| Literature DB >> 32089951 |
Akhter Ali1, AbduRahman Beshir Issa2, Dil Bahadur Rahut3.
Abstract
Despite hybrids being grown on 30-40 percent of the maize area in Pakistan, the retail price of hybrid maize seed is high in Pakistan compared with its neighbors in South Asia and beyond. Hence, this paper analyzes the adoption and impact of hybrid maize on livelihoods using a cross-sectional dataset collected from 822 maize growers in Pakistan. The data were collected from two types of farmers: adopters and nonadopters of hybrid maize, from four major provinces of Pakistan (Punjab, Sindh, KPK, and Balochistan). We use the bivariate probit to analyze the factors influencing the adoption of hybrid maize and the propensity score-matching (PSM) approach to analyze the impact of hybrid maize adoption on livelihood of maize growers, as PSM helps correct sample selection biasedness. The empirical result shows that farm size, farm and household assets, the level of education of farmers, access to market, and social networks positively influence the adoption of hybrid maize in Pakistan. The results from PSM revealed that hybrid maize adopters had higher grain yields in the range of 94-124 kgs per hectare as compared with nonadopters. Similarly household income levels were more in the range of Pakistani rupees 2,176-3,518, while the poverty levels were lower in the range of 2-3 percent for hybrid maize adopters. As hybrid maize adoption has had a positive impact on the livelihood of farmers, policies should aim to scale up the adoption of hybrid maize through enhancing the supply and lowering the seed cost through research and subsidy programs, thereby enabling poor farmers in remote areas to adopt hybrid maize varieties.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32089951 PMCID: PMC7016444 DOI: 10.1155/2020/5959868
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Scientifica (Cairo) ISSN: 2090-908X
Figure 1Conceptual Framework. We consider that maize farmers have two options i.e., 1 either to grow the maize hybrids or OPVs; However this choice is not as simple as many factor are actually influencing this choice of maize hybrids. The conceptual framework shows that price of the hybrid seed and lack of information from agricultural extension services are the major constraints in adoption of the maize hybrid seed. However the adopters have higher maize yield, higher income levels as well as higher overall welfare.
Data and description of variables.
| Characteristics | Description | Mean | Std. dev. |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Age of farmer | Age of the farmer (in number of years) | 42.53 | 10.54 |
| Family size | Total number of family members | 11.09 | 4.25 |
| Family system | 1 if the households are living in a joint family | 0.86 | 0.39 |
| Marital status | 1 if the respondent is married, 0 otherwise | 0.56 | 0.44 |
|
| |||
|
| |||
| Education of farmer | Schooling of the farmer (in years) | 9.70 | 4.42 |
| Farming experience | Farming experience (in number of years) | 19.10 | 10.21 |
| Experience in growing maize | Experience in growing maize (in number of years) | 16.64 | 9.24 |
|
| |||
|
| |||
| Tenancy (farmer status) | 1 if farmer is owner, 0 for tenant | 0.68 | 0.35 |
| Land owned | Land owned (in number of acres) | 14.23 | 30.54 |
| Land rental (PKR/acre) | Average land rental charges (in pakistani rupees per acre per year) | 32,935 | 8080 |
| Tractor | 1 if household owns a tractor, 0 otherwise | 0.46 | 0.51 |
| Tubewell | 1 if the tubewell is owned by the household, 0 otherwise | 0.33 | 0.38 |
| Television | 1 if the household has television, 0 otherwise | 0.91 | 0.28 |
| Zt drill | 1 if household own zero tillage drill, 0 otherwise | 0.01 | 0.11 |
| Car | 1 if household own car, 0 otherwise | 0.20 | 0.16 |
|
| |||
|
| |||
| Metal road | 1 if there is a metal road in the village, 0 otherwise | 0.88 | 0.32 |
| Basic health unit | 1 if there is a basic health unit in the village, 0 otherwise | 0.36 | 0.39 |
| Agri. Extension | 1 if the farmer receives agricultural extension services, 0 otherwise | 0.07 | 0.12 |
|
| |||
|
| |||
| Punjab | 1 if the respondent is from Punjab, 0 otherwise | 0.34 | 0.27 |
| Sindh | 1 if the respondent is from sindh, 0 otherwise | 0.33 | 0.26 |
| KPK | 1 if the respondent is from KP, 0 otherwise | 0.33 | 0.26 |
| Balochistan | 1 if the respondent is from balochistan, 0 otherwise | 0.10 | 0.09 |
| Household income | Income of the household in pakistani rupees | 24850 | 1236 |
| OPV yield | OPV yield in tons per hectares | 5.7 | 4.2 |
| Hybrid yield | Hybrid yield in tons per hectares | 7.6 | 6.8 |
| Poverty | Headcount index of poverty | 0.08 | 0.05 |
Note. The results , , indicates that there are significant differences between the adopters and nonadopters.
