IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ajfand/334126.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Determinants of uptake of biofortified crop varieties by smallholder farmers in Uganda

Author

Listed:
  • Bashaasha, Benard
  • Emegu, Rosemary Isoto
  • Webb, Patrick
  • Ghosh, Shibani
  • Kabunga, Nassul
  • Agaba, Edgar

Abstract

Hunger and malnutrition can be said to be one of the important global problems that have recently been exacerbated by climate change and environmental degradation. Meanwhile, an estimated two billion people suffer from micronutrient malnutrition, mostly due to low intake of vitamins and minerals such as iron and zinc. Biofortification, an agricultural technology that can increase the micronutrient content of staples, may confer large benefits to rural families and poor children with limited access to expensive high-quality foods. Possible pathways include own-consumption when directly consumed, the income pathway when they are sold and/or the food price pathway when they increase the availability of micronutrient-rich foods in the market place. This research aims to understand the factors associated with the uptake of biofortified crop varieties (BCV) among smallholder farmers in Uganda and derive policy information to support their accelerated uptake. The analysis used two waves of panel data consisting of 6,400 observations collected from 6 districts in Uganda as part of the Feed the Future (FtF) innovation laboratory for nutrition. Descriptive analysis was used to help discern the differences between adopters and non-adopters of BCV. Double hurdle regression analysis was used to understand the factors associated with adoption and the intensity of adoption of biofortified crop varieties. Descriptive results reveal significant differences between adopters and non-adopters of BCV. Double hurdle regression analysis results indicate that the primary determinants of uptake of biofortified crop varieties include geographical location, extension staff visits, household size, and mobile phone ownership. Other important factors associated with the adoption of BCV include the amount of land owned by the household. Results suggest that extension staff visits, and mobile phone ownership were important sources of information for rural households that appear to drive the decision to adopt biofortified crop varieties. Meanwhile, household size, regional location of the household and total land owned were important motivators in adopting BCV technology. From the present analysis, it was not possible to clearly discern the key drivers of the intensity of adoption of biofortified crop varieties among smallholder households in Uganda.

Suggested Citation

  • Bashaasha, Benard & Emegu, Rosemary Isoto & Webb, Patrick & Ghosh, Shibani & Kabunga, Nassul & Agaba, Edgar, 2022. "Determinants of uptake of biofortified crop varieties by smallholder farmers in Uganda," African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development (AJFAND), African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development (AJFAND), vol. 22(10).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ajfand:334126
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/334126/files/Bashaasha19685.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nassul Ssentamu Kabunga & Thomas Dubois & Matin Qaim, 2012. "Heterogeneous information exposure and technology adoption: the case of tissue culture bananas in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 43(5), pages 473-486, September.
    2. Romina Cavatassi & Leslie Lipper & Ulf Narloch, 2011. "Modern variety adoption and risk management in drought prone areas: insights from the sorghum farmers of eastern Ethiopia," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 42(3), pages 279-292, May.
    3. Cragg, John G, 1971. "Some Statistical Models for Limited Dependent Variables with Application to the Demand for Durable Goods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 39(5), pages 829-844, September.
    4. Vaiknoras, Kate & Larochelle, Catherine & Birol, Ekin & Asare-Marfo, Dorene & Herrington, Caitlin, 2019. "Promoting rapid and sustained adoption of biofortified crops: What we learned from iron-biofortified bean delivery approaches in Rwanda," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 271-284.
    5. Dan Yaron & Hillary Voet & Ariel Dinar, 1992. "Innovations on Family Farms: The Nazareth Region in Israel," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 74(2), pages 361-370.
    6. Lunduka, Rodney & Fisher, Monica & Snapp, Sieglinde, 2012. "Could farmer interest in a diversity of seed attributes explain adoption plateaus for modern maize varieties in Malawi?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 504-510.
    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. Lucy Mulugo & Florence Birungi Kyazze & Paul Kibwika & Bonaventure Aman Omondi & Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe, 2020. "Seed Security Factors Driving Farmer Decisions on Uptake of Tissue Culture Banana Seed in Central Uganda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-17, December.
    2. Terrance Hurley & Jawoo Koo & Kindie Tesfaye, 2018. "Weather risk: how does it change the yield benefits of nitrogen fertilizer and improved maize varieties in sub‐Saharan Africa?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(6), pages 711-723, November.
    3. Tiziana Pagnani & Elisabetta Gotor & Enoch Kikulwe & Francesco Caracciolo, 2021. "Livelihood assets’ influence on Ugandan farmers’ control practices for Banana Xanthomonas Wilt (BXW)," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-19, December.
    4. Ruzzante, Sacha & Labarta, Ricardo & Bilton, Amy, 2021. "Adoption of agricultural technology in the developing world: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    5. Bezu, Sosina & Kassie, Girma T. & Shiferaw, Bekele & Ricker-Gilbert, Jacob, 2014. "Impact of Improved Maize Adoption on Welfare of Farm Households in Malawi: A Panel Data Analysis," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 120-131.
    6. Mason, Nicole M. & Ricker-Gilbert, Jacob, 2013. "Disrupting Demand for Commercial Seed: Input Subsidies in Malawi and Zambia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 75-91.
    7. Bacud, Eva Salve Tino & Gerullis, Maria Katharina & Puskur, Ranjitha & Heckelei, Thomas, 2024. "Looking at gender is not enough—How diversity of farmers’ marginalization relates to varietal trait preferences," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    8. Raghu, Prabhakaran T. & Erenstein, Olaf & Böber, Christian & Krishna, Vijesh V., 2015. "Adoption and Outcomes of Hybrid Maize in the Marginal Areas of India," Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, Humboldt-Universitaat zu Berlin, vol. 54(2), pages 1-26, May.
    9. Muange, Elijah Nzula & Schwarze, Stefan & Qaim, Matin, 2014. "Social networks and farmer exposure to improved cereal varieties in central Tanzania," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182645, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Aslihan Arslan & Kristin Floress & Christine Lamanna & Leslie Lipper & Solomon Asfaw & Todd Rosenstock, 2020. "IFAD RESEARCH SERIES 63 - The adoption of improved agricultural technologies - A meta-analysis for Africa," IFAD Research Series 304758, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).
    11. Clifton Makate & Marshall Makate, 2022. "Do Rainfall Shocks Prompt Commercial Input Purchases Amongst Smallholder Farmers in Diverse Regions and Environments in Malawi?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-31, November.
    12. Lunduka, R. & Kassie, G. & Tahirou, A. & Babu, S., 2018. "Do households that sell their surplus maize reinvest in improved maize seed? Case of southern Africa," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277378, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Yungtai Lo, 2017. "Joint modeling of bottle use, daily milk intake from bottles, and daily energy intake in toddlers," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(13), pages 2301-2316, October.
    14. Jinhua Xie & Gangqiao Yang & Ge Wang & Shuoyan He, 2024. "How does social capital affect farmers’ environment-friendly technology adoption behavior? A case study in Hubei Province, China," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(7), pages 18361-18384, July.
    15. Keiko Fukumori & Ayumi Arai & Tomoya Matsumoto, 2022. "Risk Management for Smallholder Farmers: An Empirical Study on the Adoption of Weather-Index Crop Insurance in Rural Kenya," Working Papers 230, JICA Research Institute.
    16. Bucchianeri Grace Wong, 2010. "Is SARS a Poor Man's Disease? Socioeconomic Status and Risk Factors for SARS Transmission," Forum for Health Economics & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 13(2), pages 1-31, July.
    17. Cornelia Lawson, 2013. "Academic Inventions Outside the University: Investigating Patent Ownership in the UK," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(5), pages 385-398, July.
    18. Jensen, Kimberly L., 1995. "Fluid Milk Purchase Patterns In The South: Effects Of Use Of Nutrition Information And Household Characteristics," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 27(2), pages 1-14, December.
    19. Aron TOROK & Jozsef TOTH & Jeremias Mate BALOGH, 2018. "Networking theory of innovation in practice - The Hungarian case," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 64(12), pages 536-545.
    20. Marcén, Miriam & Molina, José Alberto & Morales, Marina, 2018. "The effect of culture on the fertility decisions of immigrant women in the United States," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 15-28.

    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:334126. 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.