Group Title: mer demonstrations of improved dryland
Title: Farmer demonstrations of improved dryland
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00094293/00001
 Material Information
Title: Farmer demonstrations of improved dryland wheat production system : preliminary report, Wheat Research and Training Project
Physical Description: 18 leaves : ; 33 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Mann, Charles Kellogg, 1934-
Publication Date: 1975
Copyright Date: 1975
 Subjects
Subject: Wheat -- Yields   ( lcsh )
Wheat -- Economic aspects   ( lcsh )
Genre: non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (leaf page 6).
General Note: Caption title.
General Note: Typescript.
General Note: "November 17th, 1975"--Leaf 5.
Statement of Responsibility: Charles K. Mann.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00094293
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 434880171

Full Text



FARMER DEMONSTRATIONS OF IMPROVED DRYLAND

WHEAT PRODUCTION SYSTE'N Preliminary Report

Wheat Research and Training Project

SUMMARY
Based on field questionnaires this paper presents a preliminary
evaluation of the results of the first year of farmer demonstrations of
Turkey's improved dryland wheat production system. All demonstrator farmers
realized substantially higher returns than did cooperator fanners whose
fields served as controls (Sahit). The average net benefit from the
improved system compared to that of the control was 203 TL. per decare.
The ratio of increased benefits to increased costs ran from 1.1 to one
to 10.5 to one with the average being 5.3 to one. More research is necessary
to learn the place of the cooperators in the spectrum of Anatolian
farming practices and to evaluate the impact of the demonstrations on
other farmers.


Over the past years (Turkish and American scientists) with the Wheat
Research and Training Project have worked out a package of improved
practices for producing wheat under the dryland conditions of the Anatolian
Plateau. In the summer of 1975 the first farmer demonstrations of the
improved dryland wheat system were completed. In connection with these
farmer demonstrations special questionnaire forms were prepared by the
Planning, Research and Coordination Directorate (PRC) of the Ministry
of Agriculture with the cooperation of Ankara University. Extension
service personnel administered the questionnaires both to the demonstrator
farmers and to "cooperator" farmers in the ten demonstration villages.
The forms from 7 of the demonstration villages have been completed and
returned. Since the information contained on these forms is of immediate
usefulness to the scientists working on the improved system, this report
presents a preliminary analysis of several aspects of the improved system
concentrating on its economic evaluation. It is hoped that this preliminary
work will be useful to others working with these data.
Description of the Improved System

One of the key elements of the improved system is the increased
retention of soil moisture through improved and more timely cultivation
practices designed to develop an insulating mulch and control weed growth.
Whereas the fallowed field is normally first tilled in Anatolia in May or
June, the improved system calls for tillage to take place in late March or
early April depending upon soil and weather conditions. This first tillage
is carried out using a moldboard plow with subsequent tillages using a
sweep plow. The moldboard plow was selected due to its widespread avail-
ability on Turkish farms. While effective from a yield standpoint it is
not the ideal implement from the standpoint of minimizing erosion. First
tillage with a sweep plow or "shortened ear" moldboard plow provides better
erosion protection. A spike-toothed harrow drawn behind both helps develop
a good mulch. Seeding is normally carried out in October using high


./..







Page 2


yielding seed varieties. Both nitrogen and phosphorus are applied at time
of seeding ( about 6 kgs nutrient P205 and about 2 kgs nutrient N ).
Additional nitrogen is applied in the spring ( about 2 kgs nutrient ) if
moisture conditions are suitable.
With increased soil moisture and adequate nutrients there is considerable
potential for heavy weed growth in the wheat crop. For this reason a key
element in the improved package is chemical weed control, normally applied
as the wheat has bagun tillerinq and weeds arc at the 5-6 leaf stage,
generally in early April.
During the farmer demonstrations, technicians and wheat scientists
made periodic visits to the farmers' fields to instruct the farmers and
generally supervise their practices. At this writing it is not clear to
what extent the "cooperator" farmers ( as opposed to the demonstrator
farmers ) changed their previous practices in response to the education
program. In some cases their practices resemble closely the demonstrator
farmer's and in other cases they appear to represent more traditional
Anatolian practices. On the questionnaires, these "cooperators" represent
the control fields. Therefore, the questionnaires have been analysed by
comparing the results achieved by the demonstrator farmers against the
results achieved by the cooperators. If the cooperators themselves are
above-average farmers, comparing the demonstration results to average
farmers' results would show more dramatic increases.

