UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS Assessment of Maize Grain Loss in Uasin Gishu County SPECIAL PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIALFULFILMENT OF REQUIREMENT OF A BARCHELOR OF SCIENCE DEGREE IN AGRIBUSINESS MANAGEMENT OCHIENG OWINO GILBERT A87/3550/2010 SUBMITTED TO: MR. KENNEDY PAMBO MARCH, 2014 1
Acknowledgement I would like to acknowledge our lecturer, Mr. Kennedy Pambo, for the knowledge he passed over to me in proposal writing. I learnt much from him. I also thank the IT and Library Departments for availing all the necessary resources for my research work. I would also like to thank my fellow students who assisted me in the same. Finally, I would like to pay tribute to my family members who have denied themselves much, just to see me through my university education successfully. i
Table of Contents Acknowledgement... i LIST OF ACRONYM... ii 1. INTRODUCTION...1 1.2. Purpose of the study...3 1.1. Objectives of the study...3 1.2. The hypothesis...3 1.3. Justification of the study...3 1.4. Study area...4 1.5. Organization of the project...5 2. LITERATURE REVIEW...6 3. METHODOLOGY...8 3.1. Data collection and sampling procedure...8 3.2. Model used...8 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS... 10 4.1. Descriptive statistics... 10 4.2. Regression... 13 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS... 14 6. REFERENCES... 15 ii
LIST OF ACRONYMS FAO Food and Agricultural Organization FAOSTAT FAO Statistics GoK Government of Kenya IGB Insect Grain Borer IPM Integrated Pest Management IT Information Technology KARI Kenya Agricultural Research institute KENFAP - Kenya Federation of Agricultural Producers MDGs Millennium Development Goals NCPB National Cereals and Produce Board ii
1.INTRODUCTION Maize is a staple food in Kenya since pre-independence. Maize grain is very important in ensuring that there is sufficient food for everyone living in Kenya and in Sub-Saharan Africa as well (Azu, 2002). The grains from the cobs are consumed or milled for maize flour. Maize is adaptable to a whole range of climate conditions; it is the single most extensively grown crop. However, the chief growing areas are Trans Nzoia, Nakuru, Bungoma, and Uasin Gishu Districts. Maize in Kenya is mainly sold to the National Cereals and Produce Board (NCPB). The farmers also sell directly to the millers who are located in major towns of Nairobi, Kisumu, Nakuru and Kitale (Booker, 2010). There still exists a huge deficit in domestic maize supply in Kenya. This is even worsened by the ever increasing population pressure. This is even worsened by the fact that losses in maize grain occur even after harvesting has occurred (Komen et al., 2006). These grain losses during storage contribute to food insecurity and low income to farmers in Uasin Gishu County but to Kenya as a whole. Efficient grain drying and storage can contribute highly to socio-economic development as stipulated in Vision 2030 (GoK, 2007). Losses are directly measured in both qualitative and quantitative terms as well. Proper storage should protect the grains from fungal infection, vermin infestation, moulding due to dumpy conditions within the storage facility and from extreme temperatures as well. Several storage techniques have been developed to combat this problem of grain loss during storage. Some farmers in Uasin Gishu who cannot store their grains at home dispose them through selling them to NCPB (Booker, 2010). Farmers can also buy their own storage facilities. Several storage techniques have been developed in the recent past to discourage grain loss. Farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa still store their grains in cribs, bans, baskets as well as in their houses (Komen et al., 2006). These storage methods have resulted in a lot of grain loss due to the poor storage conditions that these primitive storage techniques present. The most recent improvement to this is the development of metal silo technology by KARI in collaboration with CIMMYT. This new improvement is expected to reduce grain loss by 30% (Gitonga et al., 2012). Several other better techniques have also been developed in the recent past. However, the 1
farmers in Uasin Gishu County have been very slow in adopting such techniques due to factors as mentioned herein. There is now focus on how to reduce post-harvest losses due to inadequate storage facilities to meet the persistent demand for maize as a source of food. Proper post-harvest handling of maize grains after harvesting, and especially during storage, offers the best solution to reducing loss and consequently increasing profitability of this venture to the farmers (FAO, 2011). 