A systematic review on enhancing the technical efficiency of genetically modified maize adoption in Sub-Saharan Africa: the role of agricultural extension services and barriers to success

Abstract

Genetically modified (GM) maize holds significant potential to enhance agricultural productivity, food security, and farm returns. Yet, varying technical efficiency levels have been reported across countries, coupled with different levels of effectiveness of agricultural extension services, which could enhance high efficiency. This systematic review examines the impact of agricultural extension services on the technical efficiency of GM maize adoption in sub-Saharan Africa. A literature search across multiple databases identified 68 peer-reviewed studies (2011–2024) that focused on technical efficiency and extension services. The review found that effective extension services significantly improve technical efficiency in GM maize adoption. However, challenges such as limited information, strict regulations, high seed costs, and biosafety concerns hinder adoption. The review highlights the importance of targeted support for smallholder farmers and calls for tailored extension programs that address farmers’ specific needs. Additionally, encouraging collaboration between government agencies, NGOs, and local communities is essential for developing inclusive extension strategies that bridge knowledge gaps and promote sustainable agricultural practices.

Introduction

The world population is anticipated to surge to 9 billion people by the year 2050, with Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) having the fastest-growing population rate globally (Somanje et al., 2021). Over 250 million people in sub-Saharan Africa were undernourished in 2019, representing 19% of the population (Kimani, 2024). According to Giller (2020), ensuring national food security in countries of the sub-Saharan African region is crucial as this will necessitate a more sustainable and sufficient supply of affordable, nutritious food that is culturally acceptable and meets the demands of the ever-increasing population.

Agriculture is a key driver of poverty reduction and economic growth in sub-Saharan Africa, offering a path to prosperity for millions of rural households (Viana et al., 2022). The sector is dominated by smallholder farmers, who are central to rural development and poverty alleviation (Nyambo et al., 2022). Around 33 million smallholders typically farm less than 2 hectares using low-input, mixed crop-livestock systems (Wiggins and Keats, 2013; Nyambo et al., 2022). Agriculture is vital to achieving the region’s Sustainable Development Goal 1 (zero hunger). In Uganda, it contributes 50% of household income, 73% of employment, and 21% of GDP (Pan et al., 2018). Across sub-Saharan Africa, agriculture employs over 60% of the active population, except in oil-producing countries like Nigeria, South Africa, and Cameroon (Djoumessi, 2022). In 2010, it accounted for 54% of the region’s economically active population; in 2015, it contributed 17.5% to GDP (Odusola, 2017).

To ensure the sustainability of agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa, agricultural extension services have been implemented to equip farmers with the knowledge, skills, and resources to adopt innovative practices (Nwafor et al., 2021). These services guide and develop farmers, connecting them with the latest agricultural information, technologies, and practices (Somanje et al., 2021; Jolex, 2022). Extension services have evolved into a multi-stakeholder approach involving public, non-profit, and private sectors, improving farm productivity and the overall agricultural value chain (Nwafor et al., 2021). Baiyegunhi found that farmers who participated in extension programs earned higher net income than those who did not.

Genetically modified (GM) maize is an innovation in Sub-Saharan Africa, introduced to tackle climate change, land degradation, and a growing population (Di Falco, 2018). It offers solutions to enhance productivity and resilience by resisting pests, tolerating drought, and increasing yields, improving food security and livelihoods for smallholder farmers (Muzhinji and Ntuli, 2021). Agriculture remains central to many regional economies, so adopting GM maize could help mitigate environmental challenges. However, widespread adoption faces socio-economic, regulatory, and cultural barriers. GM maize, a key biotechnology, improves crop characteristics, enhances nutritional quality, and reduces the need for fertilizers, pesticides, and water (Muzhinji and Ntuli, 2021). In South Africa, GM crops brought economic benefits of $2.3 billion between 1998 and 2016, with 97% of these gains from GM maize (Ala-Kokko et al., 2021). In Burkina Faso, GM maize boosted yields by 30% (Schnurr and Dowd-Uribe, 2021).

However, the adoption of GM maize remains uneven across sub-Saharan Africa, influenced by many factors that vary from one context to another (Habib, 2024). Commercial farms have received more gains using GM crops, while smallholder farmers, particularly black smallholder farmers, remain marginalized (Habib, 2024). This situation hinders the region’s efforts to achieve sustainable agricultural growth, prolonging poverty, food insecurity problems, and environmental degradation.

Despite increasing studies on GM maize adoption and extension services, there remains limited evidence on how extension interventions directly affect technical efficiency outcomes among GM maize participants in Sub-Saharan Africa. Previous research have mostly focused on factors influencing adoption, often undermining the mediating role of extension services or systems and common constraints faced by smallholder farmers. This systematic review contributes to the literature by mapping empirical evidence linking extension service provision and technical efficiency in GM maize production across the region, identifying structural, institutional and informational challenges that hinder efficiency gains, highlighting policy frameworks for enhancing farmer support systems. Moreover, this systematic review uniquely synthesizes evidence on how extension service models influence the technical efficiency of GM maize production across sub-Saharan Africa. This focus fills an important gap in existing literature by incorporating insight from numerous scientific studies. This review advances an understanding of how targeted extension services may enhance both productivity and adoption rates. Hence, this study seeks to evaluate the impact of agricultural extension services on the technical efficiency of genetically modified maize adopters in sub-Saharan Africa.

Methodology

Search strategy, inclusion, and exclusion criteria

A comprehensive literature search was conducted across Scopus, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science to ensure thorough coverage and reduce publication bias. Search terms included combinations such as “Maize farmers,” “Smallholder farming,” “Sub-Saharan Africa,” “Technical efficiency,” “Genetically Modified Maize,” and “Agricultural Extension Services.”

Inclusion criteria were: studies focused on sub-Saharan Africa, assessed the impact of agricultural extension services on GM maize farmers’ technical efficiency, published in English, and dated between 2011 and 2024. Studies not meeting these criteria were excluded.

Data extracted included study characteristics, methodologies, findings on technical efficiency, and the role of extension services. From 4,049 retrieved papers, 231 titles and abstracts were screened, and 68 studies met the criteria for final inclusion (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Data recording, management, and analysis

Data were recorded using a standardized extraction form in Microsoft Word to capture key details on study characteristics, methods, technical efficiency, GM maize adoption, and extension services. Extracted data were stored and managed in a Microsoft Excel database, with careful entry, error checks, and data cleaning to ensure accuracy and consistency. The database was secured on a password-protected laptop with regular institutional backups to prevent data loss. Analysis involved narrative synthesis and meta-analysis to summarize and interpret the findings.

Results and discussion

The results show varied contributions from 2011 to 2024, with 19 studies at the regional level. Among country-specific studies, South Africa led with 14, followed by Ethiopia (13), Ghana (8), Zimbabwe, Uganda, Nigeria, Malawi, and Kenya (3 each). Zambia had 2 studies, while only one was found for the DRC, Kenya, and Malawi (Figure 2).

Figure 2

This uneven distribution has policy implications. Countries like South Africa, with more research, are better positioned to use evidence-based strategies to boost smallholder maize farmers’ technical efficiency. In contrast, countries such as the DRC, Zambia, and Malawi face research gaps that must be addressed. These disparities may also reflect regional differences in agricultural development, with South Africa having more advanced systems. Several studies have also assessed GM maize efficiency regionally in South Africa and Ethiopia (Gcaba et al., 2024; Habib, 2024; Kotey et al., 2016; Belete, 2020; Ahmed et al., 2014; Debebe et al., 2015).

