An#Assessment#of#Allocative#Efficiency#of!Organic(Mango(Farms( in"northern"ghana*

Transcription

1 Archeves*of*Busness*Research* *Vol.3,*No.2* Publcaton*Date:Aprl25,2015 DOI: /abr Daad,B.E.,Issahaku,G.,&Amkuzuno,J.(2015).AnAssesssmentofAllocatveEffcencyofOrgancMangoFarmsn NorthernGhana.Archves)of)Busness)Research,)3(2),114M124. An#Assessment#of#Allocatve#Effcency#ofOrganc(Mango(Farms( n"northern"ghana* Bunbom*Edward*Daad* DepartmentofClmateChangeandFoodSecurty, FacultyofAgrbusnessandCommuncatonScences UnverstyforDevelopmentStudes,Tamale,Ghana Gazal*Issahaku* DepartmentofClmateChangeandFoodSecurty, FacultyofAgrbusnessandCommuncatonScences UnverstyforDevelopmentStudes,Tamale,Ghana *Joseph*Amkuzuno* DepartmentofClmateChangeandFoodSecurty, FacultyofAgrbusnessandCommuncatonScences UnverstyforDevelopmentStudes,TamaleGhana Abstract* Despte* numerous* government* nterventons,* ncreasng* agrcultural* productvty* to* ensure* food* securty* stll* remans* a* challenge* facng* Ghana s* agrculture,* whch* s* largely* conventonal,* but* has* a* growng* organc* producton* and* nche* market.* Snce* 2001,* the* Integrated* Tamale* Frut* Company*has*been*assstng*Northern*Ghana s*htherto*subsstence*farmers*to* cultvate*organc*mango*through*an*outtgrower*scheme*amed*at*boostng*the* productvty* and* market* access,* and* reducng* the* producton* cost* of* farms* n* the* scheme.* Anecdotally,* the* lvelhood* of* organc* mango* farmers* does* not* seem* to* have* mproved,* despte* sgnfcant* ncreases* n* the* performance* of* partcpatng* farms.* Ths* study* provdes* emprcal* evdence* on* the* actual* economc* performance* of* organc* mango* farmers* n* Northern* Ghana* and* establshes*the*mplcatons*of*ths*for*lvelhood*and*empowerment*n*organc* mango* farm* household* by* estmatng* nputtuse* effcency.* By* fttng* a* tranlog* average*response*producton*functon*to*data*from*204*organc*mango*farms,* we* obtaned* nputtuse* effcency* ratos* of* 1.83* and* 1.91* for* weedng* expendture*ncurred*by*group*and*famly*outtgrowers*respectvely,*and*ratos* of* 0.24* and* 0.11* for* organc* pestcdes.* The* results* suggest* that* to* mprove* ther* lvelhood,* farmers* need* to* ncrease* ther* nvestment* n* weedng* and* reduce*that*of*pestcdes*use.* * Keywords:* Farm ncomes, Integrated Tamale Frut Company, Input<Use Effcency, OrgancMango,Out<Growers * INTRODUCTION* A hstorcal revew of the food nsecurty stuaton n Ghana from the colonal era clearly ndcates that the phenomenon s more prevalent and endemc n Northern than Southern Ghana because of a lag n the evoluton of yeld<enhancng agrcultural producton and commercalzaton technologes(hanson, Y. 2013). Food supply systems get so stressed that physcaland/orfnancalaccesstoadequateandqualtyfoodsoftenlmted,especallynthe Copyrght SocetyforScenceandEducaton,UntedKngdom 114

2 ArchvesofBusnessResearch(ABR) Vol.3,Issue2,Aprl<2015 off<farm season. The seasonal food nsecurty usually render about 10<13% of Northern Ghana s populaton food<unsecured (UN, 2012). Ironcally farm households, especal those whodonotgrowcashcropsareusuallytheworseaffected.thusncreasngsmallholderfarm household ncome became the target of agrcultural reform polces, partcularly Food and AgrcultureSectorDevelopmentPolcy(FASDEP),forthearea. Whch cash crop to promote became an ssue that had to be addressed because the two popularcashcrops(cottonandcashew) grown n the area are facng setbacks due to fallng prcenthenternatonalmarket.mangobecametheobvouschoceyetchallengestomarket access had to be addressed to make producton proftable for farmers. Producton of