdb7d20f67f31cd6639896dc2568ab81 1973
TXT16 acd7772ba839d902bf6d69d2de1f5bc3 1868
TXT17 76b27868e56c8b66c3d52b2d41662829 136
TXT18 fd31c35b5924e2da05c96d0007a58934 1827
TXT19 3ff91d392bf90f6d0d90b7be23a7566e 1747
TXT20 ddcd03378970eb4a308f0478f80fc24c 1758
TXT21 361570a233a94aed21acafd4beeec014 1928
TXT22 b1c1fc7481e50e5f6fc504386e0fa8dd 1645
TXT23 07ee0d677bc20408fd3d998146064fbb 1731
TXT24 2fea7fc3b90cf437604e1f18616c07a0 1766
TXT25 fc1b0aa9f271f78bdc3816efaa4ebc16 578
TXT26 966da7d6ded15d4d4920e12d6742ff8c 1923
TXT27 7388ffee86f062c953a92bb2c29b905c 201
TXT28 9c868663c28f1bf89355f6588eedfa4d 1729
TXT29 8d20f229f78328455843a88e88420735 1605
TXT30 4d6f99a91e9d87071250fe7ea0e13f4e 1672
TXT31 12b858028cd1599d9ed0784850028cc7 1632
TXT32 2fb3cb21ab75ffb8d31e355f88cc4a30 1835
TXT33 0f5d250fba966a36d0874c2c3217bac6 1821
TXT34 855a3c17a659338aca46eea94b37b1cb 1734
TXT35 49cc3ae88ad378ff6240e1212d31cc95 552
TXT36 75b5d2e0cf2b0fdb42673bcf8f43f0b4 1954
TXT37 72aa93a98b72a89c3e84e4584a799719 1895
TXT38 91ae5bea26e9b5a8ca9ded096fff4c3b 1448
TXT39 b453db274409efd0ebbbda199aae519f 1899
TXT40 41e4b3de259adc0f11ff1d28ba4fe0ab 1368
TXT41 b801d7605808782d53218ff13a6f3816 1795
TXT42 b8ddc096ee17ba5e870f483cc8b1ee8a 1811
TXT43 9d53e6bf147c36ad0bc4f870e3888ad1 1856
TXT44 c53f51c2b88710279bedf1365669d63d 1842
TXT45 877fa4829c1806d472c9ee8a553df002 1697
TXT46 964cddd4342745ca2563bcc05820433d 1696
TXT47 ea38f027ff1e131275220177b203f5af 1615
TXT48 e8dacb3dc9d2e08bd13cd78662fa0b4d 1709
TXT49 5b853093d6940aa41b44bf18c38f3a75 2054
TXT50 ac2e40d168f37af71915236292e877d4 1817
TXT51 d569d7067ce814ff7f98c40c6a577304 1613
TXT52 fbc64b04d7c34fd17e6a524b6e95e009 1816
TXT53 5a6618f27ab8e0b158b082d10d27046a 1800
TXT54 98cb08fc2cd91f99c370030ee9fb7a4c 1744
TXT55 c1a3dcac762ceb08b5e1dce81050073f
TXT56 2c8154d2bc4232da8ccb706b00771370 1784
TXT57 2149f93faabf3013ef474889955ee831 1737
TXT58 f82b00e3ada6958d8691f6a46da31ef8 1893
TXT59 b8f4df3a825a1cdf73dc3cbc8ef32e6a 1826
TXT60 e913909a21feae968905b0d837a1a9c2 1711
TXT61 b5d4cc70ee743ef9ba98fe11f107ee52 1070
TXT62 32ed9f9b5ce88ee170ce2401f380677f 1912
TXT63 c683a841c3e0a9490ce211abae0c3b63 1596
TXT64 ef22eaa9bf0574103fa0f293c127860a 1511
TXT65 99d3feba00f09434e00cc6273cb1f203 1753
TXT66 9cb93dd75b970b442d51e3a066ee9d6e 1761
