Effets de la politique de réglementation de la vente du soja sur les performances des producteurs au Bénin : Entre stabilisation et incitations à l’investissement

Research Article| March 01 1966 Economic Consequences of Land Reform in Taiwan Anthony Y. C. Koo Anthony Y. C. Koo Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Far Eastern Survey (1937) 6 (3): 150–157. https://doi.org/10.2307/2642219 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Anthony Y. C. Koo; Economic Consequences of Land Reform in Taiwan. Far Eastern Survey 3 February 1937; 6 (3): 150–157. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/2642219 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAsian Survey Search This content is only available via PDF. Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Synergies and tradeoffs between nitrate leaching and net farm income: The case of nitrogen best management practices in South Korea

The average net farm income was $60,978 for the 59 farms included in the 2001 annual report of the Southeastern Minnesota Farm Business Management Association. This was a decrease of 21% from 2000 (Figure 1). Even though gross cash farm income increased more than cash expenses, the decrease in net farm income is due in large part to a large decrease in the inventory value of crops and feed. As in previous years, the income levels experienced by individual farms vary greatly from the overall average. When the net farm incomes for the 59 farms in the report were ranked from lowest to highest, the resulting graph shows how much the incomes do vary (Figure 2). Several farms experienced negative incomes, and several experienced very high incomes. Most of the net farm income ranged from -$10,000 to $130,000. The median or middle income was $31,577, considerably lower than the average. The high 20% of these farms had an average net farm income of $213,598 in 2001; farms in the low 20%, -$16,927. This was a decrease for both groups. Average gross cash farm income in 2001 was $365,819 for these 59 farms. This was a 4% increase from 2000. Milk sales were 42% of the average gross cash farm income. Together, milk, corn, and soybean sales and government payments amounted to 82% of gross income in 2001 (Figure 3). Compared to 2000, milk sales increased by 28%. Government payments decreased by 20%. Government payments (of all types) averaged $40,227 in 2001. They were $50,496 in 2000, $50,700 in 1999, $23,322 in 1998, and $12,907 in 1997. Government payments were 11% of gross income in 2001, compared to 14% in 2000, 12% in 1999, 7% in 1998, and 4% in 1997. Average total cash expenses were $274,867 in 2001. This was a decrease of 3% from the 2000 average. As a percentage of both cash expenses and depreciation, feed expenses were 16% in 2001, up from 2000 (Figure 4). Seed, fertilizer, and crop chemicals were 17% of the total, down slightly from 2000. Interest expense was 7% of the total, lower than in 2000. Real estate taxes remained at 2% in 2001 although the absolute dollar level was slightly lower. Both the rate of return on assets (ROA) and the rate of return to equity (ROE) decreased on average (Figure 5). ROA was slightly higher than ROE indicating that debt capital was earning less than it was costing. Average total equity (of the 45 sole proprietors) was $583,049 at the end of 2001, an increase of $21,177during the year. (Assets were valued on a cost basis.) Except for a decline during 1993, average equity has improved steadily since 1986 (Figure 6). At the end of 2001, the average debt-asset ratio was down slightly to 34%. In 2001, the average corn and soybean yields were lower for the Association (Figure 6). The average corn yield was 144 bushels per acre; the soybean yield was 40 bushels per acre. Results by Type of Farm The 59 farms in the report were classified as a certain type (e.g., dairy) on the basis of having 70 percent or more of their gross sales from that category. Using this 70 percent rule, there were 19 crop farms, 15 dairy farms, and 7 crop and dairy farms. There are 18 farms which did not have a single source (or pair of sources) of income over 70%. The average crop and dairy farm had the highest average net farm income ($137,179) in 2001 (Figure 8). The average dairy farm had the second highest net farm income. In terms of the rate of return to assets (ROA), dairy farms had the highest ROA (12%) in 2001 (Figure 9). (Assets are valued on a cost basis.) Dairy farms had an average debt-asset ratio of 28% in 2001; crop farms averaged 33% (Figure 10). The report provides additional information on profitability, liquidity, and solvency as well as other whole-farm information and detailed information on crop and livestock enterprises. Also reported are whole-farm financial condition and performance by year, county, type of farm, sales size class, and age of operator.

