IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ifaamr/335079.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Smallholder farmers’ willingness to pay for commercial insect-based chicken feed in Kenya

Author

Listed:
  • Okello, Afrika Onguko
  • Otieno, David Jakinda
  • Nzuma, Jonathan Makau
  • Kidoido, Michael Mukembo
  • Tanga, Chrysantus Mbi

Abstract

The cost of chicken production in developing countries is 300% higher than in developed nations. Overreliance on the key protein feed ingredients especially soybean and fishmeal (SFM) that are characterized by rising food-feed competition and supply chain impediments exacerbate the situation. The use of insect protein as a sustainable alternative protein source has attracted global attention recently. However, there is a dearth of empirical insights on farmers’ preferences for commercial insect-based feed for chicken production in Sub-Saharan Africa. This study evaluated farmers’ willingness to pay for attributes of insect-based commercial chicken feed in Kenya using a choice experiment based on a survey of 314 predominantly chicken farmers. Results show that the farmers are willing to pay premium prices ranging between US$ 0.35 and US$ 3.45 for insect-based feed in the form of either pellets or mash, feed explicitly labelled as containing insects, insect protein feed mixed with SFM and dark-colored feed. These findings provide evidence for multi-stakeholder collaborations to facilitate the creation of an inclusive insect-based feed regulatory framework for sustainable feed and chicken production.

