1 / 20

ADOPTION AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF IPM TECHNOLOGIES IN POTATO PRODUCTION IN CARCHI, ECUADOR

ADOPTION AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF IPM TECHNOLOGIES IN POTATO PRODUCTION IN CARCHI, ECUADOR. Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics Virginia Tech Vanessa Carri ó n, George Norton, Jeff Alwang, Victor Barrera April, 2013. Agriculture and potato production in Ecuador.

molimo
Télécharger la présentation

ADOPTION AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF IPM TECHNOLOGIES IN POTATO PRODUCTION IN CARCHI, ECUADOR

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ADOPTION AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF IPM TECHNOLOGIES IN POTATO PRODUCTION IN CARCHI, ECUADOR Department of Agricultural and Applied EconomicsVirginia Tech Vanessa Carrión, George Norton, Jeff Alwang, Victor Barrera April, 2013

  2. Agriculture and potato production in Ecuador • Twenty six percent (26%) of the total labor force is employed in the agricultural sector. • Farmers in Ecuador use large quantities of pesticides and chemical fertilizers. Potato is a crop with relatively high input requirements and also a very important staple in the average Ecuadorian diet. • Carchi is currently the most important potato production area of the country. It has specialized farmers who cultivate 43% of the production using only 13% of the total national area dedicated to this crop.

  3. The Integrated Pest Management Collaborative Research Support Program (IPM CRSP) In 1997, Ecuador became a host country for IPM CRSP, funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). After performing a base line study (1998) to prioritize pest problems, researchers tested several IPM practices in farmers’ fields and then began introducing IPM practices to the potato farmers in Carchi, in part through Farmer Field Schools (FFS).

  4. Objectives Determine the factors that affect a farmer’s decision to adopt, not adopt, or continue to use IPM technologies. Assess the economic impact of IPM adoption (profits, yields, pesticide use).

  5. Data Personal interviews were conducted in June 2012 , with a sample of 404 farmers from the four potato-producing municipalities within Carchi province. Two hundred fifteen (215) farmers had some type of formal training. One hundred eighty nine (189) were untrained.

  6. Methodology

  7. Methodology (continued)

  8. Methodology (continued)

  9. Methodology (continued) • The approach to be used to assess the impact of IPM adoption focuses on farm-level economic impacts. To assess such impacts, we will evaluate farmers profits, crop yields and pesticide use using an instrumental (IV) variable approach.

  10. Summary Statistics

  11. Results

  12. How farmers learn about IPM?

  13. Farmers by degree of adoption 2003 vs 2012

  14. Why farmers stop adopting IPM?

  15. Ordered Probit Results for Adoption Rates *, **, *** indicate corresponding coefficients are significant at the 10%, 5% and 1% level, respectively.

  16. Marginal effects of significant variables on Adoption Rates

  17. Conclusions • Information sources have a positive effect on farmer adoption of IPM. FFSs had the greatest impact on high and medium levels of adoption, followed by field days, exposure to other farmers, and observation visits. Extension agents visits had the least effect on farmer adoption. • Farmer characteristics (socio-economic factors) did not play a significant role in affecting adoption rates. Apart from information effects, the only other significant variable in the model was the wealth index where wealthier farmers adopted more IPM.

  18. Aknowledgements • This project was funded by the IPM CRSP/USAID • Dr. George W. Norton, AAEC Virginia Tech • Dr. Jeff Alwang, AAEC Virginia Tech • Dr. Victor Barrera, INIAP • Dr. Catherine Larochelle, AAEC Virginia Tech

  19. Thanks!

More Related