Social Sciences & Humanities Open 6 (2022) 100335

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Social Sciences & Humanities Open

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/social-sciences-and-humanities-open

Regular Article

Yield gap in bitter gourd production: A perspective of farm-specific

efficiency in Narsingdi district in Bangladesh
Fahmida Hoque a, Mohammad Kamruzzaman a, Md Jaber Rana b, *, Md Kamrul Hassan c,
Jahid Hassan a
a
Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University, Gazipur, India
b
Khulna Agricultural University, Khulna, Bangladesh
c
Bangladesh Agriculture Research Institute, Gazipur, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The concept of yield gaps arose from IRRI experiments undertaken in the 1970s. The yield gap in this study refers
DEA methods to the discrepancy between prospective farm yield and actual average farm yield. This study aims to find the
Abiotic yield gap by studying the efficiency, abiotic and biotic factors. Simple random sampling techniques were used to
Biotic
collect data, and a total of 72 respondents were interviewed for this purpose. The study revealed that 90.70%,
Efficiency
Yield gap
80.30%, and 73% of farmers were technical, allocative, and cost-efficient for bitter gourd production. The yield
Bitter gourd gap was 15, 245 kg/ha due to the non-transferable component of technology, whereas 3914 kg/ha was due to
Bangladesh existing inefficiency at the farm level. Moreover, combined biotic and abiotic factors were responsible for the
19.91 percent yield loss, constituting a mean yield gap of 6598 kg/ha. Low price of bitter gourd, high labor wage
rate, and high input price was the main socio-economic constrain for improving bitter gourd production where
excessive rainfall, attack by insect and disease, lack of quality seed, and lack of proper utilization of irrigation
facilities were identified as main biophysical constraints for bitter gourd production. Government intervention by
providing training, maintaining an effective marketing system, and ensuring quality input can greatly remove the
problem mentioned by farmers.

1. Introduction The International Rice Research Institute’s study of rice yield-

Agriculture is the most important sector of the economy in
Bangladesh. It is the major source of livelihood in rural areas. It con­
tributes 13.07% to the gross domestic product (GDP), while 40.60% of
households are engaged in this sector (BBS, 2019). Bangladeshi farmers
produce a lot of vegetables, and the daily minimum recommended di­
etary amount per capita is 300 g, but the current availability is 166.1 g.
(NFPCSP, 2013). Vegetables are key components of a well-balanced
human diet and a source of revenue for farmers. Bitter gourd, also
known as KOROLA in Bangladesh, is a popular ingredient in Bengali
cooking. It is one of Bangladesh’s most popular cucurbitaceous vegeta­
bles and is famous for its nutritional and medicinal value. It is grown
extensively throughout the country during the Kharif season, cultivated
on 26.491 acres, with a total production of 54,443 metric tons (BBS,
2019). It occupies only about 2.26% of the total area under all vegeta­
bles and contributes about 1.26% of the total vegetable production in
2018–2019 (BBS, 2019).
limiting factors in six Asian nations in the 1970s marked the begin­
ning of the study of the yield gap (Rong et al., 2021). Studying the yield
gap of agricultural products is important for several reasons.Firstly, it
will help the farmers and policy-makers understand the problem in crop,
soil, and management issues that hinder getting desired yield. Second, to
make it possible to prioritize research, development, and treatments
effectively. The third step is to assess how land usage and natural re­
sources will change due to climate change and other future scenarios.
Fourth, the outcomes of such a study serve as crucial inputs to economic
models that evaluate the state of food security and land use at various
spatial scales (Van Ittersum et al., 2013).
There has a significant yield gap in agricultural production at the
farm level from the expected yield in Bangladesh. Like other products,
bitter gourd also incurred losses due to the yield gap in the production
process. The yield gap is measured and studied by estimating the effi­
ciency of the crops. Efficiency is an important issue of productivity
growth in the agricultural-based economy of developing countries. The

