Analysis of technical efficiency of smallholder tomato producers in Asaita district, Afar National Regional State, Ethiopia.

The tomato had nutritional, economic and health benefits to the societies, however, its production and productivity were low in developing countries and particularly in Ethiopia. This might be due to technical inefficiency caused by institutional, governmental, and farmers related factors. Therefore this study tried to investigate the factors that affecting technical efficiency and estimating the mean level of technical efficiency of tomato producers in Asaita district, Afar Regional State, Ethiopia. Both primary and secondary data sources were used; the primary data was collected from 267 tomato producers from the study area cross-sectional by using a multistage sampling technique. The single-stage stochastic frontier model and Cobb Douglas production function were applied and statistical significance was declared at 0.05. The maximum likelihood estimates of the stochastic frontier model showed that land, labor, tomato seed, and oxen have a significant effect on tomato output; and education, extension contact, training, and access to credit have a positive and significant effect on technical efficiency, whereas household size, off-farm income, livestock ownership, distance to market, and pesticides have a worthy and significant effect on technical efficiency; and also estimated mean technical efficiency of tomato producer in a study area was 80.9%. In a line with this, the responsible body should prioritize rural infrastructure development in areas such as education, marketplace, and farmer training centers; demonstrate access to credit and extension services; use the recommended amount of pesticides per hectare, and give more intension to mixed farming rather than animal husbandry exclusively.

Introduction

Vegetables occupy approximately 1.64% (238,564 hectares) of total crop production land at the national level and account for approximately 2.08% (8.76 million quintals) of total crop production per season. Such production is primarily produced by small-scale producers (They are on average holding 0.11 hectares of land per person [2]) with an estimated 5.7 million farmers, and it is also produced by large-scale producers with fruit and vegetable processing carried out solely by state organizations [1,2].

In Ethiopia’s agriculture system the production of tomatoes (Solanum Lycopersicum Mill) was introduced dates back to the period between 1935 and 1940 [3,4]. Tomato was cultivated for commercial purposes at the upper Awash by Merti Agroindustry for both domestic as well as export markets in 1980 with a production area of 80 hectares for the first time [4].

However, the total cultivated area increased to 833 hectares in the year 1993, and later on, the cultivation spread towards other parts of the country [5]. Until 2016, the Ethiopian National Agricultural Research System (NARS) had developed approximately 39 tomato varieties [6]. Melkashola, Marglobe, Melkasalsa, Heinz 1350, Fetan, Bishola, Eshet, and Metadel are among the open-pollinated tomato varieties released by the Melkassa Agricultural Research Center (MARC) and are recommended for commercial and small-scale production in Ethiopia [7].

Tomato is being cultivated widely and planted in Ethiopia with about 700 to over 1400 mm annual rainfall, indifferent place, seasons, soils, weather conditions, technology (rain feed or irrigation), and output level [8,9], which is ranking fourth (0.35 million quantal) in terms of annual total national vegetable production after Ethiopian cabbage, red pepper, and green pepper are third in area coverage and 2.5% of land allotted to it from the vegetable production land [1,10,11]. In Ethiopia, tomatoes served as an ingredient in many dishes (local sauce), fresh produce is sliced and used as a salad; and processed products such as tomato paste, tomato juice, soups, stews, and tomato catch-up are consumed in large quantities when compared to other vegetables [12,13].

Tomato is the most vital vegetable in Ethiopia and it is the most important source of a healthy diet and home to micronutrients like- vitamin C, biotin, molybdenum, vitamin K, vitamin A (in the form of beta-carotene), vitamin B, vitamin E, folate, niacin [14-16]. It is also a good source of protein, chromium, pantothenic acid, molybdenum, choline, zinc, and iron [17].

Tomato is a high cash crop production and it has to be the source of income for small-scale farmers and provides employment opportunities in the production, distribution, and processing in the industries [4]. Tomatoes play an important role in Ethiopia’s poverty and food insecurity programs because they have a short harvesting season, relatively high production per hectare (example 9.4 tons per hectare in 2016), and one of the strategic commodities prioritized by the Ethiopian government for agro-industry development [18]. It also strengthens the national economy as a source of raw materials for value-added agro-processing industries and foreign currency for an exportable tomato to international markets (For example, $9.006 million revenue from both fresh and chilled tomato export in 2017) [19,20]. Therefore such and other issues make the tomato is the most vital vegetable in Ethiopia.

