The goal of this research is to create an agri-business model to create uses for tomato crop farmers in Rwanda. This study places special focus on addressing the lack of value addition in tomato crop farm leftovers and investigates the current state of farm leftover utilization as a method of dealing with tomato cultivation difficulties as well as related issues.
The research study used an exploratory mixed-method research design and the researcher interviewed and surveyed specified and identified tomato farmers as well as trainers/lecturers and other who are involved in horticulture sector using structured instrument, validated from previous pilot study. A total of 64 individuals were selected. Respondents recorded, transcribed, and verified the interview data for the research. The data was subsequently analyzed using NVIVO12 analytic software, which resulted in the establishment of data-driven prominent themes and in inclusion of important themes while the survey data from the spreadsheet was in conversion model to provide statistical data.
As a result, agricultural farm leftovers are produced in significant numbers each year. The most frequent crop farm wastes are stems and leaves, although roots may also be discovered in tomato fields. The bulk of tomato crop residue is allowed in fields to decay naturally, while some are kept for mulch and animal feed.
The study's findings indicated that farmers make no more money, no matter what they do with tomato crop farm leftovers. Composting can generate some income for them, but it is not done properly. The major reasons for tomato crop farm leftovers not being turned into other valuable crop-based goods include farmers' lack of knowledge and skills in tomato crop value addition, as well as a lack of farmer-academia collaboration. The technical requirements revealed in the results are mentorship and training in value addition, particularly in tomato residue value-added, as well as training of trainers in modern farming; however, compost manufacturing, value chain development, modern farming technologies, post-harvest technology and handling, and value addition are the most important for tomato farmers.
These findings fuelled the development of several options, but the construction of a farmer field school for composting tomato crop farm leftovers was the most conservative, safe, and risk-averse option as an agribusiness model for collaboration.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
DECLARATION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
DEDICATION
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
ACRONYMS
1.1. Introduction
1.2. Background to the Institution
1.3. Background to the problem
1.4. Problem Statement
1.5. Study Questions
1.6. The Aim of the research
1.7. Objectives of the Study
1.8. Research Design and Methodology
1.9. Research Instruments
1.10. Sample Frame
1.11. Data Capture and Analysis
1.12. Summary of the chapter
1.13. Outline of the Remaining Chapters
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Introduction
2.2. Definitions of key concepts
2.3. Introduction to Value Chain
2.4. Tomato Value Chain
2.5. Agricultural Value Chain
2.6. Tomato Production and Food Security
2.7. Rwandan Tomato Production
2.7.1. Rwandan Tomato Farming Districts
2.7.2. Seasons of Tomato Production in Rwanda
2.7.3. Tomato Production Challenges in Rwanda
2.7.4. Agricultural Crop Leftovers
2.7.5. Products produced from crop farm leftovers
2.7.6. Creating a Competitive and Long-Term Horticulture Business Model
2.7.7. Entrepreneurship for social good
2.7.8. Mixing of small farmers and giant agricultural corporations
2.7.9. Technological skill development and organizational learning
2.8. Summary and Conclusions
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
3.1. Introduction
3.2. Explanation of the research issue
3.3. Research Questions
3.4. Research Objectives
3.5. Research Design and Methodology
3.6. Sample Frame
3.6.1. Sampling Methodology
3.6.2. Sample Size
3.7. Data Collection Methods and Instruments
3.7.1. Pilot Testing and Questionnaire Administration
3.8. Data Processing and Analysis
3.8. Summary and Conclusions
CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA
4.1 Introduction
4.2. Presentation of the Results
4.2.1. Background Information
4.2.2. The quantity and application of Crop Farm Leftovers
4.2.3. Markets for Tomatoes
4.2.4: Quantity of tomato crop farm leftovers and applications
4.2.5. Potential Tomato Value added
4.2.6. Partnership/Collaboration
4.2.7. Areas of potential partnership with PIASS
4.2.8. Benefits from the Collaboration
4.3. Presentation of Qualitative Results
4.3.1. Presentation of results based on the diagram
4.4. Conclusions on research objectives
4.5. Data limitations
4.6. Summary and Conclusions.
CHAPTER 5: GENERATION AND EVALUATION OF OPTIONS
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Generation of Options
5.3. Analysis of the realistic Options
5.4. Conclusion.
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION
6.1 Introduction
6.2. Main Findings of the Study.
6.3 Data Gaps, Anomalies or Deviations
6.4 Presentation of Joint Agri-Business Model
6.5. Implementation Plan and Cost Estimates
6.5.1: Objective
6.5.2. Project Management and Timeline
6.5.3 Cost Estimation
6.6. Challenges and Problems
6.7. Summary and Conclusions
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Organisation Perspective
7.2.1 Organizational Tangible and Intangible Benefits
7.3. Personal Learning Perspective
7.4. Problem, Research Process and Challenges
7.5. Learning Outcomes
7.5.1. Strategic Policy Development
7.5.2 Entrepreneurship
7.5.3 Decision-making
7.5.4 Ethical Responsibility
7.5.5. Cooperation
7.5.6 Communication
7.5.7. Analysing, information-processing and problem-solving abilities
7.5.8 Learning and personal development
7.6. Study Conclusion
Bibliography
Appendix 1: Tomato crop Farmers’ survey
Appendix 2: Interview Guide and Consent Form
Interview Checklist for PIASS trainer /lecturer
Interview Checklist for Sector Agronomist
Interview Checklist for RAB
Interview Checklist for NAEB
Interview Checklist for UR/CAVEM -Lecturer
Interview Checklist for RP/IPRC Huye and Kitabi trainer.
Interview Checklist for Cash crop
Interview Checklist for PSF
ABSTRACT
The goal of this research is to create an agri-business model to create uses for tomato crop farmers in Rwanda. This study places special focus on addressing the lack of value addition in tomato crop farm leftovers and investigates the current state of farm leftover utilization as a method of dealing with tomato cultivation difficulties as well as related issues.
The research study used an exploratory mixed-method research design and the researcher interviewed and surveyed specified and identified tomato farmers as well as trainers/lecturers and other who are involved in horticulture sector using structured instrument, validated from previous pilot study. A total of 64 individuals were selected, 50 were surveyed, and 14 interviews were performed. Respondents recorded, transcribed, and verified the interview data for the research. The data was subsequently analyzed using NVIVO12 analytic software, which resulted in the establishment of data-driven prominent themes and in inclusion of important themes while the survey data from the spread sheet was in conversion model to provide statistical data (based on respondent mention and literature relevance), from which pertinent conclusions were drawn.
Based on the data, it was inferred that tomato cultivation is done on a modest scale in the Simbi sector. These are small-holder farmers who have individual farmers and produce a moderate amount of primary tomato crop. As a result, agricultural farm leftovers are produced in significant numbers each year. The most frequent crop farm wastes are stems and leaves, although roots may also be discovered in tomato fields. The bulk of tomato crop residue is allowed in fields to decay naturally, while some are kept for mulch and animal feed.
The study's findings indicated that farmers make no more money, no matter what they do with tomato crop farm leftovers. Composting can generate some income for them, but it is not done properly. The major reasons for tomato crop farm leftovers not being turned into other valuable crop-based goods include farmers' lack of knowledge and skills in tomato crop value addition, as well as a lack of farmer-academia collaboration. The technical requirements revealed in the results are mentorship and training in value addition, particularly in tomato residue value-added, as well as training of trainers in modern farming; however, compost manufacturing, value chain development, modern farming technologies, post-harvest technology and handling, and value addition are the most important for tomato farmers.