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jaberrana3403@gmail.com (M.J. Rana).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2022.100335
Received 20 October 2021; Received in revised form 10 September 2022; Accepted 12 September 2022
Available online 15 September 2022
2590-2911/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
F. Hoque et al.
efficiency estimation with the help of production function has been a
popular area of applied econometrics. Estimates on the extent of effi­
ciency may help improve productivity through input reallocation or cost
minimization.
There have been many studies on the efficiency of different crops in
Bangladesh and the world. Warade et al. (2010) estimated the yield gap
for cotton production in the Akola district. They concluded that the yield
gap of cotton production is declining with the production improvement.
Deihimfard et al. (2015) estimated major wheat-growing areas of
Khorasan province in Iran. They stated farmers have yet to attain the
average simulated potential yield of 7.8 Metric tonnes/ha, and there is a
wide difference between actual and prospective production levels
(approximately 5.2 Metric tonnes/ha). Chapagain and Good (2015)
studied wheat, barley, and canola in Alberta using ten years of data
(2005–2014). They found significant management gaps between
achievable and actual yields of rainfed wheat (24%), barley (25%), and
canola (30%). Also, in wheat, barley, and canola, genetic gaps (i.e., gaps
caused by genetic selection) were 18, 12, and 5%, respectively. Dei­
himfard et al. (2015), De Ponti et al. (2012), and Sentelhas et al. (2015)
also found a yield gap due to managerial practice. Schulthess et al.
(2013) demonstrate an approach for creating a yield gap map and
explain its possible applications in providing farmers with optimal crop
management suggestions in Bangladesh. Using the Hybrid Maize crop
simulation model, they estimated the potential yield for maize culti­
vated in the winter season in northwestern Bangladesh. The model
predicted a mean potential yield of 12.87 tonnes/ha. They used a Rapid
Eye satellite image acquired around tasselling to identify the maize
fields, calculate ground cover, and its regression to actual yield from
farmers’ fields. Ponisio et al. (2015), on the other hand, compare the
organic and conventional yield gaps by building a novel hierarchical
analytical framework that can better account for the data’s variability
and structure. They discover that organic yields are just 19.2% (3.7%)
lower than conventional yields, a smaller yield difference than prior
estimates. In Bangladesh, there are studies on farm-level efficiency. The
majority of the research, however, used the frontier technique to esti­
mate farm-level efficiency. For example, Rahman et al. (2004) used a
single computation of Cobb-Douglas stochastic production and cost
frontiers to estimate farm-specific and farm-size-specific efficiency.
Hasan and Islam (2010) investigated the technical efficiency of wheat
production in Bangladesh and found that by improving managerial
practices, production may be enhanced by 16 percent. Only a few pieces
of research on the technological efficiency of bitter gourd production
have been found. Khuda et al. (2007) researched Pakistan’s Punjab
province and found that the level of technological efficiency in bitter
gourd production was 60%. Chithra et al. (2008) did a similar study in
Kerala’s Thrissur and Palakkad districts (2008). In Thrissur and Pal­
akkad, the mean technical efficiency was 0.79 and 0.84, respectively.
Some authors also used technical efficiency to calculate the yield gap.
For instance, in Ethiopia, Hailu (2016) found that potato cultivation
efficiency and yield gaps were 62.6 percent and 15.2 tonnes/ha. Similar
studies were also concluded by Henderson et al. (2016) and Silva et al.
(2017). The above discussion clarifies that there are very few studies
related to bitter gourd production efficiency and yield. Moreover,
available studies on efficiency analysis used a parametric approach
which only estimates technical efficiency. In our study, we will use the
data envelope analysis (DEA) technique which will facilitate us in esti­
mating allocative and cost efficiency and technical efficiency. Esti­
mating allocative and cost efficiency will facilitate us in understanding
the optimum level of input cost for bitter gourd production in the studies
area.
2. Methodology
2.1. Data collection
The study was conducted at Shibpur Upazila in the Narsingdi district
2
Social Sciences & Humanities Open 6 (2022) 100335
of Bangladesh. Fig. 1 represent the sample collecting area for the study.
Simple random sampling techniques were applied to select farmers for
the study. We collected the list of farmers of these three villages who
prospectively produce bitter gourd. Then, we randomly select the
farmers for interview purposes. A total of 72 farmers’ households were
interviewed for study purposes. The study was based on field-level pri­
mary data collected from the sampled farmers by direct interview with a
set of interview schedules designed for this research.
However, the farm management standards were used to create a
draft interview schedule before preparing the final interview schedule.
Then the draft interview schedule was pre-tested in the study area by
interviewing a few bitter gourd growers. In light of the experience
gained during pre-testing, the interview schedule was rectified,
restructured, and updated. The researcher himself interviewed the
farmers. Before the interview, the study’s objectives were clear to the
farmers. Initially, the farmers hesitated to answer questions from an
outsider. For this reason, some of the influential persons in the study
area, to whom the farmers had confidence, were contacted. The inter­
view schedule was designed to collect information in local units. How­
ever, these local units were converted into standard units before
analyzing and presenting data. Finally, the sample farmers were
convinced and extended their cooperation. Formal survey data were
collected from November 2020 to December 2020.
2.2. Analytical technique
2.2.1. Efficiency analysis
Coelli et al. (1998) provide a comprehensive introduction to DEA
methods. Next, we will review the four efficiency measures we
employed (technical, allocative, cost, and scale).
2.2.2. Technical efficiency analysis
With certain technology and environmental conditions around the
farm, technical efficiency (TE) can be described as the farm’s ability and
willingness to produce the maximum potential output with a given
endowment of inputs (Mythili & Shanmugam, 2000).
Technical inefficiency is the result of failing to operate at the pro­
duction frontier. Technical efficiency describes a farmer’s capacity to
maximize an available set of inputs or use the fewest inputs possible to
capitalize on a specific output level fully. These two conceptions of
Fig. 1. Map showing Study Area.
F. Hoque et al.
technical efficiency lead to output- and input-oriented efficiency met­
rics. We have used input-oriented technical efficiency metrics for this
study. Given the small size of the land plot of Bangladesh farmers, it is
unlikely technology will significantly demonstrate the continuous
returns to the scale (Rana et al., 2021). Besides, the DEA model has
another restriction on generalizing multiple input and output models.
We used dummy input to overcome this limitation. Besides, it provided
detailed information’’ ‘s on the efficiency of analysing the yield gap of
bitter crops in Bangladesh.
We used the linear programming technique in the DEA production
frontier model discussed in Färe et al. (1994) study. The production
frontier is constructed using the DEA model, which is also used to
determine technical efficiency metrics simultaneously. When data on K
inputs and M outputs are available for each of the N farms, the model is
explained for that situation. Input and output data for the ith farm are
represented by the column vectors xi and yi, respectively. The K’N input
matrix, X, and the M’N output matrix, Y, represent the data for all N
farms in the sample.
The DEA model used for the calculation of technical efficiency is:
Minθ,λ θ
Subject to,
− yi + Yλ ≥ 0
θxi − Xλ ≥ 0
′
N1 λ = 1
λ≥0 (1)
Where θ is a scalar, N1 is an N X 1 vector of ones, and λ is an N X 1 vector
of constants. The technical efficiency score for the i-th farm is the value
of θ achieved. The Farrell (1957) definition states that it will satisfy: θ 1,
with a value of 1 designating a frontier position and, hence, a technically
effective farm. The linear programming problem needs to be resolved N
times to determine a value for θ for each farm in the sample.
2.2.3. Allocative and cost efficiency analysis
Allocative efficiency is the ratio of the theoretically greatest products
that can be produced at the farmer’s level of resources to the output that
can be produced at the best level of resources. The best input proportions
are chosen in light of comparative pricing and production technology.
AE is sometimes described as maximizing profit from input allocation
under a set of farm-specific information, output pricing, and technology.
The typical AE test compares the input’s MVP to its normalized price.
Allocating inefficiency is the absence of marginal conditions for profit
maximization (Ali & Byerlee, 1991). The ability of a production unit or
farm to generate a clearly defined output at the lowest cost is known as
cost efficiency (CE). The process is efficient if there is no other way for
the production unit to produce more output with the same or fewer
inputs or the same amount of output with fewer inputs. CE is typically
defined as the ratio of the price of the outputs of an economical process
to the price of the inputs required to produce those outputs. concerning
production technology, a range of available inputs, and the prices of
outputs and inputs, CE of any farm relates to how the company opti­
mizes profit. Technical and allocative (cost) efficiency combine to pro­
duce CE..
The cost and allocative efficiencies are obtained by solving the
following additional cost minimization DEA problem:
Min λ, x*i , wi xi *
′
Subject to
− yi + Yλ ≥ 0
3
Social Sciences & Humanities Open 6 (2022) 100335
x*i − Xλ ≥ 0
′
N1 λ = 1,
λ≥0 (2)
where wi is a vector of input prices for the ith farm, and xi * (which the
model calculates) is the cost-minimizing vector of input quantities for
the ith farm, given the input prices wi and output levels yi. The ith farm’s
overall cost efficiency (CE) is computed as
/ ′
CE = wi xi* wi xi
′
CE is the ratio of the ith farm’s minimum cost to its observed cost.
After that, the allocative efficiency (AE) is computed using the formula,
AE = CE/TE
2.2.4. Scale efficiency analysis
Variable returns to scale (VRS) DEA models have been used in all of
the DEA models that have been explored so far. They support (local)
increasing, stable, or declining returns to scale features on the estab­
lished production frontier. It is simple to impose constant returns to
scale (CRS) on the DEA problem in the equation by removing the con­
vexity limitation (N1′ λ = 1). (1). We may easily determine scale effi­
ciency (SE) by using the formula below used by Rana et al., 2021:
TECRS
= SE
TEVRS
A drawback of this scale efficiency indicator is that it does not reveal
whether the firm operates in a segment with increasing or decreasing
returns to scale. Run a second DEA problem with non-increasing returns
to scale (NIRS) applied to it to find the solution to this issue. To do this,
modify equation (1)’s DEA model so that the N1′ l = 1 constraint is
changed to the N1′ l ≤ 1 restriction. The data were assessed with DEAP
2.1 software.
2.2.5. Yield gap analysis
The main procedure of analysis was separated into four parts (Fig. 2)
based on the IRRI approach to yield gap analysis (Ghodake & Walker,
1983). The fundamental question of whether there was a yield gap and,
if so, how big it was addressed in the first step. The answer to this
question was the location- and time-specific, taking into account the
type and level of technology employed by typical farmers in a region. It
was determined using pre-existing knowledge and preliminary surveys.
The total yield gap was partitioned into two primary components in
the second stage to create a baseline for future study. This partitioning
was performed by analyzing data from preliminary surveys, on-station
research, and on-farm experimentation. The first phase (Yield Gap I)
was linked to environmental differences and non-transferable compo­
nents to technology. The second (Yield Gap II) was attributed to farmers’
inefficient cultural practices and sub-optimal input utilization, resulting
in lower yields than those on their farms. The third phase estimates the
potential Yield and actual Yield on farmers’ fields and identifies the
variables that cause these two yield levels to differ. We used field
observation to understand the contribution of different components in
the yield gap. This section of the study aims to maximize a technology’s
output potential at the farm level, with implications largely for tech­
nology transfer and development strategy.
After recording the variables and their contributions to yield gaps,
the fourth stage concentrated on why farmers were not taking the
necessary steps to reach on-farm economic yield potential. Risk-taking
skills, a lack of technology knowledge, profit-seeking behavior, institu­
tional and social infrastructures, and others may be to blame. In reality,
these were the root reasons for yield disparities, and it is important to
understand them to create effective policy recommendations. With the
F. Hoque et al.
Fig. 2. General Steps in yield gap analysis developed based on IRRI approach adopted from Hasan, 2006
Note: The boxes with solid lines indicate steps; while those with dotted lines denote the implicit outcome of these steps.
help of the tabular method, descriptive analysis was performed to
categorize the data and produce useful conclusions by utilizing per­
centages, averages, ratios, etc.
3. Result and discussion
3.1. Efficiency analysis of bitter gourd production
The main objective of this chapter is to estimate the technical, allo­
cative, economic, and scale efficiencies and input use patterns under
different efficiency levels of bitter gourd farmers. In times of operating a
farm, making optimal use of inputs for getting the best possible output is
essential. Hence, economic efficiency gives us this idea of whether the
farm is operating in optimal condition or not. Basically, technical effi­
ciency differs from 0 to 1. If technical efficiency (TE) is 0, then the farm
is fully inefficient, and if 1, the farm is fully efficient. We can assume a
constant return to scale when considering the input quantities with the
output to calculate technical efficiency. But if we take into consideration
price too, we use variable returns to scale.
Table 1 shows that the mean value of technical, allocative, and cost
efficiency is 90 percent, 80.30 percent, and 73 percent, respectively. It
means most of the bitter gourd farmers are technically efficient. The
average technical and allocative inefficiency of bitter gourd production
in the study area is 9.3 and 19.70 percent, respectively. This indicates a
good potential for increasing bitter gourd output by 9.30 percent with
the existing technology and levels of inputs; the farmers could reduce
the cost of bitter gourd production by about 19.70 percent by giving
more attention to relative input prices when selecting input quantities.
Table 1
Mean value of Technical Efficiency, Allocative Efficiency, and
Cost Efficiency of bitter gourd production.
Efficiency Mean (%)
Technical Efficiency (TE) 90.7%
Allocative Efficiency (AE) 80.3%
Cost Efficiency (CE) 73%
4
Social Sciences & Humanities Open 6 (2022) 100335
The average cost efficiency is about 73 percent. This indicated about 27
percent inefficiency among the farmers as well as a potential for
increasing bitter gourd output by 27 percent through the improvement
of both technical and allocative efficiency. Farm-wise technical, allo­
cative, and cost efficiency were enumerated in the appendix.
The mean technical efficiency score for bitter gourd was 90.70
percent. From Fig. 3, we see that 26.39 percent of bitter gourd farmers
are fully technically efficient. Their technical efficiency is 1. Hence
among 72 farmers, technical efficiency below 1 is about 73.61 percent of
farmers.
The percentage of the efficient technical farmer is calculated by,
% of farmers = ( ​ No ​ of ​ farmers ÷ 72) × 100
The mean allocative efficiency score for bitter gourd was 80.30
percent. From Fig. 4, we see that only one farmer is fully efficient. His
allocative efficiency is 1. Hence among 72 farmers, allocative efficiency
below 1 to 0.7 is 83.33 percent farmers. Allocative efficiency below 0.7
is about 15.28 percent of farmers.
When allocative and technical efficiencies are combined to form
cost-efficiency measures. The mean cost efficiency score for bitter gourd
was 73 percent. Fig. 5 shows that only one farmer is fully cost-efficient.
His cost efficiency is 1. Hence among 72 farmers, cost efficiency below 1
to 0.6 is 79.17 percent farmers. Cost efficiency below 0.6 is about 19.44
percent of bitter gourd farmers.
Fig. 6 shows that the variable return to scale is higher than the
constant return to scale. The average technical efficiency for constant
return to scale, variable return to scale, and scale efficiency are 90.70
percent, 97.50 percent, and 93 percent, respectively, for bitter gourd
farmers.
3.2. Yield gap of bitter gourd production
This study aims to present and debate the yield gap and constraints in
bitter gourd production in the Narsingdi district. This research also looks
at the technical efficiency of bitter gourd growers. The term “yield gap”
comes from the International Rice Research Institute’s (IRRI) constraint
studies, identifying a quantitative discrepancy between experimental
F. Hoque et al. Social Sciences & Humanities Open 6 (2022) 100335

Fig. 3. Technical Efficiency of bitter gourd farmers.

Fig. 4. Allocative Efficiency of bitter gourd farmers.

Fig. 5. Cost Efficiency of bitter gourd farmers.

station yield and actual farm yield. In this study yield level of bitter
gourd in different situations is identified. Then yield gap is quantified
concerning technical efficiency, biotic and abiotic factors, top farm
yield, and yield of the fourth quartile.
3.3. Yield gap
The first step in estimating the yield gap in production is to deter­
mine the yield levels at different phases. As mentioned earlier, yield gap-
l is the difference between experiment station yield and potential farm
yield. This study obtained experiment station yields from the Lalteer
seed company. On the other hand, potential farm yields were estimated
from the actual farm-level data of the Narsingdi district.
Experiment station yield: It is the highest level of yield obtained by
the researchers in the experimental station with a favorable environ­
ment and improved management practices. For the variety Lalteer,
which presently covers 73.6 percent of the bitter gourd area, experiment
station yield was estimated as 53 tons/ha, and farm level expected mean
yield was assumed to be 45 tons/ha (Lalteer, 2020). This farm-level
expected yield was the researchers’ expectation that this yield level
would be obtained by the bitter gourd growing farmers with variety Tia
F1 in a good production environment and management. This yield level
was achieved by on-farm trials and demonstrations conducted during
the variety release process.
Potential farm yield: Potential farm yield is that yield level that can
be obtained at the farm level. It refers to the maximum potential yield of

5
F. Hoque et al. Social Sciences & Humanities Open 6 (2022) 100335

Fig. 6. Comparison of average Technical Efficiency (TE) for Constant Return to Scale (CRS), Variable Return to Scale (VRS), and Scale Efficiency (SE).

