Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Determinants of the Use of Hermetic Storage Bags for Maize Storage among Smallholder Farmers in Northwest Ethiopia

Determinants of the Use of Hermetic Storage Bags for Maize Storage among Smallholder Farmers in... Hindawi Advances in Agriculture Volume 2021, Article ID 6644039, 11 pages https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6644039 Research Article Determinants of the Use of Hermetic Storage Bags for Maize Storage among Smallholder Farmers in Northwest Ethiopia 1 2 Tigist Kefale Mekonen and Biruk Yazie Wubetie College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Debre Markos University, Debre Markos, Ethiopia College of Agriculture and Environmental Science, Bahir Dar University, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia Correspondence should be addressed to Biruk Yazie Wubetie; birukyazie@gmail.com Received 25 November 2020; Accepted 25 August 2021; Published 10 September 2021 Academic Editor: Volkan Okatan Copyright © 2021 Tigist Kefale Mekonen and Biruk Yazie Wubetie. -is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. In Ethiopia, postharvest losses, mainly storage losses by insects, are very critical problems in agricultural production systems. In particular, maize is highly susceptible to insect and pest attacks in the storage. -ese storage losses affect the livelihood of small- scale farmers by aggravating their food insecurity and reducing their household income. -is critical problem forced the farmers to look forward modern storage technologies like Purdue improved crop storage (PICS) bags, but its adoption is considerably low in the study area. -erefore, the objectives of this study were to examine the determinants to use PICS bags for maize storage. Data were collected through semistructured questionnaire, group discussion, key informants, and direct observation. A total of 392 sample household heads were selected by simple random sampling techniques. Binary logistic regression model, descriptive statistics, and inferential statistics were employed to analyze the data. -is study revealed that, about 58% of the respondents replied that the importance of PICS bags in reducing insect damage was high. -e results of binary logit model also indicated that educational level,sex, awareness, training, accessibility, perception on the effect of pesticide, social responsibility, and total income of the household positively and significantly affect farmers’ decision to use PICS bags. Moreover, the price of PICS affects negatively and significantly. -erefore, policy makers have to give emphasis for this newly introduced storage technology to address storage loss problems by taking in to account these determinants. SG-2000 Ethiopia started implementation of the PICS-3 1. Background project after signing a one-year agreement with Purdue Purdue Improved Cowpea Storage technology was first University. Plan of the project was to implement PICS bags developed by Purdue University/IRAD-Cameroon Cowpea in 2,200 villages. However, due to high demand and requests Storage Project in the late 1980s by Professor Larry Murdock from government partner organizations, especially the Re- and his team, with support from the Bill and Melinda Gates gional Agriculture and Natural Resource Bureaus, 3,155 Foundation [1]. -is technology was originally created until villages have now been reached by SG-2000 Ethiopia. -ose the trademark “Purdue Improved Cowpea Storage” (PICS) villages are located in 31 districts of 5 regional states of for West and Central African cowpea farmers to protect Ethiopia including Amhara, Benishangul Gumuz, Oromia, against extremely destructive cowpea bruchids, which pre- SNNP, and Tigray. vented resource-constrained farmers from long-term stor- Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations age to capture price increases later in the marketing season. (FAO) predicts that, about 1.3 billion tons of food are Around the end of 2013, SG-2000 Ethiopia began working globally wasted or lost per year [2]. Reduction in these losses with Purdue University to get a local manufacturer for PICS would increase the amount of food available for human bags established in Ethiopia, and 5,000 PICS bags were consumption and enhance global food security. Various manufactured in the country. Beginning in September 2015, studies undertaken in Sub-Saharan Africa to estimate maize 2 Advances in Agriculture grain losses in traditional storage practices have shown that Socio-economic factors: the losses are very high such that, from harvest to con- Age, education, sex, farm experience, sumer market, its losses are estimated to range from 14 to income level, production level, social responsibility, perception 36% [3]. One in five kg of grain produce in Sub-Saharan Africa is estimated to be lost by pest infestations and associated grain decays in which maize grain loss remained the highest [2]. In Ethiopia, the number of food insecure population Institutional factors: Use of PICS Bags Physical factor: remains unacceptably high each year; however, massive - Extension service - Credit access quantities of food are lost due to spoilage and infestations on - Land size - Training the journey to consumers. Losses may occur for two main reasons. During harvesting, handling, processing, and transport grain may be scattered, dispersed, or crushed. Technological factor: Alternatively, the grain may be subject to biodeterioration. A - Price of PICS bags study conducted in three major grain producing areas of - Accessibility of PICS Ethiopia, viz., Hetosa, Ada, and Bako, indicated that a - Awareness of PICS bags majority of farmers (93.3%) are using various traditional grain storage containers that expose their stored grains to be Figure 1: Conceptual framework of the study. attacked by storage pests and other factors that contribute to deteriorations whereby per household grain 12% was estimated from the total grain produced [4]. To fight those collection and related topics. -e enumerators gather the storage pests, many extension offices promote pest required data under the close supervision of the researcher. management strategies such as insecticide use and/or solar -e objective of the study and confidentiality of the re- disinfection, though certain botanicals show moderate spondents’ information was explained to the respondents potential as storage treatments [5]. However, the low ef- before interview. Focus group discussions, key informant fectiveness of botanical and/ or solar disinfection forced the interview, and direct observation were also used as methods community to look forward to a new technology (PICS) of data collection for this investigation. [6, 7]. -erefore, this study attempts to examine the per- ception of farmers towards PICS bags and identify the determinants of the use of this PICS bags to store maize 2.3. Sampling Procedure and Sample Size. -e study was (Figure 1). conducted in Burie district because it is the project site and the PICS storage technology is already introduced and 1.1. Conceptual Framework. -e conceptual framework of farmers are using this technology. -is study was employed the study is shown in Figure 1. multistage sampling frame. From 22 rural kebeles, there are 14 PICS user kebeles in the district, and then, three kebeles, 2. Methods namely, Zalima, Wadra, and Gulim were selected through simple random sampling techniques. Households in the 2.1.DescriptionoftheStudyArea. Burie is one of the districts selected kebeles were stratified as users and nonusers of PICS of Amhara National Regional State, Northwest Ethiopia. It is bag. -e sample size is determined by using Yamane formula ° ° located between latitude 10 17′–10 49′ north and longitude [10] at 95% confidence level and 5% precision level. -is ° ° 37 00′–37 11′ east (Figure 2). It is 400km away in the formula is applied to get more sample size which is rep- northwest of Addis Ababa and 148km southwest of Bahir resentative for the population: Dar, the regional state capital. Agroecologically, the district is classified into highland (1%), midland (77%), and lowland n � , (1) (22%) [9]. Maize is one of the stable crops in the study area. 1 + N(e) where n is the sample rural household, N is the total 2.2. Data Collection Methods. Both relevant qualitative and household size, and e is the level of precision. Lastly, 392 quantitativedatawere collected fromprimary and secondary sample household heads were selected randomly from both sources. -e data were collected from household heads strata by probability proportional to the size of each kebele mainly through semistructured questionnaire. -e ques- and stratum. tionnaire translated into local Amharic (local language) to ease the data collection process. Next to this, the ques- tionnaire was pretested before conducting formal survey and 2.4.DataAnalysisMethods. -e data were analyzed by using amended based on the feedback obtained. To do this, 5% (20 descriptive statistics (percentage, frequency, mean, mini- households) of the sample respondents were randomly se- mum, maximum, and standard deviation), inferential sta- lectedfrom otherdistricts whichhave similarsocioeconomic tistics (T-test and chi-square test), and binary logistic conditions with the study area. -en, ten enumerators were regression model through SPSS version 23 software. Charts, recruited and trained for two days on the method of data graphs, and tables were used to present the data. Advances in Agriculture 3 Location Map of Bure Woreda 260000 270000 280000 290000 300000 310000 1190000 1190000 1180000 1180000 1170000 1170000 1160000 1160000 1150000 1150000 1140000 1140000 1:100000 260000 270000 280000 290000 300000 310000 Bure Woreda West Gojjam Zone Amhara Region Figure 2: Location map of the study area. Source: adopted from Aleminew [8]. 2.4.1. Binary Logistic Regression Model. Logistic regression probability of households’ decision to use PICS storage has got advantage over others in the analysis of dichotomous ranged between0 and1.-erefore,when Pi isthe probability outcome variablesi.e., users and nonusers of PICS bags. -ere of household’s to use PICS bags, then (1 −Pi) will be the are two primary reasons for choosing the logistic distribution. probability of households not to use PICS bags. -is can be -ese are (1) from a mechanical point of view, it is an ex- represented as follows: tremely flexible and easily used function, and (2) it lends itself to a meaningful interpretation. -e logit model is simpler in 1 − Pi � . (4) estimation than the probit model [11–13]. -erefore, a binary 1 + e logistic regression model was used to study the decision Now, the most important element in the logistic re- behavior of sampled households, and why binary is because gression, i.e., odds ratio, can be obtained from equations (3) the dependent variable (farmers’ decision/preference on and (4) which is represented as Pi/1 − Pi as shown in the storage structure-PICS storage structure versus conventional following expression: storage structure) has the nature of dichotomous or binary responses. Following Gujarati [14], the logistic distribution Pi 1 + e functionfor identificationof households’ decisionto usePICS (5) � � e . −Z 1 − Pi 1 + e bags for maize storage can be defined as -e odds ratio in logistic model shows the extent or 1 1 Pi � E􏼒Y � 􏼓 � . degree of favoring the household’s decision to use PICS (2) − β +β X +β X +···+βmXm ( ) Xi 0 1 1 2 2 1 + e maize storage structures. When we take the natural loga- rithm of equation (5), we can obtain the following formula Since Z � β + β X + β X + · · · + βmXm, the above i 0 1 1 2 2 for logit model which is mostly represented as formula can be rewrite as shown for easy understanding: i Pi 1 e Li: Li � ln􏼒 􏼓 � Z � β + β X + β X + · · · + βmXm. (6) (3) i 0 1 1 2 2 Pi � � . 