الفهرس 
الباب الاوليوجد فقط 14 صفحة متاحة للعرض العام
 |  | from | 211 |  |  |
| | | from | 211 | | |
المستخلص
SUMMARY
Egypt is an overpopulated country where the rate of
increase of population is higher than the rate of increase of
agricultural production. Egypt is relying heavily on the
agricultural sector for its economic development. The
development of agriculture in Egypt is vital to overcome the
population problem. Technology is one of the vehicles that drive
the economy to a better development pace. The Egyptian economy
is characterized by limited resources of land, water and
agricultural investments. Adopting new technology should
comply with the principles of economics which meet the
requirements facing scarce resources. Furthennore adopting new
technology ’requires more expenditures. Fanners adoption of new
technology depends on the net revenue achieved from this
technology. 111emajor objective of this study is investigating the
economic viability of the modern technological techniques which
are adopted for the development program . The study aims at
conducting the economic evaluation of the modern agricultural
technology at the farmer level and the economy as a whole as
well .The returns after adopting the national level can be
calculated at each governorate that adopts this technology. The
technological techniques under investigation are: laser leveling,
and low tunnels,
This study is organized into three chapters. Chapter one
review-s the literature regarding the concept of technology, laser
leveling technology and low tunnels technology. Chapter two
reviews the theoretical framework which contains 4 parts. TIle
first part deals with the importance of laser leveling and
equipments used in leveling, impacts of adopting laser leveling •.
Part two reviews the concept of protected agriculture, types of
protection greenhouse adoptions and major crops planted in the
Iow uunncls.Part three reviews the theoretical framework in
conducting the economic evaluation in terms of incremental
increase output, relative decline on costs, technical efficiency in
production, capacity, elasticity of substitution, production
function appreaeh, eemparauve appr(.)a~t-l t~cn iitnn~rs
3
.
applying the technology and fanners without the technology,
economic return on investments, benfit’cost ratio, net present
value, internal rate of return . Part four investigates the design of
the questionnaire and sampling techniques used in the study of
laser leveling in Minia governorate and low tunnels in Ismailia
governorate.
Chapter three presents the economic evaluation of laser
leveling and low tunnels . This chapter is divided into 3 parts:
Part one reviews the economic evaluation forlaser leveling in
Minia which includes two sections. Section one investigates the
economic evaluation of buying and operating laser leveling unit
where the I.R.R. for the dual unit reached 34€}~with self
financing,’ while LR.R. increased to 37~(’ .with 50% self
financing, TIle triple unit of laser leveling I.R.R is 36%with self
financing, and increased to 38% with 50% self financing. The
sensi tivity analyses was conducted when reducing the cost of
laser leveling by 20% lead to decreasing I.R.R. by 14% This
means buying and operating the’ laser leveling wilt is
economically feasible .
Section two deals with” the economic evaluation of laser
leveling on the cropping rotation clever, cotton, wheat.maize,
garlic, while the second rotation is sugar-cane. The first cropping
rotation achived saving in the time of irrigation by 45 minute and
therefore, the irrigation cost reduced by L.E 52, and yield
increased by 8%, 15%, 17% and 16% for cotton, wheat maizeand
garlic respectively consequently, the net present value increased
by L.E 539 per rotation, while the benefit\cost ratio increased by
O.15~) per rotation . As for sugar-cane, the tune of irrigation
saved is 54 minute and the cost of irrigation is reduced by L.E
210 per rotation.per fedden while the yield increased by 7% ,
11% , 14<}~,9% for the same crop respectively. TIle net present
value is increased by L.E 643 per rotation, per fedden while the
benefit’cost ratio increased by 0.15% .
Part two deals with the economic evaluation of the low
tunnels in Ismailia which indicates that tanners usc 3 different
techniques, The partial production functions showed that the first
, , ”, ·t .’.
4
technique using low tunnels is the most efficient technique Using
one way analysis of variance, rate of return on investment.of first
technique/the low tUIUICls) reached 216°/’0, and 183~’O for the
second technique, and 202~’Ofor the third technique .Comparative
analysis showed that the reduction of cost production by L.E 162
per ton, with low tunnels compared to L.TI 664 per ton for
greenhouses, L.E 127 per ton for open agriculture while the rate
of return on investment reached’ 163%) for low tunnels, 260/0 for
greenhouses, 143% for open agriculture, the yield is the same for
the low tunnels and greenhouses, while the yield in the open
agriculture increased by 30~~. This means low tunnels is more
efficient in utilizing the scarce resources.
Part ,tluee deals w-ith impacts of adopting and
disseminating laser level and, 10w- tunnels technology TIns part
is divided into three sections each section is devoted for each
technology technique .
The first section deals with the evaluation of the two
techniques on governrate level. To diserninate the laser
technology the amount of investment needed is L.R 50 millions,
while the return reached L.E 41 millions ill the fir~t veai and L.E .’
58.5 millions in the second year. TIJC I.R.R. was estimated to be
greater than 50~”l’J .As for low’ tunnels the investment costs
reached L.E 13.3 millions in the first year, and J ,.f: 5.9 million,
in tht: second year while the return reached L.E 19.5 millions in
the first and the second year.
The second section presents the economic evaluation of
laser leveling, and low tunnels. in the two locations.The laser
leveling has two options : ( I) increase the yield as incremental
yield with and without laser leveling, and (2) same rate of
increase in yield and without laser leveling . Assuming laser
leveling covers around 200/~) of total area in each governorate
while laser leveling is disseminated and evaluated under the first
option . The investment costs reached L.E 56.3 millions in the
year one and L.E 40.7 millions in year two while option two
increased the return by L.E 48.3 millions in year one, and L.E
41.6 millions year two, the l.R.R. is estimated at over than 50~~ .
5
In the low tunnels, the investment costs reached L.E 19.2
million in year one, L.E 12.8 million in year two while the return
reached L.E 86.5 l11i11io11 in year one, and year two.
The third section presents the economic impact of laser
leveling adoption and low tunnel adoption on the water saving
which can be used in irrigating additional areas of land. This
means the surface irrigation efficiency where water savings
reached 528, 1200, 735 , 840 , 450 and 3507 cubic meters per
feddan for clover, cotton, wheat, maize, garlic and sugar .
respectively, Therefore the irrigation rate becomes more efficient
which increased by 27?/o , 19% , 25t}~ ,22’}~,,] 7”l~and 22~~
Assuming adoption of laser leveli ng increased by 20,}~ of the
total area i in Minia, the water saving reached 455 millions cubic
meters which prompted increasing irrigation capacity by 7.5 ,
I 1.R , 40 , 27.7 , 26 , and J 3.4 thousand feddans .As for low
tunnels technology where drip irrigation is used, the irrigation
efficiency reached g5-90~’O compared with the surface irrigation
. where its efficiency reached 40-GlY~~t saving 30-40% of water
consumption per feddan . This will help in expanding the
cultivated area and hence ill closing the food gap.