The Method of Analysis
For use as a basis for comparison, the practices, costs and yields
of the cooperators were first summarized. For dates of operations the
median date was used and for quantities simple averages. Appendix Table
I contains this summary information of the practices used by cooperators
and demonstrators in each village.
The major differences between cooperator and demonstrator practices
are highlighted in Appendix Table II. It can be seen that in 5 of the
7 villages the cooperators used significantly less fertilizer than did
the demonstrators. Also in 5 of 7 cases lack of weed control by cooperators
represented a major difference. :'ost cooperators performed secondary
tillage with a disk harrow instead of a sweep plow and most tilled later
than the demonstrator. Th-re were also differences in seed varieties
used. In some cases the land class of the demonstrators was listed on
the questionnaires as somewhat more productive than the cooperators.
The costs and prices used in preparing the economic analysis are
presented in Appendix Table III. These are summarized by means of the
graph presented below. For each demonstration there are two vertical
bars. The left hand one represents the costs and returns of the cooperator
farmers ( in the case of Tomeli, the control fields of the demonstrator
farmer ). The right hand bar represents the demonstrator's cost and
returns. The height of the bar indicates the gross value of production.
The costs have been grouped into three components; seed and fertilizer;
costs of cultivation; all other costs, mainly harvesting and interest costs.


./ ..








COST OF PRODUCTION COMPARED Tl VALUE OF OUTPUT

COOPERATORS AND DEMONSTRATORS 1974-1975.

(TL Per decare)


CD C D
Pol. Pol.
Cek.-- Torn.


Legend
-gross value of output


Y -other costs *


-tillage & planting costs


*Excludes cost of land
& mgt.


950


CD CD CD CD CD C D
Pol. Can. Ala. Cub. Bal. Average
Sak. Aky. Buy.







Page 4


Land and management costs are ,mitted sn that the unshaded area includesnot
only returns to management (profits) but returns to land as well (ront).
It is clear from the bar chart that demonstrators achieved substantially
higher returns than did the cooperator farmers. Moreover, the cooperators
themselves realized quite high returns. In a poor rainfall year one would
expect the more traditional practices to bc even lower relative to the
demonstrators than these results show.

The average value of output on the cooperator fields was 466 TL. per
decare compared with costs (excluding land costs) of 184 TL.per declare.
Even after deducting 60 TL. as land rent, this represents a profit per decare
of 222 TL. On the demonstration fields the value of gross output was
718 TL. against costs of 231 TL. exclusive of land cost. With land rent
of 60 TL. per decare, this implies a profit of 427 TL. per decare. As a
point of reference against which to view both cooperator and demonstrators'
results, a farmer making just the 11 year average yield of 115 Kg/da. would
realize gross revenues of 288 TL. before deducting any costs.
As is evident from the bar chart most of the variations in cost
between cooperators and demonstrators are the result of variations due to
differences in amounts of seed and fertilizer used, primarily fertilizer.
The demonstrators' seed costs were somewhat lower than the cooperator
farmers' due to lower seeding rates. However, in most cases the
demonstrator's fertilizer costs were substantially higher. As would be
expected, there was considerable uniformity in the seed and fertilizer
cost incurred by the demonstrators. The average cost of these items was
135 TL. and the standard deviation was only 6 TL. indicating that costs
clustered very closely around the average figure. In contrast not only
were the cooperator farmers' seed and fertilizer costs lower on the average
(108 TL.) but the variation was far greater as indicated by a standard
deviation of 29 TL.
There was also considerable variation in the costs of cultivation.
However, as can be seen on the bar chart this element represents a sub-
stantially smaller cost element than does seed and fertilizer. For
example, the cost of one cultivation using a sweep plow only represents
about 3 kilos of wheat. Therefore, the difference in cost between using
2 cultivati qs or using 4 is not great relative to the cost of seed and
fertilizer.T/
./..

