March, 2014 Agric Eng Int: CIGR Journal Open access at http://www.cigrjournal.org Vol. 16, No.

1 191

Investigation of agricultural mechanization status in

corn production of Iran

Morteza Zangeneh*, Narges Banaeian

(Department of Agricultural Machinery Engineering, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering and Technology,
School of Agriculture & Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran)

Abstract: For determination and assessing the effect of agricultural mechanization in irrigated corn of Iran, two indicators have
been used: cultivated area (ha) and yield (kg/ha). Several regression models have been built, using Mechanization Level (ML)
and Mechanization Ownership (MO) of all agricultural operations, as input, and cultivated area and yield as output, separately.
The survey was carried out by means of data obtained from Agricultural Ministry of Iran in the period of 2001-2008. The
results revealed that mechanization ownership of planting and harvesting have a significant effect on cultivated area of corn in
Iran with 95% and 99% confidence, respectively. Based on obtained results, agricultural mechanization has an important role
in improvement of corn production in Iran. Levels of mechanization in each agricultural operation have different effects on
yield improvement. Policy makers can consider important factors between mechanization inputs to improve the corn
production of Iran.

Keywords: yield, regression model, mechanization

Citation: Zangeneh, M., and N. Banaeian. 2014. Investigation of agricultural mechanization status in corn production of
Iran. Agric Eng Int: CIGR Journal, 16(1): 191－197.

the agricultural labor for field operations may be one of

1 Introduction 

the major socio-economic issues in highly industrialized

Agricultural mechanization includes three main nations, increasing land and labor productivity with
power sources: human, animal, and mechanical. The dignity are the mechanization requirements of the
manufacture, distribution, repair, maintenance, developing countries. Mechanization technology is,
management and utilization of agricultural tools, therefore, location-specific and dynamic. The quality of
implements and machines is covered under this discipline inputs of mechanization, and consequently land and labor
with regard to how to supply mechanization inputs to productivity in both situations, may differ considerably
farmers in an efficient and effective manner. (Gifford and Rijk, 1980; Singh, 1997, 2000; Singh and
Mechanization technologies keep changing with Chandra, 2002).
industrial growth of the country, and socio-economic Several authors have studied the status of
advancement of the farmer. Whereas declining interest mechanization with reference to the intensity of power or
in agriculture of the landowners and non-availability of energy availability, and its impact in increasing the
agricultural and labor productivity. Giles (1975)
Received date: 2011-12-10 Accepted date: 2014-02-07 reviewed power availability in different countries, and
* Corresponding author: Morteza Zangeneh, Department of demonstrated that productivity was positively correlated
Agricultural Machinery Engineering, Faculty of Agricultural with potential unit farm power. The NCAER (1981)
Engineering and Technology, School of Agriculture & Natural
Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran. Email:
assessed the impact of tractorization on the productivity
[email protected]. Tel.: (98) 261-280-1011; Mobile: (98) of land (yield and cropping intensity), and economic
9189110115. growth (income and employment). The trends for
 192 March, 2014 Agric Eng Int: CIGR Journal Open access at http://www.cigrjournal.org Vol. 16, No.1

