2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2005.03.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessing the effects of managerial and production practices on the efficiency of commercial pig farming

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
103
1
4

Year Published

2007
2007
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 125 publications
(119 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
4
103
1
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Regional differences in farm performance are a common finding (Barnes et al 2011, European Commission 2011, Galanopoulos et al 2006, Hadley 2006, Kumbhakar and Lien 2010, McCloud and Kumbhakar 2008, Sipiläinen et al 2008, Wang et al 2012. For Swedish farms specialising in beef production, differences in farm economic performance arising from differing regional and agro-environmental potential have been found to be relatively well compensated by the subsidy support provided for the period 1998).…”
Section: Regional Factor Endowmentsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Regional differences in farm performance are a common finding (Barnes et al 2011, European Commission 2011, Galanopoulos et al 2006, Hadley 2006, Kumbhakar and Lien 2010, McCloud and Kumbhakar 2008, Sipiläinen et al 2008, Wang et al 2012. For Swedish farms specialising in beef production, differences in farm economic performance arising from differing regional and agro-environmental potential have been found to be relatively well compensated by the subsidy support provided for the period 1998).…”
Section: Regional Factor Endowmentsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“… The aggregation of individual outputs (or inputs) into a single value dimension using price information changes the nature of assessment from the measurement of technical efficiency of units to the measurement of their allocative efficiency (Thomas and Tauer, 1994;Galanopoulos et al 2006). The latter is theoretically generally lower than the former (Cooper et al, 2007).…”
Section: Removal Of Outliers and Clusteringmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In some agricultural applications of productivity analysis, including DEA, only the most common and important farm outputs are included in the model, such as rice in Ray and Bhadra (1993), pork products (Galanopoulos et al 2006), and cereals and oilseed in Luik et al (2009). A potential problem with this approach is that, if farms produce other outputs in any significant quantities, they will not be able to justify their resources within the technology in which such outputs are omitted, and this approach would favour the farms that produce only the outputs specified in the model.…”
Section: Removal Of Outliers and Clusteringmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The differential values between raw and sediment tank are the output data, while the input data include investment in wastewater control equipment, operation and maintenance costs, and work hours for operating. Galanopoulos et al [9] indicated that if inputs can be shared by per head of sow, then the DRS of control equipment in a small farm may be reasonably explained. Hence the input data in this study have been expressed as per head of sow.…”
Section: Datamentioning
confidence: 99%