TYPE Original Research

PUBLISHED 13 November 2024

DOI 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1414912

Impact of farm mechanization on

OPEN ACCESS crop productivity and economic
efficiency in central and southern
EDITED BY
Folorunso Mathew Akinseye,
International Crops Research Institute for the
Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Kenya

REVIEWED BY
Oromia, Ethiopia
Erhan Akça,
Adiyaman University, Türkiye
Mohd. Muzamil,
Tamrat Gebiso 1*, Mengistu Ketema 2, Arega Shumetie 2 and
Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Getachew Legese Feye 3
Sciences and Technology, India
Shadrack Kwadwo Amponsah, 1
Socioeconomics Research Directorate, Oromia Agricultural Research Institute, Asella, Ethiopia,
CSIR Crops Research Institute, Ghana 2
Ethiopian Economics Association, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 3 Research Projects Coordinator,
International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
*CORRESPONDENCE
Tamrat Gebiso
gebisochalla@gmail.com
Introduction: Farm mechanization has multi-dimensional impacts on agricultural
RECEIVED 10 April 2024
production systems like economic efficiency and productivity, thereby improving
ACCEPTED 16 October 2024
PUBLISHED 13 November 2024 the quality of life in the farming community by reducing work drudgeries. However,
CITATION
these impacts were not studied empirically in Ethiopia. Hence, this research was
Gebiso T, Ketema M, Shumetie A and initiated to estimate the level of economic efficiency, and productivity of wheat
Feye GL (2024) Impact of farm mechanization and barley, and the impact of farm mechanization on economic efficiency and
on crop productivity and economic efficiency
in central and southern Oromia, Ethiopia.
productivity of wheat and barley.
Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 8:1414912. Methods: The analysis was done for 232 and 257 wheat and barley producer
doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1414912
farmers respectively who are selected from the Arsi and West Arsi zones. The
COPYRIGHT
stochastic frontier model was used to estimate economic efficiency while
© 2024 Gebiso, Ketema, Shumetie and Feye.
This is an open-access article distributed augmented inverse probability weighted (AIPW) was used to estimate the impact.
under the terms of the Creative Commons Results and discussion: Based on the result, it is apparent that farm mechanization
Attribution License (CC BY). The use,
distribution or reproduction in other forums is has a significant positive impact on wheat productivity while the percentage
permitted, provided the original author(s) and change in average treatment effect for the barley was not statistically significant.
the copyright owner(s) are credited and that Farm mechanization also affects wheat and barley economic efficiency positively.
the original publication in this journal is cited,
in accordance with accepted academic Hence, we recommended the wider use of farm mechanization to improve
practice. No use, distribution or reproduction economic efficiency and productivity. Therefore, policy design should focus on
is permitted which does not comply with ways to avail farm machinery easily like establishing farm mechanization service
these terms.
centers and facilitating credit services for mechanization service renders.
KEYWORDS

augment inverse probability weight, economic efficiency, farm mechanization, impact,

stochastic frontier analysis

1 Introduction
The impacts of agricultural mechanization have been estimated for different outcome vary
in different regions of the world. Amirani (2001) and Houmy et al. (2013) pointed out that
farm mechanization has multi-dimensional impacts in agricultural production system like
economic efficiency, and life quality of the farming community by reducing work drudgeries.
Its introduction can also increase the productivity of the farming system significantly,
especially where agriculture is more dominated by traditional technologies. Mechanization
reduces production costs, thereby increasing profit and reducing food costs (Cossar, 2019;
Bello, 2012). Farm mechanization has great impacts on factor productivity improvement like
labor productivity, land productivity, and capital productivity (Goyal et al., 2014). Moreover,
the literature indicated that farm mechanization has an impact on the adoption of technologies
like an improved seed, chemical fertilizer, agrochemicals, etc., and crop yields (Takeshima

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 01 frontiersin.org

Gebiso et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1414912

et al., 2013; Benin, 2015; Ma et al., 2018; Paudel et al., 2019; Zhang negative outcomes to small-holder farmers like the eviction of tenants,
et al., 2019; Zhou et al., 2020; Zhou and Ma, 2022). high soil erosion, reduction of pastureland and others. Based on the
The advantages of farm mechanization can also be explained in findings, the government decided to ban farm mechanization
terms of acquired or desired work quality and maintained timeliness (Henock, 1972). As a result, farm mechanization was only practiced
of work accomplishment which can contribute to production quality on limited areas and some state-owned farms in Ethiopia (Mohammed
(Houmy et al., 2013; Bello, 2012). The level of industrialization and the et al., 2000). But there is also recent findings that farm mechanization
development of the agricultural economy of a nation are also directly has positive impacts on yield in Ethiopia (Guush et al., 2017).
related to farm mechanization (Singh, 2006). In general, agricultural However, the government of Ethiopia has recently taken
mechanization can contribute to sustainable production and substantial steps to promote farm mechanization through policy
productivity to secure food self-sufficiency through the mitigation of supports such as provision of tax-free farm machinery imports, and
labor shortage, and reduction of drudgery and other production credit facilities through youth employment opportunities by the
bottlenecks (Wang et al., 2016; Zhou and Ma, 2022). Therefore, Development Bank of Ethiopia under the “machinery lease financing
estimating the impacts of farm mechanization on productivity and scheme.” The tax-free machinery import was approved by the Ministry
economic efficiency is rational and can generate evidences for policy of Finance in 2019 for farm machinery and irrigation technologies.
and development interventions (Hormozi et al., 2012; Singh, 2006). The lease financing service is not limited to youths but also other
Recently, there are several studies on impacts of farm interested potential investors in areas of agriculture to purchase farm
mechanization on production efficiency and farm productivity in machineries including tractors, combine harvesters, irrigation
different parts of the world. For example, Soliman (1992) studied technologies, and livestock husbandry technologies since 2016
impact of farm mechanization in Egyptian agriculture and found that (Development Bank of Ethiopia, 2016a, 2016b). These efforts are
farm mechanization has significant impact both on productivity and evidence for the beliefs developed nationally that farm mechanization
efficiency of all kinds of crops under consideration, i.e., wheat, maize, is more important and contributing to the growth of production, and
cotton and rice. The author also found highest and significant impact productivity being attained in Ethiopian agricultural sector.
of mechanization on wheat economic efficiency compared to other Furthermore, studies indicated that machinery up-take at national
crops. Similarly, Min et al. (2021) conducted research on impact of level is increasing from time-to-time (Guush et al., 2017). Despite over
mechanization at different phases on agricultural operation and they seven decades of efforts to mechanize Ethiopian agriculture and the
found that mechanization has different impact at different phases. multi-dimensional impact of the technologies, studies on these areas
Accordingly, they found that mechanization has a positive effect on are not sufficient (Workneh et al., 2021). On the other side, there are
technical efficiency at the chemical application phase, but does not still debates at every corner on the importance and timeliness of farm
affect efficiency at the plowing and harvesting phases. mechanization. Particularly, there is a dearth of studies on the impacts
Impact of farm mechanization in rice productivity in Cauvery of farm mechanization on economic efficiency and farm productivity
delta zone of Tamil Nadu state was studied by Chidambaram (2013). of smallholder farming households in Ethiopia in general and in
Mamman (2015) also studied the influence of agricultural central and southern Oromia region of Ethiopia in particular. Hence,
mechanization on crop production in Bauchi and Yobe states of this research was initiated to fill the gap observed in this area with
Nigeria. The study by Vortia et al. (2019) also indicated that specific objectives of estimating the impacts of farm mechanization on
Mechanization has positive impact and leading to increase economic efficiency and farm productivity in central and southern
productivity and profitability of rice producers in Bangladesh. The Oromia, Ethiopia. Specifically, the study is aimed at providing and
above-mentioned studies all identified that farm mechanization has clearly showing the importance and positive impacts that the wider
significant effects on productivity and technical, and economic use of farm mechanization can have on regional and national
efficiency of farm mechanization on different crops and suggested the agricultural production and productivity. It can also indicate the way
importance of the technology in production. forwards to promote farm mechanization.
Similarly, introduction of farm mechanization, as kind of technical
change in agricultural activities, is expected to have certain impacts
on production, productivity and economic efficiency of smallholder 2 Methodology of the research
farmers in Ethiopia. The findings on impact of farm mechanization in
developing countries in the past were not in conformity with each 2.1 Description of the study area
other and lack conclusiveness (Tan, 1981). In order to bridge the gaps,
several empirical studies have been conducted in different parts of the This study was conducted in two selected zones of central and
developing countries. To this end, a number of empirical and southeast part of Oromia regional state. The region is located 3°24′20″
conclusive case studies on impacts of farm mechanization on different North to 10°23′26″ North latitudes (extending for about 7o north to
outcome variables like productivity (production/hectare) and south and 34°7′37″ East to 42°58′51″ East longitudes (extending for
economic efficiency different countries were conducted. Similar to about 9o west to east) in tropical zone. In terms of both population size
other developing countries, demonstration and popularization efforts and land mass, Oromia is the largest regional state in Ethiopia by
were started since 1970s in Ethiopia (Stahl, 1973; Cohen, 1987) mainly occupying approximately 34, and 37% of land and populations,
around the central and southern parts of Oromia region. However, respectively. Even though it varies from study to study, its average
there were also similar debates about the impacts of farm estimated area is about 363,375 km2 (BoFED, RD and ICP, 2012).
mechanization in Ethiopia during 1970s. Research conducted in Based on the CSA (2013) projection, its population by 2025 is
Chilalo Agricultural Development Unit (CADU) project areas estimated to jump over 42millions. In terms of spatial coverage of its
concluded that the expansion of farm mechanization had different temperature, more than 99% of the area of the region is suitable for

