68 



Returns to production inputs . Except for cash, returns to ferti- 

 lizer, labor and management on a dollar /ha basis were not significantly- 

 influenced by fertilizer levels (Table I3) . Comparing returns to ferti- 

 lizer, cash, and labor on the basis of total meaji, indicated that 

 cropping pattern HM-HM-HM produced a higher retiorn to production inputs 

 (Table I3). Cropping pattern HM-MM-LM resulted in lowest returns to 

 fertilizer, cash, labor, and management (Table I3). 



Rates of return to production inputs . Rate of return to pro- 

 duction inputs expressed in terms of dollar/dollar is a measure of 

 ret-urn per unit investment of production inputs. This provides a 

 measure of resource use efficiency for each cropping pattern and is 

 useful in comparing economic performance of cropping patterns. Rates 

 of return to fertilizer were influenced by fertilizer levels in cropping 

 pattern HM-HM-HM and LM-LM-IW but not in M-MM-IM and HM-LI4-MH (Table I'!-) . 

 Rates of return to fertilizer decreased with increasing fertilizer levels 

 for each cropping pattern. Among cropping pattern means, rates of return 

 to fertilizer were significantly higher with LM-M-LM than the other 

 three patterns. This suggested that growers with limited fertilizer 

 input can make more efficient use of this limiting resource by growing 

 a sequence of IM crops, whereas growers who adopt cropping patterns 

 KK-HM-HK and KI-I-LM-M can profit by reducing fertilizer application. 



Although cropping pattern HM-HM-HM produced high return to 

 cash on a dollar/ha basis (Table I3) , rates of return to cash on a 

 dollar/dollar basis did not differ with pattern LM-LM-LM (Table 1^) . 

 For every dollar spent on cash input, pattern Hi4-HM-HM resulted in $2.50, 



