INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TROPICAL AGRICULTURE
PROFITABILITY
ANALYSIS OF
SMALLHOLDER COFFEE
PRODUCERS
Wageningen University
Borja Cardeñoso Gutierrez
05/08/2013
Supervisors IITA: Ghislaine Bongers
John Herbert Ainembabazi
Piet Van Asten
Supervisor Wageningen University:
Kees Burger
Contenido
1.
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Research objective ........................................................................................................................ 2
1.3. Contents of the report.................................................................................................................. 3
2.
STUDY AREA AND DATA COLLECTION ............................................................................................. 3
3.
HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS ...................................................................................................... 3
4.
GROSS MARGIN ANALYSIS AND HOUSEHOLD INCOME .................................................................. 4
4.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 4
4.2 Results ........................................................................................................................................... 5
4.2.1 Crops....................................................................................................................................... 5
4.2.2 Inputs .................................................................................................................................... 10
4.2.3 Total Household income ...................................................................................................... 11
5.
FARMERS CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES IN COFFEE PRODUCTION ................................... 12
5.1 Poor agronomic practices ............................................................................................................ 12
5.2 Lack of adoption of inputs ........................................................................................................... 13
5.3 Marketing Chain .......................................................................................................................... 13
5.4 Lack of access to credit................................................................................................................ 14
5.5 Opportunities available to farmers ............................................................................................. 14
6.
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................... 15
6.2 Better marketing position ........................................................................................................... 16
6.3 Improve management and agronomic practices ........................................................................ 16
7.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FARMERS ............................................................................................ 17
8.
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 18
References ............................................................................................................................................. 20
Appendix . report of meeting with stakeholders .................................................................................. 22
1
1. INTRODUCTION
The agricultural sector in Uganda has major relevance for the Ugandan economy. The
agricultural sector accounts for 23.7% of GDP; it generates 90% of exports earnings, and
employs 80% of the population (Kraybill & Kidoido, 2009). One of the most important cash
crops is coffee. It is a vital sector for the Ugandan economy generating government
revenues, foreign exchange earnings, and provides income for all stakeholders throughout
the coffee chain. It creates 20% of export revenue in the Ugandan economy, and constitutes
a major source of income for smallholder farmers which produce 90% of the total coffee
production (Bongers et al. 2012). Therefore, improving the profitability of the coffee sector
has a major relevance for all stakeholders involved. It will contribute substantially to poverty
reduction among farmers (Deininger & Okidi, 2003), and generate a considerable spillover
effect into the overall economic performance of the country.
Economic and profitability analysis have become more relevant among development
agencies to evaluate and assess the current methods of production, and quantify
smallholders income obtained from the different economic activities in which they are
engaged. An economic evaluation of smallholder activities would also be useful to analyse
strengths and weakness of the current production systems, identifying and evaluating
opportunities available to increase household income and subsequently the standards of
living.
Most of the studies on profitability of smallholder farms are motivated by a specific
development project, which generally based their foundations and strategy on previous
research work. For instance, in Uganda the governmental plan for the modernization of
agriculture (PMA) was assisted by IFPRI, Kraybill, & Kidoido, (2009) who conducted a
profitability study of the main agricultural enterprises by region. Additionally, profitability
analyses have been conducted to evaluate the performance of development projects and the
impact that different organizations have on the income of the farmers who participated in the
project (see for instance Fowler (2007)).
1.2 Research objective
The main research objective is to study the income of smallholder farmers engaged in the
production of coffee, and analyse the profitability of the different economic activities that
constitute the income of the household. The focus of this research aims to identify the main
obstacles to higher profitability in coffee farming households, and examine the opportunities
available to increase income. We aim to provide a thorough insight on the effect that
agronomic management practices, farm size, input application, the allocation of crops on the
land, and related factors, have on the profitability of the farm.
Budgeting techniques were employed to compute the income of the households of the study,
and to analyse the profitability of the different economic activities in which households are
engaged.
A comparison of the relative profitability of crops will be performed in terms of income and
land allocation.
2
1.3. Contents of the report
The organization of the report goes as follows: In section 2 the characteristics of the study
area and the data collection methods are explained. In section 3 we explain the
characteristics of the households in our study. In section 4 we conduct the gross margin
analysis, explaining the methodology employed and results obtained. In section 5 we discuss
the constraints and opportunities that farmers face. In section 6 we conduct a sensitivity
analysis to indicate how improvements in the management of coffee, including value addition
and improved agronomic practices, would influence household income. In section 7 we
provide some recommendations to farmers based on the results of the study. In section 8 we
conclude the report by summarizing the most important findings.
2. STUDY AREA AND DATA COLLECTION
The study was conducted in several villages of 7 sub counties in the districts of Luwero (75
km north of Kampala) and Bukomansimbi (157 km south-west of Kampala). Primary data
was collected using a questionnaire from 24 farmers randomly selected in each district.
Additional information was gathered through the assistance of facilitators, key farmers of a
village, who conducted a plot evaluation, and provided data regarding the farm gate prices
and the agronomic practices currently employed by the farmers in the study.
The soil in Luwero is generally sandy loam and especially in the southern part of the district
is relatively fertile (Luwero district profile).The rainfall is distributed throughout the year with
an average of 1300 mm, the dry seasons are between December and March and June to
July . The soil in Bukomansimbi ranges from red laterite, sandy loam and loam. The average
rainfall of the district is 1200 mm, and the dry seasons are between January to March and
July and August (Uganda government, 2013).
3. HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS
The household characteristics of the farmers interviewed for this study are provided in table
1. The households of the study own 2.22 hectares on average. The average land ownership
in Luwero is considerably higher than in Bukomansimbi, 2.42 and 2 hectares respectively.
Household size averaged 6.7 members, the mean in Luwero is 7.6 members while in
Bukomansimbi is of 6 members. 78 % of the household heads are males, in Luwero 24% of
the household head are females, this percentage is slightly lower in Bukomansimbi in where
20 % of the household heads are females. The age of the household head is 46 years old on
average, with the average age of the household head in Luwero being 9 years older (51
years old) than in Bukomansimbi (42 years old). The number of household members at
school is 3.8 on average, in Luwero the number of household members at school is 4.7,
while in Bukomansimbi 3.1 members of the household are going to school. All but one
household head in Bukomamsimbi had received education, 75 % of them have completed
primary education and 24.5 % have completed secondary education. None of the household
3
heads in the area of the study have higher education than secondary. The number of years
farming for the head of the household is 23.2 on average, the mean in Luwero is 5 years
more than in Bukomansimbi.