mango, lkeanyothercropslargelyconventonalnthenorthernregonofghanahavngverylmted local market demand for current supply volume of 40,000tons/annum(Zakar,2012 and Pay, 2009). There s however a growng nche market nternatonally (Pay, 2009; Obeng and Oehmke, 2012) demandng more of organcally produced mangoes whch attract hgh premumprces.accessngthsnternatonalmarketscrtcalforfarmerstogetgoodreturns onthernvestmentbutthatrequresthembengpartofasupplychanthatsabletotakeall ther produce from farm gate to the nternatonal consumer markets. Thus, farmers n the NorthernRegonneededtoorganzethemselvesntoproducerbased<groupsnordertoadopt organctechnology,produceexportableorgancmangoesandsupplytotheonlynternatonal marketvaluechanbengpromotedbyintegratedtamalefrutcompany(itfc)nthearea. Adoptng organc technology n producng mango as an alternatve lvelhood may be questonedbytscrtcswhothnktcannotbecarredoutonlargescale,turnsoutloweryeld thanconventonalandthereforebecomesathreattoglobalfoodsecurty.however,whatthe crtcsarefalngtoacknowledgesthatnumerousresearchfndngs(varughese,2009;delate and Cambardella, 2004, FAO 2003, FAO, 2000 and Drnkwater, Wagoner and Sarrantono, 1998) have refuted all these clams. Organc agrculture has proven greater yeld potentals undersomenormalcondtonsandsuperorunderalladverseweathercondtons. Contrary to crtcs vew, organc farms do not need scale<up before mpactng world food supply because 70% of world food supply comes from small holder farmer. In addton, for many small<scale farmers, the purchase of chemcal fertlzers and pestcdes (nputs n conventonalagrculture)sconstranedbythehghcosts,relatvetooutputprces,orsmply by ther unavalablty. Also the farmers, especally n developng countres lke Ghana, who buy pestcdes face envronmental and health hazards because they lack the capacty to use themproperlyornformatononsafeusethesechemcalsssmplynotavalable.furthermore, thosewhobuysuchnputsoftendosobycredt,whchcanpushthemntoacycleofdebtand dependency, especally f ther harvests fal. Ths rsk s further ncreased because of ever ncreasngolprceswhchaffectconventonalagrculturalnputprcesdrectlyandndrectly. Hence,snceorgancfarmngassuresncreasedproductvty,sustanablty,costeffectveness andcanconvenentlybepractcedbythosewhosupplymorethan2/3ofworlds foodneeds, tsadoptonbysuchfarmerssabetteralternatvetoaddressngfoodsecurtychallengeseven underadverseweathercondtonsnducedbyclmatechange. Though nternatonal market access s the motvatng factor for Integrated Tamale Frut CompanyITFCtoassstfarmers,snce2001,togontotheorgancmangoproductonunderan out<grower scheme, the need to reduce cost, boost productvty and mprove farm ncomes through organc technology rases concerns about how the farmers are economcally performng under the scheme. Affrmng the fact that organc agrculture can assure productvtycontrarytocrtcsvew,outputsfromfarmsoffamlyandgroupsundertheout< grower scheme appear satsfactory and farmers reported to have had mproved levels of Copyrght SocetyforScenceandEducaton,UntedKngdom 115

3 Daad,B.E.,Issahaku,G.,&Amkuzuno,J.(2015).AnAssesssmentofAllocatveEffcencyofOrgancMangoFarmsnNorthernGhana.Archves)of) Busness)Research,)3(2),114M124. revenues well over ther prevous earnngs (UNDP, 2007), even though techncal effcency analyss of the same farms suggest that there s stll room for mprovement(daad, Issahaku and Amkuzuno, 2014). Snce economc effcency s a product of techncal and allocatve effcency, ths study seeks to provde emprcal evdence about the latter n order to gve a comprehensve vew of the organc mango farms. The paper therefore appled margnal analyss on average producton functon to