Printer Friendly

The investigation of influential factors on the productivity of broiler farming units (case study: Markazi province).

INTRODUCTION

The increasing population of developing countries leads to rising demand for food. On one hand, the increased income will directly enhance the supply and demand cycle of food due to the relatively high income elasticity of food items. The simultaneous effect of these two factors is so significant that it challenges the production process in developing and developed countries and the agriculture section might not be able produce sufficient food. The scarce production resources resource can be used for those infrastructures which increase the level of production. Therefore, if the agriculture section cannot fulfill its assigned functions, the importation of food products will be inevitable as a result of which the production process becomes slow, the gap between supply and demand will rise and severe underdevelopment might continue. Due to the fact that the access to sufficient food is one of the basic rights of humankind, the governments have to implement detailed plans to improve the nutritional status of the public. Therefore, the provision of food security requires endeavors to provide access for all families to nutritional products, especially the vulnerable families and poor families. On the other hand, a major number of experts believe that rural and agricultural sections are have strategic significance among the other economic sectors.

In Iran, the poultry industry has a background of fifty years and it is one of the most investment-demanding industrial industries in the country. Therefore, the consideration of its economic aspects and productivity is highly significant. Of the measures which should be done in this regard, one could point to reduction in types and volume of wastes, especially animal waste, during different stages of production cycle of poultry industry which reduces the income and generates environmental problems.

Despite of the presumed significance of productivity, the managers of organizations in different sectors lack sufficient knowledge regarding the concept of productivity and measurement methods. As Sink (1985) stated, despite of the fact that the issue of productivity is regarded as a common subject of management circles in the present era it is less practically comprehended.

The endeavors to functionalize the association between inputs and outputs along with determination of the maximum achievable output lead to the design of parametric production functions in economic studies. Functions such as Cobb-Douglas and Leontief in the microeconomic theories are instances of such endeavors. Farrel (1957) first introduced a frontier method called "Farrel Productivity Frontier". He used mathematical equations to measure the distance of a decision-making unit from the above-mentioned productivity frontier as the productivity of that unit.

Udoh and Etim (2009) analyzed the technical productivity of 100 aviculture farmers through estimation of random frontier production function in one of the Nigeria states and reported the level of productivity as 0.62. The results showed that some factors such as technical equipment and experience exert significant effects upon the technical productivity.

Adepojo (2008) used the Cobb-Douglas random frontier production function and estimation of factors affecting productivity to verify the technical productivity of egg products in one of the states of Nigeria. The range of productivity was 24-93 percent the mean of which was 76 percent. Based on the findings of this study, the units that were closer to the city had higher productivity.

Research Hypotheses:

H.1-There is a significant difference of productivity among broiler farming units based on the managerial characteristics of managers.

H.2-There is a positive association between personal characteristics of managers and productivity of broiler farming units.

H.3-There is a positive association between managerial activities and productivity of broiler farming units.

Research Framework:

To measure the characteristics of managers of the aviculture units, a questionnaire designed by the researcher was used. The dependent variable for the present study is the productivity of broiler farming units of Markazi Province the measurement of which was done through a questionnaire designed by the researcher. Eviews, Excel and SPSS applications were used to sum up the values of each items of the dependent variables. The items were coded as Likert scale.

To measure the productivity, the estimation of production function was used and total productivity was determined through the estimated production function. To calculate the total productivity, the following equation was used:

InY = [lna.sub.0] + [[SIGMA].sup.n.sub.i=1] [[alpha].sub.i]Ln([X.sub.i])+ [[SIGMA].sup.n.sub.i=1]bXi (1.2)

In the above equation, Y refers to gross income of production unit, [X.sub.i] is ith input and [b.sub.i] and [a.sub.i] are respectively the coefficients of parameters in linear and logarithmic modes. The reason for using such a function form is its ability to measure the extension of production variable compared with inputs. The calculation of total productivity in this function can be done through equation 2.3.

[MP.sub.i] = dy/dxi = y(ai/xi + bi) (2.2)

The values of total productivity (MPi) and obtained product (Py) can be used to calculate the value of total productivity of each input.

[VMP.sub.i] = Py.M[P.sub.i] (2.3)

In this type of productivity, the mean value of production from an input is measured. To determine the mean productivity, the ratio of production to input might be used (APi = Y/Xi) which is a mistake. This equation is correct only when it is used for production of one item. To remove this defect, the shares of inputs in the final production should be distinguished from each other. Therefore, the mean productivity is determined through the following equation in which MPi is the final productivity and Ei is the value of production extension.

[AP.sub.i] =[MP.sub.i]/[E.sub.i] (2.4)

In the present study, the calculation of partial productivity is followed by determination of total productivity so as to consider the mutual effects and substitution of factors, obtain a higher level of confidence and provision of realistic viewpoint of performance of units. To calculate the total productivity of all factors in the productive units, the following equation was used:

[TFP.sub.i]= T[R.sub.i]/[SIGMA] [W.sub.j]/[C.sub.ij]) (2.5)

In the above equation, TRi is the total received value, Cji is refers to current expenses and [W.sub.i] denotes the coefficients of mean share of expenses for each input compared with total expenses of units.

The identification of economic features of broiler farming units is done through correlation tests. Nonparametric tests were used to determine the managerial features and measures. Excel Software was used to process the data and calculation of productivity for each production factor was done through Eviews Software.

Estimation of Production Function:

To calculate productivity, the production function was used. To select the type of production function of broiler, the estimations of Cobb-Douglas and transcendental functions were used. In this regard, the independent quantative and qualitative variables such as the value of feed, value of labor, administrative and productive payments, capacity of aviculture units, hygiene expenses, other expenses, capital, age, experience and level of education were modelled and then, different tests were used to estimate model based on four variables of the value of feed, the value of broiler chicken, the value of labor and hygiene costs. The other variables were excluded due to the statistical insignificance of coefficients. The above four variables were used to estimate the function through Cobb-Douglas and transcendental functions.

