EFFECT OF SELECTED INSECTICIDE ON WHITEFLY (Bemisia tabaci) INFESTING BRINJAL PLANTS 164 EVALUATION OF BARLEY CULTIVATED AREAS’ ACTUAL STATUS IN EGYPTIAN NEWLY RECLAIMED LANDS Zainab Shawky El- Khalifaa Eman H. El-Gamalb Hoda Farouk Zahranc aProject Management and Sustainable Development Department, Arid Lands Cultivation Research Institute, City of Scientific Research and Technological Applications (SRTA-City), New Borg Al- Arab City, Alexandria, Egypt. bLand and Water Technologies Department, Arid Lands Cultivation Research Institute, City of Scientific Research and Technological Application, SRTA-City, Alexandria, Egypt. cPollution Management Department, Environment and Natural Materials Research Institute, City of Scientific Research and Technological Applications (SRTA-City), New Borg Al-Arab City, Alexandria, Egypt.  dr.zainabsh7@gmail.com (Corresponding author) Article History ABSTRACT Received: 31 March 2022 Revised: 1 June 2022 Accepted: 16 June 2022 Published: 29 June 2022 Keywords Barley Cultivated areas Production function Newly reclaimed lands Geographical distribution Robust regression Economic efficiency. Barley is a globally important strategic cereal crop, which grows well under various climatic and drought-stress conditions. In Egypt, barley is a major winter crop cultivated in old and newly reclaimed lands that suffer from a lack of irrigation, low soil fertility, and salinity of both soil and water. However, there is a lack of awareness of the nutritional role of barley for both humans and animals. Therefore, this paper aims to evaluate the actual status of cultivated areas of barley, especially in newly reclaimed lands in Egypt during the period (2004/2005–2018/2019). The study is based on descriptive and quantitative analysis using means, growth rates, relative importance, and robust regression. Results show that barley cultivated areas in newly reclaimed lands represented about 76.9% of total cultivated areas during (2004/2005–2018/2019). It means that barley is more adaptable in dry and marginal areas, meaning it is a sustainable plant that can face drought, land degradation, and climate change. Also, production costs, farm prices, and net return of barley are the most important factors that affect the producer’s decision to cultivate barley during the study period. In addition, there is excessive use of some variables during the study period; after estimating the production function of barley using robust regression, it is shown that it is necessary to reduce these variables in the production process to achieve economic efficiency. Contribution/Originality: This study contributes to existing literature by evaluating the actual status of cultivated areas of barley in Egypt to improve awareness of the nutritional role of barley, both for humans and animals. DOI: 10.55493/5005.v12i3.4532 ISSN(P): 2304-1455/ ISSN(E): 2224-4433 How to cite: Zainab Shawky El-Khalifa --- Eman H. El-Gamal --- Hoda Farouk Zahran (2022). Evaluation of Barley Cultivated Areas’ Actual Status in Egyptian Newly Reclaimed Lands. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 12(3), 164-172. 10.55493/5005.v12i3.4532 © 2022 Asian Economic and Social Society. All rights reserved. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development Volume 12, Issue 3 (2022): 164-172. http://www.aessweb.com/journals/5005 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1000-0066 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8150-4811 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6547-128X http://www.aessweb.com/journals/5005 Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 12(3)2022: 164-172 165 1. INTRODUCTION Recently, the Egyptian government launched a 1.5 million feddan1 project in the marginal areas around the Nile Valley. The major goal of this project is to achieve sustainable development by boosting agricultural production and increasing economic growth (Moghazy & Kaluarachchi, 2020). The project’s newly reclaimed lands are located in the desert, specifically the western desert region, which has sandy and calcareous soils (Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2005). To accomplish the significant economic and environmental aims of this project, challenges must be faced, such as changing the agricultural system pattern, using unusual water sources (wastewater and reuse of drainage water), and cultivating plants with a shorter growth duration and lower water needs (Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2005). Barley (Hordeum vulgare) is one of the oldest cultivated plants and is a globally important strategic cereal crop needed to achieve food security (Elbasyoni et al., 2020; Kumar et al., 2014). After wheat, maize, and rice, barley is the world's fourth-largest cereal crop (Idehen, Tang, & Sang, 2017). According to FAOSTAT (2020), global barley-cultivated areas covered 46.9 million hectares, producing about 141 million tons in 2019–2020. The Russian Federation is the world’s leading barley producer, with a yearly production of 17.9 million tons, then Germany, France, Ukraine, Australia, and Canada with about 10.7, 10.3, 9.4, 8.9, and 8.7 million tons, respectively. In Egypt, barley is a major winter crop, which is planted from late November to mid-December and harvested in April and May (MALR, 2020). It grows well under various climatic and drought-stress conditions (Ahmed & Hassan, 2019; Idehen et al., 2017; Kumar et al., 2014), although its cultivation is concentrated in rainfed areas in the northern coastal regions of about 