The Impact of Mesquite Trees (Prosopis juliflora) on
Farm Profit
Case Study " New Halfa Agricultural Production
Corporation" (NHAPC)
By
Mohammed Ibrahim Musa
B.Sc. (Agricultural economics), 1998
University of Kassala
Supervised
By
Dr. Salah Mohamed Elawad
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fullfillment for the Requirements
Of the Degree of Master of Science in Agricultural Economics
Department of Agricultural Economics
Faculty of Agriculture
University of Khartoum
Oct. 2003
Page Number
Acknowledgement
Dedication
Abstract (English)
Abstract (Arabic)
i
ii
iii
iv
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Problem Statement
1.3 Objectives
1.4 Hypothesis
1.5 Methodology
1.5.1 Sampling technique
1.5.2 Sampling size
1.5.3 method of data analysis
1.6 Organization of Study
1
2
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
CHAPTER TWO
Literature Review
2.1 Mesquite tree
2.2 Environmental characteristics of Mesquite
2.3 Mesquite uses
2.4 The negative effects of Mesquite
2.5 Mesquite problem on agricultural land
2.6 Mesquite and agricultural productivity
2.7 Mesquite management
2.8 Socio-economic measures
CHAPTER THREE
General Features of the Area and Mesquite Tree
8
11
12
15
15
17
18
19
3.1 Socio-economic characteristics of respondents
3.2 Mesquite uses
3.3 The effects of Mesquite on agriculture
3.4 Mesquite management
CHAPTER FOUR
Econometric Analysis
4.1 Multiple linear regression
4.2 Econometrics model specification
4.3 Result of regressions
4.4 Discussion of the crop regression equations
CHAPTER FIVE
Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 Summary
5.2 Conclusions
5.3 Recommendations
Bibliography
21
25
27
30
32
32
34
37
40
42
42
44
LIST OF TABLES
Table Name
Table (1-1): The Cost of Production in NHAPC SD per feddan
Page
No.
3
Table (1-2): The Crop Productivity in NHAPC per feddan
3
Table (1-3): The Selected Divisions and Sub-Divisions in NHAPC
5
Table (2-1): Mesquite Spread along River Gash 1962-1996
10
Table (2-2): Use for Mesquite in the Household: Kassala State
13
Table (3-1): Age by Group of Respondents in NHAPC
21
Table (3-2): Education Level of the Respondents in NHAPC
22
Table (3-3): Education Level and Productivity of the Respondents in NHAPC
22
Table (3-4): Family Size of the Respondents in NHAPC
23
Table (3-5): The Impact of Family Labor on Agricultural Productivity
23
Table (3-6): The Marital Status of the Respondents in NHAPC
24
Table (3-7): Other Occupations of the Respondents in NHAPC
24
Table (3-8): Livestock Ownership of the Respondents in NHAPC
24
Table (3-9): Useful of Mesquite Tree of the Respondents in NHAPC
25
Table (3-10): Type of Useful of Mesquite Tree of the Respondents in NHAPC
25
Table (3-11): The Purposes of Charcoal of the Respondents in NHAPC
26
Table (3-12): The Degree of Dependency of the Respondents in NHAPC
26
Table (3-13): The Effect of Mesquite on Productivity in NHAPC
27
Table (3-14): The Effect of Mesquite Density on Crop Productivity
28
Table (3-15): The Effect of Mesquite on Cost of Production in NHAPC
29
Table (3-16): The Size of the Effects of Mesquite on Cost of Production in NHAPC
29
Table (3-17): The Effects of Mesquite Density on Farm Income
29
Table (3-18): The Tools of Control
30
Table (3-19): the Role of Extension on Mesquite Control
30
Table (4-1): Cotton Regression Model in NHAPC
34
Table (4-2): Wheat Regression Model in NHAPC
34
Table (4-3): Dura Regression Model in NHAPC
35
Table (4-4): Groundnuts Regression Model in NHAPC
36
ACKNOWLEDEMENT
I wish to Acknowledge my debts to my supervisor Dr Salah
Mohamed El Awad for his continuous help, guidence, suggestions,
criticism and valuable advices throughout the period of this study.
Special thanks are due to the Economic and Social Research Institute
for finance, facilities and encouragement during the course of this study.
Thank is also due to the Staff of Agricultural Economics
Department, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Khartoum for their
advices and assistance.
My deepest thanks are due to my family for their patience, services
and continuous encouragement during the course of this study.
DEDICATION
To the soul of my Mother,
To my Father, Brother and Sisters.
I dedicate this work with my love.
Mohammed
ABSTRACT
This study was conducted to identify the impact of Mesquite tree on
farm production in NHAPC through its effect on tenant's profitabillity and
with emphasis on its impacts on productivity and cost of production.
The population of study is represented by the tenants in NHAPC
who practice farming within the NHAPC according to the adopted
agricultural rotation.
Both primary and secondary data were used. The secondary data was
obtained from the reports and records of NHAPC, Forestry authority and
Ministry of agriculture. The primary data is collected through a
questionnaire designed for tenants. The descriptive and analytical
methodology was applied on the primary data compiled by interviewing the
tenants in the scheme area.
It is obvious from the findings of the study that the NHAPC tenants
faced the problem of existence and spread of Mesquite tree, which reduces
tenant's profitability from the main crops in the agricultural rotation
(Cotton- Wheat- Durra and Groundnuts). The means adopted in controlling
the tree and the attempts to limit its spreading are mostly manual. In
addition agricultural extension services, whereby the tenant could get the
information relevant for dealing with the tree, were abscent.
The study recommended the necessity of coordination between
NHAPC and Agricultural Research and Technology Corporation ARTC in
order to find the best methods for administering Mesquite tree and
controlling it, and encourage the undertaking of integrate economic, social
and environmetal studies for the tree.
‫ﺍﻟﺨﻼﺼﺔ‬
‫ﺃﺠﺭﻴﺕ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﻟﻤﻌﺭﻓﺔ ﺃﺜﺭ ﺸﺠﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻜﻴﺕ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺍﻹﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﻤﺯﺭﻋﻲ ﺒﻤﺅﺴﺴﺔ ﺤﻠﻔـﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻴﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺯﺭﺍﻋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼل ﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭﻫﺎ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺭﺒﺤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺯﺍﺭﻉ ﻭﺫﻟﻙ ﺒﺎﻟﺘﺭﻜﻴﺯ ﻋﻠـﻲ ﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭﻫـﺎ ﻓـﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻨﺘﺎﺠﻴﺔ ﻭﺘﻜﺎﻟﻴﻑ ﺍﻹﻨﺘﺎﺝ‪.‬‬
‫ﻴﺘﻤﺜل ﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻤﺠﻤﻭﻉ ﺍﻟﻤـﺯﺍﺭﻋﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻭﺠـﻭﺩﻴﻥ ﺒﻤﺅﺴﺴـﺔ ﺤﻠﻔـﺎ ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻴـﺩﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺯﺭﺍﻋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺫﻴﻥ ﻴﺒﺎﺸﺭﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺯﺭﺍﻋﻴﺔ ﺩﺍﺨل ﺃﺭﺍﻀﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺭﻭﻉ ﻭﻓﻘـﹰﺎ ﻟﻠـﺩﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺯﺭﺍﻋﻴـﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﻭل ﺒﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﺴﺘﺨﺩﻤﺕ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﻤﻌﻠﻭﻤﺎﺕ ﺃﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﺜﺎﻨﻭﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺠﻤﻌﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻠﻭﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻨﻭﻴـﺔ ﻤـﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻘـﺎﺭﻴﺭ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻨﺸﻭﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺼﺔ ﺒﻤﺅﺴﺴﺔ ﺤﻠﻔﺎ ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻴﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺯﺭﺍﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﻫﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﺒـﺎﺕ ﻭﻭﺯﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺯﺭﺍﻋـﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻤـﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻠﻭﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻓﻘﺩ ﺠﻤﻌﺕ ﻋﻥ ﻁﺭﻴﻕ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺒﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺩ ﻟﻠﻤﺯﺍﺭﻋﻴﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﺴﺘﺨﺩﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﻭﺼـﻔﻲ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻠﻲ ﺒﺘﻁﺒﻴﻘﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺎﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻀﻤﻨﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺒﻴﺎﻥ ﻤﻊ ﻤﺯﺍﺭﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻁﻘﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﺘﻀﺢ ﻤﻥ ﻨﺘﺎﺌﺞ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺃﻥ ﻤﺯﺍﺭﻋﻲ ﻤﺅﺴﺴﺔ ﺤﻠﻔﺎ ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻴﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺯﺭﺍﻋﻴﺔ ﻴﻭﺍﺠﻬﻭﻥ ﻤﺸـﻜﻠﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﻭﺍﻨﺘﺸﺎﺭ ﺸﺠﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻜﻴﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﻌﻤل ﻋﻠﻰ ﺨﻔﺽ ﺭﺒﺤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺯﺍﺭﻉ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺎﺼﻴل ﺍﻟﺭﺌﻴﺴـﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺯﺭﺍﻋﻴﺔ )ﻗﻁﻥ‪ -‬ﻗﻤﺢ‪ -‬ﺫﺭﺓ‪ -‬ﻓﻭل ﺴﻭﺩﺍﻨﻲ(‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻥ ﺃﺩﻭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻜﻡ ﻓﻲ ﻫـﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺸـﺠﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻭﻤﻨﻊ ﺍﻨﺘﺸﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﻏﺎﻟﺒﹰﺎ ﻤﺎ ﺘﻜﻭﻥ ﻴﺩﻭﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻤﻊ ﻏﻴﺎﺏ ﺩﻭﺭ ﺍﻹﺭﺸﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﺯﺭﺍﻋﻲ ﻓـﻲ ﺘـﻭﻓﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻠﻭﻤـﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻤﺯﺍﺭﻉ ﻓﻲ ﻜﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﻤل ﻤﻊ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺸﺠﺭﺓ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻭﺼﺕ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺒﻀﺭﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺴﻴﻕ ﺒﻴﻥ ﻤﺅﺴﺴﺔ ﺤﻠﻔﺎ ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻴﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺯﺭﺍﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﻫﻴﺌـﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺤـﻭﺙ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻘﺎﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﺯﺭﺍﻋﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺇﻴﺠﺎﺩ ﺍﻓﻀل ﺍﻟﻁﺭﻕ ﻓﻲ ﺇﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺸﺠﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻜﻴﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺤﻜﻡ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺘﺸﺠﻴﻊ ﻗﻴـﺎﻡ‬
‫ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﺒﻴﺌﻴﺔ ﻤﺘﻜﺎﻤﻠﺔ ﻟﺸﺠﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻜﻴﺕ‪.‬‬
CHAPTER ONE
1.1 Introduction
Sudan was infested firstly by Mesquite in 1917. Imported
from Egypt and South Africa, the samples cultivated in Shambat
experimental fields, then after that spread over many areas in
Khartoum Bahari through animal's wastes.