The Cobb-Douglas estimation is shown in table 1.3. In this model, the function coefficients were production extensions. [R.sup.2] shows that 78 percent of changes is explained by four variables of consumed feed, broiler, labor and hygiene expenses.

To select the proper production function, the test of significant difference between Cobb-Douglas, transcendental functions and bound F-test were used. In this regard, the following equation was used because the transcendental function has four new variables.

F = (0.83 - 0.78)/4 /(1-0.83)/(92-8) = 6.18 (3.1)

The total and mean productivity of production factors:

1-Feed:

As observed before, the mean productivity of consumed feed for the intended 92 broiler farming units was 0.607. Based on the purchase price of feed, the mean value of total productivity of feed in the intended units was 2674391120 Rial.

2-Broiler:

The mean productivity of broiler for the 92 broiler farming units was 2.609 which ranges from 1.75 to 3.5. It should be noted that this value has been defined based on the loss of broiler chickens in this units. The total productivity of broiler chicken was 63093880. This means that adding one unit of broiler chicken can averagely add 630938800 Rial to the income of broiler farming unit. Due to the fact that the mean price of each broiler chicken is 11860 Rial, the addition of more broiler chickens will be economically profitable based on the above value.

3-Labor:

The mean productivity of labor is 19474.73. The maximum and minimum productivity of labor were respectively 5000 and 47500 (in average).
Quantity                Mean     Maximum   Minimum

Mean Productivity     19474.73    47500     5000

Total Productivity      2.12        4         2

Value of Total          8124      15328     7664
Productivity
(VMPX)

VMPX/PX                0.002      0.003    0.0018

Source: Research Findings


4-Hygiene:

The mean productivity of hygiene for all samples was 0.0048 which ranged from 0.0083 to 0.002. The mean value of total productivity in the intended sample was 8700946 which means that usage of an additional unit for hygiene issues will averagely add 8700946 units to the final product.

As shown in table (3.7), the comparison of mean and total productivity of production inputs in CobbDouglas function shows that maximum values of mean and total values of productivity are associated with hygiene and labor.

As shown in the following table, the comparison of mean and total values of productivity for the production inputs as determined through transcendental function show that maximum levels of mean and total productivity are associated with hygiene and labor.

Productivity of All Production Factors:

The equation used for the transcendental function is the following:

[TFP.sub.i] = X1/ 0.57X2+0.13X3 + 0.06X4+0.06X3 (3.2)

In the above equation, X1 is the received value of broiler sale. X2, X3, X4 and X8 respectively refer to the prices of feed, broiler, labor and hygiene issues the coefficients of which show their mean share in the total costs of units.

Based on the results, the mean value of total productivity for the intended productive units is 87.2. In average, one-unit (Rial) additional expense in the broiler farming unit leads to 87.2 unit increase (Rial) for the producers. The least value of total productivity for production factors is 86.1 and the maximum value is 33.4.

Findings of Managerial Characteristics:

1-Planning Skills and Targeting:

The results of the following table show that the respondents believe that mean level of their competency and productivity in managerial skills is 3.24 which is higher than the average. The analysis of skills showed that the respondents had the highest level of competency in planning during difficult situations and following such plans whole the least level of competency among them was observed regarding prediction of production in a cycle of broiler farming.

2-Accounting and Financial Management:

The analyses show that the mean level of respondents' competency in this field is 3.25 which shows their moderate level of skills. In this regard, the ability to register and calculate the initial investment is a top priority while the ability to establish an effective and proper accounting system is the last priority due to lack of sufficient training.

3-Marketing Skills:

The following table shows that the ability to select the best time to sell the products is the top-ranked competency among marketing skills as verified from the viewpoints of respondents. In this regard, mean value of respondents' ability in this field of management was 3.04 which shows their moderate level of ability.

4-Knowledge Skills:

As shown in table (3.13), the mean values of respondents' competency in this field of management was in a moderate to high level. The ability collect data of modern technologies of the market has the least level among the directors and managers of broiler farming units for which the most significant reason is the low level of education of managers in these units.

5-Skills of Rationality in Decision Making:

The results of table (3.14) shows that the ability of managers in rational decision-making is moderate to high. To measure this skill, six items were used and the results show that managers regard themselves as more competent in quick identification of production problems and proper attention to solving them compared with other characteristics.

6- Skills of Mobilizing Resources:

The ability to complete activities in the best possible time and with the lowest duration and highest performance was reported as the highest competency among the skills of mobilizing resources which was verified through the answers of directors of broiler farming units.

7-Risk-taking Skills:

The data analysis showed that the ability of respondents in risk-taking skill is in a moderate to high level. As shown in the following table, the ability to properly use the insurance of agricultural and livestock insurances is in a high level while the low level of essentiality of risk-taking shows the high level of risk aversion among the managers of production units.

8-Communicational Skills:

The results of data analysis show that the mean value of respondent's communicational skills is 3.81 which shows a middle to high level. Among the verified characteristics in this field, communication with others about the problems to attain proper solutions and ability to help the employees to improve their competencies and skills are respectively high ranked in the answers of respondents. On the other hand, the ability to authorize to do definite procedures has the lowest value which shows that managers of broiler farming units follow traditional management styles and they have failed to realize the measures of participatory management. The ability to establish good relationships with buyers and vendors has the third top position which implies attention to clients and significance of human relation management.

9-Occupational and Production Skills:

The mean value of manager's ability in realizing occupational and production skills is 3.70 which shows their high to very high level of competency in this regard. Most of the items underlying this field of skills were in proper levels. In this regard, the ability to prepare the saloon before the arrival of a new shipment of broiler chickens, ability to run the seed holders and water tanks have the best status.

As shown in table (3.19), the managers have the highest ability in communicational skills and the least level of competency in marketing skills.

