Fertilizer use among smallholder farmers in Uganda
Stephen Bayite-Kasule, Patrick Lubega Korugyendo, and Todd Benson
International Food Policy Research Institute, Kampala, Uganda
Presentation at conference:
Increasing Agricultural Productivity & Enhancing Food Security in Africa:
New Challenges and Opportunities
13 November 2011; Africa Hall, UNECA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Conference sub-theme: Rural service provision and access to factors and inputs for production
Abstract
Although increasing inorganic fertilizer use is recognized as a key strategy for increasing farm
productivity, Uganda’s smallholder agricultural sector continues to register one of the lowest
fertilizer use levels in sub-Saharan Africa. Promoting increased adoption of improved
agricultural technologies such as inorganic fertilizer is being pursued as a strategy to
rejuvenate the agricultural sector. This paper focuses on both supply-side and demand-side
issues that determine inorganic fertilizer use by smallholder farmers in four study areas in the
Central and Eastern regions of Uganda. A survey on fertilizer acquisition and use was
administered to 275 farmers who were randomly selected from lists of fertilizer users and
non-users in each survey cluster.
The overall objective of this study was to investigate demand-side constraints to fertilizer use
by smallholder farmers in Uganda. A quantitative analysis was carried out to identify the
major determinants of fertilizer use by farmers. Also, key characteristics of the farmers were
examined disaggregated by fertilizer use and non-use. At household level, the household head
being a woman and the number of years the head of household has engaged in farming are
negatively associated with fertilizer use, whereas somewhat higher asset ownership,
involvement in off-farm work of a skilled nature, and a subjective assessment that quality of
the soil one farms is poor have a positive effect on fertilizer use.
The broad finding of this study is that lack of information results in either higher costs or
inefficient use of inorganic fertilizer by smallholder farmers in Uganda. In addition, although
fertilizer use may be profitable on average for smallholder farmers, the variation in returns
reduce incentives for risk-averse farmers to use fertilizer. Developing sustainable,
competitive input supply and output marketing systems are essential for stimulating fertilizer
use in Uganda.
This conference paper has not been peer reviewed. Any opinions stated herein are those of the author(s) and
are not necessarily endorsed by or representative of IFPRI or of the cosponsoring or supporting
organizations
Contents
Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... i
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Agricultural productivity and the role of fertilizer in Uganda ................................................... 1
Survey design ............................................................................................................................. 3
Characteristics of fertilizer users and non-users......................................................................... 3
Determinants of fertilizer use ..................................................................................................... 5
Fertilizer use on crops ................................................................................................................ 6
Access to fertilizer ...................................................................................................................... 8
Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 10
References ................................................................................................................................ 11
List of tables
Table 1: Engagement in off-farm income generating activities by household head, by
fertilizer use and non-use .................................................................................................. 5
Table 2: Agricultural experience and farmland, by fertilizer use and non-use .......................... 5
Table 3: Multi-variate logistic analysis of farmer and farm-level determinants of
fertilizer use ...................................................................................................................... 6
Table 4: Maize, vegetables, Robusta coffee and, Arabica coffee, production of and use
of fertilizer on crop by sample farmers ............................................................................. 7
Table 5: Crop management characteristics, by crop and fertilizer use ...................................... 7
Table 6: Fertilizer use, by crop ................................................................................................... 8
Table 7: Farmer access to fertilizer ............................................................................................ 8
Table 8: Fertilizer purchases by farmers .................................................................................... 9
Table 9: Transport of fertilizer from dealer to farm and time from purchase to
application ......................................................................................................................... 9
List of figures
Figure 1: Study areas for farmer survey in Uganda ................................................................... 3
Figure 2: Demographic, education attainment and asset endowments ...................................... 4
ii
Introduction
The number of people who are food insecure in Uganda has increased from 12 million in 1992
to 17.7 million in 2007. Recent agricultural productivity growth has been at 2.6 percent
compared to a population growth rate of 3.5 percent. This trend is set to continue as soil
fertility continues to decline with low usage of productivity-enhancing inputs and more land
being brought into production (MAAIF, 2010). Although Uganda is one of the countries in
Sub-Saharan Africa with the highest level of soil nutrient mining (Henao and Baanante,
2006), fertilizer use levels remain very low. Increased use of inorganic fertilizer in
combination with other improved agricultural technologies, such as improved high yielding
seeds, good agronomic practices, and irrigation, can improve agricultural productivity.
