Vol. 16(5), pp. 667-677, May, 2020
DOI: 10.5897/AJAR2020.14727
Article Number: E80A5DB63699
ISSN: 1991-637X
Copyright ©2020
African Journal of Agricultural
Author(s) retain the copyright of this article Research
http://www.academicjournals.org/AJAR
Full Length Research Paper
Technical efficiency in tomato production among
smallholder farmers in Kirinyaga County, Kenya
Thomas Mbogo Mwangi*, Samuel Njiri Ndirangu and Hezron N. Isaboke
Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, School of Agriculture, University of Embu,
P. O. Box 6-60100, Embu, Kenya.
Received 17 January, 2020; Accepted 23 March, 2020
The study was conducted to assess tomato productivity and determine characteristics that influence
technical efficiency among smallholder farmers in Kirinyaga County using the production function
approach. Data were collected by administering structured questionnaires to a sample of 384
respondents randomly selected from six wards using multistage stratified and probability proportionate
to size sampling procedures. The study adopted cross-sectional survey design and primary data on
tomato yield, production system, input usage and farmer demographics were collected. The stochastic
Cobb Douglas production function was used to estimate the frontier production and efficiency levels
using maximum likelihood. Tobit multiple regression was used to determine farm and farmer
characteristics that impact technical efficiency. Results showed that respondents were inefficient with
an average technical efficiency of 39.55% with greenhouse more efficient than open field system.
Household size, production systems, seed type, fertilizer, extension and market information
significantly and positively influenced technical efficiency, while land size was significant and inversely
influenced technical efficiency. Results revealed a possibility to increase technical efficiency in tomato
production using certified seeds and recommended fertilizer levels. In addition, policy interventions
aimed at subsidizing costs of establishing greenhouses would serve as an incentive to motivate
farmers to use technologies in tomato production.
Key words: Cobb Douglas production function, production systems, technical efficiency, Tobit regression
INTRODUCTION
Comparable to other Sub-Saharan African countries, Horticulture forms the bulk of agriculture with vegetables
Kenya continues to rely on agriculture for food and accounting for 80% of growers and 60% of exports (Yabs
economic development (Ochilo et al., 2019). The sector and Awuor, 2016). Tomato is among the widely
is a key economic pillar contributing 24% of the gross do- cultivated vegetables and is ranked second after potato
mestic product and about 65% of exports (Nyamwamu, in terms of production and value (Mitra and Yunus,
2016). Smallholder farmers dominate the sector with 2018). In recent past, the Kenyan government has
farms ranging from 0.2 to 3 hectares and produces over devised mechanisms to improve productivity among
70% of total agricultural output (Ndirangu et al., 2018). smallholder farmers (Wambua et al., 2019). In tomato
*Corresponding author. E-mail: .
Author(s) agree that this article remain permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License 4.0 International License
, 668 Afr. J. Agric. Res.
production, this involved development of disease explained that an understanding on levels of technical
resistant varieties, quality fertilizers, effective pesticides efficiency can be valuable in solving the problem of low
and technologies aimed at reducing production costs productivity in agriculture.
(GoK, 2018). Ochilo et al. (2019) indicated that production and
Despite these efforts, the country has not attained food productivity in agriculture can be improved through
sufficiency like is the case in other developing countries. increased input use and increasing technical efficiency
To overcome this, it is necessary to increase agricultural levels of producers. Measuring technical efficiency helps
yield by improving production efficiency. compare the performance of farmers and identify factors
Tomato is among vegetables mainly grown in open that explain inefficiencies (Kassa and Demissie, 2019).
