Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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_______________________________________________________________
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
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
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
Source: Field survey (2002).
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 mono- rice 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
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
Source: Field survey (2002).
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
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
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
Rice-cum-fish culture
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
Leasing cost (fixed cost)
Interest on capital
Total
Net return (A-B)
(Undiscounted) BCR
Source: Field survey (2002).
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
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-cum-fish culture
47
Net return (Tk)
10230.00
3593.00
(+) 184.7
16109.00
8367.00
(+) 92.5
4900.00
4400.00
45260.00
30400.00
(+) 11.4
(+) 48.9
39381.00
25626.00
(+) 53.7
245.50
214.40
(+) 14.5
(gm/day/family)
Labour employment (man-days)
170.00
155.41
(+) 09.4
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
15
52
16
13
04
00
00
00
00
100
Chapter 6: Results___________________________________________________________________
Below-40.00
40.01-42.00
42.01-44.00
44.01-46.00
No. of plots
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
Source: Field survey (2002).
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___________________________________________________________________
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
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
Chapter 6: Results___________________________________________________________________
of Percentage
00
07
29
26
05
21
08
04
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___________________________________________________________________
(man-days)
No. of farms
Percentage
Below-100
101-120
121-140
141-160
161-180
181-200
201-220
Above 220
Total
Source: Field survey (2002).
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_______________________________________________________________
Variables
Age of the respondent
Coefficient
- 505.00**
t values
2.7
2902 .00
1.5
3061.00
1.8
1110.00
2.1
5216.00 **
4.0
-12137.00**
3.4
-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
Source: Field survey (2002).
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_________________________________________________________________
Insufficient water
Diseases
Predators
Theft
Unexplained mortalities
100
90
80
70
Percentage
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Problem
Figure: 6.4 Constraints for integrating fish culture with rice farming