IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/cmpart/117798.html

Factors Influencing Hulling Of Coffee Among Farmers In Masaka District, Uganda

Author

Listed:
  • Mathias, Wakulira

Abstract

For many years, coffee has been a major source of income to many Ugandans. Traditionally, Uganda coffee farmers have sold their coffee in unhulled form as dried cherries (Kiboko) through governmental parastatals. Structural changes in the agricultural sector arising from policy reforms that Uganda embraced since 1990 (notably liberalisation, privatisation and decentralization) removed the monopoly of governmental parastatals in agricultural marketing and pricing which was a disincentive to improvement of quality and quantity of output. Because of liberalisation, coffee quality and exports declined as the traders were more concerned about quantity rather than quality, which led to low prices and consequently low farm incomes. In response to this, value addition through hulling prior to marketing by farmers was suggested as one of the remedies. However, the rate of adoption of this strategy remains disappointingly low. The purpose of this study is to determine the factors underlying the adoption of coffee hulling by farmers, and to estimate the price elasticities for hulled and unhulled coffee sold. 300 farmers were randomly selected and interviewed using a structured questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize and highlight differences between farmers who sell hulled and unhulled coffee. The censored Tobit model was used to analyse the factors that influence the sale of hulled coffee. Two OLS models for the marketed supply of unhulled and hulled coffee were estimated and their corresponding elasticities determined. The results indicate that higher market prices of hulled coffee positively and significantly (p<0.01) enhance the proportion of hulled coffee sold, while distance from the farmer’s home to the coffee processing factory and drought conditions during the season significantly (p<0.05) reduce the proportion of hulled coffee sold. Membership in farmer associations has a positive and significant influence on the amount of hulled coffee sold because it enables farmers to transport and sell together thereby reducing the transaction costs borne by each farmer. The sale of hulled coffee was found to be more price responsive than the sale of unhulled coffee both in the short and long run. Based on these findings the study recommends supporting the development of farmer institutions as a way of promoting the uptake of coffee hulling and value addition to improve farmers’ incomes. In addition, the bulking of coffee among farmers should be encouraged and accompanied by provision of market information to farmers for both hulled and unhulled coffee to help them to make informed decisions on where and what form of coffee to sell. There is also a need to invest in improving farmers’ access to processing facilities, since long distance to such facilities is shown to have a negative effect on the sale of hulled coffee.

