Indexing
All Issues
Submission
Author Guidelines
Reviewers
Editorial Members
Publication Fee
Vol.4 , No. 6, Publication Date: Jan. 11, 2018, Page: 50-57
 indicates the potential to increase maize productivity by combining all inputs studied, thus suggesting the need for small holder maize farmers to adopt all inputs as a package if they are to obtain potential output. In terms of policy, the study recommends that the government should subsidize all improved inputs for all farmers to be able to afford them and apply them together.&picture=http://www.aascit.org/aascit/decorators/img/journal/923.jpg)
| [1] | Rodgers Mutyebere, School of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Mountains of the Moon University, Fort Portal, Uganda. |
| [2] | Nanyanzi Alice Sheila, School of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Mountains of the Moon University, Fort Portal, Uganda. |
| [3] | Jackline Bonabana-wabbi, School of Agricultural Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda. |
| [4] | Twaha Ateenyi Basamba, School of Agricultural Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda. |
The study examined adoption of improved maize varieties and output response to inputs among smallholder farmers in Kabarole District Western Uganda. The specific objectives of the study were: to estimate and compare input elasticities of nitrogenous fertilizer, seeds, labour, plot size and herbicides for improved and local maize and to determine multi-factor productivity for improved and local maize. The study used cross-sectional design and primary data were collected using a questionnaire from four sub-counties of Rwimi, Kibiito, Rutete and Kasenda. Input elasticities of labour, nitrogen fertilizer, maize plot, seeds and herbicides were obtained by estimating the Cobb-Douglas production function model. Output response to all inputs studied was more elastic for adopters, whereby any percentage increase in input use resulted into a more than one percent increase in yield. Multi-factor productivity calculated (7.14) indicates the potential to increase maize productivity by combining all inputs studied, thus suggesting the need for small holder maize farmers to adopt all inputs as a package if they are to obtain potential output. In terms of policy, the study recommends that the government should subsidize all improved inputs for all farmers to be able to afford them and apply them together.
Keywords
Elasticity, Multi-Factor Productivity, Maize Output
Reference
| [01] | Obaa. B., Chamapacho, M. and Agea, J. (2005). Participatory farmers’ evaluation of maize varieties: A case study from Nebbi District, Uganda. African Crop Science Society, 1: 1389–1382. |
| [02] | MAAIF (Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries) (2010). Agriculture for food and income security, Agricultural sector DSIP, 2010/2011-2014/2015; pp. 5–10. |
| [03] | Okoboi, G., Muwanga, J. and Twebaze, T. (2012). Use of Improved Inputs and its Effects on Maize Yield and Profit in Uganda. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development; 12 (7): 3-14. |
| [04] | Karugia, J., Masawe, S., Guthiga, P. and Macharia, E. (2013). Agricultural Productivity in the East African Region (1965-2010). Trends and Determinants; A paper presented at the International Symposium and Exhibition on the Agricultural Development in the East African Community Partner Statement at the 50 years of Independence (4th to 8th November 2013, pp. 2-40. |
| [05] | FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2012). Analysis of incentives and disincentives for maize in Uganda. Monitoring African Food and Agricultural Policies, 1: 7–9. |
| [06] | Kinuthia, B. K. and Mabaya, E. (2017). Adoption and dis-adoption of improved maize varieties in Tanzania; School of Economics, University of Nairobi and the Instititute of Reseatch and Economic Development, Nairobi Kenya and Cornell University Ithaca, USA, pp. 6-8. |
| [07] | FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations) (2017). Drought Telerant Maize Varieties in Uganda: Technologies and Practices for Small Agricultural Producers. www.fao.org., pp. 1-6. Accessed on October 20, 2017. |
| [08] | Okoboi, G. (2011). Improved input use, productivity and commercialization in Uganda maize production. PhD Thesis, Makerere University, pp. 50-60. |
| [09] | Sanzidur, R., Mohamed, N. H., Ismat, A. and Mohamed, J. (2016). Competitiveness, Profitability, Input Demand and Output Supply of Maize Production in Bangladesh. MDPI-Agriculture, 6 (2): 21-22. |
| [10] | Bouagnimbeck, H. and Ssebunya, B. (2011). 9-2 maize. African organic agriculture training mannual: A resource mannual for trainers; FiBL, Research Institutes of Organic Agriculture, Switzerland, 1: 4-10. |
| [11] | Muzari, W., Wirimayi, G. and Muvhunzi, S. (2012). The impacts of technology adoption on smallholder agricultural productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa: Review. Journal of Sustainable Development, 5 (8): 69–77. |
| [12] | Bellon, M., Adato, M., Becerril, J. and Mindek, D. (2006). Poor farmers’ perceived benefits from different types of maize germplasm: The case of creolization in Lowland Tropical Mexico; Elsevier, 1: 113–129. |
