18 pages, This study examines factors that appear to contribute to farmers’ adoption and discontinuation of poly house technology for off-season vegetable production. We collected cross-sectional survey data from a sample of 151 households in Kaski district, Nepal during October 2018. The data are analyzed using Heckman’s two stage sample selection model. The study reveals that the family members report being engaged in nonfarm sector that there is an increased probability of discontinuation of poly house technology. Farmers may be diverting their labor towards nonfarm activities that result in higher returns to labor and different risks. At the same time, the results indicate that farmers who did not receive training on vegetable production were more likely to discontinue poly house technology. It was also found that increasing farmers’ engagement with marketing activities increased the likelihood of farmers to continue poly house technology and increase household income. The provision of continued technical support (e.g., training), input supply (e.g., seeds, fertilizers) and market information are essential to sustain the adopted technologies. The study sheds light on the sustainability of technology adoption by underpinning the importance of extension services for longer-term adoption. We believe that the combined effect of various technologies would be associated with sustained adoption of the improved off-season technologies. This provides a new direction to operationalize farmer-oriented policies in agricultural extension and helps in devising programs for sustained adoption of technology.
18 pages, Government interventions in the agricultural sector have been historically justified by the existence of an income disparity between farmers and non-farmers. However, recent studies have found that such disparity is disappearing over time, particularly in the United States. This work offers the first longitudinal systematic assessment on the average income disparity between farm and non-farm units in the European Union, differentiating between old and new Member States. Using the EU-SILC dataset, both broad (having some farm income) and narrow (living mainly on agriculture) farm households are compared with a general sample of non-farm households and a more restricted sample of self-employed non-farm households. To control for household observable characteristics and time-constant unobserved factors, we use a fixed effects regression. Results suggest that the farm/non-farm income disparity has disappeared in the European Union unless we compare narrow farm households with all non-farm households: in this case, the former are more likely to be better off than the latter. A limited income disparity is found only in the case of new Member States for broad farm households only. Results are used to draw policy implications regarding the role of CAP in supporting farm income.
19 pages, We investigate the relationship between EU Common Agricultural Policy environmental payments, and dairy and beef farm level competitiveness and environmental performance. We use an Irish panel of farm level financial data for the years 2000–2017 and apply stochastic frontier analysis. Our estimates identify a positive relationship between technical efficiency and the Green, Low-Carbon, Agri-Environment Scheme for dairy farms, in contrast with the negative relation identified for previous payments of this kind such as the Rural Environment Protection Scheme for both beef and dairy. We then simulate increases in the first type of environmental payments financed through reductions in decoupled payments. We use alternative scenarios for payment redistribution such as flat allocation, allocation to farms with low stocking rates or proportional reallocation of payments. We find that under the second scenario, marginal environmental gains can potentially be achieved for dairy farms. For beef farms, the proportional allocation performs best regarding environmental gains. We also find that under this scenario, the impacts on income inequality can be smoothed for both farm types.
Online from publisher. 4 pages., "There are several ways to ensure profitability when considering whether to add distribution or delivery services to your company. Those same methods also can help you evaluate whether the services you already offer are making you money."
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 151 Document Number: D10054
Notes:
1 page., Via AAEA Byline newsletter. From the website, "Freelancer by Contenting.", Announces a calculator which provides an estimate for freelance rates on written assignments across multiple publications, verticals, and formats. Article provides live link to the calculator.
