Chapter 6: Results

36
Chapter 6: Results_____________________________________________________________________
RESULTS
The main purpose of this chapter is to carry out a comparative economic analysis of the
integrated rice-fish farming and the rice-mono-rice farms of the selected farmers. This
section presents the results of the profitability analysis with and without home supplied
labour, distribution of human labour by operation, cost and return components,
regression analysis, t-test, effect on yields, costs, fish consumption and labour
employment, variation in per hectare net return, variation in per hectare yield, variation
in per hectare total costs, variation of per family fish consumption, variation in per
hectare labour employment of the selected farmers, who adopted the integrated ricefish farming and the rice-mono-culture and constraints for integrating fish culture with
rice farming.
6.1 Cost of human labour
Human labour was the momentous and large-funded used input for producing paddy
with fish and with out fish. Costs of different items of both the enterprises were
discussed below:
6.1.1 Human labour used for the integrated rice-fish culture
The total human labour used for the rice-cum-fish culture was 170.00 man days per
hectare of which 81.60 man-days were family supplied and 88.40 man-days were hired
(Table 6.1).
37
Chapter 6: Results___________________________________________________________________
Table 6.1 Distribution of human labour for producing per hectare rice with fish, by
operation
Family labour
Operation
Quantity
Cost (Taka)
(man-day)
Hired labour
Quantity
Total
Cost (Taka)
(man-day)
Quantity
(man-day)
Land preparation
13.57
949.90
1.86
130.20
15.43
Transplanting
16.51
(16.6)
1155.70
12.62
(2.1)
883.40
(9.1)
29.13
Fertilizer used
8.67
(20.2)
606.90
1.25
(14.3)
87.50
(17.1)
9.92
Weeding and
10.05
(10.6)
703.50
25.69
(1.4)
1798.30
(5.8)
35.74
12.84
(12.3)
898.80
29.34
(29.1)
2053.80
(21.0)
42.18
19.96
(15.8)
1397.20
17.64
(33.2)
1234.80
(24.8)
37.60
88.40
(19.9)
6188.00
(21.1)
170.00
intercultural operation
Harvesting, carrying
and threshing
Fish harvesting
Total
81.60
Source: Field survey (2002).
(24.5)
5712.00
Figures in the parentheses indicate percentage of the total human labour cost.
Chapter 6: Results_______________________________________________________________
6.1.2 Human labour used for the rice-mono-culture
38
For the production of per hectare paddy without fish culture, the total human labour
required 155.41 man-days of which 66.25 man-days were family supplied and 89.16
man-days were hired (Table 6.2).
Table 6.2 Operation-wise distribution of human labour for producing per hectare rice
without fish.
Family labour
Hired labour
Total
Quantity
Cost
Quantity
Cost
Quantity
(man-day)
(Taka)
(man-day)
(Taka)
(man-day)
Land preparation
11.50
805.00
8.37
585.90
19.87
Transplanting
8.47
(17.4)
592.90
26.25
(9.4)
1837.50
(12.8)
34.72
Fertilizer and
7.56
(11.4)
592.90
2.26
(29.4)
158.20
(22.3)
9.82
18.38
(12.8)
1286.60
26.30
(2.5)
1841.00
(6.3)
44.68
(29.5)
(28.8)
25.98
1818.60
46.32
89.16
(29.2)
6241.20
(29.8)
155.41
Operation
insecticide used
Weeding and
intercultural
operation
Harvesting, carrying
and threshing
Total
(27.7)
20.34
66.25
1423.80
(30.7)
4637.50
Source: Field survey (2002). Figures in the parentheses indicate percentage of the total
human labour cost.
Chapter 6: Results________________________________________________________________
39
Human labour for the rice-cum-fish culture and

