144 CHAPTER 10 (Kangire <strong>and</strong> Rutherford 2001; Okaasai <strong>and</strong> Boa 2004), <strong>and</strong> low soil fertility. Overall, low soil fertility <strong>and</strong> banana bacteria wilt appear to constitute the greatest threat to banana productivity. <strong>Banana</strong> bacteria wilt has recently spread alarmingly through much <strong>of</strong> Central Region with devastating effects (Okaasai <strong>and</strong> Boa 2004). Just as striking is the assembled evidence that yields on the extensive low-productivity areas occupied by subsistence-oriented growers are reduced by 50 percent or more by a combination <strong>of</strong> biotic pressures (weevils, nematodes, <strong>and</strong> black Sigatoka); the same constraints reduce yields by an estimated 5–15 percent in high-productivity areas. This evidence reflects both differences in biophysical conditions <strong>and</strong> greater use <strong>of</strong> improved cultural practices in the high-productivity areas (NARO, IITA, <strong>and</strong> NRI 1994; Tushemereirwe et al. 2003). here> 10.2near 10.3near
ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGIES IN UGANDA 145 Table 10.3 <strong>An</strong>nualized banana production costs <strong>and</strong> returns in each <strong>of</strong> the six production systems High productivity Medium productivity Low productivity Budget/cost components Average Subsistence Subsistence Semicommercial Semicommercial Semicommercial Subsistence Average plantation cycle (years) 31 80 40 30 20 10 5 Average yield (ton/ha) 12 25 17 18 9 11 5 Farm-gate price (Ush/20-kg bunch) a 1,417 2,080 1,680 1,200 1,140 1,200 1,200 Total revenue (Ush/ha) 850,000 2,600,000 1,428,000 1,080,000 513,000 660,000 300,000 Labor cost (Ush/ha) 322,100 266,846 269,456 420,280 364,420 355,300 256,300 Other input cost (Ush/ha) n.a. b n.a. n.a. 521,500 126,500 253,000 n.a. Total cost (Ush/ha) 472,267 266,846 269,456 941,780 490,920 608,300 256,300 Net return (Ush/ha) 624,566 2,333,154 1,158,544 138,220 22,080 51,700 43,700 Unit production cost (Ush/kg) 40 11 16 52 55 55 51 Sources: Derived by authors from National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO) surveys, program documents, <strong>and</strong> expert knowledge from NARO scientists. Notes: Budgets were constructed from a complete annual input-<strong>and</strong>-output analysis over the plantation life cycle (to a maximum <strong>of</strong> 30 years) for each production system; n.a. indicates not available. a For farm households whose consumption exceeds production, the relevant price is more properly the market purchase price. For the sake <strong>of</strong> simplicity, however, we have used the farm-gate prices as the basis <strong>of</strong> all budget-related calculations. b Average not computed because <strong>of</strong> missing values. Technology Scenarios We began by identifying important subcategories <strong>of</strong> banana production systems as determined by potential productivity <strong>and</strong> commercial orientation <strong>of</strong> producers. Based on a characterization scheme used by researchers in Ug<strong>and</strong>a (Tushemereirwe et al. 2001), three banana productivity zones were distinguished (high, medium, <strong>and</strong> low). 1 Within each zone, semicommercial <strong>and</strong> subsistence farmers were typified, as shown in Table 10.4, by consulting available data on use practices <strong>and</strong> technologies. Each <strong>of</strong> the six subcategories was specified as a separate component <strong>of</strong> the overall industry supply in the IFPRI-DREAM 2 model as a basis for all technology simulations. here> 10.4near 1,200-m.a.s.l. stratum used in the design <strong>of</strong> the farm-level survey. 2 IFPRI-DREAM (Dynamic Research Evaluation for Management) is a menu-driven s<strong>of</strong>tware package for evaluating the economic impacts <strong>of</strong> agricultural R&D. 3 In reality the choice <strong>of</strong> investment strategy is not between conventional <strong>and</strong> transgenic approaches, but involves both, as explained in Chapter 4. However, scenarios are designed as simple (<strong>of</strong>ten polar) examples to demonstrate the sensitivity <strong>of</strong> returns to actions, situations, or assumptions.
