Impact Assessment of Improved Wheat Production Package in Sudan

Transcription

1 NAF International Working Paper Series Year 2014 paper n. 14/6 Impact Assessment of Improved Wheat Production Package in Sudan Hanan Suliman Mohamed and Samar Abdalla Agricultural Research Corporation (ARC) Agricultural Economics and Policy Research Centre (AEPRC) Shambat, Sudan The online version of this article can be found at: 1

2 Scientific Board Maria Sassi (Editor) - University of Pavia Johann Kirsten (Co-editor)- University of Pretoria Gero Carletto - The World Bank Piero Conforti - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Marco Cavalcante - United Nations World Food Programme Luc de Haese - Gent University Stefano Farolfi - Cirad - Joint Research Unit G-Eau University of Pretoria Ilaria Firmian -IFAD Mohamed Babekir Elgali University of Gezira Luca Mantovan Dire Dawa University Firmino G. Mucavele - Universidade Eduardo Mondlane Michele Nardella - International Cocoa Organization Nick Vink - University of Stellenbosch Alessandro Zanotta - Delegation of the European Commission to Zambia Sassi Maria ed. Pavia -IT naf@eco.unipv.it ISBN

3 Impact Assessment of Improved Wheat Production Package in Sudan Hanan Suliman Mohamed 1 and Samar Abdalla 2 Agricultural Research Corporation (ARC), Agricultural Economics and Policy Research Centre (AEPRC), Shambat, Sudan Abstract This paper aims to assess the adoption rate of improved wheat production technological package in the River Nile State, Sudan. It also seeks to investigate the partial budget analysis between adopters and non- adopters of wheat technological package. A random sample of about 208 wheat farmers was selected from three locations in the River Nile State namely: Al Aliab, Al Zeidab and Shandi. The primary data using structured questionnaire was conducted to collect the data and information's about the technological package from the wheat farmers. The results showed the adoption rate of wheat technological package was about 53.6%. The results of the partial budget analysis revealed that the average total costs for adopters was higher than that of non-adopters by 11% and the marginal rate of return (MRR) was about 529%. Therefore, the paper recommends providing the inputs for the wheat farmers at low market prices. Moreover, solving the problems of water irrigation and make it available in a suitable time and reasonable cost for the farmers. Finally, the paper also suggests to encourage and help the wheat farmers to adopt the improve wheat technological package through the field days and demonstration trials. Keywords: Wheat, adoption rate, technological package, partial budget analysis, Sudan 1. Introduction Wheat crop is grown in Sudan in different locations particularly; Northern State, River Nile State, Jabel Mara and Gizera Scheme. In the Nile River State, wheat used to be high profitable crop for the farmers. The most important varieties have been grown in the River Nile State namely; wadielneil, Giza 168, condor, Emam, and El Nileen (Elsir, 2004). The technological package of improved wheat production package and practices is comprised of: improved varieties, good land preparation and leveling, sowing date (during the first three weeks of November), irrigation interval every 15 days during vegetation phase and 10 days during reproductive phase with a total a mount of 8 irrigations, fertilizers rate of about 86 kg N/ha and 1 Corresponding Author Arafaomer787@yahoo.com 3