the rice-mono culture
3500
3000
Amount (taka)
2500
2000
Rice-cum-fish culture
Rice-mono culture
1500
1000
500
La
nd
pr
ep
ar
at
io
n
Tr
an
sp
la
Fe
.
W
rt.
ee
us
.a
ed
nd
i
n
Ha
t.o
rv.
pe
ca
.
.a
nd
Fi
sh
th
r.
ha
rve
st
in
g
Operation
Figure: 6.1 Human labour cost for the rice-cum-fish culture and the rice-mono culture
Chapter 6: Results________________________________________________________________
40
6.2
Cost of animal labour and material inputs
6.2.1 Cost of animal labour and material inputs for the integrated rice-fish culture
Farmer used animal labour, material inputs (seedlings, fingerlings, fertilizers, lime, cow
dung), and irrigation; ditch excavation for the integrated rice-cum-fish culture (Table
6.3).
Table 6.3 Distribution of animal labour and material inputs in producing per hectare of
the rice-cum-fish
Percentage
Input items
Seedlings
Fingerlings
Fertilizer:
Kg
No
Units
Quantity
49
10031
Price/unit
40
1
Urea
Kg
146
876
3.7
TSP
Kg
97
12
1164
4.8
MP
Kg
49
392
1.6
13
10
0.25
80
19.96/dec.
-
130
1225
2320
4929
1050
24077
0.5
5.1
9.6
20.5
4.4
100.00
Lime
Kg
Cow dung
Kg
Animal labour
Pair-day
Irrigation
Tk
Ditch excavation
Tk
Total cost
Tk
4900
29
-
Cost (Tk)
1960
10031
of total
8.1
41.7
Chapter 6: Results___________________________________________________________________
6.2.2 Cost of animal labour and material inputs for the rice-mono culture
Farmer used animal labour, material inputs (seedlings, fertilizers, and cow dung),
irrigation and insecticide for the rice-mono culture (Table 6.4).
41
Table 6.4 Distribution of animal labour and material inputs in producing per hectare of
the monorice culture
Percentage
Input items
Seedlings
Units
Kg
Quantity
54
Price/unit
40.00
Cost (Tk)
2160.00
of total
19.3
Kg
200
6.00
1200.00
10.8
Kg
Kg
Kg
Pair-day
Tk
115
2.31
2695
29
12.00
90.00
0.25
80.00
12.80/dec.
1380.00
208.00
674.00
2320.00
3177.00
11119.00
12.4
1.9
6.1
20.9
28.6
100.00
Fertilizer:
Urea
TSP
Insecticide
Cow dung
Animal labour
Irrigation
Total cost
Chapter 6: Results___________________________________________________________________
42
Figure: 6.2 Cost of animal labour and material inputs for the rice-cum-fish culture and
the rice-mono culture.
Chapter 6: Results___________________________________________________________________
6.3 Gross return, net return and benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of the integrated ricecum-fish (culture considering home supplied labour were paid).
From the integrated rice-cum-fish culture (considering home supplied labours were
paid) gross return, gross costs and net return were Tk.55490.00, Tk.45260.00, and
Tk.10230.00, respectively. And undiscounted BCR was 1.23 (Table 6.5).
Table 6.5 per hectare gross return, net return and benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of the
integrated rice-cum-fish culture (considering home supplied labour were paid)
Items
A. Gross return
Yield of paddy
By product (Straw)
Yield of fish
Total
B. Gross cost
Human labour
Animal labour
Seedlings
Fingerlings
Fertilizer:
Units
Quantity
Price/unit Returns/costs % of total
Kg
Tk
Kg
4900
250
7.50
70.00
36750.00
1240.00
17500.00
55490.00
66.2
2.2
31.6
100.00
Man-day
Pair-day
Kg
No.
170
29
49
10031
70.00
80.00
40.00
1.00
11900.00
2320.00
1960.00
10031.00
26.3
5.1
4.3
22.2
Urea
Kg
146
6.00
876.00
1.9
TSP
Kg
97
12.00
1164.00
2.6
MP
Lime
Cow dung
Irrigation
Ditch excavation
Leasing cost (fixed cost)
Interest on capital
Total
Net return(A-B)
(Undiscounted) BCR
Kg
Kg
Kg
Tk
Tk
Tk
Tk
49
13
4900
-
392.00
130.00
1225.00
4929.00
1050.00
8000.00
1283.00
45260.00
10230.00
1.23
0.9
0.3
2.7
10.9
2.3
17.7
2.8
100.00
8.00
10.00
0.25
19.96/dec
14%
Chapter 6: Results___________________________________________________________________
6.4 Gross return, net return and benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of the rice-monoculture (considering home supplied labours were paid).
43
From the rice-mono culture (considering home supplied labours were paid) gross return,
gross costs and net return were Tk. 33993.00, Tk.30400.00, and Tk.3593.00,
respectively. And undiscounted BCR was 1.12 (Table 6.6).
Table 6.6 per hectare gross return, net return and benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of the monorice-culture (considering home supplied labour were paid)
Items
A. Gross return
Yield of paddy
By product(Straw)
Total
Units
4400
-
7.50
-
33000.00
993.00
33993.00
97.1
2.9
100.00
Man-day
Pair-day
Kg
155.41
29
54
70.00
80.00
40.00
10879.00
2320.00
2160.00
35.8
7.6
7.1
Urea
Kg
200
6.00
1200.00
4.0
TSP
Insecticide
Kg
Kg
115
12.00
90.00
920.00
208.00
3.0
0.7
Cow dung
Irrigation
Kg
Tk
2696
-
0.25
12.80/dec
674.00
3177.00
2.2
10.4

