n?u=RePEc:zwi:uconnr:04&r=dev

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Executive Summary The major objective of this study is to evaluate the adoption of groundnut varieties that are high yielding, drought tolerant, and groundnut rosette disease (GRD) resistant in eastern Uganda. In particular, this study examines differences in adoption and farm-level productivity associated with participation in the project entitled “Farmer-Led Multiplication of Rosette Resistant Groundnut Varieties for Eastern Uganda” (FGSM), which was carried out during the early 2000s following the prior diagnostic work under the LIFE project (Tino, Laker-Ojok, and Namisi 2004). We are particularly interested in the sustainability of the project outcomes 10-years after the end of the original intervention. The impact of the Multiplication Project is examined with respect to increased productivity (higher expected yields) and risk-reduction (improved disease resistance and drought tolerance). We also examine current levels of aflatoxin awareness, prevalence, and the use of mitigation practices in the study region. We find that participating farmers allocated 21% more of their available land to improved groundnut varieties. The results also show that, for improved varieties, beneficiaries produce 32% higher yields than the non-participating neighbor controls, and 55% higher yields relative to non-neighbor controls. This implies that the project led to a sustained significant increase in profitability for participating farmers. In addition, we observe significant spillover effects from the project, which is clearly revealed by the yield difference between non-participating neighboring control households and non-neighbor control households. These results imply that project beneficiaries transferred some benefits to the neighbor control group over the course of the 10-year period following the project. This is an important result suggesting that farmer-led programs offer significant advantages to developing communities and may provide a cost-effective means of information and technology dissemination. Key words – groundnut, agricultural productivity, technology adoption, extension, impact evaluation, instrumental variables, propensity score matching, Uganda. Acknowledgement This research was supported in part by NaSARRI, Uganda, and by the USAID-Peanut and Mycotoxin Innovation Laboratory through the University of Georgia, ECG-A-00-0700001-00. The work of the ATU Organization was critical in implementing the field survey and generating the final dataset. Particular thanks are extended to Ms. Grace Tino and Dr. Rita Laker-Ojok for their leadership efforts. i
Table of Contents I. Background & Motivation ........................................................................................................ 1 II. Theoretical Framework & Methodology ............................................................................... 3 III. Project Scope & Data ............................................................................................................. 6 IV. Results & Discussion ............................................................................................................... 9 A. Descriptive Statistics: Standard of Living and Income Sources ....................................... 9 B. HH Consumption and Crop Production ......................................................................... 11 i. Groundnut Production and Variety Preferences ............................................................. 12 ii. Adoption of HYRVs .......................................................................................................... 18 iii. Groundnut Productivity, Production Costs, and Sales .................................................. 20 iv. Aflatoxin Awareness and Mitigation .............................................................................. 24 VI. Summary, Concluding Remarks, and Extensions .............................................................. 26 References .................................................................................................................................... 28 List of Tables and Figures Table 1. HH Standard of Living and Income ................................................................................ 10 Table 2. Varieties of Groundnuts Grown and Source of Seed in 2013 (Season A) ...................... 14 Table 3. Quantity and Area of Groundnuts Planted by Variety in 2013 (Season A) .................... 15 Table 4. Estimates of the Proportion of Groundnut Production Area in HYRVs: Ordinary Least Squares, Propensity Score Matching, and Instrumental Variables ........................................ 19 Table 5. Quantity Harvested and Yield for Groundnuts by Variety in 2013 (Season A) .............. 21 Table 6. Average Groundnut Production Costs: Labor by Activity and Other Inputs .................. 22 Table 7. Mean Quantity and Price of Groundnuts Sold in 2013 (Season A) ................................ 23 Figure 1. Changes in Mean Level of HH Standard of Living by Group (2004 -2014) ................... 9 Figure 2. HYRV Adoption Trends by Subgroup: Proportion of Groundnut Producers that Grow HYRVs (2001-2013) ............................................................................................................. 18 List of Appendixes Appendix A. Additional Tables and Figures ................................................................................. 34 Appendix B. ATU 2014 Survey Instrument .................................................................................. 65 ii
Page 1: Zwick Center for Food and Resource
Page 5 and 6: These varieties offer a less risky
Page 7 and 8: new technologies does not directly
Page 9 and 10: Another important characteristic of
Page 11 and 12: sub-counties. Then, three farmer as
Page 13 and 14: in 2014 and in 2004. The BEN group
Page 15 and 16: grown vary across regions with grou
Page 17 and 18: Table 2. Varieties of Groundnuts Gr
Page 19 and 20: Another important consideration in
Page 21 and 22: ii. Adoption of HYRVs 100 % of G’
Page 23 and 24: In all other cases, where the C_OUT
Page 25 and 26: A key hypothesis associated with th
Page 27 and 28: saved seed rather than purchased se
Page 29 and 30: BEN tended to experience the greate
Page 31 and 32: References Adeogun, O. A., A. M. Aj
Page 33 and 34: Godfray, H. Charles J., John R. Bed
Page 35 and 36: =handbook+of+development+economics+
Page 37 and 38: Appendix A. Additional Tables and F
Page 39 and 40: Table A-2. Sex of Survey Respondent
Page 41 and 42: Table A-8. Average Total Area Culti
Page 43 and 44: Table A-11. Crops Ranked by Income
Page 45 and 46: Table A-14. Groundnut Growers in 20
Page 47 and 48: Table A-17. Training in Groundnut P
Page 49 and 50: Table A-22. Dissemination of New Va
Page 51 and 52: Table A-24. OLS Regression Estimate
Page 53 and 54:
Table A-26. Instrumental Variables:
Page 55 and 56:
Table A-28. Market Access Problems
Page 57 and 58:
Table A-30. Groundnut Storage Numbe
Page 59 and 60:
Table A-35. Change from Feedback on
Page 61 and 62:
Table A-38. Removal of Aflatoxin Co
Page 63 and 64:
Table A-40. Do Buyers Prefer Aflato
Page 65 and 66:
Table A-43. Primary Method of Dryin
Page 67 and 68:
Figure 2-A. Common Support for PSM
Page 69 and 70:
Name of Respondent from ATU Survey:
Page 71 and 72:
16. How has your standard of living
Page 73 and 74:
HH ID#____________________ 23. If Y
Page 75 and 76:
HH ID#____________________ Code for
Page 77 and 78:
HH ID#____________________ Total La
Page 79 and 80:
D. AFLATOXIN. 50. Ever heard of AFL
show all

n?u=RePEc:zwi:uconnr:04&r=dev

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?