IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v9y2020i1p25-d309561.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Moderate Operation Scales of Apples Based on Output, Profit, and Unit Production Costs in the Shaanxi Province of China

Author

Listed:
  • Congying Zhang

    (College of Economics and Management, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, China
    Center of Western Rural Development, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, China)

  • Qian Chang

    (College of Economics and Management, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, China)

  • Liqun Shao

    (College of Economics and Management, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, China
    Center of Western Rural Development, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, China)

  • Xuexi Huo

    (College of Economics and Management, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, China
    Center of Western Rural Development, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, China)

Abstract

In the Shaanxi province, small and scattered plots impede an increase in the efficiency of apple production. Developing a moderate operation scale is a proper tool to solve inefficiencies in apple production, as it enables improving the factor allocation efficiency, resulting in higher yields, higher profit, or lower production costs. However, the moderate operation scales, based on output, profit, and production costs, may be different. This paper aimed to evaluate the moderate operation scale of apples from three perspectives of increasing yields and profits and reducing unit production cost. The study was based on survey data collected from 661 randomly selected apple farmers in eight counties of the Shaanxi province, China. The collected data were analyzed quantitatively by the input-output model, the net profit model, and unit production cost model. The findings show that: (1) The moderate operation scale oriented to increasing apple yields in the Shaanxi province should be 0.87–1.53 ha. (2) The moderate operation scale oriented to increasing the net profit of farmers in the Shaanxi province should be over 1.53 ha. (3) The moderate operation scale oriented to reducing the unit cost of apple production in the Shaanxi province should be 0.20–0.53 ha. The study provides evidence that policymakers should grasp the balance point and find the intersection of the operation scale based on output, profit, and unit production cost when guiding apple growers to carry out the moderate scale. We propose that 0.87–1.53 ha may be a suitable operation scale for apple production in the Shaanxi province at the current stage.

Suggested Citation

  • Congying Zhang & Qian Chang & Liqun Shao & Xuexi Huo, 2020. "The Moderate Operation Scales of Apples Based on Output, Profit, and Unit Production Costs in the Shaanxi Province of China," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-17, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:9:y:2020:i:1:p:25-:d:309561
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/1/25/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/1/25/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ayal Kimhi, 2006. "Plot size and maize productivity in Zambia: is there an inverse relationship?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 35(1), pages 1-9, July.
    2. Tan, Shuhao & Heerink, Nico & Kruseman, Gideon & Qu, Futian, 2008. "Do fragmented landholdings have higher production costs? Evidence from rice farmers in Northeastern Jiangxi province, P.R. China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 347-358, September.
    3. Bizimana, Claude & Nieuwoudt, W. Lieb & Ferrer, Stuart R.D., 2004. "Farm size, land fragmentation and economic efficiency in southern Rwanda," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 43(2), pages 1-19, June.
    4. Assunção, Juliano & Braido, Luis H.B., 2007. "AJAE Appendix: Testing Household-Specific Explanations for the Inverse Productivity Relationship," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(4), pages 1-8, November.
    5. Lin, Justin Yifu, 1992. "Rural Reforms and Agricultural Growth in China," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(1), pages 34-51, March.
    6. Guang Wan & Enjiang Cheng, 2001. "Effects of land fragmentation and returns to scale in the Chinese farming sector," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(2), pages 183-194.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jia, Lili, 2012. "Land fragmentation and off-farm labor supply in China," Studies on the Agricultural and Food Sector in Transition Economies, Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO), volume 66, number 66, September.
    2. Wang, Xiaobing & Yu, Xiaohua, 2011. "Scale Effects, Technical Efficiency and Land Lease in China," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 115736, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Jia, Lili & Petrick, Martin, 2014. "How does land fragmentation affect off-farm labor supply: panel data evidence from China," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 45(3), pages 369-380.
    4. Chen, Zhuo & Huffman, Wallace E. & Rozelle, Scott, 2009. "Farm technology and technical efficiency: Evidence from four regions in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 153-161, June.
    5. Deininger, Klaus & Savastano, Sara & Carletto, Calogero, 2012. "Land Fragmentation, Cropland Abandonment, and Land Market Operation in Albania," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 2108-2122.
    6. Yu, Peiheng & Fennell, Shailaja & Chen, Yiyun & Liu, Hui & Xu, Lu & Pan, Jiawei & Bai, Shaoyun & Gu, Shixiang, 2022. "Positive impacts of farmland fragmentation on agricultural production efficiency in Qilu Lake watershed: Implications for appropriate scale management," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    7. Jia, Lili & Petrick, Martin, 2011. "How land fragmentation affects off-farm labor supply in China: Evidence from household panel data," 51st Annual Conference, Halle, Germany, September 28-30, 2011 114522, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    8. Wang, Xiaobing & Yamauchi, Futoshi & Huang, Jikun & Rozelle, Scott, 2020. "What constrains mechanization in Chinese agriculture? Role of farm size and fragmentation," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    9. Zhu, Zhen & Xu, Zhigang & Shen, Yueqin & Huang, Chenming, 2020. "How forestland size affects household profits from timber harvests: A case-study in China’s Southern collective forest area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    10. Pierre Damien Ntihinyurwa & Walter Timo de Vries, 2021. "Farmland Fragmentation, Farmland Consolidation and Food Security: Relationships, Research Lapses and Future Perspectives," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-39, January.
    11. Kawasaki, Kentaro, 2010. "The costs and benefits of land fragmentation of rice farms in Japan," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 54(4), pages 1-18.
    12. Klasen, Stephan & Reimers, Malte, 2017. "Looking at Pro-Poor Growth from an Agricultural Perspective," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 147-168.
    13. Nguyen, Huy, 2014. "The effect of land fragmentation on labor allocation and the economic diversity of farm households: The case of Vietnam," MPRA Paper 57521, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Mensah, Edouard R. & Kostandini, Genti, 2020. "The inverse farm size-productivity relationship under land size mis-measurement and in the presence of weather and price risks: Panel data evidence from Uganda," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304477, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Andrew D. Foster & Mark R. Rosenzweig, 2022. "Are There Too Many Farms in the World? Labor Market Transaction Costs, Machine Capacities, and Optimal Farm Size," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 130(3), pages 636-680.
    16. Ning Geng & Mengyao Wang & Zengjin Liu, 2022. "Farmland Transfer, Scale Management and Economies of Scale Assessment: Evidence from the Main Grain-Producing Shandong Province in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-16, November.
    17. Liu, Jing & Jin, Xiaobin & Xu, Weiyi & Sun, Rui & Han, Bo & Yang, Xuhong & Gu, Zhengming & Xu, Cuilan & Sui, Xueyan & Zhou, Yinkang, 2019. "Influential factors and classification of cultivated land fragmentation, and implications for future land consolidation: A case study of Jiangsu Province in eastern China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    18. Yishao Shi & Qianqian Yang & Liangliang Zhou & Shouzheng Shi, 2022. "Can Moderate Agricultural Scale Operations Be Developed against the Background of Plot Fragmentation and Land Dispersion? Evidence from the Suburbs of Shanghai," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-22, July.
    19. Siyan Zeng & Fengwu Zhu & Fu Chen & Man Yu & Shaoliang Zhang & Yongjun Yang, 2018. "Assessing the Impacts of Land Consolidation on Agricultural Technical Efficiency of Producers: A Survey from Jiangsu Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-17, July.
    20. Erwin Knippenberg & Dean Jolliffe & John Hoddinott, 2020. "Land Fragmentation and Food Insecurity in Ethiopia," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(5), pages 1557-1577, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:9:y:2020:i:1:p:25-:d:309561. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.