Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CONSTRAINTS IN UGANDA
Rhona Walusimbi
July 2002
Institute for Environment and Natural Resources. The key objective is to provide
options for Uganda, taking account of geographical and household factors such as
asset
and natural resources (ecosystem goods and services). It is the hope that this
information
will help improve the quality of policies and investment programs for the
sustainable
development of rural areas in Uganda. SCRIP builds in part on the IFPRI project
Policies
The origin of SCRIP lies in a challenge that the USAID Uganda Mission set itself
in designing a new strategic objective (SO) targeted at increasing rural incomes.
The
S.Bolwig@cgiar.org
INTRODUCTION
located in the tropics and temperate climate zones. (Lundbaek, 2001). It is one of
the
value traded (Serunjogi et al., 2001). Its main commercial uses are in manufacture
of
In Uganda cotton is produced in all regions of the country, however most of the
producers in 2000 was approximately 300, 000- 400, 000. (Gordon and Goodland,
2000).
Cotton is a labour intensive crop especially at weeding, pesticide application and
harvesting stages. Animal traction introduced into the country in the early 1900’s
was
widely adopted by cotton farmers in the main cotton producing areas of the country
mainly for land opening. However, the use of this technology was severely curtailed
by
cattle rustling that affected many districts in the northern and eastern regions
during the
insurgence of the late 1980’s. The use of tractors by small-scale farmers in general
remains very limited, mainly because the farmers cannot afford the technology
(APSEC,
2001).
Cotton was introduced as a cash crop in Uganda in 1903 and became its major
export
until the 1950’s when it was surpassed by coffee (Serunjogi et al, 2001). At its peak
acreage and yield from the mid 70’s to the late 80s during which time the country
experienced political and economic turmoil. By 1987/88, production had hit an all
time
low of 11,000 bales. The textile and garment industry and other value addition
industries
also suffered a similar fate. The causes of decline of farm level production included
lack
of credit and farming inputs, lack of extension services, a poor marketing system
and a
run down and inefficient ginning system (LMC International, 2002 and Serunjogi et
al.
2001)
2
in the country from 1987 and significant improvements in production and rural and
foreign exchange incomes have been achieved. However, these gains remain much
cotton industry, indicate that most of Uganda’s soils and climate are well suited for
cotton
production (with the crop having the potential to do well even in marginal areas),
yields
of up to five times the current average farm yields can be achieved. Also Uganda’s
cotton
A number of studies have identified several causes of the current low and
stagnating
extension services, and land fragmentation and low producer prices (CDO, 2002).
Value
underutilized and technologically aging ginneries and manufacturing plants, and low
Another reason commonly put forward to explain less than expected growth of the
by the APSEC in 1994 and 1998, revealed that, cotton ranked lowest in profitability
Due its high potential as a foreign exchange and poverty alleviation crop, the
(MFPED, 2001, COMPETE, 2001 and CDO, 2001). This paper investigates underlying
adoption of cotton production technologies and of the recent cotton sub sector
recovery
methodology used in collecting and analyzing the data used in the study is
described.
Next, the results obtained are presented and discussed and finally conclusions of
the
LITERATURE REVIEW
The main interventions to revive Uganda’s cotton-sub sector have been part and
parcel of
the economic reforms that were implemented in the country from 1987.
Government’s
From 1993 to 1995, the Small Holder Cotton Rehabilitation Project (SCRP), aimed at
seed quality and its multiplication and to promote the greater use of animal traction
was
implemented.
The Cotton Sub-sector Development Project (CSDP) designed to support and build
on the
activities of SCRP and other on-going agric sector development programmes was
implemented in 1995 and closed in 2001. Under CSDP, cotton processing and
export
marketing were liberalized; a regulatory and promotion body named the Cotton
services through support for national research and extension programmes and
improving
the delivery mechanisms and availability of cotton planting seed and production
credit.
The project envisaged increases in cotton production through area expansion and
yield
increases.