- Page 1 and 2:
An Economic Assessment of Banana Ge
- Page 3 and 4:
Contents List of Tables List of Fig
- Page 5 and 6:
Tables 3.1 Net marketing margins pe
- Page 7 and 8:
TABLES vii 6.5 Characteristics of h
- Page 9 and 10:
Figures 2.1 Sample domain: Elevatio
- Page 11 and 12:
Acknowledgments The International F
- Page 13 and 14:
SUMMARY xiii en’s education--and
- Page 15 and 16:
Acronyms and Abbreviations AGT ARDI
- Page 17:
Part I. Research Methods
- Page 20 and 21:
4 CHAPTER 1 practices in Africa are
- Page 22 and 23:
6 CHAPTER 1 periment station. Not a
- Page 24 and 25:
8 CHAPTER 1 niques (based on seed p
- Page 26 and 27:
10 CHAPTER 1 Cohen, J. I., and R. P
- Page 28 and 29:
CHAPTER 2 Elements of the Conceptua
- Page 30 and 31:
14 CHAPTER 2 ples of adoption disco
- Page 32 and 33:
16 CHAPTER 2 transgenic bananas cur
- Page 34 and 35:
18 CHAPTER 2 Figure 2.2 Sites sampl
- Page 36 and 37:
20 CHAPTER 2 Figure 2.4 Time profil
- Page 39:
Part II. Research Context
- Page 42 and 43:
here> 1near 3. 26 CHAPTER 3 major f
- Page 44 and 45:
28 CHAPTER 3 disease, which affects
- Page 46 and 47:
here> 1near 3. 30 CHAPTER 3 Table 3
- Page 48 and 49:
32 CHAPTER 3 Table 3.2 Banana produ
- Page 50 and 51:
34 CHAPTER 3 would only be able to
- Page 52 and 53:
36 CHAPTER 3 Nkonya, E., J. Pender,
- Page 54 and 55:
here> 1near 4. 38 CHAPTER 4 cash ne
- Page 56 and 57:
40 CHAPTER 4 Figure 4.1 Introductio
- Page 58 and 59:
42 CHAPTER 4 Research Introductions
- Page 60 and 61:
44 CHAPTER 4 Table 4.2 Names of the
- Page 62 and 63:
46 CHAPTER 4 The most widely used m
- Page 64 and 65:
48 CHAPTER 4 Ortíz, R., and D. Vuy
- Page 66 and 67:
here> 5.3near here>
- Page 68 and 69:
52 CHAPTER 5 Table 5.4 Percentage o
- Page 70 and 71:
54 CHAPTER 5 Table 5.7 Percentage o
- Page 72 and 73:
here> 9near 5. here> 10near 5. 56 C
- Page 74 and 75:
here> 12near 5. 58 CHAPTER 5 Table
- Page 76 and 77:
60 CHAPTER 5 Table 5.14 Number and
- Page 78 and 79:
here> 18near 5. 62 CHAPTER 5 Table
- Page 80 and 81:
64 CHAPTER 5 Table 5.20 Average num
- Page 82 and 83:
66 CHAPTER 5 Table 5.23 Percentage
- Page 84 and 85:
68 CHAPTER 5 Table 5.26 Average dis
- Page 86 and 87:
70 CHAPTER 5 considerably higher in
- Page 89:
Part III. Economic Assessment of Te
- Page 92 and 93:
76 CHAPTER 6 The agricultural house
- Page 94 and 95:
78 CHAPTER 6 grow, but have grown i
- Page 96 and 97:
80 CHAPTER 6 Table 6.2 Summary stat
- Page 98 and 99:
82 CHAPTER 6 tion. More frequent vi
- Page 100 and 101:
84 CHAPTER 6 Table 6.4 Prototype ho
- Page 102 and 103:
86 CHAPTER 6 Table 6.5 Characterist
- Page 104 and 105:
