�ݺ�ߣshows by User: hugodegroote3

�ݺ�ߣshows by User: hugodegroote3 / http://www.slideshare.net/images/logo.gif �ݺ�ߣshows by User: hugodegroote3 / Wed, 06 Jun 2018 07:30:15 GMT �ݺ�ߣShare feed for �ݺ�ߣshows by User: hugodegroote3 De Groote 2017 Striga economics_ILRI /slideshow/de-groote-2017-striga-economicsilri/100883264 degrooteetal2017strigaeconomicsv3-180606073015
Striga is considered a major pest problem in SSA, although the economic importance, as well as economic analysis of control methods, is poorly developed and documented. Better integration of social sciences into the Striga research agenda is proposed, especially to develop a clear conceptual framework on how Striga affects yields through a complex set of interactions. Essential functional relationships between Striga, yields, and the natural and socioeconomic environment need to be determined, in a dynamic framework. Their key parameters need to be estimated, either from previous research or by integration into on-going research, to compare benefits and costs of control methods over time. A comprehensive program economic analysis in Striga research is proposed, consisting of seven steps: estimating extent and intensity of the problem, trials and appropriate economic analysis of new control methods, farmer evaluation of these methods, modeling of the interactions, and impact assessment. For each step, examples are presented from the literature and on-going research of Striga control measures in maize. ]]>
Striga is considered a major pest problem in SSA, although the economic importance, as well as economic analysis of control methods, is poorly developed and documented. Better integration of social sciences into the Striga research agenda is proposed, especially to develop a clear conceptual framework on how Striga affects yields through a complex set of interactions. Essential functional relationships between Striga, yields, and the natural and socioeconomic environment need to be determined, in a dynamic framework. Their key parameters need to be estimated, either from previous research or by integration into on-going research, to compare benefits and costs of control methods over time. A comprehensive program economic analysis in Striga research is proposed, consisting of seven steps: estimating extent and intensity of the problem, trials and appropriate economic analysis of new control methods, farmer evaluation of these methods, modeling of the interactions, and impact assessment. For each step, examples are presented from the literature and on-going research of Striga control measures in maize. ]]> Wed, 06 Jun 2018 07:30:15 GMT /slideshow/de-groote-2017-striga-economicsilri/100883264 hugodegroote3@slideshare.net(hugodegroote3) De Groote 2017 Striga economics_ILRI hugodegroote3 Striga is considered a major pest problem in SSA, although the economic importance, as well as economic analysis of control methods, is poorly developed and documented. Better integration of social sciences into the Striga research agenda is proposed, especially to develop a clear conceptual framework on how Striga affects yields through a complex set of interactions. Essential functional relationships between Striga, yields, and the natural and socioeconomic environment need to be determined, in a dynamic framework. Their key parameters need to be estimated, either from previous research or by integration into on-going research, to compare benefits and costs of control methods over time. A comprehensive program economic analysis in Striga research is proposed, consisting of seven steps: estimating extent and intensity of the problem, trials and appropriate economic analysis of new control methods, farmer evaluation of these methods, modeling of the interactions, and impact assessment. For each step, examples are presented from the literature and on-going research of Striga control measures in maize. <img style="border:1px solid #C3E6D8;float:right;" alt="" src="https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/degrooteetal2017strigaeconomicsv3-180606073015-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds" /> Striga is considered a major pest problem in SSA, although the economic importance, as well as economic analysis of control methods, is poorly developed and documented. Better integration of social sciences into the Striga research agenda is proposed, especially to develop a clear conceptual framework on how Striga affects yields through a complex set of interactions. Essential functional relationships between Striga, yields, and the natural and socioeconomic environment need to be determined, in a dynamic framework. Their key parameters need to be estimated, either from previous research or by integration into on-going research, to compare benefits and costs of control methods over time. A comprehensive program economic analysis in Striga research is proposed, consisting of seven steps: estimating extent and intensity of the problem, trials and appropriate economic analysis of new control methods, farmer evaluation of these methods, modeling of the interactions, and impact assessment. For each step, examples are presented from the literature and on-going research of Striga control measures in maize.

