The Technical Efficiency of Smallholder Irish Potato Producers in Santa Subdivision, Cameroon
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Materials
2.2. Methods
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive Statistics and Frequency Distribution of Farmers’ Characteristics
3.2. Cobb-Douglas Production Function
3.3. Technical Efficiency Indices
3.4. Factors Influencing Technical Efficiency
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). World Agricultural Statistics; Statistics Division, Food and Agricultural Organization: Rome, Italy, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Bravo-Ureta, B.E.; Pinheiro, A.E. Efficiency Analysis of Developing Country Agriculture: A Review of the Frontier Function Literature. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 1993, 22, 88–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhasin, V.K. Agricultural Productivity, Efficiency, and Soil Fertility Management Practices of Vegetable Growers in the Upper East Region of Ghana; Citesee: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Business in Cameroon Agriculture: Mainstay of Cameroon’s Economy. Available online: https://www.businessincameroon.com/agriculture/0111-3675-agriculture-mainstay-of-cameroon-s-economy (accessed on 20 January 2019).
- Pandey, S.K. Potato research priorities in Asia and the Pacific region. In Proceedings of the RAP Publication (FAO); FAO/RAP: Bangkok, Thailand, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Struik, P.C.; Wiersema, S.G. Seed Potato Technology; Wageningen Pers: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- International Potato Center Potato Facts and Figures. Available online: https://cipotato.org/crops/potato/potato-facts-and-figures/ (accessed on 20 January 2019).
- Foncho, P.A.F. The Situation of the Potato Crop in Cameroon and in the World; Netherlands Potato Consultative Institute: Den Haag, The Netherlands, 1982. [Google Scholar]
- Horton, D. Potatoes: Production, Marketing, and Programs for Developing Countries; Westview Press: Boulder, CO, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Kemgni, P. Report from Cameroon. International Potato Course: Production, Storage, and Seed Technology. Report to Participants; International Agricultural Center: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1973. [Google Scholar]
- Martin, C.; Demo, P.; Gass, T.; Fondong, V.; Koi, J. Development of a seed production system fromin-vitro in Cameroon: Experiences from the first two years. Am. Potato J. 1995, 72, 299–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fontem, D.A.; Demo, P.; Njualem, D.K. Status of potato production, marketing and utilisation in Cameroon. In Advances in Roots and Tuber Crop Technologies for Sustainable Food Security, Improved Nutrition, Wealth Creation and Environmental Conservation in Africa; Kenya Agricultural Research Institute: Nairobi, Kenya, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Business in Cameroon Cameroon: 500 Tonnes of Improved Varieties of Potato to Increase 2014 Production. Available online: https://www.businessincameroon.com/agriculture/1803-4718-cameroon-500-tonnes-of-improved-varieties-of-potato-to-increase-2014-production (accessed on 20 January 2019).
- Ministry of Agriculture (MOA). Strategic Plan 2006–2010; Mekong River Commission: Vientiane, Laos, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- FAOSTAT Data: Production. Crop. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC (accessed on 20 January 2019).
