| 000 | 02582nam a2200229#a 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | vtls000002479 | ||
| 008 | 230822s1975 xx 000 0 eng d | ||
| 040 | _aJPS | ||
| 090 | 0 | 0 | _aAGR 633.18.61 TAN |
| 100 |
_aTANTIGATE, KANAENGNID. _eauthor |
||
| 245 | 4 | _aTHE CONFLICT BETWEEN RICE & SUGAR CANE FARMERS OVER IRRIGATION WATER IN THE MAE KLONG IRRIGATION.. | |
| 260 |
_aK. Lumpur : The Agricultural Development Council, _c1975 |
||
| 300 | _a121p ; illus. | ||
| 500 | _aThesis | ||
| 505 | _aChapter 1. Introduction 1.1 The problem 1.2 The study area 1.2.1 Choice of Mae Klong project 1.2.2 Choice of Kampaeng Saen project 1.2.3 Background of the project 1.3 Scope and objectives of the study 1.4 The hypotheses 1.5 Methodology 1.5.1 Selection of the study area: The requisite 1.5.2 Sampling unit & technique: Problems of sampling 1.6 Data collection 1.7 Analytical procedure Chapter 2. Socio-economic situation of farmers in sample area 2.1 Pattern of economic activity 2.1.1 Main source of income 2.1.2 Additional source of income 2.2 Pattern of land ownership & farm size 2.3 Credit availability 2.4 Adoption of technology 2.5 Pattern of water distribution 2.6 Sources & impact of water conflict 2.7 Resolution Chapter 3. Yield comparison and possible factors related to the difference 3.1 Yield comparison in rice group 3.2 Factors related to the difference in yield in rice group 3.2.1 Production technique: Broadcast vs. transplant 3.2.2 Farm size 3.2.3 Fertiliser applied 3.2.4 Weeding and pesticide 3.2.5 Water problem 3.2.6 Water control 3.2.7 Conclusions 3.3 Yield comparison in sugarcane group 3.4 Factors related to the difference in yield in sugarcane group 3.4.1 Fertiliser applied 3.4.2 Weeding and insecticide 3.4.3 Water problem and control Chapter 4. Net return and cost 4.1 Choice of net return as a conflict measure 4.2 Comparison among rice group 4.2.1 Difference in gross return 4.2.2 Difference in cost of production 4.2.3 Difference in net return 4.3 Comparison among sugarcane group 4.3.1 Difference in gross return 4.3.2 Difference in cost of production 4.3.3 Difference in net return 4.3.4 Conclusion 4.3.5 Comment on sugar need of water 4.3.6 Comparison of the returns to the three ditch types 4.4 Limitation of the study 4.4.1 Assumption of normal distribution 4.4.2 Limit of the sample size | ||
| 546 | _aENG | ||
| 650 | 1 | 0 | _aIRRIGATION WATER. |
| 650 | 2 | 0 | _aRICE & SUGAR CANE. |
| 942 | _cMONO | ||
| 990 | _a1975 | ||
| 999 |
_a03923 _a633.18/.61 TAN _aVIRTUA/0 _aVTLSSORT0080*0900*1000*2450*2600*3000*5000*5050*5460*6500*6501*9040*9490*9900*9993 _c1589 _d1589 |
||
| 003 | JPS | ||