Precision Agriculture and Food Security

Robin Gebbers and Viacheslav I. Adamchuk

Science 327, 828 (2010);
DOI: 10.1126/science.1183899

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only.

If you wish to distribute this article to others, you can order high-quality copies for your
colleagues, clients, or customers by clicking here.
Permission to republish or repurpose articles or portions of articles can be obtained by
following the guidelines here.

The following resources related to this article are available online at

Downloaded from www.sciencemag.org on February 17, 2013

www.sciencemag.org (this information is current as of February 17, 2013 ):

Updated information and services, including high-resolution figures, can be found in the online
version of this article at:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5967/828.full.html
A list of selected additional articles on the Science Web sites related to this article can be
found at:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5967/828.full.html#related
This article has been cited by 2 articles hosted by HighWire Press; see:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5967/828.full.html#related-urls
This article appears in the following subject collections:
Science and Policy
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/collection/sci_policy

Science (print ISSN 0036-8075; online ISSN 1095-9203) is published weekly, except the last week in December, by the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1200 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005. Copyright
2010 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science; all rights reserved. The title Science is a
registered trademark of AAAS.
 This would help overcome the breadth-versus-
depth trade-offs that presently limit the availabil-
ity of suitable time series data at the individual
and household level. Finally, just as poverty re-
search is moving beyond static, snapshot mea-
sures to dynamic mobility ones, especially with
respect to critical behavioral thresholds (28), so
must the food security research community be-
gin developing measures based on longitudinal
data that capture the risk of food insecurity that
respondents routinely voice in perceptions-based
measures.
References and Notes
1. Accessed 1 November 2009 at www.g8italia2009.it/static/
G8_Allegato/LAquila_Joint_Statement_on_Global_
Food_Security%5B1%5D,0.pdf.
2. C. B. Barrett, E. C. Lentz, in International Studies
Compendium Project, R. A. Denemark et al., Eds.
(Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, 2010).
3. C. B. Barrett, in Handbook of Agricultural Economics,
B. L. Gardner, G. C. Rausser, Eds. (Elsevier Science,
Amsterdam, 2002), vol. 2B.
4. P. Webb et al., J. Nutr. 136, 1404S (2006).
5. P. Dasgupta, J. Econom. 77, 5 (1997).
6. R. W. Fogel, The Escape from Hunger and Premature
Death, 1700-2100: Europe, America, and the
Third World (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge,
2004).
7. A. Sen, in Poverty and Famines (Clarendon, Oxford,
1981), p. 1; emphasis in original.
8. D. G. Maxwell, Food Policy 21, 291 (1996).
9. M. Arimond, M. T. Ruel, J. Nutr. 134, 2579
(2004).
PERSPECTIVE
Precision Agriculture and
Food Security
Robin Gebbers1* and Viacheslav I. Adamchuk2
Precision agriculture comprises a set of technologies that combines sensors, information
systems, enhanced machinery, and informed management to optimize production by accounting
for variability and uncertainties within agricultural systems. Adapting production inputs
site-specifically within a field and individually for each animal allows better use of resources to
maintain the quality of the environment while improving the sustainability of the food supply.
Precision agriculture provides a means to monitor the food production chain and manage both
the quantity and quality of agricultural produce.
o secure food supplies for the future
T
1
requires adequate quantities and quality
of agricultural produce, intensive yet envi-
Department of Agricultural Engineering, Leibniz-Institute for
Agricultural Engineering (ATB), Max-Eyth-Allee 100, D-14469
Potsdam, Germany. 2Biological Systems Engineering Depart-
ment, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, 203 Chase Hall,
Lincoln, NE 68583–0726, USA.
*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail:
rgebbers@atb-potsdam.de
828 12 FEBRUARY 2010
10. Age-and-sex-group-specific minimum energy requirements
are set by a joint United Nations University/World Health
Organization/Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations expert consultation summarized in FAO/
UNU/WHO, Human Energy Requirements (FAO, Rome, 2004).
11. FAO, Voluntary Guidelines to Support the Progressive
Realization of the Right to Adequate Food in the Context
of National Food Security (FAO, Rome, 2005).
12. One recent, limited exception is Mude et al. (30).
13. FAO, More people than ever are victims of hunger