Comparison of the cost of production (hybrid vs OPV).
| Operation | OPV | Hybrid | Difference |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cost of production (PKR) | 25,890 | 34,981 | –9091 | 2.34 |
| Average yield (ton) | 5.7 | 7.6 | –1.9 | 1.72 |
| Revenue per acre | 54,452 | 87,500 | –33,048 | 2.55 |
| Net profit | 28,562 | 52,519 | –23,957 | 2.86 |
| Cost-benefit ratio | 2.10 | 2.51 | –0.41 | 1.23 |
Note. Results are significant at , , 1, 5 and 10 percent levels respectively. OPV stands for the open-pollinated varieties.
Determinants of the hybrid adoption (probit estimates).
| Variable | Coefficient |
|
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Age of the farmer | –0.01 | 2.23 |
| Family size | 0.01 | 1.70 |
| Family system (dummy) | 0.02 | 1.83 |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Education | 0.01 | 2.45 |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Farmer status (dummy) | 0.02 | 2.56 |
| Land owned (in acres) | 0.02 | 2.86 |
| Own tractor (dummy) | 0.01 | 2.57 |
| Own car (dummy) | 0.02 | 1.44 |
| Own televion (dummy) | –0.02 | –1.38 |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Metal road (dummy) | –0.03 | –1.55 |
| Agriculture extension (dummy) | 0.02 | 2.04 |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Punjab (dummy) | 0.05 | 2.71 |
| Sindh (dummy) | –0.02 | –1.45 |
| KPK (dummy) | 0.03 | 2.01 |
| Constant | 0.031 | 1.42 |
|
| 0.37 | |
| LR-chi square | 128.34 | |
| Prob > chi square | 0.000 | |
| Total number of observations | 822 | |
Note. Results are significant at , , 1, 5 and 10 percent levels respectively.
Number of hectares under hybrid (CLAD estimates).
| Variables | Coefficient |
|
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Age of the farmer | 0.02 | 1.84 |
| Family size | 0.03 | 1.71 |
| Joint family system (dummy) | 0.01 | 1.43 |
|
| ||
| Education | 0.01 | 2.36 |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Tenancy (farmer status) (dummy) | –0.01 | –1.32 |
| Land owned (acres) | 0.11 | 2.49 |
| Own tractor (dummy) | 0.04 | 2.34 |
| Own tubewell (dummy) | –0.17 | –1.23 |
| Own zt drill (dummy) | 0.03 | 1.91 |
| Own car (dummy) | 0.01 | 2.16 |
| Own television (dummy) | 0.01 | 2.04 |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Access to basic health unit (dummy) | –0.03 | –1.26 |
| Access to agricultural extension (dummy) | 0.02 | 2.65 |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Punjab (dummy) | 0.03 | 1.78 |
| Sindh (dummy) | 0.01 | 1.27 |
| KPK (dummy) | 0.02 | 2.41 |
| Constant | 0.03 | 2.12 |
|
| 0.53 | |
| LR-chi square | 286.34 | |
| Prob > chi square | 0.000 | |
| Total number of observations | 822 | |
Note. Results are significant at , , 1, 5 and 10 percent levels respectively. CLAD stands for the censored least absolute deviation model.
Farmers' willingness to pay (WTP) for hybrid maize seed (ordered probit estimates).
