Determinants of access to trainings on post – harvest loss management among maize farmers in Uganda: a binary logistic regression approach

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

Figure 2. Geographic location of the study area.

Table 1. Explained and explanatory variables

Explained variable	Measurement	Variable type	Sign Expectation
Access to PHL training	1—Yes, O—No	Binary	–––
Explanatory variables
Family size	Number of people	Continuous	±
Education Farming experience	Years spent in school Years in farming	Continuous Continuous	± ±
Farm size	Acres	Continuous	±
Farm location	1—Abia, 0—Akura	Binary	±
Group membership	1—Member, 0—No	Binary	+
Maize output	Kilograms	Continuous	±
Gender of the HH head	1—Male, 0—Female	Binary	+
Marital Status	1—Married, 0—Unmarried	Binary	+
Distance to training centers	Kilometers covered	Continuous	±

Figure 3. Frequency of farmers with access to PHL management trainings.

Sources of PHL management trainings

Table 2. Sources of PHL trainings

Sources	Number of farmers (f)	Percentage (%)
Farmers’ groups	56	22.76
Extension workers	100	40.65
Farmer to farmer	30	12.20

Table 3. Comparison of access to PHL trainings across farmers’ socio-demographics

Study variables	Measurement	Has access	No access	Combined	P-Value
Maize output	Kg/Acre	1,394.00	780.00	1,296.70 ± 374.60	0.010***
Farm size	Acres	4.33	3.24	4.15 ± 2.50	0.012***
Education	Years	7.85	6.32	6.66 ± 1.25	0.004***
Age	Number	40.64	46.30	45.01 ± 12.85	0.003***
Farming experience	Years	16.67	22.13	20.89 ± 11.90	0.002***
Access to credit	1—Yes, 0—Otherwise	0.98	0.86	0.89 ± 0.30	0.015**
Access to extension	1—Yes, 0—Otherwise	0.96	0.98	0.98 ± 0.14	0.350
Food secure	1—Yes, 0—Otherwise	0.50	0.24	0.42 ± 0.12	0.038**
Reported PHLs	1—Yes, 0—Otherwise	0.20	0.86	0.60 ± 0.24	0.000***

Note: *** and ** = 1, 5% significance level

Table 4. PHL management practices adopted by the farmers

Practices	Number of farmers	Percentage
Harvesting in time	180	75.60
Drying	110	44.72
Sorting	50	20.33
Packaging	30	12.20
Chemical treatment before storage	68	27.64
Transportation from the farm to the store	246	100.00
Transportation from the store to the markets	160	65.04
Marketing	46	18.70

Figure 4. Barriers impeding access to PHL management trainings.

Table 5. Binary logit estimates of the determinants of access to PHL trainings

Variables	Coefficients	Standard errors	Marginal effects
Family size	−0.984*	0.514	−0.091 *
Education	0.116	0.403	0.010
Farming experience Farm size	0.549 0.808*	0.391 0.462	0.051 0.075*
Farm location (Abia)	−4.832***	0.775	−0.554***
Group membership	1.282***	0.461	0.128**
Maize output	0.133*	0.078	0.012*
Gender of the household head	0.307	0.531	0.027
Marital status (Married)	1.245**	0.525	0.115**
Distance to training centers	−1.413**	0.620	−0.192**
Constant	−2.546	1.670	–––

P-Value = 0.000, LR Ch2 = −101.60, Pseudo R² = 0.385, N = 246

***, **, * = 1, 5, 10% level of significance