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 02 frontiersin.org

Gebiso et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1414912

crop growth. The region receives annual rainfall of 1,600-2400 mm in 52.51% of total wheat cultivated land of Ethiopia, the two zones
highland part and less than 400 mm in lowland parts of the region together covered 33.24 and 17.45% of total wheat grown land of
(MoA, 2000). The lion-share of national crop cultivated land is also Oromia and Ethiopia, respectively. Similarly, major barely production
from Oromia region. For instance, in 2020/21 production season, the of the region and the country as a whole is from these two zones.
region’s total all crop cultivated land accounts for 46.24% of total Accordingly, in 2020/21 production season, 47.59% of barley grown
national crop cultivated area (CSA, 2021). land was from Oromia where Arsi and West Arsi alone covered
The two zones, selected for this study Arsi and West Arsi, are in 37.67% of Oromia and 17.93% of national barley farm (CSA, 2021).
central and southeastern part of Oromia region, respectively. The In nutshell, these two zones are among the zones that are surplus
geographical locations of the four sampled districts are indicated in study producers in Oromia region.
map (Figure 1). There are two reasons for the area limitation of this study.
The first and foremost reason is that the area has more exposure to farm
mechanization technologies and it is easy to get respondents who are 2.2 Data types, data collection method,
experiencing the technologies for the analysis of impacts. The second and target groups
reason is due to the limitation of time and resource to cover wider
geography of the nation. Arsi zone geographically lies between 6°45′N to Data used in this study was both qualitative and quantitative
8°58′N latitude and 38,032′E to 40°50′ E longitude while West Arsi zone primary data that have been collected from farm households in the
extends from 6,012′29″ to 7,042′55″ latitude and 38,004′04″ to 39,046′08″ study area. Data related to households’ socioeconomic characteristics,
longitude (Oromia Bureau of Finance and Economic Development crop production system, inputs use intensity, household off-farm and
(OBOFED), 2011; Tamrat et al., 2019). farm income, and other related were collected using a structured
Crop-livestock mixed farming is practiced in the area. Livestock questionnaire. Additional qualitative data to enrich the quantitative
are sources of traction forces and manure for agricultural activities data was collected by using focus group discussion at each kebele.
and biomass fuel and income sources in the area. Barley and wheat are Data collection was conducted from April to May 2022 by trained
among widely grown crops in the two zones. While Oromia covers enumerators from Asella Agricultural Engineering Research Center

FIGURE 1
Geographical location of the study area (Arsi and West Arsi zones).

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 03 frontiersin.org

Gebiso et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1414912

under the full supervision of the researchers. A Census and Survey Descriptive statistics like mean and inferential statistics were largely
Processing System (CSPro) software was employed for data collection. employed to analyze and summarize demographic and socioeconomic
CSPro is a software package for entry, editing, tabulation, and variables. An estimator for average treatment effects (ATEs) known as
dissemination of census and survey data. It is commonly used to the augmented-inverse-propensity-weighted (AIPW) estimator
conduct surveys in agriculture and economic among others method was used to analyze the impacts of the level of farm
(Ponnusamy, 2012). mechanization on those outcome variables (Glynn and Quinn, 2010).

2.3 Sampling frame and sampling 2.4.1 Farm mechanization use impact pathways
procedures A farm household can adopt farm mechanization at different
levels (low, medium, and high levels) categorized based on the
A stratified multi-stage sampling procedure was employed to mechanization index (MI) calculated based on per hectare expense of
sample respondent households. In the first stage, Arsi and West Arsi household to use farm mechanization as it is done by different authors
zone were purposively selected as representatives for the central and (Wang et al., 2018; Singh, 2006). Figure 2 depicts the impact pathways
southern parts of Oromia region and where adoption of farm for different levels of farm mechanization and how it affects different
mechanization is considerably high. Due to similarity in terms of outcome variables and ultimately the household’s income. According
agroecological zones and farming systems, the two zones were highly to the literature, farm mechanization directly affects farm productivity,
homogenous and sampling of districts and kebeles were designed and overall production efficiency (economic efficiency) through
accordingly. The study mainly focused on highland and midland timeliness of production operations, overcoming seasonal labor
districts of the study area where adoption of farm mechanization is shortages, and reducing wastages and inefficiency of input applications
relatively high. Districts having better practices of farm mechanization and ultimately the household income (Zhou and Ma, 2022; Hormozi
were first identified and listed. Then, at the second stage, from the et al., 2012; Abass et al., 2017; Paudel et al., 2019; SHI et al., 2021).
identified districts with better farm mechanization practices, two On the other way, the adoption of farm mechanization can
districts from each zone, i.e., Hetosa and Lemu-bilbilo from Arsi and improve productivity and income by reducing work drudgery,
Kofele and Gedeb-Hasasa districts from West Arsi were also selected increasing labor productivity, and saving time for leisure and off-farm
randomly. Thirdly, a total of eight kebeles (the lowest administrative and non-farm income-generating activities. For instance, Sang et al.
unit), two from each district, were selected randomly. The number of (2023) found that the use of farm mechanization in rural China has a
households from each kebele was determined based on probability significant impact on improving nonfarm income. Furthermore, the
proportional to the size of the district’s household population size. The use of farm mechanization can also improve productivity and
final sample size was determined using Kothari’s (2004) formula household income by optimizing agricultural inputs like chemical
which gives us the maximum proportional sample size. fertilizers and agrochemicals (Zhang et al., 2019; Zhou et al., 2020; Su
et al., 2022; Afridi et al., 2020; Kirui, 2019). For instance, the use of
precision agriculture in fertilizer and agrochemicals application can