According to the impact assessment report of the CSDP by APSEC (2001), a number
of
(IPM) and ox drawn implements (ploughs, planters, seeders and weeders) were
generated
under the project. However, some of the agronomic and integrated pest
management
implements are not yet available commercially (APSEC 2001). The project also
for training and sale to farmers, implemented a capacity building programme for
microfinance
institutions and a short term in-kind seeds, pesticides and spray pumps credit
programme. The credit programme implemented by CDO and the Uganda Ginners
and
Cotton Exporters Association (UGCEA) provided seeds and pesticides and spray
pumps
to farmers on credit at the beginning of the growing season from the 1998/99
seasons.
Recovery was made by ginners at the time of cotton harvest sales. The pesticides
program
was however stopped during the 2001/2002-cotton season due to loan recovery
problems
reasons for farmers reluctance to repay pesticides credit are that some farmers
may have
received pesticides late or not at all, they may have considered their ginners
pesticides to
be too expensive, or they may have been defaulting on their sales contracts in
order to
obtain higher prices from other buyers.
Several studies report that the cotton sub sector revival programs have resulted
into
increased production. Total annual lint production rose from 33,000 bales in
1994/95 to
110,000 bales in 1996/97 mostly due to increase in area planted rather than
increase in
yields. (Serunjogi et al., 2001). APSEC, 2002 reports that there have been no clear
upward trends in yields since the onset of the cotton sub sector recovery
programmes.
Current yields average 300- 400 kg per hectare. This is way below potential on-farm
yields of 1000 kg/ha. Annual production has stagnated at around 100,000 bales
from
1997/98 to 2000/01. (CDO, undated). Reasons for this occurrence include continued
high
soil fertility, insecurity, low producer prices and adverse weather occurrences.
(CDO,
According to Nanyeenya et al., 1999, the decision for farmers to adopt technologies
is
driven by their needs and circumstances that may be technical, social, economic
and
agricultural innovation and point out that extension visits, attendance at on farm
demonstrations and exposure to mass media, literacy, level of education and time
spent
outside one’s village are some proxies for awareness of new innovations. They
stress
however that for the adoption process to be sustained, the new technology must be
education of household head, farm size, land tenure status, participation in on-farm
METHODOLOGY
Data
The data used in this study was obtained from a household and plot surveys that
were
carried out by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) in December
2000
to June 2001. A total of 451 Households were randomly selected from the central,
eastern, northern and western regions of Uganda. From each sampled household, a
plot
level survey was conducted to determine the farm management practices of each
plot.
The households were sampled from 100 communities, which were selected using a
This study focuses on households that grew cotton as one of their crops (cotton
farmers)
in 2000/2001. The sample size was 38 households. Seventy percent were from the
Eastern region, 19 percent from the Northern region and 11 percent from the
Central
region. As far as possible, the results from the cotton households are compared with
corresponding results from households that did not grow cotton (non–cotton
farmers),
Analysis
Analysis of data was done in three stages the first being a descriptive analysis, the
second
Goss Margin and Returns to Family Labour were used to measure the profitability of
cotton relative to its competing crops. The two measures are calculated as follows:
Gross Margin (Shs/ha) = Gross Value of Output - (Total Material Inputs Costs+
Family Labour
to the number of hours worked per day. Six hours of work was considered to be a
manday
for adult workers and 3 hours for children between the age of 12 and 16. The crops
considered in this analysis were cotton, beans, maize, cassava, millet and sorghum.
The econometric analysis seeks to determine the factors that influence adoption of
the
this study are pesticides, inorganic fertilizer, and the use animal labour for land
opening
(ox ploughing). For pesticide and fertilizer, use in second season, was considered as
it the
main growing season for cotton. The analytical models used were the probit and the
Probit regressions have been widely used in studies where the dependent variable
is
dichotomous (1= if the farmer adopts, 0 = otherwise). For purposes of this study,
probit
model regression was used for pesticides and fertilizer adoption analysis. For the
third
Squares (GLS) was used since the independent variable is continuous i.e. number of
oxen-hours. The GLS procedure gave better results than the OLS procedure. The
GLS
The variables used in the econometric analysis are drawn from those identified in
literature as having an influence on adoption of crop production technologies. Those
selected were family size, age of household head, farm size, wealth indicators,
animal
The Probit and GLS models use cross sectional data, which is normally susceptible
to the
robust to heteroskedasticity, was used to correct for this violation of the classical
assumption. Multicollinearity was tested using the variance inflation factors (VIF).
