2012
DOI: 10.1016/s2212-5671(12)00021-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Impact of Mechanization on Technical Efficiency: A Case Study of Rice Farmers in Iran

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4

Citation Types

2
16
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
2
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The study concluded that agricultural cooperatives enhance members' efficiency by easing access to productive inputs and facilitating extension linkages. Hormozi et al (2012) also adopted the maximum likelihood estimation method to evaluate the impact of mechanization inputs and cultivation systems on the productivity and technical efficiency of rice production in the Khuzestan province in the southwestern part of Iran. They established a great variation in the levels of efficiency, which ranged from 0.15 to 0.99 with a mean of 0.67.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The study concluded that agricultural cooperatives enhance members' efficiency by easing access to productive inputs and facilitating extension linkages. Hormozi et al (2012) also adopted the maximum likelihood estimation method to evaluate the impact of mechanization inputs and cultivation systems on the productivity and technical efficiency of rice production in the Khuzestan province in the southwestern part of Iran. They established a great variation in the levels of efficiency, which ranged from 0.15 to 0.99 with a mean of 0.67.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The food consumption pattern of people in Iran shows that Iranians consume an average of 100 g of rice per day [7]. Rice is the second most popular and favorite food in Iran after bread.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In India, mechanized planting method increased the field capacity by 66.70%, field yield by 22.36%, seed sowing by 20.00%, grain yield by 16.76%, feed yield by 19.14%, saved work time by 66.40% and reduced the cost by 44.70% (Khobragade et al, 2011;Narang et al, 2016). However, in Turkey, it is not possible to come across the comparison of the production techniques and equipment used at different stages with the classical works done with manpower (Ürgenç, 1998;Hormozi et al, 2012). In fact, the same situation applies…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%