fields and greenhouse production systems (Nyamwamu, Technical efficiency depicts the producer’s ability to
2016). The crop is extensively cultivated, accounting for achieve optimal production from the available resources
about 7% of horticulture and 14% of vegetable pro- and level of technology (Shettima et al., 2015). Dessale
duction (Mwangi et al., 2015). On average, the country (2019) explained that the performance of a producer and
records 410,033 tons of tomato with area under cul- factors that affect production are important aspects in
tivation escalating from 18,178 ha to 20,111 ha between quantifying technical efficiency. Technically, efficient
2011 and 2016. (Mitra and Yunus, 2018).This places farms produce along the frontier while inefficient
Kenya among top tomato producers in Sub Saharan producers lie below the frontier production function (Tirra
Africa (Ochilo et al., 2019). In Kenya, tomatoes are et al., 2019). In addition, farms closer to the production
grown in areas with altitudes that range from 1150 and frontier are more technically efficient than those far from
1800m above sea level (Mwangi et al., 2015). Mwangi et the frontier (Katungwe et al., 2017). Improving efficiency
al. (2015) also noted that Kirinyaga County leads (14%), enables farmers increase yields without additional inputs
in tomato production followed by Kajiado (9%) and Taita and technologies thus enhanced productivity (Saavedra
Taveta (7%). The crop contributes to income generation, et al., 2017). Among smallholder farmers, inefficiencies
foreign exchange, poverty alleviation, and employment may also arise from farm and farmer characteristics
creation especially to rural populations (Singh et al., (Singh et al., 2017).
2017). In spite of this substantial contribution to rural The Kenyan tomato industry is set to improve given the
economies in the region, tomato production encounters governments’ pursuit to realize the Big Four Agenda
challenges of low productivity (Geoffrey et al., 2014). which targets to achieve food security by boosting
Chepng’etich et al. (2015) explains that actual yields productivity among smallholder farmers (Tirra et al.,
remain below the maximum attainable levels with Sub 2019). Despite the significance of increasing productivity,
Saharan Africa recording an agricultural produce that is literature on technical efficiency a key aspect in
below the global average. increasing agricultural production is scanty. In addition,
In Kenya, despite efforts to improve tomato production very few studies have profiled and compared technical
by introducing modern technologies such as green- efficiency of tomato production between open field and
houses, productivity declined from 22.4 tons in 2011 to greenhouse production systems in Kenya particularly
17.9 tons in 2015 and 16.9 tons in 2016 (Tabe and Kirinyaga County. This is so despite the County leading
Molua, 2017). Ochilo et al. (2019) noted that deviations in tomato production in Kenya. In addition, the com-
persisted in 2018 with an average yield of 12 tons/ha ponent of describing tomato farmers based on production
against a potential yield of 30.7 tons per ha. This was systems and determining their technical efficiency is
below an average of 35 tons/ha in Egypt and 120 tons/ha limited. Besides this, it is necessary to investigate the
in France (Najjuma et al., 2016). causes of technical inefficiency and low productivity
The low productivity in agriculture has resulted from the among the smallholder tomato farmers.
inability of farmers to fully utilize available technologies The main goal of this study was therefore to examine the
hence leading to inefficiencies in production (Kumar et level of technical efficiency of smallholder tomato farmers
al., 2018). Further, Wanjiku (2015) indicated that land in Kirinyaga County and identify characteristics that
available for agricultural production has reduced due to influence technical efficiency. The study conducted an in
the enormous population growth, extensive soil depth analysis of technical efficiency by determining the
degradation and intensified land fragmentation thus frontier production function and the yield gap of tomato
lowering productivity. Besides this, the high poverty levels farmers from the maximum achievable output. This was
entwined with the limitation of factors of production has computed given the existing technology and level of
made it difficult for farmers to increase production inputs by maximizing output per unit of input. This
through use of more resources (Simwaka et al., 2013). highlighted the extent to which factors of production such
The existence of inefficiencies in agricultural production as seeds, fertilizers and pesticides account for variations
implies the need to examine technical efficiency of in yields. The results revealed that technical efficiency for
agricultural production particularly among smallholder tomato farmers in Kirinyaga remained low with green-
tomato farmers (Wahid et al., 2017). Kumar et al. (2018) house farmers more efficient than open field farmers.