Table 1. Household characteristics
Characteristics
Average land
ownership ( Ha)
Average household
members
% female head of the
household
Average number of
household members at
school
Average age of the
household head
Average number of
years farming
% household head with
no education
% household head with
primary education
% household head with
secondary education
Both regions
2.22
Luwero
2.43
Bukomansimbi
2.02
6.72
7.6
6
22
24
20
3.8
4.7
3.1
46
51
42
23.23
25.6
20.3
0.02
0
0.04
75
74
76
24.5
26
23
4. GROSS MARGIN ANALYSIS AND HOUSEHOLD INCOME
To study the profitability of the farms in the sample we calculated the gross margins for each
farm. The gross margins are the gross income obtained from an enterprise less the monetary
costs of the variable inputs incurred in it (tech-talk international, 2013). We use the gross
margins because they are a relatively accurate indicator of the performance of an individual
farm and it allows a comparison of the performance of different farms (Nemes, 2009) as used
by Kraybil & Kidoido (2009) to calculate the profitability of Ugandan agricultural enterprises.
4.1 Methodology
Following the methodology described by tech-talk international gross margin training notes
(2013) and CIMMYT (1988), the information needed to calculate the gross margins are the
yield for each crop, the farm gates prices and the variable cost of production. We excluded
fixed costs, labour cost and the depreciation of assets from the calculation as Kraybil &
4
Kidoido (2009). We calculated the income that each individual crop generated to the farm,
including those for self-consumption, add them together and subtract the monetary costs of
the inputs employed in the farm. The inputs taken into account were fertilizer, herbicide and
pesticide. The use of farm manure, and mulch were excluded as they do not have a direct
monetary cost, they are labour intensive inputs, and their cost should be computed
considering the hours needed for their application. The formula used for the calculation of the
gross margins is as follows:
𝐺𝑀 = ∑ 𝑃𝑖 ∙ 𝑌𝑖 − ∑ 𝑝𝑖 ∙ 𝑥𝑖
Where GM is gross margin per farm in USD, 𝑃𝑖 is the farm gate prices of product 𝑖 𝑡ℎ and 𝑌𝑖
is total production of crop 𝑖 𝑡ℎ . 𝑝𝑖 is the price of the input 𝑖 𝑡ℎ and 𝑥𝑖 is the amount of input 𝑖 𝑡ℎ
use.
4.2 Results
The results of the gross margin for all crops for each area of the study are illustrated in table
2.
Table 2. Gross margins of crops in USD per year
Income crops
Input costs
Mean for both
regions
Luwero
1803
59
Gross margin
crops
1744
2082
17.8
2064
Bukomansimbi
1535
97
1438
The results of the calculations indicate that the average gross margin among the farms in the
study is 1744 USD. There is a considerable difference between regions, in Luwero farmers
on average obtain 626 dollars more than in Bukomansimbi. The total market value of all
crops produced by the average farm is 1803 USD, including those crops that are consumed
in the household, those that are given away freely and those sold in the market. Surprisingly,
farmers in Bukomansimbi spend 80 dollars more on inputs than farmers in Luwero.
4.2.1 Crops
Table 3 shows the detailed information for each crop, the average production per farmer and
per hectare, the total market value of the product, the percentage of total household income
that is given by each crop, the returns to land, and the percentage of the product that is sold
in the market.
5
Table 3. Crop description for both regions. Standard deviation in brackets
Crop
Total
value of
product
( average
USD)*
Production
in kg (
average
per
farmer)
Coffee
860
441***
% of
crop
over
total
income
%
39
Banana
652
228****
28
Maize
Cassava
Beans
Sweet
potato
85.5
69
57
44
354
360
98
277
6
4
4
2
Area of
% land
the
allocated
crop **
to the
( Ha)
crop
In %
Produc
tion
per Ha
in kg
Return
s per
land
( USD)
% of
product
sold in the
market
0.6
30
773
(452)
n=35
1433
(706)
n= 33
100
0.33
16
692
(710)
n=29
1597
22
(1002)
n=26
1527
(1206)
n=20
(494)
n=21
3954
(2551)
n=14
(839)
n=20
0.27
0.13
0.07
0.1
13
6.8
3.5
5
1380
(780)
n=12
3320
(2956)
n=12
643
848
919
42
15
40
(1053)
n=17
786
7
(1000)
n=11
*the conversion rate between UGX and USD is 2500
**in % of the plot, based on the plot evaluation done by the facilitators
*** Converted to FAQ( Fair average quality) at the rates of 0.17 from red cherry to
FAQ and 0.54 from kiboko to FAQ
****Production in bunches
(The outliers in the data base that we have eliminated, based on literature review and/or a scatter
plot, from the calculations of the production of kg per hectare and returns per hectare respectively
are as follow for each crop:
Coffee: 200-2100 kg, 450-3000 USD. Banana: 100-2500 Bunches, 250-5000 USD. Maize: 200-4000 kg,
100-2000 USD. Cassava: 1200-8500 kg, 100-4000 USD. Beans: 400-3500 kg, 100-5000 USD. Sweet
potato: 1000-8000 kg, 200-4000.)
As indicated in table 3 the most important crop for the households in the area of the study is
coffee, it generates 39 % of total household income, which in monetary terms accounts for
860 dollars on average for each farm. However, there is a wide variation among the farmers
in the sample, as there are households for which coffee represents nearly 70 % of their total
income, while for others it can be as low as 15 %. Coffee also constitutes the most important
crop in regard to the amount of land that is allocated to it, 30 % of their productive plot area is
6
planted with coffee. The production per hectare is 773 kg of FAQ , which is slightly above the
average production of Robusta for Uganda 648 kg/ ha (USAID, 2010) but is still very far
away from the production levels of Vietnam, which produce 2.2 tons of coffee/ha (USAID,
2010). The monetary returns to the land that is allocated to coffee production in USD is 1433
dollars, which makes coffee the second more profitable crop in relation to the land that is
allocated to it after banana.
Banana (both matooke and sweet banana) is also a vital crop for the farmers as it constitutes
28 % of farmers’ total income and it’s the main food of the household, which explains why
only 22% of its total production is sold in the market. The average production per farm is 228
bunches and the average value of the product generated from banana production is 652
dollars. The land allocated to banana production is 16% of the productive plot area, which
makes banana the crop with the highest returns to land with 1688 dollars per hectare of the
cultivated area with banana.
The less profitable crop for the farmers with respect to land allocation is Maize. Of one
hectare that is cultivated with maize the average farmer makes 643 dollars. The average
market value of the production of coffee is 85 dollars, which is quite low is relation to the land
that is allocated to the production of maize, which is 13 % of the productive plot area. This
constitutes an inefficient allocation of land, as the land could yield more economic benefits if
is allocated to other crops like coffee or banana.
The less marketed crop is sweet potato, only 7 % of total production is sold in the market.
The low price of sweet potato and the fact that it is a highly labour demanding crop
(Bagamba et, al. 1998) could explain why sweet potato is mostly for household consumption.
The most profitable of the annual crops is beans. Out of each hectare of beans farmers can
get 991 dollars, however the land allocated to it is relatively low, only 3.5 % of the productive
plots are planted with beans. The reason behind this decision could be the physically
demanding labour requirements needed to produce the crop (Bagamba et, al. 1998).
Table 4 and 5 shows the different production characteristics for each region.
Table 4. Crop description for Luwero.
Crop
Total
Production
% of
value of
in kg (
crop
product
average
over
( average
per
total
USD)*
farmer)
income
%
Coffee
925
438
35
Area of
% land
the
allocated
crop **
to the
( Ha)
crop
Produc
tion
per Ha
in kg
Return
s per
land
( USD)
% of
product
sold in the
market
1250
(694)
n=13
2014
(1120)
n=15
859
(445)
n=8
908
100
0.69
32
628
(296)
n=16
Banana
736
246
30
0.26
12
771
(499)
n=16
Maize
111
440
6
0.33
15
1749
(1403)
n=7
Cassava
89
495
5
0.17
8
4232
24
48
11
7
(2815)
n=8
Beans
45
80
3
0.075
3.4
1394
(688)
n=6
Sweet
potato
80
478
4
0.14
6.7
2291
(1333)
n=8
Table 5. Crop description in Bukomansimbi.
Crop
Total
Production
% of
Area of
% land
value of
in kg (
crop
the
allocated
product
average
over
crop **
to the
( average
per
total
( Ha)
crop
USD)*
farmer)
income
%
Coffee
798
452
42
0.51
28
(996)
n=10
547
(437)
n=10
996
(1111)
n=8
34
9
Produc
tion
per Ha
in kg
Return
s per
land
( USD)
% of
product
sold in the
market
927
(412)
n=19
1605
(711)
n=20
1324
(788)
n=11
510
(491)
n=13
776
(650)
n=10
1200
(1311)
n=8
552
(466)
n=3
100
Banana
568
209
27
0.37
20
601
(547)
n=13
Maize
67
270
5
0.22
12
1458
(1137)
n=13
Cassava
49
235
3
0.10
5.7
3666
(2369)
n=6
Beans
68
114
5
0.065
3.3
1370
(864)
n=8
Sweet
potato
9
68
1
0.05
3.5
3377
(3544)
n=4
20
36
20
44
0
There are some interesting differences between both regions. For coffee the average
production per hectare in Bukomansimbi is substantially higher than in Luwero (927 kg/ha
and 628 kg/ha, respectively). The explanation behind this fact could be that, as it will be
indicated below, the application of inputs in Bukomansimbi is much higher than in Luwero
and the pest are more prevalent in Luwero. In addition, the hectares cultivated with coffee in
Luwero are higher than in Bukomansimbi, and as land endowments are smaller they
compensated with more intensive management (see for instance R. Helbert, 1998). The
production of FAQ for the average farmers is slightly higher in Bukomanismbi 452 kg than in
Luwero 432 kg. However, the average income that farmers obtained from coffee is much
higher in Luwero ,925 USD, than in Bukomansimbi 798 USD. The explanation behind this
fact is, as it will be indicated in table 6, that farmers in Luwero invest more time in primary
processing, rarely selling red cherries, while in Bukomansimbi a considerable proportion of
their coffee harvest is sold as red cherries. It is interesting to point out that despite the fact
8
that coffee constitutes 42 % of total household income in Bukomansimbi, the amount of land
allocated to it is only 28 % while in Luwero the land allocated to coffee is 32 %.
For all the other crops, with the exception of sweet potato, the average production per
hectare is considerably lower in Bukomansimbi than in Luwero. It is particulary striking in the
case of banana, for which the proportion of land allocated to it in Bukomansimbi is much
higher than is Luwero, 20 % and 12 % respectively. However, the production per hectare in
Luwero is substantially higher than in Bukomansimbi, 771 and 601 bunches respectively.
The differences in the area cultivated for crops between both regions are 2.16 in Luwero and
1. 84. As was indicated in the section of households characteristics farmers in Luwero have
higher land endowments than in Bukomansimbi.
Table 6 shows the different forms of coffee sold in the market, the proportion of each form
sold in relation to the total coffee production after being converted in FAQ for each area.
Table 6 also shows the income obtained from selling each form in each region of the study.
Table 6. coffee marketing
%
producti
on sold
in red
cherries
Average both
regions
Luwero
Bukomansimbi
%
productio
n sold in
kiboko
dollars
obtaine
d from
selling
kiboko
%
productio
n sold in
FAQ
dollars
obtaine
d from
selling
FAQ
12
Dollars
obtaine
d from
selling
red
cherries
107
70
568
18
163
6
19
55
152
60
79
540
594
34
2
323
16
The most commonly form of coffee sold is kiboko
, 38 farmers in the sample sold their coffee in this form, which accounts for 70 % of the total
production, obtaining an average of 568 USD, the average price of kg of kiboko is around
0.88 dollars. Farmers in Bukomansimbi sell 20 % more coffee in kiboko form than in
Luwero.14 farmers sell their coffee when there are red cherries, making on average 107
USD out of it, the approximate price per kilo is 0.36 USD. The proportion of coffee sold in red
cherries is much higher in Bukomansimbi, in where nearly 20 % of their total harvest is sold
in this unprocessed form. The average income for the famer obtained from selling FAQ is
163 USD, however, only 6 farmers sell FAQ earning an average income of 1.369 dollars and
its price per kilo is around 1.8 dollars. The farmers that sell FAQ are from Luwero, this fact
explains the considerable higher income obtained from coffee in Luwero despite the lower
production per farmer and per hectare.
9
4.2.2 Inputs
The information of the inputs use in the crop production is illustrated in the following table 4.
Table 7. Inputs
Inputs
Fertilizer ( in kg)
28
25.7
Herbicide ( in
litres)
3.2
15.7
Pesticide ( in
litres)
0.7
4
Average amount
Average total costs
(USD)
Luwero number of
users ( in farms)
Average amount
(luwero)
Average total cost
(Luwero)
Bukomansimbi users
( in farms)
Average amount in
Bukomansimbi
Average cost
Bukomansimbi ( in
USD)
6
11
12
2.5
1.8
1
3.5
8.7
5.8
11
19
11
52
4.6
0.4
47.5
22.5
2.1
As indicated in table 4 the average amount of fertilizer that each farmer applies on his farm is
28 kg. This gives an average application level of fertilizer per hectare of 14 kg, which is
higher than the average usage in Uganda which is 1 kg per hectare of arable land. Although
is still much lower than other east African countries like Kenya 35 kg (S. Bayite, 2009).
However, we see wide differences between both regions in the application of fertilizer,
surprisingly the application of fertilizer is much higher in the villages of Bukomansimbi than in
Luwero, each farmer in Bukomansimbi on average applies 50 kg more of fertilizer than in
Luwero. This difference in the application of fertilizer could partly explain the different returns
to land for coffee in both regions. For the farmers that use fertilizer the average expenditure
on it is 74 dollars.
Herbicide is widely used by farmers, 31 farmers in the sample use it, and the farmers that
apply herbicide spend on average 25 dollars on it.
Farmers in Luwero use more pesticide than in Bukomansimbi. Considering the higher
willingness of farmers in Bukomansimbi to invest on inputs, this fact could indicate that pests
are more prevalent in Luwero, especially the coffee berry borer (CBD).
The most interesting issue related to the use of inputs is the fact that In Bukomansimbi
farmers use much more inputs than in Luwero. This finding is a surprise because
Bukomansimbi is further away from Kampala and more is a more remote region with worse
roads than Luwero.
10
4.2.3 Total Household income
Table 5 illustrates the total household income in USD and the sources of it.
Table 5. Household income
Both regions
Luwero
Bukomansimbi
Total household
income ( USD)*
% income generated
by crops
2191
2562
1834
79
81.5
76
Degree of
commercialization of
the farm in %
% income generated
by livestock
59
58
59
7.22
7.9
6.5
% income generated
by businesses
5.58
7.5
4.3
% income generated
by employment
3.5
2.5
4.5
% income generated
by coffee trading
2.3
0.41
4
In section 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 we have described the results of the gross margin analysis for the
agricultural crops. However, as indicated in table 5, agricultural crops constitute on average
79 % of total household income. In this section we will study the other economic activities
that the household of our study are engage in.
We calculated the total household income based on the farmer estimation that each
economic activity generates to the household. Once we calculated the cash income that the
agricultural crops generated to the household, through simple operations we calculated the
cash income that other economic activities generate to the household.
The average total income of the household in our study is 2191 dollars. There is a substantial
difference in the income between the two regions of our study, the average household in
Luwero have 728 dollars more than the average household in Bukomansimbi. The different
endowments in terms of physical capital could explain this difference. As indicated in table 1
farmers in Luwero have higher land endowments than in the Bukomansimbi.
Agricultural crops constitute the most important source of income from the households of the
study, it generates nearly 80 % of total household income. This percentage is higher in
Luwero, where they rely more on agricultural crops than in Bukomansimbi. The second most
important source of income for the household is livestock, as it constitutes 7.22 % of total
11
income mainly from selling goats and piglets. For the households in Luwero nearly 8 % of
total income is generated through livestock which is slightly higher than in Bukomansimbi.
Petty businesses represent 5. 58 % of total household income. Farmers in Luwero are more
in engaged in petty businesses than in Bukomansimbi, it represents 7.5 % and 4.3 % of total
income respectively. It is possible that better communications and its proximity to Kampala
explain this difference. The most common businesses among the households are small
shops, brewing liquor out of banana, or occasional repairing of electronic devices, like radios.
Income from employment represents a small proportion of total household income (3. 5 %).
Coffee trading also generates 2.3 % of total income to the household. Unexpectedly,
households from Bukomansimbi are more engaged in coffee trading than in Luwero. We
expected that the proximity to Kampala would give incentives to households in Luwero to be
more engage in Coffee trading, however this is not the case.
A note of caution: Farmers do not keep any written records during their activities like
harvesting, input application or selling of the product. Subsequently, we have to rely on the
memory of the household head to gather the data that has been used in the calculations.
Additionally, when farmers were asked how much they produce of each crop, they share the
information for the main crops. However, when the inspection of the plots was done by the
facilitators, they reported more crops that the ones that we have in the figures of production
after the interview with farmers. Nonetheless, we consider that the information provided
constitutes a relatively adequate data base to make the calculation explained above.
5. FARMERS CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES IN COFFEE
PRODUCTION
5.1 Poor agronomic practices
As indicated in the gross margin analysis, the production levels of coffee for the farmers in
the study (773 kg/ha) are considerably lower than the world leaders like Vietnam (2.2 tons of
Robusta per hectare) (USAID, 2010). Based on the interviews with key stakeholders that
have been conducted, our visits to the field and the literature review, we consider that some
key management practices that are not properly employed are the main reason that explain
the low yield that coffee farmers achieve (Cognigni, 2010). In the farmer interview we found a
considerable gap between the current agronomic practices employed and the recommended
practices as explain by (Carr, 1993) or in the manual of Ibero for sustainable production of
coffee (Ibero Uganda (2005)). According to the manual of Ibero, good pruning and stumping
can increase yields by 30 %, other studies such as Van Asten et al. (2012) confirm the
relation between frequent pruning and higher yields. Farmers, when interviewed, they
reported that they generally pruning, however, according to our field visits the quality of the
pruning is low and its frequency is erratic. Stumping coffee trees is also very important to
avoid over competition for nutrients and to rejuvenate the coffee tree (Carr, 1993). According
to the interviews 78 % of the farmers maintain that they do stumping at least once a year,
and that they keep three to four stems in the coffee tree. However, according to our
12
observation in the field, stumping is generally not conducted properly or uniformly across the
different trees or plots.
Furthermore, mulching is also very beneficial for the coffee trees as it preserves moisture,
releases nutrients into the soil and reduces weeds growth (Carr, 1993); however among the
farmers interviewed only 15 % of them do mulching on coffee. Most of the farmers
acknowledge the benefits that mulching has, but they said that insufficient mulching material
deprives them of the possibility to mulch.
5.2 Lack of adoption of inputs
The amount of fertilizer use in Uganda is far from the recommended levels of application. In
Sub-Sahara Africa the application of fertilizer is 9 kg per hectare, much lower than elsewhere
in the world 96 kg/ha in Latin America and 104 kg/ha in south Asia (Crawford et al. 2005).
The farmers of our study applied 14 kg of fertilizer per hectare on average, which while it is
slightly higher than the average in Uganda of 1 kg per hectare (Kasule, 2009), is still much
lower than the countries in east Africa. Several studies indicate the potential effects that
fertilizer could have on yield, such as alleviating nutrient deficiencies, especially when
combined with adequate agronomic practices, like mulching. Cannell (1973) showed that
mulching and fertilizer increases yield by 66 % on Arabica coffee in Kenya. Declining soil
fertility also constitutes another reason that further supports the advice to apply fertilizer (Van
Asten et al. (2010)).
The main constrains that hinder the application of fertilizers are:



High monetary cost involved in the purchase of fertilizer and difficulties with financing
the investment (kelly et al. 2003). Financing issues constitute a major problem in
adoption of inputs throughout Africa. The inefficiencies in the financial market and
the difficulties for farmers to access credit in fair conditions, propagates a significant
credit constraint, that hinders the application of fertilizers and increases the effective
price that farmers face, in case they required finance to purchase fertilizers.
Lack of knowledge and skills regarding the procedure of applying fertilizer on crops
(Kelly et al. 2003). If a farmer does not have precise and accurate knowledge on how
to apply fertilizer, the investment of using fertilizer becomes more uncertain and risky,
therefore lowering the expected benefits of it use and reducing the application of it.
Raising awareness of the benefits of its application combined with training on how to
use them could motivate a higher application rate, as it was successfully probed by
the sustainable community- oriented development programme ( SCODP) that took
place in Nyanza province in Kenya (kelly et al. 2003).
Low and unreliable availability of inputs in the stores of the villages (Kasule, 2009),
which increases the difficulties to access inputs and the transaction costs, lowering
the application of fertilizer.
5.3 Marketing Chain
Uganda coffee chain is relatively efficient. Significant improvements have been made after
the liberalization process (Baffes, 2006). Ugandan coffee farmers obtained around 80 % of
the exporting value of the product, which is above African average, though smaller than in
Vietnam where farmers obtained 95 % of the exporting value (Baffes, 2006). However, there
13
are still gains that can be realized through a more efficient organization of the marketing
chain, particularly connecting farmers with exporters could generate better prices that
farmers face. Better prices could provide the required incentives to allocate more labour to
coffee production, improving the management and agronomic practices applied (Markelova
(2009).
5.4 Lack of access to credit
Farmers constant need for cash, especially in the presence of adverse shocks, can
precipitate an instant demand for money. Since farmers lack access to formal credit, they
generally rely on coffee traders, who advance them cash in return for significantly lower
prices when the harvest takes place (Paulus, 2013). The vulnerable position in which farmers
find themselves creates a disadvantageous bargaining position for the farmers, who are
force to accept extremely high interest rates, depriving them of the full value that their coffee
could generate. Therefore, providing farmers with a reliable and fair access to credit could
improve substantially their capacity to add value to their coffee.
5.5 Opportunities available to farmers
Summarizing the previous section, the main constraints that farmers face are: inefficient
management and agronomic practices, lack of access to credit and a vulnerable position in
the marketing chain.
Different organizations have been trying to address these constraints either separately or
together. According to the interviews that have been conducted, the organization that is most
capable to deal with all constraints mentioned above, and being able to create an impact on
the livelihood of the farmers, is the Uganda Coffee Farmers Alliance (UCFA). The UCFA is a
farmer organisation created to support coffee farmers with the objective of improving their
livelihoods. In order to do so they provide agronomic training through demonstration plots
managed by one farmer, marketing services to directly connect farmers to exporters and
financial services for both input acquisition and household needs, such as medical expenses
or school fees. The UCFA is supported by Hans Neumann Stiftung and the Bill & Melinda
Gates Foundation.
The accomplishments achieved by the UCFA are as follow (Cognigni, 2010):





56.000 farmers have joined the organization since its beginning
Due to primary processing and an improved marketing chain, farmers have achieved
25 % higher prices
Farmer organizations have been able to attract credit from formal financial institutions
Adoption levels of good agronomic practices, like pruning or mulching have reach
levels of 60 %, while the adoption of application of fertilizer is around 40 %.
In the demonstrations plots production have quadrupled while the average farmer of
organization have reach levels of 1.3 MT of green bean.
14


Farmers have planted more coffee trees
The availability of inputs has increased in the villages where UCFA have farmers
organizations.
The quantify benefits of joining the UCFA, according to sources from the organization itself
go as follows (Cognigni, 2010): increases in production generated from the application of
improved management and agronomic practices, enabling the average farmer in the
organization to reach 1.3 MT of green beans, applying around 60 % of the recommended
practices. The increases in costs associated with the application of improve management
practices are 105 %. In the demonstration plots the increases in production is much higher,
doubling the production of the average farmer of the UCFA. The value chain organization of
the UCFA has been able to increase prices that farmers obtained by 22 %. The interest rate
applied to the farmers that obtained finance is around 20 %, although it might seem high, it is
much lower than the rates offered by middlemen. In addition the management of financing
smallholder farmers is costly and full of challenges.
6. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
Now we will proceed to analyse how sensitive the total household income is in relation to
coffee management practices, and an improved marketing position. We will indicate how
production, costs and income could change if farmers obtained better prices and adequate
agronomic training. More specifically, we will indicate the monetary benefits of achieving a
better position in the marketing chain, obtaining significantly higher prices. Moreover, we will
show the effect that receiving adequate training, to improve management and agronomic
practices, will have on the production level of the farmers and how this influences household
income. To analyse the effect that these improvements will have on the farmers, we
conducted a sensitivity analysis, considering the benefits and costs that are involved in this
process, indicating how total household income would change accordingly as Fowler (2005).
We will consider different scenarios, introducing sequentially the improvements that would
take place. Firstly, we will indicate how the average total income for the average farmer
would change in relation to an increase in prices of 22 %. This increase is generated through
enhancing the marketing position and organizational capacity of the farmers. If farmers of the
organization bulk their coffee together, and transport and sell it to the exporters in Kampala
directly, they will be able to increase their net prices obtained by 22 %, taking into account
the operational cost (Cognigni, 2010).
Secondly, we will indicate how improved management and agronomic training would
influence production and subsequently income. This improvement in agronomic practices
can be achieved through adequate training by experience and motivated extension services
and application of recommended fertilizers. These trainings, in combination with the
incentives that better prices provide, generated an average production level of 1.3 MT,
(Cognigni, 2010). However, these figures of production cannot be achieved without a
considerable investment on inputs. Subsequently, we will take into account the increase in
production cost associated with the application of improved management techniques.
15
6.2 Better marketing position
Table 6. Sensitivity analysis, scenario 1: access to better prices
Simulation
Income from coffee Total income in USD
in USD
Current prices
Returns to coffee
area in USD
860
2191
1433
1024
2313
1906
Better prices (↑ 22 % )*
*The increase in prices is given for every form of coffee, red cherry, Kiboko and FAQ
As indicated in Table 6, increases in the prices by 22%, for all forms of coffee sold will
increase income generated from coffee from 860 dollars to 1024 dollars, raising total income
in the average household by 164 dollars. This benefit exemplifies the potential gains that
smallholders farmers can gain when properly organized and well informed, they seek better
market (Markelova (2009)). By finding a better market their land becomes more valuable,
increasing the returns to land, in this case the returns from the land that is allocated to coffee
will be raise by 339 dollars.
6.3 Improve management and agronomic practices
Table 7. Sensitivity analysis, scenario 2 : improve management and agronomic practices and
access to better prices.
simulation
Better prices
Better prices
and
agronomic
training
Production
per hectare(
in kg FAQ)
773
Input cost
(USD)
Gross
margins
from coffee
Total income
59
965
2313
Returns to
coffee per
hectare
1906
1300
121
1721
3131
2879
When adequate training have been given, suitable inputs have been applied, and with the
incentives that higher prices provide, farmers would be able to increase their production to
reach levels of 1.3 MT per hectare. For the farmers in our sample it would represent an
increase in production of 75 %. In order to meet this production level, it is required to
increase the investment in inputs by 105%, which will raise the cost of production to 121
dollars. This increase in production by 79 % with better prices would generate an extra 756
dollars of gross margin for coffee. These improvements in coffee management techniques
16
and a better marketing position will increase the returns per hectare to 2879 dollars, figure
much higher than any other annual crop and even banana.
From the sensitivity analysis we can conclude that the potential to increase household
income and the standards of living are enormous. Household income can increase from the
current 2191 dollars to around 3131 dollars for the average farmer due to organizational
marketing improvements, adequate management of coffee, application of inputs and good
agronomic practices.
A note of caution: The information provided above regarding the UCFA, has been obtained
from internal reports and from interviews with the representatives of the organization. No
independent studies have been conducted to assess the veracity of the report and
information provided by the inner sources of the UCFA. Informal conversations with other
stakeholders, from NUCAFE from instance, doubt the viability of what has been reported by
UCFA. However, the information provided could indicate potential achievements for the
famers in our study and based on that information we will conduct the following section of our
report, the sensitivity analysis.
7. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FARMERS
Based on the gross margin and sensitivity analysis we can recommend that farmers try to
obtained better prices through collective organization and selling their coffee directly to
exporters in Kampala. Based on the sensitivity analysis and the literature review the
potential gains attainable through increases in production due to adoption of improved
agronomic practices are very substantial. From the current 773 kg/ha of coffee, field
experiments for a regular farmers that adopts 60 % of the recommended agronomic
practices, shows that the production could increase to 1.3 MT (Cognigni, 2010). It is more
likely that farmers will make the desirable improvements in management and agronomic
practices when they work cooperatively with motivated extension agents (Seyum et al. 1998).
Additionally, the introduction of credit could provide the financial assistance required to cover
household needs and financing the purchase of the advisable inputs, enabling the farmers to
move from a farm subsistence approach towards a more proactive business mentality
(Paulus, 2013).
The opportunities to improve the standards of living through an increase in income are very
substantial. According to the sensitivity analysis farmers on average can increase their total
household income by 40 %. Farmers should acknowledge the wealth that lies within their
land, and the opportunities available to improve their economic situation. Farmers also have
to be willing to make changes in the way they regard farming, acquiring a proactive business
approach to farming, that would give incentives to invest their time on learning how to
manage properly their coffee (Collett & Gale, 2009).
The main obstacles that we have identified in this study are the lack of value addition for
farmers in Bukomansimbi, since the sell 20 % of their coffee production in red cherries. While
in Luwero the main constraint is the low productivity per hectare. Therefore, the
recommendation for farmers in Bukomansimbi would be to add value to their coffee and dry
17
the red cherries before they are sold. While for the farmers in Luwero they should try to
improve their production per hectare, through the application of inputs or the adoption of
good agronomic practices. In doing so, farmers from both areas would be dealing with the
main obstacle for achieving a higher profitability in their farms.
The recommendations according to the management of the spacing and the area that is
allocated to each crop would be as follow: Since maize is the less profitable crop in relation
to the amount of land that is allocated to it (0.27 Ha on average), and 42 % of the production
is sold in the market, an efficient management of their farm would suggest a decrease in the
land that is allocated to maize by 42 % and stop selling maize in the market. In the new
space made available from this decrease coffee or banana should be planted, based on its
highest return to land. In doing this 0.126 hectares would be available to plant coffee instead.
From this 0.126 hectares of coffee the benefits that the production of coffee will generate,
with the current agronomic practices and prices, would be 313 dollars while the opportunity
cost amount to 124 dollars, which gives a profit of 189 dollars. However, gender
considerations have not been taking into account.
Other recommendations from an agronomic perspective would be to promote a fallow land
practice, since only 9 % of the farmers interviewed said that they practice fallow land
techniques. The benefits of this practice range from being able to regenerate the nutrients of
the soil, increased organic matter and a chance to break the circle of pest and diseases (see
for instace, Sanchez et, al, (1997)).
8. CONCLUSION
In this report we have analysed the household income, and the profitability of the economic
activities of 50 farmers randomly selected from villages in the districts of Luwero and
Bukomansimbi. Budgeting techniques were employed to calculate the gross margins for the
production of crops that farmers are engaged in. We found that the average income for the
household in the study is 2191 dollars pero year and that in Luwero it is 728 dollars higher
than in Bukomansimbi . The main reason that could explain this finding is the higher land
endowments in Luwero. We also found that the livelihoods of the households relied heavily
on coffee and banana, these crops constitute nearly 65 % of total household income and are
the most profitable in relation to the land that is allocated to it.
Considering the low levels of production that Ugandan coffee farmers achieve in general and
for the farmers of our study in particular (773 kg/ha) in relation to the production of Vietnam
2.2 MT. We identified the main constraints that hinders the achievement of more desirable
levels of production. These constraints range from weak marketing position and vulnerability
in relation to middlemen, lack of access to finance, and most importantly a lack of adoption
of good agronomic practices and inefficient management of the farm.
Considering the main constraints that farmers face, we conducted a sensitivity analysis to
illustrate the monetary benefits that dealing successfully with the main obstacles would
generate to the economy of the households. We used data provided by Hanns Neumann
Stiftung and the Uganda Coffee Farmers Alliance (UCFA), to identify the potential gains that
18
a better marketing organization, and the adoption of good agronomic and management
practices could generate. We found that there are lucrative opportunities available for the
farmers to increase substantially their total household income. We estimated that for the
average household the potential benefits, of obtaining better prices and adopting good
agronomic practices, are of 940 dollars.
This potential gain exemplifies the significant improvements that smallholder farmers in
Uganda can obtained when farms are managed according to efficient agronomic and
economic practices. This report has focused on coffee, although as illustrated by other
studies there are also substantial opportunities in other crops, like banana (Van Asten et
al.,2010) and also maize, cassava or other farming enterprises like selling goats or milk
(Kraybil & Kidoido, 2009).
We conclude by stressing the huge potential that African smallholders have to substantially
increase their livelihoods through feasible improvements in their farm management. Given
the high dependency of African economies on their agricultural sector, achieving these
improvements could generate a huge leap in their development process.
19
References
Baffes, J. (2006). Restructuring Uganda's coffee industry: why going back to basics
matters. Development policy review, 24(4), 413-436.
BAYITE-KASULE, Stephen. Inorganic Fertilizer in Uganda: Knowledge Gaps, Profitability,
Subsidy, and Implications of a National Policy. International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI), 2009.
Bongers, G., Jassogne, L., Wanyama, I., Nibasumba, A., & Mukasa, D.
(2012).Understanding and exploring the evolution of coffee-banana farming systems in
Uganda, Proceedings of the tenth European IFSA Symposiums. 1-4 July 2012, Aarhus,
Denmark. P: 1–9.
Bukomansimbi distric profile. Retrive 2/8/2013.
http://www.bukomansimbi.go.ug/smenu/data/30.html
Cannel M.G (1973). Effects of Irrigation, Mulch and N-Fertilizers on Yield Components of
Arabica Coffee in Kenya. Experimental Agriculture, 9( 03) pp 225-232
Carr S. (1993) Factors Influencing the Productivity of Cotton, Coffee, and Tea Grown by
Smallholders. World Bank technical paper number 216.
Kathleen Collett & Chris Gale (2009):Training for Rural Development: Agricultural and
Enterprise Skills for Women Smallholders. City & Guilds Centre for Skills Development.
CIMMYT, 1988. From Agronomic Data to Farmer Recommendations: An Economics
Training Manual. Completely Revised Edition. International Maize and Wheat Improvement
Center, Mexico, D.F.
Cognigni, S(2010): Kaweri coffee farmers alliance support project. Establishment of the
“uganda coffee farmers alliance”. NKG Coffee Alliance Trust.
Crawford E.W, Jayne T. S., Kelly V.A( 2006): Alternative approaches for promoting fertilizer
use in Africa. The World Bank. Agricultural and rural development.
Deininger, K. and Okidi, J.A. (2003) ‘Growth and poverty reduction in Uganda, 1992-2000:
Panel data evidence’. Development Policy Review 21 (3): 481-509.
Fowler, Martin. (2007) Kaweri Coffee Farmers’ Alliance Support Project: analysis of coffee
gross margins. Final report.
Helen Markelova, Ruth Meinzen-Dick, Jon Hellin, Stephan Dohrn, Collective action for
smallholder market access, Food Policy, Volume 34, Issue 1, February 2009, Pages 1-7,
ISSN 0306-9192
20
Ibero Foundation Manual for sustanaible coffee production (2005). Retrieve
http://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/7239693/manual-for-sustainable-coffeeproduction-de-foundation
Stephen Bayite-Kasule, Patrick Lubega Korugyendo, and Todd Benson (2011): Fertilizer
use among smallholder farmers in Uganda. International Food Policy Research Institute,
Kampala, Uganda
Kelly, V., Adesina, A. a, & Gordon, A. (2003). Expanding access to agricultural inputs in
Africa: a review of recent market development experience. Food Policy, 28(4), 379–404.
Kraybill, David, and Michael Kidoido. (2009). Analysis of Relative Profitability of Key
Ugandan Agricultural Enterprises by Agricultural Production Zone. Uganda Strategy Support
Program(USSP) Brief No. 7. International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington D.C.
Luwero district profile. Retrieve on 1/8/2013 www.ugandadish.org/luwero.doc
Nemes, n. 2009. Comparative analysis of organic and non-organic farming systems: A
critical assessment of farm profitability. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Piet van Asten, Ibrahim Wanyama, David Mukasa, Ruth Nansamba, James Kisaakye, Isaac
Sserubiri, Ghislaine Bongers, Laurence Jassogne ( 2012): Mapping and evaluating improved
intercrop and soil management options for Ugandan coffee farmers. Technical report funded
by Livelihoods and Enterprises for Agricultural Development (LEAD)
Van Asten, P. J. A. Van, Wairegi, L. W. I., Bagamba, F., & Drew, C. (2010). Factors Driving
Fertilizer Adoption in Banana ( Musa spp .) Systems in Uganda. Acta Horticulturae 879: 465478
Tech- talk international, Gross margin training notes (2013).Retrieve 5/6/2013
http://www.techtalk-international.com/news/GMC.php
Rasmus Heltberg, Rural market imperfections and the farm size: productivity relationship:
Evidence from Pakistan, World Development, Volume 26, Issue 10, October 1998, Pages
1807-1826
Sanchez, Pedro A. Shepherd, Keith D. Soule, Meredith J. Place, Frank M. Buresh, Roland J.
(1997) Fertility Replenishment in Africa: An Investment in Natural Resource Capital
Replenishing Soil Fertility in Africa. Soil Science Society of America and American Society of
Agronomy
E.T Seyoum, G.E Battese, E.M Fleming, Technical efficiency and productivity of maize
producers in eastern Ethiopia: a study of farmers within and outside the Sasakawa-Global
2000 project, Agricultural Economics, Volume 19, Issue 3, 1 December 1998, Pages 341-348
USAID. October (2010). Uganda coffee supply value chain analysis. Prepared by Chemonic
international Inc.
Willen Paulus (2013): Strengthening member commitment at NUCAFE. An overview of the
factors influencing member commitment at NUCAFE and proposed measures to strengthen
it. Technical report .
21
Appendix . Report of meeting with stakeholders
Interview with Anneke Fermont 22/5/ 2013
Anneke started the interview by informing me on what she does and how Kyagalany and Volcafe
operate. She talk about the certification scheme and she told me that it has limited scope in the
strategy of Volcafe and that it wasnt profitable but the reason behind their support was motivated to
achieve sustainable supply of coffee over a long period of time. The requirements of traceability
made necessary a high number of staff to monitor farmers activities and does not allow the use of
middle men for the supply of certified coffee, which raises costs significantly.
She emphasize the current suboptimal management techniques use by the farmers, in particular
stumping ( for Arabica though), lack of knowledge for pruning, very low use of fertilizers. Kyagalany
tries to promote the use of fertilizers and give incentives to farmers to improve their management
techniques, so far with little success.
Related to the study she suggested to analyse the effects of price volatility on the profitability of the
farm, in comparison with other crops. Her other main suggestion was to create 3 categories on
degree of input use by the farm: Low, average and intense and evaluate the effect of this systems on
the profitability of the farm and more specifically on coffee. She also mention the difficulty the
isolate the effect of fertilizer on coffee as its likely to affect the yield of other crops.
She considers the study as relevant and she requested me to keep her update on the progress.
In kyagalany the have not done a study on this issue, but she recommend me other people who are
position to provide better information.
Interview with Toni Mugoya 7 / 6/ 2013
At the end of the coffee breakfast on the 7th of June, Anneke Fermont introduce me to Toni. Our talk
started with him talking about the Uganda coffee farmers alliance. The most interesting and useful
aspect of their organization for our study was the fact that well knowledgeable farmers of their
organization have a demonstration plot for other farmers within their section of the organization
(P.O.). In this demonstration plots UCFA provides initial training and the advisable inputs so the
owner can follow the optimal, or suboptimal agronomic practices and show how to do it to other
farmers. He showed me the figures of production for production for the farmers that belong to the
organization and compare with the average in Uganda, the difference in income for those who
belong to UCFA are more than double the average Uganda coffee farmer. We can use this figures
during the partial budget analysis to compute the benefits that the improve practices will have on
the farmers of our project. Toni also mention that Hanns stiftung and COREC have more accurate
figures on the estimates of the use of fertilizer and, pruning …
Tony thinks that is a relevant study and he is particularly interested on the methodology to calculate
the gross margin as they want to do it themselves for their organizations. He would be also
interested on a cost benefit analysis and he requested to be updated on the study.
22
His main suggestion was to check the data of the field so we are sure that we have accurate figures.
Interview with Martin Fowler, 24/06/2013
I went to Emin Pasha Hotel to meet with Martin, our talked lasted around 50 minutes as he had a
meeting with the minister of agriculture. He talked to me about his career and about the work he has
done related to study the profitability of coffee on what factors influence it, he did their work when
he was working as a consultant he did the report to evaluate the effect that a coffee farmers alliance
could have on the income of the farmers. He also indicated me how to conduct the sensitivity
analysis.
The main constrains that he considers are the limited labour , the distance to the road and the
middle man issue which reduces the incentives to improve the quality of coffee. The main suggestion
to improve the position of the farmers in relation to middle man is to distribute prices among
farmers so they would be aware of what their product is really worth, increasing their bargain power.
He thinks that working together with middle man, especially with the organization called coffee
Quality Association can be fruitful.
He told me that the main constrains that hinders the adoption of improve management practices are
the lack of labour combined with the fact that the returns to agronomic practices takes place after
the second year and specially after the third year.
He gave me some contacts of people that I should interview, Peter Wathum chief of the lead project
who calculated the gross margins for all crops and Dr Godfrey Bashaasha professor of agricultural
economics at Makerere University.
He will also send me the documents that he work on, or he knows about them related to the topic of
our study.
He is interesting on our study and wants to receive the results of our study.
Interview with Stefan Cognigni, 24 th of June
I went to Hanns Neumann Stiftung office to interview with Stefan, our conversation lasted around 1
hour and 15 minutes. First I presented the research that we are conducting, when I talked about the
constrains that we are looking at, he has the opinion that the most relevant ones are the lack of use
of good agricultural practices, lack of training due to absent of good organizations or extension
services. He also stressed the pernicious effect that lack of credit have on the farmers not only to
finance their agricultural inputs but mainly to satisfy their household expenditures, like schooling
fees or to cope with adverse shocks like medical issues. These necessities put the farmers in hands of
the middle man who advance their money in return for the coffee beans once they are harvested
discounting an approximate of 40-50% of the value of the coffee. The process of getting finance to
23
smallholder farmers is complicated, the newer interventions aim at providing credit to the farmer
organizations with formal banks like Centenary bank involving the exporters as well. To test the
effects that access to credit will have on the farmers, they conducted an experiment in a trial field in
which the farmers had access to credit, the results showed a considerable increase in income.
They also conducted another trial in which improve agronomic practices were applied by the
farmers, like pruning mulching and land water conservation techniques (basically mulching) and also
fertilizer was used. In the ideal conditions the production can soar to nearly 2 tons per hectare, the
feasible attainable levels of production , in which 60- to 70% of the improve management techniques
were applied the production can reach 1.2 tons per hectare in contrast with current 600 kg per
hectare. Stefan is convinced that those levels can be achieved. Stefan told me that he would send me
the information on this trial.
The main aspects that hinders adoption of improve agricultural practices are the low farm gate prices
that generally farmers obtain. For Stefan the key would be to create value addition so farmers will
have incentives to allocate more labour towards coffee production. He also said that middle man do
not have enough market power to decrease the price in case that farmers increase production.
I ask if we could try to convince the farmers in our study to join the UCFA where better prices are
obtained and also get some training and he said that yes there could create a producer organization
and integrate the depot committee of their respective areas.
Stefan Considers that the volatility of prices is not a mayor determinant of farmers decisions, he
thinks that the prices of coffee will remain good for the next years.
Finally he shows interest on or study and requested to be updated on our progress.
Interview with Harris Luzinda. 17/06/2013
Harris Luzinda From COREC came to IITA office in Naguru Hill. I talked about the research we are
conducting, he was interesting on it particulary on the analysis of the factors that influence farms
profitability, according to him that where we can get a paper out of our study, it would also be
particularly interesting for policy makers. He suggested to perform a time series study of 3 years to
compare the profitability between different years. He stressed the importance of taking into account
the labour costs and also the post-harvest handling and marketing costs. He also suggested to
analyse the effect that the age of coffee, the variety of the coffee trees and the management
practices employed have on the profitability of the farm. He also pointed out that normally the work
with larger sample sizes, but if the regression analysis is not feasible we can use a more qualitative
approach. Finally, he suggested to use a cobb-Douglas model to find the level of inputs required to
achieve the break-even level of output.
In COREC they have not done a strictly related study on profitability of coffee farms, nor he does not
know of any organizations that have done anything related, but he suggested to get in touch with
UCDA.
24
COREC and Harris are interesting on the study, in fact the want to collaborate with it, he is available
and very willing to do so. I asked him what he could bring to the study, he said that they have a
report on the effect that the improve management practices have on the yield of coffee. They also
have done a study in Mount Elgon in which the obtained the revenue and costs of production of
Arabica coffee.
25