1W
W

¥

}

l
\
‘ \
i,

l
x
xi

H!
’H

w, 4' w "w ‘l
j ‘ i M}

l
1
l 1

II"
M

1I

I

l
H

‘rl
1:
l
r

‘! ‘i
I

 

-_.|\l__‘
IN-b
mom

THE POSSiBLE EFFECT OF ENCREASED
ERREGATEUN WATER ON CRO?
DESTRSBUTSON :94 TWO DISTRICTS 0F
iSFAHAN TGWNSHIP, {RAN

Thesis for the Degree of M. S.
MlCHlGAN STATE UNIVERSH’Y
DjAVAD M. SADEGHI
1969

 
  
  

  
 
   

LI BRA I? v
Michigan Stu i0
13 University

11321; gamma: :1?

 
    
   

 
 

'5’ BIN‘DIEG BY
none 5 SONS'
wummnm

THE POSSIBLE EFFECT OF INCREASED IRRIGATION
WATER ON CROP DISTRIBUTION IN TWO
DISTRICTS OF ISFAHAN TOWNSHIP, IRAN

By
Djavad M. Sadeghi

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Agricultural Economics

1969

1’ ,- r ‘f
-’ -‘ 4? -:z/ :

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author wishes to express sincere gratitude to
Dr. Robert D. Stevens, my major professor, for his gene-
rous help, guidance, and supervision in the preparation
of this study. Thanks are also due to Dr. Glenn L.
Johnson, a member of the guidance committee and
Dr. Richard G. Heifner for help with the programming.
Appreciation is also due to Engineer Habibollah Basirii
who generously provided the data used in this study.

Special thanks are expressed to Sharon Daoust for
editorial help and to Linda Pohl and Gail Stardevant for
typing the preliminary manuscripts.

Any errors remaining in this study are the sole

responsibility of the author.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chapter

I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . .

II IRRIGATION AGRICULTURE IN ISFAHAN
TOWNSHIP O O O O O O O O O I O O O 0

III ALTERNATIVE WATER USE PATTERNS, LINEAR

PROGRAMS, AND TECHNICAL DATA . . . .

A. Alternative Use Patterns of
Additional Water .. . . . . .

B. Linear Programs . . . . . . .
C. Technical Data . . . . . . .

l. Input-output Coefficients .

2. Price, yield, and net income.

3. Resources available . . . .

D. Summary of programs used . . .

IV SHIFTS IN CROP PATTERNS SUGGESTED BY
PROGRAMMING - DISCUSSION AND

CONCLUSIONS 0 O O O O O O O O O O O

A. Summary of Results . . . . . .

B. Conclusions about the use of
Programming. . . . . . . . . .

BIB LI OGRAPI-IY O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O 0
APPENDIX A O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O 0

APPENDIX B O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

iii

Page
ii
iv

iv

IO

IO
l2
13
14
14

21

26
26

33
37

39
Al

Table

10

11

Figure

LIST OF TABLES

Method of distribution and rotation of the
Zayandeh-Rood River waters among villages
having water rights

Crop distribution and land use in Kararaj

and Baraan Districts, Isfahan Township,
Isfahan Province, Iran (1964) . . . . . .

Crop water requirements by months

Gross revenue, total variable cost, and

net income per hectare

Calculation of net income per hectare with
different price assumptions

Crop land used, gross revenue, total
variable costs and net income per hectare
for five summer crops based on current crop

distribution, Kararaj and Baraan Districts.

Estimated average water used per hectare

by the current combination of five crops.

Water and Land Constraints

Linear Program.for Problem 1.

current crop prices and specified water

needs . . . . . .

Net income from crops used in the

different problems.

Problem results .

LIST OF FIGURES

Political map of Isfahan province

Isfahan Shahristan and Zayandeh Rood

irrigation area .

iv

Kararaj,

Page

15

16

18

19

20

22

23

2A
28

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

In Iran irrigation is a necessity for a majority
of its agriculture. Only in the northern part which is
close to the Caspian Sea is rainfall sufficient to meet
the needs of agriculture. Therefore water resource allo-
cation is of fundamental importance.

Isfahan Township is located in the center of Isfa-
han Province. It consists of ten districts from which two
districts, Kararaj and Baraan, were chosen for analysis.
These two districts depend entirely upon irrigation water.
Under the current distribution system Kararaj has water
from the river only three days in the fall and Baraan for
only four days (Table l).

Shah Abbas the Great Dam is being built on the
Zayandeh-Rood River. The extra water provided by the
project will irrigate Isfahan Township including the
two districts under analysis.

The objective of this study was to analyze the
shift between summer crops and the decrease in the percen-
tage of fallow as a result of the availability of more
water. Summer crops in Isfahan Township include sugar

beets, melons, cucumbers, onions, potatoes, millet,

l

pmfim .>02 1 usmm .p00 11 saga acmm .ws< 1 enmm sfiss 11 Sawyer
acmm .p00 1 csmm .pamm 11 hem: scmm mass 1 semm mesh 11 Has
semm .pamm 1 esmm .ms< 11 assasssnm pmam mesh 1 semm as: 11 Sansone

"mzoaaom mm @903 mnpcos CSHGSMH .mwma pooh map CH mspzoe cchth \m

.ma magma .oa and m .moz HHH mesao> .moma .pmswsa .cssH .cssema so spamsmsflc:
«nomsmmmm oHEocoom pom opSpHpmcH map mo HSCMSOb mahopamsv one «Howmopwm 1% pom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

uflmcma zqmdmp< ommw use CSQSMmH one CH ondpafioapw< so ppomom QHEocoom: .mi «flow¢ xm
mama 11
mod mama om when om mssm om when om when om msso.mfi gases
om om1oH om1©H campsem
soom
: mauma cosamm
m HH1m massssm
mm m1H om1mm s ma1ma om1mm s ma1oa om1mm s ma1oa mm1mH .ssS
s snags:
ms mm1mfi s HH1H :m1ma s m1H :m1ma s m1H mH1H s¢h¢m~<
s csmcmn
.mwwmn Anpcoz mnp a0 mmwmv I. 11
Hapoa saga new: sssfisnsem cacao: pas \p awesome .mwsaflfl>

