Technical, allocative and cost efficiency
The results of the study revealed that, the mean scores of technical efficiencies of farmer were found to be 0.98 for HC group, 1 for HCBS, 0.89 for HCL, 0.80 for HCLB and 0.96 for HCLBS (Table 1). Technical efficiency among the respondents varied substantially between 0.46 to 1.00, indicating that they are not obtaining maximal output from their given quantum of inputs. This implies that the technical efficiency among the respondents can be increased by 54% through better use of available production resources, given the current state of technology. This would enable the farmer to obtain the maximum output from the given quantum of inputs and increased farm income. This was in pattern of findings with
(Bhat and Bhat, 2014). production efficiency was low due to quantities of inputs used were higher or lower than the required to achieve present level of output.
Terin et al., (2017) stated that, the lack of correct knowledge about the input uses among some producers could possibly be one of the main obstacles against the efficient input uses.
Majority of the respondents operates in allocative efficiency between of 0 to 1. The mean value of allocative efficiency of HC group was 0.60, for HCBS group was 0.92, for HCL group was 0.55, for HCLB group was 0.75 and for HCLBS group 0.63. The result showed that majority of respondents across the different production system were not allocatively efficient in the use of production resources. This can be the result of utilization of inputs in the wrong proportions at a given input prices, hence higher input costs combination reduced the returns. Furthermore, allocative efficiency among the respondents varied widely between 0.55 (HC) to 0.92 (HCBS). This implies that allocative efficiency among the respondents could be increased between 44% and 8% in the area through better utilization of resources in optimal proportion given their respective prices and given the current state of technology. This was agreed with the findings of
Pandey et al., (2022) and
Tesema (2021), overuse of fertilizer, labor force and non-farm integration in the region implies the allocative inefficiency. Allocative inefficiency, implying the inappropriateness of input mixes given their respective prices was found to be the primary cause for inefficiency
Long (2022).
The economic efficiency among the respondents varied widely ranging between 0 and 1 across the production system. The mean economic efficiency of HC group was 0.59, for HCBS group 0.92, for HCL group 0.50, for HCLB group 0.66 and HCLBS group 0.62. This result suggests that the farmers in the study area are not able to minimize the cost of production and found economically inefficient. The intimation is that overall economic efficiency among the respondents could be increased by 44% in the area through the reduction in production costs. This would occur if production were allocatively and technically efficient at the given state of technology. This agrees with the observation of
Birhanu and Yehuala (2022).
Guha et al., (2020), stated that increase use of modern inputs to get farm output increases the cost of production and reduce the farm efficiency.
As the alarming situation of climate change is taking place at global level, it is important to evaluate the efficiency estimates in different agro-climatic zones to produce agricultural crops. This work was recommended as future scope of research for sustainable development of agricultural production in the study area.
Relationship of farm efficiency with socio-economic profile
Average age group of household head in the study area was 50 and found that majority of farms are headed by middle aged farmer between 46 to 55 years (Table 2). Further the estimates shows that cost efficiency increases with the age of the farmer. This implies that aged farmers were more economically efficient in production. The fact that farming experience of household increases with the age as well as resource empowerment leads to the increase in cost efficiency. The farming experience ranged from 15 to 34 in different production system group of study area. The positive influence between the farm experience and cost efficient are observed with HCBS group and confirms agricultural experience increases the cost efficiency of study area.
The average members of household are three. Among them family labor were two. It has also been found that diversified farm had the higher family labor than the undiversified farm. This is most likely because farmers with large household sizes strive for higher output in order to meet their subsistence needs. Furthermore, a large household size necessitates a labor resource to implement farm management decisions.
Sekaran et al., (2021) stated that integrated production is profitable and sustainable when it holds a family labor as a component in the system and proves farm to be economical efficient. It was observed that the farm size of the study area had a favorable impact on technical efficiency Table 2. This implies that smaller farms are more technically effective than larger farms. The possible reason for this result is that farmers cultivating smaller land area tend to maintain land more indigenously and this to a certain extent minimizes soil fertility loss, makes them more efficient.
Table 2 reflects the yield of farms. In general yield of all the farms were higher as compared to the national average. The possible reason for considerable yield may due to minimum farm size, holding livestock and birds as component in a production system which help to cycle the farm resource Further to it farm with allied component get constant income around the year that helps to meet out timely credit requirement of farm management.
Sharma et al., (2022) given that credit availability helps to make timely farm operation. HCLBS group recorded the highest average milk yield (34.46 l/day/farm). Due to credit availability the care, management and herd size of farm is better than the other existing group. These findings were also supported by
Singh (2016). Further higher milk yield is achieved due to increased farm principal crop yield which supply the fresh and required green fodder to cattle.
The farm income varied between 0.68 lakh Rs to 2.12 lakh Rs per annum Table 2. Credit availability is positively associated with cost efficiency. Increasing farmers access to credit raises the cost-efficient level of dryland farms. Farm credit helps to diversify the agricultural system and helps to stabilize and improve farm productivity
(Kumar et al., 2015).