1 − Pi − Z Z i i 1 + e 1 + e -e above formula indicates that, as the value of Z -en, if the disturbance term Ui is taken in to account, ranges from negative infinitive to positive infinitive Pi, the the logit model becomes 4 Advances in Agriculture -e study revealed that farmers who had higher edu- Z � β + 􏽘 βiXi + Ui. (7) i 0 cation level show eagerness to grasp new ideas and to try the i�1 technology by allocating some of the scarce resources. -e result of χ -test showed significant difference for the dis- where β �the intercept. It is the value of the log odd ratio tribution of illiterate and educated household heads of the Pi/1 − Pi, when X or explanatory variable is zero. β �the two groups. slope, measures the change in L (logit) for a unit change in -e averageage was found to be 45.23 ranging from26 to explanatory variables (X). Before running the binary logistic 72 years with a standard deviation of 8.803. Reported that regression model, multicollinearity among the explanatory the average age of the household head was about 45 years at variables was checked. According to [13], continuous var- the national level which is closely similar to the result of this iables variance inflating factor (VIF) and condition index study. -e mean age of users and nonusers of Purdue im- (CI) and discrete variables coefficient of contingency (CC) proved crop storage technologies is 42.68 and 47.78 years were employed to check the colinearity effects among the with a standard deviation of 6.792 and 9.816, respectively variables. A VIF value greater than 10 and CC value greater (Table 3). -e mean age of users was found to be less than than 0.75 is used as a signal for a strong multicollinearity that of nonusers. -e result of t test showed that the mean [13]. difference of two groups was significant at 1% probability level. Family size refers to the numberof individualswho live in the same house having common goal for a minimum of 2.5. Definition of Variables six months. -e family size of the sample households ranges 2.5.1. Dependent Variable. -e dependent variable of the from 1 person to 9 people, with a mean of 4.98 people and a study has dichotomous nature which represents the ob- standard deviation of 1.562. -e above result is higher than served use of PICS bags. It was represented in the model as the regional average household size (4.6) [15]. -e average yes �1 for the household that uses PICS bags and no �0 for family size of users and nonusers was found to be 4.99 and household that did not use PICS bags. 4.96 people with a standard deviation of 1.625 and 1.5, respectively. -e statistical analysis showed that the differ- ence in the mean family size between users and nonusers is 2.5.2. Independent Variables. Based on the review of liter- insignificant. ature, the past research findings, and the researcher’s -e average years of farming experience for the total knowledge of the storage system of the study area, 15 po- sample household heads, users, and nonusers were found to tential explanatory variables were considered in this study be 23.41, 21.17, and 25.64 years with a standard deviation of and examined for their effect in farmers’ use of PICS bags 8.087, 6.633, and 8.780, respectively. -e farming experience (Table 1). ranges from 4 to 45 years for sample household heads. -e mean number of years of experience of the nonusers was found to be greater than that of users (Table 3). Statistically 3. Results and Discussion significant difference was observed between the two groups 3.1. Socioeconomic and Demographic Characteristics of with respect to the mean farming years of experience. It may Sample Households. Tables 2 and 3 present the socioeco- be because older farmers are reluctant to new emerging technologies. -e survey results showed that landholding nomic and demographic characteristics of respondents with categorical and continuous variables which are analyzed by size of total sample households ranges from 0.25 to 7ha with a mean of 2.25ha and standard deviation of 1.26. -e av- descriptive and inferential statistics. -e survey result in- dicated that, among the total sample household heads, 93.8% erage landholding size of users and nonusers were 2.38 and were male and 6.2% of them were female. -e marital status 2.11ha with a standard deviation of 1.22 and 1.30, respec- of household heads showed that 0, 3%, 92.9%, 2.3%, and tively. -e result of t test showed that the mean landholding 4.6% of them were single, married, divorced, and widowed, size difference between the two groups was significant respectively. Likewise, 96.4% of users and 91.3% of nonusers (Table 3). were male. About 95.9% of users and 89.8% of nonusers were Farm animals also serve as a measure of wealth in the rural area. Cattle, sheep, goats, and poultry are important married (Table 2). -e chi-square test for sex and marital status distribution between the two groups was found to be species of livestock kept by the farmers in the area. In line with the above explanation, livestock ownership of the significant at 5% probability level. -e education level of household heads is expected to increase the ability to obtain, respondents was measured using the tropical livestock unit process, and use information relevant to the use of improved (TLU). To help the standardization of the analysis, the agricultural technologies in general and Purdue improved livestock number was converted to tropical livestock unit crop storage bags/technologies in particular. -e survey (TLU). -e average size of livestock in TLU was found to results indicated that, about 49.7% of the total respondents be 6.16, 7.3, and 5.02 for total sample households, users, are illiterates (cannot read and write), while the rest 50.3% of and nonusers with a standard deviation of 2.69, 2.58, and the respondents had various educational levels ranging from 2.30, respectively (Table 3). -is result is higher than the the ability to read and write up to secondary education and regional average (3.87 TLU) and the national average of 4.46 TLU. -is result indicated that the livestock own- above. As shown in Table 2, about 23% of users and 76.5% nonusers were illiterate farmers. ership of user households was greater than the total Advances in Agriculture 5 Table 1: Definition and units of measurement for explanatory variables. Type of Variables Definition and its measurements variable Age Continuous Age of the respondent in years Sex Dummy Sex: male �1, female �0 Educational levels: illiterate �1, read and write �2, elementary school �3, secondary school and Education Discrete above �4 Land size Continuous Land size under cultivated in hectare Faming experience Continuous Farmers year of experience in maize storage Quantity of maize Continuous Quantity of maize stored in quintal stored Training Dummy Postharvest loss and storage training taken by farmers: yes �1, no �0 Access of PICS Dummy PICS access to farmers: yes �1, no �0 Price of PICS Discrete Cost of PICS by farmers view: low �1, medium �2, high �3 Awareness on PICS Dummy Awareness of farmers on PICS storage: yes �1, no �0 Chemical pesticide Dummy Understanding the effect of chemical pesticides: yes �1, no �0 effect Annual income Continuous Farmers annual income in Ethiopian birr Contact of extension agent with farmers: no contact at all �0, once in a week �1, once in two Extension services Discrete weeks �2, once in three weeks �3, once in a month �4, otherwise �5 Credit access Dummy Farmers credit access: yes �1, no �0 Table 2: Descriptive analysis results of categorical variables. Use of PICS bags Total (n �392) Variables Categories User Nonuser χ test Number % Number % Number % Male 189 96.4 179 91.3 368 93.8 ∗∗ Sex 4.438 Female 7 3.6 17 8.7 24 6.2 Single 1 0.5 0 0 1 0.3 Married 188 95.9 176 89.8 364 92.9 ∗∗ Marital status 7.951 Divorced 3 1.5 6 3.1 9 2.3 Widowed 4 2 14 7.1 18 4.6 Illiterate 45 23 150 76.5 195 49.7 Read and write 123 62.8 44 22.4 167 42.6 ∗∗∗ Educational status 116.481 Primary education 26 13.3 2 1 28 7.1 Secondary and above 2 1 0 0 2 0.5 ∗∗∗ ∗∗ and significant at P<0.01 and P<0.05. Table 3: Descriptive analysis results of continuous variables. User Nonuser Total (n �392) Variables t value Mean Std. deviation Mean Std. deviation Mean St. deviation ∗∗∗ Age 42.68 6.792 47.78 9.816 45.23 8.803 5.978 Family size 4.99 1.625 4.96 1.5 4.98 1.56 −0.194 ∗∗∗ Farming experience 23.41 8.087 21.17 6.633 25.64 8.780 5.693 ∗∗ Landholding size 2.383 1.218 2.11 1.295 2.246 1.263 −2.15 ∗∗∗ Number of livestock (TLU) 7.3 2.577 5.02 2.298 6.16 2.692 −9.236 ∗∗∗ ∗∗ and are significant at P <0.01 and P <0.05. observation of this study. -e difference between mean 3.2. Institutional Support for the Use of PICS Bags. Access to livestock holdings of users and nonusers of Purdue im- extension carrier could be very essential detail of institu- proved crop storage bag was statistically significant, and tional assist wished via way of means of farmers to decorate users have more livestock’s than nonusers. Conversion the usage of agricultural technology in popular and ad- factors used were based on [16]. vanced crop storage technology like PICS in particular. 6 Advances in Agriculture Development agents were assigned in all sample kebeles, and environment, respectively. Surprisingly, a large proportion therefore, it is expected that sample farmers in the study area of the respondents (37.2% and 39.5%) had no any awareness whether the technology protects insects and maintains food have an access to extension services through the DAs, at- tending field days and training. All sample households had and environment quality, respectively (Figure 3). been visited by development agents at least once a month, and most of the respondents (66.3%) of the respondents 3.5. Motivating Factors to Use PICS Bags over Chemical have been visited once a month (Table 4). In addition to Insecticide. -ere are different motivating factors that encouraging farmers to use improved technologies, training trigger the community to adopt PICS bag technology in the and demonstration days also play important role in creating study area. Besides other factors, increment of storage time linkages. Among the total number of respondents, 20.2% without insect damage maintains food, seed, and environ- participated in training of PICS bag and participated on ment quality from chemical substance poisoning. As shown open the bag ceremony. About 38.3% of the user and 2% of in Figure 4, a majority of the respondents (75% and 58%) the nonuser participated in training. -e difference was used PICS bags particularly to increase the shelf life of the statistically tested, and participation in PICS training was stored maize without insect damage and to maintain their found to be significant at 1% level of significance (χ �79.9) grain quality safe for consumption by avoiding chemical (Table 4). substance application on it, whereas only the small pro- Credit is a crucial institutional service to finance poor portion of smallholder farmers (6% and 5%) used PICS bags farmers for input purchase and ultimately to adopt new for the purpose of maintain grain quality for next seed input technology. However, all farmers may not have access due to and to make their environment safe enough by avoiding the problems related to repayment, previous credit defaults, and application of insecticide in their storage. -erefore, this collateral in order to get credit. -e survey result indicated survey showed that a large number of users of PICS bags PICS users had better access to credit compared to nonusers. lacked awareness about the importance of PICS bags in -e difference is statistically significant at 1% (χ �82.03) reducing environmental pollution and in maintaining the (Table 4). quality of seed for future production. 3.3. Smallholder Farmers Awareness about PICS Bags. As 3.6. Reasons of Nonusers for Not Using PICS Bags. -e study shown in Table 5, most of the respondents from nonusers of also found out why nonusers of PICS bags did not use the PICS bags (54%) have no any awareness about the overall PICS bags, in spite of the awareness of the technology by nature anduse ofPICS bag,and as aresult, they didnotuseit majority of them. Result presented in (Figure 5) showed that ever, while the rest of 46% of them have information and 51% of the respondents claimed that they did not participate awareness about PICS bags, but they did not use it because of and use the technology based on their perceived idea that the different reasons particularly due to the high price of the bag PICS bag is too costly. According to the information ob- and its poor accessibility. -is finding is in line with [17] tained from the local vendors and the community who al- whose findings revealed that less than 50% of farmers in his ready bought the bag, the present price of 43 ETB/bag is study area had not adopted improved storage systems since considered too high by most maize grower farmers in the they were not aware of them. As we have observed and study area. High costs of the bags appear to be the major discussed in the study area, the extension work regarding the reason for poor adoption of PICS bags technology. Based on dissemination and adoption of PICS bags in the study area the information obtained from the local vendor and especially in Zalima and Wadra was very poor even the users Shayashone consultant, the bag manufacturing company of the PICS bags in this area were not well trained. It is and distributor are not willing for any reduction in retail evident that many households used the triple layer of the price. Similarly, Moussa et al. [19] also found that the cost of bags separately just after one year of use because they were the bags was cited as a key constraint to use the PICS bags by perceived that the PICS bags are used only for one year. -is a large number of respondents. finding is supported by the study of Okoedo and Onemoleas In addition to the dearer price of the bag, lack of [18]. awareness of the farmers on technology was a significant factor in hindering the use of PICS bags. 54% of the re- 3.4. Farmers Perception on the Importance of PICS Bags. spondents had poor awareness about the importance of the It is known that PICS bags have a significant importance in bags even they did not hear about the technology at all in the protecting stored maize damage from insect and in main- study area (Figure 5). Farmer’s awareness about the available taining the quality of food for consumption and the sur- PICS technology is vital to enhance the use of PICS bags. To