The objective of this study was to identify the important factors that influence both adoption and level of use of organic fertilizer among smallholder farmers in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia using a primary data collected from 161 sample respondents. An independent double hurdle model was used to address the objectives of the study on the assumption that adoption and level of organic fertilizer use by are two independent decisions influenced by different factors. Empirical estimates of the first hurdle reveals that literacy status of the head, livestock holding, frequency of extension contact, distance to market and slope of the plot are statistically significant decision variables that affect the probability of adopting organic fertilizer. Meanwhile, estimates of the second hurdle revealed that, the extent of use of organic fertilizer was determined by livestock holding, access to credit distance to the market and slope of plot. This indicates that factors that affect adoption are not necessarily the same as those that influence intensity. Therefore, it is important to consider both stages in evaluating strategies aimed at promoting the adoption and use of organic fertilizer.

South Africa has implemented an extensive social grant system to improve the wellbeing of vulnerable households. However, evidence remains limited regarding the pathways through which social grants are associated with household food insecurity and whether these relationships vary across geographical contexts of South Africa. Understanding these mechanisms is essential for designing more effective and spatially targeted social protection policies. This study examined the relationship between social grant receipt and household food insecurity, hypothesizing that household income serves as the principal pathway linking social grants to food insecurity. This study used nationally representative data from the 2024 General Household Survey. A latent food insecurity index was constructed using a two-parameter logistic Item Response Theory model, and a moderated-mediation structural equation model was employed to decompose the association between social grant receipt and food insecurity into direct and indirect components while accounting for geographic heterogeneity. The results indicate that social grants are strongly targeted toward households with higher levels of food insecurity and lower incomes, confirming that grant recipients are among the most vulnerable households in South Africa. Household income was negatively associated with food insecurity and mediated 55.4% of the total association between social grant receipt and household food insecurity. This underscores income as the main transmission pathway. High geographic heterogeneity was observed. The indirect income-mediated association was strongest in commercial farming areas, followed by urban and rural areas administered by local leaders. The direct association was significant in urban and rural areas administered by local leaders. These results show that the effectiveness of income transfers depends on the household’s demographic and socioeconomic conditions. The findings suggest that although social grants play an important role in reducing household vulnerability, cash support alone is insufficient to address household food insecurity among disadvantaged households in South Africa. Therefore, strengthening income support provided through social grants should be complemented by location-specific interventions that expand employment opportunities, improve market access, promote productive asset accumulation, and strengthen local food systems, particularly in rural areas where constraints continue to limit household food security.

Purpose: The study aimed to examine the levels and determinants of food safety knowledge, attitudes and practices among urban vegetable producers and consumers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Design/methodology/approach: The study employed a cross-sectional convergent parallel mixed-design. Data were collected quantitatively from 400 respondents through face-to-face interviews by employing a structured household survey. Qualitative data were collected through key informant interviews and focus group discussions using open-ended checklists. Both descriptive and inferential statistics were employed to characterize and compare the two groups. The factors influencing these variables were determined by a multivariate probit model. Thematic analysis was used to analyze qualitative data. Findings: The result of the study showed that both groups had good mean knowledge and attitudes. However, households faced resources such as access to water, training, income, and informal market dynamics which hindered the implementation of food safety practices. Knowledge was significantly influenced by age and education, whereas attitude was significantly influenced solely by age. The practice was also strongly influenced by education, size of household, type of occupation and training. Knowledge and attitude are found to be correlated; this suggests that enhanced knowledge positively influences attitudes. No significant correlation was identified between knowledge and practice or between attitude and practice. These results challenge the linear assumptions of the KAP model. Research limitations/implications: This study is not without limitations. The cross-sectional nature of the study is the first limitation, which provides only a snapshot in time, and does not allow to establish temporal relationships between variables. Second, the study's emphasis on the city of Addis Ababa restricts the extent to which the results can be generalized, meaning that the findings may not be transferable to other urban or rural areas of Ethiopia without additional research. And the analysis did not consider other strategic factors, including household income and expenditure, house conditions, location and social support system, which may affect knowledge, attitude and practice. Future studies should incorporate these essential variables. Practical implications: The results show that food safety improvement cannot depend on awareness campaigns alone. Producers showed good knowledge and attitudes, but their practice was poor. The gap represents practical limitations rather than knowing it is or plain nonacknowledgment. Interventions at the producer level need to be directed at guaranteeing access to clean water, affordable inputs, low-technology safety equipment and training that can be delivered within the context. Extension services need to decentralize and become more responsive to the needs of informal producers. Among consumers, good practice was associated with stable income, quality of housing and availability of services. This implies household food safety is strongly associated with welfare and urban conditions of life. Social implications: Since this study focuses on the two players in the value chain (producer and consumer), it contributes to improving the health of these households. This leads to greater trust and communication between the two groups regarding food safety. The study exposes a clear social divide in food safety capacity between producers and consumers. This divide is rooted in income inequality, housing insecurity and uneven access to services rather than differences in awareness. Producers operating in informal settings carry a higher burden of food safety risk while supplying food to the wider population. This raises concerns about fairness and shared responsibility within the urban food system. Improving food safety should therefore be treated as a collective issue rather than an individual failing. Enhancing the capacity of producers strengthens both public health and the social trust between producers and consumers. Community-based organizations, market associations and local media can help fill the gaps in information and resources. Building the capacity of producers improves both public health and the social trust between producers and consumers. Originality/value: This study examined the food safety knowledge, attitudes and practices of urban vegetable producers and consumers, using a mixed research strategy. This means that the study serves as an evidence source for households, researchers, society and policymakers.