IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i10p4271-d361784.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technical Efficiencies and Yield Variability Are Comparable Across Organic and Conventional Farms

Author

Listed:
  • Amritbir Riar

    (Department of International Cooperation, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Ackerstrasse 113, CH-5070 Frick, Switzerland)

  • Lokendra S. Mandloi

    (bioRe Research, bioRe Association India, Kasrawad 451228, India)

  • Ramadas Sendhil

    (ICAR-Indian Institute of Wheat and Barley Research (IIWBR), P.O. Box-158, Agrasain Marg, Karnal 132001, India)

  • Randhir S. Poswal

    (Division of Agricultural Extension, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare), Krishi Anusandhan Bhawan-1, Pusa, New-Delhi 110012, India)

  • Monika M. Messmer

    (Department of Crop Sciences, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Ackerstrasse 113, CH-5070 Frick, Switzerland)

  • Gurbir S. Bhullar

    (Department of International Cooperation, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Ackerstrasse 113, CH-5070 Frick, Switzerland)

Abstract

Cotton is essentially a smallholder crop across tropical countries. Being a major cash crop, it plays a decisive role in the livelihoods of cotton-producing farmers. Both conventional and organic production systems offer alternative yet interesting propositions to cotton farmers. This study was conducted in Nimar valley, a prominent cotton-producing region of central India, with the aim of categorically evaluating the contribution of management and fixed factors to productivity on conventional and organic cotton farms. A study framework was developed considering the fixed factors, which cannot be altered within reasonable limits of time, capacity and resources, e.g., landholding or years of age and/or practice; and management factors, which can be altered/influenced within a reasonable time by training, practice and implementation. Using this framework, a structured survey of conventional and organic farms operating under comparable circumstances was conducted. Landholding and soil types were significant contributors/predictors of yield on organic farms. In contrast, landholding was not the main factor related to yields on conventional farms, which produced the highest yields when led by farmers with more than five years of formal education and living in a joint family. Nitrogen application, the source of irrigation (related to timely and adequate supply), crop rotation and variables related to adequate plant population (seed source, germination rate and plant thinning) were the main management factors limiting cotton yields among conventional and organic farms. Both organic and conventional farms in the Nimar valley exhibited a similar pattern of variation in cotton yields and technical efficiency. This study highlights the enormous scope for improving cotton productivity in the region by improving technical efficiency, strengthening extension services and making appropriate policy interventions.

Suggested Citation

  • Amritbir Riar & Lokendra S. Mandloi & Ramadas Sendhil & Randhir S. Poswal & Monika M. Messmer & Gurbir S. Bhullar, 2020. "Technical Efficiencies and Yield Variability Are Comparable Across Organic and Conventional Farms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-12, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:10:p:4271-:d:361784
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/10/4271/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/10/4271/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Coventry, D.R. & Poswal, R.S. & Yadav, Ashok & Riar, Amritbir Singh & Zhou, Yi & Kumar, Anuj & Chand, Ramesh & Chhokar, R.S. & Sharma, R.K. & Yadav, V.K. & Gupta, R.K. & Mehta, Anil & Cummins, J.A., 2015. "A comparison of farming practices and performance for wheat production in Haryana, India," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 139-153.
    2. Charnes, A. & Cooper, W. W. & Rhodes, E., 1978. "Measuring the efficiency of decision making units," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 2(6), pages 429-444, November.
    3. Harun Cicek & Gurbir S. Bhullar & Lokendra S. Mandloi & Christian Andres & Amritbir S. Riar, 2020. "Partial Acidulation of Rock Phosphate for Increased Productivity in Organic and Smallholder Farming," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-13, January.
    4. Seraina Vonzun & Monika M. Messmer & Thomas Boller & Yogendra Shrivas & Shreekant S. Patil & Amritbir Riar, 2019. "Extent of Bollworm and Sucking Pest Damage on Modern and Traditional Cotton Species and Potential for Breeding in Organic Cotton," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-12, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shradha S. Aherkar & Surendra B. Deshmukh & Nitin. M. Konde & Aadinath N. Paslawar & Tanay Joshi & Monika M. Messmer & Amritbir Riar, 2023. "Studies on Morphophysiological and Biochemical Parameters for Sucking Pest Tolerance in Organic Cotton," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Franz R. Hahn, 2007. "Determinants of Bank Efficiency in Europe. Assessing Bank Performance Across Markets," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 31499, February.
    2. repec:lan:wpaper:1115 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Azarnoosh Kafi & Behrouz Daneshian & Mohsen Rostamy-Malkhalifeh, 2021. "Forecasting the confidence interval of efficiency in fuzzy DEA," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 31(1), pages 41-59.
    4. Costa, Marcelo Azevedo & Lopes, Ana Lúcia Miranda & de Pinho Matos, Giordano Bruno Braz, 2015. "Statistical evaluation of Data Envelopment Analysis versus COLS Cobb–Douglas benchmarking models for the 2011 Brazilian tariff revision," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 47-60.
    5. Kristiaan Kerstens & Ignace Van de Woestyne, 2018. "Enumeration algorithms for FDH directional distance functions under different returns to scale assumptions," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 271(2), pages 1067-1078, December.
    6. Ahmad, Usman, 2011. "Financial Reforms and Banking Efficiency: Case of Pakistan," MPRA Paper 34220, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Bowlin, W. F., 1995. "A characterization of the financial condition of the United States' aerospace-defense industrial base," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 539-555, October.
    8. Büschken, Joachim, 2009. "When does data envelopment analysis outperform a naïve efficiency measurement model?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 192(2), pages 647-657, January.
    9. Helmi Hammami & Thanh Ngo & David Tripe & Dinh-Tri Vo, 2022. "Ranking with a Euclidean common set of weights in data envelopment analysis: with application to the Eurozone banking sector," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 311(2), pages 675-694, April.
    10. Khanal, Aditya & Koirala, Krishna & Regmi, Madhav, 2016. "Do Financial Constraints Affect Production Efficiency in Drought Prone Areas? A Case from Indonesian Rice Growers," 2016 Annual Meeting, February 6-9, 2016, San Antonio, Texas 230087, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    11. Jahangoshai Rezaee, Mustafa & Jozmaleki, Mehrdad & Valipour, Mahsa, 2018. "Integrating dynamic fuzzy C-means, data envelopment analysis and artificial neural network to online prediction performance of companies in stock exchange," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 489(C), pages 78-93.
    12. Vuciterna, Rina & Thomsen, Michael & Popp, Jennie & Musliu, Arben, 2017. "Efficiency and Competitiveness of Kosovo Raspberry Producers," 2017 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2017, Mobile, Alabama 252770, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    13. Bogetoft, Peter & Nielsen, Kurt, 2003. "Yardstick Based Procurement Design In Natural Resource Management," 2003 Annual Meeting, August 16-22, 2003, Durban, South Africa 25910, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Singer, Marcos & Donoso, Patricio & Poblete, Francisco, 2002. "Semi-autonomous planning using linear programming in the Chilean General Treasury," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(2), pages 517-529, July.
    15. Chai, Naijie & Zhou, Wenliang & Hu, Xinlei, 2022. "Safety evaluation of urban rail transit operation considering uncertainty and risk preference: A case study in China," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 267-288.
    16. Fang, Lei, 2022. "Measuring and decomposing group performance under centralized management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(3), pages 1006-1013.
    17. Chih-HAI YANG & Leah WU & Hui-Lin LIN, 2010. "Analysis of total-factor cultivated land efficiency in China's agriculture," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 56(5), pages 231-242.
    18. Jinyi Hu, 2023. "Linguistic Multiple-Attribute Decision Making Based on Regret Theory and Minimax-DEA," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-14, October.
    19. António Afonso & José Alves, 2023. "Are fiscal consolidation episodes helpful for public sector efficiency?," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(31), pages 3547-3560, July.
    20. Chen, Yufeng & Ni, Liangfu & Liu, Kelong, 2021. "Does China's new energy vehicle industry innovate efficiently? A three-stage dynamic network slacks-based measure approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    21. Pishchulov, Grigory & Trautrims, Alexander & Chesney, Thomas & Gold, Stefan & Schwab, Leila, 2019. "The Voting Analytic Hierarchy Process revisited: A revised method with application to sustainable supplier selection," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 166-179.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:10:p:4271-:d:361784. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.