Interest on capital
Total
Net return(A-B)
(Undiscounted) BCR
Tk
Tk
14%
8000.00
862.00
30400.00
3593.00
1.12
26.3
2.8
100.00
B. Gross cost
Human labour
Animal labour
Seedlings
Fertilizer:
Kg
Tk
Quantity Price/unit Returns/costs % of total
Chapter 6: Results___________________________________________________________________
44
Gross return,gross cost and net return of the rice-cumfish culture and the rice-mono culture
60000
50000
Amount(taka)
40000
30000
Rice-mono culture
20000
10000
0
Gross return Gross cost
Net return
Item
Figure 6.3 Gross return, Gross cost and Net return of the rice-cum-fish culture and the
rice-mono culture.
Chapter 6: Results___________________________________________________________________
6.5 Gross return, net return and benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of the integrated ricecum-fish culture (considering home supplied labours were not paid).
45
From the integrated rice-cum-fish culture (considering home supplied labours were not
paid) gross return, gross costs and net return were Tk.55490.00, Tk.39381.00, and
Tk.16109.00, respectively. And undiscounted BCR was 1.41 (Table 6.7).
Table 6.7 per hectare gross return, net return and benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of the
integrated rice-cum-fish culture (considering home supplied labour were not paid)
Items
A. Gross return
Yield of paddy
By product (Straw)
Yield of fish
Total
B. Gross cost
Human labour
Animal labour
Seedlings
Fingerlings
Fertilizer:
Units
Quantity
Kg
Tk
Kg
4900
250
7.50
70.00
36750.00
1240.00
17500.00
55490.00
66.2
2.2
31.6
100.00
Man-day
Pair-day
Kg
No.
88.40
29
49
10031
70.00
80.00
40.00
1.00
6188.00
2320.00
1960.00
10031.00
15.7
5.9
5.0
25.5
Urea
Kg
146
6.00
876.00
2.2
TSP
Kg
97
12.00
1164.00
3.0
MP
Lime
Cow dung
Irrigation
Ditch excavation
Interest on capital
Total
Net return (A-B)
(Undiscounted) BCR
Kg
Kg
Kg
Tk
Tk
Tk
Tk
49
13
4900
-
8.00
10.00
0.25
19.96/dec
14%
392.00
130.00
1225.00
4929.00
1050.00
8000.00
1116.00
39381.00
16109.00
1.41
1.0
0.3
3.1
12.5
2.7
20.3
2.8
100.00
Chapter 6: Results___________________________________________________________________
6.6 Gross return, net return and benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of the rice-mono-culture
(considering home supplied labours were not paid).
From the rice-mono culture (considering home supplied labours were not paid) gross
return, gross costs and net return were Tk.33993.00, Tk.25626.00, and Tk.8367.00,
respectively. And undiscounted BCR was 1.33 (Table 6.8).
Table 6.8 Per hectare gross return, net return and benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of the monorice-culture (considering home supplied labour were not paid)
Items
A. Gross return
Units
Quantity
46
Yield of paddy
Kg
4400
7.50
33000.00
By product (Straw)
Total
Tk
993.00
33993.00
97.1
2.9
100.00
Man-day
Pair-day
Kg
89.16
29
54
70.00
80.00
40.00
6241.00
2320.00
2160.00
24.4
9.1
8.4
B. Gross cost
Human labour
Animal labour
Seedlings
Fertilizer:
Urea
Kg
200
6.00
1200.00
4.7
TSP
Insecticide
Kg
Kg
115
2.31
12.00
90.00
920.00
208.00
3.6
0.8
Cow dung
Irrigation
Kg
Tk
2696
-
0.25
12.80/dec
674.00
3177.00
2.6
12.4

