Analysis of productivity growth in agriculture

93

DECADEWISE ANALYSIS OF TOTAL FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY GROWTH OF AGRICULTURE SECTOR IN PUNJAB, PAKISTAN: 1970-2005*
Nasir Nadeem**, Muhammad Siddique Javed***, Sarfraz Hassan**** and Sultan Ali Adil*****

ABSTRACT
A study was conducted in the Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan during 2008 to analyze overtime productivity growth and changes in growth pattern in Punjabs agriculture. Input, output and total factor productivity (TFP) growth indices were estimated for agriculture for a period 1970 to 2005. For this purpose widely used index number approach namely Tornqvist Theil approximation to devisia index was employed. The results revealed that annual average growth rate of input, output and TFP indices remained 1.46, 3.49 and 2.0, respectively for the whole study period and TFP contributed 57 percent towards output growth. The decadewise results indicated that TFP growth remained maximum during 1980s. KEYWORDS: Land productivity; input output analysis; Punjab, Pakistan.

INTRODUCTION The overall rate of economic growth of a country like Pakistan largely depends upon the performance of agriculture sector. Whatever happens to agriculture is bound to affect the growth of country (15). The past experience shows that periods of high or low agricultural growth have generally matched with the periods of robust/poor performance of the national economy (2). Increasing population growth especially in developing countries, limited possibilities of further extension of cultivated land, conversion of fertile land to residential and industrial areas (11), increasing resource degradation (28), wide gap between potential and national average yield (23), slow down of cereal production due to declining world prices and over-intensification of cereal production since 1980 in developing countries (30) and increasing
*A part of Ph. D. Thesis, **Ph. D student, ***Professor and Chairman Department of Agri. Economics, Faisalabad, ****Associate Professor and Chairman, Department of Environmental and Resource Economics, *****Associate Professor, Department of Agri. Economics, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan.

J. Agric. Res., 2010, 48(1)

94

N. Nadeem et al.

demand of food due to rising incomes in other parts of the world, demands further growth in the supply of agricultural commodities and this will come from productivity growth (35). Productivity can be measured by partial and total factor productivity (TFP). Partial measures are the amount of output per unit of a particular input. Commonly used partial measures are yield (output per unit of land), and labour productivity (output per economically active person or per agricultural person-hour) (8). Partial measures of productivity can be misleading, as there is no clear indicator that why they change. For example, land and labour productivity may rise due to increased use of tractors, fertilizer or output mix. To account for at least some of these problems a total measure of productivity, the total factor productivity (TFP), was devised. TFP is the ratio of an index of agricultural output to an index of agricultural inputs. The index of agricultural output is a value-weighted sum of all agricultural production components. The index of agricultural inputs is the value-weighted sum of conventional agricultural inputs. These generally include land, labour, physical capital, livestock and chemical fertilizers and pesticides (1). The importance of productivity has widely been recognized in the empirical literature and its importance will further increase due to limited possibility in further extension of cultivated area, increasing growth rate in population and expected increase in income. Therefore, productivity analysis is very essential to assess the sources of growth and to recognize the impact of changing government policies. Till now few studies have been done on TFP in Pakistans agriculture. The studies employed different techniques and time periods to estimate TFP in agriculture sector. The latest study covered the time period from 1966 to 1994. Wizarat (36) concluded that growth of value added index, aggregate input index and TFP index remained 3.4, 2.3 and 1.1, respectively. However, the study suffered from serious methodological and data limitations1, Rosegrant and Evenson (29) estimated TFP growth for the period 1956-1985 in crop sector. They observed maximum growth of TFP during Green Revolution at rate of 1.86 percent per annum. The main criticism on this study is unreliable

An arithmetic index which has been derived from a linear production function assumes perfect substitutability between inputs, the use of value-added output index excludes the role of intermediate and purchased inputs and she used capital input variable as stock, whereas used as service flow has been used frequently in literature (2). J. Agric. Res., 2010, 48(1)