Annual research trends in maize efficiency and extension (2011–2024)

Figure 3 shows a steady rise in research output from 2011 to 2024, reflecting growing interest in GM crop adoption and its impact on maize productivity. This trend highlights the recognized importance of agricultural extension services in enhancing farmers’ technical efficiency. The continued increase in publications suggests ongoing knowledge gaps, reinforcing the need for further research to inform policies and raise awareness about the benefits of GM maize for smallholder farmers. This aligns with Arowosegbe et al. (2024), who emphasized the critical role of extension services in improving awareness of GM crops.

Figure 3

Overview of smallholder farming in sub-Saharan Africa

Smallholder farmers’ definitions vary by region and farming systems (Nyambo et al., 2019; Martey et al., 2020; Kapari et al., 2023). Generally, they produce for household consumption and the market, with farming as a key income source (Carelsen et al., 2021). They can transition into commercial farming with technical, financial, and managerial support. Due to limited land, many focus on cash crops like maize, rice, and vegetables (Magakwe and Olorunfemi, 2024). Smallholder farms are crucial for food security, supporting families averaging seven people.

These farmers play a key role in rural development and poverty reduction, typically practicing low-input, mixed farming on plots under 2 hectares (Nyambo et al., 2022). Research in Sub-Saharan Africa shows variations in farm types, soil fertility, and nutrient management (Chikowo et al., 2014). In Kenya, for example, high-resource farmers have larger farms, more cattle, and use more fertilizer, while low-resource farmers have smaller plots, no cattle, and limited fertilizer. Similar patterns are seen in Zimbabwe and Malawi, highlighting the need for tailored policies to address diverse smallholder needs.

The diversity of smallholder farmers across sub-Saharan Africa illustrates that agricultural interventions, particularly extension services, cannot be effectively implemented using a one-size-fits-all approach. As shown in Table 1, high-resource-endowed (HRE) farmers tend to have better access to inputs, training, and markets, while medium- and low-resource-endowed (MRE and LRE) farmers face significant constraints in land size, livestock ownership, fertilizer use, and access to advisory services. Therefore, extension support should be context-specific: for HRE farmers, emphasis should be on scaling advanced technologies such as GM maize hybrids, precision input management, and market linkages; for MRE farmers, strategies should focus on improving access to credit, cooperatives, and community-based training; and for LRE farmers, priorities should include foundational capacity-building, subsidized input programs, and targeted extension demonstrations that reduce entry barriers. This stratified approach recognizes the heterogeneity of smallholders across SSA and provides a foundation for the country-specific recommendations.

policy responses should be tailored to national resource endowments and institutional capacities. In high-resource countries such as South Africa and Kenya, where extension systems are relatively strong, efforts should prioritize scaling technology transfer, promoting digital extension platforms, and supporting private sector participation in GM maize dissemination. In medium-resource countries like Zimbabwe and Ghana, policies should focus on strengthening farmer–extension linkages through cooperatives, enhancing credit access, and incentivizing extension–research collaboration. In low-resource countries such as Malawi and Burkina Faso, where smallholder farmers remain marginalized, emphasis should be placed on improving extension coverage, ensuring affordability of GM seed, addressing biosafety awareness gaps, and fostering donor–government partnerships for inclusive outreach. Differentiated strategies across these contexts will enhance the overall efficiency and equity of GM maize adoption in SSA (See Table 1 below).

Overview of maize production in sub-Saharan Africa

Maize is a key crop in Sub-Saharan Africa, cultivated on over 40 million hectares (Cairns et al., 2021). It is the main crop in more than half of the SSA countries and ranks among the top two cereals in most. In Zimbabwe, 80% of the population grows maize for food and income (Madzivanzira et al., 2024). Many SSA countries consume over 100 grams of maize daily (Cairns et al., 2021). In Ethiopia, 9 million farmers grow maize, with productivity exceeding 3 metric tonnes per hectare (Abate, 2024).

South Africa, the second-largest maize producer after Nigeria, harvested 11.2 million tonnes in 2019 from 2.3 million hectares and exported 3 million tonnes in 2021/2022 (Simanjuntak et al., 2023). Maize is crucial for the region’s agriculture, food security, and livelihoods (Gcaba et al., 2024; Jolex, 2022). Ekpa et al. (2018) identified six main maize-based foods in SSA: whole maize, wet-ground maize, bread, snacks, porridge, and drinks.

Overview of extension services in sub-Saharan Africa.

Though defined in various ways, agricultural extension broadly aims to support resource-poor farmers by enhancing production, marketing, processing, and consumption to improve livelihoods (Somanje et al., 2021; Makate and Makate, 2019). Jolex (2022) found that extension services boost smallholders’ capacity by linking them to new knowledge, technologies, and resources in Malawi. Similarly, Danso-Abbeam et al. (2018) reported positive impacts on farm productivity and income in Ghana.

An evaluation across 11 countries and 7 extension models (Table 2) highlighted the Training and Visit model as effective in Kenya and Somalia, but less so in the Ivory Coast and Rwanda. Other models, such as Uganda’s NAADS, Zimbabwe’s National Extension and Research Project, and Farmer Field Schools in Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania, also showed positive effects, especially in yield improvement, knowledge, and technology adoption.

Comparative analysis of extension models across SSA reveals that success depends heavily on institutional support, farmer participation, and contextual adaptation. The Training and Visit (T&V) model performs well where extension agents receive adequate logistical support but struggles in resource-limited districts due to high supervision costs. In contrast, Farmer Field Schools (FFS) thrive in community-driven contexts that emphasize experiential learning, yet their scalability remains constrained by resource intensity. NAADS in Uganda shows mixed results, effective in areas with consistent funding, but vulnerable to political interference and uneven implementation. These variations underscore that no single model is universally superior; effectiveness hinges on the alignment between model design, resource availability, and governance structure.

Genetically modified maize in Sub-Saharan Africa

Adoption trends of genetically modified maize in Sub-Saharan Africa

This review synthesizes the findings of numerous studies on the adoption rates and trends of genetically modified (GM) crops in Sub-Saharan Africa, as highlighted in the selected articles (Table 3).

Genetically modified (GM) crop adoption in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) varies widely, with South Africa leading in GM maize commercialization. It introduced Bt yellow maize in 1998–1999, followed by Bt white maize (2001–2002) and herbicide-tolerant maize (2003–2004) (Ala-Kokko et al., 2021). By 2015, nearly 90% of its maize was GM, driven by pest resistance, higher yields, climate resilience, supportive policies, and strong biotech infrastructure (Gouse, 2012).

In contrast, countries like Eswatini and Ghana have progressed more slowly. Eswatini began with insect-resistant cotton in 2016 and expanded to Bt cotton in 2019 (Abbas et al., 2018). Ghana has grown improved maize since 2015, but is still in the early stages of GM maize adoption (Danso-Abbeam et al., 2018). Regional trends show growing interest in GM crops for food security, climate resilience, and pest control, with drought-tolerant maize playing a central role.

Tanzania’s 2020 lifting of a seven-year GM ban, allowing Bt cotton and maize, signals a broader regional shift toward biotechnology (Mmbando, 2024). While South Africa remains the frontrunner, other countries are gradually adopting GM crops, shaped by economic, policy, and environmental factors. These differing adoption rates underscore the role of local context in shaping GM crop uptake in SSA (Kavhiza et al., 2022).

