Disseminating new farming practices among small scale farmers: An experimental intervention in Uganda

Abstract

We used a randomized control trial to measure how the free distribution of hybrid seeds and chemical fertilizers for maize production affected their adoption by small-scale farmers in the subsequent seasons. Information on their demand for the same inputs was collected through sales meetings which we organized in 2009 and 2011 where the inputs were actually sold. It revealed that the demand for the inputs of the free-input recipients was significantly higher in both 2009 and 2011 than that of non-recipients; that of the neighbors of the recipients fell in-between. The initial treatment assignment has a persistent influence on the farmers' demand over the two years whereas the difference between the free-input recipients and their neighbors has been reduced to some extent. The reduction of their gap in the application level of fertilizers is partly driven by social learning through information networks. However, there was no clear * I wish to thank Takashi Kurosaki, Keijiro Otsuka, and other participants of the TRIO conference in Tokyo held on March, 2013 for their excellent comments. I also thank George Sentumbwe, Geoffrey Kiguli, and other research team members of Makerere University who contributed to the surveys and workshops in the project. I am also grateful for funding from the Global COE project, sponsored by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology, Japan. All errors remain mine.

The Effects of Training, Innovation and New Technology on African Smallholder Farmers' Economic Outcomes and Food Security: A Systematic Review

“…A number of the included studies assessed the effects of different treatment packages (e.g. demonstration plots and guidebooks, and guidebooks only [Matsumoto, 2013]) against the ‘natural’ farming setting. As explained above, only the strongest treatment was eligible for inclusion in such cases.…”

“…Each of the three studies reported intermediate outcomes illustrating how agricultural input innovations might contribute to farmers' income. These intermediate outcomes referred to assessing yields (Bulte et al, 2014; Matsumoto, 2013) and the adoption of technology (Hofs et al 2006; Matsumoto, 2013). Unfortunately, we were unable to calculate effect sizes for intermediate outcomes due to insufficient reporting of statistical information.…”

Effects of training, innovation and new technology on African smallholder farmers’ economic outcomes and food security

“…The meta-analysis of the three studies in South Africa (Hofs et al 2006), Tanzania (Bulte et al 2014) and Uganda (Matsumoto 2013) yields an overall positive pooled effect size of 0.26. This represents a 12.4 percent change in the levels of income among smallholders receiving the input innovation.…”

“…Two studies providing the most reliable evidence (Bulte et al 2014;Matsumoto 2013) identified the provision of higher-yielding and more drought-resistant maize varieties as an effective approach to increase smallholders' harvest and, presumably, their income. This offers some support for the hypothesis that input innovations also have the potential to improve farming households' economic outcomes.…”

The Role of Information in Agricultural Technology Adoption: Experimental Evidence from Rice Farmers in Uganda

“…In particular, we looked at balance tables in studies that investigate the adoption of yield improving methods and technologies using RCTs. These studies include Duo, Kremer, and Robinson (2011), Karlan et al (2014), Ashraf, Giné, and Karlan (2009), Bulte et al (2014) and Matsumoto (2014). In addition, we also add some variables that are relevant in the context of a study on sustainable crop intensication among rice farmers.…”