1. EFFECTS OF MAIZE’S PRICE INSTABILITY ON INCOME LEVELS AND
HOUSEHOLDS LIVES IN MATHIRA DISTRICT, NYERI COUNTY
BY
HENRICK WAHOME MURIITHI
A Research submitted to the Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness
Management of the partial fulfillment for the award of the Degree in Bachelor of Science,
Agricultural Economics of Egerton University
May 2014
2. ii
DECLARATION AND APPROVAL
Declaration
This is my original work and has not been presented in this or any other university for award of
degree
Signature……………………………………….. Date………………………….……..
Henrick Wahome Muriithi.
K18/10030/10
Approval
This project has been prepared and submitted with my approval.
Signature……………………………………….. Date………………………….……..
Prof. Margret Ngigi.
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness Management
Egerton University
4. iv
DEDICATION
This research project is dedicated to The Almighty God for The grace and mercy He has given
me to this far. To my beloved parents, brothers, and sisters whose prayers and unending support
has brought me this far. Also my course mates for their intellectual support, co-operation and
guidance
5. v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First and foremost I would like to thank Almighty God for care, protection and provision
throughout my studies. I wish to pass my sincere gratitude to Egerton University for giving me
the opportunity to pursue my undergraduate degree. I appreciate the contribution of the entire
staff of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness Management of Egerton
University for helping me achieve my academic goals in this degree program. I am greatly
indebted to my Supervisor Mr. Nixon Murathi under Prof. Ngigi for his guidance, assistance,
encouragement and concern for. He paid attention to detail and was available to patiently read
and offer his constructive criticism on my project work. I acknowledge the support offered by
my group members and fellow classmate Mr. Donald Mugambi and all my friends and family
members for granting me the atmosphere to work on the project. May God Bless you all
abundantly.
6.
7. 1
ABSTRACT
Maize farming is a major economic activity among many smallholder farmers in many
parts of Kenya. It is of great importance especially to farmer in Mathira District in Nyeri County.
However, lives of most farmers in the district have not been pushing on well; standards of living
of most farmers in the areas have been on a decline trend. This is so because of the price
instability of the maize in the market thus affecting the farmers negatively in the area. A decline
in most cases of the prices of maize has had negative effects on the lives of the farmers in the
area. This has been subjecting them to daily losses despite giving all their efforts on maize
production in the hope of a better return. Where prices have been increasing though not in many
instances, farmers in the area have not been smiling since that has been off setting the losses
incurred from a decline in the prices. The main purpose of this study is to examine the effects of
the high variations of the prices of maize on income levels of the farmers in area and effects of
that variation on their lives. This would be done through a qualitative and quantitative analysis of
maize production potentials of farmers, family sizes of the farmers, education levels and
adoption rates of storage facilities.1 The specific objectives of the study are: To determine the
role of market choices in variation of maize prices in Mathira District, to determine the role of
storage facilities for maize grains after harvest in the variations of maize prices in Mathira
District and to determine the implication of market centres locations in the variations of prices of
maize in Mathira District.
8. 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION AND APPROVAL.......................................................................................... ii
DEDICATION.............................................................................................................................. iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT............................................................................................................ v
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................... 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. 2
LIST OF FIGURES...................................................................................................................... 5
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .................................................................... 6
1.1 Background information ....................................................................................................... 7
1.1 Statement Of The Problem............................................................................................... 9
1.2 Objectives....................................................................................................................... 10
1.3.1 General Objective ................................................................................................... 10
1.3.2 Specific Objectives ................................................................................................. 10
1.3.3 Research questions.................................................................................................. 10
1.3.4 Justification of the Study.............................................................................................. 10
1.3.5 Scope and Limitation of the Study ............................................................................... 11
CHAPTER TWO ........................................................................................................................ 12
LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................................... 12
2.1 Theoretical Framework .................................................................................................. 17
2.2 Conceptual Framework .................................................................................................. 18
CHAPTER THREE.................................................................................................................... 21
Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 21
3.1 Area Of Study.................................................................................................................. 21
3.2 Population Under Study................................................................................................... 21
9. 3
3.3 Sample And Sampling Size............................................................................................. 22
3.4 Instrumentation And Data Collection.............................................................................. 22
3.5 Data Analysis................................................................................................................... 23
CHAPTER FOUR....................................................................................................................... 24
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................... 24
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 24
4.2 Questionnaire response rate........................................................................................ 24
4.3 Relationship between demographic characteristics of the maize farmers and prices of
maize variation ...................................................................................................................... 24
4.3.1 Distribution of farmers by Gender.......................................................................... 24
4.3.2 Age distribution of the farmers............................................................................... 25
4.4 Size of land portions set for maize production........................................................... 25
4.5 Farmer’s market choices for his / her maize............................................................... 26
4.6 Storage of maize and storage...................................................................................... 27
4.7 Location of market centres ......................................................................................... 28
CHAPTER FIVE ........................................................................................................................ 30
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION .................................................................... 30
5.1 Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 30
5.2 Recommendations.......................................................................................................... 30
REFERENCES........................................................................................................................ 32
APPENDIX .............................................................................................................................. 35
RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE............................................................................................. 35
10. 4
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Gender of the respondent................................................................................................ 25
Table 2 : Age of Respondent ........................................................................................................ 25
Table 3 : Size of land portions set for maize production .............................................................. 26
Table 4 : Farmer’s market choices for his / her maize.................................................................. 27
Table 5: Storage of maize and storage.......................................................................................... 28
Table 6 : Location of market centers ............................................................................................ 29
11. 5
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: An illustration of factors contributing to stable maize prices. ..................................... 19
12. 6
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
EAC East African Community
ESA Eastern and Southern Africa
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
FRA Food Reserve Agency
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GMO Genetically Modified Organism.
GoK Government of Kenya
MDGs Millennium Development Goals
MOA Ministry of Agriculture
NCPB National Cereals and Produce Board
SPSS Statistical Packages for Social Sciences
SSA Sub-Saharan Africa
13. 7
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background information
Agriculture is the mainstay of people in Kenya. Agriculture is considered as the backbone
of the Kenya’s economy. It is regarded as so since it contributes greatly to the Kenyan economy
in many terms; including contributing to the GDP which it accounts for 26.5%,provision of both
direct (semi-skilled) and indirect (skilled) labour to almost 80% of the Kenyan population.
Agriculture itself is a chief source of food for the Kenyan population of close to 42 million
people. Most of the agricultural production in the country is small scale and geared towards
subsistence maintenance. In Kenya most of the agriculture is localized in the rural areas as is the
practice of the people of Mathira. Kenya’s agricultural sector is both crop and livestock and
livestock products productive. Crop production involves production of both food and cash crops.