rounding environment by avoiding the application of adopt the newly introduced technologies, farmers need to be chemical insecticide which has the potential poisoning aware of the available technology as adoption is sometimes substances in contaminating our food as well as the sur- hampered not only by the inherent characteristics of the rounding, resulting in different human health problems. As innovation but also by lack of awareness of the end users of the technologies [20]. -e complaint on the poor accessi- shown in Figure 3, the total respondents who were users and nonusers of the PICS bags around 57.9% and 57.1% were bility of the PICS bags was reported by 7% of the respon- dents (Figure 5). -is implied that farmers in the study area highly perceived as the technology protects the stored maize from insect damage and can maintain the quality of food and have no access of PICS bags by the nearby place and only one Advances in Agriculture 7 Table 4: Distribution of sample households by frequency of extension visits, attendance in PICS training, and credit access. User Nonuser Total Item χ test Number % Number % Number % Extension contact ∗∗∗ Once a month 108 55.1 152 77.6 260 66.3 22.2 Twice a month 64 32.7 31 15.8 95 24.2 -ree times a month 16 8.2 9 4.6 25 6.4 More than three times a month 8 4.1 4 2 12 3.1 No visit 0 0 0 0 0 0 ∗∗∗ PICS training 79.9 Yes 75 38.3 4 2 79 20.2 No 121 61.7 192 98 313 79.8 ∗∗∗ Credit access 82.03 Yes 134 68.4 44 22.7 178 45.6 No 62 31.6 150 77.3 212 54.4 ∗∗∗ : significant at P <0.01. Table 5: Respondents’ awareness about PICS bags. User Nonuser Total Item No. % No. % No. % Yes 196 100 90 45.9 286 73 Have you awareness about PICS bags? No 0 0 106 54.1 106 27 Total 196 196 392 100 57.9 57.1 6.1 39.5 37.2 4.3 2.8 0.5 0.5 protecting maintain food maize insects quality and environment High Low Medium Don’t know Figure 3: Percentage of respondents’ awareness on the importance of PICS bags. Increase storage time Maintain food quality Does not pollute environment vendor throughout the district. -is is in line with findings Maintain seed quality of Moussa et al. [19]. Figure 4: Motivating factors to use PICS bags over chemical in- secticide (%). 3.7. Determinants of the Use of PICS Bags. -e model was assessed for its goodness of fit by examining how well the and discrete variables were entered; out of the total of these model classifies the observed data (in the classification table) explanatory variables, only 9 variables were found to be or by examination of how likely the sample results are, given significantly influencing the use of PICS bags. Variables the estimates of model parameters [21]. -e result indicates found to be significant included sex, education, responsi- that (the model chi-square value) the parameters included in bility in the community, PICS training, awareness on the the model taken together were significantly different from effect of chemical on health and environment, awareness of zero at less than 1 percent level of significance. -e value of PICS, PICS access, and price of PICS which were found to be chi-square (χ �395.812) indicates also the goodness of fitted significant at 1%, and also total annual income was found to model (Table 6). Maximum likelihood was used to estimate be significant at 5% probability level (Table 6). However, the the parameters of the variables that are expected to influence remaining six variables, namely, age, farming experience, the use of PICS bags. In the model, 15 potential continuous farm size, extension contact, access/use of credit, and 8 Advances in Agriculture Costy Lack of awarness No interest Not accessible Figure 5: Reasons of nonusers for not using PICS bags (%). Table 6: -e maximum likelihood estimates of the binary logistic regression model. 95% C.I. for Exp. (B) Variables B S.E. Wald Sig. Exp. (B) Lower Upper ∗∗∗ Sex 2.439 0.913 7.134 0.008 0.087 0.015 0.522 Age −0.068 0.058 1.383 0.24 0.935 0.835 1.046 ∗∗∗ Education level 1.595 0.479 11.109 0.001 4.928 1.929 12.59 Farm exp 0.018 0.06 0.087 0.769 1.018 0.904 1.146 ∗∗∗ Social responsibility 2.296 0.561 16.745 0.000 9.931 3.307 29.822 Land size −0.311 0.334 0.865 0.352 0.733 0.381 1.41 ∗∗ Total income 0.015 0.026 4.548 0.033 1.015 0.807 1.138 Credit access 0.644 0.533 1.462 0.227 1.904 0.671 5.407 Extension contact 0.463 0.409 1.28 0.258 0.629 0.282 1.403 ∗∗∗ PICS training 2.629 0.729 13.014 0.000 13.854 3.322 57.784 ∗∗∗ Chemical effect 1.236 0.458 7.291 0.007 3.441 1.403 8.44 ∗∗∗ Awareness PICS 3.307 0.805 16.882 0.000 27.308 5.638 132.259 ∗∗∗ PICS access 3.131 0.726 18.603 0.000 22.887 5.518 94.931 ∗∗∗ PICS price −2.054 0.822 6.24 0.012 7.796 1.556 39.049 Maize stored 0.013 0.023 0.325 0.569 1.013 0.968 1.06 ∗∗ Constant −3.706 1.939 3.653 0.05 0.025 1 2 3 ∗∗∗ Pearson chi-square: 395.812 , −2 log likelihood: 142.029, overall prediction of the model : 94.85, sensitivity : 95.8, specificity : 93.9, sample size: 392 ∗∗∗ ∗∗ households, and indicate significance at 1% and 5% level respectively.1: the success of prediction of the model based on a 50% probability classification table. 2: correctly predicted households that use PICS bags on a 50% probability classification. 3: correctly predicted households that did not use PICS bags based on 0.5 cut point probability table, source: binary logit model output. quantity of maize stored were found to have insignificant 3.7.2. Sex of the Household Head. Based on the result of the impact on farmers’ use of PICS bags in the study area. With model, sex was found to have positive and statistically the above brief background, the effect of the significant significance at 1% significant level. -e results of the model explanatory variables on the adoption of PICS bags was revealed that male-headed households were 8.7% more discussed as follows. probable to use PICS bags than female-headed households. -is could be attributed to various reasons, which could be the problem of economic position of female-headed 3.7.1. Educational Level of the Household Head. -is ex- households, including shortage of labor, limited access to planatory variable showed a positive relationship with the information, and required inputs due to social position. use of improved crop storage technologies (PICS bags). -e -erefore, a result indicated that the male-headed house- respondents who are educated are 4.928% more likely to use holds are better users of PICS bags. -is may be due to PICS bags than illiterate respondents. Education was found relatively better access of male-headed households to in- to affect the use of PICS bags positively and significantly at formation and agricultural resources than female household 1% significance level. Similar results were found in [22, 23] heads. -e result is in line with the finding of similar studies which showed that education enables farmers too easily [25, 26]. understand and recognize the use of PICS bags, the problem of postharvest loss, and be able to change in to practice the knowledge and skill they obtained. Another study under- 3.7.3. Awareness of PICS. It is positive and statistically taken by Soni et al. [24] in Sagar district using binary logit significant at 1% significant level. -is result revealed that model also stated that there was a positive association be- those households who were aware or had awareness about tween the level of education of farmers and the extent of PICS bags were 27 times more likely to use PICS bags than adoption of modern storage methods. 100 farmers’ were those households who had not awareness about this tech- interviewed, and results showed that lack of knowledge was a nology. -is suggests that the awareness of farmers for the major obstacle in adopting improved storage systems within PICS technology was used as an information dissemination the region. tool, and this leads to higher probability of using the PICS Advances in Agriculture 9 3.7.7. Access to PICS Bags. -is variable was found to be bag technology than respondents with no awareness about PICS bags. -is finding is consistent with the findings of [27] positively and significantly associated with the use of PICS bags at 1% level of significance, and the result confirms the who found that awareness was an important factor influ- encing individual behavior to adopt technology. prior hypothesis. -e odds ratio of 22.89, other things kept constant, implies that the probability of using PICS bags increases by the factor of 22.89 as the household’s access to a 3.7.4. PICS Training. In the model, we observe that the possibility of getting the bags in the nearest area increases by coefficient for PICS training is positive and statistically a unitary value as compared to those who do not have an significant at 1%. -ese results indicate that farmers who access. As the availability of PICS bag supply at the har- participated in the PICS village-level demonstration and vesting time increase, farmers’ use of PICS bags would be training were 13.8 times more likely to use the PICS bag enhanced. On the contrary, if PICS bags supply are not technology than those who were not involved in the village- adequate at the time of harvesting, farmers may use other level demonstrations and training. -e justification is due to storage technologies by applying insecticides on their maize. improving their understanding and awareness of impor- Inadequate number and distal of vendors is the major tance of PICS in protecting maize damage from insects and constraint faced by farmers to easily access and use, and maintaining the food quality as well as protecting envi- therefore, disconnection in information flow and supply ronment from pollution by reducing chemicals or insecti- chain of PICS bags is created between the manufacturer or cide application in the storage. -is result confirms the trader and maize producer households in the study area. conclusions of [28, 29], which support the idea that active Jokthan and Sanni [32] also found similar result. -is participation or attendance in field demonstrations and matches the findings of Soni and Kurmvanshi. [33] for poor training has a significant impact on the adoptability of adoption of improved storage systems in India, where 18.5% technology particularly in developing countries. -is is in complained of high costs of the improved systems and line with findings of Wekesa et al. [30], which indicated that nonavailability of the technology. In the study by Moussa farmers who had been trained were greater adopters of et al. [19], lack of local availability of bags was the most often improved storage systems. cited reason for not using PICS bags. -is analysis supports hypothesis that lack of local availability of the bags is the most important factor in the adoption decision. 3.7.5. Social Position. It was found to be influence use of PICS bags positively and significantly at 1% significant level. 3.7.8. Price of PICS Bags. -is variable was found to in- Household head who was involved in various positions and fluence the use of PICS bag negatively and significantly at 1% responsibilities was 9.9 times more likely to use PICS bags level of significance. -e logistic regression model result than households who have no any social responsibilities or revealed that, by holding other factors constant, the prob- position. -is is because farmers who are involved in dif- ability of using PICS bags by households who perceived the ferent administrative, religious, and other matters in the price as expensive was 7.796 times less likely to use PICS community are more exposed to new information and bags than those households who perceived the price of the technologies. -e participation of farmers in leadership of bag which were as cheap. -e price of the PICS which was social organization will also increase skill and awareness on 43birr/bag is considered too high by most farmers and the existence and importance of recent technology through households. It is possible to suggest that the high price of the the provision of necessary information, knowledge, and bags appears to be the major reason for poor adoption by discussion that assist farmers/traders to use the innovation farmers. -e bag company is not willing to any reduction in to better their lots. -erefore, it is expected that a household retail price associated with possible mass production and head who is involved in various positions is more likely to considered as one crucial factor for farmers’ decision to use use improved crop storage technologies. -is finding is also PICS bags [32]. Similarly, the authors of [18] revealed that consistent with Michael Bolaji [31]. And also, Yitayal [23] nonavailability and high cost of improved storage systems found a positive relationship between social position and the also account for farmers’ nonadoption of storage systems. decision to use conservation technologies. 3.7.9. Perceived Effect of Chemical Pesticide on Health and 3.7.6. Annual Income. -e coefficient of income was pos- Environment. It is positive and statistically significant at 1% itive and statistically significant at 5% level; this implies that indicating that those farmers who were perceived as using as the income of the households increased by 1 ETB birr, insecticide has negative impact on their food or health and the likelihood of using PICS bag technology increased by environment were more likely to adopt this triple-bag 1.015 factors. -is is because with more income the farmers technology. -erefore, the result of the model implied that the respondents who are aware of the impact of insecticides can invest more to increase their output. Farmers with higher income or production levels may have more re- on health and environment were 3.441 times more likely to adopt the PICS bag technology than those who did not sources and a higher need of good storage methods and, thus, are more likely to adopt the triple-bag technology. understand the impact. -ese farmers may possibly be on -is finding is consistent with the findings of Michael the search for improved storage techniques and are, thus, Bolaji [31]. more likely to use the triple-bag technology if available. 10 Advances in Agriculture -erehasbeenincreasedawarenessofhealthrisksassociated Abbreviations with insecticide use which may be the factor driving farmers’ ACSI: Amhara Credit and Saving Institution search for alternative storage technologies. Earlier adoption CC: Contingency coefficient studies omitted farmers’ perception of technology attributes, CSA: Central Statistical Agency and there might have biased the results of factors condi- ETB: Ethiopian birr tioning adoption decisions against this variable. But now- FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization adays, adoption studies [34] considering farmers’ perception Ha: Hectare of technology attributes have found that these attributes GDP: Gross domestic product condition the adoption choices of farmers. Farmers have IITA: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture subjective preferences for technology characteristics [28], NGO: Nongovernmental Organizations and this could play major roles in adoption. NRI: Natural Resources Institute PHL: Postharvest loss 4. Conclusion and Recommendation PICS: Purdue Improved Crop Storage TOT: Training of trainers Storage loss is perhaps the most persistent issues of maize SG-2000: Sasakawa Global-2000 production in Ethiopia, and it is more aggravating than it VIF: Variance inflating factors. was ever previously. -e majority of the respondents from nonusers of PICS packs (54%) have no any mindfulness about the general nature and utilization of PICS sack, and Data Availability thus they did not utilize it ever, while the remainder of 46% of them have informed about PICS sacks yet they did not -e datasets used during the current study are available from utilize; this is a result of various reasons especially because of the corresponding author on reasonable request. the excessive cost of the sack and its poor accessibility. -e extension work and awareness creation regarding PICS bags Ethical Approval technology in the study area were very poor even the users of the PICS bags in study area were not well trained and Ethical clearance was obtained from ethical clearance review empowered. It is obvious that large households utilized the committee of Bahir Dar University. To ensure confidenti- triple layer bags independently soon after one year of uti- ality, the names of the study subjects were not written on the lization since they were seen that the PICS packs are utilized questionnaire and did not share with anyone else. All in- distinctly for one year. Similarly, the result of the model complete questionnaires were considered as nonresponse indicated that educational level, sex, awareness on PICS rate. bags, training about PICS bags, accessibility of the bags, perception on the effect of chemical, social responsibility, Consent and total income of the household were found to positively and significantly affect farmers’ decision to use PICS bags, -e purpose of the study was explained to the study par- whereas price of PICS affected negatively and significantly. ticipants, and a written informed consent was obtained from Based on the findings, the following recommendations participants to confirm whether they were willing to par- are made: ticipate or not. -e data collectors collected the information after obtaining verbal consent from each participant. Re- (i) In the study area, large number of farmers had no spondents were informed that they can refuse or discontinue awareness about PICS bags. -erefore, awareness participation at any time they want, and they were also creation is important through strengthening the informed that they can ask anything about the study. extension work, sensitizing farmers through dem- onstration (open the bag ceremony) and mass media like radio, more training needs to be offered Conflicts of Interest to maize farmers, and extension workers to improve the farm households’ technical know-how. -e authors declare no conflicts of interest. (ii) Manufacturerhad to betterproduce the bag withbig size to reduce theft and shouldhave to make it better Authors’ Contributions by strong material which is not easily teared and attacked by rodents. -ere is also scarcity of bags so TKM participated in the design, data collection, data it is better to increase accessibility of the bag by near analysis, and interpretation. BYW also participated in the areas, i.e., ready market (vendor) should be analysis, interpretation, and drafting of the manuscript. All developed. authors read and approved the final manuscript. (iii) To improve access, various bag sizes (25kg, 50kg, 100kg, etc) should be introduced to the market to Acknowledgments suit different categories of users (small, medium, and large farmers) and make these technologies -e authors would like to acknowledge their data collectors available to smallholder farmers. and study participants. Advances in Agriculture 11 production on rural poverty alleviation in Edo state, References Nigeria,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Benin, Benin City, [1] G. Ibro, M. C. Sorgho, A. A. Idris, B. Moussa, D. Baributsa, Nigeria, 2009. and J. Lowenberg-DeBoer, “Adoption of cowpea hermetic [19] B. Moussa, T. Abdoulaye, O. Coulibaly, D. Baributsa, and storage by women in Nigeria, Niger and Burkina Faso,” J. Lowenberg-DeBoer, “Adoptionof on-farm hermetic storage Journal of Stored Products Research, vol. 58, pp. 87–96, 2014. for cowpea in West and central Africa in 2012,” Journal of [2] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Stored Products Research, vol. 58, pp. 77–86, 2012. Natural Resources Institute, “Missing food: the case of [20] S. Asfaw, “Estimating welfare effect of modern agriculture postharvest grain losses in sub-Saharan Africa,” Report No. technologies: a micro–perspective from Tanzania and Ethiopia “Ten Years of War against Poverty”” Chronic 60371-AFR, -e International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/-e World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 2011. Poverty Research Centre, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2011. [21] D. w. Hosmer and S. Lemeshow, Applied Logistic Regression, [3] T. Tefera, “Post-harvest losses in African maize in the face of increasing food shortage,” Food Security, vol. 4, no. 2, University of Massachusetts and Amberst, Wiley-Inter Sci- ence Publication, New York, NY, USA, 1989. pp. 267–277, 2012. [22] C. A. Ervin and D. E. Ervin, “Factors affecting the use of con- [4] H. G. Abebe and H. Bekele, “Farmers’ post-harvest grain servation practices. Hypothesis, evidence, and policy implica- management choices under liquidity constraints and tions,” Land Economics, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 97–307, 1982. impending risks: implications for achieving food security [23] A. Yitayal, “Determinants of use of soil conservation measures objectives in Ethiopia,” in Proceedings of the International by small holder farmers; in Gimma zone, Dedo district,” Association of Agricultural Economists Conference, pp. 12–18, pp. 65–82, School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University, GoldCoast, Australia, 2006. Dire Dawa, Ethiopia, 2004, M.S. thesis. [5] J. M. Songa and W. Rono, “Indigenous methods for bruchid [24] S. N. Soni, R. K. Pathak, and R. R. Kashikar, “Socio-economic beetle (Coleoptera: bruchidae) control in stored beans studies to analyze constraints in the adoption of modern tech- (Phaseolus vulgaris L.),” International Journal of Pest Man- nology by various groups in Sagar district, Madhya Pradesh,” agement, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 1–4,, 1998. Crop Research (Hisar), vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 353–356, 2000. [6] L. L. Murdock, D. Seck, G. Ntoukam, L. Kitch, and [25] M. Enki, “Determinants of adoption of soil conservation R. E. Shade, “Preservation of cowpea grain in sub-Saharan practices in central high lands of Ethiopia: the case of three Africa-bean/cowpea CRSP contributions,” Field Crops Re- districts of Salale,” M.S. thesis, School of Graduate Studies of search, vol. 82, no. 2-3, pp. 169–178, 2003. Alemaya University, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia, 2000. [7] K. Hell, K. E. Ognakossan, A. K. Tonou, Y. Lamboni, [26] A. Techane, “Determinants of fertilizer adoption in Ethiopia: K. E. Adabe, and O. Coulibaly, “Maize stored pests control by thecaseofmajorcerealproducing areas,” M.S. thesis, School of PICS-bags: technological and economic evaluation,” in Pro- Graduate Studies of Haramaya University, Dire Dawa, ceedings of the 5th World Cowpea Conference, Saly, Senegal, Ethiopia, 2002. October 2010. [27] A. Mengist, “Factors Influencing adoption of soil conservation [8] A. Aleminew, “Marketchainanalysis of red pepper:thecase of practices in south gondar zone: the case of Farta district,” M.S. Burie district, west Gojjam zone, Amhara national regional thesis, School of Graduate Studies of AlemayaUniversity, Dire state, Ethiopia,” M.Sc. thesis, School of Graduate Studies of Dawa, Ethiopia, 2003. Haramaya University, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia, 2010. [28] A. A. Adesina, D. Mbila, G. B. Nkamleu, and D. Endamana, [9] Burie District Office of Agriculture, Unpublished Office Report, “Econometric analysis ofthedeterminants of adoptionof alley Burie District Office of Agriculture, Burie, Ethiopia, 2016. farming by farmers in the forest zone of southwest Came- [10] T. Yamane, Statistics, an Introductory Analysis, Harper & roon,” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, vol. 80, no. 3, Row, New York, NY, USA, 2nd edition, 1967. pp. 255–265, 2000. [11] R. S. Pindyck and D. L. Rubinfeld, Econometric Models and [29] P. N. Ramji, K. R. Sharma, and G. B. -apa, “Adoption of agro- Economic Forecasts, McGraw Hill Book Co., New York, NY, forestry in the hills of Nepal: a logistic regression analysis,” USA, Second edition, 1981. Agricultural Systems, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 177–196, 2002. [12] G. H. William, Economic Analysis, New York University, [30] E. Wekesa, W. Mwangi, H. Verkuijl, K. Danda, and Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, NY, USA, 1991. H. De Groote, “Adoption of maize production technologies in [13] N. D. Gujarati, Basic Econometrics, McGraw-Hill, New York, the coastal lowlands of Kenya,” Miscellaneous Reports 56109, NY, USA, -ird edition, 1995. CIMMYT, Mexico City, Mexico, 2003. [14] D. N. Gujarati, Basic Econometrics, McGraw-Hill, New York, [31] A. Michael Bolaji, “Potential impact analysis of Purdue im- NY, USA, 4th edition, 2003. proved cowpea storage technology on income of users in [15] Central Statistical Agency, Agricultural Sample Survey for north central Nigeria,” pp. 81-82, Ahmadu Bello University, 2013/14: Report on Area and Production of Major Crops for Zaria, Nigeria, 2014, -esis Submitted to the School of PrivatePeasantHoldings,MeherSeason,StatisticalBulletinNo Postgraduate Studies. 532, May 2014, Central Statistical Agency, Addis Ababa, [32] G. Jokthan and A. Sanni, “An analysis of triple bag inter- Ethiopia, 2013. vention for cowpea storage in Nigeria,” in Proceedings of the [16] H. Strock, B. Adnew, B. Emana, A. Borowiecki, and Research into (Use) Workshop, Abuja, Nigeria, 2011. S. W. Hawariat, Farming Systems and Farm Management [33] S. N. Soni and S. M. Kurmvanshi, “Technological status Practices of Smallholders in the Hararghe Highlands, Vol. 2, (adoption pattern) of soybean cultivation in district Sagar of Wissenschaftsverlag Vauk, Kiel, Germany, 1991. Madhya Pradesh,” Crop Research (Hisar), vol.18, pp.150–154, [17] N. Khan and J. D. Keatinge, “Awareness and level of adoption of agricultural technologies in the remote areas of NWFP,” [34] N. Wubeneh, “Farm-level adoption of new sorghum technol- SarhadJournalofAgriculture,vol.16,no.2,pp.217–226,2000. ogies in Tigray Region, Ethiopia,” M.S. thesis, Purdue Uni- [18] O. Okoedo and E. A. Onemoleas, “Impact of the agricultural versity, West Lafayette, IN, USA, 2003. development programme (ADP) activities in arable crop http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Advances in Agriculture Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Determinants of the Use of Hermetic Storage Bags for Maize Storage among Smallholder Farmers in Northwest Ethiopia

Loading next page...