a variety at the farm level. Considering technical inefficiency or biotic potential farm output due to biotic and abiotic causes and biophysical
and abiotic constraints, potential farm yield can be defined differently. and socio-economic restrictions. The observed yield of bitter gourd
The yield can be obtained at the farm level in technically efficient varied with farm categories with a mean yield of 33,141 kg/ha.
condition. Farm-level potential yield may also be estimated considering
a certain proportion of farms that performed better in yield. This po­ 3.3.1. Overall yield gap
tential farm yield is generally a higher-level yield, and the average farms Fig. 7 depicts the yield gap in bitter gourd production, which was
usually fail to achieve this level for various reasons. determined using various yield levels. The Production gap-I was 15,945
For estimating farm-level yield gap, i.e., yield gap II, four different kg/ha, which was the gap between experimental station yield and pro­
methods were applied to find out potential farm yield. Firstly, the spective farm yield due to non-transferable technical components and
technically full efficient yield was considered as the potential farm yield. environmental conditions. This meant the yield gap-I was extremely
Secondly, potential farm yield was obtained by adding less yield due to large and far from the potential and actual farm yields.
biotic and abiotic factors with the farm level observed yield. Thirdly, the Technical inefficiency caused a yield gap-II of 3,914 kg/ha. Because
mean yield of better performed (yield) 10 percent of the farms was of physical and socio-economic limits, it existed. Farmers utilized inputs
considered farm-level potential yield, and finally, a quartile grouping or techniques that resulted in lower yields than possible on their farms,
was done to find potential farm yield. In this process, the 4th quartile resulting in this gap. So, in total estimated yield gap was 19 859 kg/ha in
represented the higher yielder 18 farms derived from a list of all farms the study area. In their study, Anderson et al., 2016 found that the
organized in descending order of yield, which considered the cumulative average potential yield gap for rainfed legumes and cereal was between
percent 75.4–100. 0.5 t/ha to over 5 t/ha in Australia.
The potential farm yield of bitter gourd in the study areas is pre­
sented in Table 2. It was observed that potential yield varied with a 3.3.2. Yield gap due to technical inefficiency
different methods of calculations. Whatever way was applied, the po­ Table 3 shows the yield gap that resulted from technological in­
tential farm yield varied from 35,692 to 39,739 kg/ha. However, the efficiencies. The average technical inefficiency was 9.30 percent,
mean yield of these four methods was 37,100 kg/ha, which could be resulting in a bitter gourd yield gap of 3,914 kg/ha. With existing
considered the potential farm yield. technology, medium and small farmers had more potential to boost yield
Actual farm yield: Actual farm yield is the observed yield of any than large farmers, according to farm categories. Small farmers had the
variety in the field. The yield gained is the real farm yield when a biggest yield difference in bitter gourd due to technological inefficiency,
combination of a crop is farmed under farmers’ conditions, that is, in the followed by large and medium farmers.
farmers’ environment and management with available technology and
the presence of limits and strains. Actual farm yield may be lower than 3.3.3. Yield gap due to biotic and abiotic factors
Table 4 shows farmers’ perceptions of yield loss owing to biotic and
abiotic variables. Farmers said that three biotic factors, such as bug,
Table 2 disease, and weed, were blamed for reducing bitter gourd production.
Potential farm yield of bitter gourd. These three factors, in combination, were responsible for 10.14 percent
Sl. Method Consideration Potential farm yield loss of bitter gourd, with the highest 4.62 percent by the insect,
No. yield (kg/ha) 3.46 percent by disease, and 2.06 percent by weed. On the other hand,
1 Technically efficient Technically full efficient yield. 36,539 abiotic factors like rainfall and drought combined were responsible for
yield Adding less yield due to another 9.77 percent yield loss of bitter gourd. Among the abiotic fac­
technical inefficiency with the
tors, rainfall of bitter gourd was responsible for the highest yield loss of
observed Yield
2 Yield by Adding less yield due to biotic 39,739 7.03 percent, followed by drought (2.74%). Since bitter gourd is an
compensating biotic and abiotic factors with the irrigated vegetable, draught is related to the irrigation facility. Due to
and abiotic loss observed Yield the drought situation, the existing irrigation facility does not work.
3 Top farms yield Mean yield of better performed 36,251 Farmers needed to use deep well-tubes instead of the shallow irrigation
10 percent of the total farms(07)
4 Yield of forth quartile Mean yield of higher yielder 18 35,692
pump. Some farmers failed to irrigate their bitter gourd plots due to a
farmsa lack of deep-well irrigation facilities. Sometimes, timely irrigation was
Mean 37,055 not possible due to mechanical problems, which caused yield loss. The
a
Derived from a list of all farms organized in descending order of yield, which
biotic and abiotic factors together were responsible for 19.91 percent
considered the cumulative percent 75.4–100. yield loss. According to Mondal, 2011, in India the average yield gap for

6
F. Hoque et al. Social Sciences & Humanities Open 6 (2022) 100335

Fig. 7. Yield gap in bitter gourd production in the study area.

factors was estimated at 6,598 kg/ha. This is, in fact, the less yield
Table 3
creates obstacles for the farmers to reach their potential yield level. As
Yield gap of bitter gourd due to technical inefficiency.
observed, yield and yield loss due to biotic and abiotic factors varied to
Farm No. of Mean technical Observed Potential Yield farm categories, and the yield gap varied to some extent.
category Farms inefficiency yield (kg/ Yield (kg/ gap
Considering the farm categories, the highest yield gap was found
(%) ha) ha) (kg/
ha) with the small farmers (6,781 kg/ha), largely contributed by biotic
factors insects, disease, and weeds. The lowest yield gap of large farmers
Large 09 0.042 32,606 35,207 2,601
(>3.0
may be due to their ability to control or minimize some biotic and
ha) abiotic factors.
Medium 17 (1.0 0.087 33,566 36,772 3,206
ha–3.0 Yield gap due to biotic and abiotic factors
ha)
Due to the input use pattern, the gap occurs between the top, bottom,
Small 46 (0.2 0.105 33,089 36,970 3,881
ha–1.0 and average farms. The average yield performance of 72 farmers was
ha) 33,141 kg/ha. In Table 6, the mean yield of top farms was estimated at
All farms 72 0.093 33,141 36,539 3,398 36,251 kg/ha, and that of bottom farms was 29,569 kg/ha, resulting in a
6,682 kg/ha yield gap.
The yield gap between the top and all farms was estimated at 3,110
Musterd, Rice, Wheat, and cotton varied from 15.5 to 60% due to bio­
logical and climate reasons.
The yield loss due to biotic and abiotic factors differed slightly with Table 5
variations in farm categories. Considering farm categories, the highest Yield gap of bitter gourd due to biotic and abiotic factors.
yield loss of 20.49 percent was found among the small farmers, greatly Farm No. of Observed Less yield due Potential Yield
contributed by rainfall, insect, and disease, followed by 19.53 percent by category Farms yield (kg/ to biotic & Yield (kg/ gap
medium farmers, where rainfall, disease, and insect had a higher ha) abiotic factors ha) (kg/ha)
contribution. The lowest yield loss was found with the large farmers, (%)