While globally there has been considerable research and policy analysis on fertilizer
promotion and use (Crawford et al., 2005), in Uganda this has not been the case. Many
knowledge gaps still remain, including on the state of fertility of Uganda’s soils, the yield
response to fertilizer for key crops, and the profitability of fertilizer use on specific crops.
Increasing the use of inorganic fertilizer requires a clear understanding of both supply and
demand constraints that keep fertilizer usage rates low in Uganda. A better understanding of
whether inorganic fertilizer is available, affordable and profitable to smallholder farmers will
provide insights on fertilizer use trends and how they can be improved. While policy changes
may be constructive in reducing the costs faced by smallholder farmers to access and use
inorganic fertilizer and thereby improve profitability, a broad assessment of how fertilizer is
supplied to Ugandan smallholders is needed to guide the design of the new policies. Such an
assessment should take into consideration household factors, transaction costs, output market
dynamics, and how they interact to influence fertilizer use by smallholder farmers.
Government policy on the procurement and use of fertilizer are important determinants of the
intensity of fertilizer use and indirectly affects how profitable its use may be for smallholder
farmers. Because fertilizer is imported from foreign countries, the Ugandan market is a pricetaker and, as such, incremental transaction costs during marketing and distribution may play a
significant role in inhibiting fertilizer use by smallholder farmers. Additionally, agricultural
product markets are not predictable, presenting mixed signals to farmers further impeding
fertilizer use. Finally, the lack of information on fertilizer response rates across Uganda’s
agroecological zones makes it difficult for farmers to determine whether or not to use
fertilizer on their smallholdings. The objective of this study is to develop a clearer
understanding of the determinants of fertilizer use by smallholder farmers in Uganda, using
those insights to guide policy and program approaches in the public agricultural sector in
Uganda for increasing the profitable use of fertilizer by smallholder farmers.
Agricultural productivity and the role of fertilizer in Uganda
Low fertilizer use is symptomatic of wider structural problems in the economy that limit
agricultural productivity growth, such as poor infrastructure, weak institutions and lack of
information and human capacity. According to the Uganda National Household Survey
2005/06, few farmers were found to be using fertilizer – only one percent of the total farm
households surveyed applied inorganic fertilizer to their crops (UBOS 2007). The World
Bank has estimated that an agricultural production growth rate of 4 percent per annum is
required to stimulate a satisfactory level of general economic development with annual
increases of labor and land productivity of 1.5 and 3 percent respectively. Because arable
land under agricultural production in Uganda has been severely mined of nutrients over time,
inorganic fertilizers provide an option for reversing the negative agricultural productivity
1
trends. To increase the growth rate of Uganda’s agricultural sector from 2.6 percent to the
desirable 4 percent per annum, research into understanding how best to meet the challenge of
increasing the use of productivity enhancing inputs such as inorganic fertilizer is needed.
Fertilizer has been and continues to be a key ingredient in intensified agricultural systems and
has helped farmers in other parts of the world overcome land constraints and improves
aggregate production (Bumb, 1996).
If agricultural inputs markets are fairly stable and output markets are sufficiently well
functioning to present an opportunity to farmers to recoup their investment in applied
fertilizer, then farmers should be relatively confident in making the investment decision to
purchase and apply fertilizer. Unfortunately this is not the case in Uganda. Fertilizer costs
constitute a large proportion of production-related cash outlays and thereby subjects the
farmer to greater financial risk. Creating the necessary incentive structure to get farmers to
use inorganic fertilizer requires a critical analysis of the supply and demand constraints that
keep usage rates low in Uganda, especially among smallholder farmers. Ideally, inorganic
fertilizer should be available, affordable, and profitable for both suppliers and farmers.
Despite the growing problems of declining soil quality and declining agricultural productivity,
a comprehensive understanding of the economics of fertilizer use by smallholder farmers in
Uganda is not available. Fertilizer use is a major investment decision for smallholder farmers,
and fertilizer is very expensive in Uganda — farmers need to invest their money in fertilizer
with a good idea of the level of returns that they will obtain for each shilling invested.
Generating evidence on fertiliser use profitability will address specific questions critical to
understanding how profitability of fertiliser use is likely to shape the production decisions of
smallholder farmers (Yanggen et al 1998). The evidence needed includes:
•
Understanding how the key crops grown respond to fertiliser applications across the
different agroecological zones in Uganda.
•
Is fertiliser use across the various agroecological zones profitable? For instance farmers in
areas which have large tracts of uncultivated arable land may find it unprofitable to
produce using fertiliser, whereas those in high population and nutrient depleted areas will
find it profitable to apply and use fertiliser.
•
What are the key factors that influence the yield response across the various
agroecological zones?
•
What are the fertiliser/output price ratios and how do they influence fertiliser use among
smallholder farmers? Because the value of the additional crop yield obtained from using
fertiliser compared to the cost of fertiliser (Value Cost Ratio) is unknown, many farmers
are reluctant to apply fertiliser. A VCR greater than two is considered an adequate
incentive for farmers to apply fertiliser (Kelly, 2006). Moreover, price variability is very
high in Ugandan output markets. This price uncertainty discourages farmers from
investing in fertiliser as they are not sure of the return to their investment in fertiliser.
Lastly, because profitable use of fertilisers is closely tied to fertiliser sourcing, any efforts that
enhance the profitability of fertilizer use also will have to deal with challenges in fertiliser
procurement. Many analysts of fertiliser use and policy makers in Africa contend that getting
the right fertiliser to the right place at the right time is as important as price-response
interactions in determining fertiliser use (Fontaine 1991; Pinstrup-Andersen 1993).
2
Survey design
This study uses data collected from smallholder farmers in areas identified through analysis of
the agricultural module of the 2005/06 Uganda National Household Survey. The study areas
are areas of the country with greater prevalence of fertilizer use by farmers on their crop plots.
These are:
•
Around Masaka in south-central Uganda where fertilizer is used on Robusta coffee and
maize;
•
Districts in the peri-urban area around Kampala where fertilizer is used on vegetables;
•
Iganga area in south-eastern Uganda where fertilized maize is grown; and
•
Districts on the western slopes of Mount Elgon where maize and Arabica coffee receive
fertilizer.
Figure 1: Study areas for farmer survey in Uganda
A sample of 270 farmers – the actors at the end of fertilizer importation and marketing chains
in Uganda – were chosen in the four study areas for our survey. Both fertilizer users and nonusers were included. Four farming communities were randomly selected in sub-counties of
these study areas. Lists of farmers were drawn up in each community. These lists were
divided according to whether the farmers on the list were known to use fertilizer or not. Eight
fertilizer users and eight non-users in each community were then randomly selected from
these twin lists for inclusion in the sample. As non-random judgments were made at several
steps in the sample selection process, it would be erroneous to assume that the sub-samples
are closely representative of farmers who do or do not use fertilizer in the study areas.
However, the comparisons that our data allows us to make between users and non-users
should be relatively robust.
Characteristics of fertilizer users and non-users
General characteristics of the farming households in the sample are presented in Figure 2.
While the sample was selected with an aim to split it equally into fertilizer users and nonusers, success was mixed in this regard. Fertilizer use among vegetable farmers in the peri3
urban Kampala area was much higher than anticipated, with four out of five sample farmers
using fertilizer. In contract, in Masaka, somewhat more non-users than users were
interviewed.
While there are considerable differences in the demographic characteristics of households
between study zones, the only significant differences observed between fertilizer users and
non-users are found in the sex and age of the household head. Households that use fertilizer
on at least some of their crops tend to be headed by younger men. In terms of educational
attainment of the household head, there are significant differences between fertilizer users and
non-users in the full sample for all three levels considered – any formal education, completion
of primary school, and completion of secondary school. With regards to household asset
ownership, the general trend is that fertilizer users tend to be better endowed. However, of the
assets considered, the only statistically significant difference between fertilizer users and nonusers is with regards to ownership of bicycles or motorcycles.
Figure 2: Demographic, education attainment and asset endowments
Table 1 shows differences in off-farm sources of income for the head of farming households
in the sample, disaggregated fertilizer use and non-use. Statistically significant differences
between fertilizer users and non-users are seen along several dimensions. Users are
significantly more likely to engage in off-farm employment than are non-users. Of those who
do work off-farm, the type of work that fertilizer users engage in is likely (p<=0.1) to be more
highly paid skilled work than unskilled work or trading activities. The off-farm workers who
use fertilizer are significantly more likely to work off-farm for more months of the year than
those off-farm workers who do not use fertilizer in their farming activities and to spend more
days in those months working off-farm. Although there are differences across study areas, the
average monthly income obtained when working off-farm is, in consequence, significantly
higher for fertilizer users than for non-users.
