IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ajaees/402837.html

Profitability Analysis of Animal Traction for Smallholder Farmers in Eastern Uganda: A Case of Busoga Sub-region

Author

Listed:
  • Okurut, Samuel
  • Walozi, Ronald
  • Saasa, Richard A.
  • Candia, Alphonse
  • Tumuhimbise, Robooni
  • Gidoi, Robert
  • Oule, Arnold B.
  • Balibuzani, Ronald
  • Mbadhi, Ibrahim

Abstract

Animal Traction (AT) remains a critical intermediate mechanization pathway for smallholder farmers in Eastern Uganda, yet empirical evidence on its economic performance remains limited. This study evaluated the profitability and investment viability of two enterprise models, namely Basic Animal Traction (BAT) and Advanced Animal Traction (AAT), among smallholder farmers in the Busoga sub-region. A mixed-methods research design was used, comprising a household survey of 664 households, 23 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), and 68 key informant interviews across five districts. Financial viability was evaluated over a six-year investment period using Net Present Value (NPV), Internal Rate of Return (IRR), Gross Margin (GM), and Payback Period metrics, along with sensitivity analysis. The results indicated that AT systems are integrated within smallholder production systems characterized by small landholdings (average 1.66 ha), mixed crop-livestock enterprises, and dependence on family labour. Cost structure analysis showed significant initial capital requirements, with fixed costs accounting for about 55% of total investment for both BAT (UGX 5.88 million) and AAT (UGX 9.50 million), posing a major adoption barrier. Despite this, both models performed strongly financially under baseline conditions. For maize and bean production, BAT achieved IRRs of 57-76%, NPVs of UGX 22.2-29.8 million, and payback periods of less than 1.1 years. AAT reached higher IRRs (73-82%), NPVs (UGX 41.6-47.0 million), and gross margins (36.4-38.6%), due to additional income from planting and weeding hire services. Sensitivity analysis indicated that profitability is sensitive to 15-25% reductions in output and to excessive reinvestment of hire-service revenues, underscoring the need for risk management and careful capital planning. While AAT offers greater income-growth potential, BAT offers a lower-capital, lower-risk entry pathway. Overall, AT offers a profitable, suitable, and expandable mechanization option. Policy support should focus on affordable financing, technical skills development, service diversification, and gender-sensitive approaches to encourage inclusive mechanization.

Suggested Citation

  • Okurut, Samuel & Walozi, Ronald & Saasa, Richard A. & Candia, Alphonse & Tumuhimbise, Robooni & Gidoi, Robert & Oule, Arnold B. & Balibuzani, Ronald & Mbadhi, Ibrahim, 2026. "Profitability Analysis of Animal Traction for Smallholder Farmers in Eastern Uganda: A Case of Busoga Sub-region," Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology, Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology, vol. 44(3).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ajaees:402837
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/402837/files/Okurut4432026AJAEES154526.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lowder, Sarah K. & Skoet, Jakob & Raney, Terri, 2016. "The Number, Size, and Distribution of Farms, Smallholder Farms, and Family Farms Worldwide," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 16-29.
    2. Jansen, Hans G. P., 1993. "Ex-ante profitability of animal traction investments in semi-arid Sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence from Niger and Nigeria," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 323-349.
    3. Sharada Weir & John Knight, 2000. "Adoption and diffusion of agricultural innovations in Ethiopia: the role of Education," CSAE Working Paper Series 2000-05, Centre for the Study of African Economies, University of Oxford.
    4. repec:fth:oxesaf:2000-5 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Saem Lee & Trung Thanh Nguyen & Patrick Poppenborg & Hio-Jung Shin & Thomas Koellner, 2016. "Conventional, Partially Converted and Environmentally Friendly Farming in South Korea: Profitability and Factors Affecting Farmers’ Choice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-18, July.
    2. Sonia Bhalotra & Christopher Heady, 2003. "Child Farm Labor: The Wealth Paradox," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 17(2), pages 197-227, December.
    3. Hardeep Singh & Poonam Rani, 2025. "Adoption and risk‐reducing effects of mixed cropping: Evidence from India," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(3), pages 1119-1138, July.
    4. Bonjean, I., 2018. "Heterogeneous return from Agricultural Innovation Adoption: The Role of the price effect," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277257, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. repec:qeh:qehwps:qehwps112 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Zavale, Helder & Mabaya, Edward T. & Christy, Ralph D., 2005. "Adoption of Improved Maize Seed by Smallholder Farmers in Mozambique," Staff Papers 121065, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    7. repec:wbk:wbpubs:7434 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Tavneet Suri, 2006. "Selection and Comparative Advantage in Technology Adoption," Working Papers 944, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
    9. Luong Tinh & Phan Tran Minh Hung & Doan Gia Dzung & Vo Hoang Diem Trinh, 2019. "Determinants of farmers intention` of applying new technology in production: The case of VietGAP standard adoption in Vietnam," Asian Journal of Agriculture and rural Development, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 9(2), pages 164-148, December.
    10. Bonjean, Isabelle, 2019. "Heterogeneous incentives for innovation adoption: The price effect on segmented markets," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-1.
    11. World Bank, 2005. "Ethiopia : Well-Being and Poverty in Ethiopia, The Role of Agriculture and Agency," World Bank Publications - Reports 8707, The World Bank Group.
    12. Tavneet Suri, 2009. "Selection and Comparative Advantage in Technology Adoption," NBER Working Papers 15346, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Odendo, Martins & Obare, Gideon A. & Salasya, Beatrice, 2010. "Determinants of the Speed of Adoption of Soil Fertility-Enhancing Technologies in Western Kenya," 2010 AAAE Third Conference/AEASA 48th Conference, September 19-23, 2010, Cape Town, South Africa 96192, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
    14. Thomas Ferreira, 2018. "Does education enhance productivity in smallholder agriculture? Causal evidence from Malawi," Working Papers 05/2018, Stellenbosch University, Department of Economics.
    15. Wilfred Nyangena, 2008. "Social determinants of soil and water conservation in rural Kenya," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 10(6), pages 745-767, December.
    16. Ho, Thong Quoc & Yanagida, John F. & Illukpitiya, Prabodh, 2013. "Factors Affecting Technical Efficiency of Small-holder Coffee Farming in the Krong Ana Watershed, Vietnam," Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology, Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology, vol. 3(1).
    17. Bonjean, Isabelle, "undated". "Heterogeneous Gains From Agricultural Innovation Adoption: The Role Of The Price Effect In Peru," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 260891, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Anne M. Cafer & J. Sanford Rikoon, 2018. "Adoption of new technologies by smallholder farmers: the contributions of extension, research institutes, cooperatives, and access to cash for improving tef production in Ethiopia," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 35(3), pages 685-699, September.
    19. Lapar, Ma. Lucila A. & Ehui, Simeon K., 2004. "Factors affecting adoption of dual-purpose forages in the Philippine uplands," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 95-114, August.
    20. Platteau, Jean-Philippe & Bonjean, Isabelle & Verardi, Vincenzo, 2017. "Innovation Adoption and Liquidity Constraints in the Presence of Grassroots Extension Agents: Evidence from the Peruvian Highla," CEPR Discussion Papers 12263, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    21. Bonjean, Isabelle, "undated". "Heterogeneous Incentives to Innovation Adoption: the Price Effect on Segmented Market," Working Papers 279295, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:ajaees:402837. 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://journalajaees.com/index.php/AJAEES/index .

    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.