Suggested Citation

  • Mathias, Wakulira, 2009. "Factors Influencing Hulling Of Coffee Among Farmers In Masaka District, Uganda," Research Theses 117798, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:cmpart:117798
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.117798
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/117798/files/Mathias%20Walulira%20Thesis.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.117798?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kidane, A., 1999. "Real Exchange Rate Price and Agricultural Supply Response in Ethiopia: The Case of Perennial Crops," Papers 99, African Economic Research Consortium.
    2. repec:aer:wpaper:99 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Rao, J. Mohan, 1989. "Agricultural supply response: A survey," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 3(1), pages 1-22, March.
    4. Marc Nerlove & William Addison, 1958. "Statistical Estimation of Long-Run Elasticities of Supply and Demand," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 40(4), pages 861-880.
    5. Minot, Nicholas, 1999. "Effects of transaction costs on supply response and marketed surplus: simulations using non-separable household models," MTID discussion papers 36, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    6. Adesina, Akinwumi A. & Baidu-Forson, Jojo, 1995. "Farmers' perceptions and adoption of new agricultural technology: evidence from analysis in Burkina Faso and Guinea, West Africa," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 13(1), pages 1-9, October.
    7. Evers, Barbara & Walters, Bernard, 2000. "Extra-Household Factors and Women Farmers' Supply Response in Sub-Saharan Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 28(7), pages 1341-1345, July.
    8. Abrar Suleiman, 2004. "Smallholder Supply Response and Gender in Ethiopia: A Profit Function Analysis," Working Papers 2004007, The University of Sheffield, Department of Economics, revised Aug 2004.
    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. Rao, Nitya, 2017. "Assets, Agency and Legitimacy: Towards a Relational Understanding of Gender Equality Policy and Practice," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 43-54.
    2. Wallace, Henry N. & Carman, Hoy F., 1979. "A Simulation Model of United States Sugar Beet Acreage Response," 1979 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, Pullman, Washington 278273, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. Sall, S. & Norman, D. & Featherstone, A. M., 2000. "Quantitative assessment of improved rice variety adoption: the farmer's perspective," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 129-144, November.
    4. Evan J. Miller-Tait & Sandeep Mohapatra & M. K. (Marty) Luckert & Brent M. Swallow, 2019. "Processing technologies for undervalued grains in rural India: on target to help the poor?," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 11(1), pages 151-166, February.
    5. Barker, Abigail R. & Mazzucca, Stephanie, 2020. "The differential impact of SSB taxation over time and by income: Evidence from Nielsen Homescan and Retail Data," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304511, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Jabbar, Mohammad A. & Beyene, Hailu & Mohamed Saleem, M A & Gebreselassie, Solomon, 1998. "Adoption pathways for new agricultural technologies : An approach and an application to Vertisols management technology in Ethiopia," Research Reports 182901, International Livestock Research Institute.
    7. Cheteni, Priviledge & Mushunje, Abbyssinia & Taruvinga, Amon, 2014. "Barriers and Incentives to Potential Adoption of Biofuels Crops by Smallholder Farmers in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa," MPRA Paper 59029, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Ghadir Asadi & Mohammad H. Mostafavi-Dehzooei, 2022. "The Role of Learning in Adaptation to Technology: The Case of Groundwater Extraction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-37, June.
    9. Abrar Suleiman, 2004. "Smallholder Supply Response and Gender in Ethiopia: A Profit Function Analysis," Working Papers 2004007, The University of Sheffield, Department of Economics, revised Aug 2004.
    10. Phillips, Mark & Hueth, Darrell L. & Just, Richard E., 1989. "Estimating Cost of Banning Agricultural Chemicals: The Case of Maneb and Maneb Alternatives," Working Papers 197631, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    11. Marsh, John M., 1999. "Economic Factors Determining Changes In Dressed Weights Of Live Cattle And Hogs," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 24(2), pages 1-14, December.
    12. Rick S. Llewellyn & Brendan Brown, 2020. "Predicting Adoption of Innovations by Farmers: What is Different in Smallholder Agriculture?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(1), pages 100-112, March.
    13. Aude Ridier & Caroline Roussy & Karim Chaib, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 265-283, September.
    14. McClements, L.D., 1968. "A Quarterly Econometric Model of Pig Supply," Bulletins 232763, University of Manchester, School of Economics, Agricultural Economics Department.
    15. Nehring, Richard F., 1991. "Output and Input Subsidy Policy Options in Bangladesh," Journal of Agricultural Economics Research, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, vol. 43(02), pages 1-13.
    16. Nicholas Minot & Lisa Daniels, 2005. "Impact of global cotton markets on rural poverty in Benin," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 33(s3), pages 453-466, November.
    17. Joshi, Kuhu & Joshi, Pramod Kumar & Khan, Md. Tajuddin & Kishore, Avinash, 2018. "Insights on the rapid adoption of Pusa 1121 basmati variety in North India," IFPRI discussion papers 1756, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    18. Ibrahim Soliman & Jacinto F. Fabiosa & Mohamed Gaber Amer & Siham Kandil, 2010. "Impacts of the Economic Reform Program on the Performance of the Egyptian Agricultural Sector," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 10-wp509, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    19. Balasooriya, B. M. D. C. & Edirisinghe, J. C. & Seneviratne, P., . "Nexus between Awareness, Perception and Adoption of Recommended Technologies: Evidences from Smallholder Rubber Cultivation," Sri Lankan Journal of Agricultural Economics, Sri Lanka Agricultural Economics Association (SAEA), vol. 22(01).
    20. Avila-Santamaria, Jorge J. & Useche, Maria P., 2016. "Urea Subsidies and the Decision to Allocate Land to a New Fertilizing Technology: Ex-ante Analysis in Ecuador," 2016 Annual Meeting, February 6-9, 2016, San Antonio, Texas 229851, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.

    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:cmpart:117798. 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: http://www.agriculturaleconomics.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.