Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T19:41:32.318Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does use of draft animal power increase economic efficiency of smallholder farms in Kenya?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 December 2007

P.M. Guthiga ,
J.T. Karugia  and
R.A. Nyikal
P.M. Guthiga*
Affiliation:
Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn, Walter-Flex Str. 3, 53113 Bonn, Germany.
J.T. Karugia
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Nairobi, PO Box 29053 Nairobi, Kenya.
R.A. Nyikal
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Nairobi, PO Box 29053 Nairobi, Kenya.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Draft animal power (DAP) has been identified as an environmentally friendly technology that is based on renewable energy and encompasses integration of livestock and crop production systems. Draft animal technology provides farmers with a possibility to cheaply access and use manure from the draft animals and farm power needed to apply renewable practices for land intensification. Compared to motorized mechanization, DAP is viewed as an appropriate and affordable technology especially for small-scale farmers in developing countries who cannot afford the expensive fuel-powered tractor mechanization. However, it is apparent that there is no consensus among researchers on how it affects crop yields, profit and production efficiency when applied in farm operations. This study addressed the question of whether using DAP increases economic efficiency of smallholder maize producers in central Kenya. Results of the study are derived from a sample of 80 farmers, 57% of whom used draft animals while 43% used hand hoes in carrying farm operations. In the study area, draft animals are almost exclusively used for land preparation and planting, with very few farmers applying them in the consecutive operations such as weeding. A profit function was estimated to test the hypothesis of equal economic efficiency between ‘DAP’ and ‘hoe’ farms. The results showed that farmers who used DAP obtained higher yields and operated at a higher economic efficiency compared to those who used hand hoes. The analysis underscores the viability of DAP in increasing profitability of small-scale farms; however, other aspects of the technology, such as affordability of the whole DAP package, availability of appropriate implements and skills of using the technology, must be taken into account when promoting adoption of DAP technology.

Keywords

draft animal powermechanizationsmallholder farmersprofit functioneconomic efficiency
Type
Research Article
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 22 , Issue 4 , December 2007 , pp. 290 - 296
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Starkey, P. 1994. Animal traction a worldwide view with a small farmer perspective. In Starkey, P., Mwenya, E., and Stares, J. (eds). Improving Animal Traction Technology. Technical Center for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA), Wageningen, The Netherlands. p. 66–81.Google Scholar
2 Oudman, L. 1993. The animal draught power development project in the Department of Agricultural Engineering, University of Nairobi. In Kanali, C.L., Okello, P.O., Wasike, B.S., and Klapwijk, M. (eds). Improving Draught Animal Technology. Proceedings of the First Conference of the Kenya Network for Draught Animal Technology held on November 3–6 1992. Nairobi, Kenya. p. 106–116.Google Scholar
3 Mutahi, K. 1993. Opening speech. In Kanali, C.L., Okello, P.O., Wasike, B.S., and Klapwijk, M. (eds). Improving Draught Animal Technology. Proceedings of the First Conference of the Kenya Network for Draught Animal Technology held on November 3–6 1992, Nairobi, Kenya. KENDAT. Nairobi, Kenya. p. 3–5.Google Scholar
4 Odogola, W.R. and Kibalama, J.S. 1997. Experiences on formulation of agricultural mechanization strategy for Uganda. In Proceedings on Farm Mechanization Strategy Formulation in Eastern and Southern Africa, Farmesa/Sida Regional Programme, Harare, Zimbabwe. p. 11–16.Google Scholar
5 Spencer, D.S.C. 1985. A Research Strategy to Develop Appropriate Agricultural Technologies for Small Farm Development in Sub-Saharan Africa. Appropriate Technologies for Farmers in Semi-Arid West Africa. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.Google Scholar
6 Onyango, S.O. 1988. Reducing present constraints to the use of animal power in Kenya. In Starkey, P. and Faye, A. (eds). Animal Traction for Agricultural Development. CTA, Wageningen, The Netherlands. p. 445–449.Google Scholar
7 Kosura-Oluoch, W. 1983. The economics of small farm mechanization in Kenya. PhD dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
8 Kenya, 1986. Sessional Paper No. 1 of 1986 on Economic Management for Renewed Growth. Government Printers, Nairobi, Kenya.Google Scholar
9 Kenya, 2000. National Development Plan 2002–2008. Government Printers, Nairobi, Kenya.Google Scholar
10 Odhiambo, W., Nyangito, H., and Nzuma, J. 2004. Sources and determinants of agricultural growth and productivity in Kenya. KIPPRA Discussion Paper No. 34. Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis (KIPPRA), Nairobi, Kenya.Google Scholar
11 Kenya, 2001. Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP). Government Printers, Nairobi, Kenya.Google Scholar
12 Marshall, K. and Sizya, M. 1994. Women and animal traction in Mbeya region of Tanzania. A gender and development approach. In Starkey, P., Mwenya, E., and Stares, J. (eds). Improving Animal Traction Technology. CTA, Wageningen, The Netherlands. p. 266–271.Google Scholar
13 Sylwander, L. 1994. Women and animal traction technology. In Starkey, P., Mwenya, E., and Stares, J. (eds). Improving Animal Traction Technology. CTA, Wageningen, The Netherlands. p. 260–265.Google Scholar
14 Jaeger, W.K. and Matlon, P.J. 1990. Utilization, profitability and the adoption of animal draft power in West Africa. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72:35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15 Williams, T.O. 1997. Problems and prospects in the utilization of animal traction in semi-arid west Africa: evidence from Niger. Soil and Tillage Research 42:295–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16 Mettrick, H. 1978. Oxenisation in Gambia: An Evaluation. Ministry of Overseas Development, London, UK.Google Scholar
17 Mutebwa, A.B. 1979. Determination of mechanization levels with respect to land size and labor in semi-arid areas of Kenya: findings from Lower Kirinyaga. MSc dissertation, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya.Google Scholar
18 Panin, A. 1990. Profitability of animal traction investment: the case of northeastern Ghana. In Starkey, P. and Faye, A. (eds). Animal Traction for Agricultural Development. CTA, Wageningen, The Netherlands. p. 201–209.Google Scholar
19 Simalenga, T.E., Belete, A., Mzeleni, N.A., and Jongisa, L.L. 2000. Profitability of using animal traction under smallholder farming conditions in Eastern Cape, South Africa. In Kaumbutho, P.G., Pearson, R.A., and Simalenga, T.E. (eds). Empowering Farmers with Animal Traction. ATNESA, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe. p. 230–234.Google Scholar
20 Stevens, P. 1994. Improving animal-powered tillage systems and weeding technology. In Starkey, P., Mwenya, E., and Stares, J. (eds). Improving Animal Traction Technology. CTA, Wageningen, The Netherlands. p. 168–181.Google Scholar
21 Mwanda, C. 2000. A note on weed control in Machakos district, Kenya. In Starkey, P. and Simalenga, T. (eds). Animal Power for Weed Control. A Resource Book of the Animal Traction Network for East and Southern Africa (ATNESA). CTA, Wageningen, The Netherlands. p. 238–239.Google Scholar
22 Ouma, J.O., De Groote, H., and Gethi, M. 2002. Participatory rural appraisal of farmer's perceptions of maize varieties and production constraints in the moist transitional zones in eastern Kenya. IRMA Socio-economic Working Paper 02-02. International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT), Nairobi, Kenya.Google Scholar
23 Farrel, M.J. 1957. The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General) 21:253–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24 Adesina, A.K. and Djato, K.K. 1997. Relative efficiency of women as farm managers: profit function analysis in Cote d' Ivore. Agricultural Economics 16:47–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25 Yotopolous, P.A. and Nugent, J.B. 1976. Economics of Development: Empirical Investigations. Harper and Row Publishers, New York.Google Scholar
26 Ali, M. and Flinn, J.C. 1989. Profit efficiency among basmati rice producers in Pakistan Punjab. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2:303–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27 Quisumbing, A.R. 1994. Gender differences in agricultural productivity: a survey of empirical evidence. ESP Discussion Paper Series. No. 36. Education and Policy Department, World Bank, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
28 Yotopoulos, P.A. and Lau, L.J. 1971. A test for relative efficiency and application to Indian agriculture. American Economic Review 1:94–109.Google Scholar
29 Khan, M.H. and Maki, D.R. 1979. Effects of farm size on economic efficiency: the case of Pakistan. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 7:64–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30 Coelli, T., Rao, D.S.P., and Battese, G.E. 1998. An Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31 Knox, J.K., Blankmeyer, C.E., and Stutzman, J.R. 1999. Relative economic efficiency in Texas nursing facilities: a profit function analysis. Journal of Economics and Finance 3:200–213.Google Scholar
32 Van Noordwijk, M., Hairiah, K., Partoharjono, S., Labios, R.V., and Garrity, D.P. 1997. Food-crop-based production systems as sustainable alternatives for Imperata grassland? Agroforestry Systems 36:55–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar