<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> 
<records>
  <record>
    <language>eng</language>
    <publisher>Faculty of Economics and Management of the Slovak Agricultural University in Nitra and the Association of Agricultural Economists in Slovakia
    </publisher>
    <journalTitle>Review of Agricultural and Applied Economics</journalTitle>
    <issn>1336-9261</issn>
    <publicationDate>2018-03-31</publicationDate>
    <volume>21</volume>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <startPage>3</startPage>
    <endPage>9</endPage>
    <doi>10.15414/raae.2018.21.01.03-09</doi>
    <publisherRecordId>794-1</publisherRecordId>	
    <documentType>article</documentType>
    <title language="eng">CAP FUTURE: WHAT DO STAKEHOLDERS WANT?</title>
	<authors>
		<author>
			<name>Petr BLIZKOVSKY</name>
		</author>
	</authors>
	<abstract language="eng">The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is at the crossroads of several policy interests. It is scrutinised by farming and environmental communities as well as by the food industry, regional authorities, research and public sector. The paper analyses the recent consultation process undertaken by the European Commission. The paper concludes that among the key reform issues are: the level of the financial support to the CAP; the continued environmental and other public goods orientation of the CAP and generational renewal. In addition, the focus on result orientation and reduction of the administrative burden can be expected. The relevant European Commission proposals are foreseen around summer 2018.</abstract>
<fullTextUrl format="pdf">https://roaae.org/wp-content/uploads/RAAE_1_2018_Blizkovsky.pdf</fullTextUrl>	
	<keywords language="eng"> 
						<keyword>Agricultural policy</keyword>
										<keyword>CAP reform</keyword>
										<keyword>environmental goods</keyword>
										<keyword>European Union</keyword>
						
	</keywords> 
  </record>
  <record>
    <language>eng</language>
    <publisher>Faculty of Economics and Management of the Slovak Agricultural University in Nitra and the Association of Agricultural Economists in Slovakia
    </publisher>
    <journalTitle>Review of Agricultural and Applied Economics</journalTitle>
    <issn>1336-9261</issn>
    <publicationDate>2018-03-31</publicationDate>
    <volume>21</volume>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <startPage>10</startPage>
    <endPage>22</endPage>
    <doi>10.15414/raae.2018.21.01.10-22</doi>
    <publisherRecordId>794-1</publisherRecordId>	
    <documentType>article</documentType>
    <title language="eng">RISK MANAGEMENT OF GERMAN FRUIT PRODUCERS</title>
	<authors>
		<author>
			<name>Annkatrin PORSCH</name>
		</author>
		<author>
			<name>Markus GANDORFER</name>
		</author>
		<author>
			<name>Vera BITSCH</name>
		</author>
	</authors>
	<abstract language="eng">Horticultural farms in Germany face substantial business risks. However, fruit farms often struggle to implement appropriate risk management processes, and the risk management literature widely has ignored this farm type. The aim of the study was to improve the assessment of risks by farmers and the choice of suitable risk management instruments. Therefore, a risk management process based on subjective probabilities and suitable for small and medium-sized farms was developed, considering the specific needs of family run businesses. An online survey was conducted to achieve a comprehensive view of the risk perception and risk management practices of German fruit producers. Price and production risks are the most relevant risk categories for fruit farmers. However, among single risk sources, those in the people risk category were seen as the most important. Results show significant interactions among risk categories and a significant correlation between loss experience and the rating of risk categories. The assumption that risk averse farmers generally rate risks higher than risk neutral or risk seeking farmers cannot be confirmed. Diversification seems to be the most important risk management instrument for many fruit producers, especially diversification of marketing channels, farm income, and production activities. Further research should focus on the apparent inconsistency between the satisfaction with instruments reported by farmers and the actual implementation of many of them (e.g., hail insurance and anti-hail net). Furthermore, there is a need for research, to develop decision models considering the interactions of risks and risk management instruments, loss experience and risk seeking attitudes.</abstract>
<fullTextUrl format="pdf">https://roaae.org/wp-content/uploads/RAAE_1_2018_Porsch_et_al.pdf</fullTextUrl>	
	<keywords language="eng"> 
						<keyword>horticulture</keyword>
										<keyword>people risk</keyword>
										<keyword>risk management instruments</keyword>
										<keyword>subjective probabilities </keyword>
						