DOI: 10.5897/AJAR2020.14727
Article Number: E80A5DB63699
ISSN: 1991-637X
Copyright ©2020
African Journal of Agricultural
Author(s) retain the copyright of this article Research
http://www.academicjournals.org/AJAR
Full Length Research Paper
Technical efficiency in tomato production among
smallholder farmers in Kirinyaga County, Kenya
Thomas Mbogo Mwangi*, Samuel Njiri Ndirangu and Hezron N. Isaboke
Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, School of Agriculture, University of Embu,
P. O. Box 6-60100, Embu, Kenya.
Received 17 January, 2020; Accepted 23 March, 2020
The study was conducted to assess tomato productivity and determine characteristics that influence
technical efficiency among smallholder farmers in Kirinyaga County using the production function
approach. Data were collected by administering structured questionnaires to a sample of 384
respondents randomly selected from six wards using multistage stratified and probability proportionate
to size sampling procedures. The study adopted cross-sectional survey design and primary data on
tomato yield, production system, input usage and farmer demographics were collected. The stochastic
Cobb Douglas production function was used to estimate the frontier production and efficiency levels
using maximum likelihood. Tobit multiple regression was used to determine farm and farmer
characteristics that impact technical efficiency. Results showed that respondents were inefficient with
an average technical efficiency of 39.55% with greenhouse more efficient than open field system.
Household size, production systems, seed type, fertilizer, extension and market information
significantly and positively influenced technical efficiency, while land size was significant and inversely
influenced technical efficiency. Results revealed a possibility to increase technical efficiency in tomato
production using certified seeds and recommended fertilizer levels. In addition, policy interventions
aimed at subsidizing costs of establishing greenhouses would serve as an incentive to motivate
farmers to use technologies in tomato production.
Key words: Cobb Douglas production function, production systems, technical efficiency, Tobit regression
INTRODUCTION
Comparable to other Sub-Saharan African countries, Horticulture forms the bulk of agriculture with vegetables
Kenya continues to rely on agriculture for food and accounting for 80% of growers and 60% of exports (Yabs
economic development (Ochilo et al., 2019). The sector and Awuor, 2016). Tomato is among the widely
is a key economic pillar contributing 24% of the gross do- cultivated vegetables and is ranked second after potato
mestic product and about 65% of exports (Nyamwamu, in terms of production and value (Mitra and Yunus,
2016). Smallholder farmers dominate the sector with 2018). In recent past, the Kenyan government has
farms ranging from 0.2 to 3 hectares and produces over devised mechanisms to improve productivity among
70% of total agricultural output (Ndirangu et al., 2018). smallholder farmers (Wambua et al., 2019). In tomato
*Corresponding author. E-mail: .
Author(s) agree that this article remain permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License 4.0 International License
, 668 Afr. J. Agric. Res.
production, this involved development of disease explained that an understanding on levels of technical
resistant varieties, quality fertilizers, effective pesticides efficiency can be valuable in solving the problem of low
and technologies aimed at reducing production costs productivity in agriculture.
(GoK, 2018). Ochilo et al. (2019) indicated that production and
Despite these efforts, the country has not attained food productivity in agriculture can be improved through
sufficiency like is the case in other developing countries. increased input use and increasing technical efficiency
To overcome this, it is necessary to increase agricultural levels of producers. Measuring technical efficiency helps
yield by improving production efficiency. compare the performance of farmers and identify factors
Tomato is among vegetables mainly grown in open that explain inefficiencies (Kassa and Demissie, 2019).