Net farm income has not been defined appropriately in farm accounts studies in Pakistan. This has led to conflicting views about the profitability of the agricultural sector. To quote a few examples, the Fact Finding Committee (1969) concluded that "with the present high costs of production, farming has not remained a profitable enterprise [Government of West Pakistan (1969)]. Syed (1972) found a reasonably high average net income per acre for irrigated areas in the Punjab [Rs 347] but qualified his finding by the reservation that "for any scientific assessment of returns from farming enterprise, allowance has to be made for family labour, and interest and depreciation on capital investment". He, therefore, recalculated net income on 'business lines' and found it to be only Rs 62 per acre. Bucha (1972) endorsed Syed's recalculation of net income on business lines and concluded that "the average income from farming is inconsiderable despite the increase in yields and rise of price". Khan (1978), however, reported a much higher income per acre and unlike Syed did not qualify his estimates by any reservations. According to him, the average net income per acre ranged between Rs 354 for Mexi-Pak wheat and Rs 1,515 for sugar-cane in the Punjab. The National Taxation Reform Commission (1986) reported that average net income per acre was only Rs 109 in the Punjab and Rs 84 in each Sindh and the NWFP. Ahmad and Chaudhry (1987) concluded that net income per acre was negative in irrigated areas in the Punjab. Lately, the Punjab Economic Research Institute (1988) have reported an average net farm income of Rs 322 per cropped acre in the irrigated Punjab.

The average net farm income is $77,672 for the 58 farms included in the 2000 annual report of the Southeastern Minnesota Farm Business Management Association. This is an increase of 17% from 1999. The median or middle income was $39,675, considerably lower than the average. Even though gross cash farm income decreased more than the decrease in cash expenses, net farm income increased because depreciation decreased and inventory values increased. Income is still at a high level compared to the early 1990s and the 1980s. As in previous years, the income levels experienced by individual farms vary greatly from the overall average. When the net farm incomes for the 58 farms in the report were ranked from lowest to highest, the resulting graph shows how much the incomes do vary. Several farms experienced negative incomes, and several experienced very high incomes. Most of the net farm income ranged from just below 0 to about $140,000. The median or middle income was $39,675. The high 20% of these farms had an average net farm income of $250,243 in 2000; farms in the low 20%, -$15,401. This was an increase for the high group and a decrease for the low group. Average gross cash farm income in 2000 was $352,354 for these 58 farms. This was a 14% decrease from 1999. Together, milk, corn, and soybean sales were 65% of gross income in 2000. Compared to 1999, milk sales decreased by 15% and corn sales by 14. Soybean sales increased by 10%. Government payments (of all types) averaged $50,496 in 2000. They were $50,700 in 1999, $23,322 in 1998, and $12,907 in 1997. Government payments were 14% of gross income in 2000, compared to 12% in 1999, 7% in 1998, and 4% in 1997. Average total cash expenses were $267,986 in 2000. This was a decrease of 15% from the 1999 average. As a percentage of both cash expenses and depreciation, feed expenses were 14% in 2000, down from 1999. Seed, fertilizer, and crop chemicals were 16% of the total, up from 1999. Interest expense was 8% of the total, higher than in 1999. Real estate taxes remained at 2% in 2000 although the absolute dollar level was slightly lower. Both the rate of return on assets (ROA) and the rate of return to equity (ROE) increased on average. ROE was slightly higher than ROA indicating that debt capital was earning more than it was costing. Average total equity (of the 46 sole proprietors) was $553,823 at the end of 2000, an increase of $39,719 during the year. (Assets were valued on a cost basis.) Except for a decline during 1993, average equity has improved steadily since 1986. At the end of 2000, the average debt-asset ratio was up slightly to 35%. In 2000, crop yields were again lower than the record levels of 1998 for the Association. The average corn yield was 154 bushels per acre; soybeans were up slightly to 49 bushels per acre. Results by Type of Farm The 58 farms in the report are classified as a certain type (e.g., dairy) on the basis of having 70 percent or more of their gross sales from that category. Using this 70 percent rule, there are 10 crop farms, 14 dairy farms, and 5 crop and hog farms. There were less than 5 crop and dairy farms so that data is not reported. There are 21 farms which do not have a single source (or pair of sources) of income over 70%. The average crop farm had the highest average net farm income ($111,775) in 2000. The average dairy farm had the second highest net farm income. In terms of the rate of return to assets (ROA), crop farms had the highest ROA (13%) in 2000. (Assets are valued on a cost basis.) Dairy farms had an average debt-asset ratio of 29% in 1999; crop farms averaged 30%. The report provides additional information on profitability, liquidity, and solvency as well as other whole-farm information and detailed information on crop and livestock enterprises. Also reported are whole-farm financial condition and performance by county, sales size class, and type of farm and corn and soybean returns by county.

