| Literature DB >> 35070637 |
Cesar Revoredo-Giha1, Luiza Toma1, Faical Akaichi1, Ian Dawson2.
Abstract
Known in the literature as underutilized, neglected or orphan crops, these crops have been cited as having the potential to improve food and nutritional security. The literature also highlights however that consumers in developing countries are increasingly abandoning their traditional diets that these crops are part of, and are replacing them by western diets. In this context, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the consumption and nutritional implications of expanding the participation of underutilized crops in current diets. This was done using a modified version of the microeconomic consumer problem. This was augmented with a linear constraint using generalized rationing theory that can be found in the economics literature. The method was applied to the case study of the consumption of millet (finger millet, botanical name: Eleusine coracana) by rural, urban-poor and urban-affluent Ugandan socioeconomic groups. The results indicated that millet could contribute to improving the intake of macronutrients and of some micronutrients, though the overall picture is complex. However, under current preferences and given its demand inelasticity, to achieve a substantial increase in the quantity of millet in the diet will require a significant reduction of its price. Otherwise, the net impact on nutrition as measured by the mean adequacy ratio will be only slightly positive for rural and urban-poor households. Our findings indicate that supply-side initiatives aimed at increasing the productivity of underutilized crops (reducing crop price) are likely to produce disappointing results in restoring their importance unless accompanied by specific interventions to expand demand. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40100-021-00206-3.Entities:
Keywords: Consumption; Generalized rationing theory; Millet; Sub-Saharan Africa; Uganda; Underutilized crops
Year: 2022 PMID: 35070637 PMCID: PMC8752535 DOI: 10.1186/s40100-021-00206-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Agric Food Econ ISSN: 2193-7532
Fig. 1Apparent per capita per day consumption of millet, maize and wheat and their products in selected Sub Saharan African countries.
Source: Based on FAOSTAT data
Fig. 2Uganda augmented demand system.
Source: Based on Boysen (2016)
Uganda—consumption by socioeconomic group. Sources: Boysen (2016), UBOS (2013)
| Goods | Units | Rural | Urban-lower quintiles | Urban-upper quintiles | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quantities | Prices | Total expend. UGX | Own-Price Elasticity | Income Elastic | Food shares | Quantities | Prices | Total Expend. UGX | Own-Price Elasticity | Income Elastic | Food shares | Quantities | Prices | Total Expend. UGX | Own-Price Elasticity | Income Elastic | Food shares | ||
