Comparative analysis of resource-use efficiency in conventional and high-density planting system cotton cultivation

Introduction

Cotton (Gossypium spp.) is an important commercial fibre crop and plays a major role in the agricultural and textile economy of India. Despite its importance, cotton production is associated with considerable expenditure on labour, machinery, seed, fertilizers and plant protection chemicals. Efficient allocation of these resources is therefore essential for improving productivity and profitability. Studies on cotton production have shown that the contribution of individual production inputs varies considerably and that inefficient use of resources can adversely affect farm returns (Kumar et al., 2021; Gayathri & Karunakaran, 2022) [5,3] . The High-Density Planting System (HDPS) has emerged as an alternative production technology aimed at increasing cotton productivity through higher plant population and closer spacing. Under HDPS, the increased plant population enables more efficient utilization of land and other available production resources compared with conventional planting systems. Kumar et al. (2017) [4] reported that closer spacing under HDPS significantly increased seed cotton yield and economic returns, with the 45 × 15 cm spacing recording 2,063 kg ha⁻¹ yield and a benefit-cost ratio of 2.33. Similarly, Ramanjaneyulu et al. (2024) [7] reported higher yield and economic returns for suitable cotton cultivars under HDPS in Telangana.

Recent field studies have also demonstrated the economic potential of HDPS under farmers' conditions. Laxman et al. (2024) [6] , in Vikarabad district of Telangana, reported an average yield of 24.51 q ha⁻¹ under HDPS compared with 18.03 q ha⁻¹ under farmers' conventional practice. HDPS also generated higher net returns of ₹77,999 ha⁻¹ and a benefitcost ratio of 1.79 compared with ₹43,489.50 ha⁻¹ and 1.49, respectively, under conventional practice. These findings indicate that HDPS can improve both productivity and www.extensionjournal.com profitability when appropriate plant geometry and crop management practices are followed. However, higher productivity alone does not necessarily indicate efficient resource utilization. Resource-use efficiency refers to the extent to which production inputs are utilized in relation to their contribution to output and economic returns. In cotton cultivation, excessive use of an input may increase production costs without a corresponding increase in output, whereas inadequate use may restrict the production potential of the crop. Kumar et al. (2021) [5] found that human labour and phosphatic fertilizer were underutilized in cotton production in Haryana, while several other resources were used beyond their economically efficient levels. Similarly, Das et al. (2022) [1] reported significant contributions of fertilizer, pesticides, human labour and machine labour to cotton production in Odisha, highlighting the importance of efficient input allocation. The Cobb-Douglas production function is widely used to assess the contribution of different production inputs and their resource-use efficiency in agricultural production. The marginal value product (MVP) of an input can be compared with its marginal factor cost (MFC) to determine whether the input is under-utilized, over-utilized or optimally utilized. Daud and Shiyani (2018) [2] used the Cobb-Douglas production function and MVP approach to estimate resourceuse efficiency in long-staple cotton cultivation in Gujarat. Similarly, research on Bt cotton in Rajasthan demonstrated that human labour, machine labour, seed and irrigation had MVP/MFC ratios greater than unity, indicating scope for increasing their use. Although several studies have examined the productivity, profitability and agronomic performance of HDPS cotton, comparatively limited attention has been given to the comparative economic efficiency of individual production resources under HDPS and conventional cotton systems. Recent evidence from Telangana indicates that HDPS can substantially improve cotton yield and profitability over conventional farmer practices, while studies on resource-use efficiency demonstrate that the optimal allocation of inputs differs across production environments. This creates a need to assess not only the productivity advantage of HDPS but also whether the major production resources are being utilized efficiently under the two planting systems. Therefore, the present study was undertaken to assess and compare the resource-use efficiency of conventional and HDPS cotton cultivation. The study employs the Cobb-Douglas production function to estimate the contribution of major inputs and uses the marginal value product to marginal factor cost (MVP/MFC) ratio to determine their economic efficiency. The analysis focuses on human labour, machine labour, bullock labour, seed, fertilizers and plant protection chemicals, with the objective of identifying under-utilized and over-utilized resources and suggesting appropriate input allocation strategies for improving the productivity and profitability of cotton cultivation.

Materials and Methods

Cobb-Douglas Production function

The Cobb-Douglas production function was used to analyze the resource use efficiency of HDPS in comparison with the conventional planting system in cotton cultivation. This model was applied to examine the relationship between cotton output and various production inputs used by the farmers. The functional form of the Cobb-Douglas production function was specified as: For estimation purposes, the above function was transformed into a linear form using logarithmic transformation. Separate production functions were estimated for HDPS adopters and conventional farmers.

The regression coefficients obtained from the model represented the elasticity of output with respect to each input.

Resource use efficiency was evaluated by comparing the marginal value product (MVP) of each input with its marginal factor cost (MFC). An MVP to MFC ratio greater than unity indicated underutilization of the resource, a ratio less than unity indicated overutilization, and a ratio equal to unity indicated optimal utilization of the input.

