Comparative analysis of technical efficiency of catfish farms using different technologies in Lagos State, Nigeria: A Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) approach

被引:23
作者
Oluwatayo I.B. [1 ]
Adedeji T.A. [2 ]
机构
[1] University of Limpopo, Department of Agricultural Economics and Animal Production, Mankweng
[2] University of Ibadan, Department of Agricultural Economics, Ibadan
关键词
Catfish production; Construction designs; DEA; Lagos State; Technical efficiency;
D O I
10.1186/s40066-019-0252-2
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Background: There is no gainsaying the fact that demand for proteins has continuously outweighed supply in Nigeria. This is largely due to the rising population on one part and the low level of technology to cope with changing production practices specifically in the fishery sub-sector and agricultural production in general on the other part. The resultant effect of this is the widening demand and supply gap which often culminate in farmers devising different technologies or approaches to mediate the shortfall. This study therefore examined comparative analysis of technical efficiency among catfish producers using different construction designs in Lagos State, Nigeria. A sample consisting of 43 earthen catfish producers, 33 cage culture and 37 plastics tank was selected from three agricultural zones in the state. Data collected were analysed using descriptive statistics, budgetary and profitability analysis, regression analysis and Data Envelopment Analysis approach. Results and main findings: Overall average technical efficiency estimates obtained under the Variable Returns to Scale (VRS) and Constant Returns to Scale (CRS) specification for earthen catfish producers were 0.92 and 0.73, respectively. The overall average technical efficiency estimates for VRS and CRS specification under cage culture catfish producers were 0.92 and 0.79, respectively, and overall mean estimates obtained for VRS and CRS specification under plastic tank catfish producers were 0.95 and 0.69, respectively. However, for CRS under earthen pond, two variables, sex and age of farmer with t values of - 2.10 and 1.82, were equally significant. Again, for CRS under cage culture, two variables were significant, and these were years of formal education and primary occupation with t values of - 2.09 and 2.16. Under CRS for plastic tank, two variables-age and religion with t values of 2.04 and 1.99-were significant at 5 and 10%, respectively. Conclusions: The study concludes that the most efficient and profitable construction designs among earthen, cage culture and plastic tank are the earthen pond. This is because of its cost-effectiveness in terms of design and management as well as the limited impact on the environment. As indicated, years of formal education were significant in all the designs revealing that education plays a pivotal role in efficiency. The implication of the findings is that famers should be better educated on the dangers inherent in polluting water bodies to avoid contamination (since the earthen pond is the most efficient) to enhance catfish production if the much desired production increase is to be sustained. © 2019 The Author(s).
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 31 条
[1]  
Adeniyi J.P., Fish consumption in Nigeria implications for fishery development policies M.Sc, thesis submitted to Department of Agriculture Economics and Farm Management, University of Ilorin. FAO, (2004)
[2]  
Agbo A.D., Bridging the fish demand, supply gap in Nigeria, Daily Trust, (2015)
[3]  
Ajao A.O., Determinants of technical efficiency differentials among concrete and Earthen pond operators in Oyo State-Nigeria, Br J Arts Soc Sci., 4, 2, pp. 23-36, (2012)
[4]  
Banker R., Charnes D., Cooper W.W., Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis, Manag Sci., 30, 9, pp. 1078-1092, (1984)
[5]  
Battese G.E., Coelli T.G., A model for technical inefficiency effect in stochastic frontier production for panel data, Empir Econ., 20, (1995)
[6]  
Battese G.E., Frontier production functions and technical efficiency: a survey of empirical applications in agricultural economics, Agric Econ., 7, pp. 185-208, (1992)
[7]  
Bravo-ureta B.E., Pinheiro A.E., Technical, economic, and allocative efficiency in peasant farming: evidence from the Dominican Republic, Dev Econ, 35, 1, pp. 48-67, (1997)
[8]  
Agricultural credit guarantee scheme fund, Annual report and statement of accounts, (2004)
[9]  
Charnes A., Cooper W.W., Rhodes E., Measuring efficiency of decision making units, Eur J Oper Res., 2, pp. 429-444, (1978)
[10]  
Coelli T.G., Rao D.S.P., Battese G., An introduction to efficiency and productivity analysis, (1998)