=N
Z 2 pq
=
(1.96 )2 ( 0.5)( 0.5) ≈ 385 optimize the gain from those inputs by reducing wastage. The use of
e2 mechanization technologies can also bring impacts on productivity
( 0.05)2
and production by appropriate placement and rate of application.
Where N is the desired sample size; Z is the standard cumulative
distribution that corresponds to the level of confidence with the value
of 1.96; e is desired level of precision; p is the estimated proportion of 2.4.2 Specification of stochastic frontier cost
an attribute present in the population with the value of 0.5 as suggested function and cost efficiency
by Israel (1992) to get the desired minimum sample size of households Prior to the estimation of the impact of farm mechanization level
at 95% confidence level and ±5% precision; q = 1 − p. Accordingly, a on the economic efficiency of a household, the economic efficiency of
sample of 385 was proposed and finally, 397 household heads were wheat and barley producer farmers was estimated using Farm
selected and interviewed using random sampling technique by adding mechanization -Low level -Medium level -High level Improve
12 respondents for contingency purpose. production (economic) efficiency Improved yield (Productivity)
The sample households producing wheat and barley are not Household income -Save labor time -Reduce drudgery Increased time
mutually exclusive. Hence, since there are households who are for better farm management Off-farm income/activity Increased
producing wheat but not barley; and there are producing barley but investment on yield improving inputs (fertilizer, seeds, and
not producing wheat; economic efficiency estimation was only agroechemicals) stochastic frontier cost function and cost efficiency
calculated for only 262 wheatproducer and 257 barley- estimation methods. The stochastic frontier function method is
producer farmers. preferred over the non-stochastic method like data envelopment
analysis (DEA) as it accounts for measurement errors due to the
absence of farm records and agricultural variability due to climatic
2.4 Methods of data analysis and synthesis hazards, plant pathology, insect and pests (Battese and Coelli, 1995).
Hence, the assumption of DEA which accounts for all deviation from
Information and data related to the impacts of farm mechanization the frontier to inefficiency is not logical in agricultural production.
on economic efficiency, and farm productivity were analyzed and Accordingly, the SFA model is selected and specified as follows
synthesized using different statistical and econometric tools. (Equation 1):

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 04 frontiersin.org

 Gebiso et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1414912

FIGURE 2
Impact Pathways of farm mechanization adoption on different outcome variables.

=Yi F ( X i ;β ) exp V i −U i ( ) i = 1,2, 3, … n (1) production and is independent of the inefficiency term, and
distributed normally. Ui is also a non-negative random variable that
represents the technical inefficiency of production. It is independently
Where Yi is the production of the i th farmer, X i is a vector of (
and identically distributed as half-normal N 0,σ u2 . Economic )
inputs used by the i th farmer, β is a vector of unknown parameters, Vi efficiency is more important than technical and allocative efficiencies
is a random variable which is assumed to be N 0,σ 2 , and is ( ) to understand the efficiency of wheat and barley producers. Hence, a
independent of the U i which is a non-negative random variable dual cost efficiency frontier of the Cobb–Douglas production function
assumed to account for technical inefficiency in production. is specified following Kumbhakar and Lovell (2000) as follows
(Equation 3):

2.5 Production efficiency estimation ln Ci = α 0 + α1 ln Pr + α 2 ln Pw + α 3 ln Po

+α 4 ln Pch + α 5 ln Ps + α 6 ln Pf +
A Cobb–Douglas production function form which describes the (3)
α 7 ln Pt + α8 ln Pcb + α 9 ln Yi∗ + ( vi + ui )
transformation relationship from input to output (Kumbhakar et al.,
2015) is employed. Cobb–Douglas production is a widely used
production function in agricultural production (Zhang et al., 2015; Where Ci is minimum cost a household incurred in wheat/barley
Imad et al., 2019; Min et al., 2021) mainly due to its simplicity over production; Yi∗is total wheat/barley production adjusted for noise;
translog function. A translog function has problems of multicollinearity Pr toPcb represents price of land, labor, oxen-days, chemicals, seed,
and degrees of freedom that can arise due to a substantial number of fertilizer, tractor rent and combine rent, respectively, and α s are
parameters to be estimated. Hence, the use of the translog function parameters to be estimated. Furthermore, a self-dual cost frontier
especially with input variables of more than three is difficult for parameter that is associated with dual production function parameters
computation. Moreover, parameters are not directly interpreted can be expressed algebraically as follows (Equations 4 and 5):
because of the second-order terms involved in the function, and
additional calculations are needed to get the partial outputs elasticities =Ci c ( yi ,;w i ,;β ) + ( vi + u i ) (4)
, i = 1, …, I,
of individuals. Hence, the Cobb–Douglas production function for
wheat/barley crops is preferred and defined as follows (Equation 2):

ln Yi = ln β 0i + β1 ln X1i + β 2 ln X 2i + u i g ( Wi ,δ ) + ηi and ηi ~ iid N + 0,σ η2

= ( ) (5)
β3 ln X 3i + β 4 ln X 4i + β5 ln X 5i + β6 ln X 6i
(2)
+ β 7 ln X 7i + β8 ln X 8i + ν i − ui
T
Where = Ci w= i xi ∑wni xni is the cost (expenditure) incurred by
wheat/barley producer i, yni =( y1i ,…,yMi ) ≥ 0 is a vector of maximum
Where ln is the natural logarithm; Yi is the production of the i th output (wheat/barley) produced by producer i, wi =( w1i ,…,wNi ) > 0
farmer; X i 's represents land (ha), labor (man-days), number of oxen is a vector of input prices that wheat/barley producer i faced,
(oxen-days), seed (Kg), agrochemicals (litters), chemical fertilizer c ( yi ,;wi ,;β ) is the cost frontier that is common to all wheat/barley
(Kg), land plowed by tractor (ha) and grain harvested by combine producers, β and δ are vectors of technology and inefficiency
harvesters (qt); and β are parameters to be estimated. Similarly, vi is a parameters, respectively to be estimated, ui is a positive ( ui > 0 ) error
random disturbance that captures the stochastic noise in the term which captures cost inefficiency, vi is a statistical noise or a