The
maximum VIF was less than 3 indicating that multicollininearity was not a serious
were determined using the Exploratory Band Regression (EBR), which showed that
all
One of the model estimation limitations was the small sample size, which greatly
reduces
Hence, many of the conventional factors given in the adoption literature may not
have
been included in the model. Omitted variable bias was used to determine its
seriousness.
All 3 models passed the regression specification error test indicating that the
models were
The independent variables used in the analyses are defined in Table 1 and working
sign
household
Nfapplyre
c
informal credit
km.
Shs/ha
the probability to adopt cotton production technologies, which are labor intensive in
nature. Farm size has been found to have a positive influence on adoption
decisions.
argued that younger farmers are likely to be more educated and less risk averse
due to
10
their longer planning horizons and are therefore more likely to have a higher rate of
adoption of crop technologies. Conversely older farmers are likely to have more
Ownership of cattle is an indicator of wealth among the people of the main cotton
producing areas in Uganda and is a source of oxen and is likely to have a positive
association with adoption of cotton technologies. The use of animal labour reduces
Contact with extension agents will increase the probability of farmers to adopt
cotton
markets, which implies declining market access, will reduce farmers’ incentives to
adopt
that are further away from the household are less likely to receive new
technologies. This
is because farmers are better able to monitor and supervise innovations on plots
that are
1 The percentage of respondents who applied and received informal credit was
used as an
indicator of market access. The use of informal credit was considered to be more
suitable
as the levels of access to formal credit were found to be very low among
respondents.
11
Limitations
The study involved a small sample size (only 38 respondents). This introduces
production districts in the North and West Nile regions of the country were not
included
in the study because of insecurity. Also, the study utilized cross-sectional data,
which
may not give conclusive evidence of cotton production trends. With regard to
profitability analysis, farmers’ lack of record and their tendency to overstate labour
costs
Descriptive Statistics
This part of the study reports the socioeconomic characteristics of the sampled
cottongrowing
households (cotton farmers) and compares them with those of the non-cotton
Adoption of technologies
Table 2 reports the use of fertilizer, ox ploughing and pesticides among the sampled
cotton farmers. As reported in the literature review section of this study, these
Uganda.
Only 5.41 percent of the respondents used inorganic fertilizer. This supports the
findings
of other studies (NARO and FAO, 1999 and Nkonya and Kaiizi, 2001), which report
low
use levels of this technology among smallholder farmers (less than 10 percent). The
low
use of inorganic fertilizer contributes to soil nutrient depletion. The Eastern region
of
12
of this study) is concentrated has been hard hit by soil fertility problems (CDO,
2001and
APSEC, 2001).
Only 35.14 percent of the respondents used pesticides for cotton production. This
result
supports findings by APSEC, 2001 that although the pesticides credit system
implemented by CDO and UGCEA greatly improved farmers’ access to pesticides for
use
in cotton production, and some farmers did not use them because of late delivery,
diversion to other crops or outright resale of the pesticides. These findings imply a
need
to improve the current pesticide supply systems. Sixty three percent of cotton
farmers
used oxen for land opening (ox-ploughing) as compared to 24 percent of the non-
cotton
farmers
The use of all three technologies was significantly higher (at 10 percent level))
among the
cotton farmers. For pesticides this is most likely due to cotton’s high sensitivity to
pests
and hence higher use for this crop and also a result of better input supply systems
for
pesticides and access to extension (see Table 5) in the cotton growing areas. For
fertilizers, a likely explanation is that promotion of fertilizer use is higher in the
cotton
growing areas. For ox ploughing the result obtained was expected since the practice
is
still more widespread in the cotton farming systems (Odogola, 2001). The results
also
support the findings of APSEC, 2001 that the availability of ox ploughs from local
and
imported sources greatly improved between 1994 and 2001. The availability of oxen
has
Yields
Average cotton yields among the sampled cotton farmers were 430 kg per hectare.