Food crops produced includes the maize, sorghum, Irish potatoes and vegetables. The major cash
crops are coffee, tea , horticultural products and flowers.
Maize is the main food crop grown in Mathira division. The widely grown varieties of
maize in Kenya are yellow and white maize. Most of the farmers in the area are small scale
farmers. Maize scientifically is known as Zeamays. It is a large grain started being domesticated
by the indigenous people in Mesoamerica in prehistoric times. It spread to the rest of the world
because of its ability to grow in diverse climates. Over 160 million hectares of maize are planted
worldwide.
In Kenya maize is the main source of food either in raw form or in processed form as
maize meal. It is ranked as third crop grown In the Kenyan agricultural sector after tea and
coffee.
Maize is the most important cereal crop in SSA and the continent produces 6.5% of the
world output. Africa consumes 30% 0f maize, Imports 28% of maize. World Wide human
consumption of the maize is more than 160 million tonnes, Africa alone 30% and SSA
21%.Eastern and southern Africa uses 85% of its maize as food while Africa uses 95% of maize.
Maize accounts for 30-50 % of low income earners expenditures in Eastern and southern Africa.
Most maize production in Kenya and in most parts of Africa is rain fed maize production, that is,
14. 8
it is dependent on the rainfall patterns thus leading to seasonality in production of maize in these
countries. Irregular rainfall patterns can trigger famine in vulnerable regions in the continent as
has been evident in Kenya for example in the year 2010 during the Kenyans for Kenyans
campaign in the North Horn of Kenya, Turkana region being most badly hit by famine. (MoA.,
2010)
Nyeri County is in the former central Kenya region nearing Mount Kenya in the
northwest direction. The local people there are predominantly from the Kikuyu ethnicity. Maize
in Mathira District is predominantly grown by small scale farmers. These farmers mainly grow it
as a source of food for their families or as a source of income to help them cater for their
family’s needs, supplement their diet, and guarantee them a decent living. This is evident as the
income they get from sale of maize is used to buy other food items, buy clothes, build decent
living houses, access quality education and Medicare among others. Maize forms a chief source
of food for the Mathira District population and that of the Nyeri County at large. Generally, it
guarantees them improved living standards. However, most maize farmers in the region are faced
with several constraints in their efforts to produce this golden crop. These constraints are; limited
capital for maize farming, limited land capacity, or limited labour supply to work in the maize
fields. Land in the area Mathira District has been fragmented into very small units due to high
population pressure. On average each household owns about 0.64 hectares of land. Land in the
area is a highly priced factor of production but this is not the main constraint accessing more of
the land. People there are not willing to sell land anymore and where one is willing to sell the
land, the prices drives away many prospective buyers.
However, in recent times the welfare of majority of maize farmers in the region, mostly
those who have been relying heavily on maize for income provision and food source have
suffered many setbacks. These are like reduced income from the sale of maize products due to
volatility of maize prices in the market and threats of food insecurity due to recent change in
climate and rainfall patterns, reduction in income levels of households has been brought about by
the instability nature of the markets and prices of the maize product right from the world markets
up to to the division market level of Mathira District situated at Karatina town. The maize market
prices in recent times have been very volatile.
15. 9
1.1 Statement of The Problem
The area under study has portrayed favorable climatic conditions for producing maize.
The rainfall is bimodal, long rains (March- May) and short rain (October- November) which
facilitates for maize production throughout the year and various conservation technologies have
into existence such as construction of modern grain silos, NCPB has been reaching the farmers in
the area by buying the excess maize from them and stores them on their behalf. Through this
they control supply of the maize. The rural infrastructures in the area such as roads networks,
water supply, and electricity e.g. have been implemented. Inclusively, there are ready markets for
the maize either in raw and processed forms. There are those customers who prefer raw maize,
either green maize or dry maize and there are those who prefer processed maize as maize meal.
The main market in the area is situated at Karatina town there is an open market where either
farmers themselves take their maize for sale or is taken there for sale by the middlemen. High
Schools and other learning institutions are also markets for the maize produced in the area
although most of them buy dry maize. Hospitals, hotels and restaurants are other customers of
the maize produced in the area. Maize millers such as the Arbedare Mupa Maize Millers and the
recently launched by the Nyeri county Governor Nderitu Gachagua, Dabo Maize Meal brand a
product of the Anchor Flour Millers are the other customers of the maize produced in the
District.
Despite the above market opportunities for the maize of the maize farmers in Mathira
District, Nyeri County , standards of lives of most farmers in the areas have been on a decline
trend. This is so because of the price instability of the maize in the market thus affecting the
farmers negatively in the area. A decline in most cases of the prices of maize has had negative
effects on the lives of the farmers in the area. This has been subjecting them to daily losses
despite giving all their efforts on maize production in the hope of a better return. Where prices
have been increasing though not in many instances, farmers in the area have not been smiling
since that has been offsetting the losses incurred from a decline in the prices. Thus, the purpose
of this study is to examine the effects of the instability of the maize prices in the District and
effects on the lives of the farmers in the area.
16. 10
1.2 Objectives
1.3.1 General Objective
To examine the effects of the high variations of the prices of maize on income levels of
the farmers in area and effects of that variation on their lives.
1.3.2 Specific Objectives
1. To determine the role of market choices in variation of maize prices in Mathira
District.
2. To determine the role of storage for maize grains after harvest in the variations of
maize prices in Mathira District.
3. To determine the implication of market centres locations in the variations of
prices of maize in Mathira District.
1.3.3 Research questions
1. Do the market choices of the farmer have an influence on maize price variations?
2. Do the storage have an influence on the variations of prices of the maize in the
area?
3. Do the location of market centres lead to price of maize variations in the area?
1.3.4 Justification of the Study
The study will be beneficial to smallholder maize farmers, since the results will help on
their efforts to improve their maize production enterprises levels in producing and choosing good
market choices for their maize. This will include enlightening the farmers through an improved
and efficient extension system on how to go about selecting the on good production practices,
marketing choices, storage facilities. The maize farmers also will benefit from acquiring skills on
how to manage postharvest losses so as to maximize their net profits from the sale of their maize.
The maize farming enterprise earns a regular income which sustains the livelihood of most
small-scale households. It is also a main daily household’s diet to most people throughout the
year. The enterprise also creates employment for the rural communities at the farm levels and
off-farm employments to informal maize traders, cooperatives and other dealing with maize
marketing.
