Direct Research Journal of Agriculture and Food Science

Vol. 9, Pp. 325-333, 2021

ISSN 2354-4147
DOI: https://doi.org/10.26765/DRJAFS16966922
Article Number: DRJAFS16966922
Copyright © 2021
Author(s) retain the copyright of this article
https://directresearchpublisher.org/drjafs/

Full-Length Research Paper

Economic efficiency of onion production and price

trend in Kebbi State, Nigeria: a stochastic frontier cost
function approach
Yahaya Kaka*, and Abdullahi Auwal Gindi
Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, Faculty of Agriculture, Kebbi State University of Science and
Technology, PMB 1144 Aliero, Kebbi State, Nigeria.
*Corresponding author email: ykgw72@gmail.com
Received 3 July 2021; Accepted 23 August 2021; Published 20 September 2021

ABSTRACT: The research looks at the economic efficiency of onion production in Kebbi State. A structure
questionnaire was used to collect primary data. Data from 210 sole onion producers were collected using a multistage
sampling technique. The obtained data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, trend analysis, and a stochastic
frontier cost function. The results revealed that respondents had an average farm size of 0.8 hectares, with the
majority (44.2%) cultivating ≤ 0.5 hectares and the majority (81.4%) owning farmland by inheritance. The onion price
pattern recorded a minimum average price of around ₦5,000.00 during the on-season (March to May) and a
maximum of ≥ ₦30,000 between November and December. The estimated coefficients of labour cost (0.3453), seed
(0.1673), inorganic fertilizer (0.2639), and so on are positive, indicating an increase in total cost of onion production,
whereas inefficiency variables such as farming experience, level of education, and household size are negative, with
education and farming experience having significant levels at 5%. Maximum likelihood estimates of the specified
economic model revealed that the producers' cost efficiencies ranged from 20.00 % to 91.10 %, with a mean of
70.30%, implying that an estimated 26.8% of the return is lost due to a combination of technical and allocative
inefficiencies in onion production. It is recommended that onion producers be linked with financial/insurance
institutions for soft loans and insurance to further augment exhibited cost efficiency, and that they be encouraged to
improve proper staggered planting of suitable varieties to bridge the gap between the offseason and on-season for
sustained supply, better/stable prices, and good quality produced.

Keywords: Onion, producer, economic, efficiency, price and trend

INTRODUCTION

Almost half of the world population lives in urban areas million to 400 million by 2050, thus there are clear issues
and the urbanization trend is expected to continue and to address with urbanization, food security and migration.
even to accelerates, especially in Africa and Asia. This Vegetable production provides large quantities of
phenomenon has given birth to an increased demand for produce from a very small area of farmland if the crops
fresh fruits and vegetables which needs to be met (Mike are given sufficient water, nutrients and free of pest and
and Martin, 2009). According to East-West Seed (2018) disease attacks. Onion production under good
Nigeria as one of the fastest growing countries in the management practices can yields up to 5kg per meters-
world having population estimated growth from 200 square in 90 days from planting date.

Official Publication of Direct Research Journal of Agriculture and Food Science: Vol. 9, 2021, ISSN 2354-4147
 Direct Res. J. Agric. Food Sci. 326