De Groote 2017 Striga economics_ILRI from Hugo De Groote

]]> 124 4 https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/degrooteetal2017strigaeconomicsv3-180606073015-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds presentation Black http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/post

http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/posted

0 De Groote_2018_Randomized interventions and impact nutrition sensitive agriculture_Purdue /slideshow/de-groote2018randomized-interventions-and-impact-nutrition-sensitive-agriculturepurdue/100879258 degrootel2018randomizedinterventionsandimpactpurduev3-180606070151
In the last 50 years, the Green Revolution increased crop yields, increasing food security and incomes of rural households and largely averted anticipated famines. The emphasis of agricultural research then was on quantity and macronutrients but left quality mostly left untouched. In recent years, however, the emphasis has shifted to food quality, focusing on improving the nutrient content of staple crops, improved food processing and safety, and ultimately dietary diversity in vulnerable populations, in particular with amino acids and micronutrients (especially zinc, iron and vitamin A), but also to dietary diversity. From a focus on production of cereals and staples, research now includes food processing and consumption, and follows the value chain from rural producers to urban consumers. Economic analysis and impact assessment in the days of the green revolution was relatively straight forward: observations of yield increases from the new technologies were combined with estimation of adoption levels and costs lead to benefit cost analysis and impact assessment. Impact on food security was mostly assessed by calculating the increased amount of calories available per person, and impact on poverty by estimated the increased incomes of rural households and the decreased poverty rates. The impact assessment of the new nutrition-sensitive agricultural technologies is not as straightforward as that of the green revolution and has required new interdisciplinary methodological developments. How do we measure increases in food quality and dietary diversity? How can we estimate the value of those changes to the consumer? How can we assess the impact of the improved food quality on health? And how do we value the improved health at the individual, household and population level? This presentation discusses recent methods and their application on a range of new nutrition-sensitive agricultural technologies including biofortified maize varieties such as quality protein maize and orange maize with provitamin A carotenoids, agronomic biofortification with zinc, and hermetic storage of maize to reduce insect damage and mycotoxin contamination. ]]>
In the last 50 years, the Green Revolution increased crop yields, increasing food security and incomes of rural households and largely averted anticipated famines. The emphasis of agricultural research then was on quantity and macronutrients but left quality mostly left untouched. In recent years, however, the emphasis has shifted to food quality, focusing on improving the nutrient content of staple crops, improved food processing and safety, and ultimately dietary diversity in vulnerable populations, in particular with amino acids and micronutrients (especially zinc, iron and vitamin A), but also to dietary diversity. From a focus on production of cereals and staples, research now includes food processing and consumption, and follows the value chain from rural producers to urban consumers. Economic analysis and impact assessment in the days of the green revolution was relatively straight forward: observations of yield increases from the new technologies were combined with estimation of adoption levels and costs lead to benefit cost analysis and impact assessment. Impact on food security was mostly assessed by calculating the increased amount of calories available per person, and impact on poverty by estimated the increased incomes of rural households and the decreased poverty rates. The impact assessment of the new nutrition-sensitive agricultural technologies is not as straightforward as that of the green revolution and has required new interdisciplinary methodological developments. How do we measure increases in food quality and dietary diversity? How can we estimate the value of those changes to the consumer? How can we assess the impact of the improved food quality on health? And how do we value the improved health at the individual, household and population level? This presentation discusses recent methods and their application on a range of new nutrition-sensitive agricultural technologies including biofortified maize varieties such as quality protein maize and orange maize with provitamin A carotenoids, agronomic biofortification with zinc, and hermetic storage of maize