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 05 frontiersin.org

Gebiso et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1414912

random error term that is symmetrically distributed and assumed to and socioeconomic characteristics (Takeshima, 2017; Ma et al., 2018;
be independent of ui. Cost efficiency is given as (Equation 6): Amoozad-Khalili et al., 2020; Tesfaye et al., 2021; Zhou and Ma, 2022).
And this situation will lead to a sample selection bias to estimate
C (Yi , Pi ; β ) exp {U i } effects of farm mechanization on outcome variables under this study.
CEi = (6)
Ci Self-selection and other measurement errors are common problems
of observational data that have been tried to be overcome by PS
matching methods like pscore, IPW, and others. However, these
In Equation 2, the function g (Wi ,δ ) is an equation relating cost estimators are neither robust nor consistent. Hence, an estimator
inefficiency (ui) to a set of explanatory variables (Wi ) that are known as augmented inverse probability weighted (AIPW) was
hypothesized to influence cost efficiency, δ is the vector of unknown developed (Robins et al., 1994; Robins, 1999; Scharfstein et al., 1999)
parameters to be estimated from the cost inefficiency model, and ηi is and applied recently by social researchers (Glynn and Quinn, 2010;
the random error term associated with it. Linden et al., 2016; Ma et al., 2018; Zhou and Ma, 2022).
AIPW estimator instead of modeling either the outcome, like
2.5.1 Specification of augmented inverse regression adjustment (RA), or the treatment probability, like inverse
propensity weighted estimator probability weight (IPW), models both the outcome and the treatment
In our research, the first step to analyzing farm mechanization probability. An interesting part of this estimator is that only one of the
impact was to estimate the level of farm mechanization by using the two models must be correctly specified to consistently estimate the
mechanization index. There are different methods to determine level treatment effects, a property known as “doubly robust” (Robins et al.,
of farm mechanization used so far by different authors. The pioneer 2000). However, the model is not without limitations where it does not
work of Nowacki (1974) expressed level of farm mechanization for a address the unobserved endogeneity problem. However, since it
given field as ratio of works done by machineries to total works done minimizes most shortcomings of other models mentioned above, and
on the field during the whole production period. Others used this problem is rarely raised, the model is preferred over the others.
descriptive ways of expressing level of farm mechanization (Wawire The property of “double robustness” is that it is consistent (i.e., it
et al., 2016; Özpınar, 2020). Zangeneh et al. (2010) also defined converges in probability to the true value of the parameter) for the
Mechanization Index (MI) and level of mechanization for a given ATE if either the propensity score model or the outcome model is
province as ratio of total energy power (Kwh or MJha−1) that has been correctly specified. It also solves the problem of poor performance in
exerted by use of tractors and other machines to total land cultivated IPW especially with smaller data size (Raad et al., 2020). This enables
in each area relative to the domain like country or region. Almasi et al. it to combine aspects of regression adjustment and inverse-probability-
(2000) and Maheshwari and Tripathi (2019) also calculated level of weighted methods. It accepts a continuous, binary, count, fractional,
farm mechanization as the ratio of total energy power (Kwh or or nonnegative outcome and allows a multivalued treatment.
MJha−1) that has been exerted by use of tractors and other machines The three-step approach to estimating treatment effects in AIPW
to total land cultivated in the study area. Machinery Energy Ratio are: 1. estimate the parameters of the treatment model and compute
(MER) is also another method used by Collado and Calderón (2000) IPW. 2. estimate separate regression models of the outcome for each
which indicates the investment in machinery energy in comparison treatment level and obtain the treatment-specific predicted outcomes
with the other input energy sources required for crop production. for each subject. 3. compute the weighted means of the treatment-
However, all above mentioned methods to determine level of farm specific predicted outcomes, where the weights are the inverse-
mechanization are not appropriate due to lack of information on types probability weights computed in step 1. The contrasts of these
and size of machineries, number and working hours on a given field. weighted averages provide the estimates of the ATEs. In AIPW
Hence, the level of farm mechanization in this study was determined estimation we are interested in three parameters: the potential-
by using Mechanization Index (MI) following Singh’s (2006) and outcome mean (POM) α t = E ( yt ) , 2. the average treatment effect
Wang et al., 2018 method as follows (Equation 7): (ATE), and 3. the average treatment effect on the treated
(ATET) δ t = E ( yt − y0 ) | t =t˜ .
CMi Under a normal risk-free situation, a household is assumed to
MI = *100 (7)
CHi + C Ai + CMi choose one of the three mechanization levels (low, medium, or high)
in order to maximize its utility from farm mechanization. Hence, a
household’s decision to use a different level of farm mechanization can
Where, MI is the mechanization index expressed in percentage; CMi, be modeled using the multinomial logit (MNL) model as follows
CHi, and CAi are costs of using machinery, human labor, and animal power (Equation 8):
by ith household per hectare, respectively for wheat and barley crop
production. For ease of this activity, we first convert the continuous
Pij =
(
exp Z i β j ) (8)
3
treatment variable into multivalued treatment by taking the 30th percentile
∑ j =1 (
exp Z i β j )
and 70th percentile and categorizing the whole sample as low-mechanized,
medium-level mechanized, and high-level mechanized farms based on
the index of farm mechanization value so that we can employ multivalued Where Pij is the probability of a household ican choose to adopt
treatment effects (MVTE) estimation methods. either of the three levels of farm mechanizations. Z i is a set of
It is assumed that households are free to select themselves into demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, and β j is a set of
different levels of farm mechanization based on their demographic parameters to be estimated. At this stage a maximum likelihood

