Research Topics

EPAR Technical Report #201
Publication Date: 09/12/2012
Type: Data Analysis
Abstract

This brief explores how two datasets – The Tanzania National Panel Survey (TZNPS) and the TNS-Research International Farmer Focus (FF) – predict the determinants of inorganic fertilizer use among smallholder farmers in Tanzania by using regression analysis. The (TZNPS) was implemented by the Tanzania National Bureau of Statistics, with support from the World Bank Living Standards Measurement Study – Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA) team and includes extensive information on crop productivity and input use. The FF survey was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and implemented by TNS Research International and focuses on the on the behaviors and attitudes of smallholder farmers in Tanzania. The two datasets produce relatively comparable results for the primary predictors of inorganic fertilizer use: agricultural extension and whether or not a household grows cash crops. However, other factors influencing input use produce results that vary in magnitude and direction of the effect across the two datasets. Distinct survey instrument designs make it difficult to test the robustness of the models on input use other than inorganic fertilizer. This brief uses data inorganic fertilizer use, rather than adoption per se. The TZNPS did not ask households how recently they began using a certain product and although the FF survey asked respondents how many new inputs were tried in the past four planting seasons, they did not ask specifically about inorganic fertilizer.

EPAR Technical Report #200
Publication Date: 08/24/2012
Type: Literature Review
Abstract

This report investigates the potential environmental and socio-economic benefits and costs of glyphosate resistant cassava.  Glyphosate resistant crops (also referred to as glyphosate tolerant) have been rapidly adopted by a number of crop producers because they simplify and/or reduce the cost of weed management. Glyphosate resistant crops also provide external environmental benefits by promoting reduced tillage agriculture, decreasing erosion and increasing soil health. However, glyphosate resistant crops also have some environmental costs, potentially leading to increased use of herbicides and environmental contamination. Because transgenic glyphosate resistant cassava is not currently in use, literature on its potential environmental and socioeconomic costs and benefits is limited. Therefore, this report draws on the literature for glyphosate resistant crops that are in current use, including maize, soybeans, sugar beets and canola (rapeseed). We find that socioeconomic and environmental impacts of glyphosate resistant crops differ by crop-type, agroecological conditions, production systems and local regulatory structure. Therefore, some benefits and costs associated with other glyphosate resistant crops may not be applicable to glyphosate resistant cassava. 

EPAR Technical Report #184
Publication Date: 07/11/2012
Type:
Abstract

This brief provides an overview of the national and zonal characteristics of agricultural production in Tanzania using the 2008/2009 wave of the Tanzania National Panel Survey (TZNPS), part of the Living Standards Measurement Study – Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA). More detailed information and analysis is available in the separate EPAR Tanzania LSMS-ISA Reference Report, Sections A-G.

EPAR Research Brief #190
Publication Date: 03/30/2012
Type: Data Analysis
Abstract

This brief presents a comparative analysis of men and women and of male- and female-headed households in Tanzania using data from the 2008/2009 wave of the Tanzania National Panel Survey (TZNPS), part of the Living Standards Measurement Study – Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA). We compare farm activity, productivity, input use, and sales as well as labor allocations by gender of the respondent and of the household head. In households designated “female-headed” a woman was the decision maker in the household, took part in the economy, control and welfare of the household, and was recognized by others in the household as the head. For questions regarding household labor (both non-farm and farm), the gender of the individual laborer is recorded, and we use this to illustrate the responsibilities of male and female household members. An appendix provides the details for our analyses.

EPAR Research Brief #167
Publication Date: 10/07/2011
Type: Data Analysis
Abstract

This is "Section B" of a report that presents estimates and summary statistics from the 2008/2009 wave of the Tanzania National Panel Survey (TZNPS), part of the Living Standards Measurement Study – Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA). We present our analyses of household characteristics by gender and by administrative zone, considering landholding size, number of crops grown, yields, livestock, input use, and food consumption.

EPAR Technical Report #166
Publication Date: 10/06/2011
Type:
Abstract

This is "Section H" of a report that presents estimates and summary statistics from the 2008/2009 wave of the Tanzania National Panel Survey (TZNPS), part of the Living Standards Measurement Study – Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA). We present our analysis of nutrition and malnutrition, and of the variation across agricultural and non-agricultural households, gender, age, and zones. For example, we find that stunting (low height for age) was the most prevalent indicator of malnutrition, with 43% of the under-five population categorized in the moderate to severe range, while less than 17% children under the age of five were reported to be underweight (low weight for age). A higher proportion of children in female-headed households experienced stunting (46% versus 42% in male-headed households) and were underweight (19% versus 16% in male-headed households).

EPAR Technical Report #165
Publication Date: 10/05/2011
Type: Data Analysis
Abstract

This is "Section G" of a report that presents estimates and summary statistics from the 2008/2009 wave of the Tanzania National Panel Survey (TZNPS), part of the Living Standards Measurement Study – Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA). We present our analyses of data related to consumption of priority foods, total value of consumption, levels of food consumption and production, including analyses by zone in Tanzania. We find, for example, that the mean total value of household consumption was higher for agricultural households (US$27.28) compared to non-agricultural households (US$26.59), but the mean per capita value of household consumption was higher for non-agricultural households (US$7.32) compared to agricultural households (US$5.24). The mean per capita value of weekly consumption for the Southern zone was only US$5.34, compared to the highest mean per capita value of US$6.63 in the Eastern zone. The Central zone still had the lowest per capita value of consumption at US$4.40.

EPAR Technical Report #154
Publication Date: 09/30/2011
Type: Data Analysis
Abstract

This is the introductory section of a report that presents estimates and summary statistics from the 2008/2009 wave of the Tanzania National Panel Survey (TZNPS), part of the Living Standards Measurement Study – Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA). We present an overview of report sections, as well as an executive summary of findings on crops and livestock, constraints to productivity, and productivity and nutrition outcomes.

EPAR Research Brief #158
Publication Date: 08/03/2011
Type: Literature Review
Abstract

This literature review examines the environmental impacts of water buffalo in pastoral and mixed farming systems in Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and South America). The environmental impacts of water buffalo are less widely studied than those of the other livestock species included in this series; typically, the environmental impacts of water buffalo are incorporated into discussions of cattle without more detailed impacts being broken down by bovine type. In Asia and India, where the majority of buffalo are raised, buffalo are typically kept in small herds of only a few animals, which may minimize the local impacts of their grazing on vegetation, soil erosion and water pollution. Some aspects of buffalo feeding and life cycle patterns, as observed in the Amazon, may cause their greenhouse gas emissions to differ from those of cattle: buffalo can fatten on a wider range of grasses, reach market size in a shorter time, transition better from dry to wet seasons, and are more resistant to bovine diseases. While buffalo grazing and trampling can lead to land degradation, buffalo can contribute to nutrient and resource cycling in farming systems because their manure is considered good fertilizer and they can remove and utilize biomass grown on agricultural plots. Mitigation strategies vary by category of environmental impact, but largely suggest improved productivity to reduce land conversion, modified management systems (e.g., biodiversity, water use and consumption, farm and pastures, and waste), and the reduction of livestock numbers altogether.

EPAR Research Brief #156
Publication Date: 07/31/2011
Type: Literature Review
Abstract

This literature review examines the environmental impacts of goats in pastoral and mixed farming systems in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. We find that the most notable environmental implications of goats stem from their ability to graze on a wide variety of biomass sources in frequently marginal environments; while this intensive grazing stimulates biodiversity loss and may be more severe than grazing by other livestock species, goats are not a major driver of forest clearing due to their low economic value. Environmental benefits of goat production include keeping wildlife corridors open, preventing the spread of noxious weeds, and promoting the growth of local vegetative species through moderate grazing. Goats are also more water-efficient than large ruminants such as cattle. Mitigation strategies vary by category of environmental impact, but largely suggest improved productivity to reduce land conversion, modified management systems (e.g., biodiversity, water use and consumption, grazing intensity and frequency, and waste), and the reduction of livestock numbers altogether.