Willingness to Pay for Biofertilizers among Grain Legume Farmers in Northern Ghana

Transcription

1 Journal of Scentfc Research & Reports 19(1): 1-13, 2018; Artcle no.jsrr ISSN: Wllngness to Pay for Bofertlzers among Gran Legume Farmers n Northern Ghana Margaret Banka 1*, Robert Adoo 1, Robert Clement Abadoo 2, Smon Charles Falor 1 and Cargele Masso 3 1 Department of Agrcultural Economcs, Agrbusness and Extenson, Kwame Nkrumah Unversty of Scence and Technology, Kumas, Ghana. 2 Department of Appled and Theoretcal Bology, Kwame Nkrumah Unversty of Scence and Technology, Kumas, Ghana. 3 Internatonal Insttute of Tropcal Agrculture (IITA), Narob, Kenya. Authors contrbutons Ths work was carred out n collaboraton between all authors. All authors read and approved the fnal manuscrpt. Artcle Informaton DOI: /JSRR/2018/40457 Edtor(s): (1) Leslaw Juszczak, Professor, Unversty of Agrculture n Krakow, Poland. Revewers: (1) Zahoor Ahmad Shah, Sher-e-Kashmr Unversty of Agrcultural Scences & Technology of Kashmr, Inda. (2) Sergey A. Surkov, Internatonal Insttute of Management LINK, Russa. (3) Lous Stsofe Hodey, Insttute of Statstcal, Unversty of Ghana, Ghana. Complete Peer revew Hstory: Orgnal Research Artcle Receved 7 th February 2018 Accepted 16 th Aprl 2018 Publshed 27 th Aprl 2018 ABSTRACT Background: The call for use of mproved Sol Fertlty Management (SFM) technologes s a prerequste to ncrease agrcultural productvty among farmers. Ths study assessed farmers wllngness to pay (WTP) for selected fnancally rewardng bofertlzer technologes/packages for legume producton n northern Ghana. Prmary data was elcted from 400 gran legume farmers selected from Northern and Upper West Regons of Ghana through a smple random samplng technque. The double bounded dchotomous choce (DBDC) format of contngent valuaton approach was employed to elct wllngness to pay values and determnants of farmers WTP was evaluated usng the maxmum lkelhood estmaton procedure. Results: The results showed that about 60%, 25% and 46% of soya, cowpea and groundnuts farmers were wllng to pay for the selected bofertlzers (Bofx, BR3267 and Legumefx respectvely) at prces not exceedng GHC 14.00, GHC and GHC per 0.2kg of the *Correspondng author: E-mal: peggybanka@hotmal.com;

2 respectve bofertlzers. Legume farmers n Northern Regon were however wllng to pay hgher for the three bofertlzer technologes as compared to ther counterparts n Upper West Regon. For 0.2 kg each of Bofx, BR3267 and Legumefx, farmers n Northern Regon were wllng to pay approxmately GHC 17.00, GHC and GHC respectvely whereas those n Upper West Regon were wllng to pay GHC 14.00, GHC 9.00 and GHC for the same quantty of each bofertlzer. The study dentfed farmng experence, FBO membershp, awareness and prevous use of bofertlzers as sgnfcant determnants of farmers wllngness to pay for Bofertlzers. Concluson: Comparatvely, mean prces farmers are wllng to pay for these three technologes are below ex-factory prces, hence subsdzng the cost of producton of these bofertlzers n the ntal stages would be relevant for mprovng farmers uptake of these fertlzers. Sustaned awareness creaton through perodc educaton and senstzaton by usng FBOs as leverage ponts s also hghly recommended to mprove farmers understandng of the concept of bofertlzer use. Keywords: Wllngness to pay (WTP); bofertlzers; gran legume; sol fertlty management. 1. INTRODUCTION The mportant role gran legumes play n the Ghanaan economy cannot be understated. Despte ther mmense contrbuton to household ncome, food securty, and general lvelhoods, the ncdence of low crop productvty contnues to be a challenge facng gran legume farmers n Ghana. Sols n SSA (ncludng Ghana) are usually low n ntrogen and phosphorous (the most lmtng plant nutrents) and ths gves rse to low yelds. These low yelds are partcularly pronounced n gran legumes where yelds have been reported to be below the achevable rate (0.7 ton/ha as aganst 3 tons/ha), thereby presentng a wde yeld gap [1]. Low cost and sustanable solutons compatble wth the socoeconomc condtons of smallholder farmers are therefore needed to solve these sol fertlty problems leadng to poor yelds of gran legumes. A recognzed approach by sol scentsts and agronomsts to dealng wth sol health and fertlty problems of smallholder farmers s the ntroducton of cost effectve and yeld rewardng sol fertlty management technologes such as bofertlzers, organc fertlzers and an