 

fines Aecmm .pamm 1 semm mcssv smss5m wcfismm

\@ .mpnmfis hops; mcfi>m£ mmwwaafi> mcoes mamas: nm>Hm
soom1SmecsssN map so COHSSpos was cospSQHspmfis so aoepmz .H wanes

cotton, tobacco, fodder, and some other summer crops.
Because of the shortage of data, the analysis was res-
tricted to the first five of the mentioned crops. These
five crops, however, represent a high proportion of
summer crop hectarage in Kararaj and Baraan (Table 2).
Analysis was carried out under eleven water allo-
cation patterns and price assumptions utilizing Linear
programming techniques. The programming was used to
determine the optimum crOp combinations which would
maximize profit, given the current and assumed water

constraints and crop prices.

Table 2.

Province, Iran (1964)

Crop distribution and land use in Kararaj and
Baraan Districts, Isf

ah Townshi Isf h
éan p, a an

A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kararaj District 33Baraan District
Area Land in Area Land in
Crops Crops
Hectare Percent Hectare Percent
Total Land Area 33622‘5 473 J a: Q52 2 1:2 Z
Winter Crops 9/ 765.7 100.0 2,146.0 100.00
Summer Crops 9/
Sugar Beets 147.8 19.3 572.8 26.7
Melons 32.7 4.3 254.1 11.8
Cucumbers 52.9 6.9 28.1 1.3
Onions 68.2 8.9 64.2 3.0
Potatoes —-- --- --- ---
Millet --- --- -—- ---
Cotton 15.0 2.0 241.2 11.2
Tobacco --- --- --- ---
Other 24.9 3.2 9.6 0.4
Total of Summer
Crop Area 2/ 341.5 44.6 1,183.8 54.5
Summer Fallow 9/ 424.2 55.4 962.8 44.9
Total Summer e/
Irrigable Area — 765.7 100.0 2,146.0 100.0
Cover Crop E/ 29.3 3.8 101.0 4.7
Orchard £/ 258.5 33.8 153.2 7.1
Total Cropped Area 1,053.5 137.6 2,400.2 111.87

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q

’Data on winter crop area

and summer crop area were

provided through a personal communication with
Engineer H. Basirii. (Appendix A)

'2 was

Based on Judgment estimates
Excluding cover crops and orchards
Winter crop minus summer crop
Total summer irrigable area is assumed to be the same
as winter irrigated land.

Agggged not to be available for allocation to summer

CHAPTER II

IRRIGATION AGRICULTURE IN ISFAHAN TOWNSHIP

Iran contains 1,645,000 square kilometers (628,000
square miles) with a population of 25 million. Seventy-
five percent of the population is in farming areas. Only
10 percent of the land is cultivated; 40 percent is used
for grazing; 15 percent is forested; and 35 percent is
desert and waste.

Isfahan Township is located in the center of Isfa-
han Province (Figure 1 and 2). It has.an area of 21,182
square kilometers (2,118,200 hectares) with a population
of 296,369.1 Ninety percent of the farmers in Isfahan
Township use traditional methods.

The average farm size for one farmer using hand
tools (bilkar) in Isfahan Township in 1963 was estimated
to be 0.9477 hectare.2 This figure does not include fallow.

Isfahan has a warm sub-tropical steppe climate with low
rainfall.

 

l Atai, M. "Economic Report on Agriculture, In the

Isfahan and Yazd Areas, "Tahigat é egtesadi, the
quarterly Journal of the Institute for Economic
Research. University of Tehran, Iran, August, 1965.
Volume III, Nos 9 and 10. Page 74 and table 1a.

 

 

2 Ibid. Table 23 and page 144. Data based on the
survey carried out by the Cereal Economics Crop and
the questionnaires of the Department of Agricultural
Economics of Isfahan Province.

.V woman/0am mo mapcmo @
mfinmgoa mo mapflmo Q
mocfieoam mo mmaasoQSom .....

cmpmahmsm
mo mofiadogom I .111

no>am ‘14

 

’:(.\Jl\./.I\1./.

1.11.1 11.1 \
I 1 282 0 // SHEHGV/J 0638482.
\\/ // v
/ 2 .2 .1 1x.
\ Q/ // U..H m \.).
\ 11.9111, 1., x 6.
\ . .
.\.x W /. LV
\ i. C
\ 1
\

..11.l.11.l.1m ........... a.

mofla>0hm QBQBMmH mo Q82 Hmoapaaom .H mmsmfim

ooo.oos.m\a madam

  
   
 

Figure 2. Isfahan Shahristan
and Zayandeh Rood Irriga-
tion Area

  
 

Scale 1/506 880

Barkhar

Kupa

I “

s‘ '

-- -+‘ '

Najaf-Abad ‘Mar in 7. <Ghahab \
l

 

 

’ *
Zayandeh Rood \_ 33 fibatein River(Rudashtine
Baraan 1 ,»""~--..-~
I —_ t/’I ~““~
Shahreza
Jarghuyeh

Boundaries of Shahristan

 

_.m—-Boundaries of Townships

4 River

* Townships using Zayandeh Rood water only

for winter crops

** Townships using Zayandeh Rood water for
winter and summer crops

Districts underlined are under this study

Distribution of rainfall in Isfahan Township is as follows.