88 CHAPTER 6 References Cameron, A.
- Page 106 and 107:
90 CHAPTER 7 by-products of other f
- Page 108 and 109:
here> 1near 7. 92 CHAPTER 7 Table 7
- Page 110 and 111: 94 CHAPTER 7 ity in the two technol
- Page 112 and 113: 96 CHAPTER 7 Table 7.2 Definition o
- Page 114 and 115: 98 CHAPTER 7 The direct link betwee
- Page 116 and 117: 100 CHAPTER 7 Table 7.3 Factors inf
- Page 118 and 119: 102 CHAPTER 7 tive sign but are onl
- Page 120 and 121: 104 CHAPTER 7 fertility management
- Page 122 and 123: 106 CHAPTER 7 participatory decisio
- Page 124 and 125: 108 CHAPTER 7 Stevens, J. P. 2002.
- Page 126 and 127: 110 CHAPTER 8 defined as a function
- Page 128 and 129: 112 CHAPTER 8 inputs or implement c
- Page 130 and 131: 114 CHAPTER 8 Crop output is determ
- Page 132 and 133: 116 CHAPTER 8 Table 8.1 Variable de
- Page 134 and 135: here> 8.6near here> 8.2near 8.3nea
- Page 136 and 137: 120 CHAPTER 8 Table 8.4 Production
- Page 138 and 139: 122 CHAPTER 8 during the SOM decomp
- Page 140 and 141: 124 CHAPTER 8 Supplementary Tables
- Page 142 and 143: 126 CHAPTER 8 Table 8A.3 Production
- Page 144 and 145: 128 CHAPTER 8 Thomas, G. W. 1982. E
- Page 146 and 147: 130 CHAPTER 9 (Nkuba et al. 1999).
- Page 148 and 149: 132 CHAPTER 9 be reduced through la
- Page 150 and 151: 134 CHAPTER 9 Table 9.2 Summary sta
- Page 152 and 153: 136 CHAPTER 9 Table 9.3 Coefficient
- Page 154 and 155: 138 CHAPTER 9 Table 9.4 Mean compar
- Page 156 and 157: 140 CHAPTER 9 References Anandajaya
- Page 158 and 159: 142 CHAPTER 10 Table 10.1 Ugandan c
- Page 162 and 163: 146 CHAPTER 10 Table 10.4 Predomina
- Page 164 and 165: here> 7near 10. 148 CHAPTER 10 Tabl
- Page 166 and 167: 150 CHAPTER 10 Table 10.8 Present v
- Page 168 and 169: 152 CHAPTER 10 In terms of specific
- Page 171: Part IV. Conclusions
- Page 174 and 175: 158 CHAPTER 11 in cooking, brewing
- Page 176 and 177: 160 CHAPTER 11 sumption and income
- Page 178 and 179: 162 CHAPTER 11 4. 5. for which the
- Page 181 and 182: APPENDIX A Banana Taxonomy for Ugan
- Page 183 and 184: BANANA TAXONOMY FOR UGANDA 167 Tabl
- Page 185 and 186: BANANA TAXONOMY FOR UGANDA 169 Tabl
- Page 187 and 188: BANANA TAXONOMY FOR TANZANIA 171 Ta
- Page 189 and 190: BANANA TAXONOMY FOR TANZANIA 173 Ta
- Page 191 and 192: APPENDIX C Use of Improved Banana V
- Page 193 and 194: DETAILS OF SAMPLE SURVEY DESIGN 177
- Page 195 and 196: DETAILS OF SAMPLE SURVEY DESIGN 179
- Page 197 and 198: DETAILS OF SAMPLE SURVEY DESIGN 181
- Page 199 and 200: VILLAGE SOCIAL STRUCTURE IN UGANDA
- Page 201 and 202: List of Principal Authors and Contr
- Page 203 and 204: ABOUT THE AUTHORS 187 rigation, and