I/It should be noted that there is one aspect of cost difference omitted in
the comparison of the two systems. Under traditional Anatolian practices
sheep graze the weody fallow. Early tillage therefore eliminated some
potential fodder; indeed one main objective of the tillage is to prevent
the weeds from depleting the stored moisture. No data are available to
estimate the opportunity cost of forage foregone but experienced observers
believe it to be slight. Without question it is below the increased average
gain of 203 TL. per declare, but no doubt is more than the 4 TL. per decare
net gain in Sakarya. Further research is planned to try to get some estimate
for this cost element.








Table I : Demonstrators and Cooperatcrs : Total and Marginal Revenues and Costs (TL)


Cost of a_
Production:
Cooperators
( TL/da.)


Cost of a/
Production:
Demonstrators
( TL/da.)


Increased
Cost of
Improved
Package
( TL/da.)


Gross value
of Cooperators'
Output
( TL/da.)


Gross value of
Demonstrators'
Output
( TL/da.)


Increased
Revenue from
Improve i
Package
( TL/da. )


Ratio .of
Increased
Benefit to
Increased
Cost


Polatli 182 222 40 562 725 163 4.1 : 1
Cekirdeksiz

Poltli b/ 242 240 -2 463 572 112 Increase of
Temeli 112TL.with cos
7T1m0i saving of 2TL.
Pol tli 197 234 38 476 518 42 1.1 : 1
Skary--
Cinkaya 140 226 86 426 624 198 2.3 : 1
Aacatli 193 235 42 481 863 382 9. : 1
uk'uk 189 24G 57 332 930 598 10.5 : 1

Bkl 144 213 69 523 780 257 3.7 : 1
Buyukboyali
Avcr-qc 184 231 47 466 716 250 5.3 : 1
Avr,.q


SExcludes cost of land and
"Cooperator" in this case


management
is other fields of


Demonstrator farmer







Page 6


Viewing the adoption of the improved package as an investment, Table I
below compares the increased value of production realized by the demonstrators
to the increased costs they incurred. On the average the gain in value was
250 TL. per decare and the added cost 47 TL. per decare leaving a net gain
of 203 TL. per decare. Expressed as the ratio of gross benefits to costs
this is equal to 5.3 to one. As is clear from the table, however, this
average conceals large variations. In Temeli, costs under the control
system were slightly higher than the improved system largely due to
excessive seed and fertilizer use. In the case of the Sakarya increased
costs were roughly equal to increased revenues. However, scientists who
observed this demonstration report that severe and unusual erosion problems
there prevented full expression of the benefits of the package. In both
Alacaatli and Cubuk the ratio of increased benefits to increased costs was
on the order of 10 to one, an extremely high ratio.

CONCLUSIONS
The overall impression which emerges from this preliminary economic
analysis is that the differences in cost between the cooperator systems and
the demonstrator systems are not great relative to the large difference in
yields realized. The impressive yield increases appear to be due not to
large amounts of costly physical inputs but rather to modest amounts of
additional inputs combined with better management. However, since other
variables, such as soil type and land class may have played a role, this
conclusion must be regarded as tentative. Nonetheless, all things
considered, the first year of farmer demonstrations suggest that the
improved system can bring substantial gains in wheat production and in
profits not only on research plots but under farmer field conditions.

