\documentclass[english,german]{scrartcl}
\usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}
\usepackage{geometry}
\geometry{verbose,a4paper,tmargin=1.75cm,bmargin=2cm,lmargin=2cm,rmargin=2cm,headheight=0.8cm,headsep=0.5cm,footskip=0.5cm}
\usepackage{babel}
\usepackage{url}
\urlstyle{same}
\newcommand\email{\begingroup \urlstyle{same}\Url}\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{units}
\usepackage{tabularx}
\usepackage{wasysym} % enable use of \permil instead of \textperthousand
\usepackage{marvosym}
\usepackage{arabtex}
\usepackage{hyphenat}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{mdwlist}
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\relax}
\usepackage{index}
\newindex{key}{kdx}{knd}{Keywords}
\newindex{author}{idx}{ind}{Authors}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\pagestyle{fancy}
\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}
\fancyfoot{}
\usepackage{ifpdf}
\ifpdf
%\usepackage[activate]{pdfcprot}
%\usepackage[owner=Tapioka, print=true, copy=true, edit=false, annotate=false,set]{pdfcrypt}
%encryption: not supported any more (since pdftex 1.10)
\usepackage[pdftex]{thumbpdf}
\usepackage[pdftex]{hyperref}
\hypersetup{pdftitle={Reckoning Risks and Farm Returns Viability of Fertiliser Micro"=dosing in a Sub"=humid Farming System, Tanzania},pdfauthor={Lutengano Mwinuka, Khamaldin Daud  Mutabazi, Jeremia Makindara, Stefan Sieber},pdfsubject={Tropentag 2016: Abstract},pdfkeywords={Economic returns simulation, farm budget, micro fertilisation, simetar, sub-humid agriculture},pdfpagemode=None,colorlinks=true}
\else
\usepackage{ae}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\fi
\begin{document}
\ifpdf
\parbox[b]{2.5cm}{\resizebox*{2.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics{dtt2016.jpg}}}
\else
\parbox[b]{2.5cm}{\resizebox*{2.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics{dtt2016.eps}}}
\fi
\hfill
\parbox[b]{13.4cm}{\centering \large{\textbf{Tropentag, September 18-21, 2016, Vienna, Austria}}\\[1ex] \Large{``Solidarity in a competing world ---\\fair use of resources''\\[2ex]}}
\hspace{0.1cm}
\begin{center}
\Large{\textbf{Reckoning Risks and Farm Returns Viability of Fertiliser Micro"=dosing in a Sub"=humid Farming System, Tanzania\footnote{\textbf{Contact Address:} Lutengano Mwinuka, The University of Dodoma (UDOM), Dept. of Economics and Statistics, Box 395, Dodoma, Tanzania, \mbox{e-mail}: \email{mwinuka.lutengano@gmail.com}}\\[0.8ex]}}
\normalsize{\textsc{Lutengano Mwinuka$^{1}$, Khamaldin Daud  Mutabazi$^{2}$, Jeremia Makindara$^{3}$, Stefan Sieber$^{4}$}}
\end{center}
\begin{itemize*}
\item[]{\small{\textit{$^{1}$The University of Dodoma (UDOM), Dept. of Economics and Statistics, Tanzania}}}
\item[]{\small{\textit{$^{2}$Sokoine University of Agriculture, School of Agric. Economics \& Business Studies, Tanzania}}}
\item[]{\small{\textit{$^{3}$Sokoine University of Agriculture, School of Agric. Economics \& Business Studies, Tanzania}}}
\item[]{\small{\textit{$^{4}$Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Inst. of Socio-Economics, Germany}}}
\end{itemize*}
\index[author]{Mwinuka, Lutengano}
\index[author]{Mutabazi, Khamaldin Daud }
\index[author]{Makindara, Jeremia}
\index[author]{Sieber, Stefan}
\begin{center}
\vspace{1.1cm}
\textbf{Abstract}
\begin{abstract}
\normalsize{
Smallholder farmers are reluctant to risk investing in fertilisers and to apply the recommended rates. How risk is perceived and economic returns are distributed before deciding to invest in fertiliser use need a systematic approach using localised applications. Small doses of fertiliser can be an ideal entry point to gain the trust and confidence of farmers by realising yield improvements and economic returns. This study assesses the profitability and net return variability of fertiliser micro"=dosing (MD) in the sub"=humid rain"=fed maize (\textit{Zea mays} L.) farming system in Tanzania. Useful data were gathered from a household baseline survey, water and nutrient limited calibrated yields, marginal costs and yields from farmers' field trials, along with other information from experts' and historical data. Crop yields, crop prices, and prices for key production inputs (mainly fertiliser) were simulated for the net economic return distributions for maize under different fertiliser MD rates using the Economic and Nutritional Impact Assessment Model (FARMSIM), which is supported by Simulation and Econometrics to Analyse Risk (SIMETAR). The results show relative differences in stochastic returns between water and nutrient limited (without fertiliser MD) and with fertiliser MD scenarios. The \mbox{25\,\%} fertiliser MD rate is more efficient farm technology in sub"=humid areas compared to other rates because it is financially viable to farmers in terms of costs, gives higher return on investment and can easily be supported by farmers. Farmers are likely to adopt fertilisation technologies if best agronomic practices are promoted through farmer groups and field schools, fertilisers are re"=packaged into small quantities for ease of purchase and access and the coverage of subsidised fertilisers is increased. }

\vspace{0.5cm}
\end{abstract}
\end{center}
\noindent \textbf{Keywords:} Economic returns simulation, farm budget, micro fertilisation, simetar, sub"=humid agriculture
\index[key]{Economic!returns simulation}
\index[key]{Farm!budget}
\index[key]{Micro fertilization}
\index[key]{Simetar}
\index[key]{Sub"=humid agriculture}
\end{document}