ntegrated approach [.e. Integrated Sol Fertlty Management (ISFM)]. Adopton of bofertlzers n sol fertlty management s ganng promnence due to recent nterest n sustanable agrculture. Bofertlzers are preparatons contanng lvng cells or latent cells of effcent strans of mcroorgansms that help crop plants to take up nutrents by ther nteractons n the rhzosphere when appled through seed or sol [2]. Ther presence accelerates mcrobal processes that make sol nutrents readly avalable and easly assmlated by crops. Bofertlzers are consdered to be an mportant component of ntegrated sol nutrent management, as they are cost effectve and renewable source of plant nutrents that can supplement nutrents from other source (e.g. chemcal fertlzers) n sustanable agrcultural producton systems. Despte the expected postve mpact of bofertlzer adopton on yeld and the envronment, farmers decson and wllngness to nvest n bofertlzers wll be condtoned by several factors. For nstance, the level of awareness about bofertlzers, farmers socoeconomc stuaton such as educatonal level and ncome, access to extenson servces and agronput shops as well as farm sze and farmng experence, are expected to affect ther perceptons about bofertlzers and ther wllngness to pay for them. Currently, there s lmted emprcal nformaton on farmers wllngness to pay for bofertlzers and the key factors that determne how much they are wllng to pay for a unt of these bofertlzers n Ghana. Therefore, the purpose of ths paper was to evaluate farmers wllngness to pay for bofertlzers and examne the key determnants of wllngness to pay among gran legume farmers n northern Ghana. The man objectves addressed n the paper were to estmate farmers mean wllngness to pay for selected bofertlzers; and examne the key determnants of farmers wllngness to pay for bofertlzers. Results of the study are expected to gude stakeholders n formulatng strateges to promote the demand for and use of bofertlzers among gran legume farmers n Ghana when the products are made readly avalable on the market. 2

3 2. BIOFERTILIZERS IN SOIL FERTILITY MANAGEMENT AND DETERMINANTS OF WILLINGNESS TO PAY (WTP) As a form of organc/bologcal product, bofertlzers are sad to be comprsed of specfc mcroorgansms n concentrated forms whch, when appled to seed or sol, colonze plant roots thus promotng growth through ncrease n supply of prmary nutrents to the host plant [3,4,5]. They have been recognzed as mcrobal noculants artfcally multpled to mprove sol fertlty and crop productvty and have been nternatonally accepted as effcent and economcal alternatves to mneral-n fertlzer due to the need for less captal nput assocated wth ther use [6,7,8]. As low cost, renewable sources of plant nutrents, bofertlzers are sad to be the answer to the nherently nutrent-defcent sub-saharan agraran sols that are mostly Ntrogen and Phosphorus defcent; and ths bols down to ther ablty to generate these essental nutrents through ther bologcal actvty n the rhzosphere [9,10].Whle some studes vew bofertlzers as potental supplements/complements to chemcal fertlzers, meanng they cannot act as standalone n plant nutrent management [11,12], other studes dentfy them as safe alternatves or substtutes to mneral fertlzers [13,14,15,16]. Reports from prevous studes [17,18] reveal that, usng the bofertlzer technology for gran legumes to nduce Bologcal Ntrogen Fxaton (BNF) does not only beneft legume producton, but t also benefts subsequent cereal crops planted n rotaton on the same felds. Bofertlzers can therefore be sad to have a long-term effect on mantanng sol fertlty as well as ensurng sustanable agrculture through the buldup of sol ntrogen and other essental mcrobal organsms for use by other non-legumnous crops. Notwthstandng ther role as a fnancally effcent approach n addressng sol fertlty concerns, demand for bofertlzers (noculants) n SSA has been rather mnmal [19]. 