Abstract
The low application of inorganic fertilizer in Sub-Saharan Africa is one of the major constraints to achieving a Green Revolution in this region. In this study, we estimate the direct impact of the soil fertility on the maize yield and examine if the soil fertility increases the returns to inorganic and organic fertilizer based on comparative study of Kenya and Uganda. The results of the analyses indicate that the Kenyan maize farmers have applied the inorganic fertilizer roughly at the optimal level in one out of the two survey years on both the purchased high-yielding varieties and local/recycled maize varieties. In Uganda, even the low application of inorganic fertilizer is not profitable because of the high relative price. Regarding the returns to inorganic fertilizers on degraded soils, we do not find any increasing marginal returns of such fertilizers to the soil fertility.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
Many farmers in Kenya and Uganda recycle purchased HYV maize after harvesting. We group the recycled HYV maize with the local maize as we explain later in Sect. 9.2.
- 3.
As we discuss in Sect. 9.3, we have only one soil observation per household. Thus, we assume that the soil carbon content is fixed across maize plots within a household and over time. Although it is not clear how long the soil carbon content is stable over time, it seems that the soil carbon content is more stable than other soil nutrients, such as nitrogen content.
- 4.
We do not include family labor in the model because family labor information was not sought in the second round of the surveys in both Kenya and Uganda. The family labor module was removed from the questionnaire in the second round because the quality of the family labor information was considered poor in the first round of the surveys. We implicitly assume that family labor input is adjusted optimally when the other input levels change. In the regression models, we estimate the household fixed effect models. Thus, as long as the family labor input remains at the same level, the omission of the family labor may not cause a serious bias.
- 5.
These two waves of surveys in Kenya were conducted by Tegemeo Institute, with financial and technical help from National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS).
- 6.
We estimated the determinants of the attrition from the surveys and found that none of the independent variables is significant at the 5% level (Appendix Table 9.A.1). Thus, we think that the attrition mostly occurred randomly and do not expect serious attrition biases.
- 7.
The surveys in Uganda were conducted jointly by Makarere University, Foundation for Advanced Studies on International Development (FASID), and National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS).
- 8.
The attrition rate is less than 5%. None of the independent variables in the determinants of the attrition model is significant even at the 10% level (Appendix Table 9.A.1). Thus, we do not think the attrition biases serious.
- 9.
To obtain the nitrogen price, we have divided the DAP price by 0.18 because 100 kg of DAP contain 18 kg of nitrogen.
References
Adesina AA (1996) Factors affecting the adoption of fertilizers by rice farmers in Cote d’Ivoire. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 46(1):29–39
Bationo A, Mokwunye AU (1991) Role of manures and crop residue in alleviating soil fertilizer constraints to crop production: with special reference to the Sahelian and Sudanian zones of West Africa. Fertil Res 29(1):117–125
Cozzolino D, Moron A (2003) The potential of near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy to analyze soil chemical and physical characteristics. J Agric Sci 140(1):65–71
Gregory DI, Bumb BL (2006) Factors affecting supply of fertilizer in Sub-Saharan Africa, vol 24. D iscussion paper. Agricultural and Rural Development, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Hassan RM, Karanja DD (1997) Increasing maize production in Kenya: technology, institutions, and policy. In: Byerlee D, Eicher CK (eds) Africa’s emerging maize revolution. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder
Henao J, Baanante C (2006) Agricultural production and soil nutrient mining in Africa: implications for resource conservation and policy development. Background paper for African fertilizer summit, Abja
International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC) (2006) Africa fertilizer summit proceedings, Abuja, June 9–13, 2006, An International Center for Soil Fertility and Agricultural Development, Muscle Shoals, AL
Jayne TS, Govereh J, Wanzala M, Demeke M (2003) Fertilizer market development: a comparative analysis of Ethiopia, Kenya, and Zambia. Food Policy 28(4):293–326
Kelly VA (2006) Factors affecting demand for fertilizer in Sub-Saharan Africa, vol 23, Agricultural and rural development discussion paper. World Bank, Washington, DC
Koning N, Smaling E (2005) Environmental crisis or ‘lie of the land’? The debate on soil degradation in Africa. Land Use Policy 22(1):3–11
Kyriazidou E (1997) Estimation of a panel data sample selection model. Econometrica 65(6):1335–1364
Manlay R, Feller C, Swift MJ (2007) Historical evolution of soil organic matter concepts and their relationships with the fertility and sustainability of cropping systems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 119(3 and 4):217–233
Marenya PP, Barrett CB (2009) Soil quality and fertilizer use rates among smallholder farmers in Western Kenya. Agric Econ 40(5):561–572
Mbata JN (1997) Factors influencing fertilizer adoption and rates of use among small-scale food crop farmers in the rift valley area of Kenya. Q J Int Agric 36(3):285–289
Morris ML, Kelly VA, Kopicki RJ, Byerlee D (2007) Promoting increased fertilizer use in Africa: lessons learned and good practice guidelines. World Bank, Washington, DC
Ngugi DN, Karau PK, Nguyo W (1990) East African agriculture, 3rd edn. Macmillan, London
Nyoro J, Kirimi L, Jayne TS (2004) Competitiveness of Kenyan and Ugandan maize production: challenges for the future, vol 10, Working paper. Egerton University/Tegemeo Institute, Nairobi
Palm CA, Gachengo CN, Delve RJ, Cadisch G, Giller KE (2001) Organic inputs for soil fertility management in tropical agroecosystems: application of an organic resources database. Agric Ecosyst Environ 83(1):27–42
Pender J, Place F, Ehui S (2006) Strategies for sustainable land management in the East African highland. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC
Shepherd KD, Walsh MG (2002) Development of reflectance spectral libraries for characterization of soil properties. Soil Sci Soc Am J 66(3):988–998
Smale M, Jayne TS (2003) Maize in Eastern and Southern Africa: ‘seeds’ of success in retrospect, vol 97, EPTD discussion paper. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC
Smaling EMA, Nandwa SM, Janssen BH (1997) Soil fertility in Africa is at stake. In: Buresh RJ, Sanchez PA, Calhoun F (eds) Replenishing soil fertility in Africa. Soil Sci Soc Am, Madison
Sserunkuuma D (2005) The adoption and impact of improved maize and land management technologies in Uganda. Electron J Agric Dev Econ 2(1):67–84
Tiessen H, Cuevas E, Chacon P (1994) The role of soil organic matter in sustaining soil fertility. Nature 371(27):783–785
Yanggen D, Kelley VA, Reardon T, Naseem A (1998) Incentives for fertilizer use in Sub-Saharan Africa: a review of empirical evidence on fertilizer response and profitability, vol 70, MSU international development working paper. Michigan State University, East Lansing
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
Log of maize yield (kg/ha) by seed type
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Matsumoto, T., Yamano, T. (2013). Maize, Soil Fertility, and the Green Revolution in East Africa. In: Otsuka, K., Larson, D. (eds) An African Green Revolution. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5760-8_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5760-8_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5759-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-5760-8
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)