الفهرس 
الباب الاوليوجد فقط 14 صفحة متاحة للعرض العام
 |  | from | 322 |  |  |
| | | from | 322 | | |
المستخلص
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 1 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 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, R2 (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 (R2 = 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 of R2 = 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 uneconomically 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 turn, 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.