Abstract Biofortified crops can be promoted with extension strategies based on their agronomic qualities, nutritional qualities, or both, but the effectiveness of these different strategies has so far not been studied. Since 2003, quality protein maize (QPM) has been disseminated using both approaches in East Africa. This study therefore analyzes the effectiveness of promoting biofortified crops based on their agronomic and their nutritional qualities on the adoption of QPM cultivars in East Africa. A random sample survey was conducted in Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda, with 423 households from QPM extension areas and 539 households from similar areas outside the extension zone. Propensity score matching and regression analysis were used to assess determinants of QPM adoption, including farmers’ awareness of QPM, understanding of its nutritional benefits, and evaluation of agronomic performance to evaluate the agronomic and nutritional extension strategies. Results showed high familiarity with QPM, but low understanding of nutritional benefits. Farmers evaluated QPM varieties as equal or superior to conventional maize for post-harvest traits, but not always for agronomic traits (in particular yield in Ethiopia and Tanzania). Adoption in extension areas varied from 73% in Uganda and 25% in Tanzania to none in Kenya. Key factors that increased adoption were farmers’ participation in extension, having heard of QPM, higher overall evaluation ratings of QPM vs. conventional maize varieties, and understanding of QPM’s nutritional benefits. Agronomic performance was found to be more important than an understanding of nutritional benefits. For biofortified crops to be adopted and have a nutritional impact on target populations, they should, first and foremost, be agronomically equal or superior to conventional varieties. If farmers are convinced of the agronomic performance of biofortified crops, additional gains in adoption can be achieved by focusing extension efforts on imparting farmers with knowledge of the benefits of biofortified crops for human nutrition.

1. Extension and adoption of
biofortified crops:
Quality protein maize in East Africa
Hugo De Groote 1, Nilupa S. Gunaratna 2, Kebebe Ergano 3,
Frank Mmbando 4 and Dennis Friesen 1
1 International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre, CIMMYT, PO Box 1041-00621 Nairobi, Kenya,
h.degroote@cgiar.org
2 Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, USA
3 Hawassa University, Awassa, Ethiopia
4Selian Agricultural Research Institute (SARI), Arusha, Tanzania
Paper presented at the African Agricultural Economics Association Conference,
Cape Town, 19-23 September , 2009
Published as:
De Groote H., N. S. Gunaratna, M. Fisher, K. Ergano, Frank Mmbando and D. K. Friesen. 2016. The Effectiveness of Extension
Strategies for Increasing the Adoption of Biofortified Crops: The Case of Quality Protein Maize in East Africa. Food Security
8:1101–1121. DOI 10.1007/s12571-016-0621-7.

2. Introduction
Agricultural extension was developed to promote new
technologies, mostly aimed at increasing yield
Lately, breeders have increased the nutritional quality in
staple crops through biofortification:
 orange fleshed sweet potatoes
 golden rice
 quality protein maize (QPM). But QPM is not
recognizable.
What is the best extension strategy of biofortified crops?
 Breed the trait into an agronomically superior variety
 Put it in old variety, promote it for nutritional qualities
 Some combination of the above

3. Conceptual framework – Extension of
QPM

4. Background
● Quality Protein or QPM
 is maize biofortified with higher levels of essential amino acids
lysine and tryptophan, almost doubling its protein value
 Origin is the o2 gene, a natural mutant
 The gene affects the endosperm is affected, and the first o2
varieties had poor agronomical, storage and cooking qualities
 These problems have been solved
● QPMD project
 Has developed many QPM varieties for East Africa
 Conducted extension activities: promotion and demonstration

5. Objectives of the study
● Measure performance indicators of the project,
the number of farmers who
 Participated in activities
 Were aware of QPM and its benefits
 Adopted
● Participatory evaluation of QPM varieties vs.
conventional varieties
● Analysis of factors that drive adoption of
biofortified varieties:
Agronomic performance, or
Understanding of nutritional benefits

6. Study design
-
● Four project countries:
● 2-4 major maize districts where
QPMD project had been active
● Random selection of project
communities (treatment)
● Random selection pps of other
communities in the same districts
(control)
● 10-15 households randomly selected
in each, 916 in total

8. Rainfall
● All sites bimodal
● Different levels
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Averagemonthlyrainfall(mm)
Kenya: Embu
Kenya: Mbeere
Ethiopia
Uganda
Tanzania

9. Farming systems

10. Participation in project activites

11. Factors affecting awareness and understanding
Category Variable1
Awareness of
protein
Awareness
of QPM
Understandin
g of QPM
Extension Participation in activities 1.06** 1.46*** 0.68**
Poster or promotional
materials 0.88* 1.51*** 0.58*
Household head Age 0.00 0.03** 0.02
Male 0.44 -0.87 -0.30
Education (years) 0.09 -0.02 0.02
Wealth Total land available (hectares) 0.16 0.07 0.07
Tropical livestock units (TLU) 0.00 0.02 0.05*
Housing quality 0.26 -0.16 0.02
Durable good ownership -0.14 0.11 -0.01
Country Ethiopia -1.18 0.05 0.49
Kenya -0.47 -1.53* -1.54*
Tanzania -2.09** -0.18 -0.10
Uganda - - -

12. Farmer evaluation of QPM and CM
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Yield
Field
Postharvest
Overall
Yield
Field
Postharvest
Overall
Yield
Field
Postharvest
Overall
FarmerEvaluation
QPM CM
Ethiopia Tanzania Uganda
● QPM varieties are
appreciated for yield in
Uganda, but not
Ethiopia
● QPM varieties are
appreciated for post-
harvest characteristics
in Et and Tanz, not in
Uganda
● Overall evaluation of
QPM much better in
Uganda, sligthly better
in Tanzania, but not
better in Ethiopia

13. Adoption of
QPM – the
good news
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
AdoptionofQPM
TanzaniaBabati
Hai
Karatu
Non-QPMD areas
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
AdoptionofQPM
UgandaBugiri
Iganga
Kamuli
Non-QPMD areas
● In Uganda, 70% adoption
in project areas, 45%
outside
● In Tanzania, up to 50% in
project areas, but trends
worrying, none outside

14. Adoption of
QPM – the
other news
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
AdoptionofQPM
KenyaEmbu
Mbeere
Non-project areas
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
AdoptionofQPM
Ethiopia
Abella Tula
Badawacho
Dore Bafano
Shashogo
Non-QPMD areas
● In Ethiopia, adoption is erratic,
driven by seed supply
● In Kenya, no adoption

15. Factors affecting adoption of QPM
(only Uganda and Tanzania)
Category Variable
Extension Participation in activities 1.88 ** 0.20
Poster or promotional materials 0.33 0.17
Understanding of QPM's advantages for
human nutrition 1.17 ** 0.47 **
Farmer evaluation Difference in overall rating (QPM vs. CM) 0.93 ** 0.31 ***
Household head Age -0.01 0.00
Male 0.32 0.13
Education (years) 0.06 -0.06 *
Proportion of working time on-farm -0.02 -0.06
Wealth Total land available (hectares) -0.14 0.17 ***
Tropical livestock units (TLU) 0.13 0.02
Housing quality -0.42 -0.12
Durable good ownership -0.04 0.07
Intensification Oxplough ownership -1.40 * -0.63 **
Country Tanzania -3.19 *** -1.09 ***
QPM
adoption in
QPM area in
2007 (ha)

16. Conclusions
● Many farmers in East Africa participated in QPM extension activities
● This participation positively affecting their awareness of QPM,
understanding of QPM’s nutritional benefits, and adoption.
● Farmers who evaluated QPM favorably and who understood its
nutritional benefits were more likely to adopt QPM
● Adoption in target areas reaching 70% in Uganda project areas, 45%
outside. In other countries adoption was much less, and almost none
outside project areas.
● Agronomic performance is more important than understanding of
nutritional benefits in the adoption of biofortified crops.
● Farmers do not want to compromise on yield for biofortified crops

17. With thanks to
● The farmers
● CIDA
● The survey teams from SARI,
KARI, Makere and Hawassa
Universities