determne allocatve effcency of two categores (groupsandfamly)offarmersundertheitfcorgancmangoout<growerschemeanddraws mplcatonsonthereconomcwelfarentermsofncomegans. PRODUCTIVITY*AND*EFFICIENCY* Producton nvolves convertng set(s) of nputs nto output(s) and therefore, the amount of outputobtanedattheendofanyproductonprocessdependsontheamountofnputsappled andhowthesenputsarecombned.whlethelevelofnputsetdetermnesscaleeffect(coell, 2005), nputs coordnaton affects how effectve nput<to<output converson wll be, consderngphyscalquanttes,economcvaluesorboth(han,1991).thecombnatonofscale andnputcoordnaton(quanttesandvalues)effectsonoutputsreferredtoasproductvty. Itsdefned,smply,astheratoofoutputtonputornputtooutput(SartorusandKrsten, 2004). Productvty may be measured usng emprcal performance ndces such as output per unt cost,outputperunttmeoroutputperuntareaofproducton.managersofbusnessmeasure productvtyntermsofearnngspershare(eps),returnonnvestment(roi),economcvalue added(eva)orcashflowreturnonnvestment(hashemetal,2010). The measures of productvty mentoned above only compare output to nput but do not ndcatewhethertheproductvecapactyofthenputsfullyutlzednproducngtheoutput ortsnotpossbletoproducethegvenlevelofoutputwthlessofthenput.moredetaled evaluatonofproductonperformancestocarryouteffcencyanalyss,whchdoesnotonly examneoutputfromagvennput,butfurthercomparestheoutputtowhatcanbeacheved wththegvennputset.thsway,productvtysexamnedthroughthreeelements:techncal effcency, allocatve effcency and economc effcency whch together have drect effect on proftabltyofdecson<makngunts(daadetal,2014). Farrell(1957) sworkonthemeasurementofproductveeffcencyoffrmshelpeddeepened economsts understandng of the concept of effcency. Economsts look at effcency as a relatonshp between ends and means and when they say a stuaton s neffcent, t mples they could acheve the desred ends wth less means, or the means employed could produce more of the desred ends wth regards to value(barnett, 2004). Thus, economc effcency s measuredbytherelatonshpbetweenthevalueoftheendsandthevalueofthemeansrather than physcal quanttes (Heyne, 2008).Ths paper assesses the performance of smallholder organc mango farmers n terms of allocatng ther varable nputs vz. weedng expendture and organc pestcdes. Thus the remanng dscussons after ths secton focus on allocatve effcency. ALLOCATIVE*EFFICIENCY*CONCEPT** Allocatveeffcencysconcernedwththeextenttowhchafarm/frmachevesagvenlevelof outputwhencost<mnmzngnputlevelsareappledntheproductonprocess(bravo<ureta etal,1997).itreferstotheabltytochooseoptmumnputlevelsatgvenfactorprces,output level and prce n producton process. Optmalty of nputs proportons, gven ther prces accordngtocoell(1995),sthesubjectofnterestwhenassessngfrm sallocatveeffcency. URL:* 116

4 ArchvesofBusnessResearch(ABR) Vol.3,Issue2,Aprl<2015 KoppandDewert(1982)measuredallocatveeffcencyastheratoofeconomcallyeffcent costtotechncallyeffcentcost. Emprcally,twoapproachesarecommonlyemployedtoassessallocatveeffcencyasnotced from the lterature. These are frm<specfc allocatve effcency approach and nput<specfc (nput<use) allocatve effcency approach whch measures an effcency rato for each of the nputsusedamongfrmsunderconsderaton(daadetal,2014). Theformersdetermnedbyestmatngamnmumcostfronterforasetofdatafromwhch theeffcencyestmateforeachfarmsderved.estmatesobtanedthswayaresadtocontan elements of techncal effcency. Thus accordng to Coell et al (2005), the above are cost effcency rather than allocatve effcency estmates. Agan, some authortes thnk such estmatesarebasandshouldnotbecombnedwthtechncaleffcencyestmatestoproduce