Evidence on the benefits of genetically modified maize adoption in sub-Saharan Africa

The current review highlights numerous advantages of adopting genetically modified (GM) maize throughout the sub-Saharan region. Key benefits include enhanced resistance to insect pests, which significantly reduces crop damage and reliance on chemical pesticides.

Resistance to insect pests

Mmbando (2024) highlighted the significant benefits of genetically modified (GM) crops in Africa, especially regarding pest resistance, productivity, and sustainability. In South Africa, the commercialization of Bt maize and cotton, engineered to resist pests like the stem borer, has been highly successful. These crops have increased productivity and reduced the need for chemical pesticides, lowering production costs and environmental pollution. Adopting Bt crops has contributed to more sustainable agricultural practices, reducing chemical inputs and minimizing the negative impacts of pesticides. South Africa’s success with GM crops demonstrates their potential to address challenges such as pest resistance, food security, and environmental sustainability across Africa.

Improved productivity

South Africa was the first African country to commercialize GM crops, introducing Bt maize in the 1998/1999 season. This led to a significant increase in maize production, with the country harvesting 66.4 million tonnes of white maize and 5.4 million tonnes of yellow maize, achieving yields of 39 tons per hectare for white maize and 4.7 tons per hectare for yellow maize (Mulaudzi and Oyekale, 2015). These results highlight the productivity boost GM maize provides. Similarly, Dokyi et al. (2021) found that adopting GM maize in Northern Ghana led to a 33.8% increase in production, demonstrating the potential of GM crops to enhance productivity and technical efficiency for smallholder farmers.

Reduced pesticide use

Gebretsadik and Kiflu (2018) reviewed Ethiopia’s challenges and opportunities with GM crop production, highlighting a 37% reduction in pesticide use after adopting GM maize. This decrease benefits the environment by reducing pesticide impact and lowers farmers’ costs by decreasing the need for chemical inputs. Additionally, GM maize adoption led to a 21% yield increase, demonstrating higher productivity and reduced pesticide reliance. The study emphasizes the importance of extension agents in helping smallholder farmers adopt GM technologies, improving sustainability and farming efficiency in Ethiopia and beyond.

Increased calorie consumption Merga et al. (2023) studied the welfare impact of adopting improved maize varieties in the Amuru district, Ethiopia, surveying 263 households. The study found that households adopting improved maize had an average daily caloric intake of 2470.71 kilocalories, compared to 2241.91 kilocalories for non-adopters, a 229.8-kilocalorie increase. This highlights the role of improved maize varieties in enhancing food security and nutrition. The findings suggest that adopting higher-yielding maize boosts productivity and improves farmers’ access to calories. However, Merga et al. (2023) notes that further research is needed on the broader nutritional impacts of GM maize, particularly in terms of nutrient diversity and overall diet quality.

Ecosystem impacts and reduced herbicide usage

Ala-Kokko et al. (2021) studied the ecosystem impacts of GM maize adoption and found significant environmental benefits, especially in herbicide usage. GM maize farming uses half the amount of pyrethroid herbicide compared to conventional maize. This reduction helps minimize soil and water pollution, reduces agrochemical runoff, and protects biodiversity by safeguarding beneficial insects and soil microorganisms harmed by conventional pesticide use.

Reducing postharvest losses

Kavhiza et al. (2022) found that genetic engineering in GM crops can delay cell-wall degrading enzymes, slowing crop aging and maintaining structural integrity after harvest. This reduces spoilage and infection by pathogens, helping to prevent postharvest losses, a significant challenge for food security in sub-Saharan Africa. GM crops can ensure a more stable food supply and improve availability by minimizing these losses (Tables 4, 5).

Challenges of GM maize adoption in sub-Saharan Africa

Despite the benefits of GM crops, adoption in Sub-Saharan Africa has been slow, with only 11 countries approving their cultivation as of 2024 (Mmbando, 2024). This slow uptake is due to a mix of cultural, economic, and environmental factors, including societal attitudes, regulatory challenges, concerns about environmental impact, and market access, all contributing to the cautious integration of GM crops in the region.

Stringent national regulations

A key challenge in adopting GM maize in Sub-Saharan Africa is the strict bylaws and regulatory frameworks of many countries (Table 6). According to Mabaya et al. (2015), GM maize approval often requires clearance from multiple ministries, making the process more influenced by political will than technology. While these laws aim to ensure safety and environmental protection, they can be restrictive, with some countries having lenient policies and others imposing lengthy approval processes or outright bans. Such regulations can delay GM maize introduction, limit availability, and create uncertainty for farmers and investors, ultimately reducing the potential benefits for agricultural productivity and food security.

Accessibility of GM crops

In many rural areas in SSA, the availability of GM seeds is limited due to supply chain inefficiencies, financial constraints, and local policy restrictions (Mabaya et al., 2015; Azadi et al., 2019). Underdeveloped distribution networks and high seed costs make it difficult for smallholder farmers to access GM seeds. Additionally, local policies may restrict or regulate seed sales, making them harder to obtain. Lack of awareness and misconceptions about GM crops further complicate adoption. Overcoming these barriers is crucial for improving GM maize accessibility to needy farmers.

Biosafety concerns

A study by Gebretsadik and Kiflu (2018) identified biosafety concerns as a significant barrier to GM maize adoption in Ethiopia. These concerns include environmental pollution, gene transfer to wild plants, and the creation of invasive species. Fears about cross-contamination between GM and non-GM crops, loss of genetic diversity, and potential impacts on soil health and non-target organisms are prevalent. Ethiopian farmers rely on traditional farming and are particularly wary due to the country’s agricultural biodiversity. The lack of proper risk assessment frameworks further deepens this reluctance. Addressing these concerns with clear communication, awareness, and thorough risk assessments could help overcome these barriers and promote GM maize adoption.

Regulations and policies

Restrictive GM crop policies can discourage investment in GM technologies, while neighboring countries with lenient regulations may adopt GM maize more quickly, creating disparities in agricultural practices. Studies by Mmbando (2024) and Roba (2023) highlight how regulatory differences hinder GM maize’s spread regionally and globally. Delays in policy implementation, lack of harmonization, and conflicting frameworks can limit cross-border trade and international collaboration. Inconsistent regulations also challenge companies wishing to introduce GM maize in multiple countries, as they must navigate complex, costly legal requirements. These obstacles emphasize the need for regional cooperation and streamlined frameworks to facilitate GM maize adoption.

Human health concerns

Human health concerns are a significant barrier to GM maize adoption in sub-Saharan Africa, with farmers fearing health risks, allergies, and toxicity due to misinformation and limited understanding. Despite scientific consensus on the safety of regulated GM crops, public unease persists. Khan et al. (2024) note fears about antibiotic-resistant illnesses from GM crops, especially the transfer of antibiotic-resistant genes to humans, fueling skepticism and mistrust. Health concerns dominate public discourse, affecting attitudes and hindering acceptance. Addressing these concerns through clear communication and transparency is crucial to building consumer confidence and overcoming this barrier.

Public perception and acceptance

Public perception and acceptance of GM maize are key to its adoption, especially in places like Uganda, where cultural beliefs, safety concerns, and ethics shape opinions (Mustafa et al., 2023). Many fear health risks and environmental impacts from GM foods, driven by limited understanding, misinformation, and a lack of scientific information. Despite evidence supporting their safety, there’s a widespread belief that GM foods could harm health or cause long-term effects. Fischer et al. (2015) noted that the lack of information about Bt maize is a significant barrier to adoption. Addressing these concerns and improving public knowledge is essential for greater acceptance of GM crops.

