questionnaire modules.<sup>9</sup> Each plot manager was allowed to report production in non‐standard measurement units, and was asked to report on both the condition (e.g. green harvested; dry after additional drying; etc.) and the state (e.g. with cob but without stalk or husk; grain; etc.) of up to three maize harvests that may have occurred on the plot over a period of time. The production measurement units, conditions, and states were borrowed directly from the UNPS, as also provided by Gourlay et al. (2017). The dry grain‐equivalent harvest quantities in kilograms were calculated by using the conversion factor database that has been compiled by the UBOS during the 2007 Uganda Census of Agriculture (UCA) for each non‐standard measurement unit‐ condition‐state combination and that has been complemented by the data solicited during the UNPS 2009/10, 2010/11, and 2011/12 waves for the (rare) combinations that were not captured as part of the UCA exercise.<sup>10</sup>

# **2.3.3.2. Crop Cutting**

Crop cutting has been recognized as the gold standard for yield measurement since the 1950s by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Gourlay et al. (2017) review the potential concerns regarding yield measurement concerning crop cutting and detail the way in which the MAPS approach to crop cutting and its hands‐on supervision overcame them.

In MAPS II, one 8x8 meter sub‐plot (divided into four 4x4m quadrants) was laid on each plot. Each subplot was cordoned off until harvest and was supervised by the EA‐specific crop cut monitor between the post‐planting and the crop cutting visits. Each plot manager was asked not to harvest any crop from the sub‐plots until the crop cutting visit, and not to manage the sub‐plot any differently than the rest of the plot. These messages, first communicated by the enumerator, were intended to be enforced by the local crop cut monitors. The shelled maize harvests tied to each of the four adjacent 4x4m quadrants were weighed and barcoded separately in the field and were reweighed at a central location in Kampala under strict supervision following additional drying. At the time of the final weighing, the moisture content of each sample was captured as to standardize all crop cut sample weights used for our analyses at 12 percent moisture. The

> 9 It is important to note that the identification of parcels versus plots within parcels was anchored in the precise definitions that have been referenced above and that have been in effect since the UNPS 2009/10 wave. The operationalization of these definitions is such that each enumerator, prior to the administration of the post‐planting questionnaire, has a detailed discussion with the holder regarding the organization of his/her farm. This conversation (1) ensures that the enumerator and the farmer are on the same page regarding what parcels versus plots within parcels mean, (2) often culminates in sketches of different parcels and plots within parcels that are being cultivated during that reference season, and (3) establishes how parcels and plots within parcels will be rostered in the questionnaire instrument. The established parcels and plots within parcels are then reviewed at each subsequent visit to the household.

> 10 Refer to Gourlay et al. (2017) for more information regarding the conversion factors used in expressing farmer‐ reported production information in kilogram‐equivalent terms.

9