Despite its nutritional, economic, and health importance; and has large potential to produced tomato, its production and productivity were low in Ethiopia as a general [20,21], for instance, in 2016 the total cultivated area was approximately 9700 hectares, total production of 91300 tons of fresh tomato, and average productivity of 9.4 tons per hectare [18]. In general, the average productivity of tomatoes in Ethiopia is too low (for instance, 6.18 tons/hectare in 2018 and 6 tons/hectare in 2015) compared with the world average productivity of 38.3 tons/hectare and also 16, 96.8, 63.9, 43 and 38.3 tons/hectare in Africa, America, Europe, Asia in 2018, respectively [4,22,23].

The major responsible factors for low yield, productivity, and inconsistent production were: shortage of improved seed, pesticides [24], fertilizer [25,26], unreliable rainfall, biotic and abiotic factors [27], price fluctuation after harvest, product nature(perishability) [19], post-harvest loss [17]. This poor production and productivity of tomato outputs resulted in food insecurity [28], in turn, such problems have their own effect on the aggregated macroeconomic as a whole. One of the best mechanisms to mitigate food insecurity and improved macroeconomic performance could be increasing productivity through enhancing production efficiency by addressing factors that hindering/improving efficiency [29]. Many scholars had been estimated the level of technical efficiency and investigated determinants of the technical efficiency of vegetable products in general and tomatoes in particular. For example, a study conducted by [11,13,20,30-32] revealed that the technical efficiency of vegetables (tomatoes) can be determined by: farm management, infrastructural development, transportation access, extension contact, access of training, irrigation accessibility, membership in a farmers’ association, and credit availability.

Households with higher educational levels and household size had relatively more technical efficiency [33-36], whereas households with off-farm income and ownership of livestock were less technically inefficient compared to their counterparts [36-38].

However most of such studies were used a two-stage stochastic frontiers model approach rather than a single-stage approach to estimate the level of technical efficiency, single staged approach is to preserve consistency [39], it guarantees that the distributional assumption of inefficiency error term [40] and socio-economic variables (determinants of technical efficiency) may have a direct influence on the production efficiency [41]. In addition, the result of such studies was exclusive and inconsistent with the study area Asaita district, This is because, in the study area (Asaita district) the smallholder tomato producers were different from previously studied area smallholder tomato producers, due to, they were used different technology (i.e. fully irrigated), operate their production at different agro-ecological zone (i.e. tropical), different know-how of production and societal way of life(i.e. agro-pastoralist). Therefore, this study used a single-stage approach to estimate technical efficiency and analysis the technical efficiency of small scale tomato producers in Asaita district.

Materials and methods

Description of the study area

The study was conducted at Tendaho Irrigation Project (TIP) in Asaita district, which is situated in the Lower Awash Valley of the Afar National Regional State (ANRS), northeastern Ethiopia. The Project is located about 600 km away from Addis Ababa. It is situated at 11° 40’ 77’’N and 40°57’49’’E between Dubti and Asaita Districts. Asaita district is one of the districts in the Afar region of Ethiopia. According to Central Statistical Agency (CSA), [42], Asaita is part of the administration of Awisi zone. In this district there are 13 kebelles(It is the smallest administrative unit in Ethiopia) of those 11 are rural and the remaining 2 are urban kebelles [43]. The district has a latitude and longitude of 11°34′N 41°26′E and an elevation of 300 meter (980 ft). In the district, a pastoral and agro-pastoral system of livestock production is the dominant practice. The mean temperature is between 30°C and 45°C per annum [44].Sampling technique and sample size.

The sampling technique in this study was the multistage sampling technique. In the first stage, from a total of 14 irrigation districts in Afar regional state, Asaita irrigation district was purposively selected due to the total production of tomatoes per production season and long-year experience in tomato production. In the second stage, From the total 13 kebeles found in Asaita district, only 5 kebeles were selected purposefully (because only those 5 kebeles were produced tomato). In the third stage, 267 households were selected using systematic random sampling from those 5 kebeles tomato producers population obtained from Asaita district agricultural office. The sample allocation to each kebelles was based on probabilities proportional to the total sampled population on the 2019/2020 production season (see Table 1). The intended sample sizes (267) were determined by using Kothari [45] sample size determination formula.

Table 1

Tomato growing farmers and sample size.

Tomato Producer Kebeles	Total no of Tomato Producers	Sampled Tomato Producers
		Number	Percentage
Berga	149	52	19.6
Hinle	146	52	19.3
Kerbuda	141	49	18.5
Kerdura	161	57	21.2
Mamule	163	57	21.4
Total	760	267	100

Source: Asaita District Agricultural Office and own computation, (2019/2020).

Where: n = the sample size; Z = confidence level (Z = 1.96); p = 0.5; q = 1 –p; e = margin of error (0.06).