1.1. Problem statement The majority of people who live in Uasin Gishu County are Kalenjins. Kenya's poverty rate is estimated at between 34 and 42 per cent at the moment 50% of people in Uasin Gishu County live below poverty line.theirmain Economic Activities/Industries include Large Scale Maize, Wheat Farming, Dairy Farming, Sports Tourism (Athletics), Manufacturing and agro processing(kenya Decides report 2013). It has a population of approximately 894,179. (Kenya Economic updates report 2013). Maize grain losses in Uasin Gishu County cause huge economic losses. Farmers are forced to dispose off their produce especially to NCPB at throw away prices and later buy the same at higher prices to meet their subsistence needs. This is because farmers do not have efficient as well as adequate facilities to store their grains after harvesting when the supply is glut. There is plenty of storage capacity in the hands of farmers, only that this great potential has not been adequately exploited especially by the low income small scale farmers (Sasaki, 1995). Some farmers are therefore forced to store their grains in primitive structures, resulting to huge losses due to contamination and pest damage. This is attributed to the fact that most farmers cannot afford to acquire the efficient modern storage facilities due to financial constraints. Small-scale farmers, in this case, are the most affected. To solve this problem, farmers should be facilitated to buy new grain storage facilities so that they can store their produce which they can later sell at higher prices to make good profits. This is however constrained by the fact that most of these farmers are poor hence may not buy the facilities anyway. Consequently, NCPB had come up with the Receipt System where farmers were allowed to deposit their cereals in their silos and a receipt was issued. Farmers could use this receipt as 2
collateral to acquire loans which they could use to purchase inputs (KENFAP, 2011). This project failed because farmers feared losing their cereals to the risk of not being able to pay back the loans. To assist farmers, NCPB should have assisted the farmers to buy small-scale storage, facilities like metal silos, through supplying them to farmers at subsidized prices. 1.2. Purpose of the study The purpose of this study is to assess grain loss by farmers in Uasin Gishu County due to poor grain storage facilities, in order to come up with the most appropriate remedy to the situation. 1.1. Objectives of the study The main objective of the study was to identify the major constraints that limit adoption of the modern storage facilities. The specific objectives are; a. To find out the characteristics of maize grain farmers in order to see how they relate to adoption of modern storage facilities. b. To investigate on factors that limit farmers adoption of the effective modern storage facilities. 1.2. The hypothesis a) Farmers level of education does not affect adoption of new modern storage facilities b) Income level does not influence the acquisition of better storage facilities by farmers. 1.3. Justification of the study Maize is a staple food in Kenya and in most parts of Sub-Saharan Africa as well. Therefore, any research carried out on maize with the objective to boost this sector is of huge importance to all the players in this sector. I realized that there is urgent need to carry out a research on maize grain loss during storage as this would come up with the most appropriate solutions to combat the huge maize deficit of around 200,000 metric tones (FAOSTAT, 2011). This study is significant to the different players in maize production sector in the following ways; 3
To the farmers, proper grain storage would reduce the amounts of grain loss hence boost their profit earnings from this sector. Those farmers who are financially stable will be facilitated to acquire better storage facilities, for example, through selling it to them at subsidized prices. This would create an incentive for the many farmers to buy the modern efficient storage structures. Those farmers who are financially constrained will also be facilitated through loans to acquire the modern storage facilities. To the financial institutions, they would acquire more customers for their loans. Farmers would be borrowing agricultural loans from them in order to buy the new modern grain storage facilities hence they would benefit directly from this. The input suppliers will also not be left behind in the sharing of the benefits attained from this research. Due to the need for their storage structures, they would be able to sell more in bid to earn more profit. This research would create a demand for these storage facilities, which if they sell at subsidized prices; they will sell larger quantities to increase their incomes. When they would sell at subsidized prices, they would be able to supply more storage facilities to the farmers due to the high demand created, hence this would boost their total revenue. This is illustrated below; This study therefore, is of great economic importance to not only Uasin Gishu County, but to the nation as a whole. I selected Uasin Gishu County because it is the major producer of maize in Kenya. To the government, it would help achieve the objective of creating a food secure nation as stipulated in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). It is the role of the government to maximize the social welfare of its citizens hence it should take part in ensuring that price subsidies are put to effect. 1.4. Study area The study area that I chose for this report is Soy Division in Uasin Gishu County. It is located in Eldoret West District in Uasin Gishu County. I chose this area because it is one of the chief producers of maize in Kenya hence bears all the challenges in maize production, storage loss included. 4