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 06 frontiersin.org

Gebiso et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1414912

method will be employed to estimate those parameters and also standardized difference of equal or closest to zero and a weighted
generalized propensity scores (GPS) will be generated automatically variance ratio of one or nearer to one. The result for covariate balance
and saved. is given in Annex 1 and except for minor cases, the covariates are
The other value in MVTE model to estimate as mentioned above balanced for the matching of the three MI levels.
is ATE of the use of the different levels of farm mechanization on the
outcome variables which are labor amount, chemical fertilizer,
agrochemical amount, productivity, and household income in our 3.2 Economic efficiency of wheat and
cases (Equation 9). barley producers
ATE
= j E (Y j − Y0 ) |Z i  (9) The mean economic efficiency of wheat producers is found to
be 72% with values ranging from 5 to 95%. The reason for low value
(5%) of the minimum value could be crop failure for the individual
Where Y0 is the potential outcome of the low-level group and observation. The overall loss in producing wheat due to economic
refers to the potential outcome of either medium or high-level farm inefficiency ranges from 95 to 5%. The findings of similar works done
mechanization? For the test of model validity, the covariate balance in Arsi and other parts of Ethiopia also reported the closest results
test and treatment effect overlap check were also conducted. The first (Milkessa et al., 2019; Mesay et al., 2013) to our findings. Similarly, the
assumption implies that the distribution of each potential outcome mean economic efficiency of barley producers is 73% with values
y(j) is independent of the random treatment t(j), conditional on the ranging from 2 to 96% indicating a wider difference among individual
covariates X and it is mathematically specified as (Equation 10): producers. The result also showed that there is a huge inefficiency cost
in barley production both in technical and economic inefficiency.
Y ( j) ⊥ t ( j) | X (10) According to this result, the loss of production in producing barley
due to economic inefficiency ranges from 98 to 4% which is consistent
with other findings (Sime et al., 2022; Mustefa and Jema, 2020).
where “⊥” means “independent of ” and “|” denotes “conditional Hence, increasing economic efficiency of wheat and barley producers
on.” The second assumption of ignorability states that for every can increase productivity by 28 and 27%, respectively, (Table 1).
possible X in the population, there is a strictly positive probability that
someone with that covariate pattern could be assigned to each
treatment level and mathematically expressed as (Equation 11): 3.3 Farm mechanization impact on wheat
and barley farm productivity
Pj (=
X ) P=
( w j |X ) (11)
As stated before, farm mechanization can significantly affect farm
productivity through different factors like improving labor
Both assumptions, covariate balance, and treatment effect overlap, productivity, land productivity, postharvest loss reduction etc. The
were checked by using “tebalance” and “teoverlap” commands, econometric model results also showed that potential yield of wheat
respectively, and the model was appropriate for this data (Appendix 1; for farmers with low, medium, and high mechanization index is 3.68,
Figure 2). Finally, a statistical software STATA version 17.0 was 4.60 and 5.50 tons per hectare, respectively, (Table 2). As it is
employed to analyze the data. hypothesized, the result showed that the level of farm mechanization
has positive and significant impacts on the productivity of the wheat
farm. According to the model output, compared to low-level
3 Result and discussion mechanized farms, both relatively medium-level and high-level
mechanized farms are more productive. This finding is consistent with
3.1 Postestimation test for model validity other studies in Ethiopia who found that farmers using combine
harvester were more productive compared to those threshing using
The overlap assumption that states “each individual has a positive traditional methods of threshing (Guush et al., 2017) and from other
probability of receiving each treatment Level” was tested by “teoverlap” parts of the world (Zhou and Ma, 2022; Mather and Belton, 2018;
command on STATA version 17. The “teoverlap,” a post-estimation Belton et al., 2021; Kirui, 2019; Roy et al., 2022; Peng et al., 2022;
command, that plots the estimated densities of the probability of Feryanto et al., 2022), as well as with evidence from our focus group
getting each treatment level is used to inspect whether the assumption discussion and key informant interview in these areas. The result
is violated as shown in Figure 3. further shows that relative to the low mechanized farm, adoption of
The figure depicted that neither plot indicates too much the medium mechanization level increases wheat farm productivity
probability mass near 0 or 1, and the three estimated densities have by 26%. Relative to the low-mechanized farm, the high-level
most of their respective masses in regions in which they overlap each mechanized farm is more productive by 48%. Similarly, relative to
other. Hence, there is no evidence that the overlap assumption is medium level MI, the high-level MI farms are more productive by 18%.
violated in our data. The result in Table 3 further shows that the potential outputs
Second, a command known as “tebalance summarize” is employed mean of barley are 4.20, 4.50 and 5.00 tons per hectare for low,
to test whether a “teffects” estimate command has balanced the medium, and high levels of farm MIs, respectively. The result showed
covariates over treatment levels. According to Austin (2009) the that farm productivity is increasing with an increase in the level of
covariates are said to be balanced if the covariate has a weighted farm mechanization implying a direct relationship between the level

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 07 frontiersin.org

Gebiso et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1414912

FIGURE 3
Propensity score overlap.

TABLE 1 Economic and technical efficiency of wheat and barley producers (bc estimated).

Variable Observation Mean Std. Dev. Min Max

Economic efficiency (wheat) 232 0.72 0.19 0.05 0.95

Economic efficiency (barley) 257 0.73 0.21 0.02 0.96

TABLE 2 Results of the treatment effects on wheat productivity (tons/ha): AIPW estimation.

ATT estimates Percentage change in ATE

Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value
Mechanization level

Medium MI vs. low MI 9.48 (4.96) 1.91* 0.26 (0.17) 1.53

High MI vs. low MI 17.77 (5.19) 3.42*** 0.48 (0.20) 2.39**

High MI vs. Medium MI 8.30 (2.18) 3.80*** 0.18 (0.05) 3.58 ***

PO means by the MI level

Low MI 3.70 (4.81) 7.64***

Medium MI 4.60 (1.23) 37.52 ***

High MI 5.50 (1.79) 30.47***

Robust standard errors are in parenthesis; *, **, *** = significant at 10, 5 and 1% level.

of mechanization and productivity, but the result is not statistically observations are found to have propensity scores below the minimum
significant. The insignificant result may be due to the fact that combine overlap of the common region while four got above the maximum
harvesting, which is the main contributor in increasing productivity overlap of the common support region hence a total of seven
by reducing postharvest losses, is not widely used in barley production. observations were excluded from the analysis.
Table 4 presents the result of treatment effects on wheat and barley
economic efficiency. The results revealed that wheat farmers who are
3.4 Farm mechanization impact on the in the category of medium and a higher level of farm mechanization
economic efficiency of wheat and barley are economically more efficient than those having a low MI. Relative
producers to the low level of MI, medium-level MI, and high-level MI are more
economically efficient by 37 and 49%, respectively. Similarly, relative
Farm mechanization level impact on the economic efficiency of to medium-level MI, farmers with high-level of MI are more efficient
households is estimated for wheat and barley farmers separately. Three by 7% economically. Similarly, barley producer farmers with higher

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 08 frontiersin.org

Gebiso et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1414912

TABLE 3 Farm mechanization impact on barley productivity: AIPW estimation.

Treatment-effects estimation for barley productivity; Number of observations = 240

ATE estimates Percentage change in ATE
Level of farm Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value
mechanization
Medium MI vs. low MI 3.06 (4.58) 0.67 0.07 (0.12) 0.63

High MI vs. low MI 7.46 (6.06) 1.23 0.18 (0.16) 1.12

High MI vs. Medium MI 4.41 (4.29) 1.03 0.10 (0.09) 1.02

PO means by the level of MI

Low mechanization index 420 (4.39) 9.64***

Medium mechanization index 4.50 (1.22) 37.38***

High mechanization index 5.00 (4.13) 12.08***

Robust standard errors are in parenthesis; *** = significant at 1% level.

TABLE 4 Results of the treatment effects estimation for wheat and barley economic efficiency.

ATT estimates Percentage change in ATE

Coefficient z-value Coefficient z-value
a. For wheat produces

Mechanization level

Medium vs. Low 0.15 (0.03) 5.76*** 0.37 (0.13) 2.88***

High vs. Low 0.08 (0.03) 2.28** 0.49 (0.14) 3.51***

High vs. Medium MI 0.07 (0.02) 4.65*** 0.07 (0.01) 4.65***

b. For barley producers

Level of mechanization

Medium MI vs. Low MI 0.12 (0.04) 2.68*** 0.20 (0.16) 1.19

High MI vs. low MI 0.25 (0.04) 6.32*** 0.25 (0.08) 3.05***

High MI vs. Medium MI 0.13 (0.02) 5.33*** 0.13 (0.02) 5.33***

Robust standard errors are in parenthesis; ***, ** = significant at 1 and 5% level.

farm MI are also more efficient. Accordingly, compared to farmers economic efficiency of wheat producer household increases by 37 and
with low MI, medium and high MI farms are more efficient by 20 and 49% as a farmer’s level of farm mechanization increases from lower to
25%, respectively. Relative to the medium farm mechanization level, medium and from lower to higher, respectively. Similarly, the farm
farmers with high MI are more efficient by 13%. This finding is also mechanization impact on productivity level of wheat is positive and
consistent with other findings somewhere in the world that show farm significant but even though it has positive impact on barley producers’
mechanization has positive and significant impacts on the economic farm productivity, the result was not statistically significant. Hence, in
efficiency (Vortia et al., 2019; Min et al., 2021; Soliman, 1992). general the use of farm mechanization such as tractors and combine
harvester has positive significant impacts on wheat and barley
production and productivity. This could be by alleviating labor
4 Conclusion and recommendation shortage that is happening due to mass urban migration or due to on
time operations by farm machineries. Therefore, wider utilization
This research was initiated with the objectives of estimating (application) of the technology should be planned in the future both
impacts of farm mechanization on wheat and barley producers’ by farmers and policy maker. The farmers would also plan to for
agricultural productivity and economic efficiency in central and further mechanization. Furthermore, ways to popularize the
southern Oromia region in Ethiopia. According to the result, the technologies to scale-out the adoption for the realization of the
mean economic efficiency of wheat was 94 and 72%, respectively. The impacts of farm mechanization shall be designed by development
values for minimum and maximum economic efficiency were 5 and practitioners like extension system and non-governmental
95%, respectively. Similarly, the mean economic efficiency for barley organizations working on this area.
producers was 73% with minimum and maximum of values 21 and Different options of farm mechanizations technologies like small-
96%, respectively. power tractors (where it is applicable), irrigation technologies, small-
Consistent with other authors’ results, the econometric model scale harvesting and threshing technologies shall be included in the
results also showed that farm mechanization has significant positive plan. Given the financial capacity of the smallholders in the area, it is
impacts on wheat and barley producers’ economic efficiency where difficult for the farmers to have farm mechanization technologies at

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 09 frontiersin.org

Gebiso et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1414912

an individual level. The in-depth interview and focus group discussion Visualization, Writing – review & editing. GF: Conceptualization,
also reveals that all households are using farm mechanization Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing.
technologies by renting from service providers in and around the
areas. Hence, farm policy design and development interventions
should consider such issues to strengthen and motivate the already Funding
started support to interested service provider individuals through
credit and technical supports. In addition to this government owned The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for
mechanization service providing enterprises can be taken as an the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
option. To this end, establishment of mechanization service provider
centers and maintenance centers shall be planned. Promotion and
implementation of cluster farming can also facilitate mechanization Acknowledgments
of fragmented farms of Ethiopia as a whole.
Researchers from Asella Agricultural Engineering Research center
who participated in data collection process, respondent (interviewed)
Data availability statement farmers who participated in data collection processes, development
agents and respective district’s agriculture office leaders are duly
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will acknowledged. The authors also acknowledge the small financial
be made available by the authors, without undue reservation. support for data collection by Oromia Agricultural Research
Institute (IQQO).

Ethics statement
Conflict of interest
Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for
the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
in this article. absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Author contributions
Publisher’s note
TG: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding
acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors
Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations,
– original draft, Writing – review & editing. MK: Supervision, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product
Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing, that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its
Conceptualization. AS: Conceptualization, Supervision, Validation, manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References
Abass, A., Amaza, P., Bachwenkizi, B., Wanda, K., Agona, A., and Cromme, N. (2017). Benin, S. (2015). Impact of Ghana’s agricultural mechanization services center
The impact of mechanized processing of cassava on farmers’ production efficiency in program. Agric. Econ. 46, 103–117. doi: 10.1111/agec.12201
Uganda. Appl. Econ. Lett. 24, 102–106. doi: 10.1080/13504851.2016.1167817
BoFED, RD and ICP. (2012). The National Regional State of Oromiya: Oromiya
Afridi, F., Bishnu, M., and Mahajan, K. (2020). Gendering technological change: National Regional State in Brief, Part IV. Available at: https://oromiabofed.org/images/
evidence from agricultural mechanization. IZA – Institute of Labor Economics, stories/rstatistics/Oromiya_In_Brie_%20Part_IV.pdf (Accessed June 13, 2023).
Discussion paper series IZA DP No. 13712.
Chidambaram, M. (2013). Impact of farm mechanization in rice productivity in
Almasi, M., Kiani, S., and Loui-mi, N. (2000). Principles of Agricultural Cauvery Delta zone of Tamil Nadu state-an economic analysis. Coimbatore: Tamil Nadu
Mechanization. Ma’soumeh (PBUH) Publication. Ghom, Iran. 19–40. Agricultural University.
Amirani, E.. (2001). Economic factors and their relationship with the promotion of Cohen, J. M. (1987). Integrated rural development: The Ethiopian experience and the
agricultural mechanization. Jihad Scientific Monthly. No. 239–238, April and May debate. Uppsala, Sweden: The Scandinavian Institute of African Studies.
2001.30.
Collado, M., and Calderón, E. (2000). Energía de utilizada para la producción agrícola
Amoozad-Khalili, M., Rostamian, R., Esmaeilpour-Troujeni, M., and en el estado de Guanajuato: Cuantificación y análisis. Memorias del III Congreso
Kosari-Moghaddam, A. (2020). Economic modeling of mechanized and semi- Latinoamericano de Ingeniería Agrícola. Guanajuato. México. (In Spanish).
mechanized rainfed wheat production systems using multiple linear regression model.
Inf. Process Agric. 7, 30–40. doi: 10.1016/j.inpa.2019.06.002 Cossar, F. (2019). “Impact of mechanization on smallholder agricultural production:
evidence from Ghana.” in Contributed Paper prepared for presentation at the 93rd Annual
Austin, P. C. (2009). Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline Conference of the Agricultural Economics Society, University of Warwick, England. 15–17
covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat. Med. April 2019.
28, 3083–3107. doi: 10.1002/sim.3697
CSA (2021). Agricultural sample survey 2020 / 2021 (2013 E.C.) (September –
Battese, G. E., and Coelli, T. J. (1995). A model for technical inefficiency effects in a December 2020/2021) volume III report on farm management practices (private peasant
stochastic frontier production function for panel data. Empir. Econ. 20, 325–332. doi: holdings, Meher season).
10.1007/BF01205442
CSA. (2013). Population Projections for Ethiopia: 2007-2037. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Bello, S. R. (2012). Agricultural Machinery & Mechanization: Basic concepts. USA: DPS
(The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Central Statistical Agency).
Dominion Publishing Services.
Development Bank of Ethiopia (2016a). Lease financing policy for SMEs, Addis Ababa.
Belton, B., Win, M. T., Xiaobo Zhang, X., and Filipski, M. (2021). The rapid rise of
agricultural mechanization in Myanmar. Food Policy 101:102095. doi: 10.1016/j. Development Bank of Ethiopia (2016b). Procedure manual for lease financing,
foodpol.2021.102095 Addis Ababa.

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 10 frontiersin.org

Gebiso et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1414912

Feryanto, Herawati, Rifin, A., and Tinaprilla, N, (2022). “Does mechanization have an Oromia Bureau of Finance and Economic Development (OBOFED). (2011). Physical
impact on increasing the productivity and income of narrow-land corn farmers in and Socio Economic Profile of Arsi Zone and Districts. The National Regional
Indonesia?” in 2nd International Conference on Environmental Ecology of Food Government of Oromia, Bureau of Finance and d Economic Development –Regional Data
Security: IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1107 (2022) 012054. and Information Core Process.
Glynn, A. N., and Quinn, K. M. (2010). An introduction to the augmented inverse Özpınar, S. (2020). Mechanization and agricultural farm structure in the agricultural
propensity weighted estimator. Polit. Anal. 18, 36–56. doi: 10.1093/pan/mpp036 area of the Dardanelles region. International Journal of Agriculture Environment and
Food sciences. doi: 10.31015/jaefs.2020.1.6
Goyal, S.K., Singh, S.R., Rai, J.P, and Singh, S.N. (2014). Agricultural mechanization
for sustainable agricultural and rural development in eastern U. P. - A review Paudel, G. P., KC, D. B., Rahut, D. B., Justice, S. E., and McDonald, A. J. (2019). Scale-
appropriate mechanization impacts on productivity among smallholders: evidence from
Guush, B., Mekdim, D., Bart, M., and Seneshaw, T. (2017). The rapid – but from a low
rice systems in the mid-hills of Nepal. Land Use Policy 85, 104–113. doi: 10.1016/j.
base – uptake of agricultural mechanization in Ethiopia: Patterns, implications and
landusepol.2019.03.030
challenges.
Peng, J., Zhao, Z., and Liu, D. (2022). Impact of agricultural
Henock, K. (1972). Investigations on mechanized and its effects on peasant agriculture.
mechanization on agricultural production, income, and mechanism: evidence from Hubei
CADU publication No. 74.
Province, China. Front. Environ. Sci. 10:838686. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2022.838686
Hormozi, A. A., Mohammad Amin Asoodar, M. A., and Abdeshahi, A. (2012). Impact
Ponnusamy, P. (2012). Using CSPro (census and survey processing system) experience
of mechanization on technical efficiency: a case study of rice farmers in Iran. Int. Conf.
from large scale surveys in India. Int. J. Sci. Res. Publ. 2, 1–2.
Appl. Econ. Proc. Econ. Finan. 1, 176–185. doi: 10.1016/S2212-5671(12)00021-4
Raad, H., Cornelius, V., Chan, S., Williamson, E., and Cro, S. (2020). An evaluation of
Houmy, K., Clarke, L.J., John, E., and Ashburner, JE., and Kienzle, J. (2013).
inverse probability weighting using the propensity score for baseline covariate
Agricultural mechanization in sub-Saharan Africa: Guidelines for preparing a strategy.
adjustment in smaller population randomized controlled trials with a continuous
Integrated crop management (22): 2013. Plant production and protection division. Food
outcome. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 20:70.
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, 2013.
Robins, J.M. (1999). “Robust estimation in sequentially ignorable missing data and
Imad, A., Huo, X. X., Imran, K., Hashmat, A., Khan, B., and Sufyan, U. K. (2019).
causal inference models.” in Proceedings of the American Statistical Association Section
Technical efficiency of hybrid maize growers: a stochastic frontier model approach. J.
on Bayesian Statistical Science. pp. 6–10.
Integr. Agric. 18, 2408–2421.
Robins, J. M., Rotnitzky, A., and van der Laan, M. (2000). Comment. J. Am. Stat. Assoc.
Israel, G.D. (1992). Sampling the evidence of extension program impact. Program
95, 477–482.
evaluation and organizational development, IFAS, University of Florida, PEOD-5.
Robins, J. M., Rotnitzky, A., and Zhao, L. P. (1994). Estimation of
Kirui, K.O. (2019). The agricultural mechanization in Africa: micro-level analysis of
regression coefficients when some Regressors are not always observed.J. Am. Stat.
state, drivers and effects. Sixth international conference, September 23–26, 2019, Abuja,
Assoc. 89, 846–866. [86,87,88,89,91]. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1994.10476818
Nigeria 295819, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
Roy, P., Hansra, B. S., Burman, R. R., Bhattacharyya, S., Roy, T., and Rouf Ahmed, R.
Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research methodology: Methods and techniques. 2nd Edn. New
(2022). Can farm mechanization enhance small farmers’ income? Lessons from lower
Delhi, India: New Age International.
Shivalik Hills of the Indian Himalayan region. Curr. Sci. 123, 667–676. doi: 10.18520/cs/
Kumbhakar, S. C., and Lovell, C. A. K. (2000). Stochastic frontier analysis. Cambridge: v123/i5/667-676
Cambridge University Press.
Sang, X., Luo, X., Razzaq, A., Huang, Y., and Sahar Erfanian, S. (2023). Can
Kumbhakar, S. C., Wang, H., and Horncastle, A. P. (2015). A Practitioner’s guide to agricultural mechanization services narrow the income gap in rural China? Heliyon
stochastic frontier analysis using Stata. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 9:e13367. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13367
Linden, A., Uysal, S. D., Ryan, A., and Adams, J. L. (2016). Estimating causal effects Scharfstein, D. O., Andrea, R., and Robins, J. M. (1999). Rejoinder to adjusting for
for multivalued treatments: a comparison of approaches. Stat. Med. 35, 534–552. doi: non- ignorable drop-out using semiparametric nonresponse models. J. Am. Stat. Assoc.
10.1002/sim.6768 94, 1135–1146.
Maheshwari, T. K., and Tripathi, A. (2019). Quantification of Agricultural Shi, M., Paudel, K. P., and Chen, F. (2021). Mechanization and efficiency in rice
Mechanization Status for Etawah District of Uttar Pradesh, India. Int J Curr Microbiol production in China. J. Integr. Agric. 20, 1996–2008. doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(20)63439-6
Appl Sci. doi: 10.20546/ijcmas.2019.805.077
Sime, S., Jema, H., Mengistu, K., and Million, S. (2022). Technical, allocative, and
Mamman, I. S. A. (2015). Influence of agricultural mechanization on crop economic efficiency of malt barley producers in Arsi zone, Ethiopia. Cogent Food Agric.
production in Bauchi and Yobe states, Nigeria. An unpublished M.S. thesis 8:2115669. doi: 10.1080/23311932.2022.2115669
submitted to the Department of Vocational and Technical Education, Ahmadu
Singh, G. (2006). Estimation of a mechanisation index and its impact on production
Bello University, Zaria.
and economic factors-a case study in India. Biosyst. Eng. 93, 99–106. doi: 10.1016/j.
Mather, D., and Belton, B. (2018). Mechanization and crop profitability, productivity biosystemseng.2005.08.003
and labor use in Myanmar’s dry zone. Research paper 103. July 2018. East Lansing,
Soliman, I. (1992). “Agricultural mechanization and economic efficiency of
Michigan State University.
agricultural production in Egypt.” in International Conference on Agricultural
Ma, W., Renwick, A., and Grafton, Q. (2018). Farm machinery use, off-farm Engineering & Rural Development Beijing China, Beijing University of Agricultural
employment and farm performance in China. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 62, 279–298. Enginireeing. October, 1992, Volume I.
doi: 10.1111/1467-8489.12249
Stahl, M. (1973). Contradictions in agricultural development: a study of three
Mesay, Y., Tesafye, S., Bedada, B., Fekadu, F., Tolesa, A., and Dawit, A. (2013). Source minimum package projects in southern Ethiopia. Research report no. 14, the
of technical inefficiency of smallholder wheat farmers in selected waterlogged areas of Scandinavian Institute of African Studies, Uppsala.
Ethiopia: a translog production function approach. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 8, 3930–3940.
Su, M., Heerink, N., Oosterveer, P., and Feng, S. (2022). Upscaling farming operations,
Milkessa, A., Endrias, G., and Fikadu, M. (2019). Economic efficiency of smallholder agricultural mechanization and chemical pesticide usage: a macro-analysis of Jiangsu
farmers in wheat production: the case of Abuna Gindeberet District, Oromia National Province, China. J. Clean. Prod. 380:135120. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135120
Regional State, Ethiopia. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Nat. Resour. 6, 41–51.
Takeshima, H. (2017). Custom-hired tractor services and returns to scale in
Min, S., Paudel, K. P., and Feng-bo, C. (2021). Mechanization and efficiency in rice smallholder agriculture: a production function approach. Agric. Econ. 48, 363–372. doi:
production in China. J. Integ. Agric. 20, 1996–2008. 10.1111/agec.12339
MoA (2000). Ministry of Agriculture. Oromia Regional State, A.A., Ethiopia: Atlas Takeshima, H., Nin-Pratt, A., and Diao, X. (2013). Mechanization and agricultural
of WBISPP. technology evolution, agricultural intensification in sub-Saharan Africa: typology of
agricultural mechanization in Nigeria. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 95, 1230–1236. doi: 10.1093/
Mohammed, Hassena, Regassa, Ensermu, Mwangi, W., and Verkuijl, H. (2000).
ajae/aat045
A comparative assessment of combine harvesting Vis-à-Vis conventional harvesting
and threshing in Arsi region, Ethiopia. International maize and wheat improvement Tamrat, G. C., Aman, N. T., and Ashebir, T. M. (2019). Farming System
center (CIMMYT) and Ethiopia agricultural research organization (EARO), Characterization of Arsizone: Case of Small-Scale Farming. American
Mexico, D. F. Journal of Environmental and Resource Economics, 4, 12–24. doi: 10.11648/j.
ajere.20190401.12
Mustefa, B., and Jema, H. (2020). Economic efficiency in barely production: the case
of Chole District, east Arsi zone, Oromia National Regional State, Ethiopia. J. Resour. Tan, Y. L. (1981). The impact of farm mechanization on small-scale rice production.
Dev. Manag. 66, 25–36. UPLB: Unpublished. MS Thesis.
Nowacki, T. (1974). Examples of technical and economic analysis of Tesfaye, W., Blalock, G., and Tirivayi, N. (2021). Climate-smart innovations and rural
mechanized processes in various agro-technical conditions. AGRI/MECH Report poverty in Ethiopia: exploring impacts and pathways. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 103, 878–899. doi:
(UN)(ECE). 32 10.1111/ajae.12161