| Rank 1 (PKR 2000–3000) | Rank 2 (PKR 3000–4000) | Rank 3 (PKR 4000–5000) | Rank 4 (PKR >5000) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Coef |
| Coef |
| Coef |
| Coef |
|
| Farmer status | 0.01 | 2.89 | 0.02 | 2.13 | 0.04 | 2.16 | 0.06 | 2.82 |
| Age of the farmer | 0.02 | 1.83 | –0.01 | –2.19 | –0.03 | –2.00 | –0.05 | –2.35 |
| Education | 0.02 | 2.90 | 0.03 | 1.80 | 0.05 | 1.92 | 0.03 | 2.13 |
| Family system | 0.03 | 2.11 | 0.03 | 1.61 | 0.01 | 1.35 | 0.02 | 2.08 |
| Marital status | –0.04 | –0.80 | –0.02 | –1.25 | –0.02 | –1.39 | 0.03 | 1.44 |
| Own land | 0.01 | 1.75 | 0.02 | 1.66 | 0.05 | 1.91 | 0.04 | 1.67 |
| Family size | 0.07 | 1.44 | 0.04 | 1.39 | 0.02 | 1.42 | 0.06 | 1.50 |
| Metal road | 0.03 | 1.20 | 0.02 | 1.35 | 0.02 | 1.46 | 0.02 | 1.25 |
| Agri. extension | 0.04 | 1.40 | 0.03 | 1.53 | 0.04 | 1.27 | 0.04 | 1.63 |
| Tractor ownership | 0.01 | 2.36 | 0.05 | 2.77 | 0.01 | 1.99 | 0.01 | 2.73 |
| Car ownership | 0.05 | 1.52 | 0.03 | 1.91 | 0.03 | 1.74 | 0.04 | 2.11 |
| Televisin ownership | 0.03 | 1.48 | 0.02 | 1.75 | 0.04 | 1.66 | 0.03 | 1.53 |
| Punjab | 0.04 | 2.87 | 0.03 | 2.53 | 0.02 | 1.55 | 0.03 | 1.58 |
| Sindh | 0.01 | 1.56 | 0.02 | 1.47 | 0.03 | 1.59 | 0.01 | 1.27 |
| KP | 0.03 | 1.72 | 0.03 | 1.62 | 0.01 | 1.42 | 0.03 | 1.28 |
| Constant | 0.03 | 1.68 | 0.02 | 1.44 | 0.02 | 1.53 | 0.03 | 1.36 |
|
| 26.31 | |||||||
| LR–Chi square | 155.64 | |||||||
| Prob > chi square | 0.000 | |||||||
| Total number of observations | 822 | |||||||
Note. Results are significant at , , 1, 5 and 10 percent levels of significance.
Impact of hybrid adoption on maize yield, household income and poverty levels.
| Matching algorithms | Outcome | Caliper | ATT |
| Critical level of hidden bias | Nos of treated | Nos of control |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NNM | Maize yield | 0.01 | 2.41 | 2.37 | 1.25–1.30 | 234 | 467 |
| Household income | 0.03 | 2176 | 1.92 | 1.50–1.55 | 234 | 467 | |
| Poverty | 0.08 | –0.03 | 2.14 | 1.05–1.10 | 234 | 467 | |
|
| |||||||
| KBM | Maize yield | 0.05 | 2.35 | 2.50 | 1.30–1.35 | 316 | 425 |
| Household income | 0.001 | 3122 | 2.13 | 1.65–1.70 | 316 | 425 | |
| Poverty | 0.003 | –0.02 | 1.87 | 1.25–1.30 | 316 | 425 | |
|
| |||||||
| RM | Maize yield | 0.002 | 3.11 | 2.62 | 1.15–1.20 | 289 | 403 |
| Household income | 0.003 | 3518 | 2.66 | 1.20–1.25 | 289 | 403 | |
| Poverty | 0.002 | –0.03 | 1.22 | – | 289 | 403 | |
|
| |||||||
| MMM | Maize yield | 0.004 | 2.62 | 3.05 | 1.35–1.40 | 240 | 367 |
| Household income | 0.002 | 2936 | 2.04 | 1.25–1.30 | 240 | 367 | |
| Poverty | 0.07 | –0.03 | 2.15 | 1.25–1.30 | 240 | 367 | |
Note. NNM stands for the nearest neighbor matching, KBM stands for the kernel based matching, RM stands for the radius matching, MMM stands for the Mahalanobis metric matching. ATT stands for the average treatment affect for the treated. The results are significant at , , 1, 5 and 10 percent levels respectively.
Technical, allocative and economic efficiency of maize producers (hybrid vs OPV).
| Efficiency | Hybrid | OPV | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Minimum | Maximum | |
| Technical | 0.87 | 0.76 | 0.93 | 0.75 | 0.67 | 0.84 |
| Allocative | 0.84 | 0.73 | 0.90 | 0.71 | 0.62 | 0.79 |
| Economic | 0.73 | 0.55 | 0.84 | 0.53 | 0.41 | 0.66 |
Note. Mean levels of the technical, allocative and economic efficiency has been reported.