(inches)

January: 0.6 May: 0.2 September: 0.0
February: 0.4 June: 0.6 October: 0.1
March: 0.1 July: ' 0.0 November: 0.6
April: 0.6 August: '0.0 December: 0.8
Monthly Average Temperature (F0)2 - Annual Average 60 F0.
January: 36 May: 69 September: 73
February: 40 June: 379 October: 62
March: 49 July: 83 November: 50
April: 59 August: 80 December: 41

This township consists of ten districts. Six
districts are irrigated by the water of the Zayandehrud—
Rood River. The four remaining districts have the poten-
tial of being irrigated by the river. 0f the six dis-
tricts which are irrigated by the river, three of them,
Lenjan, Jay and Marbin are heavily irrigated and Kararaj,
Baraan, and Rudashtine are lightly irrigated.

Shortage of water has been one of the major limi-

tations of production in these lightly irrigated districts

 

l The Agriculture of West Asia, U.S. Department of
Agriculture/Economic Research Service/ERS Foreign-143

page 44.
2 Ibid. Page 42.

 

as it is for the majority of Iran's agricultural industry.
Shah Abbas the Great Dam Project will increase the supply
of the water in the summer for Isfahan Township and espe-
cially for the lightly irrigated districts of Kararaj and
Baraan which have been chosen for study. Rudashtine dis-
trict was excluded because of the lack of data.

The data used in this study were obtained from a
survey of input-output and waterneed data for the dis-
tricts.l The crop rotation in Kararaj is wheat - summer
crop - wheat; or sugar beet — wheat - sugar beet. In
Baraan the rotation is wheat - one to three years fallow -
wheat; or wheat - one to three years fallow - summer crop -
wheat. Thus there are two crop seasons each year, winter

and summer, which do not compete for water.

 

1 Engineer H. Basirii, the head of this survey,provided
most of the data which are in unpublished form. A
personal visit by the author in the summer of 1967
determined that there were no other data available.

CHAPTER III

ALTERNATIVE WATER USE PATTERNS, LINEAR PROGRAMS,
AND TECHNICAL DATA

In this chapter we consider first alternative use
patterns of additional water and then turn to linear pro-

grams and technical data used.

A. Alternative Use Patterns of Additional Water

 

Increased irrigation water is likely to shift the
proportions of summer crops. What cr0ps will increase
and decrease as more water become available? In addition
the two districts to be studied, Kararaj and Baraan, have
a considerable percentage of land under fallow, partly
because of the existence of salt in the top soil and
partly because of the shortage of water. The objective
was to specify the shift between summer crops and the
decrease in the percentage of the fallow as a result of
the availability of more water. The unit of analysis was
chosen to be a farm, one hectare in size, under the manage-
ment of one farmer. It was also assumed that the land
would be cultivated by family labor only.

”The main crop in the districts of Kararaj, Baraan
and Rudashtine is wheat ... Small amount of summer crop

is irrigated by the Cham-abeh (extra water) of the river

1O

11

or from other sources such as ganat, keis (an Open ganat
which takes the drainage water of an up-stream village
and irrigates another village down stream), oxen wells
and nowadays widespread use of engines for pumping water
from the wells, as in other districts (another source of
water is Zayandeh-Rood River). The main summer crop used
to be cotton and some watermelons. Now sugar beets are
taking over.

After the addition of Kuhrang water to the Zayan-
dehrud River there were three years of good rainfall and
ample water. But in the last two drought years, water
did not reach Baraan for the irrigation of their summer
crop."l

Basirii said the increased water supplied by the
project will be distributed to the districts under a new
system and new canals will be made for this purpose.

The summer crops under study compete in water
usage during the five months: Ordibehest, Khordad, Tir,
Mordad, and Shahrivar. That is, two months in spring
and three months in summer. We assumed that the water
resource requirements for production of all of the crops
at all level of production were constant, i.e., we

assumed constant returns to scale for the water resource.

 

1 Engineer H. Basirii, "An Agricultural Socio-Economy
Study of Za andehrud River," Isfahan, Iran, page 15.
(unpublished

12

In this study the optimum use of alternative pat-
terns of increased irrigation water was explored through

the use of linear programming.

B. Linear Programs

 

There are a number of different techniques which
might be used in making this analysis, including farm
budgeting. Linear programming was chosen for the follow-
ing reasons: It was an efficient optimizing technique,
and"it provided a means of retaining the advantages of
budgeting without really sacrificing the economic frame-
work underlying functional analysis."1

In these programs we assumed constant returns to
scale and constant crop prices. Constant returns to scale
refers to constant resource requirements per hectare and
constant yields for each additional hectare of land, unit
of water, or any other unit of a production factor.

In linear programming, the optimum plan for a
given situation depends on (1) the input-output coeffi-
cients, (2) the prices employed in the programming, and

(3) the resources available. A change in any of these

three components will change the optimum plan.

 

1 Warren H. Vincent and Larry J. Connor, An Orientation

For Future Farm Planning And Information System, De-
partment of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State Uni-
versity, Ag. Econ. Misc. 1968-5. Page 5.

 

 

13

C. Technical data

 

Water use, input-output data and prices were ob-
tained for only five of the summer crops; sugar beets,
melons, cucumbers, onions and potatoes from a survey.1
These five, however, represent a high proportion of the
summer crop hectarage in Kararaj and Baraan as was
shown in Table 2. The analysis is limited to these
five crops. The input-output data for the five crops
were however compared with other references.2 The data
for cucumber and onions were adjusted according to the

references and personal judgment.

 

l The input-output data are based on data gathered in the
locations indicated in Appendix B.

2 Adams, R. L., Farm Management Crop Manual, University
of California Press, Berkley, Los Angeles, 1953.

 

Atai, M., "Economic Report on Agriculture In The Isfa-
han and Yazd Areas," Tahgigat e’ egtesadi, The Quar-

terly Journal of the Institute for Economic Research.

University of Tehran, Iran, August, 1965. Volume III,

Nos. 9 and 10.