Therefore, production and trading of vegetables create an (ii) Determine inter-market and seasonal onion producer
opportunity for the poorest members of a population to price pattern in the study area.
enhance their livelihood, due to increase in incomes, (iii) Assess the extent and causes of economic
improving standard of living and providing an incentive for inefficiency in the study area.
rural inhabitants to stay in rural areas stemming down
migration to urban cities in search of white collar jobs
(Mike and Martin, 2009). METHODOLOGY
Vegetables primary production for Nigeria between
1970 and 2019 grew substantially from 3.04 million to Study area
16.7 million tonnes rising at an increasing annual rate
that reached a maximum of 20.77 million tonnes in 2014 The study was conducted in Kebbi State located in the
and then decreased to 3.81% in 2019 (Iyabo, 2020) . In north-western part of Nigeria. Kebbi State is situated
the face of increase in pressure on agricultural land due between latitudes 10º 8’N and 13º 15’N and longitudes 3º
to; urbanization, climate change, fragmentation on 30’E and 6 º 02’ E. The State is bordered by Sokoto and
inheritance, rural population increase, declining soil Zamfara States to the east, Niger State to the south,
fertility, conflict/insecurity, wide price fluctuation of onion Benin Republic to the west and Niger republic to the
as a risky vegetable and in the light of poor economic north. Kebbi State occupies an area of about 37, 699
background among the smallholder onion farmers who square kilometers out of which 36.46% is made up of
are expected to increase productivity through efficient farmland (Kebbi State Government, 2018). The State has
use of resources as against increase in farm size which an estimated population of about 3.24 million, out of
may be relatively unavailable for sustained production. which 49.9% are males, while 50.1% are females (NPC,
And understanding the cost efficiency with which 2006). Kebbi State has tropical weather conditions with
producers operate the technologies as it comes at a cost, three seasons: rainy, dry and hot. The annual rainfall is
among other factors call for whether significant economic variable and declining, being 600 mm to 850 mm and on
efficiency in the use of inputs for production of onion average 650 mm. The monthly temperature in the region
exists or not is very necessary for policy analysis. ranges from 25ºC to 45ºC. The state possessed two
According to Ahmadzai (2017) empirical research important agricultural lands namely: dryland (arid-
suggests that farmers in developing countries fail to prolonged dryness) and fadama (floodplains-significant
exploit fully the production technology and production alluvial clay particles). These two lands remained the key
resources and often make inefficient decisions. High source of income to millions of people in the state
levels of production are not achieved due to the low use (Usman et al., 2016). Agriculture is the most important
of available economic resources and difficulty of economic activity, with riverine floodplains producing
obtaining other economic resources which led to higher crops like groundnuts, cotton, rice, millet, sorghum and
production costs and lower net returns resulting in low vegetables such as tomato, onions etc. Most of the land
economic efficiency far away from required level (Al- in the state is used for grazing cattle, goat and sheep.
Haboobi, 2020). On the basis of the above confirmatory The major ethnic groups in the State include Fulani,
statements this research may benefit the existing and Hausa, Dakarkari and Kambari (Amy, 2020).
potential onion producers as well as policy makers,
researchers and other stakeholders in the
onion/agricultural production sector.
Empirical studies on economic efficiency of onion Data collection
producers in Kebbi State are very scares and where
available are far between the study area and other Both primary data and secondary information were used
existing states that are into onion production in Nigeria. for the study. The primary data was generated by the use
Most of the researches carried out paid attention on of structured questionnaire, administered to the sampled
technical efficiency in agricultural production only few on respondents in the study area with the assistance of
economic efficiency (Aboki et al., 2013; Shettima et al., trained enumerators. Information on socioeconomic
2016; Yahaya et al., 2019). Flowing from the above characteristic of the onion producers and retailers were
assertion this paper is therefore aimed at evaluating the collected. Input-output information on onion production
present level of economic efficiency among the onion and marketing was also collected such as quantities and
producers in Kebbi State. The study's specific goals are costs of inputs used and labour as well as output
as follows: obtained and its prices and volume transacted with cost
and price implications. Secondary information includes
(i) Establish the planting and harvesting regimes and journals, government reports, text books and unpublished
farm size distribution in the study area. materials were implored to achieve the desired objectives

Official Publication of Direct Research Journal of Agriculture and Food Science: Vol. 9, 2021, ISSN 2354-4147
Yahaya and Abdullahi 327

of the research work. P2= Cost of seeds (₦)