High seed and labor costs

A significant challenge in adopting GM maize is the high cost of seeds, which are more expensive than conventional varieties, placing a financial burden on smallholder farmers. Additionally, the intensive farming practices required for GM maize, including specialized knowledge, equipment, and extra inputs like fertilizers or pesticides, drive up labor costs (Mulaudzi and Oyekale, 2015). For small-scale farmers, these combined costs can outweigh the benefits of GM maize, such as higher yields and pest resistance. Addressing these financial barriers through subsidies, financing, or cost-reduction programs is essential to increase adoption.

Limited knowledge of GM maize

In much of SSA, particularly Uganda and South Africa, limited knowledge about GM maize hinders its adoption, causing resistance from farmers, consumers, and policymakers. Many in Uganda, for example, do not understand how GM maize is developed, its benefits, and potential risks (Mustafa et al., 2023). This ignorance leads to misconceptions, such as beliefs that GM maize is toxic or harmful to health, the environment, or biodiversity. To overcome this, educational campaigns offering clear, evidence-based information on GM technology are crucial for reducing fears, fostering acceptance, and encouraging supportive policies.

Limited availability, poor labeling, and knowledge gaps

In many SSA countries, including South Africa, challenges in logistics and education hinder the widespread acceptance of GM maize. Key issues include limited availability in local shops and poorly labeled packaging, which causes consumer uncertainty. The packaging often fails to indicate that the maize is genetically modified or provide information on its benefits and safety (Sigigaba et al., 2021). This lack of transparency leads to confusion and mistrust. Furthermore, many consumers lack knowledge about the advantages of GM maize, such as higher yields, pest resistance, and improved food security. To address these barriers, improving accessibility, clear labeling, and education campaigns are essential to boost consumer confidence and acceptance.

Stakeholder perspectives on GM maize adoption

The current review highlights varying perspectives among stakeholders regarding the adoption of GM maize crops. These differing viewpoints on the use of GM maize are summarized in Table 6 below.

Cultural, spiritual, and environmental concerns regarding GM crops

Mmbando (2024) examined the role of cultural and spiritual beliefs in shaping opinions on genetically modified (GM) crops in Africa. Many communities view the genetic modification of crops, like maize, as a threat to biodiversity, cultural practices, and the sanctity of nature. In regions where agriculture is intertwined with spiritual beliefs, altering a key crop like maize disrupts deeply rooted traditions. Additionally, the concept of “biopiracy,” or exploiting natural resources for profit, influences opposition to GM crops. For these communities, agriculture is not just economic but integral to their identity and connection to the land. Therefore, resistance to GM maize stems from concerns about environmental harm, violating sacred relationships with the land, and undermining traditional, sustainable farming practices. Engaging local communities, respecting their values, and conducting thorough cultural and environmental impact assessments are essential to promote GM crops effectively.

GM maize: food security versus potential risks

Adopting GM maize in Kenya is a contentious issue with divided opinions. Supporters argue that GM maize could help address food insecurity by increasing yields, improving resilience, and reducing reliance on food aid. However, critics worry about potential health and environmental risks, along with ethical concerns about genetic manipulation and the influence of multinational corporations on food sovereignty. A study by Catherine et al. (2024) found that 57% of respondents saw GMOs as a solution to food security, while 25% viewed them as harmful. This mixed perception creates skepticism and slows adoption. To navigate this, a collaborative approach involving multiple stakeholders is necessary to ensure GM maize is adopted responsibly, maximizing benefits and minimizing risks for farmers, consumers, and the environment.

Environmental and medical benefits of GM maize

Genetically modified (GM) maize has potential environmental and medical benefits. It could aid in soil remediation by absorbing or breaking down pollutants, improving soil health, and reducing environmental impacts, especially in areas with industrial pollution. Additionally, GM maize could be used to produce compounds for new drugs. However, safety, efficacy, long-term health, and environmental effects must be carefully assessed. A study by Adenle (2014) in Ghana and Nigeria highlighted GM crops’ advantages, such as improved productivity and drug development. As recognition of GM technology grows, its adoption in sub-Saharan Africa may increase, with government and regulatory support. However, strict evaluations and regulatory frameworks are essential to manage risks and maximize benefits.

GM maize and simplified farm management

South Africa views GM maize positively for its ability to improve agricultural efficiency. As a leader in GM crop adoption, the country uses GM maize to address issues like pest infestations, crop diseases, and excessive chemical use. GM maize reduces reliance on pesticides and herbicides, lowering environmental impact and production costs. It also offers resilience to environmental stressors, simplifying farm management, reducing labor, and enhancing overall farming efficiency. This suggests that wider GM maize adoption could improve food security and technical efficiency in sub-Saharan Africa, particularly in maize-dependent regions.

Technical efficiency in agriculture

Technical efficiency in agriculture refers to maximizing output with a given set of inputs or achieving specific output levels with minimal input (Belete, 2020; Tumuri et al., 2024). Studies often use stochastic frontier or truncated-normal models to assess inefficiency and its determinants (Tenaye, 2020; Gcaba et al., 2024).

Production factors influencing technical efficiency of maize farmers

Farmers’ characteristics, farm traits, and institutional factors influence technical efficiency in maize production. Key variables include seed quality, fertilizer use, oxen per hectare, and labor input, with higher-quality seeds and adequate fertilizer boosting efficiency. Institutional support, like extension services, credit, and market access, is vital. Farmers’ education, experience, and risk preferences also affect their resource management. To improve efficiency, policymakers must enhance access to quality inputs, support institutional frameworks, and address farmers’ specific needs (Belete, 2020; Chiona et al., 2024; Ahmed et al., 2014; Bempomaa and Acquah, 2014). Table 7 below shows different production factors.

Belete (2020) found that maize seed use in Ethiopia positively affects productivity, with every additional unit of seed increasing yield by 0.006 per hectare. While important, the impact of seed is modest compared to factors like fertilizers and labor. High-quality seeds improve germination, plant growth, and pest resistance. Still, their full potential is realized only when factors like soil fertility, water availability, labor, and timely management are optimized.

Chiona et al. (2024) found a strong positive correlation (0.763) between fertilizer use and maize productivity in Zambia, emphasizing fertilizer’s crucial role in boosting yields. Proper fertilizer application significantly improves crop growth and yields in regions with nutrient-deficient soils, like Zambia. Fertilizers provide essential nutrients, such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, vital for plant development. However, challenges like high costs, limited access, and lack of knowledge hinder proper fertilizer use among smallholder farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa.

In Ethiopia, oxen use positively impacts maize productivity with a coefficient of 0.135, mainly through land preparation and transportation. Oxen are vital for ploughing and ensuring proper seedbed preparation, which is crucial for crop success. However, their impact on productivity is less significant than factors like fertilizer use. While oxen are essential for practical farming, their full potential is maximized with other inputs like fertilization and efficient labor. Due to affordability and availability issues, limited access to oxen can restrict their benefits, especially in areas lacking mechanization (Ahmed et al., 2014).

In Ethiopia, the number of farm laborers positively impacts productivity, with a coefficient of 0.140 (Debebe et al., 2015). More laborers improve productivity, especially in planting, weeding, and harvesting. However, the modest coefficient suggests that labor alone is not the primary driver of productivity. Its impact is enhanced with inputs like fertilizers, improved seeds, or mechanization. Labor shortages, particularly during peak seasons, challenge many smallholder farmers, limiting their ability to hire additional help. Addressing labor shortages, improving efficiency, and integrating labor with other productivity-boosting resources are key to maximizing farm output.

Technical inefficiency variables affecting maize production

This review highlights various factors that influence the technical inefficiency of farmers, as summarized in Table 8 below.

The negative coefficient of −0.235 for the age of the household head suggests older farmers are more technically efficient (Tenaye, 2020). Their experience enhances farm management, resource allocation, pest control, and crop suitability, leading to higher outputs. Older farmers are better attuned to local conditions, optimizing productivity. However, despite their experience, older farmers may be less inclined or financially able to adopt modern technologies, such as advanced machinery or GM crops, preferring traditional methods.

The negative coefficient of −0.0728344 for the household head’s education (Tumuri et al., 2024) indicates that higher education reduces technical inefficiency in farming. Educated farmers are more efficient as they can implement modern techniques and make informed decisions. Education also helps farmers access and interpret agricultural information. However, the small coefficient suggests education is not the sole factor influencing productivity; access to resources like extension services and credit also play key roles. Tumuri et al. (2024) and Mdoda et al. (2021) noted that education is most effective when combined with support and resources.

The study shows a negative coefficient of −0.429 for access to credit, indicating that financial support improves technical efficiency among smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa (John and Seini, 2013; Kodua et al., 2022). Access to credit enables farmers to invest in critical inputs like seeds, fertilizers, and machinery, boosting productivity and reducing inefficiencies. Farmers struggle with outdated methods, poor management, and lower crop yields without credit. Therefore, credit access is vital for improving efficiency and sustainability in farming, especially in resource-scarce regions, highlighting the need for better credit delivery mechanisms.

The study found a coefficient of −0.003 for farming experience, indicating a negative relationship between years of farming and technical inefficiency, meaning more experienced farmers are typically less inefficient (Wongnaa and Awunyo-Vitor, 2018). Experience helps farmers make better decisions regarding soil conditions, crop cycles, and pest management, improving efficiency. However, the benefit of experience is relatively small compared to factors like credit access or education. While experience improves efficiency, its impact can be limited without modern technologies or favorable market conditions.

The number of extension contacts influences technical efficiency in smallholder farming, with a negative coefficient of −0.045759 indicating a positive relationship between regular extension contact and reduced inefficiency. Farmers with frequent extension service interactions are more efficient, benefiting from knowledge, training, and guidance on modern agricultural practices (Ahmed et al., 2014). Extension services help farmers manage crops, pests, soil fertility, and irrigation, but the extension-to-farmer ratio can limit their impact. Combining these services with other resources like improved seeds, fertilizers, and market information can enhance their effectiveness in improving farm productivity.

The negative coefficient of −0.0729732 for land tenure security indicates that farmers with secure land rights are less technically inefficient (Belete, 2020). Secure land tenure encourages investment in farming practices, such as soil conservation and new technologies, as farmers can make long-term decisions without fear of losing access. In contrast, insecure land rights discourage such investments, leading to higher inefficiency. Therefore, land tenure security promotes agricultural stability, reducing inefficiency and improving productivity.

The negative coefficient of −0.1257748 for distance to markets suggests that farmers closer to markets are less technically inefficient. Proximity to markets provides easier access to selling produce, better prices, and essential inputs like seeds and fertilizers. It also facilitates the exchange of knowledge and technologies, improving farming practices. In contrast, farmers farther from markets face higher transportation costs, delays, and limited access to inputs and information, leading to inefficiency. This highlights the challenges smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa face due to poor market access, which reduces productivity.

The negative coefficient of −0.005 for fertile soils suggests that soil fertility reduces technical inefficiency. Fertile soils support higher yields, allowing farmers to achieve better productivity with fewer inputs like fertilizers or labor. However, the small coefficient indicates that while soil fertility is beneficial, other factors such as access to credit, extension services, or modern technologies may have a greater impact on efficiency. This underscores the need for a holistic approach to farming, combining good soil health with access to essential resources.

Role of extension services in enhancing efficiency

A summary of the findings regarding the impact of these services on the technical efficiency of maize farmers in the region is presented in Table 9 below.

Oluwole et al. (2021) show that extension services significantly improve technical efficiency among maize farmers. Farmers using services like improved seeds, spacing, fertilization, pest control, and storage achieved an efficiency score of 0.9138, compared to 0.5129 for those without access. This highlights the role of extension in boosting productivity through better resource use.

Similarly, Jolex (2022) found a 4% increase in efficiency among farmers using extension services, with non-users scoring 63%. Even small gains can have a significant impact when scaled. Extension services enhance knowledge in crop management, input use, pest control, and soil health, which are key to improving efficiency and sustainability.

Adem and Gebregziabher (2014) found 57% efficiency among participants versus 52% for non-participants, while Addai and Owusu (2014) confirmed reduced inefficiency in Ghanaian maize farms due to extension support. These studies show that even modest gains from extension can enhance yields and resource management.

Muzeza et al. (2023) highlighted the Command Agriculture Maize Scheme in Zimbabwe, where coordinated extension services led to high efficiency: 94% in Zvimba versus 85% in Chegutu. The difference suggests that targeted support can further improve outcomes. These findings underline the value of investing in and expanding extension services to boost technical efficiency and support smallholder farmers.

Impact of extension services on adopters of GM maize in sub-Saharan Africa

This review highlights several benefits and outcomes resulting from the impact of extension services on adopting genetically modified (GM) maize, as summarized in Table 10 below.

Kotey et al. (2016) emphasize the value of group formation in extension services, showing it boosts agricultural productivity in South Africa. Farmer groups promote peer learning, shared resources, and collective problem-solving, while improving access to inputs, credit, and new technologies like GM maize. Group-based extension enhances outcomes, especially in resource-limited areas.

Badu-Apraku et al. (2023) notes that GM maize offers 20–30% higher yields than conventional varieties, addressing pest resistance and yield instability. Extension services are key to adoption by providing knowledge and support. Gouse (2012) found Bt maize in South Africa reduced pesticide use and costs, with extension services helping farmers understand and adopt the technology. Akinbode and Bamire (2015) showed that each extension contact in Nigeria increased GM maize adoption by 3.97 units, stressing the impact of frequent, quality support.

Kaazara (2024) reports a 150.6 kg/acre yield increase among Ugandan farmers using extension services, showing the benefits of guidance on GM seeds, fertilizers, and pest control. Similarly, Makate and Makate (2019) found GM maize adoption in Zimbabwe improved yields, household consumption, and income. In all cases, extension services were vital in helping farmers unlock the full potential of GM maize and improve food security.

Barriers to adoption and efficiency gains from the adoption of GM maize.

This systematic review has identified several key constraints that hinder smallholder farmers’ adoption of GM maize. Based on the reviewed articles, these constraints are highlighted in Table 11 below.

Regulations and policies on genetically modified (GM) crops, especially GM maize, pose significant challenges for farmers in regions like Ethiopia. Mmbando (2024) and Roba (2023) note that strict regulations limit access to GM seeds, hindering adoption. In many cases, cultivation, sale, and importation of GM seeds are heavily controlled or banned. Often shaped by political resistance and delays, these policies create uncertainty for farmers, discouraging long-term investments in GM technologies. While concerns about environmental and health risks drive such regulations, they should be addressed with transparent, science-based frameworks that balance safety and the benefits of GM crops.