- Coelli, T.; Rahman, S.; Thirtle, C. Technical, Allocative, Cost and Scale Efficiencies in Bangladesh Rice Cultivation: A Non-parametric Approach. J. Agric. Econ. 2002, 53, 607–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bagamba, F. Market Access and Agricultural Production: The Case of Banana Production in Uganda; Wageningen University: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Battese, G.E.; Tessema, G.A. Estimation of stochastic frontier production functions with time-varying parameters and technical efficiencies using panel data from Indian villages. Agric. Econ. 1993, 9, 313–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Anoumaa, M.; Kanmegne, G.; Kouam, E.B.; Amzati, G.S.; Yao, N.K.; Fonkou, T.; Mbouobda, H.D.; Arslanoglu, F.; Omokolo, D.N. Characterization of Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) Genotypes from the Western Highlands Region of Cameroon Using Morphological and Agronomic Traits. J. Plant Sci. 2016, 4, 185. [Google Scholar]
- Charnes, A.; Cooper, W.W.; Rhodes, E. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1978, 2, 429–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karimov, A.A. Factors affecting efficiency of cotton producers in rural Khorezm, Uzbekistan: Re-examining the role of knowledge indicators in technical efficiency improvement. Agric. Food Econ. 2014, 2, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Karimov, A.A.; Niño-Zarazúa, M. Assessing Efficiency of Input Utilization in Wheat Production in Uzbekistan. In Restructuring Land Allocation, Water Use and Agricultural Value Chains: Technologies, Policies and Practices for the Lower Amudarya Region; Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht: Goettingen, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Binam, J.N.; Tonye, J.; Wandji, N. Source of technical efficiency among small holder maize and peanut farmers in the slash and burn agriculture zone of Cameroon. J. Econ. Ctries. 2005, 26, 193–210. [Google Scholar]
- Nchare, A. Analysis of Factors Affecting Technical Efficiency of Arabica Coffee Producers in Cameroon; African Economic Research Consortium: Nairobi, Kenya, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Chavas, J.-P.; Petrie, R.; Roth, M. Farm Household Production Efficiency: Evidence from The Gambia. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2005, 87, 160–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chepng’etich, E. Analysis of Technical Efficiency of Smallholder Sorghum Producers in Machakos and Makindu Districts in Kenya. Master’s Thesis, Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Nyagaka, D.O. Analysis of Production Efficiency in Irish Potato Production in Kenya The case of Nyandarua North District. Master’s Thesis, Egerton University, Nakuru, Kenya, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Bozoğlu, M.; Ceyhan, V. Measuring the technical efficiency and exploring the inefficiency determinants of vegetable farms in Samsun province, Turkey. Agric. Syst. 2007, 94, 649–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chimai, B.C. Determinants of Technical Efficiency in Smallholder Sorghum Farming in Zambia; The Ohio State University: Columbus, OH, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Chirwa, E.W. Sources of Technical Efficiency among Smallholder Maize Farmers in Southern Malawi; African Economic Research Consortium: Nairobi, Kenya, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Javed, M.I.; Adil, S.A.; Ali, A.; Raza, M.A. Measurement of technical efficiency of rice-wheat system in Punjab, Pakistan using DEA technique. J. Agric. Res. Pak. 2010, 48, 227–238. [Google Scholar]
- Kothari, C.R. Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques, 2nd ed.; New Age International (P) Ltd.: New Delhi, India, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- International Livestock Centre for Africa (ILCA). Livestock Systems Research Manual; ILCA: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 1990; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
- Coelli, T.J.; Rao, D.S.P.; O’Donnell, C.J.; Battese, G.E. An Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis, 2nd ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Farrell, M.J. The Measurement of Productive Efficiency. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A Gen. 1957, 120, 253–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Neill, S.; Matthews, A.; Leavy, A. Farm Technical Efficiency and Extension; Trinity Economics Papers; Trinity College Dublin, Department of Economics: Dublin, Ireland, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- U.S. Department of Labor. The Department of Labor’s 2005 Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor; U.S. Department of Labor: Washington, DC, USA, 2006.
Inputs/Output Variables | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Standard Deviation |
---|---|---|---|---|
Output | ||||
Potato quantity (Bags of 100 kg) | 4 | 113 | 30.62 | 23.24 |
Inputs | ||||
Land size (ha) | 0.1 | 2.52 | 0.26 | 0.29 |
Seed Quantity (kg) | 25 | 1500 | 342.06 | 321.33 |
Potato Labor used (Man-days) | 1.875 | 23 | 9.36 | 4.68 |
Capital (Frs CFA) | 35,000 | 2,047,000 | 412,448.7 | 393,278.6 |
Fertilizer (kg) | 12.5 | 2100 | 288.17 | 367.29 |
Pesticides (Kg) | 0 | 650 | 114.18 | 122.02 |
Characteristics | Units | N | Mean | Standard Deviation | Minimum | Maximum |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Dummy variable (1 = Male, 0 = Female) | 120 | 0.65 | 0.48 | 0 | 1 |
Age of household | Year | 120 | 33.63 | 9.02 | 20 | 68 |
Education | Year | 120 | 10.63 | 4.29 | 0 | 17 |
Size of household | Person | 120 | 4.61 | 2.58 | 1 | 12 |
Farming experience | Year | 120 | 12.44 | 8.27 | 1 | 45 |
Potato experience | Year | 120 | 8.40 | 6.35 | 1 | 43 |
Extension services | Number of visits | 120 | 1.26 | 0.86 | 0 | 5 |
Membership association | Dummy variable (1 = Member, 0 = Non) | 120 | 0.23 | 0.42 | 0 | 1 |
Access to credit | Dummy variable (1 = Credit, 0 = Non) | 120 | 0.52 | 0.50 | 0 | 1 |
Variables | Coef | Standard Error | t-Statistics | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Intercept | −4.667 *** | 1.175 | −3.97 | 0.000 |
ln(land) | −0.119 ** | 0.549 | −2.17 | 0.032 |
ln(seed) | −0.023 | 0.118 | −0.2 | 0.844 |
ln(chemical fertilizer) | 0.111 | 0.773 | 1.43 | 0.155 |
ln(organic fertilizer) | 0.021 | 0.901 | 0.24 | 0.814 |
ln(pest) | −0.080 * | 0.454 | −1.76 | 0.081 |
ln(capital) | 0.187 ** | 0.096 | 1.96 | 0.052 |
Ln(labor) | 0.569 *** | 0.162 | 3.51 | 0.001 |
R-Adjusted | 0.69 | |||
Total No of Observations | 120 |
Efficiency Scores | VRS | CRS | SE |
---|---|---|---|
1 | 27 | 5 | 5 |
0.90–1.00 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
0.80–0.90 | 9 | 2 | 3 |
0.70–0.80 | 15 | 2 | 6 |
0.60–0.70 | 10 | 0 | 5 |
0.50–0.60 | 18 | 4 | 17 |
0.40–0.50 | 21 | 8 | 19 |
0.30–0.40 | 10 | 16 | 30 |
0.20–0.30 | 7 | 22 | 18 |
0.10–0.20 | 0 | 56 | 16 |
0.00–0.10 | 0 | 4 | 0 |
Total DMUs | 120 | 120 | 120 |
Minimum | 0.246 | 0.088 | 0.107 |
Maximum | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Mean | 0.663 | 0.289 | 0.443 |
Variables | VRS | |
---|---|---|
Coefficient | p-Value | |
Constant | 0.6450 *** | 0.000 |
Gender (1 = male, 0 = otherwise) | −0.0950 ** | 0.028 |
Age (Years) | 0.0120 *** | 0.000 |
Size (No of persons) | −0.0240 * | 0.067 |
Education (Years) | −81.0000 | 0.280 |
Farming Experience (Years) | 0.0200 *** | 0.000 |
Manure (Kg) | 0.0002 *** | 0.000 |
Extension Servicess (No of visits) | 0.0920 *** | 0.000 |
Receive credit (1 = Yes, 0 = otherwise) | 0.1500 *** | 0.009 |
Farmer association (1 = Yes) | −0.0754 | 0.323 |
Log likelihood | −22.8550 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Mengui, K.C.; Oh, S.; Lee, S.H. The Technical Efficiency of Smallholder Irish Potato Producers in Santa Subdivision, Cameroon. Agriculture 2019, 9, 259. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9120259
Mengui KC, Oh S, Lee SH. The Technical Efficiency of Smallholder Irish Potato Producers in Santa Subdivision, Cameroon. Agriculture. 2019; 9(12):259. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9120259
Chicago/Turabian StyleMengui, Khan Claudette, Saera Oh, and Sang Hyeon Lee. 2019. "The Technical Efficiency of Smallholder Irish Potato Producers in Santa Subdivision, Cameroon" Agriculture 9, no. 12: 259. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9120259
APA StyleMengui, K. C., Oh, S., & Lee, S. H. (2019). The Technical Efficiency of Smallholder Irish Potato Producers in Santa Subdivision, Cameroon. Agriculture, 9(12), 259. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9120259