An introduction to efficiency and productivity analysis

The second edition of An Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis is designed to be a general introduction for those who wish to study efficiency and productivity analysis. The book provides an accessible, well-written introduction to the four principal methods involved: econometric estimation of average response models; index numbers, data envelopment analysis (DEA); and stochastic frontier analysis (SFA). For each method, a detailed introduction to the basic concepts is presented, numerical examples are provided, and some of the more important extensions to the basic methods are discussed. Of special interest is the systematic use of detailed empirical applications using real-world data throughout the book. In recent years, there have been a number of excellent advance-level books published on performance measurement. This book, however, is the first systematic survey of performance measurement with the express purpose of introducing the field to a wide audience of students, researchers, and practitioners. Indeed, the 2nd Edition maintains its uniqueness: (1) It is a well-written introduction to the field. (2) It outlines, discusses and compares the four principal methods for efficiency and productivity analysis in a well-motivated presentation. (3) It provides detailed advice on computer programs that can be used to implement these performance measurement methods. The book contains computer instructions and output listings for the SHAZAM, LIMDEP, TFPIP, DEAP and FRONTIER computer programs. More extensive listings of data and computer instruction files are available on the book's website: (www.uq.edu.au/economics/cepa/crob2005).

Electronic nose evaluation of onion headspace volatiles and bulb quality as affected by nitrogen, sulphur and soil type

Edaphic factors affect the quality of onions (Allium cepa). Two experiments were carried out in the field and glasshouse to investigate the effects of N (field: 0, 120 kg ha(-1); glasshouse: 0, 108 kg ha(-1)), S (field: 0, 20 kg ha(-1); glasshouse: 0, 4.35 kg ha(-1)) and soil type (clay, sandy loam) on onion quality. A conducting polymer sensor electronic nose (E-nose) was used to classify onion headspace volatiles. Relative changes in the E-nose sensor resistance ratio (%dR/R) were reduced following N and S fertilisation. A 2D Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of the E-nose data sets accounted for c. 100% of the variations in onion headspace volatiles in both experiments. For the field experiment, E-nose data set clusters for headspace volatiles for no N-added onions overlapped (D-2 = 1.0) irrespective of S treatment. Headspace volatiles of N-fertilised onions for the glasshouse sandy loam also overlapped (D-2 = 1.1) irrespective of S treatment as compared with distinct separations among clusters for the clay soil. N fertilisation significantly (P < 0.01) reduced onion bulb pyruvic acid concentration (flavour) in both experiments. S fertilisation increased pyruvic acid concentration significantly (P < 0.01) in the glasshouse experiment, especially for the clay soil, but had no effect on pyruvic acid concentration in the field. N and S fertilisation significantly (P < 0.01) increased lachrymatory potency (pungency), but reduced total soluble solids (TSS) content in the field experiment. In the glasshouse experiment, N and S had no effect on TSS. TSS content was increased on the clay by 1.2-fold as compared with the sandy loam. Onion tissue N:water-soluble SO42- ratios of between five and eight were associated with greater %dR/R and pyruvic acid concentration values. N did not affect inner bulb tissue microbial load. In contrast, S fertilisation reduced inner bulb tissue microbial load by 80% in the field experiment and between 27% (sandy loam) and 92% (clay) in the glasshouse experiment. Overall, onion bulb quality discriminated by the E-nose responded to N, S and soil type treatments, and reflected their interactions. However, the conventional analytical and sensory measures of onion quality did not correlate with %dR/R.

Evaluation of eight spring onion genotypes, sulphur nutrition and soil-type effects with an electronic nose

Genotype, sulphur (S) nutrition and soil-type effects on spring onion quality were assessed using a 32-conducting polymer sensor E-nose. Relative changes in sensor resistance ratio (% dR/R) varied among eight spring onion genotypes. The % dR/R was reduced by S application in four of the eight genotypes. For the other four genotypes, S application gave no change in % dR/R in three, and increased % dR/R in the other. E-nose classification of headspace volatiles by a two-dimensional principal component analysis (PCA) plot for spring onion genotypes differed for S fertilisation vs. no S fertilisation. Headspace volatiles data set clusters for cv. 'White Lisbon' grown on clay or on sandy loam overlapped when 2.9 [Mahalanobis distance value (D2) = 1.6], or 5.8-(D2 = 0.3) kg S ha-1 was added. In contrast, clear separation (D2 = 7.5) was recorded for headspace volatile clusters for 0 kg S hd-1 on clay vs. sandy loam. Addition of 5.8 kg S ha-1 increased pyruvic acid content (mmole g-1 fresh weight) by 1.7-fold on average across the eight genotypes. However, increased S from 2.9 to 5.8 kg ha-1 did not significantly (P > 0.05) influence % dR/R, % dry matter (DM) or total soluble solids (TSS) contents, but significantly (P < 0.05) increased pyruvic acid content. TSS was significantly (P < 0.05) reduced by S addition, while % DM was unaffected. In conclusion, the 32-conducting polymer E-nose discerned differences in spring onion quality that were attributable to genotype and to variations in growing conditions as shown by the significant (P < 0.05) interaction effects for % dR/R.