IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/gunefd/2019_010.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Effects of Storage Technology and Training on Post-Harvest Losses: Evidence from Small-Scale Farms in Tanzania

Author

Listed:
  • Chegere, Martin Julius
  • Eggert, Håkan
  • Söderbom, Måns

Abstract

We analyze the impact of a new storage technology and training on post-harvest losses among small-scale maize farmers in rural Tanzania. The analysis is based on data collected by means of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in which farmers were randomized into one of three groups: a control group and two treatment groups. Farmers in the first treatment group received training on post-harvest management practices, and farmers in the second treatment group were provided with hermetic (airtight) bags for storing maize, as well as the training administered to the first treatment group. We show that both interventions had a significant effect in reducing storage losses. The intervention with hermetic bags improved the quality of maize grain, increased the market price of maize, and reduced the cost of storage protection using insecticides. We show that both interventions are economically feasible, and relate our findings to the larger literature on the roles of physical and human capital in economic development.

Suggested Citation

  • Chegere, Martin Julius & Eggert, Håkan & Söderbom, Måns, 2019. "The Effects of Storage Technology and Training on Post-Harvest Losses: Evidence from Small-Scale Farms in Tanzania," EfD Discussion Paper 19-10, Environment for Development, University of Gothenburg.
    • Handle: RePEc:hhs:gunefd:2019_010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.efdinitiative.org/sites/default/files/publications/ms_715_dp_19-10_.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Esther Duflo & Michael Kremer & Jonathan Robinson, 2011. "Nudging Farmers to Use Fertilizer: Theory and Experimental Evidence from Kenya," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(6), pages 2350-2390, October.
    2. A. Colin Cameron & Jonah B. Gelbach & Douglas L. Miller, 2008. "Bootstrap-Based Improvements for Inference with Clustered Errors," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 90(3), pages 414-427, August.
    3. Tavneet Suri, 2011. "Selection and Comparative Advantage in Technology Adoption," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 79(1), pages 159-209, January.
    4. Gitonga, Zachary M. & De Groote, Hugo & Kassie, Menale & Tefera, Tadele, 2013. "Impact of metal silos on households’ maize storage, storage losses and food security: An application of a propensity score matching," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 44-55.
    5. Lasse Brune & Xavier Giné & Jessica Goldberg & Dean Yang, 2016. "Facilitating Savings for Agriculture: Field Experimental Evidence from Malawi," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 64(2), pages 187-220.
    6. Elaine M. Liu, 2013. "Time to Change What to Sow: Risk Preferences and Technology Adoption Decisions of Cotton Farmers in China," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(4), pages 1386-1403, October.
    7. Gilbert, Christopher L. & Christiaensen, Luc & Kaminski, Jonathan, 2017. "Food price seasonality in Africa: Measurement and extent," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 119-132.
    8. Marianne Bertrand & Esther Duflo & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2004. "How Much Should We Trust Differences-In-Differences Estimates?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(1), pages 249-275.
    9. Chegere, Martin Julius, 2018. "Post-harvest losses reduction by small-scale maize farmers: The role of handling practices," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 103-115.
    10. Adjognon, Serge G. & Liverpool-Tasie, Lenis Saweda O. & Reardon, Thomas A., 2017. "Agricultural input credit in Sub-Saharan Africa: Telling myth from facts," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 93-105.
    11. Magnan, Nicholas & Spielman, David J. & Lybbert, Travis J. & Gulati, Kajal, 2015. "Leveling with friends: Social networks and Indian farmers' demand for a technology with heterogeneous benefits," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 223-251.
    12. Annemie Maertens & Christopher B. Barrett, 2013. "Measuring Social Networks' Effects on Agricultural Technology Adoption," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(2), pages 353-359.
    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. Fiona Burlig & Andrew W. Stevens, 2024. "Social networks and technology adoption: Evidence from church mergers in the U.S. Midwest," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 106(3), pages 1141-1166, May.
    2. Mekdim D. Regassa & Mohammed B. Degnet & Mequanint B. Melesse, 2023. "Access to credit and heterogeneous effects on agricultural technology adoption: Evidence from large rural surveys in Ethiopia," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 71(2), pages 231-253, June.