Analysis of productivity growth in agriculture

95

data-set used (26).2 Khan (26) computed TFP for the agriculture sector for a period 1960-1996 and observed that TFP grew at an average annual rate of 0.8 percent. Ali and Byerlee (5) concluded that aggregated TFP increased at 1.5 percent per annum. Sabir and Ahmad (31) observed that average annual growth rate in agriculture during 1972-73 to 2002-03 remained 2.0 percent. Ali (2) concluded that TFP had grown at an average annual rate of 2.3 percent during 1960-1996. Ahmed and Bukhari (6) estimated that contribution of input availability is not significant except during 1973-77. Afterwords, it was TFP that accelerated growth in agriculture sector. They revealed that during 198892, TFP contributed 86.9 percent to agriculture growth. Since the resources are changing due to many factors including government policies, so there is a need to estimate TFP growth in agriculture sector in Punjab for analyzing the effect of policy changes as well as providing guidelines to policy makers for appropriate allocation of scarce resources. MATERIALS AND METHODS This study was conducted in the Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan during 2008. Two major approaches have been used frequently in literature namely (a) econometric approach and (b) growth accounting (index number) (4). Under growth accounting there are further two commonly used measures i.e. arithmetic index (AI) and Tornqvist-Theil Index (TTI). In this study second measure was adopted due to its advantages over growth accounting.3 The Tornqvist-Theil (T-T) approximation to divisia index for TFP estimation is implied in this empirical work. The most frequently used formulation of Antle and Capalbo (4) and Thirtle and Bottomlay (33) is applied as:
ln(TFPt TFPt 1 ) = 1 (Rit + Rit 1 ) ln(Q it Qit 1 ) 1 (S jt + S jt 1 )ln(X jt X jt 1 ).....(1) 2 i 2 j

They did not mention the sources of data set. For example, T-T index uses a time varying weighting scheme and it has come to be viewed as superior to other indices, Tornqvist-Theil index is a superlative index which is exact for the linear homogeneous translog production function (10), a further advantage of the Tornqvist-Theil index is that it accounts for changes in quality of inputs because current factor prices are used in constructing the weights, quality improvements in inputs are incorporated, to the extent that these are reflected in higher wage and rental rates (9).
3

J. Agric. Res., 2010, 48(1)

96

N. Nadeem et al.

where Rit is the share of output i in total revenue, Qit, is output i, Sjt, is the share of input j in total input cost, and Xjt, is input j, all in period t. In this specification, revenue shares for the output index and cost shares for the input index are updated every time period as compared to the use of fixed weights in arithmetic and geometric indices. This avoids the underestimation/overestimation, implicit in a fixed-weight estimation procedure. The TFP index is computed with aggregate output and input index. The gross output index includes both major and minor crops and livestock products4. Similarly inputs include land, labour, capital (tractors, diesel and electricity tubewells and draught animals) and purchased inputs such as fertilizer and pesticide consumption in agriculture. The input index also includes fodder, wheat straw and concentrates being used for livestock production. The output data on all crops except livestock products were collected from Agricultural Statistics of Pakistan (14), Punjab Development Statistics (22) and 50 Years of Pakistan in Statistics (18). Data on livestock products were not readily available at Punjab level, therefore, it has to be estimated based on the data available at Pakistan level. Farm gate prices for all crops and livestock categories were not readily available, therefore, farm gate prices were computed from whole sale prices obtained from different official sources. Besides above sources also includes Year Book of Statistics (25), Reports of Punjab Economic Research Institute (PERI) (17), Economic Survey of Pakistan etc., assuming that farm gate prices were uniformly 20 percent lower than the whole sale prices5. Data on inputs quantities and their prices were collected or estimated from various sources in addition to above, includes Pakistan Labour Force Survey (20), Pakistan Livestock (21) and Agriculture Machinery Census (19). Extrapolation or Interpolation was also made where found necessary. The stock of capital items was estimated through perpetual inventory method. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Total factor productivity of Punjab Agriculture: 1970-2005 The output and input indices (Table 1, Fig.) are based on output and input aggregators as defined in equation 1. In the specification of equation 1 revenue share for output index and cost share for the input index are updated
The major crops includes wheat, rice, maize, sugarcane, cotton, while minor crops consist of bajra, tobacco, gram, mung, mash, masoor, jawar, barley, groundnuts, rapeseed, potato, onion and garlic. Among fruits, data on production of citrus, guava and mango were collected. The output series for livestock sub-sector accounts for data on milk, beef and mutton. 5 The same procedure is also being used by Federal Bureau of Statistics (FBS), when required (18).
4

