71 

 whereas rate for LM-IM-M was $2.10 (Table 14). Rates of return to 

 cash were similar for cropping patterns LM-IM-LM and HM-LM-MM, whereas 

 HM-MM-LM provided the lowest rate of return to cash input. Growers 

 with limited cash often adopt cropping patterns with high cash returns. 



Except for cropping pattern HM-I-C-I-LM, rates of return to labor 

 were influenced by fertilizer levels within cropping pattern but not 

 among cropping patterns (Table 14). In cropping pattern HM-HM-HM, 

 increasing fertilizer levels significantly decreased rates of return 

 to labor, vriiereas the reverse was true in cropping pattern UI-LM-LM 

 and KM-LM-HM. Thus, it pays to increase fertilizer levels when labor 

 is limited for cropping patterns involving IM and a combination of 114 , 

 MM, and HM vegetable crops. 



Except for cropping pattern HM-HW-HM, fertilizer levels did not 

 affect rates of return to management (Table 14) . In cropping pattern 

 HM-HM-HM, increasing fertilizer levels decreased rates of return to 

 management. Thus, growers who face constraints to management can make 

 more efficient use of their management skills by reducing rates of 

 fertilizer if they grow a sequence of HM vegetable crops. Among cropping 

 patterns, HM-HM-HM, LM-LM-M, and HM-LM-MM, average rates of return to 

 management were similar (Table 14) . This Lmplies that low-labor and 

 low-cash requiring cropping patterns are as efficient and profitable as 

 cropping patterns requiring high labor and high cash inputs. Therefore, 

 growers witn limited resources can grow a sequence of LM or a combination 

 of LM, Mil, and M vegetable crops and obtain profitable economic returns 

 vfithout necessarily increasing production inputs such as fertilizer. 



