Claim · model-written summary
M-L-MB had slightly higher benefit-cost ratio than M-W-MB.
- Treatment
- M-L-MB cropping systeme0
- Outcome
- benefit - cost (B:C) ratioe0
- Direction
- slightly highere0
- Value
- 1.72e0
- Comparator
- M-W-MB cropping systeme0
Zea maysNot reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingQualifier
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The average benefit - cost (B:C) ratio of M-L-MB cropping system was slightly higher (1.72) than the average B:C ratio of M-W-MB cropping system (1.70).”
t0“grain yield and income of maize”
Title
H.K. Prasai; S.K. Sah; A.K. Gautam; et al. Agricultural Science and Technology 2018. doi:10.15547/10.15547/ast.2018.04.060
Other claims from this paper (10)
- Intervention effect M-L-MB raised maize productivity 1.6% relative to M-W-MB.
- Intervention effect Conservation agriculture raised maize grain yield 16.7% relative to conventional practice.
- Observation Rajkumar yielded 43% more grain than Arun-2.
- Intervention effect M-L-MB gave slightly higher net benefit than M-W-MB.
- Intervention effect Conservation agriculture raised net benefit 102% relative to conventional practice.
- Observation Rajkumar gave 127% higher net benefit than Arun-2.
- Intervention effect Conservation agriculture raised benefit-cost ratio 42% relative to conventional practice.
- Observation Rajkumar had 33% higher benefit-cost ratio than Arun-2.
- Observation Higher yield, profit and benefit-cost ratio occurred under CA, M-L-MB and Rajkumar.
- Recommendation The authors recommend hybrid maize and M-L-MB under conservation agriculture.