1.5. Organization of the project The next sections of the project report include literature review, methodology data sampling procedure and the model used then results and discussions, conclusion and recommendations then finally the list of acronyms respectively. 5
2. LITERATURE REVIEW Several studies have been carried out in the past, some of which support my study either directly or indirectly. The first study was carried out by Mutoko et al on Economics of Post-harvest Maize Grain Losses in Trans Nzoia and Uasin Gishu Disricts in 2006. The study was carried out through multi-stage sampling technique of 100 households. Data was collected on crop enterprises, agronomic practices, input costs yield level and losses, storage, preservation methods and marketing costs and prices. The data was analyzed using descriptive and correlation methods. The study found out that 35% loss was due to limited working capital to construct storage facilities and 67% loss was as a result of pests and physical conditions. The conclusions were that farmers require improved grain storage facility. This study is similar to the current one in the sense that similar methods of analysis will be used. The second study was carried out in Nigeria by Olakojo et al on storage methods of maize grains in 2003. This study was carried out through a laboratory experiment to investigate the efficacy of the various common methods of grain storage. The result expressed that treatment; storage methods as well as variety greatly influenced the amount of grain loss during storage. The study concluded that farmers should adopt pest- resistant varieties of maize, treat their produce properly as well as adopt improved methods of grain storage. The study differs from the current on methodology. This supports my study because the objective was to find a solution to address the problem of grain loss during storage. The current one will be a field survey using a questionnaire instead of laboratory experimentation. The third study was carried out by Agoda et al in Nigeria. The study was on Post-harvest Food Losses Reduction in Maize production in Nigeria. The study was carried out through a field study using a questionnaire, data being collected on causes of grain losses that is, varieties, soil, climate, processing and storage methods of maize. The results showed that the field where the crop a grown contribute highly to incidences of storage pests. In conclusion, the researcher stated that to reduce grain losses during storage, improved harvesting and storage techniques must be applied. This study supported my research since the same method of data collection, field survey, was used. The main difference is that my study focuses on storage factors and not pre-harvest factors contributing to grain loss. 6
The fourth study was carried out by Nyambo et al in 1993. The study was on post harvest maize and sorghum grain losses in traditional and modern granaries in South Nyanza. Data was collected by measuring the amount of weight loss after every four months. This was expressed as follows; Weight loss 100 Initial weight In Oyugis, the study revealed that there were maize grain losses amounting to 2.2% and 5.6% for improved and traditional granaries respectively. Furthermore, there were losses of5.6% and 11.5% for improved and traditional granaries respectively. This concludes that efficient storage technology has a significant impact on preventing grain loss during storage. However, this study did not incorporate income level and its effect on adoption of the new storage facilities. This was included in my survey to try finding out if income level has impact on adoption. 7
3. METHODOLOGY 3.1.Data collection and sampling procedure Primary data was collected using a survey tool, structured questionnaire. The questionnaire covered information on types of storage facilities, level of income, level of education, farming duration/ experience, quantity of produce, among others. I carried out random sampling from a list generated at the Soy Division Headquarter and randomly selected 36 farmers for the study. 3.2. Model used I analyzed the data using SPSS. I carried out a frequency analysis as well as regression analysis. Using regression, every variable s impact would be determined and the results fit in the following model; A= α +β 1 X 1 +β 2 X 2 + +β n X n or A = α + Where; A Adoption α y intercept/ constant X - Independent variables β gradient/slope 8