Despite the steady rise of farm income between 2010 and 2014, farm income has dropped drastically in the past two years. Does the latest volatility in farm income have immediate effect on family living expenses (FLE) or does it take several years detect lagged adjustments? We applied the autoregressive distributed lag model (ARDL) to access the relationship between past net farm income (NFI) and present FLE among Kansas farm households. We assumed a linear function between family living expenses and both the present and lagged values of NFI. We used 23 years (1993 – 2015) of Kansas Farm Management Association (KFMA) data on farmers’ net farm income and family living expenses. Our hypothesis is that farm household income will have a long run impact on the household’s living expenses. Preliminary results indicate that farm household income has only immediate effect on the farm living expenses when NFI is increasing. When NFI is decreasing, the lagged response between NFI and FLE increases. A good forecast of farm living expenses using past and current farm household income will be useful for making better policy adjustment towards the farm living households during poor farm years.

This study analyzed net farm income and non-farm income of broiler farmers across different scale of production in Imo State, Nigeria. Capital accumulation for reinvestment and expansion remains a challenge among broiler farmers in the study area. A multi-stage sampling technique was adopted, and a total of 9 LGAs were purposively selected from the 3 zones (Orlu, Owerri and Okigwe zone). Stratified random sampling was used in selecting 26 small-scale and 9 medium-scale farmers from Owerri Agricultural zone for the study. In Orlu, 15 small-scale, 15 medium-scale and 6 large-scale of broiler farmers were selected, while 15 small-scale, 11 medium-scale and 3 large-scale broiler farmers were selected from Okigwe Zone. This gave a total of 113 broiler farmers selected from the chosen LGA's in the state. Out of 113 broiler farmers selected only a total of 100 responses were found useful for the study. Descriptive statistics, profitability ratio and net income model tools were employed for analyses in this study. The profitability result revealed that the large-scale broiler production has the highest return on naira used with 174% followed by medium-scale production with 47% return on naira used and the least was small-scale production with 33% return on naira expended. The result reveals that broiler farming in the study area is profitable and has the ability to offset its own cost, and still generate substantial return on naira used from every additional N1 spent no matter the scale of operation. The study also shows that net farm income of broiler farmers (N7,690,429.50 for small-scale, N 17,615,997.00 for medium-scale and N 142,674,200.00 for large-scale) is significantly greater than their non-farm income irrespective of scale ofoperation. In an attempt to raise the net-income of broiler farmers vis-a-vis more capital to scale-up broiler production, small and medium-scale operators are encouraged to diversify their productions with other livestock enterprises like layer production enterprise, turkey production enterprise and goat production enterprise.

The average net farm income is $65,739 for the 60 farms included in the 1998 annual report of the Southeastern Minnesota Farm Business Management Association. This is a decrease of 12% from 1997. Even though gross cash farm income increased, cash expenses also increased and inventory values changed little (instead of increasing as in 1997). Thus, 1998 net farm income is lower. However, income is still at a high level compared to the early 1990s and the 1980s. (Net farm income is an accrual measure calculated by subtracting cash farm expenses and depreciation from total cash farm income and adjusting the difference for changes in other capital and inventory items.) Income levels experienced by individual farms vary greatly from the overall average. The high 20% of these farms had an average net farm income of $216,266 in 1998; farms in the low 20%, - $20,101. This is an increase for the high group, and a decrease for the low group. Average gross cash farm income in 1998 was $320,356 for these 60 farms. This is a 9% increase from 1997. High milk prices pushed milk sales to 42% of gross income in 1998. Corn and soybean sales were almost a third of gross income in 1998. Compared to 1997, milk sales increased by 33%; corn sales, by 6%. Hog sales decreased by 38% compared to 1997. Soybean sales decreased by 14%, and beef finishing sales, by 30.2%. Government payments (of all types) almost doubled from an average of $12,907 in 1997 to $23,322 in 1998. Government payments were 7.3% of gross income in 1998, compared to 4.4% in 1997. In 1998, the total government payment came from several sources: $11,284 from FAIR transition payments for the 1998 year; $792 for FAIR transition payments for the 1999 year but received in 1998; $5,529 for (emergency) market loss payments; $5,107 for loan deficiency payments (LDPs); $425 for the conservation reserve program (CRP); and $185 for other government payments. Average total cash expenses were $239,611 in 1998. This is an increase of 6.3% from the 1997 average. As a percentage of both cash expenses and depreciation, feed expenses were 17% in 1998, down slightly from 1997. Seed, fertilizer, and crop chemicals were 21% of the total, up from 1997. Interest expense was 7.5% of the total, almost unchanged. Real estate taxes amounted to 2.2% in 1998; they were 2.1% in 1997. Both the rate of return on assets (ROA) and the rate of return to equity (ROE) decreased from 1997. Average total equity (of the 45 sole proprietors) was $474,219 at the end of 1998, an increase of $44,697 during the year. (Assets were valued on a cost basis.) At the end of 1998, the average debt- asset ratio was down slightly to 35%. Crop yields were at record levels in 1998 for the Association. The average corn yield was 167 bushels per acre; soybeans were at 50 bushels per acre. Results by Type of Farm The 60 farms in the report are classified as a certain type (e.g., dairy) on the basis of having 70 percent or more of their gross sales from that category. As it has in the past 5 years, the average crop and dairy farm had the highest average net farm income ($125, 540) in 1998. The average dairy farm had the second highest net farm income. Dairy farms have the highest ROA (11%) in 1998. None of the different types have an average debt-asset ratio greater than 40%. The report provides additional information on profitability, liquidity, and solvency as well as other whole-farm information and detailed information on crop and livestock enterprises. Also reported are whole-farm financial condition and performance by county, sales size class, and type of farm and corn and soybean returns by county.

T HE net farm income of the nation's farmers last year as a proportion of gross income was the lowest in nearly twenty years.l Not since 1934 have farmers retained as net income a smaller percentage of the gross. Or, putting it the other way around, production expenses as a proportion of gross income has reached the highest point in about twenty years. Prices received and prices paid have fluctuated widely over the years, but attention should be given to the physical change in input and output in combination with these price relationships to explain why net farm income relative to gross farm income in 1953 was the lowest in nearly two decades. The net farm income as percent of gross income of farm operators in the nation has declined rather steadily for more than ten years offsetting the net advance of the previous ten years (Chart 1). In 1942 more than 50 percent of gross farm income remained as net farm income. Because of the persistent rise of production expenses during subsequent years only

