IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ajfand/334122.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-benefit analysis of Purdue Improved Crop Storage bags for maize storage among smallholder farmers in northwest Ethiopia

Author

Listed:
  • Kefale, Tigist
  • Ayalew, Zemen
  • Birhanie, Zewdu
  • Wubetie, Biruk Yazie
  • Baributsa, Dieudonne

Abstract

In Ethiopia, post-harvest losses caused by insects are a major challenge in crop production systems. Dried maize is particularly susceptible to insects during storage. Storage loss affects the livelihoods of small-scale farmers leading to food insecurity and loss of income. Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess the cost-benefit analysis of Purdue Improved Crop Storage (PICS) bags on maize storage in Northwest Ethiopia. Cross-sectional data was collected from 392 randomly selected households from both users and non-users of PICS bags, using stratified sampling technique. A structured questionnaire, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, individual in-depth interviews, and field observations were used to gather the data. A cost-benefit analysis was computed to evaluate the viability of PICS bags for maize storage. The binary logistic regression model was used to identify factors that affect the use of PICS bags. Descriptive statistics (percentage, mean, and standard deviation) and inferential statistics (t-test and chi-square test) were employed to analyze the data. The benefit-to-cost ratios (BCRs) of insecticide with both ordinary and PICS bags were greater than one, but PICS bags resulted in more than two-fold higher values as compared to insecticide with ordinary bags. The net present value (NPV) at 15% discount rate in 2018 was 20.73 USD and 25.35 USD per 100 kilograms of stored maize when insecticide was applied to ordinary and PICS bags, respectively. Sensitivity analysis with a 10% cost increment and up to 50% price discount showed that both technologies would still be viable for maize storage. However, PICS bags had higher NPV and BCR; making the technology more viable than insecticide with ordinary bags. The results of binary logit model indicated that educational level, gender, awareness, training, accessibility of the technology, perception of the technology, involvement in leadership activities in the community, and total income of the household positively influenced farmers’ decisions to use PICS bags, whereas price negatively affected the use of the PICS bags. PICS bags had clear economic advantage over insecticide with ordinary bags for maize storage in Northwest Ethiopia. Efforts should be made to disseminate and improve access to PICS bags for strengthening food security and increasing incomes of maize farmers in Northwest Ethiopia.