10-Categorization of Competencies of Directors of Broiler Farming Units:

To group the competencies of directors of the desired broiler farming units, the method of distance between standard deviation and mean is used (Feli et.al, 2008; Tavasoli et.al, 2008)

A= Low: A< Mean-SD

B=Moderate: Mean- SD <B< Mean

C=Good: Mean< C< Mean+ SD

D=Excellent: Mean+ SD < D

In this regard the mean value of managerial ability is 3.47 and its standard deviation was 0.27. The above formulas were used to group the directors of broiler farming units. Most of the directors were in a range of moderate (35 percent) to high (27 percent).

11-Ananlysis of Influential Managerial Factors upon Productivity:

Due to the fact that the variables of productivity, age, experience, education and competency are relative and interval variable, the Pearson test was used to verify the association of two interval variables, two relative variables, one relative variable and one interval variable. This test was done through SPSS Software. The Pearson Test was used to determine the association between productivity and managerial characteristics the results of which are shown in the following.

4-Conclusion and Further Suggestions:

Based on the results of present study, only 32 percent of the verified units have managers with B.A degree or higher. The educational degree of others was diploma or lower. Over 60 percent of managers were higher than 41 years old. Due to the negative association between the age of managers and productivity, it is recommended to employ managers with lower ages.

The analysis of input items for the broiler farming units showed that feed is the most important factor of production with a share of 57 percent of total expenses. On the other hand, the cost of buying one broiler chicken consists 13 percent of total costs. In general, the results of present study showed that the mean level of competencies of directors of broiler farming units is 3.81 which is in a range of moderate to high level so that 59 percent of respondents were in this range.

Based on the results of present study, the following recommendations are suggested to improve the productivity of broiler farming units:

1- Proper procedures should be applied for employing technical managers so that their technical abilities can be completely utilized. In this regard, holding specialized compact courses for the managers of broiler farming units can be useful.

2- As stated before, hygiene has the highest coefficient and effect among other factors. This factor can increase the production level of broiler farming units. Therefore, it is suggested that such units in different towns sign contracts in cumulative manner and consult with specialists of livestock diseases so that during difficult situations, they can act in a more integrated manner.

3- The associated organizations, especially Agricultural Jihad Organization should pay attention to training for managers of broiler farming units. An educational-promotional course for efficient management of these units should attend to the following items: 1-production and marketing as two complementary concepts 2-education of applied managerial skills based managers' techniques of administration 3-consultation of production affairs based on production history, performance and analysis of profitability as well as accounting records and evaluation of available production resources 4-ability of managers' entrepreneurship skill, interests and authorities should be integrated with those of their peers to help them take the special market opportunities.
Annex 1: Estimation of Transcendental Production Function
through EViews Software

Dependent Variable: LY

Method: Least Squares

Date: 12/05/13 Time: 01:07

Sample: 1 93

               Included observations: 92

Variable              Coefficient        Std. Error

C                      -0.419699          2.358863
LDAN                   -0.028497          0.256279
LJOJ                   0.841613           0.265271
LKAR                   2.244351           2.133141
LBEH                   0.215403           0.221327
DAN                    2.86E-06           4.06E-06
JOJ                    -1.92E-06          1.77E-05
KAR                    -0.873012          0.876438
BEH                    -2.30E-08          2.61E-08
R-squared              0.937525      Mean dependent var
Adjusted R-squared     0.931503      S.D. dependent var
S.E. of regression     0.134662     Akaike info criterion
Sum squared resid      1.505103       Schwarz criterion
Log likelihood         58.65231     Hannan-Quinn criter.
F-statistic            155.6912      Durbin-Watson stat
Prob(F-statistic)      0.000000

Included
observations: 92

Variable                   t-Statistic          Prob.

C                           -0.177924          0.8592
LDAN                        -0.111197          0.9117
LJOJ                        3.172654           0.0021
LKAR                        1.052134           0.2958
LBEH                        0.973233           0.3333
DAN                         0.705088           0.4827
JOJ                         -0.108449          0.9139
KAR                         -0.996091          0.3221
BEH                         -0.882732          0.3799
R-squared              Mean dependent var     10.51947
Adjusted R-squared     S.D. dependent var     0.514528
S.E. of regression    Akaike info criterion   -1.079398
Sum squared resid       Schwarz criterion     -0.832701
Log likelihood        Hannan-Quinn criter.    -0.979829
F-statistic            Durbin-Watson stat     1.487944
Prob(F-statistic)

Annex 2: Estimation of Total Productivity through Variables of
Personal and Managerial Characteristics of Managers through
Eviews Software

Dependent Variable: TFP

Method: Least Squares

Date: 10/22/13 Time: 07:38

Sample: 1 92

              Included observations: 92

Variable              Coefficient        Std. Error

C                      8.071676           7.837770
A                      -0.952050          1.238097
AM                     1.103184           0.654423
BM                     -1.182538          0.884799
RP                     0.769384           0.766121
MT                     0.485780           0.822392
MM                     -0.041514          0.500568
MI                     0.409652           0.690910
MB                     -1.247670          0.990506
SEN                    -0.077105          0.076649
TAH                    -0.251635          0.420106
TAJ                    0.085263           0.062147
TG                     -0.315670          0.537262
TH                     0.143006           0.763988
R-squared              0.124570      Mean dependent var
Adjusted R-squared     -0.021335     S.D. dependent var
S.E. of regression     3.064718     Akaike info criterion
Sum squared resid      732.6146       Schwarz criterion
Log likelihood         -225.9846    Hannan-Quinn criter.
F-statistic            0.853775      Durbin-Watson stat
Prob(F-statistic)      0.603298

Included
observations: 92

Variable                   t-Statistic         Prob.

