Agric. Econ. - Czech, 2025, 71(10):527-536 | DOI: 10.17221/298/2024-AGRICECON

Impact of the adoption of chemical inputs on crop yield downside riskOriginal Paper

Olha Aleksandrova ORCID...1, Štefan Bojnec ORCID...2
1 Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Republic of Estonia
2 Faculty of Economics and Management, Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Nitra, Slovak Republic

The study aims to analyse the impact of application of chemical inputs like fertilisers or crop protection products on farm crop yield productivity in Estonian and Slovenian agriculture. We combined the propensity score matching (PSM) method with an inverse probability weighted regression (IPWRA) model to derive treatment effects of the adoption of these critical inputs using Farm Accountancy Data Network data. Results exhibit consistency across estimation techniques. Estimates of both IPWRA and PSM models showed that adoption of at least one of the chemical inputs decreases volatility of crop yield output and downside risk. The results are more robust for Estonian than for Slovenian farms suggesting on possible impacts of other exogenous factors such as climate change on mitigating the crop yield downside risk.

Keywords: chemical input adoption; Estonia; fertilisers; food security; household crop yield; crop protection products; productivity; Slovenia

Received: August 19, 2024; Revised: June 20, 2025; Accepted: July 3, 2025; Prepublished online: October 27, 2025; Published: October 30, 2025  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Aleksandrova O, Bojnec Š. Impact of the adoption of chemical inputs on crop yield downside risk. Agric. Econ. - Czech. 2025;71(10):527-536. doi: 10.17221/298/2024-AGRICECON.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    Supplementary files:

    Download file298-2024_ESM.pdf

    File size: 148.39 kB

    References

    1. Adjin, K.C., Goundan, A., Henning, Ch.H.C.A., Sarr, S. (2020): Estimating the impact of agricultural cooperatives in Senegal: Propensity score matching and endogenous switching regression analysis, Working Papers of Agricultural Policy: No. WP2020-10.
    2. Antle J.M. (1983): Testing the stochastic structure of production: A flexible moment-based approach. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 1: 192-201. Go to original source...
    3. Battese G.E. (1992): Frontier production functions and technical efficiency: A survey of empirical applications in agricultural economics. Agricultural Economics, 7: 185-208. Go to original source...
    4. Battese G.E., Coelli T.J. (1992): Frontier production functions, technical efficiency and panel data: With application to paddy farmers in India. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 3: 153-169. Go to original source...
    5. Biagini L., Antonioli F., Severini S. (2023): The impact of CAP subsidies on the productivity of cereal farms in six European countries: A historical perspective (2008-2018). Food Policy, 119: 102473. Go to original source...
    6. Błażejczyk-Majka L., Kala R., Maciejewski K. (2012): Productivity and efficiency of large and small field crop farms and mixed farms of the old and new EU regions. Agricultural Economics - Czech, 58: 61-71. Go to original source...
    7. Bontemps C., Bougherara D., Nauges C. (2021): Do risk preferences really matter? The case of pesticide use in agriculture. Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 26: 609-630. Go to original source...
    8. Bozzola M., Smale M. (2020): The welfare effects of crop biodiversity as an adaptation to climate shocks in Kenya. World Development, 135: 105065. Go to original source...
    9. Caliendo M., Kopeinig S. (2008): Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. Journal of Economic Surveys, 22: 31-72. Go to original source...
    10. Carter M.R., Tjernström E., Toledo P. (2019): Heterogeneous impact dynamics of a rural business development program in Nicaragua, Journal of Development Economics, 138: 77-98. Go to original source...
    11. Chai Q., Nemecek T., Liang C., Zhao C., Yu A.Z., Coulter J.A., Wang Y.F., Hu F.L., Wang L., Siddique K.H.M., Gan Y.T. (2021): Integrated farming with intercropping increases food production while reducing environmental footprint. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118: e2106382118. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    12. Čechura L., Žáková Kroupová Z., Kostlivý V., Lekešová M. (2021): Productivity and efficiency of precision farming: The case of Czech cereal production. AGRIS on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, 13: 15-24. Go to original source...
    13. Čechura L., Žáková Kroupová Z., Lekešová M. (2022): Productivity and efficiency in Czech agriculture: Does farm size matter? Agricultural Economics - Czech, 68, 1-10. Go to original source...
    14. El Benni N., Finger R. (2014): Where is the risk? Price, yield and cost risk in Swiss crop production. Revue d'études en Agriculture et Environnement, 95: 299-326. Go to original source...
    15. European Commission (2017): Risk Management Schemes in EU Agriculture: Dealing with Risk and Volatility. Brussels, European Commission. Available at https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2019-10/agri-market-brief-12_en_0.pdf. (accessed July 19, 2024).
    16. European Commission (2022): Directorate - General for agriculture and rural development. Directorate A - Strategy and policy analysis, A2 - Analysis and Outlook. Brussels, European Comission. Available at https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-04/agricultural-outlook-2022-report_en_0.pdf. (accessed Aug 27, 2024).
    17. Eurostat (2023): Glossary: Standard Output (SO). Luxembourg, Eurostat. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisticsexplained/index.php?title=Glossary:Standard_output_(SO) (accessed Nov 15, 2023).
    18. Gancheva M., O'Brien S., Tugran T., Borrett C. (2020): Adapting to climate change: Challenges and opportunities for the EU local and regional authorities. Brussels, European Committee of Regions.
    19. Huang J., Wang Y., Wang J. (2015): Farmers' adaptation to extreme weather events through farm management and its impacts on the mean and risk of rice yield in China. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 97: 602-617. Go to original source...
    20. Imbens G. (2004): Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: A review. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 86: 4-29. Go to original source...
    21. Imbens G.W., Wooldridge J.M. (2009): Recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation. Journal of Economic Literature, 47: 5-86. Go to original source...
    22. Issahaku G., Abdulai A. (2020): Adoption of climate-smart practices and its impact on farm performance and risk exposure among smallholder farmers in Ghana. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 64: 396-420. Go to original source...
    23. Jankelova N., Masar D., Moricova S. (2017): Risk factors in the agriculture sector. Agricultural Economics - Czech, 63: 247-258. Go to original source...
    24. Kazal M.M.H., Rahman Md.S., Rayhan S.J. (2020): Determinants and impact of the adoption of improved management practices: Case of freshwater prawn farming in Bangladesh. Aquaculture Reports, 18: 100448. Go to original source...