Need for Additional Research
While these results of the first year farmer demonstrations are useful
they raise several additional questions. Most important perhaps is the
need to establish the place of the practices of both cooperators and
demonstrators in the spectrum of farm practices in thesevillages. How
typical are the cooperator farmers? If they themselves are relatively
advanced, "typical" farmers may realize even greater increases than the
cooperators by adopting the improved practices. It would also be useful
to know what size farms are represented by cooperators and demonstrators
relative to other village farms.
Interesting insights could also be obtained by learning something
of the other farmers' reactions to the demonstrations. Do they plan next
year to emulate the demonstrator? Other questions involve the availability
of improved cultivation equipment, particularly the sweep plow and spike-
toothed harrow. While reported rental rates were used in this study, data
on actual costs to the owner of such equipment needs added study. Such
equipment is not yet widely available and if contractor-farmers are to buy
it, its use must be profitable. Follow-up research on these questions could
be extremely useful for policy formulation.

Charles K. Mann/ao
November 17th, 1975





Page 7


Appendix Table I. Comparison of Demonstrator and
Cnoperator Famers' Practices, Yields and Gross
Returns 1974-1975.


OPERATIONS


1st Cult..


2nd Cult.


3rd Cult.


4th or
Preseeding
Cultivat.

Seeding


Fertilizer


Weed
Control

Harvest


Polatli
Cekirdeksiz
Cooperator
Farmers (9)


Date
Tool
Depth


Date
Tool
Depth

Date
Tool
Depth

Date
Tool
Depth

Date
Variety
Rate


At seeding


4/10
P
18-22


6/12
P
10-15

Not
Done


9/10
D
5-12

10/11
220/39
20.4


P 5.6


Spring


# using
Date
Rate type

Date


0 of 9


7/15


Demo.

3/30
P-T
18-20

5/29
K-T
10-12

6/29
K-T
10-12

8/19
K
?

10/5
Bolal
18

P 4.6
N 1.8

N 2.6


5/13
(0.12) H

7/20


Polatli
Temeli
1 Farmer
5 Fields

4/20
P
22

5/21
K
10

6/25
K
10

Not
Done


10/20
LIV/HYV
20.5


P 7.0
N 2.2

4/7
N 2.3


5 of 5
5/20
(0.12) H

7/20


RESULTS

Yield Kg/da

Valu2 TL/da


562 725


Demo.

3/30
P-T
15-20

5/29
K-T
10-12

6/27
K-T
10-12

8/8
K-t
10-12

10/11
Bolal
18

P 4.6
N 1.8

3/28
N 3.1


5/14
(0.12) H

7/20


Grain
Straw

Grain
Straw


215
216

540
22


290
290

696
29


178
178

445
18


230
230

552
23


T o t a 1 (TL.)


463 575






Page 8
Appendix Table I. (continued)


OPERATIONS


1st Cult.


2nd Cult.


3rd Cult.


4th or Pre-
seeding
cultivation

Seeding


Fertilizer


Ieed
Control

Harvest


RESULTS


Yield Kq/da.


Value TL/da.


Polatli
Sakarya
Conperator
Farmers (10)


Date
Tool
Depth

Date
Tool
Depth

Date
Tool
Depth

Date
Tool
Depth

Date
Variety
Rate


At seeding


Spring


#using
Date
Rate type

Date



Grain
Straw


Grain
Straw


4/13
P
18-22

6/10
7D, 3K
10-15

(only
2 used)


(only
2 used)


10/12
LIV
20.4


P 5.2
N 0

3/2
N 2.6


9 of 10
5/10
(0.12) H

7/22


Demo.


3/30
P-T
15-20

5/31
K-T
10-12

6/24
K-T
10-12

8/22
K-T
10-12

10/8
Bolal
18

P 4.3
N 2.1

3/17
N 2.1


5/20
(0.12) H

7/25


207
207

497
21


458
18


Cankaya
Cooperator
Farmers (9)


5/29
P
18-20

6/17
D
8-10

Not
Done


10/3
D
8-10

10/10
LIV
19.1

P 0.4
N 0.2


Not
Done.


4 of 10
4/27
(0.14) H

8/14



164
164


410
16


476 518


Demo.

4/12
P-T
20

6/13
K-T
8

7/4
K-T
8

Not
Done


10/9
LIV
16

P 5.5
N 2.2

4/8
N 2.1


(0.22) EC

7/30



240
240


T o ta (TL.)


426 624






Page 9
Appendix Table I. (continu-d)


OPERATIONS


1st Cult.


2nd Cult.


3rd Cult.


4th or Pre-
seedinq
cultivation

Seeding


Fertilizer


Weed
Control


Harvest


RESULTS


Ankara
Alacaatl i
Cooperator
Farmers (9)


Date
Tool
Depth


Date
Tool
Depth

Date
Tool
Depth

Date
Tool
Depth

Date
Variety
Rate


At seeding


Spring


#using
Date
Rate type

Date


4/27
P
20-22

6/3
D(2K)
5-14

6/30
D(1K)
7-15

Net
Done

9/28
LIV
19

P 2.8
N 2.3


N 0.3


5 of 9
5/9
(0.12) EC

7/4-8/24


Cubuk
Akyurt
Cooperator
Demo. Farmers (11)


6/8
P
20


6/28
K-T
12

7/30
K-T
12

Not
Done

10/5
Bolal
17

P 5.5
N 2.2

3/31
N 2.1


4/10
(0.23) EC

8/25


6/6
P
20-25

Not
Done

Not
Done


Not
Done

10/10
Sert
16

P 4.8
N 1.2

3/15
N 1.7


Demo.


6/10
K-T
10

6/20
K-T
10

Not
Done


10/15
Berkman
16


P 4.9
N 1.2

3/15
N 2.1


1 of 10
3/20 4/1
(0.12) EC (0.20) VK

7/13 7/26


Yield Kg/da.


Yield TL/da.


T o t a l (TL.)


Grain
Straw

Grain
Straw


172
172

464
17


345
345

828
35


107
107

321
11


300
300


900
30


481 863


332 930







Appendix Table I.(continued)


OPERATIONS


1st cult.



2nd Cult.


3rd cult.



4th or Pre-
seeding
cultivation

Seeding


Fertilizer


Weed
Control


Harvest

RESULTS


Yield Kg/da.


Yield TL/da.


Date
Tool
Depth

Data
Tool
Depth

Date
Tool
Deoth

Date
Tool
Depth

Date
Variety
Rate


At seeding


Spring


#using
Date
Rate type

Date


Grain
Straw


Grain
Straw


Bala
Buyukboyalik
CnopCratnr
Farmers (11)

5/12
P
18-20

6/20
D
8-11

Not
Done


10/13
D
8-11

10/17
Surak
22


P 3.5
N 0.0


Not
Done

Not
Done


7/21


503
20


( TL. ) 523


Demo.

3/28
P-T
20

5/28
K-T
12

6/27
K-T
12

Not
Done

10/4
Bolal
16

P 6.0
N 2.3

3/17
N 2.5


4/9
(0.18) EC

7/21


750
30

780


* ** ^


Tota l








NOTES TO Appendix Table I.


1. Abbreviations :


P
T
D
K
P
N
HYV
LIV
H
EC
VK


Moldboard Plow
Tirmik (spike toothed harrow)
Disk harrow
Kazayagi (swoop plow)
Phosohorous (nutrient in Kg/da.)
Nitrogen (nutrient in Kg/da.)
High Yielding Varieties
Local Improved Varieties
"Hecktaster" herbicide
"Ester Combination" herbicide
"Weed Killer" herbicide


2. Since reported straw yields varied so widely straw yield was
arbitrarily taken to be equal by weight to grain yield, a ratio
suggested by experienced observers for wheat harvested by combine.

3. Straw price was taken as stated on several of the forms as 0.10 TL.
per kq. in th2 field.

4. Price used for local varieties was TL.2.50/kg. and TL.2.40/kg. for
Bolal which sells at a slight discount. Durum (sert) wheat price
used was TL3.00/kg.