J. Agric. Res., 2010, 48(1)

Analysis of productivity growth in agriculture

97

every time period as compared with the use of fixed weights in arithmetic and geometric indices, thus it stands away from the overestimation/ underestimation implicit in the fixed weight estimation method. The output, input and TFP growth rates of agriculture were calculated using the indices given in Annexure are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Decadewise average growth rates of agricultural output, input and TFP (Tornqvist-Theil), 1970-2005. Output index Input index TFP index

Period

1970-71 to 1979-80 2.97 1.70 1.25 (42) 1980-81 to 1989-90 3.25 1.25 1.98 (61) 1990-91 to 1999-2000 2.87 1.83 1.03 (36) 2000-2001to 2004-2005 3.90 0.76 3.12(80) 1970-71 to 2004-2005 3.49 1.46 2.0 (57) Numbers in parenthesis in the last column are the percent contribution of productivity growth to agricultural output growth.

Fig.

Output, input and TFP indices of Punjabs agriculture, 1970-2005

As evident from data (Table 1) period of 1980s witnessed the highest average annual growth in TFP before the onset of new millennium. The overall average annual growth rate of TFP in Punjab remained 2.0 percent. The results are in line with those of Ali (2) who estimated average annual growth rate of TFP as 2.2 percent. The contribution of TFP towards output growth remained 57 percent during whole study period. The output and input growth was calculated as 3.49 and 1.46 percent, respectively during whole study period since 1970 to 2005 (Table 1). The results indicate that productivity growth was a significant factor in the performance of agriculture sector in
J. Agric. Res., 2010, 48(1)

98

N. Nadeem et al.

Punjab over 36 years. According to Byerlee (7) long period evidence from a number of countries suggests that an overall rate of agricultural productivity growth of 1.5 to 2.0 percent can be expected (as measured by TFP index). This priori expectation is met by TFP growth rate estimates of 2.0 percent per year during the entire study period. The decadewise analysis of TFP also disclosed the reasons of fluctuation in TFP growth in the Punjabs agriculture. TFP growth in Punjab agriculture: 1970-71 to 1979-80 The decade of 1970s witnessed TFP growth rate of agriculture as 1.25 percent. It contributed 42 percent towards output growth. The estimates of this study are close to earlier findings (2) where 1.2 percent TFP growth in Pakistan was calculated. Low growth of TFP during this decade was due to drought conditions prevalent in early years of 1970-1972 and 1974, flood of 1973-74 (2) as well as disturbed political and socio-economic conditions, unfavourable weather, low canal water supplies and Terbela Dam mishap in 1974-75 (36). TFP growth in Punjab agriculture: 1980-81 to 1989-90 During this decade TFP of agriculture grew at an average annual growth rate of 1.98 percent. It added 61 percent in output growth. Output growth rate remained 3.25 percent while input growth was observed as 1.25 percent. Comparing with the previous decade, the growth of TFP considerably (Table 1) improved, while input growth decreased from 1.7 percent to 1.25 percent which increased productivity contribution from 42 percent to 61 percent towards agricultural output growth. These results find support from earlier estimates (2). Improvement in TFP growth rate is attributed to increased cotton and sugarcane yield and good performance of livestock sector which has been growing at an annual rate of 5 percent since 1985 (2, 13). Moreover, rapidly adopted Basmati 385 variety of rice which was released in 1985 (32) also contributed to TFP growth. One reason might be a shift in policy from industrial sector towards agriculture sector (removal of bias against agriculture). TFP growth in Punjab agriculture: 1990-91 to 1999-2000 In the decade of 1990s, average annual growth rate in TFP of agriculture increased by 1.03 percent with 36 percent contribution towards output growth. Input growth rate increased from 1.25 percent to 1.83 percent as compared to the previous decade (Table 1). On the other hand, growth rate in output declined from 3.25 percent to 2.87 percent during same period. The main reasons for this downfall in TFP growth rate were; flood in the year 1991-92
J. Agric. Res., 2010, 48(1)

