Table 21: Differences in input use between plots with and without a cash crop in mix

||% of<br>plots<br>with cash|% u<br> <br>|sing organic<br>fertilizer<br> <br>|% us<br> <br>|ing ino<br>fertilize<br>|rganic<br>r<br>|Averag<br>fert<br>|e total in<br>ilizer (kg<br>|organic<br>/ha)<br>|% using any<br>improved seed<br>%<br>c<br> <br> <br><br>|using agro-<br>hemicals<br> <br>|% using irrig<br> <br>|ation<br>|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||crop|No|Yes<br>sig|No|Yes|sig|No|Yes|sig|No<br>Yes<br>sig<br>No|Yes<br>sig|No<br>Yes|sig|
|Ethiopia|7|17|**30**<br>**|**38**|12|***|**50**|11|***|**9**<br>3<br>***<br>**23**|2<br>***|2<br>**3**||
|Malawi|22|13|**14**|**70**|59|***|123|**139**|***|-<br>-<br>**2**|2|<1<br><1||
|Niger|8|32|**50**<br>***|**11**|10||**2**|1||1<br>**3**<br>**6**|6|**1**<br><1|**|
|Nigeria|16|**4**|3|**39**|29|***|**85**|56|***|-<br>-<br>39|**53**<br>***|**3**<br><1|***|
|Tanzania|20|11|**13**|11|**31**|***|9|**16**||-<br>-<br>9|**24**<br>***|**2**<br><1|***|
|Uganda|36|7|**16**<br>***|2|**5**||2|**2**||-<br>-<br>8|**16**<br>***|3<br>**4**||
|_Average _|_18_|_14_|_21_<br>_-_|_29_|_24_|_-_|_45_|_38_|_-_|_5_<br>_3_<br>_-_<br>_15_|_17_<br>_-_|_2_<br>_4_|_-_|
|Note: C|ash crop|s are|defined diff|erentl|y in e|ach co|untry,|with t|he disti|nction made by the L|SMS-ISA|team at the||
|World B|ank. The|cash|crops inclu|ded h|ere a|re: Eth|iopia-c|offee,|cotton|, groundnuts; Malaw|i-tobacco,|groundnuts|;|
|Niger-c<br>tobacco<br>between<br>applicat<br>(unweig|otton, gro<br>, coconut<br>groups i<br>ion rates<br>hted) ave|undn<br>, grou<br>s stati<br>are un<br>rages|uts; Nigeria<br>ndnuts; Ug<br>stically sig<br>conditiona<br>across the|-coco<br>anda-<br>nifica<br>l and<br>statist|a, gr<br>coffe<br>nt usi<br>repre<br>ics re|oundnu<br>e, cott<br>ng t-va<br>sent to<br>ported|ts, cot<br>on, gr<br>lues o<br>tal, no<br>at the|ton, pa<br>oundn<br>f 1.64<br>t nutri<br>count|lm oil;<br>uts. *, *<br>5, 1.96,<br>ent, val<br>ry level|Tanzania-coffee, co<br>*, and *** denote th<br>and 2.58 respectivel<br>ues. The “average” r<br>.|tton, cashe<br>at differenc<br>y. Inorgani<br>ow include|w nuts,<br>e in mean<br>c fertilizer<br>s simple||

# <u>Plot size</u>

Like common conceptions about the link between farm size and input use, it is likewise often believed that larger plots are typically maintained by wealthier or more commercialized farmers, and are therefore more likely to receive inputs due to lack of associated cash constraints. Contrary to that expectation, the local linear non-parametric regressions in Figure 2 show a mostly diminishing relationship between multiply imputed plot size (where household-reporting bias should be alleviated) and unconditional inorganic fertilizer application rates.

With Ethiopia as a notable exception and reminiscent of the total farm size relationship reported in Figure 1, we observe mostly a consistent, inverse (negative) relationships between plot size and inorganic fertilizer use intensity. In many cases, the relationship is even more pronounced at the plot level than at the household level, reinforcing prior findings that the inverse farm sizeproductivity relationship often found at household level is not wholly attributable to interhousehold differences in the shadow prices of inputs, meaning some other, plot-level covariate must be driving within-household variation in input use decisions (Barrett et al. 2010). These within-household allocation decisions raise important and under-researched questions about farmer behavior and efficiency.

In Ethiopia, there is an upward arc at the start of the curve, implying that the smallest plots may receive less fertilizer than medium-sized plots, with a significant drop off after 4 hectares. Despite radically different levels of fertilizer application rates, the patterns are almost identical in Niger and Nigeria with almost logarithmic shapes to their curves. Plots in Uganda have the highest amount of variation within a given plot size, however the overall trend is still strongly negative. Malawi exhibits a flatter regression lines, perhaps due to the smaller range over which plot sizes are observed.

30