Contract farming, community effect, and farmer valuation of biofortified crop varieties in China: The case of high‐zinc wheat

Abstract

Biofortification is a feasible and cost‐efficient approach to reduce human micronutrient deficiency, but few studies have investigated its economic value from the perspective of producers. We propose an actual output‐based payment card (AOPC) method to elicit producer valuation of biofortified high‐zinc wheat in North China Plain and assess the impacts of contract farming and community network on their valuation. Unlike financial payments, AOPC uses actual output as the payment vehicle. The results show that Chinese wheat producers' valuation of the biofortified variety is featured by a dispersed and bimodal distribution. We find that contract farming positively affects farmer valuation, highlighting the role of institutional arrangement in biofortified crop planting. We also document the existence of community effects, which leads to similar valuation among farmers better connected through the shared community network. Further analysis reveals that contract farming and community network effects on producer valuation are heterogeneous between elderly and younger producers and producers with and without young children. Our findings shed new light on producer valuation of biofortified crop planting in developing countries and provide implications for advancing the process of crop biofortification to reduce global micronutrient malnutrition.

Factors affecting farmers’ acceptance and adoption of biofortified crops: A systematic review

“…Interestingly, the relationship between landholding size and crop adoption is more nuanced. While six studies found no significant association (Abebe et al, 2013;Li et al, 2021), this aspect is marked with complexities.…”

“…This model assumes that households are the primary decision-makers in agricultural production and that they allocate their resources among activities to maximize their utility. Adekambi et al (2020b); Li et al (2021); Mwiti et al (2020); and Smale et al (2016) relied on the Lancasterian demand theory, which posits that consumers derive utility from the characteristics or properties of a good rather than the good being the direct object of utility. It is noteworthy that 11 studies in the articles did not refer to any theoretical model underpinning their research.…”

“…Socio-Economic Education (Battese et al, 2017;Abebe et al, 2013;De Groote et al, 2016;Kaguongo et al, 2012;Li et al, 2021;Smale et al, 2016;Sulaiman et al, 2020;Chinedu et al, 2018;Olayinka et al, 2020;Onyeneke et al, 2020;Opata et al, 2021;Shikuku et al, 2017;Ayodele et al, 2020;Jogo et al, 2021;Muthini, 2018;Chidiebere-Mark and Anyanwu, 2020;Adekambi et al, 2020aAdekambi et al, , 2020b)…”

“…Age (Muthini, 2018, Schnurr et al, 2020Abebe et al, 2013;Kaguongo et al, (Jogo et al, 2021;Opata et al, 2021;Abebe et al, 2013;Glover et al, 2019;Smale et al, 2016;Ayodele et al, 2020;Mwiti et al, 2020;Kaguongo et al, 2012;Li et al, 2021;De Groote et al, 2016;Chinedu et al, 2018;Shikuku et al, 2017) +/-17…”

“…Farm size (Glover et al, 2019;De Brauw et al, 2018;Abebe et al, 2013;Ayodele et al, 2020;Battese et al, 2017;De Groote et al, 2016;Smale et al, 2016;Li et al, 2021;Muthini, 2018;Okello et al, 2015;Adekambi et al, 2020aAdekambi et al, , 2020b; Chidiebere-Mark and Anyanwu, 2020) (De Groot et al, 2016;Muthini, 2018;Okello et al, 2015;Olayinka et al, 2020;Adekambi et al, 2020b;De Brauw et al, 2018;Kaguongo et al, 2012) + 7…”