This
yield does not vary much from World Bank (2000) findings of 300-400 kg per
hectare for
this year. Table 3 reports cotton yields with the use of ox ploughing and spraying
and
with the use of hand-hoe with no spraying. As expected, the yield with the use ox
13
Table 4 reports on average farm size and average distance of each respondents
individual
land parcel from the nearest output market and seasonal roads and compares these
parameters with those of non-cotton farmers. The average farm size for the cotton
farmers was 3.2ha and 2.3 ha for non-cotton farmers indicating that both categories
were
sizes are a disadvantage as competition for land with foods crops is likely to limit
increased output.
Average distance of each respondents parcels to the nearest seasonal road and to
the
nearest output market were used as indicators of market access. For cotton farmers
the
average distance of parcels to the nearest market was 4.3 km while that for non-
cotton
farmers were 5.0 km. Average distance to nearest seasonal road was 1.5 km for
cotton
farmers and 1.2 km for the non-cotton farmers. The results were not significantly
different between the 2 groups. The distances are quite long given the predominant
modes of transport to market used in rural areas mainly head poterage and bicycle.
Table 5 reports on participation in agricultural training and skills acquired from the
training from 1990 to 2000. Only 47.2 of the cotton farmers and only 45.4 of the
non–
cotton farmers received training in this period. For the cotton farmers, the main
skills
acquired were on crop agronomy, soil and water conservation, plant protection and
soil
trainer(s) and many participants and usually takes a long duration per contact.
14
acquired agricultural training. The main areas of training reported for this group
were
crop agronomy, soil and water conservation, soil fertility management and post
harvest
management.
in the services since 1990. Only 39.4 percent of the cotton farmers received
extension
visits in 2000. The situation was worse among the non-cotton farmers with 29.6
percent
reporting to have received extension visits in the same year. This finding can be
explained by less active extension services among non-cotton farmers due to lower
availability of funding for extension in non-cotton growing districts in the last few
years.
About 26.5 percent of the respondents reported that there had been a change in
the
amount of extension contact and out of these, over 50 percent reported that there
had
Respondents were also asked whether there had been a change in the subject of
training
offered by extension since 1990 and the nature of the change if any (Table 7). Only
about
26.3 percent of the cotton farmers reported a change and the most reported nature
of
change for them was increased emphasis on new varieties or crop types and crop
disease
and the most reported change was increased education on soil and water
conservation and
crop agronomy.
Access to credit
Table 8 reports on percentage of cotton and non-cotton farmers who applied and
received
formal and informal credit in 1990 and 2000.3 In both groups of farmers, while
there was
a slight increase in rate of application for formal credit between the two years, the
application rates were very low in both years (below 12 percent for cotton farmers
and
below 16 percent or non-cotton farmers). The rate of application for informal loans
in
3 Formal credit sources include banks, NGOs and other programs. Informal credit
sources included traders,
15
both groups was much higher increasing from 60.0 percent in 1990 to 67.7 percent
in
2000 for cotton farmers and 50.2 percent in 1990 to 72.0 percent in 2000 for non-
cotton
farmers.
Almost all the cotton farmers (over 93 percent) who applied for informal credit in
1990
and 2000 received it. This proportion was higher among non-cotton farmers (over
97
percent). For formal credit the figures are somewhat lower for both groups.
The results support other studies, which0 observe that in Uganda, formal credit is
generally much less accessible to smallholder crop farmers than informal credit.
farmers and 10.1 for the non-cotton farmers. The average number of family
members
who can contribute to on-farm labor (age 12 and above) was about 6 in both groups
of
farmers.
The average age of the household head and their spouses were about 44years and
36
years respectively for cotton farmers and 44 years and 36 years respectively for
noncotton
farmers. There were no significant differences in the two groups for these
variables.
Most household head and their spouses in both groups of farmers were educated up
to
primary level only (Table 10). There were no significant differences in family size
and
16
Non-farm Activities
Non-farm activities are hypothesized to positively affect the decision to adopt crop
production technologies because they are important sources of income and would
thus
increase farmer’s access to desired technologies. Tables 11 and 12 show that both
cotton
and non-cotton farmers were engaged in non-farm activities (cottage industries and
nonagricultural
Profitability Analysis
Table 13 in Appendix 2 shows gross margins in shillings per hectare (Shs/ha) and
returns
to family labor in shillings per man-day (Shs/md) for cotton and its main competing
crops. The gross margin results show that in 2000, cotton was less profitable than
most of
its competing crops. This can be attributed labour costs that tend to be higher for
cotton
than its competing crops, low yields and low producer prices due to low world prices
for
cotton in recent years. The finding that maize was less profitable than cotton is
surprising. It can be attributed to the deep decline in maize prices from 2000.
Similar findings on profitability of cotton relative to its competing crops cotton are
reported by APSEC, 1994 and APSEC 1997. Review of literature by (Serunjogi et al.,
2001), Lundbaek 2002 and APSEC, 2001 reveal about four main explanations for
source of cash than its competing crops. This is because food crops face larger price
variations relative to cotton, which has well defined and increasingly competitive
markets. Second, cotton cash payment comes at a convenient time when there are
many
farming systems, cotton is a good land opening crop for crops grown after it and
fourth;
there may be no viable cash crop alternatives in some areas of the country.
17
The results on returns to family labour show that cotton has higher returns to family
labour than it main competing crops. The explanation for this finding is that cotton
farmers depend more on hired labour because of the labour intensive nature of
cotton
production.
Econometric Estimation
The results of the probit and the GLS models on factors affecting adoption of
pesticides,
Ox ploughing, market access, farm size, family size and age of household head are
the
key factors that influence the adoption of pesticide use among cotton farmers
(Table14).
As expected, increases in use of ox-ploughing, and family size are likely to increase
the
this probability negatively. The explanation for this result is that younger farmers
are
likely to be more educated and less risk averse and hence are more likely to have a
higher
rate of adoption. The results show that an increase in farm size and increased
market
access are likely to reduce the probability to adopt pesticide use. These results are
surprising as the reverse was expected. A possible explanation for the result on
market
access is that with increased market access cotton farmers are likely to divert use
of
According to the results, access to credit and extension and distance of parcels to
Market access, ox ploughing and age of household head are the factors that
significantly
influence adoption of fertilizer. Age of household head is positively associated with
the
probability to adopt fertilizer while use of ox ploughing and market access are
negatively
associated. A feasible explanation for the result on ox ploughing is that farmers who
use
18
oxen will benefit from organic manure supply from the oxen and will therefore have
a
lower need for using inorganic fertilizer. Older farmers are more likely to adopt
fertilizers, as they are more likely to be in a better position to buy purchased inputs
because they are more likely to have higher financial resources. Distances of
farmland
from residence, farm size, and access to extension and profitability are not
significantly
market access while the reverse is true for family size. (Table 16) Smaller families
are
more likely to reduce their labor constraints by employing animal power. Distances
of
land parcels from residence, access to extension, age of household head and
profitability
The study, which was based on data on farm level production of cotton and other
crops in
2000, found that all of the cotton farmers were small-scale farmers with an average
land
holding of 3.2 hectares. Small farm sizes are likely to limit increased cotton output
due
competition with other farm enterprises. Average cotton yields among the farmers
were
The study also found that there was low fertilizer and pesticides use among cotton
farmers. Only 5.4 percent used inorganic fertilizer and only 35.14 percent used
pesticides. Sixty three percent used animal draught power for tillage, which
indicates a
recovery in use of oxen for tillage from the late 1980s when the use of the
technology
Access to agricultural training and extension was also found to be low. Only 47
percent
of the cotton farmers reported to have received agricultural training between 1990
and
2000 and only 39.4 percent had contact with extension agents in 2000. The study
made a
comparison with non-cotton farmers and found that their situation was similar and
19
implied low access to agricultural training and extension for Ugandan smallholder
farmers in general. Also, cotton farmers seem to have limited extension training in
use
some important crop production practices for example, use of fertilizer and proper
post
harvest management. The policy implication of these findings is the need for
increased
for both cotton and non-cotton farmers. The study also found that access to formal
loans
was much lower than access to informal loans. This points to the need to promote
suitable rural non-farm activities and to increase access to formal credit or explore
viable
farmers.
The analysis of profitability of cotton relative to its main competing crops (gross
margin
analysis) revealed that in 2000 cotton was less profitable than most of its
competing
crops. Available literature shows the same status in earlier years. Likely reasons
why
farmers continue to grow cotton under such circumstances are its reliable market,
good
timing of the cash income, its property of being a good land opening crop or lack of
Probit models were used to determine the factors that influence adoption of
pesticides and
fertilizer. Use of oxen for tillage and family size positively influence adoption of
pesticide use. The policy implication for this finding is that labour saving
technologies
for pesticide application should be developed and promoted and use of oxen for
tillage
less risk adverse. The descriptive analysis however showed that the cotton and
noncotton
farmers tended to be older (average age of 44 yrs) and most adult household
20
members were educated up to primary level only. This points to the need to
increase
Increased market access and use of oxen for tillage appear to be positively
associated
with the adoption of fertilizers. Also, older farmers are more likely to adopt fertilizer
use.
The Generalized Leased Square analysis revealed that market access, farm size,
family
on farm size points to the need to promote larger scale cotton production through
group
three technologies discussed above, however this relationship was not statistically
agricultural technologies but this study found that it only influenced adoption of
It must be reiterated that the policy recommendations of this study are based on a
small
sample size and solely on cross sectional data. Further research based on a larger
sample
size and covering all the main cotton growing districts and use time series analysis
is
21
APPENDIX 1
Table 2: Use of Selected Crop Production Technologies Among Cotton and Non-
(N=38)
Non-Cotton Farmers
(N=413)
P value =0.074
Notes (i) P value of the chi-statistic (c2 ) comparing the percentages in the cotton
and
non-cotton farmers
(kg/ha))
Std dev.
Table 4: Farm size and distance from farm to nearest market and seasonal road
4.9 (4.81)
5.0 (5.88)
0.90
1.5 (5.56)
1.2 (4.25)
0.70
* Paired T-test is a statistical test comparing farm size and market access for cotton
and non-cotton farmers.
22
Participation in agricultural
% reporting Yes
47.23
45.48 p value =
Skills/ knowledge acquired Cotton Farmers (N=38) Non Cotton Farmers (N=414)
Note: The statistical test comparing percentages of respondents who acquired agric.
skills among the cotton
Amount of contact
Received
extension
visits in
2000
% yes
Av. No
of
extension
visits
(2000)
Av
duration
of
extension
visits in
hrs.
(2000)
Total
duration
of
extension
visits in
hrs.
(2000)
Changed
% yes
Significant
decrease
Slight
decrease
Slight
increase
Significant
increase
Cotton
Farmers
(N=38)
39.4
4.2
( 19.4)
5.2
(1.3)
13.2
26.32
9.09
0.00
54.55
27.27
Non
Cotton
Farmers
(N=413)
29.85
2.0
(6.0)
0.34
(0.98)
3.4
27.25
2.56
8.55
56.41
19.66
Paired
T-test
0.05 0.59
0.81 0.81
23
% reporting change
types
18.18 6.6
0.0
4.7
activities
0.0 5.7
agents
9.1 47
Note: The statistical test comparing percentages in the cotton and non-cotton
farmers showed that there
Cotton Farmers
(N=38)
(N=413)
Paired
T-test*
% of households that applied for formal credit (1990) 0.00 4.94 0.26
% of households that applied & received formal credit
(1990)
0.00
84.62.