The results of the experiments which was conducted in
1928 and 1938 showed the ability of Mesquite trees to grow on
sand with annually 150m rainfall. Its spread started from its
planting as a wind break belt in the area of South Khartoum
airport
Imported from United States of America, three types of
Mesquite tree have been introduced in 1952. In addition eight
types were introduced by Forestry Research Unit in 1980.
Mesquite penetration of New Halfa Area:
NHAPC is located at the west of the river Atbarawi between
latitudes 15˚-17˚N., in an arid Climatic zone, characterized by annual 250500mm rainfall. The whole agricultural area in the scheme is estimated to
be 345,000 feddan, cultivated in three crop rotation; Cotton, Wheat, Dura
and Groundnuts.
In 1966 NHAPC experienced its first unpleasant acquaintance to
Mesquite. As the investigations displayed, Forestry officials were the first
to identify its threats to the scheme. They declared an eradication order,
which took place shortly after that on the whole scheme area, with
exceptions in some particular places e.g. around villages 1 and 33.
Consequently, those few trees said to be responsible of its serious and
disastrous spreading all over the area.
Intensive extension of Mesquite tree in NHAPC results in a
devastating hazard to the fertile areas and durable challenges to crop
production. Its expansion over the Gardens and water-channels could be
explained mainly by its easy spreading mechanisms, which depend on
animals, humans and water. Also Mesquite tree is characterized by its
ability to adapt to environmental conditions, showing strong ability to cope
with defiant opposition.
1.2 Problem Statement
Mesquite tree introduced to NHAPC in 1966, to fence the
experimental plantation, and spread out into farms and canals afterwards.
The Mesquite trees are highly adaptive to environmental changes, climate
differences, drought and soil degradation.
Despite the continuous efforts exerted by the concerned people to mitigate the
effects of the Mesquite tree; it persists as a solid reality in NHAPC.
NHAPC records experienced continuous rising in the cost of production, as in
table (1-1) which shows the cost of production in the NHAPC for the period 1985/86 to
2000/01. Also the crops' productivity in NHAPC has been unstable; table (2-1) reflects
the fluctuations of the Productivity of crops in NHAPC.
Table (1-1): The Average Cost of Production in (NHAPC) SD per feddan
Seasons
Cotton
Wheat
Dura
Groundnuts
1985/1986
1986/1987
1987/1988
1988/1989
1989/1990
1990/1991
1991/1992
1992/1993
1993/1994
1994/1995
1995/1996
1996/1997
1997/1998
1998/1999
1999/2000
2000/2001
64.01
70.92
77.60
109.80
125.00
182.50
389.50
1900.80
2599.30
6622.00
22000.00
32112.00
44705.00
50593.00
49305.00
50015.00
29.58
27.07
42.45
70.61
307.95
160.14
379.44
936.30
1310.65
3439.00
9629.40
21969.00
23536.00
26324.00
26985.50
24350.00
18.13
22.08
24.78
54.54
73.40
109.50
217.50
574.40
1440.00
2861.40
3509.00
10158.00
12865.00
13803.00
14145.00
14555.00
31.50
32.98
57.67
73.60
96.50
168.00
315.50
928.20
1723.00
3847.50
6240.00
16986.00
19415.00
20018.00
22777.00
22525.00
Source: NHAPC
Table (1-2): The Average Crops Productivity in NHAPC
Seasons
1985/1986
1986/1987
1987/1988
1988/1989
1989/1990
1990/1991
1991/1992
1992/1993
1993/1994
1994/1995
1995/1996
1996/1997
1997/1998
1998/1999
1999/2000
2000/2001
Source: NHAPC
Cotton
(kantar/fed)
5.49
6.22
4.23
4.23
4.61
4.01
4.67
2.98
3.03
4.01
3.25
3.20
3.98
3.03
3.60
4.00
Wheat
(sack/fed)
4.00
4.50
5.00
6.00
6.20
4.10
7.00
4.30
3.70
6.00
6.49
5.60
7.30
4.10
4.50
7.00
Dura
(sack/fed)
5.49
6.22
4.23
2.94
5.00
4.50
6.00
4.00
6.00
5.20
5.00
6.00
8.80
8.00
6.00
8.00
Groundnuts
(sack/fed)
14.00
15.50
16.90
11.30
22.00
11.00
20.00
12.30
25.00
28.00
25.00
28.00
30.00
30.00
32.00
25.00
Furthermore, according to a recent report of Forest National Corporation, the
Mesquite trees cover about 27.7% of all-agricultural area in New Halfa Agricultural
Production Corporation equal to 108242 feddan. The trees, which also, cover about
1200 km from the total water-channels extension (4082 km), handicap the flow of water
necessary for cultivation. In addition, Mesquite tree excludes vast areas from
agricultural operations, depriving its tenants from benefiting from these areas. Also, as a
result of presence of Mesquite trees costs of the agricultural operation increased to
nearly 90% in some spots. In areas covered by Mesquite trees, caterpillar tracks are
used instead of light tracks thus prolonging the phase of land preparation in agriculture
from 25-38 days to 60-95 days in the summer season (Maher, 2001). All of the above
mentioned effects lead to increasing in the cost of agricultural production and hence a
reduction of net incomes.
This study try to investigate that the presence and spread of Mesquite trees in
the area is considered as one of the main reasons behind the deterioration of profit
experienced by tenants in NHAPC, which has been reflected, by the high production
cost and the productivity fluctuation.
1.3 Objectives of the Study
The study is conducted to investigate the effects of Mesquite trees on farm
profit in the NHAPC. More specifically, it aims:
1. To identity the economic uses of Mesquite trees on the living conditions of
the people in NHAPC
2. To measure how Mesquite trees are affecting tenant's profit from Cotton,
Wheat, Dura and Groundnuts.
3. To valuate the extra cost of land preparation for cultivation of Cotton, Wheat,
Dura and Groundnuts, as a resulting from spread of Mesquite trees.
1.4 Hypothesis
Mainly, this research study aimed to test the following hypothesis: The low
tenant's profit is affected mainly by the low productivity of land as well as increasing of
production costs which resulted from spread of Mesquite trees in the NHAPC.
1.5 Methodology
This research study employed both primary and secondary data, which were
collected from their respective sources. The primary data collected from the tenants of
the NHAPC by using questionnaire. Regarding the secondary data, the NHAPC and
Forestry Corporation records have been the main sources.