(2009); accessed 9 November 2009 at www.fao.
org/fileadmin/user_upload/newsroom/docs/
Press%20release%20june-en.pdf.
14. S. Shapouri et al., Food Security Assessment, 2008-9 Outlook
GFA-20 (USDA Economic Research Service, Washington, DC,
2009).
15. FAO, Food Security Statistics, accessed 27 December 2009
at www.fao.org/economic/ess/food-security-statistics/en/.
16. G. Bickel, M. Nord, C. Price, W. Hamilton, J. Cook,
Guide to Measuring Household Food Security, Revised
2000 (USDA Food and Nutrition Service, Alexandria,
VA, 2000).
17. L. C. Smith et al., Food Insecurity in Sub-Saharan Africa
(International Food Policy Research Institute,
Washington, DC, 2006).
18. E. A. Frongillo, S. Nanama, J. Nutr. 136, 1409S
(2006).
19. S. Chantarat, C. B. Barrett, A. G. Mude, C. G.Turvey, Am.
J. Agric. Econ. 89, 1262 (2007).
20. FAO, The State of Food and Agriculture 2006: Food Aid
for Food Security? (FAO, Rome, 2006).
21. National Research Council, Measuring Food Insecurity
and Hunger, Phase 1 Report (National Academies Press,
Washington, DC, 2005).
22. I. Darnton-Hill et al., Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 81, 1198S
(2005).
23. World Health Organization, Vitamin and Mineral Nutrition
Information System (VMNIS), www.who.int/vmnis/en/.
ronmentally safe production, and the sustain-
ability of the resources involved. In addition, the
ability to track food materials from production
through processing, storage, and retail provides
added capability to respond to changing market
conditions, ensure proper food nutrition and safe-
ty, and affect national and international policies
related to food security.
Precision agriculture, or information-based
management of agricultural production systems,
VOL 327 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org
24. S. Horton, H. Alderman, J. Rivera, Copenhagen Consensus
2008 Challenge Paper: Malnutrition and Hunger,
www.copenhagenconsensus.com/The_10_challenges/
Malnutrition_and_Hunger-1.aspx.
25. World Bank, Repositioning Nutrition as Central to
Development (World Bank, Washington, DC, 2006).
26. C. B. Barrett, D. G. Maxwell, Food Aid After Fifty Years
(Routledge, London, 2005).
27. World Food Programme, Emergency Food Security
Assessment Handbook (WFP, Rome, 2009).
28. M. R. Carter, C. B. Barrett, J. Dev. Stud. 42, 178
(2006).
29. Science Council, Consultative Group on International
Agricultural Research, Stripe Review of Social Sciences in
the CGIAR (CGIAR Science Council, Rome, 2009), www.
sciencecouncil.cgiar.org/fileadmin/user_upload/sciencecouncil/
Systemwide_and_Ecoregional_Programs/SSSR_for_web.pdf.
On the National Science Foundation’s Long-Term Ecological
Research Network, see www.lternet.edu/.
30. A. G. Mude, C. B. Barrett, J. G. McPeak, R. Kaitho,
Downloaded from www.sciencemag.org on February 17, 2013
P. Kristjanson, Food Policy 34, 329 (2009).
31. S. Chen, M. Ravallion, The Developing World Is
Poorer Than We Thought, But No Less Successful in
the Fight against Poverty (World Bank, Washington,
DC, 2008).
32. FAO, The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2009
(FAO, Rome, 2009).
33. International Federation of the Red Cross and Red
Crescent Societies, World Disasters Report (IFRCRCS,
Geneva, various years).
34. FAO, FAOStat accessed 9 November 2009 at www.fao.
org/economic/ess/food-security-statistics/en/.
35. A. Agrawal, J. Hoddinott, E. Lentz, P. Pinstrup-Andersen,
R. Stoltzfus, P. Timmer, P. Wilde, and P. Webb made
helpful comments on an earlier draft. V. Palladino
provided excellent research assistance.
10.1126/science.1182768
emerged in the mid-1980s as a way to apply the
right treatment in the right place at the right time
(1–3). Increasing awareness of variation in soil
and crop conditions, combined with the advent of
technologies such as global navigation satellite
systems (GNSSs), geographic information sys-
tems (GISs), and microcomputers, serve as the
main drivers (1, 2). Initially, precision agriculture
was used to adapt fertilizer distribution to varying
soil conditions across an agricultural field. Since
then, additional practices have evolved, such as
automatic guidance of agricultural vehicles and
implements, autonomous machinery and pro-
cesses, product traceability, on-farm research, and
software for the overall management of agricul-
tural production systems.
Apart from field crop production, precision
agriculture technologies have been applied suc-
cessfully in viticulture and horticulture, includ-
ing orchards, and in livestock production, as
well as pasture and turf management. Applica-
tions range from the tea industry in Tanzania
and Sri Lanka to the production of sugar cane in
Brazil; rice in China, India, and Japan; and
cereals and sugar beets in Argentina, Australia,
Europe, and the United States (4). Despite dif-
ferences in the types of technology and the areas
of adoption, the goals of precision agriculture
are threefold. First, to optimize the use of avail-
able resources to increase the profitability and