4 43kg P 2 O 5 /ha. Fertilizers is conducted in two split applications (pre-emergence application and after the head formation). This technological package was proved to be superior to the traditional farmer's practices as reflected in high productivity and high marginal rate of return as argued by Elsir, (2004). Therefore, the main adoption indicators are; adoption rate, degree of adoption, intensity of adoption. The adoption rate is representing by the percentage numbers of the farmers adopting the technology under the consideration. The degree of adoption is measured by the proportion of land under the new crop cultivar. Alternatively, the intensity of adoption represents the quantity of the modern inputs that applied by farmers in specific locality (Shideed, 2004). In the past decades the food consumption for the majority of the inhabitants in Sudan was based mainly on sorghum however; the consumption of wheat was very low. Overtime, wheat consumption has been increased considerably due to urbanizations, migration from rural to urban area and raising the number of population, while wheat yields remained significantly low. The average wheat yield is generally low and it's affected by many production and environmental factors. These factors are including; weather, cultivar, sowing date, crop establishment practice, crop nutrition, irrigation, harvesting practices and biological practices. The short season of wheat growing ( days) and the excessively high temperatures at early and late crop growth stage have been greatly contributed to the low wheat production. Besides the biotic stresses, wheat is attacked by a number of insect pests. Wheat production is also affected by the limited availability of inputs and high production costs (Faki et al, 1996) Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to assess the adoption rate and the degree of adoption of the improved wheat production technologies among the wheat farmers in the selected locations in the River Nile State, as well as to investigate the partial budget analysis between adopters and non adopters of wheat production technological package. 2. Research Methodology The River Nile State is allocated between latitudes 16 and 22 N and longitudes 32 and 36 E. The State contains four localities namely; Abu Hamd, El Damer, Shandi and El Matama. The total area of the State was estimated to be about 124,000 km 2 which is equivalent to approximately 29, 050,000 feddan. About 3.5 million feddan are arable land for agriculture (El Sheikh, 2006). The population in the State was estimated to be about 781,583 inhabitants according to the census in Stratified random sampling was conducted to select the wheat farmers from the selected locations in the River Nile State. A random sample of about 208 farmers was selected from 4

5 three locations namely: Al Aliab, Al Zeidab and Shandi. Thus, approximately, 145, 55 and 8 wheat farmers where nominated from Al Aliab, Al Zeidab Scheme and Shandi, respectively. Based on the participation in the technology transfer projects for both IFAD and ICARDA, the sample size was further divided in two groups'; participants and non-participants farmers. Accordingly, the sample was comprised of four farmers groups these are: 1. Participants on demonstration fields under IFAD project (17 farmers), 2. Participants in field days under IFAD project (26 farmers), 3. Participants in ICARDA project (20 farmers), 4. Non-participant (neighbors) reference farmers (145 farmers). The primary data, using a formal survey was conducted through the structured questionnaire. The questionnaire was collected during August in season 2004/05. (The questionnaire was designed by ICARDA). The questionnaire was tried to cover all the aspects of wheat production in the River Nile State. The questionnaire was included the socioeconomics characteristics of farmers, farmers' knowledge and attitudes towards the recommended technological package, crop outputs, crop input, costs of production, input and output prices, as well as family and hired labors, and financial sources. The descriptive statistics and partial budget analysis were used to analyze the data. The descriptive statistics using frequencies and percentages was used to examine the adoption rate of wheat technological production package as well as the degree of adoption among the wheat farmers. The partial budget analysis was applied to calculate the average variable costs, the cost that vary, the total average costs, gross return (GR), net return (NR), benefit costs ratio (B/C) for both adopters and non-adopters as well as the marginal rate of return (MRR) between adopters and non-adopters. Total costs that vary (TCTV) include the costs of the technological package such as seeds, fertilizer, weeding control and irrigation. The marginal rate of return (MRR) is determined as the percentage value of extra net benefits to extra cost that vary due to technology use, in other way around the marginal rate of return is the profitability indicator which reflects the returns due to the investment in the technology. 3. Results and Discussion Adoption Rate of Wheat Production Practices The indicators for technology adoption were examined in many seasons by tracing the reaction of farmers who are participating in the on-farm trials to the improved technology. The participant's farmers include farmers that hosted on demonstrations of the technology under 5