These findings fuelled the development of several options, but the construction of a farmer field school for composting tomato crop farm leftovers was the most conservative, safe, and risk-averse option as an agribusiness model for collaboration. All people involved would have the common aim of carrying out the project to create value added from tomato crop farm leftovers that would benefit tomato growers.
The PIASS research committee will review and modify, or approve, the study's findings and recommendations, paying special attention to the technical requirements for creating value added from tomato crop farm leftovers, personnel and training requirements for the proposed agribusiness model, and finalization of the specific process and outcome metrics for implementation.
DECLARATION
I, Leondas Maniraho, N99, declare that this Master's thesis , "An Agri-Business Model to Create Uses for Tomato Crop Farmers in Rwanda," conducted under the supervision of Prof. Billy Coop is my original work, and to the highest possible standard, it comprises no previously reported or written material by any person, or material that has been approved for the granting of any other degree or certificate at BSN or any other academic institution, save when proper acknowledgment is made.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Grateful you to everyone who took part in this research, offering their expertise and placing their faith in me. Special thanks to the Dutch government's Orange Knowledge Programme (OKP) for funding this MBA-Food Security scholarship. My gratitude also goes to Juanita Bouwer, Nazlie Johnson, and BSN set Advisor for being my BSN go-to and day-extender, as well as Professor Billy Coop for being my conversation partner.
Thank you to the BSN core professors for your professional teaching; I learned a lot from you. Your efforts have been recognized, and the PIASS leadership has provided me with the opportunity to study. More gratitude to Rev. Catherine Day for her outstanding work in proof reading and editing. Finally, all respondents who agreed to contribute to this scientific research please know that your efforts are appreciated.
DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicated to my innocent family members who were killed in Rwanda during the Tutsi genocide in 1994. Belise E.Uwicyeza, my co-pilot and partner in crime, for always being a rock of support, inspiration, and love.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Value chain Micro-Meso-Macro level
Figure 2.2: The tomato food value chain
Figure 2.3: Tomato Value Chains
Figure 3.4: Researcher’s Adaptation of Creswell's Data Analysis Spiral
Figure 4.1: Respondents' Demographic Information
Figure 4.2: Ranking of markets of tomatoes
Figure 4.3: The quantity of tomato crop farm leftovers and applications
Figure 4.4: Tomato Value added
Figure 4.5: Information for PIASS
Figure 4.6: Potential areas for partnership with PIASS
Figure 4.7: Benefits from the Partnership
Figure 4.8: NVIVO Data Driven Theme Codes
Figure 4.9: NVIVO Data Analysis Theme Results
Figure 5.1: Joint Agri-business Model Innovation (PIASS and Farmers)
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Category of Respondents and Key Informants
Table 4.1: The quantity of tomato production
Table 5.1: Cost benefits analysis for Option 1
Table 5.2: Cost benefits analysis for Option 2
Table 5.3: Cost benefits analysis for Option 3
Table 5.4: Cost benefits analysis for Option 4
Table 5.5: Summury of the Options
Table 6.1: Legends for Table 6
Table 6.2: Famer Field School Composting Tomato Crop Farm Leftovers Project Plan and RACI Matrix
Table 6.3: Pilot Cost Estimates
LIST OF PHOTOS
Photo 2.1: Composting Tomato leftovers
ACRONYMS
ALP: Action Learning Project
AVC: Agricultural Value Chains
BSN: Business School Netherlands
CAP: Community-Academic Partnering
CSR: Corporate Social Responsibility
FFS: Farmer Field School
FFS-TCCFL: Farmer Field School-Compost Tomato Crop Farm Leftovers
FFS-VC: Farmer Field School- Value Chain
FFS-CTCFL: Farmer Field School-Composting Tomato Crop Farm Leftovers
FFS-MFT: Farmer Field School-Modern Farming Technology
FFS-PHHT: Farmer Field School-Post Harvest Handling and Technology
HEI: Higher Education Institution
ICT: Information and Communication Technology
MBA: Masters of Business Administration
NAEB: National Agriculture and Export development Board.
PRA: Participatory Rural Assessment
PIASS: Protestant Institute of Arts and Social Sciences
RAB: Rwanda Agriculture and Animal resources development Board.
RACI: Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed
ROI: Return on Investment
ToT: Training of Trainers.
USD: United State Dollar
VC: Value Chain
VCD: Value Chain Development
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Introduction
“The population of Rwanda will be around 21 million in 2050, and it is expected that the agricultural sector will produce wealth, according to Rwanda Vision 2050. To do so, modern agricultural technology that can withstand climate change, as well as improvements in input efficiency, will be used. The sector has played and will continue to play an essential role in economic growth and poverty reduction" (MINECOFIN, 2020).
Food security exists when all individuals have societal, financial, and physical, accessible to adequate, secure, and health nourishment that meets their nutritional demands and culinary choices at all times in order to live a good health and lifestyle, many emerging countries' food security has deteriorated (Committee on World Food Security, 2009).
Roger (2014) described value chains as a sequence of interrelated activities that seek to increase the value of a product; it comprises of actors and activities that enhance a commodity while linking commodities producers to processors and marketplaces. Value chains (VC) are distinct from supply chains, which pertain to logistics: the transportation, storage, and administrative processes required to get a commodity from its manufacturing location to the customer. They permit actors to manufacture higher-quality commodities and earn more revenue for all players in the supply chain.
Agri-food VC are designed to gain a competitive edge by collaboration in a partnership that brings together producers, processors, marketers, food service firms, retailers, and helping teams such as transporters, research teams, and providers. Value chain (VC) is a joint operation of interconnected enterprises that collaborate to progressively build value for the final customer, ending in a combined strategic advantage (Ovidijus, 2021).
The researcher has a background in agricultural sciences with a Bachelor’s degree in Agri-business and Rural development and an MBA with a major in Agricultural Management and Rural Development. The researcher has been employed at PIASS since 2016 as a lecturer in Agricultural Marketing, responsible for the supervision of undergraduate research projects and conducting individual or joint research studies. In addition, the researcher oversees the International Exchange program within the university and acts as the central point of contact for incoming and outgoing exchanges for the international exchange network and students.
This study investigates the possibility of identifying potential value addition activities for tomato crop farm leftovers, which will eventually result in the growth of an agribusiness model that will allow farmers to ensure food security while protecting the environment. Furthermore, the researcher gained insights into the horticultural tomato value chain.
1.2. Background to the Institution
The Protestant Institute of Arts and Social Sciences (PIASS) is a religious higher private education institution owned by 5 Protestant churches in Rwanda. It was founded in 2010 in Butare, Huye District, as well as Rwanda's Southern Region. The institution is based on the Protestant Theological Faculty (FTPB), which was established in 1990 to replace the School of Theology of Butare (ETB) that was set up in 1970.
The university's vision is inspired by Christian ethics and values and promotes knowledge development and research that is relevant to society. The mission of PIASS is to deliver employees that are very well trained, eager, and remedy-oriented, devoted, and prepared enough intellectual instruments to fulfill the specific needs of societies transitioning to a planet that is international, contemporary, and diverse.
PIASS offers both undergraduate and post-graduate degrees on both of its campuses. Both are located within Rwanda, one in the southern province (Headquarters) and one in the western province. Although both PIASS campuses are in Rwanda, they are in different provinces with distinct social and political structures.
Higher Learning Institutions have a mandate to be excellent leaders in teaching, learning, and community outreach, as well as in education, research, and technology (UNESCO, 2021). The university can help continue providing new skills, information, and training needed to solve the community's difficulties of sustainable development such as a knowledge gap of formal problem-solving collaboration between tomato farmers in the Simbi sector and PIASS as joint efforts to address tomato farming challenges such as farm-leftovers valorization.
