Article abstract

Journal of Agricultural and Crop Research

Research Article | Published September 2017 | Volume 5, Issue 3, pp. 32-41

 

Adoption assessment of improved maize seed by farmers in Benin Republic

 


 

 

F. E. Mahoussi1*

P. Y. Adegbola2

A. Zannou1

E. F. Hounnou1

G. Biaou1

 

Email Author

Tel: +22997298620.

 

1.     Faculty of Agronomic Sciences of the University of Abomey-Calavi (FSA-UAC). 01BP 526 Cotonou-Benin.


2.    National Institute of Agricultural Research of Benin (INRAB), 01 BP 884 Recette Principale, Cotonou 01.


……....…...………..........................…………....………............…............……...........……........................................................………...……..…....……....…

 Citation: Mahoussi FE, Adegbola PY, Zannou A, Hounnou EF, Biaou G (2017). Adoption assessment of improved maize seed by farmers in Benin Republic. J. Agric. Crop Res. 5(3): 32-41.

……....…...………..........................…………....………............…............……...........……........................................................………...……..…....……....…

 Abstract 


To contribute to the improvement of productivity of maize, new improved maize seeds have been introduced in various areas favourable to the maize production of Benin. This paper assessed the adoption potentials of the different improved varieties of maize introduced into the maize-growing areas of Benin Republic. The study was carried out in the maize agro-ecological areas of Benin Republic. An exhaustive census was carried out in each village of farmers. This made it possible to have a list of all the farmers by village. Sampling of the farmers was done in a random way in each village of production to have a total of 490 farmers. The average treatment effect (ATE) was used to determine adoption rates and gaps related to maize seed ado7ption in the studied area. The results showed that from 84% of farmers in the sample who had knowledge of improved maize seeds, 78% of the farmers adopted the improved seed. Each of the four varieties, taken separately, provides the following adoption rates: 16% for the DMR-ESRW, 25% for the EVDT97 STRW, 19% for the TZPB-SR and 15% for the FAABA / QPM. The results also show that the variables “literacy”, “relationship with structures/institutions”, “maize land area in 2013” and “Annual income coming from maize production” are the factors that determined the adoption of improved maize seed in the studied area.

Keywords  Average treatment effect   improved seed   adoption   maize   Benin Republic  

 

 

 

  References 

 

Adégbola PY, Arouna A, Hennou L, Adekambi S (2010). Taux et déterminants de l’adoption des innovations technologiques développées par l’INRAB entre 2000 et 2006. Rapport définitif. p. 135.

Adegbola PY, Adekambi SA, Ahouandjinou MC, Yabi JA (2008). Taux et déterminants de l’adoption des variétés améliorées d’ignames développées par l’IITA. IITA, PAPA, IFAD. p. 25.

Ahouandjinou MC, Adegbola PY, Yabi JA, et Adekambi SA (2010). Adoption et impact socio-économique de la semi-mécanisation du procédé de transformation des amandes de karité en beurre au Nord-Bénin, p. 27.

Aly DJ, Padonou E (2007). Influence du mode d’égrenage sur la qualité des semences certifiées de maïs dans le Département de l’Atlantique (Sud-Bénin). In : Badu-Apraku B. et al., eds. Proceedings of the fifth biennial regional maize workshop, Demand-driven technologies for sustainable maize production in West and Central Africa, 3-6 May, 2005, IITA-Cotonou, Benin. Ibadan, Nigeria: WECAMAN/IITA, pp. 355-362.

Angrist JD, Imbens GW, Rubin DB (1996). Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 91:444-472.

Arouna A, Adégbola PY, Biaou G (2011). Analyse des coûts de stockage et de conservation du maïs au SudBénin. Bull. Rech. Agron. Bénin, 2:13-23.

Bassolé L (2004). Programme d’insfrastructures rurales et bien-être des ménages : Analyse en terme d’indicateurs antropométriques des enfants ; CERDI-CNRS, Université d’Auvergne 65, France.

Boone P, Stathacos CJD, Wanzie RL (2008). Évaluation sous-régionale de la chaine de valeurs du maïs. Rapport technique ATP n° 1. Bethesda, MD, USA: Abt Associates Inc.

Bravo-Ureta BE, Solis D, Cocchi H, Quiroga RE (2005). The impact of soil conservation and output diversification on farm income on Central American hillside farming. Agric. Econ. 35:271-275.

Blundell, R, Costa DM (2002). Alternative approaches to evaluation in empirical microeconomics J. Hum. Resour. 44/3:565-640.

Dembélé S (2011). Système semencier et législation semencière en Afrique de l’Ouest : enjeux et perspectives. In: Actes de la Conférence IER-FASD, 5-7 Octobre 2011, Bamako, Mali. Bamako: INSAH/CILSS. http://www.syngentafoundation.org/_temp/Syste`me_semencier_et_le´gislation_S_Dembe´le´.pdf, (20/10/2015).

Diagne A, Demont M (2007). Taking a New Look at Empirical Models of Adoption: Average Treatment Effect estimation on adoption rate and its Determinants. Forthcoming in Agricultural Economics, Vol. 37 2007. p. 20.

Diagne A (2005). Taking a New Look at Empirical Models of Adoption: Average Treatment Effects of Adoption Rates and their Determinants. Cotonou: WARDA.

Diagne A (2003). Evaluation de l’impact. Synthèse des développements méthodologiques récents, ADRAO/Conakry, p. 15.

Heckman J (1990). “Varieties of selection bias,” American Economic Review 80, 313-318. Heckman J (1996). Identification of causal effects using Instrumental Variables: Comments. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 91(N°434):5.

Heckman J (1997). Instrumental variables: a study of the implicit assumptions underlying one widely used Estimator for Program Evaluations. J. Hum. Resour. 32:441-462.

Imbens GW, Angrist JD (1994). Identification and estimation of local Average Treatment Effects. Econometrica. 62:467-476.

Imbens GW, Wooldridge JM (2009). Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation. J. Econ. Lit. 47(1):5-86.

Kpedzroku A, Didjeira A (2008). Guide de production de semences certifiées maïs–sorgho–riz–niébé. Collection brochures et fiches techniques 1. Lomé : ITRA/ICAT/CTA.

Louwaars MP, Marrewijk GAM (1999). Seed supply systems in developing countries, CTA, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Élevage et de la Pêche, MAEP (2010a). Annuaire de la statistique: campagne 2009-2010. Cotonou, Bénin: MAEP.

Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Élevage et de la Pêche, MAEP (2010b). Plan stratégique de relance du secteur agricole (PSRSA). Version finale. Cotonou, Bénin: MAEP.

McBride DW, El-Osta HS (2002). Impacts of the adoption of genetically engineered crops on farm financial performance. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 34(1):175-191.

Moffitt R (1991). “Program Evaluation with Non-experimental Data”, Eval. Rev. 15(3):291-314.

Negatu W, Parikh A (1999). The impact of perception and other factors on the adoption of agriculture technology in the Moretan Jiru Woreda (District) of Ethiopia. Agric. Econ. 21:205-216.

Ouedraogo R (2003). Adoption et intensité d’utilisation de la culture attelée, des engrais et des semences améliorées dans le centre nord du Burkina. CEDRES, Université de Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, p. 107.

Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DR (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. In Biometrika. 70:41-55. Tradeport, Country-Facts Guinea.

Rubin D (1977). Assignment to Treatment on the Basis of a Covariate, J. Educ. Stat. 2:1-26.

Wooldridge J (2002). Econometric analysis of cross cross-section and panel data. The MIT press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA pp. 603-644.