fields and greenhouse production systems (Nyamwamu, Technical efficiency depicts the producer’s ability to
2016). The crop is extensively cultivated, accounting for achieve optimal production from the available resources
about 7% of horticulture and 14% of vegetable pro- and level of technology (Shettima et al., 2015). Dessale
duction (Mwangi et al., 2015). On average, the country (2019) explained that the performance of a producer and
records 410,033 tons of tomato with area under cul- factors that affect production are important aspects in
tivation escalating from 18,178 ha to 20,111 ha between quantifying technical efficiency. Technically, efficient
2011 and 2016. (Mitra and Yunus, 2018).This places farms produce along the frontier while inefficient
Kenya among top tomato producers in Sub Saharan producers lie below the frontier production function (Tirra
Africa (Ochilo et al., 2019). In Kenya, tomatoes are et al., 2019). In addition, farms closer to the production
grown in areas with altitudes that range from 1150 and frontier are more technically efficient than those far from
1800m above sea level (Mwangi et al., 2015). Mwangi et the frontier (Katungwe et al., 2017). Improving efficiency
al. (2015) also noted that Kirinyaga County leads (14%), enables farmers increase yields without additional inputs
in tomato production followed by Kajiado (9%) and Taita and technologies thus enhanced productivity (Saavedra
Taveta (7%). The crop contributes to income generation, et al., 2017). Among smallholder farmers, inefficiencies
foreign exchange, poverty alleviation, and employment may also arise from farm and farmer characteristics
creation especially to rural populations (Singh et al., (Singh et al., 2017).
2017). In spite of this substantial contribution to rural The Kenyan tomato industry is set to improve given the
economies in the region, tomato production encounters governments’ pursuit to realize the Big Four Agenda
challenges of low productivity (Geoffrey et al., 2014). which targets to achieve food security by boosting
Chepng’etich et al. (2015) explains that actual yields productivity among smallholder farmers (Tirra et al.,
remain below the maximum attainable levels with Sub 2019). Despite the significance of increasing productivity,
Saharan Africa recording an agricultural produce that is literature on technical efficiency a key aspect in
below the global average. increasing agricultural production is scanty. In addition,
In Kenya, despite efforts to improve tomato production very few studies have profiled and compared technical
by introducing modern technologies such as green- efficiency of tomato production between open field and
houses, productivity declined from 22.4 tons in 2011 to greenhouse production systems in Kenya particularly
17.9 tons in 2015 and 16.9 tons in 2016 (Tabe and Kirinyaga County. This is so despite the County leading
Molua, 2017). Ochilo et al. (2019) noted that deviations in tomato production in Kenya. In addition, the com-
persisted in 2018 with an average yield of 12 tons/ha ponent of describing tomato farmers based on production
against a potential yield of 30.7 tons per ha. This was systems and determining their technical efficiency is
below an average of 35 tons/ha in Egypt and 120 tons/ha limited. Besides this, it is necessary to investigate the
in France (Najjuma et al., 2016). causes of technical inefficiency and low productivity
The low productivity in agriculture has resulted from the among the smallholder tomato farmers.
inability of farmers to fully utilize available technologies The main goal of this study was therefore to examine the
hence leading to inefficiencies in production (Kumar et level of technical efficiency of smallholder tomato farmers
al., 2018). Further, Wanjiku (2015) indicated that land in Kirinyaga County and identify characteristics that
available for agricultural production has reduced due to influence technical efficiency. The study conducted an in
the enormous population growth, extensive soil depth analysis of technical efficiency by determining the
degradation and intensified land fragmentation thus frontier production function and the yield gap of tomato
lowering productivity. Besides this, the high poverty levels farmers from the maximum achievable output. This was
entwined with the limitation of factors of production has computed given the existing technology and level of
made it difficult for farmers to increase production inputs by maximizing output per unit of input. This
through use of more resources (Simwaka et al., 2013). highlighted the extent to which factors of production such
The existence of inefficiencies in agricultural production as seeds, fertilizers and pesticides account for variations
implies the need to examine technical efficiency of in yields. The results revealed that technical efficiency for
agricultural production particularly among smallholder tomato farmers in Kirinyaga remained low with green-
tomato farmers (Wahid et al., 2017). Kumar et al. (2018) house farmers more efficient than open field farmers.