17. 11
1.3.5 Scope and Limitation of the Study
1.3.5.1 Scope of the study
In order to obtain a reliable and comprehensive analysis, the study had to limit itself to
the smallholder’s maize farmers who rely on maize production as their main source of income
and livelihood. The study was conducted in the three wards in Mathira District ( Ruguru, Iraini
and Karatina Ward). This was done by conducting a survey through administering well-
structured questionnaires on a sample of 30 smallholder maize farmers from an estimated
population of 500 maize farmers. The questionnaire method is assumed the best method of
collecting information since it’s quicker and cheaper to administer according to Cooper and
Emory (2008).
1.3.5.2 Limitations of the study
The limitations were like; uncooperative farmers who resisted giving actual information
on the study. There are farmers who also gave false information thus leading to erroneous
conclusions. Also some farmers were only conversant in their native language and thus a need
for a translator on the filling of the questionnaire. The study was again confined to those farmers
who practice maize farming as their core business and means of livelihood.
18. 12
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Maize is a major grain in most African and Sub-Saharan Africa. Maize is the most
important crop in Kenya with over 90% of farming households growing maize (Pearson et al.
1995). Productivity in maize sector increased steadily from independence until the mid-1980s
(Kibaara et al, 2008) but declined between 1985 and 2004. However, (Ariga et al., 2008) found
that maize yields have improved impressively over the 1997-2007 period, partly due to increased
use of fertilizers. Fertilizer marketing costs declined substantially between mid-1990s and 2007
but the positive trends in fertilizer use were partially reversed in 2008 by civil disruption as well
as surge in global fertilizer prices (GoK, 2009).
In early 1990’s Maize and maize meal prices, which prior to policy change were set at
pan-seasonal and pan-territorial levels, were deregulated. Private traders were allowed to
transport maize across the districts without any hindrance. Prior to this policy change, they were
required to acquire movement permit for varying quantities of maize that was transported. The
reform process was expected to reduce costs in maize marketing system by encouraging mere
private sector participation in the market. (Jayne., and G. Kodhek, 1999).
Maize grain losses contribute to food insecurity and low farm incomes not only in Kenya
but also in Sub- Saharan countries. Therefore, efficient post-harvest handling, storage and
marketing can tremendously contribute to social economic aspects of rural communities in
Kenya as stipulated in Vision 2030 (Republic of Kenya, 2007). Maize losses are either
quantitative or qualitative or both. Such losses lead to lower levels of food security, hunger,
increased prices and low farm incomes (Republic of Kenya, 2004). These losses are experienced
at different stages e.g. pre-harvest time, during harvest, during shelling, during storage and
during transportation time, during transaction times at the market centres.
To meet the larger African and Kenya crisis of persistent agricultural products price
fluctuations, persistent food insecurity, nutritional deficiency, and ever enduring poverty levels,
one must turn to agricultural led growth. But based on the historical experience, an agricultural
led strategy is based on in a twenty five (25) year horizon and must entail a combination or an
integration of modern and improved technology, many, intensive and continuous innovations in
19. 13
the agricultural sector, policy reforms and new institutional restructuring because each by itself is
a limited effort of any agency to see that the above problems are solved.
“Operation of the markets”-the determination of the commodity’s prices by the market
forces of demand and supply, these forces in turn influences the allocation of resources. (J.
Harrigan, Agricultural Price Policy, Government and Market).A markets exists whenever buyers
and sellers of a particular resource or a good freely come together leading to flow of information
which creates the opportunity for trade and exchange of goods and services. Buyers and sellers
need not to physically come together. They might be joined for example by telecommunications
networks-commerce etc. most African markets for agricultural goods involve physical contact
between buyers and sellers which gives a market a clearly defined geographical location. Most
villages have a small market where traders regularly gather. Larger markets exist in regional
centres or in urban settlements. Markets can be local, regional, national or international. (Pg. 21,
J. Harrigan, Agricultural Price Policy, Government and Market)
Agricultural productivity growth throughout history has been intimately tied to
productivity growth in marketing systems. (North., 1985). Abundant worldwide evidence has
shown that the incentives and the ability of farmers to make investments in productivity
enhancing inputs and production methods depends on reducing the transaction costs and risks of
exchange across inputs, credits and output markets. Throughout the world, the major share of
staple food crop (maize) to the consumer is typically accounted for by marketing costs. In most
countries in eastern and Southern Africa, maize marketing costs for about 40%-60% of the total
retail price of a maize meal paid by customers. (Jayne 1999). The reduction of these costs
represents a major opportunity to improve farm production incentives and simultaneously make
food more affordable to low-income consumers and mostly poor maize farmers. (James K
Nyoro, Tegemeo Institute)
Governments in East Africa region have tended to intervene heavily in markets for their
key staple food, maize both through marketing board operations and discretionary trade policy
instruments purportedly to protect producers and consumers from price risk. In effect such
incentives can be counter-productive, exacerbating the risks faced by participants in the grain
value chain not to mention customers especially the poorest among them. In East Africa maize is
the major grain. As it is a rain-fed crop annual production fluctuates strongly but in a way
20. 14
different from country to country. Regional and International trade in maize is therefore
important in these countries to help them level out year-to-year fluctuations. The three
governments through the East Africa community have infact endorsed a “Common Maize
Market” but the implementation has failed somewhat short of the ideal. An analysis of maize
prices shows that they are very volatile but that most of the price movements are actually
predictable from past price movements. The private sectors actors should be able to adjust their
decisions in order to protect themselves from price volatility and there is a little reason from an
outside agent (for example from government) to try to act on the level of price volatility itself
(for example by market interventions). Maize markets in the region are reasonably well
integrated despite government trade interventions (indicating the strength of informal trade), with
Nairobi acting as the reference centre which price developments in other parts of the East Africa
region.
Policy interventions have been frequent in both Kenya and Tanzania where the two
governments use trade policy and marketing and market boards as tools to influence prices on
maize markets. Both countries have normally high import duties from outside the region which
are reduced or eliminated when the governments see fit and both use export bans when they feel
that there is a local maize shortage. In both countries there is a number of non-tariff barriers
(including a ban on the GMO maize) with cumbersome export/import procedures. Uganda has
stable trade policy when it comes to maize (the only significant barrier to trade is a ban on the
GMO maize) and does not operate a marketing board or even a Food Reserve Agency. (Adam
Gross et al.)
The food price crisis of 2007–2008 and recent resurgence of food prices have focused
increasing attention on the causes and consequences of food price volatility in international food
markets and the developing world, particularly in Africa south of the Sahara.
There are some factors which are attributed to the great price volatility of maize in the
region:
Policy uncertainty is just one of the risks to which the maize sector in East Africa is
exposed. Risk exposure is a problem. For example, farmers‟ response to risk depends on
their ability to carry risk, which is a function of their overall wealth. The poorest farmers
therefore tend to be the most risk averse, so risk exposure is likely to perpetuate and reinforce
21. 15
rural income inequalities. Risks are exacerbated by weak physical and institutional
infrastructure, which also make it more difficult to manage risks (e.g. poor road infrastructure
hinders maize movements across regions; underdeveloped maize financing systems hinder
seasonal storage). Some risks are difficult to avoid (e.g. weather), but the policy-induced
risks, particularly in Kenya and Tanzania, could be reduced by better decision-making.
Unpredictable import duty levels and marketing board interventions and to a lesser extent,
unpredictable procurement decisions from the World Food Programme, the largest single
maize buyer in the region – prevent the private sector from taking forward positions
(including taking early decisions to import maize in the face of an impending shortfall),
discourage farmers (e.g., Ugandan farmers could produce much more maize if they were
more certain of the market), and make maize storage risky.(Adam gross et al.). One of the
possible ways of dealing with that risk is the introduction of the warehouse receipt finance.
This facilitates storage (giving farmers greater flexibility in deciding when to sell and
stabilizing intra-seasonal prices).African farmers, traders, processors and consumers are
exposed to a wide range of risks. Agricultural production is vulnerable to factors such as
weather (including catastrophic weather events) and disruptions in input supply. Supply
chains are fragile, resulting in large farm-to-fork losses, high transaction costs and frequent
market disruptions, with many supply chain operators suffering from a lack of information,
weak finances and poorly developed infrastructure. National prices are not only affected by
national supply/demand factors, but also by global price developments and a range of macro-
economic, fiscal and regulatory policies and developments (e.g., exchange rate fluctuations,
crop and sales taxes, licensing regimes). This combination of institutional, market and
financial risks that affect grain markets and trade has a particularly negative impact on poor
households that are forced to use a variety of informal mechanisms to cope with income and
consumption risk, including diversification of cropping patterns, off-farm employment, food
storage and sale of assets during hard times. These policies were seen as increasing
uncertainty and reducing incentives for stakeholders to invest in and use alternative market
based risk management mechanisms. (Karugia et al., 2009a)
Evidence shows that maize prices in East and Southern Africa are generally unstable
in countries that pursue interventionist policies and restrict grain trade than those with open
borders. Similarly maize prices are less predictable where boundaries apply restrictions to
22. 16
grain trade as compared to countries with border policies. This indicates a prima facie case
for improving government-private sector co-ordination to improve market functioning and
reduce instability.(Jayne and Tschirley., 2009).
A sudden surge in food prices has increased the number of poor people globally
through the impacts have differed across various countries. A recent study estimates that
between June and December 2010, the average poverty changed by 1.1 % points in low
income countries and 0.7% points in middle income countries and there was a net increase of
44 million people falling below the US $ 1.25 per day extreme poverty lines. The
achievement of the MDGs will remain an unrealistic dream if food insecurity continues
worsening. (Ivanic et al., 2011)
In Kenya, the volatility of maize prices has been a cause for concern as it adversely
affects both the producers and consumers. Producers are also affected by weather, induced
volatility in production. If prices and production vary in opposite directions, then to the
volatility in income is reduced to some extent. The price of maize depends on both real
factors (such as production, which in turn depends on the area harvested and the yield) and
on monetary factors which operate at macro level.
Trade barriers and public grain reserves have increased food price instability.
Government trading interventions have been large and unpredictable. Private traders have
been hesistant to compete against subsidized public enterprises and have been reluctant to
invest in seasonal storage and grain trading. Maize price volatility declined sharply in Kenya
since it adopted the “Maize without Borders Policy” of the EAC in January 2005. (Maize
without Borders in Africa.)
Other causes of price volatility of maize and other major grains in Africa may be but not
limited to these are:-
Marketing constraints do raise prices and volatility, limited storage capacity No major
warehousing or stockpiling services by government or private sector, no smooth supply, high
cost of transport Bulk transport systems are non-existent, high risk of trading, no quality
standards, limited market information, high product loses, disruptions due to conflict, political
instability and high cost of transport is a real problem. ( Mulat Demeke., et al)
The annual per capita maize consumption in Kenya is about 125 kilograms (GoK 1983)
the scarcity of rain has sent the prices for maize grains skyrocketing to levels unaffordable by
23. 17
local peasants. Two kilograms of ungrounded maize jumped from Sh. 70 to Sh. 120 in many
parts of Kenya within the 2010 season. (Omolo 2011). Although most small scale farmers do not
obtain adequate maize production to meet their household needs, they still sell part of their
produce to meet other domestic requirements (MoA 2010).
Developing appropriate maize marketing and trade policies in the context of a growing
structural
deficit in maize and ever shrinking smallholder farm sizes requires a detailed understanding of
the structure and performance of Kenya’s maize value chain. Understanding how the value
chain has developed in turn requires an understanding of the market liberalization process in
Kenya, as this has been the major policy thrust affecting the industry over the past 20 years
(Nyoro. Kiiru. and Jayne., 1999)
Republic of Kenya (2007) analyzed maize prices using descriptive and correlation
methods and found that prices shown wide varieties between the net producing (for instance,
Kitale) and net consuming (for instance, Nyeri) regions as well as between the harvest (Oct.-
Nov.) and post-harvest (Dec.-Aug) seasons. The major storage problems reported by over 85
percent of the farmers surveyed include: uncertain returns from maize and physical and pest
losses of stored maize.
2.1 Theoretical Framework
The study was built on utility and transaction cost theory. This is where the farmer is
maximizing utility to attain the highest profits given certain constraints. Most of the households
are peasant farmers who are semi-commercialized as part of their output is consumed at home
and also they may hire labour or sell out their labour even if the market is fully
functional.(Sadouet and Javnry 1995). The maize farmers as part of the economic agents
maximize net revenue with respect to levels of products and factors subject to constraints that are
market determined fixed factors and technology. Farmer’s revenue is income he gets from the
sale of maize at the given market price. The farmers will be maximizing profits from the sale of
maize subject to the constraints which may be farm management factors, financial factors,
marketing and socio-economic factors.
24. 18
The study was also based on transaction cost theory, which appreciates that the
exchanges in the markets are not costless. (Coarse., 1937). This implies that maize farmers will
incur costs in the course of their production and marketing their maize. These costs are like,
purchasing of inputs, seeds, fertilizers, land ploughing where labour is hired one, harvesting
costs, storage costs, transporting costs, handling costs, loading and offloading costs and
marketing costs such as distribution costs, delivery cost, negotiation and transaction costs. These
transaction cost increase or decrease the price of maize and or reduce or increase farmers income
levels (profits margins). The costs may also arise from imperfect information where farmers need
to have to incur more costs to search for better prices .This is information asymmetry and may
also lead opportunism which consequently results to mistrust amongst the players in the supply
and value addition chains. Mistrust can lead to increased transaction cost to all the players in the
maize production. Farmers may leave a chain that is effective, efficient and convenient because
they do not trust either the information offered by the buyer or the price he is offering for the
maize or the equipment tools or measurement units used. Consequently this leads to increased
transaction costs reducing farmer’s profits margins thus reduced farmer’s income levels. To
overcome some of the information costs farmers have resulted to coming together for a collective
action and join hands to form a marketing society of their maize. These are either informal or
informal like co-operative societies or self-help groups.
2.2 Conceptual Framework
Kenya is an agro based country with most of the natural conditions being favorable
for compositions and Government interventions are therefore the key intervening factors
towards achieving maize prices stability based on the international trade conditions. The
figure below summarizes the Conceptual Framework. Government intervention and farmers’
characteristics are intervening variables whereas a stable price is the dependent variable and
international trade conditions are the independent variable.
25. 19
Figure 1: An illustration of factors contributing to stable maize prices.
Small holder maize farmers have different management characteristics which include
skills and training they got, experience in the sub-sector of maize farming, cropping systems
varieties of maize to plant at the given ecological conditions among others. Different farmers
also use different financial practices in terms of debt utilization and management levels of asset
Consumer
Consumer tastes and preferences.
Consumers expectations.
Consumers purchasing power.
Consumers attitude.
Farmers Characteristics.
Patience.
Use of advanced post-harvest
practices in maize production.
Selection of distribution
channels.
Favourable international trade
conditions.
Maize without borders policy in
Africa.
Stable prices for maize
and maize meal.
26. 20
base, debt asset ratio, and financial records keeping, i.e correct and accurate farm accounts.
Farmers do also face marketing factors commonly from the environment which include issues
like transaction costs in maize marketing in terms of search for buyers and marketing
information, bidding costs and in other cases contractual agreements. Social economics factors
such as age, education levels, gender and also their family size do affect the production and
marketing of maize among the small holder farmers. Other factors such as marketing factors
such as customer search costs, trust lengthy of supply chain and standards and equipment of
measurement interact with each other and together influence the profitability of the farmer. Farm
management factors, financial factors and socio-economic factors will determine the level of
output of the farmer and his/her cost of production. On the other hand, the marketing factors will
influence the marketing of the maize and maize meal which will consequently have an effect on
the farmers’ income levels or rather farmers’ profits.
27. 21
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Area of Study
Nyeri County is in the former central Kenya province. The county borders the following
Counties ,Kirinyaga to the East,Murang’a to the south,Nyandarua to the west,Laikipia to the
north and Meru to the northwest direction. The total area of Nyeri County 2361.0 Km2.
The
county has the following districts Kieni East, Mukurweine, Nyeri Municipality, Kieni West,
Othaya,and Mathira District. Also the county has six constituencies namely, Othaya , Mathira,
Nyeri Town, Tetu, Mukurweine and Kieni Constituencies. Mathira District is one of the districts
in the county. It has six electoral wards namely, Ruguru, Magutu, Iriani, Konyu, Kirimukuyu and
Karatina Town ward.
Nyeri County experiences rainfall amounts of between 550-1500 mm per annum and its
temperatures ranges from a mean annual minimum of 120
Cto a mean maximum of 27 0
C. Nyeri
County has a population of 693558 people(2009 National Census).It has a population density of
208 people/Km2
. It has an approximate number of 201703 households and has an age
distribution of 0-14 years (33.8%),15-64 years(59.7%) and 65+years(6.5%). The poverty level in
the county stand at 32.7% and has an age dependency ratios of 100:68.
The main economic activity in the county is agriculture particularly subsistence farming
involving traditional land-use system. This bleeds well with the regions good / favourable
weather /climatic conditions. Tea, coffee, maize and bean farming is the main crop production
practice in the area while milk production and processing is among the livestock production
practice in the area. Natural resources in the area include forest, wildlife, minerals, (stones, sand
,kaolin),livestock, pasture, water and medicinal plants. Road network in the county, bitumen
surface 297.3 Km, gravel surface 323.4 Km, and earth surface 434.7 Km. Mathira constituency is
an electoral constituency in Nyeri County established in 1963.
3.2 Population under Study
The local population in the County and District is predominantly from the Kikuyu
ethnicity. The county has an approximate population of 693558 people. (2009 National Census
Report). The male population is about 49% and that of women is 51% .Approximate Total
number of households is 201703. Approximately 24.5% of the population is an urban population,
28. 22
that is, it lives in the urban centre. Age distribution of 0-14 years (33.8%),15-64 years(59.7%)
and 65+years(6.5%). The poverty level in the county stands at 32.7% and has an age dependency
ratios of 100:68. Mathira District has an approximate area of 296.69 sq. miles and a total
population of 148847 people. (2009 National Census).
The main occupation of the people in Nyeri County and Mathira Division is farming.
Most of the maize producers are small-scale farmers (NALEP 2009). The small-scale farmers
serve both as means and end, that is, they are producers and at the same time they are consumers.
Their production role is the hardest hit by sharp price fluctuations.
3.3 Sample and Sampling Size
The target population consisted of 500 households of Mathira District. The accessible
population came from three (3) wards namely;-Ruguru, Iriani and Karatina Town wards. From
the 10 sub-locations the households were randomly sampled by computer to get the desired
number of the households to be interviewed. Due to financial and time constraints the desired
number of households was limited to 30 households as sampling units.
(1)
where n is the sample size, N is the population, C is the Co-efficient of variation and ℮ is the
acceptance error.
3.4 Instrumentation and Data Collection
To be able to get the desired data I used questionnaires. The questionnaires contained
both the open-ended and close-ended (multiple choice) questions. These questions captured all
the reasons leading to rapid fluctuations of maize prices. Then enumerator assisted in data
collection. Enumerator read the questions to the respondents. The respondents would then give
their answers. To be effective in data collection the enumerator elaborated the questions to the
respondents without leading them to answers. Focus group discussions were also be convened
with respondents so as to save on time and cost and obtain data possessing diverse
characteristics. Each data collection session took 35 minutes and filling of questionnaire
respectively. The questionnaires were filled by the enumerator since some respondents were
29. 23
illiterate and submitted to the researcher or the enumerator. The researcher or enumerator
collected data from respondents either individually or as groups as deemed fit from situations
presented for research.
3.5 Data Analysis
Analysis of data commenced with editing in order to identify and correct errors made by
the respondents, that is, spelling mistakes, wrongly answered or responded items. Data analysis
was carried out using SPSS V 17.0. The researcher widely used descriptive statistical such as
frequency distributions such as variances, percentages, standard deviation, mean, mode and
median to draw inferences concerning relationships and differences found in research results.
Qualitative data was analyzed using qualitative methods. Qualitative data generated was
organized into themes and patterns, categorized through content analysis and then tabulated
and/or represented in pie charts. Conclusions and recommendations would thereafter be made
based on the findings regarding the factors contributing to sudden maize price fluctuations.
30. 24
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Introduction
This chapter comprises of presentations and discussions on findings of the study. They
have been discussed under the areas of concern on the objectives of the study. Much of the data
was qualitative and quantitative as well but the analysis was majorly on the quantitative part.
Descriptive statistics such as frequency distributions tables were used to analyze the qualitative
data. The frequency tables were used to summarize and present data in relation to the study
objectives.
4.2 Questionnaire response rate
The questionnaire was administered to smallholder maize farmers in the District who
have been growing maize for a considerable time. The study targeted 500 respondents from the
district. The sample was split into five groups with 6 farmers in each group from the targeted
Wards in the District namely Ruguru, Iriani and Karatina. The response rate was 98.00% from
the maize farmers in the area.
4.3 Relationship between demographic characteristics of the maize farmers and prices of
maize variation
These demographic characteristics of the respondents presented in this section include the
social factors that potentially influence maize production and resultant prices variations such as;
gender, age, size of their families, experience in maize production, tastes and preferences of
market choices, their decisions of storage facilities that they use on their farms, whether the
farmer hires transport or uses his own transport of maize to the markets and education level
among others.
4.3.1 Distribution of farmers by Gender
A personal attribute of the study of the smallholder maize farmers in the study was
gender. During the exercise, data collection farmers were asked to state their gender. The
response rate was 17 males and13 females. This showed that about 56.70% of the responses were
male compared to 43.30% who were females. This shows that there is more male involvement in
maize production in Mathira District than females. This may be brought about by views on maize
31. 25
farming as a commercial activity and thus more men are involved in trying to control resources
in households and as household’s bread winners.
Table 1: Gender of the respondent
Gender Percent
Male 56.7
Female 43.3
Total 100.0
4.3.2 Age distribution of the farmers
Most of the respondents, who are maize producers in Mathira District are aged between
30-40 years with an overall of 36.7%. The Table 2, below shows that 11 persons are aged
between 30 and 40 years of age with 9 of the respondents are below 30 years. 20% of the maize
farmers in the area are between 40-50 years of age with 6 respondents .13.3% of the respondents
constitute of 4 respondents who are 50 years and above. This age difference contributes to
experience in maize farming, assumption of roles, knowledge and experience in choosing the
best and effective market outlets of maize. Age is can be an impediment to innovation since
younger ages are more innovative than the elderly people. Older people are likewise not involved
so much in the agricultural production of maize. Too young people those between 20-30 years of
age too don’t want to involve themselves in agricultural production reason why I had a turnout of
9 respondents.
Table 2 : Age of Respondent
Age bracket Percent
20-30 years 30.0
30-40 years 36.7
40-50 years 20.0
50>years 13.3
Total 100.0
4.4 Size of land portions set for maize production
As shown in Table 3 below, majority of respondent farmers have portioned 1 acre of their
land for maize production. About 36.7% of the farmers have set aside 1 acre of their farm land
32. 26
for maize production. This contributes to different production capacities among the farmers in
the area. Therefore, as a result these farmers output is very low as compared to those farmers
who have employed more than 1 acre for maize production. The reason behind this could be
because most farmers have little land for farming since they are smallholder farmers with
majority of them owning less than 3 acres of land. Land usage affects production more than land
size. The allocation of less land for maize production can also be as a result of farmers’
engagement in other agricultural activities such as dairy farming.
Table 3 : Size of land portions set for maize production
Land in
acres Percent
0.50 3.3
0.70 3.3
1.00 36.7
1.50 6.7
2.00 33.3
2.50 3.3
3.00 13.3
Total 100.0
4.5 Farmer’s market choices for his / her maize
From Table 4, farmers in the area are seen to have varied market choices for their maize.
An average of 33.3% of the farmers which represents 10 farmers prefer to sell their maize to the
individual consumers in the market. These consumers are for example the households
consumers, hotels, cafeterias and maize traders in the markets in the area. All these customers
have their own prices that they buy maize from the farmers. Farmers market chooses to sell his
/her maize to his / her preferred customer because of the returns he gets from that. An average
number of 10 farmers are seen to prefer to sell their maize to individuals customers as opposed to
7 farmers who choose to sell their maize to schools, farmers who prefer to sell their maize to
cereals board and 5 farmers who prefer selling their maize to the millers. 2 farmers have no clear
preference to which they sell their maize to. Individual consumers are always motivated by
utility maximization, thus they tend to offer low prices for the maize of the farmers. This is so
evident as the farmers responded that they incur some losses when they sell their maize to the
33. 27
individual customers. Therefore, as a result the welfare of the farmers whose to sell their maize
to the individual consumers is reduced, due to decreased incomes.
Table 4 : Farmer’s market choices for his / her maize
Market choices Percent
Schools 23.3
Cereals Board 20.0
Millers 16.7
individual consumers 33.3
Not applicable 6.7
Total 100.0
4.6 Storage of maize and storage
Table 5, below shows the storage behaviors of the farmers in the area.56.7% of farmers in
the area doesn’t store their maize when they harvest it. This percentage represents an average
number of 17 farmers in the area. In contrast 43.3% of the farmers in the area do store their
maize after harvest. It is an average of 13 farmers. During harvest time the supply of maize is
very high, therefore due to availability of maize at that time, prices of maize tends to go down,
even below what the farmer might have sold his maize in previous season. Those farmers who do
not store their maize tend to sell their maize at the prevailing market prices of the maize so as to
avoid maize losses that may come inform of maize spoilage like rotting, infestation by pests,
toxic chemicals accumulation like afflatoxins, theft, physical damage like maize breakages etc.