Interest on capital
Total
Net return (A-B)
(Undiscounted) BCR
Tk
Tk
14%
8000.00
726.00
25626.00
8367.00
1.33
31.2
2.8
100.00
Chapter 6: Results___________________________________________________________________
6.7 Effect of the rice-cum-fish culture on per hectare net return, yields, total costs,
fish consumption and labour employment.
Effect of the rice-cum-fish culture on the per hectare net return, yields, total costs, fish
consumption and labour employment were (+) 184.72%, (+) 92.53%, (+) 11.36%, (+)
48.88%, (+) 53.67%, (+) 14.52%, and (+) 09.37%, respectively (Table 6.9).
Table 6.9 Change of the per hectare net return, yields, total costs, fish consumption
and labour employment of farms as the rice-cum-fish culture method in compared to
the rice-mono culture method
Items
Rice-mono-culture Change (%)
47
Net return (Tk)
10230.00
3593.00
(+) 184.7
(Considering home supplied human

labour were paid)
Net return (Tk)
16109.00
8367.00
(+) 92.5

labour were not paid)
Yields (Kg)
4900.00
4400.00
Total Costs (Tk)
45260.00
30400.00
(+) 11.4
(+) 48.9

labour were paid)
Total Costs(Tk)
39381.00
25626.00
(+) 53.7

labour were not paid)
Fish consumption
245.50
214.40
(+) 14.5
(gm/day/family)
Labour employment (man-days)
170.00
155.41
(+) 09.4
Source: Field survey (2002)

Chapter 6: Results___________________________________________________________________
6.8 Variation in per hectare net return

The average per hectare net return was higher in the rice-cum-fish culture than that of
the farm producing boro paddy as mono-crop. The average net return per hectare of
boro paddy with fish and boro paddy as mono-crop production was Tk.10230.00 and
Tk.3593.00 , respectively(Considering home supplied human labour were paid). So,
obviously, it is easy to say that the integrated rice fish farming is more profitable than
the boro paddy mono-crop farming.
Table 6.10 Variation in per hectare net return of paddy with fish and without fish
48
Integrated rice-fish farming
Net return per hectare (Tk)
No. of respondent
Below-1500.00
1500.01-2500.00
2500.01-3500.00
3500.01-4500.00
4500.01-5500.00
5500.01-6500.00
6500.01-7500.00
7500.01-8500.00
Above 8500.00
Total
Percentage
00
00
00
02
07
15
26
41
09
00
00
00
02
07
15
26
41
09
100
100
Mono- rice crop

No. of
Percentage
respondent
15
52
16
13
04
00
00
00
00
100
15
52
16
13
04
00
00
00
00
100

By applying t- test (Appendix- A), it was found that the calculated value of t` was 3.94,
which was greater than the tabulated value which was 2.61. Thus, the difference in per
hectare net return between two enterprises was statistically significant at 1 percent level
of significance.
Chapter 6: Results___________________________________________________________________
6.9 Variation in per hectare yield