Data sources and methods of data collection

Both primary and secondary data were gathered to meet the objective. Primary data was principally used, which was collected from a sample representative of tomato producers from Asaita irrigation site by questionnaire and semi-structured interview through a team of five trained enumerators for each sampled kebelles. Secondary data sources are also governmental and non-governmental institutions including both published and unpublished documents like rural development agricultural office, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, and CSA, and other relevant information sources were used.

Method of data analysis and model specifications

The tools for analyzing the data in this study were both descriptive and inferential (econometrics model) statistical analysis. Descriptive statistical analysis was used to analyze the survey data using measures of dispersion and central tendency like:—percentage, frequency, minimum, maximum, mean, and standard deviation. Regarding econometrics analysis, a single-stage stochastic frontier model was used to estimate the level of efficiency and analysis the determinants of technical efficiency of small-scale tomato producers.

The reason to choose a stochastic frontier model was, it is suitable for analyzing farm-level data where measurement errors are substantial and the weather(natural hazards, unexpected weather conditions, pest, and disease) is likely to have a significant effect [28,40] and it is also referred to as the econometric frontier approach, specifies a functional form for the cost, profit, or production relationship among inputs, outputs, and environmental factors, and it allows for random errors [46]. The Stochastic Frontier Approach (SFA) was developed independently by Aigner et al. [47] and Meeusen and Van der Broeck [48]. SFA approach can be extended to measure inefficiencies in individual production units based on some distributional assumptions for the technical and economic inefficiency scores.

Another issue regarding the stochastic frontier model is choosing the best fitted functional forms (Cobb-Douglas, constant elasticity of substitution, Translog, and other functional forms). By doing so, this study chose the Cobb–Douglas functional forms as the most fitted functional form, with the help of the generalized likelihood-ratio test (LR). A Cobb–Douglas functional form is computational feasibility, simple, it is also convenient in interpreting elasticity of production, and it is very parsimonious concerning degrees of freedom [49-51].

The stochastic frontier production function can be express as Eq (1):

Where:- Y = Tomato output, i = the ith farmer in the sample, X = a vector of inputs used by the ith farmer, β = a vector of unknown parameters, V = a random variable which is assumed to be normally and independently distribute and U = farm-specific technical inefficiency in production and nonnegative random variable.

The Cobb–Douglas form of stochastic frontier production is stated as Eq (2):

Where:- ln = natural logarithm, X = is the quantity of input j used in the production process including oxen, labor, land, and quantity of seed and tractor.

After estimating the technical inefficiency (U) from Eq (2), the technical inefficiency model was specified as Eq (3):

Where:- Edu Stands for the education level of households and it is a continuous variable referring to the years of schooling of the household head; HHsize represents the number of family sizes in a given household; Extc refers frequency of extension service by extensions agents during the production season; Offincome represents Off/non-farm activities, it is a dummy variable (1 if the household was involved in off/non-farm activities and zero otherwise); Trning represents the training of household heads related to potato production, 1 if the farmer gets training on tomato production, 0 otherwise; Credit represent access to credit it is dummy variable indicating 1 if a farmer received and used credit in red pepper production and zero otherwise; Ownlvs represent ownership of livestock and measured by Tropical Livestock Unit (TLU); DSTmkt represents the distance of the nearest market in kilometers; Memcoop represent the membership of farmer cooperative, it is a dummy variable (1 if the farmers were member, 0 otherwise); DSTplot represent the distance from farmer home to tomato plot in minutes; Pest represent usage pesticides in a litter for tomato production, it is a dummy variable (1 if the farmers used pesticide,0 otherwise); Expr represent farmer experience in the production of tomato it is a continuous variable and measured in years; Sex represent the sex of the household head, it is a dummy variable (0 if household head is female and 1 otherwise).

Farm specific technical efficiency was specified as Eq (4):

Where: Y = Actual tomato output, Y* = potential tomato output and TE = farm specific technical efficiency.

Variance parameters obtained from maximum likelihood estimation are expressed in Eqs (5) and (6):

Where:- σ2 is the total variance of the model, σ2 = variance of the random error term, σ2 = variance of the inefficiency error term and γ = the term represents the ratio of the variance of inefficiency’s error term to the total variance of the two error terms.

To analyze the determinant of technical efficiency, a single-stage estimation procedure was applied from a stochastic frontier production function using the maximum likelihood procedure. In single-stage estimation, inefficiency effects are defined as an explicit function of certain factors specific to the firm, and all the parameters are estimated in one step using the maximum likelihood procedure. One staged approach is to preserve consistency [39], it guarantees that the distributional assumption of inefficiency error term [40] and socio-economic variables (determinants of technical efficiency) may have a direct influence on the production efficiency [41].

Ethical consideration and consent to participate

Ethical clearance was obtained from the College of Business And Economics, Samara University. Confidentiality of the information was secured by excluding respondents’ identifiers, such as names, from the data collection format. Finally, verbal informed consent was obtained from those who were smallholder tomato producers in Asaita district and willing to participate in the study. Moreover, the results were recommended to be disseminated by the responsible bodies who were involved in agriculture, agricultural extension services, agricultural NGOs.

Results and discussion

Descriptive analysis

The average household members that live in one house for the sample households were about 7.27 persons that ranging between 2 and 12 persons. The average age of the sample household heads was 39.88 years with a maximum of 70 and a minimum of 20 years old. This showed that the mean ages of the sampled households were within the range of economically active age and they were more energetic (Table 2).

Table 2

Demographic characteristics of sample households.

Variables	Mean	Standard Deviation	Minimum	Maximum
Household size	7.27	7.99	2	12
Age	39.88	11.85	20	70
Farming Experience	33.22	15.03	9	52
Education level	4.06	3.02	0	10

Source: Own survey (2021).

The average farming experience and education level of the sample farmers in tomato production was 33.22 years and 4.06 grades ranging from 0 to grade 10, respectively, this indicated that they had a long farming experience and very low educational level (Table 2).

From the total sample household, 70.75 percent of them were male-headed households, whereas the remaining also female-headed households. Based on their marital status more than half of the samples were engaged in married (66.04 percent), this was the reason that the average household size was more than seven and it was also helpful for the family labor force for tomato production. The remaining sampled households were single and divorced, which were accounted for 23.58 and 10.38 percent of total sampled households, respectively (see Fig 1).

Fig 1

Demographic characteristics of sample households.

Fig 1Based on Table 3 the sample households were owned 2 hectares of land on average with a maximum of 3 hectares and a minimum of 0.23 hectares, this was showed that they were small-scale farmers and should be used resources(land) in a technically efficient manner. Other factors of production included labor, oxen, and tractors, which were used on average 20 labor days per hectare, 7.69 oxen days per hectare, and 2.95 tractor days per hectare. This justified that tomato production techniques were labor-intensive and should use capital more technically efficient way and also there was high variability in the usage of such inputs per hectare among sampled households. This also told us, some farmers were technically inefficient during tomato production than other farmers.

Table 3

Stochastic frontier production function variables summery.

Variables	Observation	Mean	Standard Deviation	Minimum	Maximum
Output(Kg/ha)	267	5,987.23	5,090.25	4,626	8,753.6
Seed (kg/ha)	267	1.02	0.23	0.83	4.35
labor (man-day/ha)	267	20	14.24	12	55
Oxen (oxen-day/ha)	267	7.69	6.85	6.54	8.36
Tractor(tractor-day/ha)	267	2.95	2.49	2.33	3.70
Land (ha)	267	2	0.53	0.5	3

Source: Own survey (2021).

All sample households apply improved tomato seed (Roma VF) with an average of nearly 1.02 kilogram per hectare and the range was from a minimum of 0.83 kilograms per hectare to a maximum of 4.35 kilogram per hectare (Table 3). This highlighted mismanagement, technical inefficiency, and cost-ineffective usage of tomato improved seed among the sampled households.

Finally, Table 3, told us there were rooms of technical inefficiency in the production of tomato in sample housed, why because some households were produced 4,626 kilograms of tomato for a unit hectare of land and other households also produced 8,753.6 kilograms of tomato for a unit hectare, this implies that some households were produced below potential output level (8,753.6 kg/ha).

Inferential analysis

Pre-estimation test

To achieve the objective of this study, the stochastic production frontier model was applied using the maximum likelihood estimation techniques with STATA 14 statistical software. Nonetheless, before proceeding to estimation and analysis, there were pre-estimation tests to ensure that the data fit with the stochastic production frontier model.

First, check whether there were problems of multicollinearity or not among continuous and categorical explanatory variables using the variance inflation factor (VIF) and contingency coefficient (CC), respectively. Both correlation (variance inflation factor) and association (contingency coefficient) results of the model were less than 10 and 0.75, therefore there was not a problem of multicollinearity in the model [52].

