IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i10p5678-d557406.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding Farmers’ Trait Preferences for Dual-Purpose Crops to Improve Mixed Crop–Livestock Systems in Zimbabwe

Author

Listed:
  • Mequanint B. Melesse

    (The International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Nairobi P.O. Box 39063-00623, Kenya)

  • Amos Nyangira Tirra

    (The International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Nairobi P.O. Box 39063-00623, Kenya)

  • Chris O. Ojiewo

    (The International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Nairobi P.O. Box 39063-00623, Kenya)

  • Michael Hauser

    (The International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Nairobi P.O. Box 39063-00623, Kenya
    Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, 1180 Vienna, Austria)

Abstract

Competition over land between food and fodder production, along with recurrent droughts and increasing population, has put mixed crop–livestock farming systems in the drylands of sub-Saharan Africa under pressure. Dual-purpose crops hold huge potential to ease this pressure and simultaneously improve food and fodder availability in these systems. We investigated farmers’ preferences for dual-purpose maize, sorghum, and groundnut traits, and analyzed linkages of stated trait preferences with production of dual-purpose crops and adoption of improved varieties involving 645 households from two districts in Zimbabwe. The three target crops cover more than 75% of households’ cropping lands. Highly preferred stated traits of dual-purpose crops include yield, disease resistance, and drought tolerance. Highly appreciated feed attributes encompass stover yield and digestibility. The adoption of improved varieties is high for maize but low for sorghum and groundnut. Trait preferences are correlated with the production of dual-purpose crops and the adoption of improved varieties of the crops. However, the strengths of these correlations differ for maize, sorghum, and groundnuts. We discuss these linkages and suggest why crop improvement programs should reconcile trade-offs between grain and feed attributes to support mixed crop–livestock systems in Zimbabwe successfully.

Suggested Citation

  • Mequanint B. Melesse & Amos Nyangira Tirra & Chris O. Ojiewo & Michael Hauser, 2021. "Understanding Farmers’ Trait Preferences for Dual-Purpose Crops to Improve Mixed Crop–Livestock Systems in Zimbabwe," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-20, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:10:p:5678-:d:557406
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/10/5678/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/10/5678/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rufino, M.C. & Dury, J. & Tittonell, P. & van Wijk, M.T. & Herrero, M. & Zingore, S. & Mapfumo, P. & Giller, K.E., 2011. "Competing use of organic resources, village-level interactions between farm types and climate variability in a communal area of NE Zimbabwe," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(2), pages 175-190, February.
    2. Muzhingi, Tawanda & Langyintuo, Augustine S. & Malaba, Lucie C. & Banziger, Marianne, 2008. "Consumer acceptability of yellow maize products in Zimbabwe," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 352-361, August.
    3. Henderson, B. & Godde, C. & Medina-Hidalgo, D. & van Wijk, M. & Silvestri, S. & Douxchamps, S. & Stephenson, E. & Power, B. & Rigolot, C. & Cacho, O. & Herrero, M., 2016. "Closing system-wide yield gaps to increase food production and mitigate GHGs among mixed crop–livestock smallholders in Sub-Saharan Africa," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 106-113.
    4. Sunding, David & Zilberman, David, 2001. "The agricultural innovation process: Research and technology adoption in a changing agricultural sector," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: B. L. Gardner & G. C. Rausser (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 4, pages 207-261, Elsevier.
    5. Rachael D. Garrett & Meredith Niles & Juliana Gil & Philip Dy & Julio Reis & Judson Valentim, 2017. "Policies for Reintegrating Crop and Livestock Systems: A Comparative Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-22, March.
    6. Kassie, Girma T. & Abdulai, Awudu & Greene, William H. & Shiferaw, Bekele & Abate, Tsedeke & Tarekegne, Amsal & Sutcliffe, Chloe, 2017. "Modeling Preference and Willingness to Pay for Drought Tolerance (DT) in Maize in Rural Zimbabwe," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 465-477.
    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. Awudu Abdulai, 2023. "Information acquisition and the adoption of improved crop varieties," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 105(4), pages 1049-1062, August.
    2. B Kelsey Jack, "undated". "Market Inefficiencies and the Adoption of Agricultural Technologies in Developing Countries," CID Working Papers 50, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    3. Sauer, Johannes & Zilberman, David, 2009. "Innovation Behaviour At Farm Level – Selection And Identification," 83rd Annual Conference, March 30 - April 1, 2009, Dublin, Ireland 51073, Agricultural Economics Society.
    4. Valbuena, Diego & Tui, Sabine Homann-Kee & Erenstein, Olaf & Teufel, Nils & Duncan, Alan & Abdoulaye, Tahirou & Swain, Braja & Mekonnen, Kindu & Germaine, Ibro & Gérard, Bruno, 2015. "Identifying determinants, pressures and trade-offs of crop residue use in mixed smallholder farms in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 107-118.
    5. Ghadir Asadi & Mohammad H. Mostafavi-Dehzooei, 2022. "The Role of Learning in Adaptation to Technology: The Case of Groundwater Extraction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-37, June.
    6. Millock, Katrin & Xabadia, Angels & Zilberman, David, 2012. "Policy for the adoption of new environmental monitoring technologies to manage stock externalities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 102-116.
    7. Shikuku, Kelvin M. & Valdivia, Roberto O. & Paul, Birthe K. & Mwongera, Caroline & Winowiecki, Leigh & Läderach, Peter & Herrero, Mario & Silvestri, Silvia, 2017. "Prioritizing climate-smart livestock technologies in rural Tanzania: A minimum data approach," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 204-216.
    8. Katola, Alex Arves & Katundu, Mangani Chilala & Ndolo, Victoria Uchizi & Tembo, David Tryson & Stark, Hannah Aliza, 2022. "Successful reintroduction of landrace orange maize in rural Malawi is not related to the nutritional knowledge of women in farming families," African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development (AJFAND), African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development (AJFAND), vol. 22(09).
    9. Kataria, Karin & Curtiss, Jarmila & Balmann, Alfons, 2012. "Drivers of Agricultural Physical Capital Development: Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses," Factor Markets Working Papers 122, Centre for European Policy Studies.
    10. Dawuni, Peter, 2024. "Achieving Food Security Through Agricultural Water Security of Smallholder Farmers in Ghana," International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics (IJFAEC), Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Department of Economics and Finance, vol. 12(1), January.
    11. Kumar, Neha & Quisumbing, Agnes R., 2010. "Access, adoption, and diffusion," IFPRI discussion papers 995, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    12. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    13. Fang, Di & Richards, Timothy, 2016. "New Maize Variety Adoption in Mozambique: A Spatial Approach," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235388, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Ryschawy, Julie & Tiffany, Sara & Gaudin, Amélie & Niles, Meredith T. & Garrett, Rachael D., 2021. "Moving niche agroecological initiatives to the mainstream: A case-study of sheep-vineyard integration in California," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    15. Pardey, Philip G. & Alston, Julian M. & Ruttan, Vernon W., 2010. "The Economics of Innovation and Technical Change in Agriculture," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 939-984, Elsevier.
    16. Ximena Rueda & Andrea Paz & Theodora Gibbs‐Plessl & Ronald Leon & Byron Moyano & Eric F Lambin, 2018. "Smallholders at a Crossroad: Intensify or Fall behind? Exploring Alternative Livelihood Strategies in a Globalized World," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(2), pages 215-229, February.
    17. Calvin, Linda & Martin, Philip & Simnitt, Skyler, 2022. "Adjusting to Higher Labor Costs in Selected U.S. Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Industries," USDA Miscellaneous 323872, United States Department of Agriculture.
    18. Fan, Yubing & McCann, Laura M., 2017. "Farmers’ Adoption of Pressure Irrigation Systems and Scientific Scheduling Practices: An Application of Multilevel Models," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258458, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Oscar Montes de Oca Munguia & Rick Llewellyn, 2020. "The Adopters versus the Technology: Which Matters More when Predicting or Explaining Adoption?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(1), pages 80-91, March.
    20. Singh, Nirvikar, 2015. "Punjab’s Agricultural Innovation Challenge," Santa Cruz Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt4716p3vr, Department of Economics, UC Santa Cruz.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:10:p:5678-:d:557406. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.