Average net farm income was $36,614 in 2001 for the 207 farms included in this annual report of the Southwestern Minnesota Farm Business Management Association. This is a sharp drop (55%) from the average net farm income of $81,750 in 2000 (Figure 1). As in previous years, the actual profit levels experienced by individual farms vary greatly from the overall average profit. When the net farm incomes for the 207 farms in the report are ranked from lowest to highest, the resulting graph shows how much the incomes do vary (Figure 2). Twenty-four percent of the farms experienced negative net farm income in 2001; 8% had incomes over $100,000. Most of the net farm incomes ranged from below 0 to about $150,000. The median or middle income was $29,040. The high 20% of the farms had an average net farm income of $130,230 which is a 35% decrease from 2000. The low 20% of the farms had an average loss of $32,064 in 2000 which is much worse than 2000. Average gross cash farm income in 2001 was $433,698. This was a 3% increase from 2000. Four sources of sales again dominated: hogs, corn, soybeans, and beef finishing (Figure 3). These sources were quite stable between 2000 and 2001 except beef finishing which increased by 14%. Government payments of all types decreased slightly to $48,208 per average farm in 2001. Government payments for the average farm were $50,567 in 2000, $44,674 in 1999, $30,021 in 1998, and $12,257 in 1997. As a percentage of total income, government payments were 11% in 2001, compared to 12% in 2000, 11% in 1999, 8% in 1998, and 3% in 1997. Cash expenses increased 3% to an average of $358,506 in 2001. As a percentage of both cash expenses and depreciation in 2001, feeder purchases; feed, seed, fertilizer, and crop chemicals; and land rent continue to dominate (Figure 4). Both the average rate of return on assets (ROA) and the rate of return to equity (ROE) decreased substantially in 2001 compared to 2000 (Figure 5). In 2001 ROA averaged 6% and ROE was 4% using assets valued on a cost basis. Using a market value basis, average total equity (of the 178 sole proprietors) was $618,197 at the end of 2001. This was an increase of $20,730 during the year for these 178 farms (p. 17). Average equity has continued to improve since 1986. The average debt-asset ratio did not change, it remained at 47% at the end of 2001 (Figure 6). The average corn yield was 128 bushels per acre; soybeans were at 42 bushels per acre (Figure 7). Both yields were lower than the previous 3 years. Results by Type of Farm The 207 farms in the report were classified as a certain type of farm (e.g., hog) on the basis of having 70 percent or more of their gross sales from that category. Using this 70 percent rule in 2001, there were 107 crop farms, 11 hog farms, 22 crop and hog farms, 9 beef farms, and 12 crop and beef farms. (There were 40 farms which did not have a single source (or pair of sources) of income over 70%.) Compared to 2000, all types of farms (except beef farms) had lower net farm incomes in 2001 (Figure 8). A similar story can be seen in the rate of return to assets (ROA) (Figure 9). (Assets are valued on a cost-basis for ROA). Using assets valued on a market basis, the average crop farm has a debt-to-asset ratio of 41% at the end of 2001 (Figure 10). Farms with 70% of their income from beef only had an average debt-to-asset ratio higher than 50%. The report provides additional information on profitability, liquidity, and solvency as well as other whole-farm information and detailed information on crop and livestock enterprises. Also reported are whole-farm financial condition and performance by county, sales size class, and type of farm

A goal of agricultural policy in India has been to reduce farmers’ dependence on informal credit. To that end, recent initiatives are focused explicitly on rural areas and have a positive impact on the flow of agricultural credit. Despite the significance of the above initiatives in enhancing the flow of institutional credit to agriculture, the links between institutional credit and net farm income and consumption expenditures in India are not very well documented. Using large, national farm household level data and IV 2SLS estimation methods, we investigate the role of institutional farm credit on farm income and farm household consumption expenditures. Findings show that, in India, formal credit does indeed play a critical role in increasing both net farm income and per capita monthly household expenditures of Indian farm families. Finally, we find that, in the presence of formal credit, social safety net programs like the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) may have unintended consequences. In particular, MGNREGA reduces both net farm income and per capita monthly household consumption expenditures. On the other hand, in the presence of formal credit, the Public Distribution System may increase both net farm income and per capita monthly household consumption expenditures.

Net farm income of participants in the North Dakota Farm Business Management Education Program increased with years of enrollment both in absolute terms and compared to peer group benchmarks. Median net farm income increased $7,829 and $14,191 between the first and fifth year of enrollment for all farms in the program and a subset of farms with five consecutive years of records starting with the first year of enrollment, respectively. Net farm income by year of program participation was compared to a benchmark median net farm income for the same geographic region, calendar year, and farm type in an attempt to isolate the affects of management from weather and other exogenous factors. Net farm income as a percent of benchmark increased 17.5 percentage points from first year participation farms to fifth year farms and 28 percentage points for farms for which there were five consecutive years of records starting with the first year of enrollment. Increased net farm income for both groups was accompanied by improved efficiency, increased farm size, and greater net worth.