1.5.1 Sampling Technique
Random stratification technique was used. According to available
information about Mesquite density distribution in the NHAPC. The stratification
technique adopted by dividing the study area into two strata; high Mesquite density
stratum and low Mesquite density stratum(NHAPC record), from each stratum random
sample was selected as shown in table (1.3) below.
Table (1.3): The Selected Divisions and Sub-Divisions in (NHAPC) Project.
Type of Mesquite
Density
Division
Selected Sub-division
Debira
High
Low
High
1.
2.
1.
2.
1.
2.
1.
2.
1.
2.
10
Sheikh
Omer
Saserabe
Demiat
Low
Elsedira
Total
1.5.2 Sample Size
5
Faras
Hajir
Argin
Abu Najma
El-Madina
Degeim
El-Shebake
El-Alow
Um Rahow
Um Gargor
Sample Size
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
100
The sample size will be determined according to the degree of precision
aimed at in form of available resources such as cost and time. The sample size was
determined according to Bhattacharya and Johnson (1977) the following formula will be
used.
n=
ΚV
D
Where:
n = Sample size.
K = Z value (the normal deviation at 0.9 probability), which
was found to be 1.645.
V = The estimated standard deviation of income, which was
assumed to be 3 (Ali, 2001).
D = The magnitude of the difference to be selected (0.05).
n=
1.645 ×3
0.05
= 98.7 ≈ 100
1.5.3 Method of Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics include mean, frequencies, percentage, and standard
deviation. Chi-square test, cross-tab and Ordinary Least Square (OLS), these methods
were used to investigate the main factors affecting respondent's profit.
1.9 Organization of the Study
The layout of this research is as following: chapter one presents the
introduction, problem statement, objectives of the study, hypothesis, methodology and
the organization of the study. Chapter two shows the literature review about the origin
of Mesquite tree characteristics and effects. In chapter three we presented the general
features of the area and Mesquite tree. The results and discussion were presented in
chapter four. Finally, chapter five is about the summary, conclusions &
recommendations of the study.
CHAPTER TWO
Literature Review
2.1 Mesquite Tree
Botanically, Mesquite tree follows to the family of Mimosaceae and
known by the latin name of Prosopis juliflora and Common names Mesquite, honey
locust, ironwood, algaroba, honeypod, ablarroba, honey Mesquite, Texas ironwood.
Tree height averaged between 20 and 40 feet. The tree weight on average about 50
pounds per cubic foot. Perino et al (2000).
2.1.1 Mesquite Nature and Classification
Wunder (1966) reported that botanical specimens of the species, which
has always been known in the Sudan as Prosopis Julifora.
Abdel Bari (1986) stated that, the genus Prosopis comprises about 44
species mainly of American and a few of Asian and African distribution in arid and
semi-arid areas of North and South Africa.
JO (1998) revealed that Mesquite tree is a hardwood that grows naturally
in North and South America and was introduced in Australia and South Africa in the
1940s. Its range in the United States is from the low deserts of California, southern
Nevada and southwestern Utah, to Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Louisiana. It was also
introduced to the Hawaiian Islands. Mesquite also grows naturally in Mexico and
Jamaica and extends south from Central America to Venezuela. It was exported from
Chile, Peru, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay.
“The wood grows well on both sides of the equator,” explained Perino.
“It was introduced in South Africa and Australia in the 1940s as a source of fodder for
cattle. No one realized how quickly it would propagate and how hard it would be to
manage”.
Mesquite grows well in dry climates. It needs little water and its long
roots will burrow deeply in the ground to obtain the moisture it needs. Mesquite varies
from low and thorny shrubs to taller trees. The trees that get enough moisture are
capable of growing to heights of 50 to 60 feet with trunks as wide as 3 feet.
Kerry (1997) cited, “Texas Honey Mesquite will grow as a multibranched tree or shrub, and can be pruned into a lovely shade tree. It is a dense wood
tree, and will grow slowly at the beginning. Once the tree becomes established,
however, it will grow more quickly, up to 2 feet per year, it can grow to about 30 feet.
If you prefer a hedge or screen, you can plant several Mesquite plants in a staggered
row, and let them grow without pruning. You will have a substantial visual or physical
barrier for your garden within a short period of time. The thorns on the branches make
this plant an effective physical barrier”.
Another
attractive feature of this plant is its extreme heat and drought tolerance. It has deep
roots, so that it can withstand extended periods of drought without extra water. The
Texas Honey Mesquite is also one of the last desert plants to put on leaf growth after
winter. Some locals claim that they know when they are free from danger of frost when
the Texas Honey Mesquite has begun to put out leaves. The tree itself is cold hardy to
10 degrees. Frost damage may occur at zero degree, but the tree will survive. The fact
that this tree is deciduous, that it looses its leaves in the winter, makes it a great tree
choice for homes that benefit from solar gain in the winter.
John (2000) reported that Mesquite (Prosopis spp.) is a thorny shrub or small
tree that usually grows to about 3 meters but can reach 15 meters. Trees can appear
rather untidy, with zigzag shaped branches. Leaves are fernlike and vary in shape
depending on the species. Foliage is usually dark green but can be blue green. Small
greenish-cream “lambs’ tails” flowers grow near ends of branches in wattle like spikes.
Seedpods are 10-20cm long, with slight constrictions between the seeds. Each pod
contains 5-20 hard seeds. Spines range in size from 4-75mm long and contribute to
form impenetrable barriers. Mesquite possesses characteristics that makes it very
competitive, including rapid germination of seedlings under a wide range of conditions,
rapid vertical penetration of tap roots and long shallow lateral roots, an ability to
resprout from dormant stem buds following injury, drought resistance, spines, readily
dispersed hard-coated seed, long seed dormancy and high fecundity. Mesquite
generally produces a single crop of seeds per season. Numbers recorded overseas
include 630,000-980,000 seeds/tree/year.
2.1.2 Mesquite Spread
Elsidig, et al. (1998), said that the nature of Mesquite stand spread is
indicated by successive aerial photographs taken 1962, 1978 and 1992
along river Gash. These photos were supplemented by a complete survey
of Mesquite forest along river Gash using the GPS technique early 1996.
Table (2-1) shows the spread of Mesquite along river Gash .
Table (2-1): Mesquite Spread Along River Gash 1962-1996
Year
Method of Survey
Area
Feddan
Hectare
1962
175.00
70.00
Aerial photo 1962
1978
750.00
315.00
Aerial photo 1978
1992
10900.00
4578.00
Aerial photo 1992
1996
15500.00
6510.00
GPS survey 1996
Resource: Sudanese Social Forestry Society
Ballal (1988) mentioned that, availability of pods as fodder
will ensure that, regeneration and spread of the species is more likely to
happen through seeds disseminated in the animals’ droppings. About 5%
of the seeds in the pods, when eaten by the goats, are not digested. During
the drought periods that prevailed throughout the seventies and eighties in
the Sudan, and due to the scarcity of forage, Mesquite was the only option
on which livestock was entirely dependent.
2.2 Environmental Characteristics of Mesquite
Elfadl (1977) found that, Mesquite trees reduced wind speed
appreciably, by an average of 14.4%. The average daily potential evaporation was
recorded outside the plantation was 9.4 mm while that inside the plantation was 7.3 mm
Potential evaporation was reduced by 22% due to the effect of the trees. Also, he said
that particle-size analysis of the soil under the Mesquite canopy showed considerable
improvement in texture, followed by an increase of 75% in clay content; the organic
matter in the soil under the canopy also increased significantly to 3.5 kg per year. In
addition, total nitrogen increased by 11% and available phosphorus by 22%.
Wunder (1966) assessed the environmental benefits of Mesquite plantation at
kilo 10 towards South of Khartoum airport. The amount of sand accumulated in the
plantation was based on the following figures:- Total width of plantation
450m
- Total length
140m
Mean height of sand layer was 0.8m and 16.8 truck loads of sand were carried away
from this plantation.
According to Hughes and Styles (1987) Mesquite exhibits considerable
tolerances to environmental extremes of heat. In arid zones Mesquite trees provide an
important insurance policy against drought years, through protection of soil cover and
amelioration of environmental extremes of wind, insulation against temperature and
water run off as well as production of a wide range of basic woody for rural people and
many minor products such as gums, bee forage and dry season fodder for livestock.
El
Hassan
(1997)
reported
that
the
Sudanese
government
and
environmentalists are divided over what to do with Mesquite trees which were
introduced to halt desert encroachment but have turned into a liability. He said that the
Sudanese government in 1996 passed a law to have the Mesquite trees eradicated
throughout the country. Justifying the new law, the country's Minister of Agriculture
declared, "the effect of Mesquites on the environment and natural resources is more
dangerous than that of drought." The Executive Director of the Sudanese Environment
Conservation Society, described the government war on Mesquites as "an over
reaction." He suggested the trees should be controlled instead of being eradicated.
"Without the Mesquite roots, rain water will not infiltrate into the clay soil and will be
lost through evaporation," he said.
2.3
2.3.1
Mesquite Uses
Mesquite as Fuel:
Elsidig et al.(1998), on their study based on household questionnaire,
officials interviewing, aerial photograph and ground survey, used sample size 10% of
people which was selected randomly in each village. The study showed that fire wood
is the main fuel used in the household in Kassala State, with exception of New Halfa
Agricultural Production Corporation, where people depend on agricultural wastes as
substitute for fire wood. Also they reported that the major benefits, of Mesquite trees is
to provide wood fuels for cooking and use in traditional industries, provision of fodder
to livestock, use in building and construction and protection against desert
encroachment (table 2-2).
Table (2-2) Use for Mesquite in the Household: Kassala State
Category
Percentage of population who use Mesquite
Construction
Furniture
Nutrition
Other
Gash river
55.00
45.00
22.00
0.00
Karab area
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.00
New Halfa
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.00
Gash Delta
16.00
3.00
28.00
4.00
Source: Sudanese Social Forestry Society
Charcoal is made by people for their own use in small quantities for
commercial purposes. On the average for all area in Kassala State the total percent of
population who made charcoal did not exceeding 13%. The share of Mesquite in
charcoal making is highly significant. For the tenant's in New Halfa Agricultural
Production Corporation who are more suffering from Mesquite invasion to their
agricultural land, the tree cost them much time and money. Moreover, the ability to
establish easily is an advantage for firewood collectors, who can find Mesquite on even
the poorest of sites.
2.3.2 Mesquite as Fodder:
Abdel Gabar (1986) reported, that the seeds had the highest protein content
(32.5%) followed by leaves (14.8) while Mesquite whole pods had the least protein
content. The relatively high protein content of the seeds makes them useful as protein
supplement to poor grass. Also he conducted comparative feeding on Goats and Sheep
using whole pods of Mesquite and also crushed pods supplemented with molass and
karkade. He concluded that death of sheep and goats fed on crushed Mesquite, occurred
during 12 and 13 weeks. He further explained the deaths to be attributed to the
excessive accumulation of improperly digested Mesquite pods which favored the
proliferation of bacteria leading to the production of lactic acid in excessive amounts.
NFTA (1995), showed that in the semi-arid regions of north- western
Argentina and northern Chile, the pods but not the leaves of the Mesquite trees are
readily eaten by domestic livestock. Pods are high in sugar (about 35%) and contain 1012% crude protein. Seeds are sometimes ground into a concentrate for animal feed.
Also, the pods of Mesquite trees are eaten by native peoples, especially as ground flour.
2.3.3 Mesquite as Commodity:
Elsidig et al. (1998) reported that the activity of selling and
purchasing of the Mesquite wood is practiced in the area along river Gash
and south of Kassala town with exception of the New Halfa Agricultural
Production Corporation.
Norman et al. (2001), in a workshop attended by representatives
from its natural range (Texas, Mexico, Peru, Argentina), delegates from
international and national development and donor agencies attended
together with representatives from a number of NGO's and industries
working with Mesquite trees. On the commercial front: there are examples
of private businesses based on Mesquite wood products including furniture
and flooring, fuel wood, charcoal and also food and fodder products are
marketed in Brazil, Haiti and Peru.
Perino et al (2000) emphasized that commitment would be found
to developing alternative for the landowners considering transforming their
Mesquite forests into pasture or agricultural fields. If the values inherent in
the tree, i.e., beans for food, wood for lumber and extract for medicinal use
were recognized and diligently nurtured, it would follow they could profit
as much from Mesquite as from cattle. They are not against agriculture or
the cattle industries. It is the devastation of an established and intrinsically
valuable forest and habitat they aim to reduce. Thriving and properly
managed Mesquite forests have the potential of providing so much more
for generations to come than a short term profit derived from its
destruction. Moreover, establishing a commercial value for Mesquite
through the development of Mesquite products and markets is their
primary task. They have consulted for land owners and producers and
purchased Mesquite from Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Hawaii, Africa,
and Argentina. And as they demonstrate economic viability of products
derived from this tree, they contribute to the motive for implementing new
forestry practices that will benefit land owners as well as the environment.
2.4 The Negative Effects of Mesquite
Pasiecznik
(1999) said invading Mesquite tends to form dense, impenetrable thickets. In pastures,
it reduces grass cover and stocking density, threatening ranchers’ livehoods, even
forcing the migration of traditional pastoralists. Invasions into agricultural land, along
irrigation channels and water courses, are also a major problem. The trees are believed
to deplete groundwater reserves and to reduce the growth of neighboring crops.
Although the trees have many competitive ecological advantages over other
plants, the seedlings are sensitive. They often colonize disturbed, eroded, over-grazed
or drought-ridden land associated with unsustainable agronomic practices, such as
following the introduction of cattle ranching in the Americas. Millions of hectares of
rangeland have been invaded in this century, and the process is still occurring in South
Africa, Australia and coastal Asia, where Mesquite species have been introduced. Also
he stated that Mesquite trees are not voracious water users.
Research on allelopmorph effects shows decreased seed germination and
seedling growth, with negative effects apparently due to shade and root competition.
However, there are many conflicting reports of plants being lusher and growing quicker
under Mesquite canopies. Increased nematode populations near Mesquite are
unconfirmed. Deaths from thorn pricks have been explained by secondary infection,
although stout thorns certainly penetrate most shoes and are likely to cause injury.
Where Mesquite is the most common trees, the pollen has been recorded as a major
allergen.
Elsidig et al. (1998) reported that the negative impacts of Mesquite are to
increase cost of land preparation for agricultural production; deterioration of range
land; reduces productivity of land, adverse effect in the pastoral environment in general
and negative impact on biodiversity.
2.5 Mesquite Problems on Agricultural Lands
Quits (1995) stated that "Mesquite is found almost everywhere in the Gash
delta. It spreads rapidly, causing many problems in the agricultural bush land, where
fallow land is invaded quickly". As a result of the rotating land tenure system in Gash
Delta Scheme, farmers are not encouraged to clear their land after harvest; the farmers
open their land for animals that spread the seeds. These seeds, therefore, would be the
starting points for the invasion of Mesquite in the region. Irrigation Engineers and
schemes owners and schemes managers reported many troubles created by Mesquite
trees through its invasion to, the irrigation canals, causing canal leaking dredging and
expensive maintenance operations.
Norman et al. (2001) cited that Mesquite can be a harmful weed in the fertile
irrigated agricultural lands, and is likely to get completely out of control and the end
claiming the land. It created many problems to people by causing punctures on bicycles
cars, tractors, trucks and hinders of freedom of movement especially in the agricultural
scheme.
Pasiecznik (1999), Mesquite with deep tap roots to keep trees green during
droughts by accessing the water table, and lateral roots to draw on surface water during
the rains and hence deprive other trees from water. Leaf adaptations reduce water loss,
as expected in desert plants. Pot studies do not reflect actual water use in the field, and
re-appearance of streams after land clearance has been explained by increased soil
permeability following stump removal.
John (2000) Mesquites are one of Northern Australia’s worst weeds. They are
a group of thorny shrubs and trees that aggressively replace grasslands and thorn less
shrub land. Most impacts are in pastoral and extensive grazing regions. Current
infestations cover 800,000 hectares. Most of the arid to sub humid tropical areas of
Australia are however climatically suitable for Mesquite, particularly along
watercourses and floodplains, although it may also grow on uplands and poses a threat
to all areas with agricultural and conservation value.
2.6 Mesquite and Agricultural Productivity
Ibrahim (1992) reported that the Mesquite tree improve the physical and
chemical characteristics of land. Mesquite is (Mimosoideae) then it improves the
fertility of the soil around and under it. It happens by fixing the Ozot through a
cooperative life between the Mesquite and soil bacteria.
According to Lanino (1966) Mesquite tree improve the physical level of land.
The content of Phosphor on leafs and fruits are 0.91% and 1.44% respectively. When
they fall on earth these chemicals elements are added to the soil.
Maher et al, (March 2001) mentioned that the Mesquite is deforming the
kind of agricultural, because the areas in which there were high density of Mesquite
were require long periods of land preparation, This affecting on productivity.
Martin et al (1952) studied Mesquite tree in South Arizona, and demonstrated
that, Mesquite tree had negative effect upon the water content, the effect is deep up to
30-45cm.
2.7 Mesquite Management
John (2000) reported that, Mesquite can be removed by aerial spraying,
pulled up mechanically or treated chemically from the ground. About 62 percent is
treated from the air, 30 percent is removed mechanically, and the rest is chemically
treated on the ground.
Pasiecznik (1999), for over fifty years, ranchers in south-western USA and
Argentina tried every possible technique to eradicate or control Mesquite. The end
result millions of dollars were spent and still no cost effective programme found.
In Sudan, the eradication programme includes even training children to
uproot seedlings. In South Africa and Australia, amongst others, eradication or control
programmes exist, and new methods of biological control using seed-eating beetles are
being attempted.
Also, Pasiecznik said some change in land-use systems appears necessary.
For example Cattle spread seed widely, whereas sheep kill most seed digested and pigs
kill them all. A reduction in stocking rates can encourage good grass cover, which
prevents seedling establishment. But what to do with dense stands? They must be
thinned, which is not a desirable job, to 100-200 stems per hectare. Stumps have to be
removed or treated. Remaining trees must be pruned to single stems. Seedlings do not
establish under tree canopies, so such a cover will prevent further establishment.
Pruned crowns reduce root competition and grass growth will improve. With the
production of fuelwood, sweet pods and straight trunks for timber, this can only be a
profitable use of otherwise unproductive lands.
Markets are developing around the world, as consumers become aware of the
high quality of Mesquite timber, fuel, pod flour, animal feed, honey and gums. The
species are over-exploited in their native range Americas, where Mesquite is well-liked
and well-used for furniture, food, feed and a source of raw materials for industry.
However, where introduced, such local knowledge has not followed, and Mesquite
remains a neglected, unrespected weed.
2.8 Socio-economic Measures
2.8.1 Age:
El-khider (1988) argued that farmers net income negatively related to farmer
age and the younger educated farmers scored a high yields. This was also supported by
Abdellrahim (1994) in his study of Kabkabia Small Holder Project, where he found
that farmers' age has negative effect on project participations. And this consistent with
the adoption theory that young farmer tends to be more innovative. Also Marshal
(1967) found that income was negatively correlated with age, younger farmers tend to
have higher incomes than older ones.
2.8.2 Education Level:
Ali (1990), found a negative relationship between Cotton yield
and tenant level of education, he attributed this to the fact that farmer with
higher level of education were observed to be engaged in activities other
than farming”.
El-Hadari (1968) reported that illiterate farmers were found to be
reluctant to adopt any techniques and are still using primitive tools and
adopt the traditional agricultural practices of their ancestors.
2.8.1 Family Size:
Abu-mihgan (1984) argued that small farmer's families participate in the
decision-making process and provision of labour for different agricultural operations in
the farm, also the larger the family size the more income is needed to meet the
consumption needs of its members. For this reason the size of the family is very
important and concluded that “it seems that there is a positive relationship between
income and number of family members up to a certain level (5-7) after which the
relationship becomes negative”.
CHAPTER THREE
General Features of the Area and Mesquite Tree
3.1 Socio-economic Characteristics of the Respondents:
3.1.1 Age of Respondents:
Table (3-1), shows that 25% of the respondents were within the age group
(20-39) years, which indicate that the younger's not preferred the agriculture and they
engage in other sectors. In addition there were 33% of the respondents within the age
group of (40-49) years and 42% of the respondents their age above the 50 years old.
Table (3-1) Age by Group of Respondents in NHAPC
Age by group
Frequency
Percent
20-29
4
4
30-39
21
21
40-49
33
33
50-59
23
24
60-69
18
18
Total
100
100
Source: field survey (2003)
3.1.2 Education level of Respondents:
Table (3-2) revealed that 71% of the respondents have some sort of education
while 29% were illiterate. From the 71% of educated respondent; 7% had informal
education (khalwa), 19% had basic education while 41% with secondary education and
only 4% with university level of education. However, the results obtained were
consistent with what was mentioned by Ali with respect to Cotton and wheat (table 33).
Table (3-2) Education level of the Respondents in NHAPC
Education Level
Frequency
Percent
Illiterate
29
29
Khalwa
7
7
Primary
19
19
Secondary
41
41
University
4
4
100
100
Total
Source: field survey (2003)
Education
level
Crops productivity
Cotton
kantar/fed
Wheat
Dura
Ground.
Sack/fed
sack/fed
Sack/fed.
Illiterate
2.52
4.89
7.81
24.97
Khalwa
1.86
6.14
9.43
19.00
Primary
1.89
3.07
7.32
17.47
Secondary
1.83
3.83
7.34
18.43
University
1.75
3.75
12.25
24.00
Table (3-3) Education level and Productivity of the Respondents in NHAPC
Source: field survey (2003)
3.1.3 Family size of Respondents:
Table (3-4) showed that the majority of respondents with family size 3-6 persons
(55%), while 42% with family of 7-10 persons and only 3% with family size 11-14
persons.
Table (3-4): Family Size of the Respondents in NHAPC
Number of family size
Frequency
Percent
3-6
55
55
7-10
42
42
11-14
3
3
Total
100
100
Source: field survey (2003)
With respect to the impact of family labour on agricultural productivity table
(3-5) indicate that the result achieved was consistent with what was reported by Abumihgan with respect to the food crops (Wheat and Dura).
Table (3-5): The Impact of Family Labor on Agricultural Productivity
Crops productivity
No. of family
labor on the
field
Cotton
Wheat
Dura
Ground
Kantar/fed
Sack/fed
Sack/fed
Sack/fed
Less than2
1.94
4.06
7.99
18.62
2-4
2.15
4.33
7.44
22.13
5-7
1.83
5.5
8.5
22.83
2.67
5
8.33
24.33
More than 7
Source: field survey (2003)
3.1.4 Marital status of Respondents:
With respect to marital status, table (3-6) showed that the majority of the
respondents were married (84%), while 15% were bachelors and only one percent was
widowed, which reflect that this society was a good base of social settlement that
encourage the process of development in the area.
Table (3-6): The Marital Status of the Respondents in NHAPC
Marital status
Frequency
Percent
Bachelors
15
15
Married
84
84
Widowed
1
1
100
100
Total
Source: field survey (2003)
3.1.5 Occupations Other Than Farming:
Table (3-7) revealed that animal breeding is the second main economic
activity after farming, (34% of the respondents). Other occupations were; labours 19%,
officers 15%, merchants 6% and others about 4% of the respondents.
Table (3-7): Other Occupations of the Respondents in NHAPC
Other occupation
Frequency
Percent
Labour
19
19
Animal breading
34
34
Officer
15
15
Merchants
6
6
Without
22
22
Other
4
4
Total
100
100
Source: field survey (2003)
3.1.6 Livestock Ownership:
As the livestock was the second main economic activity, 74% of the
respondents reported that they own some livestock (table 3-8); while only 46% rear the
livestock for commercial purposes
Table (3-8) Livestock Ownership of the Respondents in NHAPC
Livestock owned
Frequency
Percent
With live stock
74
74
Without live stock
26
26
Total
100
100
Source: field survey (2003)
3.2 Mesquite Uses
3.2.1 The Usefulness of Mesquite Trees:
In table (3-9) which showed the usefulness of Mesquite tree for the
respondents, more than half of them reported that the Mesquite tree were not useful for
them while 46% reported they were useful for them
Table (3-9): Useful of Mesquite of the Respondents in NHAPC
Mesquite Uses
Frequency
Percent
Useful
46
46
Not useful
54
54
Total
100
100.0
Source: field survey (2003)
3.2.2 The Uses of Mesquite Tree:
With regard to the type of the use of Mesquite tree table (3-10) showed that
41% of the respondents used Mesquite tree as a fodder, while 30% of them used it as a
charcoal and 28% of them used it as firewood.
Table (3-10) Type Useful of Mesquite Tree of the Respondents in NHAPC
The type of usefulness
Frequency
Percent
Fire wood
13
28.3
Charcoal
14
30.4
Fodder
19
41.3
Total
46
100.0
Source: field survey (2003)
Among the respondents who used the Mesquite trees as charcoal, 57% of
respondents reported that they produce the charcoal for personal utilization
while 43% produce charcoal for commercial purposes, as shown in table (3-11).
Table (3-11): The Purposes of Charcoal of the Respondents in NHAPC
The charcoal
Frequency
Percent
purpose
Personally
8
57.2
Market
6
42.8
Total
14
100.0
Source: field survey (2003)
3.2.3 The Degree of Dependency on Mesquite Tree as a fodder:
With regard to the uses of Mesquite trees as fodder, as shown in table (3-12),
79% of the users reported that they depend lightly on Mesquite tree as a fodder, 10%
reported that their dependence is under-moderate on Mesquite tree as fodder, and 10%
of the users reported that they depend semi-full on Mesquite trees as fodder.
This result indicates that none of the respondents fully dependent on
Mesquite trees as fodder. Moreover, all of the respondents who used Mesquite as
fodder reported that they obtain it through the grazing, which contribute on the
diffusion of the Mesquite tree via its seeds.
Table (3-12): The Degree of Dependency of the Respondents in NHAPC
Degree of Dependency on
Frequency
Percent
Mesquite tree
Semi-dependent
2
10.5
Under-moderate
2
10.5
Lightly dependent
15
79.0
Total
19
100.0
Source: field survey (2003)
3.3 The Effects of Mesquite Tree on Agriculture
3.3.1 The Effects of Mesquite on Productivity:
With respect to the effects of Mesquite on agricultural productivity table (313) showed that 86% of the respondents reported that Mesquite had negative effects on
agricultural productivity, the majority of them on the high density area, while only
13% said that the Mesquite had a positive effects, most of them from the low density
area and only 1% said there was no effect of Mesquite on the agricultural productivity.
The chi-square test for the relation between the Mesquite density and the productivity
showed that there was significant relation between the two variables and the correlation
result revealed that there was a strong negative relation-ship between the productivity
and the Mesquite density (-0.83) which indicate that as the Mesquite density increases
the productivity will decrease.
Table (3-13): The Effect of Mesquite on Productivity in NHAPC
Mesquite density
The effects of
Mesquite on
productivity
Higher
Total
Lower
%
density%
density%
Negative
48.0
38.0
86.0
Positive
1.0
12.0
13.0
No effects
1.0
-
1.0
Total
50.0
50.0
100.0
Source: field survey (2003)
Value of chi-square 11.47
value of correlation -0.83
sig. of chi-square 0.003
sig. correlation 0.005
This result was consistent with what was reported by Maher et. al. and
Martin. Moreover, table (3-14) showed that the productivity of all crops increased as
the density of Mesquite decreased, which reflect clearly the negative relationship
between Mesquite density and the productivity.
Table (3-14): The Effect of Mesquite Density on Crop Productivity
Mesquite
Density
Crops productivity
Cotton
Wheat
Dura
Groundnut
Kantar/fed
Sack/fed.
Sack/fed.
sack/fed.
High
3.65
3.65
6.80
15.15
Low
5.71
4.67
7.43
21.09
Source: field survey (2003)
3.3.2 The Effects of Mesquite on the Cost of Production:
Table (3-15) revealed that the majority of the respondents 86% reported that
Mesquite has increased the cost of production (48% in the higher density area and 38%
in low density area) .While the remaining percentage of the respondents 14% reported
that Mesquite density decreased the cost of production (12% in the low density area
and 2% from the high density area).
Moreover, as shown in table (3-16) 84% of the respondents reported that the
Mesquite lead to large increase in the cost of production (49% of them form the high
density area and 35% from the low density area), while 16% of them reported a
medium increase in the cost of production (9% from the low density and 7% from high
density area).
According to significance of chi-square (0.004) test, a direct relationship has
been found between costs of production and Mesquite density, that as the Mesquite
density is in a high level of Mesquite density the average cost of production reached
SD 63311.04 per feddan, whereas the average cost of production was SD 53236.06 per
feddan when the Mesquite density is low with increasing rate of about 18.93%.
Table (3-15): The Effect of Mesquite on Cost of Production in NHAPC
The effects of
Mesquite density
Total
Mesquite on cost
Higher
Lower
of production
density%
density%
Increase the cost
Decrease the cost
Total
48.0
38.0
86.0
2.0
12.0
14.0
50.0
50.0
100.0
Source: field survey (2003)
Value of chi-square 3.306
sig. of chi-square 0.004
Table (3-16): The Size of the Effect of Mesquite on Cost of Production in
NHAPC
If it increased, the size
Frequency
Percent
Large
72
83.7
Medium
14
16.3
Total
86
100.0
Source: field survey (2003)
3.3.3 The Effect of Mesquite on Farm Income:
Also, opposite relationship between farm income and Mesquite density has
been found as shown in table (3-17). The average farm income is SD 146282 per
feddan when the density was low, and SD 103543 per feddan at the high density area.
Table (3-17) the Effects of Mesquite Density on Farm Income
Mesquite density
Farm income SD/feddan
Low density
146282
High density
103543
Source: field survey (2003)
3.4 Mesquite Management:
3.4.1 The Tools of Control:
Table (3-18) showed that the majority of the respondents (97%) revealed that
they control the Mesquite trees manually and 2% used mechanical tool while only one
percent used chemical to control these trees.
Table (3-18): The Tools of Control
The tools
of control
Total%
Mesquite density
Higher
Density%
Lower
density%
Manual
48.0
49.0
97.0
Mechanical
1.0
1.0
2.0
Chemical
1.0
-
1.0
Total
50.0
50.0
100.0
Source: field survey (2003)
3.4.2 The Role of Extension on Mesquite Control:
Table (3-19) indicates the absence of extension services on controlling the
Mesquite tree, reported by a considerable number of respondents 59%, (36% from the
lower density and 23% from the higher density area). However, 41% of the
respondents reported that there was extension role on the controlling the Mesquite tree
(27% of them from high density area and 14% from low density area). There is a
significant relation between the tow variables as shown in table (3-19).
Table (3-19): The Role of Extension on Mesquite Control
Extension
role to solve
Mesquite
problem
Mesquite density
Higher
density%
Lower
density%
Total%
Yes
27.0
14.0
41.0
No
23.0
36.0
59.0
Total
50.0
50.0
Source: field survey (2003)
Value of chi-square 6.986
sig. of chi-square 0.008
100.0
CHAPT ER FOUR
Econometric Analysis
4.1
Multiple Linear Regressions
Multi linear regression treats the regression of (Y) on two or more (Xs) are
available to give additional information by means of a multiple regression on the (Xs).
We consider Multiple Linear Regression (MLR), in which the regression is linear in the
(Xs). (Pindyck and Robin, 1987). There is a certain assumption that underlay the
variables of the model:
1-
The relationship between the dependent variable and the explanatory variables is
linear.
2-
The error term (e) is sampling error. It has zero expected value or mean and
constant variance for all observations.
3-
The random variables are uncorrelated in statistical sense; errors corresponding
to different observation have zero correlation.
4-
The error term is normally distributed the error term is called homoscedastic, if
it assumes the constant variance as stated above. On the other hand it is called
heteroscedastic if the variance is not constant.
5-
Error terms are independent from each other through time. These means that all
the covariance of any (e) with any other (e) are equal to zero. In other word the value of
the random term in any period does not depend on its value in other period.
6-
Explanatory variables are themselves uncorrelated.
4.2
Econometrics Model Specification
This research study used the ordinary least square (OLS) method in order to
assess the impact of Mesquite tree of the farm’s profit in the (NHAPC). Four equations
have been specified for four crops as in the follows general equation:
Π = ∫ (Χ1 , Χ 2 , Χ 3 , Χ 4 , Χ 5 , Χ 6 ) …………………….4.1
The mathematical form of the model is:
Π =β0+β1 Χ 1 +β2 Χ 2 +β3 Χ3 +β4 Χ 4 +β5 Χ5 +β6 Χ 6 ……………………..4.2
Where:
Π
Farm’s profit SD per feddan;
β0….Β6 Coefficients
Χ1
Crop productivity (Cotton- kantar/fed.,
Wheat, Dura & Groundnut sack/fed.)
Χ2
Agricultural operation cost of agricultural
crops SD per feddan;
Χ3
Irrigation cost of agricultural crops SD per
feddan;
Χ4
Labor operating cost of agricultural crops
SD per feddan;
Χ5
Harvesting cost of agricultural crops SD
per feddan; and
Χ6
Mesquite density. (Dummy variable)
Elasticity = ∆ Π % ⁄ ∆Xi%
4.2.1 The R-squared:
R-squared is the coefficient of determination is the percentage variation in the
dependent variable explained by the regression portion of the equation. It expresses how
much of the variation in the dependent is explained by the independent variables in the
regression equation. Computer packages calculate the R-square automatically.
4.2.2 The T-test:
The T-test is related to the individual coefficient in the regression model.
They are used to test whether each individual coefficient is significantly different from
zero or not i.e. whether if there is any relationship at all. The T-value is calculated by
division of regression coefficient of any variable by its standard error.
4.2.3 The F-test:
The F-test is the same as the T-test, but rather than testing the individual
coefficient, it test the whole regression model whether the equation hold or not. The null
hypothesis here assumes that all regression coefficients are simultaneously equal zero.
4.2.4 Durbin – Watson Statistic:
Pearce (1986), reveals that a statistical which diagnoses the problem of serial
correlation of error term in regression. A value of around 2.00 usually indicates there is
no problem. Through the actual ideal value varies with the number of estimated
parameters and the number of observations.
4.3 Results of Regression:
4.3.1 Cotton Regression Equation:
Equation (4.3) shows the result of Cotton regression equation. The f-test of
Cotton equation is highly significant (0.000) indicating that the model is highly
significant in explaining the variations in the Cotton profit. The t-tests of the equation
variables are highly significant. Which indicate that all the variables have significant
effect on the farm profit (table 4.1)
Π = 1037.1 + 592.4Χ 1 − Χ 2 − 0.8Χ 3 − 1.1Χ 4 − 0.9 Χ 5 − 105.7 Χ 6 ……………..4.3
Table (4-1) Cotton Regression Model in (NHAPC)
Variables
Coefficients
t. values
Sig.
Constant
1037.1
2.8
0.007
Cotton productivity
592.4
10.2
0.000
Agri. Operation cost of Cotton
-1.0
- 19.8
0.000
Irrigation cost of Cotton
-0.8
- 4.5
0.000
Labor Operation cost of Cotton
-1.1
- 27.4
0.000
Harvesting cost of Cotton
-0.9
- 20.5
0.000
Mesquite density
-105.7
- 3.6
0.000
R-square = 0.90
Adjusted R-square = 0.89
Sig F value = 0.000
D-W = 1.9
4.3.2 Wheat Regression Equation:
Equation (4.4) shows the result of Wheat regression equation where
harvesting cost was not included in the model. The f-test of Wheat equation is highly
significant (0.000) indicating that the model is highly significant in explaining the
variations in the Wheat profit. The t-tests of the Wheat equation is highly significant at
(0.000) for Wheat productivity and agricultural operation cost variables, at (0.003) for
Mesquite density, at (0.026) for irrigation cost and not significant for labor operation
cost. The results indicate that the labor operation cost variable is the only variable that
has no significant effect on the farm profit (table 4.2).
Π = 505.2 + 470.2Χ 1 − 1.2Χ 2 − 5.1Χ 3 − 110.4Χ 6 ………………4.4
Table (4-2) Wheat Regression Model in (NHAPC)
Variables
Coefficients
t. values
Sig.
Constant
505.2
1.2
0.023
Wheat productivity
470.2
6.1
0.000
Agri. Operation cost of Wheat
- 1.2
- 5.7
0.000
Irrigation cost of Wheat
- 5.1
2.2
0.026
Labor Operation cost of Wheat
0.6
0.8
0.44
- 110.4
- 3.1
0.003
Mesquite density
R-square = 0.71
Sig F value = 0.000
Adjusted R-square = 0.6
D-W = 2.0
4.3.3 Dura Regression Equation:
Equation (4.5) shows the result of Dura regression equation. The f-test of
Dura model is highly significant (0.000), indicating that the model is highly significant
in explaining the variations in the Dura profit. The t-tests of Dura equation is highly
significant (0.000) for Dura productivity, irrigation cost, labor operation cost and
harvesting cost variables, at (0.044) for Mesquite density and not significant for
agricultural operation cost. The result indicates that the agricultural operation cost
variable has no significant effect on the farm profit can be explained by the fact that
Dura production depend mainly on manual labor (table 4.3).
Π = 1297.2 + 373.4Χ 1 − 1.1Χ 3 − 1.4Χ 4 − 1.1Χ 5 − 245.0Χ 6
…………4.5
Table (4-3) Dura Regression Model in (NHAPC)
Variables
Coefficients
t. values
Sig.
Constant
1297.2
6.7
0.000
Dura productivity
373.4
16.9
0.000
Agri. Operation cost of Dura
0.4
0.9
0.334
Irrigation cost of Dura
- 1.1
- 5.5
0.000
Labor Operation cost of Dura
- 1.4
- 8.7
0.000
Harvesting cost of Dura
- 1.1
- 4.0
0.000
- 245.0
- 2.0
0.044
Mesquite density
R-square = 0.953
Sig F value = 0.000
4.3.4 Groundnuts Regression Equation:
Adjusted R square = 0.950
D-W = 1.9
Equation (4.6) shows the result of Groundnuts regression equation. The f-test
of Groundnuts equation which is highly significant (0.000) indicating that the model is
highly significant in explaining the variations in the Groundnuts profit. The t-test of
Groundnuts equation is highly significant for all variables included in the model.
Which indicate that all the variables have significant effect on the farm profit (table
4.4).
Π = 2218.9 + 172.9Χ 1 − 0.9Χ 2 − 3.0Χ 3 − 2.0Χ 4 − 0.7 Χ 5 − 326.5Χ 6 ……………4.6
Table (4-4) Groundnuts Regression Model in (NHAPC)
Variables
Coefficie
t. values
Sig.
nts
Constant
2218.9
3.6
0.000
Groundnuts productivity
172.9
8.8
0.000
Agri. Operation cost of Groundnuts
- 0.9
- 7.6
0.000
Irrigation cost of Groundnuts
-3.0
-3.2
0.002
Labor Operation cost of Groundnuts
- 2.0
-2.7
0.007
Harvesting cost of Groundnuts
-0.7
- 5.2
0.000
- 326.5
- 2.3
0.025
Mesquite density
R-square = 0.72
Adjusted R-square = 0.70
Sig F value = 0.000
D-W = 1.7
4.3
Discussion of the crop regression equations
The effect of each independent variable in the profit of these crops will be
discussed separately; these independent variables are productivity, agricultural
operation cost, irrigation cost, labor operation cost, harvesting cost and Mesquite
density.
4.4.1 Productivity:
As shown in tables (4.1), (4.2), (4.3) & (4.4) the productivity variables has
got coefficients of 592.4, 470.2, 373.4 and 172.9 for Cotton, Wheat, Dura and
Groundnuts respectively. All the crops coefficients have got high level of significance
(0.000) and with a positive sign mean a positive relationship with the dependent
variable. The magnitude of coefficients means, with increasing the productivity
variables by one percent will increase the profit by (0.39, 0.75, 0.46 and 0.28) for
Cotton, Wheat, Dura and Groundnuts respectively.
4.4.2 Agricultural Operation Cost:
The agricultural operation cost variable has got coefficients of -1.0, -1.2, 0.4
and -0.9 for Cotton, Wheat, Dura and Groundnuts as shown in tables (4.1), (4.2), (4.3)
and (4.4), respectively. The crops coefficients for Cotton, Wheat, and Groundnuts has
got high level of significant (0.000) and with a negative sign means a negative
relationship with the dependent variable, except Dura crop which was not significant
and has positive sign which indicte that the agricultural operation (use of agricultural
machinery) was less utilize in case of Dura that it has no significant effect on Dura
profit. The coefficients magnitude means that increasing the agricultural operation cost
variables by one percent will increase the profit by 0.2 for all crops under the study.
4.4.3 Irrigation Cost:
The irrigation cost variable has got coefficients equal to -0.8, -5.1, -1.1 and 3.0 for Cotton, Wheat, Dura and Groundnuts, respectively. The crops coefficients was
highly significant at (0.000) for Cotton and Dura (0.002) for Groundnuts and (0.026)
for Wheat as shown in tables (4-1), (4-2), (4-3) and (4-4), these coefficients with
negative sign means that increasing the irrigation cost variables by one percent will
decrease the profit by 0.2 for all crops under the study, except the Wheat which
decreased by 0.19.
4.4.4 Labor Operation Cost:
The labor operation cost variable has got coefficients of -1.1, 0.6, -1.4 and 2.0 for Cotton, Wheat, Dura and Groundnuts, respectively. The crops coefficients has
high level of significant (0.000) for Cotton and Dura and at (0.007) for Groundnuts
while the Wheat crop is not significant at any level of significance and with positive
sign which indicates that the labor operation cost of Wheat has no significant affect on
profit table (4-2). Tables (4-1), (4-3) and (4-4), shows these coefficients with negative
sign means that with increasing the labor operation cost variables by one percent will
decrease the profit by 0.2 for all crops under the study.
4.4.5 Harvesting Cost:
The Harvesting cost variable has got coefficients of -09, -1.1 and -0.7 for
Cotton, Dura and Groundnuts respectively. The crops coefficients has high level of
significant (0.000) for all crops except Wheat crop, because the harvesting cost has not
been included in the model due to the fact that harvesting cost is unified regardless to
Mesquite density. According to tables (4-1), (4-2), (4-3) and (4-4), these coefficients
with negative sign means that increasing the harvesting cost variables by one percent
will decrease the profit by 0.2 for all crops under the study.
4.4.6 Mesquite density:
The Mesquite density variable has got coefficients of -105.7,
-110.4, -
245.0 and -326.5 for Cotton, Wheat, Dura and Groundnuts respectively, which indicate
highly significant. The negative sign of these coefficients means that increasing the
Mesquite density variable by one percent will decrease the profit by 0.13, 0.07, 0.03
and 0.04 for Cotton, Wheat, Dura and Groundnuts, respectively.
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary:
This study was conducted in NHAPC, season 2002/2003. The main objective
of the study was trying to investigate the effects of Mesquite trees on farm profit in the
NHAPC.
The specific objectives were: to identity the economic uses of Mesquite trees
on the living conditions of the people in NHAPC, to measure how Mesquite trees are
affecting tenant's profit from Cotton, Wheat, Dura and Groundnuts, to valuate the extra
cost of land preparation for cultivation of Cotton, Wheat, Dura and Groundnuts, as a
resulting from spread of Mesquite trees.
This study employed both primary and secondary data, primary data from
field work by means of formed structural questionnaire for respondents and secondary
data collected from NHAPC reports and records, Forestry Corporation recordas.
The stratified random sampling technique was used for selection of the
respondent tenants, according to available information about Mesquite distribution in
NHAPC.
Many statistical techniques have been utilized to analyze the data.
Descriptive analysis used for describing socio-economic characteristic of tenants in
NHAPC.
The results showed that 71 percent of respondents have some sort
of education, 55 percent of respondents with family size ranging between
(3-6) persons while 42 percent with family size between (7-10) persons
and 85 percent of the respondents were married.
Animal breeding is the second main economic activity after
farming as 74 percent of the respondents reported that they own some
livestock. Moreover, 54 percent of the respondents reported that the
Mesquite trees were un-useful. Those who reported whom said its useful
they used Mesquite as fodder; charcoal and firewood.
Chi-square test has been used to measure the relationship between
the Mesquite density and the productivity, the result revealed that there
was a strong negative relationship between productivity and the Mesquite
density, the majority of the respondents (86 percent) reported that
Mesquite has increased the cost of production, the average cost of
production per feddan has increased to SD 53236.06 in low density area
and to SD 63311.04 in higher density area. Also crop income per feddan
has increased when the Mesquite density decreased to SD 103543 in
higher density and to SD 146282 in lower density area. Almost all
respondents (97 percent) reported that they control the Mesquite trees
manually and there is no any significant relationship between density of
Mesquite trees and tools of control. Considerable number of them (59
percent) reported that there was no any extension role on controlling
Mesquite trees. Also it has been found that there is a significant
relationship between density of Mesquite trees and existence of extension
services.
The regression analysis has been utilized to investigate the impact of
Mesquite tree on farm profit. The regression equations showed that the productivity has
a positive signifficant effect on the profit of all crops while the other variables
(agricultural operation cost, irrigation cost, labor operation cost, harvesting cost) has
negative signifficant effects on farm profit with exception of labor operation cost in
case of Wheat and agricultural operation cost of Dura. The Mesquite density variable
(dummy variable) has found to have a higher negative effect on farm profit.
5.2 Conclusions:
This study revealed the following conclusions:
First: According to the analysis of the regression equations the New Halfa Agricultural
Production Corporation’s NHAPC tenants are facing problems from Mesquite trees
density. This decreased their farm profit for all crops.
Second: In NHAPC, there is a negative relationship between productivity and Mesquite
density, i.e. Mesquite density increased cost of production.
Third: Absence of extension services about Mesquite trees.
Foourth: The control of Mesquite trees depend on manual tools only,
however, chemical and mechanical tools are not used which indicates that the control
progamme depend on the farmers alone without any government efforts.
Fifth: Mesquite uses as fodder are not considered, because the farmers depend on
agricultural waste.
5.3 Recommendations:
This research study suggests the following recommendations:
First: The extension services should take the responsibility of informing the tenants,
about Mesquite trees.
Second: Integrated economic, social, and environmental studies should be undertaken.
Third: The co-ordination between NHAPC and Agricultural Research station to
provide the best integrated management programme for controlling the Mesquite trees.
Fourth: Improve the tools of control to become more efficient
Fifth: Feasibility studies of Mesquite products processing and manufacturing should be
carried out to reveal investment opportunities from the trees and combating Mesquite
trees (i.e. furniture, charcoal ... etc).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abdel Bari, E (1986). The identity of the Common Mequite, Prosopis spp pamphlet No
1. Prosopis Project. Botany Department, University of Khartoum- Forestry
Reseach Center- Soba.
Abdel Elhafiz, A.M. (1980). Farmers contact with agricultural services. M.Sc. Thesis.
Faculty of Agricultural, University of Khartoum, Sudan.
Abdel Elrahim, A.H. (1994). Evaluation of the Non governmental organizations
(NGOs) in food security: A case study of Kabkabiya small holders projects.
M.Sc. thesis, Faculty of Agricultural, University of Khartoum, Sudan
Abdel Gabar, A. Ibrahim (1986) Comparative feeding trials on Goats and Sheep, using
pods of Mesquite (Prosopis chilensis, Molina, Stuntz). Prospis project
supported by IDRC. Pamphlet No.3. Forestry Research Center
Abu-Mihgan, A.M. (1984). The effects of some socio-economic factors on sugar cane
production in Guneid sugar-cane scheme. Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis, Faculty
of Agriculture, University of Khartoum, Sudan
Ali, A,I. (2001) Economic of Groundnuts Production in New Halfa Agricultural
Production Corporation, M.Sc. thesis, Faculty of Agricultural, University of
Khartoum, Sudan.
Ali, A.M. (1976). The relationship of education and other variable to net farm income,
none land farm investment and desire to continue farming of small farmers in
Wisconsin and North Corolina, Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Agricultural ,
University of Khartoum, Sudan.
Ballal, M, Mukhtar (1988) Phonology, pod production and seed treatment of Mesquite
in the Sudan. Pamphlet No 6. Prosopis Project. Forestry Reseach CenterSoba.
Bhattacharya, G.k. and Johnson,R.A (1977). Statistical Concepts and Method. John
Wiley and Sons, New York and London.
David Perino and partner Kathryn Ehrhorn (2000) Eradication
programs http://www.spMesquite.com/eradication.html
El-Amin, S.E. (1996). Fctors affecting Wheat production in Rahad Scheme, M.Sc.
Thesis, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Khartoum, Sudan.
Elfadl, M. Ahmed (1977) Management of Prosopis Juulifora for use in Agroforestry
Systems in the Sudan. Doctorate thesis- Department of Forestry Ecology,
University of Helsinki
El Hassan Yahya (1997) Reported. sudan.html
El-Khidir, E.E. (1988). Analysis of factors contributing to net income variation among
the mechanized farming in Gedaref Region. M.Sc. Thesis, Department of
Rural Economy, Faculty of Agricultural, University of Khartoum, Sudan
Elsidig Elnour Abdalla (1998) Socio-Economic, Environmental and Management
Aspects of Mesquite in Kassala State (Sudan), Sudanese Social Forestry
Society, (SSFS).
FAO (1990). Agric. Eng. In developments Tillage for crop production in areas of low
rainfall. FAO Agric. Services, 23.
Greg Mt.Joy (2000) Fiscal and economic data,
www.state.tx.us/comptrol/fnotes/fn0009/fn.html
Hughes, C. E &Styles, B.T (1987) The benefits and potential risks of woody legume
introduction. The international tree crops J,4: 209-248
Jo-Ann Kaiser (1998) Wood Products Magazine, Sept.
http://www.spMesquite.com/articles/inroads.html
John R Thorp (2000) Flower of Mesquite A mature Mesquite tree
http://www.weeds.org.au/docs/msqstrat.pdf
Kerry Krumrine (September 1997) Prosopis juliflora var. glandulosa or
Texas Honey Mesquite
http://weather.nmsu.edu/nmcrops/ornamentals/honey.html
Larson, W.E. (1967). Improvement tillage parameters for evaluating tillage practices
in the U.S.A. – Neth J. Agric. Science.
Maher M A,et al, (March 2001) The Mesquite challenging and fact, report of Mesquite
in the New Hallfa Agricultural Corporation, (in Arabic).
NFTA, (1995). A quick guide to useful nitrogen fixing trees
from around the world. www.winrock.org/forestry/factnet.htm
Norman Jones and Christian Taupiac (2001), prosopsis workshop, World
Bank, Washington DC
www.UTF-8&start=10&sa=N
Omer, A.B. (1986). Wheat tillage systems and sowing method experiments 1985/86
season. NHAPC. Annual Report.
Pasiecznik, N. (1999), Prosopis : pest or providence, weed or wonder tree. ETFRN
News 28 : 12-14.)
Peearce David W (1986) The dictionary of modern economics, London and Basingstoke:
Macmillan
Pindyck, S and Robin Feld, D (1987) Econometric model and economic forecast,
Singapore
Snedecor George W, and Cochran William G, (1982) Statistical methods,
the Iowa state university, press Ames Iowa U.S.A.
Wunder, W, G (1966) Prosopis Julifora in the arid zone of Sudan. UNDP, Forestry
Research and Education Project Pamphlet No 26 Forestry Research Inst. Soba.