6 consideration. The non-participants (referenced farmers) these farmers did not host any technology demonstration or attend any field days. The classification of the farmers into adopters and non-adopters categories depends mainly on the adoption of the main components of technological packages. Table 1 shows the adoption rate of different component of wheat technological package in season 2004/05 in the River Nile State, Sudan. From the table it was shown that some of the non-participant farmers are also adopted the components of wheat technological package with different rate of adoption. This is because of the spillover in the effect of the technologies and the past experiences of the farmers with project activities in the study area. The table also 1 revealed that the wheat farmers have knowledge about improved wheat varieties. Thus, about more than half of wheat farmers (57.5%) were adopted the improved varieties. On the other hand 42.3% of wheat farmers are non-adopters for the improved varieties of wheat. The non-adopters farmers cited the reason for not adopting the improved varieties is high cost of wheat cultivars in the market. According to research recommendation, the first half of November is the recommended date for sowing wheat, approximately 88% of wheat farmers adopted the sowing date in the suitable time whereas, 12% of them did not adopting the optimal sowing date. The farmers that did not adopting the optimal sowing date reported that the unavailability of seed was the main reason for them. This result is coincide with Elsir (2004), he mentioned that about 88% of the wheat farmers in the River Nile State are sowing wheat crop during the recommended time, while 12% of them are sowing wheat during December, and they mentioned many reasons behind the delaying the sowing time among them; engagement in cultivation of other crops such as Faba bean, vegetables and species during November, reduce the risk of birds attack at the milky stage if they grow wheat earlier, delay the time of land preparation and shortage of finance as well. The table also shows that 39% of sampled farmers followed recommended number of irrigation and 61% of wheat farmers are non-adopters for the recommended number of irrigations. The wheat farmers mentioned that they have problems with irrigation because of the high costs of fuel and electricity. About 75% of wheat farmers are adopted the irrigation interval. Elsir and Abdalla (2003) were discussed the knowledge of the wheat farmers about the importance of the irrigation regime in the enhancing wheat productivity. They found that about 40% of the farmers followed the recommended number of irrigations, and they reported that the unavailability of water due to the lack of electricity and fuel was the main causes for non-adoption of the recommended number of irrigations. Additionally, about 77% of the sampled farmers are adopted the recommended dose of Nitrogen fertilizer and 25% of wheat farmers were not adopted the recommended dose of 6

7 fertilizers. The non-adopters who are used less than the recommended dose of Nitrogen fertilizer, they cited that the fertilizer is not available in the market and it has high costs. The non-adopters of fertilizers who are applied more than the recommended dose, they think this is the best for crop production. Elsir, (2003) reported that most of the wheat farmers depended mainly on their personal skills in the application of fertilizer doses. Table 1: Adoption Rate of Wheat Technological Packages in the River Nile State, Sudan, 2004/05 Wheat technological package component Participants adopters % (n=63) Non-participants non-adopters% (n=145) Improved varieties Sowing date Weeding control Pest control Number of Irrigations Irrigation interval Urea fertilizer Remark: Number of observation 108 wheat farmers Source: Field survey, 2005 The total area cultivated by the improved varieties in season 2004/05 was about Feddan 2, and the total cultivated area in season 2004/05 was about Feddan. Thus, the degree of adoption is equal to: Total area cultivated by improved variety / Total cultivated area by wheat 100 = 213.4/ = 53.6%... (1) About 54% of the wheat farmers are adopted the technological packages in the River Nile State, however; this percentage is seemed to be very low since most of the farmers have well knowledge about the technological package. The wheat farmers cited many reasons for not adopting the wheat technological package among them; high costs of improved seed varieties as well as unavailability of the water for irrigation in the suitable time. Partial Budget Analysis Results Table 2 exposed the partial budget results of wheat production package for adopters and nonadopters in the River Nile State during season 2004/05.The gross return (benefit) (GR) is calculated by multiplying the farm gate price of the crop by the crop yield. The total cost that vary (TCTV) is calculated by multiplying the quantities of inputs (package) such as seeds, 2 one Feddan (Fed) is equivalent to about 0.42 hectare 7