Second, choosing between traditional average production function (OLS) best fits the data set and the stochastic frontier model (SFM) by using a log-likelihood ratio test. In such a way the null hypothesis stated that H0:γ = α0,α1,−−−α9 = 0 and the alternative hypothesis also H1:γ = α0,α1,−−−α9 ≠ 0, decision: if log-likelihood ratio test is greater than the Chi−square(x2) tabulated value at one degree of freedom and 5% significance level, reject the null hypothesis. The log-likelihood ratio test statistic is calculated as LR = −2[lnL(H0)−L(H1)] = −2[−247.56−(−214.3)] = 66.52, this statistical value is higher than Chi−square(x2) tabulated value at one degree of freedom and 5% significance level, i.e. 3.84 (Table 4). Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected and the stochastic frontier model is the best model to fit the data compared to the average production function method (OLS).

Table 4

Summary of hypothesis testing for the assumption of the stochastic frontier model.

Null hypothesis	Degree of freedom	LR	Chi square(x2) tabulated value	Decision
H0:γ = 0	1	66.52	3.8	Reject Ho
H0:β6,β7 = … = β20 = 0	15	19.6	24.99	Accept Ho
H0:α0,α1 = … = α13 = 0	13	25.8	22.36	Reject Ho

Source: Own computation (2021).

Third, select the appropriate functional form to fit the data of tomato using likelihood ratio test, in most case researchers were used Cobb-Douglas and Trans-log production function. The likelihood test statistic is calculated as; LR = −2(LHCobb Douglas−LHTranslog) = −2[−214.3−(−204.5)] = 19.6 with null hypothesis stated that H0: Cobb Douglas production function is appropriate and the alternative hypothesis H1:Trans−log production function is appropriate, against Chi−square(x2) tabulated value at 15 degrees of freedom and 5% significance level, which was 24.99 (Table 4). Based on such a result, the null hypothesis was not rejected and concluded that the Cobb-Douglas production function was wisely fitted to the tomato data.

Fourth, does farm-level technical inefficiencies are affected or not by the farm, institutional and farmer-specific variables (determinants), that are check the overall (joint) significance of the technical inefficiency model. This was also performed by log-likelihood ratio test, LR =−2(LH0−LH1) where LH0:- Log-Likelihood function under the stochastic production function model without explanatory variables of inefficiency effects, LH1:- Log-Likelihood function under the stochastic production function model with explanatory variables of inefficiency effects. The calculated Log-Likelihood function LR = −2(−227.2+214.3) = 25.8, this was less than Chi−square(x2) tabulated value 22.36 at 13 degrees of freedom and 5% significance level (Table 4). In such a way, the null hypothesis was disfavor, and determinant variables of technical inefficiency can jointly determine variation in production of tomato output.

Estimation of Cobb-Douglas’s production function

The stochastic frontier model estimates Cobb-Douglas tomato production functional based on five basic input variables: oxen, labor, land, seed, and tractor with the help of maximum likelihood estimation techniques. As shown in Table 5, land and labor were highly elastic, significant, and positive determinants of tomato production, i.e. a percentage increase in land and labor will result in an increase in the tomato output level of 86% and 56%, respectively, ceteris paribus (all other factors are held unchanged), and respectively. This finding consistent with the finding of [37,53-56], in a way, seed and oxen were positive and elastic implications on tomato production in the study area next to land and labor. These results were also consistent with the justification by Khan and Shoukat [57]; Bisrat [38] and Willy [58].

Table 5

OLS and maximum likelihood estimate for Cobb–Douglas production function for tomato.

Variables	Parameters	Ordinary least square estimates		Maximum likelihood estimates
		Coefficients	SE	Coefficients	SE
Constant	β 0	8.23***	1.470	9.14***	0.501
lnOxen	β 1	-0.58**	0.283	0.03**	0.004
lnLabor	β 2	0.42	0.359	0.56***	0.064
lnLand	β 3	0.09***	0.012	0.86***	0.076
lnSeed	β 4	-0.89***	0.068	0.23***	0.041
lnTractor	β 5	0.75	0.773	0.07	0.069
Ln efficiency model output
Constant	α 0			4.26***	0.395
Edu	α 1			0.52***	0.037
HHsize	α 2			-0.8***	0.085
Extc	α 3			0.32**	0.140
Offincome	α 4			-0.05***	0.004
Trning	α 5			0.45**	0.205
Credit	α 6			0.92***	0.144
Ownlvs	α 7			-0.35***	0.293
DSTmkt	α 8			-0.01***	0.293
Memcoop	α 9			0.04	0.037
DSTplot	α 10			0.25	0.321
Pest	α 11			-0.03***	0.006
Expr	α 12			0.24	0.276
Sex	α 13			0.36	0.293
Variance Parameters
Sigma-squared (σ2)				0.57***	0.042
Gamma (γ)				0.89***	0.049
Log likelihood function		-247.56		-214.3
Total sample size		267		267
Return to scale		2.73		2.1

Source: Own computation from the survey (2021).

