Soil technology and post-harvest losses in Nigeria

IF 2.4 Q2 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY
Romanus Anthony Osabohien
{"title":"Soil technology and post-harvest losses in Nigeria","authors":"Romanus Anthony Osabohien","doi":"10.1108/jadee-08-2022-0181","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposePost-harvest losses are becoming a huge issue worldwide and are predominantly severe in developing countries. Seeking ways to control post-harvest losses is important because losses decrease farm income by more than 15% for approximately 480 million small-scale farmers.Design/methodology/approachThe study engaged Wave 4 (2018/2019) of the Living Standards Measurement Studies–Integrated Survey on Agriculture, to examine the impact of soil technology such as fertilisers, herbicides, pesticides and certified crops on post-harvest losses in Nigeria. The study engaged descriptive statistics, logit regression and propensity score matching (PSM) to analyse the data.FindingsThe study found that approximately 38% of the household harvest was lost along the value chain. In addition, the results showed that among the indicators of soil technology, crop certification has a significant impact on the reduction of post-harvest losses. The implication is that from the nearest neighbour and kernel-based matching, the use of certified crops by households contributed to 1.62 and 1.36% reduction in post-harvest losses, respectively. In contrast, pesticide, herbicide and fertiliser use had no significant impact on post-harvest losses.Research limitations/implicationsOne of the limitations is that this study applied the PSM, the model did not account for endogeneity. Therefore, in examining this concept, further studies should consider applying other impact model such as the difference-in-difference to account for endogeneity.Originality/valueWhile previous studies have examined how ICT adoption, storage mechanisms and value chain among others help to minimise post-harvest losses, the aspect of how soil technology can reduce post-harvest losses has been a subject of exclusion in the extant literature. This study empirically examines the impact of soil technology adoption on post-harvest losses in Nigeria.","PeriodicalId":45976,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jadee-08-2022-0181","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

PurposePost-harvest losses are becoming a huge issue worldwide and are predominantly severe in developing countries. Seeking ways to control post-harvest losses is important because losses decrease farm income by more than 15% for approximately 480 million small-scale farmers.Design/methodology/approachThe study engaged Wave 4 (2018/2019) of the Living Standards Measurement Studies–Integrated Survey on Agriculture, to examine the impact of soil technology such as fertilisers, herbicides, pesticides and certified crops on post-harvest losses in Nigeria. The study engaged descriptive statistics, logit regression and propensity score matching (PSM) to analyse the data.FindingsThe study found that approximately 38% of the household harvest was lost along the value chain. In addition, the results showed that among the indicators of soil technology, crop certification has a significant impact on the reduction of post-harvest losses. The implication is that from the nearest neighbour and kernel-based matching, the use of certified crops by households contributed to 1.62 and 1.36% reduction in post-harvest losses, respectively. In contrast, pesticide, herbicide and fertiliser use had no significant impact on post-harvest losses.Research limitations/implicationsOne of the limitations is that this study applied the PSM, the model did not account for endogeneity. Therefore, in examining this concept, further studies should consider applying other impact model such as the difference-in-difference to account for endogeneity.Originality/valueWhile previous studies have examined how ICT adoption, storage mechanisms and value chain among others help to minimise post-harvest losses, the aspect of how soil technology can reduce post-harvest losses has been a subject of exclusion in the extant literature. This study empirically examines the impact of soil technology adoption on post-harvest losses in Nigeria.
尼日利亚的土壤技术和收获后损失
目的收获后的损失正在成为世界范围内的一个巨大问题,在发展中国家尤为严重。寻求控制收获后损失的方法很重要,因为损失使大约4.8亿小规模农民的农业收入减少了15%以上。设计/方法/方法该研究采用了生活水平测量研究的第4波(2018/2019)——农业综合调查,以研究化肥、除草剂、杀虫剂和认证作物等土壤技术对尼日利亚收获后损失的影响。该研究采用描述性统计、logit回归和倾向得分匹配(PSM)来分析数据。研究发现,价值链上大约有38%的家庭收成损失。此外,研究结果表明,在土壤技术指标中,作物认证对减少收获后损失有显著影响。这意味着,从最近邻居和基于内核的匹配来看,家庭使用认证作物分别减少了1.62%和1.36%的收获后损失。相比之下,杀虫剂、除草剂和化肥的使用对收获后的损失没有显著影响。研究局限性/含义其中一个局限性是本研究应用了PSM,该模型没有考虑内生性。因此,在检验这一概念时,进一步的研究应该考虑应用其他影响模型,如差异来解释内生性。独创性/价值尽管之前的研究考察了信息和通信技术的采用、储存机制和价值链等如何有助于最大限度地减少收获后的损失,但土壤技术如何减少收获后损失在现有文献中一直被排除在外。这项研究实证检验了尼日利亚采用土壤技术对收获后损失的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
37.50%
发文量
58
期刊介绍: The Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies publishes double-blind peer-reviewed research on issues relevant to agriculture and food value chain in emerging economies in Asia, Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe. The journal welcomes original research, particularly empirical/applied, quantitative and qualitative work on topics pertaining to policies, processes, and practices in the agribusiness arena in emerging economies to inform researchers, practitioners and policy makers
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信