# Information and Communication Technologies and Agricultural Production: New Evidence from Africa
## 4 Results and Discussion
### Panel ARDL Elasticities of Impacts of Digital Tools on Agricultural Production
This can be related to a recent study by [PERSON] et al. (2022) (2022), where they explored the influence of internet patronage on farmers' organic fertilizer application behavior. They established that internet significantly influences organic fertilizer positively, hence influencing crop production positively. On the other hand, the coefficient recorded for internet usage under the livestock production category was positive (0.017) but statistically insignificant. As more individuals in these countries patronize internet, the production of livestock increases too. This result is in line with expectation. The literature records a positive relationship between internet usage and livestock production (see (2018); (2018); (2018)). The next independent variable under consideration (mobile cellular subscription) was also statistically significant. The finding shows that mobile cellular subscription was statistically significant at 5% and 1%, respectively, under crop production and livestock production categories. The estimate recorded under the crop production was negative (\(-\)0.022). All other things being equal, a percentage increase in the mobile cellular subscription in the 32 African countries will decrease their crop production by approximately 0.022%. Thus, as more of the populace subscribes to a public mobile telephone service that provides access to the PSTN using cellular technology, these countries are highly probable to suffer a decline in their crop production index. The coverage of mobile phone networks in Africa is low and largely in urban areas where crop production is rarely practiced. Even those in rural areas with mobile cellular subscriptions may not use their mobile phones for obtaining agricultural production information and rather use the phones simply to connect with family and friends (2018); (2018); (2018). Therefore, owning a phone does not guarantee that the owner uses it to gather crop production information (2018). Further research is needed to explore the actual use of mobile phones by crop farmers. However, the estimate recorded under the livestock was positive. Thus, as more of the populace subscribes to a public mobile telephone service that provides access to the PSTN using cellular technology, these \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**H0: No Cointegration**} \\ \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Ha: All Panels Are Cointegrated**} \\ \hline
**Pedroni Test for Cointegration** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Crop Production Index**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Livestock Production Index**} \\ \hline
**Test** & **Statistic** & \(p\)**-Value** & **Statistic** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline Modified Phillips–Perron t & 7.6234 & 0.0000 & 8.6877 & 0.0000 \\ Phillips–Perron t & \(-\)20.8984 & 0.0000 & \(-\)9.3796 & 0.0000 \\ Augmented Dickey–Fuller t & \(-\)13.8666 & 0.0000 & \(-\)7.5080 & 0.0000 \\ \hline
**Westerlund Test for Cointegration** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Crop Production**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Livestock Production**} \\ \hline
**Test** & **Statistic** & \(p\)**-Value** & **Statistic** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline Variance ratio & \(-\)1.9163 & 0.03 & \(-\)1.5991 & 0.05 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Cointegration test. countries will increase their livestock production. This result can be related to the study by [PERSON] [90], who investigated the relationship between mobile cellular and livestock and established a stronger influence of mobile phone ownership and livestock production. Likewise, [PERSON] et al. [91] also emphasized that there is an impact of mobile phone patronage on crop production. The literature [1,64], however, shows that the use of mobile money accounts has inured positively to farmers' advantage. The variable \"fixed telephone subscription\" recorded negative and statistically significant relationships with crop production and livestock production. It was statistically significant at 1% and recorded a negative estimate (\(-0.031\)).