3.2.1. Variables included in the model and expected output Variable expected sign Farming duration + Age - Gender + Occupation + Level of education - With respect to farming duration, I expect that it positively affect adoption. This is because I feel that those who have engaged in farming long enough have a higher chance of adopting the modern grain storage facilities. They have saved enough capital to facilitate this. I expect that age of the respondent will not affect adoption. This is because information access about the modern storage facilities as well as saving is not affected by age. Anybody can save at any age provided there is some reliable source of income. What matters is whether an individual can access funds adequate to facilitate adoption. Gender equality is a cross-cutting issue in Kenya. Women are still being denied access to and ownership of land as well as capital. With this in mind, I therefore expect that women farmers have a lower chance of adoption due to these prevailing constraints mentioned above. Hence gender affects adoption. In this case, Occupation means whether the farmer is employed or not. This could be self-employment in other non-farm sectors or permanent employment by the governmental or non-governmental organization. Those that are employed earn salary, some of which they can save and use to purchase the modern storage facilities. I finally expect that the level of education does not affect adoption. This is because farmers do not require much education to carry out maize cultivation. Furthermore, most farmers have become experts in maize cultivation through experience and consultation amongst themselves. 9
The results obtained were as follows:- 4.1. Descriptive statistics 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS VARIABLES DESCRIPTIVE Farming duration (years) 9.42 Age of respondents (years) 38.08 Level of income (Kshs.) 14908.185 Adopters (%) 38.9 Facility assessment (%good) 91.7 Information access (%yes) 100 Preferred intervention (% subsidy) 63.9 Gender (% male) 72.2 Occupation (%employed) 61.1 Education level (%post-primary) 75 Causal agent (%insect) 61.1 The farmers interviewed have been in that field for averagely ten years though the range is between two to twenty years. This connotes that most of the farmers are quite experienced on matters pertaining maize grain loss management. The farmers interviewed were quite of some good age, averaging at 38 years. All of them were twenty six years and above. This reflects the cultural requirements that a son has to be of an adult age before he is given legal right to own a piece of land through inheritance. 10
In relation to the level, the farmers on average earn approximately Shs. 15000. This is too low to facilitate the purchase of modern storage facilities. Only a small section of the farmers earned approximately above forty thousand. This explains the low state of adoption. Only 38% of the respondents were adopters of the various modern grain storage facilities, especially the metallic silo. As evidenced by the results from the research, this low adoption level is as a result of the fact that the facilities are too expensive to afford. The farmers level of income is not adequate enough to facilitate the same. In terms of facility assessment, the farmers who used sacks rated them as good. This is simply because they assume the economic loss due to storage in sacks is negligible, they are not able to quantify the loss or they simply do not care. They operate within the comfort zone. The farmers who rated their facilities as poor mostly use plastic bags or they just poured them on the floor after traditionally treating them with ash or cow dung ash. Those who rated the same as excellent are the adopters of the more effective storage facilities, for instance the metal silo. These are the financially stable farmers who not only rely on farming as their main source of finance, but are either employed or involved in other business. Insect pests were the main source of grain loss during storage. These storage pests are mainly carried from the farm during harvesting. Improperly drying and untreated grains is a predisposing factor to grain loss during storage. Rodents and leaking facilities contributed very little towards grain loss. All the farmers interviewed have access to information on the modern storage facilities hence it is other factors that contributed to the prevailing poor rate of adoption. Compared to the availing of loans, most farmers wanted the government and the private suppliers to subsidize the prize of the storage facilities. This is owing to the fact that loans have been made available to them through the many formal and informal lending institutions at an affordable interest; hence the problem is the unaffordable stated prices. The majority of the farmers interviewed in the research were male at 72.2%. most communities in Kenya still have not woken up to the call that women should be treated as equals in terms of 11
land ownership. Women are still being discriminated against. Furthermore, the few women who practiced farming are widows or they bought land. Only about 61.1% of the farmers are employed. The region is progressing well in terms of the value they accord to education. About 55.6% have not pursued post-secondary education. This translates into unemployment; hence most of the farmers are either unemployed or self employed with only a few being permanently employed. 12
4.2. Regression Variable Coefficient Standard Error Significance Constant -0.103 0.276 0.712 Farming duration 0.26 0.010 0.017 Age 0.012 0.005 0.972 Gender -0.004 0.117 0.972 Occupation -0.324 0.109 0.006 Level of education 0.121 0.055 0.035 According to the above analysis, the four hypothesis stated herein have been disapproved. It is clear from the table just above that gender does not affect adoption of the new effective modern storage facilities. This is because both dimensions of gender are faced with similar challenges with regard to the same. Form the results; it is clear that farming duration positively affects adoption. Farmers who have practiced farming for long have accumulated enough profit from the revenue to enable them buy the new facilities. They also possess a track record on loan borrowing to enable them win the trust of the creditors. This enables them to acquire sufficient loans which they use to buy the new efficient storage facilities. The age of the farmers has also been proved to affect adoption. The higher the age bracket, the higher the chance of adoption. Older farmers probably have carried out farming longer than the younger ones. Therefore, older farmers have accumulated enough capital from the farming activities to enable them able to afford the new grain storage facilities. The occupation of the respondent greatly determines whether he/she is an adopter or not. Those farmers who are employed have adopted the effective grain storage facilities. This is because of 13
the synergy that emanates from acquiring funds from both employment and the commercial maize farming as well. The jobs they have provide insurance in case they opt to borrow loans in order to purchase the facilities. Finally, it is also proved that the level of education affects adoption. Those who are more educated are well versed with the knowledge behind acquiring the new effective grain storage techniques. They are also able to understand the economic loss that comes with using poor storage techniques. This propels them into adopting the new efficient storage techniques. The less educated operate under ignorance hence their continued use of inferior storage facilities. 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The research was carried out through face to face interview using a semi-structured questionnaire. The respondents were the maize farmers in Soy Division. The research shows that, among other factors, lack of capital is a major factor affecting the adoption of modern storage facilities hence those who have higher income, the employed, are more likely to adopt the facilities than those with relatively lower income. It is clear from the research that adoption of the new grain storage facilities, which are more effective in grain loss control, is affected by farming experience, level of income, education, occupation as well as gender. With respect to the above conclusion, I would like to recommend that modern storage facilities should be provided to the farmers in order to facilitate their purchase of the same, for instance the metal silo. This will help reduce grain loss during storage and consequentially boost farmers income and food security as well. The government should provide incentive to the young farmers to enable them acquire the new storage facilities. This can be achieved through subsidies. The government should find better strategies to combat unemployment as this will have long-term positive effect on adoption of proper grain storage facilities. The free primary education project should be implemented more strictly to reduce the prevailing high illiteracy level. This will see more citizens being absorbed into higher levels of learning hence more farmers will have alternative sources of income to facilitate better adoption of proper grain storage facilities. 14
6. REFERENCES Azu, J. (2002). Post-harvest loss reduction: OICI Tamale s quick interventions for reducing food insecurity. Ghana, OICI International B. Owuor (2010) MAIZE Sub-sector in Kenya, Mending the granary. Birkinshaw I. and Hodges R. (2000) Improving IPM approaches for IGB control in Africa,CIMMYT (2013) Daniel M. and Ngugi G. (1997). The implications of Agricultural MarkeetLiberization or Efficiency and Agricultural Policy in Kenya, The case of Maize pg 24 26 Komen J., Motoko C., Wanyama J., Rono S. and Mose L. (2006) International Journal of Food Microbiology 119(1-2):131-139: Economics of Post-harvest Maize Grain Loss in Trans Nzoia and Uasin Gishu Districts: N.W. Kenya. Olakojo S. and Akinlosotu T. (2004) African Journal for Food Microbiology Vol. 3(7), pp.362-365 Odhiambo M. 1994. The Kenya Maize Sub-sector: A Rapid Appraisal Approach with emphasis on Information Needs and Extension Issues. Government of Kenya / Market Information System Rep. No. 94-03 Sasaki N. (1995) Maize Market Liberalization, Seasonal Price, And Private Sector Storage, In Processing of the conference on Towards 200; Improving Agricultural Performance, Egerton Uni, Policy Analysis Matrix, Nairobi www.cimmyts.org/en/projeects/effective-rain-storage-project-phase-ii, Effective Grain Storage, 2/11/2013 15