Analysis of productivity growth in agriculture

99

which badly affected the crop production in Punjab6 and a major disaster in cotton crop due to widespread attack of cotton leaf curl virus (12). Another reason was the decline in research spending at Federal and Provincial level by about one third from 1991 to 1994 (23). Political instability, unfavorable weather and bad state of governance (34) could also be major factors which contributed to down fall of TFP growth rate. Moreover, degradation of natural resources such as soil and water also contributed towards low productivity (5). TFP growth in Punjab agriculture: 2000-2001 to 2004-2005 The estimated average annual growth rates in output, input and TFP were 3.9 percent, 0.76 percent and 3.12 percent, respectively during 2000 to 2005. A considerable increase in TFP growth was observed from 1.03 percent to 3.12 percent as compared to previous decade. This increase in TFP growth is also reflected by its contribution of 80 percent to output growth as compared to 36 percent contribution in previous decade. Estimates of Ahmad and Bukhari (6) showed an average annual TFP growth of 2.8 percent for the period 2003-06, contributing about 72 percent to agricultural output growth. These results nearly matches to our findings. During this period more emphasis was given by government to develop agriculture sector. The major initiatives which have been taken in this respect are the lining of water courses, introduction of precision land leveling, and reasonable increase in support prices of major agricultural commodities (15). At the administrative end, Punjab government also took various steps i.e. creation of separate ministry of agricultural marketing, establishment of agricultural marketing board, initiation of dairy development project (23) and huge increase in agricultural credit disbursed to farmers. The distribution of credit increased from 44780 million in 2000-2001 to 108733 million in 2004-05 (15). The Government of Punjab has established Punjab Irrigation Drainage Authority (PIDA) which distributed water through watercourse farmers associations. Thus it improved distribution of irrigation water more equal especially for tail enders. Trends of TFP, economic growth and poverty Although the share of agriculture declined from 38.9 percent in 1970 to 21 percent in 2007-08, yet agriculture is still single largest sector in Pakistan. More than two-thirds of Pakistans population lives in rural areas and their livelihood continues to revolve around agriculture and allied activities. Like other developing countries, poverty in Pakistan is largely a rural

Rains and flood during 1992 demolished about 10 percent of sugarcane, 15 percent of cotton and rice, and a fairly large portion of small-scale food crops (12). J. Agric. Res., 2010, 48(1)

100

N. Nadeem et al.

phenomenon; therefore, development of agriculture will be a principal vehicle for alleviating rural poverty (16). The data (Table 2 and 3) further depict that there is a positive relationship between GDP growth and TFP growth while an inverse relationship between TFP and poverty. Higher TFP growth in agriculture on a sustained basis had a lasting impact on poverty reduction in Pakistan during 1970s and 1980s. One of main reasons was the huge private investment in agriculture sector and increasing price of farm outputs and inflow of remittances (27). In following decade, impact of agricultural productivity on poverty reduction became weak due to low TFP growth and limited investment in research and extension services (2). However, during 2000-2001 to 2004-2005 poverty again declined on account of higher TFP growth and more expenditure on poverty reduction related expenses like creation of poverty alleviation fund, social sector expenditure, micro financing, etc.
Table 2. S.No. 1 2 3 4 Comparison of GDP with TFP growth rates

Year GDP growth rate* TFP growth rate** 1970s 4.8 1.25 1980s 6.5 1.98 1990s 4.6 1.03 2000-2001 to 5.18 3.12 2005-06 * GDP growth rate from Economic Survey, 2005-06. * *TFP growth rate of Punjab estimated by author. Table 3. Trends of poverty: Head count. S.No. Year Poverty (%) Trend 1 1979-80 (1970s) 30.68 Decreased 2 1987-88 (1980s) 17.32 Decreased 3 1998-99 (1990s) 32.60 Increased 4 2005 23.90 Decreased Source: Amjad and Kamal (3) and Economic Survey 2005-06 (24).

The results of this study explored that TFP is the main source of agricultural growth and poverty reduction. Decades with good performance showed high TFP growth and declining poverty trend and vice versa. Cotton and wheat are the two major crops which contribute maximum to agricultural growth. Therefore, policies should be devised to increase the yield of these two major crops. As it has been defined that TFP is the combination of both technical change and technical efficiency, where technical change is a long term phenomena while technical efficiency is a rather short term process. Thus our first priority should be to increase technical efficiency of major crops in
J. Agric. Res., 2010, 48(1)

Analysis of productivity growth in agriculture 101

particular and minor crops in general, by educating the farmers in better field management practices. However, our focus should not be diverted from technological change as it contributes maximum to TFP, and therefore, is a major tool for rapid increase in agricultural productivity to meet the increasing demand of food and fibre. Agricultural research has been recognized as a major source of technological change. Hence, more resources are required to be diverted in the national agricultural research and development system alongwith improvement in agricultural extension services and rural infrastructure. REFERENCES 1. Ahearn, M., J.Yee, E. Ball and R. Nehring. 1998. Agricultural productivity in the United States. Resource Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 740. Ali, S. 2004. Productivity growth in Pakistans agriculture, 1960-1996. Pak. Dev. Rev. 43(4): 493-513. Amjad, R. and A. R. Kamal. 1997. Macroeconomic policies and their impact on poverty alleviation in Pakistan. Pak. Dev. Rev. 36(1): 39-68. Antle, J. and S. Capalbo. 1988. Agricultural productivity: Measurement and explanation. Washington, D.C.: Johns Hopkins University Press. Ali, M. and D. Byerlee. 2000. Productivity growth and resource degradation in Pakistans Punjab: A Decomposition Analysis. World Bank Policy Research, Working Paper No.2480. Ahmad, Q.M. and S.K.H. Bukhari. 2007. Determinants of Total Factor Productivity in Pakistan. SDPC, Karachi, Research Report No. 68. Byerlee, D. 1994. Agriculture Productivity in Pakistan: Problems and Potential. Background Paper for World Bank Agricultural Sector Review. Block, S.A.1994. A new view of agricultural productivity in sub-saharan Africa. Amer. J. Agri. Econ. 76(3):619-624. Capalbo, S. M., and T. Vo.1988. A review of the evidence on agricultural productivity and aggregate technology. In: Agri. Productivity: Measurement and Explanation; S. Capalbo and J. Antle (eds.). Washington DC: Resources for the Future Press. Diewert, W.E. 1976. Exact and superlative index number. J. Econ. (4):115-145 Chang, H. and L.Zepeda. 2001. Agricultural productivity for sustainable food security in Asia and the Pacific: The Role of Investment. In: Agricultural Investment and Productivity in Developing Countries. FAO Economic and Social Development Paper 148, (ed.) L.Zepeda.
J. Agric. Res., 2010, 48(1)

2. 3. 4. 5.

6. 7. 8. 9.

10. 11.

102

N. Nadeem et al.

12.

13.

14.

15. 16. 17.

18. 19.

20.

21.

22. 23. 24.

25.

Department of Consumer Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison USA. Faruqee, R. 1995. Structural and policy reforms for agricultural growth: The case of Pakistan. Agricultural and Natural Resources Division, South Asia Dept, World Bank, Washington. Anon. 1997. Statistical Supplement, Economic Survey of Pakistan 1996-97. Finance Division. Economic Advisors Wing, Government of Pakistan. Islamabad. Anon. 1973-2006. Agricultural Statistics of Pakistan. Various Issues. Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock Division. Government of Pakistan, Islamabad. Anon. 2007. Economic Survey of Pakistan 2006-07. Finance Division. Economic Advisors Wing, Government of Pakistan. Islamabad. Anon. 2008. Economic Survey of Pakistan 2007-08. Finance Division. Economic Advisors Wing, Government of Pakistan. Islamabad. Anon. 1970-2004. Farm Accounts, Farm Budgets of Rural Families and Cost of Production of Major Crops in Punjab. Various Issues. Punjab Economic Research Institute, Government of the Punjab, Lahore. Anon. 1998. Fifty Years of Pakistan. Federal Bureau of Statistics, Statistical Division. Government of Pakistan, Islamabad. Anon. 1968-2004. Pakistan Agriculture Machinery Census. Various Issues. Agricultural Census Organization, Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad. Anon. 1974-2006. Pakistan Labor Force Survey. Various Issues. Federal Bureau of Statistics, Statistical Division. Government of Pakistan, Islamabad. Anon. 1960-2006. Pakistan Livestock Census. Various Issues. Agricultural Census Organization, Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Government of Pakistan. Anon. 1971-2006. Punjab Development Statistics. Various Issues. Bureau of Statistics, Government of the Punjab, Lahore. Anon. 2007. Punjab Economic Report, Government of the Punjab, Lahore. Anon. 2006. Statistical Supplement, Economic Survey of Pakistan 2005-06. Finance Division. Economic Advisors Wing, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad. Anon. 1976-2006. Year Book of Statistics. Various Issues. Finance Division, Economic Adviser's Wing. Government of Pakistan, Islamabad.