C                           1.029843           0.3063
A                           -0.768962          0.4442
AM                          1.685735           0.0958
BM                          -1.336504          0.1853
RP                          1.004259           0.3184
MT                          0.590691           0.5564
MM                          -0.082933          0.9341
MI                          0.592916           0.5550
MB                          -1.259629          0.2116
SEN                         -1.005955          0.3175
TAH                         -0.598980          0.5509
TAJ                         1.371960           0.1740
TG                          -0.587553          0.5585
TH                          0.187183           0.8520
R-squared              Mean dependent var     3.354600
Adjusted R-squared     S.D. dependent var     3.032539
S.E. of regression    Akaike info criterion   5.217056
Sum squared resid       Schwarz criterion     5.600807
Log likelihood        Hannan-Quinn criter.    5.371941
F-statistic            Durbin-Watson stat     2.230339
Prob(F-statistic)

Annex 3: Estimation of Productivity through Personal
Characteristics of Managers through EViews Software

Dependent Variable: TFP

Method: Least Squares

Date: 10/22/13 Time: 07:40

Sample: 1 92

Included observations: 92

Variable              Coefficient        Std. Error

SEN                    -0.101949          0.065891
TAJ                    0.089820           0.055773
TAH                    -0.289385          0.406626
C                      7.758168           3.302583
R-squared              0.043517      Mean dependent var
Adjusted R-squared     0.010909      S.D. dependent var
S.E. of regression     3.015952     Akaike info criterion
Sum squared resid      800.4452       Schwarz criterion
Log likelihood         -230.0578    Hannan-Quinn criter.
F-statistic            1.334564      Durbin-Watson stat
Prob(F-statistic)      0.268310

Included
observations: 92

Variable                   t-Statistic         Prob.

SEN                         -1.547246          0.1254
TAJ                         1.610460           0.1109
TAH                         -0.711674          0.4785
C                           2.349121           0.0211
R-squared              Mean dependent var     3.354600
Adjusted R-squared     S.D. dependent var     3.032539
S.E. of regression    Akaike info criterion   5.088213
Sum squared resid       Schwarz criterion     5.197856
Log likelihood        Hannan-Quinn criter.    5.132466
F-statistic            Durbin-Watson stat     2.295071
Prob(F-statistic)

Annex.4: Pearson Test of Association between Productivity
and Characteristics of Managers through SPSS Software

                                      Correlations

                                tfp        tah        sen

tfp     Pearson Correlation      1         .144      -.141
          Sig. (1-tailed)                  .085       .090
                 N               92         92         92

tah     Pearson Correlation     .144        1       -.509 **
          Sig. (1-tailed)       .085                  .000
                 N               92         92         92

sen     Pearson Correlation    -.141     -.509 **      1
          Sig. (1-tailed)       .090       .000
                 N               92         92         92

taj     Pearson Correlation    -.059     -.535 **   .752 **
          Sig. (1-tailed)       .288       .000       .000
                 N               92         92         92

th      Pearson Correlation    .177 *      .101      -.127
          Sig. (1-tailed)       .046       .168       .114
                 N               92         92         92

mm      Pearson Correlation     .104       .050      -.131
          Sig. (1-tailed)       .161       .317       .106
                 N               92         92         92

mb      Pearson Correlation     .062       .058     -.254 **
          Sig. (1-tailed)       .279       .292       .007
                 N               92         92         92

mi      Pearson Correlation     .155       .024     -.227 *
          Sig. (1-tailed)       .071       .410       .015
                 N               92         92         92

tg      Pearson Correlation     .020       .075      -.052
          Sig. (1-tailed)       .424       .237       .311
                 N               92         92         92

bm      Pearson Correlation     .015       .029      -.090
          Sig. (1-tailed)       .443       .393       .196
                 N               92         92         92

rp      Pearson Correlation     .112       .099     -.190 *
          Sig. (1-tailed)       .144       .173       .035
                 N               92         92         92

a       Pearson Correlation     .120       .022      -.163
          Sig. (1-tailed)       .127       .418       .061
                 N               92         92         92

                                       Correlations

                                taj         th         mm

tfp     Pearson Correlation    -.059      .177 *      .104
          Sig. (1-tailed)       .288       .046       .161
                 N               92         92         92

tah     Pearson Correlation   -.535 **     .101       .050
          Sig. (1-tailed)       .000       .168       .317
                 N               92         92         92

sen     Pearson Correlation   .752 **     -.127      -.131
          Sig. (1-tailed)       .000       .114       .106
                 N               92         92         92

taj     Pearson Correlation      1        -.039      -.058
          Sig. (1-tailed)                  .355       .292
                 N               92         92         92

th      Pearson Correlation    -.039        1       .310 **
          Sig. (1-tailed)       .355                  .001
                 N               92         92         92

mm      Pearson Correlation    -.058     .310 **       1
          Sig. (1-tailed)       .292       .001
                 N               92         92         92

mb      Pearson Correlation   -.189 *      .057     .276 **
          Sig. (1-tailed)       .035       .294       .004
                 N               92         92         92

mi      Pearson Correlation    -.018       .124     .283 **
          Sig. (1-tailed)       .434       .120       .003
                 N               92         92         92

tg      Pearson Correlation     .009       .048       .123
          Sig. (1-tailed)       .464       .325       .121
                 N               92         92         92

bm      Pearson Correlation    -.065       .085     .257 **
          Sig. (1-tailed)       .271       .211       .007
                 N               92         92         92

rp      Pearson Correlation   -.196 *    .352 **    .292 **
          Sig. (1-tailed)       .031       .000       .002
                 N               92         92         92

a       Pearson Correlation     .049     .265 **      .167
          Sig. (1-tailed)       .323       .005       .055
                 N               92         92         92

                                          Correlations

                                   mb           mi        tg

tfp     Pearson Correlation       .062         .155      .020
          Sig. (1-tailed)         .279         .071      .424
                 N                 92           92        92

tah     Pearson Correlation       .058         .024     .075 **
          Sig. (1-tailed)         .292         .410      .237
                 N                 92           92        92

sen     Pearson Correlation      -.254       -.227 **    -.052
          Sig. (1-tailed)         .007         .015      .311
                 N                 92           92        92

taj     Pearson Correlation      -.189       -.018 **   .009 **
          Sig. (1-tailed)         .035         .434      .464
                 N                 92           92        92

th      Pearson Correlation      .057 *        .124      .048
          Sig. (1-tailed)         .294         .120      .325
                 N                 92           92        92

mm      Pearson Correlation       .276         .283      .123
          Sig. (1-tailed)         .004         .003      .121
                 N                 92           92        92

mb      Pearson Correlation        1           .493     .287 **
          Sig. (1-tailed)                      .000      .003
                 N                 92           92        92

mi      Pearson Correlation       .493          1       .303 *
          Sig. (1-tailed)         .000                   .002
                 N                 92           92        92

tg      Pearson Correlation       .287         .303        1
          Sig. (1-tailed)         .003         .002
                 N                 92           92        92

bm      Pearson Correlation       .128         .279      .166
          Sig. (1-tailed)         .111         .003      .057
                 N                 92           92        92

rp      Pearson Correlation       .353         .340     .180 *
          Sig. (1-tailed)         .000         .000      .043
                 N                 92           92        92

a       Pearson Correlation       .094         .219      .116
          Sig. (1-tailed)         .187         .018      .135
                 N                 92           92        92

                                           Correlations

                                   bm           rp         a

tfp     Pearson Correlation       .015        .112 *     .120
          Sig. (1-tailed)         .443         .144      .127
                 N                 92           92        92

tah     Pearson Correlation     .029 **        .099      .022
          Sig. (1-tailed)         .393         .173      .418
                 N                 92           92        92

sen     Pearson Correlation     -.090 **      -.190      -.163
          Sig. (1-tailed)         .196         .035      .061
                 N                 92           92        92

taj     Pearson Correlation      -.065        -.196      .049
          Sig. (1-tailed)         .271         .031      .323
                 N                 92           92        92

th      Pearson Correlation       .085         .352     .265 **
          Sig. (1-tailed)         .211         .000      .005
                 N                 92           92        92

mm      Pearson Correlation       .257       .292 **     .167
          Sig. (1-tailed)         .007         .002      .055
                 N                 92           92        92

mb      Pearson Correlation      .128 *        .353     .094 **
          Sig. (1-tailed)         .111         .000      .187
                 N                 92           92        92

mi      Pearson Correlation       .279         .340     .219 **
          Sig. (1-tailed)         .003         .000      .018
                 N                 92           92        92

tg      Pearson Correlation       .166         .180      .116
          Sig. (1-tailed)         .057         .043      .135
                 N                 92           92        92

bm      Pearson Correlation        1           .288     .123 **
          Sig. (1-tailed)                      .003      .122
                 N                 92           92        92

rp      Pearson Correlation      .288 *        1 **     .023 **
          Sig. (1-tailed)         .003                   .413
                 N                 92           92        92

a       Pearson Correlation       .123       .023 **       1
          Sig. (1-tailed)         .122         .413
                 N                 92           92        92

                                    Correlations

                                   mt           Am

tfp     Pearson Correlation       .147         .166
          Sig. (1-tailed)         .080         .057
                 N                 92           92

tah     Pearson Correlation       .023         .073
          Sig. (1-tailed)         .415         .244
                 N                 92           92

sen     Pearson Correlation      -.144       -.318 **
          Sig. (1-tailed)         .085         .001
                 N                 92           92

taj     Pearson Correlation       .072       -.201 **
          Sig. (1-tailed)         .247         .027
                 N                 92           92

th      Pearson Correlation      .230 *       -.077
          Sig. (1-tailed)         .014         .232
                 N                 92           92

mm      Pearson Correlation       .188         .136
          Sig. (1-tailed)         .036         .099
                 N                 92           92

mb      Pearson Correlation       .240         .157
          Sig. (1-tailed)         .011         .068
                 N                 92           92

mi      Pearson Correlation       .365         .200
          Sig. (1-tailed)         .000         .028
                 N                 92           92

tg      Pearson Correlation       .192         .074
          Sig. (1-tailed)         .033         .242
                 N                 92           92

bm      Pearson Correlation       .255         .219
          Sig. (1-tailed)         .007         .018
                 N                 92           92

rp      Pearson Correlation       .142         .172
          Sig. (1-tailed)         .089         .051
                 N                 92           92

a       Pearson Correlation       .310         .143
          Sig. (1-tailed)         .001         .086
                 N                 92           92

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).


ARTICLE INFO

Article history:

Received 13 September 2014

Received in revised form 26 November 2014

Accepted 25 December 2014

Available online 15 January 2015

REFERENCES

[1] Adepojo, A., 2008. Technical efficiency of egg in Osun State. International Journal of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, 1: 7-14.

[2] Alabi, RA. and MB. Aruna, 2005. Technical efficiency of family poultry production in Niger-Delta, Nigeria. Journal of Central European Agricultures, 6: 531-538.

[3] Al-Rimawi, A.S., E.K. Karablieh, A.S. Al-Qadi, H.F. Al-Qudah, 2006. Farmers' attitudes and skills of farm business management in Jordan. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 12(3): 165177.

[4] Al-Rimawi, A.S., K.K. Emad, S.A. Abdulfatah, 2004. An investigation in to the perceived farm management and marketing educational needs of farm operators in Jordan. Journal of Agricultural Education, 45(3): 34-43.

[5] Alrwis, K.N. and E. Francis, 2003 .Technical efficiency of broiler farms in the central region of Saudi Arabia, Res.Bult., 1: 16:5-34.

[6] Anonymous., 2005. Broiler sample profile.

[7] Ball, V.E., 1985. Output and productivity measurement in U.S. Agriculture, 1984-79, Am, J. Agr. Econ., 67(3): 86-475.

[8] Banker, R.D., A. Charnes and W.W. Cooper, 1985. Some models for estimation of technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis, Management Science, 30: 1078-1092.

[9] Chames, A., W.W. Cooper, B. Golany, L.M. Seiford and J. Stutz, 1984. Foundation Of data envelopment analysis for Pareto-Koopmans efficient empirical production function, Journal of Econometrics, 30: 91107.

[10] Chames, A.W.W. Cooper and E. Rhodes, 1981. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units, European Journal of Operation Research, 2: 429-444.

[11] Chizari, M., R. Mohammadi, 2003. Management in Promotion, Nor-elm Press, 1: 20-24.

[12] Chou, C.C., D.D. Jiang, Y.P. Hung, 2004. Risk factors for cumulative mortality in broiler chicken flocks in the first week of life in Taiwan. British Poultry Science, 45(5): 573-577.

[13] Cravener, T.L., W.B. Roush, M.M. Mashaly, 1992. Broiler production under varing population densities. Poultry Science, 71: 427-433.

[14] Dashti, Gh. and S. Yazdani, 1996. Productivity analysis and optimal allocation of production factors in Iranian poultry industry, Proceedings of Iranian Conference of Agricultural Economics, University of Sistan and Baluchestan.

[15] Drucker, P.F., 1980. The Practice of management, Harper & Row, New York, pp: 14.

[16] Etlin, A., 1999. What is non - formal education?, Journal of Agriculture Education, 34(4): 72-77.

[17] Fairchild, B.D., 2005. Broiler stocking density. The University of Georgia, Cooperative Extension Service, College of Agricultural and Environment Science / Georgia 30602 - 4356.

[18] FAO., 1992. The Global Challenge, United Nations Organization.

[19] FAO., 2009. Year book.

[20] Fulginiti and Perrin, 1998. Agricultural productivity in developing countries. Agricultural Economics,. 19: 51-45.

[21] Griffin, K., 1979. The political economy of agricultural change: An Essay on the green revolution, London: Macmillan.

[22] Hamidi, M.S., 2005. Management and economic of ostrich culture in Iran. Sepehr Press, Tehran, Iran.

[23] Hejazi, Y., 1994. Engineering the process of educational-promotional activities, Agricultural Jihad Ministry, Management of Studies and Analyses Magazine.

[24] Irani, M., 2002. Poultry buildings and facilities, Applied-Scientific Institute of Higher Education of Academic Jihad, Jihad and Education Publication, pp: 6-16.

[25] Javanbakht, A., H.A. Salami, 2004. The investigation of presence or absence of scale economy in banking units through scale extension parameter (case study: Agriculture Bank), Collection of Papers of the Fourth Conference of Agricultural Economy of Iran, Department of Agriculture, Tehran University

[26] Tosali, B., Gh. Pezeshkirad, M. Chizari, 2008. The effectiveness of in-service training courses of Agriculture Bank to increase the technical knowledge of banking experts, Science of Promotion and Agricultural Training Magazine, 3(2): 97-104.

(1) Sayed Nematollah Mosavi and (2) Sayed Mehrdad Dast Varz

(1) Department of Agricultural Economics, Marvdasht Branch, Islamic Azad University, Marvdasht, Iran

(2) PhD Student, Agricultural Economy, Islamic Azad University, Marvdasht, Iran

Corresponding Author: Sayed Nematollah Mosavi, Department of Agricultural Economics, Marvdasht Branch, Islamic Azad University, Marvdasht, Iran
Table 1.3: Estimation of Production Function in Cobb-Douglas Model.

                              Coefficient

Variable                         Value      Sign

Fixed Value                      7.73        -

Logarithm of Feed Value          0.14        +

Logarithm of Broiler Value       0.28        +

Logarithm of Labor Value         0.22        +

Logarithm of Hygiene             0.48        +
Expenses

Variable                      t-statistic   Significance

Fixed Value                      -6.18           5%

Logarithm of Feed Value          2.28            5%

Logarithm of Broiler Value       3.39            5%

Logarithm of Labor Value         2.25            5%

Logarithm of Hygiene             3.82            5%
Expenses

n = 92 F = 79.13 D.W = 1.79 [bar.[R.sup.2]] = 0.77 [R.sup.2] = 0.78

Source: Research Findings

Then, the transcendental production function was estimated
the results of which are shown in table 3.2.

                    Coefficient
                                                        Level of
Variable               Value      Sign   t-statistic   ignificance

Fixed Value            6.18        -        -1.57          5%

Logarithm of           0.42        +        3.47           5%
Feed Value

Logarithm of           0.68        +        3.71           5%
Broiler Value

Logarithm of           0.14        -        -0.54          5%
Labor Value

Logarithm of           0.01        +          0            5%
Hygiene Expenses

Value of Feed          0.01        -        -2.74          5%

Value of Broiler       0.01        -        -3.03          5%
in Each Cycle

Value of Labor         0.01        +        1.16           5%

Hygiene Expenses       0.01        +        1.27           5%

n = 92 F = 51.58 D.W = 2.23 [bar.[R.sup.2]] = 0.82 [R.sup.2] = 0.83

Source: Research Findings

Table. 3.3: Partial Productivity of Feed in Broiler
Farming Units through Transcendental Function.

Quantity                 Mean       Maximum     Minimum

Mean Productivity        0.607       0.947       0.389

Total Productivity       69791       300000      17000

Value of Total         267439112   1149600000   65144000
Productivity (VMPX)

VMPX/PX                 199730       858551      48651

Sources: Research Findings

Table 3.4: Partial Productivity of Broiler Chicken in the
Aviculture Units (Transcendental Function).

Quantity                         Mean      Maximum    Minimum

Mean Productivity               2.609        3.5        1.75

Total Productivity             16465.6     750000       4000

Value of Total Productivity    63093880   487400000   15328000
(VMPX)

VMPX/PX                         53199      410961      12924

Source: Research Findings

Table 3.6: Productivity of Hygiene and Treatment in Intended
Broiler Farming Units (Transcendental Function).

Quantity               Mean     Maximum    Minimum

Mean Productivity     0.0048     0.0083     0.002

Total Productivity    8700946   28500000   2400000

Source: Research Findings

Table 3.7: Comparison of Total and Mean Productivity of Inputs
in Cobb-Douglas Function (In Average).

Production Factors       Total           Mean
                      Productivity   Productivity

Feed                      0.29           2.10
Broiler Chicken           2.51           9.12
Labor                     5.12           22.8
Hygiene                   9.52          19.75

Source: Research Findings

Table 3.8: Comparison of Average Values of Mean and
Total Productivity of Inputs through Transcendental Function.

Production Factors    Total Productivity   Mean Productivity

Feed                        69791                0.607
Broiler Chicken            16465.6               2.609
Labor                        2.12              19474.73
Hygiene                    8700946              0.0048

Source: Research Findings

Table 3.9: Total Productivity of Broiler Farming Units through
Transcendental Function.

Quantity             Mean   Maximum   Minimum

Total Productivity   2.87    4.33      1.86

Source: Research Findings

Table 3.10: Frequency Distribution of Viewpoints of Respondents
regarding Competency in Planning and Targeting .

Row                    Item                    Mean   Standard
                                                      Deviation

1        Do you have a plan for difficult      3.95     0.64
           situations and to what extent
                 do you follow it?

2       To what extent you can predict the     3.52     0.69
          necessary inputs for a definite
              broiler farming cycle?

3         To what extent you can plan for      3.42       3
         production domain and define your
          short-and long-term objectives?

4         To what extent you can properly      2.97     0.95
       estimate the production costs during
            a cycle of broiler farming?

5         To what extent you can properly      2.91     0.92
         estimate the income of production
        during a cycle of broiler farming?

6         To what extent you can properly      2.72     0.94
          predict the production during a
             cycle a broiler farming?

                       Mean                    3.24     0.83

Sources: Research Findings

Table 3.11: Frequency Distribution of Viewpoints of Respondents
regarding Competency in Accounting and Financial Management

Row                     Item                     Mean   Standard
                                                        Deviation

1      To what extent you have the ability to    3.61     0.64
        register and calculate the value of
       initial investment in broiler farming
                       unit?

2      To what extent you have the ability to    3.43     0.70
        register the value of consumed items
              in broiler farming unit?

3      To what extent you have the ability to    3.27     0.71
       purchase large values of materials to
                   get discounts?

4      To what extent you have the ability to    3.26     0.79
          register the level of production
              in broiler farming unit?

5      To what extent you have the ability to    3.22     0.84
        register and calculate the values of
      profit and loss in broiler farming unit?

6      To what extent you have the ability to    3.17     0.85
          follow trainings to improve your
            financial management skills?

7      To what extent you have the ability to    3.08     0.74
      effectively use different financial and
                 credit resources?

8      To what extent you have the ability to    2.97     4.19
       create an effective accounting system?

                        Mean                     3.25     1.18

Sources: Research Findings

Table 3.12: Frequency Distribution of Viewpoints of Respondents
regarding Competency in Marketing Management

Row                     Item                     Mean   Standard
                                                        Deviation

1      To what extent you have the ability to    3.44     0.70
          select the best time to sell the
                     products?

2      To what extent you have the ability to    3.25     0.83
       directly provide products to consumers
            (instead of slaughterhouse)?

3      To what extent you have the ability to    3.00     0.75
       analyze the supply and demand as well
               as the price of eggs?

4       To what extent you are familiar with     2.95     0.76
        the role of forums in direct sale of
                     products?

5        To what extent you can analyze the      2.85     0.75
        governmental policies regarding your
                      market?

6       To what extent you are familiar with     2.75     0.80
             modern methods of packing?

                        Mean                     3.04     0.76

Sources: Research Findings

Table 3.13: Frequency Distribution of Viewpoints of Respondents
regarding Competency in Knowledge Skill

Row                     Item                     Mean   Standard
                                                        Deviation

1      To what extent you have the ability to    3.19     0.70
         search for newer methods to do the
                    procedures?

2      To what extent you have the ability to    3.17     0.82
       collect information on prices of input
                 items and market?

3      To what extent you have the ability to    2.98     0.90
          collect information on the state
                policies of market?

4      To what extent you have the ability to    2.98     0.77
        collect information regarding state
          policies of modern technologies?

                        Mean                     3.08     0.80

Sources: Research Findings

Table 3.14: Frequency Distribution of Viewpoints of Respondents
regarding Competency in Rational Decision-making.

Row                     Item                     Mean   Standard
                                                        Deviation

1      To what extent you have the ability to    3.68   0.64
      quickly identify the production problems
              and properly solve them?

2      To what extent you have the ability to    3.53   3.06
           quickly analyze unprecedented
                    situations?

3      To what extent you have the ability to    3.42   0.60
        effective use production consultants
      (economy, veterinary, nutrition, etc.)?

4      To what extent you have the ability to    3.31   0.64
        apply the best managerial methods in
          production operations of broiler
                   farming unit?

5      To what extent you have the ability to    3.20   0.72
         make correct decisions during the
          application or awareness of new
                   technologies?

6      To what extent you have the ability to    3.16   0.84
           make correct decisions on the
       technologies which should be reviewed
                      or used?

                        Mean                     3.38   1.08

Sources: Research Findings

Table 3.15: Frequency Distribution of Viewpoints of Respondents
regarding Competency in Skills of Mobilizing Resources .

Row                     Item                     Mean   Standard
                                                        Deviation

1      To what extent you have the ability to    3.46     0.06
          execute activities in the least
        possible time, the lowest period of
       time and with the highest performance?

