IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v13y2023i5p1043-d1144956.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Insecticide Use by Small-Scale Ugandan Cassava Growers: An Economic Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Irene Bayiyana

    (National Agricultural Research Organisation (NARO), National Crops Resources Research Institute (NaCRRI), Kampala P.O. Box 7084, Uganda)

  • Anton Bua

    (National Agricultural Research Organisation (NARO), National Crops Resources Research Institute (NaCRRI), Kampala P.O. Box 7084, Uganda)

  • Alfred Ozimati

    (National Agricultural Research Organisation (NARO), National Crops Resources Research Institute (NaCRRI), Kampala P.O. Box 7084, Uganda
    Department of Plant Science, Microbiology and Biotechnology, Makerere University, Kampala P.O. Box 7062, Uganda)

  • Johnny Mugisha

    (Department of Agribusiness & Natural Resource Economics, Makerere University, Kampala P.O. Box 7062, Uganda)

  • John Colvin

    (Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich, Chatham Maritime ME4 4TB, UK)

  • Christopher Abu Omongo

    (National Agricultural Research Organisation (NARO), National Crops Resources Research Institute (NaCRRI), Kampala P.O. Box 7084, Uganda)

Abstract

Cassava is the second most important source of calories in Sub-Saharan Africa. It is subject to economically important yield losses from viral diseases, including cassava brown streak disease and cassava mosaic disease. These diseases are vectored by cassava whitefly, so improved approaches for whitefly and disease control are needed to enable smallholder farmers to protect their cassava crops. To investigate the economic viability of insecticide applications against whitefly, the effect of four insecticide application regimes on three cassava genotypes (NASE 3, NASE 12, MKUMBA) and a local landrace were evaluated, for different farmer groups. Data were collected from researcher–farmer managed fields and descriptive statistics were analyzed. Insecticide and personal protective equipment were the major costs for those farmers that applied insecticide and the dipping treatment had a marginal rate of return of 1.66 (166%), demonstrating that this option was the most profitable and effective. While insecticide users incurred more production costs, they also accrued more profit than non-insecticide users, especially if insecticide was applied at early stages of cassava growth. There is a clear need, therefore, to strengthen the commercialization of cassava crop through plant protection measures such as judicious insecticide application on susceptible varieties, so as to increase yield and crop quality.

Suggested Citation

  • Irene Bayiyana & Anton Bua & Alfred Ozimati & Johnny Mugisha & John Colvin & Christopher Abu Omongo, 2023. "Insecticide Use by Small-Scale Ugandan Cassava Growers: An Economic Analysis," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-17, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:13:y:2023:i:5:p:1043-:d:1144956
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/5/1043/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/5/1043/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jannike Wichern & Mark T. Wijk & Katrien Descheemaeker & Romain Frelat & Piet J. A. Asten & Ken E. Giller, 2017. "Food availability and livelihood strategies among rural households across Uganda," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 9(6), pages 1385-1403, December.
    2. Sen, Amartya Kumar, 2000. "The Discipline of Cost†Benefit Analysis," Scholarly Articles 3444801, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    3. Sen, Amartya, 2000. "The Discipline of Cost-Benefit Analysis," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(2), pages 931-952, June.
    4. Varian, Hal R., 1990. "Goodness-of-fit in optimizing models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1-2), pages 125-140.
    5. Mouter, Niek & Koster, Paul & Dekker, Thijs, 2021. "Contrasting the recommendations of participatory value evaluation and cost-benefit analysis in the context of urban mobility investments," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 54-73.
    6. Goto, Akira & Suzuki, Kazuyuki, 1989. "R&D Capital, Rate of Return on R&D Investment and Spillover of R&D in Japanese Manufacturing Industries," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 71(4), pages 555-564, November.
    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. Paul Koster, 2023. "Counting what counts: Moral considerations and market surplus," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 23-008/VIII, Tinbergen Institute.
    2. De Brucker, Klaas & Macharis, Cathy & Verbeke, Alain, 2013. "Multi-criteria analysis and the resolution of sustainable development dilemmas: A stakeholder management approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 224(1), pages 122-131.
    3. Heidi Peterson, 2023. "Cost–Benefit Analysis (CBA) or the Highway? An Alternative Road to Investigating the Value for Money of International Development Research," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 35(2), pages 260-280, April.
    4. Mouter, Niek & Koster, Paul & Dekker, Thijs, 2021. "Contrasting the recommendations of participatory value evaluation and cost-benefit analysis in the context of urban mobility investments," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 54-73.
    5. Adélie Ranville & Marcos Barros, 2022. "Towards Normative Theories of Social Entrepreneurship. A Review of the Top Publications of the Field," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 180(2), pages 407-438, October.
    6. te Boveldt, Geert & Keseru, Imre & Macharis, Cathy, 2022. "When monetarisation and ranking are not appropriate. A novel stakeholder-based appraisal method," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 192-205.
    7. Öberg, Christina & Huge-Brodin, Maria & Björklund, Maria, 2012. "Applying a network level in environmental impact assessments," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 247-255.
    8. Cheney Shreve, 2016. "Economic Efficiency or Gender Equality: Conceptualizing an Equitable “Social Framing” for Economic Evaluations to Support Gender Equality in Disaster Risk- and Environmental-Management Decision-Making," Resources, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-16, July.
    9. Will, Matthias Georg, 2011. "Technologischer Fortschritt und Vertrauen: Gefahrenproduktivität und Bindungsmechanismen zur Überwindung von Konflikten," Discussion Papers 2011-19, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, Chair of Economic Ethics.
    10. S. Scrieciu & Valerie Belton & Zaid Chalabi & Reinhard Mechler & Daniel Puig, 2014. "Advancing methodological thinking and practice for development-compatible climate policy planning," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 261-288, March.
    11. Skott, Peter & Davis, Leila, 2013. "Distributional biases in the analysis of climate change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 188-197.
    12. Mouter, Niek & Annema, Jan Anne & van Wee, Bert, 2013. "Ranking the substantive problems in the Dutch Cost–Benefit Analysis practice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 241-255.
    13. Mouter, Niek & Annema, Jan Anne & Wee, Bert van, 2013. "Attitudes towards the role of Cost–Benefit Analysis in the decision-making process for spatial-infrastructure projects: A Dutch case study," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 1-14.
    14. Raper, Kellie Curry & Love, H. Alan, 1999. "MONOPSONY POWER IN MULTIPLE INPUT MARKETS: A Nonparametric Approach," Staff Paper Series 11656, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    15. Bitzer, Jürgen & Kerekes, Monika, 2008. "Does foreign direct investment transfer technology across borders? New evidence," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 100(3), pages 355-358, September.
    16. Christoph Meister & Bart Verspagen & Guntram B. Wolff, 2006. "European Productivity Gaps: Is R&D the Solution?," Chapters, in: Susanne Mundschenk & Michael H. Stierle & Ulrike Stierle-von Schütz & Iulia Traistaru-Siedschlag (ed.), Competitiveness and Growth in Europe, chapter 8, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Lorenz, Steffi, 2015. "Diversität und Verbundenheit der unternehmerischen Wissensbasis: Ein neuartiger Messansatz mit Indikatoren aus Innovationsprojekten," Discussion Papers on Strategy and Innovation 15-01, Philipps-University Marburg, Department of Technology and Innovation Management (TIM).
    18. Santiago Herrera & Gaobo Pang, 2008. "Eficiency of Infrastructure: The Case of Container Ports," Economia, ANPEC - Associação Nacional dos Centros de Pós-Graduação em Economia [Brazilian Association of Graduate Programs in Economics], vol. 9(1), pages 165-194.
    19. Sergey Lychagin & Joris Pinkse & Margaret E. Slade & John Van Reenen, 2016. "Spillovers in Space: Does Geography Matter?," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(2), pages 295-335, June.
    20. Guenter Lang, 2002. "Innovative Slowdown, Productivity Reversal? - Estimating the Impact of R&D on Technological Change," Discussion Paper Series 218, Universitaet Augsburg, Institute for Economics.

    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:jagris:v:13:y:2023:i:5:p:1043-:d:1144956. 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.