| [13] | Salasya, B., Odendo, M., Mwangi, W., Odongo, O. and Oucho, P. (2006). Factors influencing the adoption of WH 502 maize variety in Western Kenya. International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT), 1: 3–5. |
| [14] | Bempomaa, B. and de-Graft Acquah, H. (2014). Technical Efficiency Analysis of Maize Production: Evidence from Ghana. Journal of Applied studies in Agribusiness and Commerce-APSTRACT, Agroinform Publishing House, Budapest, 1: 73-79. |
| [15] | Mutambara, J., Ayoola, G. B., Ejemba, E. P., Avav, T., Masvong, J. and Moyo, S. (2013). Production and Productivity of Maize Subjected to Modern and Traditional Methods of Weed control options in the Federal Capital Territory, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, 5 (5): 107-114. |
| [16] | Okoboi, G. (2010). Improved inputs use and productivity in Uganda’s maize sub-sector. Economic Policy Research Centre, 69: 10–15. |
| [17] | Kibaara, B. (2005). Tecnical efficiency in Kenya’s maize production: An application of the Stochastic Frontier approach. M.Sc. Thesis, Colorado State University, pp. 96-100. |
| [18] | Izekor, O. B. and Alufohai, G. O. (2014). Production Elasticities, Returns to Scale and Allocative Efficiency in Yam Production in Edo State, Nigeria. Agrosearch, 14 (2): 179-190. |
| [19] | Onono, P. A., Wawire, N. W and Ombuki, C. (2013). The Response of Maize Production in Kenya to Economic Incentives. Internation Journal of Development and Sustainability, 2 (2): 1-4. |
| [20] | Awunyo-Vitor, D., Wonganaa, C. A. and Aidoo, R. (2016). Resource Efficiency Among Maize Farmers in Ghana. Agriculture and Food Security, 5 (8): 1-10. |
| [21] | Larbi, E. Ofosu-amina, J., Norman, J., Anim-okyera, S. and Danso, F. (2013). Growth and yield of maize in response to herbicide application in the Coastal Savanah Ecozone of Ghana: Net Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 1 (3): 81-86. |
| [22] | Salarzai, A. (2001). Effect of different herbicides on weed population and yield of maize. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 38 (2): 75-76. |
| [23] | Naveed, M., Ahmad, R., Nadeem, A., Shahzad, K. and Anjum, M. (2008). Effect of new post emergence herbicide application in combination with Urea on growth, yield and weed control in maize. Institute of soil and environmental sciences, University of Agriculture, Pakistan. |
| [24] | Kibirige, D. (2008). Analysis of the impact of the Agricultural Productivity Enhancement Programme on the Technical and Allocative Efficiency of maize farmers in Masindi District. M.Sc. Thesis, Makerere University, pp 28–37. |
| [25] | Kibirige, D. (2014). Estimation of technical efficiency among smallholder maize farmers in Uganda: A case study of Masindi District Western Uganda. International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, 1: 10–15. |
| [26] | Mignouna, D., Mutabazi, K., Senkondo, E. and Manyong, V. (2010). Adoption of a new maize and production efficiency in Western Kenya. Contributed Paper at the Joint 3rd African Association for Agricultural Economists (AAAE) and 48th Agricultural Economists Association of South Africa (AEASA) Conference, Cape town, south Africa, 19-23 September, 2010, pp. 9-15. |
| [27] | Agona, B. and Muyinza, J. (2005). An overview of maize in Uganda-Postharvest Program. NARO Uganda, pp. 5–9. |
| [28] | Mugisha, J. and Diiro, G. (2010). Explaining the adoption of improved maize varieties and its effects on yields among Smallholder Maize Farmers in Eastern and Central Uganda. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 5 (1): 6–8. |
| [29] | Ohajianya, D. andOnwerem, V. (2012). Farm size and technical efficiency of rice farmers in Imo State, Nigeria. Greener Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 3 (2): 128–132. |
| [30] | Derbatin, D. (2012). Agricultural production economics (Second Edition). Upper Saddle River-USA: Pearson Education Corporate Editorial Offices, pp. 172. |
| [31] | Gujarati (2004). Basic econometrics (Fourth Edition). New Jersay: The MacGraw-Hill Companies, pp. 670–680. |
| [32] | Hussein, S. and Katara, S. (2015). Determinants of farmers’ adoption of improved maize varieties in Wa Municipality. Department of Statistics, Faculty of Mathematics Sciences, University of Development Studies Navrongo, Ghana, pp. 1-9. |
| [33] | UBOS (Uganda Bureau of Statistics) (2013). Statistical Abstract 2013. www.ubos.org., pp. v–ix. Accessed on March 20, 2014. |
| [34] | MAAIF (Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries) (2011). Statistical Abstract. Agricultural Planning Department, www.agriculture.go.ug. pp. 14–20. Accessed on March 12th 2014. |
| [35] | NAADS (National Agricultural Advisory Services) (2012). Enterprise selection in Kabarole District. (Unpublished, NAADS information guide). pp. 2-4. |
| [36] | Holden, S. (2009). Input subsidies, factor productivity and land use intensification; Norwegian University of life Sciences, pp. 7-8. |
| [37] | Gianessi, L. and Williams, A. (2011). Overlooking the obvious: The opportunity for herbicides in Africa. Outlooks on Pest management, 1: 1–5. |