3. STUDY AREA, MATERIALS AND METHODS 3.1 Study Area The study was conducted n the Upper West and Northern Regons of Ghana. These regons where selected manly because they have been tral stes n Ghana for sol fertlty management projects such as N2 Afrca and IITA COMPRO II projects whch focused on bologcal ntrogen fxaton and ISFM technologes for legume producton respectvely. These two regons are also part of the breadbasket regons of Ghana where gran legume producton (soybean, cowpea and groundnut) s also predomnant. Table 1 provdes producton statstcs of the major gran legumes produced n two target regons. Soco-economc data was obtaned through a feld survey of gran legume farmers n the target regons. Data on general characterstcs of households, gran legume producton actvtes, nput usage and farmers wllngness to pay decsons were elcted from farmers. A combnaton of both purposve and smple random samplng methods was used n drawng samples at varous levels. Two dstrcts were selected purposvely from both Northern Regon (Karaga and Savelugu dstrcts) and Upper West Regon (Wa West and Nadowl dstrcts) due to prevous SFM project actvtes n these dstrcts. Fve (5) communtes were randomly selected from each dstrct and 20 legume farmers were randomly selected from each of the communtes based on a prepared lst. Hence, a total sample sze of 400 gran legume farmers was selected for the study. Structured questonnares were employed to conduct personal ntervews. To elct relevant nformaton to assess farmers wllngness to pay, a choce card consstng of relevant nformaton on selected bofertlzers was desgned and presented to farmers. Table 1. Producton statstcs on major gran legumes n the study regons Legumes Northern regon Upper west regon Area (Ha) Producton (Mt) Area (Ha) Producton (Mt) Soybean 60, ,656 15,630 17,736 Groundnut 130, , , ,265 Cowpea 62, ,720 75,956 84,996 Source: Statstcs, Research and Info. Drectorate (SRID), MoFA, (2012) 3

4 3.2 Analytcal Framework for Wllngness to Pay Three man bofertlzers were presented to farmers. These ncluded Bofx, BR3267 and Legumefx for soya, cowpea and groundnut producton respectvely. Farmers wllngness to pay for these bofertlzers was evaluated by employng the contngent valuaton approach whch has been recognzed as one of the best means of valung goods whch are not already on the markets [20,21]. Farmers were presented wth hypothetcal scenaros dependent on smulated values. Among the exstng approaches of evaluatng WTP usng contngent evaluaton, the Double-Bounded Dchotomous Choce Format was used. The double bounded dchotomous choce format presents follow-up questons that provde more effectve bnary responses than the sngle bounded method. Addng a follow-up bd substantally mproves statstcal nformaton provded by the data [22]. Double-bounded dchotomous choce format, presents respondents wth a follow-up bd offer after an ntal frst bd s ntroduced. Respondents are asked f they would accept or reject the frst bd (B) and based on ther answer, a second bd whch may be hgher (B u f yes to frst bd) or lower (B d f no to frst bd) s presented. Ths format therefore has four possble outcomes: yes:yes, yes:no, no:yes and no:no as shown n Table 3. Farmers refusal to pay for the ndvdual bofertlzers at the ntal prces as well as ther assocated lower bds represented a No:No response; ther refusal but however acceptance of the lower bd represented a No:Yes response; ther acceptance of the proposed frst bd but rejecton of the assocated hgher bd denoted a Yes:No response and ther acceptance of both frst and hgher bds denoted a Yes:Yes response. Table 2 provdes a summary of Bds generated for the double-bounded choce format for the three bofertlzers. Table 2. Proposed bd prces (GHC) for the selected bofertlzers Bofertlzer Bd 1 Hgher Bd Lower Bd Bofx BR Legumefx Source: Generated from IITA fgures Table 3 below presents the defnton and measurements of bd levels and ther expected responses The Log-lkelhood functon for the responses, followng [22] s gven as; lnl D θ N ( ) = d yy lnπ yy u B B =1 Where: B B st =1 u nd d B = 2 = 2 bd (f response s yes) nd bd (f response s yes) bd (f response s no) d yy, d yn, d ny, d nndenote responses to yes:yes, yes:no, no:yes and no:no respectvely yy yn ny nn π,π,π,π represent probablty of obtanng a yes:yes, yes:no, no:yes, and no:no respectvely. To estmate the double bound model, the followng nformaton s necessary; Let t 1 and t 2 represent the 1 st and 2 nd bds respectvely. An ndvdual farmer rejectng both ntal and lower bd mples 0<WTP < t 2. If an ndvdual farmer rejectng ntal bd but acceptng the lower bd, then t 2 > t 1 mplyng t 2 WTP t 1 If an ndvdual farmer acceptng the ntal bd but rejectng the hgher bd, then t 2 > t 1 mplyng t 1 WTP<t 2 An ndvdual farmer acceptng both ntal and hgher bds mples t 2 WTP< We defne Y 1 and Y 2 as dchotomous varables representng responses to the frst and second questons; and under the assumptons that; and Therefore, the probablty of each of the three scenaros above occurrng s gven as; 1. Y 1 =1 and Y 2 =0 Pr(y,n) ( )+d yn lnπ yn u ( B B )+d ny lnπ ny u ( B B ) +d nn lnπ nn u { ( B B )} WTP (z, µ )=z β + µ µ N(0,σ2 ) =Pr(t 1 WTP <t 2 ) =Pr(t 1 z β + µ <t 2 ) =Pr t1 z β µ z β σ σ <t2 σ 4