Therefore, farmers suffer from the problem of low maize prices. In contrast those farmers, who
first store their maize and sell at a future date, sell at relatively higher price. This is because of
the altered balance in the supply and demand for maize in the market. The natural law of demand
states that when supply of a commodity is high, the demand is low and the prices are low and
when the supply of the commodity is low, demand is high and prices rises. This is so because
there is a natural or an artificial shortage of the commodity in the market. So in turn, farmers the
13 farmers who store their maize first, sell their maize at a future date at high prices. This in turn
brings about the variations of maize prices in the market. This variation brings about differences
in the income levels of the two groups of farmers in the area; those who first store and those who
don’t store their maize.
34. 28
Table 5: Storage of maize and storage
Response Percent
Yes 43.3
No 56.7
Total 100.0
4.7 Location of market centres
Table 6, is showing the distances in kilometers of the farmers in the area from the market
centres. There are farmers who are located near the market centres and there are others located
far from the market centres. There are farmers who prefer taking their maize to the market direct
instead of selling to the middlemen from their shambas. In my analysis an average number of 14
farmers equaling to 46.7% take their maize to the market, thus they transport the maize by
themselves to the market. This is in contrast to the 36.7 % of the farmers who sell their maize
through the middlemen and 16.7% of farmers who sell their maize through the self -help groups.
Farmers in the study area are evenly spread in the area, for example there is a farmer who is
located 50 kilometres away from the market centre and the farmers is seen to opt taking his
maize to the market. He thus incurs some transportation costs more costs as compared to the
farmer who is located near the market centre, like for example the 5 farmers who are located far
from market in this respective market distances, 6 kilometres,8 kilometers and 10 kilometers.
Unlike the farmer who is located 50 kilometers, these farmers incur less transaction costs. As a
result of these high transportation costs, the respective farmers retaliates to this by increasing the
prices of their maize to cover the high transportation costs.
36. 30
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Conclusion
Maize farmers in Mathira have been complaining of the meager incomes they get from
sale of maize. The study on certain factors in Mathira District and determines whether they have
an influence to the maize prices in the markets. One of the objectives of the study was to
determine whether market choices of the farmers lead to variations of maize prices. And as
responded by some farmers, their choices have either a direct or an indirect influence on the
price variations of maize in the market in the area. Farmers choosing to sell their maize to the
individual consumers are prone price instability of maize in the markets in the area. This is due
to the reason that consumers are optimizing agents and their objective is always to maximize
utility. Thus they always tend to buy farmers maize at a price that they see its fit for them and
that one will help them achieve their objective of utility maximization. The second objective was
to determine whether the storage of maize leads in any way to price variations of maize in the
market in Mathira District. A considerable number of farmers sell their maize immediately they
harvest without storing. From my study 56.7% of the farmers do not store their maize after
harvest. They tend to sell their maize immediately they harvest at whichever prevailing prices in
the markets in the area. The location of market centres has also been seen to influence prices of
maize in the region. Farmers who incur high transportation costs tend to alter prices in the
market to cover the costs involved in transportation.
5.2 Recommendations
To look into the welfare of the maize farmers in Mathira District a number of things need
to be done.
There need to be community cereal banking. This is where smallholder farmers come
together to store their produce together. A cereal bank is a community based institution involving
a village or a group of villages that stocks and manages the operations of acquiring, pricing and
supplying grain. The purpose of a cereal bank is to control supply of food grains like maize in
Mathira District and this improves food security during the periods of scarcity especially during
extended drought periods. This would also to some extent stabilize maize prices in the market
37. 31
centres within Mathira District. Similarly community based cereal banks would aid those farmers
who don’t have modern storage facilities on their farmers.
The county government should also improve the road network system in the County. This
will help counter the problems of high transportation costs of maize farmers in the county. Those
farmers in areas with seasonal road network responded that they always incur high transportation
costs when marketing their maize.
38. 32
REFERENCES
Ariga, J., T.S Jayne., and S. Njukia. (2009). Staple food prices in Kenya. Prepared for the
COMESA policy seminar on “Variation in staple food prices: Causes, consequence, and
policy options”, Maputo, Mozambique, 25-26 January 2010.
Badiane O., Shively GE., (1998). Spatial integration, transport costs and the resource of local
prices to policy changes in Ghana. J Dev Econ 56:411–431
Booker Owuor., Beatrice Wambui., Gem Argwings-Kodhek and Colin Poulton.(2009).The Role
and Performance of Ministry of Agriculture in
Byerlee D., Jayne TS., Myers RJ., (2006). Managing food price risks and instability in a
liberalizing market environment: overview and policy options. Food Policy 31:275–287
Campenhout BV (2007) Modeling trends in food market integration: method and an application
to Tanzania maize markets. Food Policy 32:112–127
Chapoto A., and T.S. Jayne., (2009). Maize price instability in eastern and southern Africa: The
impact of trade barriers and market intervention. Prepared for the COMESA policy
seminar on Variation in staple food prices: Causes, consequence, and policy options,
Maputo, Mozambique, 25-26 January 2010.
Elodie Maitre D’Hôtel.,Tristan Le Cotty., Thom Jayne., (2012).Price Volatility And Farm
Income Stabilization. Modeling Outcomes and Assessing Market and Policy Based
Responses.
FAO, IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development), and WFP (World Food
Programme). (2011). The 2011 State of Food Insecurity in the World. Rome: FAO
FAO, IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute), IFAD, IMF (International Monetary
Fund), OECD (Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development), UNCTAD
(United Nations Conference on Trade and Development), World Bank, World Food
Programme, WTO (World Trade Organization), and the United Nations High-Level
Task Force. (2011). Price Volatility in Food and Agricultural Markets: Policy
Responses. Policy Report.
Gem Argwings Kodhek, T.S Jayne, Gerald Nyambane, Tom Awour and T. Yamano.,
(1999)How Can Micro Level Household Information Make a Difference for Agricultural
Policy making? Selected Examples from KAMPAP Survey of Smallholder Agriculture
39. 33
and Non-Farm Activities of Selected Districts in Kenya July 1999. Conference
Proceedings by Tegemeo Institute, Egerton University on Kenya Agricultural
Monitoring and Policy Analysis Project.
Government of Kenya. ( GoK., 2009, GoK., 2005, Ibid)
J. Harrigan., Department of Economics.University of Manchester. Agricultural Price Policy.
Government and Market.
James K. Nyoro., Tegemeo Institute, Egerton University, Kenya. Kenya’s Competitiveness in
Domestic Maize Production. Implications for food insecurity.
Jayne T., Myers R & Nyoro J. (2008), The Effects of NCPB Marketing Policies on Maize
Market Prices in Kenya, Agricultural Economics 38.
Kenya Maize Development Programme. (KMDP 2012)
Ministry Of Agriculture – Kenya ( MoA., 2010)
Minot, N. (2009a). Staple food prices in Malawi. Prepared for the COMESA policy seminar on
“Variation in staple food prices: Causes, consequence, and policy options”, Maputo,
Mozambique, 25-26 January 2010.
Mulat Demeke et al., Johannesburg, South Africa, (2012), 16-18 May 2012.Nature and causes
of price volatility in Africa. The case of major grains in Africa.
Nicholas Minot., (2012).International Food Policy Research Institute. Senior Research Fellow,
Markets, Trade and Institutions. Food Price Volatility in Africa. Has it really increased?
Markets, Trade and Institutions Division.
Nyeri North District Development Plan. (2008-2012)
Nyeri South District.
Nyoro J. K., Kiiru M. W. and Jayne T. S. (1999). Evolution of Kenya’s Maize Marketing System
in the Post- Liberation Era. Tegemeo Working Paper No.2A of June 1999.
40. 34
Nyoro J.K., (1992).Competitiveness of Maize Production Systems in Kenya. Proceedings of the
conference on Maize Supply and marketing under Market Liberalization. June 18
th
to
19
th
1992, Nairobi, Kenya.
Owuor B. and Hoffler H., (2009). High Commodity Prices. Who gets the money?
Republic of Kenya (2007). Kenya Vision 2030. A competitive and prosperous nation Nairobi,
Kenya. Ministries of Planning and National Development in partnership, Kenya and
Government of Finland.
The National Agriculture and Livestock Extension Programme (NALEP 2009)
41. 35
APPENDIX
RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE
I am Henrick W Muriithi, a student at Egerton University duly registered in the Department of
Agricultural Economics & Agribusiness Management. I’m conducting an investigation on the effects of
maize’s price instability on income levels and household lives of smallholder maize farmers in Mathira
District, Nyeri County. The information provided here-under will be used with intent for this research and
requires your honest opinion about the questions inquired. Thus, answers you give on this questionnaire
will be treated with utmost discretion.
1. Personal Information.
1. Location………………………………
2. Age.
20-30 years. [ ]
30-40 years. [ ]
40-50 years. [ ]
50 > years. [ ]
3. Family size(in numbers)…………………….
4. Marital Status. Single [ ] Married [ ]
Widow [ ] Divorced [ ]
5. Sex ( Tick where appropriate)
Male [ ] Female [ ]
6. Education level
Primary [ ]
Secondary [ ]
Tertiary [ ]
No Formal Education. [ ]
2. Farm Details. (Land Ownership)
1. Farmer’s farm size in acres. More than 3 acres [ ]
2-3 Acres [ ]
1-2 Acres [ ]
Less than 1 Acre. [ ]
2. Form of ownership of land.Inherited [ ] Permanent.(Bought) [ ]
Rental (Leased) [ ] Communal [ ]
3. What is the size of your land that you have partitioned for maize production? .......
Acres.
4. For what purposes do you practice maize farming?
Subsistence purposes. [ ]
Commercial purposes. [ ]
5. What is your average maize production? (In 90kg bags)? (specify)...................
3. Location Of Market Centres and Marketing Choice.
1. In what form(s) do you sell your maize.
Green Maize [ ] Dry maize [ ] Both Green & Dry [ ]
2. How far is the market centre where you take your maize for sale? (Karatina Market Centre, in
Km.)……..Kms.
3. What is the nature of the roads in the in the area to where you market your maize?
All weather road. (Tarmac.) [ ]
Seasonal road. (Murram.) [ ]
42. 36
4. How do you sell your maize?
To middlemen. [ ]
Taking maize to the market. [ ]
Through self-help groups. [ ]
5. Which is your target consumer market?
Schools. [ ]
Cereals Board. [ ]
Millers [ ]
Individual Consumers. [ ]
Not applicable [ ]
6. If you take your maize to the market which type of transport do you use?
Hired [ ]
Own. [ ]
Not applicable [ ]
7. During transportation, do you experience any losses to your maize? Yes [ ] No[ ]
8. What are those losses?
Theft. [ ]
Maize spillage. [ ]
Spoilage [ ]
No loss [ ]
Others (specify)………………………………………………
9. Do these losses affect the prices of your maize? Yes [ ] No [ ].
10. If yes, how do they affect it?
(Specify)………………………………………………………………………………….
11. Apart from transportation costs and spoilage costs, which among these costs do you also incur
while marketing maize?
Market Gate fees. [ ]
Agency fees. [ ]
Negotiation costs. [ ]
None [ ]
Others(specify)……………………………..
12. What is the approximate transportation cost in Kenya shillings per sack? Kshs……
13. What is the general response in market prices for maize as a result of these costs?
Not applicable [ ]
Prices remain constant [ ]
Prices decrease steadily [ ]
Prices increase steadily [ ]
4. Post-Harvest Activities and Storage Facilities.
1. Do you experience any losses after harvesting? Yes [ ] No [ ]
2. If YES what kinds of losses are those?
Rotting of Maize [ ]
Pests (weevils) infestation [ ]
Theft [ ]
Physical Damage by rodents [ ]
Chemical Damage. (Toxins) [ ]
Others. (Specify)…………………………….
3. What storage facilities do you use?
Traditional stores.(gallas) [ ]
Modern silos. [ ]
43. 37
Both of them. [ ]
None of them. [ ]
Others (specify)………………………………………..
4. In your own view do you think storage of your maize contributes in any way to price
variations of maize in the market? Yes [ ]
No [ ].Give reasons for your
answers…………………………………………………………………………………
5. When do you realize higher profits when you sell your maize?
i. When you sell immediately after you harvest. [ ]
ii. When you first store and sell in future. [ ]
6. What proportion of your household income comes from your maize sales?
Less than half. [ ]
About a half. [ ]
More than a half. [ ]
7. How do the above identified problems affect your income level?
Increases [ ]
Decreases [ ]
Remains constant. [ ]
8. In your own view what is the overall effect of the responses in the changes of income levels to
your household live?
Positive [ ] Negative [ ] Neutral [ ]
Thank you for participating in this research work though your co-operation. God bless you.