    25. Li X., Wang Z., Bao X., Sun J., Yang S., Wang P., Wang C., Wu J., Liu X., Tian X., Wang Y., Li J., Wang Y., Xia H., Mei P., Wang X., Zhao J., Yu R., Zhang W., Che Z., Gui L., Callaway R.M., Tilman D., Li L. (2021): Long-term increased grain yield and soil fertility from intercropping. Nature Sustainability, 4: 943-950. Go to original source...
    26. Louhichi K., Espinosa M., Ciaian P., Perni A., Vosough Ahmadi B.L., Colen S., y Paloma G. (2018): The EU-Wide Individual Farm Model for Common Agricultural Policy Analysis (IFM-CAP v.1). Economic Impacts of CAP Greening European Commission, Joint Research Centre. JCR10869. Available at https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/13480ce0-803e-4ec4-9f88-24d44d565eab/language-en#:~:text=To%20guarantee%20the%20highest%20representativeness,(more%20than%20%E2%80%9310%20%25) (accessed July 24, 2024).
    27. Ma W., Zheng H., Yuan P. (2022): Impacts of cooperative membership on banana yield and risk exposure: Insights from China. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73: 564-579. Go to original source...
    28. MAFF (2023): Agriculture Commissioner in Slovenia on Damage in Agriculture. Ljubljana, Slovenia, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food. Available at https://www.gov.si/en/news/2023-11-24-agriculture-commissioner-in-slovenia-on-damage-in-agriculture/ (accessed July 19, 2024).
    29. Makieła K., Marzec J., Pisulewski A., Mazur B. (2025): Are European farms equally efficient? What do regional FADN data on crop farms tell us? Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 57: 157-181. Go to original source...
    30. Mavsar S., Grčman H., Turniški R., Mihelič R. (2025): Organic carbon sequestration potential of Slovenian agricultural soil and the impact of management practices on SOC stock. Cogent Food & Agriculture, 11: 2437574. Go to original source...
    31. Meyer-Aurich A., Gandorfer M., Trost B., Ellmer F., Baumecker M. (2016): Risk efficiency of irrigation to cereals in northeast Germany with respect to nitrogen fertilizer. Agricultural Systems, 149: 132-138. Go to original source...
    32. Möhring N., Dalhaus T., Enjolras G., Finger R. (2020): Crop insurance and pesticide use in European agriculture. Agricultural Systems, 184: 102902. Go to original source...
    33. Nilsson P. (2017): Productivity effects of CAP investment support: Evidence from Sweden using matched panel data. Land Use Policy, 66: 172-182 Go to original source...
    34. Novickytė L. (2019): Risk in agriculture: An overview of the theoretical insights and recent development trends during last decade - A review. Agricultural Economics - Czech, 65: 435-444. Go to original source...
    35. Olagunju K.O., Olagunju K.A., Ogunniyi A.I., Omotayo A.O., Oyetunde-Usman Z. (2023): To own or not to own? Land tenure security and production risk in small-scale farming. Land Use Policy, 127: 106584. Go to original source...
    36. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food (2024): Measures - Common Agricultural Policy. Ljubljana, Slovenia. Available at: skp.si. (accessed July 23, 2024).
    37. Robins J., Sued M., Lei-Gomez Q., Rotnitzky A. (2007): Comment: Performance of double robust estimators when 'inverse probability' weights are highly variable. Statistical Science, 22: 544-559. Go to original source...
    38. Santeramo F.G., Lamonaca E., Maccarone I., Tappi M. (2024): Extreme weather events and crop insurance demand. Heliyon, 10: e27839. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    39. Sekhon J.S. (2011): Multivariate and propensity score matching software with automated balance optimization: The matching package for R. Journal of Statistical Software, 42: 1-52. Go to original source...
    40. Sseguya H., Robinson D.S., Mwango H.R., Flock J.A., Manda J., Abed R., Mruma S.O. (2021): The impact of demonstration plots on improved agricultural input purchase in Tanzania: Implications for policy and practice. PLoS ONE 16: e0243896. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    41. Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia (2021): Prices in agriculture. Available at: https://pxweb.stat.si/SiStat/en/Podrocja/Index/85/agriculture-forestry-and-fishery. (accessed July 23, 2024).
    42. Statistics Estonia (2021): Prices in agriculture. Available at: https://www.stat.ee/et/avasta-statistikat/valdkonnad/rahandus/hinnad. (accessed July 23, 2024).
    43. Villano R., Bravo-Ureta B., Solís D., Fleming E. (2015): Modern rice technologies and productivity in the Philippines: Disentangling technology from managerial gaps. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66: 129-154. Go to original source...
    44. Wooldridge J.M. (2010): Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge, The MIT Press: 603-620.
    45. Wossen T., Abdoulaye T., Alene A., Haile M.G., Feleklanrewaju A., Manyong V. (2017): Impacts of extension access and cooperative membership on technology adoption and household welfare. Journal of Rural Studies, 54: 223e233. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    46. Zheng H., Ma W., Wang F., Li G. (2021): Does internet use improve technical efficiency of banana production in China? Evidence from a selectivity-corrected analysis. Food Policy, 102: 102044. Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content