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 11 frontiersin.org

Gebiso et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1414912

Vortia, P., Nasrin, M., Bipasha, S. K., and Islam, M. M. (2019). Extent of farm Zangeneh, M., Omid, M., and Akram, A. (2010). Assessment of machinery energy
mechanization and technical efficiency of rice production in some selected areas of ratio in potato production by means of artificial neural network. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 5,
Bangladesh. Geo J. 86, –742. doi: 10.1007/s10708-019-10095-1 993–998. doi: 10.5897/AJAR09.051
Wang, X., Yamauchic, F., and Huang, J. (2016). Rising wages, mechanization, and the Zhang, C., Shi, G. M., Shen, J., and Hu, R. F. (2015). Productivity effect and overuse
substitution between capital and labor: evidence from small scale farm system in China. of pesticide in crop production in China. J. Integr. Agric. 14, 1903–1910. doi: 10.1016/
Agric. Econ. 47, 309–317. doi: 10.1111/agec.12231 S2095-3119(15)61056-5
Wang, X., Yamauchi, F., Huang, J, and Rozelle, S. (2018). What constrains Zhang, J., Wang, J., and Zhou, X. (2019). Farm machine use and pesticide expenditure
mechanization in Chinese agriculture? Role of farm size and fragmentation. China Econ in maize production: health and environment implications. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public
Review. (October. 2017:1–9). Health 16:1808. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16101808
Wawire, N. W., Bett, C., Ruttoh, R. C., Wambua, J., Omari, F. G., and Kisilu, R. (2016). Zhou, X., and Ma, W. (2022). Agricultural mechanization and land productivity in China.
The status of agricultural mechanization in Kenya. KALRO, RDA. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 29, 530–542. doi: 10.1080/13504509.2022.2051638
Workneh, W. A., Ujiie, K., and Matsushita, S. (2021). Farmers’ agricultural Zhou, X., Ma, W., Li, G., and Qiu, H. (2020). Farm machinery use and maize yields in
tractor preferences in Ethiopia: a choice experiment approach. Discov. Sustain. China: an analysis accounting for selection Bias and heterogeneity. Aust. J. Agric. Resour.
2, 1–15. Econ. 64, 1–26.

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 12 frontiersin.org

Gebiso et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1414912

Appendix 1
Annexes. Covariate balance summary.

Covariates Medium MI High MI

Weighted Weighted Weighted Weighted
Std. Difference Variance ratio Std. Difference Variance ratio
Zone 0.059 1.000 0.102 0.987

Sex 0.040 0.785 0.113 0.455

Education status 0.023 1.034 0.109 0.981

Farming experiences 0.041 0.894 0.149 1.462

Mechanization distance −0.046 0.902 −0.093 0.943

Cultivated land 0.076 1.096 0.025 1.036

No. of plots −0.003 1.210 0.145 1.399

Family labor 0.018 0.892 0.092 1.085

Household size 0.001 1.311 0.149 1.262

Market participation −0.008 1.024 −0.187 1.519

Livestock (TLU) −0.062 1.145 0.208 2.284

Road access 0.054 0.879 −0.038 1.085

Main market distance −0.041 1.013 0.111 1.171

Crop diversification (SDI) −0.004 0.890 0.039 0.983

Mechanization distance 0.054 0.953 0.064 0.943

Dependency ratio 0.039 1.291 0.023 0.757

Social capital 0.023 0.848 0.007 0.793

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 13 frontiersin.org