4.3. Study III: Evaluation of Energy Efficiency and Optimum Energy Requirement
4.3.2. Energy Efficiency of Edible Canna Farms under Different Farm size
Chemical fertilizers and seed accounted for a major energy input in edible canna production, with 71.52%, 75.37%, and 81.14% for small, medium, and large farm size, respectively. In addition, on average, small farms had the highest energy output equivalent (5794.83 MJ acre-1) while the energy output, was produced by medium and large farms, were 3192.87 MJ acre-1 and 2640.94 MJ acre-1, respectively.
The results of the analysis of energy ratio, energy productivity, specific energy and net energy of edible canna farms in Backan province by different farm categories were presented in Table 4.20.
The findings indicated that there was a significant difference in the amount of energy input, output and net energy among edible canna farm groups at 1 % level. Small farms had the highest net energy (4892.37 MJ acre-1) and the lowest quantity was for large one (2121.75 MJ acre-1). This may be that small edible canna farms could produce a higher energy output per energy input unit compared to other groups.
Furthermore, the ratio of energy was the highest for small groups (7.27), followed by medium ones (7.19) and 6.25 for large ones. The finding was consistent with the statement of Nassiri and Singh (2009). According to the findings of Nassiri and Singh (2009), the energy ratio of small farms was the highest (9.0). It was followed by marginal farms (7.7), and semi-medium farms (6.7), and the lowest were for medium and large ones (5.8, and 5.3, respectively). However, the specific energy of small farms, which was the ratio of energy input and output produced, was found to be lower than that of other groups.
92
Table 4.19. The amount of energy inputs and output used in edible canna production by different farm size Input and output Small farm size
(<9.0 acres; n=261)
Medium farm size (9.0-15.0 acres; n=29)
Large farm size (>15.0 acres; n= 56) Quantity
(Unit/acre)
Energy equivalent (MJ acre-1)
Quantity (Unit/acre)
Energy equivalent (MJ acre-1)
Quantity (Unit/acre)
Energy equivalent (MJ acre-1) Inputs
Human labor (h) 131.16 257.07 63.09 123.66 49.95 97.90
Fertilizer (kg) Nitrogen Phosphate
3.43 5.53
227.09 68.84
2.04 2.62
134.60 32.58
3.15 2.73
208.29 34.00
Seed (kg) 85.86 349.46 51.90 211.24 43.98 179.00
Total - 902.45 - 502.07 - 519.19
Output
Edible canna tuber (kg) 1423.79 5794.83 784.49 3192.87 648.88 2640.94
93
Table 4.20. The ratio of energy inputs and output in edible canna production under different farm size
Indicators Unit Small farm size (<9.0 acres; n=261)
Medium farm size (9.0-15.0 acres; n=29)
Large farm size (>15.0 acres; n= 56) Energy input MJ/acre 902.45a 502.07c 519.19b Energy output MJ/acre 5794.83a 3192.87b 2640.94c
Energy-ratio - 7.27a 7.19a 6.25a
Energy productivity
Kg/MJ 1.79a 1.77a 1.54a
Specific energy MJ/kg 0.77a 0.80a 0.81a
Net energy MJ/acre 4892.37a 2690.80b 2121.75c Note: a,b,c indicates that means followed by the different letters in the same row are significant at 5% level.
The frequency distribution of technical and pure technical of edible canna farms under farm categories was presented in Table 4.21.
The results of the DEA-CCR model showed that large farms had the highest technical efficiency (0.714), followed by medium ones (0.540) and the lowest technical efficiency for small ones (0.500). In other words, to improve the current efficiency, large farms need to reduce 28.6% of energy input usage while the reduction rates for medium and small farms were higher, with 46.0%
and 50.0 %, respectively. The results of the one-way ANOVA test indicated that the average technical efficiency of farm groups was significantly different at 5%
level.
In addition, under BCC model, the average pure technical efficient score of large farms found to be higher than that of medium and small ones. The pure technical efficiency scores of large, medium and small farms were 0.820, 0.785,
94
and 0.603, respectively. The ANOVA test revealed that the difference between pure technical efficiency scores among groups was significant at 5% level.
Table 4.21. Frequency distribution of efficiency scores of edible canna farms under different farm size
Iterms TE (CCR model)
Small farm size (<9.0 acres;
n=261)
Medium farm size (9.0-15.0 acres; n=29)
Large farm size (>15.0 acres; n= 56)
Total
Efficient farms
9 4 12 25
Inefficient farms
252 25 44 321
>0.9 7 1 5 13
0.8-0.9 12 1 5 18
0.7-0.8 13 1 7 21
0.6-0.7 28 4 8 40
0.5-0.6 52 1 6 59
<0.5 140 17 13 170
Mean 0.500c 0.540b 0.714a -
PTE (BCC model) Efficient
farms
24 7 24 55
Inefficient farms
237 22 32 291
>0.9 15 3 4 22
0.8-0.9 10 4 6 20
0.7-0.8 25 4 6 35
0.6-0.7 35 4 3 42
0.5-0.6 54 6 6 66
<0.5 98 1 7 106
Mean 0.603c 0.785b 0.820a -
Note: a,b,c indicates that means followed by the different letters in the same row are significant (p<0.05).
95
Based on the results of the input-oriented BCC model, the energy input target and saving energy quantity were computed and represented in Table 4.22.
The findings revealed that there was a significant difference in the total optimum energy requirement among farm groups at 5 % level.
96
Table 4.22. The energy target and saving energy for edible canna production in different farm size
Iterms Inputs Small farm size
(<9.0 acres; n=261)
Medium farm size (9.0-15.0 acres; n=29)
Large farm size (>15.0 acres; n= 56) Optimum energy input
(MJ/acre)
Human labor 140.41a 86.34b 75.78bc
Fertilizer Nitrogen Phosphate
49.60bc 20.10a
77.51b 15.35a
126.18a 19.57a
Seed 181.65b 118.48c 128.78ac
Total 392.76a 297.68b 350.31a
Saving energy (MJ/acre) Human labor 116.66a 37.32b 22.12bc
Fertilizer Nitrogen Phosphate
177.49a 47.74a
57.09b 17.23b
82.11bc 14.43bc
Seed 167.81a 92.77ab 50.22b
Total 509.70a 204.41bc 168.88c
Contribute to the total saving energy (%)
Human labor 22.89 18.26 13.10
Fertilizer + Nitrogen + Phosphate
34.82 9.37
27.93 8.43
48.62 8.54
Seed 32.92 45.38 29.74
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00
Note: a,b,c indicates that means followed by the different lower case letters in the same row are significant (p<0.05).
97
The total optimum energy requirement of small edible canna farms was the highest (392.76 MJ acre-1), followed by large farms group (350.31 MJ acre-1) and the lowest optimum energy input target for the medium group (297.68 MJ acre-1).
Moreover, the total saving energy of small farms was found to be 509.70 MJ acre-1 (56.48% of total energy input) compared to 204.41 MJ acre-1 (40.71%
of total energy input) and 168.88 MJ acre-1 (32.53% of total energy input) for medium and large farms, respectively. The findings also indicated that the majority quantity of energy-saving of farm categories was from chemical fertilizer input which included nitrogen and phosphate. The reason may be that farmers did not have fully aware of using chemical fertilizer in edible canna production. Therefore, training activities to increase the awareness of farmers in using chemical fertilizers play a vital role in reducing the loss of energy input as well as the harmful effects of edible canna production on the natural environment. The findings were confirmed by the study of Mohammadi et al.
(2011).
4.3.3. Summary of study III
In this study, the technical efficiency and energy ratio of edible canna farms in Backan province were evaluated by using DEA approach. Firstly, under different regions, the findings showed that there was a significant difference in using energy input of edible canna farms in Nari and Babe district. The total energy consumption of farmers in Nari district was found to be higher than that in Babe district. However, energy ratio, energy productivity and net energy of farms in Nari district found to be higher than other counterparts in Babe district.
The results of DEA under CCR and BCC model indicated that the technical and pure technical efficiency of farms were low for both districts. Therefore, if farms operate efficiently, overall 461.39 MJ acre-1 and 341.45 MJ acre-1 would be saved in edible canna production in Nari and Babe district, respectively.
98
Secondly, under different farm categories, the results revealed that energy indicators, including total energy input and output, energy ratio, energy productivity and net energy of small farm sizes, were higher than that of other groups. However, the technical and pure technical efficiency of small farms was the lowest as compared to other farm size groups due to the high energy loss rate.
It can be concluded that the efficiency of energy input consumption in the edible canna production in Backan province was not high. This leads to a bad impact on the natural environment. Therefore, to improve energy efficiency, the policy designers should provide policies focusing on raising awareness of farmers in using chemical fertilizer input. Furthermore, high technology should be also encouraged in edible canna production to decrease using bad inputs while the output quantity keeps constant. In other words, the policies of the government which are focused on developing the extension services are needed to improve the efficient level as well as reduce the effects of edible canna production to the environment in Backan province.
99 Chapter 5