N.B *, ** and *** indicates level of significance at 10%, 5% and 1% respectively.

Under Table 5 the value of Sigma-squared (σ2) = 0.57 and significantly different from zero at 1% level of significance, which hypothesized that perfect goodness of fit of data with the Cobb- Douglas stochastic frontier model and also the assumption of the composite error term was properly specified [55,59,60]. The estimated result of the output (Table 5) for Gamma (γ) = 0.89, which infers that 89% variation of tomato output from frontier(potential) output was due to technical inefficiency, while the remaining 11% of tomato output deviation from the potential level was because of random noises like unexpected rainfall, frost and other natural disasters beyond the control of tomato producers.

Determinants of technical efficiency

After estimated technical inefficiency variables by using the single-stage estimation approach of the stochastic frontier model, identified the following significant determinant factors of technical efficiency of tomato producers.

Education. It is measured in years of school of the household head, In this study education was a positive and statistically significant (at 1% significance level) effect on technical efficiency (Table 5). This might be due to, educated farmers were eager to disseminate technology that is:- they were able to receive, interpret, and disseminate new information and improved technologies such as improved seed, fertilizer, and pesticides [49]. Education also improved the unobserved labor quality and management capability of farmers, this, in turn, increase technical efficiency [38]. This finding was consistent with Woldegiorgis et al [61]; Abate et al. [60]; Bisrat [38] and Kifle [59], even though, this result is against the study by Temesgen & Ayalneh [36].

Household size. It is specified that the total number of people lived in one roof of the house and had a significant(at 1% significance level) and adverse effect on the technical efficiency of tomato producers (Table 5). As the number of workforce increase, will have multiple effects on producing of output however, if it was not properly managed (mismanagement) will have a hostile effect on production and productivity (diminishing marginal return of labor). This result was supported by the finding of Abebe et al [34]; Temesgen and Ayalnesh [36]; Wudineh [62], however, which was protested by the investigation of Abebe et al [34].

Frequency of extension contact. It had a statistically significant and positive relationship with the technical efficiency of tomato production at a 5% level of significance (Table 5). Farmers who had to get reputed extension visits/teachings are likely to have a chance for gathering new information, techniques of production, understanding new practices, and eager to use modern inputs, which in turn will improve their technical efficiency. The result of this study is similar to the findings of Abate et al [60]; Nanii et al [63]; Daniel [64]; Dassa et al [65]. However, this finding was in contrast with the result of Abebe et al [34].

Off-farm income. It is a dummy variable, 1 if the household was involved in off/non-farm activities and 0 otherwise. Off-farm income has a negative and significant effect on tomato producer efficiency at a 5% level of significance in this study (Table 5). If the farmer participated in off-farm activities, they might have dedicated their time and labor to activities other than tomato production. This caused depleted the portion of time and labor force for managed and produced tomato production and finally, this might be hurt the technical efficiency of tomato producers. This result was in line with the results of Lagiso et al [33]; Hailemariam [35]; Kitila and Alemu [12] and it is in contrast with the study by Hailsellasie [66].

Training. It represents a dummy variable that is 1 if the farmers get training on tomato production, 0 otherwise. Training has a positive and significant effect (at 5% level of significance) on the technical efficiency of farms (Table 5). Training is an important tool for strengthening managerial capacity and improving farmers’ skills in production practices from planting to harvesting and marketing [28]. Such finding was agreed with the study of Degefa [59]; Abebe et al. [34]; Haji [20]; Beyan et al. [67], even though, such a finding was different with the result of Gebregziabher [68].

Access to credit. It is a dummy variable indicating 1 if a farmer gets credit, 0 otherwise. Table 5 revealed that access to credit has a favorable effect on the efficiency of tomato producers at 1% level of significance. Cash requirements for purchasing inputs on time (improved tomato seed, pesticides, additional labor force, and fertilizer) and a solution to the liquidity trap resulted in the farmer being more efficient than the counterpart. The study by Daniel [69]; Bisrat [38]; Daniel [64] and Khan and Saeed [70] found that there was a positive and significant effect of credit on technical efficiency.

Ownership of livestock. Represent the total amount of livestock measured by Tropical Livestock Unit and it has significance at 1% level of significance (Table 5). However, ownership of livestock had a negative effect on the technical efficiency of tomato producers. This could be because, in the study area, the majority of society was agro-pastoralist, and if they owned more livestock, they would shift their practice to animal husbandry rather than vegetable production, this may be caused a reduction of the efficiency of vegetables (tomato) production. It is supported by Abebe et al. [34]; Temesgen and Ayalneg [36], however, it was in contrast with the result of Jote et al. [71].

