Type | Journal Article - World Rural Observation |
Title | Efficiency Differentials of Government and Non-government Assisted Rice Farms: A case study of Kwara State, Nigeria |
Author(s) | |
Volume | 4 |
Issue | 3 |
Publication (Day/Month/Year) | 2008 |
Page numbers | 2-3 |
URL | https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Opeyemi_Ayinde2/publication/263164411_Efficiency_Differential_of_Government_and_Non_Government_Assisted_Rice_Farms_A_Case_Study_of_Kwara_State_Nigeria/links/0f31753a13a521ff88000000.pdf |
Abstract | This study analysis the technical efficiency differential of government and non government assisted rice farms in the Duku River Basin of Patigi Local Government Area of Kwara State, Nigeria. It also identified the socio-econmic factors, which affect the efficiency. The Net Farm Income per hectare of land cultivated was calculated as profitable for the two farm sites. The project site, with gross margin of N9, 376.35 is more profitable when compared to the non-project site with a gross margin of N29, 515.35. The rate of returns to rice production at the project and non-project sites was estimated at 93.3% respectively, which indicated that for every N1 invested in each of the sites N0.93k and N0.31 was expected as profit respectively. These technical efficiencies were estimated using the Cobb-Douglas Stochastic Frontier Production Function. The result indicates that technical inefficiency is present and is a mean function of farming specific variables. The mean Technical efficiency of the projects sites (Rice Farm) is estimated as 0.98 while that of non-project site is 0.80. There was a significant difference between the mean T.E. for the two farms. The higher efficiency estimate obtained for the rice farms at the project site can be attributed to the government assistance to the farmers in the form of input/output linkages. It is therefore justifies institutional support and that all kinds of institutional support should be encourage if rice production are to be improved in the study areas |
» | Nigeria - Population and Housing Census 2006 |