5 Hence usng symmetry of the normal dstrbuton, we have Pr(y,n) = Φ z β σ t1 σ Φ z β σ t2 σ 2. Y 1 =1 and Y 2 =1 Pr(y,y) By symmetry, we have; Pr(y,y) 3. Y 1 =0 and Y 2 =1 Pr(n,y) Pr(n,y) 4. Y 1 =0 and Y 2 = 0 Pr(n,n) Pr(n,n) Where; = Φ t2 z β σ Φ t1 z β σ =Pr(WTP >t 1,WTP t 2 ) =Pr( z β + µ >t 1,z β + µ t 2 ) = Φ z β σ t2 σ =Pr(t 2 WTP <t 1 ) =Pr(t 2 z β + µ <t 1 ) =Pr t2 z β µ z β σ σ <t1 σ = Φ t1 z β σ Φ t2 z β σ = Φ z β σ t2 σ Φ z β σ t1 σ =Pr(WTP <t 1,WTP <t 2 ) =Pr( z β + µ <t 1,z β + µ <t 2 ) =Pr(z β + µ <t 2 ) = Φ t2 z β σ =1 Φ z β σ t2 σ β s a vector of parameters t s the proposed bd amounts z s a vector of explanatory varables Φ(x) s the standard cumulatve normal β/σ s the vector of coeffcents assocated to each one of the explanatory varables µ s an error term Farmers wllngness to pay for the selected bofertlzers for ther legume producton after generatng the relevant varables above was hence specfed as: WTP = β o +B 1 GEN β 2 AGE + β 3 YEDU + β 4 YEXP β 5 TFL+ β 6 FBO β 7 DsEXT β 8 DsAgro+ β 9 AmtC + β 10 FInc β 11 OffINC + β 12 awbio + β 13 usebio + ε Where; (1) WTP represents farmers wllngness to pay for the selected th bofertlzer (.e. ether Bofx, Legumefx or BR3267) denotes the error term. ε The maxmum lkelhood approach whch s an estmaton procedure for obtanng estmates for β and σ by constructng a log-lkelhood functon was used to estmate the WTP equatons. Ths procedure generates the choce probabltes by maxmzng the log-lkelhood functon for the four dscrete outcomes [22,23]. 3.3 Determnants of Wllngness to Pay A number of factors have been dentfed n lterature to nfluence farmers WTP for mproved agrcultural technologes [24,25,26,27]. A study by [28] dentfed factors such as gender, age, educaton, farm sze, access to credt, FBO membershp among others as lkely determnants of farmers wllngness to pay for agrcultural technologes n general. In a study to assess farmers WTP for mproved sol conservaton practces n Ethopa, [29] dentfed gender, educaton level, ncome and lvestock ownershp of household head as statstcally sgnfcant determnants of WTP. A jont estmaton of farmers WTP for agrcultural servces by [25] n Uganda classfed farmers wth access to nformaton and extenson servces as less wllng to pay for nformaton servce. Dstance was also found to mpede farmers WTP whle agrcultural ncome and land ownershp sgnfcantly nfluenced farmers WTP for agrcultural nformaton servces. Table 4 provdes a descrpton of the varables used n the WTP model. 5

6 Table 3. Descrpton of varables used n generatng bds Varable Descrpton Measurement of values Bd 1 Intal amount (bd) n GHC 1 f yes and 0 otherwse Bd h Hgher amount (bd) n GHC 1 f yes and 0 otherwse Bd l Lower amount (bd) n GHC 1 f yes and 0 otherwse Nn Rejecton of ntal and lower bd 1 f no,no to WTP questons Ny Rejecton of ntal but acceptance of 1 f no,yes to WTP questons lower bd Yn Acceptance of ntal bd but rejecton of a 1 f yes,no to WTP questons hgher bd Yy Acceptance of both ntal and hgher bd 1 f yes,yes to WTP questons DepVar Dependent varable as (=1 f nn=1, =2 f ny=1, =3 f yn=1 and =4 f yy=1) Response to Bd 1 1 f DepVar = 3 or 4 Response to Bd 2 1 f DepVar = 2 or 4 Source: Authors Complaton, Table 4. Descrpton of varables used n WTP analyss Varable Descrpton Values Apror Expectatons Indvdual characterstcs GEN Categorcal varable representng 1 f male and 0 otherwse + the gender of respondent AGE Age of respondent n years Contnuous varable (count) +/- YEDU Number of years of formal Contnuous varable (count) + educaton of respondent YEXP Number of years of farmng experence Contnuous varable (count) + Farm level characterstcs TFL Total farmland n acres allocated to legume crops Contnuous varable (count +/- Insttutonal characterstcs FBO Membershp of a farmer based 1 f yes and 0 otherwse + organzaton AmtC Amount of credt used durng the Contnuous varable (count) + FInc 2015 croppng season Farm ncome as a major source of household ncome 1 f yes and 0 otherwse DsExt Dstance to nearest agrc Contnuous varable (count) - extenson offce n km Offnc Farmer s partcpaton n off farm 1 f yes and 0 otherwse +/- ncome generatng actvtes DsAgro Dstance to nearest agro nput shop n km Contnuous varable (count) - Technology awareness and use awbio Awareness of the use of 1 f yes and 0 otherwse + bofertlzers for legume producton usebio The prevous use of bofertlzer for legume producton 1 f yes and 0 otherwse + A key aspect of contngent valuaton s the determnaton of the mean WTP. The doubleb command of the maxmum lkelhood functon n STATA was employed to drectly estmate the mean WTP for each of the three bofertlzers. 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Wllngness to Pay for Bofertlzers Followng the presentaton of the three bofertlzers to farmers, a bddng game was 6

7 conducted to determne farmers WTP for each of the technologes based on the fgures presented n Table 2 above. Proporton of farmers who responded to dfferent bd fgures are presented n Table 5 and Fg. 1 below. Lesss than 10% of farmers n the pooled sample were wllng to pay for the recommended bofertlzers at ther respectve ntal bd prces. However, when the ntal bds/prces were reduced by 50%, about 50% of legume farmers were wllng to pay for Bofx, 40% were wllng to pay for Legumefx and some 20% were wllng to pay for BR3267. Farmer s wllngness to pay for BR3267 was generally lower for all ts proposed bd prces as compared to Bofx and Legumefx. Ths could be attrbuted to ts hgh cost relatvee to the other bofertlzers. Generally, majorty of farmers are wllng to pay for bofertlzers, but at prces below ther current ex-factory prces (used as ntal bd prces). Ths could result from ther nadequate knowledge about bofertlzers and ther use n legume producton snce t s stll a novel technology to farmers n Ghana. Also farmers n the study area are generally smallholder farmers who are consdered poor and mostly resource and credt constraned. From Fg. 1, t can be deduced that about 60%, 25% and 46% of farmers were wllng to pay for Bofx, BR3267 and Legumefx respectvely at the lower bds of GHC 14.00, GHC and GHC proposed for 0.2kg of each sachet of the bofertlzers. Table 5. Farmers wllngness to pay for bd prces (pooled sample) Bofertlzers Bd 1 Hgh bd Bofx 37(9.3) 16(4.0) BR (5.3) 1(0.3) Legumefx 28(7.0) 15(3.8) Source: Generated from Feld Surve Low bd 200(50) 78(19.5) 158(39.5) ey Data, 2016 On regonal bass as presented n Fgs. 2a & b, the hghest response rate of 54% WTP was recorded at the lower bd of Bofx n the Northern Regon. About 46% of farmers were wllng to pay for Bofx n UWR at the same lower bd prce. Legumefx was second to Bofx n both regons n terms of farmers wllngness to pay responses; about 35% and 43% of farmers were wllng to pay for ts use at the proposed lower bd of GHC All gran legume farmers n Northern Regon rejected the hgher bd of BR3267 (GHC ) and less than 2% accepted t n UWR. 4.2 Determnants of Wllngness to Pay for Bofertlzers Table 6 presents a summary descrpton of varables used n the wllngness to pay (WTP) model estmaton for the selected bofertlzer technologes (Bofx, BR3267 and Legumefx) Proporton of FArmers (%) No:No No:Yes Yes:No Yes:Yes Pooled Sample BIOFIX BR3267 LEGUMEFIX Fg. 1. Responses to proposed bofertlzer bd prces Source: : Generated from Feld Survey Data,

8 Proporton of Farmers (%) No:No No:Yes Yes:No Yes:Yes NR BIOFIX BR3267 LEGUMEFIX Fg. 2a. Responses to proposed bofertlzer bd prces for farmers n NR Source: : Generated from Feld Survey Data, 2016 UWR Yes:Yes Yes:No No:Yes No:No Proporton of Farmers (%) LEGUMEFIX BR3267 BIOFIX Fg. 2b. Responses to proposed bofertlzer bd prces n UWR Source: : Generated from Feld Survey Data, 2016 Table 6. Summary statstcs of varables used n wllngness to pay model Varables BIOFIX Mean (SD) BR3267 Mean (SD) LEGUMEFIX Mean (SD) Bd (0..0) 55.00(0.0) 40.00(0.0) Bd (12.2) 32.31(18.3) 24.20(15.3) WTP 1 (response 1) 0.09(0.3) 0.05(0.2) 0.07(0.3) WTP 2 (response 2) 0.54(0.50) 0.20(0.4) 0.43(0.50) GEN (1=male) 0.64(0.50) AGE (years) 41.67(13.9) YEDU (years) 2.43(4.40) YEXP (years) 20.02(12.6) TFLC (acres) 3.82(3.4) FBO (1=yes) 0.83(0.4) DsEXT (km) 13.77(7..5) DsAgro (km) 8.66(7.1) CRDTamt (GHC) 55.80(112.1) OFFact (1=yes) 0.53(0.5) BIOAW (1=yes) 0.34(0.5) BIOU (1=yes) 0.04(0.2) Note: (SD) donates Standard Devaton Source: Generated from Feld Survey Data,

9 Table 7. Maxmum lkelhood estmatons of determnants of wllngness to pay across the two locatons Categores Varable Northern regon Upper west regon Pooled sample Bofx Br3267 Legumefx Bofx Br3267 Legumefx Bofx Br3267 Legumefx Household characterstcs Constant (3.64) 2.64 (0.26) (2.94) 8.26 (12.24) (-0.83) 7.65 (0.42) (18.24) (-0.92) 9.54 (0.86) Age (-0.93) (-0.56) (-0.84) (-0.36) (-0.38) (-0.38) (-0.74) (-0.71) (-1.14) Gen 2.83 (1.25) (-0.65) 12.31*** (2.97) 0.42 (0.11) 4.52 (0.56) (-0.13) 1.25 (0.62) (-0.56) 7.05** (2.16) Yedu (-0.66) 0.37 (0.73) 0.70* (1.88) (-0.27) 0.03 (0.03) (-0.40) 0.03 (0.15) 0.65 (1.29) 0.06 (0.19) Farm level characterstcs Yexp 0.20* (1.65) 0.60** (2.07) 0.00 (0.00) 0.42* (1.17) 0.73 (1.43) 0.24 (0.61) 0.31** (2.59) 0.87*** (2.84) 0.15 (0.77) Tflc 0.44* (1.89) (-0.91) 2.68 (0.63) 0.53 (0.78) (-0.50) 0.16 (0.14) 0.63** (2.27) (-1.97) 0.08 (0.20) Farmnc (0.85) (0.83) 0.39 (0.03) 4.75 (0.82) 9.57 (0.66) 6.10 (0.65) Insttutonal characterstcs Fbo 5.77*** (3.53) 8.76** (2.05) 0.07 (0.03) 6.02** (1.96) 11.33* (1.71) 1.61 (0.32) 6.07*** (3.60) 9.37** (2.21) 0.35 (0.13) Dsext 0.08 (0.64) 0.08 (0.31) 0.13 (0.62) 0.04 (0.16) 0.15 (0.26) 0.13 (0.32) 0.79 (0.65) 0.28 (0.94) 0.35 (1.72) Dsagro (-0.36) 0.19 (0.59) (-1.15) -0.38* (-1.68) 0.19 (0.40) (-1.28) -0.10* (-0.49) 0.08 (0.27) (-1.61) Crdtamt 0.00 (0.17) 0.00 (0.12) 0.00 (0.27) 0.03* (1.88) 0.00 (0.07) 0.01 (0.38) 0.01 (1.07) 0.04 (2.07) 0.01 (1.00) Offact 0.89 (0.56) 0.16 (0.04) (-0.94) (-0.04) (-0.48) 5.33 (0.94) 2.02 (1.18) 6.22 (1.49) 0.17 (0.06) Technology awareness and use Boaw 0.58 (0.25) 8.16 (1.30) 5.64* (1.40) 7.01** (2.21) 3.00 (0.44) 4.78 (0.93) 3.25** (1.69) 0.93 (0.20) 5.05* (1.83) Bou 4.08 ( ** (2.12) 0.10 (0.01) 3.77 (1.60) (0.83) 6.40 (0.62) 2.89 (0.68) 23.64** (2.56) 7.02 (1.02) Loglkelhood Wald ch 2 (13) 25.75** *** 26.24** *** 30.07*** 21.68* Note: ***, **, * denote sgnfcance at 1, 5 and 10% respectvely; z-values are n parenthess. Source: Authors Complaton,

10 Results of the maxmum lkelhood estmaton of farmers wllngness to pay for selected bofertlzer technologes n the dfferent locatons (NR and UWR) are presented n Table 7. The coeffcents of the male-gender varable and years of formal educaton were postve and statstcally sgnfcant n the Legumefx model for NR. Ths suggests that males are more wllng to pay for Legumefx; thereby supportng the wdely known asserton that males are economcally more endowed than females and wll therefore be more capable of payng for mproved agrcultural technologes, all thngs beng equal. Hence although females have been dentfed to be more nvolved n the cultvaton of gran legumes [30], when t comes to payng for mproved SFM technologes n lne wth ther cultvaton, ther male counterparts are more fnancally capable to afford these technologes as noted by [31]. Also educated farmers are more wllng to pay for ths bofertlzer and ths could be explaned by the advantages of awareness and knowledge that comes wth hgher educaton, ceters parbus. Experence n farmng had a postve and statstcally sgnfcant correlaton wth farmers wllng to pay for Bofx and BR3267 n NR and only Bofx n UWR suggestng farmers wth more years n farmng are more lkely to pay for the use of bofertlzers. Ths conforms wth studes by [32,33] who concluded that farmers wth more years n farmng are more postvely nclned to adoptng and payng for mproved technologes they assume to ncrease ther crop productvty. FBO membershp also showed a postve and statstcally sgnfcant relatonshp wth farmers wllng to pay for Bofx and BR3267 n both locatons. Ths s expected snce FBOs serve as unts where farmers share nformaton and gan nsghts nto ssues pertanng ther producton actvtes. Ths fndng corresponds wth that of [26] and [27]. Table 8. Mean WTP for 0.2 kg of Selected SFM Technologes (GHC) SFM technology NR UWR Pooled sample Bofx BR Legumefx Source: Generated for Feld Data, Amount of credt borrowed for legume producton durng the 2015-croppng season was generally postve for all the WTP parameters n the dfferent locatons but only statstcally sgnfcant for Bofx n UWR. Ths presupposes that farmers who have access to credt n UWR are more lkely and wllng to pay for Bofx. Bofertlzer awareness and prevous use were postve and statstcally sgnfcant determnants of farmers wllngness to pay for Bofx n UWR and BR3267 n NR. Ths fndng mples that farmers awareness of the Bofx technology makes them more nformed about ts potental, therefore ncreasng ther wllngness to pay for ts use. Ths s consstent wth the poston that technology awareness reduces performance uncertantes [34,35]. 