Suggested Citation

  • Kefale, Tigist & Ayalew, Zemen & Birhanie, Zewdu & Wubetie, Biruk Yazie & Baributsa, Dieudonne, 2022. "Cost-benefit analysis of Purdue Improved Crop Storage bags for maize storage among smallholder farmers in northwest Ethiopia," African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development (AJFAND), African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development (AJFAND), vol. 22(09).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ajfand:334122
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/334122/files/Kefale22100.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stevens, Alan, 2004. "The Application And Limitations Of Cost-Benefit Assessment (Cba) For Intelligent Transport Systems," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 91-111, January.
    2. Poudel, Krishna Lal & Nepal, Arati Poudel & Dhungana, Bhima & Sugimoto, Yasuhiro & Yamamoto, Naoyuki & Nishiwaki, Aya, 2009. "Capital Budgeting Analysis of Organic Coffee Production in Gulmi District of Nepal," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 51559, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Randela, Rendani, 2003. "The incidence of post-harvest problems among small farmers surveyed in three regions of the Limpopo Province," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 42(2), pages 1-18, June.
    4. Berlage, L & Renard, R, 1985. "The Discount Rate in Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Choice of a Numeraire," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 37(4), pages 691-699, December.
    5. Christine A. Ervin & David E. Ervin, 1982. "Factors Affecting the Use of Soil Conservation Practices: Hypotheses, Evidence, and Policy Implications," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 58(3), pages 277-292.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Aaron Thompson & Adam Reimer & Linda Prokopy, 2015. "Farmers’ views of the environment: the influence of competing attitude frames on landscape conservation efforts," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 32(3), pages 385-399, September.
    2. Larson, James A. & Collins, Rebecca L. & Roberts, Roland K. & English, Burton C., 1999. "Factors Influencing West Tennessee Farmers' Willingness To Pay For A Boll Weevil Eradication Program," 1999 Annual meeting, August 8-11, Nashville, TN 21573, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. Norris, Patricia E. & Batie, Sandra S., 1987. "Virginia Farmers' Soil Conservation Decisions: An Application Of Tobit Analysis," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 19(1), pages 1-12, July.
    4. Bills, Nelson L. & Heimlich, Ralph E., 1984. "Assessing Erosion on U.S. Cropland: Land Management and Physical Features," Agricultural Economic Reports 307957, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    5. Nkegbe, Paul K. & Shankar, Bhavani & Ceddia, M. Graziano, 2011. "Smallholder Adoption of Soil and Water Conservation Practices in Northern Ghana," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114608, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Amsalu, Aklilu & de Graaff, Jan, 2007. "Determinants of adoption and continued use of stone terraces for soil and water conservation in an Ethiopian highland watershed," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 294-302, March.
    7. Barlow, G. R. & Nieuwoudt, W. L. & Levin, J. B., 1995. "Factors Influencing The Adoption Of Soil Conservation Practices On Commercial Farms In Kwazulu - Natal," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 34(3), September.
    8. Alem-meta Assefa Agidew & K. N. Singh, 2018. "Determinants of food insecurity in the rural farm households in South Wollo Zone of Ethiopia: the case of the Teleyayen sub-watershed," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 6(1), pages 1-23, December.
    9. Hendrix, Shannon & Wheelock, Gerald & Onianwa, Okwudili O., 1999. "Factors Affecting Conservation Practice Behavior Of Crp Participants In Alabama," Journal of Agribusiness, Agricultural Economics Association of Georgia, vol. 17(2), pages 1-12.
    10. Prato, Tony, 1987. "Economic Feasibility Of Conservation Tillage In The Palouse With Stochastic Erosion Rates And Yields," A.E. Research Series 305060, University of Idaho, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology.
    11. John W. Cary & Roger L. Wilkinson, 1997. "Perceived Profitability And Farmers‘ Conservation Behaviour," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1‐3), pages 13-21, January.
    12. Ferrer, Stuart R.D. & Nieuwoudt, W. Lieb, 1997. "Factors affecting soil conservation decisions of KwaZulu-Natal commercial sugarcane farmers," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 36(4), pages 1-9, December.
    13. Kirui, Oliver & Mrzabaev, Alisher, 2015. "Costs of landj degradation in Eastern Africa," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212007, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Lapar, Ma. Lucila A. & Pandey, Sushil, 1999. "Adoption of soil conservation: the case of the Philippine uplands," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 241-256, December.
    15. Hua Zhong & Ping Qing & Wuyang Hu, 2016. "Farmers' willingness to participate in best management practices in Kentucky," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(6), pages 1015-1039, June.
    16. Purvis, Amy & Hoehn, John P. & Sorenson, Vernon L., 1989. "An Economic Analysis of Farmers' Willingness to Participate in a Filter Strip Program," Agricultural Economic Report Series 201393, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    17. Jara-Rojas, Roberto & Bravo-Ureta, Boris E. & Díaz, José, 2012. "Adoption of water conservation practices: A socioeconomic analysis of small-scale farmers in Central Chile," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 54-62.
    18. de Herrera, Adys Pereira & Sain, Gustavo, 1999. "Adoption of Maize Conservation Tillage in Azuero, Panama," Economics Working Papers 7696, CIMMYT: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center.
    19. Eskander, Shaikh M.S.U. & Barbier, Edward B., 2017. "Tenure Security, Human Capital and Soil Conservation in an Overlapping Generation Rural Economy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 176-185.
    20. Shiferaw, Bekele & Holden, Stein T., 1998. "Resource degradation and adoption of land conservation technologies in the Ethiopian Highlands: A case study in Andit Tid, North Shewa," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 18(3), pages 233-247, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Crop Production/Industries;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:ajfand:334122. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.ajfand.net/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.