Technical Efficiency, Technological Change and Output Growth of Wheat Farms in Saskatchewan

Abstract

This paper utilizes recent advances in stochastic decomposition methodology to examine the level and the driving forces of technical efficiency for an unbalanced panel data set of 100 wheat farms in Saskatchewan during the period 1987-95. The contributions of resource use and total factor productivity to the output growth of these farms are also investigated. The analysis indicates moderate levels of technical efficiency and a considerable variation of efficiency ratings among Saskatchewan farms. The ownership status, composition of labor employed, participation in crop insurance and government income transfer programs, participation in Top Management Workshops, degree of specialization, level of intensification and mechanization of production, type of land used, and the farm debts account for differences in efficiency across wheat farms. Even though the productive efficiency of the farms has been increasing over time, the results show that technological progress was the main source of productivity and output growth during the study period.L'analyse que voici fait appel aux plus récentes améliorations apportées à la méthode de décomposition stochastique pour déterminer le degré d'efficacité technique et les motivations d'un groupe non pondéré de 100 producteurs de blé de la Saskatchewan entre 1987 et 1995. Les auteurs ont aussi déterminé dans quelle mesure l'exploitation des ressources et la productivité totale des facteurs affectent la croissance de la production dans les exploitations concernées. L'analyse révèle un degré moyen d'efficacité technique et une variation considérable du rendement chez les agriculteurs de la Saskatchewan. La variation du rendement s'explique par divers facteurs comme le type de propriété, la composition de la main-d'oeuvre, l'inscription aux programmes gouvernementaux d'assurance récolte et de transfert du revenu, la participation à des ateliers de gestion, le degré de spécialisation, le niveau d'industrialisation et de mécanisation de la production, le genre de terres cultivées et la dette de l'exploitant. Même si la productivité des fermes a augmenté au fil des ans, les résultats indiquent que le progrès de la technologie demeure la principale source d'une croissance du rendement et de la production durant la période à l'étude.

Technical efficiency of smallholder barley farmers: The case of Welmera district, Central Oromia, Ethiopia

“…Cost of fertilizers or investment on fertilizers was found to be negatively affecting technical inefficiency of barley farmers at less than 1% significance level, indicating investing more in fertilizers will improve barley productivity. Giannakas et al (2001) reported similar results.…”

Participation in Organizations, Technical Efficiency and Territorial Differences: A Study of Small Wheat Farmers in Chile

“…Other results indicate the existence of a positive relation between technical efficiency levels and the degree of specialization in the activity (Giannakas et al, 2001). Due to the fact that wheat is a homogenous crop in terms of its attributes, the economic efficiency could be reached when economies of scale are achieved.…”

“…Similarly, Tian and Wan (2000) analyzed the determinants of technical efficiency associated to rice, wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and maize (Zea mays L.) production in China, finding evidence of a positive relation between education and efficiency in the case of wheat and maize and a direct relation with farm size and the adoption of a multiple crop system in the case of rice production. More information on wheat crop efficiency can be found in Battese et al (1993), Battese and Broca (1997), Giannakas et al (2001) and Ahmad et al (2002).…”

Competitiveness, Productivity and Efficiency in the Agricultural and Agri-Food Sectors

“…Rezitis et al, 2003;Emvalomatis et al, 2008), or the share of farm income stemming from government support (e.g. Giannakas et al, 2001), or a ratio relating the amount of subsidies to the level of output or gross margin in order to avoid size effects (e.g. Hadley, 2006;Zhu et al, 2008a andBojnec and Latruffe, 2009;Fogarasi and Latruffe, 2009;Bakucs et al, 2010).…”