Distance to the market. Represent the distance from farmer home to the nearest market in kilometers. It had a statistically significant and negative relationship with the technical efficiency of tomato production at a 1% level of significance (Table 5). If the market was a long distance from the farmers’ homes, they would be unable to obtain the most recent market information (price, demand, and supply of tomatoes) and improve seed on time. As a result, the farmer who is closest to the market is technically more efficient than those who are not. The results concur with the findings of Degineh et al [33]; Wassihun et al [72]; Gebregziabher et al [68] and Asgedom et al [3].

Pesticides. It is dummy variable, 1 if the farmers used pesticide, 0 otherwise; it had a statistically significant and negative relationship with technical efficiency of tomato production at 1% level of significance (Table 5). Pesticide use to reduce the incidence of disease and pest infestation of tomato, notwithstanding if the farmers do not use recommended litter of pesticides per hectare of the tomato plant and they have not used safety materials during spray pesticides will lead to harm the plant and reduced technical efficiency of tomato producers and also their health. This finding has parallelled the result of Aman et al. [65]and contrast with Leake et al [61], and Gebresilassie [24].

Elasticity of production

Investigated return to scale is the best and wise mechanism to know the elasticity of production of tomatoes. Conceptually, returns to scale is the sum of coefficients of the major five inputs of the Cobb-Douglass production function in tomato production. Hence in this study, the estimated Cobb–Douglas production function for tomatoes was 2.1 (see Table 5), this was the sum of all inputs coefficients. This result told that there was an increasing return to scale because it was greater than a unit. It can be interpreted as when tomato producers increased all five inputs instantaneously in the Cobb Douglass production function by a unit; tomato output would increase by 2.1.

Tomato yield gap and mean technical efficiency

Yield gap can be defined as an amount at which the difference between the producers produced at the frontier output and the actual output (with technical inefficiency).

The model output revealed (Table 6) that the mean technical efficiency of tomato producers in the Asaita district was 80.9%. This infers that in the short run there is room for reducing tomato production inputs by 19.1% without reducing the existing actual output of tomatoes in the study area. Alternatively, technical efficiency (19.1%) could be interpreted as, if the sampled households of tomato producers operated at full efficiency level they would increase their tomato output by 19.1% without an additional level of inputs (using the existing inputs and level of technology).

Table 6

Tomato yield gap and mean technical efficiency.

Variables	Observation	Mean	Standard Deviation	Minimum	Maximum
Actual Output(Kg/ha)	267	5,987.23	5,236.30	4,626	8,753.60
Technical efficiency	267	0.809	0.167	0.325	0.999
Frontier output(Kg/ha)	267	7254.75	6823.1	5984.4	9125.3
Output gap(Kg/ha)	267	1,267.52	786.25	526	1632

Source: Own computation from the survey (2021).

Under Table 6, both the actual and potential tomato output kilogram per hectare during the production year was 5987.23 and 7254.75, respectively with 1267.53 kilograms per hectare yield gap. Such yield gap(1267.53 kg/ha) hypothesized that tomato producers could able increase tomato output by 1267.53 kg/ha within the existing amount of inputs and technology, on average.

Conclusions and recommendations

Numerous studies were conducted on the technical efficiency of vegetables in general and tomatoes in particular in the least developed countries including Ethiopia. Even though most of them were used a two-stage stochastic frontier model to estimate and analysis the technical efficiency of tomatoes and none of the studies were done on the technical efficiency of tomatoes in this study area. Therefore, this study was estimated the mean technical efficiency and analyzed the factors affecting the technical efficiency of tomato producers in Asaita district by using the single-stage stochastic frontier model. To achieve such objectives, econometric methods (single-stage stochastic frontier model) were used. The stochastic frontiers model revealed that the estimated values of mean technical efficiency were 80.9%, which indicated that there was an opportunity that increased tomato output level by 19.1% with the existing level of inputs and technology. The maximum likelihood estimates of the stochastic frontier for production function indicated that land, labor, tomato seed, and oxen significantly affect tomato output. The maximum likelihood estimates of the stochastic frontier for the efficiency model indicated that education, extension contact, training, and access to credit had a positive and significant effect on technical efficiency, whereas household size, off-farm income, livestock ownership, distance to market, and pesticides had a worthy and significant effect on tomato producer technical efficiency in a study area. Based on the findings, this study recommended to responsible bodies the following issues:-the government should place more emphasis on education and educational infrastructures, provide timely and frequent training for those farmers, provide short and long-term credit opportunities; extension agents should participate in providing information and disseminating training for those farmers on land preparation, production, harvesting, and marketing, as well as providing advice on the recommended amount of pesticide per hectare and use of safety equipment when spraying pesticides; farmers should prioritize mixed farming methods over animal husbandry; the government and any concerned bodies should establish market center nearest to farmers resident. In such a way, the scope of this study was limited to the technical efficiency of tomato producers, and it could not generalized and inference the technical efficiency of vegetable producers of the nation as a whole and particularly in Afar regional state, therefore, future research should be done on technical efficiency of vegetable producers in Ethiopia as well as in Afar regional state by using this study as a reference point.

