here> 5.3near here>
BANANA-GROWING HOUSEHOLDS AND BANANA CULTIVARS 51 Table 5.2 Average total value per household <strong>of</strong> crops stored, livestock, <strong>and</strong> other assets, <strong>and</strong> percentage distribution by type <strong>of</strong> asset, Ug<strong>and</strong>a (Ush) Elevation Table 5.3 Average total value per household <strong>of</strong> crops stored, livestock, <strong>and</strong> other assets, <strong>and</strong> percentage distribution by type <strong>of</strong> asset, Tanzania (Tsh) Elevation Asset Low High All Asset Low High All Crops in storage 23,730 21,663 23,508 Livestock 326,934 264,985 320,287 Other assets 49,957 72,325 52,357 Percentage distribution Crops in storage 19.9*** 28.5*** 20.8 Livestock 49.3*** 32.9*** 47.6 Other assets 30.8** 38.6** 31.6 Total 100 100 100 Notes: *** <strong>and</strong> ** indicate statistical significance at the 1 percent <strong>and</strong> 5 percent levels, respectively, in the difference <strong>of</strong> means or distributions across elevations within countries. Other assets include radios, bicycles, <strong>and</strong> motorcycles. Crops in storage 32,765*** 38,234*** 34,400 Livestock 176,559*** 330,695*** 222,621 Other assets 135,494*** 171,159*** 146,152 Percentage distribution Crops in storage 18.7** 11.1** 16.9 Livestock 29.3*** 41.1*** 32.2 Other assets 52.0** 47.7** 50.9 Total 100 100 100 Notes: *** <strong>and</strong> ** indicate statistical significance at the 1 percent <strong>and</strong> 5 percent levels, respectively, in the difference <strong>of</strong> means or distributions across elevations within countries. Other assets include furniture, radios, bicycles, <strong>and</strong> motorcycles. In Tanzania, the most important food crops kept in storage at the time <strong>of</strong> the survey included beans, maize, groundnuts, bambara nuts, <strong>and</strong> sorghum. Other crops found stored by farmers were dried cassava, soybeans, cowpeas, <strong>and</strong> c<strong>of</strong>fee. High-elevation areas have higher average total values <strong>of</strong> crops in storage than do low-elevation areas. In Ug<strong>and</strong>a, livestock include cattle, chickens, goats, sheep, <strong>and</strong> pigs. Livestock contributes the highest overall value (49 percent) <strong>of</strong> the three asset categories for which value was easily assessed with market prices. Although levels did not differ significantly because <strong>of</strong> underlying variation, proportional distributions among asset categories clearly depend on elevation, with the value <strong>of</strong> stored crops <strong>and</strong> consumer durables being greater in the highl<strong>and</strong>s. Because cattle were distributed across much <strong>of</strong> the area in either elevation zone, <strong>and</strong> chickens were concentrated among villages in the low-elevation areas, livestock assets contribute proportionately more to total assets in the low-elevation zone. In part because <strong>of</strong> wide variation among households, differences in total value <strong>of</strong> livestock are not statistically significant—except in the case <strong>of</strong> chickens. In high-elevation areas, chickens are less important in the diet. They also tend to destroy mulch in banana groves, imposing a constraint on banana production. Goats also appear to be relatively more important in high-elevation areas. In Tanzania, households keep cattle, goats, sheep, pigs, chickens, <strong>and</strong> ducks, <strong>and</strong> livestock represents the largest in value on average <strong>of</strong> the three major asset categories (crops stored, livestock, <strong>and</strong> other consumer durables). The number <strong>of</strong> farmers keeping livestock types <strong>and</strong> average number <strong>of</strong> each type per household differ statistically across the agroecological zones, as do asset values by elevation. Households in the highl<strong>and</strong>s have a higher value <strong>of</strong> each type <strong>of</strong> asset than those in the lowl<strong>and</strong>s. Livestock value (Tsh 330,695) in the highl<strong>and</strong>s was about twice that in the lowl<strong>and</strong>s (Tsh 176,559). Percentage distributions by type <strong>of</strong> asset
- 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 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 160 and 161:
144 CHAPTER 10 (Kangire and Rutherf
- 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