Appendix Table II.
Practices Farmer
Demonstrators


Major Differences in Cultural
Cooperators compared to Farmer


Demonstrator Norm


1st Tillage
2nd Tillage
3rd Tillage
4th Tillage
Seeding
Fertilizer

Spring
Weed Control


3/30 plow-tirmik (spike tooth harrow)
5/31 sweep-tirmik
6/27 sweep-tirmik
8/19 Sweep (only 4 used 4th tillage)
Bolal (2 local improved) 18 Kg/da.
At seeding P2 05: 5.1 Kg. (nutrient)
rN : 1.9 Kg. (Nutrient)
N : 2.4 Kg. (nutrient)
4/1-4/10 Cankaya,Alacaatli,Akyurt,Bala
5/13-5/20 Cekirdeksiz,Temmeli,Sakarya
(Hektaster, 0.12 litros/decare)


Major
Difference in:


Polatli-Cekirdeksiz


Polatli-Temeli


Tillage
Secondary Tillage:
Variety
Fertilizer (N)
Weed Control
Yield


Tillage

Variety


Yield


First tillage :
Secondary tillage:

Fertilizer
Weed Control
Land class

Yield


Cooperator


Three
Moldboard plow
220/39
No N
None
216 Kg/da.


: First 4/20
Three
: 1149, Boz.,
093/49,Bolal


: 178 Kg.


5/29
disk harrow
presccd; no 3rd.
Virtually none
4 of 10 used
6 Kirac (sloping)
3 Kir taban
(partially flat)
164 Kg/da.


Demonstrator

Four
Sweep-Tirmik
Bolal
4.4 Kg/da.N
Herbicide
290 Kg/da.

First 3/30
Four
Bolal


230iKg.


4/12
sweep-tirmik
3rd. no preseed
P 5.5 Kg/da.
N 4.3 Kg/da.
Herbicide
Kir taban

240 Kg/da.


First tillage
Secondary till
Variety


Fertilizer

Weed Control

Land class


: 4/27
age: Mostly disk harrow
: 111/33 (4)
Durum (3)
220/39 (1)
1149 (1)
: P 2.8 Kg/da.
N 2.6 Kg/da.
: 5 of 9 used
(May 9)
: Kirac (4)
Kir taban (5)


6/8 (too wet earlier)
sweep-tirmik
Bolal


P 5.5
N 4.3
April


Kg/da.
Kg/da.
10


Taban (flat)
Kir taban


Cankaya


Alacaatl i







Pago 13
Appendix Table II


continuedd)


Major
Difforonce in:


Cooperator


Demonstrator


First tillage
Secondary tillage:
Wlicd control
Land class


6/6
none
1 of 11
Kirac


4/1
Sweep-tirmik
used herbicide
Kir taban


Bala-BtyUkboyalik


First tillage
Secondary tillage


Variety
Fertilizer

Weed Control
Yield


: 5/12
: Proseed but no
3rd.
:Surak
:P 3.5 Kg/da.
No N
: None
: 201 Kg/da.


3/28
3rd but no
preseed
Bclal
P 6.0 Kg/da.
N 4.8 Kg/da.
Herbicide
300 Kg/da.


Polatli-Sakarya


Tillage
Secondary
Variety

Fertilizer
Yield


tillage


S(N)


: Two
: Mostly disk-harrow
: 220/39 (7)
093/44 (2)
Bez. (1)
: No fall N
: 183 Kg/da.


Four
Sweep-tirmik
Bolal

Fall N 2.1, Sp.N 2.6
207 Kg/da.


;ubuk








Appendix Table III.


COST ANALYSIS: Cooperator


and Demonstrator Farmers (TL per decare)


Polatli
Cekirdeksiz
Coop. Farmers


Polatli
Temeli
Demo. Control


Polatli
Sakarya
Coop.
Demo. Farmers Demo.


Cultivation and
Seeding DI


Subtotal C & S


Seed Cost


Fertilizer &
Chemical
Heed Control

Subtotal F & WC


Harvest,
Trans. and
Interest


61.2


Fertil. 38.3

Weed Con. -


Harvest
Transp.
Interest


Subtotal
Harvest, Trins.,
& Interest


38.3

20
6
17

43


42 37.5

54 61.5


68.5


77.1

20
9
20

49


87.1

8j.6

95.7

20
5
22

47


55 25 52.5


54 61.2

72.9 58.9


81.5 67.5


49 43


182 222 242


Page 14


1st.
2nd.
3rd.
4th.
Seeding


15
7.5
7.5
6
6


15
7.5
7.5

7.5


17.5
10
10
10
7.5


17.5
10
10
10
5


72.2


80.8


240 197 234


Total (TL)







Page 15
Appendix Table III.


(Continued)


Cankaya
Coop.
Farmers


Cultivation and
Seeding I/


Subtotal C & S


Seed Cost


Fertilizer and
Chemical Weed
Control

Subtotal F & WC

Harvest
Transportation
& Interest

Subtotal Harvest,
Transportation,
& Interest


1st.
2nd.
3rd.
4th.
Seeding


Alacaatli
Cooperator
Demo. Farmers


17.5
10
10

7


38 44.5


Fertilizer
Weed
Control


57.3

5.7

3.4


48 57

74.2 41.7


11.5


85.3 45.7


Harvest
Transport.
Interest


20
7.2
21


17.5
5
18


36 48.2 40.5


193 235


Demo.

20
10
10

10

50


73.6

14.5

88.1

15
10.3
21


46.3


Total (TL)


140 22r








Page 16


Appendix III.(continued)


Cubuk-Akyurt
Cooperator
Farmers


Cultivation and
Seeding P



Subtotal C & S

Seed Cost

Fertilizer and
Chemical M!cd1
Control

Subtotal F & WC

Harvest,
Transportation
and Interest

Subtotal Harvest,
Transportation
& Interest


Bala
BdyUkboyalik
Demo. Coop. Farms.


1st.
2nd.
3rd.
4th.
Seeding


Fertilizer
Weed
Control



Harvest
Transport.
Interest


59.9

1.0

50.9

20
3.2
17

40.2


24C 144 213


Demo.
12.5
7.5
7.5

5

32.5


82.3


94.3


53.8


76.8


23.5


23.5


Total ( TL )


189






Pago 17
Appendix III. (continue.1)


AV E R G E S

Coop.
Farmer
Ave. / Sta. Dev.


Cultivation
and Seoding 1j




Subtotal C & S

Seed Cost

Fertilizer and
Chemical Weed
Control

Subtotal F & WC

Harvest,
Transportation
and Interest

Subtotal Harvest,
Transportation
and Interest


1st.
2nd.
3rd.
4th.
Seeding


Fertilizer

Weed Control


Harvest
Transport.
Interest


35 231 11


Demo.
Ave. 2/


Sta. Dev.


2.7
2.5
2.5
2.3
5.3


8.8


3.0

5.7

2.4


3.6
1.5
1.1

4.2


Total (TL)







Page 18


Notes to Table III.


1_ Costs of cultivation as reported on questionnaires except that
TL. 2.50 per decare was added whn a tirmik was dravn behind
the implement. In cases where cooperators reported no cost
figures, those of the demonstrator were used.

2/ In order to derive realistic estimates of costs per operation,
zero values were omitted in calculating averages for the
individual operations. For this reason adding the average
costs of each operation does not equal the average tillage
cost shown since that average reflects the fact that not
all farmers used all tillage operations.

3/ Fertilizer prices used were those prevailing during the demon-
stration period. These are :

\mmnoium Sulphate 1.88 TL/kg.
jnmonium Nitrate 1.88 TL/kg.
Normal Superphosphate 1.14 TL/kg.
Triple Superphosphate 2.83 TL/kg.
Diammonium Phosphate 4.40 TL/kg.

In April 1975 and again in September 1975 these prices
were lowered.




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

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