P3= Cost of Inorganic fertilizer (₦)
P4= Cost of Agrochemicals (₦)
Sampling procedure and sample size P5= Cost of Fuel/Maintenance (₦)
P6= Cost of Depreciation (₦)
A multistage sampling procedure was adopted for data P7= Output (₦)
collection to select the respondents from the study area. Vi= Random error outside the farmers control
At stage I, purposive selection of seven local government Ui= Economic inefficiency effects
areas namely; Aliero, Yauri, Gwandu, Birnin Kebbi,
Maiyama, Shanga and Augie based on their relative The coefficients of independent variables in the cost
involvement in high sole onion production in the study function model as in equation (1) such as cost of labour,
area. At stage II, two dominant villages were purposively cost of seeds, cost of inorganic fertilizer, cost of
selected from each of the seven local government areas agrochemicals, cost of fuel/maintenance and cost of
based on the large number of sole onion producers in the depreciation are a priori expected to be negative. This is
area making a total of 14 villages. In stage III, in each of signifying that a unit increase in any of the affected
the 14 villages, a list of sole onion farmers was compiled variable may leads to decrease in total production cost of
and simple random sampling method was employed in onion.
the selection of 15 respondents in each of the villages
given a sample size of 210 onion producers used as the The determinant of economic inefficiency is defined by:
entire sample size for the study.
Ui= δo+ δ1Z1+ δ2Z2+ δ3Z3+ δ4Z4 (2)

Methods of data analysis Where:

Ui= Inefficient effects (i.e. the deviation from maximum
The collected data were subjected to both descriptive and potential output attributable to resource use inefficiency).
inferential statistics as analytical techniques used for the δo= Constant
analyses of data obtained. Descriptive statistics such as δ1 –δ4= Parameters to be estimated
frequency counts, percentages, mean, minimum and Z1= Age of farmer (years)
maximum scores was used to determine Z2=Formal education (years of formal schooling)
planting/harvesting regimes as well as farm size Z3=Farmers experience (number of years in onion
distribution of the respondents and distribution of production)
economic efficiency levels of the onion producers in the Z4=Household size (number of people)
study area. Trend analysis was used to describe the
onion producers’ price (price trend) in the study area and The specification of the model for the inefficiency effects
inferential statistics was stochastic frontier cost function in equation (2) implies that, if the independent variables
used to estimate the level of economic efficiency of onion of the inefficiency model have a negative value on an
production. estimated parameter, then the associated variable has a
positive influence on efficiency while a positive sign
indicates that the reverse is true. Thus, the a priori
Stochastic frontier cost function model specification expectation is that the coefficients of the whole
independent variables of the inefficiency model (i.e. Z1,
Stochastic frontier cost function in its explicit form is Z2, Z3, and Z4) should all be negative (i.e. less than zero).
written as: (Adopted from Ogundari and Ojo, 2007, Therefore, each variable is expected to have positive
Shettima et al., 2016). effect on technical efficiency

lnC=βo+ β1lnP1+ β2lnP2+ β3lnP3+ β4lnP4+β5lnP5+ β6lnP6+

β7lnP7+ (Vi-Ui) (1)
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Where:
Land ownership type and farm size
Ln= the natural logarithm
C= Total Cost of Production of i-th farm in naira (₦) An individual or group of individuals interested in farming
βo= Constant term may own and work on farmland in a variety of legally or
β1-β9= Regression coefficients to be estimated administratively accepted ways. As shown in (Table 1),
P1= Cost of Labour (₦) the majority of onion producers (81.4%) inherited their

Official Publication of Direct Research Journal of Agriculture and Food Science: Vol. 9, 2021, ISSN 2354-4147
 Direct Res. J. Agric. Food Sci. 328

Table 1: Distribution of onion producers according to their land ownership and farm size.

Variables Frequency (n=210) Percentage

Type of land ownership*
Inheritance 171.0 81.4
Purchase 32.0 15.2
Gift 6.0 2.9
Rent 48.0 22.0
Free lease 11.0 5.2
Farm size (Hectare)
Up to 0.5 93.0 44.2
0.51-1.0 73.0 34.8
1.01-2.0 35.0 16.7
2.01-3.0 7.0 3.3
>3 2.0 1.0
Min 0.2
Max 4.5
Mean 0.8
Source: Field Survey, 2019 *Multiple responses were considered

onion farmlands, while 22 % leased their onion farms. majority of vegetable producers cultivated less than 1.5
This is consistent with the findings of Ojo et al. (2009) hectares of farmland for vegetable production.
and Shettima et al. (2016), who independently reported
similar findings in different areas. This could significantly
reduce the cost of producing onions and result in higher Planting regime
profits. A farm is a piece of land that is used for
agriculture. It is an essential production facility in Onion seasonal calendar (Table 2) depicted three
agricultural production and is frequently related to output patterns of planting activities viz wet season, dry season
quantity. In this study, farm sizes represent the estimated and wet to dry season. The time and season of onion
total land area cultivated by onion producers and for cultivation in the study area is favoured by the advantage
onion production in the study area. Table 1 also shows of irrigable land geographically located. Majority of the
the respondents' farm size distribution. The majority of onion producers (85.7%) opted for wet to dry season
onion farmers (44.2%) cultivated less than or equal to 0.5 pattern (August-September), dry season (14.3%) with
hectares of land, followed by 34.8 % of respondents who small proportion of wet season (3.3%). The findings
cultivated between 0.51 and 1 hectares, and 16.7 % revealed staggered planting pattern which would have
onion farmers cultivated 1.01-2.0 hectares. According to addressed the supply gap if properly organized. It was
the study, the average farm size of the respondents was also observed that wet to dry pattern is to take advantage
0.8 hectares. As a result, smallholder onion farmers of reduced number of irrigation per cycle, forecast of
dominate onion production in the study area. The table good price regime but forfeits growing other crops on
also shows the participation of medium (0.51- onion farmland that may extend its life cycle between the
2.0hectares) and large (>2.5 hectares) commercial onion months of August and September. The findings are in
farmers who cultivate onion in the study area. This agreement with the report of Pankaj and Muthuselvan
implies that the respondents' small farm holdings may be (2018) who observed three season of onion cultivation in
due to land fragmentation as a result of heirs' inheritance some parts of India as early Kharif, Kharif and late Kharif,
share. As a result, increased output through farmland however, recommended for an enhanced staggered
expansion is limited. Respondents, on the other hand, cultivation so that onions are available on regular basis.
may achieve better farm maintenance with ease by
making better use of available inputs and technologies Onion harvesting regime
and increasing the efficiency of available inputs and
technologies to maximize productivity. This finding is In the study area, bulk onion harvesting typically begins
consistent with Tbilisi (2016), who stated that the majority in November and lasts until December of the same year,
of onion producers are small onion farmers who cultivate followed by January to April of the following year.
onions on 0.1-0.3 hectares, while medium and large According to the findings in (Table 2), the majority of
commercial farmers cultivate 0.5-1.5 hectares and 2.5- onion producers (116%) harvested their onions between
3.5 hectares, respectively. The findings also agree with the months of October and December of the same year.
those of Shettima et al. (2016), who discovered that the However, 85% harvested theirs between the months of
Official Publication of Direct Research Journal of Agriculture and Food Science: Vol. 9, 2021, ISSN 2354-4147
Yahaya and Abdullahi 329

Table 2: Distribution of onion producers according to their planting and harvesting regimes.

Variable Frequency (n=210) Percentage

Planting regime*
Wet season (June –July) 7 3.3
Dry season (October-January) 30 14.3
Wet to Dry season (August-Sept) 180 85.7
Harvesting Regime*
October –December 243 116.0
January-February 178 84.8
March-April 67 31.9
Source: Field Survey, 2019 *Multiple responses were considered.

Figure 1: Onion producer price pattern of Kebbi State Jan. - Dec., 2019

January and February, while 32 percent harvested Inter-market and seasonal onion producer price
between March and April of the following year. The pattern
findings are consistent with Tsoho and Salau (2012)'s
observation that the peak harvest time was between Agricultural commodities are typically supplied from
January and March, though a shift from complete dry farming areas to various markets ranging from semi-
season onion production to wet to dry has resulted in a urban to urban areas. Vegetables, in particular, are
deviation in the majority of harvest recorded in this study characterized by a short shelf life after harvest, and
area. This suggests that the staggered harvest was shortages in marketing services such as adequate
caused by the onion producers' practice of staggered storage and processing facilities performed by various
planting. The implications of onion planting staggering, if actors to satisfy the demand of the final consumer by way
proper planning is taken into account in planting of form, time, and place may result in the price of a
arrangement so as not to coincide, may assist the onion commodity stagnating and contracting at a specific time
producer in gaining a better price when marketing the of year. Figure 1 depicts the seasonal onion producer
onion bulb. price pattern in Kebbi State for the calendar year 2019
Official Publication of Direct Research Journal of Agriculture and Food Science: Vol. 9, 2021, ISSN 2354-4147
 Direct Res. J. Agric. Food Sci. 330

Figure 2: Onion producer price pattern of three notable onion central markets in Kebbi State Jan. - Dec., 2019.

(January to December). From June to December, the a maximum of at least N30000. The Bubuce onion central
onion producer price rises, indicating an onion offseason market had the lowest cost in December, with an unusual
in the study area. Some onion producers engaged in wet rise and fall in onion producer price from June to
to dry season (August to September) production in the December. The month of May continues to be the
study area typically take advantage of this rise in onion confluence point for the start of price increases in onion
price during this period. This is to take advantage of the produce by all onion central markets. The months of
relatively low prices in the months of November and March to May also indicated a period associated with low
December. The price decline begins in January and onion producer price in the study area as it affects all
continues through March before stabilizing and market points which also represent the harvest period
concentrating at lower prices due to an excess supply of (Period of plenty), though Yauri witnessed a slight rise
onions (between March and May) due to the above others in the month of April. Seasonal differences
predominance of harvest by dry onion producers. This is in the surplus and deficit gap of onion could be attributed
a clear manifestation of onion price volatility, as to producers' lack of proper staggered cultivation and
Anonymous (2019) reported that a bag of onion can be storability of the commodity in order to meet consumer
sold in areas such as Sokoto, Kano, Jigawa, Kaduna, demand.
Plateau, and Kebbi States at ridiculously low prices
ranging from ₦1500 to ₦4000 during the period of plenty
(January to March) and soars during the offseason Efficiency analysis
between ₦25000 to ₦35000when it is scarce. Figure 2
depicts the rising and falling of onion producer prices at Table 3 shows the maximum likelihood estimates of the
three prominent onion central markets in Kebbi State, parameters of the stochastic frontier cost function for
namely Aliero, Yauri, and Bubuche. When monthly onion onion production in the sample area. The table shows
producer prices are closely examined, it is clear that only that the output is negatively related to the total cost of
the Aleiro onion market exhibits a consistent rise in the production, though this relationship is not statistically
average onion producer price from May to December. significant. As a result, if output is said to have increased
However, it also recorded a price decrease from January by a certain unit of percentage, the total cost of
to April, which generally depicts a minimum average price production may be reduced by the corresponding value of
of about ₦5000 during the on-season (March to May) and its coefficient. This implies that the output continues to be
Official Publication of Direct Research Journal of Agriculture and Food Science: Vol. 9, 2021, ISSN 2354-4147
Yahaya and Abdullahi 331

Table 3: Maximum log-likelihood estimates of the stochastic frontier cost function and technical inefficiency for onion
production.

Variables Parameters Coefficients Standard error t-statistics

Constant 0
1.1157 0.1136 10.1834***
lnLabour cost (₦) 1
0.3453 0.0171 20.2289***
lnSeed cost (₦) 2
0.1673 0.0104 16.1589***
lnInorganic fertilizer cost (₦) 3
0.2639 0.0118 22.4031***
lnAgrochemical cost (₦) 4
0.0095 0.0016 6.0010***
lnFuel/Maintenance cost (₦) 5
0.1520 0.0126 12.1090***
lnDepreciation cost(₦) 6
0.1301 0.0133 9.7690***
Inefficiency functions
Constant 0
-0.3920 0.2864 -13.687***
ns
Age (years) 1
0.0018 0.0053 0.3474
Education level (years) 2
-0.0187 0.0084 -2.2262**
Farming exper. (years) 3
-0.0073 0.0035 -2.0857**
Household size (number) 4
-0.0048 0.0075 -0.6367ns
Diagnosis Statistics
Sigma-square 0.0487 0.0209 2.3269**
Gamma γ 0.9926 0.0045 221.5447***
Log likelihood l/f 205.2107
LR test 67.0357

Source: Field Survey, 2019

*, **, ***=Significant at 10%, 5% and 1% levels respectively. ns=Not significant.

a significant contributor to the cost efficiency of onion variability of cost efficiency from onion production is
production operations in the study area. The estimated attributed to the output; however, the rest (0.74%) is due
coefficients of all explanatory variables of the cost to random noises-factors beyond the realm of producers’
function, however, are all positive and statistically control. The presence of technical inefficiency effect was
significant at 1%, as confirmed by the t-ratio test at 1% treated by using the generalized likelihood ratio (LR) test
level of significance. The estimated coefficients of labor which was 67.0357 and more than critical chi-square
(0.3458), seed (0.1673), inorganic fertilizer (0.2639), value at 1% level of significance with 11 degree of
agrochemical (0.0095), fuel/maintenance (0.1520), and freedom χ2 (1% 11) was30.542 (given by Kodde and
depreciation (0.1301) are all positive, indicating that the Palmz, 1986). The null hypothesis of no technical
total cost of onion production is increasing. This implies inefficiency effects in the course of the producers
that the variables in the model have a direct relationship production γ=0, was strongly rejected. The analysis of the
with the total cost of onion production, i.e. the total cost of inefficiency function in Table 3 also shows that the signs
onion production increases by the corresponding value of and significance of the estimated coefficients in the
each coefficient as the quantity of each variable inefficiency model (U) have significant implications for the
increases by one. This result is consistent with the economic efficiency of onion producers in the study area.
findings of many other researchers who conducted Though not statistically significant, the positive
similar studies but were located outside of the study area, coefficients for age and farming experience imply a
such as Ogundari and Ojo (2007), Berhan (2015), and negative relationship with economic inefficiency. This
2
Shettima et al. (2016). The estimated sigma-squared (σ ) finding is consistent with the findings of Ogundari and
was 0.0487 and significant at 5% indicating goodness of Ojo's study (2007). At the 5% level, the estimated
fit. The gamma value (γ) of the MLEs of stochastic coefficient of level of education (0.0187) was negative
frontier cost function model is 0.9926 and significant and significant, implying that as level of education
event at 1% level which indicates that inefficiency effect increases, cost inefficiency decreases. The negative
exist, hence justifying the application of the stochastic coefficient of household size (-0.0048) was found to be
frontier model. This value is implying that 99.26% of negatively related to economic inefficiency, but it was not
Official Publication of Direct Research Journal of Agriculture and Food Science: Vol. 9, 2021, ISSN 2354-4147
 Direct Res. J. Agric. Food Sci. 332

Table 4: Distribution of the levels of economic efficiency of onion producers.

Efficiency Class Index Frequency Percentage

> 0.80 ≤ 1.00 144.00 68.60
> 0.60 ≤ 0.80 32.00 15.20
> 0.40 ≤ 0.60 21.00 10.00
> 0.20 ≤ 0.40 13.00 6.20
Total 210.00 100.00
Mean Efficiency 0.723
Minimum Efficiency 0.395
Maximum Efficiency 0.911
Std. Dev. 0.133
Source: Computed from MLE result

in any desired production. This implies that permanent

significant, which agrees with the findings of (Bravo et al.,
1997). Except for the insignificant age, the entire structures can be erected, and the future of the onion
coefficients of the inefficiency variables in the model usedenterprise is assured, with the onion value chain in the
agree with a priori expectation. study area undoubtedly improving. The study area's
onion production was characterized by an uncoordinated
shift in planting date (staggered planting), resulting in the
Level of individual economic efficiency scores of concentration and flooding of harvested onion in the
onion producers market due to the lack of a local/modern preservation
method to store the commodity, which causes onion price
The frequency distribution of farm specific efficiency volatility. The result showed that respondents had an
scores for the onion producers is presented in (Table 4). average farm size of 0.8 hectares with majority (44.2%)
The estimates showed that, considerable amount of cost cultivated ≤ 0.5 hectare and most (81.4%) of the
is incurred from the onion production because of the respondents owned farmland by inheritance. Onion price
existence of cost inefficiency in resource use among pattern recorded minimum average price of about ₦5,000
onion farmers. The findings revealed that onion farmers at the on-season (March to May) and maximum of ≥
achieved on the average 70.30% level of cost efficiency. ₦30,000 between the months of November and
The result had revealed cost inefficiency gap of about December. The estimated coefficient of cost of labour
29.70%. This implies that the average farmer in the study (0.3453), seed (0.1673), inorganic fertilizer (0.2639), etc.
area could decrease cost by 29.70% by improving their are positive depicting increasing total cost of onion
technical and allocative efficiency. The onion farmers production while inefficiency variables; farming
exhibited varied economic efficiencies ranging from experience, level of education and household size are
20.00% to 91.10%. However, the least cost efficient negative with education and farming experience having
onion farmer needs an efficiency gain of 80.00% (1 - significant levels at 5%. Maximum likelihood estimates of
0.20)100 of production if such a farmer is to attain the the specified economic model revealed that costs
economic efficiency of the best efficient farmer in the efficiencies of the producers varied between 20.00% and
study area. Likewise for an average cost efficient farmer, 91.10% with a mean of 70.30% suggesting that an
he will need an efficiency gain of 29.70% (1 - 0.703)100 estimated 26.8% of the return is lost due to a combination
to attain the most efficient level of production. of technical and allocative inefficiencies in onion
Furthermore, the most cost efficient farmer in the study production. It is recommended that onion producers
area needs about 8.90% gains in cost efficiency to be on should be linked with financial institutions like Bank of
the frontier efficiency. However, despite the variation in Agriculture (BOA), Nigeria Incentive-Base Risk Sharing
cost efficiency, it could be seen that about 83.80% of System for Agricultural Lending (NISAL) and other
onion farmers seemed to be skewed towards efficiency commercial and Micro-Finance Banks at their doorsteps
level of greater than 60% and above. for ease of access to soft loans/insurances to facilitate
acquisition of new farm technologies/implements for
planting, harvesting, sorting etc. and use them efficiently
Conclusion and Recommendations to further strengthen their cost efficiency using their
available land for onion cultivation giving rise to
Based on the findings of this research, it was concluded efficiencies in onion production. Onion producers should
that onion producers owned land in perpetuity (i.e. by evolve an enhanced staggered planting of suitable
inheritance, gift, and purchase), allowing them to engage varieties of onion in order to address the glut and clashed
Official Publication of Direct Research Journal of Agriculture and Food Science: Vol. 9, 2021, ISSN 2354-4147
Yahaya and Abdullahi 333

in price as well as the gap at off-season which may help Nigeria: A stochastic frontier cost function approach. Asian Journal
of Agricultural Extension, Economics and Sociology, 12(4): 1-14.
both onion farmers and traders to get better prices for
Tbilisi (2016). The onion value chain analysis in Samtskhe-Javakheti
good quality produced. Onion producers need to be region of Georgia. The European Union for Georgia; ENPARD:
trained on new storage techniques, while Kebbi State Support to Agricultural Development:1-44.
government should sponsor for a scientifically build onion Tsoho BA, Salau SA (2012). Profitability and constraints to dry season
storage structures within major onion producing and vegetable production under fadama in sudan savannah ecological
zone of Sokoto State, Nigeria. Journal of Development and
marketing areas to address seasonality problems and low Agricultural Economics. 4(7):214-222.
price regime. Usman S, Noma SS, Kudiri AM (2016). Dynamic surface components of
land and vegetation types in Kebbi State Nigeria. Eurasian Journal
of Soil Science, 5(2):113-120.
REFERENCES