The high cost of GM maize seeds is a significant barrier to adoption, especially for smallholder farmers in South Africa with limited financial resources. Mulaudzi and Oyekale (2015) note that the high price stems from investments in biotechnology, intellectual property rights, and patents held by seed companies. Additionally, farmers must invest in complementary inputs like fertilizers and pesticides, further increasing costs. For those on tight budgets, these expenses can be prohibitive. Solutions like subsidies, public-private partnerships, and competitive pricing should be explored to make GM maize seeds more affordable and accessible.

Limited knowledge about GM maize is a key barrier to its adoption in Uganda, as Mustafa et al. (2023) noted. Many farmers lack exposure to modern agricultural technologies, leading to misconceptions about GM crops. These farmers may not understand how GM maize differs from conventional varieties and may have concerns about its safety and environmental impact. Misinformation can prevent them from recognizing the benefits, such as higher yields and pest resistance. Even when extension services are available, they may not effectively dispel myths. Educating farmers through outreach programs and demonstrations is essential to overcoming this challenge.

Biosafety concerns are a significant challenge to adopting GM maize in Ethiopia, as noted by Khan et al. (2024). These concerns focus on environmental risks, such as the impact on biodiversity, pest resistance, and cross-contamination with non-GM crops. There are also fears about the long-term health effects on humans and animals consuming GM crops. The lack of conclusive, long-term safety studies contributes to public uncertainty, hindering acceptance and slowing adoption, especially in regions with limited knowledge of agricultural biotechnology. These concerns lead to stricter regulations and social resistance to GM crops.

The accessibility of GM seeds is a significant barrier to adoption, especially in rural and remote areas, as Azadi et al. (2019) highlight. Even when GM maize is legally approved, logistical challenges, such as limited distribution networks, high transportation costs, and a lack of local suppliers, restrict seed availability. Smallholder farmers in isolated areas often struggle to access and afford GM seeds due to these barriers, preventing them from fully benefiting from the advantages of GM maize. This underscores the need for targeted strategies to improve seed accessibility for these farmers.

Limitation of the review

This review focused solely on studies from Sub-Saharan Africa, which may not fully reflect agricultural systems, policies, or socio-economic conditions in other regions. It included only studies from 2011 to 2024, excluding relevant research outside this period. The review may have overlooked other crop varieties with different implications for extension services and technical efficiency by concentrating on GM maize. Additionally, the review only included published studies, omitting potentially valuable unpublished sources like grey literature.

Summary of key findings

This review highlights the impact of agricultural extension services on the technical efficiency of GM maize adoption in sub-Saharan Africa. Models like Training and Visit, NAADS, and Farmer Field Schools effectively boost farmer knowledge, technology adoption, and productivity. Access to extension services increased GM maize adoption, leading to greater efficiency through pest resistance, higher yields, and reduced pesticide use.

Key factors influencing efficiency include inputs and variables like age, education, credit access, and land tenure. However, adoption still faces hurdles such as regulatory barriers, high costs, limited awareness, and biosafety concerns. Stakeholder opinions vary; some raise environmental and health concerns, while others view GM maize as vital for food security. The study recommends tailored extension services and stronger collaboration among governments, NGOs, and communities to support sustainable farming, raise productivity, and strengthen regional food security.

Recommendations for future research

Future research could focus on the impact of agricultural extension services on the income of smallholder maize farmers. This could include the effect of extension services’ income on adopters and non-adopters of GM maize seeds. Future research should explore the impact of extension services on technical efficiency in other regions and countries to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the topic. Furthermore, future research can also investigate the potential of digital technologies, such as mobile apps and online platforms, to improve the delivery and effectiveness of extension services for GM maize adoption.

References

• 1

  AbateT. W. (2024). Analysis of agricultural technology adoption: the use of improved maize seeds and its determinants in Ethiopia, evidence from eastern Amhara. J. Innov. Entrep.13:61. doi: 10.1186/s13731-024-00421-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 2

  AbbasN.SalehA.Al-AnsariN.BabyS. N. (2018). Recent Trends and Long-Range Forecasts of Water Resources of Northeast Iraq and Climate Change Adaptation Measures. Water J.10:1562–172. doi: 10.3390/w10111562

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  AddaiK. N.OwusuV. (2014). Technical efficiency of maize farmers across various agro ecological zones of Ghana. J Agric Environ Sci3, 149–172. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274138696_Exogenous_Application_of_Ascorbic_acid_Salicylic_acid_and_Hydrogen_peroxide_Improves_the_Productivity_of_Hybrid_Maize_at_Low_Temperature_Stress

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 4

  AdemM.GebregziabherK. (2014). The effect of agricultural extension program on technical efficiency of rural farm households’ evidence from northern Ethiopia: stochastic frontier approach. Int Res3, 1–21. doi: 10.3844/ajassp.2014.223.239

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 5

  AdenleA. A. (2014). Stakeholders’ perceptions of GM technology in West Africa: assessing the responses of policymakers and scientists in Ghana and Nigeria. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics27, 241–263. doi: 10.1007/s10806-013-9462-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 6

  AhmedM. H.LemmaZ.EndriasG. (2014). Technical efficiency of maize producing farmers in Arsi Negelle, central rift valley of Ethiopia: stochastic frontier approach. Agric Forestry60, 1–15. doi: Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274138696_Exogenous_Application_of_Ascorbic_acid_Salicylic_acid_and_Hydrogen_peroxide_Improves_the_Productivity_of_Hybrid_Maize_at_Low_Temperature_Stress

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 7

  AkinbodeW. O.BamireA. S. (2015). Determinants of adoption of improved maize varieties in Osun state, Nigeria. J Agric Ext Rural Dev7, 65–72. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284762254_Discontinued_use_decision_of_improved_maize_varieties_in_Osun_State_Nigeria

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 8

  Ala-KokkoK.NalleyL. L.ShewA. M.TackJ. B.ChaminukaP.MatlockM. D.et al. (2021). Economic and ecosystem impacts of GM maize in South Africa. Glob. Food Secur.29:100544. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100544

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 9

  ArowosegbeO. B.AlomajaO. A.TiamiyuB. B. (2024). The role of agricultural extension workers in transforming agricultural supply chains: enhancing innovation, technology adoption, and ethical practices in Nigeria. World J. Adv. Res. Rev.23, 2585–2602. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2024.1463208

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 10

  AzadiY.YazdanpanahM.MahmoudiH.. (2019). Understanding smallholder farmers’ adaptation behaviors through climate change beliefs, risk perception, trust, and psychological distance: evidence from wheat growers in Iran. J. Environ. Manag.250:109456. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109456

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 11

  Badu-AprakuB.FakoredeM. A.NelimorC.OsumanA. S.BonkoungouT. O.MuhyideenO.et al. (2023). Recent advances in breeding maize for drought, heat and combined heat and drought stress tolerance in sub-saharan Africa. CABI Reviews2023, 1–12.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 12

  BeleteA. S. (2020). Analysis of technical efficiency in maize production in Guji zone: stochastic frontier model. Agric. Food Secur.9, 1–15. doi: 10.1186/s40066-020-00270-w

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 13

  BempomaaB.AcquahH. D. G. (2014). Technical efficiency analysis of maize production: evidence from Ghana. Appl Stu Agribusiness Commerce8, 73–79. doi: 10.19041/APSTRACT/2014/2-3/9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 14

  CairnsJ. E.ChamberlinJ.RutsaertP.VossR. C.NdhlelaT.MagorokoshoC. (2021). Challenges for sustainable maize production of smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. J. Cereal Sci.101:103274. doi: 10.1016/j.jcs.2021.103274

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 15

  CarelsenC. P. R.NcubeB.FanadzoM. (2021). Classification and characterisation of smallholder farmers in South Africa: a brief review. S. Afr. J. Agric. Ext.49, 97–106. doi: 10.17159/2413-3221/2021/v49n2a12821

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 16

  CatherineK. N.MugiiraB. R.MuchiriN. J. (2024). Public perception of genetically modified organisms and the implementation of biosafety measures in Kenya. Adv. Agric.2024:5544617. doi: 10.1155/2024/5544617

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 17

  ChikowoR.ZingoreS.SnappS.JohnstonA. (2014). Farm typologies, soil fertility variability and nutrient management in smallholder farming in sub-Saharan Africa. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst.100, 1–18. doi: 10.1007/s10705-014-9632-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 18

  ChionaS.KalindaT.TemboG. (2024). Stochastic frontier analysis of the technical efficiency of smallholder maize farmers in Central Province, Zambia. J Agric. Sci.6:108.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 19

  Danso-AbbeamG.EhiakporD. S.AidooR. (2018). Agricultural extension and its effects on farm productivity and income: insight from northern Ghana. Agric. Food Secur.7, 1–10. doi: 10.1186/s40066-018-0225-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 20

  DebebeS.HajiJ.GoshuD.EdrissA. K. (2015). Technical, allocative, and economic efficiency among smallholder maize farmers in southwestern Ethiopia: parametric approach. J. Dev. Agric. Econ.7, 282–291. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343948915_Speed_of_Improved_Maize_Seed_Adoption_by_Smallholders_Farmers_in_Southwestern_Ethiopia_Analysis_Using_the_Count_Data_Models

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 21

  Di FalcoS. (2018). Adapting to climate change in sub-Saharan Africa. Agricultural adaptation to climate change in Africa. New York, NY: Resources of the Future Press.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 22

  DjoumessiY. F. (2022). New trend of agricultural productivity growth in sub-Saharan Africa. Sci. Afr.18:e01410. doi: 10.1016/j.sciaf.2022.e01410

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 23

  DokyiE.AnangB. T.OwusuV. (2021). Impacts of improved seed maize technology adoption on productivity and technical efficiency in northern Ghana. Open Econ.4, 118–132. doi: 10.1515/openec-2020-0102

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 24

  EkpaO.Palacios-RojasN.KrusemanG.FoglianoV.LinnemannA. R. (2018). Sub-saharan African maize-based foods: technological perspectives to increase the food and nutrition security impacts of maize breeding programmes. Glob. Food Secur.17, 48–56. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2018.03.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 25

  FischerK.van den BergJ.MutengwaC. (2015). Is Bt maize effective in improving south African smallholder agriculture?S. Afr. J. Sci.111, 01–02. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2015.06.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 26

  GcabaK.ChristianM.UsapfaL. (2024). Does the adoption of genetically modified seeds improve the technical efficiency of family-owned maize farms? A case of Alfred Nzo in the eastern cape. South Afr. J. Agric. Exte. (SAJAE)52, 148–165. doi: 10.17159/2413-3221/2024/v52n4a18386

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 27

  GebretsadikK.KifluA. (2018). Challenges and opportunities of genetically modified crops production; future perspectives in Ethiopia, review. Open Agric. J.12, 240–250. doi: 10.2174/1874331501819010240

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 28

  GillerK. E. (2020). The food security conundrum of sub-Saharan Africa. Glob. Food Secur.26:100431. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100431

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 29

  GouseM. (2012). GM maize as subsistence crop: The south African smallholder experience. Cham: Springer.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 30

  HabibN. (2024). Omission in adoption: whole of systems approach applied to case study analysis of genetically modifi ed (GM) maize adoption in eastern Cape Province South Africa. MSD J. Agric. Scie. Appl. Econ.1, 1–22. doi: 10.1007/s13369-024-08776-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 31

  JohnK. M.SeiniW. (2013). Technical efficiency analysis of maize farmers in the eastern region of Ghana. J. Soc. Dev. Sci.4, 84–99. Available at: https://ojs.amhinternational.com/index.php/jsds/article/view/739/739

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 32

  JolexA. (2022). Influence of agricultural extension services on technical efficiency of maize farmers in Malawi. Afr. J. Agric. Res. Econ.17, 92–105. doi: 10.53936/afjare.2022.17(1).6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 33

  KaazaraA. G. (2024). Biotechnology and agricultural productivity: A case study of maize farmers in Iganga. Metropolitan J. Bus. Econ.3, 386–395.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 34

  KapariM.Hlophe-GinindzaS.NhamoL.MpandeliS. (2023). Contribution of smallholder farmers to food security and opportunities for resilient farming systems. Front. Sustain. Food Syst.7:1149854. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2023.1149854

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 35

  KavhizaN. J.ZargarM.PrikhodkoS. I.PakinaE. N.MurtazovaK. M. S.NakhaevM. R. (2022). Improving crop productivity and ensuring food security through the adoption of genetically modified crops in sub-Saharan Africa. Agronomy12:439. doi: 10.3390/agronomy12020439

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 36

  KedissoE. G.MarediaK.GuenthnerJ.KochM. (2022). Commercialization of genetically modified crops in Africa: opportunities and challenges. Afr. J. Biotechnol.21, 188–197. doi: 10.5897/AJB2021.17434

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 37

  KhanG. M.SeidE.AbduS. (2024). Genetically modified crops: their advantages, challenges and role in food security in pastoral region afar, Ethiopia: a review: genetically modified crops. Life Sci. Leaflets170, 15–27. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 38

  KimaniS. (2024). The role of agricultural innovation in enhancing food security in sub-Saharan Africa. Int. J. Dev. Country Stu.6, 58–73. doi: 10.47941/ijdcs.2164

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 39

  KoduaT.Ebo OnumahE.Mensah-BonsuA. (2022). Technical efficiency of improved and local variety seed maize farms in Ghana: a meta-frontier analysis. Cogent Econ. Finance10:2022858. doi: 10.1080/23322039.2021.2022858

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 40

  KoteyD. A.AssefaY.ObiA.Van den BergJ. (2016). Disseminating genetically modified (GM) maize technology to smallholder farmers in the eastern cape province of South Africa: extension personnel’s awareness of stewardship requirements and dissemination practices. South Afr. J. Agric. Extension44, 59–74.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 41

  MabayaE.FultonJ.Simiyu-WafukhoS.Nang'ayoF. (2015). Factors influencing adoption of genetically modified crops in Africa. Dev. South. Afr.32, 577–591. doi: 10.1080/0376835X.2015.1044078

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 42

  MadzivanziraT.MvumiB. M.NazareR. M.NyakudyaE.MtambanengweF.MapfumoP. (2024). A review of appropriate mechanisation systems for sustainable traditional grain production by smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa with particular reference to Zimbabwe. Heliyon10:e36695. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36695

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  MagakweN.OlorunfemiO. A. (2024). Systematic review of the trends, effects, and deterrents of collective marketing participation among smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. Sustainability16:9578. doi: 10.3390/su16219578

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  MakateC.MakateM. (2019). Interceding role of institutional extension services on the livelihood impacts of drought tolerant maize technology adoption in Zimbabwe. Technol. Soc.56, 126–133. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.09.011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  MarteyE.EtwireP. M.KuwornuJ. K. (2020). Economic impacts of smallholder farmers’ adoption of drought-tolerant maize varieties. Land Use Policy94:104524. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104524

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  MdodaL.ObiA.ChristianM.JibaP. (2021). Technical efficiency of maize-based farm irrigators in the eastern cape province. J. Agribus. Rural Dev.62, 371–381.

  • Google Scholar

• 47

  MergaG.SileshiM.ZelekeF. (2023). Welfare impact of improved maize varieties adoption among smallholder farmers in Amuru district of Horo Guduru Wollega, Ethiopia. Cogent Econ. Finance11:2207923. doi: 10.1080/23322039.2023.2207923

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  MmbandoG. (2024). The adoption of genetically modified crops in Africa: the public’s current perception, the regulatory obstacles, and ethical challenges. GM Crops & Food15, 1–15. doi: 10.1080/21645698.2024.2345401

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  MulaudziV. S.OyekaleA. S. (2015). Smallholder farmer's adoption intensity of genetically modified maize varieties in Thulamela municipality, Limpopo province, South Africa. Environ. Econ.6, 104–112. Available at: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.businessperspectives.org/images/pdf/applications/publishing/templates/article/assets/6426/ee_2015_01_Mulaudzi.pdf

  • Google Scholar

• 50

  MushunjeA.MuchaonyerwaP.MandikianaB. W.TaruvingaA. (2011). Smallholder farmers’ perceptions on Bt maize and their relative influence towards its adoption: the case of Mqanduli communal area, South Africa. Afr. J. Agric. Res.6, 5918–5923. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235418537_Smallholder_Farmers_Perceptions_on_Bt_Maize_and_their_relative_Influence_towards_its_Adoption_The_Case_of_Mqanduli_Communal_Area_South_Africa

  • Google Scholar

• 51

  MustafaA. S.SsenkuJ. E.NyachwoE. B.RutoG. C.BunaniN.MusimamiG.et al. (2023). Assessing knowledge and willingness to use genetically modified crops in Uganda. Agric. Food Secur.12:28. doi: 10.1186/s40066-023-00434-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  MuzezaN. T.TaruvingaA.MukarumbwaP. (2023). Analysis of factors affecting technical efficiency of A1 smallholder maize farmers under command agriculture scheme in Zimbabwe: the case of Chegutu and Zvimba districts. Cogent Econ. Finance11:2163543. doi: 10.1080/23322039.2022.2163543

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  MuzhinjiN.NtuliV. (2021). Genetically modified organisms and food security in southern Africa: conundrum and discourse. GM Crops & Food12, 25–35. doi: 10.1080/21645698.2020.1794489

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  NgcinelaS.MushunjeA.TaruvingaA.NgaravaS.MutengwaC. S. (2019). Determinants of genetically modified (GM) maize adoption and the intensity of adoption in OR Tambo District municipality, eastern Cape Province, South Africa. GM Crops Food10, 1–11. doi: 10.1080/21645698.2019.1580127

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  NwaforC. U.OgundejiA. A.NwaforI. C. (2021). Review of agricultural extension and advisory services in Sub-Saharan African countries. Progress with private sector involvement. J. Agribusiness Rural Dev.3, 1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114321

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  NyamboD. G.LuhangaE. T.YonahZ. Q. (2019). A review of characterization approaches for smallholder farmers: towards predictive farm typologies. Sci. World J.2019:6121467.

  • Google Scholar

• 57

  NyamboP.NyamboP.MavunganidzeZ.NyamboV. (2022). “Sub-Saharan Africa smallholder farmers agricultural productivity: risks and challenges” in Food security for African smallholder farmers. eds. MupambwaH. A.NciizahA. D.NyamboP. (Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore), 47–58.

  • Google Scholar

• 58

  OdusolaA. (2017). “Agriculture, rural poverty and income inequality in sub-Saharan Africa,” in Income Inequality Trends in Sub-Saharan Africa: Divergence, Determinants and Consequences.

  • Google Scholar

• 59

  OluwoleO. O.AworunseO. S.AinaA. I.OyesolaO. L.PopoolaJ. O.OyatomiO. A.et al. (2021). A review of biotechnological approaches towards crop improvement in African yam bean (Sphenostylis stenocarpa Hochst. Ex A. Rich.).. Heliyon.7:e08481. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08481

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  PanY.SmithS. C.SulaimanM. (2018). Agricultural extension and technology adoption for food security: evidence from Uganda. Am. J. Agric. Econ.100, 1012–1031. doi: 10.1093/ajae/aay012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  RobaA. A.AssefaN.RobaK. T.DessieY.HamlerE.FawziW.et al. (2023). Association between dietary protein intake, diet quality and diversity, and obesity among women of reproductive age in Kersa, Ethiopia. Front Public Health.14:1258515. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1258515

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  SchnurrM. A.Dowd-UribeB. (2021). Anticipating farmer outcomes of three genetically modified staple crops in sub-Saharan Africa: insights from farming systems research. J. Rural. Stud.88, 377–387. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.08.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  SigigabaM.MdodaL.MditshwaA. (2021). Adoption drivers of improved open-pollinated (OPVs) maize varieties by smallholder farmers in the eastern cape province of South Africa. Sustainability13:13644. doi: 10.3390/su132413644

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  SimanjuntakC.GaiserT.AhrendsH. E.CeglarA.SinghM.EwertF.et al. (2023). Impact of climate extreme events and their causality on maize yield in South Africa. Sci. Rep.13:12462. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-38921-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  SomanjeA. N.MohanG.SaitoO. (2021). Evaluating farmers’ perception toward the effectiveness of agricultural extension services in Ghana and Zambia. Agric. Food Secur.10, 1–16. Available at: https://agricultureandfoodsecurity.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40066-021-00325-6

  • Google Scholar

• 66

  TayeH. (2013). Evaluating the impact of agricultural extension programmes in sub-Saharan Africa: challenges and prospects. African Evaluation J.1:9. doi: 10.5194/hess-15-209-2011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  TenayeA. (2020). Technical efficiency of smallholder agriculture in developing countries: the case of Ethiopia. Economies8:34. doi: 10.3390/economies8020034

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  TumuriA.GeletaD.SimeG. (2024). Technical efficiency of maize production and their determinants among smallholder farmers in Ethiopia: a case study in Sidama region. Cogent Food Agric.10:2392045. doi: 10.1080/23311932.2024.2392045

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  VianaC. M.FreireD.AbrantesP.RochaJ.PereiraP. (2022). Agricultural land systems importance for supporting food security and sustainable development goals: A systematic review. Sci. Total Environ.806:150718. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150718

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  WeldegebrielH. (2015). The determinants of technical efficiency of farmers in Teff, maize and Sorghum production: empirical evidence from central zone of Tigray region. Ethiopian J. Econ.23, 1–36. doi: 10.22004/AG.ECON.259394

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  WigginsS.KeatsS. (2013). Leaping and learning: Linking smallholders to markets in Africa. London: Agriculture for Impact, Imperial College and Overseas Development Institute (ODI). Available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/35246

  • Google Scholar

• 72

  WongnaaC. A.Awunyo-VitorD. (2018). Achieving sustainable development goals on no poverty and zero hunger: does technical efficiency of Ghana’s maize farmers matter?Agric. Food Secur.7, 1–13. doi: 10.1186/s40066-018-0223-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  ZambranoP.Wood-SichraU.RuhindukaR. D.PhillipD.Nin PrattA.KomenJ.et al. (2022). Opportunities for Orphan Crops: Expected Economic Benefits from Biotechnology. Front. Plant Sci.13:825930. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.825930

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar