Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorOlum, Solomon
dc.contributor.authorGellynck, Xavier
dc.contributor.authorWesana, Joshua
dc.contributor.authorOdongo, Walter
dc.contributor.authorOnek Aparo, Nathaline
dc.contributor.authorAloka, Bonny
dc.contributor.authorOngeng, Duncan
dc.contributor.authorDe Steur, Hans
dc.date.accessioned2023-03-24T09:41:51Z
dc.date.available2023-03-24T09:41:51Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.citationOlum, S.; Gellynck, X.; Wesana, J.; Odongo,W.; Aparo, N.O.; Aloka, B.; Ongeng, D.; De Steur, H. Economic Feasibility of Iodine Agronomic Biofortification: A Projective Analysis with Ugandan Vegetable Farmers. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10608.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.3390/ su131910608
dc.identifier.urihttp://ir.lirauni.ac.ug/xmlui/handle/123456789/523
dc.description.abstractCost–benefit analysis of (iodine) biofortification at farm level is limited in the literature. This study aimed to analyze the economic feasibility of applying iodine-rich fertilizers (agronomic biofortification) to cabbage and cowpea in Northern Uganda. Data on costs and revenues were obtained from a survey of 100 farmers, and benefits that would accrue from using iodine fertilizers were elicited using consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for the iodine-biofortified vegetables. The cost–benefit analysis demonstrated iodine agronomic biofortification as a highly profitable effort, generating average benefit–cost ratios (BCRs) of 3.13 and 5.69 for cabbage and cowpea production, respectively, higher than the conventional production practice. However, the projective analysis showed substantive variations of economic gains from iodine biofortification among farmers, possibly due to differences in farming practices and managerial capabilities. For instance, only 74% of cabbage farmers would produce at a BCR above 1 if they were to apply iodine fertilizer. Furthermore, a sensitivity analysis to estimate the effect of subsidizing the cost of iodine fertilizer showed that a higher proportion of farmers would benefit from iodine biofortification. Therefore, as biofortification is considered a health policy intervention targeting the poor and vulnerable, farmers could be supported through fertilizer subsidies to lower the production cost of iodine-biofortified foods and to avoid passing on the price burden to vulnerable consumers.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publishersustainabilityen_US
dc.subjectagronomic biofortificationen_US
dc.subjectbenefit–cost ratioen_US
dc.subjectconsumersen_US
dc.subjectfarmersen_US
dc.subjectiodineen_US
dc.subjectwillingness-to-payen_US
dc.titleEconomic Feasibility of Iodine Agronomic Biofortificationen_US
dc.title.alternativeA Projective Analysis with Ugandan Vegetable Farmersen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record