IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ajfand/334122.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-benefit analysis of Purdue Improved Crop Storage bags for maize storage among smallholder farmers in northwest Ethiopia

Author

Listed:
  • Kefale, Tigist
  • Ayalew, Zemen
  • Birhanie, Zewdu
  • Wubetie, Biruk Yazie
  • Baributsa, Dieudonne

Abstract

In Ethiopia, post-harvest losses caused by insects are a major challenge in crop production systems. Dried maize is particularly susceptible to insects during storage. Storage loss affects the livelihoods of small-scale farmers leading to food insecurity and loss of income. Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess the cost-benefit analysis of Purdue Improved Crop Storage (PICS) bags on maize storage in Northwest Ethiopia. Cross-sectional data was collected from 392 randomly selected households from both users and non-users of PICS bags, using stratified sampling technique. A structured questionnaire, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, individual in-depth interviews, and field observations were used to gather the data. A cost-benefit analysis was computed to evaluate the viability of PICS bags for maize storage. The binary logistic regression model was used to identify factors that affect the use of PICS bags. Descriptive statistics (percentage, mean, and standard deviation) and inferential statistics (t-test and chi-square test) were employed to analyze the data. The benefit-to-cost ratios (BCRs) of insecticide with both ordinary and PICS bags were greater than one, but PICS bags resulted in more than two-fold higher values as compared to insecticide with ordinary bags. The net present value (NPV) at 15% discount rate in 2018 was 20.73 USD and 25.35 USD per 100 kilograms of stored maize when insecticide was applied to ordinary and PICS bags, respectively. Sensitivity analysis with a 10% cost increment and up to 50% price discount showed that both technologies would still be viable for maize storage. However, PICS bags had higher NPV and BCR; making the technology more viable than insecticide with ordinary bags. The results of binary logit model indicated that educational level, gender, awareness, training, accessibility of the technology, perception of the technology, involvement in leadership activities in the community, and total income of the household positively influenced farmers’ decisions to use PICS bags, whereas price negatively affected the use of the PICS bags. PICS bags had clear economic advantage over insecticide with ordinary bags for maize storage in Northwest Ethiopia. Efforts should be made to disseminate and improve access to PICS bags for strengthening food security and increasing incomes of maize farmers in Northwest Ethiopia.

Suggested Citation

  • Kefale, Tigist & Ayalew, Zemen & Birhanie, Zewdu & Wubetie, Biruk Yazie & Baributsa, Dieudonne, 2022. "Cost-benefit analysis of Purdue Improved Crop Storage bags for maize storage among smallholder farmers in northwest Ethiopia," African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development (AJFAND), African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development (AJFAND), vol. 22(09).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ajfand:334122
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/334122/files/Kefale22100.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Berlage, L & Renard, R, 1985. "The Discount Rate in Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Choice of a Numeraire," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 37(4), pages 691-699, December.
    2. Christine A. Ervin & David E. Ervin, 1982. "Factors Affecting the Use of Soil Conservation Practices: Hypotheses, Evidence, and Policy Implications," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 58(3), pages 277-292.
    3. Poudel, Krishna Lal & Nepal, Arati Poudel & Dhungana, Bhima & Sugimoto, Yasuhiro & Yamamoto, Naoyuki & Nishiwaki, Aya, 2009. "Capital Budgeting Analysis of Organic Coffee Production in Gulmi District of Nepal," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 51559, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Randela, Rendani, 2003. "The incidence of post-harvest problems among small farmers surveyed in three regions of the Limpopo Province," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 42(2), pages 1-18, June.
    5. Stevens, Alan, 2004. "The Application And Limitations Of Cost-Benefit Assessment (Cba) For Intelligent Transport Systems," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 91-111, January.
    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. Ferrer, Stuart R.D. & Nieuwoudt, W. Lieb, 1997. "Factors affecting soil conservation decisions of KwaZulu-Natal commercial sugarcane farmers," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 36(4), pages 1-9, December.
    2. Mzoughi, Naoufel, 2011. "Farmers adoption of integrated crop protection and organic farming: Do moral and social concerns matter?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(8), pages 1536-1545, June.
    3. Nagubadi, Venkatarao & McNamara, Kevin T. & Hoover, William L. & Mills, Walter L., Jr., 1996. "Program Participation Behvaior Of Nonindustrial Forest Landowners: A Probit Analysis," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 28(2), pages 1-14, December.
    4. Gren, Ing-Marie & Carlsson, Mattias, 2012. "Revealed payments for biodiversity protection in Swedish forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 55-62.
    5. Sheng Gong & Jason.S. Bergtold & Elizabeth Yeager, 2021. "Assessing the joint adoption and complementarity between in-field conservation practices of Kansas farmers," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-24, December.
    6. Wang, H. Holly & Young, Douglas L. & Camara, Oumou M., 2000. "The Role Of Environmental Education In Predicting Adoption Of Wind Erosion Control Practices," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 25(2), pages 1-12, December.
    7. Pagiola, Stefano & Rios, Ana R. & Arcenas, Agustin, 2008. "Can the poor participate in payments for environmental services? Lessons from the Silvopastoral Project in Nicaragua," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(3), pages 299-325, June.
    8. Franco, Juan Agustin & Calatrava-Requena, Javier, 2008. "Adoption and diffusion of no tillage practices in Southern Spain olive groves," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44014, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Morrison, Mark, 2005. "Identifying Market Segments for Technology Adoption," 2005 Conference (49th), February 9-11, 2005, Coff's Harbour, Australia 137937, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    10. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    11. Jordan, Jeffrey L. & Elnagheeb, Abdelmoneim H., 1992. "The Structure Of Citizen Preferences For Government Soil Erosion Control Programs," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 24(2), pages 1-10, December.
    12. Gary Lynne, 1984. "Commentary," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 1(3), pages 10-14, June.
    13. Leland Glenna, 1996. "Rationality, habitus, and agricultural landscapes: Ethnographic case studies in landscape sociology," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 13(4), pages 21-38, September.
    14. Willy, Daniel Kyalo & Holm-Müller, Karin, 2013. "Social influence and collective action effects on farm level soil conservation effort in rural Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 94-103.
    15. Norris, Patricia E. & Batie, Sandra S., 1987. "Virginia Farmers' Soil Conservation Decisions: An Application Of Tobit Analysis," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 19(1), pages 1-12, July.
    16. Mahadevan, Renuka, 2008. "The high price of sweetness: The twin challenges of efficiency and soil erosion in Fiji's sugar industry," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 468-477, June.
    17. Maria & Irham & Slamet Hartono & Lestari Rahayu Waluyati, 2022. "The effect of environmental awareness on motivation in adopting farming conservation techniques in the various agro-ecological zones: a case study in critical land of Java Island, Indonesia," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 1878-1896, February.
    18. Benin, Samuel & Johnson, Michael E. & Abokyi, Emmanuel & Ahorbo, Gerald & Jimah, Kipo & Nasser, Gamel & Owusu, Victor & Taabazuing, Joe & Tenga, Albert, 2013. "Revisiting agricultural input and farm support subsidies in Africa: The case of Ghana’s mechanization, fertilizer, block farms, and marketing programs:," IFPRI discussion papers 1300, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    19. Nikolaos E. Petridis & Georgios Digkas & Leonidas Anastasakis, 2020. "Factors affecting innovation and imitation of ICT in the agrifood sector," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 294(1), pages 501-514, November.
    20. Clark P. Bishop & C. Richard Shumway & Philip R. Wandschneider, 2010. "Agent Heterogeneity in Adoption of Anaerobic Digestion Technology: Integrating Economic, Diffusion, and Behavioral Innovation Theories," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(3).

    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:334122. 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.