Minimal anonymized data set.

(DTA)

Click here for additional data file.

5 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-15133

Analysis of technical efficiency of small holder tomato producers in Asaita district, Afar National Regional State, Ethiopia.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Dagmawe Menelek Asfaw,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 19 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

László Vasa, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

4. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

5. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical.

6. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

7. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

7.1.    You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

7.2.    If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

8. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The topic of the paper is very special, because it introduces tomatoes production in an African country. The author of the paper used proper literature sources which were related the topic. The methodological part of the paper is pretty good and fit to the analysed research topic. Author prepared good tables and figures which helped to understand his work. I appreciated his results and agree them. I suggest to add more figures to expalin your results.

Reviewer #2: The paper is generally well written on a topic of international interest, however, the it has some parts to be developed:

1. The paper lacks a proper motivation section. In light of the existing literature, why it is so interesting for someone to read this paper and what the paper actually adds to the current literature?

2. A literature review on technical efficiency is completely missing. How the paper is positioned in light of the literature?

3. How the results are in line with existing papers on the topic? Do they support or contradict previous results?

4. What about policy recommendations and future research avenues?

5. What about limitations of the study?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

20 Jul 2021

Dear Editors,

I have special gratitude to you, for devoting your valuable time and energy to review my work entitled “Analysis of technical efficiency of smallholder tomato producers in Asaita district, Afar National Regional State, Ethiopia (PONE-D-21-15133)” and giving constructive comments and invaluable guidance. In a line with this, the author had exhaustively demonstrated and addressed questions and comments raised by editors using point-by-point responses as stated below.

Point-by-point responses for the questions and suggestions raised by Editor

1. We note your current Data Availability Statement: “The datasets and articles used to support this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request." However, in the Response to Reviewers you stated: "I have updated the data availability section in the revised manuscript and I have uploaded the minimal data set at supportive file of the revised manuscript." As you have provided a minimal data set file within your manuscript, please clarify this discrepancy between these two statements. Please do note that in the interest of long-term data availability, PLOS data policy does not allow an author to be the sole point of data access. Acceptable restrictions on public data sharing are detailed in the following link:(https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-acceptable-data-access restrictions).

Response: Thank you dear editor, I have edited such Data Availability Statement on the online submission as “All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.”

2. We also note the file “minimal anonymized data set.dta” in the manuscript in the file named “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes.docx.” Please upload “minimal anonymized data set.dta” as a Supporting Information file.

Response: Thank you dear editor, I have uploaded minimal anonymized data set.dta” as a Supporting Information file.

3. Furthermore, please also note that PLOS ONE is unable to publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images, or images created using proprietary data. For these reasons, we cannot publish images generated by software which copyrights their output (such as Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). In order to use these images in your submission, we require explicit permission from the copyright owner to publish the figures under the CC BY 4.0 license. At this time, please kindly clarify the following regarding Figures 1:

a) Where did the authors obtain the map in Figure 1?

b) Please state whether the map has been previously copyrighted to your knowledge.

c) If the map has been previously copyrighted, we require specific consent from the copyright holder to publish these images in PLOS ONE, under the CC BY 4.0 license. To seek permission from the copyright owner to publish your map figures under the specific Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL), CC BY 4.0, please contact them with the following text and PLOS ONE Request for Permission form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf):

Response: Thank you dear editor, I have remove the figure from the revised manuscript.

Thank you!

Submitted filename: Response to Editor.docx

Click here for additional data file.

31 Aug 2021

Analysis of Technical Efficiency of Smallholder Tomato Producers in Asaita District, Afar National Regional State, Ethiopia

PONE-D-21-15133R1

Dear Dr. Asfaw,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

László Vasa, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Paper have been improved by the author, who appreciated my suggestions. That is why I think this paper is ready to publish in the Journal.

Reviewer #2: The revision of the paper is well done and the responses of the author are acceptable from my side. The paper is ready for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

14 Sep 2021

PONE-D-21-15133R1

Analysis of Technical Efficiency of Smallholder Tomato Producers in Asaita District, Afar National Regional State, Ethiopia

Dear Dr. Asfaw:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Dr. László Vasa

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE