IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/ssefpa/v8y2016i6d10.1007_s12571-016-0621-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effectiveness of extension strategies for increasing the adoption of biofortified crops: the case of quality protein maize in East Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Hugo De Groote

    (International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT))

  • Nilupa S. Gunaratna

    (Nevin Scrimshaw International Nutrition Foundation and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health)

  • Monica Fisher

    (CIMMYT)

  • E. G. Kebebe

    (Hawassa University)

  • Frank Mmbando

    (Selian Agricultural Research Institute (SARI))

  • Dennis Friesen

    (CIMMYT)

Abstract

Biofortified crops can be promoted with extension strategies based on their agronomic qualities, nutritional qualities, or both, but the effectiveness of these different strategies has so far not been studied. Since 2003, quality protein maize (QPM) has been disseminated using both approaches in East Africa. This study therefore analyzes the effectiveness of promoting biofortified crops based on their agronomic and their nutritional qualities, using the adoption of QPM cultivars in East Africa as an example. A random sample survey was conducted in Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda, with 423 households from QPM extension areas and 539 households from similar areas outside the extension zone. Propensity score matching and regression analysis were used to assess determinants of QPM adoption, including farmers’ awareness of QPM, understanding of its nutritional benefits, and evaluation of agronomic performance to evaluate the agronomic and nutritional extension strategies. Results showed high familiarity with QPM, but low understanding of nutritional benefits. Farmers evaluated QPM varieties as equal or superior to conventional maize for post-harvest traits, but not always for agronomic traits (in particular yield in Ethiopia and Tanzania). Adoption in extension areas varied from 73 % in Uganda and 25 % in Tanzania to none in Kenya. Key factors that increased adoption were farmers’ participation in extension, having heard of QPM, higher overall evaluation ratings of QPM vs. conventional maize varieties, and understanding of QPM’s nutritional benefits. Agronomic performance was found to be more important than an understanding of nutritional benefits. For biofortified crops to be adopted and have a nutritional impact on target populations, they should, first and foremost, be agronomically equal or superior to conventional varieties. If farmers are convinced of the agronomic performance of biofortified crops, additional gains in adoption can be achieved by focusing extension efforts on imparting to farmers knowledge of the benefits of biofortified crops for human nutrition.

Suggested Citation

  • Hugo De Groote & Nilupa S. Gunaratna & Monica Fisher & E. G. Kebebe & Frank Mmbando & Dennis Friesen, 2016. "The effectiveness of extension strategies for increasing the adoption of biofortified crops: the case of quality protein maize in East Africa," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 8(6), pages 1101-1121, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:ssefpa:v:8:y:2016:i:6:d:10.1007_s12571-016-0621-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s12571-016-0621-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12571-016-0621-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s12571-016-0621-7?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marco Caliendo & Sabine Kopeinig, 2008. "Some Practical Guidance For The Implementation Of Propensity Score Matching," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(1), pages 31-72, February.
    2. Feder, Gershon & Just, Richard E & Zilberman, David, 1985. "Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in Developing Countries: A Survey," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(2), pages 255-298, January.
    3. G.T. Kassie & O. Erenstein & W. Mwangi & J. MacRobert & P. Setimela & B. Shiferaw, 2013. "Political and economic features of the maize seed industry in southern Africa," Agrekon, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(2), pages 104-127, June.
    4. Barbara Sianesi, 2004. "An Evaluation of the Swedish System of Active Labor Market Programs in the 1990s," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 86(1), pages 133-155, February.
    5. Doss, Cheryl R. & Mwangi, Wilfred & Verkuijl, Hugo & De Groote, Hugo, 2003. "Adoption Of Maize And Wheat Technologies In Eastern Africa: A Synthesis Of The Findings Of 22 Case Studies," Economics Working Papers 46522, CIMMYT: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center.
    6. Bryson, Alex & Dorsett, Richard & Purdon, Susan, 2002. "The use of propensity score matching in the evaluation of active labour market policies," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 4993, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Langyintuo, Augustine S. & Mwangi, Wilfred & Diallo, Alpha O. & MacRobert, John & Dixon, John & Bänziger, Marianne, 2010. "Challenges of the maize seed industry in eastern and southern Africa: A compelling case for private-public intervention to promote growth," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 323-331, August.
    8. Gunaratna, Nilupa S. & Groote, Hugo De & Nestel, Penelope & Pixley, Kevin V. & McCabe, George P., 2010. "A meta-analysis of community-based studies on quality protein maize," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 202-210, June.
    9. Dalton, Timothy J., 2004. "A household hedonic model of rice traits: economic values from farmers in West Africa," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 31(2-3), pages 149-159, December.
    10. Daniel O. Gilligan, 2012. "Biofortification, Agricultural Technology Adoption, and Nutrition Policy: Some Lessons and Emerging Challenges ," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 58(2), pages 405-421, June.
    11. 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.
    12. Meenakshi, J.V. & Johnson, Nancy L. & Manyong, Victor M. & DeGroote, Hugo & Javelosa, Josyline & Yanggen, David R. & Naher, Firdousi & Gonzalez, Carolina & García, James & Meng, Erika, 2010. "How Cost-Effective is Biofortification in Combating Micronutrient Malnutrition? An Ex ante Assessment," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 64-75, January.
    13. James J. Heckman & Hidehiko Ichimura & Petra Todd, 1998. "Matching As An Econometric Evaluation Estimator," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 65(2), pages 261-294.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Maneno Y. Chidege & Pavithravani B. Venkataramana & Patrick A. Ndakidemi, 2024. "Enhancing Food Grains Storage Systems through Insect Pest Detection and Control Measures for Maize and Beans: Ensuring Food Security Post-COVID-19 Tanzania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-22, February.
    2. Rute M. Caeiro & Pedro C. Vicente, 2020. "Knowledge of vitamin A deficiency and crop adoption: Evidence from a field experiment in Mozambique," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(2), pages 175-190, March.
    3. Sylvester Ochieng Ogutu & Andrea Fongar & Theda Gödecke & Lisa Jäckering & Henry Mwololo & Michael Njuguna & Meike Wollni & Matin Qaim, 2020. "How to make farming and agricultural extension more nutrition-sensitive: evidence from a randomised controlled trial in Kenya [Agricultural extension: good intentions and hard realities]," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 47(1), pages 95-118.
    4. Astrid Mastenbroek & Irma Sirutyte & Robert Sparrow, 2021. "Information Barriers to Adoption of Agricultural Technologies: Willingness to Pay for Certified Seed of an Open Pollinated Maize Variety in Northern Uganda," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(1), pages 180-201, February.
    5. Valera, Harold Glenn & Yamano, Takashi & Pede, Valerien & Puskur, Ranjitha & Habib, Muhammad Ashraful & Bashar, Khairul, 2021. "Impact of Nutrition Training on Long-Term Adoption of High Zinc Rice: A Randomized Control Trial Study Among Female Farmers in Bangladesh," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315165, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Collins M. Bulinda & Eric O. Gido & Holger Kirscht & Chrysantus M. Tanga, 2023. "Gendered Awareness of Pig and Poultry Farmers on the Potential of Black Soldier Fly ( Hermetia illucens ) Farming in Kenya," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-14, February.