TXT67 9fb119e69bbe287640268ee37690fb7a 1575
TXT68 c428088f1599cfd798e37bf08ca1c3ee 1738
TXT69 317cf4237055b3f11027d9cd434321da 1309
TXT70 a39a9986708940b1dfc0d7b3db299e40 2020
TXT71 c2e203b8c6f7fe46034a5e3a54bea3bd 486
PRO1 textx-pro aa6c525aa082e1d79ff72db5eac50502 221
PRO2 ecd6eae5a36363ec194c5558d555084c 23861
PRO3 deaed8777d84649381579f4b8478453a 29505
PRO4 a0aa31b1c69c0f289ca1e3c414336a83 54205
PRO5 ed490fae98a87b0c807ae81225a88422 36085
PRO6 2b1fcee0dcb2f3ef587c6a46fecec69e 47846
PRO7 5a4ec71f1a4d3af92fb8b81ac51add70 45248
PRO8 1bb3609eff8b9ee5d5cd1b6e975610f2 45729
PRO9 ee54ad0beb79c1dc199270defd4863d0 44818
PRO10 7bc85655dff9527fae4f5e35f8ffd066 19745
PRO11 3493768bfbe0be74fab8cdc41f18ff59 40605
PRO12 c8dc2e000bfcb025ddb5bb3b1a9ae1ed 18126
PRO13 c063107b6125e9c7d8d1e6ed9fe03bf9 42123
PRO14 4a6ccca7d055ff1c7497b61468bdc05b 27493
PRO15 2679eaf4e5a71fd37fef2d660beab2ac 52364
PRO16 f55324e7cb35c101f52437322b085dae 49763
PRO17 5fe03c710db6a98e05ecf941d47f96e4 3732
PRO18 c678ca0d8f23556e7f1e0970e1b123c2 48654
PRO19 7a6e1624057ff5bc737217bbc28e19a1 44705
PRO20 830e5becc133ac69413863ed601bf7a9 42242
PRO21 80e01fa782b88e672d51fdaba85b810d 47801
PRO22 39b5f99e87e5cc07a448f3fdfce647d1 38983
PRO23 f5292042c480947c94a820479adb9823 45796
PRO24 3835288f797fff9aa4b2d8553ea6a565 46988
PRO25 c1758e8b922b37660cf7045004eda331 15981
PRO26 e0ab02c8f6690758ae67ba505d426ba2 51202
PRO27 6f31d21cc82b0b18d5d01ef5ae9728c5 5435
PRO28 d833a10b38b014d33ead2cb91e2e2d33 44176
PRO29 533000f5544431e95c3d024c426ec3b0 41388
PRO30 b7ce0a0bb5545785a67ddb4926cc9690 44310
PRO31 5670b1f2f09dda59592937879e7e29e4 43156
PRO32 71c68ebf7c03a65d23a8caea6f1692bb 48883
PRO33 02757aa7e77b837e471a3b272c67e34c 48160
PRO34 5c33b8b7447a0f02f68c51b66b996869 45906
PRO35 889248181cd5c519f7b286725dd83be5 11850
PRO36 787f081f3dd7ddcacbddcb773ec8f51e 51988
PRO37 6ae2ab715d0917a01a588d37ec574854 50129
PRO38 497581639650b797313e1a0027dc14e9 35004
PRO39 7b7655dd760798c0c880677cc8b921d6 50376
PRO40 71cd00fc78f68ee5160864e4678e1b9a 28354
PRO41 244feb7ead5a53a4102c1e94c566e71e 47439
PRO42 9a2f5ea1a18f9aa08821d874ca3ae983 48215
PRO43 26881e646062a035a3e76287364392ee 49137
PRO44 d064100535f397b01ece66d23c541352 42121
PRO45 621e8bf45689300abf064e9168904fdd 44675
PRO46 0c97499d0b2fd79d02f119b2b7ef6d55 43133