| Millet | (Kg) | 6.6 | 1506.0 | 9875.1 | − 1.228 | 0.950 | 0.0160 | 5.0 | 1506.0 | 7483.1 | − 1.011 | 0.596 | 0.0137 | 8.0 | 1506.0 | 12,016.2 | − 1.014 | 0.405 | 0.0090 |
| Maize | (Kg) | 39.3 | 1616.8 | 63,571.2 | − 1.450 | 1.010 | 0.1030 | 31.4 | 1717.1 | 53,841.6 | − 1.427 | 0.713 | 0.0983 | 31.4 | 1890.8 | 59,413.2 | − 1.730 | 0.430 | 0.0445 |
| Rice | (Kg) | 3.1 | 3361.9 | 10,492.3 | − 1.207 | 0.949 | 0.0170 | 6.1 | 3369.5 | 20,624.1 | − 0.976 | 0.596 | 0.0377 | 11.2 | 5497.4 | 61,415.9 | − 0.977 | 0.405 | 0.0460 |
| Bread | (500 g) | 2.5 | 1962.2 | 4937.6 | − 1.233 | 0.951 | 0.0080 | 5.9 | 1975.0 | 11,680.9 | − 1.193 | 0.598 | 0.0213 | 32.7 | 1855.3 | 60,748.4 | − 1.344 | 0.406 | 0.0455 |
| Sorghum | (Kg) | 9.9 | 1615.0 | 16,047.1 | − 1.319 | 0.950 | 0.0260 | 4.7 | 1703.2 | 8030.6 | − 0.992 | 0.596 | 0.0147 | 1.4 | 1397.5 | 2002.7 | − 1.013 | 0.404 | 0.0015 |
| Sweet & Irish potatoes | (Kg) | 109.6 | 625.0 | 68,508.8 | − 0.990 | 1.030 | 0.1110 | 80.4 | 658.5 | 52,929.0 | − 0.703 | 0.773 | 0.0967 | 79.0 | 752.1 | 59,413.2 | − 0.405 | 0.500 | 0.0445 |
| Cassava | (Kg) | 94.0 | 807.4 | 75,915.2 | − 0.570 | 0.550 | 0.1230 | 47.8 | 816.5 | 39,057.9 | − 0.690 | 0.613 | 0.0713 | 38.3 | 836.8 | 32,043.1 | − 0.210 | 0.485 | 0.0240 |
| Matooke | (Kg) | 95.5 | 575.3 | 54,930.5 | − 0.950 | 1.530 | 0.0890 | 89.5 | 522.1 | 46,723.5 | − 1.263 | 1.263 | 0.0853 | 229.4 | 555.8 | 127,504.8 | − 0.905 | 0.715 | 0.0955 |
| Vegetables | (Kg) | 42.1 | 1011.3 | 42,586.6 | − 0.470 | 0.050 | 0.0690 | 32.2 | 1216.6 | 39,130.9 | − 0.637 | 0.427 | 0.0715 | 47.0 | 1313.0 | 61,683.0 | − 0.470 | 0.225 | 0.0462 |
| Fruits | (Kg) | 18.9 | 1110.4 | 20,984.7 | − 1.210 | 1.240 | 0.0340 | 16.1 | 1202.2 | 19,346.5 | − 0.633 | 1.073 | 0.0353 | 37.5 | 1636.0 | 61,415.9 | − 0.620 | 0.845 | 0.0460 |
| Beef | (Kg) | 3.1 | 7268.2 | 22,219.1 | − 1.082 | 1.919 | 0.0360 | 3.4 | 7331.3 | 24,986.1 | − 0.881 | 1.869 | 0.0456 | 13.0 | 7541.9 | 98,065.2 | − 0.453 | 1.074 | 0.0735 |
| Pork | (Kg) | 0.7 | 8304.2 | 6172.0 | − 1.114 | 1.920 | 0.0100 | 0.7 | 8021.0 | 5292.9 | − 0.916 | 1.870 | 0.0097 | 1.6 | 7467.4 | 12,283.2 | − 0.908 | 1.075 | 0.0092 |
| Goat meat | (Kg) | 0.9 | 8633.3 | 7406.4 | − 1.106 | 1.921 | 0.0120 | 0.6 | 8638.2 | 5292.9 | − 0.912 | 1.871 | 0.0097 | 2.0 | 8836.5 | 18,024.2 | − 0.893 | 1.075 | 0.0135 |
| Chicken | (Kg) | 1.5 | 9955.1 | 14,812.7 | − 1.122 | 1.920 | 0.0240 | 0.9 | 10,280.4 | 9490.7 | − 0.873 | 1.870 | 0.0173 | 3.6 | 10,237.0 | 37,183.3 | − 0.824 | 1.075 | 0.0279 |
| Other meat | (Kg) | 0.1 | 10,000.0 | 1234.4 | − 1.119 | 1.917 | 0.0020 | 0.1 | 10,000.0 | 730.1 | − 0.890 | 1.865 | 0.0013 | 0.3 | 10,000.0 | 2670.3 | − 0.344 | 1.072 | 0.0020 |
| Eggs | (2 eggs) | 4.1 | 599.6 | 2468.8 | − 1.139 | 1.934 | 0.0040 | 4.9 | 596.3 | 2920.2 | − 0.994 | 1.880 | 0.0053 | 27.4 | 597.3 | 16,355.3 | − 0.949 | 1.079 | 0.0123 |
| Fish | (Kg) | 2.0 | 12,467.7 | 25,305.1 | − 1.370 | 1.620 | 0.0410 | 1.7 | 14,201.9 | 24,456.8 | − 1.330 | 1.513 | 0.0447 | 4.7 | 12,076.1 | 56,743.0 | − 1.250 | 1.045 | 0.0425 |
| Pulses, legumes, nuts | (Kg) | 27.5 | 2675.4 | 73,569.8 | − 0.760 | 0.660 | 0.1192 | 25.3 | 2629.4 | 66,416.7 | − 0.837 | 0.617 | 0.1213 | 32.5 | 2913.3 | 94,794.2 | − 0.765 | 0.360 | 0.0710 |
| Milk | (Ltr) | 17.8 | 1054.4 | 18,762.8 | − 1.420 | 1.550 | 0.0304 | 19.4 | 1030.7 | 19,967.0 | − 1.400 | 1.383 | 0.0365 | 61.5 | 1041.9 | 64,086.2 | − 1.180 | 0.755 | 0.0480 |
| Oils & fats | (300 ml) | 4.2 | 3096.2 | 12,961.1 | − 0.610 | 0.770 | 0.0210 | 7.9 | 2075.5 | 16,316.7 | − 0.673 | 0.717 | 0.0298 | 12.8 | 2712.7 | 34,713.4 | − 0.560 | 0.375 | 0.0260 |
| Sugar | (Kg) | 3.8 | 5368.9 | 20,367.5 | − 0.946 | 1.170 | 0.0330 | 4.9 | 5477.4 | 26,993.8 | − 1.038 | 0.747 | 0.0493 | 11.6 | 5447.8 | 63,418.6 | − 0.975 | 0.545 | 0.0475 |
| Soda | (300 ml) | 3.1 | 1000.0 | 3086.0 | − 0.965 | 1.170 | 0.0050 | 3.5 | 1000.0 | 3467.8 | − 0.973 | 0.746 | 0.0063 | 29.4 | 1000.0 | 29,372.8 | − 0.977 | 0.545 | 0.0220 |
| Other juices | (Ltr) | 0.0 | 1031.7 | 0.6 | − 0.818 | 1.174 | 0.0000 | 1.0 | 951.4 | 912.6 | − 0.982 | 0.747 | 0.0017 | 5.6 | 961.7 | 5340.5 | − 0.988 | 0.545 | 0.0040 |
| Coffee & tea | (Kg) | 15.5 | 79.7 | 1234.4 | − 0.947 | 1.077 | 0.0020 | 24.9 | 73.9 | 1843.4 | − 0.927 | 1.360 | 0.0034 | 29.7 | 159.8 | 4739.7 | − 0.845 | 1.099 | 0.0036 |
| Food away | (Kg) | 16.4 | 1,031.7 | 16,911.2 | − 1.565 | 1.081 | 0.0274 | 25.9 | 951.4 | 24,621.1 | − 0.887 | 1.364 | 0.0450 | 223.5 | 961.7 | 214,955.8 | − 0.899 | 1.106 | 0.1610 |
| Beer | (500 ml) | 1.0 | 2436.1 | 2468.8 | − 0.683 | 1.078 | 0.0040 | 0.7 | 2423.0 | 1642.6 | − 0.733 | 1.359 | 0.0030 | 8.4 | 2381.9 | 20,026.9 | − 0.291 | 1.103 | 0.0150 |
| Other alcoholic beverages | (300 ml) | 9.2 | 1003.1 | 9257.9 | − 1.802 | 1.080 | 0.0150 | 2.9 | 1002.9 | 2920.2 | − 2.654 | 1.365 | 0.0053 | 4.7 | 1003.1 | 4673.0 | − 7.493 | 1.110 | 0.0035 |
| Other foods | (500 g) | 8.7 | 1270.4 | 11,109.5 | − 1.348 | 1.078 | 0.0180 | 34.8 | 299.3 | 10,421.5 | − 0.946 | 1.360 | 0.0190 | 7.5 | 2679.7 | 20,026.9 | − 1.005 | 1.097 | 0.0150 |
| Annual per capita expenditure (000 UGX) | 1094.3 | 1107.1 | 4055.7 | ||||||||||||||||
The quantities are per capita per year
Fig. 3a Rural group—simulation of annual consumption (in 100 g). b Rural group—change in daily nutrients by scenario
Fig. 4a Urban lower quintiles—simulation of annual consumption (in 100 g). b Urban lower quintiles—change in daily nutrients by scenario
Fig. 5a Urban upper quintiles—simulation of annual consumption (100 g). b Urban upper quintiles—change in daily nutrients by scenario
Fig. 6Decrease in price and MAR due to increase of millet in the diet
Fig. 7Need of a multidisciplinary approach to expand the consumption of millet