0.36
(1990)
93.33
98.68
0.14
% of households that applied for formal credit (2000) 11.76 15.91 0.52
(2000)
75.00
79.00
0.46
67.65
71.97
0.59
(2000)
100
97.07 0.54
* Paired T-test is a statistical test comparing access to formal and informal credit
among cotton and noncotton
farmers
24
T-Test*
Paired T-test is a statistical test comparing family size and age of household heads
and their spouses among
Table10: Education Level of Household Head and Spouse among Cotton & Non-
(N=38)
Non cotton
farmers (N=413)
Cotton farmers
(N=38)
Non cotton
Farmers (N=413)
% reporting
No schooling 8.95 5.17 3.4 2.7
Completed
primary
Graduate/Post
graduate
farmers.
25
Table 11: Main Primary Activities of Adult Household Members of sampled Cotton
* Includes fishing, agric. output processing, local beer brewing & agric. input/output
trade
% reporting activity
Others
P value of c2 = 0.007
* Includes fishing, agric. output processing, local beer brewing & agric. input/output
trade
APPENDIX 2
(Shs/Ha)
(Shs/Md)
27
APPENDIX 3
Factor Impact P
Access to credit + NS
Ownership of cattle + NS
Profitability of cotton + NS
Notes: (i) P shows the significance of the impact of the associated factor. *, **and***
mean the impact is
significant at 10%, 5% and 1% level respectively. NS means that the impact is not
significant, at
(ii) + means that the impact of the associated factor is positive and –means the
associated factor is
negative.
Factor Impact P
Farm size + NS
Profitability of cotton + NS
Notes: (i) P shows the significance of the impact of the associated factor. *, **and***
mean the impact is
significant at 10%, 5% and 1% level respectively. NS means that the impact is not
significant at
(ii) + means that the impact of the associated factor is positive and –means the
associated factor is
negative.
28
Factor Impact P
Distance of land parcel from residence - NS
Ownership of oxen + **
Profitability of cotton - NS
Notes: (i) P shows the significance of the impact of the associated factor. *, **and***
mean the impact is
significant at 10%, 5% and 1% level respectively. NS means that the impact is not
significant at
(ii) + means that the impact of the associated factor is positive and – means the
associated factor is
negative.
29
REFERENCES
Production.
COMPETE Project, 2001. Strengthening the Export Competitiveness of Uganda’s
Cotton Sector.
COMPETE Project, 2002. The Path Forward for Uganda’s Cotton and Textile Sector.
Production to Over One Million Bales in the Years 2002- 2006 and Adding value to
Raw
Cotton Development Organization (CDO), The Cotton Industry in Uganda- Past and
Present (undated).
Feder, G. and Lumali D., 1993. “The Adoption of Agricultural Innovations: A Review”.
Gordon, A., and Goodland, A. 2000. Production Credit for African Small holders:
Conditions for Private Provision. Savings and Development, no. 1, 2000, XXIV.
www.commrisk.net/info/cotton/cotton_uganda.htm
District, Uganda. A paper presented at the sixth Eastern And Southern Africa
Regional
30
Maize conference 21st-25 September 1998, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: NARO and
CIMMYT.
(FAO), 1999. Soil Fertility Concept Paper. Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industries
Nkonya, E., and Kaiizi, C., 2002. Determinants of Nutrient Balance in Maize Plots I
Serunjogi, L.K. Elobu, P., Epieru, G., Okoth, V.A.O, Sekamatte, M.B., Takan, J.P. and
Orokot, J.O.E (2001): “Cotton (Gossypium Sp.)” In Agriculture In Uganda Volume II: