Bananas and Food Security - Bioversity International

738 Les productions bananières / Bananas and food security – Session 4
Table 8. Competitiveness of the cropping systems.
Gross income Net income Return to family Benefit cost
Crop
Bananas
(‘000 Shs.ha-1) (‘000 Shs.ha-1) labour (Shs.hour-1) ratio
Case 1* 531 172 720 1.5
Case 2 747 133 654 1.2
Case 3 1 368 264 803 1.2
Coffee 1 022 463 1 620 1.8
Maize/beans 485 136 755 1.4
Groundnuts 452 72 684 1.2
Beans 386 61 668 1.1
Sweet potatoes 390 18 557 1.1
Maize 272 -16 489 0.9
Cassava 494 97 373 1.2
* Case 1 = Low management involving mainly sanitation and weeding.
Case 2 = Sanitation + weeding + mulching.
Case 3 = Sanitation + weeding + mulching + manure.
The profitability indicators showed that bananas had a comparative advantage over
annual food crops. However, coffee was more profitable than all other crops. The high
profitability of coffee can be attributed to liberalisation of the marketing system which
improved the price the farmer receives. Bananas and other food crops are mainly
consumed in the local markets, with minimal exports, thus affecting the farm gate price.
Factors influencing banana profitabilitycompetitiveness
Results of the regression show factors influencing banana productivity, and therefore
profitability, in Kisekka sub-county (Table 9). Goodness of fit was low for both equations
but rather acceptable for cross section data. Adjusted R 2 was 0.387 for equation (1) and
0.402 for equation (2). The regression coefficients of the explanatory variables had the
expected signs except “farmer interaction with government extension agents”. Its
removal from equation (2) improved the adjusted coefficient of determination. Three
factors (pest damage, distance to tarmac road and off-farm income) significantly
influenced banana productivity. The regression coefficient for level of weevil damage was
negative (-1 522) and significant at P = 0.01. This means that an increase in weevil
damage level by 1% reduced yield by 1 552kg.ha -1 .
The regression coefficient for distance from the tarmac road was negative and
significant at P = 0.1. This means that farms that were far from the tarmac road had
lower banana yields. This implies that farmers that are far from the tarmac road lacked
access to the means of production and the incentive to manage banana plantations well.
Off-farm income was found to have a positive effect on yield and this was significant
at P = 0.1. A positive effect of off-farm income means that part of it was invested in
banana production. The implication is that farmers who earned off-farm income had
surplus cash over household consumption, which they invested in banana production.