    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. De Groote, Hugo & Gunaratna, Nilupa S. & Ergano, Kebebe & Friesen, Dennis, 2010. "Extension and adoption of biofortified crops: Quality protein maize in East Africa," 2010 AAAE Third Conference/AEASA 48th Conference, September 19-23, 2010, Cape Town, South Africa 96429, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
    2. Feddersen, Arne & Maennig, Wolfgang, 2012. "Sectoral labour market effects of the 2006 FIFA World Cup," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(6), pages 860-869.
    3. Harouna Kinda, 2021. "Does transparency pay ? The impact of EITI on tax revenues in resource-rich developing countries," Working Papers hal-03208955, HAL.
    4. Astrid Kiil, 2012. "Does employment-based private health insurance increase the use of covered health care services? A matching estimator approach," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-38, March.
    5. Ali, Akhter & Hussain, Imtiaz & Rahut, Dil Bahadur & Erenstein, Olaf, 2018. "Laser-land leveling adoption and its impact on water use, crop yields and household income: Empirical evidence from the rice-wheat system of Pakistan Punjab," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 19-32.
    6. Jean-Louis Combes & Alexandru Minea & Pegdéwendé Nestor Sawadogo, 2019. "Assessing the effects of combating illicit financial flows on domestic tax revenue mobilization in developing countries," CERDI Working papers halshs-02019073, HAL.
    7. Dettmann, E. & Becker, C. & Schmeißer, C., 2011. "Distance functions for matching in small samples," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 55(5), pages 1942-1960, May.
    8. Balima, Wenéyam Hippolyte & Combes, Jean-Louis & Minea, Alexandru, 2017. "Sovereign debt risk in emerging market economies: Does inflation targeting adoption make any difference?," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 360-377.
    9. von Greiff, Jenny, 2009. "Displacement and self-employment entry," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 556-565, October.
    10. Kodjo Adandohoin & Vigninou Gammadigbe, 2022. "The revenue efficiency consequences of the announcement of a tax transition reform: The case of WAEMU countries," African Development Review, African Development Bank, vol. 34(S1), pages 195-218, July.
    11. Weneyam Hippolyte Balima & Jean-Louis Combes & Alexandru Minea, 2015. "Sovereign Debt Risk in Emerging Countries: Does Inflation Targeting Adoption Make Any Difference?," CERDI Working papers halshs-01128239, HAL.
    12. Ugur, Mehmet & Trushin, Eshref, 2018. "Asymmetric information and heterogeneous effects of R&D subsidies: evidence on R&D investment and employment of R&D personel," Greenwich Papers in Political Economy 21943, University of Greenwich, Greenwich Political Economy Research Centre.
    13. Sánchez-Braza, Antonio & Pablo-Romero, María del P., 2014. "Evaluation of property tax bonus to promote solar thermal systems in Andalusia (Spain)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 832-843.
    14. Manuela Deidda & Adriana Di Liberto & Marta Foddi & Giovanni Sulis, 2015. "Employment subsidies, informal economy and women’s transition into work in a depressed area: evidence from a matching approach," IZA Journal of Labor Policy, Springer;Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH (IZA), vol. 4(1), pages 1-25, December.
    15. Alexandru Minea & René Tapsoba & Patrick Villieu, 2021. "Inflation targeting adoption and institutional quality: Evidence from developing countries," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(7), pages 2107-2127, July.
    16. Paudel, G. & Krishna, V. & McDonald, A., 2018. "Why some inferior technologies succeed? Examining the diffusion and impacts of rotavator tillage in Nepal Terai," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277149, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Barbara Hofmann, 2008. "Work Incentives? Ex Post Effects of Unemployment Insurance Sanctions - Evidence from West Germany," CESifo Working Paper Series 2508, CESifo.
    18. Robert J. R. Elliott & Liza Jabbour & Liyun Zhang, 2016. "Firm productivity and importing: Evidence from Chinese manufacturing firms," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(3), pages 1086-1124, August.
    19. Guerguil, Martine & Mandon, Pierre & Tapsoba, René, 2017. "Flexible fiscal rules and countercyclical fiscal policy," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 189-220.
    20. Liane Faltermeier & Awudu Abdulai, 2009. "The impact of water conservation and intensification technologies: empirical evidence for rice farmers in Ghana," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 365-379, May.

    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:spr:ssefpa:v:8:y:2016:i:6:d:10.1007_s12571-016-0621-7. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.