possibly due to their higher ability to control some of the biotic and Large 09 32,606 17.63 38353 5,747
abiotic factors in bitter gourd production. Medium 17 33,566 19.53 40121 6,555
Small 46 33,089 20.49 39870 6,781
The yield gap of bitter gourd caused by biotic and abiotic factors is
All farms 72 33,141 19.91 39,739 6,598
presented in Table 5. The mean yield gap caused by all biotic and abiotic

Table 4
Farmers’ perception about yield loss of bitter gourd due to biotic and abiotic factors.
Farm category Yield loss due to biotic factors (%) Yield loss due to abiotic factors (%) Total yield loss (%)

Insect Disease Weed Total biotic Rainfall Draught Total abiotic

Large 4.46 2.99 1.74 9.19 6.46 1.98 8.44 17.63

Medium 4.70 3.57 1.84 10.11 7.13 2.29 9.42 19.53
Small 4.62 3.52 2.2 10.34 7.1 3.05 10.15 20.49
All farms 4.62 3.46 2.06 10.14 7.03 2.74 9.77 19.91

Note: The same farmer mentioned more than one factor as they faced a different period of bitter gourd production. As a result, adding all responses may exceed a
hundred.

7
F. Hoque et al.
Table 6
Mean yield gap between top, bottom, and average farms.
Performance of farms Yield (kg/ha)
Mean performance of top farms (N = 7) 36,251
Mean performance of bottom farms (N = 7) 29,569
Mean performance of all farms (N = 72) 33,141
Gap between top and bottom farms 6,682
Gap between top and all farms 3,110
kg/ha. These differences happened due to input use patterns and man­
agement factors between top and bottom and top and all farms. The gap
in yield between the top and bottom farms was much higher than that of
the top and all farms.
Yield gap between 4th quartile, 1st quartile, and average farm
Table 7 shows that the average yield of 72 farms is 33,141 kg/ha. The
mean yield of 4th quartile farms was estimated at 35,692 kg/ha and that
of 1st quartile farms at 29,895 kg/ha, which produced a yield gap of
5,797 kg/ha. The yield gap between the 4th quartile and all farms was
estimated at 2,551 kg/ha. These huge differences occur due to input use
patterns and management factors between the 4th quartile and 1st
quartile and 4th quartile and all farms. The quartile difference indicates
the discrepancy between the farmers in the study area in terms of the
facility. If the 1st quartile farmers receive the same facility and man­
agement practice, they can produce the same number of crops produced
by the 4th quartile farmers.
Yield constraint of bitter gourd cultivation
In Bangladesh, there are certain limitations to better bitter gourd
farming. Despite its high profitability, it has significant disadvantages
that should not be overlooked. An indication of the obstacles faced by
the sample farmers in cultivating bitter gourd production is given in
Table 8. According to the opinions given by the bitter gourd growing
farmers, the constraints of bitter gourd production can be divided into
two groups. These are biophysical constraints and socio-economic
constraints.
Bio-physical constraint of bitter gourd cultivation
Farmers in the study areas mentioned several biophysical constraints
which affected bitter gourd production. The summary of biophysical
constraints is presented in Table 8. and discussed in the following
sections:
Excessive rainfall: On average, 44.44 percent of the farmers faced
excessive rainfall during the bitter gourd growing period, and this
constraint ranked 1st among all constraints. This problem arose when
rainfall occurred immediately after giving irrigation to the bitter gourd
plot. This was a main problem for the bitter gourd farmers.
Attack by insects and diseases: Farmers in the study areas faced the
huge problem of insects and diseases in bitter gourd production. On
average, 34.72 percent of the farmers’ crops are infected by insects and
Table 7
Yield and input use pattern of potential and average farms and gap between
potential and average farms.
Performance of farms Yield (kg/ha)
Mean performance of 4th quartile (N = 18) 35,692
Mean performance of 1st quartile (N = 18) 29,895
Mean performance of all farms (N = 72) 33,141
Gap between 4th and 1st quartile 5,797
Gap between 4th quartile and all 2,551
#4th quartile represents the higher yielder 18 farms derived from a list of all
farms organized in descending order, considering the cumulative percent
75.4–100.
##1st quartile represents the lower yielder 18 farms derived from a list of all
farms organized in descending order which considered the cumulative percent
0.3–24.2.
8
Social Sciences & Humanities Open 6 (2022) 100335
Table 8
Constraints of bitter gourd production as mentioned by the farmers.
Constraints of bitter gourd production Responded (%) Rank
All farmers
Bio-physical
Unnecessary rainfall 44.44 1
Attack by insect and diseases 34.72 2
Lack of good quality seed 4.17 5
Lack of proper utilization of irrigation facilities 2.80 6
Socioeconomic
Low price of bitter gourd 6.94 3
High labor wage rate 5.55 4
High input price 1.39 7
Note: Same farmer mentioned more than one constraint as they faced different
periods of bitter gourd production.
diseases, and this constraint ranked 2nd among all constraints.
Lack of good quality seed: Though all the farmers were found to
produce high-yielding varieties of bitter gourd, 4.17 percent of them
mentioned that they had to lack good quality seed, and this constraint
ranked 5th among all constraints. On average, 9.7 percent of farmers use
their own seeds, 73.6 percent use private companies’ seeds, and 16.7
percent of farmers collect seeds from BADC. Most of the preserved seeds
collected from local markets were not of good quality as their germi­
nation was poor.
Lack of proper utilization of irrigation facilities: Lack of irriga­
tion facilities or proper utilization of available irrigation facilities was