8 fertilizer and irrigation or practices such as weed control by its price unit, which is always different between adopters and non-adopters. The total average costs (TAVC) consists of the costs that vary (CTV) and other variable costs of wheat production, which include the cost of sowing, cost of fertilizer process, harvesting cost and the cost of empty sack. The net return (benefit) (NR) is calculated by subtracting the total or gross returns minus the total variable costs. The difference in the net return between adopters and non-adopters indicates the net monetary return that resulting from using the new technology. The general mathematics expression for the partial budget indicators are presented below: * Total average costs (TAC) =Total cost that vary + total average variable cost * Gross Return (GR) = Average price * Average yield. * Net Benefit = Gross return (GR) - total average costs (TAC) * Benefit cost ratio (B/C) = Gross return/ total average costs (TAC) The costs that vary include the cost of land preparation, seed varieties, fertilizers, irrigation, weeding and pesticides. From table 2, all component of the cost that varies are higher for adopters relative to non-adopters except the cost of fertilizers. The cost of fertilizer was higher for non-adopters ( SD/fed) compared to adopters ( SD/fed). Thus, the difference in the cost of fertilizers between adopters and non-adopters was negative ( SD) as illustrated in table 2. The reason for that the non-adopters farmers may apply additional amount of fertilizer dose (more than the recommendation) in order to obtain higher yield. The total costs that vary (TCTV) for adopters ( SD) are much higher than that of non-adopters ( SD). In view of that, the difference in the total cost that varies between adopters and non-adopters was about SD/Fed. The higher difference in the total cost that vary between adopters and non-adopters are due to use of the technological package. The total variable costs were higher for the adopters of wheat technological package 16835SD/Fed than the nonadopters. Thus, the difference in the total variable costs between adopters and non-adopters was about 3817SD/Fed. The total average variable costs for non-adopters were about SD/Fed, which was low in compared to the adopter's. This is mainly due to the different in sowing, fertilizers and harvesting process between adopters and non-adopters. The total average costs for adopters were about SD/Fed. Thus, the difference between adopters and non-adopters in the total 8

9 average costs was equal to SD/Fed. In view of that the percentage increase in the total average costs can be calculated as fallows: Difference in the total average costs between adopters and non-adopters/ Total average costs of non-adopters 100 = ( )/ =11%... (2) The percentage increase in the total average costs is about 11%, this predominantly due the use of technologies package by adopters (participants) which incurred additional costs for adopters in compare to non adopters. The adopters farmers are used mostly the modern farming practices (improved technological package) to increase their yield, while the non-adopters used the local varieties and traditional farming practices. Elsir (2004) reported that the technological package that farmers applied are incurred 45% additional costs than the traditional practices. Moreover, Abdalla (2006) mentioned that the increase in the total average costs for adopters due to apply the new technology was about 20% more than that of non-adopters in Al Zeidab scheme. The adopters of wheat technological package was gained higher yield of about 970 kg/fed in compared to non-adopters. The higher yield indicates the advantage of using the technology by adopter's farmers. The average wheat price in season 2004/05 was about 93SD/kg as shown in table 2. The gross return (GR) for adopters was equal to SD/Fed, while the gross return for nonadopters was about SD/Fed as shown in the table 2. However, the difference in the gross return between adopters and non-adopters was about 11520SD/Fed. This means that the adopters were gained higher returns because of their higher yield as a result of using the technological package. The net return (benefit) (NR) for adopters was about SD/Fed, while the net return (benefits) for non-adopters was approximately SD/Fed. The difference in the net return between adopters and non-adopters was SD/Fed. The higher net return for adopters is due to the used of the modern farming practices. This represents the important of the economic indicator of the technology advantages. Furthermore, the benefit cost ratio (B/C) was higher for adopters (1.8) in compared to the non-adopters (1.7) as shown in table 2. In partial budget analysis, it is assumed that is useful and important for the farmers to consider the marginal costs and benefits associated with using the new technology (CIMMYT, 1988). Therefore, the estimation of the marginal rate of return (MRR) can be calculated as fallows: 9

10 MRR (%) = the change in net return (benefit) (NR)/ the change in total costs that vary (TCTV) 100 The marginal rate of return between adopters and non-adopters was approximately 529% as shown in table 2. This means for every 1.00 SD invested in the technological package of wheat production, the adopter's farmers can expect to recover the 1.00 SD, and to obtain an additional return of about 529 SD. In the study of adoption by Elsir (2004), he found that marginal rate of return (MRR) between adopters and non-adopters was about 181%. Moreover, Abdalla (2006) was found that the marginal rate of return (MRR) between adopters and non-adopters was approximately 615% in Al Zeidab scheme. This reflects the high profitability of technological package that accrued to the adopters as result of using the new innovations. Table 2: Partial Budget Analysis for Adopters and Non-adopters of Improved Wheat Technological Package in the River Nile State, Sudan, Season 2004/05 Costs item Average of Adopters Average for Non-Adopters Difference between adopters and nonadopter's 1. Costs that vary (CTV) Land preparation (SD) Seed varieties (SD) Fertilizers (SD) Irrigation (SD) Weeding (SD) Pesticides (SD) Total cost that vary (TCTV) Other variable costs Sowing process Fertilizer process Harvesting Empty sacks Total variable costs (TVC) Total average costs (TAC) Average yield kg/fed Average price SD/kg Gross return (benefits) (GR) Net return (NR) Benefit cost ratio (B/C) Marginal rate of return (MRR) 529% Source: Authors calculation from field survey data, Conclusion and recommendations Adoption rate of the technological package components in the River Nile State was low. The reason for that are the high costs of wheat technological package. However, the farmers are 10

11 aware and they have knowledge about the wheat technological package. The majority of wheat farmers were adopted the sowing date and farmers who did not adopting the sowing in the optimum time reported that unavailability of seeds was the main reason for them. Adopters of wheat technological packages obtain high yields, high gross return, higher net return and high marginal rate of return compared to the non-adopters. However, the total average costs were higher for adopters of wheat technological package compared to the non-adopters due to the application of the modern technological practices. Accordingly, this paper recommends the good links between institution research, extension services, agricultural policy institutions and farmers. The government should have to supply the farm inputs to the farmers at low market prices. Solving the problems of water irrigation and make it available in the suitable time and reasonable costs, this can be conducted through supply of electricity and fuel. Finally, encourage and help the wheat farmers to adopt the wheat technological package through field days and demonstration trails. References 1. Elsir, Abass (2004). "Monitoring and evaluating improved Wheat production Technologies in Northern Sudan". ARC Annual National Coordination Meeting, ARC, NVRP, Wad Madani, Sudan. 2. Elsir, Abass and Abdalla, I.F, (2003). "Monitoring and evaluating improved Wheat production Technologies in the Northern Sudan". ARC Annual National Coordination Meeting, ARC, NVRP, Wad Madani, Sudan. 3. Faki, H. M., Ageeb, O. A, Elahmadi, A. B., Solh, M. B., Saxena, M. C. (1996). Production Situation and Economic Aspect. Edited in "Wheat Production and Improvement in the Sudan", ARC, ICARDA and DGIS, Aleppo, Syria Abdalla, Samar, (2006). Assessment of Adoption of Improved Wheat Technology in River Nile State in the Sudan: Case study of Al Zeidab Scheme". Unpublished Ms.c. Thesis, University of Khartoum, Sudan. 5. Shideed, K. H., and Elmourid, (2004). "Monitoring adoption and Impact Assessment", Mashreg / Maghreb project, ICARDA (2004) 6. CIMMYT, (1993). The adoption of Agricultural Technology; A Guide for survey design. Mexico, Cited in Abdalla, Samar (2006). Assessment of Adoption of Improved Wheat Technology in Alzidab Scheme". Unpublished Ms.c. Thesis, University of Khartoum, Sudan. 11

12 7. El sheikh, Awatif Faki. Saeed, (2006). The Economic Production of Faba been in the River Nile State: the Case Study Shendi Area. Unpublished Ms.c. Thesis, August, 2006 University of Khartoum, Sudan (In Arabic). 12