الفهرس 
المنوال الحيازى المزرعى بمصر ومحافظة كفر الشيخيوجد فقط 14 صفحة متاحة للعرض العام
 |  | from | 348 |  |  |
| | | from | 348 | | |
المستخلص
This thesis aims t o study t h e ~conomic e f f e c t s of the farm s c a l e s and t h e farm t e n u r e p a t t e r n on t h e economic effi.ciency f o r the d i f f e r e n t main f i e l d c r o p s such au cotton) wheat r i c e and summer maize i n Kafr El-Sheikh Governorate. The t h e s i s is d i v i d e d i n t o f i v e s e c t i o n s ; t h e first s e c t i o n p r e s e n t s t h e problem of the s t u d y 3 c l a r i f i e s t h e s t u d y and c o n c e p t s used and r e v i e w s t h e a v a i l a b l e l i t e r a t u r e . The second s e c t i o n i n c l u d e s an o v e r a l l a n a l y s i s of t e n u r e patt~rnsi n Eg y p t I n generel and i n Ka f r El - S h e i k h Govc~norote i n p a r t i c u l a r . The t h i r d s e c t i o n p r e s e n t s an a n a l y s i s of t h e prudbctive c a p a c i t y f o r t h e main f i e l d c r o p s i n Egypt anti i r i I5afr El - S h e i k h Governorate.The f o u r t h s e c t i o n p r e s e n t s thd~if fererences o f t h e r e s u l t s df some i n d i c a t o r s of t h e p r o d u c t i v e e f f i c i e n c y Tor t h e main f i e l d c r o p s among t h e r e s e a r c h sample t h a t may be due t o khe s i z e l a n d h o l d i n g and kind of l a n d t e n u r e . And t h e f i f t h section is c o n c e n t r a t e d on analysing t h e effisiency of t h e farm r e s o u r c e s used i n p r o d u c i n g thc main f i e l d crops. The f i e l d s t u d y used an i n t e r v i e w s c h e d u l e TOY p u r p o s e o f a q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o l l e c t e d t h r o u g h d a t a collection. Data wera cull-ected through p e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w s . A random sample of ’ihrr?e v i l l a g e s i n Kafr El-Sheflcll ccznty was selected fur ?he s t u d y . A stratif’ied scmple ol’ f a r m e r s was drawn from each sample vill-age. Farmers i n each villaye were dlvided intn four groups accnrcliny ?n size of nnldinr;. Tl;c r-’irst uric i l e s s t h a n one feddan. The second is one f e d d a n t h r o u g h l e s s t h a n t h r e e f e d d a n s . The t h i r d is t h r e e f e d d a n s through less t h a n f i v e f e d d a n s . The f o u r t h is f i v e f e d d a n s and above. Each group was sub- c l a s s i f i e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e kind of t e n u r e i n t o two subgroups p o s s e s s e d and t e n a n c y . The t o t a l sample size is 162 f a r m e r s a which is about 7.7% of t h e t o t a l number of f a r m e r s i n t h e t h r e e v i l l a g e s . The sample i n c l u d e s 107 owners i.e. about 7 X of t h e t o t a l number of owners i n t h e t h r e e v i l l a g e s and 55 t e n a n t s r e p r e s e n t i n g about 9.3% of t h e t o t a l number of t e n a n t s i n t h e t h r e e v i l l a g e s . It was shown t h a t a r e a held by sample f a r m e r s amounted t o a p p r o x i m a t e l y 336.1 f e d d a n s i.e. 9.3% of t h e t o t a l a r e a i n t h e t h r e e v i l l a g e s . Whereas t h e t o t a l a r e a held by owners is about 246.96 f e d d a n s r e p r e s e n t i n g about 8.2% of t h e t o t a l p o s s e s s e d a r e a i n t h e t h r e e v i l l a g e s . The t o t a l a r e a h e l d by t e n a n t sample f a r m e r s is n e a r l y 116.13 f e d d a n s r e p r e s e n t i n g about 11.5% of t h e t o t a l area held by tenants i n the t h r e e v i l l a g e s . That’s why , it is clear I t h e n t h a t ownership is t h e most common t e n u r e p a t t e r n among t h e r e s e a r c h sample. It was shown t h a t 55.1% of t h e t o t a l p o s s e s s e d f a r m s i n t h e r e s e a r c h sample is found i n more t h a n one p i e c e and s u f f e r from t h e farming d i v i s i o n . Also 8 about 43.6% of t h e t o t a l t e n a n c y farms i n t h e r e s e a r c h sample a r e found on more t h a n p i e c e . The d e g r e e of d i v i s i o n i n c r e a s e s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i n c r e a s e of t h e s i z e of h o l d i n g f o r both k i n d s o f t e n u r e . The s t u d y u s e s f i v e economic i n d i c a t o r s t o e v a l u a t e t h e p r o d u c t i v e e f f i c i e n c y f o r sample farmers grouped according t o t h e kind t e n u r e system. Those i n d i c a t o r s a r e feddan production J feddan production c o s t J feddan t o t a l income t feddan n e t income a and t h e r e t u r n pound. Analysis of v a r i a n c e was used t o t e s t t h e d i f f e r e n c e s among groups of farmers. The r e s u l t s show t h a t t h e r e a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r ences i n a l l measurements used t h e main f i e l d c r o p s i n t h e r e s e a r c h sample. It has been shown t h a t t h e computed value is (F) l e s s than t h e t a b u l a r (F) f o r t h e p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l of 5%. This may be due t o t h e s i m i l a r i t y of t h e production technology f o r t h e two kinds of t e n u r e .