4
Table 1: Engagement in off-farm income generating activities by household head, by fertilizer
use and non-use
Nonuser
Engage in off-farm work, %
Of those, engaged in:
User
All
24.6
45.3
36.7
Unskilled work, %
Skilled work, %
Trade, %
25.9
21.1
22.4
18.5
36.6
31.6
55.6
42.3
45.9
Months per year engage in off-farm work, mean
Work days per month in off-farm work when engaged, mean
Off-farm work income for those engaged, monthly UShs ‘000s, mean
UShs ‘000s, median
n
6.8
8.6
8.1
17.1
21.1
19.9
139.7
276.3
239.4
50
200
150
114
161
275
Table 2 provides descriptive statistics on the agricultural experience and aspects of the land
that farmers in the study sample farm. Here again some significant differences are seen
between fertilizer users and non-users. In keeping with the earlier finding that non-users tend
to be older, non-users also tend to be more experienced farmers on average. However,
fertilizer users have somewhat larger farms than do non-users, although the pattern is not
consistent across study areas. There are no significant differences in how the farmland was
obtained across the entire sample. Farmers were asked to provide a subjective assessment of
the fertility and productivity of the soil on their farm when fertilizer is not used on it. As
might be expected, while there were no differences in the proportion of users and non-users
who characterize the soil quality as ‘good’, a significantly larger proportion of users
characterized their soil as being of ‘poor’ quality.
Table 2: Agricultural experience and farmland, by fertilizer use and non-use
Fertilizer use
Farming experience:
mean, years
median, years
Farm area:
mean, ha
median, ha
Acquired most of land by purchase or rent, %
Characterizes general soil quality of farm as: poor, %
good, %
n
Non-user
User
All
23.7
18.4
20.6
20
19
20
1.9
2.8
2.4
1.2
1.6
1.6
52.6
59.6
56.7
34.5
46.9
41.8
21.2
15.6
17.9
114
161
275
Determinants of fertilizer use
Using household and individual-level variables, a regression analysis of the determinants of
fertilizer demand in the study areas was conducted. This analysis, while not able to provide a
nationally representative outlook due to the size of the sample, nonetheless provides insights
into the key factors that determine the participation of the sample farming households in
fertilizer markets. The findings can contribute to setting appropriate policy solutions to the
barriers to smallholder farmer use of fertilizer in Uganda.
The analysis uses a multi-variate logistic maximum likelihood estimation approach to assess
the relationship between several characteristics of the farming household and their farm and
how they interact to influence fertilizer use or non-use by the household. The results of this
multi-variate analysis are shown in Table 3. The results are presented as odds ratios, rather
than as coefficients. The odds ratio is the chance of the dependent variable – fertilizer use by
5
the farming household – changing from 0 to 1 (a positive outcome in statistical terms) as a
result of a one-unit positive change in the independent variable. In contrast to regression
based models where a statistically insignificant coefficient is zero, statistically insignificant
odds ratio is one – that is, a 1-to-1 or even chance. Odds ratios that are less than one represent
an inverse relationship between the independent and dependent variable, while odds ratios
greater than one represent a direct relationship.
Although it was shown earlier that there are significant differences between fertilizer using
farmers and non-users for most of these determinants, when these determinants are considered
jointly in this multivariate model, only a handful remain as statistically significant
determinants of fertilizer use. Determinants that are negatively associated with fertilizer use
include the household head being a woman and the number of years the head of household has
engaged in farming. Positive determinants of fertilizer use among farmer survey sample
households are ownership of a motorcycle, involvement in off-farm work of a skilled nature,
and a subjective assessment that quality of the soil farmed is poor. The other potential
determinants investigated here are shown to be statistically not significant.
While all evidence points to the importance, for example, for fertilizer-using farmers to have a
remunerative off-farm employment source or a relatively good asset base, which this model
confirms, it also is important to note that the pseudo-R2 for the model is quite low at 0.159.
Much of why farmers in the sample choose to use or not use fertilizer is unexplained by this
model.
Table 3: Multi-variate logistic analysis of farmer and farm-level determinants of fertilizer use
Explanatory variables
Oddsratio
Standard
error
Female household head (0/1)
0.230***
0.082
Household size, members
1.045
0.044
Full-time farm workers in household, number
1.016
0.099
Primary school – head completed (0/1)
1.206
0.372
Secondary school – head completed (0/1)
1.997
1.011
House has cement-mortared walls (0/1)
1.173
0.347
Owns motorcycle(0/1)
3.303***
1.410
Engages in skilled off-farm employment (0/1)
3.161**
1.803
Engages in trade off-farm (0/1)
0.641
0.268
Farming experience, years
0.972**
0.012
Land under crops, ha
1.014
0.060
Considers soil on farm to be poor (0/1)
1.926**
0.614
Considers soil on farm to be good (0/1)
0.995
0.414
Purchased or rents most of farmland (0/1)
1.366
0.397
Owns livestock (0/1)
1.446
0.568
n
Pseudo-R2
260
0.159
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Fertilizer use on crops
The farmer survey focused on four crops on which fertilizer is sometimes used in the study
areas – Robusta coffee, Arabica coffee, maize, and vegetables. Table 4 shows what
proportion of the sample of farmers produces each crop, and of those farmers, what proportion
uses fertilizer on the crop. Of the four crops, vegetables, if grown, are most likely to receive
fertilizer. However, maize is more commonly grown and is frequently fertilized.
Consequently, maize is the most fertilized of the four crops among the sampled farmers.
6
Table 4: Maize, vegetables, Robusta coffee and, Arabica coffee, production of and use of
fertilizer on crop by sample farmers
All
Masaka
Kampala
Iganga
Mbale
98.4
82.4
Maize, %
77.8
Of whom use fertilizer, %
44.4
30.5
50.0
48.3
50.8
Vegetables, %
42.5
30.1
92.5
31.1
18.9
Of whom use fertilizer, %
65.0
31.8
79.0
47.4
78.6
80.8
50.7
Robusta coffee, %
34.9
72.6
28.4
39.3
Of whom use fertilizer, %
15.6
26.4
0.0
4.2
…
Arabica coffee, %
22.5
0.0
3.3
81.1
Of whom use fertilizer, %
27.4
0.0
28.3
n
0.0
275
…
…
73
67
0.0
61
74
Table 5 contrasts the crop management of farmers according to whether they use fertilizer on
the crop in question. In general, farmers who use fertilizer on a crop will have a larger area
planted to that crop, are more likely to use commercial improved seed and pesticides, and are
more likely to have hired labor from off-farm to perform some of the crop operations during
the course of the growing season or at harvest. Fertilizer users are not necessarily any less
likely to use available organic resources (mulch or manure, in particular) for soil fertility
management on the crop plot.
Table 5: Crop management characteristics, by crop and fertilizer use
Crop
NonFertilizer use user
Area under crop, ha
0.61
mean
median 0.40
Commercial seed, % 45.4
Organic materials used for
31.9
soil fertility management, %
Commercial pesticide use, % 30.3
Off-farm labor hired for some
42.9
crop operations, %
Maize
Vegetables
User
All
Nonuser
1.05
0.80
0.32
0.81
0.40
0.40
User
0.51
0.40
Robusta coffee
All
Nonuser
User
0.44
0.72
2.06
0.40
0.40
0.81
Arabica coffee
All
Nonuser
User
All
0.93
0.49
0.80
0.58
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
80.0
60.7
43.9
72.4
62.4
…
…
…
…
…
…
36.8
34.1
70.7
63.2
65.8
49.4
80.0
54.2
71.1
64.7
69.4
38.9
34.1
53.7
92.1
78.6
32.1
80.0
39.6
17.8
47.1
25.8
75.9
56.8
31.6
61.8
51.8
50.0
60.0
51.7
55.0
70.6
59.6
Some information on fertilizer use by sample farmers is presented in Table 6. 1 Farmers use
quite high amounts of fertilizer for the coffee varieties. For maize and Robusta, the only
crops for which yield increases could be computed, fertilizer use is judged to double or triple
yields, based on farmer estimates of the yield they would have obtained if they had not used
fertilizer. The farmers using fertilizer in the sample were relatively confident about the
profitability of fertilizer use on their crop: At the median, farmers felt that prices would have
to drop by half for maize and the coffee varieties before they would call into question the
economic wisdom of using fertilizer.
1
As considerable variance was seen in the data, only medians are presented here. Since several vegetables were grown with
fertilizer, aggregate statistics could not be computed. The sample for fertilized Arabica coffee was too small to confidently
estimate yields.
7
Table 6: Fertilizer use, by crop
Maize
Vegetables
Robusta
coffee
Arabica
coffee
Urea; DAP;
17:17:17;
25:5:5+5S
Urea;
17:17:17;
CAN
CAN;
17:17:17;
Urea
Principal fertilizers applied DAP; Urea
Fertilizer application rate, kg/ ha, median
Fertilized crop yield, kg/ha, median
Estimated unfertilized crop yield, kg/ha, median
Estimated fertilizer use efficiency, kg additional crop
harvested per kg fertilizer applied, median
Price obtained for fertilized crop, UShs/kg, median
Estimated price under which farmer expects fertilizer use
on crop would no longer be profitable, UShs/kg, median
125
90
165
370
1850
...
560
...
620
...
250
...
8.9
...
...
...
300
...
1,000
4,000
150
...
600
2,000
The most common vegetables to which fertilizer was applied by sample farmers were
tomatoes, cabbage, and green leafy vegetables. The four crops considered in the survey were
the principal crops to which fertilizer was applied in the study areas. However, Irish potatoes
and upland rice were reported to be fertilized by a few sample farmers in the Mount Elgon and
Iganga study areas, respectively.
Access to fertilizer
Some characteristics of how the farmers in the study sample who use fertilizer obtain the input
are presented in Table 7. Most farmers will purchase fertilizer twice in the course of a year.
In Masaka, Iganga, and Mbale, there is a strong seasonal pattern in fertilizer purchase, with
farmers making their largest purchase of fertilizer at the start of the first rainy season. In
Kampala, as might be expected for vegetable producers, fertilizer purchases occur in most
months of the year, with somewhat higher purchases at the start of both the first and second
rains.
Table 7: Farmer access to fertilizer
Fertilizer purchases in 2010, number,
mean
median
Month of largest purchase
Total fertilizer amount purchased in
largest purchase, kg, mean
median
Total fertilizer value purchased in
largest purchase, UShs, mean
median
n
ALL
Masaka
Kampala
Iganga
Mbale
2.5
2.2
3.4
1.9
2.3
2
2
2
2
2
Mar
Feb/Mar
Sept;
Feb/Mar
Feb
Apr
124.1
159.2
74.9
133.1
147.9
50
45
30
50
100
141,547
113,100
83,797
178,538
190,338
67,500
42,500
60,000
87,500
95,000
153
29
50
32
42
While there are some farmers that purchase several bags of fertilizer at a time, the median
amount purchased in the largest purchase reported by farmers was 50 kg of fertilizer –
generally a single bag of a single type, but in some cases smaller amounts of two types of
fertilizer. Table 8 presents by fertilizer type the amount and price of fertilizer purchased for
those reporting having purchased the fertilizer as part of their largest purchase reported.
8
Table 8: Fertilizer purchases by farmers
Purchase amount,
kg
mean
Urea
Calcium Ammonium Nitrate (CAN)
Diammonium Phosphate (DAP)
17:17:17
25:5:5+5S
Price, UShs per
50 kg bag
median
mean
86.5
50
88,400
median
80,000
240.4
100
91,400
85,000
73.5
50
90,400
90,000
80.9
45
87,700
88,000
95.0
50
93,600
93,000
UShs 2,200/- = US$ 1.00
A series of questions were asked of farmers who purchased fertilizer. Virtually all farmers
purchased fertilizer from traders. Only eight of the 152 farmers in the sample that purchased
fertilizer obtained it from other traders – four from NGOs and four from farmers’ groups.
Less than 10 percent of farmers ordered the fertilizer that they needed sometime before they
acquired it – most purchased fertilizer from the stock of the trader. Of those that had to order,
most collected the fertilizer the following day.
Less than 8 percent of the farmers who purchased fertilizer were able to do so using credit
provided by the trader. Of those who did, most had been customers of the trader for at least
two years. Payment in full was varied, with some traders expecting payments in one month,
others in four months. Virtually all farmers who obtained credit reported that they did not
have to pay any more for the fertilizer than if they had paid in cash. Thirteen percent of
farmers who purchased fertilizer reported that they obtained credit from other than the trader
in order to purchase their fertilizer. Of the 21 farmers in the sample reporting having done so,
three obtained personal loans from family, five received personal loans from non-family
members, seven obtained commercial loans, and five reported obtaining a loan from a Savings
and Credit Cooperative (SACCO).
Table 9: Transport of fertilizer from dealer to farm and time from purchase to application
ALL
Distance to fertilizer supplier from
farm, km, mean
median
Fertilizer transport cost from supplier
to farm, UShs per kg per km, mean
median
Time from fertilizer purchase to
application, days, mean
median
n
Masaka
Kampala
10.4
17.2
10.2
6
6.4
8
29.4
18.8
6.3
8.2
Iganga
Mbale
12.2
4.4
10
3
60.4
20.8
9.8
2.8
12.4
4.4
6.7
14.2
5.8
7.3
7.0
2
7
2
3
1
149
28
50
31
40
Table 9 provides some indication of the proximity of sample farmers to fertilizer dealers. Just
under half of the sample farmers who purchased fertilizer paid for transport of the fertilizer
from the dealer to their farm. The other farmers carried it themselves on foot or on their own
bicycle or motorcycle. Those who paid for transport generally either used a rented motorcycle
or public transport (taxi bus). The median cost of transporting the fertilizer per kg per km for
those sample farmers who paid for transport was UShs 6.30. However, the mean cost was
considerably higher than this, particularly in the Kampala area, indicating that some farmers
faced quite substantial costs in transporting their fertilizer to their farm.
Most farmers obtain their fertilizer just before they apply it. The median time period between
purchase and application across the sample of farmers who purchased fertilizer was 2 days.
9
However, a sizeable minority of farmers reported purchasing their fertilizer two weeks to one
month in advance of application, with a small handful purchasing their fertilizer two months
in advance. Farmers were asked the sources that they use to learn how best to use fertilizer on
their crops. Farmers’ groups were the most commonly mentioned source of such information,
followed by the farmer’s own experience, with their fertilizer supplier and the National
Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) also being important sources of such information
for some farmers.
With regards to participation in the National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS), the
principal agricultural extension service in Uganda, less than half of the farmers surveyed, 42
percent, reported participating in NAADS activities. Of these, about three-quarters had
received some guidance on fertilizer use through NAADS. Twenty of the farmers reported
having received some fertilizer through NAADS mechanisms. A quarter of the surveyed
farmers reported receiving information on fertilizer use from other organizations operating in
their local areas, with about a quarter of these farmers having received some fertilizer in the
past from these other organizations. The other organizations generally are non-governmental
agricultural development organizations that had or have projects in the areas where the survey
was conducted.
Discussion
This study set out to investigate the factors that influence low fertilizer use rates among
smallholder farmers in Uganda. Farmers were found to have very limited scientific
information on proper agronomic application of fertilizer on crops within particular
agroecological zones. The direct consequence of this is that farmers are unable to establish
the profits that they might realize associated with each additional unit of fertilizer applied.
This may explain why farmers apply much less fertilizer to their crops than may be optimal
from a commercial standpoint.
Overcoming information constraints. Farmers continued to use the same fertilizers that
they had used in the past on their crops, with little consideration of whether those fertilizers
were the best choice for overcoming any crop nutrient deficiencies in the soil on which they
planted. For increased agricultural production in Uganda through use of modern production
technologies, compilations of all knowledge on the proper application of these technologies,
including for inorganic fertilizer is needed. Farmers and those who advise them need to know
for a particular agro-ecological zone on what crops, for example, nitrogen or phosphorus is
typically a limiting nutrient and how those nutrient limitations can best be addressed using
fertilizers as part of a comprehensive soil fertility management approach. Both the
agricultural advisory services currently offered to farmers and syntheses of past research
results on fertilizer response in the main crops grown in Uganda are very limited.
Tukacungurwa (1994) in his review of the Uganda fertilizer market presents blanket fertilizer
recommendation rates by crop that were published in the Crop Production Handbook of the
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in 1985. It is unclear what sort of data – soil chemistry
analysis, on-station fertilizer trials, on-farm fertilizer demonstration, or a combination – and
what sort of analysis – agronomic or economic – was the basis for these recommendations.
One direct outcome of such outdated fertilization rates is that farmers apply fertilizer
expecting high yields as a result of overestimates of yield responses which they never achieve
in reality. This explains the inconsistent use of fertilizer across the studied households. If
fertilizer use is to increase across the different agroecological zones, yield response
information should be developed and disseminated to farmers.
10
Fertilizer recommendations are generally developed primarily from an economic analysis of
fertilizer response and not solely from consideration of the agronomic response observed in
fertilizer trials and demonstrations. As such, the third important information gap with regards
to fertilizer use in Uganda has to do with the economics of fertilizer use on the various crops
grown by smallholder farmers. Few farmers have access to this sort of information or know
how they might determine whether fertilizer use will be profitable on their own farms. In its
simplest form, such an analysis takes into account the full cost of fertilizer, the likely yield
response the farmer will obtain from the use of fertilizer, and the returns that the farmer can
expect to receive from the sale of her or his fertilized crop in local output markets.
Additionally, although fertilizer use may be profitable on average for smallholder farmers, the
variation in the returns to fertilizer either due to not having the right information on projected
produce prices may reduce the incentives for risk-averse farmers to use fertilizer. Smallholder
farmers continuously lamented about the drop in produce prices during the crop harvest period
which reduces their profit margins severely and consequently affects their ability to use
improved inputs such as fertilizer and improved seed in the next farming season. It is evident
that putting into place market information systems that avail information on producer prices to
farmers at affordable and convenient costs will help stabilize fertilizer use in general.
Promotion of fertilizer use. In seeking to meet the objective of increasing agricultural
productivity, food security and improving household incomes, the role of factor markets –
input, credit and output – is indispensable. A set of interventions by government to strengthen
these markets through policy may help in promoting fertilizer use among smallholder farmers.
Government should use efficiency-oriented approaches to guide actions that will enhance
fertilizer use by smallholder farmers.
Whereas developing sustainable, competitive input supply systems is relevant for stimulating
fertilizer use, it is critical that efficient and reliable output markets are established. Effective
output markets provide a foundation for effective, profitable use of improved agricultural
technologies, including inorganic fertilizer. Through policy, government should come up with
mechanisms of preventing the fall in prices as a result of bumper harvests and this can be done
through increasing capacity of primary agricultural produce processing industries and putting
into place storage facilities to store surplus produce.
Ultimately, a sustainable fertilizer supply system can only thrive if demand for fertilizer
increases over time and this is possible if farmers perceive fertilizer use to be profitable. All
efforts aimed at promoting fertilizer use should among other things decrease the fertilizer-crop
price ratio and seek to increase the yield response ratio. This can be attained through
providing farmers with the right information about the nutrient deficiencies in their
agroecological zones, empowering them to know the correct type of fertilizer to use and other
complimentary agricultural inputs like improved seed. Commitment mechanisms, through
which farmers commit money for fertilizer at harvest before the next planting season, can also
be effective in this regard.
References
Bumb, B.L. 1988. Fertilizer supply in sub-Saharan Africa: An analysis. In T.B. Tshibaka
and C.A. Baanante (eds.), Fertilizer Policy in Tropical Africa. Lomé, Togo:
International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC) & International Food Policy
Research Institute.
11
Crawford, E.W., T.S. Jayne, & V.A. Kelly. 2005. Alternative approaches for promoting
fertilizer use in Africa, with particular reference to the role of fertilizer subsidies.
Department of Agricultural Economics. East Lansing, MI, USA: Michigan State
University.
Fontaine, J.M., with A. Sindzingre. 1991. Macro-Economic Linkages: Structural
Adjustment and Fertilizer Policy in Sub-Saharan Africa. Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) Technical Paper No. 49. Paris: OECD.
Henao J., & CA Baanante. 2006. Agricultural Production and Nutrient Mining in Africa.
Summary of IFDC Technical Bulletin. Muscle Shoals, Alabama, USA: IFDC.
Kelly, V. 2006. Factors affecting demand for fertilizer in sub-Saharan Africa. Agriculture
and Rural Development Discussion Paper 23. Agriculture & Rural Development
Department. Washington, DC: World Bank.
MAAIF (Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industries and Fisheries). 2010. Agriculture Sector
Development Strategy and Investment Strategy (DSIP). Entebbe, Uganda: MAAIF.
Pinstrup-Andersen, P. 1993. Fertilizer subsidies: Balancing short-term responses with longterm imperatives. In NC Russell & CR. Dowswell (eds.), Policy Options for
Agricultural Development in Sub-Saharan Africa. Mexico City: CASIN/SAA/Global
2000.
Tukacungurwa, C. 1994. A review on the use of fertilizers in Uganda. Export Policy
Analysis and Development Unit. Kampala: Ministry of Finance and Economic
Planning.
UBOS (Uganda Bureau of Statistics). 2007. Uganda National Household Survey, 2005/06:
Report on the agricultural module. Kampala: UBOS.
Yanggen, D., V. Kelly, T. Reardon, & A. Naseem, 1998. Incentives for fertilizer use in subSaharan Africa: A review of empirical evidence on fertilizer response and profitability.
International Development Working Paper 70, Department of Agricultural Economics.
East Lansing, MI, USA: Michigan State University.
12