 
/lp/hindawi-publishing-corporation/determinants-of-the-use-of-hermetic-storage-bags-for-maize-storage-jtrZWJb1TK
Publisher
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Copyright
Copyright © 2021 Tigist Kefale Mekonen and Biruk Yazie Wubetie. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
ISSN
2356-654X
eISSN
2314-7539
DOI
10.1155/2021/6644039
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Hindawi Advances in Agriculture Volume 2021, Article ID 6644039, 11 pages https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6644039 Research Article Determinants of the Use of Hermetic Storage Bags for Maize Storage among Smallholder Farmers in Northwest Ethiopia 1 2 Tigist Kefale Mekonen and Biruk Yazie Wubetie College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Debre Markos University, Debre Markos, Ethiopia College of Agriculture and Environmental Science, Bahir Dar University, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia Correspondence should be addressed to Biruk Yazie Wubetie; birukyazie@gmail.com Received 25 November 2020; Accepted 25 August 2021; Published 10 September 2021 Academic Editor: Volkan Okatan Copyright © 2021 Tigist Kefale Mekonen and Biruk Yazie Wubetie. -is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. In Ethiopia, postharvest losses, mainly storage losses by insects, are very critical problems in agricultural production systems. In particular, maize is highly susceptible to insect and pest attacks in the storage. -ese storage losses affect the livelihood of small- scale farmers by aggravating their food insecurity and reducing their household income. -is critical problem forced the farmers to look forward modern storage technologies like Purdue improved crop storage (PICS) bags, but its adoption is considerably low in the study area. -erefore, the objectives of this study were to examine the determinants to use PICS bags for maize storage. Data were collected through semistructured questionnaire, group discussion, key informants, and direct observation. A total of 392 sample household heads were selected by simple random sampling techniques. Binary logistic regression model, descriptive statistics, and inferential statistics were employed to analyze the data. -is study revealed that, about 58% of the respondents replied that the importance of PICS bags in reducing insect damage was high. -e results of binary logit model also indicated that educational level,sex, awareness, training, accessibility, perception on the effect of pesticide, social responsibility, and total income of the household positively and significantly affect farmers’ decision to use PICS bags. Moreover, the price of PICS affects negatively and significantly. -erefore, policy makers have to give emphasis for this newly introduced storage technology to address storage loss problems by taking in to account these determinants. SG-2000 Ethiopia started implementation of the PICS-3 1. Background project after signing a one-year agreement with Purdue Purdue Improved Cowpea Storage technology was first University. Plan of the project was to implement PICS bags developed by Purdue University/IRAD-Cameroon Cowpea in 2,200 villages. However, due to high demand and requests Storage Project in the late 1980s by Professor Larry Murdock from government partner organizations, especially the Re- and his team, with support from the Bill and Melinda Gates gional Agriculture and Natural Resource Bureaus, 3,155 Foundation [1]. -is technology was originally created until villages have now been reached by SG-2000 Ethiopia. -ose the trademark “Purdue Improved Cowpea Storage” (PICS) villages are located in 31 districts of 5 regional states of for West and Central African cowpea farmers to protect Ethiopia including Amhara, Benishangul Gumuz, Oromia, against extremely destructive cowpea bruchids, which pre- SNNP, and Tigray. vented resource-constrained farmers from long-term stor- Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations age to capture price increases later in the marketing season. (FAO) predicts that, about 1.3 billion tons of food are Around the end of 2013, SG-2000 Ethiopia began working globally wasted or lost per year [2]. Reduction in these losses with Purdue University to get a local manufacturer for PICS would increase the amount of food available for human bags established in Ethiopia, and 5,000 PICS bags were consumption and enhance global food security. Various manufactured in the country. Beginning in September 2015, studies undertaken in Sub-Saharan Africa to estimate maize 2 Advances in Agriculture grain losses in traditional storage practices have shown that Socio-economic factors: the losses are very high such that, from harvest to con- Age, education, sex, farm experience, sumer market, its losses are estimated to range from 14 to income level, production level, social responsibility, perception 36% [3]. One in five kg of grain produce in Sub-Saharan Africa is estimated to be lost by pest infestations and associated grain decays in which maize grain loss remained the highest [2]. In Ethiopia, the number of food insecure population Institutional factors: Use of PICS Bags Physical factor: remains unacceptably high each year; however, massive - Extension service - Credit access quantities of food are lost due to spoilage and infestations on - Land size - Training the journey to consumers. Losses may occur for two main reasons. During harvesting, handling, processing, and transport grain may be scattered, dispersed, or crushed. Technological factor: Alternatively, the grain may be subject to biodeterioration. A - Price of PICS bags study conducted in three major grain producing areas of - Accessibility of PICS Ethiopia, viz., Hetosa, Ada, and Bako, indicated that a - Awareness of PICS bags majority of farmers (93.3%) are using various traditional grain storage containers that expose their stored grains to be Figure 1: Conceptual framework of the study. attacked by storage pests and other factors that contribute to deteriorations whereby per household grain 12% was estimated from the total grain produced [4]. To fight those collection and related topics. -e enumerators gather the storage pests, many extension offices promote pest required data under the close supervision of the researcher. management strategies such as insecticide use and/or solar -e objective of the study and confidentiality of the re- disinfection, though certain botanicals show moderate spondents’ information was explained to the respondents potential as storage treatments [5]. However, the low ef- before interview. Focus group discussions, key informant fectiveness of botanical and/ or solar disinfection forced the interview, and direct observation were also used as methods community to look forward to a new technology (PICS) of data collection for this investigation. [6, 7]. -erefore, this study attempts to examine the per- ception of farmers towards PICS bags and identify the determinants of the use of this PICS bags to store maize 2.3. Sampling Procedure and Sample Size. -e study was (Figure 1). conducted in Burie district because it is the project site and the PICS storage technology is already introduced and 1.1. Conceptual Framework. -e conceptual framework of farmers are using this technology. -is study was employed the study is shown in Figure 1. multistage sampling frame. From 22 rural kebeles, there are 14 PICS user kebeles in the district, and then, three kebeles, 2. Methods namely, Zalima, Wadra, and Gulim were selected through simple random sampling techniques. Households in the 2.1.DescriptionoftheStudyArea. Burie is one of the districts selected kebeles were stratified as users and nonusers of PICS of Amhara National Regional State, Northwest Ethiopia. It is bag. -e sample size is determined by using Yamane formula ° ° located between latitude 10 17′–10 49′ north and longitude [10] at 95% confidence level and 5% precision level. -is ° ° 37 00′–37 11′ east (Figure 2). It is 400km away in the formula is applied to get more sample size which is rep- northwest of Addis Ababa and 148km southwest of Bahir resentative for the population: Dar, the regional state capital. Agroecologically, the district is classified into highland (1%), midland (77%), and lowland n � , (1) (22%) [9]. Maize is one of the stable crops in the study area. 1 + N(e) where n is the sample rural household, N is the total 2.2. Data Collection Methods. Both relevant qualitative and household size, and e is the level of precision. Lastly, 392 quantitativedatawere collected fromprimary and secondary sample household heads were selected randomly from both sources. -e data were collected from household heads strata by probability proportional to the size of each kebele mainly through semistructured questionnaire. -e ques- and stratum. tionnaire translated into local Amharic (local language) to ease the data collection process. Next to this, the ques- tionnaire was pretested before conducting formal survey and 2.4.DataAnalysisMethods. -e data were analyzed by using amended based on the feedback obtained. To do this, 5% (20 descriptive statistics (percentage, frequency, mean, mini- households) of the sample respondents were randomly se- mum, maximum, and standard deviation), inferential sta- lectedfrom otherdistricts whichhave similarsocioeconomic tistics (T-test and chi-square test), and binary logistic conditions with the study area. -en, ten enumerators were regression model through SPSS version 23 software. Charts, recruited and trained for two days on the method of data graphs, and tables were used to present the data. Advances in Agriculture 3 Location Map of Bure Woreda 260000 270000 280000 290000 300000 310000 1190000 1190000 1180000 1180000 1170000 1170000 1160000 1160000 1150000 1150000 1140000 1140000 1:100000 260000 270000 280000 290000 300000 310000 Bure Woreda West Gojjam Zone Amhara Region Figure 2: Location map of the study area. Source: adopted from Aleminew [8]. 2.4.1. Binary Logistic Regression Model. Logistic regression probability of households’ decision to use PICS storage has got advantage over others in the analysis of dichotomous ranged between0 and1.-erefore,when Pi isthe probability outcome variablesi.e., users and nonusers of PICS bags. -ere of household’s to use PICS bags, then (1 −Pi) will be the are two primary reasons for choosing the logistic distribution. probability of households not to use PICS bags. -is can be -ese are (1) from a mechanical point of view, it is an ex- represented as follows: tremely flexible and easily used function, and (2) it lends itself to a meaningful interpretation. -e logit model is simpler in 1 − Pi � . (4) estimation than the probit model [11–13]. -erefore, a binary 1 + e logistic regression model was used to study the decision Now, the most important element in the logistic re- behavior of sampled households, and why binary is because gression, i.e., odds ratio, can be obtained from equations (3) the dependent variable (farmers’ decision/preference on and (4) which is represented as Pi/1 − Pi as shown in the storage structure-PICS storage structure versus conventional following expression: storage structure) has the nature of dichotomous or binary responses. Following Gujarati [14], the logistic distribution Pi 1 + e functionfor identificationof households’ decisionto usePICS (5) � � e . −Z 1 − Pi 1 + e bags for maize storage can be defined as -e odds ratio in logistic model shows the extent or 1 1 Pi � E􏼒Y � 􏼓 � . degree of favoring the household’s decision to use PICS (2) − β +β X +β X +···+βmXm ( ) Xi 0 1 1 2 2 1 + e maize storage structures. When we take the natural loga- rithm of equation (5), we can obtain the following formula Since Z � β + β X + β X + · · · + βmXm, the above i 0 1 1 2 2 for logit model which is mostly represented as formula can be rewrite as shown for easy understanding: i Pi 1 e Li: Li � ln􏼒 􏼓 � Z � β + β X + β X + · · · + βmXm. (6) (3) i 0 1 1 2 2 Pi � � . 1 − Pi − Z Z i i 1 + e 1 + e -e above formula indicates that, as the value of Z -en, if the disturbance term Ui is taken in to account, ranges from negative infinitive to positive infinitive Pi, the the logit model becomes 4 Advances in Agriculture -e study revealed that farmers who had higher edu- Z � β + 􏽘 βiXi + Ui. (7) i 0 cation level show eagerness to grasp new ideas and to try the i�1 technology by allocating some of the scarce resources. -e result of χ -test showed significant difference for the dis- where β �the intercept. It is the value of the log odd ratio tribution of illiterate and educated household heads of the Pi/1 − Pi, when X or explanatory variable is zero. β �the two groups. slope, measures the change in L (logit) for a unit change in -e averageage was found to be 45.23 ranging from26 to explanatory variables (X). Before running the binary logistic 72 years with a standard deviation of 8.803. Reported that regression model, multicollinearity among the explanatory the average age of the household head was about 45 years at variables was checked. According to [13], continuous var- the national level which is closely similar to the result of this iables variance inflating factor (VIF) and condition index study. -e mean age of users and nonusers of Purdue im- (CI) and discrete variables coefficient of contingency (CC) proved crop storage technologies is 42.68 and 47.78 years were employed to check the colinearity effects among the with a standard deviation of 6.792 and 9.816, respectively variables. A VIF value greater than 10 and CC value greater (Table 3). -e mean age of users was found to be less than than 0.75 is used as a signal for a strong multicollinearity that of nonusers. -e result of t test showed that the mean [13]. difference of two groups was significant at 1% probability level. Family size refers to the numberof individualswho live in the same house having common goal for a minimum of 2.5. Definition of Variables six months. -e family size of the sample households ranges 2.5.1. Dependent Variable. -e dependent variable of the from 1 person to 9 people, with a mean of 4.98 people and a study has dichotomous nature which represents the ob- standard deviation of 1.562. -e above result is higher than served use of PICS bags. It was represented in the model as the regional average household size (4.6) [15]. -e average yes �1 for the household that uses PICS bags and no �0 for family size of users and nonusers was found to be 4.99 and household that did not use PICS bags. 4.96 people with a standard deviation of 1.625 and 1.5, respectively. -e statistical analysis showed that the differ- ence in the mean family size between users and nonusers is 2.5.2. Independent Variables. Based on the review of liter- insignificant. ature, the past research findings, and the researcher’s -e average years of farming experience for the total knowledge of the storage system of the study area, 15 po- sample household heads, users, and nonusers were found to tential explanatory variables were considered in this study be 23.41, 21.17, and 25.64 years with a standard deviation of and examined for their effect in farmers’ use of PICS bags 8.087, 6.633, and 8.780, respectively. -e farming experience (Table 1). ranges from 4 to 45 years for sample household heads. -e mean number of years of experience of the nonusers was found to be greater than that of users (Table 3). Statistically 3. Results and Discussion significant difference was observed between the two groups 3.1. Socioeconomic and Demographic Characteristics of with respect to the mean farming years of experience. It may Sample Households. Tables 2 and 3 present the socioeco- be because older farmers are reluctant to new emerging technologies. -e survey results showed that landholding nomic and demographic characteristics of respondents with categorical and continuous variables which are analyzed by size of total sample households ranges from 0.25 to 7ha with a mean of 2.25ha and standard deviation of 1.26. -e av- descriptive and inferential statistics. -e survey result in- dicated that, among the total sample household heads, 93.8% erage landholding size of users and nonusers were 2.38 and were male and 6.2% of them were female. -e marital status 2.11ha with a standard deviation of 1.22 and 1.30, respec- of household heads showed that 0, 3%, 92.9%, 2.3%, and tively. -e result of t test showed that the mean landholding 4.6% of them were single, married, divorced, and widowed, size difference between the two groups was significant respectively. Likewise, 96.4% of users and 91.3% of nonusers (Table 3). were male. About 95.9% of users and 89.8% of nonusers were Farm animals also serve as a measure of wealth in the rural area. Cattle, sheep, goats, and poultry are important married (Table 2). -e chi-square test for sex and marital status distribution between the two groups was found to be species of livestock kept by the farmers in the area. In line with the above explanation, livestock ownership of the significant at 5% probability level. -e education level of household heads is expected to increase the ability to obtain, respondents was measured using the tropical livestock unit process, and use information relevant to the use of improved (TLU). To help the standardization of the analysis, the agricultural technologies in general and Purdue improved livestock number was converted to tropical livestock unit crop storage bags/technologies in particular. -e survey (TLU). -e average size of livestock in TLU was found to results indicated that, about 49.7% of the total respondents be 6.16, 7.3, and 5.02 for total sample households, users, are illiterates (cannot read and write), while the rest 50.3% of and nonusers with a standard deviation of 2.69, 2.58, and the respondents had various educational levels ranging from 2.30, respectively (Table 3). -is result is higher than the the ability to read and write up to secondary education and regional average (3.87 TLU) and the national average of 4.46 TLU. -is result indicated that the livestock own- above. As shown in Table 2, about 23% of users and 76.5% nonusers were illiterate farmers. ership of user households was greater than the total Advances in Agriculture 5 Table 1: Definition and units of measurement for explanatory variables. Type of Variables Definition and its measurements variable Age Continuous Age of the respondent in years Sex Dummy Sex: male �1, female �0 Educational levels: illiterate �1, read and write �2, elementary school �3, secondary school and Education Discrete above �4 Land size Continuous Land size under cultivated in hectare Faming experience Continuous Farmers year of experience in maize storage Quantity of maize Continuous Quantity of maize stored in quintal stored Training Dummy Postharvest loss and storage training taken by farmers: yes �1, no �0 Access of PICS Dummy PICS access to farmers: yes �1, no �0 Price of PICS Discrete Cost of PICS by farmers view: low �1, medium �2, high �3 Awareness on PICS Dummy Awareness of farmers on PICS storage: yes �1, no �0 Chemical pesticide Dummy Understanding the effect of chemical pesticides: yes �1, no �0 effect Annual income Continuous Farmers annual income in Ethiopian birr Contact of extension agent with farmers: no contact at all �0, once in a week �1, once in two Extension services Discrete weeks �2, once in three weeks �3, once in a month �4, otherwise �5 Credit access Dummy Farmers credit access: yes �1, no �0 Table 2: Descriptive analysis results of categorical variables. Use of PICS bags Total (n �392) Variables Categories User Nonuser χ test Number % Number % Number % Male 189 96.4 179 91.3 368 93.8 ∗∗ Sex 4.438 Female 7 3.6 17 8.7 24 6.2 Single 1 0.5 0 0 1 0.3 Married 188 95.9 176 89.8 364 92.9 ∗∗ Marital status 7.951 Divorced 3 1.5 6 3.1 9 2.3 Widowed 4 2 14 7.1 18 4.6 Illiterate 45 23 150 76.5 195 49.7 Read and write 123 62.8 44 22.4 167 42.6 ∗∗∗ Educational status 116.481 Primary education 26 13.3 2 1 28 7.1 Secondary and above 2 1 0 0 2 0.5 ∗∗∗ ∗∗ and significant at P<0.01 and P<0.05. Table 3: Descriptive analysis results of continuous variables. User Nonuser Total (n �392) Variables t value Mean Std. deviation Mean Std. deviation Mean St. deviation ∗∗∗ Age 42.68 6.792 47.78 9.816 45.23 8.803 5.978 Family size 4.99 1.625 4.96 1.5 4.98 1.56 −0.194 ∗∗∗ Farming experience 23.41 8.087 21.17 6.633 25.64 8.780 5.693 ∗∗ Landholding size 2.383 1.218 2.11 1.295 2.246 1.263 −2.15 ∗∗∗ Number of livestock (TLU) 7.3 2.577 5.02 2.298 6.16 2.692 −9.236 ∗∗∗ ∗∗ and are significant at P <0.01 and P <0.05. observation of this study. -e difference between mean 3.2. Institutional Support for the Use of PICS Bags. Access to livestock holdings of users and nonusers of Purdue im- extension carrier could be very essential detail of institu- proved crop storage bag was statistically significant, and tional assist wished via way of means of farmers to decorate users have more livestock’s than nonusers. Conversion the usage of agricultural technology in popular and ad- factors used were based on [16]. vanced crop storage technology like PICS in particular. 6 Advances in Agriculture Development agents were assigned in all sample kebeles, and environment, respectively. Surprisingly, a large proportion therefore, it is expected that sample farmers in the study area of the respondents (37.2% and 39.5%) had no any awareness whether the technology protects insects and maintains food have an access to extension services through the DAs, at- tending field days and training. All sample households had and environment quality, respectively (Figure 3). been visited by development agents at least once a month, and most of the respondents (66.3%) of the respondents 3.5. Motivating Factors to Use PICS Bags over Chemical have been visited once a month (Table 4). In addition to Insecticide. -ere are different motivating factors that encouraging farmers to use improved technologies, training trigger the community to adopt PICS bag technology in the and demonstration days also play important role in creating study area. Besides other factors, increment of storage time linkages. Among the total number of respondents, 20.2% without insect damage maintains food, seed, and environ- participated in training of PICS bag and participated on ment quality from chemical substance poisoning. As shown open the bag ceremony. About 38.3% of the user and 2% of in Figure 4, a majority of the respondents (75% and 58%) the nonuser participated in training. -e difference was used PICS bags particularly to increase the shelf life of the statistically tested, and participation in PICS training was stored maize without insect damage and to maintain their found to be significant at 1% level of significance (χ �79.9) grain quality safe for consumption by avoiding chemical (Table 4). substance application on it, whereas only the small pro- Credit is a crucial institutional service to finance poor portion of smallholder farmers (6% and 5%) used PICS bags farmers for input purchase and ultimately to adopt new for the purpose of maintain grain quality for next seed input technology. However, all farmers may not have access due to and to make their environment safe enough by avoiding the problems related to repayment, previous credit defaults, and application of insecticide in their storage. -erefore, this collateral in order to get credit. -e survey result indicated survey showed that a large number of users of PICS bags PICS users had better access to credit compared to nonusers. lacked awareness about the importance of PICS bags in -e difference is statistically significant at 1% (χ �82.03) reducing environmental pollution and in maintaining the (Table 4). quality of seed for future production. 3.3. Smallholder Farmers Awareness about PICS Bags. As 3.6. Reasons of Nonusers for Not Using PICS Bags. -e study shown in Table 5, most of the respondents from nonusers of also found out why nonusers of PICS bags did not use the PICS bags (54%) have no any awareness about the overall PICS bags, in spite of the awareness of the technology by nature anduse ofPICS bag,and as aresult, they didnotuseit majority of them. Result presented in (Figure 5) showed that ever, while the rest of 46% of them have information and 51% of the respondents claimed that they did not participate awareness about PICS bags, but they did not use it because of and use the technology based on their perceived idea that the different reasons particularly due to the high price of the bag PICS bag is too costly. According to the information ob- and its poor accessibility. -is finding is in line with [17] tained from the local vendors and the community who al- whose findings revealed that less than 50% of farmers in his ready bought the bag, the present price of 43 ETB/bag is study area had not adopted improved storage systems since considered too high by most maize grower farmers in the they were not aware of them. As we have observed and study area. High costs of the bags appear to be the major discussed in the study area, the extension work regarding the reason for poor adoption of PICS bags technology. Based on dissemination and adoption of PICS bags in the study area the information obtained from the local vendor and especially in Zalima and Wadra was very poor even the users Shayashone consultant, the bag manufacturing company of the PICS bags in this area were not well trained. It is and distributor are not willing for any reduction in retail evident that many households used the triple layer of the price. Similarly, Moussa et al. [19] also found that the cost of bags separately just after one year of use because they were the bags was cited as a key constraint to use the PICS bags by perceived that the PICS bags are used only for one year. -is a large number of respondents. finding is supported by the study of Okoedo and Onemoleas In addition to the dearer price of the bag, lack of [18]. awareness of the farmers on technology was a significant factor in hindering the use of PICS bags. 54% of the re- 3.4. Farmers Perception on the Importance of PICS Bags. spondents had poor awareness about the importance of the It is known that PICS bags have a significant importance in bags even they did not hear about the technology at all in the protecting stored maize damage from insect and in main- study area (Figure 5). Farmer’s awareness about the available taining the quality of food for consumption and the sur- PICS technology is vital to enhance the use of PICS bags. To rounding environment by avoiding the application of adopt the newly introduced technologies, farmers need to be chemical insecticide which has the potential poisoning aware of the available technology as adoption is sometimes substances in contaminating our food as well as the sur- hampered not only by the inherent characteristics of the rounding, resulting in different human health problems. As innovation but also by lack of awareness of the end users of the technologies [20]. -e complaint on the poor accessi- shown in Figure 3, the total respondents who were users and nonusers of the PICS bags around 57.9% and 57.1% were bility of the PICS bags was reported by 7% of the respon- dents (Figure 5). -is implied that farmers in the study area highly perceived as the technology protects the stored maize from insect damage and can maintain the quality of food and have no access of PICS bags by the nearby place and only one Advances in Agriculture 7 Table 4: Distribution of sample households by frequency of extension visits, attendance in PICS training, and credit access. User Nonuser Total Item χ test Number % Number % Number % Extension contact ∗∗∗ Once a month 108 55.1 152 77.6 260 66.3 22.2 Twice a month 64 32.7 31 15.8 95 24.2 -ree times a month 16 8.2 9 4.6 25 6.4 More than three times a month 8 4.1 4 2 12 3.1 No visit 0 0 0 0 0 0 ∗∗∗ PICS training 79.9 Yes 75 38.3 4 2 79 20.2 No 121 61.7 192 98 313 79.8 ∗∗∗ Credit access 82.03 Yes 134 68.4 44 22.7 178 45.6 No 62 31.6 150 77.3 212 54.4 ∗∗∗ : significant at P <0.01. Table 5: Respondents’ awareness about PICS bags. User Nonuser Total Item No. % No. % No. % Yes 196 100 90 45.9 286 73 Have you awareness about PICS bags? No 0 0 106 54.1 106 27 Total 196 196 392 100 57.9 57.1 6.1 39.5 37.2 4.3 2.8 0.5 0.5 protecting maintain food maize insects quality and environment High Low Medium Don’t know Figure 3: Percentage of respondents’ awareness on the importance of PICS bags. Increase storage time Maintain food quality Does not pollute environment vendor throughout the district. -is is in line with findings Maintain seed quality of Moussa et al. [19]. Figure 4: Motivating factors to use PICS bags over chemical in- secticide (%). 3.7. Determinants of the Use of PICS Bags. -e model was assessed for its goodness of fit by examining how well the and discrete variables were entered; out of the total of these model classifies the observed data (in the classification table) explanatory variables, only 9 variables were found to be or by examination of how likely the sample results are, given significantly influencing the use of PICS bags. Variables the estimates of model parameters [21]. -e result indicates found to be significant included sex, education, responsi- that (the model chi-square value) the parameters included in bility in the community, PICS training, awareness on the the model taken together were significantly different from effect of chemical on health and environment, awareness of zero at less than 1 percent level of significance. -e value of PICS, PICS access, and price of PICS which were found to be chi-square (χ �395.812) indicates also the goodness of fitted significant at 1%, and also total annual income was found to model (Table 6). Maximum likelihood was used to estimate be significant at 5% probability level (Table 6). However, the the parameters of the variables that are expected to influence remaining six variables, namely, age, farming experience, the use of PICS bags. In the model, 15 potential continuous farm size, extension contact, access/use of credit, and 8 Advances in Agriculture Costy Lack of awarness No interest Not accessible Figure 5: Reasons of nonusers for not using PICS bags (%). Table 6: -e maximum likelihood estimates of the binary logistic regression model. 95% C.I. for Exp. (B) Variables B S.E. Wald Sig. Exp. (B) Lower Upper ∗∗∗ Sex 2.439 0.913 7.134 0.008 0.087 0.015 0.522 Age −0.068 0.058 1.383 0.24 0.935 0.835 1.046 ∗∗∗ Education level 1.595 0.479 11.109 0.001 4.928 1.929 12.59 Farm exp 0.018 0.06 0.087 0.769 1.018 0.904 1.146 ∗∗∗ Social responsibility 2.296 0.561 16.745 0.000 9.931 3.307 29.822 Land size −0.311 0.334 0.865 0.352 0.733 0.381 1.41 ∗∗ Total income 0.015 0.026 4.548 0.033 1.015 0.807 1.138 Credit access 0.644 0.533 1.462 0.227 1.904 0.671 5.407 Extension contact 0.463 0.409 1.28 0.258 0.629 0.282 1.403 ∗∗∗ PICS training 2.629 0.729 13.014 0.000 13.854 3.322 57.784 ∗∗∗ Chemical effect 1.236 0.458 7.291 0.007 3.441 1.403 8.44 ∗∗∗ Awareness PICS 3.307 0.805 16.882 0.000 27.308 5.638 132.259 ∗∗∗ PICS access 3.131 0.726 18.603 0.000 22.887 5.518 94.931 ∗∗∗ PICS price −2.054 0.822 6.24 0.012 7.796 1.556 39.049 Maize stored 0.013 0.023 0.325 0.569 1.013 0.968 1.06 ∗∗ Constant −3.706 1.939 3.653 0.05 0.025 1 2 3 ∗∗∗ Pearson chi-square: 395.812 , −2 log likelihood: 142.029, overall prediction of the model : 94.85, sensitivity : 95.8, specificity : 93.9, sample size: 392 ∗∗∗ ∗∗ households, and indicate significance at 1% and 5% level respectively.1: the success of prediction of the model based on a 50% probability classification table. 2: correctly predicted households that use PICS bags on a 50% probability classification. 3: correctly predicted households that did not use PICS bags based on 0.5 cut point probability table, source: binary logit model output. quantity of maize stored were found to have insignificant 3.7.2. Sex of the Household Head. Based on the result of the impact on farmers’ use of PICS bags in the study area. With model, sex was found to have positive and statistically the above brief background, the effect of the significant significance at 1% significant level. -e results of the model explanatory variables on the adoption of PICS bags was revealed that male-headed households were 8.7% more discussed as follows. probable to use PICS bags than female-headed households. -is could be attributed to various reasons, which could be the problem of economic position of female-headed 3.7.1. Educational Level of the Household Head. -is ex- households, including shortage of labor, limited access to planatory variable showed a positive relationship with the information, and required inputs due to social position. use of improved crop storage technologies (PICS bags). -e -erefore, a result indicated that the male-headed house- respondents who are educated are 4.928% more likely to use holds are better users of PICS bags. -is may be due to PICS bags than illiterate respondents. Education was found relatively better access of male-headed households to in- to affect the use of PICS bags positively and significantly at formation and agricultural resources than female household 1% significance level. Similar results were found in [22, 23] heads. -e result is in line with the finding of similar studies which showed that education enables farmers too easily [25, 26]. understand and recognize the use of PICS bags, the problem of postharvest loss, and be able to change in to practice the knowledge and skill they obtained. Another study under- 3.7.3. Awareness of PICS. It is positive and statistically taken by Soni et al. [24] in Sagar district using binary logit significant at 1% significant level. -is result revealed that model also stated that there was a positive association be- those households who were aware or had awareness about tween the level of education of farmers and the extent of PICS bags were 27 times more likely to use PICS bags than adoption of modern storage methods. 100 farmers’ were those households who had not awareness about this tech- interviewed, and results showed that lack of knowledge was a nology. -is suggests that the awareness of farmers for the major obstacle in adopting improved storage systems within PICS technology was used as an information dissemination the region. tool, and this leads to higher probability of using the PICS Advances in Agriculture 9 3.7.7. Access to PICS Bags. -is variable was found to be bag technology than respondents with no awareness about PICS bags. -is finding is consistent with the findings of [27] positively and significantly associated with the use of PICS bags at 1% level of significance, and the result confirms the who found that awareness was an important factor influ- encing individual behavior to adopt technology. prior hypothesis. -e odds ratio of 22.89, other things kept constant, implies that the probability of using PICS bags increases by the factor of 22.89 as the household’s access to a 3.7.4. PICS Training. In the model, we observe that the possibility of getting the bags in the nearest area increases by coefficient for PICS training is positive and statistically a unitary value as compared to those who do not have an significant at 1%. -ese results indicate that farmers who access. As the availability of PICS bag supply at the har- participated in the PICS village-level demonstration and vesting time increase, farmers’ use of PICS bags would be training were 13.8 times more likely to use the PICS bag enhanced. On the contrary, if PICS bags supply are not technology than those who were not involved in the village- adequate at the time of harvesting, farmers may use other level demonstrations and training. -e justification is due to storage technologies by applying insecticides on their maize. improving their understanding and awareness of impor- Inadequate number and distal of vendors is the major tance of PICS in protecting maize damage from insects and constraint faced by farmers to easily access and use, and maintaining the food quality as well as protecting envi- therefore, disconnection in information flow and supply ronment from pollution by reducing chemicals or insecti- chain of PICS bags is created between the manufacturer or cide application in the storage. -is result confirms the trader and maize producer households in the study area. conclusions of [28, 29], which support the idea that active Jokthan and Sanni [32] also found similar result. -is participation or attendance in field demonstrations and matches the findings of Soni and Kurmvanshi. [33] for poor training has a significant impact on the adoptability of adoption of improved storage systems in India, where 18.5% technology particularly in developing countries. -is is in complained of high costs of the improved systems and line with findings of Wekesa et al. [30], which indicated that nonavailability of the technology. In the study by Moussa farmers who had been trained were greater adopters of et al. [19], lack of local availability of bags was the most often improved storage systems. cited reason for not using PICS bags. -is analysis supports hypothesis that lack of local availability of the bags is the most important factor in the adoption decision. 3.7.5. Social Position. It was found to be influence use of PICS bags positively and significantly at 1% significant level. 3.7.8. Price of PICS Bags. -is variable was found to in- Household head who was involved in various positions and fluence the use of PICS bag negatively and significantly at 1% responsibilities was 9.9 times more likely to use PICS bags level of significance. -e logistic regression model result than households who have no any social responsibilities or revealed that, by holding other factors constant, the prob- position. -is is because farmers who are involved in dif- ability of using PICS bags by households who perceived the ferent administrative, religious, and other matters in the price as expensive was 7.796 times less likely to use PICS community are more exposed to new information and bags than those households who perceived the price of the technologies. -e participation of farmers in leadership of bag which were as cheap. -e price of the PICS which was social organization will also increase skill and awareness on 43birr/bag is considered too high by most farmers and the existence and importance of recent technology through households. It is possible to suggest that the high price of the the provision of necessary information, knowledge, and bags appears to be the major reason for poor adoption by discussion that assist farmers/traders to use the innovation farmers. -e bag company is not willing to any reduction in to better their lots. -erefore, it is expected that a household retail price associated with possible mass production and head who is involved in various positions is more likely to considered as one crucial factor for farmers’ decision to use use improved crop storage technologies. -is finding is also PICS bags [32]. Similarly, the authors of [18] revealed that consistent with Michael Bolaji [31]. And also, Yitayal [23] nonavailability and high cost of improved storage systems found a positive relationship between social position and the also account for farmers’ nonadoption of storage systems. decision to use conservation technologies. 3.7.9. Perceived Effect of Chemical Pesticide on Health and 3.7.6. Annual Income. -e coefficient of income was pos- Environment. It is positive and statistically significant at 1% itive and statistically significant at 5% level; this implies that indicating that those farmers who were perceived as using as the income of the households increased by 1 ETB birr, insecticide has negative impact on their food or health and the likelihood of using PICS bag technology increased by environment were more likely to adopt this triple-bag 1.015 factors. -is is because with more income the farmers technology. -erefore, the result of the model implied that the respondents who are aware of the impact of insecticides can invest more to increase their output. Farmers with higher income or production levels may have more re- on health and environment were 3.441 times more likely to adopt the PICS bag technology than those who did not sources and a higher need of good storage methods and, thus, are more likely to adopt the triple-bag technology. understand the impact. -ese farmers may possibly be on -is finding is consistent with the findings of Michael the search for improved storage techniques and are, thus, Bolaji [31]. more likely to use the triple-bag technology if available. 10 Advances in Agriculture -erehasbeenincreasedawarenessofhealthrisksassociated Abbreviations with insecticide use which may be the factor driving farmers’ ACSI: Amhara Credit and Saving Institution search for alternative storage technologies. Earlier adoption CC: Contingency coefficient studies omitted farmers’ perception of technology attributes, CSA: Central Statistical Agency and there might have biased the results of factors condi- ETB: Ethiopian birr tioning adoption decisions against this variable. But now- FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization adays, adoption studies [34] considering farmers’ perception Ha: Hectare of technology attributes have found that these attributes GDP: Gross domestic product condition the adoption choices of farmers. Farmers have IITA: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture subjective preferences for technology characteristics [28], NGO: Nongovernmental Organizations and this could play major roles in adoption. NRI: Natural Resources Institute PHL: Postharvest loss 4. Conclusion and Recommendation PICS: Purdue Improved Crop Storage TOT: Training of trainers Storage loss is perhaps the most persistent issues of maize SG-2000: Sasakawa Global-2000 production in Ethiopia, and it is more aggravating than it VIF: Variance inflating factors. was ever previously. -e majority of the respondents from nonusers of PICS packs (54%) have no any mindfulness about the general nature and utilization of PICS sack, and Data Availability thus they did not utilize it ever, while the remainder of 46% of them have informed about PICS sacks yet they did not -e datasets used during the current study are available from utilize; this is a result of various reasons especially because of the corresponding author on reasonable request. the excessive cost of the sack and its poor accessibility. -e extension work and awareness creation regarding PICS bags Ethical Approval technology in the study area were very poor even the users of the PICS bags in study area were not well trained and Ethical clearance was obtained from ethical clearance review empowered. It is obvious that large households utilized the committee of Bahir Dar University. To ensure confidenti- triple layer bags independently soon after one year of uti- ality, the names of the study subjects were not written on the lization since they were seen that the PICS packs are utilized questionnaire and did not share with anyone else. All in- distinctly for one year. Similarly, the result of the model complete questionnaires were considered as nonresponse indicated that educational level, sex, awareness on PICS rate. bags, training about PICS bags, accessibility of the bags, perception on the effect of chemical, social responsibility, Consent and total income of the household were found to positively and significantly affect farmers’ decision to use PICS bags, -e purpose of the study was explained to the study par- whereas price of PICS affected negatively and significantly. ticipants, and a written informed consent was obtained from Based on the findings, the following recommendations participants to confirm whether they were willing to par- are made: ticipate or not. -e data collectors collected the information after obtaining verbal consent from each participant. Re- (i) In the study area, large number of farmers had no spondents were informed that they can refuse or discontinue awareness about PICS bags. -erefore, awareness participation at any time they want, and they were also creation is important through strengthening the informed that they can ask anything about the study. extension work, sensitizing farmers through dem- onstration (open the bag ceremony) and mass media like radio, more training needs to be offered Conflicts of Interest to maize farmers, and extension workers to improve the farm households’ technical know-how. -e authors declare no conflicts of interest. (ii) Manufacturerhad to betterproduce the bag withbig size to reduce theft and shouldhave to make it better Authors’ Contributions by strong material which is not easily teared and attacked by rodents. -ere is also scarcity of bags so TKM participated in the design, data collection, data it is better to increase accessibility of the bag by near analysis, and interpretation. BYW also participated in the areas, i.e., ready market (vendor) should be analysis, interpretation, and drafting of the manuscript. All developed. authors read and approved the final manuscript. (iii) To improve access, various bag sizes (25kg, 50kg, 100kg, etc) should be introduced to the market to Acknowledgments suit different categories of users (small, medium, and large farmers) and make these technologies -e authors would like to acknowledge their data collectors available to smallholder farmers. and study participants. Advances in Agriculture 11 production on rural poverty alleviation in Edo state, References Nigeria,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Benin, Benin City, [1] G. Ibro, M. C. Sorgho, A. A. Idris, B. Moussa, D. Baributsa, Nigeria, 2009. and J. Lowenberg-DeBoer, “Adoption of cowpea hermetic [19] B. Moussa, T. Abdoulaye, O. Coulibaly, D. Baributsa, and storage by women in Nigeria, Niger and Burkina Faso,” J. Lowenberg-DeBoer, “Adoptionof on-farm hermetic storage Journal of Stored Products Research, vol. 58, pp. 87–96, 2014. for cowpea in West and central Africa in 2012,” Journal of [2] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Stored Products Research, vol. 58, pp. 77–86, 2012. Natural Resources Institute, “Missing food: the case of [20] S. Asfaw, “Estimating welfare effect of modern agriculture postharvest grain losses in sub-Saharan Africa,” Report No. technologies: a micro–perspective from Tanzania and Ethiopia “Ten Years of War against Poverty”” Chronic 60371-AFR, -e International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/-e World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 2011. Poverty Research Centre, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2011. [21] D. w. Hosmer and S. Lemeshow, Applied Logistic Regression, [3] T. Tefera, “Post-harvest losses in African maize in the face of increasing food shortage,” Food Security, vol. 4, no. 2, University of Massachusetts and Amberst, Wiley-Inter Sci- ence Publication, New York, NY, USA, 1989. pp. 267–277, 2012. [22] C. A. Ervin and D. E. Ervin, “Factors affecting the use of con- [4] H. G. Abebe and H. Bekele, “Farmers’ post-harvest grain servation practices. Hypothesis, evidence, and policy implica- management choices under liquidity constraints and tions,” Land Economics, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 97–307, 1982. impending risks: implications for achieving food security [23] A. Yitayal, “Determinants of use of soil conservation measures objectives in Ethiopia,” in Proceedings of the International by small holder farmers; in Gimma zone, Dedo district,” Association of Agricultural Economists Conference, pp. 12–18, pp. 65–82, School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University, GoldCoast, Australia, 2006. Dire Dawa, Ethiopia, 2004, M.S. thesis. [5] J. M. Songa and W. Rono, “Indigenous methods for bruchid [24] S. N. Soni, R. K. Pathak, and R. R. Kashikar, “Socio-economic beetle (Coleoptera: bruchidae) control in stored beans studies to analyze constraints in the adoption of modern tech- (Phaseolus vulgaris L.),” International Journal of Pest Man- nology by various groups in Sagar district, Madhya Pradesh,” agement, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 1–4,, 1998. Crop Research (Hisar), vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 353–356, 2000. [6] L. L. Murdock, D. Seck, G. Ntoukam, L. Kitch, and [25] M. Enki, “Determinants of adoption of soil conservation R. E. Shade, “Preservation of cowpea grain in sub-Saharan practices in central high lands of Ethiopia: the case of three Africa-bean/cowpea CRSP contributions,” Field Crops Re- districts of Salale,” M.S. thesis, School of Graduate Studies of search, vol. 82, no. 2-3, pp. 169–178, 2003. Alemaya University, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia, 2000. [7] K. Hell, K. E. Ognakossan, A. K. Tonou, Y. Lamboni, [26] A. Techane, “Determinants of fertilizer adoption in Ethiopia: K. E. Adabe, and O. Coulibaly, “Maize stored pests control by thecaseofmajorcerealproducing areas,” M.S. thesis, School of PICS-bags: technological and economic evaluation,” in Pro- Graduate Studies of Haramaya University, Dire Dawa, ceedings of the 5th World Cowpea Conference, Saly, Senegal, Ethiopia, 2002. October 2010. [27] A. Mengist, “Factors Influencing adoption of soil conservation [8] A. Aleminew, “Marketchainanalysis of red pepper:thecase of practices in south gondar zone: the case of Farta district,” M.S. Burie district, west Gojjam zone, Amhara national regional thesis, School of Graduate Studies of AlemayaUniversity, Dire state, Ethiopia,” M.Sc. thesis, School of Graduate Studies of Dawa, Ethiopia, 2003. Haramaya University, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia, 2010. [28] A. A. Adesina, D. Mbila, G. B. Nkamleu, and D. Endamana, [9] Burie District Office of Agriculture, Unpublished Office Report, “Econometric analysis ofthedeterminants of adoptionof alley Burie District Office of Agriculture, Burie, Ethiopia, 2016. farming by farmers in the forest zone of southwest Came- [10] T. Yamane, Statistics, an Introductory Analysis, Harper & roon,” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, vol. 80, no. 3, Row, New York, NY, USA, 2nd edition, 1967. pp. 255–265, 2000. [11] R. S. Pindyck and D. L. Rubinfeld, Econometric Models and [29] P. N. Ramji, K. R. Sharma, and G. B. -apa, “Adoption of agro- Economic Forecasts, McGraw Hill Book Co., New York, NY, forestry in the hills of Nepal: a logistic regression analysis,” USA, Second edition, 1981. Agricultural Systems, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 177–196, 2002. [12] G. H. William, Economic Analysis, New York University, [30] E. Wekesa, W. Mwangi, H. Verkuijl, K. Danda, and Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, NY, USA, 1991. H. De Groote, “Adoption of maize production technologies in [13] N. D. Gujarati, Basic Econometrics, McGraw-Hill, New York, the coastal lowlands of Kenya,” Miscellaneous Reports 56109, NY, USA, -ird edition, 1995. CIMMYT, Mexico City, Mexico, 2003. [14] D. N. Gujarati, Basic Econometrics, McGraw-Hill, New York, [31] A. Michael Bolaji, “Potential impact analysis of Purdue im- NY, USA, 4th edition, 2003. proved cowpea storage technology on income of users in [15] Central Statistical Agency, Agricultural Sample Survey for north central Nigeria,” pp. 81-82, Ahmadu Bello University, 2013/14: Report on Area and Production of Major Crops for Zaria, Nigeria, 2014, -esis Submitted to the School of PrivatePeasantHoldings,MeherSeason,StatisticalBulletinNo Postgraduate Studies. 532, May 2014, Central Statistical Agency, Addis Ababa, [32] G. Jokthan and A. Sanni, “An analysis of triple bag inter- Ethiopia, 2013. vention for cowpea storage in Nigeria,” in Proceedings of the [16] H. Strock, B. Adnew, B. Emana, A. Borowiecki, and Research into (Use) Workshop, Abuja, Nigeria, 2011. S. W. Hawariat, Farming Systems and Farm Management [33] S. N. Soni and S. M. Kurmvanshi, “Technological status Practices of Smallholders in the Hararghe Highlands, Vol. 2, (adoption pattern) of soybean cultivation in district Sagar of Wissenschaftsverlag Vauk, Kiel, Germany, 1991. Madhya Pradesh,” Crop Research (Hisar), vol.18, pp.150–154, [17] N. Khan and J. D. Keatinge, “Awareness and level of adoption of agricultural technologies in the remote areas of NWFP,” [34] N. Wubeneh, “Farm-level adoption of new sorghum technol- SarhadJournalofAgriculture,vol.16,no.2,pp.217–226,2000. ogies in Tigray Region, Ethiopia,” M.S. thesis, Purdue Uni- [18] O. Okoedo and E. A. Onemoleas, “Impact of the agricultural versity, West Lafayette, IN, USA, 2003. development programme (ADP) activities in arable crop

Journal

Advances in AgricultureHindawi Publishing Corporation

Published: Sep 10, 2021

References