250-300 thousand feddans. Also, it is grown in both old and newly reclaimed lands that suffer from lack of irrigation, salinity of both soil and water, and low soil fertility (Grando & Macpherson, 2005; Hassanein, 2019). It is considered a restorative crop that improves soil properties, consumes low amounts of fertilizer, and tolerates thirst and salinity (Kumar, Verma, Singh, Sharma, & Devi, 2020; MALR, 2020). It is recommended that barley is grown in rainy desert areas that do not have the water needed for wheat production. So, barley is considered a more efficient use of water than wheat (MALR, 2020). Barley is used mainly for animal feed (about 65%), malting (33%), and human nutrition (2%) (Idehen et al., 2017; Kumar et al., 2020; Sullivan, Arendt, & Gallagher, 2013). Lately, barley is becoming more popular as a food ingredient because of its high nutritional fiber content (Aly et al., 2021). Compared to other cereals, barley grains have about 20% dietary fiber and 3–7% beta-glucan, which is healthy due to its ability to minimize blood cholesterol and reduce the risk of developing chronic diseases (Elbasyoni et al., 2020; Idehen et al., 2017; Oscarsson, Andersson, Salomonsson, & Åman, 1996; Theander, Westerlund, Åman, & Graham, 1989; Ullrich, Clancy, Eslick, & Lance, 1986). Several experimental studies have reported that the cultivated soils in Egypt are affected by varying degrees of salinity. The development of barley genotypes for irrigation agriculture would be a cost-effective and efficient strategy to expand irrigated farming, which involves poor-quality water, because barley has shown tolerance for saline conditions and improved water use efficiency (Ahmed & Hassan, 2019; Byrne et al., 2018; Grando & Macpherson, 2005; Mansour et al., 2018). Recently, Egypt’s Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation (MALR) has started an awareness program for farmers in newly reclaimed and marginal lands to spread newly approved and registered varieties of barley (thirteen varieties) to suit each barley production region (MALR, 2020) and to mix barley flour with wheat flour (by about 15– 20%) in bread production in an attempt to reduce the annual import of wheat (Elbasyoni et al., 2020; MALR, 2020). However, there is still a lack of awareness about the nutritional role of barley for both humans and animals. Previous studies have shown that the development of new barley genotypes in newly reclaimed lands may be considered the most cost-effective approach to expand cultivation. However, there has been a continuous decline in barley’s total cultivated area, which reached about 53.6 thousand feddans and produced about 84.2 thousand tons in 2018/2019 (Egyptian Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation, 2004/2005- 2018/2019b) across about 14.3% old and 85.7% newly reclaimed lands. Therefore, this research aims to evaluate the actual status of barley cultivated areas in Egypt, especially in newly reclaimed lands, during the period (2004/2005–2018/2019). The objectives of this research are to evaluate (in Egypt): 1. The actual cultivated areas of barley. 2. The most significant factors influencing the production of the barley crop. 3. The geographical distribution of barley in newly reclaimed lands. 4. The production functions of barley using Robust Regression. 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS 2.1. Data Resources This work relied on both available and unpublished data from the Egyptian Ministry of Agriculture and Lands Reclamation (Agricultural Statistics Bulletin (Egyptian Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation, 2004/2005- 2018/2019b), Cost Bulletin (Egyptian Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation, 2004/2005-2018/2019a)), the national project for developing and serving the lands of young graduates in the new lands, Nubaria, FAOSTAT (2020) and the data of the International Network and prior studies connected to the study's topic. 2.2. Analytical Methods This work relied on economic analysis, both descriptive and quantitative, using means, growth rates, relative importance to the geographical distribution of newly reclaimed lands, and robust regression (Jajo, 2005) to estimate the production function of barley. Therefore, several statistical tests were conducted on the data, such as Jarque-Bera (Jarque & Bera, 1980), White test, LM Test (Godfrey, 1978), multicollinearity, and Cook’s Distance Measure (Cook, 1One feddan is 0.42 hectare. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 12(3)2022: 164-172 166 1977), to ensure the accuracy of data, as suggested in the agricultural production function analysis of Hayami and Ruttan (1970). The production function describes the relationship between independent variables (Xn) and the dependent variable (Y) (Shafei, Khairy, & Mansour, 2009), after conducting some statistical tests on the data, such as normality distribution, homogeneity, autocorrelation, multicollinearity, and outliers. The production function is an exponential function in its normal form (Shafei et al., 2009) but is linear in its logarithmic form (1, 2): 𝑌 = 𝛽0𝑋1 𝛽1 𝑋2 𝛽2 … … …𝑋𝐾 𝛽𝐾 (1) The production function of barley in newly reclaimed lands in Egypt is expressed in the following logarithmic formula using Robust Regression: 𝑙𝑛 Ŷ𝑡 = 𝛼 + 𝛽1𝑙𝑛𝑋1 + 𝛽2𝑙𝑛𝑋2 + ⋯ +𝛽𝐾𝑙𝑛𝑋𝐾 + ⋯ 𝜀𝑡 (2) Where: 𝑙𝑛 Ŷt = Estimated production of barley at time t. 𝑙𝑛 x1, 2, …., K = Production cost of barley. 𝛼 = The intercept term. 𝛽1, 2, …., K. = Parameters of independent variables. 