Whole farm simulation analysis of economic impacts of East Coast Fever immunication strategies on mixed crop-livestock farms in Kenya

Background: Ginger is a commercially significant spice crop in the Western Himalayan region, serving as a key source of livelihood for smallholder farmers. In recognition of its economic potential, the Sirmour district of Himachal Pradesh has been designated under India’s One District One Product (ODOP) initiative for ginger, aiming to promote value chain upgrading, processing and market expansion. However, empirical assessments of cost structures, profitability and determinants of income in this ODOP context remain scarce. This study examines the economics of ginger cultivation and identifies the factors that influence net farm income, aiming to inform evidence-based policy and value-chain development. Methods: A multistage purposive-random sampling approach was employed to survey 300 ginger-growing households across major production clusters in Sirmour. Primary data for the agricultural year 2023-24 were collected using a pre-tested structured schedule. Production costs were estimated following the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) framework. Profitability indicators, including gross and net returns, family labour income, farm business income and output-input ratios, were compared across marginal, small and semi-medium farmers. Determinants of net farm income were identified through an Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression model incorporating socioeconomic, input-use, farm-structural and institutional variables. Result: Semi-medium farmers achieved the highest productivity (153.71 q/ha), lowest unit cost of production (₹ 1,566/q) and the highest output-input ratio (2.51). The mean net farm income from ginger cultivation was ₹ 295,394 per farm, indicating economic viability, though income variability was high. The OLS results show that household size, hired labour use and area under ginger cultivation exert a positive and significant influence on net farm income. In contrast, seed cost negatively affects income, confirming it as a major profitability constraint. Expenditure on fertilisers and chemicals shows weakly diminishing returns, while varietal choice and market access variables, price information, transport and storage are statistically insignificant. The model explains about 50 per cent of the variation in net farmmo income. Overall, the findings highlight that production efficiency and crop-specific scale, rather than total landholdings or existing market infrastructure, are the principal drivers of farm income. The study offers strong empirical evidence for ODOP strategies to prioritise input cost reduction and production-side interventions to enhance the incomes of ginger growers in Himalayan regions.

Potential economic impacts of future climate change on crop enterprise net returns and annual net farm income (NFI) are evaluated for small and large representative farms in Flathead Valley in Northwest Montana. Crop enterprise net returns and NFI in an historical climate period (1960-2005) and future climate period (2006-2050) are compared when agricultural production systems (APSs) are adapted to future climate change. Climate conditions in the future climate period are based on the A1B, B1, and A2 CO(2) emission scenarios from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report. Steps in the evaluation include: (1) specifying crop enterprises and APSs (i.e., combinations of crop enterprises) in consultation with locals producers; (2) simulating crop yields for two soils, crop prices, crop enterprises costs, and NFIs for APSs; (3) determining the dominant APS in the historical and future climate periods in terms of NFI; and (4) determining whether NFI for the dominant APS in the historical climate period is superior to NFI for the dominant APS in the future climate period. Crop yields are simulated using the Environmental/Policy Integrated Climate (EPIC) model and dominance comparisons for NFI are based on the stochastic efficiency with respect to a function (SERF) criterion. Probability distributions that best fit the EPIC-simulated crop yields are used to simulate 100 values for crop yields for the two soils in the historical and future climate periods. Best-fitting probability distributions for historical inflation-adjusted crop prices and specified triangular probability distributions for crop enterprise costs are used to simulate 100 values for crop prices and crop enterprise costs. Averaged over all crop enterprises, farm sizes, and soil types, simulated net return per ha averaged over all crop enterprises decreased 24% and simulated mean NFI for APSs decreased 57% between the historical and future climate periods. Although adapting APSs to future climate change is advantageous (i.e., NFI with adaptation is superior to NFI without adaptation based on SERF), in six of the nine cases in which adaptation is advantageous, NFI with adaptation in the future climate period is inferior to NFI in the historical climate period. Therefore, adaptation of APSs to future climate change in Flathead Valley is insufficient to offset the adverse impacts on NFI of such change.