4.3 Mean WTP for Selected SFM Technologes As shown n Table 8 for the two locatons (NR and UWR) and pooled sample, the mean WTP for Bofx was about GHC17.00 n NR and GHC n UWR. For BR3267 farmers were wllng to pay GHC per 0.2 kg n NR as aganst GHC 9.00 n UWR. For Legumefx approxmately GHC n NR and GHC n UWR were the average amounts farmers were wllng to pay for 0.2 kg of the fertlze. Though the mean prces devate consderably from the ntal prces proposed (GHC for Bofx, GHC for BR3267 and GHC for Legumefx), comparatvely farmers n NR were more wllng to pay hgher for the bofertlzer technology than ther counterparts n UWR. 5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDA- TION The man objectve of the study was to evaluate farmers wllngness to pay for selected bofertlzers for legume producton and to assess the possble determnants of farmers wllngness to pay for each of them. The double bounded dchotomous choce format of the contngent evaluaton method was employed and the determnants of farmers WTP evaluated usng the maxmum lkelhood approach. The study revealed that about 60%, 25% and 46% of farmers were wllng to pay for Bofx, BR3267 and Legumefx respectvely when the bd prce was not greater than GHC 14.00, GHC and GHC per 0.2 kg sachet of the respectve bofertlzers. Generally, legume farmers n Northern Regon were wllng to pay 10

11 hgher for the three bofertlzer packages as compared to ther counterparts n Upper West Regon. For 0.2 kg each of Bofx, BR3267 and Legumefx, farmers n Northern Regon were wllng to pay approxmately GHC 17.00, GHC and GHC respectvely. However, those n Upper West Regon were wllng to pay only GHC 14.00, GHC 9.00 and GHC for the same quantty of the respectve bofertlzers. The study has also shown that farmng experence, FBO membershp, awareness and prevous use of bofertlzers are the sgnfcant factors that nfluence farmers wllngness to pay for bofertlzers. The study concludes that the prospects for the sale of bofertlzers on the Ghanaan market for gran legume farmers are brght. However, the mean amounts they are wllng to pay for these bofertlzers are far lower than ther ex-factory prces. Ths could be as a result of the low level of awareness about bofertlzers and the the benefts assocated wth ther use n gran legume producton. Based on the fndngs from the study, there s need for government to strengthen dstrct agrcultural extenson servces delvery to ensure awareness creaton about bofertlzers through perodc educaton and senstzaton of farmers. Ths wll ncrease both potental and actual demand for these bofertlzers. Snce the average prces farmers are WTP are way below the ex-factory prces, the government of Ghana through the Mnstry of Food and Agrculture should expand the current fertlzer subsdy programme to cover bofertlzers as a means of encouragng adopton by farmers. Ths could be used as a short term (two years) measure for farmers to experence the benefts assocated wth the use of bofertlzers. ETHICS APPROVAL AND CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE Ethcs approval was prmarly gven by the Mnstry of Food and Agrculture Dstrct Drectorates of the selected research dstrcts and communtes. A formal consent statement was also read out to each partcpant (farmer) and ther approval gven before any research procedure was carred out. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Authors are partcularly thankful to IITA COMPRO-II project, project coordnators and supervsors, AEA s and farmers. COMPETING INTERESTS Authors have declared that no competng nterests exst. REFERENCES 1. Muteg BJ, Zngore S, Program SSA, Dvson SA, Compound I. Closng yeld gaps n sub-saharan Afrca through Integrated Sol Fertlty Management. 2014;1: Vessey JK. Plant growth promotng rhzobactera as bo-fertlzers. Plant Sol. 2003;255: Chen JH. The combned use of chemcal and organc fertlzers and/or bofertlzer for crop growth and sol fertlty. Internatonal Workshop on Sustaned Management of the Sol-Rhzosphere System for Effcent Crop Producton and Fertlzer Use; Gaur V. Bofertlzer necessty for sustanablty. J. Adv. Dev. 2010;1: Gupta A, Sen S. Role of bofertlsers and bopestcdes for sustanable agrculture; scholar.google.com 6. Hafeez FY, Hameed S, Zad AH, Malk KA. Bofertlzers for sustanable agrculture. In: Technques for Sustanable Agrculture, ISBN, NIAB, Fasalabad, Pakstan. 2002; Howladar SM, Rady MM. Effect of bo-ntrogen as a partal alternatve to mneral-ntrogen fertlser on growth, ntrate and ntrte contents, and yeld qualty n Brassca. 2013;7(7): Mazd M, Khan TA. Future of bo-fertlzers n Indan agrculture: An overvew. Internatonal Journal of Agrcultural and Food Research. 2014;3(3): Schachtman DP, Red RJ, Aylng SM. Phosphorus uptake by plants: From sol to cell. Plant Physology. 1998; 116: Muraleedharan H, Seshadr S, Perumal K. Bofertlser (Phosphobactera). Shr Murrugapa Chettar Research Centre; Ra MK. Handbook of Mcrobal Bofertlzers; Raghuwansh R. Opportuntes and challenges to sustanable 11

12 agrculture n Inda. NEBIO. 2012;3(2): Deepal, Gangwar. Bofertlzers: An ecofrendly way to replace chemcal fertlzers; Prasanna A, Deepa V, Balakrshna Murthy P, Deecaraman M, Srdhar R, Dhandapan P. Insoluble phosphate Solublzaton by Bacteral Strans Isolated from Rce Rhzosphere Sols from Southern Inda. Internatonal Journal of Sol Scence. 2011;6: Azz ZFA, Saud HM, Rahm KA, Ahmed OH. Varable responses on early development of shallot (Allum ascaloncum) and mustard (Brassca juncea) plants to Bacllus cereus noculaton. Malaysan Journal of Mcrobology. 2012;8: Youssef MMA, Essa MFM. Bofertlzers and ther role n management of plant parastc nematodes. A revew. Journal of Botechnology and Pharmaceutcal Research. 2014;5(1): Waddngton S, Sakala D, Mekura M. Progress n lftng sol fertlty n Southern Afrca. In Proceedngs of the 4th Internatonal Crop Scence Congress, Held 26 Sep 1 Oct 2014, Bsbane, Australa; Mapfumo P. Comparatve analyss of the current and potental role of legumes n ntegrated sol fertlty management n Southern Afrca; Avalable: 19. Kannayan S. Ntrogen contrbuton by azolla to rce crop. Proc. Indan Natl. Sc. Acad. Part B Bol. Sc. 1993;59: Randall, Alan, Barry CI, Clyde E. Bddng games for valuaton of aesthetc envronmental mprovements. Journal of Envronmental Economcs and Management. 1974;1(2): Donfouet HPP, Makauddze EM. The economc value of the wllngness to pay for a communty-based prepayment scheme n rural Cameroon. Research Paper No.3; Hanemann M, Looms J, Kannnen B. Statstcal effcency of double-bounded dchotomous choce contngent valuaton. Amercan Journal of Agrcultural Economcs. 1991;73(4): McCluskey JJ, Ouch H, Grmsrud KM, Wahl TI. Consumer response to genetcally modfed food products n Japan. Agrcultural and Resource Economcs Revew. 2003;32: Adesna AA, Badu-Forson J. Farmers perceptons and adopton of new agrcultural technology: Evdence from analyss n Burkna Faso and Gunea, West Afrca. J. Agrc. Econ. 1995;13: Ulmwengu J, Sanyal P. Jont estmaton of farmers stated wllngness to pay for agrcultural servces. Internatonal Food Polcy Research Insttute Dscusson Paper 01070; Chputwa B, Langyntuo AS, Wall P. Adopton of conservaton agrculture technologes by smallholder farmers n the Shamva Dstrct of Zmbabwe: A Tobt applcaton; Baffoe-Asare R, Danquah JA, Annor- Frmpong F. Socoeconomc factors nfluencng adopton of codapec and cocoa hgh-tech technologes among small holder farmers n Central Regon of Ghana. Amercan Journal of Expermental Agrculture. 2013;3(2): Zakara H, Abujaja AM, Adam H, Nabla AY. Factors affectng farmers wllngness to pay for mproved rrgaton servce: A case study of Bontanga rrgaton scheme n Northern Ghana. 2014;2(1): Kasaye B. Farmers wllngness to pay for mproved sol conservaton practces on communal lands n Ethopa (Case Study In Kuyu Woreda; CGIAR. Gender Research. Gran Legumes Newsletter; CGIAR. Research program on gran legumes: Gender strategy. leveragng legumes to combat poverty, gunger, malnutrton and envronmental degradaton. Brochure_GL_October; Edmeades S, Phaneuf DJ, Smale M, Renkow M. Modellng the crop varety demand of sem-subsstence households: bananas n Uganda. Journal of Agrcultural Economcs. 2008;2(59): Onumadu FN, Osahon EE. Socoeconomc determnants of adopton of mproved rce technology by farmers n ayamelum local government area of Anambra. Internatonal Journal of Scentfc & Technology Research. 2014;3(1):

13 34. Caswell M, Fugle K, Ingram C, Jans S, Kascak C. Adopton of agrcultural producton practces. Report No. 792, Resource Economcs Dvson, Economc Research Servce, U.S. Department of Agrculture; Bonabana-Wabb J. Assessng factors affectng adopton of agrcultural technologes: The case of ntegrated pest management (IPM) n Kum Dstrct, Msc. Thess Eastern Uganda; Banka et al.; Ths s an Open Access artcle dstrbuted under the terms of the Creatve Commons Attrbuton Lcense ( whch permts unrestrcted use, dstrbuton, and reproducton n any medum, provded the orgnal zwork s properly cted. Peer-revew hstory: The peer revew hstory for ths paper can be accessed here: 13