2      To what extent you have the ability to    3.19     0.65
         use the materials with the lowest
       prices to obtain maximum productivity?

3      To what extent you have the ability to    3.06     0.62
       select technologies and methods which
        can enhance the usage of resources?

4                       Mean                     3.24     0.62

Sources: Research Findings

Table 3.16: Frequency Distribution of Viewpoints of Respondents
regarding Competency in Risk-taking Skill.

Row                     Item                     Mean   Standard
                                                        Deviation

1      To what extent you have the ability to    4.02     0.88
      properly use insurances of agricultural
              and veterinary products?

2      To what extent you have the ability to    3.97     0.89
      save and deposit in emergency financial
                     accounts?

3      To what extent you have the ability to    3.54     0.65
         predict and develop strategies to
      inhibit the threats against production?

4          Do you agree that "risk-taking        3.33     0.78
              is sometimes essential"?

5      To what extent you have the ability to    2.99     0.71
          effectively manage financial and
                 production risks?

                        Mean                     3.57     0.78

Sources: Research Findings

Table 3.17: Frequency Distribution of Viewpoints of
Respondents regarding Competency in Communicational Skill.

Row                     Item                     Mean   Standard
                                                        Deviation

1      To what extent you have the ability to    4.01     0.43
       establish relationships with others to
         solve existing problems and obtain
                  proper results?

2      To what extent you have the ability to    3.97     0.45
        help the employees to improve their
              skills and competencies

3      To what extent you have the ability to    3.96     0.46
            establish good and favorable
       relationships with buyers and vendors?

4      To what extent you have the ability to    3.92     0.40
         establish good, precise and honest
             relationships with others?

5      To what extent you have the ability to    3.83     0.48
       create a balance between the skills of
       employees and their job requirements?

6      To what extent you have the ability to    3.83     0.60
         pay attention to the viewpoints of
           other individuals in regard to
           management issue of the unit?

7      To what extent you have the ability to    3.80     0.54
         define distinctive tasks for each
                     employee?

8      To what extent you have the ability to    3.78     0.55
       listen to the viewpoints of employees
          and realize their suggestions to
                improve production?

9      To what extent you have the ability to    3.76     0.47
       transfer experiences and knowledge to
        new employees in the broiler farming
                       unit?

10     To what extent you have the ability to    3.67     0.47
         avoid the dominative behaviors in
            relationship with employees?

11     To what extent you have the ability to    3.40     0.85
       authorize others to do the associated
                      affairs?

                        Mean                     3.81     0.52

Sources: Research Findings

Table 3.18: Frequency Distribution of Viewpoints of Respondents
regarding Occupational and Production Skills.

Row                     Item                     Mean   Standard
                                                        Deviation

1      To what extent you have the ability to    4.04     0.62
       prepare saloon before arrival of a new
           shipment of broiler chickens?

2      To what extent you have the ability to    4.03     0.67
              manage the seed holders?

3      To what extent you have the ability to    4.02     0.62
              manage the water tanks?

4      To what extent you have the ability to    3.98     0.58
            manage the physical setting
       (airconditioning, setting temperature,
                light and humidity)?

5      To what extent you have the ability to    3.73     0.64
       control density in the broiler farming
                       unit?

6      To what extent you have the ability to    3.69     0.72
        manage the accession and raising of
                 broiler chickens?

7      To what extent you have the ability to    3.61     0.78
       control the hygiene conditions through
           essential treatment measures?

8       To what extent you are familiar with     3.18     0.69
             laws of job and insurance?

9      To what extent you have the ability to    3.15     0.88
          ration the broiler farming unit?

10                      Mean                     3.70     0.69

Sources: Research Findings

Table 3.19: Frequency Distribution of Respondents'
Viewpoints of Management Characteristics.

Row                    Domain                    Mean   Standard
                                                        Deviation

1              Communicational Skills            3.81     0.52

2          Competency in Occupational and        3.70     0.69
                  Production Skill

3         Competency in Risk-taking Skill        3.57     0.78

4      Competency in Rational Decision-making    3.38     1.08
                       Skill

5       Accounting and Financial Management      3.25     1.18
                       Skill

6        Competency in Skill of Mobilizing       3.24     0.62
                     Resources

7           Planning and Targeting Skill         3.24     0.83

8          Competency in Knowledge Skill         3.08     0.80

9          Competency in Marketing Skill         3.04     0.76

Sources: Research Findings

Table 3.20: Grouping Directors of Broiler Farming Units based
on Competencies in Managerial Skills.

Level of Competency   Frequency   Percentage   Cumulative
                                               Percentage

Low                      16           17           17
Moderate                 35           38           55
High                     24           27           82
Excellent                17           18          100

Source: Research Findings

Table 3.21: Pearson Test of Association between
Productivity and Manager's Characteristics through
Transcendental Function

Variable                                Pearson     Decision
                                      Correlation   Variable
                                      Coefficient

Education                                0.095       0.366
Age                                     -0.040       0.707
Experience                              -0.118       0.264
Planning and Targeting                  -0.094       0.374
Accounting and Financial Management      0.088       0.404
Marketing Skill                         -0.017       0.871
Communicational Skill                    0.052       0.621
Rational Decision-making Skill          -0.166       0.114
Resource Mobilization Skill             -0.012       0.909
Risk-taking Skill                        0.005       0.965
Relationship Skills                     -0.034       0.746
Occupational and Production Skill       -0.001       0.991
Training Skill                           0.027       0.800

Source: Research Findings
COPYRIGHT 2014 American-Eurasian Network for Scientific Information
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2014 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Mosavi, Sayed Nematollah; Varz, Sayed Mehrdad Dast
Publication:Advances in Environmental Biology
Date:Dec 15, 2014
Words:7455
Previous Article:Studying the impact of customer knowledge management on relationship marketing (Iranian study).
Next Article:"Victimology approaches and victimization analysis process in the judicial system of Iran".
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters