01.02.2014 Views

Untitled - CGIAR Impact

Untitled - CGIAR Impact

Untitled - CGIAR Impact

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

20 ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF NEW RICE TECHNOLOGY<br />

Table 15. Economics of management-package experiments in nine farmers' fields in Nueva Ecija,<br />

Philippines, 1976 dry season.<br />

Increase over the farmers' treatment<br />

Sites (no.) with<br />

Treatment<br />

no.<br />

Cash cost (US$/ha)<br />

Fertilizer<br />

Weed<br />

control<br />

Insect<br />

control<br />

Net<br />

benefits<br />

(US$/ha)<br />

Yield<br />

(t/ha)<br />

US$ return Increased<br />

per net<br />

US$ cost benefits<br />

Decreased<br />

net<br />

benefits<br />

1 (farmers')<br />

2<br />

3<br />

4<br />

41<br />

75<br />

109<br />

–<br />

20<br />

20<br />

20<br />

24<br />

101<br />

101<br />

– 4.2<br />

112 0.4<br />

238 2.1<br />

254 2.3<br />

– –<br />

6<br />

3.6 7<br />

3.0 6<br />

–<br />

3<br />

2<br />

3<br />

Table 16. Economics of management-package experiments in nine farmers' fields in Nueva Ecija,<br />

Philippines, 1976 wet season.<br />

Increase over the farmers' treatment<br />

Sites (no.) with<br />

Treatment<br />

no.<br />

Cash cost (US$/ha)<br />

Fertilizer<br />

Weed<br />

control<br />

Insect<br />

control<br />

Net<br />

benefits<br />

(US$/ha)<br />

Yield<br />

(t/ha)<br />

US$ return<br />

per<br />

US$ cost<br />

Increased<br />

net<br />

benefits<br />

Decreased<br />

net<br />

benefits<br />

1 (farmers')<br />

2<br />

3<br />

4<br />

36<br />

60<br />

84<br />

–<br />

20<br />

20<br />

20<br />

28<br />

73<br />

73<br />

–<br />

108<br />

124<br />

126<br />

2.8<br />

0.9<br />

1.4<br />

1.6<br />

–<br />

7.0<br />

2.4<br />

2.1<br />

–<br />

7<br />

8<br />

8<br />

–<br />

2<br />

1<br />

1<br />

go through a learning process upon the introduction of new technology. The<br />

process may also account for some of the observed yield gap.<br />

The economic analysis of all experiments is summarized in Table 17. In three<br />

of the eight cases, the maximum yield treatment was also the maximum profit<br />

treatment. In the others, a lower yielding treatment gave higher profits. The<br />

maximum yield plots averaged 1.6 t/ha more yields than the control plots; the<br />

maximum profit plots averaged 1.2 t/ha more than the control. The plots with<br />

the maximum returns per dollar cash cost averaged 0.7 t/ha more yield than the<br />

control plots. Moreover, the plots with high rates of return were 75% as<br />

profitable as the maximum profit plots, while the latter required almost twice<br />

the cash input. The maximum yield plots gave the lowest rate of return, $1.5/$<br />

invested, while the maximum profit plots averaged $1.8 and the high-returnper-dollar<br />

cash plots gave $2.1.<br />

The pattern that emerges from these experiments can be summarized as follows:<br />

1. In an experiment designed to obtain maximum possible yield, the treatment<br />

giving that yield will generally not give the maximum net return.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!