Land Management Area: Effects on the Income of Modern Sericulture Industry in Fucheng

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb20191100787

Abstract

Abstract:

The paper aims to reveal the influence of management area of mulberry field on the annual income of sericulture farmers in western China. During 2015-2018, we conducted a follow-up survey on the level of rural economic development, the transfer of rural labor force, and the production and operation of sericulture farmers in 13 towns in Fucheng. Through the establishment of econometric model, 554 sample data were analyzed to determine the appropriate scale of mulberry field management in western China. The results showed that: (1) the area of land owned by each household was very small with 0.04 hm² per household; (2) the average mulberry field area of sericulture farmers’ independent management was 2.05 hm² per household; (3) the appropriate scale threshold range of intensive management of regional mulberry field was 1.51-12.08 hm²; (4) the functional relationship between the per capita net income of sericulture farmer and the management scale of mulberry field was y=-2491.8x ²+33201x, that was to say, the land management scale was 6.66 hm² when the per capita net income was the largest. In conclusion, sericulture farmers are rational and reasonable in determining their own land management scale at present, and there is still a certain space for land demand in the future under better economic conditions.

Key words: cultivated land, suitable management scale, mulberry field, input and output, threshold, western region

CLC Number:

Wang Xie, Wang Yong, Zhang Jianhua, Guo Haixia. Land Management Area: Effects on the Income of Modern Sericulture Industry in Fucheng[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2020, 36(34): 160-164.

Figures/Tables 4

References 21

[1]	Mazumdar D. Size of Farm and Productivity: A Problem of Indian Peasant Agriculture[J]. Economica, 1965,32(126):161-173. doi: 10.2307/2552546 URL
[2]	Key N. Farm size and productivity growth in the United States Corn Belt[J]. Food Policy, 2019,84:186-195. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.03.017 URL
[3]	阚酉浔, 周春芳. 农户农地经营适度规模的测度研究——以武汉市江夏区为例[J].华中农业大学学报:社会科学版,2011(3):67-70.
[4]	张海亮, 吴楚材. 江浙农业规模经营条件和适度规模确定[J].经济地理,1998(1):85-90.
[5]	范乔希, 邵景安, 应寿英. 山区合适耕地经营规模确定的实证研究——以重庆市为例[J]. 地理研究, 2018,37(9):1724-1735. doi: 10.11821/dlyj201809006 URL
[6]	张岷. 利津县土地适度规模经营[J].中国农业资源与区划,1994(5):46-50. doi: 10.7621/cjarrp.1005-9121.19940513 URL
[7]	Smith L P. The effect of climate and size of farm on the type of farming[J]. Agricultural Meteorology, 1971,9:217-223. doi: 10.1016/0002-1571(71)90023-9 URL
[8]	黄新建, 姜睿清, 付传明. 以家庭农场为主体的土地适度规模经营研究[J].求实,2013(6):94-96.
[9]	王国敏, 唐虹. 山地丘陵区农地适度规模经营的有效性及其限度——对适度规模经营危害论的一个批判[J].社会科学研究,2014(6):16-23.
[10]	张成玉. 土地经营适度规模的确定研究——以河南省为例[J]. 农业经济问题, 2015,36(11):57-63.
[11]	王微恒, 朱会义. 中国省域农户土地经营规模与地区专业化实证分析[J]. 地理学报, 2017,72(2):269-278. doi: 10.11821/dlxb201702007 URL
[12]	王谢, 张建华, 卿列平. 四川省构建现代蚕桑产业生态圈的设想[J]. 中国蚕业, 2018,39(2):17-20.
[13]	汪勇, 颜永生. 涪城蚕业发展模式对农业产业化经营的启示[J]. 四川蚕业, 2016,44(2):7-10.
[14]	周娟. 基于农户家庭决策的土地流转与适度规模经营的微观机制分析[J]. 南京农业大学学报:社会科学版, 2018,18(5):88-97.
[15]	Hooper S, Martin P, Love G, et al. Farm size and productivity: Where are the trends taking?[J]. Australian Commodities Forecasts & Issues, 2002,9(3):495-500.
[16]	李华伟. 我国农村土地经营的适度规模问题探析[J]. 现代经济, 2007,6(6):87-88.
[17]	张越. 关于现代职业农民培育问题的思考[J].农业部管理干部学院学报,2014(1):73-75.
[18]	陈前恒, 李军培. 贫困地区农民粮食安全状况与政策选择——基于西北A省、B自治区两个贫困县农户调查问卷的分析[J].中国农村经济,2006(12):20-24.
[19]	Berg M M V D, Hengsdijk H, Wolf J, et al. The impact of increasing farm size and mechanization on rural income and rice production in Zhejiang province, China[J]. Agricultural Systems, 2007,94(3):841-850. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2006.11.010 URL
[20]	王谢, 张建华. 西南蚕区桑园肥水管理产业化发展的建议[J]. 中国蚕业, 2016,37(1):45-47.
[21]	Gardner J G, Nehring R F, Nelson C H, et al. Genetically modified crops and household labor savings in US crop production.[J].General Information,2009(3/4):303-312.