	</keywords> 
  </record>
  <record>
    <language>eng</language>
    <publisher>Faculty of Economics and Management of the Slovak Agricultural University in Nitra and the Association of Agricultural Economists in Slovakia
    </publisher>
    <journalTitle>Review of Agricultural and Applied Economics</journalTitle>
    <issn>1336-9261</issn>
    <publicationDate>2018-03-31</publicationDate>
    <volume>21</volume>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <startPage>23</startPage>
    <endPage>39</endPage>
    <doi>10.15414/raae.2018.21.01.23-39</doi>
    <publisherRecordId>794-1</publisherRecordId>	
    <documentType>article</documentType>
    <title language="eng">UNDERSTANDING FARMERS SEASONAL AND FULL YEAR STALL FEEDING ADOPTION IN NORTHERN ETHIOPIA </title>
	<authors>
		<author>
			<name>Muuz HADUSH</name>
		</author>
	</authors>
	<abstract language="eng">Adoption of stall feeding (SF) as well as choices of animals and seasons for its application were assessed in northern Ethiopia in 2015 using a household field survey. The study was conducted in 21 communities to account for differences in agro ecology and to better understand the adoption process. A Heckman selection model was used to estimate adoption and extent of adoption based on a model of technology adoption within an agricultural household framework. A Poisson model was also applied to explain the number of SF adopting seasons. Further a multinomial logit model was estimated in order to reinforce understanding of the choices. The purpose of this study was to understand the driving factors of full or seasonal SF adoption and its intensity as well as animal and seasonal choices. The study results indicate that farmers actually practicing SF in a full year are 36% while those of actual seasonal adopters are 55.6%.  The choice of animals allocated to SF include cow (40%), ox (31%) and other animals (29%) of the given sample indicating feeding cow under SF takes the largest share. Similarly, the choice for season were, 65% full year, 29 % wet (summer and autumn) and 6% dry (winter and spring), implying that more than half of the sample farmers practice SF the year round. Empirical results of this study showed that result is in favour of the Boserupian hypothesis indicating that small grazing land and large exclosure are associated with a higher probability of use of SF and with a higher number of SF adopting seasons throughout the year. In a similar vein, small average village farm size stimulated full SF adoption and SF adopting seasons, Availability of labour  relative to farm size and a number of breed cows significantly increased the probability of using SF by 0.01% and 66% respectively. While animal shock appeared to have a marginal effect of 14%.The finding also revealed that factors such as access to information and early exposure increased the probability of SF adoption by 18% and 6%. Similarly, the positive marginal effect of real milk price is 15%. However, SF appears to be less attractive to those farmers with more herd size relative farm size and less crop residue. Regarding the intensity of SF adoption, while total labour time, farm size positively affect the extent of SF adoption, total herd size and grazing land ratio negatively influence farmers’ extent of SF adoption in all seasons.</abstract>
<fullTextUrl format="pdf">https://roaae.org/wp-content/uploads/RAAE_1_2018_Hadush.pdf</fullTextUrl>	
	<keywords language="eng"> 
						<keyword>adoption and intensity</keyword>
										<keyword>stall-feeding practice</keyword>
										<keyword>Heckman and count model</keyword>
										<keyword>Ethiopia</keyword>
						
	</keywords> 
  </record>
  <record>
    <language>eng</language>
    <publisher>Faculty of Economics and Management of the Slovak Agricultural University in Nitra and the Association of Agricultural Economists in Slovakia
    </publisher>
    <journalTitle>Review of Agricultural and Applied Economics</journalTitle>
    <issn>1336-9261</issn>
    <publicationDate>2018-03-31</publicationDate>
    <volume>21</volume>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <startPage>40</startPage>
    <endPage>54</endPage>
    <doi>10.15414/raae.2018.21.01.40-54</doi>
    <publisherRecordId>794-1</publisherRecordId>	
    <documentType>article</documentType>
    <title language="eng">THE IMPACT OF FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT (FDI) ON AGRICULTURAL GROWTH IN NIGERIA (1979-2014)</title>
	<authors>
		<author>
			<name>Zechariahs Benapugha OWUTUAMOR</name>
		</author>
		<author>
			<name>Chukwuemeka John ARENE</name>
		</author>
	</authors>
	<abstract language="eng">This study examining the impact of foreign direct investment (FDI) and other macroeconomic variables on agricultural growth in Nigeria from 1981 to 2014, using annual time series data from Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), World Bank and the United States of America (US) Federal Reserve System. Data was analysed using trend analyses, unit root tests, co-integration tests, ordinary least squares (OLS) regression and Granger causality tests, while the hypothesis was tested with F-test. Results revealed very low FDI inflow into agriculture, not commensurate with the share of agriculture to GDP. All significance were taken at the 5% probability level, i.e. p&amp;lt;0.05. There was positive non-significant relationship between agricultural growth and FDI in agriculture, meaning that FDI in agriculture has no direct impact on agricultural growth or the impact on agricultural growth is masked by other macroeconomic variables. Significant positive relationship exists between agricultural growth and macroeconomic instability, while interest rate differential had a significant negative relationship. There was unidirectional causality running from FDI in agriculture, stock of gross external debts, and variability of consumers’ price index to agricultural growth, while agricultural growth was significant in granger causing macroeconomic instability. Recommendations are government should not involve itself in business, but seek for and encourage more FDI for the agricultural sector, encourage joint ventures between foreign and domestic investors/entrepreneurs, ensure stability and consistency in its macroeconomic policies, while monetary policy rates should be fixed in such a way that it would attract the right amount of investments in agriculture.</abstract>
<fullTextUrl format="pdf">https://roaae.org/wp-content/uploads/RAAE_1_2018_Owutuamor_Arene.pdf</fullTextUrl>	
	<keywords language="eng"> 
						<keyword>FDI</keyword>
										<keyword>Agricultural Growth</keyword>
										<keyword>Nigeria</keyword>
						
	</keywords> 
  </record>
  <record>
    <language>eng</language>
    <publisher>Faculty of Economics and Management of the Slovak Agricultural University in Nitra and the Association of Agricultural Economists in Slovakia
    </publisher>
    <journalTitle>Review of Agricultural and Applied Economics</journalTitle>
    <issn>1336-9261</issn>
    <publicationDate>2018-03-31</publicationDate>
    <volume>21</volume>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <startPage>55</startPage>
    <endPage>63</endPage>
    <doi>10.15414/raae.2018.21.01.55-63</doi>
    <publisherRecordId>794-1</publisherRecordId>	
    <documentType>article</documentType>
    <title language="eng">DETERMINANTS OF INCOME DIVERSIFICATION AMONG MAIZE FARM HOUSEHOLDS IN THE GARU-TEMPANE DISTRICT, GHANA</title>
	<authors>
		<author>
			<name>Gilbert DAGUNGA</name>
		</author>
		<author>
			<name>Dennis SEDEM EHIAKPOR</name>
		</author>
		<author>
			<name>Isaac KWABENA PARRY</name>
		</author>
		<author>
			<name>Gideon DANSO-ABBEAM</name>
		</author>
	</authors>
	<abstract language="eng">This study explores the determinants of income diversification using a sample of 200 farm-level data collected from households in the Garu-Tampane district, Ghana. The Simpson Index of Diversification was used to determine the extent of income diversification while Fractional Response Model, particularly Generalized Linear Model (GLM) was employed to identify the determinants of income diversification.  Results from the Simpson Index of Diversification showed that the average income diversification index was 0.65 with the minimum and maximum of 0.13 and 0.83, respectively. No farm household was found to depend solely on a single source of income for its survival. The results from the Generalized Linear Model revealed that extension services, attendance to demonstration fields, membership of Farmer-based Organizations (FBOs), farmer accessibility to credit, the number of days spent on on-farm activities per month and the number of years in maize farming significantly influence income diversification. The study, therefore, concludes that farm-level policies geared towards alternative sources of income for the rural farm household should focus on improving extension services, the formation of farmer-based organizations, use of demonstration fields as well as ensuring farmers’ accessibility to credit.</abstract>
<fullTextUrl format="pdf">https://roaae.org/wp-content/uploads/RAAE_1_2018_Dagunga_et_al.pdf</fullTextUrl>	
	<keywords language="eng"> 
						<keyword>Income Diversification</keyword>
										<keyword>Generalized Linear Model</keyword>
										<keyword>Simpson Index of Diversification</keyword>
										<keyword>Ghana</keyword>
						
	</keywords> 
  </record>
  <record>
    <language>eng</language>
    <publisher>Faculty of Economics and Management of the Slovak Agricultural University in Nitra and the Association of Agricultural Economists in Slovakia
    </publisher>
    <journalTitle>Review of Agricultural and Applied Economics</journalTitle>
    <issn>1336-9261</issn>
    <publicationDate>2018-03-31</publicationDate>
    <volume>21</volume>
    <issue>1</issue>
    <startPage>64</startPage>
    <endPage>75</endPage>
    <doi>10.15414/raae.2018.21.01.64-75</doi>
    <publisherRecordId>794-1</publisherRecordId>	
    <documentType>article</documentType>
    <title language="eng">FOOD DEMAND PATTERNS IN GHANAIAN URBAN HOUSEHOLDS</title>
	<authors>
		<author>
			<name>Bernard SAKYIAMAH</name>
		</author>
		<author>
			<name>Samuel ASUMING-BREMPONG</name>
		</author>
	</authors>
	<abstract language="eng">This paper analysed food consumption patterns in Ghanaian urban households by comparing food commodity budget shares and estimating price and expenditure elasticities for eleven food commodity groups across different income groups. The Linear Approximation Almost Ideal Demand System (LA/AIDS) was applied to the data. Demand for most of the food commodity groups was found to be elastic. The study concluded that generally, across income groups, food commodities respond negatively to changes in food prices and that cereals/bread, roots/tubers, vegetables, meat and fish will remain an important component of urban household food expenditure. Generally, household demographic characteristics such as age, gender and household size had significant effects on urban food demand patterns.</abstract>
<fullTextUrl format="pdf">https://roaae.org/wp-content/uploads/RAAE_1_2018_Sakyiamah_Brempong.pdf</fullTextUrl>	
	<keywords language="eng"> 
						<keyword>Almost Ideal Demand System</keyword>
										<keyword>Budget Shares</keyword>
										<keyword>Demand</keyword>
										<keyword>Elasticities</keyword>
										<keyword>Food Consumption</keyword>
						
	</keywords> 
  </record>
</records>