PRO47 837c0842205216b40cd89d2b54500b97 42415
PRO48 6a7c48ad192d2eb409781bd911b37c2c 43097
PRO49 b8762ac2db68f9e2dd57450e198b814f 49001
PRO50 23e85f5e7568c26fb459cfe2acf0daa5 48391
PRO51 59ed9b426132abce0ecc011c9510dc9c 41127
PRO52 9cd5f4380068845ce57ecef169c30d5d 48152
PRO53 5440547c76b5f6677f3ce179c69b56d3 47494
PRO54 8e9d99bf991fcfb41fc2f586ddbad2db 44775
PRO55 5bc2f49acf8fc160011e60a0b1b0cf57 41853
PRO56 18f642d3c37abaed3bc450c7b77c317c 47378
PRO57 f163504ae846079efce52b1fda8885d4 46010
PRO58 8a856aff24be974bf228fb379f9f8a14 50305
PRO59 9b79b84c1cc63e0889c188a4077e914e 48125
PRO60 011adb9524217c0677291a9864354f73 41510
PRO61 b785c74a41498f128392965368b3b131 24143
PRO62 5f1ba1d815c0369465312c2e392f3d00 50870
PRO63 189947b5bfdb076ca3411458c41e4dfe 39589
PRO64 9cb61e63f711b7ea84eecd9bb1c2268e 39969
PRO65 0cdee0cad1cca6498561033068e4eaf5 44065
PRO66 07ca5d10579a25dbae3e7d9a70889a0f 46857
PRO67 f80f02ed31be1d831a429fa92143fca2 41701
PRO68 eb82150461a81efb7bbc38548f91180e 46000
PRO69 9000919c4bf77fe4b8215022854563d1 32004
PRO70 25cfb545d4db1a9243b7fc23ea0bdb5f 52820
PRO71 f05daee0e3a16e41a84e7323877808ba 12599
METS1 unknownx-mets 0309c1ce4011801acee2626227a5443a 75464
METS:structMap STRUCT1 physical
PDIV1 1 Front Cover
PAGE1 Page i
PDIV2 Title
PAGE2 ii
PDIV3 3 Table Contents
PAGE3 iii
PDIV4 4 Preface
PAGE4 iv
PDIV5 5 Introduction
PDIV6 the national economy 6 Chapter
PAGE12 7
PDIV7 Egyptian farming system
PAGE13 8
PAGE14 9
PAGE15 10
PAGE16 11
PAGE17 12
PDIV8 seed: Varieties sources
PAGE18 13
PAGE19 14
PAGE20 15
PAGE21 16
PAGE22 17
PAGE23 18
PAGE24 19
PAGE25 20
PAGE26 21
PAGE27 22
PAGE28 23
PAGE29 24
PAGE30 25
PAGE31 26
PDIV9 Fertilization irrigation
PAGE32 27
PAGE33 28
PAGE34 29
PAGE35 30
PAGE36 31
PAGE37 32
PAGE38 33
PAGE39 34
PAGE40 35
PAGE41 36
PAGE42 37
PAGE43 38
PAGE44 39
PAGE45 40
PAGE46 41
PDIV10 Weed, insect disease control
PAGE47 42
PAGE48 43
PAGE49 44
PAGE50 45
PDIV11 as a dual-purpose crop
PAGE51 46
PAGE52 47
PAGE53 48
PAGE54 49
PAGE55 50
PAGE56 51
PDIV12 The on-farm trial system: Findings 1979 maize survey
PAGE57 52
PAGE58 53
PAGE59 54
PAGE60 55
PAGE61 56
PAGE62 57
PAGE63 58
PAGE64 59
PAGE65 60
PAGE66 61
PAGE67 62
PDIV13 Conclusions
PAGE68 63
PAGE69 64
PDIV14 References
PAGE70 65
PAGE71 66
STRUCT2 other
ODIV1 Main