年份	自有土地面积/hm²	租用土地面积/hm²	经营土地总面积/hm²	最小租用土地面积占比/%	平均租用土地面积占比/%
2015	0.07±0.12	1.8±1.64	1.86±1.65	71.14	96.51
2016	0.05±0.18	2.04±1.88	2.04±1.89	62.99	99.98
2017	0.03±0.11	2.09±1.79	2.13±1.78	62.96	98.36
2018	0.03±0.11	2.04±1.48	2.07±1.49	64.26	98.39
总计	0.04±0.13	2.01±1.73	2.04±1.73	62.96	98.52

年份	自有土地面积/hm²	租用土地面积/hm²	经营土地总面积/hm²	最小租用土地面积占比/%	平均租用土地面积占比/%
2015	0.07±0.12	1.8±1.64	1.86±1.65	71.14	96.51
2016	0.05±0.18	2.04±1.88	2.04±1.89	62.99	99.98
2017	0.03±0.11	2.09±1.79	2.13±1.78	62.96	98.36
2018	0.03±0.11	2.04±1.48	2.07±1.49	64.26	98.39
总计	0.04±0.13	2.01±1.73	2.04±1.73	62.96	98.52

桑园面积/hm²	样本数/个	占比/%	累积占比/%
0.33~0.67	103	18.59	18.59
0.67~1.33	111	20.04	38.63
1.33~2.00	125	22.56	61.19
2.00~2.67	89	16.06	77.25
2.67~3.33	42	7.58	84.83
3.33~4.00	32	5.78	90.61
4.00~4.67	24	4.33	94.94
4.67~5.33	5	0.90	95.84
5.33~6.00	2	0.36	96.20
6.00~6.67	4	0.72	96.92
6.67~7.33	2	0.36	97.28
7.33~8.00	3	0.54	97.82
8.000~8.67	2	0.36	98.18
8.67~9.33	6	1.08	99.26
9.33~10.00	2	0.36	99.62
10.00~10.67	0	0	99.62
10.67~11.33	0	0	99.62
11.33~12.00	1	0.18	99.80
12.00~12.67	0	0	99.80
12.67~13.33	1	0.18	99.98
13.33以上	0	0	99.98

桑园面积/hm²	样本数/个	占比/%	累积占比/%
0.33~0.67	103	18.59	18.59
0.67~1.33	111	20.04	38.63
1.33~2.00	125	22.56	61.19
2.00~2.67	89	16.06	77.25
2.67~3.33	42	7.58	84.83
3.33~4.00	32	5.78	90.61
4.00~4.67	24	4.33	94.94
4.67~5.33	5	0.90	95.84
5.33~6.00	2	0.36	96.20
6.00~6.67	4	0.72	96.92
6.67~7.33	2	0.36	97.28
7.33~8.00	3	0.54	97.82
8.000~8.67	2	0.36	98.18
8.67~9.33	6	1.08	99.26
9.33~10.00	2	0.36	99.62
10.00~10.67	0	0	99.62
10.67~11.33	0	0	99.62
11.33~12.00	1	0.18	99.80
12.00~12.67	0	0	99.80
12.67~13.33	1	0.18	99.98
13.33以上	0	0	99.98

年份	蚕农每年户均纯收入/万元	桑园单位面积产出/万元	桑园单位面积投入/万元	适度规模下限/hm²
2015	3.46±2.09	2.95±1.65	0.49±0.37	1.41
2016	4.01±3.14	3.49±2.41	0.71±0.64	1.44
2017	7.77±4.41	6.39±3.01	1.30±0.71	1.53
2018	8.60±4.74	7.42±3.01	1.99±0.95	1.58
平均	6.05±4.38	5.13±3.19	1.12±0.89	1.51