The average per hectare yields of paddy with fish and without fish were 4900 kg and
4400 kg, respectively. Per hectare yield of paddy as the integrated crop with fish was
relatively higher than of the paddy as mono-crop.
Table 6.11 Variation in per hectare yields of paddy with fish and without fish
Yield per hectare (Quintal)
Below-40.00
40.01-42.00
42.01-44.00
44.01-46.00
Mono- rice crop
No. of plots
No. of plots Percentage
00
00
01
01
Percentage
00
00
01
01
09
23
17
25
09
23
17
25
49
46.01-48.00
02
48.01-50.00
90
Above 50
06
Total
100
02
23
90
06
100
03
00
100
23
03
00
100
To prove the significance of the difference between the average per hectare yields of the
two enterprises, a statistical t-test was applied (Appendix B).
The calculated value of t` was 16.76, which was greater than the tabulated value 2.61.
So, the differences in per hectare yields between two enterprises were statistically
significant at 1 percent level of significance.
Chapter 6: Results___________________________________________________________________
6.10 Variation in per hectare total costs

The average per hectare total costs of the integrated rice-cum-fish culture and the ricemono-culture were Tk.45260.00 and Tk.30400.00, respectively (Considering home
supplied human labours were paid). Thus the per hectare total costs as the integrated
crop with fish was relatively higher than of paddy as the mono-crop.
Table 6.12 Variation in per hectare total costs of paddy with fish and without fish
Per hectare total costs (Tk)
No. of
Below-20,000.00
20,000.01-25,000.00
25,000.01-30,000.00
30,000.01-35,000.00
35,000.01-40,000.00
40,000.01-45,000.00
45,000.01-50,000.00
50,000.01-55,000.00
Above 55,000.00
respondent
00
01
02
05
15
31
37
07
02
Mono- rice crop
Percentage
No. of
Percentage
00
01
02
05
15
31
37
07
02
respondent
05
28
29
27
09
02
00
00
00
05
28
29
27
09
02
00
00
00
50
Total
100
100
100
100

To prove the significance of the difference between the averages per hectare total costs
of the two enterprises, a statistical t-test was applied (Appendix C).The calculated value
of t` were 14.38, which was greater than the tabulated value 2.61. So, the differences in
per hectare total costs between two enterprises were statistically significant at 1 percent
level of significance.
Chapter 6: Results___________________________________________________________________
6.11 Variation of fish consumption in per family

The average fish consumption in per family with the integrated rice-cum-fish culture
and the rice-mono-culture were 245.5 gm/day and 214.4 gm/day, respectively. Thus the
per family fish consumption as the integrated crop with fish was relatively higher than
of the paddy as mono-crop.
Table 6.13 Variation of fish consumption in per family between the rice-cum-fish
culture and the rice-mono-culture
Fish consumption
gm/day/family
Below-127.00
127.01-169.00
169.01-211.00
211.01-254.00
254.01-296.00
296.01-338.00
338.01-400.00
Above 400.00
Total

No.
Family
00
07
29
26
05
21
08
04
100
of Percentage
00
07
29
26
05
21
08
04
100
Mono- rice crop

No.
family
12
27
25
19
15
01
00
01
100
of Percentage
12
27
25
19
15
01
00
01
100
To prove the significance of the difference between the averages fish consumption per
family of the two enterprises, a statistical t-test was applied (Appendix D). The
51
calculated value of t` was 3.49, which was greater than the tabulated value 2.61. So, the
differences in fish consumption in per family between two enterprises were statistically
significant at 1 percent level of significance.
Chapter 6: Results___________________________________________________________________
6.12 Variation in per hectare labour employment

The average per hectare labour employment of the integrated rice-cum-fish culture and
the rice-mono-culture were 170.00 man-days and 155.41 man-days, respectively. Thus
the per hectare labour employment as the integrated crop with fish was relatively higher
than of the paddy as mono-crop.
Table 6.14 Variation in per hectare labour employment of the integrated rice-cum-fish
culture and the rice-mono-culture
Per hectare labour employment
Integrated rice-fish farming Rice - mono-culture
(man-days)
No. of farms Percentage
No. of farms
Percentage
Below-100
101-120
121-140
141-160
161-180
181-200
201-220
Above 220
Total
01
04
10
19
31
24
06
05
00
01
04
85
09
00
01
00
00
01
04
85
09
00
01
00
01
04
10
19
31
24
06
05
100
100
100
100
To prove the significance of the difference between the average per hectare labour
employment of the two enterprises, a statistical t-test was applied (Appendix E).
The calculated value of t` was 4.69, which was greater than the tabulated value 2.61.
So, the differences in per hectare labour employment between two enterprises were
statistically significant at 1 percent level of significance.
52
Chapter 6: Results_______________________________________________________________
6.13 Regression analysis