J. Agric. Res., 2010, 48(1)

Analysis of productivity growth in agriculture 103

26. 27. 28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33. 34.

35.

36.

Khan, M.H. 1997. Agricultural Crisis in Pakistan: Some explanations and policy options. Pak. Dev. Rev. 36(4): 419-459 Hussain M. M. 1988. Some new evidence on the incidence of poverty in Pakistan. Pak. Dev. Rev. 27(4) Part-1. Murgai, R., M. Ali and D. Byerlee. 2000. Productivity growth and sustainability in post-green revolution of agriculture in Indian and Pakistan Punjabs. World Bank Research Observer. Rosegrant, M. W. and R.E. Evenson. 1993. Agricultural productivity growth in Pakistan and India: A comparative analysis. Pak. Dev. Rev. 32(4): 433-451 Rosegrant, M.W. and C. Ringler. 1997. World food market into the 21st century: environmental and resource constraints and policies. The Aus. J. Agri. Res. Econ. 41: 401-428 Sabir, M. and Q.M. Ahmad. 2003. Macro-economic reforms and total factor productivity growth in Pakistan: An empirical analysis. Conference Paper No.55. Presented at 56th International Atlantic Economic Conference, Qubec City, Canada, October 16-19, 2003. Sharif, M., M. J. Khan., Z. Ahmad and M. Shafique. 1987. Institutional development and new agricultural extension system in Punjab (Pakistan). J. Agric. Res. 25(4):395-403 Thirtle, C. and P. Bottomlay. 1992. Total factor productivity in UK agriculture, 1967-90. J. Agri. Econ. 43 (3):381-400. Anon. 2000. United Nations statement on food security in Pakistan. The United Nations System in Pakistan. United Nations. Publication No. UNPAK/FAO/2000/1. Waibel, H. 2004. Impact assessment of agricultural research for development and poverty reduction. Working Paper 2006 No.2. Development and Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Economics and Management University of Hannover, Germany. Paper Presented at Deutscher Tropentag October 5, 2004, Humbolt University Berlin, Germany Wizarat, S. 1981. Technological change in Pakistans agriculture: 195354 to 1978-79. Pak. Dev. Rev. ( 4).

Annexure Indices of Agricultural Output, Input, and TFP in Punjab: 1970-2005

J. Agric. Res., 2010, 48(1)

104

N. Nadeem et al.

Year 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Output Index 100 108.17 106.46 108.62 110.28 113.79 114.92 116.48 124.44 131.89 134.10 145.48 146.65 138.24 155.08 169.13 168.27 174.14 187.44 193.27 200.36 215.61 213.77 215.58 235.21 258.41 237.14 260.06 264.72 288.08 273.62 296.60 300.07 311.80 343.19 344.08

Input Index 100 102.25 102.81 103.65 104.44 106.63 109.22 110.34 112.09 116.48 118.38 116.44 121.24 119.59 121.67 125.14 123.79 126.23 128.04 131.22 131.82 133.32 137.70 143.96 140.42 139.26 152.95 157.99 157.87 161.22 160.90 157.55 157.36 162.74 168.42 168.32

TFP Index 100 105.8 103.55 104.79 105.59 106.71 105.22 105.57 111.02 113.23 113.28 124.94 120.96 115.59 127.46 135.15 135.93 137.95 146.40 147.28 152.00 161.73 155.25 149.74 167.50 185.56 155.05 164.61 167.69 178.69 170.05 188.25 190.70 191.59 203.77 204.42

J. Agric. Res., 2010, 48(1)