Results and Discussion

Estimates of Cobb-Douglas production function in conventional Cotton cultivation

The Cobb-Douglas production function was employed to examine the contribution of different production inputs and their resource-use efficiency in conventional cotton cultivation. The estimated coefficient of determination was 0.58, indicating that about 58 per cent of the variation in cotton output was explained by the selected explanatory variables, while the remaining variation could be attributed to other factors not included in the model. Among the different inputs, Human labour had a positive regression coefficient of 0.26649 and was statistically significant at the 1 per cent level, with a t-value of 3.25771. This indicates that an increase in labour use, while keeping other inputs constant, would have a positive effect on cotton output. Its MVP/MFC ratio was 1.29673, which was greater than unity, suggesting that labour was relatively under-utilized and there was scope for increasing its use to improve returns. Machine labour also showed a positive and statistically significant coefficient of 0.33718, with a t-value of 2.84255, indicating its important contribution to conventional cotton production. As presented in 1. This indicates that bullock labour was being used below its economically optimal level, although its estimated statistical contribution to output was not significant. In contrast, seed recorded a negative coefficient of -0.25343 and a negative marginal product of -1.33490 quintals. The corresponding MVP was -₹9,635.20, giving an MVP/MFC ratio of -6.02200. Similarly, fertilizers showed a negative coefficient of -0.21143 and a marginal product of -0.01795 quintals, with an MVP/MFC ratio of -1.79932. As indicated in Table 1, both coefficients were statistically nonsignificant. The negative marginal productivity suggests that, at the sample mean, additional use of these inputs was not associated with an increase in output under the estimated production relationship. These negative values should be interpreted as outcomes of the fitted model rather than as literal recommendations for negative input use.

Plant protection chemicals had a positive coefficient of 0.06560, although it was statistically non-significant, with a t-value of 0.63858. Its marginal product was 0.23611 quintals, generating an MVP of ₹1,704.10 against an MFC of ₹400. Consequently, the MVP/MFC ratio was 4.26025, as reported in Table 4.16, indicating that plant protection chemicals were relatively under-utilized and that increased use, within economically and technically appropriate limits, could potentially improve returns.

Overall, the resource-use analysis indicates that labour total, machine labour, bullock labour and plant protection chemicals had MVP/MFC ratios greater than unity, suggesting scope for increasing their use. Among these, machine labour and plant protection chemicals exhibited particularly high ratios, indicating greater potential for additional use. On the other hand, the negative MVP/MFC ratios observed for seed and fertilizers reflect their negative estimated marginal productivity in the fitted function.

