Cited by 595Agricultural Innovations and PracticesAgricultural Economics and PracticesAgricultural economics and policies

Ten striking facts about agricultural input use in Sub-Saharan Africa

Open access
Sheahan, Megan, Barrett, Christopher B.·2017·Food Policy

Abstract

Conventional wisdom holds that Sub-Saharan African farmers use few modern inputs despite the fact that most poverty-reducing agricultural growth in the region is expected to come largely from expanded use of inputs that embody improved technologies, particularly improved seed, fertilizers and other agro-chemicals, machinery, and irrigation. Yet following several years of high food prices, concerted policy efforts to intensify fertilizer and hybrid seed use, and increased public and private investment in agriculture, how low is modern input use in Africa really? This article revisits Africa's agricultural input landscape, exploiting the unique, recently collected, nationally representative, agriculturally intensive, and cross-country comparable Living Standard Measurement Study-Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA) covering six countries in the region (Ethiopia, Malawi, Niger, Nigeria, Tanzania, and Uganda). Using data from over 22,000 households and 62,000 agricultural plots, we offer ten potentially surprising facts about modern input use in Africa today.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.09.010

Cites

86 of 86 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 87 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sheahan, M., & Barrett, C. B.
Affiliations
Cornell University (US)
Corresponding author
Sheahan, Megan
Venue
Food Policy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-02
Volume
67
Pages
12-25
ISSN
0306-9192 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2534397573
Cited by
594
References
87
Citations by year
2026: 74 · 2025: 69 · 2024: 60 · 2023: 76 · 2022: 61 · 2021: 70 · 2020: 75 · 2019: 47 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1
FWCI
120.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Food Policy (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
International Fine Particle Research Institute
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Innovations and Practices
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Economics and Practices
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Agricultural economics and policies
Keywords
agricultural input use, modern agricultural inputs, fertilizer use, improved varieties, hybrid seeds, agrochemicals, agricultural machinery, irrigation, agricultural intensification, smallholder farmers, sub-Saharan Africa, food prices, agricultural growth

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review