|
Field
Trial Status
|
Before
in_development
|
After
on_going
|
|
Field
Abstract
|
Before
This is a pilot study to evaluate adoption of ex-ante technologies for preventing toxic fungal contamination, the biocontrol product Aflasafe and mobile dryers, and an ex-post management technology, rapid testing for aflatoxin, by smallholder farmers in Kenya. Adoption of these technologies will be compared across farmer groups randomly assigned to receive a food safety-conditional purchase commitment from a formal sector buyer, and those left to find buyers independently. The impact of access to low-cost testing on adoption of preventive technologies will also be tested. The objectives of the pilot are to 1) establish commercial relationships between maize aggregators in the study region and formal sector millers, 2) test whether the existing formal sector price premium is sufficient to motivate adoption of food safety technologies, and 3) assess take-up of the technologies under different market conditions in order to design an adequately powered full-scale adoption study.
|
After
Adoption of improved agricultural technologies in developing countries may be limited by common informational and market inefficiencies. In this study, we examine the role of such inefficiencies in the adoption of a new food safety technology, Aflasafe. Aflasafe has been shown to reduce aflatoxin contamination in maize by approximately 90%. However, this technology faces several barriers to widespread adoption. First, since Aflasafe is applied while the crop is still growing, its use increases farmers’ exposure to yield risk. In the absence of a market for crop insurance, this may limit its adoption. Second, the lack of price incentives for food safety in markets served by smallholder maize producers in Kenya may constrain the adoption of food safety technologies by these farmers. In this study, we explore the impact on adoption of Aflasafe of 1) bundling the product with a rainfall index based money-back guarantee, and 2) access to an output market that rewards aflatoxin safety.
|
|
Field
Trial Start Date
|
Before
September 01, 2016
|
After
April 03, 2017
|
|
Field
Trial End Date
|
Before
June 30, 2017
|
After
July 31, 2018
|
|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
June 23, 2016 02:27 PM
|
After
November 09, 2017 10:38 PM
|
|
Field
Intervention (Public)
|
Before
|
After
The study will include 3 interventions: an Input Linkage treatment, a Money Back Guarantee treatment and an Output Market Linkage treatment. The Input Linkage treatment groups will receive information on the benefits of Aflasafe and instruction on its use. They will also be given an opportunity to buy Aflasafe, which is not currently available in the study area. These groups will further be divided into two treatment conditions concerning money back guarantee (MBG): an Optional condition, offered the option to buy Aflasafe either with or without the MBG, and a Bundled condition, in which Aflasafe is only offered in combination with the MBG. The Money Back Guarantee treatment will be crossed with the Output Market Linkage treatment, which consists of a linkage between the farmer group and a buyer that pays a premium for safe maize. Hence, in total there will be five categories, including the pure control group, and four treatment groups (Optional MBG / Output linkage , Optional MBG / No output linkage, Bundled MBG / Output linkage, and Bundled MBG / No output linkage).
|
|
Field
Intervention Start Date
|
Before
September 01, 2016
|
After
September 11, 2017
|
|
Field
Intervention End Date
|
Before
March 31, 2017
|
After
July 31, 2018
|
|
Field
Primary Outcomes (End Points)
|
Before
Adoption of aflatoxin prevention and management technologies by smallholder farmers
|
After
1. Adoption of Aflasafe during the 2017 season
2. Relative level of Aflasafe application to / aflatoxin levels in maize stored by households for different purposes
|
|
Field
Primary Outcomes (Explanation)
|
Before
|
After
1. Adoption of Aflasafe
Farmers’ adoption decisions will be measured by a dummy variable, equal to 1 if the farmer adopted and 0 if the farmer did not adopt. The intensity of adoption will be measured as the amount of Aflasafe purchased. Both the binary and intensity adoption variables will be constructed using Aflasafe sales data.
2. Aflatoxin contamination and Aflasafe usage:
Samples of maize will be taken from the following three sources:
1) Maize stored for household consumption
2) Maize stored for later sale
3) Maize aggregated for testing and sale through the study
Samples will be tested for aflatoxin using a quantitative test with an upper detection limit of 150 ppb. In the event that more than 5% of samples are at or above the upper limit of the detection range, these will be diluted and re-analyzed, to a maximum detection level of 400. A microbiological test will be used to assess whether Aflasafe was used on a batch of maize. Selection of one or both aflatoxin contamination and/or Aflasafe usage depends on the relative costs and efficiency of these two indicators for assessing farmer behavior.
|
|
Field
Experimental Design (Public)
|
Before
All farmer groups in the pilot study will have access to aflatoxin control technologies (either or both Aflasafe and mobile maize dryers). Their access to output markets will depend on their assignment to one of two market access treatments:
1) INDEPENDENT MARKETING: Farmers are provided with information about aflatoxin and an opportunity to purchase Aflasafe KE01 or the mobile drying service. No information about buyers willing to pay for aflatoxin-safe produce is provided.
2) MARKET LINKAGE: Farmers are provided with the same information and opportunity to purchase Aflasafe or the mobile drying service as above. In addition, they are presented with a letter of intent from a prospective buyer stating an offer price conditional on safety and other quality parameters. An aggregator connected to this buyer will take a composite sample of the farmer group’s maize and test this for aflatoxin, conditional on the group offering a minimum amount of maize for sale.
In addition, 50% of the farmer groups in each of these treatment groups will be assigned to an AFLATOXIN TESTING treatment (treatments 1T and 2T respectively). These farmers will be able to pay for individual level aflatoxin tests, administered by study personnel.
|
After
Farmer groups are drawn from a list of 250 farmer groups obtained from the Cereal Growers Association and county Ministries of Agriculture. Based on power calculations, we allocated 160 farmer groups across the four treatment groups and the control group as follows: Optional MBG / Output linkage: 38, Optional MBG / No output linkage: 38, Bundled MBG / Output linkage: 38, and Bundled MBG / No output linkage: 38; Pure Control: 8.
In order to limit spillovers across money back guarantee treatments, we created comparable, but geographically distinct, clusters of farmer groups within each of the study counties (4 in Meru, 2 in Tharaka-Nithi and 2 in Embu) and subsequently assigned these clusters to either the bundled or the optional MBG treatment. Subject to a minimum geographical distance of 5 km between clusters, we aimed to select similar farmer groups into the clusters within each county. Similarity was defined based on the Euclidean distance in the six-dimensional space formed by the standardized values of variables listed in section 5.4.
To this end, we first dropped clusters close to the county borders to achieve a minimum distance of groups in different counties of at least 5 km. Subsequently, we excluded any groups within a 5 km bands dividing the remaining groups into similarly-sized clusters. The direction of this band was selected to minimize the Euclidean distance between the groups on either side of it. From the remaining groups, we then iteratively selected matched pairs across each cluster with the lowest Euclidean distance into the sample. To ensure that the MBG treatments were spread out geographically, we manually decided which clusters would receive the same treatment. Finally, we randomly assigned the bundled MBG to one of the two groups of clusters.
Within each of the money back guarantee clusters, the market linkage treatment was randomly assigned at the village level.
Pure control groups were selected as the 8 nearest geographical neighbors to any BY group, stratified by county approximately in proportion to the total number of groups on the initial list.
|
|
Field
Randomization Method
|
Before
TBD through consultation with implementing partner
|
After
Randomization done in office by a computer
|
|
Field
Randomization Unit
|
Before
farmer group
|
After
village
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Clusters
|
Before
approx 20
|
After
160 farmer groups (cluster for data collection) across 124 villages (level of randomization)
|
|
Field
Planned Number of Observations
|
Before
approx 120 (6 per cluster)
|
After
960 farmers for baseline and follow-up surveys (6 per farmer group); approximately 4000 total farmers in the groups (average of 25 / group)
|
|
Field
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
|
Before
1) INDEPENDENT MARKETING: 5 farmer groups
2) MARKET LINKAGE: 5 farmer groups
1T) INDEPENDENT MARKETING + TESTING: 5 farmer groups
2T) MARKET LINKAGE + TESTING: 5 farmer groups
|
After
Optional MBG / Output linkage: 38 farmer groups
Optional MBG / No output linkage: 38 farmer groups
Bundled MBG / Output linkage: 38 farmer groups
Bundled MBG / No output linkage: 38 farmer groups
Pure Control: 8 farmer groups
|
|
Field
Additional Keyword(s)
|
Before
Food Safety
|
After
food safety, insurance
|
|
Field
Keyword(s)
|
Before
Agriculture, Health
|
After
Agriculture, Finance, Governance, Health
|