The name is absent



Table 2. Integrated Alfalfa Management Regression Results Model A1983 to 1987

Estimated Coefficient9

Independent

Variables

1983

1984

1985________

1986

1987

1983-87

---------($/Acre)

Intercept

474.50“*

612.32"*

591.13***

228.28***

106.64***

2010.02***

(51.42)

(46.72)

(46.58)

(27.93)

(10.11)

(70.07)

Harvest:

Fall Cut

35.34*“

10.42

-11.16

-33.08“*

-6.24

-10.45

(4.14)

(.86)

(.95)

(4.37)

(.64)

(.39)

Winter

42.66***

28.94**

53.89***

38.48***

22.60“

147.00***

Grazed

(4.99)

(2.38)

(4.59)

(5.09)

(2.31)

(5.54)

Unharvested

Base

Base

Base

Base

Base

Base

Herbicide:

None

Base

Base

Base

Base

Base

Base

Treated

-5.40

-13.83

-21.47**

29.72***

56.68***

46.83“

(.77)

(1.40)

(2.24)

(4.81)

(7.11)

(2.16)

lns⅜et⅛i<⅛.

None

Base

Base

Base

Base

Base

Base

Treated

6.61

-7.13

25.07**

74.46*"

56.99***

153.45"*

(.95)

(.72)

(2.61)

(12.05)

(7.15)

(7.08)

SnJiiyar;

WL318

2.33

27.92“

115.03***

150.48***

145.52***

447.42***

(.27)

(2.30)

(9.79)

(19.89)

(14.90

(16.85)

Arc

21.04“

50.99***

109.60***

129.60"*

94.12“*

412.11***

(2.46)

(4.20)

(9.33)

(17.13)

(9.64)

(15.52)

OKO8______

Base

Base

Base________

Base_____

Base

Base

N

36

36

36

36

36

36

R2

.563

.473

.853

.961

.921

.936

aNumbers in parentheses are absolute values of calculated t-statistics; and *** = .01, ** = .05, and * = . 10 significance
levels.

and higher quality alfalfa, which could be marketed
at a higher price, enhanced adjusted returns.
Removal of fall growth by late-fall harvesting was
not cost-effective,
i.e. returns from small yields did
not offset harvest costs.

Weed Control

Applying herbicides in 1983 through 1985
reduced adjusted returns, though not significantly,
with the exception of 1985 returns. Weed inter-
ference was not serious enough in these early years
of the stand to justify economically the application
of herbicides. However, herbicide applications in-
creased adjusted returns in 1986 and 1987, as well
as for the five years combined. These results were
expected,
i.e., increasing returns to weed control
with increasing age of the alfalfa stand and decreas-
ing competitive ability of alfalfa plants as the stand
declined. Decreasing alfalfa plant populations in
older stands provided greater opportunities for
weeds to compete for light and nutrients.

Insect Control

Returns resulting from insecticide applications
also increased as the alfalfa stand aged. However,
the greatest difference in returns was likely due to
relatively low population levels for alfalfa weevils
in 1983 and 1984 in comparison with later years of
the study (Dowdy). Potential savings through
reduced use of insecticide are dependent on insect
infestation level
(i.e. damage potential) regardless of
alfalfa stand age.

Cultivar Selection

Both improved alfalfa cultivars provided in-
creased returns relative to OK08 for the five-year
period. Arc resulted in significantly higher adjusted
returns in all years except 1983. For the five years

112




More intriguing information

1. The Dictator and the Parties A Study on Policy Co-operation in Mineral Economies
2. Expectation Formation and Endogenous Fluctuations in Aggregate Demand
3. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews
4. Spousal Labor Market Effects from Government Health Insurance: Evidence from a Veterans Affairs Expansion
5. Centre for Longitudinal Studies
6. IMPLICATIONS OF CHANGING AID PROGRAMS TO U.S. AGRICULTURE
7. 5th and 8th grade pupils’ and teachers’ perceptions of the relationships between teaching methods, classroom ethos, and positive affective attitudes towards learning mathematics in Japan
8. Cross border cooperation –promoter of tourism development
9. Ruptures in the probability scale. Calculation of ruptures’ values
10. The Impact of Minimum Wages on Wage Inequality and Employment in the Formal and Informal Sector in Costa Rica