sustainability of agricultural operations. Second,
to reduce negative environmental impact. Third,
to improve the quality of the work environment
and the social aspects of farming, ranching, and
relevant professions (3). Because of the diversity
of applications and scenarios, it is difficult to
quantify the benefits of precision agriculture in
general. In a review of 234 studies published
from 1988 to 2005 (5), precision agriculture was
found to be profitable in an average of 68% of
the cases.
Variation in Soils and Crops
Important characteristics of the crop production
environment, such as water and nutrient supply,
often vary considerably over space and time with-
in a single agricultural field (Fig. 1). Spatial var-
iation in crop performance can be caused by soil
as well as by diseases, weeds, pests, and previous
land management. Variability over time arises
from weather patterns and management practices.
In particular, lack of nutrients, water stress, or
plant diseases may form spatial patterns that
change from year to year.
Relevant properties of soil productivity are
soil moisture, clay content, organic matter con-
tent, nutrient availability, pH, and bulk density.
Traditionally, these properties have been mea-
sured by soil sampling and offsite laboratory
analysis or by on-the-spot measurement (such
as measuring cone penetrometer resistance).
Seasonally varying crop growth conditions
Aerial photograph
Elevation model
100 m
Soil electrical conductivity
Fig. 1. Within-field variability in a ground moraine landscape (Wilmersdorf, Germany, 13°49’E, 53°09’N).
The legend for the soil survey is as follows: P, peat soils; lS, slightly loamy sand; Sl, loamy sand; SL,
sandy loam.
www.sciencemag.org
such as water stress, lack of nutrients, diseases,
weeds, and insects have been evaluated by
visual inspection and laboratory analysis of
plant tissue. The relatively coarse sampling/
measurement density of these conventional strat-
egies may not be sufficient to reveal variation
(6).
Soil and Crop Sensing
Remote and proximal sensing technologies have
been introduced to improve spatial resolution.
Remote sensing relies on acquiring images via
optical and radiometric sensors installed on an
aerial platform or a satellite, whereas proximal
sensing systems are ground-based (mounted on
a vehicle or carried by hand) and linked to a
GNSS receiver. The advantage of remote sens-
ing is that images of the entire field can be
captured in one shot, whereas proximal soil sen-
sors have to be moved across the landscape to
create high-density measurements that can be
mapped.
There is an enormous diversity of remote
sensing data (7). The ground resolution, number
and width of spectral bands, and timing of data
collection differ among different service pro-
viders. Although remote sensing is useful for
evaluating crop conditions, it provides a poor rep-
resentation of the root zone environment, because
the data represent the reflectance of the surface
material, which might be bare topsoil, plant
material, or a mixture of both.
Barley yield
Sl
P
SL
lS
Soil survey
SCIENCE VOL 327 12 FEBRUARY 2010
SPECIALSECTION
Proximal soil sensing allows for a more di-
rect detection of soil attributes than remote sens-
ing (8). Three types of sensors are commercially
available: electrical or electromagnetic sensors
that measure electrical resistivity/conductivity or
capacitance; optical sensors that obtain visible
and near-infrared (Vis-NIR) spectra from within
the soil; and electrochemical sensors that use
ion-selective membranes to detect the activity of
ions such as hydrogen, potassium, or nitrate.
Soil compaction sensors for site-specific tillage
will also be available in the near future.
Ultimately, the crop supplies the best in-
dicator of variable growing conditions, and
yield maps are most frequently used to evaluate
crop performance. Yield maps summarize the
Downloaded from www.sciencemag.org on February 17, 2013
overall impact of natural conditions, such as