1.3. Background to the problem
Rwanda has a strong agricultural competitive base based on natural environment elements such as a favorable climate, abundant rainfall, fertile soils, and sufficient labour force to produce high-quality and competitive horticultural products (RDB, 2020). This favorable farming environment enables farmers to produce sufficient quantities of tomatoes throughout the year (Kitinoja et al., 2019; Trienekens, 2011).
The primary production of tomatoes generates a large amount of crop farm-leftovers that are not yet profitably used, and when they are improperly managed, they become a source of environmental issues such as air pollution, crop diseases, and contribute to climate change issues (Tshiala et al., 2010).
PIASS as a higher education institute with a mandate of teaching, research, and community outreach, is not generally contributing enough to local farming challenges through courses such as rural economic transformation, including microfinance and agribusiness, creativity and technological innovation, development of rural based-industries, and agricultural economics.
Due to the lack of a formal problem-solving partnership, between tomato farmers in the Simbi sector and PIASS to address tomato farming challenges, there is a knowledge gap (e.g., valorization of farm leftovers). This is one of the first steps toward establishing a tomato farming business along with the enhancement and application of the Institution's practical training and applied research. The issue impedes farmer development and conceals PIASS's capabilities. There has been no conducted or published research on the farmer-academia collaboration agri-business model in Huye District of southern province, where PIASS has its headquarters; thus, the significance of this research will be undertaken in the above-mentioned area as notable inputs of PIASS in problem-solving of surrounding community as requested by district authorities.
1.4. Problem Statement
In the Huye district, there is a lack of value addition for tomato crop farm leftovers, which has an impact on smart agriculture and food security.
1.5. Study Questions
The following major questions guided this research:
1. What are the estimated quantities and current applications of tomato crop farm leftovers in the Simbi sector?
2. What are some of the potential value-added processes that can be applied to tomato crop farm leftovers?
The operational questions are addressed in detail in Chapter 3 of the research.
1.6. The Aim of the research
The purpose of this research study was to address the absence of value added in tomato crop farm leftovers and to propose long-term solutions. Realizing potential value-added operations, and to look into the current state of farm leftovers utilization as well to develop a model of agri-business partnership between tomato growers in the Simbi sector and PIASS as a means of addressing tomato cultivation difficulties and related problems.
1.7. Objectives of the Study
The research's major purpose is to discover potential value-added enterprises using tomato crop farm leftovers in the Simbi Sector.
The specific envisaged objectives are:
1. Conduct a critical scholarly study on tomato crop value added in the Simbi Sector,
2. Identify research gaps in tomato crop-based product development,
3. Estimate the quantities of tomato crop leftovers and determine their current status of utilizing in the Simbi sector,
4. Propose a joint agri-business model between Simbi sector tomato farmers and PIASS in order to identify financial advantages possibilities for tomato crop farm-leftovers.
1.8. Research Design and Methodology
An exploratory research design with a mixed-method approach was used in the study to identify potential value addition activities for tomato crop farm leftovers and investigate current farm leftovers utilization. Ghauri and Gronhaug (2005) discuss and describe research design as a broad approach for writers doing empirical research with a research challenge. As a result, the study’s research design can serve as a guide, perhaps enhancing and expediting data gathering and analysis (Rogerlberg, 2004, Leedy & Ormrod, 2015).
To achieve the study's research aims, both qualitative and quantitative research approaches were utilized.
The primary advantage of qualitative research is that it works best with small samples and delivers conclusions that are neither quantitative nor measurable. Its key advantage, which also serves as its fundamental differentiation from quantitative research, is that it gives a full explanation and analysis of a study-issue without limiting the study's goal or the kind of participant replies (Christensen et al., 2014).
Nevertheless, the efficiency of qualitative studies is highly dependent on the investigators' talents and abilities, and the findings may not be seen as reliable since they are focused mostly on the author's personal thoughts and judgments. Even though it is ideally applicable to low groups, the study findings may be misunderstood as representing the opinions of a wider community (Leedy & Ormrod, 2015:269).
The quantitative research was used to supplement the qualitative research because it is more appropriate for large samples with quantifiable data. Participants in the study included tomato farmers who had been laid off and leaders in the Simbi sector. The study also included horticulture actors and PIASS trainers from the departments of rural and community development, natural resources, and environmental management.
1.9. Research Instruments
The researcher was the research instrument and primary medium, through which the study was conducted, and the study used face-to-face interviews with semi-structured questions and conducted a survey with designed questionnaires. Because only qualitative data provided the university perspective, horticulture actors from both the public and commercial sectors were involved in the interview. It was necessary to carry out a survey to evaluate farmer crop leftovers. The observation of tomato farms played an important role in observing tomato farm-leftovers in the Simbi sector.
1.10. Sample Frame
The sample size was 64 people, including fifty (50) individual tomato farmers from different cells in the Simbi Sector, three trainers from the department of rural and community development at PIASS, and one from the department of natural resources and environmental management. One Simbi agronomist sector, one horticulturalist from RAB-Rubona station, one cash crop in Huye district, there was one technician from the National Agricultural Export Development Board (NAEB), and one representative from the private sector federation.
The samples were chosen with care (Christensen et al., 2014). In addition, five key informants were purposefully chosen from public and private institutions to even provide additional details based on their significant involvement as well as experience in agriculture sector development.
1.11. Data Capture and Analysis
In terms of data gathering instruments, a semi-structured questionnaire was used in the research study as an interview guide for the researcher. Questions were prepared to assist the researcher to steer the interview toward the attainment of study objectives, but additional questions were asked during the interview.
The researcher collected both primary and secondary data, and the qualitative (interviews) data were analyzed using NVIVO 12 software. Moore and McCabe (2005) stated that this is the form of study in which data is organized into themes and sub-themes for comparison. To acquire quantitative (survey) data, structured questionnaires were employed. The purpose was to categorize traits, count them, and develop statistical models to attempt to explain what was found by Yin, (2009). However, Microsoft Excel was used to analyze mathematical data for this study.
1.12. Summary of the chapter
The first chapter introduced the researcher's position within the agricultural industry on achieving food security through the Agri-value chain for tomato crop farm leftovers in the Simbi sector of Huye district, which is close to the PIASS headquarters. Furthermore, the chapter discusses how a lack of value addition of tomato crop farm leftovers is affecting smart agriculture and food security, and how this study would therefore generate a mutual agri-business framework between Simbi and PIASS as a workable approach to tomato crop cultivation obstacles and related complications.
Chapter 1 also introduced the concepts of food security, Agri-value chain, and tomato value-chain, on which the study will maintain a primary and secondary special focus, noting these agricultural concepts as relevant modern trends that drive food security. The research questions, study purpose, and research objectives have been detailed, as have the research design and methodology. The research instruments and sample frame are presented, along with reasoning for the sample frame. The data collection and analysis methods were presented, bringing chapter 1 of this study to a close.
1.13. Outline of the Remaining Chapters
Chapter 2 Literature Review. The chapter contains a literature review and body of knowledge as an empirical study of the literature that is available and relevant to the problem statement outlined earlier in this chapter.
Chapter 3: Research Design and Methodology. The 3rd chapter describes the research design and methodology used in this research to investigate the problem, as well as the research instrument, pilot study, sample frame and sample design, data collection methods, data capturing and data editing, and intended approach for data analysis.
Chapter 4: Analysis of Data. This chapter details the actual data analysis from initial identification and creation of categories and subcategories through the coded analysis of the interview data using content analysis, to generate data-driven themes. The quantitative data were analyzed by using Microsoft Excel.
Chapter 5: Generation and Evaluation of Options. Chapter 5 details the generation and evaluation of options interpreted directly from data-driven themes in Chapter 4, and quantifiable data, including the selection of one option and relevant motivation to be presented to the Simbi Sector and PIASS senior leadership team as a proposed joint Agri-business model for tomato crop farm leftovers.
Chapter 6: Summary and Implementation Plan. This chapter discusses the implementation of the selected option in Chapter 5 as the product of this research endeavor with an implementation plan, costing and discussion around potential challenges and problems.
Chapter 7: Reflection. The final chapter is dedicated to reflection on the learning experience while researching, writing and completing this dissertation. The chapter also demonstrates the researcher’s achievement of the learning outcomes of the study.
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Introduction
Agricultural production, crop production sector expects the higher quality of the primarily intended products, which could create a relatively considerable sum of cash for them. Agricultural residues are unintended organic materials that are typically produced during the entire crop production chain. But they're not the main products of the farming industry; another name seems to have a negative perception of being worthless. As a result, they are demolished, mismanaged, or remain unresolved just at plantation places. Oddly, those unintentionally produced organic compounds could be positive or negative to growers' activities, including the agricultural value proposition and the wider populace. Sustainable growth of Rwanda's horticulture industry is critical for achieving food security, reducing poverty, and preserving the environment.
The chapter contains a scoping analysis with the intention of giving the viewer with a high-level overview of the value chain, tomato value chain, the value - added chain, the tomato value network, and the agricultural value addition, cultural value chain, tomato production and food security, tomato production in Rwanda and their challenges, agricultural crop leftovers and their products. These concepts have recently become popular subjects in crop production and value addition in ensuring food security. Many conferences have been held in the last five years that primarily discussed research in the agricultural value proposition. However, tomato farming systems were excluded in this literature as it’s not the aim of the study.
The chapter's first portion presents a brief previous description and current work that integrates the value chain within the agricultural production sector. The second section reviewed is the university outreach and the connection between farmer-academic relationships in building joint collaborative activities in order to tackle challenges that people around the university may face. This is followed by an overview of the current situation and previous relevant literatures on the growth of a competitive and sustainable horticulture business model, which is also followed by examples of successful existing agri-business models that have been linked to creating uses for tomato crop farmers.
Finally, a concise overview of the results of the literature and conclusions was given, which aided in the study's design and methods for investigating the research problem.
2.2. Definitions of key concepts
a. Value Chain: It is represented as a tree with several branches, each representing a different end product (KIT, Mali and IIRR, 2010). As the name suggests, several actors are involved in a value chain. The major actors are the only ones who are participating directly in the chain (e.g. input suppliers, farmers, transporters, processors, wholesalers, consumers). The chain is supported by all other indirect actors (e.g. political decision-makers, financial institutions, quality standards). It is defined differently depending on the context for which it is used. In the agricultural sector, the value chain (CV) is a set of activities and actors that work together to bring a basic agricultural product from primary production in the field to its final stage of use or consumption, where value is added at each stage (Madhovi , 2020).
b. Tomato Value Chain: Uwihanganye and Snoo (2021) explain the value-added chain of the tomato as the addition of values to the tomato product as it moves from input suppliers as the first step and goes through producers and finally to consumers. From stage to stage throughout the value chain, the product is modified by chain actors and the incurred transaction cost reflects the form of value-added and generally its appearance and economic facet change from one stage to another depending on the effort made.
c. Tomato crop leftover: In this proposed study, it is considered as any part of tomato crop generated mainly at the farm level before or after harvesting the primarily intended product (i.e. tomato fruits). Those parts (e.g. stems, roots, leaves) and any other are unintentionally produced and considered as useless or discarded material.
d. Agribusiness: Agri-business evolved to include agriculturally linked enterprises such as warehousing, wholesalers, processors, retailers and more (Chait, 2020). This led to another definition with a broader set of activities that focused on markets and included natural resources: “Agribusiness is a dynamic and systemic endeavor that serves consumers globally and locally through innovation and management of multiple value chains that deliver valued goods and services derived from the sustainable orchestration of food, fiber, and natural resources” (Edwards & Schultz, 2005).
e. Business Model: Amit and Zott, (2001, 2012) recommend business model innovation as a strategy of producing and extracting profit, particularly during times of growth in the economy.
2.3. Introduction to Value Chain
Michael E. Porter, professor at a Harvard Business School, created the value chain concept (1985,1998, 2021), and stated that a value chain consists of various business processes and activities that go into making a product or providing a service. Porter's value chain is a sequence of operations that a corporation undertakes in order to enhance value to consumers. Porter created a broad value chain that firms may use to assess all of their activities and identify how they are related. Because the method wherein the value-adding functions are carried out impacts expenses and has an effect on profits, this instrument can help to understand the institution's value propositions.
The value chain is depicted as a tree with different branches, then another represents a distinct final product (KIT, Mali and IIRR, 2010; Madhovi, 2020). As the term suggests, various people are concerned in a production chain. Primary stakeholders are those who are directly a link in the chain (for example, Suppliers of raw materials, farmers, transporters, processors, suppliers, and users). Other informal stakeholders are referred to as chain supporters (for example, policy-making agencies, financial firms, and standards of quality). In general, the term "value chain" is defined differently depending on the context. The value chain (VC) in the farming industry is a range of operations and performers that complement existing fundamental farm products from primary producers in the ground to its final stage of it being used or eaten, where value is created at each phase.
Tropentag (2018) discusses that the "support ecosystem" comprises value chain stakeholders (both formal and informal) who provide services and support. Services provided by training and research and development organizations, extension service departments, and creative opportunities provided by agribusiness institutions struggling to deal with Agricultural Value Chains (AVC). Academic institutions serve as a link between the agricultural industry and researchers.
Figure 2. 1 : Value chain Micro-Meso-Macro level
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source: Adopted by the researcher, 2021
According to Donovan et al. (2015:7), value chain is defined as the discovery of novel options to expand opportunities for smallholder chain actors to participate in the creation of new linkages between them and favourable markets. This improvement is also based on the description of the context in which the VC will be developed. This improvement is also based on the description of the context in which the VC will be developed. Some VC methods focus on the design of new interventions and interactions among chain actors rather than just the production and marketing of a new product. Others can only deal with the creation of a new value chain that connects smallholder farmers to national or export markets. Whatever approach is used, it is influenced by the political, legal, and financial factors that govern the value chain's implementation (Maniraho et al., 2019; Turner, 2011 ; Hanadi et al., 2018).
As a series of activities, value chains include: a variety of recommendations define value chains based on activities. Taglion et al. (2016:17) state “the term value chain describes the full range of value-added activities required to bring a product or service through the various stages of production, including procurement of raw materials and other inputs” IIED, FAO, GTZ, USAID and ILO, all offer definitions that are similar in nature.
As a group of actors value chains include define value chains in terms of actors. As an example, (UNIDO, 2011: 3) value chain is defined as "actors linked along a chain producing, transforming, and delivering goods and services to end consumers through a sequenced set of activities." CIAT (2007:25), Donovan and Poole (2013) defined VC as part of a strategic system: In this instance, VC are built to better respond to consumer demand rather than simply existing in a specific space.
The variances in meanings reflect the appraisal of chain elements from diverse points of view in the argument (for instance, Agri-business networks and supply chain, global systems theory, participative assessment, and French filières study are some of the topics covered in this course). To some extent, the meanings overlap: actions are performed by actors; therefore , actors of various categories compose a strategy system. Nonetheless, the applicable chain meaning has theoretical consequences for the designing of intervention that will be implemented following the chain evaluation.
Using a definition based on action, first might expect value chain development (VCD) Farmers and enterprises may not be at the centre of the process if the emphasis is on enhancing the efficiency of industrial processes, logistics, or the regulatory environment.
Emphasis on the "whole range of activities" suggests that the chosen chain is restricted to a national or worldwide scope, as initiatives seldom reach further than the nations where fundamental manufacturing is underway. An actor-based definition is based on actors, who are typically resource-poor and are commonly amongst lowest links in a chain. As a result, interventions for value chain development (VCD) would try to increase these players' influence in the chain, with the assumption that strengthening the weaker links helps everyone. According to a network-based definition, value chains do not exist in a vacuum, but must be nurtured through period of time. In this circumstance, the construction of a value chain becoming the real purpose of actions that are only possible in certain market contexts.
2.4. Tomato Value Chain
Heuvelink (2018) and Freeman (2011) stated that tomatoes are the second most important fresh and processed crop in the world, trailing only potatoes. Tomatoes are classified as members of the Solanaceae family, with the Solanum genus belonging to the Lycopersicon section. Other vegetable crops in the Solanaceae family include aubergine (Solanum melongena), chili and bell peppers (Capsicum spp.), potato (Solanum tuberosum), tamarillo or tree tomato (Solanum betaceum), tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum), and tomatillo (Physalis ixocarpa).
Tomatoes are the second most important vegetable in Rwanda in terms of quantity generated and area grown (followed by cabbage), and the number one in terms of earning value (Freeman, 2011). On the domestic and international markets, it is sold fresh and processed. Tomatoes are one of Rwandan's most popular vegetables. More than any other vegetable, it is an excellent mineral, vitamin, and organic acid sources and it is generally recognized and utilized for a wide range of goods, whether raw, heated, or treated. The tomato value chain is defined as the addition of values to the tomato product as it moves from input suppliers to producers and then to consumers (Uwihanganye & Snoo, 2021). The product is modified by chain actors from phase to phase across the value chain, and the incurred transaction cost reflects the type of value-added, and its presence and economic aspect start changing from one phase to the next relying on the effort being made (Sarma & Ali, 2019; Urwego, 2012; Pietrobelli & Saliola, 2008; Arah et al., 2015).
Figure 2. 2 : The tomato food value chain
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source: Sarma & Ali, (2019).
According to Sarma and Ali (2019); Arah et al. ( 2015); and Urwego, (2012), tomato cultivation begins with the supply of a variety of inputs such as seeds, fertilizers, and pesticide, and so on. Following the supply of all inputs, the secondary part is production/farming, which is followed by harvesting, collection, and transportation, handling, and able to trade even before finished product is used or consumed. Various actors perform multiple tasks as the product moves through one stage to the next anywhere along the tomato value chain, and the product value increases based on the effort exerted by chain actors. There are always residues/leftovers at each stage of the VC. Most of the time, after obtaining the primary intended product on a given VC stage, the remainder is rendered worthless (Siam & Abdelhakim, 2018). Figure 2.3 below provides more details.
Figure 2. 3 : Tomato Value Chains
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source: Joonkoo Lee (2011).
2.5. Agricultural Value Chain
Kaplinsky (2011) and Sarma and Ali (2019) stated that, the value chain is the full sequence of actions necessary to transport a product or service from conception to numerous stages of manufacturing. (Featuring a number of aesthetic changes as well as inputs from a variety of manufacturer services), propagation to end customers, and disposal methods after using it. In emerging nations, a variety of reasons may hinder agricultural value chain upgrading. Some of them agreed, citing issues such as a lack of specialized skills and restricted access to technology, markets, physical infrastructures, inputs, information, assets, and other functions.
Despite this, a value chain's primary purpose is to add more value to goods or services for a marketplace by changing commodities with leveraging infrastructures within the potential and restrictions of its organisational framework. The chain becomes unproductive when one actor's business developments are not well aligned with those of its chain partners. It becomes difficult to improve products, processes, and markets, and gaps emerge in support services and infrastructure.”
2.6. Tomato Production and Food Security
The tomato industry is a significant contributor for four aspects of food security: accessibility, usage, availability, and reliability. It is used in culinary preparation all around the world as a fresh vegetable or as a spice. Tomatoes are the most common crop seen in petty commerce by small business folks working in informal occupations nowadays. Tomatoes are also farmed commercially, which employ a huge number of people (Siam & Abdelhakim, 2018).
Tomatoes are well-known in Rwandan society for their culinary uses. They are a staple in any household, whether raw, cooked, canned, chopped, or purred. Tomatoes are very healthy since they are high in antioxidants, beta-carotene, and lycopene (Urwego, 2012 ; Ahmed, 2014).
FAO, 200:40 explained worldwide food security "when all people, at all times, have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life."
Tomatoes are classified as vegetables in the culinary world. As a result of its acceptable flavor and nutritional value, it is used in the majority of dishes. It includes vitamin supplements E, A and C, as well as minerals that aid the body's immune system (Olaniyi et al., 2010).
In terms of employment, income, and production size, there is a sizable traditional small-scale fruit and vegetable producing and retailing sector. Unfortunately, the traditional F&V sub-informal sector and inefficient supply chain arrangements give little revenue and little incentives for producers and their families to grow their production and marketing operations. We are witnessing a shift away from smallholder agriculture as the primary source of fresh commodities in East Africa's high-value fruit and vegetable export business. However, new jobs are created in peri-urban packing houses. While job growth in the rising export sector was originally focused on non-skilled rural workers for F&V producing, this has since changed due to advanced demands from international customers, the application of new governmental and non-governmental guidelines, and rising global competitive market among underdeveloped nations (Joosten et al., 2015).
2.7. Rwandan Tomato Production
Smallholder farmers, government revenue, and foreign currency revenues all benefit from horticulture as a vital source of income. Furthermore, the sub-sector makes a substantial contribution to food security while also serving as a critical supply of raw materials for the industrial sector (KENDAT, 2015).
According to Mukantwali et al. ( 2018); Mwongera et al. ( 2019) and Ahmed (2014), tomatoes are regarded as the most valuable crop, and they are the second most widely produced and consumed vegetable in Rwanda. Tomatoes are marketed both domestically and in Rwanda's neighbouring countries as fresh fruit and in processed form. The tomato is an important crop for Rwandans because this is both a food and commercial crop, with Rwandan output increasing by 300% between 2008 and 2010.
2.7.1. Rwandan Tomato Farming Districts
The tomato crop is grown in the majority of Rwandan districts, as it is farmed in 11 of the country's 30 districts. According to Fortune of Africa (2013), tomatoes are primarily grown in the following areas in Rwanda: Huye, Rwamagana, Bugesera, Kayonza, Rusizi, Gatsibo, Musanze, Burera, Nyanza, Nyagatare and Nyamasheke Districts of Rwanda.
Rwanda's total tomato production over the last five years (2014-2018) is 548 042 tons on a harvested area of 49 452 ha. The important thought is that harvested areas increased during the first four years and decreased for the fifth year, whilst also total tomato production increased for first three years, then declining in the fourth and fifth years. According to statistics, one hectare produces an average of 11 tons of tomatoes (MINAGRI, 2019).
2.7.2. Seasons of Tomato Production in Rwanda
Basset et al. (2019) stated that from planting to harvesting, the tomato crop takes five months. Tomato production can be done in an outdoor environment or in a shielded farm (Greenhouse) during three distinct seasons: season A (September, October, November, December, and January); season B (January, February, March, April, and May); and season C (June, July, August, and September) (May, June, July, August, and September). Because Rwanda experiences a dry season, season C is usually completed in Marshland or the greenhouse with irrigation.
2.7.3. Tomato Production Challenges in Rwanda
Tomatoes have several obstacles due to a biotic (high temperature, unpredictable rainfall, poor soils, etc.) and biotic causes. Arthropod pests, fungus, bacteria, and viruses are examples of biotic agents with important economic significance in tomato production (Anastacia et al., 2011; Toroitich, 2014). Dependence and unjustified use of industrial chemicals for the management of biotic limitations has already been mentioned between small - scale farmers. This reliance on pesticides may pose a health risk to growers and consumers, in addition to the environmental consequences.
Another factor contributing to low tomato yields is smallholder farmers' failure to use modern technology such as certified varieties (Geoffrey et al., 2014). The use of improved seeds has the potential to help farmers achieve the highest possible level of production. In response, attempts have been undertaken to increase agricultural production by developing better cultivars that are high yielding, pest resistant, and have other desired features.
According to the Commodity Systems Assessment Methodology report, farmers lose an average of 21 percent of their crop during harvesting, 11.5 percent of tomatoes are lost at the collection point, 10 percent of tomatoes are lost at the wholesaling level, as well as 13.6 percent of tomatoes are harvested out and discarded at retailing locations (Mukantwari et al., 2018). Post-harvest wastage is the result of overripe tomatoes, inappropriate post-harvest handling activities, and poor quality containers that cause rough transportation. As a result of these postharvest challenges, tomato prices fluctuate in the local market, impacting farmer earnings as well as cultivation advancement (Mwongera et al., 2019; Toroitich, 2014).
Aside from postharvest losses, players in the horticulture sector face the following challenges in their farming business: competition between locally processed and imported tomato products; a lack of skills in modern farming; pests and diseases affecting tomato production; an inability to add local value to produced tomatoes; and a gap in market knowledge (Kendat, 2015).
2.7.4. Agricultural Crop Leftovers
Crop residue is the part of plant left over after harvest that includes leaves, stalks, and roots. Crop residue is distributed and used unevenly across the country, depending on the crops grown, crop production, and productivity (Shankar et al., 2017). Crop residue use is a valuable agricultural practice that has the potential to improve soil quality and fertility, nutrient and water management, and pest management. Crop residues are leaves, twigs, pods, and other plant litter that are left or applied on the field before, concurrently with, or after planting a new crop.
Agricultural waste is defined as any material that is not primarily produced for the market and is the result of production, conversion, consumption, and is usually discarded. These agricultural leftovers may be the result of harvesting and post-harvesting activities such as raw material modification, transformation into other products, consumption of end products, and other factors human endeavours (UN, 2016; Silva & Moore, 2017).
Some these remaining materials are regarded as worthless and discarded, but then in truth, they are biological materials that can be reprocessed, valorised, and reused for other purposes, as well as generating additional income for farmers. Farm crop wastes/leftovers are generally classified as pre-harvest wastes, harvesting time wastes, and post-harvest wastes (Mukularinda et al., 2009; Aprianto et al., 2016). Nursery operations and the maintenance of immature plantations generate pre-harvest agricultural wastes, which are typically in the form of generative and vegetative parts of crops that have fallen (leaves and twigs). However, it could also be discarded material.
The residues from the transfer activities from the field to storage facilities are included in the post-harvest residues and transportation before being sold to a manufacturing plant (Mukularinda et al., 2009; Aprianto et al., 2016). To management of agricultural wastes to lessen their harmful influence on the environment, all parties must participate. Joint efforts from concerned parties may be able to solve the problem of knowledge gaps across organizations, but it will necessitate extending partners' capabilities to achieve continuous improvement through problem-solving innovations (Handayati et al., 2015); Fritsch et al., 2017), Valenzuela (2020) discusses that the huge amount of agricultural and food wastes that require sustainable solutions in creating profitable utilization as well as reducing environmental burden innovations are currently one of the world's major concerns.
2.7.5. Products produced from crop farm leftovers
A primary production farm is managed by a single person and is located in a single general, but not necessarily contiguous, location. It could be used to grow and harvest crops, raise animals, or both (ReFED, 2016). A secondary production farm is a farm that is separate from the primary production farm and is also dedicated to farming operations.
Crop farm leftovers are used to create products. Several agricultural residues have potential uses and can be valorized using a variety of technologies, resulting in monetary benefits for farmers and environmental benefits for society as a whole. On-farm composting is a biological mechanism that recycles residual agricultural biomass into new cropping production cycles that is efficient, cost-effective, and environmentally friendly. Pane et al. ( 2015); Torkwase & Babatunde (2021) discussed the importance of decomposed agricultural materials include not just producing important nutrients for plant development, but also playing a significant function in soil characteristics, particularly water holding capacity, desire to contribute to sustainable farming, and a healthy and sanitary ecosystem.
A popular concept known as the economic values of post-harvest agricultural materials is described as a three-step process: Reduce, Recycle, and Reuse agricultural waste to create valuable biomaterials for a circular economy (Pane et al., 2015). This conversion process consists of several steps: Waste separation (sorting), and the establishment of processing facilities, market development for valuation products, followed by the organization of all promotional logistical issues (Tablika et al., 2019).
2.7.5.1.Compost
On-farm composting is a biological process that recycles leftover agricultural biomasses into efficient, cost-effective, and ecologically safe cropping production cycles (Maniadakis, 2004), Van der Wurff et al. (2016) defined a compost as the most well-known product made from decaying organic materials, and it contains essential nutrients for crop production. This natural material is produced through an aerobic process in which microorganism activities transform organic materials into a stable and hummus-like product known as compost (Pane et al., 2011).
The proper application of compost is essential in agriculture because too little application causes nutrient deficiency in the soil while too much application causes changes in soil composition (nitrate leaching and phosphorus runoff) (Biachi et al., 2021). The circularity approach to organic waste composting was successfully implemented as a business model in Ghana. Organic waste collected from markets was transported to a composting facility, and after processing, the compost was sold to farmers by unemployed young people who welcomed the opportunity to work to earn a small salary. This strategy has the potential to be duplicated as a sustainable approach to agricultural growth in many African countries (Pane et al., 2013).
Regardless of the fact that certain research has concentrated on tomato plant composting (Alkoaik et al., 2006; Ghaly et al., 2006), so far, little attention has been paid to determining the agronomic efficiency of the compost generated. Assuming that, composting tomato plant wastes on-farm is the greatest long-term technique for increasing quality of the soil.
Figure 2.4: Composting Tomato leftovers
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source: https://www.planetnatural.com/composting-tomato-plants/2021
2.7.5.2. Briquettes
To satisfy their daily cooking needs, over 3.1 billion people continue to rely on hazardous sources of energy such as biomass, coal, or kerosene, a statistic that has remained practically steady over the previous decade. Because overreliance on the supply of firewood has diminished, it is necessary to make optimum use of agricultural leftovers and municipal solid waste as a source of heating and cooking fuel by converting them into renewable fuels products known as briquettes (Winkler et al., 2017; Otoo et al., 2018). Briquette manufacturing is gaining traction in emerging regions, namely East Africa and Asia.
Briquette comes from the French word "brique," which means "brick." It is a compacted block of coal dust or other flammable biomass material used as fuel that lights a fire. Biomass briquettes are created from agricultural waste. Crop residue briquettes and agro-industrial briquettes are two types of crop-based energy production materials. Crop residue briquettes are made from crop waste biomass (leaves, twigs, roots, et cetera.), whereas agro-industrial briquettes are made from processing industry waste (cassava peel, bagasse, coconut shell, et cetera.) (Otoo et al., 2018).
Kampala Jellitone Suppliers (KJS), a briquette maker situated in Kampala, Uganda, is an example. It began in 1981 as a coffee roasting company that used diesel burners, then grew to include a bakery that used firewood ovens. However, owing to high energy prices, the corporation was compelled to look for an alternate fuel source, which resulted in the production of briquettes. KJS is currently Uganda's first large-scale briquette maker, serving institutional and commercial customers who previously cooked and heated using wood and charcoal. The firm sells briquettes that have a high heating value, constant properties, and last longer than other cooking fuels, allowing consumers to save time and money (Otoo et al., 2018).
Although the business model from briquette manufacturing excels in terms of profitability from a reliable income stream, a diverse client base, as well as the potential for additional revenue – as well as socio-environmental effect – with lower air pollution and more money for farmers, it obtains a low innovation grade since it does not need advanced technology or money (Otoo et al., 2018). Briquettes are biomaterials that are used in both rural and urban areas for domestic and industrial heating as well as energy production (gasification). They are used as a low-cost substitute for firewood, charcoal, and other solid fuel sources.
2.7.5.3. Tomato Leftovers for Livestock Feed
It is common practice to use local agricultural wastes and by products of agro-industrial processes as feedstuffs to improve small ruminant growth. Nearly half of the farm biomass produced is not used as food or feed, nor is it used in the manufacture of textiles, and these residues are referred to as lignocelluloses residues (Smith et al., 1988; Foyle et al., 2007).
Osama et al. (2013) and Ventura et al. (2009) reported values of 13,56 and 17,6 in tomato leaves, respectively. Ventura et al., (2009) found that 18.4 percent of stems were analyzed. Lofti (nd) reported a value of 19 percent in whole tomato plant (stems + leaves), while Ventura et al. (2009) reported a value of 18.1 percent.
Small or injured tomatoes that are rejected from warehouses account for more than 10% of all tomatoes obtained and are commonly utilized as fodder for goats or sheep in Mediterranean nations. Following the gathering of tomato fruits, goats and animals routinely graze tomato stubble plants throughout greenhouse (Osama et al., 2013).
Currently, to avoid burning or composting farm crop residues, they have been used for ruminant feeding. While crop farm residues are produced without additional input, crop production land is not expanding (land, water). This opens the door for crop farm-residue nutrient to be used for animal feeding (Modhu, 2015). Crop farm residues must be treated due to their chemical composition before being fed to animals.
2.7.5.4. Biochar from Agro-wastes
The rising need for energy, along with the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the worry over diminishing oil supplies, attention has switched to the potential use of biomass as a renewable source of energy. (Limousy et al., 2015; Mckendry, 2002).
Some physical, chemical, and biological conversion mechanisms are capable of converting biomass into liquid, solid, and gas fuels. The conversion of biomass materials has the specific goal of transforming a carbonaceous solid material (Ravindranath & Hall, 1995; Shen, 2015). Agricultural by-products (such as coconut coir, rice husk, sugarcane bagasse, crushed nut shell, and so on) are utilized in the paper and pulp industries as fuel, cattle feed, and raw materials. Nonetheless, a considerable portion of this is discarded, posing a disposal issue.
Biochar is a high-value substance that may be utilized for a wide range of applications. It has a high energy level equivalent to high ranked coals due to its high carbonaceous content (Chew & Doshi, 2011; Romero et al., 2021). On the other side, biochar is a thermo-chemical conversion product derived from biomass, Its harvest vary greatly depending on the production technique and process parameters, which significantly influence its effectiveness in agro-forestry systems. Many examples show improvements in soil health, agricultural productivity, carbon capture and storage, and carbon emission reduction, but the inverse is also true, trying to imply that the potential benefits of biochar are constrained by factors such as the type of biochar used, the rate at which it was tried to apply, soil type, climatic condition, and crop plants (Wang et al., 2020).
2.7.5.5. Bio-Based Packaging Materials from Agro-Wastes
The large proportions of product packaging are made from plastic, which does not biodegrade and thus results in environmental damage. Farm pollutants are derived from a variety of origins, including grape pomace, tomato pomace, pineapple, orange, and lemon peels, sugarcane bagasse, rice husks, wheat straw, and oil palm fibers, among others (Vox et al., 2016).
Carbon-rich precursors are employed in the production of bio-based polymers using microbiological, biopolymer blending, and chemical techniques. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that 20–30% of fruits and vegetables are discarded during post-harvest processing. The advancement of bio-based polymers is critical, given the magnitude of worldwide contamination of the environment caused by manufacturing synthetic polymers such as polypropylene (PP) and polyethylene (PE) (PET) (Vox et al., 2016).
Every year, worldwide, 400 million tons of synthetic plastics are manufactured with less than 9% of the material being recycled. The synthetic route has an impact on visual, mechanical, and chemical properties characteristics such as bio-based polymers have been developed to improve the properties of plastics, such as ultraviolet (UV) absorbance, tensile strength, and water permeability (Zhang et al., 2019).
Commercial manufacturing of bio-based polymers has advanced significantly in recent years, but it is still limited by considerations such as cost, economy, useful life, and biodegradability concerns. Manufacturing processes that are cost-effective are crucial for underdeveloped nations to capitalize on this expanding sector (Heredia et al., 2019).
2.7.5.6. University Outreach
University Outreach programs encompass faculty and staff engaging in educational and professional activities with people and institutions who are not matriculated at the university. A summary of the research studies reveals that the contribution of higher education in economic outreach activities is becoming more prevalent (Tompson, 2000)
Anders (1992), for example, discovered a growing trend of higher education institutions that integrate regular classroom disciplines with the demands of outside enterprises. This transition toward a more collaborative approach contrasts sharply to the previously secluded realm of academic pureness.
Historically, colleges and universities have followed the simulation approach, with faculty members dedicated to lecturing, researching, and service (Luria & Zella, 1970: 76). Service in this sense largely relates to faculty participation in higher education, their respective fields and professional associations, and, to a smaller extent, outside community.
One of the mandates of PIASS as stated by Prof. Musemakweli the vice-chancellor on 7th graduation ceremony, 2021 is to “promote research that is meaningful and useful to society by participating in the discovery, creation, transmission, preservation, and improvement of knowledge, as well as encouraging the intelligent participation of students and faculty in social, economic, cultural, and scientific development.” In addition, the connection between both the higher education institution and the neighbourhood is critical to the vibrancy of our campus, whether it is reaching out through various service opportunities or welcoming community members to special events and learning opportunities including training, workshops, seminars and conference.
2.7.5.7. Farmer-Academia relationships
Functions in the horticulture (e.g., tomato) value chain are undertaken by mixed actors who perform distinct but complementary operations. Chain supporters, such as academic research and training organizations, are key concerned actors in any value chain atmosphere. Academic research and training practices have been observed as a one-way initiative designed by academics and researchers with minimal or no input from beneficiaries, with even the implementation of interventions or programs done without any strong involvement of beneficiaries. As a result of this approach, there is a lack of collaboration between academics and community stakeholders, which contributes to the failure to translate university-based findings into “real-world” settings (Drahota et al., 2016).
For the transition to sustainable agriculture, a more in-depth assessment of growers' knowledge(s) and knowledge techniques is necessary. It is becoming increasingly vital to understand not only what farmers understand, but also how their knowledge practices include people around them, including university scholars (Emma et al., 2020).
Growers' expertise is formed through a complicated and multi-faceted procedure that is, partly, tied to put in place. Wojcik et al. (2019) recognize this, and discuss the significance of place in knowledge creation, specifically how farmers grow into an area's space, resulting in a corpus of knowledge generated through many years of partnership between a person and location, as well as the following socialization and experiences of living in that space.
The critical concept of community-academic partnering (CAPs) existence is dependent on innovations or implemented initiatives that incorporate all players on the ground (trainers, scientists, and recipients) as it goes beyond an university context and penetrates the community where it should have an impact on their ways of doing things. Partnerships between academic institutions and the community that are fruitful may enhance coordination and communication across both stakeholders and outcome in realistic working methods that bridge the gap between scholarly study results and society real-life practice (Drahota et al., 2016; Emma et al., 2020).
The primary objective of any partnership involving agricultural growers is to enhance agricultural revenue and profits, and one reason to do so is to start making biomass waste as useable as possible because they are natural biological resources that should not be denied and thrown away. Sabiiti (2011) indicates a structure that can connect growers with the possibilities of agricultural residues as raw resources from their agricultural operations with other organizations with technological abilities (skills, knowledge, and facilities) to create economic values from crop wastes.
This is why collaboration among value chain actors is required to improve future performance for the benefits of all. Modern science that does not make the required contribution seriously impedes university-industry partnership. If academic institutions do not create and distribute skills and knowledge to overcome industry issues, the industry will stay ignorant and hesitant to apply technological advances discovered by academic institutions (Sanno et al., 2019; Emma et al., 2020).
2.7.6. Creating a Competitive and Long-Term Horticulture Business Model
In 161 countries, approximately 570 million farms are in operation. (The term "farm" refers to a farming operation owned by a family or a corporation in this context.) The majority of the Farms throughout the globe (over 570 million in total) are small and family-run (84 percent of the operations are less than 2 hectares) Small-scale farming (less than 2 ha) account for approximately 12% of all of the globe's farmlands. Approximately 75% of the arable land on the planet is operated by Farms run by families (Sarah et al., 2016).
Value chains in horticulture are essential for the food and agriculture industries. The industry as a whole is facing numerous problems that are causing a lack of profit growth, causing several business owners to be on the verge of closing downA business model necessitates the following four complementary elements, according to expert interviews and case studies of creative company models ( Amit & Zott, 2012) highlighted these components which are differentiated and competitive value proposition is the first essential component, Embedded Sustainability, complimentary chain partnerships, and a well worked out distribution strategy (IFAMA, 2015).
The primary goal of any business should be to create value and profit from that value creation; agriculture businesses are no exception. So, in order for an agriculture business to be profitable, it must be able to create, deliver, and capture value. A business model is the approach that an agriculture business takes to value, creation, delivery, and capture
Amit & Zott (2012:2) state “many of the operational innovation and cost savings that could be realized have already been realized. Our primary focus is on business model innovation, as this is where the greatest benefits can be found. It is insufficient to make a difference in terms of product quality, delivery readiness, or production scale. It is critical to innovate in areas where our competitors do not act”
Ahmed et al. (2011) investigated the dynamics of competition within emerging economy value chains for fruits and vegetables and provide understanding into workforce strategies for advancement and the linking up with established market fruit and vegetable value chains. Despommier (2010) and Oskam et al. (2013) offer an excellent increased overview manufacturing technologies.
Amit and Zott, (2001, 2012) provide business strategy as an example as means of creating, extracting and value, particularly throughout periods of economic transition Osterwalder (2010) establishes a business model with the use of a canvas, which has become one of the most common tools for firms to utilize to arrange their operations and highlight their tactical and analytical elements for value creation and delivery Nidumolu et al. (2009) have written. They discuss how sustainability is and will continue to be a significant driver of innovation extensively in their Harvard Business Review essay.
If a corporation lacks a business model viewpoint, it is a non-focused stakeholder in a dizzying array of connections and dormant entanglements. Adopting a business model viewpoint can help CEOs purposefully arrange their firm's activity systems. Osterwalder (2010) revealed that The Canvas Business Framework is good for discussing a working or operational business model; it does not give a framework for "how" to arrive at the proper business model. To select the best business model, the “how” component must consider the sector-specific dynamics of demand, supply, and competition Osterwalder (2010).
Consider the instance of Looije Tomaten, a for-profit Dutch tomato production firm that has been in existence for almost 70 years. After examining the commoditization of the tomato chain, they chose to build a differentiated value proposition for their tomato products. Following a thorough examination and consultation with agribusiness from around the world, they have identified four critical elements: a differentiate value proposition, distribution strategy, committed chain of complementary partners and sustainability elements integral to value proposition, these critical components in agribusiness model were observed also by Amit and Zott (2012).
The agricultural business models have different components. However, some authors had identified, for example, social entrepreneurship (Seelos & Mair, 2005), and the degree to which small farmers and huge agribusinesses are intertwined (Cotula et al., 2009:80). In the following paragraphs, we will go over each of these components in greater detail, as well as how they are integrated into an agriculture business model.
2.7.7. Entrepreneurship for social good
While the majority of scholars have concentrated on the elements of business models that generate revenue, others have emphasized the significance of social value production. It relates to socially acceptable business techniques capable of providing value for disadvantaged and underprivileged individuals. Seelos and Mair (2005: 244) assert “Social entrepreneurship develops new models for the delivery of products and services that directly address basic human needs that are unmet by current economic or social institutions.” As a result, social value creation is the primary goal of social entrepreneurship, "while economic value creation is frequently a by-product that allows the organization to achieve sustainability and self-sufficiency." These writers, for example, discuss the case of an Egyptian group that supports biodynamic agriculture, a novel crop dusting-reduction approach. This charity also provides education and health services to the disadvantaged.
Organizations other than banks or government competitive funds are used in business models concerned with social benefit. Foundations are frequently used to support the implementation of a social business model, at least initially, until consumers are able to contribute to the value generated (Seelos & Mair, 2005: 245).
2.7.8. Mixing of small farmers and giant agricultural corporations
Given the globalization of production and trade, large agribusinesses have restructured their agricultural investments, which would include "a variety of more collaborative arrangements between big investors and local small-scale farmers and populations, such as various sorts of contract farming schemes, joint ventures, management contracts, and new supply chain partnerships" (Cotula et al., 2009). In these circumstances, an inclusive business model entails "tight working relationships with local landowners and operators, and whether they transfer profit amongst collaborators."
To ease economic transactions, small producers may create cooperatives. Governments have a critical role in encouraging more inclusive economic practices. The cooperation may face difficulties due to smallholders' limited access to knowledge about market trends, pricing, royalties, and risk. The government can help with bargaining leverage and access to cash (Cotula et al.,2009 :78). As a consequence, both states and development organizations are aggressively encouraging farmer-owned companies as a way for smallholder farmers to earn greater returns on their crops and accede to value-addition possibilities.
2.7.9. Technological skill development and organizational learning
Ekboir et al . ( 2009), ALTEC (2013) analyzed Mexican Agriculture research & development The researchers have distinguished among technological capabilities (routines for manipulating scientific and technological information) and organizational skills (“shared knowledge and routines concerning governance, coordination, and social interaction within the organization and with external entities (e.g., suppliers and customers)”. Ekboir et al. ( 2009:32), stated that, when these qualities are combined, manufacturers will be aware of possible chances for innovation. They claim that “innovative capabilities can be developed in people if they are sufficiently stimulated and trained.” As a result, the success of government programs aimed at alleviating poverty is dependent on the ability of state agencies to aid small farmers, as well as the producers' absorptive capacities.
[...]
- Quote paper
- Leonidas Maniraho (Author), 2021, An Agri-Business model to create uses for tomato crop farmers in Rwanda, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1282011
