NAF
International Working Paper Series
Year 2014
paper n. 14/6
Impact Assessment of Improved Wheat
Production Package in Sudan
Hanan Suliman Mohamed and Samar Abdalla
Agricultural Research Corporation (ARC)
Agricultural Economics and Policy Research Centre (AEPRC)
Shambat, Sudan
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://economia.unipv.it/naf/
1
Scientific Board
Maria Sassi (Editor) - University of Pavia
Johann Kirsten (Co-editor)- University of Pretoria
Gero Carletto - The World Bank
Piero Conforti - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Marco Cavalcante - United Nations World Food Programme
Luc de Haese - Gent University
Stefano Farolfi - Cirad - Joint Research Unit G-Eau University of Pretoria
Ilaria Firmian -IFAD
Mohamed Babekir Elgali – University of Gezira
Luca Mantovan – Dire Dawa University
Firmino G. Mucavele - Universidade Eduardo Mondlane
Michele Nardella - International Cocoa Organization
Nick Vink - University of Stellenbosch
Alessandro Zanotta - Delegation of the European Commission to Zambia
Copyright @ Sassi Maria ed.
Pavia -IT
[email protected]
ISBN 978-88-96189-22-1
2
Impact Assessment of Improved Wheat Production Package in
Sudan
Hanan Suliman Mohamed1 and Samar Abdalla2
Agricultural Research Corporation (ARC), Agricultural Economics and Policy Research Centre
(AEPRC), Shambat, Sudan
Abstract
This paper aims to assess the adoption rate of improved wheat production technological
package in the River Nile State, Sudan. It also seeks to investigate the partial budget analysis
between adopters and non- adopters of wheat technological package. A random sample of about
208 wheat farmers was selected from three locations in the River Nile State namely: Al Aliab,
Al Zeidab and Shandi. The primary data using structured questionnaire was conducted to
collect the data and information's about the technological package from the wheat farmers. The
results showed the adoption rate of wheat technological package was about 53.6%. The results
of the partial budget analysis revealed that the average total costs for adopters was higher than
that of non-adopters by 11% and the marginal rate of return (MRR) was about 529%.
Therefore, the paper recommends providing the inputs for the wheat farmers at low market
prices. Moreover, solving the problems of water irrigation and make it available in a suitable
time and reasonable cost for the farmers. Finally, the paper also suggests to encourage and help
the wheat farmers to adopt the improve wheat technological package through the field days and
demonstration trials.
Keywords: Wheat, adoption rate, technological package, partial budget analysis, Sudan
1. Introduction
Wheat crop is grown in Sudan in different locations particularly; Northern State, River Nile
State, Jabel Mara and Gizera Scheme. In the Nile River State, wheat used to be high profitable
crop for the farmers. The most important varieties have been grown in the River Nile State
namely; wadielneil, Giza 168, condor, Emam, and El Nileen (Elsir, 2004). The technological
package of improved wheat production package and practices is comprised of: improved
varieties, good land preparation and leveling, sowing date (during the first three weeks of
November), irrigation interval every 15 days during vegetation phase and 10 days during
reproductive phase with a total a mount of 8 irrigations, fertilizers rate of about 86 kg N/ha and
1
Corresponding Author Email : [email protected]
3
43kg P2O5/ha. Fertilizers is conducted in two split applications (pre-emergence application and
after the head formation). This technological package was proved to be superior to the
traditional farmer's practices as reflected in high productivity and high marginal rate of return as
argued by Elsir, (2004). Therefore, the main adoption indicators are; adoption rate, degree of
adoption, intensity of adoption. The adoption rate is representing by the percentage numbers of
the farmers adopting the technology under the consideration. The degree of adoption is
measured by the proportion of land under the new crop cultivar. Alternatively, the intensity of
adoption represents the quantity of the modern inputs that applied by farmers in specific locality
(Shideed, 2004).
In the past decades the food consumption for the majority of the inhabitants in Sudan was based
mainly on sorghum however; the consumption of wheat was very low. Overtime, wheat
consumption has been increased considerably due to urbanizations, migration from rural to
urban area and raising the number of population, while wheat yields remained significantly low.
The average wheat yield is generally low and it's affected by many production and
environmental factors. These factors are including; weather, cultivar, sowing date, crop
establishment practice, crop nutrition, irrigation, harvesting practices and biological practices.