    3. Martin Julius Chegere & Razack Lokina & Agnes G. Mwakaje, 2020. "The impact of hermetic storage bag supply and training on food security in Tanzania," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(6), pages 1299-1316, December.
    4. Wouter Zant, 2022. "Two Birds with One Stone: Technology Adoption and Market Participation through Protection against Crop Failure," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 22-091/V, Tinbergen Institute.
    5. Manda, Julius & Feleke, Shiferaw & Mutungi, Christopher & Tufa, Adane H. & Mateete, Bekunda & Abdoulaye, Tahirou & Alene, Arega D., 2024. "Assessing the speed of improved postharvest technology adoption in Tanzania: The role of social learning and agricultural extension services," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    6. Tristan Le Cotty & Elodie Maître d’Hôtel & Raphael Soubeyran & Julie Subervie, 2018. "Linking Risk Aversion, Time Preference and Fertiliser Use in Burkina Faso," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(11), pages 1991-2006, November.
    7. Bonan, Jacopo & Battiston, Pietro & Bleck, Jaimie & LeMay-Boucher, Philippe & Pareglio, Stefano & Sarr, Bassirou & Tavoni, Massimo, 2021. "Social interaction and technology adoption: Experimental evidence from improved cookstoves in Mali," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    8. Sheremenko, Ganna & Magnan, Nicholas, 2015. "Gender-specific Risk Preferences and Fertilizer Use in Kenyan Farming Households," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205766, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Porteous, Obie, 2020. "Trade and agricultural technology adoption: Evidence from Africa," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    10. Chowdhury, Shyamal & Smits, Joeri & Sun, Qigang, 2020. "Contract structure, time preference, and technology adoption," GLO Discussion Paper Series 633, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    11. Abay, Kibrom A. & Berhane, Guush & Taffesse, Alemayehu Seyoum & Koru, Bethlehem & Abay, Kibrewossen, 2016. "Understanding farmers’ technology adoption decisions: Input complementarity and heterogeneity:," ESSP working papers 82, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    12. Nadia A. Streletskaya & Samuel D. Bell & Maik Kecinski & Tongzhe Li & Simanti Banerjee & Leah H. Palm‐Forster & David Pannell, 2020. "Agricultural Adoption and Behavioral Economics: Bridging the Gap," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(1), pages 54-66, March.
    13. Solomon Balew & Erwin Bulte & Zewdu Abro & Menale Kassie, 2023. "Incentivizing and nudging farmers to spread information: Experimental evidence from Ethiopia," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 105(3), pages 994-1010, May.
    14. Tessema, Yohannis Mulu & Asafu-Adjaye, John & Kassie, Menale & Mallawaarachchi, Thilak, 2016. "Do neighbours matter in technology adoption? The case of conservation tillage in northwest Ethiopia," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 11(3).
    15. Michael Carter & Rachid Laajaj & Dean Yang, 2021. "Subsidies and the African Green Revolution: Direct Effects and Social Network Spillovers of Randomized Input Subsidies in Mozambique," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 13(2), pages 206-229, April.
    16. Anna Folke Larsen, 2019. "When knowledgeable neighbors also share seedlings: diffusion of banana cultivation in Tanzania," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 50(1), pages 51-65, January.
    17. repec:ags:aaea22:335821 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Holden, Stein T., 2018. "The Economics of Fertilizer Subsidies," CLTS Working Papers 9/18, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies, revised 16 Oct 2019.
    19. Alexander Jordan & Marco Guerzoni, 2021. "“Cursed is the ground because of you”:," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 853-890, July.
    20. Satadru Mukherjee, 2020. "Access to Formal Banks and New Technology Adoption: Evidence from India," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(5), pages 1532-1556, October.
    21. Aggarwal, Shilpa & Francis, Eilin & Robinson, Jonathan, 2018. "Grain today, gain tomorrow: Evidence from a storage experiment with savings clubs in Kenya," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 1-15.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    randomized controlled trial; post-harvest losses; training; hermetic bags; smallscale farmers; cost-benefit analysis;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • Q16 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - R&D; Agricultural Technology; Biofuels; Agricultural Extension Services
    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy

    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:hhs:gunefd:2019_010. 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: Franklin Amuakwa-Mensah (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.efdinitiative.org/ .

    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.