Suggested Citation

  • Okello, Afrika Onguko & Otieno, David Jakinda & Nzuma, Jonathan Makau & Kidoido, Michael Mukembo & Tanga, Chrysantus Mbi, 2022. "Smallholder farmers’ willingness to pay for commercial insect-based chicken feed in Kenya," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 26(1), October.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ifaamr:335079
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.335079
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/335079/files/ifamr2022.0047.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.335079?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jianhua Wang & Jiaye Ge & Yuting Ma, 2018. "Urban Chinese Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pork with Certified Labels: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-14, February.
    2. Pomalégni, Sètchémè Charles Bertrand & Kpadé, Cokou Patrice & Gbemavo, Dossou Sèblodo Judes Charlemagne & Clottey, Victor Attuquaye & Keniss , Marc & Mensah, Guy Apollinaire, 2018. "Traditional poultry farmers’ willingness to pay for using fly larvae meal as protein source to feed local chickens in Benin," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 7(2), August.
    3. Scarpa, Riccardo & Rose, John M., 2008. "Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), pages 1-30.
    4. David A. Hensher, 2006. "How do respondents process stated choice experiments? Attribute consideration under varying information load," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 861-878.
    5. Othman, Jamal & Bennett, Jeff & Blamey, Russell, 2004. "Environmental values and resource management options: a choice modelling experience in Malaysia," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(6), pages 803-824, December.
    6. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    7. Argent, Jonathan & Augsburg, Britta & Rasul, Imran, 2014. "Livestock asset transfers with and without training: Evidence from Rwanda," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 19-39.
    8. Sebatta, C. & Ssepuuya, G. & Sikahwa, E. & Mugisha, J. & Diiro, G. & Sengendo, M. & Fuuna, P. & Fiaboe, K.K.M. & Nakimbugwe, D., 2018. "Farmers’ Acceptance Of Insects As An Alternative Protein Source In Poultry Feeds," International Journal of Agricultural Research, Innovation and Technology (IJARIT), IJARIT Research Foundation, vol. 8(2), December.
    9. Nordhagen, Stella & Igbeka, Uduak & Rowlands, Hannah & Shine, Ritta Sabbas & Heneghan, Emily & Tench, Jonathan, 2021. "COVID-19 and small enterprises in the food supply chain: Early impacts and implications for longer-term food system resilience in low- and middle-income countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    10. Acosta, Alejandro & Nicolli, Francesco & Karfakis, Panagiotis, 2021. "Coping with climate shocks: The complex role of livestock portfolios," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    11. Marescotti, Maria Elena & Caputo, Vincenzina & Demartini, Eugenio & Gaviglio, Anna, 2020. "Consumer preferences for wild game cured meat label: do attitudes towards animal welfare matter?," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 23(4), June.
    12. Andriy Danyliv & Milena Pavlova & Irena Gryga & Wim Groot, 2012. "Willingness to pay for physician services: Comparing estimates from a discrete choice experiment and contingent valuation," Society and Economy, Akadémiai Kiadó, Hungary, vol. 34(2), pages 339-357, June.
    13. Otieno, David Jakinda & Kerubo, Daniella Maroma, 2016. "Characterization of consumers’ purchase and consumption behaviour for chicken in Nairobi, Kenya: Targeted insights for value chain positioning," 2016 Fifth International Conference, September 23-26, 2016, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 249320, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
    14. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    15. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    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. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Marek Giergiczny & William H. Greene, 2012. "Learning and Fatigue Effects Revisited. The Impact of Accounting for Unobservable Preference and Scale Heterogeneity on Perceived Ordering Effects in Multiple Choice Task Discrete Choice Experiments," Working Papers 2012-08, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    2. Franceschinis, Cristiano & Thiene, Mara & Scarpa, Riccardo & Rose, John & Moretto, Michele & Cavalli, Raffaele, 2017. "Adoption of renewable heating systems: An empirical test of the diffusion of innovation theory," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 313-326.
    3. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Bartczak, Anna & Giergiczny, Marek & Navrud, Stale & Żylicz, Tomasz, 2014. "Providing preference-based support for forest ecosystem service management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-12.
    4. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Anna Bartczak & Marek Giergiczny & Stale Navrud & Tomasz Żylicz, 2013. "Providing Preference-Based Support for Forest Ecosystem Service Management in Poland," Working Papers 2013-05, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    5. Ajayi, V. & Reiner, D., 2020. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Reducing the Environmental Footprint of Green Plastics," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 20110, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    6. Kragt, Marit Ellen, 2013. "Comparing models of unobserved heterogeneity in environmental choice experiments," Working Papers 144447, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    7. Robert Gillespie & Jeff Bennett, 2011. "Willingness to pay for kerbside recycling the Brisbane Region," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1097, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    8. Mikolaj Czajkowski & Marek Giergiczny & William H. Greene, 2014. "Learning and Fatigue Effects Revisited: Investigating the Effects of Accounting for Unobservable Preference and Scale Heterogeneity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(2), pages 324-351.
    9. Hynes, S. & Ankamah-Yeboah, I. & O’Neill, S. & Needham, K. & Bich Xuan, B. & Armstrong, C., 2020. "Entropy balancing for causal effects in discrete choice analysis: The Blue Planet II effect," Working Papers 309500, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    10. Marit Kragt & Jeffrey Bennett, 2012. "Attribute Framing in Choice Experiments: How Do Attribute Level Descriptions Affect Value Estimates?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 43-59, January.
    11. Marit Kragt, 2013. "The Effects of Changing Cost Vectors on Choices and Scale Heterogeneity," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(2), pages 201-221, February.
    12. Yao, Richard T. & Scarpa, Riccardo & Turner, James A. & Barnard, Tim D. & Rose, John M. & Palma, João H.N. & Harrison, Duncan R., 2014. "Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand's planted forests: Socioeconomic and spatial determinants of willingness-to-pay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 90-101.
    13. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    14. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M., 2013. "Confidence intervals of willingness-to-pay for random coefficient logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 199-214.
    15. Alejandra R. Enríquez & Angel Bujosa Bestard, 2020. "Measuring the economic impact of climate-induced environmental changes on sun-and-beach tourism," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 160(2), pages 203-217, May.
    16. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    17. Faustin, Vidogbèna & Adégbidi, Anselme A. & Garnett, Stephen T. & Koudandé, Delphin O. & Agbo, Valentin & Zander, Kerstin K., 2010. "Peace, health or fortune?: Preferences for chicken traits in rural Benin," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1848-1857, July.
    18. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    19. Fosgerau, Mogens & Bierlaire, Michel, 2007. "A practical test for the choice of mixing distribution in discrete choice models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 784-794, August.
    20. Gunnar Gutsche & Andreas Ziegler, 2016. "Are private investors willing to pay for sustainable investments? A stated choice experiment," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201640, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).

    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:ifaamr:335079. 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://edirc.repec.org/data/ifamaea.html .

    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.