The short season of wheat growing (90-100 days) and the excessively high temperatures at
early and late crop growth stage have been greatly contributed to the low wheat production.
Besides the biotic stresses, wheat is attacked by a number of insect pests. Wheat production is
also affected by the limited availability of inputs and high production costs (Faki et al, 1996)
Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to assess the adoption rate and the degree of adoption of
the improved wheat production technologies among the wheat farmers in the selected locations
in the River Nile State, as well as to investigate the partial budget analysis between adopters
and non adopters of wheat production technological package.
2. Research Methodology
The River Nile State is allocated between latitudes 16° and 22° N and longitudes 32° and 36° E.
The State contains four localities namely; Abu Hamd, El Damer, Shandi and El Matama. The
total area of the State was estimated to be about 124,000 km2 which is equivalent to
approximately 29, 050,000 feddan. About 3.5 million feddan are arable land for agriculture (El
Sheikh, 2006). The population in the State was estimated to be about 781,583 inhabitants
according to the census in 1993.
Stratified random sampling was conducted to select the wheat farmers from the selected
locations in the River Nile State. A random sample of about 208 farmers was selected from
4
three locations namely: Al Aliab, Al Zeidab and Shandi. Thus, approximately, 145, 55 and 8
wheat farmers where nominated from Al Aliab, Al Zeidab Scheme and Shandi, respectively.
Based on the participation in the technology transfer projects for both IFAD and ICARDA, the
sample size was further divided in two groups'; participants and non-participants farmers.
Accordingly, the sample was comprised of four farmers groups these are:
1. Participants on demonstration fields under IFAD project (17 farmers),
2. Participants in field days under IFAD project (26 farmers),
3. Participants in ICARDA project (20 farmers),
4. Non-participant (neighbors) reference farmers (145 farmers).
The primary data, using a formal survey was conducted through the structured questionnaire.
The questionnaire was collected during August in season 2004/05. (The questionnaire was
designed by ICARDA). The questionnaire was tried to cover all the aspects of wheat production
in the River Nile State. The questionnaire was included the socioeconomics characteristics of
farmers, farmers' knowledge and attitudes towards the recommended technological package,
crop outputs, crop input, costs of production, input and output prices, as well as family and
hired labors, and financial sources.
The descriptive statistics and partial budget analysis were used to analyze the data. The
descriptive statistics using frequencies and percentages was used to examine the adoption rate
of wheat technological production package as well as the degree of adoption among the wheat
farmers. The partial budget analysis was applied to calculate the average variable costs, the cost
that vary, the total average costs, gross return (GR), net return (NR), benefit costs ratio (B/C)
for both adopters and non-adopters as well as the marginal rate of return (MRR) between
adopters and non-adopters. Total costs that vary (TCTV) include the costs of the technological
package such as seeds, fertilizer, weeding control and irrigation. The marginal rate of return
(MRR) is determined as the percentage value of extra net benefits to extra cost that vary due to
technology use, in other way around the marginal rate of return is the profitability indicator
which reflects the returns due to the investment in the technology.
3. Results and Discussion
Adoption Rate of Wheat Production Practices
The indicators for technology adoption were examined in many seasons by tracing the reaction
of farmers who are participating in the on-farm trials to the improved technology. The
participant's farmers include farmers that hosted on demonstrations of the technology under
5
consideration. The non-participants (referenced farmers) these farmers did not host any
technology demonstration or attend any field days. The classification of the farmers into
adopters and non-adopters categories depends mainly on the adoption of the main components
of technological packages.
Table 1 shows the adoption rate of different component of wheat technological package in
season 2004/05 in the River Nile State, Sudan. From the table it was shown that some of the
non-participant farmers are also adopted the components of wheat technological package with
different rate of adoption. This is because of the spillover in the effect of the technologies and
the past experiences of the farmers with project activities in the study area.
The table also 1 revealed that the wheat farmers have knowledge about improved wheat
varieties. Thus, about more than half of wheat farmers (57.5%) were adopted the improved
varieties. On the other hand 42.3% of wheat farmers are non-adopters for the improved varieties
of wheat. The non-adopters farmers cited the reason for not adopting the improved varieties is
high cost of wheat cultivars in the market. According to research recommendation, the first half
of November is the recommended date for sowing wheat, approximately 88% of wheat farmers
adopted the sowing date in the suitable time whereas, 12% of them did not adopting the optimal
sowing date. The farmers that did not adopting the optimal sowing date reported that the
unavailability of seed was the main reason for them. This result is coincide with Elsir (2004), he
mentioned that about 88% of the wheat farmers in the River Nile State are sowing wheat crop
during the recommended time, while 12% of them are sowing wheat during December, and
they mentioned many reasons behind the delaying the sowing time among them; engagement in
cultivation of other crops such as Faba bean, vegetables and species during November, reduce
the risk of birds attack at the milky stage if they grow wheat earlier, delay the time of land
preparation and shortage of finance as well. The table also shows that 39% of sampled farmers
followed recommended number of irrigation and 61% of wheat farmers are non-adopters for the
recommended number of irrigations. The wheat farmers mentioned that they have problems
with irrigation because of the high costs of fuel and electricity. About 75% of wheat farmers are
adopted the irrigation interval. Elsir and Abdalla (2003) were discussed the knowledge of the
wheat farmers about the importance of the irrigation regime in the enhancing wheat
productivity. They found that about 40% of the farmers followed the recommended number of
irrigations, and they reported that the unavailability of water due to the lack of electricity and
fuel was the main causes for non-adoption of the recommended number of irrigations.
Additionally, about 77% of the sampled farmers are adopted the recommended dose of
Nitrogen fertilizer and 25% of wheat farmers were not adopted the recommended dose of
6
fertilizers. The non-adopters who are used less than the recommended dose of Nitrogen
fertilizer, they cited that the fertilizer is not available in the market and it has high costs. The
non-adopters of fertilizers who are applied more than the recommended dose, they think this is
the best for crop production. Elsir, (2003) reported that most of the wheat farmers depended
mainly on their personal skills in the application of fertilizer doses.
Table 1: Adoption Rate of Wheat Technological Packages in the River Nile State, Sudan,
2004/05
Wheat technological package
Participants adopters %
component
(n=63)
Improved varieties
57.7
Sowing date
88
Weeding control
68.6
Pest control
44.4
Number of Irrigations
39
Irrigation interval
75
Urea fertilizer
77.5
Remark: Number of observation 108 wheat farmers
Source: Field survey, 2005
Non-participants non-adopters%
(n=145)
42.3
12
31.4
55.6
61
25
22.5
The total area cultivated by the improved varieties in season 2004/05 was about 213.4 Feddan2,
and the total cultivated area in season 2004/05 was about 398.07 Feddan. Thus, the degree of
adoption is equal to:
Total area cultivated by improved variety / Total cultivated area by wheat× 100
= 213.4/398.07 × 100 = 53.6% ............................................................................................ (1)
About 54% of the wheat farmers are adopted the technological packages in the River Nile State,
however; this percentage is seemed to be very low since most of the farmers have well
knowledge about the technological package. The wheat farmers cited many reasons for not
adopting the wheat technological package among them; high costs of improved seed varieties as
well as unavailability of the water for irrigation in the suitable time.
Partial Budget Analysis Results
Table 2 exposed the partial budget results of wheat production package for adopters and nonadopters in the River Nile State during season 2004/05 .The gross return (benefit) (GR) is
calculated by multiplying the farm gate price of the crop by the crop yield. The total cost that
vary (TCTV) is calculated by multiplying the quantities of inputs (package) such as seeds,
2
one Feddan (Fed) is equivalent to about 0.42 hectare
7
fertilizer and irrigation or practices such as weed control by its price unit, which is always
different between adopters and non-adopters.
The total average costs (TAVC) consists of the costs that vary (CTV) and other variable costs
of wheat production, which include the cost of sowing, cost of fertilizer process, harvesting cost
and the cost of empty sack.
The net return (benefit) (NR) is calculated by subtracting the total or gross returns minus the
total variable costs. The difference in the net return between adopters and non-adopters
indicates the net monetary return that resulting from using the new technology. The general
mathematics expression for the partial budget indicators are presented below:
* Total average costs (TAC) =Total cost that vary + total average variable cost
* Gross Return (GR) = Average price * Average yield.
* Net Benefit = Gross return (GR) - total average costs (TAC)
* Benefit cost ratio (B/C) = Gross return/ total average costs (TAC)
The costs that vary include the cost of land preparation, seed varieties, fertilizers, irrigation,
weeding and pesticides. From table 2, all component of the cost that varies are higher for
adopters relative to non-adopters except the cost of fertilizers. The cost of fertilizer was higher
for non-adopters (14414.1SD/fed) compared to adopters (12515.3SD/fed). Thus, the difference
in the cost of fertilizers between adopters and non-adopters was negative (-12864.8 SD) as
illustrated in table 2. The reason for that the non-adopters farmers may apply additional amount
of fertilizer dose (more than the recommendation) in order to obtain higher yield. The total
costs that vary (TCTV) for adopters (33853.1SD) are much higher than that of non-adopters
(32695.4SD). In view of that, the difference in the total cost that varies between adopters and
non-adopters was about 1157.7SD/Fed. The higher difference in the total cost that vary between
adopters and non-adopters are due to use of the technological package. The total variable costs
were higher for the adopters of wheat technological package 16835SD/Fed than the nonadopters. Thus, the difference in the total variable costs between adopters and non-adopters was
about 3817SD/Fed.
The total average variable costs for non-adopters were about 45659.4SD/Fed, which was low in
compared to the adopter's. This is mainly due to the different in sowing, fertilizers and
harvesting process between adopters and non-adopters. The total average costs for adopters
were about 50688.1SD/Fed. Thus, the difference between adopters and non-adopters in the total
8
average costs was equal to 5028.7SD/Fed. In view of that the percentage increase in the total
average costs can be calculated as fallows:
Difference in the total average costs between adopters and non-adopters/ Total average costs of
non-adopters ×100
= (50688.1- 45659.4)/45659.4× 100 =11% ....................................................... (2)
The percentage increase in the total average costs is about 11%, this predominantly due the use
of technologies package by adopters (participants) which incurred additional costs for adopters
in compare to non adopters. The adopters farmers are used mostly the modern farming practices
(improved technological package) to increase their yield, while the non-adopters used the local
varieties and traditional farming practices. Elsir (2004) reported that the technological package
that farmers applied are incurred 45% additional costs than the traditional practices. Moreover,
Abdalla (2006) mentioned that the increase in the total average costs for adopters due to apply
the new technology was about 20% more than that of non-adopters in Al Zeidab scheme.
The adopters of wheat technological package was gained higher yield of about 970 kg/Fed in
compared to non-adopters. The higher yield indicates the advantage of using the technology by
adopter's farmers. The average wheat price in season 2004/05 was about 93SD/kg as shown in
table 2.
The gross return (GR) for adopters was equal to 90210 SD/Fed, while the gross return for nonadopters was about 79050 SD/Fed as shown in the table 2. However, the difference in the gross
return between adopters and non-adopters was about 11520SD/Fed. This means that the
adopters were gained higher returns because of their higher yield as a result of using the
technological package.
The net return (benefit) (NR) for adopters was about 39521.9 SD/Fed, while the net return
(benefits) for non-adopters was approximately 33390.6 SD/Fed. The difference in the net return
between adopters and non-adopters was 6131.3 SD/Fed. The higher net return for adopters is
due to the used of the modern farming practices. This represents the important of the economic
indicator of the technology advantages. Furthermore, the benefit cost ratio (B/C) was higher for
adopters (1.8) in compared to the non-adopters (1.7) as shown in table 2.
In partial budget analysis, it is assumed that is useful and important for the farmers to consider
the marginal costs and benefits associated with using the new technology (CIMMYT, 1988).
Therefore, the estimation of the marginal rate of return (MRR) can be calculated as fallows:
9
MRR (%) = the change in net return (benefit) (NR)/ the change in total costs that vary (TCTV)
× 100
The marginal rate of return between adopters and non-adopters was approximately 529% as
shown in table 2. This means for every 1.00 SD invested in the technological package of wheat
production, the adopter's farmers can expect to recover the 1.00 SD, and to obtain an additional
return of about 529 SD. In the study of adoption by Elsir (2004), he found that marginal rate of
return (MRR) between adopters and non-adopters was about 181%. Moreover, Abdalla (2006)
was found that the marginal rate of return (MRR) between adopters and non-adopters was
approximately 615% in Al Zeidab scheme. This reflects the high profitability of technological
package that accrued to the adopters as result of using the new innovations.
Table 2: Partial Budget Analysis for Adopters and Non-adopters of Improved Wheat
Technological Package in the River Nile State, Sudan, Season 2004/05
Costs item
Average of
Adopters
Average for
Non-Adopters
1. Costs that vary (CTV)
Land preparation (SD)
9611.6
Seed varieties (SD)
6325
Fertilizers (SD)
12515.3
Irrigation (SD)
1675.5
Weeding (SD)
1437.5
Pesticides (SD)
2288.2
Total cost that vary (TCTV)
33853.1
2. Other variable costs
Sowing process
583
Fertilizer process
588
Harvesting
13259
Empty sacks
2405
Total variable costs (TVC)
16835
Total average costs (TAC)
50688.1
Average yield kg/fed
970.00
Average price SD/kg
93
Gross return (benefits) (GR)
90210
Net return (NR)
39521.9
Benefit cost ratio (B/C)
1.8
Marginal rate of return (MRR)
Source: Authors calculation from field survey data, 2005.
Difference between
adopters and nonadopter's
7611.8
5653
14414.1
1579
1275.0
2162.5
32695.4
5999.8
967.8
-12864.8
1964.5
3262.5
925.6
1157.7
565
576
10411
1412
12964
45659.4
850
93
79050
33390.6
1.7
18
12
2878
1193
3871
5028.7
128.3
0
11520
6131.3
529%
4. Conclusion and recommendations
Adoption rate of the technological package components in the River Nile State was low. The
reason for that are the high costs of wheat technological package. However, the farmers are
10
aware and they have knowledge about the wheat technological package. The majority of wheat
farmers were adopted the sowing date and farmers who did not adopting the sowing in the
optimum time reported that unavailability of seeds was the main reason for them. Adopters of
wheat technological packages obtain high yields, high gross return, higher net return and high
marginal rate of return compared to the non-adopters. However, the total average costs were
higher for adopters of wheat technological package compared to the non-adopters due to the
application of the modern technological practices. Accordingly, this paper recommends the
good links between institution research, extension services, agricultural policy institutions and
farmers. The government should have to supply the farm inputs to the farmers at low market
prices. Solving the problems of water irrigation and make it available in the suitable time and
reasonable costs, this can be conducted through supply of electricity and fuel. Finally,
encourage and help the wheat farmers to adopt the wheat technological package through field
days and demonstration trails.
References
1. Elsir, Abass (2004). "Monitoring and evaluating improved Wheat production
Technologies in Northern Sudan". ARC Annual National Coordination Meeting, ARC,
NVRP, Wad Madani, Sudan.
2. Elsir, Abass and Abdalla, I.F, (2003). "Monitoring and evaluating improved Wheat
production Technologies in the Northern Sudan". ARC Annual National Coordination
Meeting, ARC, NVRP, Wad Madani, Sudan.
3. Faki, H. M., Ageeb, O. A, Elahmadi, A. B., Solh, M. B., Saxena, M. C. (1996).
Production Situation and Economic Aspect. Edited in "Wheat Production and
Improvement in the Sudan", ARC, ICARDA and DGIS, Aleppo, Syria 1996.
4. Abdalla, Samar, (2006). Assessment of Adoption of Improved Wheat Technology in
River Nile State in the Sudan: Case study of Al Zeidab Scheme". Unpublished Ms.c.
Thesis, University of Khartoum, Sudan.
5. Shideed, K. H., and Elmourid, (2004). "Monitoring adoption and Impact Assessment",
Mashreg / Maghreb project, ICARDA (2004)
6. CIMMYT, (1993). The adoption of Agricultural Technology; A Guide for survey design.
Mexico, 1993. Cited in Abdalla, Samar (2006). Assessment of Adoption of Improved
Wheat Technology in Alzidab Scheme". Unpublished Ms.c. Thesis, University of
Khartoum, Sudan.
11
7. El sheikh, Awatif Faki. Saeed, (2006). The Economic Production of Faba been in the
River Nile State: the Case Study Shendi Area. Unpublished Ms.c. Thesis, August, 2006
University of Khartoum, Sudan (In Arabic).
12