 

 

Eres, Ar eh, "Farm Management Studies, Varamin-Garmsar
Project,‘ Tehran, April 1967, Part III, page 5. (Mimeo)

”Wholesale prices agriculture and livestock products
(F.A.G.) week ending." Department of Agricultural Eco—
nomics, Ministry of Agriculture, Tehran, Iran, May 25,
June 8 and 15, 1967. (Unpublished)

14

1. Input-output coefficients. They can be defined
as the quantity of resources required to produce one unit
of specified crop or to cultivate one hectare of land. In
our analysis only water requirements for five months are
considered (Table 3). Because of the lack of data and
since labor is largely supplied by the family, labor was
not included in our analysis. Input-output coefficients
for water were the same for all of the problems.

2. Price, yield and net income. Net income was

 

calculated as gross revenue minus total variable cost
(Tables 4 and 5). Total variable cost was defined as the
sum of cash costs which the farmer had to pay: seed, fer-
tilizer (organic and artificial), herbicide, and hauling.
Total variable cost and net income per hectare for five
crops with current crop proportions in Kararaj and Baraan
are shown in Table 6.

3. Resources available (constraints). Water re-
sources available for five months were calculated from
the current usage of water for one hectare under current
crop distribution (Table 7). These constraints vary for
the two districts. Land resources available were assumed
to be one hectare for each farmer. In the problems which
were included in our analysis the land limitation for

each crop was set at a specified percentage of one hectare

15

.3 cache ommv mango: 88.“th \M
.Am xaeemaeav 6648862222266 assemeea .Haeamem .m pregamem \8

 

.oocpos madam Hmfipawm mo modme 039 hp vmhdmwme was pCmSthSUma hopmz

 

 

 

mmm.wa HHH.mH ome.s :mm.a mmm.ma sonata coape>ap456
macs; map toe deuce

mmm.eH mom.ofi oms.m mmm.s mmm.ma Amnpcos m>fiev fleece
mam mm» moa.m mmm omo.m Hs>aasenm
mom.H omm.m 428.: mmm.a mmm.q emote:
moo.: mam.m 11111 mmm.m mmm.m 442
8mm.m omm.m 11111 mos.H smm.m eeeeonm
mmo.m eem.a 11111 mHA.H :Ho.m pnmmsmnaeeo
moOpmpom mCoaco mmeESoSo md0H02 mpmmn wadm \m mzecoz

mawpomz pom mampoe OHQSO1
\mmnpcqa an mpcmEoAHSUma smut; @090 .m mHQmH

16

 

000.»:

054.0:

0ma.0m

.m meooaH pmz

 

000.00 sa.m mmm.am

000.mm sa.m 000.:m

00:.m: mm.a 000.mm

mscmrmm mmomw

 

 

 

 

 

00m.mH mmm.m 0m0.mH pmoo
eageate> Hence
0m0.m 000.mm wcaasem
00: 0: .moa woom mesa .mefloantmm
00m.a or 04 00m.H 0mH 0H meta .0000

1. 000.m 04 m00m

004.: AH 00: mmH.m m.mH cope -000.m ma moom HeaoHMApee
0mH.0 0 0m0.a 000.0 0 .m000.a eacemao
emuaaapema

mHeHm mfleam oaam mfleam madam oafim maeam maeam 044m

Hmpoa mofihm DQSOE< proa moanm pqdos< Hopoa mofihm unfioa< “pmoo.mfim8w%8>

 

Am.oz coapm>ammnov
mcoamz

AH.oz coapm>hmmnov
mcoamz

 

 

mpmmm nmm5m

 

 

\wum .mhopomc pom

oEooCH pm: Uneqpmoo manmfihm> H0909 .mdflo>mm mmoaw

.3 mHQwE

1?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

404400 .m
.5.0.0 mm
.00450008 40004 Op 030 040908 0405dm 0404442 000 0043 .W
000.4 00:4 0408 hflpstHm mp 508 p440n 000 0043 ”W
.040pomn 000 mp Op 0085000 003 0944mm Q05 H“ ON 1 ON .w
4000 0HQ0440> 40404 05:48 0500>0m 00040 4 mp0£mmosm ESHQSE< .w
020400440 004 1 00400 0
Am x4000mm<v .0044004055800 40000400 0444400m .m 4000400m _m
040.04 000.54 000.40 4000004 40%
000.5m 1m444-000u04 000.00 0 000.0m 000.0: m 000.04 0000000 00040
000.54 000.m4 050.m0 4000 0400440>
509p.

wc4ds0m

000.4 004040400
000.04 mm.m 000.4 000.m 004 m0 00m.0 000 04 0000

0004 000.5 m M0m0

005.0 0004 m00.4 4.04 0000 404044444<

000.4 0.4 0000 000.04 04 .m000.4 1000.04 04 .m000.4 0400040
4004444404

04040 04040 0444 04040 04040 0445 04040 04040 0444
40405 0044& 40506< 40405 0044& pcsoa< H0405 0044m pcsoe< “4000.0000400>
mmop0pom 000400 040955050

 

 

 

 

4.4.0000 .4 04005

Table 5.

A. Current Prices

18

Calculation of Net Income per hectare with
different price assumptions E/

 

 

 

 

Gross Total Net
Crops Yield Price Revenue Variable Income
Cost
kilo/ha. Rials Rials Rials Rials
Sugar Beets 35,000 1.24 43,400 12,650 30, 750b b/
Melons 25,846 2.17 56, 000 11,012 44 ,988_
Cucumbers 15,000 3 45,000 23,275 21,725
Onions 3,000 2 60,000 13,000 47,000
Potatoes 12,960 4.44 57, 500 17,260 40,240
B. All Crop Prices Doubled
Sugar Beets 35,000 2.48 86,800 12,650 74,150
Melons 25,846 4. 34 120,000 11,012 100,987
Cucumbers 15,000 6 90,000 23,275 66,725
Onions 30,000 4 120,000 13,000 107,000
Potatoes 12,960 8.87 115,000 17,260 97,740

 

C. Sugar Beet Price Doubled and a 50 percent Increase
in other Crops

 

Sugar Beets

Melons

Cucumbers

Onions

Potatoes

35,000
25,846
15,000
30,000
12,960

ONLU-P'UJIU
O\ U'HD-F:
mm

W

86, 800
83: 999
67, 500
90, 000
86,250

12,650
11,012
23,275
13,000
17,260

74,150
72, 987
44,225
77, 000
68,990

 

a/ Derived from Table 4.
b/ This figure is the avera
two observations (Table

fie of melons net income of

19

Table 6. Crop Land Used, Gross Revenue, Total
Variable Costs and Net Income per Hectare
for five Summer Crops based on current
Crop Distribution, Kararaj and Baraan
Districts. B/

A. Kararaj

 

 

 

 

 

 

Land in Summer Gross Total Net
Crops Irrigated Crops Revenue Variable IncomeB
Cost

Percent Rials Rials Rials
Sugar Beets l .30 8,376 2,441 5,935
Melons .27 2,391 470 1,921
Cucumbers 6.90 3,105 1,606 1,499
Onions 8.90 5,340 1,157 4,183
Potatoes 0 0 0 0
TOTAL CROPSE/ 39.37 19,212 5,674 13,538
B. Baraan
Sugar Beets 26.69 11,583 3,376 8,207
Melons 11.84 6,630 1,304 5,326
Cucumbers 1.30 585 302 282
Onions 2.99 1,794 389 1,405
Potatoes 0 0 0 0
TOTAL CROPS 2/ 42.82 20,592 5,371 15,220

 

a/ Derived from Tables 2 and 5

67 Gross revenue minus total variable cost
0/ The remaining crop land is fallow

20

.0 04905 000 .4090: 50 5004 09 050 304404 549008 04 0504 059 40 9004 055 \m
.m 050 N 004905 8044 00>44mm \m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

000.4 040 000.4 000.4 000 055 0.04 \m 00000 40505
0 o o o o o 0 00090905
04m mm 55 504 05 0: m 050450
mm 5m 00 o o o m.4 040985050
4mm 00 000 000 400 400 0.44 000402
:0m.m 000 454.4 000 m00 000 5.00 04000.40000

mmmmmm .0
000.: 0401 000.4 450 .505 000 44005 \500000 40505
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00040400.
040 00 0m0 04m m40 004 0.0 000440
00: 0:4 omm o o o m.© 04®9£505o
0mm 0.04 05 004 m5 m5 m.4 000402
550.0 00m 540 004 400 004 m.04 09000:40000

099502 0>4m 40>44909m 000402 445 0004o5m 95005094040 00w095004mm 5040

40 40405 0040

4mmmmmm .0

0
mo 50490549800 9504450 059 59 0409005 405 m0

.I 040908 04950 1 05040 0444
05 40903 00040>0 00908490m .5.04905

21

(Table 8). The constraints were established on the basis
of some maximum increase from the current percentage of

the crop. These constraints vary for the two districts.

D. Summary of Programs used.

 

Specifically, eleven problems were prepared, the
first five problems were for Kararaj and the last six
were for Baraan. The model set up for problem 1 included
current crop prices and specified waterneeds (Table 9).

A similar model was used for all of the other problems
with changing constraints and prices.

The model uses two constraints. The land cons—
traints were set on the basis of the current crop distri-
bution of each district (Table 2) by roughly doubling the
area percentages. The reason for limiting the area of
each crop was because not all of the factors could be in—
cluded in the model. If this was not done the results
would probably have suggested growing only one or two of
the most profitable crops, an unrealistic result. Water
constraints were varied based upon the analysis summarized
in table 7.

Net income under specified price was maximized for

solution of the program (Table 5 and 10).

22

 

 

 

 

 

 

00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00090900
04 04 04 04 04 04 00 00 00 00 00 000400
04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 040000000
00 00 00 00 om 00 04 04 04 04 04 000400
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 4000 40000
0504 5040 408850 50 9500405 0504 5040 408850 40 9500405 0504
0004 0004 0004 000 0004 000 4054 0004 040 4054 040 404440000
0004 0004 0000 0004 0004 0004 4054 0000 0004 4054 0044 000400
0004 0004 0404 0404 0004 0004 4054 5004 5004 4054 050 445
0004 0004 000 0004 0004 000 4054 505 0004 4054 505 0004000
0004 0004 055 0054 0004 055 4054 000 5044 4054 000 40000004040
040902 04950 040902 04950 mmmmm
<04 04 0 0. 5 0 0 0 m 0 4 0Mwmwww
500404 0040404

.09540490500 0504 050 40903

.w 04905

23

040908 04950 \m

 

00. 00090900

\ll

\« ‘4 \fl\
-4 o c> c> <3 o

00. 050450

04.
04.

00.

040985050
050402

9000 40050

\/I
H H O O O O

@504

r-iOOOO

HOOOr—iO
r—IOOHOO
HOHOOO

0409000 4

040 005 004.0 000 000.0 40>440000

VI

040
000.4
050
505
000

000.4 000.0 400.0 000.4 000.: 000402
000.: 050.0 0 000.0 _ 000.0 444
000.0 000.0 0 005.4 500.0 0004004

VII VI VII VI
0 O O O 0

000.0 000.4 0 045.4 040.0 90000004040

\mm9zvam4450
-00 40902

0 000.00- 000.50- 005.40- 500.00- 005.00- 000004 002

 

40954049050mQ 304400 00090900 050450 040985050 050402 09000 40050

00002 40903 004040000 050 000440 0040 9504450 .0040400
.4 8049040 400 8040040 400544 .0 04900

24

Table 10. Net Income from crops used in the different
problems - Rials Per Hectare 2/

-z‘

Sugarbeets Melons Cucumbers -Onions Potatoes Fallow

 

Problems

1, 2, 3,

4, 6, 7,

8, and 9 30,750 44,988 21,725 47,000 40,240 0
Problems

5 and 10 74,150 100,987 66,725 104,000 97,740 0
Problem

lOA 74,150 72,987 44,225 77,000 68,990 0

 

Kararaj problems. The first problem was the control
problem. Therefore the survey water available and prices
were used. The purpose was to observe how different the
program results were from the empirical crop distribution.
The second problem specified a 100 percent increase in
total water limitations. In the third problem water cons-
traints were increased by 50 percent of the total water
available for five months. The extra water was proportioned
among the first three months as follows: 2/5 for each of

the first and second months and 1/5 for the third month.

 

a/ Derived from Tables 5A, 5B, and 5C

25

Problem four was the same as problem three except the
extra water was proportioned among the last three months
as follows: l/5 for the third month, and 2/5 for each of
the fourth and fifth months. Problems three and four were
set up assuming that because of some socio—economical
reasons the district could receive water at the beginning
or at the end of their season only. In problem five both
water constraints and crop prices were doubled. Land li-
mitations were held the same in all of the five problems
(Table 8).

Baraan Problems. Problems 6 - 10 were similar to

 

problems 1 - 5, except water use for Baraan was used.
Problem 10A was the same as problem 10 except that only
sugar beet price was doubled, while prices for the other
crops were increased by 50 percent. Problem lOA was set
up because the market for all of the crops except sugar
beets is in Isfahan city, a considerable distance away.
The market for sugar beets is the sugar processing plant.
Land limitations were held the same in all of the Baraan

problems (Table 8).

CHAPTER IV

SHIFTS IN CROP PATTERNS SUGGESTED BY
PROGRAMMING - DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

A. Summary_of Results

 

The objective was to explore the shifts between
summer crOps and the decrease in the percentage of the
fallow resulting from the availability of more water.

Five problems were set up for Kararaj and 6 problems
for Baraan. The variables were water constraints and crop
prices. The results indicated that in all of the cases
except problem 9, extra water remains available in the
first and last months.

In the discussion of the results we will compare
the results of each problem with the current crop combina-
tion for each district. This will indicate the suggested
changes to the crop distribution under different assumed
conditions.

1. Kararaj results

 

The survey showed a current crop combination of
19.3 percent of land for sugar beets, 4.3 percent melons,
6.9 percent cucumbers, 8.9 percent onions, 0 percent po-

tatoes and 60.6 percent fallow. This provided 13,538

26

27

rials profit per hectare (Table ll). Problem 1 was the
control problem. The programming results indicated that
under the specified existing conditions put in the program,
maximizing net income would call for 5.9 percent sugar
beets, 15.0 percent melons, 15.0 percent cucumbers, 9.9
percent onions, 0 percent potatoes and 54.0 percent
fallow. This combination would increase net income to
16,533 rials per hectare. The comparison of the crop
combination suggested for the control problem (Problem 1)
and the survey crop combination showed that sugar beets
should be reduced. The factors which appear to have in-
fluenced the farmers to grow more low return sugar beets
included the provision of the seed, herbicide, fertilizer,
transportation facilities as well as the certainty of in-
come for farmers from the sugar processing plant. Melons
and cucumbers both increased to 15.0 percent of their
constraints. The reasons that farmers currently grow only
4.3 percent melons and 6.9 percent cucumbers could be mar—
ket capacity and uncertainty of prices. Intensive labor
requirements for these two products could be another
reason. Fallow was reduced only a few percentage points
to 54.0 percent. In terms of net income current practices
provided lower income than the control problem. The main
reason is due to the high percentage of sugar beets grown

in current practices which reduce net income.

Problem Results

Table 11.

Kararaj

A.

seotxd
doxo Jaqqo
UI 'OUI %0§
eotxd qeea
xfihs Q 1919M
UI 'OUI %00I

 

seotxd

ut °ouI

%00I w 1849M
UI 'DUI %OOI

 

U49 s uqxnos
woes 10;

9/3 a -ow
paE 10; S/I
'qsuoo 1949M
ux 'OUI %0§

 

DIIUQ JOJ
g/I S'om
DUB PU? QSI
'se 10; 9/3
'qsuoo Jequ
uI 'OUI %0§

 

squtsaqsuoo
1919M uI
'9UI %OOI

 

seotaa

99 ' IT'BAV
éxaqsm quaxano
road onquoo

 

uotqsutqwoo
doag quexxng

 

 

 

Problem-

Crops

Crop Percentages Per Hectare

 

28

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:-
\OOOOL\\O a
HLmno.:rm a
r-‘lr-ICUr-im (\I
0
CD
0000 H CCU
(MUNKKD b— n
r-lr-IOJ :t' O
01
O\
OLDOCUr-i 8
OLGMOLGKO q
HHN : H
0!
Ln
moooww %
Hmmozm fl
Ht-IOJI—lm (\l
O\OOO\ O 0%
LnLnanno:
r-lr-l Ln 9
{ID
OfiNKhO\ u) ch
0 o o o o m
O\:I'\O®OO (Y?
H
m
.p .
8 3 8
m
m 0 0 “\
mxnuzoiz «P
Sac:§£3¥>0 rim
€60 Ocdu-i (Hr-i
tflFIU¢+Prfi Oct
50:35:06 Seq-H
mzoomm mm

 

 

Baraan

B.

10A

10

Crop Percentages Per Hectare

 

 

Problem
Crops

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L0
(‘00 0mm 8
LflOOOKOd) n
mm H (\l 0]
Ln
C\|
\OOOOLDF— a
NOOOMM a
HMHHHm b
[\
O
OOOOMKO 0
o o o o o o :-
LnOOOt-Im «
Mc—lr-l if N
(\l
Hooomm o
zooowm f
(fir-h—I m (\J
O\
\OOOOLON g
(\JOOOMM @
HMr-ir-lr-IN
O
KKDCD d’ E?
HOOOOCD m
r-IMt-i id" ...—1
Nwmo H g
\OHHMON UN
N H
m
.p o
a) m d
m h m :E
a) 0 a) \\
“89888 fl.
dc>§<3ahfi Mrfi
wHOHPH om
SMSCOGS HH
ODEHDCDQMh n.m

 

 

29

The results of problem 2, 100 percent increase in
water, indicated that melons, cucumbers, and onions would
increase to their limitations, i.e., 15.0, 15.0 and 20.0
percent, respectively. It was interesting that potatoes
came in to the solution and the results indicated 14.7
percent of the land be placed in potatoes. This happened
because potatoes required the largest amount of water in
the second and third months when all of the crops compete
for water (Table 3). Under the conditions of problem 2
the fallow dropped to 33.6 percent in comparison with
survey figure of 60.6 percent. This showed that with a
100 percent increase in water, the fallow decreased
almost 50 percent.

Results of problem 3, more water the first three
months, indicated that sugar beet hectarage would drop
to 0 percent. This was because sugar beets require
large amounts of water at the end of the season. Pota-
toes came into the solution somewhat 5.2 percent. Fallow
dropped to 46.1 percent.

The results of problem 4, more water for the last
three months, showed melons, cucumbers, and onions at
their acre limits and no potatoes. Note that when more
water was available at the end of the season, potato

hectarage dropped to zero. This was due to the fact that

3O

sugar beets required more water at the end of the season
while potatoes required it at the beginning.

The crop combination suggested for problem 5 (100
percent increase in water and crop prices) was the same as
problem 2. This was because the rank of the net income
was not changed from problem 2.

2. Baraan Results

 

The survey crop combination was 26.7 percent of
land for sugar beets, 11.8 percent melons, 1.3 percent
cucumbers, 3.0 percent onions, 0 percent potatoes, and
57.1 percent fallow.

Problem 6 was the control problem for Baraan. The
suggested results indicated 11.5 percent sugar beets,
30.0 percent melons, and 10.0 percent cucumbers should be
grown. Neither onions nor potatoes came into the results.
Fallow was suggested to be 48.4 percent. The net income
provided by this suggested crop combination was 19,230
rials in comparison with 15,220 rials which was earned
under the survey crop combination. The comparison of the
suggested crop under current conditions and survey crop
combination showed that sugar beets would drop to 11.5
percent from 26.7 percent. The factors which caused the
farmers to grow more sugar beets, as it was mentioned in
the Kararaj results, were the provision of some agricul-

tural factors and the certainty of income from the sugar

31

processing plant. Less melons and 1.3 percent cucumbers
were grown than indicated by this problem suggested. The
reason for these differences could be the market capacity
and uncertainty of prices. Intensive labor requirements
for these two crops could be another reason. Onions did
not come into the solution because of high water require-
ments. No potatoes were included in the program results
because of the large amounts of water required for this
crop in the critical months of Khordad and Tir.

The results of problem 7, 100 percent increase in
water constraints, indicated that onions and potatoes
come into the solution also. Onions were recommended to
be grown on 10.0 percent of the land at the program limit
and potatoes at the level of 13.5 percent. Fallow de-
creased by more than 50 percent to 23.7 percent.

In Problem 8, more water for the first three
months, sugar beet hectarage decreased further to 4.1
percent. Onions again met their land limitation and
potatoes were included at the level of 7.5 percent.

In problem 9, more water in the last three months,
potatoes declined to 1.3 percent. This was because pota—
toes required a large amount of water at the beginning

of the season.

32

The results of Problem 10, 100 percent increase in
water and crop prices, were the same as those of Problem 7.

In Problem 10A cucumbers dropped out. This problem
had a 100 percent increase in water and in the price of
sugar beets with a 50 percent increase in prices of other
crops. Melons and onions again increased to their land
limitations. Potatoes were in the solution but only at a
6.3 percent level.

3. General results

 

With all of the assumed conditions the problems
showed sugar beets at a level of production less than the
current level. The factors which caused the farmers to
grow more sugar beets probably included the facilities
provided by the plant mentioned earlier and the certainty
of income provided by sugar processing plants.

In all of the assumed cases melons increased to
the land limitations. Currently melons and cucumbers
were grown in both districts at a lower level than that
which was suggested by programming. The reasons could
include market capacity, price uncertainty and intensive
labor requirements for these two crops. Cucumbers had
the lowest profit per hectare but because they did not
compete for water usage in critical months, they were in-

cluded up to their land limitations except in Problem 3

33

and 10A. In problem 10A net income per hectare for
cucumbers was too low to bring them into the solution.

Onions had the highest profit per hectare and the
programming indicated that onions be grown up to the land
limitations except in the two control problems (Problem
1 and Problem 6). This was due to the fact that onions
require a large amount of water.

Potatoes were included whenever more water was
available, at the beginning of the season.

The results indicated that in all of the cases,
except Problem 9, water in the first and the last months
was in excess. Therefore, only in three months, i.e., in
the last month of spring and in the first two months of
summer, was there high competition for water use among

the crops.

B. Conclusions about the use of programming

 

Linear programming technique is an efficient method
for analyzing optimum crop combinations. However it has
some shortcomings including linearity and homogenity of
resources. By linearity we mean that input factors com-
bine in fixed proportions at all levels of output. Also,
output will vary in fixed proportions with any given
input, and thus, neither economies nor diseconomies of

scale exist. In the "real world" this is not always the

34

case, because of the existence of the increasing or de-
creasing return to scale.

Homogenity of resources is another assumption.

This means that each category of resource is homogenous in
the linear programming approach. Under an actual farm
situation, resources such as land may not be homogenous,
neither among farms nor within farms.

In the model which was used in our study risk and
uncertainty were not included. As we observed in the sur—
vey proportion of the crops sugar beets were grown at the
levels greater than the result of programming indicated.
It appears this was because of the certainty of income
and facilities provided by the sugar processing plant.

The certainty of sugar beet income could be taken into
account by increasing its net income by a reasonable per-
centage. On the other hand the uncertainty of income from
melons and cucumbers could be offset by discounting net
income from these crops. The amount of increase or de-
crease in net incomes should be decided on the basis of
past experience with such variables as: price fluctuation,
input availability, marketing facilities, physical condi-

tions and other related factors.

 

l Ching-yuan Chao, Optimum Resource Allocation Single

Crop Paddy Farms in Southern Taiwan, National Taiwan
University, August, 1964. Bulletin No. l Page 29.

 

35

Data shortcomings.

 

In our analysis the water use and input-output
data were available for only five crops. Although these
five crops represented a high proportion of the summer
crop hectarage in Kararaj and Baraan, still a considerable
percentage of land was under vegetable cultivation.

Only the data for onions were from a village in
Kararaj district. The data for other crops were from other
districts in Isfahan Township (Appendix B). Only one
observation for each of the crops was available, except
for melons, which had two observations. This input-
output information shortage highlights the critical need
for much higher quality data for decision making in
agriculture in this area.

The water constraints in the problems were set by
personal Judgment since the dam has not been built and
therefore the amount of water that is going to be given
to these districts is not clear.

The data for labor, capital, acquisition and sal-
vage prices for resources were not available.

Because only a few requirements and limitations
were introduced into the model, it was possible that the
results wOuld suggest growing only one or two of the most

profitable crops. To prevent this, land limitations for

36

crops were established on personal judgment based on
acreages currently grown (Table 2).

Further development of this model could include a
market demand curve. In this case quadratic programming
would be used. If market data for several years were
available price could be treated as a function of the
prices of previous years. Under this circumstance some
form of dynamic programming such as recursive programming
might be used.

Finally it should be remembered that the results
of the study depend upon the limitations imposed by the

assumptions made in the study.

37

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, R. L. Farm Management Crop Manual, University of
California press, Berkley, Los Angeles, 1953.

 

Atai, M. "Economic Report On Agriculture In the Isfahan
and Yazd Areas," Tahgigate’egtesadi, The quar-
terly Journal of the institute for Economic
Research. University of Tehran, Iran, Volume III,
Nos. 9 and 10, August,l965.

 

 

Basirii, H. (Engineer) "An Agricultural Socio—Economy
Study of Zayandehrud River," Isfahan, Iran,
(unpublished).

Chig-Yuan, Chao, Optimum Resource Allocation Single crop
paddy Farms in Southern Taiwan, National Taiwan
University, Bulletin No. 1, August, 1964.

 

 

Department of Agricultural Economics, Ministry of Agri-
culture, "Wholesale prices Agriculture and
livestock products (F.A.G.) Tehran, Iran, week
ending May 25, June 8, and 15, 1967.

Eres, Arjeh, "Farm Management Studies, Varamin-Garmsar
Project," Tehran, Iran, Part II, April, 1967.

U.S. Department of Agriculture/Economics Research Serv-
ice/ERS Foreign-143, The Agriculture of West
Asia.

 

Vincent, Waren H., Conner, Larry J., An Orientation for
Future FarmPlanning and Information System,
Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan
State University, Ag. Econ. Misc. 1968-5.

 

 

38

APPENDIX

APPENDIX A

Villages from which current crop distribution
data was obtained

Kararaj. It contains 30 villages. Crop distribution data
only for the following 22 villages were available:

1. Kocharane l2. Fizadane

2. Teheriane 13. Diadane

3. DJodarmane 14. Denart

4. Ghalah Mardane l5. Yousof Abad
5. Ozvar l6. Kazemabad
6. Rochnane l7. Sadeghabad
7. Echkovand l8. Kohdjoune
8. Tehoum l9. Heidarabad
9. Raddane 20. Esfahanak
lO. Kouziane 21. Molana Soufi
ll. Foundane (Didoun) 22. Salimi

Baraan. It contains 60 villages. Crop distribution data
only for the following 46 villages are available:

1. Kaboutar abad . 5. Fesaran
2. Zeyor 6. Rouhon

3. Itehi 7. Rourane
4. Esfina 8 Zaghmar

 

1 Engineer H. Basirii, personal communication.
The data were gathered during 1966 and 1967.

39

40

APPENDIX A (Con't.)

9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.

27.

Yafrane
Golastane
Kodj
Chahverdeze
Timirax
Monchiane
Doulab
Kondjavane
Echkechane & Harrim-Abad
Vadjareh
Poudr Batcheh
Nazade
Hormadane
Essfahrantehe
Karchegane
Ghazaldonk
Pilehvarane
Ezirane

Karveh

28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35-
36.
37.
38.
39-
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.

Layane
Koloudane
Endelane
Kelartoan
Ozvartcheh
Didehzane
Hadjiabad
Yahya abad
Eram Pocht
Abad

Abad Soleymane
Kondelane
Dastadja
Katchloulch
Ghalah zamini
Teham
Galah.Boghal
Djouzdane (A)

Djouzdane (B)

APPENDIX B

Villages from which Input-outpit and
water use data was obtained

 

Crops Village District

Sugar beets Ghahdariyan Lenjan 13

Melons Khatoonabad Borkhar ‘
observation 1

Melons Ghalahshah Marbin '
observation 2

Cucumbers Dorcheh Marbin

Oniona Heiderabad Kararaj

Potatoes Eshahran Lenjan

 

 

 

1 Engineer H. Basirii, personal communication
The data were gathered during 1966 and 1967.

41

 

”1111111111 {1111111111111111‘5