to reduce insect damage and mycotoxin contamination. ]]> Wed, 06 Jun 2018 07:01:51 GMT /slideshow/de-groote2018randomized-interventions-and-impact-nutrition-sensitive-agriculturepurdue/100879258 hugodegroote3@slideshare.net(hugodegroote3) De Groote_2018_Randomized interventions and impact nutrition sensitive agriculture_Purdue hugodegroote3 In the last 50 years, the Green Revolution increased crop yields, increasing food security and incomes of rural households and largely averted anticipated famines. The emphasis of agricultural research then was on quantity and macronutrients but left quality mostly left untouched. In recent years, however, the emphasis has shifted to food quality, focusing on improving the nutrient content of staple crops, improved food processing and safety, and ultimately dietary diversity in vulnerable populations, in particular with amino acids and micronutrients (especially zinc, iron and vitamin A), but also to dietary diversity. From a focus on production of cereals and staples, research now includes food processing and consumption, and follows the value chain from rural producers to urban consumers. Economic analysis and impact assessment in the days of the green revolution was relatively straight forward: observations of yield increases from the new technologies were combined with estimation of adoption levels and costs lead to benefit cost analysis and impact assessment. Impact on food security was mostly assessed by calculating the increased amount of calories available per person, and impact on poverty by estimated the increased incomes of rural households and the decreased poverty rates. The impact assessment of the new nutrition-sensitive agricultural technologies is not as straightforward as that of the green revolution and has required new interdisciplinary methodological developments. How do we measure increases in food quality and dietary diversity? How can we estimate the value of those changes to the consumer? How can we assess the impact of the improved food quality on health? And how do we value the improved health at the individual, household and population level? This presentation discusses recent methods and their application on a range of new nutrition-sensitive agricultural technologies including biofortified maize varieties such as quality protein maize and orange maize with provitamin A carotenoids, agronomic biofortification with zinc, and hermetic storage of maize to reduce insect damage and mycotoxin contamination. <img style="border:1px solid #C3E6D8;float:right;" alt="" src="https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/degrootel2018randomizedinterventionsandimpactpurduev3-180606070151-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds" /> In the last 50 years, the Green Revolution increased crop yields, increasing food security and incomes of rural households and largely averted anticipated famines. The emphasis of agricultural research then was on quantity and macronutrients but left quality mostly left untouched. In recent years, however, the emphasis has shifted to food quality, focusing on improving the nutrient content of staple crops, improved food processing and safety, and ultimately dietary diversity in vulnerable populations, in particular with amino acids and micronutrients (especially zinc, iron and vitamin A), but also to dietary diversity. From a focus on production of cereals and staples, research now includes food processing and consumption, and follows the value chain from rural producers to urban consumers. Economic analysis and impact assessment in the days of the green revolution was relatively straight forward: observations of yield increases from the new technologies were combined with estimation of adoption levels and costs lead to benefit cost analysis and impact assessment. Impact on food security was mostly assessed by calculating the increased amount of calories available per person, and impact on poverty by estimated the increased incomes of rural households and the decreased poverty rates. The impact assessment of the new nutrition-sensitive agricultural technologies is not as straightforward as that of the green revolution and has required new interdisciplinary methodological developments. How do we measure increases in food quality and dietary diversity? How can we estimate the value of those changes to the consumer? How can we assess the impact of the improved food quality on health? And how do we value the improved health at the individual, household and population level? This presentation discusses recent methods and their application on a range of new nutrition-sensitive agricultural technologies including biofortified maize varieties such as quality protein maize and orange maize with provitamin A carotenoids, agronomic biofortification with zinc, and hermetic storage of maize to reduce insect damage and mycotoxin contamination.