another constraint for successful bitter gourd production mentioned by
2.80 percent of the respondents. This constraint ranked 6th among all of
the constraints. Though farmers applied irrigation to their bitter gourd
plots, this constraint arises mainly due to ownership of irrigation
channels and equipment, excessive irrigation charge during peak pe­
riods, and mechanical trouble.
The socio-economic constraint of bitter gourd cultivation
Farmers in the study areas mentioned several socio-economic con­
straints which affected bitter gourd production. The summary of socio-
economic constraints is presented in Table 8 and discussed in the
following sections:
Low price of bitter gourd: The problem of the low price of bitter
gourd was mentioned by 6.94 percent of the respondents in the study
areas, and this constraint ranked 3rd among all of the constraints.
High labor wage rate: The problem of the high labor wage rate of
bitter gourd was mentioned by 5.55 percent of the respondents in the
study areas, and this constraint ranked 4th among all of the constraints.
Shortage of human labor is a seasonal problem and generally occurs in
peak periods of bitter gourd production. Human labor shortages also
hampered intercultural management and delayed harvesting, ultimately
reducing yield.
High input price: Based on farmers’ opinion, the 7th ranking
constraint was the high input price. 1.39% of farmers mentioned that
they faced the problem of high price and spot scarcity of one or more of
the chemical fertilizers in the bitter gourd growing season. Such a
problem led some farmers to apply fewer fertilizers, further aggravating
the imbalanced use of chemical fertilizers.
Conclusion
This study aimed to examine the farm level yield gap and explore the
prospects for enhancing bitter gourd output by raising the productive
efficiency of bitter gourd farmers in the study region in Narsingdi,
Bangladesh. In operating a farm, making optimal use of inputs for get­
ting the best possible output is essential. Hence, economic efficiency
gives us this idea of whether the farm is operating in optimal condition
or not. When considering the input quantities with output, we can
F. Hoque et al.
assume a constant return to scale to calculate technical efficiency. The
bitter gourd’s average technical, allocative, and cost efficiency scores
were 90.70%, 80.30%, and 73%, respectively. Hence among 72 farmers,
26.39% of farmers are fully technically efficient. 1.38% of farmers are
fully allocative and cost-efficient. The experiment station yield was
considered as 53,000 kg/ha, farm-level expected mean Yield was
45,000 kg/ha, and potential farm yield was calculated as 37,055 kg/ha.
The observed yield of bitter gourd varied with farm categories, with an
average yield of 33,141 kg/ha. The Yield Gap-I was 15,245 kg/ha, which
is the difference between experiment station yield and potential farm
yield, resulting mostly from non-transferable components of technology
and environmental factors. Yield gap-II was 3,914 kg/ha, attributed to
technical inefficiency. It existed because of physical and socio-economic
constraints.
Mean technical inefficiency was 9.30 percent which caused a 3,398
kg/ha yield gap of bitter gourd. The biotic and abiotic factors combined
were responsible for 19.91 percent yield loss, constituting a mean yield
gap of 6598 kg/ha. The mean yield gap between the top 10 percent and
all farms was estimated to be 3,110 kg/ha. The mean yield gap between
the 4th quartile and all farms was 2,551 kg/ha. The biophysical con­
straints which affected bitter gourd production were excessive rainfall,
attack by insects and disease, lack of quality seed, and lack of proper
utilization of irrigation facilities, etc. The main socio-economic con­
straints were the low price of bitter gourd, high labor wage rate, high
input price, etc.
Understanding the determinants of the economic inefficiency of
bitter gourd production is very important for farmers and policy-makers
to increase productivity and profitability. As there is limited scope for
further increase of bitter gourd area, production can be increased by
increasing the productive efficiency of bitter gourd with existing tech­
nology. Moreover, training, an effective marketing system, and ensuring
quality input can alleviate most of the constrain listed by farmers. New
studies should undertakeseveral country data to compare their yield gap
at the field level. It would provide a better understanding of bitter gourd
production. Besides, effort should be given to developing drought
tolerant and insect resistant varieties.
Funding information
No external funding received to conduct this study.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Fahmida Hoque: Formal analysis, Data curation, Writing – original
draft, Conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experi­
ments, analysis tools or data, wrote the paper. Mohammad Kamruz­
zaman: Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceived and designed the
experiments, performed the experiments, contributed reagents, mate­
rials, analysis tools or data. Md Jaber Rana: Formal analysis, Data
curation, Writing – original draft, Contributed reagents, materials,
analysis tools or data, performed the experiments, wrote the paper. Md
Kamrul Hassan: Formal analysis, Data curation, Contributed reagents,
materials, analysis tools or data, performed the experiments. Jahid
Hassan: Formal analysis, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Per­
formed the experiments, analyzed and interpreted the data, contributed
reagents, materials, analysis tools or data, wrote the paper.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Social Sciences & Humanities Open 6 (2022) 100335