On the basis of the theoretical conception; following the empirical specification of
empirical model. Income determination was done. The estimated coefficient and related
statistics of the equation are presented in Table 6.15.
Table 6.15 Estimated coefficients and related statistics of the multiple linear regression
function
Variables
Age of the respondent
Coefficient
- 505.00**
t values
2.7
Number of members in the family
2902 .00
1.5
Number of working persons in the family
3061.00
1.8
Education of the respondent
1110.00
2.1
Size of the total cultivable land
5216.00 **
4.0
Distance of the district head quarter market
-12137.00**
3.4
Lengths of Katcha road from houses to the

nearest highway
-10533.00**
R2
0.83
F
** Significant at 1 percent level.
67.94
4.8
Chapter 6: Results___________________________________________________________________
53
6.14 Constraints for integrating fish culture with rice farming
Farmers were asked to rank the problems they encountered in culturing fish in the rice
fields. The results are in the Table 6.16.
Table 6.16 Constraints for integrating fish culture with rice farming as ranked by
farmers (Percentages are in parentheses)
No. of times problem was ranked
Problem
Water logging
Insufficient water
Disease
Predators
Theft
Unexplained mortalities
Small stocking size
Non availability of seed fish
Can not use pesticide
High labour demand
High costs in general
High cost of plot preparation
First
Second
Third
07
05
21
00
00
18
00
00
00
23
15
11
09
07
23
00
00
20
00
00
00
16
12
13
04
02
25
00
02
12
05
00
01
18
14
17
Fourth
06
02
18
02
04
15
06
03
02
12
16
14
Total (n=100)
26 (26)
16(16)
87(87)
02 (02)
06 (06)
65 (65)
11 (11)
03 (03)
03 (03)
69 (69)
57 (57)
55 (55)
54
Chapter 6: Results_________________________________________________________________
Constraints for integrating fish culture with the

rice farming
Water logging
Insufficient water
Diseases
Predators
Theft
Unexplained mortalities
Small stocking size
Non availability of seed fish
Can not use pesticide
High labour demand
High costs in general
High cost of plot preparation
100
90
80
70
Percentage
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Problem
Figure: 6.4 Constraints for integrating fish culture with rice farming

Chapter 6: Results

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Chapter 6: Results

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

36

6.1.2 Human labour used for the rice-mono-culture

Human labour for the rice-cum-fish culture and

Cost of animal labour and material inputs

Source: Field survey (2002).

Price/unit Returns/costs % of total

Leasing cost (fixed cost)

Quantity Price/unit Returns/costs % of total

Price/unit Returns/costs % of total

Price/unit Returns/costs % of total

Leasing cost (fixed cost)

Source: Field survey (2002).

Rice-mono-culture Change (%)

(Considering home supplied human

(Considering home supplied human

Total Costs (Tk)

(Considering home supplied human

(Considering home supplied human

Source: Field survey (2002)

6.8 Variation in per hectare net return

Mono- rice crop

Source: Field survey (2002).

6.9 Variation in per hectare yield

Integrated rice-fish farming

Mono- rice crop

No. of plots Percentage

6.10 Variation in per hectare total costs

Mono- rice crop

Source: Field survey (2002).

6.11 Variation of fish consumption in per family

Integrated rice-fish farming

Mono- rice crop

6.12 Variation in per hectare labour employment

Integrated rice-fish farming Rice - mono-culture

No. of farms Percentage

6.13 Regression analysis

Number of members in the family

Number of working persons in the family

Education of the respondent

Size of the total cultivable land

Distance of the district head quarter market

Lengths of Katcha road from houses to the

Constraints for integrating fish culture with the

Small stocking size

Non availability of seed fish

Can not use pesticide

High labour demand

High costs in general

High cost of plot preparation

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi