Economic Feasibility of Iodine Agronomic Biofortification: A Projective Analysis with Ugandan Vegetable Farmers

Solomon Olum, Xavier Gellynck, Joshua Wesana, Walter Odongo, Nathaline Onek Aparo, Bonny Aloka, Duncan Ongeng and Hans De Steur
Additional contact information
Solomon Olum: Department of Food Science and Postharvest Technology, Gulu University, Gulu P.O. Box 166, Uganda
Xavier Gellynck: Department of Agricultural Economics, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, 9000 Gent, Belgium
Joshua Wesana: Department of Agricultural Economics, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, 9000 Gent, Belgium
Walter Odongo: Department of Rural Development and Agribusiness, Gulu University, Gulu P.O. Box 166, Uganda
Nathaline Onek Aparo: Department of Agricultural Economics, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, 9000 Gent, Belgium
Bonny Aloka: Department of Science and Vocational Education, Lira University, Lira P.O. Box 1035, Uganda
Duncan Ongeng: Department of Food Science and Postharvest Technology, Gulu University, Gulu P.O. Box 166, Uganda
Hans De Steur: Department of Agricultural Economics, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, 9000 Gent, Belgium

Sustainability, 2021, vol. 13, issue 19, 1-13

Abstract: Cost–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.

Keywords: agronomic biofortification; benefit–cost ratio; consumers; farmers; iodine; willingness-to-pay (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/19/10608/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/19/10608/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:19:p:10608-:d:642308

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().