economc effcency, unless a system of Cobb<Douglas producton and cost functons are approprateforthedataset(bravo<uretaandpnhero,1997). Input<specfc allocatve effcency ratos are obtaned by applyng the prncple of margnal returns n producton process whereby an nput s sad to be effcently allocated f t s employed at a level that the margnal value product (MVP) s equal to margnal factor cost (Barnett,2004;Oluwatayoetal,2008;Omononaetal,2010andAl<hassan,2012).Themargnal factor cost at that pont should equal a unt cost or prce of the nput n queston. Input<use allocatveeffcencyestmatesarethereforetradtonallyobtanedbyestmatngaproducton functon (average response model) for the data usng OLS. Ths producton functon s then subjected to margnal analyss to obtan factor elastctes (E) as well as margnal physcal products(mpps).mppsdervedfromtheproductonfunctonby;frst,takngthedervatve (E) wth respect to the nput. It s then multpled by the rato of average output to average nput.themvpstheproductofmppandoutputprce(py).iftheprce(auntcost)ofthe nputknownasmargnalfactorcost(mfc)sprovded,anndex(r)fordetermnngallocatve effcencyofthenputusedcanbecomputedalgebracallyasfollows: Y = f ( X ; β )... (1) E lny =.. (2) ln X Y MPP ( ) * E X =.. (3) MPP * P = MVP = P.. (4) X Y Ifnputxs100%effcentlyallocatedthen, X MVP X = R X = 1,... (5) PX Whereandareasdefnedabove. Otherwse, the nput s ether under<appled(r>1) or over<appled(r<1). In order to acheve fullallocatveeffcencynastuatonwherer 1,therestheneedtoncreaseordecreasethe amountofnputsused.theextentofchangerequrednthenputs applcatonnsuchcasess gvenby(1<r) 100(NwaruandIheke,2010). Copyrght SocetyforScenceandEducaton,UntedKngdom 117

5 Daad,B.E.,Issahaku,G.,&Amkuzuno,J.(2015).AnAssesssmentofAllocatveEffcencyofOrgancMangoFarmsnNorthernGhana.Archves)of) Busness)Research,)3(2),114M124. Results from the ntal tral model suggested that the Cobb<Douglas functonal form was not approprate for the data because there was sgnfcant nteracton between nputs and ther cross terms. Once the Cobb<Douglas producton functon whch usually has ts alternatve (dual) cost functon could not be appled, a system of equatons as requred by the frst approachcouldnotbegenerated.thus,thenput<specfc approach to estmatng allocatve effcencywasadopted.thoughdetermnstc,applyngthsapproachonastochastcaverage productonfunctonplacestheestmatedallocatveeffcencyratosbetweendetermnstcand stochastc estmates. Such ratos ndcate frms shortfall from deal performance, extent of changesnnputsthatneedstobemadenordertoachevedesredeconomcperformanceas wellastheamountofeconomcgansthatcanbedervedbybecomngfullyeffcent. METHODOLOGY* The study covers the ITFC s operatonal area of four (4) dstrcts of the Northern Regon, ncludngsavelugu<nanton,kumbungu,westmanprusandkaragadstrcts.thesamplewas drawn from a total populaton of 1400 organc mango out<growers wth some ownng nfant plantatons. A lst of all the farmers obtaned from the scheme management was used as the samplng frame to draw the sample. Ths was stratfed nto group<managed and famlyly< managed farms after whch, smple random samplng procedure was used to obtan a representatvesamplefromthegroup<managedout<growers,whlstacensusofthefamlyly< managedout<growerswasemployedbecausethernumberwassmall(53out<growers). Thestudyusedtheaverageresponseproductonfunctonfortheemprcalanalyssofthedata. Theanalytcalmodelusedtoachevetheobjectvespresentedbelow. lny +.5β 23 = β + β ln PlAge ln( PeKg + β (lnw exp.ln PeKg ) + ( v ) 2 + β lnw exp + β ln PeKg +.5β ln( PlAge ) + β (ln PlAge.lnW exp ) + β (ln PlAge.ln PeKg u )...