A double-hurdle model estimation of adoption and intensity of use of poultry production technologies in Machakos County, Kenya

Figures & data

Figure 1. Map of the study area.

Table 1. Definitions of variables and the expected signs for the double hurdle model.

Description	Measurement	Expected sign	Supportive literature
Dependent Variables
Decision (Adoption of at-least one technology - improved Indigenous Chicken/ Brooder)	Yes = 1, otherwise, 0
Average Fractional Index (Intensity)	0 to 1
Independent variables
Gender of the household head	Male = 1; otherwise, 0	+/-	Aliyi et al. (2021)
Age of Household head	No. of years	+/-	Endiris et al. (2021)
Education level	Years in school	+	Habtamu and Krishna (2021); Knight et al., (2003)
Dependency Ratio	Range of 15–64 / 0–14 and >64 yrs	–	Amare and Beyene (2019)
Size of Household	No. of household members	+/-	Grabowski et al. (2016)
Access to Extension services	1 = yes; 0 = No	+	Mango et al. (2020)
Farming Experience	No. of years	+/-	Beshir et al. (2022)
Ownership of a Title	1 = yes; 0 = No	+	Tran et al. (2019)
Group membership	1 = yes; 0 = No	+	Tasie et el. (2019)
Access to Credit	1 = yes; 0 = No	+/-	Nkhoma et al. (2017)
No. of extensions contact	Number	+	Asfaw et al. (2012)
Livestock landholding	TLU index	+	Ngeno (2018)
Cultivated land size	In Acres	+	Issahaku and Abdulai (2020).
Proximity to Tarmac Road	Walking minutes	–	Melkamu et al. (2017)
Access to off-farm activities	1 = yes; 0 = No	+/-	Beshir et al. (2022)
Production system	1 = Free range;2 = Semi-intensive; 3 = Intensive)	+/-	FAO, 2018
Awareness Score	0 = not aware; 1 = Either; 2 = Aware of both technologies	+	Manda et al. (2019)

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for the continuous variables.

Variable Name	Pooled Mean (N = 374)	Adopters Mean (N = 203)	Non-adopters Mean (N = 171)	t-stat	P-value
Age of Household Head (years)	52	53	51	−0.92	0.186
No of years of Schooling	11.87	11.7	12.05	1.09	0.278
Family Size (No)	4.02	3.86	4.2	2.37	0.019**
Poultry Production Experience (Years)	14.46	15.93	12.73	−3.53	0.001***
Farm size (Acres)	2.48	2.88	2.01	−3.97	0.000***
Livestock Ownership (Assets) – TLU	1.8	1.81	1.78	−0.16	0.873
Work Force (No)	2.82	2.91	2.71	−1.59	0.114
Awareness on IC Technologies – Score	1.69	1.93	1.41	−8.38	0.000***
Access to Extension (No of visits)	3.04	2.98	3.11	0.32	0.748
Distance to Tarmac Road (Minutes)	19	20.9	16.75	−1.82	0.070*
Flock Size (No of birds)	31.3	36.7	24.8	−6.08	0.000***

*, **, and *** significant at 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics for binary and categorical variables (chi²-test).

Variable name		Overall (N = 374)		Adopters (N = 203)		Non-adopters (N = 171)		χ^2 / Fisher exact
	Discrete	N	%	N	%	N	%
Gender of Household Head	Male	171	45.7	89	43.8	82	48	0.63
	Female	203	54.3	114	56.2	89	52
Off-farm activities	Yes	170	45.5	106	52.2	64	37.4	8.19**
	No	204	54.5	97	47.8	107	62.6
Group Membership	Yes	127	34	89	43.8	38	22.2	19.35***
	No	247	66	114	56.2	133	77.8
Access to Credit	Yes	175	46.8	110	54.2	65	38	9.75**
	No	199	53.2	93	45.8	106	62
Poultry Production Training	Yes	128	34.2	89	43.8	39	22.8	18.24***
	No	246	65.8	114	56.2	132	77.2
Ownership of Title Deeds	Yes	209	55.9	133	65.5	76	44.4	16.72***
	No	165	44.1	70	34.5	95	55.6
Production System	FRS	230	61.5	97	47.8	133	77.7	38.16***
	SIS	113	30.2	79	38.9	34	19.9
	IS	31	0.08	27	14.3	4	0.02

*, **, and *** significant at 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively.

Table 4. A double hurdle (probit + truncated model) versus the Tobit model estimates.

	Probit model estimates				Truncated model estimates				Tobit model estimates
Adopter Variables	Marginal effect	Std. Err	Z	P > z	Coef	Std. Err	Z	P > z	Coef	Std. Err	Z	P > z
Gender	−0.048	0.043	−1.11	0.265	0.070	0.034	2.03	0.042**	−0.003	0.034	−0.09	0.932
Years of Schooling	−0.002	0.008	−0.28	0.778	−0.005	0.006	−0.81	0.416	−0.004	0.006	−0.68	0.494
Household Size	−0.033	0.016	−2.09	0.037**	0.012	0.014	0.83	0.406	−0.018	0.013	−1.44	0.150
Experience in Poultry production	0.007	0.003	2.57	0.010**	−0.002	0.002	−0.77	0.439	0.004	0.002	1.70	0.090
Land Size in Acres	0.031	0.011	2.84	0.005**	−0.009	0.008	−1.19	0.233	0.012	0.008	1.56	0.118
Total Livestock holdings	−0.001	0.011	−0.05	0.963	0.002	0.008	0.23	0.821	0.001	0.008	0.11	0.910
Work Force	0.014	0.017	0.81	0.432	0.030	0.013	2.24	0.025**	0.028	0.013	2.09	0.037
Off farm Activities	0.131	0.042	3.12	0.002**	−0.025	0.034	−0.73	0.467	0.078	0.034	2.33	0.020
Group Membership	0.092	0.047	1.94	0.052**	0.006	0.036	0.16	0.873	0.066	0.037	1.80	0.073
Access to Credit	0.127	0.043	2.98	0.003**	0.085	0.035	2.41	0.016**	0.124	0.034	3.61	0.000
Extension visits (No)	−0.005	0.005	−0.88	0.377	0.176	0.075	2.34	0.019**	−0.003	0.004	−0.63	0.532
Awareness Index	0.261	0.037	7.07	0.000***	−0.002	0.005	−0.51	0.607	0.273	0.041	6.72	0.000
Distance to the Tarmac Road	−0.0003	0.001	−0.25	0.799	0.003	0.001	3.58	0.000***	0.001	0.001	1.61	0.107
Semi-Intensive system	0.154	0.051	3.03	0.002**	0.046	0.038	1.23	0.220	0.121	0.037	3.24	0.001
Intensive system	0.306	0.078	3.91	0.000***	0.143	0.051	2.84	0.005**	0.264	0.058	4.53	0.000
Constant					−0.225	0.186	−1.22	0.224	−0.648	0.133	−4.86	0.000
/Sigma					0.201	0.014	14.06	0.000	0.280	0.015

Source: (Model Output)*** significant at 1%, **significant at 5%, *significant at 10%.

Probit Model; N = 374; LR chi² (15) = 144.76; Prob > chi²=0.0000; Log likelihood = -185.48869; Pseudo R²=0.2807.

Truncated regression; Limit: lower = 0; N = 203; upper = +inf; Wald chi²(15) = 47.77; Log likelihood = 81.793; Prob > chi² = 0.000.

Annex 1. T-statistics on double hurdle (probit + truncated model) versus Tobit model.

	Probit, D	Truncated, Y > 0	Tobit, 0$\le$Y$\le$1
Log likelihood	−185.489	81.793	−126.919
No. of observation	374	203	374
Test (LR) Statistics: Г= 46.446 > χ^20.05, (15) = 24.996

Annex 2. Status of adoption of ic production technologies.

Technology	Proportion	Std. Err
Brooder
No	0.570	0.026
Yes	0.430	0.026
Improved IC Breed
No	0.551	0.026
Yes	0.449	0.026
Either Brooder or IC breed
No	0.457	0.026
Yes	0.543	0.026

Aliyi, I., Faris, A., Ayele, A., Oljirra, A., & Bayessa, M. (2021). Determinants of market participation among smallholder vegetable producers in Southwest Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 12(2), 24–37.

 Google Scholar

Endiris, A., Brehanie, Z., & Ayalew, Z. (2021). The impact of off-farm activities on rural households’ food security status in Western Ethiopia: The case of Dibatie district. Cogent Food & Agriculture, 7(1), 1879425. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2021.1879425

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Habtamu, R., & Krishna, N. (2021). Determinants of decision to use herbicides by smallholder farmers: The case of Dale Sadi district Kelem Wolega Zone, Oromia, Ethiopia. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 12(13), 5–11. https://doi.org/10.7176/JESD/12-13-02

 Google Scholar

Knight, J.,Weir, S., &Woldehanna, T. (2003). The role of education in facilitating risk-taking and innovation in agriculture. Journal of Development Studies, 39(6), 1–22. doi:10.1080/00220380312331293567

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Amare, F., & Beyene, A. D. (2019). Climate-smart agricultural practices and welfare of rural smallholders in Ethiopia: Does planting method matter? Land Use Policy, 85, 387–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.04.020

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Grabowski, H., Long, G., Mortimer, R., & Boyo, A. (2016). Updated trends in US brand-name and generic drug competition. Journal of Medical Economics, 19(9), 836–844.https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2016.1176578

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mango, N., Makate, C., Tamene, L., Mponela, P., & Ndengu, G. (2020). Impact of the adoption of conservation practices on cereal consumption in a maize-based farming system in the Chinyanja Triangle, Southern Africa. Sustainable Futures, 2, 100014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2020.100014

 Google Scholar

Beshir, M., Tadesse, M., Yimer, F., & Brüggemann, N. (2022). Factors affecting adoption and intensity of use of Tef-Acacia decurrens-charcoal production agroforestry system in Northwestern Ethiopia. Sustainability, 14(8), 4751. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084751

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tran, N. L. D., Rañola, R. F., Ole Sander, B., Reiner, W., Nguyen, D. T., & Nong, N. K. N. (2019). Determinants of adoption of climate-smart agriculture technologies in rice production in Vietnam. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 12(2), 238–256. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-01-2019-0003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Nkhoma, S., Kalinda, T., & Kuntashula, E. (2017). Adoption and impact of conservation agriculture on smallholder farmers ‘crop productivity and Income in Luapula Province, Zambia. Journal of Agricultural Science, 9(9), 168–181. https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v9n9p168

 Google Scholar

Asfaw, S., Shiferaw, B., Simtowe, F., & Lipper, L. (2012). Impact of modern agricultural technologies on smallholder welfare: Evidence from Tanzania and Ethiopia. Food Policy. 37(3), 283–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.02.013

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ngeno, V. (2018). Impact of dairy hubs on small-holder welfare: Empirical evidence from Kenya. Agricultural and Food Economics, 6(1), 9–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-018-0107-3

 Google Scholar

Issahaku, G., & Abdulai, A. (2020). Adoption of climate-smart practices and its impact on farm performance and risk exposure among smallholder farmers in Ghana. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 64(2), 396–420. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.12357

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Melkamu, T., Kumar, N., Gebrekidan, B., Kebede, E., & Tkue, T. (2017). Performance of Bovans Brown chickens under intensive and backyard management system in Mekelle, Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Veterinary Science and Animal Production, 1, 73–80.

 Google Scholar

Manda, J., Alene, A. D., Tufa, A. H., Abdoulaye, T., Wossen, T., Chikoye, D., & Manyong, V. (2019). The poverty impacts of improved cowpea varieties in Nigeria: A counterfactual analysis. World Development, 122, 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.05.027

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The data used for this study is available from the corresponding author upon request.