Estimates of Cobb-Douglas production function in HDPS Cotton cultivation

The Cobb-Douglas production function was estimated for HDPS cotton cultivation to assess the contribution of major production inputs and their economic efficiency. The estimated value was 0.29, indicating that approximately 29 per cent of the variation in cotton output was explained by the selected explanatory variables included in the model. The remaining variation may be attributed to other production, environmental and farm-specific factors that were not included in the function. Among the inputs, Human labour had a positive regression coefficient of 0.01902, with a t-value of 0.27806, indicating a positive but statistically non-significant relationship with output. Its marginal product was 0.00776 quintals, generating an MVP of ₹55.89 against an MFC of ₹400. As presented in Table 2, the MVP/MFC ratio was 0.13972, which was less than unity, indicating that labour was relatively over-utilized compared with its economically efficient level. Labour recorded a positive coefficient of 0.32478 and was statistically significant at the 1 per cent level, with a t-value of 2.99685. The marginal product of machine labour was 1.64843 quintals, while its MVP was ₹11,865.19 against an MFC of ₹2,000. The MVP/MFC ratio of 5.93260, as shown in Table 2, was substantially greater than unity, indicating considerable under-utilization of machine labour. This suggests that greater and economically appropriate use of machinery could improve the productivity and profitability of HDPS cotton cultivation. The coefficient of bullock labour was positive (0.07061) but statistically non-significant, with a t-value of 0.34367. Its marginal product was 0.13262 quintals, resulting in an MVP of ₹954.58. Since the MFC was ₹800, the MVP/MFC ratio was 1.19322. As indicated in Table 2, the ratio being slightly greater than unity suggests that bullock labour was marginally under-utilized and that a modest increase in its use could potentially improve economic returns, subject to practical farm conditions. Among the inputs, Human labour had a positive regression coefficient of 0.01902, with a t-value of 0.27806, indicating a positive but statistically non-significant relationship with output. Its marginal product was 0.00776 quintals, generating an MVP of ₹55.89 against an MFC of ₹400. As presented in Table 4.17, the MVP/MFC ratio was 0.13972, which was less than unity, indicating that labour was relatively over-utilized compared with its economically efficient level. Machine labour recorded a positive coefficient of 0.32478 and was statistically significant at the 1 per cent level, with a t-value of 2.99685. The marginal product of machine labour was 1.64843 quintals, while its MVP was ₹11,865.19 against an MFC of ₹2,000. The MVP/MFC ratio of 5.93260, as shown in Table 2, was substantially greater than unity, indicating considerable under-utilization of machine labour. This suggests that greater and economically appropriate use of machinery could improve the productivity and profitability of HDPS cotton cultivation. The coefficient of bullock labour was positive (0.07061) but statistically non-significant, with a t-value of 0.34367. Its marginal product was 0.13262 quintals, resulting in an MVP of ₹954.58. Since the MFC was ₹800, the MVP/MFC ratio was 1.19322. As indicated in Table 2, the ratio being slightly greater than unity suggests that bullock labour was marginally under-utilized and that a modest increase in its use could potentially improve economic returns, subject to practical farm conditions. Seeds showed a negative regression coefficient of -0.07610 and a negative marginal product of -0.46760 quintals. Consequently, the MVP was -₹3,365.71, resulting in an MVP/MFC ratio of -2.10357. The coefficient was statistically non-significant, with a t-value of -1.07289. The negative marginal productivity, as reported in Table 2, indicates that additional seed use was not associated with an increase in output at the sample mean under the estimated production relationship. This negative value should be interpreted as a statistical outcome of the fitted model rather than as a recommendation for negative seed use. Fertilizers had a negative coefficient of -0.35872, which was statistically significant at the 5 per cent level, with a t-value of -2.38317. Its marginal product was -0.04829 quintals, resulting in an MVP of -₹347.57 and an MVP/MFC ratio of -4.82740. The results presented in Table 2 suggest a negative estimated marginal contribution of fertilizer use at the sample mean. This may indicate that fertilizer application levels were relatively high in relation to the output response under the prevailing production conditions. Plant protection chemicals recorded a positive coefficient of 0.15084, which was statistically significant at the 5 per cent level, with a t-value of 2.02699. The marginal product was 0.51705 quintals, and the corresponding MVP was ₹3,721.63 against an MFC of ₹400. As reported in Table 2, the MVP/MFC ratio was 9.30406, the highest among all the inputs considered. This indicates substantial under-utilization of plant protection chemicals and suggests considerable scope for increasing their use at economically and technically appropriate levels. Overall, the results indicate considerable variation in the economic efficiency of resource use under HDPS cotton cultivation. Machine labour, bullock labour and plant protection chemicals recorded MVP/MFC ratios greater than unity, indicating under-utilization, whereas labour total had a ratio below unity, suggesting over-utilization. Seeds and fertilizers recorded negative marginal products due to their negative estimated coefficients. Among all the inputs, plant protection chemicals showed the highest MVP/MFC ratio (9.30406), followed by machine labour (5.93260), highlighting these inputs as the major areas where improved resource allocation could contribute to better economic performance in HDPS cotton cultivation.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementWe are grateful to College of Agriculture Latur, VNMKV, Parbhani for the financial assistance and infrastructural facilities provided for the conduct of this research work.

References

1. Das MK, Sarangi KK, Mishra SN, Mohapatra BP, Dash A. Analysis of resource use efficiency and constraints of cotton production in Odisha, India. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology. 2022;40(12):383-389.
2. Daud M, Shiyani RL. Resource use efficiency of long staple cotton cultivation in Gujarat. International Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2018;10(11):6226-6229.
3. Gayathri R, Karunakaran KR. Impact of Bt cotton technology in an Indian cotton production system: a comparative econometric analysis between Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu. Journal of Applied and Natural Science. 2022.
4. Kumar P, Karle AS, Singh D, Verma L. Effect of high density planting system (HDPS) and varieties on yield, economics and quality of desi cotton. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2017;6(3):233-238.
5. Kumar S, Kumar NR, Jain R, J BS, Jhajhria A, Bangaraju SV, et al. Resource use efficiency in cotton production in Palwal district of Haryana. The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2021;91(9):1285-1289.
6. Laxman T, Yamunna C, Kishore B, Madhu B, Keshav Krishna D, Venkatesh B, et al. Evaluating the performance of high density planting system of cotton in Alfisols of Vikarabad district in Telangana, India. Journal of Scientific Research and Reports. 2024;30(12):976-980.
7. Ramanjaneyulu AV, Sainath N, Ramprasad B, Sreenivas Chary D, Gouthami R. Performance of cotton cultivars under HDPS. International Journal of Research in Agronomy. 2024;7(6S):164-166.
8. Patel UB, Leua A, Patel PM, Joshi R, Padaliya M. Resources use efficiency and resources utilization efficiency of major crops in North Gujarat, India. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology. 2025;43(1):90-106.
9. Das LK, Rout RK. Resource use efficiency of Bt cotton production in Western Undulating Agroclimatic Zone of Odisha, India. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2019;8(1):32233231.