(6) 11 2 ) +.5β 22 ln( W exp ) Where,Y_stotaloutputofmango(kg/ha),PlAgesageofplantaton(years)Wexp,sweedng expendture (Ghc/ha), PeKg s quantty of organc pestcdes (kg/ha), β_0 s constant and β_srepresent the coeffcents of nputs PlAge,Wexp,PeKgand ther second order terms respectvely. FromtheEquaton(6)above,nputelastctes(Es)andmargnalphyscalproductsMPPsof weedng expendture and organc pestcde were computed. Elastcty E (of weedng expendtureandorgancpestcdearerespectvelygvenby: 2 E W exp lny = = β 2 + β12 ln PlAge + β 22 lnw exp+ β lnw exp 23 ln PeKg...(7) Where,, "#$%, "#$and"#$are as defned earler. The elastctes obtaned from the equatons above are used to calculate margnal physcal products (MPP) of the two nputs as gven respectvely by; URL:* 118

6 ArchvesofBusnessResearch(ABR) MPP W exp = Y X W exp E W exp...(9) Vol.3,Issue2,Aprl<2015 MPP PeKg = Y X PeKg EPeKg...(10) Whereandrepresent the arthmetc means of mango output and each nput for the farm managementtypesrespectvely(al<hassan,2004). Usng Equatons 9 and 10 together wth output and nput prces, margnal value product "#andmargnalfactorcost"#theallocatveeffcencyratos foreachnputsderved. The rule<of<thumb s that f = 1 "# = "# there s full allocatve effcency for nput,' > 1 nput 's under appled and < 1 over<applcaton of th nput. Input utlzaton ndces"aretestedbythet<testtoevaluatewhethertheyarestatstcallydfferentfromone (1).Theextenttowhchout<growersneedtochangetheutlzatonofthenputsnquestonso thatfullallocatveeffcencysachevedsevaluatedbytheformulabelow. Δ = (1 - R j ) (11) Where stheextentofchangerequred,r " stheallocatveeffcencyratoofnputforj th farmmanagementtype. RESULT*AND*DISCUSSION* Group<managed farms are generally twce as large as famly farms (Table 1). It should be noted however, that farm sze as a characterstc does not ndcate scale of producton for a group out<grower snce each group out<grower s lmted to 0.4 hectares. Rather, t suggests the sze of the group managng the farm. On the other hand, farm sze ndcates scale of productonamongfamlyout<growerssnceanfamlyout<growerowns0.4ormorehectares. Table1.Summary*Statstcs*of*Varables* Varable Unt Sample (N=204) Group Outgrowers (n=151) Famly Outgrowers (n=53) Z-value Soco-economc Attrbutes of Out-growers Household sze No. of people Educaton No. of ** years Demonstratons No. of ** tmes Farm Characterstcs Farm Sze Hectares *** Plantaton Age Years Input Varables Weedng Ghana Expendture/ ha Ceds Organc Pestcde Kgs/ha Prce of Pestcde Ghana Ceds * Copyrght SocetyforScenceandEducaton,UntedKngdom 119

7 Daad,B.E.,Issahaku,G.,&Amkuzuno,J.(2015).AnAssesssmentofAllocatveEffcencyofOrgancMangoFarmsnNorthernGhana.Archves)of) Busness)Research,)3(2),114M124. Output Varable Yeld/ha Kg/ha *** Source:OwnData The age of plantatons s about the same across farm management types. All farms n the sample are wthn the frst of three agronomc age groupngs; developng bearers, stablzed bearersandagngbearers.thsmeansthatallfarmsareyoungandstllgrowng;henceoutput sexpectedtoncreaseeachyear,allothercondtonsremanngoptmal. An average group out<grower apples about 3.5 klograms of organc pestcde per hectare whch s obtaned at GH 2.199/ kg whle an average famly out<grower pays G 2.33/kg and apples 3.75kg /ha of the same pestcde. There s however no dfference between the expendtureofweedngthatbothcategoresofout<growersmake. Themeanmangooutputperhectareoffamlyout<growerssaboutthreetmesthatofgroup out<growers(281.25kgaganst105kg).thshugedfferencenoutputcanonlybeattrbuted to dfferng qualty of management, because there s no sgnfcant dfference n physcal quanttesofnputs(weedngexpendtureandorgancpestcdes)usedbetweenthetwoout< growertypestojustfythedfferencenoutput. Table 2 presents the allocatve effcency estmates for the group< and famly< managed farm typesrespectvely. Table*2.*Average*Response*(OLS)*by*Farm*Management*Types* Varable Group Famly Const. Coeffcent Std error Coeffcent Std error 0.971*** *** lnplage 0.026* * 0.034S lnwexp 0.146** * lnpekg *** (ln(PlAge) 2 ) 2.93*** *** (ln(Wexp) 2 ) (ln(PeKg) 2 ) lnplage*lnwexp lnplage*lnpekg lnwexp*lnpekg *** * σ 2 Log lkelhood 0.83*** *** Source:OwnData Age of the plantaton, expendture on weedng and ts self<nteracton terms of the weedng expendturearesgnfcantvarablesthatcontrbutepostvelytooutput,andforthatmatter, URL:* 120

8 ArchvesofBusnessResearch(ABR) Vol.3,Issue2,Aprl<2015 allocatveeffcency.thequanttyofpestcdeusedsaverysgnfcantcontrbutortooutputn thecaseoffamlybutnotgroupfarms.farmers levelofeducatondrectlyaffectstherablty toeffcentlyapplytechnologyncludngtheuseoforgancpestcdes(fane,1975,ebong,etal, 2009andAl<hassan,2012).Table1aboveshowsacleardfferencebetweengroupandfamly out<growerswthrespecttolevelofeducatonwthaz<valueof2.201.thus,tsnotsurprsng that famly out<growers are able to apply pestcdes to affect yeld as aganst group out< growers. The self<nteracton term of plantaton age contrbutes most by addng about 2.9 percent of totaloutputofbothgroupandfamlyout<growerforeverysuccessveyearofage.thscould be as a result of the age bracket of the plantatons n both stuatons (all plantatons were developng bearers). Weedng expendture postvely and statstcally affected yeld among both out<growers; buttressng the mportance of weedng wthn plantatons. Weedng expendtureandquanttyofpestusednteracttoreduceoutputsgnfcantly,especallyamong group out<growers. Ths could be attrbuted to the general neffcency n nput allocaton observednbothcases(r=0.24andr=0.11forgroupandfamlyout<growersrespectvely; Table3).Inall,thefunctonexplansabout83%ofthetotalvaratonnoutputofgroupswhle that of famly explans 87% wth overall fttng effcency ascertaned by generalzed log lkelhoodtest. Fromtheestmatedaveragerespondsfunctons,nputelastctes(E),margnalvalueproducts (MVP),Margnalfactorcost(MFC)andallocatveratos(R)ofthetwonputswerecomputed (Table3).Thenexttwosectonsdscusstheresultsforthesenputs. The results (Table 3) reveal that allocatve effcency rato (R) for weedng expendture s greater than one (1) among out<growers of group and famly farm management types (1.83 and 1.91 respectvely).ths translates nto 83% and 91% allocatve neffcency respectvely. Thus,farmsarenotweededproperlyasmostfarmswereobservedtobeweedyevendurng the harvestng season. Response from sampled out<growers suggests that group out<growers often contract out ther weedng operatons whle famly out<growers normally engage laborers onwagebasstoweedthermangofarms. WththeestmatedMVP s(1.83and1.91respectvely),aghanacedspentoncontractweedng operatonwllgvelessreturns(83%)thanaghanacedspentonpayngwageofalaborerfor weedng(91%return).hencethough,expendtureonweedngneedstobencreasedbyboth categores of farms, famly out<growers need to do more snce the average weedng expendture s GH 31 per hectare for both categores of farms. Wth the same average expendture(gh 31 per hectare), group out<growersshouldbeableto ncrease expendture bygh 25.7(83%)thatwllyeldtotalreturnofGH 47.08representngGH 21.35netncreased earnngs per hectare. Lkewse, famly out<growers can ncrease ther expendture by GH 28.21(91%) expectng a total returns of GH representng GH net ncreased earnngs.theseearnngsnbothstuatonsareenoughtoenhancehouseholdfoodsecurtyby fnancallyaccessngabout40klogramsofthestaplemazegranrequredtoprovdevarety oflocalmealsforanaveragehouseholdof6personsforjustafortnght. Famlyout<growersaganexhbtneffcencyascomparedtogroupout<growers,wthrespect toorgancpestcdeusewtheffcencyratos(r)of0.11and0.24respectvely.toattanfull allocatveeffcencynbotancalpestcdeuseatcurrentuntycostofgh 2.199and2.33,group and famly out<growers have to reduce the use of organc pestcde by 76% and 89% respectvely. That extent of reducton wll yeld Gh 5.85and 7.78 of cost savngs per hectare hence net returns by same amounts respectvely, all other thngs beng equal. These wll Copyrght SocetyforScenceandEducaton,UntedKngdom 121

9 Daad,B.E.,Issahaku,G.,&Amkuzuno,J.(2015).AnAssesssmentofAllocatveEffcencyofOrgancMangoFarmsnNorthernGhana.Archves)of) Busness)Research,)3(2),114M124. enhance the welfare of an organc mango farm household by securng 3.9kgs and 5.2kgs of granrespectvely. * Table*3:**Inputs *Allocatve*Effcency*Analyss*by*Farm*Management*Types* Managements Type Varable MVP MFC R=MVP/ MFC %Change Requred Group Out-growers Weedng Exp *** -83 Organc Pestcde ** +76 Famly Out-growers Weedng Exp *** -91 Organc Pestcde *** +89 Note:***and**meansstatstcallydfferentform1at.01and.05sgnfcancelevel.(<)mples ncreasedusesneededand(+)mplesreductonsneeded Source:Owndata CONCLUSION* The results of the study ndcates that sampled out<growers poorly allocate the two man nputs (weedng expendture and organc pestcde) under the prevalng prces, but group out<growers exhbt more effcency. In order to attan full allocatve effcency n weedng expenses,groupout<growersneedtoncreasetherweedngexpendtureby83%whlstfamly out<growers must ncrease thers by 91%. For organc pestcdes, group out<growershaveto reducetsuseby76%whlstfamlyout<growersneedtodosoby89%. Wththeseallocatveeffcencyndces,tbecomesnecessarythatout<growers,especallythe famly,weedtherfarmsmorefrequently.wthmprovedfarmsantaton,therewlllessneed to spray farms because ncdence of pest nfestaton wll reduce, thus optmzng the expendturetheymakeonorgancpestcde.alternatvely,farmerswllalsohavetontegrate therfarmbusnessastepbackwardbynvestngnbotancalpestcdeextractonthemselves. TheycanalsoestablshatrustedrelatonshpwthpestcdesupplersthroughOrgancMango Out<growers Assocaton(OMOA) so that they can negotate for lower prces n the long<run. Farmersadoptngthesechangesareexpectedtoncreasesearnngsfromorgancmangobyan average amount of GH 23.5per hectare from weedng and GH 4.5 from organcpestcdes. Wthsuchearnngtheywllbebetteroffntermsfoodsecurtyforatleastafortnght. References* Al<hassanSedu(2012). TechncalEffcencynSmallholderPaddyFarmsnGhana:anAnalyssBasedon DfferentFarmngSystemsandGender.JournalofEconomcsandSustanableDevelopment.3(5):91<98. Barnett(2004). Problems QuarterlyJournalofAustralanEconoms7(1):95<104. Bravo<Ureta,BorsE.andLaszloReger(1991). DaryFarmEffcencyMeasurement UsngStochastcFrontersandNeoclasscalDualty AmercanJournalofAgrcultureEconomcs73(2): Bravo<UretaandPnhero(1997). Techncal,EconomcandAllocatveEffcencyn PeasantFarmng:EvdencefromtheDomncanRepublc TheDevelopngEconomes35(1):48<67. CoellT.J.(1995). RecentDevelopmentsnFronterModelngandEffcency Measurement,AustralanJournalofAgrculturalEconomcs,39(3):219<245. URL:* 122

10 ArchvesofBusnessResearch(ABR) Vol.3,Issue2,Aprl<2015 Copyrght SocetyforScenceandEducaton,UntedKngdom 123 CoellT.J.Rao,D.S.P.O'DonnellC.J.andBatteseG.E.(2005).AnIntroductontoEffcencyandProductvtyAnalyss, 2ndEdton,Sprnger:41<61. DaadB.E.,IssahakuG.andAmkuzunoJ.(2014). TechncalEffcencyAnalyssofOrgancMangoOut<Grower FarmManagementTypes:TheCaseofIntegratedTamaleFrutCompany(ITFC)Out<GrowersnNorthernRegon AfrcanJournalofAgrculturalEconomcsandRuralDevelopment,2(3):129<137. DelateKandCambardellaCA.(2004). Organcproducton:Agro<ecosystemperformancedurngtranstonto certfedorgancgranproducton.agronomyjournal2004,96,1288<98. Drnkwater,L.E.,Wagoner,P.&Sarrantono,M.(1998). Legume<basedcroppngsystemshavereducedcarbon andntrogenlosses. Nature396,pp262<265 Fane,G(1975). EducatonandtheManageralEffcencyofFarmers.TheRevewofEconomcsandStatstcs, Vol.57,No.4(Nov.,1975),pp.452<461. FAO(2000) FoodSafetyandQualtyasAffectedbyOrgancFarmng TwentySecondFAORegonalConference foreurope,porto,portugal,24<28july2000agendaitem10.1, FAO(2003),OrgancAgrculture:TheChallengeofSustanngFoodProductonwhleEnhancngBodversty The UntedNatons,Rome,Italy Farrell,MchaelJ.(1957). TheMeasurementofProductonEffcency Journalofthe RoyalStatstcsSocety,SeresA,120(3) HanK.H.(1991). Aproductvtymeasurementofactvtesatthemcrolevel ManagementAccountngResearch,2(4):249<261. HansonNyantaky<Frmpong(2013)FoodSecurtynNorthernGhana:IssuesnHstorcalandContemporary Contexts.AfrcaPortalBackgrounder(62). HeynePaul(2008). Effcency TheconcseEncyclopedaofEconomcs:1157<1166. HashemN.MahdM.andMohammadM.(2010). EffcencyMeasurementofEnterprsesUsngtheFnancal VarablesofPerformanceAssessmentandDataEnvelopmentAnalyss AppledMathematcalScences, 4(37): JanHesenberg,JosephA.Yaro(2006). AnassessmentoftheextentandcausesoffoodnsecurtynNorthern Ghanausngalvelhoodvulnerabltyframework,67(1):41<55. KoppRaymondJ.andW.ErwnDewert(1982). TheDecompostonofFronterCostFunctonsDevatonsnto MeasuresofTechncalandAllocatveEffcency JournalofEconometrcs19(3): MnstryofFoodandAgrculture(2007). FoodandAgrculturalSectorDevelopment PolcyII(FASDEP) GovernmentofGhanaPolcyDocument:24<29. OffceoftheAudtorGeneralofCanada(2007). UnderstandngEffcency Audtngofeffcency. bvg.gc.ca,accessedon07/11/2011. ObengA.M.andOehmkeJ.F.(2009). TradeandInvestmentProgramforaCompettveExportEconomynGhana: ASynthessofFndngs PolcyBref,pp3<5. Oluwatayo,I.B.,SekumadeA.B.andAdesojS.A.(2008). ResourcesUseEffcencyofMazeFarmersnRural Ngera:EvdencefromEktState,WorldJournalofAgrculturalScence,4,91<99. Omonona,B.T.,Egbetokun,O.A.andAkanbA.T.(2010). FarmersResource Useand TechncalEffcencynCowpeaProductonnNgera,EconomcAnalyss&Polcy,40(1):87<95. Elen(2009). TheMarketforOrgancandFar<TradeMangoesandPneapples:Increasngncomesandfood securtyofsmallfarmersnwestandcentralafrcathroughexportsoforgancandfar<tradetropcalproducts StudypreparedntheframeworkofFAOprojectGCP/RAF/404/GER:5<11 SartorusKurtandJKrsten(2004). TheCostEffcencyofSmallFarmInclusonn AgrbusnessSupplyChans. SouthAfrcanJournalofAccountngResearch,18(1):87<113.

11 Daad,B.E.,Issahaku,G.,&Amkuzuno,J.(2015).AnAssesssmentofAllocatveEffcencyofOrgancMangoFarmsnNorthernGhana.Archves)of) Busness)Research,)3(2),114M124. UntedNatons(2012). GhanaComprehensveFoodSecurtyandVulnerabltyAnalyss(CFSVA) WorldFood Program:19<31. UntedNatonsDevelopmentProgram(2007). OrgancMangoesImprovngLvelhoodsforthePoor:CaseStudy ofintegratedtamalefrutcompany Bulletn<GrowngInclusveMarkets. 28/09/2010. USAID(2009). GhanaAssessngEconomcBenefts:TheCaseofBanana,Mango,andRce,GhanaMoongate Assocates,portfoloEconomcsseres(1):24< /05/2014. Varughese,Kuruvlla(2009). Organcfarmngpractcesforrceunderdversfedcroppngsystemsnhumd tropcs. TheProceedngsoftheInternatonalPlantNutrtonColloquumXVI:pp4 Wessman,S.R.(1990) StructuralAdjustmentnAfrca:InsghtsfromtheExperencesofGhanaandSenegal, WorldDevelopment,18(12): YfuLn,J.(1991), EducatonandInnovatonAdoptonnAgrculture:EvdencefromHybrdRcenChna, AmercanJournalof AgrculturalEconomcs,Vol.73,No.3,pp.713<723. Zakar,A.K.(2012). GhanaNatonalMangoStudy :30<32.Onlne athttp:// URL:* 124