Browsing by Author "Steur, Hans De"

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Agronomic Biofortification from a Stakeholder’s Viewpoint Evidence from Studies on Iodine-Enriched Foods in Uganda
    (Vitamins and minerals biofortification of edible plants, 2020) Olum, Solomon; Wesana, Joshua; Odongo, Walter; Mogendi, Joseph; Okello, Collins; Webale, Dominic; Makokha, Anselimo; Ongeng, Duncan; Gellynck, Xavier; Steur, Hans De
    This chapter provides an overview of two case studies that examine stakeholder reactions toward iodine biofortification in Uganda. The first case applies the protection motivation theory and evaluates the intention of school heads and parents of school-aged children to include iodine-biofortified legumes in school feeding programs. The second case study takes a broader scope of stakeholder groups and applies the analytical hierarchy process, a multicriteria decision-making tool, to understand the stakeholders' evaluation of the relative importance of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) factors in implementing agronomic iodine biofortification in Uganda. Results from the two cases demonstrate that stakeholders are generally optimistic about the iodine biofortification strategy to improve iodine intake and address the prevalent iodine deficiency disorders. Both cases provide insights into key factors that need to be considered in implementing iodine biofortification technology in a developing country.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Economic Feasibility of Iodine Agronomic Biofortification: A Projective Analysis with Ugandan Vegetable Farmers
    (Sustainability, 2021) Olum, Solomon; Gellynck, Xavier; Wesana, Joshua; Odongo, Walter; Aparo, Nathaline Onek; Aloka, Bonny; Ongeng, Duncan; Steur, Hans De
    Cost–benefit analysis of (iodine) biofortification at farm level is limited in the literature. This study aimed to analyze the economic feasibility of applying iodine-rich fertilizers (agronomic biofortification) to cabbage and cowpea in Northern Uganda. Data on costs and revenues were obtained from a survey of 100 farmers, and benefits that would accrue from using iodine fertilizers were elicited using consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for the iodine-biofortified vegetables. The cost–benefit analysis demonstrated iodine agronomic biofortification as a highly profitable effort, generating average benefit–cost ratios (BCRs) of 3.13 and 5.69 for cabbage and cowpea production, respectively, higher than the conventional production practice. However, the projective analysis showed substantive variations of economic gains from iodine biofortification among farmers, possibly due to differences in farming practices and managerial capabilities. For instance, only 74% of cabbage farmers would produce at a BCR above 1 if they were to apply iodine fertilizer. Furthermore, a sensitivity analysis to estimate the effect of subsidizing the cost of iodine fertilizer showed that a higher proportion of farmers would benefit from iodine biofortification. Therefore, as biofortification is considered a health policy intervention targeting the poor and vulnerable, farmers could be supported through fertilizer subsidies to lower the production cost of iodine-biofortified foods and to avoid passing on the price burden to vulnerable consumers.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Farmers’ Adoption of Agricultural Innovations: A Systematic Review on Willingness to Pay Studies
    (Outlook on Agriculture, 2020) Olum, Solomon; Gellynck, Xavier; Juvinal, Joel; Ongeng, Duncan; Steur, Hans De
    Unlike most studies that focused on specific innovations, this study systematically analyzed farmers’ adoption of agricultural innovations in general. It reports willingness to pay (WTP; willingness to accept (WTA)) as a proxy for adoption, its determinants, applied methods, and statistical models. After searching and screening, 80 studies qualified for review. Majority (n = 30) of studies focused on farmers’ WTP for innovations in agricultural water provision or environmental and crop protection (n = 35), while the remaining studies handled crop or animal improvement innovations. Most studies were performed in developing countries, using stated preference methods for economic valuation, with 55% of the studies (n = 44) applying contingent valuation compared to 39% taking choice modeling approach. While farmers are generally willing to pay premium for improvement in agriculture technologies, WTP (WTA) depends on the innovation (system). For example, premiums ranged from about 0.125 to 2 USD/m3 of water depending on water supply (e.g. ground vs. surface water). Furthermore, the determinants of farmers’ WTP can be grouped into sociodemographic, biophysical, technological, institutional, and behavioral factors. As illustrated by relatively high WTP, the review demonstrates that farmers embrace most innovations, regardless of the context and methods applied.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Iodine Agronomic Biofortification of Cabbage (Brassica oleracea var. capitata) and Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) Is Effective under Farmer Field Conditions
    (Agronomy, 2019) Ojok, Joe; Omara, Peter; Opolot, Emmanuel; Odongo, Walter; Olum, Solomon; Gijs, Du Laing; Gellynck, Xavier; Steur, Hans De; Ongeng, Duncan
    Iodine (I) is an essential micronutrient, which plays a critical role in human metabolism. However, its concentration is known to be low in most soils, making it deficient in crops. With most I agronomic biofortification studies conducted under controlled environments, limited information currently exists on this approach of enriching I deficient crops under farmer field conditions. Two-year field experiments were conducted in 2017 and 2018 to examine efficacy of cowpea and cabbage in the uptake of foliar applied potassium iodide (KI) and potassium iodate (KIO3), each with 0, 5, 10, and 15 kg I ha−1 under farmer field conditions. Results indicate that KI was 34% more efficient than KIO3. Iodine concentration increased with application rate. In cabbage, the lowest I concentration (8.2 mg kg−1) was registered at 5 kg I ha−1 with KIO3 while the highest was 109.1 mg kg−1 at 15 kg I ha−1 with KI. Cowpea registered the lowest I concentration of 531.5 mg kg−1 at 5 kg I ha−1 with KIO3 while the highest (5854.2 mg kg−1) was registered at 15 kg I ha−1 with KI. Therefore, cowpea and cabbage can be effectively biofortified through foliar application of both KI and KIO3 under farmer field conditions.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Agronomic Iodine Biofortification: A SWOT-AHP Analysis in Northern Uganda
    (Nutrients, 2018-03-24) Olum, Solomon; Okello, Collins; Odongo, Walter; Ongeng, Duncan; Steur, Hans De
    Agronomic biofortification (i.e., the application of fertilizer to elevate micronutrient concentrations in staple crops) is a recent strategy recommended for controlling Iodine Deficiency Disorders (IDDs). However, its success inevitably depends on stakeholders’ appreciation and acceptance of it. By taking Northern Uganda as a case, this study aimed to capture and compare the perceptions of seven key stakeholder groups with respect to agronomic iodine biofortification. Therefore, we employed a SWOT (Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunities & Threats) analysis in combination with an Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). Findings show that stakeholders (n = 56) are generally positive about agronomic iodine biofortification in Uganda, as its strengths and opportunities outweighed weaknesses and threats. Cultural acceptance and effectiveness are considered the most important strengths while the high IDD prevalence rate and the availability of iodine deficient soils are key opportunities for further developing agronomic iodine biofortification. Environmental concerns about synthetic fertilizers as well as the time needed to supply iodine were considered crucial weaknesses. The limited use of fertilizer in Uganda was the main threat. While this study provides insight into important issues and priorities for iodine biofortification technology in Uganda, including differences in stakeholder views, the application of the SWOT-AHP method will guide future researchers and health planners conducting stakeholder analysis in similar domains.