European and Asian countries were, however, distinctly application) on wheat yield to build up the production
different. Binswanger (1982) defined the status of management models. Their results indicated the
mechanization by the growth of mechanically differences in the importance of the respective factors to
power-operated farm equipment over traditional human wheat yield between different ecological environments.
and animal power operated equipment. Rijk (1989) In another study, Knox et al. (2010) assessed the spatial
reviewed the growth of mechanization in different Asian and temporal impacts of climate change on irrigation and
countries, and suggested computer software yield for sugarcane grown in Swaziland by combining the
(MECHMOD) for the formulation of strategy for outputs from a general circulation model, a sugarcane
mechanization policy based on economics of use of crop growth model and a GIS. Al-Karablieh et al. (2002)
animate and mechanical power for different field forecasted wheat production in Jordan. Based on their
operations. work, the variables affecting wheat production in the
It is of utmost importance to examine whether the use selected region are the early monthly rainfall and
of machines has been economical or not. Singh (1986) cultivated areas of wheat; in the presence of these
on the basis of a sample of 35 combine harvesters studied, variables, temperature and number of rainy days have
reported that the average area covered by a combine insignificant effects on the prediction of wheat output.
harvester of small size was 192.1 acres of wheat and Analysis showed that rainfall is the major factor in
173.6 acres of paddy. With an average rate of US$ 210 increasing wheat production.
per acre, annual gross return of US$1219 was estimated The objective of this study was to conduct a
while the annual fixed and operating costs worked out to preliminary assessment of production factors effects on
US$ 776 thus showing a net profit of US$ 442 during corn production in Iran. Secondly, technological factors
1984-1985. were used for modeling corn yield in the period of study
Screening products, populations, or territories for (2001-2008).
exceptional changes in the demand for products or
2 Material and methods
services is an important management activity, whether to
prevent losses or to take the advantage of opportunities. One way to know about what inputs are crucial in the

In either event, managers must make decisions that production of corn output is to calculate elasticities of

interrupt normal operations and reallocate resources. To corn output with respect to these inputs. These

trigger such activity, time series monitoring has the elasticities, which are the measurement of how responsive

purpose of automatically detecting outliers and structural a variable is to a change in another, can be found by

changes in time series data, such as step increases or estimating a production function with an appropriate

decreases, as soon as possible after they occur and with functional form. To know about what inputs are crucial

sufficiently few false alarms (Editorial, 2009). Spatial in the production of corn output, the study estimated

and temporal changes in precipitation and temperature Cobb-Douglas production.

patterns will thus have major impacts on the viability of The study proposes the following specification of

both dry land and irrigated farming (Benhin, 2008). production function:
9
The ability of crop simulation models to predict ln Yi   0    j ln( xij )  ei (1)
growth and yield as influenced by the environment, j 1

agronomic practices and crop traits suggests that such where, Yi denotes corn output per hectare the ith year; xij
models can identify traits to increase yield potential (De the vector of inputs used in the production process; α0,
Wit, 1965; Lu, 1993; Reynolds et al., 1996). Hung and constant term; αj, represent coefficients of cost inputs
Tang (2006) studied the effects of the five key agronomic which are estimated from the model; and ei is the error
factors (sowing date, seedling density, Nitrogen term. Log corn output per hectare is assumed to be
application, Phosphate application and Potassium function of different sets of factors such as cost of inputs
 March, 2014 Investigation of agricultural mechanization status in corn production of Iran Vol. 16, No.1 193

and mechanization ratio in different stages of corn in the independent variable and on the other hand these
production. coefficients are used for finding predicted values of wheat
For studying production system of irrigated corn we output in nationwide and aggregate level. Forecast
used two indices which provide information about needs two important pieces of information. These are a)
mechanization status of corn farms of Iran. Equation (2) future value of inputs used in corn production and b) the
(Banaeian and Zangeneh, 2011) shows the Mechanization parameters (elasticities) that link inputs to corn output.
level of farms, by dividing area of corn farms those The elasticity parameters are obtained from the estimated
agricultural operations done by farm machinery to the production function as mentioned above.
total area of farms or in other words total area of farms
3 Results and discussion
which needs mechanized operations.
Am There are differences between the ML and MO in
ML   100 (2)
TA each operation. Mechanization ownership is related to
where, ML is the mechanization degree, dimensionless; the number of farm machinery owner and has a specific
Am is the mechanized area of farms, ha; and TA is the total capacity limited by national conditions governing
area of farms or all of farms needs mechanization, ha. agricultural growth potential. It is ideal to be able to get
Second index used in this study is the Mechanization the full mechanization of the farms that they are 100%
Ownership (MO) (dimensionless) that introduces mechanized. Difference between the current value of
proportion of mechanized farmers (Mf) to the total MO and its ideal value can be reduced by using system of
number of corn farmers (TF) (Banaeian and Zangeneh, agricultural machines exploitation as much as possible.
2011). This index determines the distribution pattern of Improving the system of agricultural machinery usage
machinery users in crops. According to some domestic can increase the degree of mechanization and will show
cultures, distribution of farm machinery is so important its positive results on improving corn yield. If the
because farmers in some regions like to maintain their difference of ML and MO for each of the operations

independence and only done themselves operations and increase, the potential in the agricultural machinery will

don’t work on strange farms. This situation has negative operate properly.

effects of agricultural system, whereas full capacity of Various sets of input data for modeling sugar beet

agricultural machines could not be employed. Equation production were used. Totally seven models for the

(3) shows the MO index. study of corn production in Iran was built as their profile
can be seen in Table 1. Each of the seven models will
Mf
MO   100 (3) be discussed subsequently.
TF
Study on mechanization of corn farming operations in Table 1 Data sets for modeling corn production in Iran
Iran was conducted in the period of 2001 to 2008. The No. Inputs/% Output
survey was carried out by means of data obtained from 1 ML of all operations Yield, kg/ha
Ministry of Agricultural Jihad (MAJ). Data was 2 ML of all operations Cultivated land, ha

collected from all over Iran provinces. Data was 3 MO of all operations Yield, kg/ha
4 MO of all operations Cultivated land, ha
including mechanization ratio based on area of machinery
5 ML of planting and crop management Cultivated land, ha
use and number of wheat farmers who use agricultural
6 MO of planting and crop management Yield, kg/ha
machinery into the whole of studied area and farmers for 7 MO of planting and crop management Cultivated land, ha
modeling area of cultivated land and corn yield as output.
The coefficients that obtained from estimating Table 2 shows elasticities of dependent variable (corn
Cobb-Douglas production function were important. output per hectare) with respect to independent variables
They told us how much corn output per hectare is the set number 1 (ML of all operations). This set
influenced in percentage terms due to one percent change includes ML of land preparation, planting, crop
 194 March, 2014 Agric Eng Int: CIGR Journal Open access at http://www.cigrjournal.org Vol. 16, No.1

management and harvesting as input and corn yield as Table 3 Modeling effect of ML of all operations on cultivated
output. Based on the output of this model, ML of all land as output coefficients
operations has no significant effect on corn yield. The Unstandardized Standardized
coefficients coefficients
Standardized coefficient (Beta) indicates the importance Model (No.2) t Sig.

and influence of each input on the output. Based on B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) -99884.0 177336.8 -0.5 0.61

Beta value ML of planting is the most important factor in
Land preparation 586.7 2362.0 0.06 0.2 0.82
this model. Planting 8594.4 5476.1 0.92 1.5 0.21
Crop management -641.3 6943.0 -0.06 -0.0 0.93
Table 2 Modeling effect of ML of all operations on corn yield
Harvesting 945.5 1479.2 0.14 0.6 0.57
as output coefficients
R Square 0.918
Unstandardized Standardized Adjusted R Square 0.809
coefficients coefficients
Model (No.1) t Sig. Durbin-Watson 1.796
B Std. Error Beta Note: Dependent Variable: Cultivated land.

(Constant) 2527.3 1711.8 1.47 0.23

Land preparation 16.8 22.8 0.1 0.73 0.51
Table 4 Modeling effect of MO of all operations on yield as

Planting 106.03 52.8 1.03 2.00 0.13

output coefficientsa

Crop management -22.1 67.0 -0.20 -0.33 0.76 Unstandardized Standardized

coefficients coefficients
Harvesting 8.09 14.2 0.10 0.56 0.61 Model (No.3) t Sig.
R Square 0.937 B Std. Error Beta
Adjusted R Square 0.852 (Constant) 2001.2 4233.1 0.47 0.66
Durbin-Watson 3.088 Land preparation -9.7 64.6 -0.05 -0.15 0.89
Note: Dependent Variable: Yield. Planting 103.9 87.9 0.96 1.18 0.32
Crop management -62.5 114.6 -0.54 -0.54 0.62
Harvesting 59.6 33.8 0.64 1.76 0.17
Hussain et al. (2006) used the total number of
R Square 0.943
irrigations, seed rate (kg/acre), fertilizers (number of Adjusted R Square 0.866
DAP bags per acre) and soil fertility (Nitrogen in Durbin-Watson 2.084

percentage available in the soil). Their results showed Note: a. Dependent Variable: Yield.

that wheat yield was positively related to the quantity of

The model No. 4 has notable results. The MO of all
seed rate, DAP and Nitrogen but negatively related to the
operations has significant results on cultivated land of
number of irrigations.
corn. Harvesting and planting have positive effect,
Table 3 shows the relationship of ML of all
while land preparation and crop management have
operations and corn cultivated land. The results
negative effect on corn lands. Excessive and unnecessary
indicated that the proportion of corn farmers who have
use and abundance of land preparation and crop
agricultural machinery to all of corn producers have no management machinery by owner farmers in Iran caused
significant effect on corn lands. It is concluded that negative effect on corn yield.
distribution of agricultural machines between farmers is For developing corn lands it is better to increase the
not fairly and this allocation trend cannot affect or mechanization ownership of planting and harvesting.
increase the lands of corn in Iran. This approach can be accomplished using agricultural
Effect of mechanization ownership in all operations mechanization companies in all regions of corn centers.
on corn yield is modeled and its results have been For describing the effect of mechanization degree of
presented in Table 4. As can be seen in this table MO of planting and crop management operations on the status of
planting is the important factor for modeling the yield of corn production, multi stage modeling system has been
corn. After planting next important factors are used. Different outputs have been selected in the
harvesting, crop management and land preparation, following modeling. Table 6 shows the summary of
respectively. model No. 5. In this model 3 models have been
 March, 2014 Investigation of agricultural mechanization status in corn production of Iran Vol. 16, No.1 195

constructed and in each step a new variable have been Model No.6 presents the relation between
added to complete the model and reduce modeling error. Mechanization Ownership of planting and crop
2
Value of R has been increased from 0.80 to 0.99. So management in predicting corn yield. In this case
rd
the best model is the 3 model which was selected for stepwise regression method has been used. Second
2
modeling ML of planting and crop management on model with R of 0.97 can model the corn yield. Both
cultivated land as output. All operations used for this factors in second model have significant effect on yield at
model are planting, manure application and chemical 99% confidence. Mechanization ownership of planting
application. The ML of planting is the most important and irrigation has positive and negative effect,
factor both in this model and previous models. Table 7 respectively. With increasing MO of planting and
illustrated the characteristics of built models. reducing MO of irrigation, corn yield can be increased.

Table 5 Modeling effect of MO of all operations on cultivated Table 8 Model Summary1 of Model No.6
land as output coefficients
Model (No.6) R Square Adjusted R Square Durbin-Watson
Unstandardized Standardized 1 0.903 2
0.887
coefficients coefficients
Model (No.4) t Sig. 3
2 0.975 0.965 2.558
B Std. Error Beta
Note: 1 Dependent Variable: Yield;
(Constant) -113898.1 110860 -1.02 0.38 2. Predictors: (Constant), Planting;
Land preparation -4249.1 1693.8 -0.25 -2.50 0.08 3. Predictors: (Constant), Planting, Irrigation.
Planting 10334.9 2302.2 1.05 4.48 0.02
Crop management -7472.2 3002.1 -0.72 -2.48 0.08
Table 9 Modeling effect of MO of planting and crop
Harvesting 7849.8 885.9 0.93 8.86 0
management on Yield as output coefficients
R Square 0.995
Adjusted R Square 0.989 Unstandardized Standardized
coefficients coefficients
Durbin-Watson 2.026 Model (No.6) t Sig.
Note: Dependent Variable: Cultivated land. B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) 3312.8 482.5 6.86 0

Table 6 Model Summary4 of Model No. 5 1
Planting 58.1 7.7 0.95 7.49 0
Model (No.5) R Square Adjusted R Square Durbin-Watson (Constant) 1839.9 473.0 3.88 0.012

1 0.8011 0.767 2 Planting 86.1 8.5 1.40 10.04 0

2 0.946 2
0.924 Irrigation -815.7 215.5 -0.53 -3.78 0.013

3 0.9913 0.983 2.511 Note: Dependent Variable: Yield

Note: 1. Predictors: (Constant), Planting;
2. Predictors: (Constant), Planting, Manure application; According to Table 10 for modeling the model No.7,
3. Predictors: (Constant), Planting, Manure application, Chemical application;
totally two models have been built. The second model
4. Dependent Variable: Cultited land.
shows better results in modeling cultivated lands of corn
Table 7 Modeling effect of ML of planting and crop using MO of planting and harvesting.
management on cultivated land as output Coefficients
Table 10 Model Summary3 of Model No.7
Unstandardized Standardized
coefficients coefficients Model (No.7) R Square Adjusted R Square Durbin-Watson
Model (No.5) t Sig.
1
B Std. Error Beta 1 0.943 0.933
2
2 0.983 0.976 1.325
(Constant) -44701.4 59703.0 -0.74 0.482
1
Planting 4161.3 848.0 0.89 4.90 0.003 Note: 1. Predictors: (Constant), Harvesting;
(Constant) -125058.5 40475.5 -3.09 0.027 2. Predictors: (Constant), Harvesting, Planting;

2 Planting 4891.8 522.8 1.05 9.35 0.000 3. Dependent Variable: cultivated land.

Manure application 56815.5 15486.1 0.41 3.66 0.014

(Constant) -87646.4 20840.2 -4.20 0.014 Based on the results of model 7, for increasing the
Planting 4082.8 308.0 0.87 13.25 0.000
3 corn cultivation in Iran it is better that planting and
Manure application 48696.4 7494.9 0.35 6.49 0.003
Chemical application 1803.9 416.3 0.26 4.33 0.012
harvesting technologies be distributed between target
Note: Dependent Variable: Corn cultivated area. populations of farmers. Corn production has its special
 196 March, 2014 Agric Eng Int: CIGR Journal Open access at http://www.cigrjournal.org Vol. 16, No.1

characteristics, corn planters and harvesters (often production status of corn were evaluated in Iran.
combines) hardly required personally, because of Various sets of input data were used for modeling corn
existence of timeliness costs that can disturb farmers production and totally seven models were built for Iran
work. Development of corn lands can be occurred with corn status analyzing. For this purpose mechanization
the increasing mechanization ownership of harvesting and inputs used in corn production were linked to corn output
planting operations. by parameters which were obtained from Cobb-Douglas
production function for the period years. For achieving
Table 11 Modeling effect of MO of planting and harvesting
on cultivated land as output Coefficients
accurate view of situation, we used eight years’ statistics
from Agricultural Ministry of Islamic Republic of Iran.
Unstandardized Standardized
Model (No.6)
coefficients coefficients
t Sig. Regressive models have been used for modeling
B Std. Error Beta mechanization effect in different agricultural operations
(Constant) -345785.9 59715.4 -5.79 0.001 on corn yield and corn lands as output. Results showed
1
Harvesting 8195.5 825.6 0.97 9.92 0.000 that Agricultural mechanization has an important role in
(Constant) -266416.9 42982.5 -6.19 0.002
the improvement of corn production in Iran. Harvesting
2 Harvesting 5111.5 1037.7 0.60 4.92 0.004
and planting have positive effect, so for improving the
Planting 2321.2 685.2 0.41 3.38 0.020
production status of corn in Iran, planting and harvesting
Note: Dependent Variable: Cultivated land
mechanization should be considered seriously. While
excessive and unnecessary use of land preparation and
4 Summary and conclusions
crop management machinery by owner farmers in Iran
In this study using mechanization indices, the caused negative effect on corn yield.

References
Al-Karablie, E. K., A. Z. Salman, and F. M. Fisher. 2002. Gifford, R. C., and A. G. Rijk. 1980. Guidelines for agricultural
Forecasting wheat production: The case of the Irbid region of mechanization strategy in development. Economic and Social
Jordan. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, 41(3): Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), Regional
191-205. Network for Agricultural Machinery.
Banaeian, N., and M. Zangeneh. 2011. Mechanization and Giles, G. W. 1975. The reorientation of agricultural
economic analysis of wheat production in Iran. Agricultural mechanization for the developing countries. FAO Report on
mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America, 42(4): 15-27. Effect of Farm Mechanization on Production and Employment.
Benhin, J. K. A. 2008. South African crop farming and climate Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), Rome, Italy.
change: an economic assessment of impacts. Global Huang, G, and Y. Tang. 2006. Studies on management model
Environmental Change, 18 (4), 666-678. for wheat production based on key agronomic factors. World
Binswanger, H. P. 1982. Agricultural mechanization: a journal of Modelling and Simulation, 2(1): 63-70.
comparative historic perspective. World Bank Report ARU-1, Hussain, M., A. Saboor, A. Ghafoor, and M. Mohsin. 2006.
Washington. Estimation of wheat production, forecasting and risk analysis.
Cobb, C. W., and H. Douglas. 1928. A theory of production. Journal of Agriculture and Social Sciences, 2(1): 60-62.
American Economic Review, 18(1):139-165. Supplement Kherallah, M., N. Minot, and P. Gruhn. 1999. Adjustment of
Papers and Proceedings of the Fortieth Annual Meeting of the wheat production to market reform in Egypt. Ministry of
American Economic Association. Agriculture and Land Reclamation and the Ministry of Trade
De Wit, C. T. 1965. Photosynthesis of leaf canopies. and Supply in Egypt.
Agricultural Research Reports, 663, PUDOC, Wageningen, the Knox, J. W., J. A. Rodriguez Diaz, D.J. Nixon, and M.
Netherlands. Mkhawanazi. 2010. A preliminary assessment of climate
Editorial. 2009. Introduction to time series monitoring. change impacts on sugarcane in Swaziland. Agricultural
International Journal of Forecasting, 25(3):463-466. Systems, 103(2): 63-72.
 March, 2014 Investigation of agricultural mechanization status in corn production of Iran Vol. 16, No.1 197

Lu, L. S. (ed.). 1993. New Advances in China Wheat Cultivation agroprocessing in India after independence. Technical Bulletin
Researches. Agriculture Press, Beijing. (in Chinese). CIAE/97/71, Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Nabi
NCAER. 1981. Implication of tractorisation for farm Bagh, Berasia Road, Bhopal, India.
employment, productivity and income. National Council of Singh, G. 2000. Modernisation of agriculture in India (part
Applied Economic Research, Parisila Bhawan, New Delhi. I)—farm mechanisation. Agricultural Situation in India,
Reynolds, M. P., S. Rajaram, and A. McNab (eds.). 1996. Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi.
Increasing Yield Potential in Wheat: Breaking the Barriers. Singh, G., and H. Chandra. 2002. Production and economic
CIMMYT Press, Mexico, D.F, 225–229. factors growth in Indian agriculture. Technical Bulletin No.
Rijk, A. G. 1989. Agricultural mechanisation policy and CIAE/ 2002/91, Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering,
strategy—the case of Thailand. Asian Productivity Nabi Bagh, Berasia Road, Bhopal, India.
Organisation, Tokyo, Japan. Singh, J. 1986. Economics of combine Harvesters.
Singh, G. 1997. Data book on mechanisation and Progressive Farming, XXII(8), PAU, Ludhiana.