الفهرس 
الباب الاولOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 194 |  |  |
| | | from | 194 | | |
Abstract
The agricultural, economic, and social development plays an important role in the strategy of general development
in such sectors owing to its role in satisfying the needs of the
society of clothing, food, and others. Throwing the light on this
sector is an important issue owing to its importance in defining
the limitations to agricultural development especially in the
areas of Halayeb and Shalateen in a trial to figure out the best
alternative for development under the current and future
conditions. This will definitely give a big hand in drawing the
agricultural policies for the best crop, fish, and animal
production.
The current study could be featured in an introduction to
the research study, objectives, methodology, and data sources,
in addition to four other major chapters. The first was devoted
to the theoretical and historical background of the study area in
two subchapters. The first threw the light on the concept of
development and governmental strategy for agriculture. The
second subchapter reviewed the previous studies. The first
subchapter of the second chapter focused on natural resources
and limitations to development in the area. The second focused
on the climate elements and norms in the area. The third
focused on exposing the economic potentials of the area for
animal and fish production. The second part was devoted to the
field study and included the third chapter which took care of
the activities analysis especially those of grazing and animal
production in the tri-pod area. In this respect, the functions of
production and cost for meat and dairy production were
formulated for the study area. The fourth chapter stressed the
analysis of fishing and fisheries activities in the area. In
addition, the cost and production functions were also
established with the derivation of some economic pointers
which guide the producers toward enhancing the production
capacities.
First, meat production functions in the triangle area of
Halayeb, Shalateen, and AbuRamad using total production
value and the assets of cost point to the effect of production
elements of camel numbers, workers numbers, and feed rations
on total production of meat.
With regard to the effect of number of camels on meat
production, equation I in Table (47) could be established as to
represent linear. The former equation points to that increasing
the number of camels by one will significantly lead to an
11
increase in meat production by about 120 kg at 99% of
significance, R2 (0.94).
Using the double logarithm for the relationship between
number of workers and meat production, equation 2 in Table
(47) could be figured out (R2 = 0.76) which was significant at
0.01 level.
With regard to the effect of feed ration on meat
production, equation 3 in Table (47) could be established as to
represent linear. The former equation points to that increasing
the amount of feed by one kg will significantly lead to an
increase in meat production by about 5.891 kg at 1% level, R 2
(0.84).
Second, meat production functions in the triangle area of
Halayeb, Shalateen, and AbuRamad using total production
value and the assets of cost point to the effect of production
elements of sheep numbers, workers numbers, and feed rations
on total production of meat.
To estimate the effect of number of sheep on meat
production, equation 1 in Table (53) could be established as to
represent linear relationship. Equation 1 points to that
increasing the number of sheep by one will significantly lead to
an increase in meat production by about 15.3 kg at 1 % level of
significance, R2 (0.84).
Using the double logarithm for the relationship between
number of workers and meat production, equation 2 in- Table
(53) could be figured out (R 2 = 0.25) which was significant at
0.01 level despite of being very low in effect on meat
production.
Using the double logarithm for the relationship between
amount of feed ration and meat production, equation 3 in Table
(53) could be figured out (R2 = 0.90) which was significant at
0.01 level.
Third, based on the various derived models using
mathematical manipulation, the linear model for the
relationship between production costs and average amount of
produced camel meat in the triangle area of Halayeb,
Shalateen, and AbuRamad could be established, but no further
economic pointers could be achieved with regard to the
definition of the economic stage for such activity to be
practiced toward enhancing meat production. The same took
place for the same relationships on sheep mutton production in
the same area that was previously defined. Fourth, camel milk production functions in the triangle
area of Halayeb, Shalateen, and AbuRamad using total
production value and the assets of cost point to the effect of
production elements of camel numbers, workers numbers, and
amount of feed rations on total production of milk.
Using the double logarithm for the relationship between
number of sheep and meat production, equation 1 in Table (55)
could be figured out (R2=0.74) which was significant at 0.01
level. In this respect, production elasticity reached 0.815,
which implies that there a good opportunity for increasing the
number of camels in the existing herds to enhance milk
production.
Using the double logarithm for the relationship between
number of workers and meat production, equation 2 in Table
(55) could be figured out (R2 = 0.69) which was significant at
0.01 level despite of being very low in effect on meat
production.
Using the double logarithm for the relationship between
amount of feed ration and camel milk production, equation 3 in
Table (55) could be figured out as significant at 0.01 level.
Fifth, sheep milk production functions in the triangle
area of Halayeb, Shalateen, and AbuRamad using total
production value and the assets of cost point to the effect of
production elements of sheep numbers, workers numbers, and
amount of feed rations on total production of milk.
Using the double logarithm for the relationship between
number of sheep and milk production, equation 1 in Table (58)
could be figured out (R2 = 0.79) which was significant at 0.01
level.
With regard to the effect of number of workers on sheep
milk production, equation 2 in Table (58) could be established
as to represent linear relationship. The coefficient of
determination ofR2
= 0.63 for the equation 2 points to a
positive relationship between number of workers and milk
production.
Using the double logarithm for the relationship between
amount of feed ration and sheep milk production, equation 3 in ’
Table (58) could be figured out.
Sixth, based on the various derived models using
mathematical manipulation, the linear model for the
relationship between production costs and average amount of
produced camel milk production in the triangle of Halayeb,
Shalateen, and AbuRamad could be established, but no further
economic pointers could be achieved with regard to the definition of the economic stage for such activity to be
practiced toward enhancing camel milk production. The same
took place for the same relationships on sheep milk production
in the same area.
Seventh, the productivity functions were estimated for
fishing resource to knowledge range effect of significant
elements production on total production at total level for study
sample through estimated sample No. (67), so, we are showed
that the elements importance which that significant effects are
presented .at the number of people hour, ice quantity, energy
quantity, oil and fat, so, the total plasticity for these elements
by 0.826. For this we are using this elements in the second
stage for production so that it is positive and less than from one
for the number of people work hours at the week and the
quantity of energy and oil which estimated by 0.802 and 0.129
respectively, which indicated that increasing the using from
this elements by 1% leading to increase the quantity of fishing
by 0.802% and 0.129% respectively.
Also, the productivity plasticity were estimated for ice
with negative value which are indicated that the using ice are
used with quantity uneconomically with comprising the total
value for all productive elements, from these elements and its price for estimating all use efficient from these production
elements (Table 67) show that, the limited production value
from using people work hours are increasing unit price, this
indicated that using people work are completed with economic
mixing and there are chance to increases the using from the
units people elements to increase fishing quantity from fish at
the study sample.
For energy, oil and fat which are using on the boat, the
results showed that, the percent between the limited production
value for the element and its price were less that one, this
indicated for the limited production value for energy, oil and
fat less than the price of liter, where for ice the results indicated
that the limited production value was negative so that it were
used with uneconomic ally mixing.
Eighth, to define the relationship between the total
production costs and total fish production in the triangle area of
Halayeb, Shalateen, and AbuRamad the production cost
functions of the fish production were formulated, amongst
which the most appropriate functions to the study area based on
the standards of economic analysis. The best fitting functions
were found to be the cubic ones as expressed in the following: Based on calculating the optimum fish production of the
triangle area from the production cost and total cost at the
marginal revenue level (average price per ton), which was
found to reach LE 8.5, it was clear that the production volume
with the best production efficiency at which exists the least
cost per ton of fish or at which the average cost per ton reaches
the least level it can achieve, which, in tum, is defined when
the marginal cost equals the average costs; i.e. the intersection
point of marginal cost curve and the curve of average total
costs, it, hence, represents the beginning of the economic stage,
and reaches about 24 kg per participant per day. The volume of
the production that maximizes the producer benefit is that
defined when the marginal cost equilibrates the marginal
revenue or the average price which is about 28 kg per day.
Since the average production per participant in the study area
reached 53.5 kg per day, this means that the average fish
production in this area exceeded the optimum most efficient
production at which the per ton cost drops to a minimum. It
also means the situation at which the there is the optimum
production that maximizes the producer benefits.