Aboki E, Jongur AAU, Onuanda JI, Umaru II (2013). Analysis of

technical, economic and allocative efficiencies of cassava production
in Taraba State, Nigeria. Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary
Science, 5(3):19-26.
Ahmadzai H (2017). Crop diversification and technical efficiency in
Afghanistan: Stochastic frontier analysis. Centre for Research in
Economic Development and International Trade (CREDIT), 17(4): 1-
49.
Al-Haboobi ZAM (2020). A financial and economic evaluation of the
onion crop production in Diyala Governorate, Kanakeen: As case
study. Plant Archives, 20: 562-567.
Amy M (2020).Kebbi State, Nigeria. Accessed2020 from
www.britannica.com>place>kebbi... on 15/12/2020.
Anonymous (2019). Business opportunities in onion farming around the
world. Accessed 2020 from
https://www.indoramafertilizers.com/image/Crop-Practice-
ONION.pdfon 5/1/2020.
Berhan TH (2015). Determinants of technical, allocative and economic
efficiencies among onion producing farmers in irrigated agriculture:
Empirical evidence from Kobo district, Amhara region, Ethiopia.
African Journal of Agricultural Research, 10(20):2180-2189.
Bravo-U Boris E, Pinheiro EA (1997). Technical, economic and
allocative efficiency in peasant farming: Evidence from the Dominican
Republic. The Developing Economies, 35(1): 48-67.
East-West Seed (2018). Transforming Nigeria’s vegetable market: SDG
conference towards zero hunger. Wageningen University and
Research, 1918-2018: 1-4.
Iyabo BA (2020). Factors affecting efficiency of vegetable production in
Nigeria: A review [online First], IntechOpen, DOI:
10.5772/intechopen.92702. Accessed 2021 from
https://www.intecopen.com/online-first/factors-affecting-efficiency-of-
vegetable-production-in-nigeria-a-review on 10/3/2021.
Kebbi State Government (KSG) (2018). About Kebbi. accessed2019
from www.kebbistate.org.ng, on 24/11/2019.
Kodde DA, Palm FC (1986). Notes and comments: Wald criteria for
jointly testing equality and inequality restrictions. Econometrica,
54(5): 1243-1248.
Mike N, Martins H (2009). Growing vegetables for home and market:
Rural infrastructure and agro-industries division, FAO diversification
booklet No. 11, Rome:1-102
National Population Commission (NPC). (2006). Population figure:
Federal Republic of Nigeria, Abuja. Accessed 2019 from
http://www.npc.ng. gov, on 28/11/2019.
Ogundari K, Ojo SO (2007). Economic efficiency of small scale food
crop production in Nigeria: A stochastic frontier approach. Journal
of Social Science, 14(2): 123-130.
Ojo MA, Mohammed US, Adeniji B, Ojo AO (2009). Profitability and
technical efficiency in irrigated onion production under middle rima
valley irrigation project in Goronyo, Sokoto State, Nigeria. Continental
Journal of Agricultural Science, 3: 7-14.
Pankaj S, Munthuselvan, ER (2018). A report on the study of onion
value chain, College of Agricultural Banking, Reserve Bank of Indian,
Pune:1-50.
Shettima, BG, Ibrahim A, Mohammed ST, Zongoma BA (2016).
Economic efficiency of irrigated vegetable production in Borno State,
Official Publication of Direct Research Journal of Agriculture and Food Science: Vol. 9, 2021, ISSN 2354-4147