Volume 3, Issue 3, May 2018, Page: 45-52
Economic Evaluation of Asella Model-III Multi-crop Thresher
Tamrat Gebiso Challa, Socioeconomics Research Team, Asella Agricultural Engineering Research Center, Oromia Agricultural Research Institute, Asella, Ethiopia
Received: Apr. 5, 2018;       Accepted: Apr. 18, 2018;       Published: May 22, 2018
DOI: 10.11648/j.ijae.20180303.12      View  1052      Downloads  94
Abstract
Wheat is one of the most popular crops in Arsi zone produced covering major farmlands specially on mid-highlands and parts of highland areas. Its production system is more advanced and supported by both biological and mechanical technologies relative to other crops in this area. But the mechanization of wheat is threatened by topographical inaccessibility in most highland areas of the zone. To solve this problem Asella Agricultural Engineering research center developed and tested its third version multi-crop thresher. Before the wider multiplication and dissemination of the technology, technical, economical and social acceptance and feasibility of the machine has to be studied. Therefore, this research activity was initiatedwith the objectives of evaluating financial, economicaland social feasibility of the machine vis-à-vis traditional and combines harvesting methods in Arsi zone under farmers’ conditions. Accordingly, the newly developed Asella model-III thresher was found to be economical compared to traditional animal trampling method.
Keywords
Economic Evaluation, Multi-crop Thresher, Combine Harvesting, Partial Budgeting, Pay-Back Period, Internal Rate of Return, Sensitivity Analysis
To cite this article
Tamrat Gebiso Challa, Economic Evaluation of Asella Model-III Multi-crop Thresher, International Journal of Agricultural Economics. Vol. 3, No. 3, 2018, pp. 45-52. doi: 10.11648/j.ijae.20180303.12
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Reference
[1]
CADU (Chilalo Agricultural Development Unit). 1969. Progress Report No. 1. Implement Research Section. CADU Publication No. 32.
[2]
CADU (Chilalo Agricultural Development Unit). 1970. Progress Report No. 2. Implement Research Section. CADU Publication No. 52.
[3]
CADU (Chilalo Agricultural Development Unit). 1971. Progress Report No. 3. Implement Research Section. CADU Publication No. 79.
[4]
sJonsson, L-O. 1972. Possibilities for Improvement of Threshing Methods on the Ethiopian Highlands. Rural Development Publication No. 1.
[5]
HenockKifle. 1972. Investigations on Mechanized Farming and its Effect on Peasant Agriculture. CADU Publication No. 74.
[6]
Holmberg, J. 1972. Master Plan for the Evaluation of CADU. Planning and Evaluation Section CADU Publication No. 81.
[7]
Michael Stàhl, 1973: Contradiction in Agricultural Development; A study of three minimum package projects in southern Ethiopia; The Scandinavian Institute of African Studies; Uppsala.
[8]
Hassena, M., Regassa Ensermu, W. Mwangi, and H. Verkuijl., 2000. A Comparative Assessment of Combine Harvesting Visà-vis Conventional Harvesting and Threshing in Arsi Region,Ethiopia. Mexico, D. F.: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) and Ethiopia Agricultural Research Organization (EARO).
[9]
Binswanger, H. 1978. The Economics of Tractors in South Asia: An Analytical Review. Hyderabad, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT).
[10]
Gittinger, J.P. (1996), Economic Analysis of Agricultural Project, Washington, D.C. World Bank.
[11]
Kwazulu-Natal Agriculture, Environmental Affairs and Rural Development, 2013.Guide to machinery costs available on www.daff.gov.za/publications.
Browse journals by subject