𝜀𝑡 = Random error. Economic efficiency describes the relationship between inputs and output in the production process. It represents the ratio between the marginal production value of a variable and the marginal cost of that variable (Habib, Ismail, & Abidel, 2013; Shafei et al., 2009). By studying some derivatives of the production functions of barley using Robust Regression, the economic efficiency of the variables could be estimated. The estimated derivatives are calculated by: 1. Average Product = Yield / Number of Units from Variables. 2. Marginal Product Value = Marginal Product × Farm Price. 3. Economic Efficiency (EE) = Marginal Product Value / Price of Variables If EE is more than one, this indicates that economic efficiency has not been achieved and the amount of the variables should be increased. If EE is less than one, this indicates that economic efficiency has not been achieved and the amount of the variables should be reduced. Economic efficiency is achieved when EE = 1; this indicates each variable is used at its maximum efficiency. 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1. Actual Cultivated Areas of Barley Table 1 (Egyptian Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation, 2004/2005-2018/2019a, 2004/2005- 2018/2019b, 2004/2005-2018/2019c) shows the total barley cultivated areas in Egypt, which occupied about 84.9 thousand feddans during the period 2004/2005–2018/2019. The maximum cultivated area was in 2005/2006 with about 147.2 thousand feddans, while the minimum area was 53.6 thousand feddans in 2018/2019. This indicates a continuous decrease in cultivated areas during this period at a rate of about 6.4%. These cultivated areas were divided into old and newly reclaimed lands; barley grows in limited areas in the old lands, especially those with salinity problems of either soil or water. Also, it is grown on lands located at the ends of canals, where there is not enough water for irrigation (Hassanein, 2019; Kumar et al., 2020). The areas cultivating barley in these lands reached 19.6 thousand feddans during the study period. Barley cultivation was concentrated in the old lands in Beheira, Sharkia, Ismailia, Fayoum, and Sohag (MALR, 2020). In addition, barley was cultivated in newly reclaimed lands, which are characterized by either sandy or salty soils. (Grando & Macpherson, 2005; Hassanein, 2019). The areas where barley was cultivated in these lands reached about 65.3 thousand feddans, representing about 76.9% of the total cultivated area during the study period (2004/2005– 2018/2019). The results showed that barley is more adaptable in dry and marginal areas (Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2002). So, barley is a plant that can withstand drought, land degradation, and climate change. Also, barley is better able to resist heat stress than wheat (Elbasyoni et al., 2020). Table 1 (Egyptian Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation, 2004/2005-2018/2019a, 2004/2005-2018/2019b, 2004/2005-2018/2019c) shows that the maximum cultivated area was about 112.9 thousand feddans in 2005/2006, while the minimum area was about 45.9 thousand feddans in 2018/2019. This indicates a continuous decrease in the cultivated areas in newly reclaimed lands at a rate of about 5.4% per year during the study period. Nonetheless, barley cultivation is concentrated in newly reclaimed lands because it has a high ability to withstand different environmental conditions (Elbasyoni et al., 2020). The productivity of these lands decreased continuously during the study period, leading to a decrease in quantity produced to about 91.3 thousand tons. It decreased at a rate of about 1.8% per year from 114.1 thousand tons in 2009/2010 to 73.7 thousand tons in 2018/2019, as shown in Table 2. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2002), due to the arid climate of Egypt, rainfall is very low (5–200 mm/year) and evaporation is very high (1500–2400 mm/year). However, these conditions are exacerbated by the poor soils in the East and West Nile Valley. These soils are generally characterized as relatively low fertile soils with low organic matter, a high calcium carbonate content (30–80%, CaCO3), and salinity (Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2005; Wahba, Fawkia, & Zaghloul, 2019). Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 12(3)2022: 164-172 167 3.2. The Most Significant Factors Influencing the Production of Barley The factors affecting barley production are important indicators for agricultural policy and should be considered during future barley cultivation with a view to the appropriate allocation of available agricultural economic resources (MALR, 2020). So, production costs, farm prices, and the net return of barley are among the most important factors that affect producers’ decisions to grow a specific crop. Production cost: Table 1 (Egyptian Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation, 2004/2005- 2018/2019a, 2004/2005- 2018/2019b, 2004/2005- 2018/2019c) shows that the production costs increased during the study period by about L.E 3.5 thousand, with a significant annual growth rate of about 8.7% (Table 2). The total cost increased from L.E 1.7 thousand in 2004/2005 to L.E 5.7 thousand in 2018/2019. This means that increases in costs affected production decisions, which may be the reason for the decrease in cultivated areas of barley in newly reclaimed lands during the study period. Hamed, Eljadi, and Delawi (2020) confirmed that merging farmers who own small farms is considered an effective way to reduce production costs and achieve the most significant returns. Farm price: Table 1 shows that the farm price increased during the study period by about L.E 0.97 thousand, with a significant annual growth rate of about 6% (Table 2). It increased from L.E 0.50 thousand in 2005/2006 to L.E 1.4 thousand in 2018/2019. Despite the increasing farm prices during the study period, it is not considered sufficiently profitable for farmers to increase cultivated areas of barley in newly reclaimed lands. Salama (2019) concluded that harvesting barley in the late winter season led to a high price of the barley forage, optimized the forage quantity and quality, and increased grain yield. Net return of barley: Table 1 shows that the net return decreased during the study period by about L.E 0.63 thousand, with a significant annual rate of decrease of about 6.2%, as shown in Table 2. It decreased from L.E 0.88 thousand in 2008/2009 to L.E 0.35 thousand in 2017/2018. This indicates the main reason for farmers' reluctance to cultivate barley, which led to a decrease in barley cultivated areas in newly reclaimed lands during the study period. Singh, Saxena, Sarkar, and Dogra (2016) concluded that increasing barley production in the arid zone by adopting improved technology would substantially increase farmers’ income. Additionally, Wollie, Zemedu, and Tegegn (2018) confirmed that most farmers prefer to cultivate barley because it is drought-resistant and offers a stable income over time. 3.3. Geographical Distribution of Barley in Newly Reclaimed Lands Identifying suitable areas for the cultivated varieties of barley could increase the cultivated areas and hence the amount of barley produced (Gomaa, Radwan, Moselhy, El-Sadek, & Abdelkader, 2014). Therefore, this section will present the geographical distribution of newly reclaimed lands both outside and inside the Nile Valley areas, in which barley cultivation is possible. a) Areas outside the Nile Valley Table 3 (Egyptian Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation, 2004/2005-2018/2019b) shows the five main areas of barley cultivation on newly reclaimed lands outside the Nile Valley during the study period. These areas represented about 58.6% of newly reclaimed lands. New Valley was the primary area for barley cultivation with about 19.4 thousand feddans, representing about 50.8% of the total outside the Nile Valley areas and about 29.8% of the newly reclaimed lands. Matruh comes second, followed by Noubaria, North Sinai, and South Sinai with about 6.74, 6.58, 5.1, and 0.44 thousand feddans, respectively, and representing about 17.6%, 17.2%, 13.2%, and 1.15% of the total outside the Nile Valley areas and about 10.3%, 10.1%, 7.75%, and 0.67% of the newly reclaimed lands, respectively. Table 1. The variables of the barley crop in new lands during (2004/2005–2018/2019) (Egyptian Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation, 2004/2005-2018/2019a, 2004/2005-2018/2019b, 2004/2005-2018/2019c). Years Cultivated Area (103 Fed) Production (103 Ton) Yield (Ton/Fed) Farm Price Total Costs Net Return Newly Total (L.E./feddan) 2004/2005 95.31 141.5 88.37 0.93 665 1710 752 2005/2006 112.9 147.2 107.7 0.95 500 1810 750 2006/2007 83.44 106.0 97.33 1.17 605 2051 780 2007/2008 60.15 83.39 98.00 1.63 1060 2202 819 2008/2009 63.83 85.55 97.70 1.53 930 2576 881 2009/2010 75.75 95.44 114.1 1.51 660 2900 777 2010/2011 65.75 88.11 83.54 1.27 835 3131 769 2011/2012 67.69 84.76 95.46 1.41 1010 3344 740 2012/2013 50.21 66.09 82.36 1.64 1050 3702 686 2013/2014 63.12 78.68 104.5 1.66 1074 4151 548 2014/2015 46.79 63.42 78.30 1.67 1127 4408 363 2015/2016 51.14 62.19 82.32 1.61 1179 4581 386 2016/2017 49.96 59.85 83.65 1.67 1232 4815 370 2017/2018 47.71 57.81 83.31 1.75 1284 5050 354 2018/2019 45.94 53.60 73.68 1.60 1420 5674 506 Mean 65.31 84.91 91.35 1.47 975 3474 632 Minimum 45.94 53.60 73.68 0.93 500 1710 354 Maximum 112.9 147.2 114.1 1.75 1420 5674 881 Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 12(3)2022: 164-172 168 Table 3 also shows that the contribution of these areas to barley production amounted to about 34.6, 10.9, 4.4, 2.75, and 0.67 thousand tons, representing about 37.8%, 12%, 4.8%, 3%, and 0.73% of the production from newly reclaimed lands in New Valley, Noubaria, Matruh, North Sinai, and South Sinai, respectively. Gomaa et al. (2014) showed that farmers in Egypt’s northwestern coastal zone selected barley cultivation for animal feed in summer. On the other hand, most farmers in the coastal zones of Egypt’s Western and Eastern Deserts depend on groundwater. The major cause of soil salinity in these areas is the excessive use of groundwater, which causes a significant drop in the water table. So, infiltration of seawater, irrigation with low-quality (saline) water, and insufficient field drainage are the reasons for soil salinity (El Raey, 2010). The high soil salinity limits water and nutrient absorption and simultaneously promotes Na+ and Cl− ion accumulation. In turn, this increases osmotic stress and ionic toxicity in the plant cell, which leads the plants to suffer from physiological thirst and damaged cell membranes and metabolic activities, leading to reduced photosynthesis and growth (Alharby, Colmer, & Barrett-Lennard, 2018). Table 2. Variables’ growth functions for barley during the period (2004/2005–2018/2019). Variables Equation R-2 F Mean Growth Rate (%) T Cultivated area Ŷt = e 4.6 - 0.054 Xt 0.76 44*** 65.31 (5.4) (6.6)*** Production Ŷt = e 4.6 - 0.018 Xt 0.37 9.2* 91.35 (1.8) (3.03)* Yield Ŷt = e 0.08 + 0.035 Xt 0.57 19.2** 1.47 3.5 4.3** Total Cultivated area Ŷt = e 4.9 - 0.064 Xt 0.86 88.5*** 84.91 (6.4) (9.4)*** Farm Price Ŷt = e 6.4 + 0.060 Xt 0.74 39.8*** 975 6 6.3*** Total Costs Ŷt = e 7.4 + 0.087 Xt 0.98 781*** 3474 8.7 27.9*** Net Return Ŷt = e 6.9 - 0.062 Xt 0.66 27.9*** 632 (6.2) (5.3)*** Notes: Ŷ dependent variable Xt time by years; ( ) brackets indicate minus values. (***) Statistically significant at 0.001. (**) Statistically significant at 0.01. (*) Statistically significant at 0.05. It can further be noted that the yield rank of barley-producing areas was different. Table 3 shows that the yield of New Valley, Noubaria, South Sinai, Matruh, and North Sinai was about 1.78, 1.66, 1.52, 0.65, and 0.54 tons/feddan, respectively. It suggests that the selection of appropriate varieties of barley for the area led to an increase in yield during the study period. Gomaa et al. (2014) found that the adoption of new genotypes effectively improved crop production in marginal areas of Egypt. Also, Tokhetova, Umirzakov, Nurymova, Baizhanova, and Akhmedova (2020) confirmed that genotypes of hull-less barley showed high adaptability to climatic conditions that increased efficiency and productivity. Ayers and Westcot (1985) and Moghazy and Kaluarachchi (2020) reported that the maximum yield of barley was found at an EC (Electric Conductivity) level of 5.3 dS/m; the yield decreased to 50% when irrigation water salinity increased to 12 dS/m. In addition, the changes in climate conditions in Egypt – the continually rising temperatures and decreasing rainfall – affected agricultural productivity. Mostafa et al. (2019) concluded that 80% of the days in a year would be hotter than the 90th period. Furthermore, some studied scenarios predict that precipitation could significantly decrease during the 2010 to 2100 period from -0.48 to -0.9 mm/y and from -0.95 to -1.40 mm/y for Representative Concentration Pathway RCP45 and RCP85 scenarios, respectively, especially in the north of Egypt. However, the yield in Near East North Africa has been reduced by about 30% due to the negative impact of climate change (Abdel & Radojevic, 2020; El Raey, 2010). Increasing temperatures lead to elevated soil evaporation and increasing soil salinity. It is reported that about 35% of the agricultural lands in Egypt suffer from salinity. Table 3. Geographical distribution of barley outside the Nile Valley areas during (2004/2005–2018/2019) (Egyptian Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation, 2004/2005-2018/2019b). Areas Outside the Nile Valley Cultivated Areas New Lands (%) Production (103 ton) New Lands (%) Yield (ton/fed) Rank (103 fed) (%) New Valley 19.44 50.8 29.8 34.58 37.8 1.78 1 Noubaria 6.58 17.2 10.1 10.93 12.0 1.66 3 Matruh 6.74 17.6 10.3 4.41 4.83 0.65 2 North Sinai 5.06 13.2 7.75 2.75 3.01 0.54 4 South Sinai 0.44 1.15 0.67 0.67 0.73 1.52 5 Total outside the Nile valley 38.25 100 58.6 53.34 58.4 1.39 - Total new lands 65.31 - 100 91.35 100 1.47 - b) Areas within the Nile Valley Table 4 shows the areas with the highest levels of barley crop production in newly reclaimed lands in the Nile Valley during the study period. These areas represented about 43.6% of newly reclaimed lands. Barley cultivated areas were concentrated in Lower Egypt with about 21.4 thousand feddans, representing about 75.1% of the total area in the Nile Valley areas and about 32.8% of the area of newly reclaimed lands. Sharkia, Port Said, Alexandria, and Ismailia are the most cultivated areas in the Nile Valley with about 24.9%, 21.9%, 13.4%, and 12.8%, respectively. In these areas, barley production increased by about 10.8, 9.5, 4.4, and 5.2 thousand tons, Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 12(3)2022: 164-172 169 representing about 11.8%, 10.4%, 4.8%, and 5.7% of the newly reclaimed lands’ production of Sharkia, Port Said, Alexandria, and Ismailia, respectively. Table 4 also shows that the Middle and Upper Egypt areas had the smallest cultivated area of barley on newly reclaimed lands during the study period, with about 4.2% and 6.6%, respectively. Selecting appropriate barley varieties could increase cultivated areas, especially outside the Nile Valley areas, which represent the largest areas of newly reclaimed lands during the study period. Byrne et al. (2018) confirmed that the efficient utilization of plant genetic resources (cultivars, breeding, materials, landraces, and wild relatives) is the future of crop improvement. Table 4. Geographical distribution of barley within the Nile Valley areas during (2004/2005–2018/2019) (Egyptian Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation, 2004/2005-2018/2019b). Areas within the Nile Valley Cultivated areas New Lands (%) Production (103 ton) New Lands (%) Yield (ton/fed) (103 fed) (%) Lower Egypt Alexandria 3.83 13.4 5.9 4.36 4.8 1.2 Behairah 0.35 1.2 0.54 0.58 0.63 1.5 Sharkia 7.06 24.9 10.9 10.8 11.8 1.5 Ismailia 3.64 12.8 5.6 5.24 5.7 1.4 Port Said 6.23 21.9 9.5 9.48 10.4 1.1 Suez 0.26 0.91 0.40 0.46 0.50 2.1 Total 21.4 75.1 32.8 30.9 33.8 1.4 Middle Egypt Giza 0.67 2.4 1.03 1.14 1.2 2.3 Beni Suef 0.15 0.53 0.23 0.24 0.26 1.6 Fayoum 1.1 3.9 1.7 1.25 1.4 1.0 Menia 0.84 2.9 1.3 1.46 1.6 1.8 Total 2.76 9.7 4.2 4.1 4.5 1.5 Upper Egypt Assuit 0.15 0.53 0.23 0.20 0.22 1.1 Suhag 0.31 1.1 0.47 0.16 0.17 0.9 Qena 0.35 1.2 0.54 0.51 0.56 1.4 Luxor 0.15 0.53 0.23 0.17 0.19 0.9 Aswan 3.34 11.7 5.1 3.80 4.2 0.9 Total 4.3 15.1 6.6 4.8 5.3 1.13 Total within the Nile Valley 28.5 100 43.6 39.8 43.6 1.4 Total new lands 65.31 - 100 91.35 100 1.47 3.4. Production Function of Barley using Robust Regression The variables of the production function show a normal distribution, homogeneity, and no autocorrelation, but there are multicollinearity and outliers. So, this part uses Robust Regression to estimate the barley production function to obtain accurate estimates. It is the best solution if multicollinearity and outlier problems exist between variables (Jajo, 2005; Shafei et al., 2009). An accurate production function helps in selecting different production variables and knowing when variables are productive and economically efficient (Shafei et al., 2009). The production function was estimated after using stepwise regression to determine the variables with the greatest effect on barley production. It was found that during the study period, the most relevant variables were labor wages (X1), machinery (X2), seeds (X3), fertilizers (X5), and insecticides (X6). The GRETL program was used to estimate the production function of barley in newly reclaimed lands in logarithmic form (Cottrell & Lucchetti, 2008): )3( 60.51 LnX – 5+ 0.49 LnX 31.8 LnX – 2+ 2.3 LnX 10.92 LnX = 0.17 + tŶLn Equation 3 shows that the productivity elasticity of labor wages (X1) and fertilizers (X5) were positive and less than one. This indicates that these variables are located in the second or economic stage of production. At this stage, it is necessary to stop increasing these variables in the production process. Also, it shows that the productivity elasticity of machinery (X2) was positive and higher than the one. This indicates that this variable is located in the first stage of the production process. It is necessary to increase this variable until it reaches the second stage of production. In contrast, the productivity elasticity of seeds (X3) and insecticides (X6) were negative. This proves that these variables are located in the third stage of production, meaning that it is necessary to decrease these variables to return them to the second production stage. Ikram et al. (2020) reported that the inefficient use of inputs is one of the major constraints to crop yield in arid and semi-arid climates. Also, Al-Enizy and Al-Kaisy (2017) found that the technical methods used in barley production are the most essential factors that affect the production function. However, Wollie et al. (2018) concluded that input variables such as fertilizer and labor input have considerable effects on barley production. 3.5. Economic Efficiency of Barley Equation 3 was used to estimate the most efficient use of the relevant variables in the barley production process by studying some derivatives of production functions. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 12(3)2022: 164-172 170 Table 5 shows that economic efficiency was less than one for labor wages, machinery, and fertilizers. Marginal product values were L.E. 117, 400, and 107, respectively, for these variables, which were less than their prices of about 712, 507, and 405, respectively. This indicates that these variables are used excessively and it is necessary to reduce them in the production process. Habib et al. (2013) applied this method to orange crops to achieve economic efficiency. Hamed et al. (2020) concluded that merging small farms allowed optimal production to be reached and cultivated areas to achieve economic efficiency. Also, Ahmed and Hassan (2019) concluded that using improved surface irrigation techniques, such as raised beds, led to increased barley yield and reduced irrigation water, consequently increasing water use efficiency. Additionally, Ikram et al. (2020) found better economic returns were achieved by using a barley- Egyptian clover intercropping system and improving water use efficiency in arid and semi-arid climates. The variables with negative coefficients estimated by the Robust Regression of barley do not achieve economic efficiency in their use, and the concentrations of these variables should be reduced so they reach the second stage of production. Wollie et al. (2018) found that the input variables of barley displayed non-economic efficiency, and improved barley seeds should be used. Table 5. Economic efficiency of variables used in barley production in new lands. Derivatives Variables X1 X2 X3 Elasticity 0.92 2.3 0.49 Average products 0.13 0.18 0.23 Marginal products 0.12 0.41 0.11 Marginal product values 117 400 107 Price of variables 712 507 405 Economic efficiency 0.2 0.8 0.3 Source: Calculated from production function and (Table A – see appendix). 4. CONCLUSION Based on the results, this work concludes that expanding the cultivation of barley in newly reclaimed lands, especially outside the Nile Valley areas, is associated with low costs, efficient water consumption, and high economic returns due to barley’s great importance as a sustainable food and fodder crop. The study of the geographical distribution outside and within the Nile Valley areas has shown that selecting appropriate barley varieties could increase the cultivated area, especially outside the Nile Valley areas, which represent the areas with the most newly reclaimed lands during the study period. However, during the period of study, there was excessive use of many variables during the barley production process, which may indicate a lack of economic efficiency in their use. Therefore, concentrations of variables should be reduced to ensure the second or economic stage of production is reached. Funding: This study received no specific financial support. Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Authors’ Contributions: All authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the study. Views and opinions expressed in this study are those of the authors views; the Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage, or liability, etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. REFERENCES Abdel, M. M. A., & Radojevic, B. (2020). Agricultural production in Egypt: Assessing vulnerability and enhancing adaptive capacity and resilience to climate change. In Climate Change Impacts on Agriculture and Food Security in Egypt (pp. 205-222). Cham: Springer. Ahmed, K. R., & Hassan, A. (2019). Effect of planting method on barley productivity, water saving and nutrient use efficiency under El-Minia conditions. Middle East Journal of Agriculture Research, 8(3), 788-796. Al-Enizy, L., & Al-Kaisy, E. (2017). An economic analysis of barley production functions in Wasit Province for 2014. Iraqi Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 48(4), 1040-1055.Available at: https://doi.org/10.36103/ijas.v48i4.361. Alharby, H. F., Colmer, T. D., & Barrett-Lennard, E. G. (2018). Salinization of the soil solution decreases the further accumulation of salt in the root zone of the halophyte Atriplex nummularia Lindl. growing above shallow saline groundwater. Plant, Cell & Environment, 41(1), 99-110.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.12958. Aly, A. A., El-Deeb, F. E., Abdelazeem, A. A., Hameed, A. M., Alfi, A. A., Alessa, H., & Alrefaei, A. F. (2021). Addition of whole barley flour as a partial substitute of wheat flour to enhance the nutritional value of biscuits. Arabian Journal of Chemistry, 14(5), 103112.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arabjc.2021.103112. Ayers, D., & Westcot, R. (1985). Water quality for agriculture. Rome, Italy: FAO. Byrne, P. F., Volk, G. M., Gardner, C., Gore, M. A., Simon, P. W., & Smith, S. (2018). Sustaining the future of plant breeding: The critical role of the USDA-ARS national plant germplasm system. Crop Science, 58(2), 451-468.Available at: https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2017.05.0303. Cook, R. D. (1977). Detection of influential observation in linear regression. Technometrics, 19(1), 15-18.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00401706.1977.10489493. Cottrell, A., & Lucchetti, R. J. (2008). Econometrics and time-series (Gretl User’s Guide). United States: The Free Software Foundation. Egyptian Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation. (2004/2005- 2018/2019a). Agricultural cost bulletin. Retrieved from: https://moa.gov.eg/. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 12(3)2022: 164-172 171 Egyptian Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation. (2004/2005- 2018/2019b). Agricultural statistics bulletin. Retrieved from: https://moa.gov.eg/. Egyptian Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation. (2004/2005- 2018/2019c). The national project for developing and serving the lands of young graduates in the new lands, Nubaria, unpublished data. Retrieved from: https://moa.gov.eg/. El Raey, M. (2010). Impacts and implications of climate change for the coastal zones of Egypt. Stimulator Cenarion Reputation, 31-50. Elbasyoni, I. S., Morsy, S. M., Naser, M., Ali, H., Smith, K. P., & Baenziger, P. S. (2020). Reverse introduction of two-and six-rowed barley lines from the United States into Egypt. Crop Science, 60(2), 812-829.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/csc2.20061. FAOSTAT. (2020). Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations statistical database. Retrieved from: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2002). Land resources information systems in the near East, Regional Workshop, Cairo. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/05aaf372-ff90-554f-86ce-49715fe9c8cc/. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2005). Fertilizer use by crop in Egypt (1st ed.). Rome: Salinization of the Soil solution Decreases the Further. Godfrey, L. G. (1978). Testing for higher order serial correlation in regression equations when the regressors include lagged dependent variables. Econometrica, 46(6), 1303-1310.Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/1913830. Gomaa, M., Radwan, F., Moselhy, N., El-Sadek, A., & Abdelkader, S. (2014). Participatory plant breeding approach for identifying the superior rainfed barley genotypes in Egypt. International Journal of Agronomy and Agricultural Research, 5(3), 52-61. Grando, S., & Macpherson, H. (2005). Food barley: Importance, uses and local knowledge. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the International Workshop on Food Barley Improv Ham. Tunisia (ICARDA). Habib, W., Ismail, I., & Abidel, A. A. (2013). Economic efficiency of orange production in Syria. Journal of Damascus University Agricultural Sciences, 29(1), 375- 391. Hamed, U., Eljadi, A., & Delawi, N. (2020). Estimating the function of production costs in the long run and scale economies of the irrigated barley crop in Al-Mardoum - Bani Walid. Journal of Science, Technology and Development 1(1), 110-122. Hassanein, A. (2019). Cereal crop production. Egypt: Faculty of Agriculture - Al-Azhar University. Hayami, Y., & Ruttan, V. W. (1970). Agricultural productivity differences among countries. The American Economic Review, 60(5), 895-911. Idehen, E., Tang, Y., & Sang, S. (2017). Bioactive phytochemicals in barley. Journal of Food and Drug Analysis, 25(1), 148- 161.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfda.2016.08.002. Ikram, U. H. M., Maqbool, M. M., Ali, A., Farooq, S., Khan, S., Saddiq, M. S., & Hussain, A. (2020). Optimizing planting geometry for barley-Egyptian clover intercropping system in semi-arid sub-tropical climate. Plos One, 15(5), e0233171.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233171. Jajo, N. K. (2005). A review of robust regression and diagnostic procedures in linear regression. Chinese Applied Mathematics, 21(2), 209-224.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10255-005-0230-2. Jarque, C. M., & Bera, A. K. (1980). Efficient tests for normality, homoscedasticity and serial independence of regression residuals. Economics Letters, 6(3), 255-259.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1765(80)90024-5. Kumar, V., Khippal, A., Singh, J., Selvakumar, R., Malik, R., Kumar, D., & Sharma, I. (2014). Barley research in India: Retrospect & prospects. Journal of Wheat Research, 6(1), 1-20. Kumar, A., Verma, R. P. S., Singh, A., Sharma, H. K., & Devi, G. (2020). Barley landraces: Ecological heritage for edaphic stress adaptations and sustainable production. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 6, 100035.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2020.100035. MALR. (2020). Egyptian ministry of agriculture and land reclamation. Retrieved from: https://moa.gov.eg/en/ministry- activities/news/food-security/. Mansour, E., Moustafa, E. S., Qabil, N., Abdelsalam, A., Wafa, H. A., El Kenawy, A., & Igartua, E. (2018). Assessing different barley growth habits under Egyptian conditions for enhancing resilience to climate change. Field Crops Research, 224, 67- 75.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2018.04.016. Moghazy, N. H., & Kaluarachchi, J. J. (2020). Sustainable agriculture development in the Western Desert of Egypt: A case study on crop production, profit, and uncertainty in the Siwa region. Sustainability, 12(16), 6568.Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166568. Mostafa, A., Wheida, A., El Nazer, M., Adel, M., El Leithy, L., Siour, G., & Alfaro, S. (2019). Past (1950–2017) and future (−2100) temperature and precipitation trends in Egypt. Weath & Climb Exeter, 100225(26), 1-12. Oscarsson, M., Andersson, R., Salomonsson, A.-C., & Åman, P. (1996). Chemical composition of barley samples focusing on dietary fibre components. Journal of Cereal Science, 24(2), 161-170.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1006/jcrs.1996.0049. Salama, H. S. A. (2019). Dual purpose barley production in the Mediterranean climate: Effect of seeding rate and age at forage cutting. International Journal of Plant Production, 13(4), 285-295.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42106-019-00054- 8. Shafei, M., Khairy, S., & Mansour, R. (2009). Economics of production and analysis of competencies between theory and practice. Ch7. Libya: Al-Marqab University. Singh, B., Saxena, A., Sarkar, A., & Dogra, A. (2016). Impact of front line demonstrations on Barley production in arid zone. International Journal of Tropical Agriculture, 34(6), 1603-1606. Sullivan, P., Arendt, E., & Gallagher, E. (2013). The increasing use of barley and barley by-products in the production of healthier baked goods. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 29(2), 124-134.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2012.10.005. Theander, O., Westerlund, E., Åman, P., & Graham, H. (1989). Plant cell walls and monogastric diets. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 23(1-3), 205-225.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(89)90098-9. Tokhetova, L., Umirzakov, S., Nurymova, R., Baizhanova, B., & Akhmedova, G. (2020). Analysis of economic-biological traits of hull-less barley and creation of source material for resistance to environmental stress factors. International Journal of Agronomy and Agricultural Research, 2020, 1-10.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8847753. Ullrich, S., Clancy, J., Eslick, R., & Lance, R. (1986). β-Glucan content and viscosity of extracts from waxy barley. Journal of Cereal Science, 4(3), 279-285.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0733-5210(86)80030-3. Wahba, M. M., Fawkia, L., & Zaghloul, A. (2019). Management of calcareous soils in arid region. International Journal of Environmental Pollution and Environmental Modelling, 2(5), 248-258. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/05aaf372-ff90-554f-86ce-49715fe9c8cc/ Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 12(3)2022: 164-172 172 Wollie, G., Zemedu, L., & Tegegn, B. (2018). Economic efficiency of smallholder farmers in barley production in Meket district, Ethiopia. Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics, 10(10), 328-338.Available at: https://doi.org/10.5897/jdae2018.0960. APPENDIX Table A. Descriptive statistics of production costs during (2004/2005–2018/2019) (Egyptian Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation, 2004/2005-2018/2019c). Costs (L.E./feddan) Mean Standard Deviation Minimum Maximum Growth Rate% % Labor Wages 712 243 319 1007 8.2*** 29.0 Machinery 507 185 290 859 8.1*** 20.7 Seeds 250 138 80 501 12.9*** 10.2 Manure 293 177 55 628 16.4*** 11.9 Fertilizers 405 213 99 748 14.1*** 16.5 Insecticides 83.1 33.2 23 141 10.5*** 3.39 Other expenses 203 37.9 137 261 3.6*** 8.28 Variable costs 2453 999 1027 4121 9.9*** 70.6 Fixed costs 1020 271 650 1553 5.9*** 29.4 Total cost 3474 1268 1710 5674 8.7*** 100 Note: L.E.: Egyptian currency. (costs have been measured by Egyptian pound per feddan). (***) statistically significant difference at the 0.001 level.