De Groote_2018_Randomized interventions and impact nutrition sensitive agriculture_Purdue from Hugo De Groote

]]> 92 4 https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/degrootel2018randomizedinterventionsandimpactpurduev3-180606070151-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds presentation Black http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/post

http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/posted

0 Gitonga etal impact of metal silo iaae presentation brazilv3 slideshare /slideshow/gitonga-etal-impact-of-metal-silo-iaae-presentation-brazilv3-slideshare/77135448 gitongaetalimpactofmetalsiloiaaepresentationbrazilv3slideshare-170621091217
Maize is the most important food staple in Eastern and Southern Africa, with a highly seasonal production but relatively constant consumption over the year. Farmers have to store maize to bridge seasons, for food security and to protect against price fluctuations. However, the traditional storage methods do not protect grain well, resulting in large postharvest losses. Hermetically sealed metal silos kill storage pests by oxygen deprivation without pesticides. Popular in Central America, they are now being promoted in Africa, but their impact here has not yet been studied. This study used propensity score matching to evaluate the impact of metal silos on duration of maize storage, loss abatement, cost of storage, and household food security. Metal silo adopters (N=116) were matched with non-adopting farmers from a representative sample of 1340 households covering the major maize-growing zones in Kenya. The major effect of the metal silos was an almost elimination of losses due to insect pests, saving farmers an average of 150- 200 kg of grain, worth KSh 9750 (US$130). Metal silo adopters also spent about KSh 340 less on storage insecticides. Adopters were able to store their maize for 1.8 to 2.4 months longer, and sell their surplus after five months at good prices, instead of right after the harvest. The period of inadequate food provision among adopters was reduced by more than one month. We conclude that metal silos are effective in reducing grain losses due to maize-storage insects and have a large impact on the welfare and food security of farm households. The initial cost of metal silos is high (KSh 20,000/ 1.8 ton) and therefore policies to increase access to credit, to reduce the cost of sheet metal and to promote collective action can improve their uptake by smallholder farmers.]]>
Maize is the most important food staple in Eastern and Southern Africa, with a highly seasonal production but relatively constant consumption over the year. Farmers have to store maize to bridge seasons, for food security and to protect against price fluctuations. However, the traditional storage methods do not protect grain well, resulting in large postharvest losses. Hermetically sealed metal silos kill storage pests by oxygen deprivation without pesticides. Popular in Central America, they are now being promoted in Africa, but their impact here has not yet been studied. This study used propensity score matching to evaluate the impact of metal silos on duration of maize storage, loss abatement, cost of storage, and household food security. Metal silo adopters (N=116) were matched with non-adopting farmers from a representative sample of 1340 households covering the major maize-growing zones in Kenya. The major effect of the metal silos was an almost elimination of losses due to insect pests, saving farmers an average of 150- 200 kg of grain, worth KSh 9750 (US$130). Metal silo adopters also spent about KSh 340 less on storage insecticides. Adopters were able to store their maize for 1.8 to 2.4 months longer, and sell their surplus after five months at good prices, instead of right after the harvest. The period of inadequate food provision among adopters was reduced by more than one month. We conclude that metal silos are effective in reducing grain losses due to maize-storage insects and have a large impact on the welfare and food security of farm households. The initial cost of metal silos is high (KSh 20,000/ 1.8 ton) and therefore policies to increase access to credit, to reduce the cost of sheet metal and to promote collective action can improve their uptake by smallholder farmers.]]> Wed, 21 Jun 2017 09:12:17 GMT /slideshow/gitonga-etal-impact-of-metal-silo-iaae-presentation-brazilv3-slideshare/77135448 hugodegroote3@slideshare.net(hugodegroote3) Gitonga etal impact of metal silo iaae presentation brazilv3 slideshare hugodegroote3 Maize is the most important food staple in Eastern and Southern Africa, with a highly seasonal production but relatively constant consumption over the year. Farmers have to store maize to bridge seasons, for food security and to protect against price fluctuations. However, the traditional storage methods do not protect grain well, resulting in large postharvest losses. Hermetically sealed metal silos kill storage pests by oxygen deprivation without pesticides. Popular in Central America, they are now being promoted in Africa, but their impact here has not yet been studied. This study used propensity score matching to evaluate the impact of metal silos on duration of maize storage, loss abatement, cost of storage, and household food security. Metal silo adopters (N=116) were matched with non-adopting farmers from a representative sample of 1340 households covering the major maize-growing zones in Kenya. The major effect of the metal silos was an almost elimination of losses due to insect pests, saving farmers an average of 150- 200 kg of grain, worth KSh 9750 (US$130). Metal silo adopters also spent about KSh 340 less on storage insecticides. Adopters were able to store their maize for 1.8 to 2.4 months longer, and sell their surplus after five months at good prices, instead of right after the harvest. The period of inadequate food provision among adopters was reduced by more than one month. We conclude that metal silos are effective in reducing grain losses due to maize-storage insects and have a large impact on the welfare and food security of farm households. The initial cost of metal silos is high (KSh 20,000/ 1.8 ton) and therefore policies to increase access to credit, to reduce the cost of sheet metal and to promote collective action can improve their uptake by smallholder farmers. <img style="border:1px solid #C3E6D8;float:right;" alt="" src="https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/gitongaetalimpactofmetalsiloiaaepresentationbrazilv3slideshare-170621091217-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds" /> Maize is the most important food staple in Eastern and Southern Africa, with a highly seasonal production but relatively constant consumption over the year. Farmers have to store maize to bridge seasons, for food security and to protect against price fluctuations. However, the traditional storage methods do not protect grain well, resulting in large postharvest losses. Hermetically sealed metal silos kill storage pests by oxygen deprivation without pesticides. Popular in Central America, they are now being promoted in Africa, but their impact here has not yet been studied. This study used propensity score matching to evaluate the impact of metal silos on duration of maize storage, loss abatement, cost of storage, and household food security. Metal silo adopters (N=116) were matched with non-adopting farmers from a representative sample of 1340 households covering the major maize-growing zones in Kenya. The major effect of the metal silos was an almost elimination of losses due to insect pests, saving farmers an average of 150- 200 kg of grain, worth KSh 9750 (US$130). Metal silo adopters also spent about KSh 340 less on storage insecticides. Adopters were able to store their maize for 1.8 to 2.4 months longer, and sell their surplus after five months at good prices, instead of right after the harvest. The period of inadequate food provision among adopters was reduced by more than one month. We conclude that metal silos are effective in reducing grain losses due to maize-storage insects and have a large impact on the welfare and food security of farm households. The initial cost of metal silos is high (KSh 20,000/ 1.8 ton) and therefore policies to increase access to credit, to reduce the cost of sheet metal and to promote collective action can improve their uptake by smallholder farmers.

Gitonga etal impact of metal silo iaae presentation brazilv3 slideshare from Hugo De Groote

]]> 69 2 https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/gitongaetalimpactofmetalsiloiaaepresentationbrazilv3slideshare-170621091217-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds presentation Black http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/post

http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/posted

0 De groote etal 2010 extension of qpm_aaae v4_slideshare /slideshow/de-groote-etal-2010-extension-of-qpmaaae-v4slideshare/77134012 degrooteetal2010extensionofqpmaaaev4slideshare-170621082626
Abstract Biofortified crops can be promoted with extension strategies based on their agronomic qualities, nutritional qualities, or both, but the effectiveness of these different strategies has so far not been studied. Since 2003, quality protein maize (QPM) has been disseminated using both approaches in East Africa. This study therefore analyzes the effectiveness of promoting biofortified crops based on their agronomic and their nutritional qualities on the adoption of QPM cultivars in East Africa. A random sample survey was conducted in Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda, with 423 households from QPM extension areas and 539 households from similar areas outside the extension zone. Propensity score matching and regression analysis were used to assess determinants of QPM adoption, including farmers’ awareness of QPM, understanding of its nutritional benefits, and evaluation of agronomic performance to evaluate the agronomic and nutritional extension strategies. Results showed high familiarity with QPM, but low understanding of nutritional benefits. Farmers evaluated QPM varieties as equal or superior to conventional maize for post-harvest traits, but not always for agronomic traits (in particular yield in Ethiopia and Tanzania). Adoption in extension areas varied from 73% in Uganda and 25% in Tanzania to none in Kenya. Key factors that increased adoption were farmers’ participation in extension, having heard of QPM, higher overall evaluation ratings of QPM vs. conventional maize varieties, and understanding of QPM’s nutritional benefits. Agronomic performance was found to be more important than an understanding of nutritional benefits. For biofortified crops to be adopted and have a nutritional impact on target populations, they should, first and foremost, be agronomically equal or superior to conventional varieties. If farmers are convinced of the agronomic performance of biofortified crops, additional gains in adoption can be achieved by focusing extension efforts on imparting farmers with knowledge of the benefits of biofortified crops for human nutrition. ]]>
Abstract Biofortified crops can be promoted with extension strategies based on their agronomic qualities, nutritional qualities, or both, but the effectiveness of these different strategies has so far not been studied. Since 2003, quality protein maize (QPM) has been disseminated using both approaches in East Africa. This study therefore analyzes the effectiveness of promoting biofortified crops based on their agronomic and their nutritional qualities on the adoption of QPM cultivars in East Africa. A random sample survey was conducted in Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda, with 423 households from QPM extension areas and 539 households from similar areas outside the extension zone. Propensity score matching and regression analysis were used to assess determinants of QPM adoption, including farmers’ awareness of QPM, understanding of its nutritional benefits, and evaluation of agronomic performance to evaluate the agronomic and nutritional extension strategies. Results showed high familiarity with QPM, but low understanding of nutritional benefits. Farmers evaluated QPM varieties as equal or superior to conventional maize for post-harvest traits, but not always for agronomic traits (in particular yield in Ethiopia and Tanzania). Adoption in extension areas varied from 73% in Uganda and 25% in Tanzania to none in Kenya. Key factors that increased adoption were farmers’ participation in extension, having heard of QPM, higher overall evaluation ratings of QPM vs. conventional maize varieties, and understanding of QPM’s nutritional benefits. Agronomic performance was found to be more important than an understanding of nutritional benefits. For biofortified crops to be adopted and have a nutritional impact on target populations, they should, first and foremost, be agronomically equal or superior to conventional varieties. If farmers are convinced of the agronomic performance of biofortified crops, additional gains in adoption can be achieved by focusing extension efforts on imparting farmers with knowledge of the benefits of biofortified crops for human nutrition. ]]> Wed, 21 Jun 2017 08:26:26 GMT /slideshow/de-groote-etal-2010-extension-of-qpmaaae-v4slideshare/77134012 hugodegroote3@slideshare.net(hugodegroote3) De groote etal 2010 extension of qpm_aaae v4_slideshare hugodegroote3 Abstract Biofortified crops can be promoted with extension strategies based on their agronomic qualities, nutritional qualities, or both, but the effectiveness of these different strategies has so far not been studied. Since 2003, quality protein maize (QPM) has been disseminated using both approaches in East Africa. This study therefore analyzes the effectiveness of promoting biofortified crops based on their agronomic and their nutritional qualities on the adoption of QPM cultivars in East Africa. A random sample survey was conducted in Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda, with 423 households from QPM extension areas and 539 households from similar areas outside the extension zone. Propensity score matching and regression analysis were used to assess determinants of QPM adoption, including farmers’ awareness of QPM, understanding of its nutritional benefits, and evaluation of agronomic performance to evaluate the agronomic and nutritional extension strategies. Results showed high familiarity with QPM, but low understanding of nutritional benefits. Farmers evaluated QPM varieties as equal or superior to conventional maize for post-harvest traits, but not always for agronomic traits (in particular yield in Ethiopia and Tanzania). Adoption in extension areas varied from 73% in Uganda and 25% in Tanzania to none in Kenya. Key factors that increased adoption were farmers’ participation in extension, having heard of QPM, higher overall evaluation ratings of QPM vs. conventional maize varieties, and understanding of QPM’s nutritional benefits. Agronomic performance was found to be more important than an understanding of nutritional benefits. For biofortified crops to be adopted and have a nutritional impact on target populations, they should, first and foremost, be agronomically equal or superior to conventional varieties. If farmers are convinced of the agronomic performance of biofortified crops, additional gains in adoption can be achieved by focusing extension efforts on imparting farmers with knowledge of the benefits of biofortified crops for human nutrition. <img style="border:1px solid #C3E6D8;float:right;" alt="" src="https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/degrooteetal2010extensionofqpmaaaev4slideshare-170621082626-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds" /> Abstract Biofortified crops can be promoted with extension strategies based on their agronomic qualities, nutritional qualities, or both, but the effectiveness of these different strategies has so far not been studied. Since 2003, quality protein maize (QPM) has been disseminated using both approaches in East Africa. This study therefore analyzes the effectiveness of promoting biofortified crops based on their agronomic and their nutritional qualities on the adoption of QPM cultivars in East Africa. A random sample survey was conducted in Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda, with 423 households from QPM extension areas and 539 households from similar areas outside the extension zone. Propensity score matching and regression analysis were used to assess determinants of QPM adoption, including farmers’ awareness of QPM, understanding of its nutritional benefits, and evaluation of agronomic performance to evaluate the agronomic and nutritional extension strategies. Results showed high familiarity with QPM, but low understanding of nutritional benefits. Farmers evaluated QPM varieties as equal or superior to conventional maize for post-harvest traits, but not always for agronomic traits (in particular yield in Ethiopia and Tanzania). Adoption in extension areas varied from 73% in Uganda and 25% in Tanzania to none in Kenya. Key factors that increased adoption were farmers’ participation in extension, having heard of QPM, higher overall evaluation ratings of QPM vs. conventional maize varieties, and understanding of QPM’s nutritional benefits. Agronomic performance was found to be more important than an understanding of nutritional benefits. For biofortified crops to be adopted and have a nutritional impact on target populations, they should, first and foremost, be agronomically equal or superior to conventional varieties. If farmers are convinced of the agronomic performance of biofortified crops, additional gains in adoption can be achieved by focusing extension efforts on imparting farmers with knowledge of the benefits of biofortified crops for human nutrition.

De groote etal 2010 extension of qpm_aaae v4_slideshare from Hugo De Groote

]]> 119 2 https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/degrooteetal2010extensionofqpmaaaev4slideshare-170621082626-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds presentation Black http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/post

http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/posted

0 De groote 2014 but what do rural consumers say about gm food v4_rutgers for slideshare /hugodegroote3/de-groote-2014-but-what-do-rural-consumers-say-about-gm-food-v4rutgers-for-slideshare degroote2014butwhatdoruralconsumerssayaboutgmfoodv4rutgersforslideshare-170621081431
Abstract: So far few African countries have accepted genetically modified (GM) crops, despite their high potential for increasing food production. The opinion of African consumers is missing in the debate, especially of those in rural areas. Therefore, a survey was conducted among rural consumers in the major maize-growing areas of Kenya to gauge their acceptance of GM food. A third of respondents were aware of GM crops, and their main information source was radio. Most respondents would buy GM maize meal at the same price as conventional maize meal, and even pay a premium. Results show that the rural population of Kenya lacks access to relevant information to make informed decisions and contribute to the debate on the use of GM crops in Africa. A concerted, public policy effort is therefore needed, where the wider use of radio to reach the rural population should be explored. Provided with balanced information, rural consumers show a high degree of acceptance of GM maize. Keywords: Africa; biotechnology; consumer; contingent valuation; GM ]]>
Abstract: So far few African countries have accepted genetically modified (GM) crops, despite their high potential for increasing food production. The opinion of African consumers is missing in the debate, especially of those in rural areas. Therefore, a survey was conducted among rural consumers in the major maize-growing areas of Kenya to gauge their acceptance of GM food. A third of respondents were aware of GM crops, and their main information source was radio. Most respondents would buy GM maize meal at the same price as conventional maize meal, and even pay a premium. Results show that the rural population of Kenya lacks access to relevant information to make informed decisions and contribute to the debate on the use of GM crops in Africa. A concerted, public policy effort is therefore needed, where the wider use of radio to reach the rural population should be explored. Provided with balanced information, rural consumers show a high degree of acceptance of GM maize. Keywords: Africa; biotechnology; consumer; contingent valuation; GM ]]> Wed, 21 Jun 2017 08:14:31 GMT /hugodegroote3/de-groote-2014-but-what-do-rural-consumers-say-about-gm-food-v4rutgers-for-slideshare hugodegroote3@slideshare.net(hugodegroote3) De groote 2014 but what do rural consumers say about gm food v4_rutgers for slideshare hugodegroote3 Abstract: So far few African countries have accepted genetically modified (GM) crops, despite their high potential for increasing food production. The opinion of African consumers is missing in the debate, especially of those in rural areas. Therefore, a survey was conducted among rural consumers in the major maize-growing areas of Kenya to gauge their acceptance of GM food. A third of respondents were aware of GM crops, and their main information source was radio. Most respondents would buy GM maize meal at the same price as conventional maize meal, and even pay a premium. Results show that the rural population of Kenya lacks access to relevant information to make informed decisions and contribute to the debate on the use of GM crops in Africa. A concerted, public policy effort is therefore needed, where the wider use of radio to reach the rural population should be explored. Provided with balanced information, rural consumers show a high degree of acceptance of GM maize. Keywords: Africa; biotechnology; consumer; contingent valuation; GM <img style="border:1px solid #C3E6D8;float:right;" alt="" src="https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/degroote2014butwhatdoruralconsumerssayaboutgmfoodv4rutgersforslideshare-170621081431-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds" /> Abstract: So far few African countries have accepted genetically modified (GM) crops, despite their high potential for increasing food production. The opinion of African consumers is missing in the debate, especially of those in rural areas. Therefore, a survey was conducted among rural consumers in the major maize-growing areas of Kenya to gauge their acceptance of GM food. A third of respondents were aware of GM crops, and their main information source was radio. Most respondents would buy GM maize meal at the same price as conventional maize meal, and even pay a premium. Results show that the rural population of Kenya lacks access to relevant information to make informed decisions and contribute to the debate on the use of GM crops in Africa. A concerted, public policy effort is therefore needed, where the wider use of radio to reach the rural population should be explored. Provided with balanced information, rural consumers show a high degree of acceptance of GM maize. Keywords: Africa; biotechnology; consumer; contingent valuation; GM

De groote 2014 but what do rural consumers say about gm food v4_rutgers for slideshare from Hugo De Groote

]]> 55 2 https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/degroote2014butwhatdoruralconsumerssayaboutgmfoodv4rutgersforslideshare-170621081431-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds presentation Black http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/post

http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/posted

0 https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/profile-photo-hugodegroote3-48x48.jpg?cb=1550256208 I am a principal scientist/agricultural economist with CIMMYT in Kenya. I have an M.Sc. in tropical agriculture from the University of Ghent, Belgium, and a Ph.D. in Agricultural Economics from the University of Wisconsin, U.S.A. My research activities include the economic analysis and participatory evaluation of new technologies (stress resistant maize varieties, nutritionally enhanced maize varieties, crop management techniques, …) and analysis of policies and institutions relevant to these technologies (such as seed systems, credit and extension, and biotechnology policies). Previous, I was coordinator of the biological control project at IITA, in Benin, conducting economic analysis... https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/degrooteetal2017strigaeconomicsv3-180606073015-thumbnail.jpg?width=320&height=320&fit=bounds slideshow/de-groote-2017-striga-economicsilri/100883264 De Groote 2017 Striga ... https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/degrootel2018randomizedinterventionsandimpactpurduev3-180606070151-thumbnail.jpg?width=320&height=320&fit=bounds slideshow/de-groote2018randomized-interventions-and-impact-nutrition-sensitive-agriculturepurdue/100879258 De Groote_2018_Randomi... https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/gitongaetalimpactofmetalsiloiaaepresentationbrazilv3slideshare-170621091217-thumbnail.jpg?width=320&height=320&fit=bounds slideshow/gitonga-etal-impact-of-metal-silo-iaae-presentation-brazilv3-slideshare/77135448 Gitonga etal impact of...