Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T17:24:38.160Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Review of Methods for Measuring Crop Production from Smallholder Producers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

Derek Poate
Derek Poate
Affiliation:
ITAD Ltd, Lion House, Ditchling Common Industrial Estate, Hassocks, West Sussex, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Four methods of measuring crop production are reviewed in the context of different survey objectives. A popular technique, crop cutting, tends to overestimate yields and does not produce good estimates of individual plots. For high accuracy, harvest of the whole plot is the best method. If statistics of regional production are required output can be sampled after harvest, or, if the farmer harvests in consistent units, his own estimate can be taken. Limited evidence shows that farmers' estimates may be no more biased than crop cutting, but require fewer resources and supervision. There is no best method. The method used must be chosen for the purpose of the study. Whichever method is chosen a distinction should be made between biological and economic yield and correction must be made for threshing and moisture content.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , January 1988 , pp. 1 - 14
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

AIDB (1986). Draft Oxen Evaluation Study Report. ITAD Ltd for Agricultural and Industrial Development Bank, Ethiopia. (Mimeo.)Google Scholar
Buzan, T. (1974). Use Your Head. London: British Broadcasting Corporation.Google Scholar
Casley, D. J. & Lury, D. A. (1981). Data Collection in Developing Countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAO (1982). The Estimation of Crop Areas and Yields in Agricultural Statistics. Economic and Social Development Paper No. 22. Rome, Italy: FAO.Google Scholar
Greeley, Martin (1987). Post Harvest Losses, Technology and Employment: The Case of Rice in Bangladesh. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. (In press.)Google Scholar
Hoffnar, B. R. & Johnson, G. L. (1966). Summary and Evaluation of the Cooperative Agronomic-Economic Experimentation at Michigan State University. Research Bulletin 11. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University.Google Scholar
Molokwu, C. C. & Poate, C. D. (1981). Yield Estimation in Yam and Sorghum: A Study of Crop Cutting from Subplots. Agricultural Projects Monitoring Evaluation and Planning Unit, Kaduna, Nigeria. (Mimeo.)Google Scholar
Panse, V. G. (1954). Estimation of Crop Yields. Rome, Italy: FAO.Google Scholar
Panse, V. G. (1958). Some comments on the objectives and methods of the 1960 world census of agriculture. Bulletin of the International Statistical Institute 36:222–7.Google Scholar
Poate, C. D. & Casley, Dennis J. (1985). Estimating Crop Production in Development Projects. Methods and Their Limitations. Washington DC, USA: The World Bank.Google Scholar
Poate, C. D. & Daplyn, P. F. (1982). Farm Surveys and Project Evaluation. A Methodology Manual. Agricultural Projects Monitoring, Evaluation and Planning Unit, Kaduna, Nigeria. (Mimeo.)Google Scholar
Sukhatme, P. V. (1954). Sampling Theory of Surveys with Applications. Ames: Iowa State College Press.Google Scholar