Table 5.
Partial budget analysis of potato as influenced by irrigation frequency determination method and NPS fertilizer rate.
| Treatment combinations | Adjusted tuber yield (t ha−1) | Gross field benefit (ETB ha−1) | Total variable costs (ETB ha−1) | Net benefit (ETB ha−1) | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 NPS x WFD | 18.5 | 92,610.0 | 19,753.1 | 72,856.9 | 11 |
| 0 NPS x CWR | 14.5 | 72,450.0 | 14,812.8 | 57,637.2 | 12 |
| 90.8 NPS x WFD | 32.6 | 162,945.0 | 26,716.0 | 136,229.0 | 8 |
| 90.8 NPS x CWR | 28.1 | 140,580.0 | 21,775.8 | 118,804.2 | 10 |
| 136.2 NPS x WFD | 36.5 | 182,610.0 | 28,160.5 | 154,449.5 | 6 |
| 136.2 NPS x CWR | 31.6 | 158,130.0 | 23,220.2 | 134,909.8 | 9 |
| 181.6 NPS x WFD | 37.7 | 188,505.0 | 29,975.3 | 158,529.7 | 5 |
| 181.6 NPS x CWR | 34.2 | 171,135.0 | 25,035.0 | 146,100.0 | 7 |
| 227.4 NPS x WFD | 46.7 | 233,505.0 | 31,425.9 | 202,079.1 | 3 |
| 227.4 NPS x CWR | 41.0 | 205,020.0 | 26,485.7 | 178,534.3 | 4 |
| 272 NPS x WFD | 54.0 | 269,820.0 | 33,228.3 | 236,591.7 | 1 |
| 272 NPS x CWR | 50.5 | 252,585.0 | 28,288.1 | 224,296.9 | 2 |
WFD = Wetting front detector; CWR = Crop water requirement; ETB = Ethiopian Birr.