Estimating production functions and farm budget for rice crop in Egypt | ||
| Journal of Sustainable Agricultural Sciences | ||
| Volume 51, Issue 3, September 2025 | ||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||
| DOI: 10.21608/jsas.2025.415747.1539 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Mohamed Fawzy Elsafty1; Safaa Abdelkader Elgendy2; Khaled Kamel Elbohy* 3 | ||
| 1Department of Agricultural Economics Fac. of Agriculture , Kafr El-Sheikh Uni. | ||
| 2Agriculture Economic | ||
| 3agriculture economic | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Rice is considered one of the strategic cereal crops with significant economic and social importance in Egypt. The study aimed to estimate production functions and analyze productive and economic indicators at both the national level and in Kafr El-Sheikh Governorate during the period 2010–2023, focusing on differences between small holdings (less than 3 feddans) and large holdings (3 feddans or more). Results of the national time-series analysis showed an overall increasing trend in the cultivated area, yield per feddan, and total rice production; however, not all of these trends were statistically significant. Yield was the most significant, with the highest explanatory power of the time relationship, where the coefficient of determination (R²) reached 66%. At the governorate level, the three productive indicators also exhibited increasing trends but with lower levels of significance and explanatory power, with the coefficient of determination ranging between 0.025% and 35.6%. Regarding the cost structure, the results revealed that the average total production cost was about 34,954 EGP per feddan, with human and mechanical labor representing the largest share, followed by fertilizer, seeds, and pesticides. The average total revenue per feddan amounted to 51,431 EGP, while the net return was 16,476 EGP per feddan. Indicators of economic efficiency for sampled farms showed that the gross margin was about 29,924 EGP, the net return per pound spent was 0.47 EGP, producer incentive reached 32%, and the ratio of total return to variable costs was approximately 2.4%. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Rice crop; Production functions; Productivity; Cultivated area; Total production; Costs; Farm budget; Kafr El-Sheikh | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 52 |
||