References
Ali, M., & Byerlee, D. (1991). Economic efficiency of small farmers in a changing world:
A survey of recent evidence. Journal of International Development, 3(1), 1–27.
Anderson, W., Johansen, C., & Siddique, K. H. (2016). Addressing the yield gap in rainfed
crops: A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 36(1), 1–13.
BBS. (2019). Yearbook of agricultural statistics of Bangladesh. Planning Division, Ministry
of Planning, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, 2019.
Chapagain, T., & Good, A. (2015). Yield and production gaps in rainfed wheat, barley,
and canola in Alberta. Frontiers of Plant Science, 6, 990.
Chithra, M. S., Jesy, T., Laly, J. C., & Thomas, E. K. (2008). Technical efficiency in bitter
gourd production. IUP Publications, vol. 0(2 The IUP Journal of Agricultural
Economics, 41–47 (April).
Coelli, T. J., Prasada, R., & Battese, G. E. (1998). An introduction to efficiency and
productivity analysis. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
De Ponti, T., Rijk, B., & Van Ittersum, M. K. (2012). The crop yield gap between organic
and conventional agriculture. Agricultural Systems, 108, 1–9.
Deihimfard, R., Mahallati, M. N., & Koocheki, A. (2015). Yield gap analysis in major
wheat growing areas of Khorasan province, Iran, through crop modelling. Field Crops
Research, 184, 28–38.
Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., & Lovell, C. A. K. (1994). Production frontiers. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Farrell, M. J. (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal
Statistical Society: Series A, CXX, 253–290.
Ghodake, R. D., & Walker, T. S. (1983). Yield gap analysis: Perspectives and implications.
In R. P. Singh, & V. B. Subramanian (Eds.), Dry land agricultural research in India:
Thrust in the eighties. Proc. National seminar on Dry land agricultural research in India
and thrust in the eighties held in January 18-20 1982 at Hyderabad (pp. 151–167).
India.
Hailu, D. (2016). Efficiency and yield gap analysis in potato production: The case of
potato farmers in central highlands of Ethiopia. International Journal of Plant Breeding
and Crop Science, 5(20), 391–398.
Hasan, M. K. (2006). Yield gap in wheat production: A perspective of farm specific efficiency
in Bangladesh. BAU, Mymensingh: Ph. D dissertation, Dept. of Agricultural
Economics.
Hasan, M. K., & Islam, S. F. (2010). Technical inefficiency of wheat production in some
selected areas of Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Research, 35(1),
101–112.
Henderson, B., Godde, C., Medina-Hidalgo, D., Van Wijk, M., Silvestri, S.,
Douxchamps, S., & Herrero, M. (2016). Closing system-wide yield gaps to increase
food production and mitigate GHGs among mixed crop–livestock smallholders in
Sub-Saharan Africa. Agricultural Systems, 143, 106–113.
Khuda, B., Ahmed, B., Hassan, S., & Giill, Z. A. (2007). AN analysis of technical efficiency
of growing bitter gourd in PAKISTANI Punjab. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural
Sciences, 44, 2.
Lalteer. In official website. Retrieved https://www.lalteer.com/Crops/inner_crops/1.
(Accessed 29 December 2020).
Mondal, M. H. (2011). Causes of yield gaps and strategies for minimizing the gaps in
different crops of Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Research, 36(3),
469–476.
Mythili, G., & Shanmugam, K. R. (2000). Technical efficiency of rice growers in Tamil
nadu: A study based on panel data. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 55(1),
15–25.
Nfpcsp. (2013). National food policy capacity strengthening programme, food planning and
monitoring unit. Bangladesh: Ministry of Food and Disaster Management.
Ponisio, L. C., M’Gonigle, L. K., Mace, K. C., Palomino, J., Valpine, P., & Kremen, C.
(2015). Diversification practices reduce organic to conventional yield gap.
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282(1799), Article 20141396.
Rahman, K. M. M., Schmitz, P. M., & Wronka, T. C. (2004). Farm-specific and farm-size
specific efficiency measurements and related policies for Bangladesh rice crops.
Bangladesh Journal of Political Economy, 21(2), 143–162.
Rana, J., Kamruzzaman, M., Sharna, S. C., & Rana, S. (2021). Growth and efficiency
analysis of tobacco production in Bangladesh: A non-parametric approach. SN
Business & Economics, 1(12), 1–19.
Rong, L. B., Gong, K. Y., Duan, F. Y., Li, S. K., Ming, Z. H. A. O., Jianqiang, H. E., …
Qiang, Y. U. (2021). Yield gap and resource utilization efficiency of three major food
crops in the world–A review. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 20(2), 349–362.
Schulthess, U., Timsina, J., Herrera, J. M., & McDonald, A. (2013). Mapping field-scale
yield gaps for maize: An example from Bangladesh. Field Crops Research, 143,
151–156.
Sentelhas, P. C., Battisti, R., Câmara, G. M. S., Farias, J. R. B., Hampf, A. C., & Nendel, C.
(2015). The soybean yield gap in Brazil–magnitude, causes and possible solutions for
sustainable production. Journal of Agricultural Science, 153(8), 1394–1411.
Silva, J. V., Reidsma, P., Laborte, A. G., & Van Ittersum, M. K. (2017). Explaining rice
yields and yield gaps in Central Luzon, Philippines: An application of stochastic
frontier analysis and crop modelling. European Journal of Agronomy, 82, 223–241.
Van Ittersum, M. K., Cassman, K. G., Grassini, P., Wolf, J., Tittonell, P., & Hochman, Z.
(2013). Yield gap analysis with local to global relevance—a review. Field Crops
Research, 143, 4–17.
Warade, S., Deshmukh, R., Tiwari, V., & Alexander, S. (2010). Yield gap analysis in
cotton of Akola District. Journal of Social and Economic Development, 12(1), 71–82.