Irrigated Onion Production Efficiency in Humbo District, Southern Ethiopia

Figures & data

Figure 1. Map of the study area.

Table 1. Distribution of sampled onion farmers by Kebeles

S.no	Kebeles	Onion farmers	Sampled onion farmers
1	Ampo koisha	296	92
2	Bosa wanche	237	73
Total		533	165

Table 2. Description and summary of variables used in the parametric stochastic production function

Variable	Definition	Measurement	Average (SD)
Yield	Quantity of onion cultivated	Quintal (qt)/ha	71.20 (47.55)
Land	Land allocated to onion production	Hectares(ha)	0.46 (0.23)
Labor	Amount of human labor utilized for onion production	Man-day	11.75 (11.96)
Oxen	Quantity of oxen power utilized for onion production	Oxen-day	4.87 (4.78)
Fertilizer	Amount of fertilizer used in production	Kilogram (kg)	57.69 (36.16)
Chemical	The number of agrochemicals used	Liter	0.23 (0.18)
Seed	The quantity of onion seed utilized	Kilogram (kg)	0.23 (0.28)

Table 3. Description and summary of variables used in the cost function

Variable	Definition	Measurement	Average (SD)
Total cost	The cost of onion production for the i^th farmer	ETB	6372.66 (4146.42)
Cost of land	The total rental price of land	ETB/ha	42.87 (1876.87)
Cost of labor	The total wage of labor during farming	ETB/adult equivalent	1313.61(850.27)
Cost of oxen	The total value of oxen power during farming	ETB/oxen power	912.15 (597.96)
Cost of fertilizer	The total price of fertilizer	ETB/ha	811.02 (543.17)
Cost of chemical	The total price of chemical	ETB/ha	441.92 (350.89)
Cost of seed	The total price of the seed	ETB/ha	595.67 (497.05)

Table 4. Description and hypothesis of explanatory variables

S.no.	Variables	Description and measurement	Expected effect on		Previous empirical findings
			TE	EE
1	Age	Age of farmers (year).	+	+	Meftu and Jema (2016)
2	Education	Years of formal education by the household head	+	+	Tesema (2021), Wollie et al. (2018) and Debebe et al. (2015)
3	Extension contact	Frequency of extension service contact	+	+	Tesema (2021)
4	Income	Total household farm income (ETB)	+	+	Degefa et al. (2017)
5	Distance to market	A distance to the nearest market (km)	±	±	Haile (2015)
6	Distance to road	Distance to the all-weather road (km)	_	_	Tarekegn and Ayele (2020).

Table 5. Tests of Hypothesis

Hypothesis	Degree of freedom	LR	Critical value	Decision
H0 :βij =0	21	15.40	32.67	Ho not rejected
Ho: γ=0	1	12.16	3.84	Ho rejected
H0 :ui=δ1=δ2= … δ6=0	6	56.66	12.59	Ho rejected

Table 6. Statistical summary of continuous variables

Variables (n=165)	Mean (Std. Dev.)	Min	Max
Age	52 (14.99)	28	79
Education	6.04 (4.79)	0	15
Income	10631.61(6830.57)	1690	29354
Extension contact	7.82 (3.46)	1	14
Distance to the nearest market	7.86 (4.01)	0.25	15
Distance to an all-weather road	1.95 (0.86)	0.5	4

Table 7. ML estimates of the parametric SPF

Variables	ML estimates
	Coefficients	Std. Err.
Ln land	0.50***	0.06
Ln labor	0.33***	0.07
Ln oxen	0.01	0.02
Ln fertilizer	0.31***	0.05
Ln chemical	0.1***	0.04
Ln seed	0.05	0.04
constant	2.85***	0.35
Sigma (δu)	0.280***	0.04
Sigma (δv)	0.16***	0.03
Gamma (γ)	0.75
Scale value	1.29

Note: *** refers to a 1 % significance level

Table 8. The ML estimates of the dual-cost function

Variables	ML estimates
	Coefficients	Std. Err.
Ln land cost	0.29***	0.02
Ln labor cost	0.21***	0.04
Ln oxen cost	0.17***	0.04
Ln fertilizer cost	0.09***	0.03
Ln chemical cost	0.11***	0.04
Ln onion seed cost	0.06*	0.03
Ln onion output	0.04*	0.02
Constant	2.88***	0.36
Sigma (δu)	0.13***	0.02
Sigma (δv)	0.17***	0.01

Note: *** refers to a 1 % significance level

Table 9. Statistical summary of efficiency measures

Variable	Min	Max	Means (Std. Dev.)
TE	0.26	0.96	0.77(0.15)
AE	0.46	0.97	0.88 (0.07)
EE	0.21	0.91	0.68 (0.15)

Figure 2. Irrigated onion yield gaps.

Table 10. Two-limit Tobit model estimates of sources of onion production inefficiencies

Variable	Technical inefficiency		Allocative inefficiency		Economic inefficiency
	Coefficient (Std. Err.)	Delta-method (dy/dx (Std. Err.))	Coefficient (Std. Err.)	Delta-method (dy/dx (Std. Err.))	Coefficient (Std. Err.)	Delta-method (dy/dx (Std. Err.))
Age	0.003***(0.002)	0.006***(0.002)	0.009***(0.003)	0.006*** (0.002)	−0.009 *** (.003)	−0.006*** (0.002)
Education	−0. 012*(0.005)	−0.011(0.005)	−0.022**(0.011)	0.015 ** (0.008)	−.018*(0.01)	−0.012* (0.007)
Total farm income	−5.72***(2.06)	−4.5*(2.4)	−8.77 (6.55)	−6.85(6.37)	−1.41 (5.98)	−6.67(2.82)
Market distance	0. 007 (0.007)	0.006(0.007)	−0.01(0.015)	0.007 (0.011)	−0.01 (.014)	−0.007(0.009)
Extension service	0. 005 (0.005)	0.004 (0.005)	−0.013(0.011)	0.009 (0.008)	−0.012 (0.01)	0.008(0.007)
Distance to road	−0. 03 (0.037)	−0.029(0.036)	0.076(0.08)	−0.052(0.056)	−0.072 (0.073)	0.048(0.049)
Constant	0. 026 (0.127)	-	0.201**(0.272)	-	0.733***(.248)	-

Note: *, **, and ***represent statistical significance at 10, 5, and 1 %, respectively

Meftu, A. Z., & Jema, H. (2016). Economic Efficiency of Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Production: The Case of Gursum District, East Hararghe Zone. Oromia National Regional State.

 Google Scholar

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. https://doi.org/10.5897/JDAE2018.0960

 Google Scholar

Debebe, S., Haji, J., Goshu, D., & Edriss, A. K. (2015). Technical, allocative, and economic efficiency among smallholder maize farmers in Southwestern Ethiopia: Parametric approach. Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics, 7(8), 282–291. https://doi.org/10.5897/JDAE2015.0652

 Google Scholar

Degefa, K., Jaleta, M., & Legesse, B. (2017). Economic efficiency of smallholder farmers in maize production in Bako Tibe district, Ethiopia. Developing Country Studies, 7(2), 80–86.

 Google Scholar

Tarekegn, K., & Ayele, A. (2020). Impact of improved beehives technology adoption on honey production efficiency: Empirical evidence from Southern Ethiopia. Agriculture and Food Security, 9(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-020-00258-6

 Google Scholar