weather and soils, and of management activ-
ities. The observed spatial variation in quantity
and quality of the harvest obtained by yield
maps is directly related to the locally defined
profitability.
In intensive crop production, the input of
water, nitrogen, and agrochemicals for plant
protection is usually regulated during the grow-
ing season. Vis-NIR reflectance spectroscopy
is used to estimate plant biomass, chlorophyll
content, and/or nitrate stress (9). Detection and
identification of weeds via machine vision sys-
tems is also feasible, whereas other crop-status
sensing techniques, such as laser fluorescence,
thermal imaging, and ultrasonic proximity sens-
ing, are still in the research stage (10). A recent
application of imaging spectroscopy has been
used to detect fungal infection in wheat, which,
by allowing selective harvesting, may help to
reduce the concentration of harmful mycotoxins
(11).
Decision-Making
A typical cropping cycle that involves precision
agriculture is shown in Fig. 2. Differentiated
treatment of an agricultural field can be pursued
using either a predictive or a reactive approach.
In the predictive approach, information from
yield history, thematic soil maps, field topog-
raphy, and other spatial data records is used to
predict variable crop performance and input
needs. If a particular soil treatment can eliminate
a yield-limiting factor that occurs in specific areas
of the field (such as low soil pH or compaction),
variable-rate technology can be used to solve the
problem, at least temporarily. If the yield-limiting
factor is expensive or impossible to remove (such
as poor water-holding capacity in a non-irrigated
field), it makes sense to reduce the quantity of
inputs applied because they will never be con-
sumed by the crop and will most likely be wasted
in the environment.
In the reactive approach, rates of agricul-
tural chemicals are varied according to the crop
status at a given place and time. This requires
real-time sensing and online application. It is
829
 GNSS
Weed sensing
Yield mapping
Plant protection
Crop status sensing
Results
lication
Fertilization
App
Soil sensing
Planning
Tillage and seeding
Data transfer
Prescription maps
Fig. 2. Precision agriculture information flow in crop production [after (19), modified].
often used for the application of nitrogen fer-
tilizers, for plant protection agrochemicals, and
for water management. For instance, a relative-
ly low chlorophyll content, which can be de-
tected by real-time analysis of crop canopy
reflectance in the Vis-NIR spectrum, may in-
dicate the need for additional nitrogen or ir-
rigation (9).
Precise Application, Guidance, and Automation
Implements for site-specific management are
available for most tasks, including tillage, saw-
ing, mechanical weeding, and the distribution of
fertilizers and other agrochemicals (Fig. 2). To
date, GNSS-based vehicle guidance has been
the most widely used precision agriculture tech-
nology (12). It allows the operation of agri-
cultural vehicles along parallel tracks or on
predefined paths, which results in less stressful
driving, along with significantly fewer gaps and
overlaps. Originally, navigation aids were used
to assist operators to steer agricultural vehicles
using visual feedback such as light bars or
graphical displays. Recent auto-guidance sys-
tems steer agricultural vehicles without direct
input from operators. Field robots (autono-
mous agricultural vehicles) are the next logical
step in the automation of crop production.
830 12 FEBRUARY 2010
Data transfer
Data exchange with
suppliers, advisors,
resellers, authorities
GIS
Data storage
and processing
Evaluation
Field history
Soil survey
Soil sampling
Field topography
Remote sensing
Ancillary data
Fertilizer and seed costs
GIS Resource availibilty
Decision making
However, safety and liability are the main
factors halting their adoption. It is currently
unclear whether machinery will continue to
grow in size and power or whether crews of
smaller robots will conduct certain field oper-
ations in the future.
Precision Livestock Management
Several countries, including the member states
of the European Union, have established reg-
ulations for compulsory electronic identification
of cattle, swine, sheep, and goats to prevent the
spread of diseases and improve food safety (13).
In dairy production, radiofrequency identifi-
cation (RFID) tags are already used to identify
cattle in computer-controlled self-feeders and
milking robots (14). Automatic milk feeders for
calves customize the milk supplement, measure
body weight and body temperature, and gen-
erate reports. Milking robots ease the work of
dairy operators and allow cows to schedule milk-
ing. Additionally, these robots can be adapted to
conduct online analysis of milk composition,
including cell counts (an important index of
hygienic condition), fat, protein, and lactose (15).
Knowledge of milk quantity and quality allows
for individual feeding of animals (15). Outdoors,
GNSS receivers working with other sensors al-
VOL 327 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org
low monitoring of the behavior and well-being of
individual animals.
Standardization and Food Traceability
Recently, most of the agricultural industry has
agreed to follow the International Standard Or-
ganization binary unit system (ISOBUS) as a
universal protocol for electronic communication
between implements, tractors, and computers (16).
ISOBUS ensures data transfer between equip-
ment from different manufacturers, which will
allow farmers to control all implements with just
one universal onboard computer.
A similar common information exchange
protocol is needed to trace the food chain from
the farm to the grocery store. This is accomplished
Downloaded from www.sciencemag.org on February 17, 2013
using variants of the Extensible Markup Lan-
guage (XML) [such as agroXML (17)] that allow
seamless data interchange between farmers,
suppliers, service providers, authorities, proces-
sors, and resellers of agricultural produce. Theo-
retically, this makes it possible to trace back food
production to virtually each square meter of a
farmer’s field. Food traceability and quality con-
trol via agroXML have been demonstrated in
research projects such as IT FoodTrace (18). Soft-
ware companies have already started to use
agroXML in their information technlogy products
for agriculture and the food industry.
Ultimately, using data feeds regarding pro-
duction, processing, storage, and retail sale of our
foods will enable us to optimize production with
minimum waste and cost. Thus, farm managers
will not only detect unnecessary treatments but
also discover opportunities for boosting produc-
tion output. Public agencies can obtain data for
yield statistics, the calculation of subsidies, and
monitoring of the agroecosystem, while they
supply farmers with up-to-date information such
as the boundaries of water protection areas or the
latest pest warnings. Post-harvest industries and
food retailers will be able to use various marketing
mechanisms to ensure proper supply and quality
standards. Together these streams of information
will contribute to the main goal of achieving food
security in a constantly changing world.
References and Notes
1. P. C. Robert, Plant Soil 247, 143 (2001).
2. J. V. Stafford, in (4), pp. 19–56.
3. F. J. Pierce, P. Nowak, Adv. Agron. 67, 1 (1999).
4. A. Srinivasan, Ed., Handbook of Precision Agriculture
(Food Products Press, New York, 2006).
5. T. W. Griffin, J. Lowenberg-DeBoer, Rev. Polit. Agric. 4,
20 (2005).
6. A. McBratney, B. Whelan, T. Ancev, J. Bouma, Precis.
Agric. 6, 7 (2005).
7. B. E. Frazier, C. S. Walters, E. M. Perry, in
The State of Site-Specific Management for Agriculture,
F. T. Pierce, E. J. Sadler, Eds. (American Society of
Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil
Science Society of America, Madison, WI, 1997),
pp. 149–160.
8. V. I. Adamchuk, J. W. Hummel, M. T. Morgan,
S. K. Upadhyaya, Comput. Electron. Agric. 44, 71
(2004).

9. H. J. Heege, S. Reusch, E. Thiessen, Precis. Agric. 9, 115
(2008).
10. E. J. van Henten, D. Goense, C. Lokhorst, Eds., Precision
Agriculture '09 (Wageningen Academic Publishers,
Wageningen, Netherlands, 2009).
11. E. Bauriegel et al., in (10), pp. 203–210.
12. J. A. Heraud, A. F. Lange, Agricultural Automatic
Vehicle Guidance from Horses to GPS: How We
Got Here, and Where We Are Going. ASABE Distinguished
Lecture Series 33 (American Society of Agricultural and
Biological Engineers, St. Joseph, MI, 2009),
pp. 1–67.
PERSPECTIVE
African Green Revolution
Needn’t Be a Mirage
Gebisa Ejeta
Africa missed out on the scientific breakthroughs that revolutionized agriculture in Asia. However, with
locally developed and locally relevant technologies, a built-up human and institutional capacity, and
supportive national policy and leadership, an African Green Revolution can be a reality.
ub-Saharan Africa remains the only region
S in the world where hunger and poverty
prevail. In the past 20 years, the number
of Africans who live below the global poverty
line ($1 per day) has increased by more than
50%, and more than one-third of the population
of the continent continues to suffer from hunger
(1). This is of even more concern to African
agricultural development as climate change
impacts economies largely based on rain-fed
agriculture (2). Crop adaptation to climate change
requires rigorous research and a multifaceted
technological approach that will be much harder
to practice on a continent in which agricultural
science is in its infancy and the culture of looking
to science for solutions to local problems is not
well established. However, I believe that Africa
has the capacity to feed itself and become a net
exporter of food.
In the 1960s, when the Asian Green
Revolution was launched, independent Africa
was born. Much of the human and institutional
capacity essential for an agricultural revolution
in Africa was weak or nonexistent. The discov-
eries of the miracle crop varieties that ignited
the Asian Green Revolution were in wheat and
rice, two globally important crops, but not in
sorghum, millets, maize, or cassava, the critical
crops for Africans. That notwithstanding, Africa
was not then ready for a science-based devel-
opment campaign.
Department of Agronomy, Lilly Hall of Life Sciences,
Purdue University, 915 West State Street, West Lafayette,
IN 47907–2054, USA. E-mail: gejeta@purdue.edu
Based on a keynote address at the 2009 World Food Prize
Laureate Luncheon, 16 October 2009, Des Moines, Iowa.
www.sciencemag.org
13. European Community, Council Regulation (EC)
No 1560/2007 (European Commission, Brussels,
2007).
14. Ipema et al., in Precision Livestock Farming ’09,
C. Lokhorst, P. W. G. Groot Koerkamp, Eds. (Wageningen
Academic Publishers, Wageningen, Netherlands, 2009),
pp. 135–142.
15. E. Maltz, A. Antler, I. Halachmi, Z. Schmilovtich,
in Precision Livestock Farming ’09, C. Lokhorst,
P. W. G. Groot Koerkamp, Eds. (Wageningen
Academic Publishers, Wageningen, Netherlands, 2009),
pp. 17–23.
Over the next two decades, investments were
made from both internal sources and through
foreign development assistance for building key
institutions, including those of higher education,
agricultural research, and technology-transfer
institutions such as the agricultural extension
services and seed-distributing agencies. Tens of
thousands of young African men and women
were sent to pursue graduate education in the
agricultural sciences at European and North
American institutions.
Today, there is a developing, although not
yet robust, human capacity base and agricultural
research infrastructure focused on seeking solu-
Fig. 1. Among agricultural pests unique to Africa is the giant witchweed, Striga hermonthica. Striga’s
purple flowers are visible among the damaged sorghum (left). For his work in producing genetically
engineered sorghum resistant to the parasite (shown at right), the author was awarded the World Food
Prize.
SCIENCE VOL 327 12 FEBRUARY 2010
SPECIALSECTION
16. Agricultural Industry Electronics Foundation,
www.aef-online.org (accessed 20 November 2009).
17. For agroXML, see www.agroxml.de (accessed
20 November 2009).
18. IT FoodTrace, www.itfoodtrace.de (accessed 20 November
2009).
19. M. Moore, thesis, Silsoe College, Cranfield, UK
(1998).
20. We thank D. Simpson for his help with the text and
S. Palme for providing the data for Fig. 1.
10.1126/science.1183899
tions for local problems in Africa (3), and links
with regional programs and international research
centers, foreign universities, and other scientific
organizations are supporting this effort. Research
Downloaded from www.sciencemag.org on February 17, 2013
collaborations between African scientists and
foreign agencies have already yielded important
results, for example, the biological control of
major insect pests of cassava, the development
of rice varieties suitable for Africa, and drought-
and parasitic-weed–resistant sorghums. Un-
fortunately, the growth attained in agricultural
education and research (4) has not been matched
by a concomitant advance in public and private
technology transfer (5) institutions, and results
of successful research have not yet been scaled
up to the level of the continent.
In addition to the formidable “nature-based”
constraints such as prevalence of drought, diverse
agro-ecologies, poor soil fertility, and unique pests
and diseases, African agricultural development
also has to overcome persistent institutional and
programmatic challenges. African higher edu-
cational institutions still lack the faculty strength
and infrastructure to regularly produce high-
quality graduates and postgraduates in numbers
needed to promote change. Capacity-building and
strengthening of local institutions are the areas
in which foreign assistance is badly needed.
CREDIT: G. EJETA
831