AN E C O N O M IC AN ALYSIS OF T H E D ETER M IN A N TS OF FERT ILIZER U SE IN
SMALL MAIZE F A R M S IN W EST ERN KENYA / /
BY
LA W R EN CE OBAE M O SE
B sc (Hons) AGRICULTURE
N A I R O B I UMix/rp^-py
KAiETE UbRAfty
t h e D e Pa rt m e n t o f A g r i c u l t u r a l E c o n o m i c s 3
i y f Nai/ o b l > i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s
f o r the d e g re e o f M a s t e r o f S c i e n c e i n A g r i c u l t u r a l E c o n o m ic s
MAY 1997
University of N A IR O B I U n a ry
IHlllWilll
0442780 3
H
DECLARATION
’
, Lawrence Obae Mose,
K
a nc
has
not
declare tha t t h i s
been
presented
for
thesis
is
a degree
my o r i g i n a l
in
any
other
un i v e r s i t y
} ;
Lawrence" Obae Mose
\ 1
!
<t T -
Date
(candidate)
>.heoi.o has been submit te d f o r e x a m i n a t i o n w i t h
our a p p r o v a l
as u n iv e r s it y supervisors
01
Dr.
S 7
Hezron 0. Ny a n gi to
(U n ive rsity S u p e rviso r}
A/ (-—
^ 3 / 7 / 3 7
Dr.
Kimcei Munei
(U n ive rsity Su p e rv iso r)
Date
11
A C K N O W LED G E M EN T
Many p e o p l e and i n s t i t u t i o n s c o n t r i b u t e d t o the s u c c e s s f u l
com pletion
of
this
D irector,
Kenya
thesis.
A gric u ltu ra l
Rockfeller
Foundation,
De velopment
and
enumerators,
I
Special
Research
M inistry
Marketing
mention
of
(MOALDM)
is
made
of
In stitu te
(KARI),
A gricu ltu re ,
e xten sion
th e
Livestock
staff,
farmers,
granting
me a two
f a m i l y and f r i e n d s .
wish
t o tha nk
the D i r e c t o r ,
KARI
for
ye a r s t u d y l e a v e t o p ur su e t h i s c o u r s e and a l s o f o r g r a n t i n g me
p e r m i s s i o n t o get p r o f e s s i o n a l a s s i s t a n c e from my c o l l e a g u e s i n
the I n s t i t u t e .
I am a l s o i n d e b t e d t o t h e
for
me
awarding
Fe rtilize r
Use
a
scholarship
Project"
of
Special
thanks
Foundation,
N airobi
ac kn ow le d ge d
farm ers
are
for
selected
due
to
o ffice .
the ir
f o r th e
through
the
Ec ono m ics , U n i v e r s i t y of N a i r o b i ,
R o c k f e lle r Foundation
D e p a r tm e n t
"Economics
of
of
A gric u ltu ra l
t o e n a b l e me f i n a n c e my st u d y .
Dr.
John
Lynam,
The e x t e n s i o n
a ssistan ce
study.
th e
in
These
of
staff
R ockfeller
o f MOALDM a re
p h ysica lly
ide n tifyin g
f a r m e r s who a v a i l e d
the
r e q u ire d i n f o r m a t i o n are e q u a l l y acknowledged.
Many t h a n k s
Munei,
go
my u n i v e r s i t y
t o D r.
Hezron
supervisors,
0.
for
Nyangito
their
and D r .
able
K im p e i
guidance
and
c o n s t r u c t i v e c r i t i c i s m s d u r i n g a l l p h a s e s o f t h i s s t u d y and more
im p ortan tly f o r encouraging
tough.
Sim ilarly,
teaching
staff
me to "k e e p o n "
my c l a s s m a t e s
and
other
when th e g o i n g was
teaching
o f the Depa rtmen t o f A g r i c u l t u r a l
and
non­
E c o n o m i c s a re
acknowledged.
Finally,
I would l i k e t o tha nk my f a m i l y f o r e n c o u r a g i n g me
Ill
and a l s o f o r
u n d e r s t a n d i n g why I had to be away from home when
they needed me most.
To my p a r e n t s ,
e s p e c i a l l y my l a t e
Mr. Obae M a to nd a, who t a u g h t me p a t i e n c e a s a v i r t u e ,
this th e sis.
father,
I dedicate
IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS
D E C L A R A T I O N ....................................................
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT........................................................
11
TABLE OF C O N T E N T S ....................................................
iv
L I S T OF T A B L E S ...........................................................
vi
L I S T OF A P P E N D I C E S ................................................
ABSTRACT
1.0
2.0
3.0
....................
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
v ii
»
•
v iii
•
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Backgr oun d i n f o r m a t i o n ......................................
1
1.2
The problem s t a te m e n t
7
1.3
O b j e c t i v e s and h y p o t h e s e s o f the s t u d y
1.4
J u s t i f i c a t i o n o f the s t u d y
................................
9
1.5
O r g a n i s a t i o n o f the t h e s i s
................................
11
.......................................
. . . .
8
LITERATURE REVIEW...........................................................
12
2.1
Factors a ffe c tin g f e r t i l i z e r
..................
12
2.2
E m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s from o u t s i d e
..............
15
2.3
E m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s i n K e n y a ................................
23
use.
Kenya
M E T H O O O L O G Y ....................................................
27
3. 1
27
D a ta S o u r c e s ...................................................
3.2
A r e a o f s t u d y .................................................
3.3
Da ta c o l l e c t i o n
3.4
Da ta O r g a n i s a t i o n and A n a l y s i s
3.4.1
3.4.2
procedures
framework
for
determinants.
3.5
Tests
................................
D escriptive A n a lysis
Regression
of
34
................................
34
estim ating
The
theoretical
fe rtiliz e r
use
. . .
. . . .
of
28
.........................
A nalysis:
significance
G o o d n e ss o f f i t
27
35
parameter e stim a te
and
48
V
4.0
RESULTS
4.1
AND
D e s c . i p t i v e A n a l y s i s R e s u l t s and D i s c u s s i o n s .
52
Land s i z e and o w n e r s h i p ............................
C2
4.1.2
Land u t i l i s a t i o n
p a t t e r n s .....................
54
4.1.3
Maize p r o d u c t i o n .......................................
55
4.1.4
F e r t i l i z e r use i n m a i z e .........................
58
4.1.5
Farm Y a r d manure u s e ................................
72
Results
Regression
5.0
.
4.1.1
4. 2
4.3
D I S C U S S I O N S ............................... 52
and
A nalysis
D iscussions
on
fe rtiliz e r
of
the
use
M ultip le
determ inants
...............................................................................
R e s u l is and D i s c u s s i o n s o f h y p o t h e s e s t e s t i n g .
SUMMARY,
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
. . . .
73
80
86
5.1
Summary
and C o n c l u s i o n s ...................................
36
5.2
R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s .....................................................
90
R E F E R E N C E S ...................................................................
93
VI
U S T OF TABLES
Table
1:
F e r t i l i z e r im ports
imports
(quantity)
( K E ’OOO),
in
tonnes
and v a l u e of
1 9 8 2 - 1 9 9 0 ..............................
5
s t o c k e d by f a r m e r s .............
6
T ab le
2: Type o f f e r t i l i z e r
Table
3: Some c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the s t u d y a r e a ............... 28
T ab le
4: C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f
T ab le
5: S o i l
T ab le
6: P e r c e n t o f f a r m e r s i n v a r i o u s f a rm c a t e g o r i e s
T abl e
7: S o i l
T abl e
8: M a i z e c r o p p i n g c a l e n d a r i n the
T abl e
9: I n t e r c r o p p i n g p a t t e r n s ............................................58
T abl e
nutrient a v a i l a b i l i t y
in s o i l s
44
f e r t i l i t y i n d e x ............................................... 44
conservation
10: Use o f d i f f e r e n t
. .
53
p r a c t i c e s by f a r m e r s by d i s t r i c t
53
r e g i o n ............... 57
f e r t i l i z e r t y p e s by number o f
f a r m e r s ..................................................................... 59
T ab le
11: Q u a n t i t i e s o f f e r t i l i z e r
n u t r i e n t s i n kg/ha
used
i n maize p r o d u c t i o n i n W e s t e r n K e n y a .................. 61
Tab le
12: F e r t i l i z e r
Tab le
13: Temporal t r e n d s i n
Tab le
14:
use ( k g / h a ) by farm s i z e
Farm e rs’ reasons
fe rtiliz e r
15: A v e r a g e d i s t a n c e
purchases,
Tab le
Tab le
17:
M ultiple
u s e ...................... 65
..............................................
66
and mode of t r a n s p o r t f o r f e r t i l i z e r
1995 .....................................................
regression
18:
M ultiple
19:
M ultiple
use i n
70
use i n
use i n
r e s u l t s on d e t e r m i n a n t s o f
Kakamega d i s t r i c t
regression
fe rtiliz e r
r e s u l t s on d e t e r m i n a n t s o f
K i s i i d i s t r i c t ....................... 74
regre ssio n
fe rtiliz e r
Table
64
16: F a r m e r s ’ r e s p o n s e s t o c o n s t r a i n t s to f e r t i l i z e r use72
fe rtilize r
Table
.
f o r c o n t i n u e d m ai n te n a n c e o f
fe rtiliz a tio n le v e ls
Table
by d i s t r i c t
.................. 76
r e s u l t s on d e t e r m i n a n t s o f
T r a n s N z o i a d i s t r i c t ............ 77
Vll
ob le
20:
One way ANOVA f o r e f f e c t of l o c a t i o n on r a t e o f
fe rtilize r
u s e .................................................... .....
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Computations for Analysis of Variance
...
99
Appendix 2. Bartlett's test for Heteroscedasticity
. . .
204
Appendix 3: Questionnaire . . .
.......................
106
Vlll
ABSTRACT
A
maj or
objective
of
the
National
Food
P olicy
for
the
g o v e r n m e n t o f Kenya i s th e a t t a i n m e n t o f H o u s e h o l d and N a t i o n a l
food s e c u r i t y . One of the meth od s recommended i s t h r o u g h l a n d use
in te n sifica tio n
yields.
such
as
use
of
fe rtiliz e rs
to
increase
crop
However, p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s have shown t h a t f e r t i l i z e r use
i n m ai ze p r o d u c t i o n by s m a l l h o l d e r f a r m e r s who for m the b u l k ( i n
terms o f a r e a and p r o d u c t i o n ) of maize p r o d u c e r s i s
T h i s s t u d y was t h u s f o r m u l a t e d
the
fe rtiliz e r
use
sub-optim al.
w it h th e o b j e c t i v e s of d e s c r i b i n g
patterns
and
id e n tifyin g
the
major
d e t e r m i n a n t s o f f e r t i l i z e r u s e i n K i s i i , Kakamega and T r a n s N z o i a
D istricts
i n W e s t e r n Kenya.
D a t a on f e r t i l i z e r use were c o l l e c t e d from a random sample
o f 120 f a r m e r s u s i n g a p r e - t e s t e d s t r u c t u r e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e o v e r
the 1 9 9 5 main maize p r o d u c t i o n
sea so n.
The d at a c o l l e c t e d were
a n a l y s e d by u s e o f d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s t o show the f e r t i l i z e r
use p a t t e r n s and f a c t o r s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i n t e r - f a r m d i f f e r e n c e s
and by
regression a n a ly sis
of f e r t i l i z e r
to e s t a b l is h
th e m aj or d e t e r m i n a n t s
use.
The d e s c r i p t i v e a n a l y s e s r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t f e r t i l i z e r
use i n m aiz e v a r i e d w i t h i n t h e t h r e e d i s t r i c t s s t u d i e d a c c o r d i n g
to r e s o u r c e
base,
liq u id ity
p o s i t i o n o f th e f a r m e r s ,
e x t e n s i o n s e r v i c e s and m a r k e t s .
The h i g h e s t l e v e l
nutrient
Trans
us e was 8 7 . 3
kg/ha
in
Nzoia
access to
of f e r t i l i z e r
D istrict
w hile
the
l o w e s t a v e r a g e was i n K i s i i D i s t r i c t e s t i m a t e d at 3 5 . 5 k g / h a . The
estim ated
mean amount
of
D i s t r i c t was 5 4 . 3 kg/h a.
prone
areas
notably
nutrient
fe rtilize r
use
in
Kakamega
I t was a l s o r e p o r t e d t h a t i n t h e s t r i g a
K h w i s e r o and Mumias D i v i s i o n s
in
Kakamega
IX
D istrict,
t h e weed im p a ct s n e g a t i v e l y on the r a t e of f e r t i l i z e r
use and g r o w i n g o f h y b r i d maize.
W h i l e i t i s w i d e l y a c k n ow le d ge d t h a t a v a i l a b i l i t y o f c r e d i t
e nh an ce s t h e
the
liq u id ity
farm ers’
p osition
a b ility
to
o f f a r m e r s and hence
purchase
fe rtiliz e r
increases
and
other
compleme nta ry i n p u t s , the s t u d y r e v e a l e d t h a t o f th e 120 f a r m e r s
interview ed,
production
none o f
in
1995.
them g o t
Thus,
it
in stitu tio n a l
credit
for
maize
was not p o s s i b l e t o d e t e r m i n e th e
e f f e c t o f f o r m a l c r e d i t on f e r t i l i z e r us e .
The r e s u l t s o f the r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s i n d i c a t e d t h a t the
f e r t i l i z e r - maize p r i c e r a t i o was t h e o n l y i m p o r t a n t d e t e r m i n a n t
of
fe rtiliz e r
use
which
cut
across
a ll
the
three
d istric ts,
though i t was n o t h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t i n T r a n s N z o i a D i s t r i c t . The
st ud y f o u n d a s t r o n g l i n e a r
relationship
between f e r t i l i z e r use
and t o t a l f a r m s a l e s i n T r a n s N z o i a d i s t r i c t ,
dominant a r e a .
use were
use
D istrict,
a c o m m e r c i a l maize
The o t h e r i m p o r t a n t d e t e r m i n a n t s of f e r t i l i z e r
of
FYM i n
in itia l
so il
K isii
D istrict,
fe rtility
in
land
size
Trans-N zoia
in
Kakamega
D istrict
and
e x t e n s i o n c o n t a c t i n K i s i i and T r a n s - N z o i a D i s t r i c t s .
Bas ed on the above f i n d i n g s , i t i s recommended t h a t r e s e a r c h
s h o u ld be i n t e n s i f i e d
advances are
areas.
in an e f f o r t to c o n t r o l s t r i g a
made to f a r m e r s to use f e r t i l i z e r
b e f o r e any
i n the
affected
I t i s f u r t h e r recommended to the gov e rn m e nt t o s t r e n g t h e n
the a g r i c u l t u r a l e x t e n s i o n programme t o e n s u r e t h a t th e n e c e s s a r y
i n f o r m a t i o n on f e r t i l i z e r u s e i s a v a i l e d t o the f a r m e r s i n time
i n o r d e r to
increase
revise
its
credit
access
to
farmers.
maize p r o d u c t i o n .
e lig ib ility
fe rtiliz e r
so a s
to
crite ria
Fin a lly,
which
make c r e d i t
the A F C s h o u l d
lim its
farm ers’
more a v a i l a b l e
to
I t i s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t t h i s w i l l improve the l i q u i d i t y
X
i s a n t i c i p a t e d that t h i s w i l l
the
farm ers
production.
and
hopefully
improve t h e l i q u i d i t y p o s i t i o n o f
increase
fe rtiliz e r
use
in
maize
1
CH APTER ONE
1.0 IN T RO D U C TIO N
This
chapter
importance
of
fe rtiliz e rs
contains
a gricu ltu re
play
the
to
background
the
economy
in e n h a n c i n g p r o d u c t i o n
inform ation
of
Kenya,
o f maize,
st a t e m e n t , o b j e c t i v e s and h y p o t h e s e s o f t h e s t u d y .
the
on
role
t h e problem
It a ls o gives
an a c c o u n t o f the j u s t i f i c a t i o n o f the s t u d y and o r g a n i s a t i o n o f
the t h e s i s .
1.1 Background information
A gric u ltu re
contributes
fo r m s
about
30
the
backbone
percent
to
of
Gross
Kenya’s
economy.
It
Domestic
Product
and
s u p p l i e s a l m o s t a l l the d o m e s t i c food r e q u i r e m e n t s .
i s a m a j o r s o u r c e o f raw
and a s o u r c e
force.
The
incomes
m a t e r i a ls f o r t h e domestic i n d u s t r i e s
o f employment f o r 75 p e r c e n t
sector
and
is
stim ulate
also
exp ec ted
to
gr o w th
of
the
a c t i v i t i e s i n the r u r a l areas,
the r a t e o f
1994a,
Besides, i t
o f the
total
labour
generate
farm
fam ily
productive
off-farm
so t h a t o f f - f a r m j o b s can grow a t
between 3 . 5 p e r c e n t and 5 p e r c e n t p e r y e a r
(Kenya,
1994b).
T h u s, p r o v i s i o n o f f o o d s e c u r i t y ,
incomes,
employment
creation,
supply
g e n e r a t i o n o f fa rm f a m i l y
of
export
crops
to
earn
f o r e i g n e x c h a n g e and grow th o f p r o d u c t i v e o f f - f a r m a c t i v i t i e s i n
rural
areas
form
the d e ve lo p m e n t g o a l s
c om m od it ie s h a v e been i d e n t i f i e d
for
agricultu re.
as being c e n t r a l
Seven
to achieving
the d e v e lo p m e n t g o a l s e s t a b l i s h e d f o r a g r i c u l t u r e . C o f f e e and tea
expansion
is
the
foundation
of
gr ow th
of
both
a gricu ltu ra l
incomes and e x p o r t s . M a i z e , wheat, m i l k and meat p r o d u c t i o n must
2
be a d e q u a t e f o r food s e c u r i t y .
Food s e c u r i t y r e f e r s to a c c e s s to
good and a de q ua te food to a l l
people a t a l l t i m e s . H o r t i c u l t u r a l
c r o p s w i l l s e r v e both g o a l s . However, g i v e n t h e r a p i d p o p u l a t i o n
growth
estim ated
at
demand
for
food
food,
a gricu ltu ra l
sector
3.34
percent
se cu rity
( Ke n ya ,
annually
r e m a in s
1994a).
and
a ke y
This
the
increasing
p rio rity
therefore
in
the
c a lls
for
a p p r o p r i a t e s t r a t e g i e s of f o o d p r o d u c t i o n t o meet t h e a n t i c i p a t e d
demand
f o r f o o d i n the
near
future.
For
instance,
in
th e
year
2000; n a t i o n a l maize, wheat and p o t a t o r e q u i r e m e n t s a re p r o j e c t e d
at 3676,
401
and 737 t h o u s a n d
tonnes
respectively.
One o f t h e
s t r a t e g i e s t h e government recommends i s i n c r e a s e d r e s e a r c h i n the
p r o d u c t i o n o f t h e s e m aj or f o o d c r o p s . M a iz e p r o d u c t i o n i s a major
farming
a ctiv ity
i n medium and h i g h p o t e n t i a l
regions o f
Kenya
and t h e c r o p i s a s t a p l e f o o d f o r about 95 p e r c e n t o f th e peo ple.
I t a c c o u n t s f o r more t h a n 75 p e r c e n t o f t h e t o t a l c e r e a l a r e a and
over 60
percent
(Hassan et a l,
produced
of the
in valu e
of the
t o t a l cereals
m ark ete d
1 9 9 4 a ) . S e v e n t y f i v e p e r c e n t o f K e n y a ’s maize i s
by s m a l l
total
terms,
scale
land
area
f a r m e r s who c u l t i v a t e a b o u t 85 p e r c e n t
under
percent of K e n y a ’s p o p u la t io n
maize,
and
(Ongaro,
account
for
1988; Kenya,
about
70
1994a). This
e x p l a i n s th e d om in an t p o s i t i o n maize h o l d s i n K e n y a ’ s a g r i c u l t u r e
and
its
role
both
as
a
source
of
fo od
and
income
to
th e
p r o d u c e r s . R e s e a r c h i n maize p r o d u c t i o n ha s t h e r e f o r e been g i v e n
first
p r i o r i t y among the f o o d c r o p s
Increase
in area
19 94b).
i n maize p r o d u c t i o n ca n be a c h i e v e d
und er maize p r o d u c t i o n
or t h r o u g h
t h r o u g h a c o m b i n a t i o n o f the two.
by i n c r e a s i n g
(Kenya,
th e
area
under
increase
by e x p a n s i o n
in y i e l d o r
E x p a n s i o n o f maize p r o d u c t i o n
production
is,
however,
lim ited
3
b e ca us e most o f the a r a b l e
estim ated
that
production,
even
land
if
a ll
ha s been u t i l i s e d .
irrig a b le
land
It
were
ha s been
put
under
t o t a l c r o p and d a i r y l a n d c o u l d be expanded by o n l y
10 p e r c e n t ( K e n y a , 1 9 86 ).
Some of the w ays o f e x p a n s i o n i n area
i n v o l v e d maize p r o d u c t i o n i n m a r g i n a l a r e a s where t r a d i t i o n a l l y
maize d i d n o t have a c o m p a r a t i v e a d v a n t a g e .
production
aro un d
risk s
Naivasha
irrig a tio n
maize.
could
such
as
are
a
crop
case
be a n o t h e r
However,
in
his
fa ilure
in
study
are
point.
option
In these a re a s,
quite
high.
Production
of expansion
on " D i f f u s i o n
the
Areas
through
of area
under
of m aize h y b r i d
in
W e s t e r n K e n y a ", G e r h a r t ( 1 9 7 4 ) r e p o r t e d t h a t i r r i g a t i o n p o t e n t i a l
in
Western
rulin g
Kenya
out
th is
is
very
lim ited
a lte rn a tive
and
is
approach
extrem ely
to
maize
expensive
production.
A l t e r n a t i v e l y , maize p r o d u c t i o n c o u l d be i n c r e a s e d by e n c r o a c h i n g
on l a n d s c u r r e n t l y o c c u p i e d
crops are e s s e n t i a l to
and t o
foreign
c o n flicts
in
by e x p o r t c r o p s .
ec on om ic growth,
exc ha ng e e a r n i n g s ,
a gricu ltu ra l
this
to
B ut
b e c a u se t h e s e
risin g
approach
development g o a l s .
farm
incomes
would
lead to
This
then
maize p r o d u c t i o n to be c o n c e n t r a t e d on t h e e x i s t i n g
high p o t e n t i a l areas.
about 2 . 2 m i l l i o n
Maize p r o d u c tio n in
t o n n e s and t o a t t a i n
estimated t h a t 2 . 6 m i l l i o n
(Kenya,
leaves
medium and
1992 was e s t i m a t e d a t
se lf-su ffic ie n cy
it
was
t o n n e s was r e q u i r e d by the y e a r 1996
1 9 9 4 a ) . T h i s r e q u i r e d an a n n u a l g r o w t h of 2 . 5 p e r c e n t per
annum.
Leaving
expansion,
out
increase
long-term
of
gr ow th
maize
in
maize
production
production
through
area
necessarily
depends on i n c r e a s e d y i e l d s fr om l an d a l r e a d y un d e r f o o d c r o p s .
This
could
be
achieved
through
use
of
hybrid
maize
seed,
4
increased
and e f f i c i e n t
use o f f e r t i l i z e r s
c u l t u r a l p r a c t i c e s (Kenya,
shown
that
m ineral
use
of
1 9 9 4 b ) . However p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s have
hybrid
fe rtiliz e rs
and i m p r o v e m e n t s i n
maize
among
is
the
quite
high
purchasable
unlike
inputs
of
p r o d u c t i o n ( G e r h a r t , 1975; O n g a r o , 1988; C he ge , 1 9 9 2 ) .
im p lie s that
i n c r e a s e d use o f c h e m i c a l f e r t i l i z e r s
disease
control
remain
as
the
only
of
maize
T h i s then
and imp ro ve d
maize c u l t u r a l p r a c t i c e s s u c h as t i m e l y p l a n t i n g ,
and
use
weeding,
p ossib le
pest
w ays
of
i n c r e a s i n g m aiz e y i e l d .
F e rtilize rs
are t h e
mo st
used i n Kenya (Kenya, 19 89) .
dominant
purchasable
farm
input
F e r t i l i z e r use p a t t e r n s i n K e n y a are
marked by a c o n c e n t r a t i o n on m aj or c a s h c r o p s
. For in sta nce ,
in
1982/83, c o f f e e , te a and s u g a r c a n e a c c o u n t e d f o r a b o u t t w o - t h i r d s
o f t o t a l f e r t i l i z e r us e w h i l e maize a c c o u n t e d f o r o n l y 19 p e r c e n t
(World
Bank,
1986).
ye a r s . A v e r a g e
This
trend
used i n c a s h c r o p s .
inputs
such
as
and s m a l l
account
consumption,
B esides,
in
respective
o f te a and s u g a r c a n e ) .
estates
There
farm ers.
for
although
is
58
its
cash
crop fa rm e rs
contractual
a re p r o v i d e d
arrangements
boards
by the
(e.g.
c a se
i s a l s o a c l e a r d i v e r g e n c e between
It
a bo ut
recent
higher in cash crops
crop m a r k e t i n g
estimated
percent
share
p r o d u c t i o n i s o n l y 30 p e r c e n t .
sm all f a r m e r s ,
c h a ng e d even i n
p a r t l y e x p l a i n s why more f e r t i l i z e r
fe rtiliz e rs
monopsonist of the
large
not
r e t u r n s to f e r t i l i z e r use i s
than i n f o o d c r o p s and t h i s
is
has
of
of
that
the
total
large
total
land
farm s
fe rtiliz e r
under
Of the t o t a l f e r t i l i z e r s
2 0 p e r c e n t go i n t o maize p r o d u c t i o n
and
crop
u s e d by
( W o r l d Bank,
1986).
A ll
fe rtiliz e rs
used i n
Kenya a r e i m p o r t e d .
Table
1 shows
5
the q u a n t i t i e s
fe rtiliz e rs
( t o n n e s ) and t h e v a l u e
between
1982 and
1990.
( K £ ’000 ) o f the
It
is
clear
im p or te d
from t h e
table
t h a t t h e s i n g l e most i m p o r t a n t f e r t i l i z e r t y p e s i m p o r t e d a re the
nitrogenous f e r t i l i z e r s .
major c a t e g o r y .
Phosphatic f e r t i l i z e r s
are th e
se con d
T o t a l c o n s u m p t i o n v a r i e d g r e a t l y o v e r th e y e a r s
w it h no d i s c e r n i b l e r e g u l a r p a t t e r n . T h i s p a r t l y can be e x p l a i n e d
by th e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f f o r e i g n exc ha ng e.
foreign
exchange
a va ila b ility
that
This i s
determ ines
b e ca us e i t
the
is
effective
demand f o r f e r t i l i z e r a t t h e n a t i o n a l l e v e l .
Table 1: Fertilizer knports (quantity) in tonnes and value of imports (KE’OOO),
1982-1990
Im ports in tonnes
V a l u e i n K £ ’000
Ye a r
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
N
P
Other
N
P
Other
70808
72272
36339
111532
1 2 08 1 3
52681
66173
50206
27100
28200
12780
2001
10263
21496
4524
22041
75 0 0
40 00
30600
65625
35996
1 4 63 0 2
17 607 3
16878 0
13 806 4
244040
12051
7341
11857
6255
16414
16090
7315
13223
15711
5236
3855
1979
290
1756
2875
520
4965
1611
902
15605
2 5 08 7
13893
52027
50 014
38 959
49 180
69407
3 3 27 6
Source: C B S, 1991.
where N and P r e f e r t o N i t r o g e n o u s and P h o s p h a t i c
respectively.
The f e r t i l i z e r p r i c e
p e r tonne v a r i e d o v e r the y e a r s .
T h i s w as p a r t l y due t o the c h a n g i n g
exc ha ng e r a t e s .
sh illin g
fe rtiliz e rs
D u r i n g the p e r i o d ,
had n o t been f l o a t e d
p a t t e r n s o f the p r e v a i l i n g
1982-1990,
the Kenya
but was pegged to th e d o l l a r and
hence p r i c e s c o u l d change b ase d on the s t r e n g t h o f the Kenya
S h illin g
a s compared t o the A m e r i c a n D o l l a r .
The m a j o r t y p e s o f f e r t i l i z e r s
Diammonium P h o s p h a t e
(DAP),
used on maize are
and C a l c i u m Ammonium N i t r a t e
6
(CAN).
For in sta n c e ,
M u r i t h i and S h i l u l i
the e f f e c t o f l i b e r a l i s a t i o n
(1 9 9 3 ) i n a s t u d y o f
o f f e r t i l i z e r m a r k e t i n g on
f e r t i l i z e r c o n s u m p t i o n c o n d u c t e d i n Embu and Meru d i s t r i c t s
found o u t t h a t DAP and CAN were the most p o p u l a r f e r t i l i z e r
types stocked
data i n d i c a t e d
by t r a d e r s
(Table 2).
F u r t h e r a n a l y s i s o f the
t h a t th e m a j o r i t y o f the t r a d e r s
c o n s i d e r e d t h e demand f o r t h e f e r t i l i z e r s
(65.2
percent)
t o be th e main
f a c t o r i n f l u e n c i n g the a m ou n ts and t y p e s o f f e r t i l i z e r s
stocked.
Table 2: Type of fertlizer stocked by traders.
Percent tr a d e rs
(n=23)
F e r t i l i z e r ty p e
DAP
CAN
20:20:10
20:20:10
Fo liar
Others (e.g.
se llin g
100.0
52 .2
43.5
21.7
8.7
8.7
17:17:17)
Source: Murithi and Shiluli, 1993.
Before
government,
1990,
fe rtiliz e r
m a r k e t i n g w as c o n t r o l l e d
by the
w h i c h not o n l y i s s u e d l i c e n c e s f o r f e r t i l i z e r
i m p o r t s but a l s o
fixed
marketing ch a n n e l.
p r i c e s a t the v a r i o u s l e v e l s i n
However i n
the m a r k e t i n g o f f e r t i l i z e r s
1990,
the
the g o v e r n m e n t l i b e r a l i s e d
i n the c o u n t r y .
T h i s was e x p e c t e d
to i n c r e a s e c o m p e t i t i v e n e s s i n the f e r t i l i z e r market a s more
i m p o r t e r s and
retail
s u p p l i e r s e n te r e d t h e market.
exp e cte d t h a t u n a v a i l a b i l i t y o f f e r t i l i z e r s
o u t le t s could
Kenya S h i l l i n g
I t was a l s o
at r u r a l
retail
be e a s e d . However, the r a p i d d e v a l u a t i o n o f the
relative
to f o r e i g n c u r r e n c i e s r e s u l t e d
in high
7
d o m e s t i c p r i c e s and a downward t r e n d o f f e r t i l i z e r use was
e x p e r i e n c e d a f t e r the f e r t i l i z e r mark et l i b e r a l i s a t i o n
(Kenya,
19 94b).
1.2
The problem statement
The r o l e o f f e r t i l i z e r
ce te ris
y i e l d i n maize
p a r i b u s has been o b s e r v e d n o t o n l y i n Kenya b u t i n
other c o u n t r ie s as w ell
Heady,
in in cre a sin g
1967; A l l a n ,
R u i g u and S c h u l t e r
(S haw and D u r o s t ,
1971;
and FURP,
(1990) i n d i c a t e d
1994).
1965; A u e r and
However,
s t u d i e s by
t h a t the amounts o f
c h e m i c a l f e r t i l i z e r s t h a t s m a l l s c a l e f a r m e r s used on maize
production in
centres.
FURP,
Kenya were b e l o w l e v e l s
recommended by r e s e a r c h
S i m i l a r t r e n d s have a l s o been o b s e r v e d
1994;
O n g ar o ,
19 88 ).
(Chege,
1992;
The l e v e l s o f t h e s e f e r t i l i z e r s
applied a ls o
v a r y from r e g i o n t o r e g i o n and y e a r t o y e a r .
instance,
h a s been documented t h a t the
it
For
highest le v e ls of
n i t r o g e n and p h o s p h o r u s use a r e e s t i m a t e d a t a bo ut 43 p e r c e n t
and 70 p e r c e n t
r e s p e c t i v e l y o f the r e s e a r c h s t a t i o n ’s
reco m m end at io ns f o r T r a n s N z o i a D i s t r i c t w h i l e the l o w e s t i s
l e s s t h a n 5 p e r c e n t f o r b oth n u t r i e n t s f o r Nyanza p r o v i n c e
(Kenya,
1986;
Further,
Chege,
19 92 ).
a s t u d y by the W o r l d Bank
( W or ld Bank,
1986)
e s t i m a t e d t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e
between the a c t u a l amounts o f
f e r t i l i z e r s a p p l i e d and t h o s e
recommended f o r c r o p p r o d u c t i o n
i n Kenya was 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 m e t r i c t o n n e s .
estimated t h a t
100,000 m etric
would be f i l l e d
by i n c r e a s i n g
production.
The s t u d y f u r t h e r
to nn e s o f t h i s
f e r t i l i z e r gap
f e r t i l i z e r us e i n maize
T h i s means t h a t t h e i n c r e a s e mu st be borne b y the
8
s m a l l f a r m e r s who form the b u l k o f the m a i z e p r o d u c e r s b ut use
low l e v e l s o f f e r t i l i z e r s .
However,
f a c t o r s th a t determine low
l e v e l s o f f e r t i l i z e r use by t h e s e f a r m e r s a r e not w e l l
documented.
Therefore,
there
is
need t o i d e n t i f y the main
d e t e r m i n a n t s o f f e r t i l i z e r us e on maize s o t h a t i t s
use by
s m a l l h o l d e r f a r m e r s who p ro d uc e a b o u t 7 5 p e r c e n t o f th e t o t a l
maize i n
Kenya
(FURP,
a t t a in food s e l f
1994) c a n be i n c r e a s e d
in order to
sufficiency.
1.3 Objectives and hypotheses of the study
The broa d p ur po se o f t h i s
determinants o f f e r t i l i z e r
s t u d y was t o i d e n t i f y t h e main
use on s m a l l h o l d e r maize f a r m s .
The
s p e c i f i c o b j e c t i v e s were:
a)
D escribe
the f e r t i l i z e r
use p a t t e r n s
by s m a l l h o l d e r
m aiz e f a r m e r s i n W e s t e r n Kenya.
b)
D e t e r m i n e th e most i m p o r t a n t d e t e r m i n a n t s o f f e r t i l i z e r
use i n m ai ze i n W e s t e r n Kenya.
c)
Determine
factors
in f e r t i l i z e r
G enerally,
the q u e s t i o n s
responsible fo r in te r-fa rm d iffe re n c e s
use i n maize.
the h y p o t h e s e s o f a s t u d y a r e a means by which
raised in
the s t u d y are a n s w e r e d and the
o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e s t u d y a re
realised.
The f o l l o w i n g
hypotheses
'were t e s t e d f o r t h e s e p u r p o s e s .
a)
The r a t e o f a p p l i c a t i o n o f n u t r i e n t s i s
by t o t a l
no t i n f l u e n c e d
farm s iz e .
b)
L o c a t i o n d o e s not i n f l u e n c e the r a t e o f
c)
Value of t o t a l
n u t r i e n t use .
farm s a l e s doe s no t i n f l u e n c e th e r a t e o f
9
f e r t i l i z e r use p o s i t i v e l y .
d)
P r e s e n c e o f o f f - f a r m employment d o e s no t i n f l u e n c e
rate
1.4
the
o f f e r t i l i z e r use p o s i t i v e l y .
Justification of file study
The gov e rn m e nt o f Kenya
due t o
(Kenya,
1994a) emphasizes th a t
the i m p o r t a n c e o f maize a s a m a j o r s t a p l e
efforts
should
be made to e n s u r e t h a t i t s
food ,
a ll
r a te o f p r o d u c t i o n
a t l e a s t k e e p s pace w i t h t h e r a p i d i n c r e a s e i n p o p u l a t i o n
gr o w t h e s t i m a t e d a t 3 . 3 4 p e r c e n t a n n u a l l y ,
su fficie n cy i s
to be a c h i e v e d .
if
fo od s e l f
The s t r a t e g y i s t o c o n c e n t r a t e
r e s e a r c h e f f o r t s on t h e c r o p and the p r i o r i t y i s g i v e n t o
maize grown by s m a l l s c a l e
i s on f e r t i l i z e r
farmers.
One s u c h a re a o f r e s e a r c h
use.
F e r t i l i z e r Use Recommendation P r o j e c t
i f optim al
rates of f e r t i l i z e r
maize y i e l d s w i l l
increase
in K i s i i D i s t r i c t ,
(FURP) showed t h a t
use a r e a p p l i e d by f a r m e r s ,
by 1 4 0 0 - 2 9 0 0 k g / h a from 40 00 kg/ha
3 0 0 - 8 0 0 kg/ ha from 2 5 0 0 kg/ha i n Kakamega
D i s t r i c t and a b o u t 2 0 0 0 kg / ha from 45 00 k g / h a i n T r a n s N z o i a
D istrict
(FURP,
19 94) .
FURP has t h u s shown t h a t i n c r e a s e s i n
f e r t i l i z e r use can l e a d to i n c r e a s e d food
food s e l f
sufficie n cy.
a n a l y s e s on f e r t i l i z e r
q u an titative
However, o n l y a f e w d e s c r i p t i v e
use i n W e s t e r n Kenya a r e a v a i l a b l e .
Thus,
No
s t u d y ha s been c a r r i e d o u t t o g e n e r a t e
i n f o r m a t i o n on d e t e r m i n a n t s o f f e r t i l i z e r
area.
p r o d u c t i o n and hence
th is
s t u d y a im s a t f i l l i n g
use per se i n
the
up t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n gap
by p r o v i d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n on the d e t e r m i n a n t s t h a t i n f l u e n c e
f e r t i l i z e r use a t farm l e v e l which ha s been r e g a r d e d a s
sub­
10
optim al.
The i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l
regarding appropriate
be used t o d r a w i n f e r e n c e s
research,
e x t e n s i o n and c r e d i t p o l i c y
i n t e r v e n t i o n s wh ic h w i l l augment the use o f f e r t i l i z e r s .
An i n c r e a s e in f e r t i l i z e r
use,
c e te ris
paribus,
w ill
lead
to i n c r e a s e d a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i v i t y w i t h s e v e r a l p o s i t i v e
effects.
F irst,
a c h ie v e m e n t o f food s e l f
su fficie n cy w ill
save
the c o u n t r y o f f o r e i g n e x c h a n g e e a r n i n g s w h i c h c o u l d have been
used f o r foo d i m p o r t s .
instead
The f o r e i g n e x c h a n g e e a r n i n g s w i l l
be use d t o p u r c h a s e g o o d s n e c e s s a r y f o r the
d e v e lo p m e n t o f the economy w h i c h c a n n o t be p u r c h a s e d l o c a l l y .
Second,
the d e v e l o p m e n t o f s m a l l h o l d e r a g r i c u l t u r e
to employment c r e a t i o n i n the
increase
i n r u r a l incomes.
l o c a l workshops,
lead
r u r a l a r e a s and hence an
The r i s i n g
fa rm in c om e s w i l l
g e n e r a t e demand f o r many c o n s u m e r g o o d s ,
made i n
w ill
some o f w hi c h c a n be
and f o r the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f h o u s i n g ,
water s u p p l i e s and o t h e r fa rm i m p ro v e m e n ts .
which a r e e s s e n t i a l to a g r i c u l t u r e ,
These d e v e l o p m e n t s
w ill a lso
provide
o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r r u r a l e n t r e p r e n e u r s and the s e l f employed to
create
new j o b s a t s a t i s f a c t o r y in c om e s.
least d e ce le rate
rural
urba n m i g r a t i o n .
T h is in turn w i l l at
High
rate s of urban
m i g r a t i o n have s t r a i n e d the p h y s i c a l and s o c i a l f a c i l i t i e s
urban c e n t r e s
such as h o s p i t a l s ,
to i n c r e a s e d c r i m e .
a gricultu re w i l l
Finally,
even o u t the
in
s c h o o l s and h o u s i n g l e a d i n g
im proving p r o d u c t i v it y of
rural
r e g i o n a l and p e r s o n a l income
d i s t r i b u t i o n s w h i c h ha s been o b s e r v e d i n Kenya
(Kenya,
1994b).
11
1.5 Organisation of the thesis
The t h e s i s i s o r g a n i s e d
c o v e r s the i n t r o d u c t i o n .
into fiv e
The i n t r o d u c t i o n
i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t the economy,
Kenya,
p ro b l e m sta te m e nt ,
parts.
C h a p t e r one
i n c l u d e s background
recent f e r t i l i z e r
use t r e n d s i n
o b j e c t i v e s and h y p o t h e s e s t o be
te st e d ,
ju stific a tio n
thesis.
C h a p t e r two c o n t a i n s a r e v i e w o f t h e o r e t i c a l a s p e c t s
of f e r t i l i z e r
f o r t h e s t u d y and o r g a n i s a t i o n o f the
use and some r e l e v a n t e m p i r i c a l work on th e
s u b j e c t both o u t s i d e
Kenya and i n Kenya.
an a c c o u n t o f the m e th o d o l o g y used i n the
the s o u r c e s o f da ta ,
p r o c e d u re s ,
area o f
study,
Chapter three g i v e s
study.
This in c lu d e s
d a ta c o l l e c t i o n
d a t a a n a l y s i s and o r g a n i s a t i o n .
c o n t a i n s d e s c r i p t i v e and r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s
Chapter f o u r
r e s u l t s and a
d i s c u s s i o n o f the major f i n d i n g s o f the s t u d y .
Chapter f i v e
c o n t a i n s a summary o f the r e s e a r c h o b j e c t i v e s ,
methodology,
results,
c o n c l u s i o n s and re c om m e nd a ti on s o f the s t u d y .
12
C H A PT ER TWO
2.0 LITERATU RE REVIEW.
T h i s c h a p t e r r e v i e w s t h e t h e o r y and e m p i r i c a l work t h a t has
been
done on f e r t i l i z e r
us e.
The r e v i e w i n t e n d s
to p r o v i d e an
u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f what has been done c o n c e r n i n g f e r t i l i z e r use i n
gene r a l .
2.1
Factors affecting fertlizer u s e .
M ineral
( 19 85 )
fe rtiliz e rs
are
a
purchasable
p o i n t e d o u t t h a t a t fa rm l e v e l ,
form o f c a s h burden to the f a r m e r .
com plex
these
and a r e
factors
affected
th is
is
Ruthenburg
tran slate d
as a
F e r t i l i z e r use d e c i s i o n s a r e
by many f a c t o r s .
into four sets;
input.
financial,
He b r o a d l y
techn ical,
grouped
s u p p l y and
other socio-econom ic fa c t o r s .
First,
f i n a n c i a l f a c t o r s i n c l u d e the p r i c e o f f e r t i l i z e r s ,
p r i c e o f o u t p u t and c r e d i t a v a i l a b i l i t y .
farmers,
fe rtiliz e r
F o r economical r a t i o n a l
usage must be p r o f i t a b l e .
Lower f e r t i l i z e r
p r i c e s c o u l d n o r m a l l y i n c r e a s e f e r t i l i z e r u s e u n l e s s the p r e s e n c e
of
certain
con stra in ts
p ro h ib it
su c h
increase.
Some
of
the
s u g g e s t e d ways of l o w e r i n g p r i c e of f e r t i l i z e r i n c l u d e o f f e r i n g
d ir e c t s u b s i d i e s to farmers or i n d i r e c t l y
to
purchase
fe rtiliz e rs,
d is t r ib u t io n of
also
make
usage.
farmers
it
as
fe rtiliz e rs.
p rofita b le
However,
a
A n d e r s o n , 1 9 82 ).
and
lack of
for
Access
to
l i q u i d i t y p o s i t i o n and t h i s
increasing
e fficie n cy
in
An i n c r e a s e i n o u t p u t p r i c e s w i l l
the
credit
constra in t
by s u b s i d i s i n g c r e d i t
farmer to
increase
fe rtiliz e r
i s f r e q u e n t l y mentioned
to
credit
fe rtiliz e r
by
farm ers
use
by most
(Pinstrup-
enhances
the ir
in turn in c r e a s e s f e r t i l i z e r
usage .
13
However,
credit
a large
is
th e
proportion
reason
for
of
not
f a r m e r s who s t a t e
using,
or
increasing
f e r t i l i z e r s could probably not u t i l i s e i t
i f provided.
out
that
Pinstrup-Anderson
lack
of
that
of
us e
of
the
f o r t h i s p u r p o s e , even
( 1 9 8 0 ) and O ng aro ( 1 9 8 8 )
know ledg e,
lack
risk
and
pointed
uncertainty,
and
u n w i l l i n g n e s s t o r i s k th e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f b e i n g un a b le t o repay
c r e d i t from t h e income g e n e r a t e d from the s a l e of maize a r e some
o f th e
reasons
fe rtilize r
why c r e d i t
prices
’/.ere l i b e r a l i s e d
given
time
not s o u g h t
were l i b e r a l i s e d
in
depend
is
1993.
on
Thus,
the
c o u n t r y o f e i t h e r the f e r t i l i z e r
since
the
supply
by f a r m e r s .
In
Kenya,
1991 and maize
prices
quoted
and demand
o r m ai ze
at
situation
respectively.
price
any
one
in
th e
On th e
o t h e r hand, c r e d i t c o n t i n u e s t o be a v a i l a b l e t o e l i g i b l e f a r m e r s
from t h e c o m m e r c ia l b an k s and A g r i c u l t u r a l
Finance C o r p o r a t io n
(AFC).
Second,
fe rtiliz e r
P re sence
technical
app lication
of
crop
factors
and
include
farm ers’
varie tie s
that
crop
kn ow l e d g e
are
response
of
to
fe rtilize r.
fe rtiliz e r
responsive
e n c o u r a g e s f e r t i l i z e r us e among f a r m e r s . S i m i l a r l y ,
know ledg e o f
the r i g h t k i n d
how and when
it
should
be
fe rtiliz e r
and q u a n t i t y o f f e r t i l i z e r
applied,
usage,
influences
adequate i n f o r m a t i o n
fa rm e rs on t y p e s o f f e r t i l i z e r s
use
and
tim in g,
its
p la ce m ent
use.
under
usa ge
to
enhance
be a v a i l a b l e
to
optimum q u a n t i t i e s to
various
e n v i r o n m e n t a l , economic and s o i l c o n d i t i o n s .
of the t y p e and r a t e o f f e r t i l i z e r
Thus,
should
required,
e tc .
t o use,
is
clim atic,
I n Kenya, know le dge
made a v a i l a b l e by
the a g r i c u l t u r a l e x t e n s i o n s t a f f o r t h r o u g h p u b l i c media. H y b r i d
maize
grown
responsive.
by
most
farm ers
in
W e st e rn
Kenya
are
fe rtiliz e r
14
Third,
supply fa cto rs
f e r t i l i z e r s to farmers.
may be o c c a s i o n e d
foreign
or
or
m ainly
co n stra in ts
in
national
and/
or
d istrib u tio n
n e tw or k .
supplies
lengthy
l o c a l i m p e d i m e n t s s u c h as
in e ffic ie n t
a v a ila b ility
of
th e
U n a v a i l a b i l i t y of f e r t i l i z e r s t o farm ers
by d i s r u p t i o n s
exchange
procedures)
involve
(due t o
procurement
p o o rly developed
Lon g
d istances
and/
between
d i s t r i b u t i o n o u t l e t s and d i f f i c u l t t r a n s p o r t a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s make
i t d i f f i c u l t o r p r a c t i c a l l y i m p o s s i b l e f o r many f a r m e r s t o o b t a i n
the d e s i r e d f e r t i l i z e r .
At t i m e s , b e c a u s e o f l e n g t h y p r o c e d u r e s ,
even i f t h e f e r t i l i z e r o u t l e t s a re w i t h i n t h e reach of t h e s m a l l
farmer, the f e r t i l i z e r needed may a r r i v e t o o l a t e i n r e l a t i o n to
the c r o p p i n g s e a s o n o r the k i n d o f f e r t i l i z e r a v a i l a b l e
be t h a t w h i c h i s
needed. T h u s ,
fe rtiliz e r
may not
u n a v a i l a b i l i t y can be
a major c o n s t r a i n t t o f e r t i l i z e r use . A f t e r the 1990 f e r t i l i z e r
m a r k e ti n g
lib e ra lisa tio n ,
lengthy
fe rtiliz e r
p r oc ur e m e n t
p r o c e d u r e s h a v e been eased and f e r t i l i z e r s
have p r e s u m a b l y been
a vailable at a l l
i n the c o u n t r y .
Finally,
use
include
f e r t i l i z e r market o u t l e t s
socio-econom ic
land
f e r t i l i z e r use.
tenure
factors
systems,
that
influence f e r t i l i z e r
risk
and
In fre e h o ld tenure system s,
uncerta in ty
of
f e r t i l i z e r use tends
to be l a r g e r t h a n i n c a s e s o f t e n a n t / l a n d l o r d and communal la n d
tenure
This i s
systems
( P i n s t r u p - A n d e r s o n , 1982;
because
farmers
have knowledge
S h ilu li,
of
M.C.,
residual
1988).
effects
of
f e r t i l i z e r s a p p l i e d now and hence a re more w i l l i n g to i n v e s t i n
i t i f th e y are a s s u re d of c u l t i v a t i n g
the same p i e c e of l a n d i n
fu tu re
land
years.
Thus,
c e te ris
paribus,
r ef or m p o l i c i e s
r e s u l t i n a s h i f t from t e n a n c y to o w n e r s h i p ^
expand
fe rtiliz e r
use.
Farmers
in
Western
^he f a r m e r ,
Ke/ya,
who
that
would
have
a
15
f r e e h o l d l an d t e n u r e sy st e m ,
c e t e r i s p a r i b u s , are e x p e c t e d t o use
f e r t i l i z e r to th e maximum. The f r e e h o l d t e n u r e sy s t e m a s s u r e s the
f a rm e r s o f t h e need t o m a i n t a i n h i g h s o i l f e r t i l i t y
to s u s t a i n
averse
crop production
use
little
or
in the f u t u r e .
no
fe rtiliz e rs
i f t h e y have
Far me rs who a r e r i s k
because
of
risk
and
u n c e r t a i n t i e s i n f a r m i n g w h i c h c o u l d be due t o n a t u r a l (wea th er,
pest and d i s e a s e
incidence)
o r market f a c t o r s
p r i c e o f f e r t i l i z e r s and o t h e r i n p u t ,
A c c o rd in g t o Ruthenberg
fe rtiliz e r
and
fe rtiliz e rs
ce rtainly
factors
cred it
explaining
over
and p r o d u c t p r i c e s ) .
r i s k aversion,
a va ila b ility
sub-optim al
18
and
price
rates
present
years
experience
in
over
co n stra in ts
to f e r t i l i z e r
staff,
of
m ineral
and
i m p e n d in g
40
countries
(FAO) h a s shown
use i n c l u d e
of knowledge o f modern a g r i c u l t u r a l t e c h n i q u e s ,
of e xte n sio n
problems o f
use i n f u t u r e .
world wide, t h e Food and A g r i c u l t u r e O r g a n i s a t i o n
t h a t a t farm l e v e l ,
in
c o n t r i b u t e to an e x p l a n a t i o n of th e main
expansion of f e r t i l i z e r
W ith
(1985),
(fluctu ations
lack
in effectiveness
in s u f fic ie n t credit f a c i l i t i e s ,
inadequate
s u p p l y f a c i l i t i e s and r e s t r i c t e d p o s s i b i l i t i e s o f m a r k e t i n g farm
products
(FAO,
1985).
FAO f u r t h e r c o n c l u d e s t h a t once a demand
has been c r e a t e d i n a c e r t a i n a re a f o r f e r t i l i z e r ,
t h e i n p u t must
be a v a i l a b l e t o f a r m e r s at t h e r i g h t time and p l a c e in s u f f i c i e n t
quantities.
2.2 Empirical studies from outside Kenya
A c c o r d i n g t o F e d e r and O ’Mara ( 1 9 8 1 ) ,
t e c h n o l o g y w h i c h c o n s i s t s o f the use o f
inputs
(fe rtilize rs,
p esticides)
and
the Green R e v o l u t i o n
h y b r id seeds,
sp e cia l
chemical
p ractices
is
a
16
technology th a t i s d i v i s i b l e
and n e u t r a l t o s c a l e .
T hus one may
e x p e c t t h a t a d o p t i o n p a t t e r n s w i l l n o t be a f f e c t e d by f a r m s i z e .
But f a c t s from a number o f
that
the
related
adoption
to
farm
rates
size.
regions a c ro ss
and
the time
One
obvious
the w o r l d h a v e shown
pattern
reason
of
for
adoption
a re
d iffe re n tia l
a d o p t i o n r a t e s i n many r e g i o n s i s the c r e d i t c o n s t r a i n t . W o r k i n g
capital
requirements
sub stantially
associated
higher
w ith
(fe rtilize rs,
th e
new t e c h n o l o g y
p e s t i c i d e s and h y b r i d
are
se e d s
are c a s h i n p u t s ) . Fo r i n s t a n c e s t u d i e s o f t h e I n d i a n A g r i c u l t u r e
by B h a l l a
as
reported
in
F e d e r and O ’Mara
s m a l l and l a r g e f a r m e r s d i f f e r e d
using f e r t i l i z e r s
in
1970 - 71
(1981)
revealed that
i n the r e a s o n s o f f e r e d f o r not
s e a so n .
L a c k of c r e d i t
was the
reason g i v e n by 48 p e r c e n t o f the s m a l l s c a l e f a r m e r s but by o n l y
6 per c e n t of t h e l a r g e f a r m e r s . S i m i l a r l y ,
w o rk in g w i t h t h e P u e b l a P r o j e c t ,
increase
f e r t i l i z e r use,
Studies in
tha t
India
irrig a tio n ,
f o u n d o u t t h a t th e d e c i s i o n to
was l i m i t e d
by l a c k o f c r e d i t .
by D e s a i and S i n g h
a re a
un d e r
G l a d w in i n 19 76 w h i l e
co m m e rc ia l
(1973)
crops,
have i n d i c a t e d
and
spread
of
f e r t i l i z e r r e s p o n s i v e h i g h y i e l d i n g v a r i e t i e s of c e r e a l s a r e the
main
determ inants
a ttributed
these
of
results
fe rtiliz e r
to
consumption
d ifferen ces
in
le ve ls.
They
farm ers’ decision
making.
Therefore, they argued t h a t p ro p e r u n d e r s t a n d in g o f the ob se rv e d
p a t t e r n s o f f e r t i l i z e r u s e c a n emerge o n l y by u n d e r s t a n d i n g the
b e h a v i o u r o f th e i n d i v i d u a l f a r m e r s .
Timmer ( 1 9 7 4 ) w o r k i n g on
of
rela tive
prices
on
r ic e focused h i s
derived
demand
for
s t u d y on
imp act
fe rtiliz e r
w hile
c o n s i d e r i n g o t h e r f a c t o r s su ch as farm i n c o m e s , c a p i t a l a s s e t s ,
17
a c ce ssib ility
to
markets,
banks
and t r a n s p o r t .
He gr o u p e d
the
d e t e r m i n a n t s o f f e r t i l i z e r c o n s u m p t i o n i n t o two c a t e g o r i e s ; p r i c e
and n o n - p r i c e f a c t o r s .
R e s u l t s o f h i s stu d y revealed t h a t price
p l a y s a major r o l e i n d e t e r m i n i n g the demand f o r f e r t i l i z e r than
the n o n - p r i c e f a c t o r s ,
such a s l a n d t e n u r e s y s t e m s and f a r m s i z e .
S a l a a m ( 1 9 7 5 ) s t u d i e d t h e s o c i o ec ono m ic and i n s t i t u t i o n a l
factors
influen cing
management
survey,
fe rtiliz e r
he
revealed
us e
that
in
Punjab.
the
ra te
Using
of
a
farm
fe rtiliz e r
a p p l i c a t i o n was h i g h e r on s m a l l f a r m s t h a n on medium and l a r g e
fa rm s t h o u g h a p p l i c a t i o n r a t e s i n a l l farm c a t e g o r i e s w e re below
the recommended l e v e l s .
Resource c o n s t r a in t s ,
h i g h e r p r i c e s and
l a c k o f f e r t i l i z e r s u p p l i e s a t t h e needed t i m e were some of the
major
co n stra in ts.
should
be f i x e d
at
He
concluded
levels
that
that
the
guarantee
price
of
fe rtilize r
reasonable
le ve ls
of
p r o f i t s t o th e f a r m e r s and i n s t i t u t i o n a l c r e d i t s o u r c e s need to
be e n c o u r a g e d
to
provide
short
term l o a n s
f o r the
purchase
of
f e r t i l i z e r w h i l e a c c e s s of s m a l l f a r m e r s t o i n s t i t u t i o n a l c r e d i t
s h o u l d be made e a sy . F u r t h e r ,
depots,
their
a c ce ssib ility
proxim ity
by l i n k
to
when o p e n i n g new f e r t i l i z e r s a l e s
the
consumption
centres
and
their
r o a d s s h o u l d be t a k e n i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n .
18
Roy
and
S e e tha ram n
(1977)
form ulated
a
representative
c o m pr e he ns iv e demand f u n c t i o n f o r f e r t i l i z e r f o r r i c e as f o l l o w s :
Qat —
^(PyJ
P fJ
PxJ
Y t-u
e )
whe r e :
Ct,t i s
f e r t i l i z e r demand i n
p e r i o d t,
py i s th e p r i c e o f o u t p u t i n p e r i o d t,
pr i s
th e p r i c e o f f e r t i l i z e r i n p e r i o d
p* i s
the
Y t_, i s
Ct i s
e
price o f o th e r input in p eriod t
th e f a r m e r ’ s income
in
the c r e d i t a v a i l a b i l i t y i n
is
t,
th e
(e.g.
the p r e v i o u s
seed).
period,
t-1.
period t
fa rm e rs’ expectation
of
the
future
prices
of
i n p u t and o u t p u t a s w e l l a s w e at he r b e h a v i o u r .
Y t_, and e r e p r e s e n t t h e impact o f t h e p a s t and th e f u t u r e .
Based
on t h i s
model,
it
was e m p ha si ze d t h a t
t h e two most
i m p o r t a n t v a r i a b l e s were th e p r i c e o f f e r t i l i z e r and the
price
of the p r o d u c t , s i n c e f e r t i l i z e r i s not a f i n a l consumer g o o d but
its
demand i s
derived.
assumption th a t
Profit
a nalysis
was however
the f a r m e r s ’ o b j e c t i v e
m axim ization
holder fa rm e rs
This
(Roy,
is
not
R.N.
necessarily
is
the
and See th a ra m an ,
p ro fit
based
m axim ization.
objective
S.
on th e
19 7 7 ) .
of
Food
sm all
self
s u f f i c i e n c y o r r i s k a v e r s i o n c o u l d be major o b j e c t i v e s .
S i n d h u and B a n a a n te
fe rtiliz e r,
labour,
and
( 1 9 7 9 ) e s t i m a t e d f a r m l e v e l d.eman<i f o r
irrig a tio n
water f o r
M e x i c a n w he at
ip
In d i a . T h e y used a n o r m a l i z e d p r o f i t f u n c t i o n by d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g
the l a t t e r w i t h r e s p e c t t o r e s p e c t i v e n o r m a l i z e d f a c t o r p r i c e s ,
19
th u s:
X x = 6 n J 6 px ;
I = N, K,
L.
where X = the q u a n t i t y o f f a c t o r I
n = p rofit
N = labour
K = chem icalf e r t i l i z e r
L = i r r i g a t i o n water
Pi = p r i c e o f f a c t o r I
U sing
the
c r o s s - s e c t io n data
results
powerful
obtained
p olicy
indicated
variable
fe rtiliz e r
use.
Even
variations
occur
in
from a s t r a t i f i e d
than
that
fe rtiliz e r
when
farmers
their
output
rates
of
price
price
use
random sample,
in
is
a
more
influencing
fe rtiliz e rs,
fe rtilize r
great
app lica tion
a c c o r d i n g to o u t p u t p r i c e s r e c e i v e d .
The f o r e g o i n g c o n c e p t u a l
and e m p i r i c a l
studies
have
shown
t h a t t h e r e a re many f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g f e r t i l i z e r use i n c r o p s .
The m a j o r f a c t o r s r e v e a l e d a r e : f a r m e r s ’ o b j e c t i v e ( s ) of f a r m i n g ,
resource
endowment
fe rtiliz e r
supply,
(land s iz e ,
extent of
la n d t e n u r e
sy ste m and in c o m e ) ,
com m ercialisation in
the f a r m and
i n s t i t u t i o n a l a c c e s s ( m a r k e t s , c r e d i t and e x t e n s i o n ) . The f a c t o r s
responsible
d e pe nd in g
for
on
fe rtiliz e r
the
farmer
use
are,
however,
circum stances.
region
Since
the
sp e c ific
fa r m e r
c i r c u m s t a n c e s v a r y from p l a c e t o p l a c e , t h i s
s t u d y a t te m p te d to
isolate
fe rtiliz e r
factors
that
are
responsible
for
use
in
Western Kenya i n s t e a d o f a d o p t i n g f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g f e r t i l i z e r
use a s o b s e r v e d
in other regions.
20
Em pirical
studies
to
explain
inte r-farm
va ria b ility
f e r t i l i z e r use on fa rm s by D a y a n a t h a and R a k e s h
considered v a r i a t i o n s
per
fa rm .
T hey
in average
postulated
(1981)
in
resource
that
inter-farm
variatio n s
endowments,
det erm in e
farm
Dayanatha
factors
and R a k e s h
that
setting
used
influence
and
agro-clim atic
regression
fe rtiliz e r
use,
a n alysis
use
to
decisions.
t h e a n a l y s i s was done at two l e v e l s e m p h a s i z i n g i n t e r -
v a ria b ility
understand
in
influences
f e r t i l i z e r use.
used
in stitu tio n a l
in
o f the
p e rce p tio n s r e g a rd in g p r o f i t a b i l i t y of f e r t i l i z e r
differen ces.
However,
India
r a te of f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n
f e r t i l i z e r use a r i s e fr o m s o c i o - p s y c h o l o g i c a l a t t r i b u t e s
farm er s,
in
fe rtiliz e r
of
some
use
plot
and
level
it
a lso
trie d
to
ch a ra cte ristics
on
Farm l e v e l a n a l y s i s c o n s i d e r e d o n l y f a r m e r s who
fe rtiliz e rs
whereas
p l o t s t h a t were f e r t i l i s e d .
p lo t
level
an alysis
The e m p i r i c a l
considered
results
only
revealed that
the e x t e n t o f c o m m e r c i a l i z a t i o n and c r e d i t showed some p o s i t i v e
influence
on
fe rtiliz e r
use.
R ain fall
was
found
to
be
an
i m p o r t a n t d e t e r m i n a n t o f d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g r a t e a s w e l l a s are a
fe rtilize d .
T h i s s t u d y w i l l f o c u s on farm l e v e l a n a l y s i s .
farm l e v e l t h a t d e c i s i o n s
It
is
a lso
at
th is
level
on f e r t i l i z e r
that
use
responses
It is
p atterns are
to
p o licy
at the
made.
changes,
i n v e s t m e n t and t e c h n o l o g i c a l i n t e r v e n t i o n s t a k e p l a c e . Hence, new
p olicies
and
in stitu tio n a l
gu id e lin e s
for
designing
and t e c h n o l o g i c a l
strategies
more
aimed a t
appropriate
increasing
f e r t i l i z e r us e c a n be f o r m u l a t e d w it h the kn ow le dg e o f t h e s e farm
r e s p o n s e s and c o n s t r a i n t s .
D uring
1985/86 a g r i c u l t u r a l
yea r, J a y a n a t h a and B e h j a t
21
c o l l e c t e d d at a from 3 3 0 h o u s e h o l d s i n E a s t e r n Zambia w i t h a vie w
to u n d e r s t a n d i n g the v a r i a t i o n s t h a t c h a r a c t e r i s e d the amount o f
f e r t i l i z e r s f a r m e r s u s e d . B a s e d on c r o s s - s e c t i o n
h o u s e h o l d data
at s u b - n a t i o n a l l e v e l , t h e y us e d the a d o p t i o n - d i f f u s i o n framework
for
the
analysis.
D ifferences
in
fe rtilize r
use
between
h o u s e h o l d s were examined i n r e l a t i o n to s o c i o - e c o n o m i c , c u l t u r a l
and
sp e cific
variables
study
farm
were
not in c lu d e d
ind icate d
supply
credit
characteristics.
that
th e
in
the
variables
and market a c c e s s
f e r t i l i z e r use.
Prices
model.
age,
were
and
other
dynamic
The r e s u l t s
liq u id ity,
sign ifica n t
the
fe rtiliz e r
in
Farmers’ li q u i d it y , access t o c re d it,
of
affecting
and market
i n f r a s t r u c t u r e , as w e l l as f u n c t i o n i n g d i s t r i b u t i o n sy st e m , were
also
the
major f a c t o r s
that
f e r t i l i z e r in any p a r t ic u la r
a ffe cte d the
use o r
y e a r . The p r e d i c t i v e
non
us e of
power o f the
e q u a t i o n e x p l a i n i n g i n t e n s i t y o f use was v e r y low ( a d j u s t e d R2 =
0.11).
Management
affected
the
and
resid u al
th e q u a n t i t y o f f e r t i l i z e r s
effect
of
these
ho us e ho ld a n a l y s i s
are
practices
This
study
aware
of
determines
the
factors
could
fe rtiliz e rs
used by f a r m e r s .
not
be
also
However,
captured
by
the
because t h e data were p l o t s p e c i f i c .
unlike
the Zambian s t u d y ,
fe rtiliz e r
amount
of
use
but
fe rtiliz e r
assumed t h a t f a r m e r s
delved
to
farm ers
id e n tify
apply
in
what
their
r e s p e c t i v e maize f i e l d s .
Marfo
D iffu sio n
and
Tripp
(1991)
in Ghana“ observed
in
a study
of
a sharp d e c l i n e
"Maize
Technology
in f e r t i l i z e r
i n maize i n 1990 a f t e r a p r e v i o u s f o u r y e a r s ’ upward t r e n d .
use
They
conducted a s u r v e y i n s i x a r e a s and o b t a i n e d i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m 330
randomly s e l e c t e d f a r m e r s . U s i n g d e s c r i p t i v e a n a l y s i s , the s u r v e y
22
r e s u l t s showed t h a t abou t 50 p e r c e n t
(165 f a r m e r s )
experience
those
w ith
fe rtilize r,
fe rtiliz e r
us e.
Of
had p r e v i o u s
who p r e v i o u s l y
117 d i d n ’t a p p l y f e r t i l i z e r i n
used
1990. When a s k e d why
they d i d n ’t use f e r t i l i z e r , 5 3 p e r c e n t c i t e d l a c k o f c as h o r h i g h
f e r t i l i z e r p r i c e , 2 9 . 9 p e r c e n t s a i d s o i l was good and 7 . 7 p e r c e n t
cited
no n -a vailab ility.
It
fa rm e r s may be f a m i l i a r w i t h
circum stances
fe rtiliz e r
e.g.
was
the n
fe rtiliz e r
unfavourable
may hamper
concluded
price
sign ifica n t
use,
that
although
changing
e c on om ic
changes
increase
in
and
sup plies
fe rtiliz e r
of
use .
M a r f o ’ s s t u d y u n l i k e t h i s s t u d y d e a l t w i t h f a r m e r s who g r o w maize
as a m a j o r c a s h c r o p ( a b o u t 7 0 p e r c e n t o f t h e maize pro d uc e d i s
sold).
except
In
this
for
study farmers
Trans
Nzoia
grow maize m a i n l y f o r
D istrict
and
in
subsistence
Lukuyani
D ivisio n ,
Kakamega D i s t r i c t .
and
D lam ini
(1993)
d iscu ss
factors
fe rtiliz e r
price,
farm ers
p rod u ctivity.
randomly
a ssocia te d
u s e by S w a z i N a t i o n
encouraging
farm
undertook a study which
selected
basal
with
Land
on
increased
He
conducted
maize
grow ing
fe rtilize r
production u n c e rta in ty ,
price,
a
the
farm ers
use
fie ld
farmers.
farm
adoption
(SNL)
input
s o u g h t to i d e n t i f y
He
basal
as a way of
and hence
survey
size,
of
increase
on
220
considered
education
SNL
output
le ve ls,
r i s k , d r a u g h t power o w n e r s h i p , e x t e n s i o n
- w or k e r c o n t a c t s , farm s a l e s and f a m i l y l a b o u r s u p p l y as f a c t o r s
th at i n f l u e n c e
regression
contacts,
basal f e r t i l i z e r
technique
for
data
farm s a l e s and f a m i l y
adoption.
analysis.
He used t h e s t e p w i s e
Extension
-
worker
l a b o u r s u p p l y were the f a c t o r s
that were fo u n d t o s t a t i s t i c a l l y i n f l u e n c e t h e a d o p t i o n o f b a s a l
f e r t i l i z e r at
10 p e r c e n t l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e .
Together,
^he
23
three
variab les
explained
observed
in
th e
adoption
farmers.
He
concluded
nonprice
factors
65
of
that
seemed
percent
to
basal
apart
be
of
the
fe rtiliz e rs
from
of
total
variation
among
prices,
considerable
a
the
number
of
importance
in
i n f l u e n c i n g t h e a d o p t i o n o f modern t e c h n o l o g y by f a r m e r s .
nonprice f a c t o r s in clud ed a v a i l a b i l i t y
advice,
SNL
These
o f e x t e n s i o n s e r v i c e s and
t h e p r e s e n c e o f o u t p u t market s e r v i c e s and a v a i l a b i l i t y
o r i n t e n s i t y o f f a m i l y l a b o u r . He recommended t h a t t h e go v e r n m e n t
s h o u ld
be more
fa r m e r s
by
effective
taking
form ulating i t s
D l a m i n i ’s
in
these
promoting
non-price
basal
fe rtiliz e r
factors
into
use by
account
in
p o l i c i e s and p rog ram s.
study
like
th is
determ inants of f e r t i l i z e r use,
s t u d y aimed
id e n tifyin g
the
an i m p o r t a n t i n p u t n e c e s s a r y i n
a c c e l e r a t i n g t h e gr o w th
in f o o d
production.
st ud y d i f f e r s
present
study
from the
at
in
However,
that
th e
D l a m i n i ’s
SNL f a r m e r s
faced d i f f e r e n t f a r m e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s from t h e f a r m e r s in W e s t e r n
Kenya.
2.3 Empirical studies hi Kenya
S e v e r a l s t u d i e s i n form o f a g r o n o m i c e x p e r i m e n t s ha v e been
carried
o u t i n Kenya on c ro p r e s p o n s e t o f e r t i l i z e r use,
of use and methods o f a p p l i c a t i o n .
However,
le ve ls
studies considering
both ec on om ic and non economic f a c t o r s w h i c h i n f l u e n c e f e r t i l i z e r
use at f a r m l e v e l have been i n t h e form o f i s o l a t e d s u r v e y s which
are
de scriptive
and
offer
no
sta tistical
support
for
the
d i r e c t i o n and m a g n i t u d e o f the e f f e c t s o f t h e s e f a c t o r s (Baguma,
1991;
Sh ilu li,
1992).
However,
a
few
documented here have been c a r r i e d out.
em pirical
stud ies
as
24
Mwangi ( 1 9 7 8 ) a n a l y s i n g t h e farm l e v e l demand r e s p o n s e s f o r
fe rtilize r
use
in
Kenya
ind icate d
that
lack
of
cash,
lack
f e r t i l i z e r s u p p l i e s a t the r e q u i r e d time,
transport costs,
of
major
cred it
and
increasing
low
lite ra cy
fe rtiliz e r
use
level
in
'were
Central
lack
co n stra in ts
Kenya.
Using
a
of
in
linear
programming mode l, he assumed t h a t f a r m e r s had p e r f e c t kn ow le dg e
of
input
ideal
output
f a rm
prices
and
cond itio ns
technology.
w hi c h
a re
rare
T his
in
approach
real
life .
assumes
This
is
because m aiz e f a r m e r s do not w o rk und er c o n t r a c t u a l a r r a n g e m e n t s
and hence are u n c e r t a i n o f i n p u t and o u t p u t p r i c e s ,
the
lib e ra lisa tio n
Mwangi’ s s t u d y ,
and t a k e s
on
a
of
both
inputs
and
product
d istric ts
on
p ositive
(1988)
"
prices.
U nlike
t h i s s t u d y moves away from a n o r m a t i v e s i t u a t i o n
approach.
The
study
f e r t i l i z e r use " a s i s w i t h f a r m e r s " u n l i k e
O ng ar o
more so w i t h
carried
adoption
of
out
his
"what i t
study
new f a r m i n g
investigated
in
the
s h o u l d be".
Nandi
and
K isii
te chn olo gy".
The
study
among o t h e r t h i n g s s o u g h t to f i n d o u t t h e c a u s e s o f m a i z e y i e l d
variation
in 1 9 8 3 / 8 4 i n the a r e a . The f a c t o r s
in flu e n cin g yield
which a l s o impede t h e use of f a r m i n p u t s - e s p e c i a l l y f e r t i l i z e r s
were i d e n t i f i e d .
K isii
Out o f
the 257
(1 2 7 f a r m s ) and N a n d i
did not a p p l y c h e m i c a l
sample
(130 fa rm s),
fe rtiliz e rs
farm ers
interview ed
25 p e r c e n t
to t h e i r
maize.
in
(64 f a r m s )
In o r d e r to
e s t a b l i s h the d e t e r m i n a n t s o f f e r t i l i z e r u s e i n th e sa m p l e fa rm s,
he used t o t a l q u a n t i t y o f f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i e d on each farm a s the
dependent v a r i a b l e .
si ze o f
land
The
independent v a r i a b l e s
u n d e r maize c r o p ,
off-farm
he used
employment,
included
access
to
c r e d i t and e x t e n s i o n c o n t a c t s . The r e s u l t s o f t h e s t u d y i n d i c a t e d
that the q u a n t i t y o f l a n d was found t o have a p o s i t i v e and
25
sign ifican t
effect
significance.
on
fe rtiliz e r
Access t o c r e d i t
use
at
10
percent
level
and e x t e n s i o n c o n t a c t s ,
of
and o f f
farm employment were f o u n d t o be s i g n i f i c a n t a t 1 p e r c e n t and 10
percent
respectively.
However,
th e
study
did
not
consider
a ll
a s p e c t s o f t h e d e t e r m i n a n t s o f f e r t i l i z e r use such as f e r t i l i z e r
cost,
and q u a l i t y o f
st ud y .
Ongaro
a rg u e d
given the a v a i l a b l e
efforts
l a n d w h i c h were c o n s i d e r e d
that
since
resources,
farm ers
decision
are
in the
doing
th e ir
makers should
t o i m p r o v e e x t e n s i o n c o n t a c t s and a c c e s s to
M uturi
(1989), c a rrie d
present
b e st
increase
cred it.
o u t a s t u d y i n M u r a n g ’a d i s t r i c t to
i d e n t i f y and q u a n t i f y s o c i o - e c o n o m i c f a c t o r s t h a t a f f e c t t h e use
of
fe rtiliz e rs
postulated
purchased
that
by
y e a r ’s
there
an
previous
it
was
the
high
price
and
product
incentive
the
one
that
maize
of
price
versa,
coffee
that
is,
influence
with
use.
He
quantity
fe rtiliz e r
fe rtiliz e r
in h i s
farmers.
affected
and c o n s t a n t
to increase
had
and
fe rtiliz e r
vice
y e a r ’ s product p ric e
f e r t i l i z e r use.
of
sm allholder
farm ers,
previous
is
by
a
high
price,
He used the
a n a l y s i s and assumed t h a t
on
the
current
y e a r ’s
Oth er f a c t o r s he c o n s i d e r e d were l i t e r a c y l e v e l
farm ers,
credit
a va ila b ility
and
extension
service
to
farmers.
M u t u r i used r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s t o d e t e r m i n e t h e e f f e c t
of t h e s e
factors.
He s p e c i f i e d the model a s f o l l o w s :
Fq = C + P„ - Pf + praan + Ed + Ext + C r + u.
Where Fq = Q u a n t i t y o f f e r t i l i z e r n u t r i e n t s on maize.
C
= Constant
Pm = P r i c e o f maize
(previous Season)
Pr = P r ic e of f e r t i l i z e r
Pman = P r i c e o f manure
(current season)
26
Ed = E d u c a t i o n l e v e l o f
the f a r m e r
Ext = extension s e r v ic e s
Cr = C re d it
u = e r r o r term.
The
credit
results
of t h e
a va ila b ility
an alysis
and
ind icated
fe rtiliz e r
that output
price
'were
price,
sign ifica n t
d e t e r m i n a n t s o f f e r t i l i z e r use i n m aize. He f u r t h e r o b s e r v e d t h a t
fa rm e rs who g e t c a s h c r e d i t d i d n ’t use i t t o p u r c h a s e f e r t i l i z e r .
He t h e r e f o r e
recommended
however
observed
been
the
in
use
of
K e n y a ’s
credit
in
sugarbelt
kind.
that
It
when
has
such
f e r t i l i z e r s a r e g i v e n , some f a r m e r s c o n v e r t i t t o c a s h by s e l l i n g
i t t o meet o t h e r f a m i l y c a s h o b l i g a t i o n s e . g .
for t h e i r c h i l d r e n
(MOALD,
1986).
paying s c h o o l fe e s
M u t u r i ’s f i n d i n g s
may n o t be
g e n e r a l i s e d f o r the wh ole c o u n t r y b e ca us e h i s work was b a s e d on
a sm all
sa m p le o f 80 f a r m e r s
from one d i v i s i o n .
The r e g i o n
is
a l s o a m a j o r c o f f e e g r o w i n g r e g i o n , where m a i z e p r o d u c t i o n i s not
a m aj or f a r m i n g a c t i v i t y . T h e r e f o r e , i t i s n o t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f
a m a j o r maize g r o w i n g
region.
This th e re fo re c a l l s
for
sim ilar
s t u d i e s i n the c o u n t r y where f a r m e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s a r e d i f f e r e n t .
This s t u d y i s a p o s i t i v e
The
present
determ inants o f
Since
previous
r e s p o n s e to t h i s c a l l .
study
fe rtiliz e r
is
sp e c ific a lly
an
use
at farm l e v e l
in Western
s t u d i e s on f e r t i l i z e r
use i n
maize
a nalysis
of
Kenya.
have f o c u s e d
on r e s p o n s e o f m a i z e to f e r t i l i z e r o r t h e e c o n o m i c s o f f e r t i l i z e r
use i n C e n t r a l Kenya, i t i s hoped t h a t t h i s s t u d y w i l l c o n t r i b u t e
to w a rd s a v a i l i n g i n f o r m a t i o n on f e r t i l i z e r
g r ow in g
u s e i n a m a j o r maize
r e g i o n i n the c o u n t r y dubbed " t h e g r a n a r y o f K e n y a " .
27
C H A PT ER THREE
3.0 METHODOLOGY
The c h a p t e r
gives
a d e s c rip t io n o f the
data s o u r c e s ,
data
c o l l e c t e d , an o v e r v i e w o f th e s t u d y a r e a i n t e r m s o f i t s c l i m a t e ,
topography,
so il
t y p e s and p o p u l a t i o n
d ensities.
It
a lso
gives
an account o f t h e data c o l l e c t i o n p r o c e d u r e s , d at a a n a l y s i s and
organisation.
3.1 Data S ou r c es
Both s e c o n d a r y and p r i m a r y data were c o l l e c t e d .
information c o l l e c t e d in c lu d e
soils
of
the
study
area.
t h o s e on c l i m a t e ,
Secondary
d a ta
were
Secondary
population
collected
and
from
s e v e r a l s o u r c e s among them p u b l i c a t i o n s fr o m Kenya A g r i c u l t u r a l
Research
In stitu te
(KARI),
Development and M a r k e t i n g
M inistry
Farmer
and
patterns,
b)
history,
Resource c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s :
farm
access:
fe rtiliz e r
product
and
f e r t i l i z e r us e
in stitu tio n s,
d istances
markets,
access
to
size,
enterprise
production fig u re s .
income g e n e r a t e d from s a l e
In stitu tio n a l
credit
:
characteristics:
farm c ro p p in g
employment,
c)
farm
Livestock
(MOALDM) and p u b l i c l i b r a r i e s .
Primary d a t a 'were c o l l e c t e d on
a)
of A gricu ltu re ,
(kg/ha),
off-farm
o f farm pro d uc e .
covered
distance
to
extension
to
nearest
the
nearest
contacts
and
p r i c e s o f maize and f e r t i l i z e r .
3.2 Area of study
The a r e a c o v e r e d by the s t u d y i n c l u d e d K i s i i ,
Trans-Nzoia D i s t r i c t s .
The a r e a f a l l s
Kakamega and
in the M oist T r a n s it io n a l
28
maize
zone
which
e n c o m p a ss e s
T r o p i c s and D r y H i g h t r o p i c s .
m above
sea
level
and
M oist
High
Tropics,
M oist
Sub-
The a r e a v a r i e s between 1 4 0 0 - 2 0 0 0
receives
between
500-1000
mm o f
rain
( M a r c h - A u g u s t ) w i t h a mean t e m p e r a t u r e o f 19.7° c ( H a s s a n et a l ,
1994a).
Table 3: Som e characteristics of the study area.
C haracte ristic
K isii
% m aiz e c o v e r a g e area
(1991)
2 0 - 40
A g r o - c l i m a t i c zon e
M o i s t High
(March r a i n s )
Tropical
P opulation
(Pe o pl e /km 2)
400-800
N a t u r a l f e r t i l i t y of
m od e rat e
the p r e d o m i n a n t s o i l
to high
Land s i z e (km2)
21 9 6
Source: H a s s a n e t a l . , 1 9 9 2 ; J a e t z o l d ,
I l a , 1982 ; and V o l l i b , 1983
Kakamega
20 - 40
M o i s t Sub
Tro p ical
20 - 40
Dry H i g h
Tropical
100-400
100-400
lo w
low
3520
2495
R. and S c h m i d t , H. V o l
The r e g i o n e x p e r i e n c e s b i m o d a l r a i n f a l l
m a t u r i t y maize ge r m pl a sm
the f a r m e r s .
study a r e a .
(600 s e r i e s )
Trans
Nzoia
p a t t e r n and l a t e
a r e us ed by m a j o r i t y o f
T a b l e 3 shows some o f the m a j o r f e a t u r e s o f the
The se f e a t u r e s i n c l u d e a r e a o f e a c h d i s t r i c t ,
average a r e a o c c u p i e d by maize,
a g r o c lim a t ic zones.
Together,
p o p u l a t i o n d e n s i t y and
th e s t a t i s t i c s
show the
im po rt an ce o f maize i n t h e a r e a .
3.3 Data collection procedures
Da ta c o l l e c t i o n
procedures include
and the methods o f d at a c o l l e c t i o n .
sam pling procedures
29
Sampling procedures
This
s t u d y used th e t h r e e - s t a g e
s a m p l i n g method t o
s e l e c t th e sample o f f a r m e r s i n t e r v i e w e d fr o m a p o p u l a t i o n o f
s m a l l h o l d e r maize f a r m e r s i n W e s t e r n Kenya.
growers were d e f i n e d a s t h o s e
f a r m e r s w i t h t o t a l farm s i z e o f
not more th an 8 ha and g r o w i n g
First sampling stage: T h i s
al,
1994a),
K isii,
maize.
involved se le ction
Based on the M a iz e Data Base
S m a l l h o l d e r maize
(MDB) s u r v e y
of the d i s t r i c t s .
report
(Hassan et
Kakamega and T r a n s N z o i a D i s t r i c t s were
chosen f o r the s t u d y .
The c h o i c e o f t h e s e d i s t r i c t s was g u i d e d
by the f o l l o w i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n s :
(a)
D e n sity o f population:
K is ii is
the most d e n s e l y
populated o f a l l the d i s t r i c t s i n
(Ong aro,
1988), w h ile T ra n s Nzoia i s
Kaka mega’ s p o p u l a t i o n d e n s i t y i s
crite rio n
r u r a l W e s t e r n Kenya
s p a r s e l y populated.
i n between the two.
This
h a s i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f
a gricu ltu ra l
lan d p e r h o u s e h o l d .
There i s
higher pressure
on l a n d use i n h i g h p o p u l a t i o n d e n s i t y d i s t r i c t s due to
higher subsistence
high
requirements.
T h i s i n t u r n l e a d s to
r a te o f n u t r i e n t d e p l e t i o n due t o i n t e n s i v e f a r m i n g
u n l e s s commensurate r e p l e n i s h m e n t o f n u t r i e n t s t a k e s
place.
(b)
The d i s t r i c t s are among the major maize g r o w i n g r e g i o n s
i n the c o u n t r y .
H y b r i d maize use e s p e c i a l l y the H 60 0
se rie s is
B e c a u se o f the r e p o r t e d h i g h
high.
h y b r i d maize use
(Gerhart,
t h e s e f a r m e r s were u s i n g
maize p r o d u c t i v i t y .
r a te o f
1974) i t was e x p e c te d t h a t
f e r t i l i z e r t o enhance the
hybrid
30
(c)
Fe rtilize r
D istrict
Kenya.
use among maize f a r m e r s i n
Trans Nzoia
h a s been o b s e r v e d t o be one o f the h i g h e s t
I t was t h e r e f o r e
in te re stin g
to in v e s t ig a t e
w h e t h e r t h e r e are a ny d i f f e r e n c e s i n
influence
in
th e f a c t o r s t h a t
f e r t i l i z e r use i n T r a n s N z o i a D i s t r i c t a s
compared w i t h a r e a s where f e r t i l i z e r
use was r e p o r t e d to
be l o w su c h a s K i s i i D i s t r i c t .
(d)
The d i s t r i c t s are i n the same a g r o e c o l o g i c a l
T ra n sition a l).
The a g r o e c o l o g i c a l
zone
(M oist
zone a c c o u n t e d f o r 41
p e r c e n t o f the maize p rod uce d i n
Kenya i n
1991.
b e i n g i n t h e same a g r o e c o l o g i c a l
zone,
was p e r c e i v e d
t h a t t h e r e c o u l d be v a r i a t i o n s i n
it
D espite
t h e i r farm ing p r a c t ic e s
and use o f i n p u t s su c h a s f e r t i l i z e r due to d i f f e r e n c e s
in
subsistence
pressure
resulting
fr om d i f f e r e n c e s i n
p o p u l a t i o n d e n s i t y o r d i f f e r e n c e s due t o e x t e n t o f
a g r i c u l t u r a l com m ercialisation
( C a s h c r o p p i n g and
D a iry in g ).
Second sampling stage: T h i s s t a g e i n v o l v e d
selection of clu ste rs.
The p r o c e d u r e a d o p t e d f o r s e l e c t i o n o f s u r v e y c l u s t e r s f r o m
the s e l e c t e d d i s t r i c t s
u tilise d
the s a m p l i n g frame o f th e
N a t i o n a l Sample S u r v e y s and E v a l u a t i o n
III)
Programme I I I
o f the C e n t r a l Bureau o f S t a t i s t i c s
P l a n n i n g and N a t i o n a l D e v e lo pm e nt .
d i s t r i c t s and u r b a n c e n t r e s .
K isii,
It
(CBS),
(N ASSEP
- M in is t r y of
T h i s fram e c o v e r s a l l
has 36,
24 and 24 c l u s t e r s i n
Kakamega and T r a n s N z o i a D i s t r i c t s ,
respectively.
To
ensure an even d i s t r i b u t i o n o f s e l e c t e d c l u s t e r s a c r o s s
d istric ts,
clusters.
system atic
random s a m p l i n g was us e d to s e l e c t the
F o u r c l u s t e r s were s e l e c t e d
f o r each d i s t r i c t .
The
31
s e l e c t e d c l u s t e r s by d i s t r i c t
K isii:
Keumbu, Nyamache,
Kakamega:
Moto I & I I ,
The s y s t e m a t i c
much v a r i a b i l i t y
intra
N y a c h e k i and Ogembo.
Mumias, S h i n y a l u ,
Trans N z o i a :
site
were:
K h w i s e r o and L u k u y a n i .
Mateket,
S i r e n d e and Kapomboi.
random s a m p l i n g was used to c a p t u r e a s
t h a t may e x i s t i n e a c h d i s t r i c t
v a ria b ility ,
as l i t t l e
rath e r than
v a r i a t i o n was e x p e c te d
within the c l u s t e r s .
Third sampling stage: I n t h i s s t a g e th e f a r m e r s
selected.
The s a m p l i n g frame used was t h a t o f NASSEP I I I
the s e l e c t e d c l u s t e r s .
households.
those p e r t a i n i n g
s a m p l i n g frame l i s t s
h is occupation,
t o farm s i z e
and o t h e r data such a s
c l u s t e r s o t h e r th an a n y
o f l o c a t i o n s and e n u m e r a t i o n a r e a s
and f a r m e r s w i t h i n each e n u m e r a t i o n a r e a .
was c o n s i d e r e d
to-date farmer l i s t i n g
t h a t NASSEP I I I
In t o t a l ,
from e a c h d i s t r i c t ,
in the s t u d y .
(EAs)
Furthermore,
p r o v i d e d the most up-
10 f a r m e r s were ran d om ly
40 f a r m e r s were s e l e c t e d f o r i n t e r v i e w
making a t o t a l o f
T his is in lin e
w i t h th e
120 f a r m e r s i n t e r v i e w e d
I n t e r n a t i o n a l M a i z e and
Wheat Im provement C e n t r e ’s (CIMMYT) g u i d e o f 40 f a r m e r s
d istric t.
a t the
i n the c o u n t r y .
F o r each s e l e c t e d c l u s t e r ,
selected.
The main
p ro c e d u re was the f a c t t h a t NASSEP I I I
provides a l i s t i n g
it
the name o f
and p r o d u c t i o n s y s t e m s .
reason f o r s a m p l i n g from NA S S EP I I I
other a l t e r n a t i v e
for
Each c l u s t e r c o m p r i s e s o f o v e r 100
The NASSEP I I I
the h o u s e h o l d head,
time,
i n t e r v i e w e d were
per
A c c o r d i n g to CIMMYT a sample s i z e o f 40 i s t h o u g h t
to be s u f f i c i e n t
fo r m eaningful s t a t i s t i c a l
a n a ly s is in a
homogenous g r o u p o f f a r m e r s .
The
three-stage
s a m p l i n g p r o c e d u r e was adopted b e c a u s e
32
i n t e r v i e w i n g c o s t and t r a v e l
geographical c l u s t e r i n g
procedure,
time a r e
r e d u c e d because o f the
of the farmers.
Besides,
with t h i s
i t o n l y becomes n e c e s s a r y to c o n s t r u c t l i s t s
fa rmers f o r s e l e c t e d c l u s t e r s
unlike in
sim ple
where e v e r y f a r m e r i n t h e p o p u l a t i o n i s
liste d .
of
random s a m p l i n g
In a d d itio n ,
t h i s p r o c e d u r e e n a b l e d e n u m e r a t o r s from w i t h i n the c l u s t e r s to
work more e f f e c t i v e l y and e f f i c i e n t l y
since
th e y were known by
a l l c l u s t e r members.
A f t e r f a r m e r s e l e c t i o n was done on p a p e r ,
was made t o p h y s i c a l l y l o c a t e
the r e s e a r c h e r ,
the f a r m e r s .
an i n i t i a l
trip
I n the t r i p were
a l o c a l a g r i c u l t u r a l a s s i s t a n t o r CBS
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e and one r e s e a r c h e r r e p r e s e n t i n g the
A g r ic u lt u ra l Research I n s t i t u t e
a ssistan t a ss is t e d
(KARI).
The l o c a l a g r i c u l t u r a l
in p h y s ic a lly id e n t if y in g
a l r e a d y c h o s e n and a l s o i d e n t i f y i n g
Kenya
the f a r m e r s
the p o s s i b l e e n u m e r a t o r s .
Data collection
P r i m a r y d a t a were c o l l e c t e d
formal s u r v e y .
by e n u m e r a t o r s t h r o u g h a
To e n s u r e a b i l i t y to f i l l
the q u e s t io n n a ir e s ,
o n l y t h o s e w i t h a minimum o f fo r m f o u r l e v e l o f e d u c a t i o n were
considered. A d d i t i o n a l l y ,
e n u m e r a t o r s who s p e a k the
respective
l o c a l l a n g u a g e s were c h o s e n f o r the r e s p e c t i v e a r e a s to e n s u r e
an a b i l i t y
to com municate w i t h the f a r m e r s .
was c o nd uc te d u s i n g a p r e - t e s t e d
structured
the main maize g r o w i n g s e a s o n i n
1995.
adm inistered i n
The f o r m a l s u r v e y
q u e stio n n a ire over
The q u e s t i o n n a i r e
was
b i t s c o r r e s p o n d i n g to p e r i o d s o f major
a c t i v i t i e s i n m ai ze p r o d u c t i o n .
T h i s was n e c e s s a r y t o m i n i m i s e
l o s s o f memory o f f a c t s a bo ut the p r a c t i c e s c a r r i e d o u t i n
the
33
farm s u c h a s t y p e s and r a t e s o f f e r t i l i z e r s
used.
This i s
because most f a r m e r s do not ke e p farm r e c o r d s and most
r e s p o n s e s were based on memory.
These p e r i o d i c m u l t i v i s i t s to
the f a r m s a l s o a s s i s t e d
in i n c r e a s i n g
collected.
in s in g le
Thus,
unlike
cases o f data c o l l e c t e d
re lia b ility
v isit
surveys,
were v e r i f i e d i n
of data
doubtful
subsequent v i s i t s .
This a p p r o a c h a l s o a v o i d e d p r o b l e m s o f non - r e s p o n s e by
farmers due t o a b se n c e d u r i n g
single v i s i t
surveys.
the day o f i n t e r v i e w common w i t h
The r e s e a r c h e r who a c t e d a s s u p e r v i s o r
made f r e q u e n t v i s i t s t o the f a r m s and v e r i f i e d a ny d o u b t f u l
inform ation as
p e r the f i l l e d
questionnaires.
The e s s e n t i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f the f o r m a l s u r v e y
ju stifyin g i t s
use i s t h a t i t
a re la tiv e ly large
number o f f a r m e r s t h a t a s a whole a r e
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the r e g i o n .
the t r u e
g i v e s a u n i f o r m s e t o f d a t a from
I t a lso g iv e s a r e f le c t io n of
n a t u r e o f the phenomena i n the f i e l d .
n a t u r a l farm c o n d i t i o n
unlike
It
e x p e r i m e n t a l data w hi c h r e f l e c t
h i g h l y c o n t r o l l e d c o n d i t i o n s w hi c h do not e x i s t i n
Thus,
through the
s u r v e y a more r e l i a b l e
c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n the a r e a i s
v a ria b ility
real
life .
p ic t u re o f farmer
o b t a i n e d and i t s
q u a n t i t a t i v e l y communicated t o i n t e r e s t e d
should be noted t h a t i n
reflects a
r e s u l t s c a n be
parties.
s u r v e y data t h e r e i s
However,
it
greater
(h ence l a r g e e r r o r term) th an o c c u r s w i t h
experimental data.
In o r d e r t o determine the in h e re n t s o i l
study a r e a ,
stage.
so il
fe rtility
o f the
s a m p l i n g was done a t the l a n d p r e p a r a t i o n
Laboratory s o il
t e s t s were l a t e r c a r r i e d o u t to
determine the l e v e l s o f m a c r o - n u t r i e n t s i n
the s o i l .
The
34
r e s u l t s were u se d to d e v e l o p an i n h e r e n t f e r t i l i t y
was l a t e r used a s an i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e
a n a l y s i s on t h e
rate o f f e r t i l i z e r
use.
i n d e x wh ic h
i n the
regression
The s o i l
t e s t s were
c a r r i e d o u t o n l y i n f i e l d s where maize was t o be grown.
3.4 Data Organisation and Analysis
Before g i v i n g
analysis,
term i s
a d e s c r i p t i o n o f the meth od s used i n d a ta
the te r m " f e r t i l i z e r
used i n
use"
nee ds c l a r i f i c a t i o n .
t h i s s t u d y t o mean th e t o t a l amount o f
n u t r i e n t s i n k i l o g r a m s the f a r m e r used i n
hectare f o r th e
phosphatic,
p a r t i c u l a r season.
It
n i t r o g e n o u s and p o t a s s i c
is
maize f i e l d
Squares
per
t h e sum t o t a l o f
fe rtiliz e rs
For p u rp o se s o f e x p l a i n i n g f e r t i l i z e r
r a te s o f use,
The
both D e s c r i p t i v e S t a t i s t i c s
used.
use p a t t e r n s and
and O r d i n a r y L e a s t
(OLS) e s t i m a t i o n were used.
3.4.1 Descriptive A nalysis
Descriptive
analyses f o r
v a r i a b l e s c o n s i d e r e d to
i n f l u e n c e f e r t i l i z e r use p a t t e r n s were c o n s i d e r e d .
D iffe re n ce s
in th e s e v a r i a b l e s were used t o e x p l a i n t h e o b s e r v e d i n t e r
farm v a r i a t i o n s
in f e r t iliz e r
c o n s i d e r e d were l a n d s i z e ,
use. Among t h e major v a r i a b l e s
a c c e s s to f e r t i l i z e r market
(physical as w e ll as f i n a n c i a l a cce ss),
r a te s o f a p p l i c a t i o n ,
f e r t i l i z e r t y p e s and
farm y a r d manure a p p l i c a t i o n and
fa rm e rs’ p e rce ive d c o n s t r a i n t s to f e r t i l i z e r
use.
t a b l e s and means were computed where a p p r o p r i a t e .
Frequency
35
3.4.2 Regression Analysis: The theoretical framework for estimating fertlizer
use determinants.
R e s e a r c h on the d e t e r m i n a n t s o f use f o r an i n n o v a t i o n
such a s f e r t i l i z e r draws h e a v i l y from the a d o p t i o n - d i f f u s i o n
framework on one hand,
other.
and f r o m f a c t o r demand t h e o r y on th e
S u c h s t u d i e s range fr o m s o c i o - c u l t u r a l - e c o n o m i c
d e t e r m i n a n t s a t the farm h o u s e h o l d l e v e l
a n a l y s e s which i n c o r p o r a t e t h e
t o more a g g r e g a t i v e
role o f p r i c e s ,
e n v i r o n m e n t and
policy f a c t o r s .
This
s t u d y used th e f a c t o r demand t h e o r y framework t o
a n a l y se t h e main d e t e r m i n a n t s o f f e r t i l i z e r
a d o p t i o n - d i f f u s i o n framework.
The r a t e o f a p p l i c a t i o n o f
f e r t i l i z e r s d e p e n d s on the a v a i l a b l e
and a g r o n o m i c f a c t o r s ,
maize.
Thus,
use r a t h e r t h a n
le v e ls of s o il
management
p r i c e o f f e r t i l i z e r and the p r i c e o f
t o a c h i e v e the o b j e c t i v e o f e s t a b l i s h i n g
f e r t i l i z e r use d e t e r m i n a n t s ,
s t a t i s t i c a l e s t i m a t e s o f th e
r e l a t i o n s h i p s were r e q u i r e d .
The e s t i m a t i o n
s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f the model i n
r e q u i r e d the
m a t h e m a t i c a l f o r m s so t h a t
s t a t i s t i c a l methods c o u l d be used f o r t h e i r e s t i m a t i o n .
this study,
l i n e a r mathematical
In
r e l a t i o n s h i p s were s p e c i f i e d
because t h e y a r e c o m p u t a t i o n a l l y e a s i e r t o h a n d le . A s i n g l e
e q ua t io n model was used on the
relationship i s
b a s is th a t the f e r t i l i z e r
use
a u n i l a t e r a l c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p w ith q u a n t i t y
of f e r t i l i z e r use dependent on a number o f p r e d e te rm i n e d
factors
r a t h e r t h a n a s i m u l t a n e o u s e q u a t i o n model whose
v a r i a b l e s a re w i t h o u t p r i o r i n f o r m a t i o n n o t c o n s i d e r e d a s
dependent and i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s b ut a s m u t u a l l y d e t e r m i n e d
variables.
Thus,
a s in g le equation m u ltip le
N A IR O B I U N IV E R S IT Y
KAgETE LIBRARY
r e g r e s s i o n model
36
was a do p te d .
M ultiple
and v a l i d a t e ec ono m ic
method r e v e a l s
reg re ssio n
was us ed t o
quantify,
re la tio n sh ip s in f e r t i l i z e r
structural
relationship s
that a p p r o p r ia t e
p o lic y e v a lu a tio n could
d e pe nd in g on t h e
resulting
use.
model.
so
be u n d e r t a k e n
regression c o e ff ic ie n t s .
To
the
(OLS) method was use d to e s t i m a t e the
The OLS method g i v e s
the b e st s t r a i g h t l i n e
the sample o f i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s ,
observations in
The
between v a r i a b l e s
i n v e s t i g a t e d e t e r m i n a n t s o f f e r t i l i z e r use i n maize,
Ordinary Least Squares
test
that f i t s
dependent v a r i a b l e
(XY)
the s e n s e t h a t i t m i n i m i s e s the sum o f the
squared d e v i a t i o n s o f e a c h o b s e r v e d p o i n t on the g r a p h from
the s t r a i g h t l i n e .
The OLS e s t i m a t o r s o f p i a r e w i d e l y us e d
because t h e y a r e BLUE ( b e s t l i n e a r u n b i a s e d e s t i m a t o r s ) .
is,
among a l l
variance.
unbiased e s t im a t o r s ,
However,
t h e y have the l o w e s t
n o n l i n e a r e s t i m a t o r s may be s u p e r i o r t o OLS
estim ators
(i.e.
t h e y m i g h t be u n b i a s e d and have l o w e r
variance).
Since
it
the v a r i a n c e o f
OLS e s t i m a t o r s
i s o fte n d i f f i c u l t o r im p o ssib le to fin d
unbiased n o n lin e a r e s t im a t o r s ,
however,
the
remain by f a r the most w i d e l y used and was t h u s
adopted i n t h i s
linear,
That
study.
Furthermore,
the OLS e s t i m a t o r s b e i n g
a r e a l s o a l g e b r a i c a l l y e a s i e r to us e th an n o n l i n e a r
estim ators.
The g e n e r a l model used f o r the a n a l y s i s can be e x p r e s s e d
as:
“
Where X 1 =
P1
+
P 2^-2 + P 3^-3 ■ * ■ • • •
+
PK ^ k
+
®i
The d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e .
Zx =
The i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e
ex =
The e r r o r term.
(I = 1 ,2 ,...n ).
37
The a s s u m p t i o n s u n d e r l y i n g t h i s
a)
The model i s
model i n c l u d e :
s p e c i f i e d a s g i v e n above i . e .
The v a r i a b l e s
linear.
x 1 and z 1 (where I = 1 , 2 , . . n )
represent
num erical q u a n t i t i e s observed w it h o u t e r r o r .
b)
The Z i a r e n o n s t o c h a s t i c .
independent v a r i a b l e
s a m p l e s.
This i s
T h i s means t h a t each
ha s v a l u e s f i x e d i n
b e c a u s e the v a l u e s o f Z
controllable or f u ll y
predictable.
t h a t th e v a l u e s o f Z 1 a re " f i x e d
exact l i n e a r
in
repe at ed s a m p l e s "
e x i s t s there i s
the
t a k e n to be
In addition ,
relationship e x ists
of the independent v a r i a b l e s .
are e i t h e r
The s t a t e m e n t
i n d i c a t e s t h a t the s e t o f v a l u e s o f Z i s
the same from sample t o sample.
repeated
no
between two o r more
If
su c h a r e l a t i o n s h i p
presence of m u l t i c o l l i n e a r i t y .
When m u l t i c o l l i n e a r i t y i s
present,
it
becomes
d i f f i c u l t to d i s e n t a n g l e the e f f e c t s o f the
i n d i v i d u a l Z v a l u e s on the d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e .
In
o r d e r t o e n s u r e t h a t m u l t i c o l l i n e a r i t y was a b s e n t
among th e e x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e s i n the model,
s t u d y used th e
" r u l e o f thumb" a s
P i n d y c k and R u b i n f e l d
D.L.,
1 9 81 ).
is lik e ly
This rule
(Pindyck,
th is
s p e c i f i e d by
R.S.
and R u b i n f e l d ,
states that m u ltic o llin e a rity
to be a pro bl em i f
the
simple c o r r e l a t i o n
between two e x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e s i s
l a r g e r t h a n the
c o r r e l a t i o n o f e i t h e r o r both v a r i a b l e s w i t h t h e
independent v a r ia b le .
The pro bl em o f
m u l t i c o l l i n e a r i t y was not found when t h i s t e s t was
perform ed.
38
c)
i)
The e r r o r term
variable,
is
an u n o b s e r v a b l e random
w i t h a z e r o mean and s u c h t h a t ,
sample s i z e
for
a ny
n,
( • ^ ) £ (zrz)*0
and i t s
lim it,
as n --> ® ,
co n stan t variance
ob se rvatio ns.
a fin ite
number,
and
(hom oscedasticity) fo r a ll
The a s s u m p t i o n o f z e r o mean i m p l i e s
t h a t t h e e r r o r term i s
to + ® , t h a t i t
the mean.
is
is
c o n t i n u o u s and r a n g e s f r o m -®
s y m m e t ric a lly d i s t r i b u t e d around
The a s s u m p t i o n o f the e r r o r term h a v i n g a
z e r o mean i s
n e c e s s a r y f o r the p a r a m e t e r s o f p . t o
be i d e n t i f i a b l e .
In
short,
the e x p e c t e d v a l u e o f the
e r r o r te rm h a s to be z e r o i f
the model i s
the b a s i s f o r e c o n o m e t r i c a n a l y s i s .
to p r o v i d e
The a s s u m p t i o n
o f c o n s t a n t v a r i a n c e means t h a t e v e r y d i s t u r b a n c e
has t h e same v a r i a n c e
( 6 2) whose v a l u e i s
T h i s a s s u m p t i o n r u l e s out ,
f o r example,
unknown.
the
p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e d i s p e r s i o n o f the d i s t u r b a n c e s
could
Z.
be g r e a t e r f o r
h i g h e r th a n f o r l o w e r v a l u e s o f
I n te r m s o f the f e r t i l i z e r use model,
assum ption of
the
hom osce d a sticity could imply th a t
v a r i a t i o n s i n q u a n t i t y o f n u t r i e n t s used i s t h e
w h e th e r ,
fo r instance,
h i g h o r low.
the p r i c e o f f e r t i l i z e r
is
To t e s t f o r the p r e s e n c e o f
heteroscedasticity,
the b a r t l e t t t e s t was pe rf or m e d.
The r e s u l t s o f the b a r t l e t t t e s t a r e
a p p e n d i x 2.
same
presented
in
39
ii)
E r r o r s c o rr e s p o n d in g to d i f f e r e n t o b s e r v a t io n s are
uncorrelated.
there i s
I f t h e e r r o r te r m s a r e c o r r e l a t e d ,
the p r o b l e m o f a u t o c o r r e l a t i o n .
a utocorrelatio n e x is t s ,
w ill
be u n b i a s e d ,
regression w il l
the
If
regre ssion e stim a to rs
b u t the s t a n d a r d e r r o r o f t h e
be b i a s e d downwards.
This w il l
lead
to t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t the p a r a m e t e r e s t i m a t e s a r e
more p r e c i s e
th an t h e y a c t u a l l y a r e .
t e n d e n c y to r e j e c t t h e n u l l
fact,
it
s h o u l d no t
sta tistic
iii)
h y p o t h e s i s when,
be r e j e c t e d .
p re s e n c e o f a u t o c o r r e l a t i o n ,
There w i l l
be a
in
To t e s t f o r t h e
the D u r b i n - W a t s o n
was used.
The e r r o r v a r i a b l e
like
norm ally d is t r i b u t e d
parameters,
any random v a r i a b l e i s
and d e t e r m i n e d by two
the mean and the v a r i a n c e .
o f th e n o r m a l i t y a s s u m p t i o n i s
The m eaning
th a t small v a lu e s of
the e r r o r term have a h i g h e r p r o b a b i l i t y t o be
o b s e r v e d th a n l a r g e
values;
extreme v a l u e s o f t h e
e r r o r term a r e more and more u n l i k e l y the more
extreme t h e y g e t .
The a s s u m p t i o n o f n o r m a l i t y i s
n e c e s s a r y f o r c o n d u c t i n g the s t a t i s t i c a l
s i g n i f i c a n c e o f the
p ar am e te r e s t i m a t e s and f o r
c o n s t r u c t in g confidence i n t e r v a l s .
is
vio late d ,
significance
I f the a s s u m p t i o n
the e s t i m a t e s o f b0 and b. a r e s t i l l
u n b i a s e d and be st ,
sta tistica l
te sts of
b u t we c a n n o t a s s e s s t h e i r
re lia b ility
by the c l a s s i c a l
( t and F t e s t s )
te sts of
b e cau se the l a t t e r a re
based on normal d i s t r i b u t i o n s .
40
A b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e v a r i a b l e s i n the s p e c i f i c
r e g r e s s i o n model p o s t u l a t e d a s a s i n g l e e q u a t i o n model on the
b a s i s o f a p r i o r i g r o u n d s o f e con om ic ,
b io lo g ic a l
and p h y s i c a l
l o g i c and n o t a t i o n used i s a s f o l l o w s :
The dependent variable : Quantity of fertllzer applied
per hectare (Xj).
The sampled f a r m e r s were as k e d what t y p e s and am ou n ts
(kg) o f b a s a l and n i t r o g e n o u s f e r t i l i z e r s
maize f i e l d s .
S i n c e f a r m e r s use d i f f e r e n t
common d e n o m i n a t o r ,
t h e y used i n t h e i r
f e r t i l i z e r types,
q u a n tity o f n u t rie n ts applied
per hectare,
measured a s k i l o g r a m s o f p l a n t n u t r i e n t s o f n i t r o g e n
phosphate
variable
(P206 ) and p o t a s s i u m
i n the
a
(N ) ,
(ICjO) was us ed a s th e d e p e n d e n t
regre ssion a n a ly sis.
The s t u d y s o u g h t t o
e x p l a i n how v a r i o u s f a c t o r s e x p l a i n the r a t e o f n u t r i e n t s
a p p l i e d by f a r m e r s i n maize p r o d u c t i o n .
estim ation,
For purposes of
o n l y f a r m e r s who used f e r t i l i z e r s were c o n s i d e r e d .
To c o n v e r t q u a n t i t y o f f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i e d p e r h e c t a r e to
quantity of n u t r i e n t s per hectare,
1985),
the FAO f o r m u l a
(FAO,
was used a s f o l l o w s :
The f o r m u l a a d d s up the f e r t i l i z e r a n a l y s i s
numbers and
d i v i d e s t h e i r sum by 2 f o r 5 0 kg bag and by 4 f o r 2 5 kg
For i n s t a n c e :
If
and 50 kg C .A . N .
a f a r m e r used 50 kg D . A . P . / h a f o r p l a n t i n g
fo r topdressing,
th e n t o t a l q u a n t i t y o f
n u t r i e n t s was c a l c u l a t e d a s f o l l o w s .
a)
bag.
Kg o f n u t r i e n t s
fr om D . A . P .
= ( 18 + 46 + 0)
(18: 4 6 : 0 )
b) Kg o f n u t r i e n t s
from
/ 2
=
32.
41
C.A.N.
(26:0:0)
Therefore t o t a l
= ( 26 + 0 + 0 ) / 2
n u trie n ts a pplied
=
13.
( X J = 32 + 13 = 45 kg.
The independent variables
D a t a were c o l l e c t e d on s e v e r a l i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s
which i n c l u d e d
resource c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f farmers
maize p r o d u c t i o n ,
land s i z e ,
method o f c u l t i v a t i o n ,
o f f farm e m p lo y m e nt ),
in stitu tio n s),
distance in
t o t a l farm s a l e s ,
market,
receipt o f
kilom etres to c re d it g iv in g
other i n s t i t u t i o n a l fa c to rs
(p r ic e s of
f e r t i l i z e r and m ai ze ) and i n h e r e n t s o i l f e r t i l i t y
However,
operations,
under
i n s t i t u t i o n a l access
(distance in k ilo m e t r e s to f e r t i l i z e r
extension advice,
(area
status.
management p r a c t i c e s su c h a s t i m e l i n e s s o f
e f f i c i e n t w e e d in g ,
and r e s i d u a l f e r t i l i z e r t h a t
a f f e c t r e s p o n s e o f maize t o f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n ,
turn a f f e c t the q u a n t i t y o f f e r t i l i z e r s
and i n
used by f a r m e r s ,
assuming t h e y know the n a t u r e o f the i n t e r a c t i o n s were h e l d
constant.
These v a r i a b l e s c o u l d
not be c a p t u r e d by the
household a n a l y s i s beca use t h e y r e q u i r e d a t a from s p e c i f i c
plots.
Dummy v a r i a b l e s were u s e d f o r i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s
like e x t e n s io n advice,
fa rm y a r d manure use and o f f farm
employment.
Stepwise m ultiple
r e g r e s s i o n was used t o s p e c i f y w h i c h
i n d e p e nd e nt v a r i a b l e s seemed t o p r o v i d e the b e s t e x p l a n a t i o n
of the b e h a v i o u r o f the d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e .
overcome t h e pro bl em o f h a v i n g a l a r g e
T h i s hel pe d t o
number o f i n d e p e n d e n t
v a r i a b l e s a s s u g g e s t e d by ec on om ic l i t e r a t u r e
number o f o b s e r v a t i o n s .
r e l a t i v e t o the
However on a p r i o r i g r o u n d s ,
other
42
indepe nd ent v a r i a b l e s a l m o s t c e r t a i n l y known to i n f l u e n c e
r a te
of f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n were i n c l u d e d a l t h o u g h t h e i r
e st im at e d r e g r e s s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s were n o t s t a t i s t i c a l l y
significant.
Consequently,
th e independent v a r i a b l e s
c o n s i d e r e d on t h e b a s i s o f r e d u c i n g u n e x p l a i n e d v a r i a t i o n
(stepwise
r e g r e s s i o n p r o c e d u r e ) and a p r i o r i i n f o r m a t i o n a r e
d e s c r i b e d here:
a) Normalised price of fertilizer (NPF) in shiIBngs.
The P r i c e o f f e r t i l i z e r
by the f a r m g a t e
price
n u t r i e n t s per k ilo g ra m norm alised
p e r k i l o g r a m o f maize was used.
the r e l a t i v e f e r t i l i z e r : o u t p u t p r i c e
To c a l c u l a t e the n u t r i e n t
com put ati on o f b o th p r i c e
T his is
ratio.
price of f e r t i l i z e r ,
p e r k i l o g r a m o f n u t r i e n t a p p l i e d and
a l s o p e r k i l o g r a m o f maize s o l d was done.
(I)
PF - p r i c e o f f e r t i l i z e r
The p r i c e o f f e r t i l i z e r
.
per k g o f n u t r i e n t ,
represented
the
t o t a l c o s t a f a r m e r meets to g e t 1 kg o f n u t r i e n t a t t h e
farmgate.
The f e r t i l i z e r
PF = ( p r i c e o f p l a n t i n g
p r i c e was t h u s c a l c u l a t e d
as:
f e r t i l i z e r + price of to p d re ssin g
f e r t i l i z e r + cost of transport)/
total nutrients
a p p l ie d .
For i n s t a n c e :
A fa rm e r used 5 0 kg D . A . P .
f o r p l a n t i n g and 50 kg C . A . N .
h i s maize p l o t f o r t o p d r e s s i n g .
50 kg bag and C . A . N .
t o t a l o f Ksh.
ksh.
D.A.P. c o s t
Ksh.
8 0 0 . 0 0 per 50 kg bag.
in
10 00.0 0 per
It cost
him a
1 2 0 . 0 0 t o t r a n s p o r t each bag t o h i s f a r m g a t e
43
(transport c o s t = fare + tra n sp o rt/ b a g of f e r t i l i z e r ) .
Then:
Pf per 1 kg n u t r i e n t = ( 10 00 + 800 + 2 ( 1 2 0 ) ) /
(32 + 13) = Ksh.
45.33
(ii)
Thus,
P r i c e o f maize
(pm)/ kg = ( p r i c e
NPF = ( p r i c e o f 1 kg n u t r i e n t / p r i c e
/ 90 kg bag ) / 90.
o f 1 Kg m a i z e )
T h i s was used a s a p r o x y f o r the f a r m e r ’ s per u n i t c o s t
of p r o d u c t i o n and r e f l e c t s t h e terms o f t r a d e i n maize
p r od uc ti on a t t h e farm l e v e l .
f a v o u r a b le
(represented
I f the te r m s o f t r a d e are
by a l o w v a l u e ) ,
t h e n the f a r m e r i s
expected t o use more n u t r i e n t s / u n i t a re a and v i c e
This i s
because i f
the f e r t i l i z e r
high, the n more money i s
imp lying
price
versa.
: maize p r i c e
ratio is
i n v e s t e d to p ro d u c e a u n i t o f m aize
reduced p r o f i t s to a farm er .
b) inherent sofl fertlity index (IN P K )
T h i s was a p r o x y f o r l a n d q u a l i t y and was p o s t u l a t e d t o
have an e f f e c t on the r a t e o f f e r t i l i z e r s f a r m e r s a p p l i e d
the f i e l d s .
I n o r d e r to c a p t u r e t h i s v a r i a b l e ,
soil
in
testing
was done and a n a l y s e d f o r macro n u t r i e n t s t h a t a f f e c t m aize
pro du cti on. S i n c e
the a n a l y s i s
fo r various
n u t r i e n t s used
d i f f e r e n t methods and e m p l o y s d i f f e r e n t u n i t s to d e p i c t t h e
v a r i o u s l e v e l s o f the r e s p e c t i v e n u t r i e n t s ,
index" was d e v e l o p e d f o r p u r p o s e s o f t h i s
a "so il
study.
fe rtility
44
A v a i l a b l e n u t r i e n t s were c l a s s i f i e d
a s shown i n T a b l e 4:
Table 4: Classification of nutrient availability h so ls.
Low
Mod era te
High
K (m.e.%)
<0.2
0.2
> 1.5
P (ppm)
< 20
20 - 80
- 1.5
> 80
(M erlich)
s o u r c e :Ahn, P7RL.
F o r p u r p o s e s o f d e v e l o p i n g an i n d e x ,
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s were a s s i g n e d
high r e s p e c t i v e l y .
and 3 f o r low,
N i t r o g e n was c l a s s i f i e d
0.2 p e r c e n t ) o r a d e q u a te
a s s ig n e d
1,2,
these
(> 0 . 2
1 and a d e q u a te 3.
percent).
The f e r t i l i t y
a s e i t h e r low
m.e. K / 100 g s o i l ,
For instance,
(<
T h u s lo w was
i n d e x d e v e l o p e d was a
summation o f the v a l u e s a s s i g n e d t o the r e s p e c t i v e
nutrient a n a l y s i s f i g u r e s .
m od er at e and
soil
a f a r m t h a t had 2 . 6 0
2 ppm P and 0 . 3 8 p e r c e n t N had i t s
index
c a l c u l a t e d a s shown i n T a b l e 5.
Table 5: S o l Fertility index
N utrient
Observation
C la ss
A s s ig n e d value
K
2 . 6 m.e
high
3
P
2 ppm
low
1
N
0.38%
adequate
3
Thus the i n h e r e n t
so il f e r t ilit y
was (3 + 1 + 3 )
=
7.
index a ssig n e d f o r t h i s
fa rm
45
A s o i l w it h th e h i g h e s t s o i l
fe rtility
index o f 9 and th e one w i t h t h e l o w e s t s o i l
was a s s i g n e d
fe rtility
an
was
assigned 3. A m a j o r l i m i t a t i o n o f t h i s i n d e x was the
assumption t h a t
the
r e s p o n s e o f maize to e a c h o f th e t h r e e
n u t r i e n t s c o n s i d e r e d was the same.
situation,
a g r e a t e r response i s
of the s o i l ’ s most l i m i t i n g
However i n a r e a l f a r m i n g
e x p e c te d f r o m the a p p l i c a t i o n
nutrient.
Notw ithstanding,
index p r o v i d e d a common d e n o m i n a t o r f o r the
the d i f f e r e n t s o i l
t y p e s t h a t made i t
the
so il f e r t ilit y
p ossib le
of
for th is
v a r i a b l e t o be i n c l u d e d i n the model t h a t a n a l y s e d the
determinants of f e r t i l i z e r
use.
c) Total Farm Sa le s (sales) in shillings
T o t a l farm s a l e s i s
a summation o f a l l
crop,
livestock
and l i v e s t o c k p r o d u c t s a l e s d u r i n g the maize p r o d u c t i o n p e r i o d
(October 1994 - June 1 9 9 5 ) .
T his
r e p r e s e n t e d the p e r i o d when
d e c i s i o n s on i n p u t p u r c h a s e s e s p e c i a l l y f e r t i l i z e r s
for the 1995 maize p r o d u c t i o n
as a p r o x y f o r l i q u i d i t y ,
season.
were made
T h i s v a r i a b l e was used
w h i c h was e x p e c t e d t o have a
p o s i t i v e e f f e c t on r a te o f f e r t i l i z e r
use.
d) Land Size (W) in hectares
The ec ono m ic s t a t u s o f f a r m e r s
wealth) e x e r c i s e s a p o s i t i v e
the c o n t e x t o f A f r i c a n
absence o f
variable,
relative
( u s u a l l y measured a s
i n f l u e n c e on f e r t i l i z e r us e .
s m a l l h o l d e r farming
s y s t e m s and i n
s t a t i s t i c s o f f a r m e r s ’ w e a l th ,
the
l a n d s i z e was e x p e c t e d to c a p t u r e t h i s e f f e c t .
A dditionally,
land
s iz e could
be viewed a s a s u r r o g a t e f o r
In
the
46
other i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r s
bear r i s k
s u c h a s a c c e s s to c r e d i t ,
and a c c e s s to s c a r c e
inputs
was t h e r e f o r e e x p e c t e d t h a t l a n d
influence f e r t i l i z e r
c a p a c i t y to
such a s f e r t i l i z e r s .
siz e could
p o sitiv e ly
inorganic
fe rtiliz e rs
It
use.
e) Farm Yard Manure (FYM)
Farm Ya r d Manure
(FYM),
plant n u t r i e n t s t o c r o p s .
fe rtiliz e rs,
The a v a i l a b l e
factors.
FYM,
like
However,
supply
unlike in o rg a n ic
s u p p l y s m a l l q u a n t i t i e s o f the n u t r i e n t s .
p lant n u t rie n ts in
These f a c t o r s i n c l u d e ,
FYM v a r y d e p e n d i n g on s e v e r a l
age and s p e c i e s o f the a n i m a l ,
type o f p r o d u c t i o n ,
ty pe o f f e e d s a n i m a l i s
of FYM p r e p a r a t i o n .
Besides,
at the f a r m l e v e l
fe d on and method
t h e w e i g h t o f w e l l decomposed FYM
is d iffic u lt
t o measure.
T his i s
b e c a u s e FYM
is sto re d o r prepared under d i v e r s e enviro n m e n tal c o n d i t i o n s
and hence i t c o u l d
be o f d i f f e r e n t m o i s t u r e c o n t e n t s . G i v e n ,
the p r o b l e m s o f s t a n d a r d i s i n g
and a v a i l a b l e
nutrients,
in d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e
FYM i n te rm s o f m o i s t u r e c o n t e n t
q u a n t i t y o f FYM was not c h o s e n a s an
i n the r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s .
Instead,
the
FYM was t r e a t e d a s a dummy v a r i a b l e .
f) Dummy variables used and their interpretation
Dummy v a r i a b l e s were used t o e x p l a i n t h e e f f e c t s o f
q u a l i t a t i v e e x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e s i n the r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s .
A dummy v a r i a b l e
is
dichotom ous,
t h u s t a k i n g a v a l u e o f one o r
zero. Dummy v a r i a b l e s were us ed t o c a p t u r e c h a n g e s
the i n t e r c e p t o f th e e s t i m a t e d
(sh ifts)
r e g r e s s i o n model. Use o f t h i s
dummy v a r i a b l e t e c h n i q u e a s s u m e s t h a t o t h e r r e g r e s s i o n
in
47
c o e f f ic ie n t s in the
r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n a re
the v al ue o f the dummy v a r i a b l e
in sta nce ,
(Mansfield,
i t i s assumed t h a t t h e
no t a f f e c t e d
1 9 90 ).
slope of the
by
For
relationship
between the rate o f n u t r i e n t a p p l i c a t i o n and e x t e n s i o n a d v i c e
i s the same f o r f a r m e r s who r e c e i v e d i t and t h o s e who d i d
In t h i s study,
t h r e e dummy v a r i a b l e s were used,
for e x t e n s i o n c o n t a c t
off farm employment
(ext),
(off),
Dw. , Dummy v a r i a b l e
one each
(fym) and
thus:
t a k i n g v a l u e o f one i f
prev io us e x t e n s i o n a d v i c e ,
D^,
f a r m yard manure use
not.
and
farmer re c e iv e d
zero o therw ise.
t a k i n g the v a l u e o f one i f
f a r m e r used FYM , o r z e r o
otherwise.
DotT , Dummy v a r i a b l e t a k i n g v a l u e o f one i f
farm employment,
Thus, i f
f a r m e r had o f f
and z e r o o t h e r w i s e .
the c o e f f i c i e n t f o r a n y o f the dummies i s
significant,
it
is
interpreted
nutrient a p p l i c a t i o n
value o f one r e l a t i v e
a coefficient i s
(X),
a s the e f f e c t s on r a t e o f
o f t h e g r o u p o f t h e dummy t a k i n g the
to t h a t gro u p t a k in g the value zero.
no t s t a t i s t i c a l l y
significant,
If
then t h i s
s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e r e was no m e a s u r a b l e s t a t i s t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e
between th e two g r o u p s .
The interpretation of the error term
The e r r o r o r d i s t u r b a n c e t e r m r e f l e c t s th e v a r i a b i l i t y
unaccounted f o r i n e x p l a i n i n g X x. Some o f t h e
un ex pl ain ed v a r i a t i o n i n
reasons f o r
r a te o f n u t r i e n t s a p p l i e d c o u l d
be
due to:
(a)
O m i s s i o n o f r e l e v a n t v a r i a b l e s w h i c h c o u l d not be
48
measured
such a s u n f o r e s e e n f a m i l y p r o b l e m s ,
and
un e x p e c te d w e a t h e r p a t t e r n s .
(b)
M i s r e p o r t i n g o f i n f o r m a t i o n e i t h e r by the f a r m e r o r
e n u m e r a t o r o r both.
P o s s i b i l i t i e s o f e r r o r s d u rin g p ro c e s s in g of data
e.g.
(d)
during t r a n s f e r r in g ,
c o p y in g o r computing.
P ro b le m o f a g g r e g a t i o n o c c u r r i n g due to n o n ­
h o m o g e n e it y o f a v a r i a b l e .
la n d i n p u t s i m p l y i n
For in sta n c e ,
m easuring
hectares ig n o r e s d i f f e r e n c e s in
l an d q u a l i t y e v e n w i t h i n the same s o i l t y p e .
3.5 Tests of significance of parameter estinate and G oo d n e ss of fit
Tests of s ig n if ic a n c e are
used t o t e s t f o r s t a t i s t i c a l
s i g n i f i c a n c e o f th e p a r a m e t e r e s t i m a t e s
05a) o f t h e r e g r e s s i o n
i . e . th e y t e s t f o r the r e l i a b i l i t y o f the e s t i m a t e d
parameter
coefficients.
t
statistic,
The t e s t s
F sta tistic
used i n t h i s
study include:
and C o e f f i c i e n t o f D e t e r m i n a t i o n
(R2).
a) The t - Statistic
The t s t a t i s t i c
is
a ratio of
the e s t i m a t e d c o e f f i c i e n t
to i t s
standard e r r o r .
where,
S is
the e s t i m a t e d
The t s t a t i s t i c
s t a n d a r d e r r o r o f (3 .
t e s t s t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t one o f t h e e s t i m a t e d
co e fficie n ts in d iv id u a lly e x e rts s t a t i s t i c a l l y
sign ifica n t
49
l i n e a r i n f l u e n c e on the d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e .
c o n si d e r a c o e f f i c i e n t j,
the n u l l
F o r example,
h y p o t h e s i s t o be t e s t e d
w i l l be
H0 = /?j = 0 ;
j = 1 , 2 ,
For l a r g e d e g r e e s o f fr e e do m ( n - k > 0) ,
and k = number o f
regressors,
where n = sample
the t d i s t r i b u t i o n a pp roxim ates
the normal d i s t r i b u t i o n and i n t h i s c a s e ,
i f the t r a t i o e x c e e d s 2,
sta tistically
size
a s a r u l e o f thumb,
then t h e c o e f f i c i e n t i s
significant.
For purposes o f t h i s
study,
1 per c e n t ,
5 p er c e n t ,
and
10 per c e n t l e v e l s o f s i g n i f i c a n c e were c h o s e n t o t e s t t h e
statistical
l i n e a r i n f l u e n c e o f the c o e f f i c i e n t s on the r a t e
of n u t r i e n t s a p p l i e d .
an i n f i n i t e
with mean,
The l e v e l s o f s i g n i f i c a n c e
mean t h a t i f
number o f s a m p l e s were drawn fr om th e p o p u l a t i o n
u0, o n l y 1 p e r c e n t ,
5 p e r c e n t and 10 p e r c e n t
r e s p e c t i v e l y o f t h e time c o u l d one g e t a v a l u e o f Z t h a t c o u l d
lead t o an i n c o r r e c t
r e j e c t i o n o f the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s .
hi gh e r the l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e
percent ),
chosen
th e n a r r o w e r th e a c c e p t a n c e
p rob ab ility of in c o r r e c t ly
(in t h i s case
region i. e .
rejecting a null
increases w ith h ig h e r l e v e l s o f
The
10
the
hypothesis
significance.
b) The F - Statistic
The F s t a t i s t i c
(Explained
where X i s
is
d e fin e d as the
v arian c e of X)
ra t io of
/ (Unexplained v a ria n c e o f X),
the d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e .
The s t a t i s t i c
t e s t s the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s o f t h e
regre ssion
that
a l l c o e f f i c i e n t s o f the r e g r e s s i o n o t h e r t h a n the i n t e r c e p t
50
are ze ro .
Hc = /?2 = P
j
•••• = P K = 0 .
=
It tests the s i g n i f i c a n c e
existence o f a l i n e a r
of
the
r e g r e s s i o n a s a whole f o r the
re la tio n sh ip
variable and a l l
the e x p l a n a t o r y
computed F r a t i o
is
greater
nathematical t a b l e s ) ,
explanatory v a r i a b l e s
in
variab les
jo in tly.
t h a n the t a b u l a t e d
then th e
all r e g r e s s i o n s l o p e s a r e
between th e d e p e n d e n t
not
F ratio
reg re ssio n a n a ly s is
z e r o and t h e r e f o r e
the
If
model l i n e a r l y
the
(fr om
sh ow s t h a t
th e
in f lu e n c e the
dependent v a r i a b l e .
c) The Coefficient of Determ ination (R2)
This i s a measure o f t h e
goodness of f i t
of the estim ated
regression l i n e .
R2 = ( E x p l a i n e d
variatio n
in
the d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e
/
Total
variation).
R2 i s an o v e r a l l
index o f
be explained by a l l
the
how w e l l t h e d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e can
regressors.
R ' t e n d s to i n c r e a s e wit h
additional v a r i a b l e s e v e n t h o u g h t h e y have l i t t l e
power. Hence,
some s t a t i s t i c i a n s
determination a d j u s t e d
(Adj
determine the e x p l a n a t o r y
Adj R2 = 1 - (1
of
R 2) f o r d e g r e e s o f freedom t o
value
of a regre ssion .
- R2) ( (n - 1 ) / (n - k ) )
Where,
n = number o f o b s e r v a t i o n s .
k = number o f
use c o e f f i c i e n t
explanatory
regressors.
51
The adj R2
doe s n o t i n c r e a s e w i t h an a d d i t i o n a l i n d e p e n d e n t
variable u n l e s s t h e l a t t e r l e a d s t o a r e d u c t i o n i n u n e x p l a i n e d
var iatio n
i.e.
- 1) / (n - k) .
presented i n the
decrease in
(1
I n t h i s study,
regre ssio n
- R 2) i s
more t ha n o f f s e t
by (n
b o t h R ' and A d j R ' v a l u e s a r e
results.
52
C H A P T E R FOUR
4.0 RESULTS AND
D IS C U S S IO N S
T h i s c h a p t e r shows and d i s c u s s e s
from d e s c r i p t i v e
use p a t t e r n s .
It
analysis
a lso
regression a n a l y s e s
each d i s t r i c t
of t h e
presents
of t h e
results
obtained
s u r v e y d a t a on t h e f e r t i l i z e r
and
d iscusse s
determ inants
besides te s t in g
the
of
the
results
fe rtiliz e r
and d i s c u s s i n g
of
use
for
the h y p o t h e s e s
of
the st u d y .
4.1 Descriptive A n alysis Results and Discussions.
This se c tio n
results
of
u s e s t h e mean and f r e q u e n c y t a b l e s t o p r e s e n t
fe rtiliz e r
use
patterns
endowment and a c c e s s t o f e r t i l i z e r .
trends i n f e r t i l i z e r
on
It
the
basis
a lso
of
resource
p r e s e n t s r e s u l t s of
use and f a r m e r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s t o f e r t i l i z e r
use.
4.1.1 Land size and ownership.
Resource
choice o f
a va ila b ility
any t e c h n o l o g y
and
use
patterns
a f a r m e r may w i s h
basic r e s o u r c e i n any f a r m i n g a c t i v i t y .
be seen a s an i n d i c a t o r
of t h e
level
are
important
t o a d o p t.
in
La n d i s
a
The q u a n t i t y o f l a n d can
of a s se ts;
that
is,
high
l e v e l of a s s e t s c o u l d i m p l y a g r e a t e r a b i l i t y and/ o r w i l l i n g n e s s
fo r
a
farm
d istribu tio n
d istrict.
household
of
land
to
take
ow nership
risk s.
by
size
Table
in
the
6
gives
study
area
the
by
53
Table 6: Percent of fanners owning land in various farm categories (hectares).
D istrict
n
<2.0
2.1-4.0
>4.0
Mean
K isii
40
62.5
35.0
2.5
1 .96
Kakamega
40
62.5
25.0
12.5
1 .98
Trans N z o i a
40
75.0
17.5
7.5
1 .60
Source: Survey data.
The f i g u r e s
i n d i c a t e t h a t a ro u n d 67 p e r c e n t o f t h e f a r m e r s
sampled h a v e a l a n d s i z e
o f l e s s t ha n o r e q u a l t o two h e c t a r e s .
Table 7: S o l conservation practices by farmers by district.
-
Conse r v a t i o n
method
Percent of farm ers
K isii
(n=40)
T e rr ac e s
Cut O f f D r a i n s
Trashlines
Napier g r a s s bu nds
Cover c r o p s
None
Soiree: S u rv e y data
Note: Due t o m u l t i p l e
30
2.5
32.5
20
7.5
32.5
responses,
Kakamega
(n=40)
40
20
0
0
0
47.5
T ra n s Nzoia
(n =4 0)
42
12.5
0
0
0
55
p e r c e n t t o t a l s exceed 100
percent.
Thus, w i t h an a v e r a g e fa rm h o u s e h o l d p o p u l a t i o n o f 7 - 8 p e o p l e ,
the need t o a c h i e v e food s e l f s u f f i c i e n c y and some s u r p l u s i s
t r a n s l a t e d i n t o g r e a t e r p r e s s u r e on the a v a i l a b l e l a n d
ho ld in gs .
T h i s h a s l e d t o c r o p i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n and s u b s e q u e n t
54
depletion o f s o i l
p la n t n u t r ie n t s ,
more so i n
In d ir e c t ly t h i s h a s had a p o s i t i v e
*a-mers manage t h e i r s o i l s .
in flu e n c e
T h is i s
percent, o f f a r m e r s who p r a c t i s e
on the way t h e
shown by a h i g h f i g u r e ,
one method o r a n o t h e r o f
erosion c o n t r o l m e a su re s su c h a s t e r r a c i n g ,
planting o f n a p i e r g r a s s i n
K is ii d ist ric t.
55
so il
t r a s h l i n e s and
s t r i p s a c r o s s f i e l d s a s shown i n
'able 7.
4.1.2 Land utilisation patterns
Mixed f a r m in g was p r a c t i s e d
study. Among the m a jo r l i v e s t o c k
cattle of v a r i o u s
in a l l
k in d s
b re e d s and p o u l t r y .
D istrict.
K e e p in g o f g o a t s w as
The m a jo r c r o p s grow n i n c l u d e d m aize ,
of cash c r o p p in g i n
the a r e a s .
a ll c l u s t e r s o f K i s i i D i s t r i c t
cash crop i n Mumias,
Kakamega D i s t r i c t .
sugarcane was the
sugarcane
K i s i i D i s t r i c t w h e re a s
Lukuyani D iv is io n ,
m illet, c a s s a v a and sweet p o t a t o e s .
under
u n i v e r s a l l y k e p t were
mainly p r e v a le n t i n N y a c h e k i D i v i s i o n ,
sheep r e a r in g was common i n
the d i s t r i c t s
Kakamega
bananas,
T here were v a r i o u s l e v e l s
Tea was a m a jo r c a s h c r o p among
w he re a s s u g a r c a n e was the
so le
K h w is e r o and S h i n y a l u D i v i s i o n s i n
U n lik e
in
Kakamega D i s t r i c t ,
s o le ca sh crop ,
b ananas,
where
p i n e a p p l e s and
( f o r c h e w in g ) and c o f f e e were o t h e r major c a s h c r o p s
grown i n K i s i i D i s t r i c t .
U n lik e i n th e o t h e r two d i s t r i c t s ,
and L u k u ya n i D i v i s i o n ,
maize p r o d u c t io n i s
T ra n s-N z o ia D i s t r i c t
Kakamega D i s t r i c t ,
were a r e a s where
the m ajor f a r m i n g a c t i v i t y .
other c ro p o f s i g n i f i c a n c e
There was no
grow n f o r c o m m e rc ia l p u r p o s e s i n
55
-hese areas, o t h e r t h a n m aize.
T h e se a r e a s a l s o d i f f e r e d
< i s i i D i s t r i c t and most p a r t s o f Kakamega D i s t r i c t
fro m
in that
dairying was an i m p o r t a n t a c t i v i t y whereby th e im p roved
(Grade) c a t t l e were p r e d o m i n a n t l y k e p t.
Maize was grow n i n K i s i i D i s t r i c t
subsistence.
T h i s was a l s o
except lu k u y a n i D i v i s i o n .
p rim a rily fo r
the c a s e f o r Kakamega D i s t r i c t
I n T r a n s N z o ia D i s t r i c t and L u k u y a n i
D iv isio n o f Kakamega D i s t r i c t ,
m aize was m a i n l y grown a s a
commercial crop .
4.1.3 Maize production
Maize o c c u p ie d an a v e r a g e o f 34.1
and 59.5 p e rc e n t o f t o t a l
Trans N zoia D i s t r i c t s ,
farm s i z e i n
re sp e c tiv e ly .
p ercent,
K isii,
4 2 .5 percent
Kakamega and
T h i s show s the d i f f e r e n t
le v e ls of im p o rt a n c e o f maize p r o d u c t i o n i n t h e s e d i s t r i c t s .
In T ra n s N z o i a D i s t r i c t ,
D istric t,
L u k u y a n i D i v i s i o n and K i s i i
maize p r o d u c t i o n t o o k the prime l a n d .
took a s i g n i f i c a n t
p r o p o r t i o n o f the la n d
The c r o p a l s o
u n d e r fo o d c r o p s .
Hovrever, i n the s u g a r c a n e g r o w in g a r e a s o f Kakamega D i s t r i c t
(Shinya lu,
K h w is e r o and Mumias D i v i s i o n s ) ,
devoted t o s u g a r c a n e
p ro d u c tio n .
p rod uction.
la n d and
to t r a c t o r s w hich f e r r y
s u g a r f a c t o r i e s were d e v o t e d t o maize
M a iz e was a l s o grow n i n v a l l e y
because o f l e s s
prime l a n d was
The l e s s f e r t i l e
v a lle y bottom s w h ic h a re i n a c c e s s i b l e
the cane t o the
a ll
strig a
bottom s p a r t l y
in c id e n c e .
S u g a rc a n e a p p e a re d t o o c c u p y a l l
the a v a i l a b l e
good la n d
in the lo w e r p a r t s o f Kakamega D i s t r i c t and i t s e x p a n s i o n
56
looked u n c o n t r o l l a b l e .
study by Ochieng
T h is o b se rv a tio n
s u p p o r t s an e a r l i e r
( 1 9 8 1 ) who r e p o r t e d t h a t o f the 2 . 1 6 ha mean
farn owned by Mum ias f a r m e r s ,
oroduction making i t
the most i m p o r t a n t c r o p i n the a re a
terms of area c o v e r a g e .
food s t a t u s o f t h e
1 .2 ha was d e v o t e d t o s u g a r c a n e
T h i s h a s i m p l i c a t i o n s on th e f u t u r e
re g io n
sin c e
Soon, the r e g io n may be t u r n e d
maize i s
th e m ajor fo o d c r o p .
i n t o a m aize d e f i c i t a re a
the trend c o n t i n u e s a l t h o u g h c l i m a t i c a l l y i t
potential f o r f o o d
in
if
h a s good
p ro d u c tio n .
H yb rid maize was grow n by a m a j o r i t y o f the f a r m e r s ;
percent, 65 p e r c e n t ,
and 100 p e r c e n t i n
Trans N zoia D i s t r i c t s ,
Kakamega D i s t r i c t ,
re sp e c tiv e ly .
lo c a l
K is ii,
H ow ever,
Kakamega and
i n some p a r t s o f
u nim prove d m aize v a r i e t i e s w h ic h a re
le ss r e s p o n s iv e t o f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n were grown.
because i t was p e r c e i v e d
better r e s i s t a n c e
95
T h i s was
t h a t th e l o c a l v a r i e t i e s o f f e r e d
to s t r ig a ,
a weed w h ic h when p r e s e n t
d r a s t i c a l l y r e d u c e s maize y i e l d s .
Some f a r m e r s i n p a r t s o f
K i s i i and Kakamega D i s t r i c t s a l s o gre w s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t
v a r i e t i e s even i n
th e same f i e l d
to ensure food s e c u r i t y .
p r o p o r t io n s i n
m in im isin g s t r a t e g y
The most p o p u l a r v a r i e t y i n K i s i i
D i s t r i c t by f a r was H625 w h i l e
Nzoia D i s t r i c t .
as a r is k
H614 was p o p u l a r i n T r a n s
The two v a r i e t i e s were grow n i n a lm o s t e q u a l
Kakamega D i s t r i c t .
cropping c a l e n d a r i n the
re g io n i s
The main s e a so n maize
shown i n
T ab le 8.
57
Table 8: Main season maize cropping calendar in the region.
Jan Feb Mar A p r May Jun J u l y Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
%%%%%%%
K isii
&&&&&&&#&##&##&##
Kakamega
* * * * **&&&&&&&&&#######
Trans
Nzoia
* * * * * * * * * *&&&&&&&&&########
%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%
Key:
*******
Land p r e p a r a t i o n
&&&&&&&&& P l a n t i n g
####### Weeding
%%%%%%%%% H a r v e s t i n g .
Mate cropping patterns
Knowledge o f c r o p p i n g
understanding f e r t i l i z e r
a region i s
s o il type,
patterns i s e s s e n t ia l
use p a t t e r n s .
in
The c r o p p i n g
however g o v e r n e d by among o t h e r f a c t o r s ,
p o p u l a t i o n d e n s i t y and fa rm e r r e s o u r c e s .
several maize c r o p p i n g
s y s t e m s w h ic h were o b s e r v e d
The major one was i n t e r c r o p p i n g ,
in te rc ro p was the most common.
same a s f e r t i l i z e r
p attern of
c lim a te ,
T here were
( T a b le 9 ) .
o f w hich the m a ize / b e a n s
F e r t i l i z e r use i n maize was the
use i n maize i n t e r c r o p p i n g
in t e r c r o p s n e v e r g o t a d d i t i n a l f e r t i l i z e r s .
system s as the
58
Table 9: Intercropping patterns in Kisii, Kakamega and Trans Nzoia Districts.
P ercent
Intercropping
oattern
of f a r m e r s
K is ii
( n= 36)
Kakamega
(n=24)
T ra n s N z o ia
(n =3 2)
84
14
14
25
87.5
0
0
12.5
100
0
0
0
Haize/beans
Haize/bananas
Maize/sugarcane
Maize/Other’
Soiree: Survey data.
millet,
p yre thrum ,
irish
potatoes,
p in e a p p le s.
Punestand maize c r o p p i n g w as not a common p r a c t i c e .
However, i n N y a c h e k i D i v i s i o n ,
K is ii D istric t
a new
pattern, has e v o lv e d o v e r th e p a s t th r e e y e a r s .
c ro p p in g
T h is in v o lv e s
planting pure sta n d maize and when maize has t a s s e l l e d ,
farmers r e l a y i t w i t h beans d u r i n g the l o n g
Relay c r o p p in g i s
sa id
agronomic
r a i n s se a so n .
to have a n a d v a n ta ge i n
yields ov e r c o n v e n t i o n a l i n t e r c r o p p i n g .
research f in d in g s a v a ila b le
th e
in c re a sin g
However,
bean
there a re
no
t o a s c e r t a i n the
a u th e n t ic ity o f th e f a r m e r s ’ c l a i m .
4.1.4 Fertilizer use in maize
F e r t i l i z e r use i n maize was examined i n
used, q u a n t i t i e s a p p l i e d ,
to the f e r t i l i z e r s .
te rm s o f t y p e s
t r e n d s o f use and a c c e s s o f f a r m e r s
59
Fertilizer use by type
The p u rc h a se o f d i f f e r e n t k i n d s o f f e r t i l i z e r
«as used a s a p r o x y f o r a v a i l a b i l i t y o f the
fe rtiliz e r.
The f a r m e r s r e p o r t e d
of f e r t i l i z e r
r i g h t ty p e o f
t h a t th e r i g h t
r e q u i r e d was not a p ro b le m a s a l l
f e r t i l i z e r package s i z e s
a v a ila b le i n a l l
(1 0 kg,
by f a r m e r s
package s i z e
a v a ila b le
25 kg and 5 0 k g ) were
re g io n s.
After m arket l i b e r a l i s a t i o n o f f e r t i l i z e r s
in
procurement and d i s t r i b u t i o n o f f e r t i l i z e r s
both p u b l i c and p r i v a t e
is
1990,
now done by
sectors.
S e v e r a l f e r t i l i z e r t y p e s commonly a v a i l a b l e i n the m ark e t
were used i n maize p r o d u c t i o n .
Diammonium P h o sp h a te
(DAP,
18 :46:0) was by f a r the m ost p o p u l a r p l a n t i n g f e r t i l i z e r
whereas U re a
( 4 6 : 0 : 0 ) and C a lc iu m Ammonium N i t r a t e
were p o p u l a r i n t o p d r e s s i n g .
T a b le
Table 10: U se of different fertlizer type by farmers.
Type
DAP
20:20:0
23:23:0
2 5 : 5 :5+5S
Urea
CAN
MAP ( 1 1 : 5 0 : 0 )
Jo u c e : Survey data.
P ercent
of f a r m e r s
K is ii
(n=4 0)
Kakamega
(n = 2 5 )
92.5
2.5
0
25.0
0
5.0
0
68
4
12
0
52
20
0
(26 :0 :0 )
10 show s the d i f f e r e n t
f e r t i l i z e r t y p e s a s used by f a r m e r s .
T ra n s N zo ia
(n=37)
67.6
0
5.4
0
30.0
4 2 .2
5.4
used
60
Use of NPK ( 2 5 : 5 : 5 + 5 S ) i n
parts of K i s i i D is t r ic t
indicated case s o f f e r t i l i z e r d i v e r t e d from the tea in d u s t r y .
This type of f e r t i l i z e r i s
p r o v id e d by Kenya Tea Development
Authority (KTDA) f o r use i n t e a
p r o d u c t io n .
E i g h t y p e rcent of
the 10 farmers who used 2 5 : 5 : 5 + 5 S i n K i s i i D i s t r i c t used i t
fo r to p d r e s s in g .
S im ila rly ,
t h e r e was w id e sp re a d use o f Urea
in to p d re ssin g maize e s p e c i a l l y i n Mumias D i v i s i o n ,
District. The Urea i s p ro v id e d
Kakamega
by Mumias S u g a r company f o r
sugarcane p ro d u c tio n but d i v e r t e d to maize p ro d u c tio n .
Rateofapplication of N and P 2Os by district/duster, Versus the recommended
rates
F e r t i l i z e r use l e v e l s 'were q u it e v a r i a b l e a c r o s s the
districts and even w i t h i n each d i s t r i c t
(T a b le 11).
The
average le v e ls o f b a s a l f e r t i l i z e r use were 19.3, 2 2 .3 and
45.5 kg of n u t r i e n t s per ha f o r K i s i i ,
Nzoia D i s t r i c t s ,
re sp e c tiv e ly ,
nutrients per ha r e s p e c t i v e l y ,
use was higher i n s i n g l e
Kakamega and T rans
and 12.5, 3 1 . 5 and 47 .0 kg of
fo r to p -d re ssin g .
F e rtiliz e r
se a so n c r o p p in g a r e a s o f Trans Nzoia
District and L u k u y a n i D i v i s i o n ,
Kakamega D i s t r i c t .
These a re a s
fall within the fo rm e r "W hite h i g h l a n d s " and have o n ly been
recently exposed to c o n t i n u o u s c r o p p in g .
In K i s i i D i s t r i c t ,
u t iliz e r use i n maize a t p l a n t i n g was common but l i t t l e
any topdressing to o k p la c e .
if
In Kakamega d i s t r i c t e s p e c i a l l y in
•'jmias area, th e re was m inim al use o f p l a n t i n g f e r t i l i z e r .
’’is could be a t t r i b u t e d to the b e l i e f t h a t v a l l e y bottoms are
f®rtile and t h e r e f o r e d o n ’t w a r r a n t use o f f e r t i l i z e r s .
T h is
61
b e lie f was found t o be u n t ru e a s the s o i l
the area i n d i c a t e d t h a t a l l
test
r e s u l t s fro m
f a r m s had lo w p h o s p h o r o u s l e v e l s .
Table 11: Quantities of fertilizer nutrients (N and P)in kg/ha used in maize
production in Western Kenya.
Region
Actual
ra te
Recommended
ra te (FURP)
B a sa l a p p lic a tio n
(P)
Top d r e s s
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Keumbu
2.3
29.4
57.5
1.8
Nyamache
1 1 .5
19.5
3 2 .8
Nyacheki
0.3
9. 1
Ogembo
7.0
P
N
Max
Mean
Mean
11 .5
22.5
50
0
4.8
7.0
1 2 .8
50
0
18.8
2.0
6.6
18.5
50
0
19.0
35.0
2.5
25.0
70.4
75
0
0.3
19.3
57.5
1 .8
1 2 .5
70.4
Mumias
0
5.6
30.0
0
. 0
20.7
75.5
25
0
S h in ya lu
0 . 0
20.6
76.8
0
. 0
8 .0
30.0
25
0
K hw ise ro
0
4 .5
57.5
0
. 0
2.3
1 1 .3
0
0
Lukuyani
28.8
5 8 .4
1 1 5 .0
55.5
95.9
1 2 1 .0
0
75
0
. 0
22.3
1 1 5 .0
0
. 0
31 .7
1 2 1 .0
0
. 0
4 3 .4
57.5
0
. 0
25.8
49.5
0
75
-
KSI
KAK
Moto I &
II
. 0
. 0
(N)
Mateket
14.5
59 .8
11 5 .0
0
. 0
50.5
1 3 5 .0
0
75
S ir e n d e
0
. 0
36. 1
100. 0
0
. 0
43.4
90.0
0
75
Kapomboi
0
. 0
42 .7
76.8
0
. 0
68.3
80.5
0
75
0
. 0
47.0
1 3 5 .0
T/NZ
0 . 0
4 5 .5
1 1 5 .0
7
TT
Soiree: A uthor’s
survey,
1995.
_____ ---------------
where K S I ,
KAK and T/NZ r e f e r t o K i s i i ,
Kakamega and T r a n s
62
I ^zoia d i s t r i c t s
re sp e c tiv e ly .
■ However, u s e o f Urea f o r t o p d r e s s i n g
I #tio a p p l ie d
I food c r o p s
f e r t i l i z e r on maize d i d
grow n i n the farm .
I due to i n s u f f i c i e n t c a sh ,
oecause i t
is
p re s s u r e
p ric e ,
common.
not use i t
M ost f a r m e r s
on th e o t h e r
The m ajor r e a s o n g i v e n was t h a t
maize was g i v e n f i r s t
the main s t a p l e
' b e sid e s f e r t i l i z e r
is
fo o d c r o p .
other fa c to rs
T h is
show s t h a t
su c h a s
d e t e r m i n e the use o f f e r t i l i z e r i n
p rio rity
su b siste n c e
m aize .
FURP w h ic h c o n d u c te d O n -fa r m r e s e a r c h e r managed t r i a l s
71 s i t e s a c r o s s the c o u n t r y f o r f i v e
sp e c ific
re c o m m e n d a tio n s.
presented
( T a b le
- cost ( i . e .
fe rtiliz e r
11).
y e a r s came up w it h s i t e
Re com m e nd a tions f o r t h i s
r e g i o n a re
The re c o m m e n d a tio n s 'were based on v a l u e
p r i c e o f one kg o f maize
: p r i c e o f one kg o f
n u t r i e n t ) a n a l y s i s o f the e s t i m a t e d
to f e r t i l i z e r use model.
maize r e s p o n s e
The r e c o m m e n d a tio n s a r e th e e conom ic
optimum l e v e l s o f f e r t i l i z e r use based on t h e v a l u e
method. H ow e ve r,
with c h a n g e s i n
prices o f
The
th e se
v a lu e
re c o m m e n d a tio n s a re
- cost
- cost
p ro n e t o change
r a t i o due to c h a n g e s i n
re la tiv e
m aize and f e r t i l i z e r .
r e s u l t s o f c o m p a rin g
FURP re c o m m e n d a tio n s and the
curre nt l e v e l s o f f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n f o r
in d ic a t e d
in
t h a t farm ers a p p lie d
recommended p h o s p h o r u s .
n it r o g e n a l t h o u g h
K isii D i s t r i c t .
l e s s t h a n 50 p e r c e n t o f th e
However,
FURP d i d
K is ii D istric t
they a p p lie d
s m a l l am ounts o f
n o t recommend u se o f n i t r o g e n
In Kakamega D i s t r i c t ,
in
f a r m e r s i n Mumias and
Lu kuya ni c l u s t e r s a p p l i e d a b o u t 25 p e r c e n t and 80 p e r c e n t
r e s p e c t i v e l y o f FU R P ’s recom m endation o f 2 5 kg N/ha and 75 kg
N/ha r e s p e c t i v e l y .
Fa rm e rs i n
n itro g e n o u s f e r t i l i z e r s .
K h w is e r o c l u s t e r used l i t t l e
T h i s was c o n s i s t e n t w it h
63
FURP’ s recommendation o f no use o f n i t r o g e n o u s f e r t i l i z e r s
in
the area.
In T r a n s N z o ia D i s t r i c t ,
f a r m e r s a p p l i e d a b o u t 63 p e r c e n t
of FURP’s recommendation o f n i t r o g e n .
average o f 4 5 . 5 kg P/ha
H ow ever,
th e y a p p l i e d an
c o n t r a r y to F U R P ’ s recom m e ndation o f
no p h o sp h o ru s use.
Reasons f o r f a r m e r s not f o l l o w i n g
however n o t c l e a r .
FU RP’ s re c o m m e n d a tio n s were
However, a c c o r d i n g t o t h i s
survey,
the r e a s o n s f o r s u b - o p t i m a l use o f f e r t i l i z e r s
includ e l a c k o f know ledge on r a t e s o f use,
farms were f e r t i l e ,
some o f
in t h i s
re g io n
b e lie f that t h e ir
in a d e q u a t e c a s h and h i g h
fe rtiliz e r
p ric e .
Fertilizer use by farm size
The r e l a t i o n s h i p between fa rm s i z e and amount o f
f e r t i l i z e r used was a n a l y z e d i n
o r d e r t o d e t e rm in e how
u n ifo rm ly f e r t i l i z e r s were used w i t h i n the
se c to r.
s m a l l h o l d e r m aize
The p u rp o se was t o i n d i c a t e w h e th e r t h i s t e c h n o l o g y
has any s i z e
b ia s.
For p u r p o s e s o f t h i s
study,
s m a l l h o l d e r maize fa r m e r s was g ro u p e d i n t o
farm s i z e
three c a te g o rie s .
The mean r a t e s o f f e r t i l i z e r use by farm c a t e g o r y a re
presented i n T a b le
12.
among
64
Table 12: Fertilizer use (kg/ha) by farm size by district
Farm
size
(ha)
N
mean
Trans
N z o ia
Kakamega
K is ii
PA
N
PA
N
PA
N
PA
< 2.0
1 3 .6
(27 )
21 .3
(27 )
32.6
(26)
20.5
(26 )
39.9
(34 )
42.2
(3 4 )
3 1 .1
(87 )
29.2
(87)
2.1-5.0
9. 0
(12 )
14.4
(12 )
20.9
(9)
24.5
(9)
63.3
(3)
85.0
(3 )
20.3
(24 )
2 7 .1
(24)
19.3
(1)
43.6
(5)
1 8 .4
(5)
20.5
(2)
65.8
(2 )
35. 1
(8 )
30.4
(8)
> 5.0
22.0
(1)
Source: Survey data.
() figures in brackets show the number of farmers in each farm size category.
The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d
are p r i m a r i l y
fe rtiliz e rs.
t h a t e ven s m a l l s c a l e
su b siste n c e o rie n t e d
The mean r a te o f t h e
fou nd i t
f a r m e r s who
w o r t h w h il e t o
s m a l l e s t fa rm c a t e g o r y use d
31.1 kg N and 2 9 . 2 kg P205 /ha w h i l e t h a t o f th e l a r g e s t
scale f a rm c a t e g o r y used 3 5 .1 k g N and 3 0 . 4 kg P205/ha.
middle c a t e g o r y ,
were u se d .
use
a mean o f 2 0 . 3 kg N/ha and 2 7 . 1
I n the abse n c e o f a d i s c e r n i b l e
trend,
sm a ll
In
the
kg P205/ha
one c o u l d
only s u g g e s t t h a t f e r t i l i z e r use i n the s t u d y a re a d i d n o t
have a s c a l e
b ia s.
Trends o f fertilizer use
W h ile
fe rtiliz e rs
more t h a n 75 p e r c e n t o f the f a r m e r s who used
had done so b e fo re ,
the m a j o r i t y o f them i n d i c a t e d
65
that they had not changed the
r a t e o f use.
T a b le
13 show s a
summary of the t r e n d s i n the r a t e o f use o v e r the y e a r s s i n c e
time o f f i r s t
use.
Table 13: Temporal trends in fertlizer use.
P e rc e n t f a r m e r s
T rend
M a in taine d r a t e o f use
In c re a se d r a t e o f use
■ Reduced r a t e o f use
T rans
N z o ia
(n=38)
Kakamega
(n=2 6)
K is ii
(n=40)
50
37.5
12.5
59
18
23
6 9 .2
1 5 .4
1 5 .4
Sowce: Survey data.
An i n q u i r y i n t o why a b o u t 60 p e rc e n t o f th e f a r m e r s had
maintained the r a t e o f f e r t i l i z e r
use i n
reported a re a s
revealed t h a t the most i m p o r t a n t r e a s o n s were h ig h f e r t i l i z e r
price and f a r m e r s ’ b e l i e f t h a t th e q u a n t i t i e s o f f e r t i l i z e r s
they a p p lie d were adequate
( T a b le
14).
The f a r m e r s who i n d i c a t e d an i n c r e a s e
in t h e i r f i e l d s
had the d e s i r e
to in c re a se
in
y ie ld s.
about 19 p e r c e n t o f them b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e i r
fe rtile .
fe rtiliz e r
use
However,
s o i l s were
66
Table 14: Farmers’ reasons for continued maintenance of
tertllzation levels.
Number o f fa r m e r s
% of
t o t a l who
m a in ta in
Reason
Kakamega
K is ii
T rans
N z o ia
F e rtiliz e r
39. 5
6
14
8
rate adequate
High
fe rtiliz e r
49. 3
19
8
8
I p ric e
Uses Farm
5.6
1
3
0
Yard Manure
0
4.2
0
Other
3
26
19
26
Total
Soiree: Survey data.
Frequency exceeds number o f t h o s e i n t e r v i e w e d due t o m u l t i p l e
"esponses.
The re p o rte d
r e d u c t i o n o r non use o f f e r t i l i z e r s was s a i d
to be due to l a c k o f c a s h t o p u r c h a s e and t r a n s p o r t
fe rtiliz e rs,
and t o o much r a i n .
The l a t t e r
r e d u c e s the
response o f maize to f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n
a p p lie d f e r t i l i z e r i s
or washed away a s
a s p art o f the
le a c h e d i n t o d e e p e r s o i l
p a r t o f the e ro d e d s o i l s .
h o r i z o n s and /
T h i s th e n r e n d e r s
t h i s f e r t i l i z e r p o r t i o n u n a v a i l a b l e to the m a ize p la n t .
Fanners’ access to fertilizer use
F a r m e r s ’ use o f f e r t i l i z e r can be i n f l u e n c e d
f e r t i l i z e r s u p p l y and d i s t r i b u t i o n
f e r t i l i z e r s h o u ld
be a v a i l a b l e
time a t the a f f o r d a b l e
a t the r i g h t
p ric e i. e .
at the r i g h t tim e i n a c c e s s i b l e
netw ork.
by
The r i g h t
p la c e and r i g h t
a v a i l a b i l i t y of f e r t i l i z e r
lo c a tio n s i s
im p ortan t.
No
data were how ever c o l l e c t e d on f e r t i l i z e r p ro c u r e m e n t and
d istrib u tio n .
H ow ever,
p r o x i e s were used t o d ra w i n f e r e n c e s on
them. C r e d i t a v a i l a b i l i t y
im p r o v e s f a r m e r s ’ l i q u i d i t y
p o sitio n
67
and was used
a s a p ro x y f o r f i n a n c i a l a c c e s s t o f e r t i l i z e r
jse. B a s i c a l l y ,
t h e r e a re
sm allholder f a r m e r s i n
inputs. F i r s t ,
se v e ra l d iffe re n t
s o u r c e s from where
Kenya may g e t c r e d i t t o p u rc h a se f a rm
money may be r a i s e d d i r e c t l y
fro m s a l e o f fa rm
produce. Se c o n d ,
p riv a te
s q u ir e d .
c a s h may be o b t a i n e d from c o m m e r c ia l b a n k s,
T h ird ,
money l e n d e r s may s u p p l y th e c a p i t a l
c oop e ra tive s o r th e A g r i c u l t u r a l
F in a n c e C o r p o r a t i o n
case o f f o r m a l i s e d c r e d i t i n s t i t u t i o n s ,
re stric tio n s e x is t .
These
farmer’s l a n d h o l d i n g ,
re stric tio n s
in c lu d e :
Cooperative c r e d i t ) and c r e d i t w o r t h i n e s s .
1995 a l l
f e r t iliz e r p urchases o u ts id e
siz e of
( in case o f
The s u r v e y ,
sampled f a r m e r s f i n a n c e d
form al c re d it.
the thre e d i s t r i c t s i n d i c a t e d
In
a number o f
a f a r m e r ’ s membership
however, fo u n d o u t t h a t i n
(A F C ).
M ost fa rm e rs i n
t h a t th e y f i n a n c e d t h e i r
f e r t i l iz e r p urchases through c ro p s a le s ,
liv e sto c k
s a l e s and
off farm employment.
D ista n c e t r a v e lle d
t o the
n e a r e s t c o m m e rc ia l bank o r
A g r i c u l t u r a l F in a n c e C o r p o r a t i o n
p h ysic a l a c c e s s t o c r e d i t .
(AFC) was u se d a s a p r o x y to
I t w as e xp e c te d t h a t the n e a r e r
farmers 'were to c r e d i t i n s t i t u t i o n s ,
could have to c r e d i t use.
used c r e d i t i n
How ever,
the g r e a t e r e x p o s u r e th e y
none o f th e
1995 b e ca use t h e y c o u ld
AFC lo a n award e l e g i b i l i t y c r i t e r i a ,
sampled f a r m e r s
not meet the minimum
hence th e h y p o t h e s i s
could not be t e s t e d .
The s t u d y a l s o
r e v e a le d t h a t d e s p i t e
K i s i i and Kakamega D i s t r i c t s ,
to thre e d e c a d e s ago,
still
th e f a c t t h a t i n
la n d a d j u d i c a t i o n t o o k p l a c e two
36 p e r c e n t o f th e f a r m e r s had no
t i t l e d e e d s hence had no c o l l a t e r a l t o o f f e r t o l e n d i n g
68
in stitu tio n s
i n o r d e r to g e t form al c r e d i t .
The mean d i s t a n c e a f a r m e r t r a v e l l e d
to the market t o
purchase f e r t i l i z e r was u se d a s a proxy t o p h y s i c a l a c c e s s to
fe rtiliz e r.
T h is i s a lso
r e f e r r e d to as m arket a c c e s s .
It
p o stu la te d t h a t a s the d i s t a n c e to the m arket i n c r e a s e s ,
purchase o f f e r t i l i z e r was a n t i c i p a t e d t o d e c re a se .
was
the
T ab le
15
shows the mean d i s t a n c e s c o v e re d to p u rc h a se f e r t i l i z e r s and
the modes o f t r a n s p o r t use d .
murrain,
some o f w hich were
ra in y s e a s o n s .
The r e s u l t s
average t r a v e l l e d
The s t a t e o f most r o a d s was
rendered im p a s s a b le d u r i n g the
showed th a t K i s i i fa rm e rs on
s h o r t e s t d i s t a n c e s to f e r t i l i z e r m a rk e ts a s
opposed to T r a n s N z o ia f a r m e r s who t r a v e l l e d l o n g e s t
d ista n c e s.
T h i s means t h a t fa rm e r s i n the K i s i i sample were
most a c c e s s i b l e
to f e r t i l i z e r s .
However,
farm ers who were l e a s t a c c e s s i b l e
the T rans N zoia
used th e h i g h e s t r a t e s o f
fe rtiliz e r.
T h i s the n i m p l i e s th a t o t h e r f a c t o r s were
re sp o n sib le
f o r the r a t e s o f f e r t i l i z e r use i n th e se r e g i o n s
r a th e r th a n p h y s i c a l a c c e s s p e r se.
M o to rise d
tra n sp o rtin g
t r a n s p o r t w as used i n a l l c a s e s a s the mode o f
fe rtiliz e rs
t o the farms.
T hus i n o r d e r f o r the
fa rm e rs to d e l i v e r the f e r t i l i z e r s to t h e i r fa rm ga te s,
i n c u r r e d some t r a n s p o r t c o s t s .
components:
The t r a n s p o r t c o s t s had two
a f i x e d com ponent and a v a r i a b l e component.
fix e d com ponent was the f a r e
d e liv e re d .
T h i s c o s t was f i x e d
However,
it
The
th a t the fa rm e r was c h a rg e d w h ile
g o in g t o p u r c h a s e the f e r t i l i z e r s and w h i l e d e l i v e r i n g
the farm .
they
it
to
r e g a r d l e s s o f the q u a n t i t y
v a r i e d w ith the d i s t a n c e t r a v e l l e d .
The
v a r i a b l e com ponent was the amount c h a rg e d to a fa rm e r p e r bag
69
of f e r t i l i z e r d e l i v e r e d . W h il e any volume o f f e r t i l i z e r c o u ld
be t r a n s p o r t e d ,
the t o t a l
per u n it c o st o f tra n sp o rta tio n
increased w i t h d e c r e a s in g q u a n t i t i e s o f f e r t i l i z e r s d e li v e r e d .
Besides,
as C.A.N.
f a r m e r s who p u rc h a s e d low a n a l y s i s f e r t i l i z e r s such
i n c u r r e d h i g h e r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n c o s t s per u n it u n l i k e
those who u se d h ig h a n a l y s i s f e r t i l i z e r s
such as D . A . P . .
T h is
i s because t h e v a r i a b l e component o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n c o s t was
based on q u a n t i t y o f f e r t i l i z e r r a t h e r th a n q u a n t i t y o f
n u t r ie n t s d e l i v e r e d .
For example: A fa rm e r who t r a n s p o r t e d 5 *
50 kg bag o f DAP ( 1 8 : 4 6 : 0 )
Ksh. 2 5 . 0 0 / bag and Ksh.
the fa rm e r K sh .
transport
from K i t a l e t o Kapomboi in c u r r e d
1 0 0 . 0 0 f o r a r e t u r n fa r e .
((5 * 2 5 . 0 0 ) +
T h is c o s t s
1 0 0 . 0 0 ) ) = Ksh. 2 2 5 . 0 0 to
( 0 . 6 4 * 5 * 5 0 ) = 160 kg o f n u t r i e n t s ,
( S in c e DAP
c o n t a in s 0 . 6 4 kg o f n u t r i e n t s /kg o f DAP f e r t i l i z e r ) .
Thus the
average c o s t i n c u r r e d by th e fa rm e r to t r a n s p o r t one kg o f
n u trie n ts i s
Ksh.
( 2 2 5 . 0 0 / 1 6 0 ) = Ksh.
1 .4 1 .
n e ig h b o u r in g fa rm e r who p u rc h a se d one
However, a n o t h e r
50 kg bag o f CAN
( 2 6 : 0 : 0 ) i n c u r r e d the same r e t u r n fa re a s the o t h e r one on top
of Ksh. 2 5 . 0 0 f o r the bag o f f e r t i l i z e r
farmer t h e r e f o r e i n c u r r e d
transport
T h is
Ksh. ( 1 0 0 .0 0 + 2 5 . 0 0 ) = 125.00 to
( 0 . 2 6 * 5 0 ) = 13 kg o f n u t r i e n t s
c o n t a i n s 0 . 2 6 kg o f n u t r i e n t s ) .
(1 2 5.00 / 1 3 ) = Ksh.
transported.
( S in c e one kg o f CAN
Thus th e fa rm e r i n c u r r e d Ksh.
9 . 6 0 t o t r a n s p o r t one kg o f n u t r i e n t s .
Table 15: Average distance and mode of transport used for fertilizer
purchases, 1S95.
R e g io n
Mode o f T r a n s p o r t
Ave rage
d is t a n c e
(km)
M o to rise d
O th e r'
K is ii
Keumbu
Nyamache
Nyacheki
Ogembo
4.5
2 .8
4.3
2.1
100
100
100
100
0
0
0
0
Kakamega
Mumias
S h in y a lu
K h w ise r o
Lukuyani
10.9
1 .4
5.0
12.1
100
100
100
100
0
0
0
0
T rans
N zoia
Moto I &
II
M ateket
S ire n d e
Kapomboi
27 .3
10.0
8 .3
2 5 .0
100
100
100
100
0
0
0
0
Source: Survey data,
bicycle, foot, draught animal.
Farmers5 perceptions of constraints to fertilizer use
M o st f a r m e r s know t h a t use o f f e r t i l i z e r s w i l l enhance
maize y i e l d s ,
at the tim e o f
however, th e q u a n t i t i e s a p p l i e d v a r i e d v e r y much
p l a n t i n g and t o p d r e s s i n g .
Farm e rs were a sk e d
the r e a s o n s f o r low f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n a s a means o f
id e n t ify in g
use.
th e c o n s t r a i n t s th a t m i l i t a t e d a g a i n s t f e r t i l i z e r
The m ost im p o rt a n t c o n s t r a i n t s were h ig h f e r t i l i s e r
p ric e ,
la c k o f c re d it,
lo w p r ic e o f m aize ,
p e sts,
and p o o r w eather c o n d i t i o n s
( T a b le
maize d i s e a s e s and
16). H ig h f e r t i l i s e r
p ric e meant t h a t few er f a r m e r s bought f e r t i l i z e r s o r t h o s e
fa rm e rs who were aware o f f e r t i l i z e r u se b e n e f i t s ,
"sm a ll" q u a n t it ie s .
low l i q u i d i t y
o n l y bought,
Lack o f c r e d i t and l o w maize p r ic e
im p lie d
p o s i t i o n o f the fa rm e r s who i n t u r n responded by
re d u c in g o r n o t" u s i n g f e r t i l i z e r s a t a l l .
waihobi university
ifAftFTE LIBRARY
The th r e e f a c t o r s
71
c o l l e c t i v e l y a c c o u n t e d f o r o v e r 50 p e r c e n t o f the ma]or
reasons a d v a n c e d by f a r m e r s a s the c o n s t r a i n t s to f e r t i l i z e r
use i n each d i s t r i c t .
M aize d i s e a s e s and p e s t s were g i v e n by
67 p e rce nt o f th e fa r m e r s i n
aere; maize s t a l k
these f a c t o r s
b o re r ,
T ra n s N z o ia .
r o d e n t s and maize b l i g h t .
l e d to maize y i e l d
re d u c tio n ,
revenue l e a d i n g t o lo w f a r m e r l i q u i d i t y
presumably l o w f e r t i l i z e r u se .
in Kakamega D i s t r i c t
N o t a b le among them
P re se nce of
t h u s low farm
p o s i t i o n and
F i f t e e n p e r c e n t o f the f a r m e r s
r e p o r t e d weeds a s a problem t o f e r t i l i z e r
use. These f a r m e r s were m a i n l y from Mumias and K h w ise ro
d i v i s i o n s where s t r i g a
maize y i e l d s
u n re lia b le
i n f e s t a t i o n o f m aize f i e l d s
sig n ific a n tly .
ra in s,
re d u c e s
Poor w eather c o n d i t i o n s i n form of
h a i l s t o r m s and s t r o n g w in d s e s p e c i a l l y i n
Kakamega d i s t r i c t 'were a l s o
r e p o rte d a s f a c t o r s t h a t reduce
maize y i e l d s and s u b s e q u e n t l y led to lo w f e r t i l i z e r use by
farmers.
72
Table 16: Farmers’ responses to constraints to fertiizer use.
Response
P e rc e n t of farm ers
K isii
Kakamega
8 7 .5
67 .5
50 .0
10.0
82.5
65.0
50.0
22.5
67.5
37.5
70.0
12.5
5.0
7.5
0
0
27.5
25.0
5 .0
2.5
2.5
30.0
47.5
7.5
17.5
5.0
15.0
0
0
5.0
22.5
0
10.0
67.5
0
2.5
High f e r t i l i z e r p r i c e
Lack of c r e d i t
Low p r i c e of m aize
F e rtiliz e r not a v a ila b le
Right f e r t i l i z e r package
u n a v a ila b le
Adequate s o i l f e r t i l i t y
Poor w eather ( d r o u g h t , w in d )
Labour s h o r t a g e
Lack of cash
Maize d i s e a s e s and p e s t s
Weeds (couch and s t r i g a )
| Poor maize v a r i e t y a v a i l a b l e
soiree: Survey data.
Trans
N z o ia
4.1.5 Farm Yard manure use in maize
Farm Y a r d
manure i s
use d t o i n c r e a s e
i s the c a se f o r i n o r g a n i c
used f o r the
same p u rp o se ,
fe rtiliz e rs .
Thus sin c e
as
both a r e
use o f Farm Y a r d Manure may
in flu e n c e use and amounts o f a r t i f i c i a l
was t h e r e f o r e
so il fe r t ilit y ,
fe rtiliz e rs
u se d .
It
im p o r t a n t to e s t a b l i s h w h e t h e r a r e l a t i o n s h i p
e x i s t s between the two.
Farm Y a r d
applied a l s o
Manure use was q u i t e v a r i e d .
v a rie d g r e a t ly ,
tonnes p e r h e c t a r e .
from s e v e r a l k i l o g r a m s t o a few
The m ost common method o f Farm Y a r d Manure
p re p a r a t io n i n v o l v e d
h e a p in g i t o u t o f t h e boma f o r f u l l
d e c o m p o sitio n b e fo re a p p l i c a t i o n .
for each d i s t r i c t ,
Out o f the 40 sample f a r m e r s
o n l y 15 p e rc e n t,
percent o f t h e f a r m e r s i n
re sp e c tiv e ly
K is ii,
b e fo re
5 7 .5 percent,
Kakamega,
used Farm Y a r d Manure.
Manure was a p p l i e d
The am ounts
In a l l
and 25
and T r a n s N z o i a
c a s e s the Farm Yard
p l a n t i n g and was sp re a d i n
p la n tin g
73
holes o r f u r r o w s .
R e s p it e t h e w id e s p r e a d
sxcept i n Kapomboi,
use or o r g a n i c
k e e p in g o f l i v e s t o c k
T ra n s N z o ia D i s t r i c t ,
it
in a l l
a re a s
was a p p a r e n t th a t
manure h a s n o t been i n t e g r a t e d a s a f e r t i l i t y
enhancing s t r a t e g y i n the s t u d y area. M a n u r in g i s
in te n siv e com pared to f e r t i l i z e r use and t h i s
i t s m inim al u s e .
more la b o u r
p a r t ly e x p la in s
There was a l s o la c k o f a d e q u a te am ounts due
to the k e e p in g o f a fe w a n i m a l s under e x t e n s i v e g r a z i n g
systems.
Thus,
i n o r g a n i c f e r t i l i z e r s are
p re fe rre d
p re sum a b ly
because o f t h e i r a v a i l a b i l i t y and a l s o due to them b e in g l e s s
labour i n t e n s i v e .
a2
Resuits and d iscu ssio n s of the Multiple Regression A n alyses on
fertilizer use determ inants.
The r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s on d e t e r m i n a n t s o f f e r t i l i z e r use
at farm l e v e l c o n s i d e r e d o n l y fa rm e rs who used f e r t i l i z e r s ,
h is i s
b e c a u se i f f a r m e r s who never used f e r t i l i z e r were
in c lu d e d i n
th e a n a l y s i s ,
the OLS e s t i m a t e s would be b ia s e d
cecause the d e pe nd e nt v a r i a b l e c o u ld have z e r o s a s
o b se rv a tio n s
by d i s t r i c t
( P a r ik h ,
A .,
1990).
The r e s u l t s w h ic h a r e g iv e n
d i s c u s s the in d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s t h a t were found
to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y
s i g n i f i c a n t a t 5 p e r c e n t l e v e l o r below.
'he o t h e r in d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s w ith p e c u l i a r o r unexpected
r e s u l t s a l t h o u g h n ot s t a t i s t i c a l l y
d is c u s s e d .
s i g n i f i c a n t a re a l s o
T a b le 17 shows the m u l t i p l e
d e t e r m in a n t s o f f e r t i l i z e r
re g re ss io n
use i n K i s i i D i s t r i c t .
r e s u l t s on
74
Table 17: M ultiple Regression Results on determinants of fertilizer use in Kisii
District.
V a ria b le
Farm Yard Manure (Fym)
S a le s
N o rm a lise d F e r t . P r i c e ( N p f)
O f f - f a r m employment ( O f f )
Land s i z e (W)
In h e r e n t S o i l F e r t i l i t y ( In p k )
E x t e n s io n C o n ta c t ( E x t )
(C on stant)
6
S .E .
t
17.089
1 . 4 E -04
- 1 6 .3 6 6
8.754
-1.408
0.9 08
10.249
119.531
7.230
1 . 236E-04
3.509
5.525
2.033
3.043
5 .9 4 7
31.642
2 . 3 6 4 ’”
1. 132
- 4 . 6 6 4 '"
1 .5 8 5
-0.692
0 .2 9 8
1.724’
3 .7 7 8 "'
R2 = 0 .6 4 8
Adj R2 = 0.571
S ig n ific a n c e
le v e ls :
* * * = 1%;
F = 8 .4 0 4
n = 40
** = 5 % ;
D.W = 1.63
* = 10%.
The e s t im a t e d model i s o f the form:
X = 1 1 9 .5 3 + 10.25 Ext - 1.41 W + 8 . 7 5 O f f + 0.91
Inpk -
16.37 Npf + 1 . 4 E-04 S a l e s + 17.09 Fym. The v a r i o u s v a r i a b l e s
used a r e d e s c r i b e d i n s e c t i o n 3 . 4 .2 .
O v e r a l l the model e x p l a i n e d 6 4 .8 p e r c e n t o f the v a r i a t i o n
in r a te o f n u t r i e n t s a p p l i e d .
n o rm a lise d
Only Farm Y a r d Manure use and
p r i c e o f f e r t i l i z e r were s i g n i f i c a n t a t the 1
p e rcent l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e .
sig n ific a n t at
E x t e n s io n c o n t a c t was
10 p e rc e n t l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e .
The r e l a t i o n s h i p between use o f Farm Y a rd Manure and the
rate o f n u t r i e n t s a p p l ie d was p o s i t i v e and s i g n i f i c a n t .
i n o r g a n i c f e r t i l i z e r s and
fe rtilit y
B o th
Farm Yard Manure enhance s o i l
t h u s i n c r e a s i n g c ro p y i e l d s .
T h u s,
fa rm e r s may use
both s o u r c e s o f the n u t r i e n t s in c o m b in a t io n o r one of them i n
iso la t io n .
I n the form er c a se ,
Farm Yard Manure i s
used to
complement i n o r g a n i c f e r t i l i z e r s and the l a t t e r c a se
r e p r e s e n t s a s i t u a t i o n where Farm Yard Manure i s a s u b s t i t u t e .
The c a s e o f
Farm Yard Manure a c t in g a s a complement to
75
i n o r g a n ic f e r t i l i z e r was th e one ob se rve d i n
K is ii D istric t.
This p a r t l y c a n be e x p l a i n e d by the in a d e q u a t e s u p p l i e s o f
Farm Y a rd M anure a s e v id e n c e d by a s m a ll number o f a n im a ls
kept p e r fa rm under e x t e n s i v e g r a z i n g s y s t e m s .
su p p lie s a v a i l a b l e i s
farm ers
shown by the s m a l l number of
(6) who used Farm Y a rd Manure i n th e sample.
The n o r m a l i s e d
percent l e v e l )
p r i c e o f f e r t i l i z e r was s i g n i f i c a n t
and had the expected n e g a t i v e s i g n .
i m p l ie s t h a t i f
farmer,
a ls o
The ina de q uate
the te rm s o f trade are i n
T h is
f a v o u r o f the
more n u t r i e n t s a re a p p l ie d and v i c e
price o f f e r t i l i z e r
(1
v e rsa ,
th a t i s ,
if
p e r k i l o g r a m i n c r e a s e s more
p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y than to an in c r e a s e i n p r i c e o f 1 k i l o g r a m o f
maize,
le ss
n u trie n ts w ill
S p e c ific a lly ,
an i n c r e a s e
f e r t iliz e r p ric e
be a p p lie d and v i c e v e rsa .
i n the terms o f t r a d e i n f a v o u r o f
by one u n i t w i l l reduce n u t r i e n t s a p p l ie d by
16.37 kg/ha.
The p o s i t i v e and s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between
e x t e n s io n c o n t a c t s and n u t r i e n t s a p p l ie d i s
c o n s i s t e n t w it h
e x p e c t a t i o n s t h a t e x t e n s i o n c o n t a c t i n c r e a s e s f e r t i l i z e r use.
The c o e f f i c i e n t
shows t h a t those w it h e x t e n s i o n c o n t a c t used
10.25 kg/ha o f n u t r i e n t s more than those w it h o u t .
The s a l e s c o e f f i c i e n t ,
sta tistic a lly
though p o s i t i v e was not
s i g n i f i c a n t d e s p i t e the h i g h e x t e n t o f c a sh
c r o p p in g and i n c r e a s e d c o m m e r c i a l i s a t i o n a s shown by v a l u e s o f
t o t a l farm s a l e s .
T h i s s u g g e s t s t h a t money o b t a in e d from s a l e
of fa rm p ro d u c e was not n e c e s s a r i l y used t o p u rc h a se
fe rtiliz e rs.
o c c u p ie s i n
T h i s can p a r t l y be e x p l a i n e d
th e economy o f the d i s t r i c t .
by the p la c e maize
M a iz e i s
n o r m a lly
produced to meet s u b s i s t e n c e needs.
p ro d u c tio n i s
done o v e r tim e,
d u rin g the l o n g and s h o r t
in c re a se s i n
Thus,
I n c r e a s e s in maize
th a t i s ,
t h r o u g h p ro d u c tio n both
r a i n s s e a s o n s r a t h e r than by
f e r t i l i z e r use to meet any s u b s i s t e n c e
even t h o u g h the f a r m e r s ’ l i q u i d i t y
in c r e a s e f e r t i l i z e r
use i f
is
18 p r e s e n t s the
they may not
the y are a b le t o produce adequate
amounts o f f o o d to meet t h e i r s u b s i s t e n c e
T able
high,
sh o rtfa ll.
needs.
r e s u l t s o f the m u lt ip le
a n a l y s i s on th e d e t e r m in a n t s o f f e r t i l i z e r
re g re ss io n
use in Kakamega
D istric t.
Table 18: M ultiple Regression Results on determ inants of fertilizer
use in Kakam ega District
V a ria b le
Farm Yard Manure (Fym)
S a le s
N o r m a lise d F e r t . P r i c e (N p f)
O ff-F a rm Employment ( O f f )
In h e r e n t S o i l F e r t i l i t y
( In p k )
Land s i z e (W)
E x t e n s io n C o n t a c t (E x t)
(C on sta nt)
R2 = 0 . 7 3 7
Ad] R2 = 0 . 6 2 9
Significance
levels:
***
6
S.E.
t
5.494
2 .929E-04
- 4 6 .5 0 6
18.442
20.058
2 .4 5 1 E -0 4
15.016
18.124
0.274
1.195
3 . 0 9 7 '”
1 .018
9.919
-11.793
14.201
2 3 0 .5 3 4
12.081
5.989
2 7 .743
139.159
0 .3 2 1
-1.96 9’
0.512
1 .657
F = 6.814
n = 25
D.W. = 1 .29
= 1%; * * = 5%;
The e s t i m a t e d model f o r the r a te o f
* = 10%.
n u trie n t a p p lic a tio n
/ ha i s g i v e n a s:
X = 2 3 0 . 5 8 + 14.2 E x t
- 11.79 W + 1 8 . 4 4 O ff + 9.92 In p k
46.51 Npf + 2 . 9 3 E - 0 4 S a l e s + 5.49 Fym.
The model e x p l a i n e d 7 3 . 7 percent o f the t o t a l v a r i a t i o n o f
the o b s e r v e d
r a te o f f e r t i l i z e r use. A s i n
the c a se of K i s i i
•
77
D istric t,
n o r m a l i s e d p r i c e o f f e r t i l i z e r had the expected s i g n
and was s t a t i s t i c a l l y
o u tp u t p r i c e
ra tio
s i g n i f i c a n t i n d i c a t i n g the r o le i n p u t :
p l a y s i n the use of f e r t i l i z e r s
-or e ve ry u n i t in c re a se i n
by fa rm e rs,
norm a lise d f e r t i l i z e r p ric e ,
" e r t i l i z e r c o n su m p tio n r a t e per hectare c o u ld drop by 4 6 .5 Kg.
Land s i z e
in flu e n ce d
rate o f f e r t i l i z e r use n e g a t i v e l y
and was s i g n i f i c a n t a t 1 p e rce nt l e v e l .
whereby to
p r o d u c t io n
i n c r e a s e maize p ro d u c tio n ,
T h i s p o r t r a y s the case
more land was put i n t o
r a t h e r than by land use i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n th ro u g h
i n c r e a s e d f e r t i l i z e r use.
A l l o t h e r v a r ia b le s exceot inhe re nt s o i l f e r t i l i t y
the e x p e c te d
s i g n s but IN P K was not s t a t i s t i c a l l y
had
sig n ific a n t
even a t the 20% l e v e l .
T ab le
19 p r e s e n t s th e m u lt ip le r e g r e s s i o n r e s u l t s on the
d e t e r m in a n t s o f f e r t i l i z e r use i n Trans N z o ia D i s t r i c t .
■ able 19: M ultiple Regression Results on determinants of fertilcer use in
Trans Nzoia District
6
S .E .
t
-11 .911
9 .8 7 4 E -0 4
14.958
2.594E-04
-0.796
3.807'
-2 .9 9 4
19.921
1 .909
12.507
-1.563
1 .593
-9.882
6.8 00
31.438
123.365
5.8 36
6 .5 5 8
13.395
45 .838
-1.693’
1 .036
2.347” ’
2.691'
i V a ria b le
Farm Y a rd Manure (Fvm)
S a le s
N o r m a l is e d f e r t . p r i c e
(N p f)
O f f - f a r m employment ( O f f )
In h e re n t s o i l f e r t i l i t y
(In p k )
Land s i z e (W)
E x t e n s i o n c o n t a c t (E x t)
(C on sta n t)
Adj
Significance
levels:
***
R2 = 0 .6 3 6
R2 = 0 . 5 4 3
= 1%;
F = 7.238
n = 37
* * = 5%;
* = 10%
D. W = 2 . 0 7
78
The e stim a te d
X =
model i s
o f th e form:
1 2 3 . 3 7 + 3 1 . 4 8 E x t + 6 . 8 0 W + 1 9 .9 2 Off - 9.88
Inpk - 2 . 9 9
N p f + 9 . 8 8 E - 0 4 S a l e s - 11.91 Fym.
The model e x p l a i n e d 6 3 . 6 p e rc e n t o f the t o t a l v a r i a t i o n i n
f e r t i l i z e r u se o b s e r v e d i n T r a n s N z o ia D i s t r i c t .
important d e t e r m i n a n t s o f f e r t i l i z e r use i n
*ere: v a lu e o f
t o t a l fa rm s a l e s ,
The most
maize p r o d u c t io n
i n h e r e n t s o i l f e r t i l i t y and
e xte n sion c o n t a c t s .
The r e s u l t s
shown i n d i c a t e d t h a t t o t a l farm s a l e s
p o sitiv e ly in flu e n c e d
the r a t e o f f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n and
fas s i g n i f i c a n t a t 1 p e r c e n t l e v e l .
for e v e ry K sh .
The model e stim a te d t h a t
1 0 0 0 0 .0 0 r e c e i v e d i n farm s a l e s ,
a p p l ic a t i o n i n c r e a s e d
n u trie n t
by 9 . 8 8 Kg/ ha. T h i s p r o v i d e s f u r t h e r
evidence t h a t income has a p o s i t i v e e f f e c t on f e r t i l i z e r use.
E x t e n s i o n c o n t a c t s p o s i t i v e l y i n f l u e n c e d the r a te o f
f e r t i l iz e r use.
The e x t e n s i o n
re g re ss io n c o e f f i c i e n t
showed
that t h o s e who had e x t e n s i o n c o n t a c t s on a v e r a g e used 3 1 . 4
kg/ha more n u t r i e n t s than t h o s e w ith o u t.
In h e re n t
so il f e r t il it y
was found to i n f l u e n c e
n u t r i e n t s a p p l i e d a s e x p e c te d .
in h e r e n t f e r t i l i t y
to d e c re a se
in d e x ,
by 9 .8 8 kg/ha.
rate o f
For e v e r y u n i t i n c r e a s e i n the
rate of f e r t i l i z e r
Fu rth e rm ore ,
use was expe cte d
t h o s e fa r m e r s who
received e x t e n s i o n a d v ic e a p p l i e d 3 1 . 4 4 k g / h a on a v e ra g e more
n u t r i e n t s t h a n th o s e who d i d
not,
show ing a p o s i t i v e
in flu e n c e
of e x t e n s i o n c o n t a c t s on r a t e o f f e r t i l i z e r use.
Com parison of the Multiple Regression Results
N o t e v e n a s i n g l e in d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e
was fou nd to
79
in flu e n c e r a t e o f f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n s i g n i f i c a n t l y a c r o s s
the th re e d i s t r i c t s a t the 5 p e rcent l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e .
N on e th e le ss,
several
Land s i z e
v a r i a b l e s need f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n s .
was o n l y fo u n d to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t
in Kakamega D i s t r i c t .
land s i z e
In b o th Kakamega and K i s i i D i s t r i c t s ,
n e g a t iv e ly in flu e n c e d
situ a tio n e x p la in e d
by la n d
cropping and s u b s t i t u t i n g
rate o f n u t r i e n t s a p p lie d ,
use i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n through r e l a y
f e r t i l i z e r use by i n c r e a s i n g
c u l t i v a t e d l a n d i n the d i s t r i c t s
re sp e c tiv e ly .
land s i z e was found t o be p o s i t i v e l y
n u t r ie n t use i n
T r a n s N z o ia D i s t r i c t ,
In T ra n s N z o i a D i s t r i c t ,
a
In c o n t r a s t ,
r e l a t e d to rate of
thou gh not s i g n i f i c a n t .
l a n d o w n e rsh ip by the p re se n t fa rm e r s
has been r e c e n t s i n c e t h i s a re a used to be p a r t o f the fo rm e r
European S e t t l e r s ’ fa rm s commonly r e f e r r e d t o a s the “ W hite
H ig h la n d s ".
T h u s,
"White H i g h l a n d s "
the new fa rm e r s ,
some o f whom worked i n the
had been t r a i n e d on the im p ortan ce of
f e r t i l i z e r u se by the fo r m e r s e t t l e r s and hence c o n tin u e d
using f e r t i l i z e r s on maize p r o d u c t io n i n t h e i r new farm s.
Eurthe rm ore , th e s i z e o f th e p a r c e ls o f la n d bought r e f l e c t e d
the ’w e a lth y s t a t u s o f the fa rm e r s .
Thus,
t h o s e who had l a r g e
pieces o f l a n d were w e a l t h i e r and hence a f f o r d e d to use more
f e r t i l i z e r s t h a n the p o o re r fa rm e rs.
R e la te d
t o la n d s i z e i s
in h e r e n t s o i l
v a r ia b le was o n l y s t a t i s t i c a l l y
fe r tilit y .
The
s i g n i f i c a n t a t 10 p e rce nt
le v e l i n T r a n s N z o ia D i s t r i c t and w it h the expe cte d n e g a t iv e
sign.
In o th e r d is t r i c t s ,
C o n v e n tio n a lly ,
n e g a tiv e .
the
r e l a t i o n s h i p was p o s i t i v e .
i t i s e x p e c te d th a t the r e l a t i o n s h i p
The s t a t i s t i c a l l y
in s ig n if ic a n t p o sit iv e
be
80
re la tio n sh ip
between i n h e r e n t s o i l f e r t i l i t y and f e r t i l i z e r
use i n both K i s i i and Kakamega D i s t r i c t s means th a t in h e r e n t
so il f e r t i l i t y
in f e r t i l i z e r
d o e s n o t l i n e a r l y e x p l a i n d i f f e r e n c e s ob se rv e d
use i n
the two d i s t r i c t s .
T h i s then i m p l i e s t h a t
other f a c t o r s were more i m p o r t a n t i n e x p l a i n i n g f e r t i l i z e r use
rates i n
K i s i i and Kakamega D i s t r i c t s
r a t h e r than s o i l
fe rtilit y .
T o t a l f a r m s a l e s w hich was s t a t i s t i c a l l y
percent l e v e l
sig n ific a n t at 1
i n i n f l u e n c i n g the ra te o f n u t r i e n t s a p p lie d i n
Trans N z o ia D i s t r i c t
u n lik e
i n the o t h e r d i s t r i c t s ,
r e f l e c t i o n o f th e e x t e n t o f maize c o m m e r c i a l i s a t i o n .
terms,
was a
In v a lu e
mean t o t a l farm s a l e s were h i g h e r f o r both K i s i i and
Kakamega D i s t r i c t s where t e a and su g a rc a n e a re major cash
crops r e s p e c t i v e l y th a n i n T r a n s N z o ia D i s t r i c t ,
where maize
i s the m ajor c a s h c r o p . However, the r e s u l t s s u g g e s t th a t the
income from t h e s e o t h e r c r o p s have l i t t l e
of f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n i n
i n f l u e n c e on r a t e s
these a r e a s c o n t r a r y to the
f i n d i n g s o f some e a r l i e r s t u d y (Ongaro,
1 9 8 8 ).
of c o m m e r c i a l i s a t i o n i n m aize p ro d u c t io n i s
Thus,
the l e v e l
a major
determ inant o f f e r t i l i z e r use .
4.3 Results and D iscussion s of hypotheses testing
F o u r h y p o t h e s e s were t e s t e d i n the s t u d y .
e valuated on th e b a s i s o f th e t s t a t i s t i c
The t e s t s were
a t the 5 p e rc e n t
-evel o f s i g n i f i c a n c e .
a)
The f i r s t
n u l l h v p o t h e s i s s t a t e d t h a t fa rm s i z e d id n o t
have an i n f l u e n c e on th e rate o f a p p l i c a t i o n o f n u t r i e n t s
(Bw = 0 ) .
The n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was t e s t e d a g a i n s t the
81
a lte rn a tiv e
on the
h y p o th e sis,
th a t farm s i z e
had an i n f l u e n c e
ra te of a p p lic a t io n of n u t rie n t s
to ze ro )
by r e g r e s s i n g
o f n u trie n ts,
v a ria b le ,
(B. i s
not e q u a l
farm s i z e on r a t e o f a p p l i c a t i o n
where bw i s the slo p e c o e f f i c i e n t f o r the
la n d s i z e .
In s t a t i n g
th is
n u ll
h y p o th e sis,
i t was assumed that
f e r t i l i z e r s were r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e i n the 10, 25 and 50
kg p a c k e t s .
that sin c e
The r a t i o n a l e
behind the n u l l h y p o t h e s is was
f e r t i l i z e r s were a v a i l a b l e
s i z e o f th e farm c o u l d
in a l l size s,
then
not in f lu e n c e the rate o f use.
The
n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was t e s t e d on the b a s i s o f the value o f
the t r a t i o
c o r r e s p o n d i n g to la n d s i z e
from the
r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s on ra te o f f e r t i l i z e r use and a
c o m b in a tio n of s e v e r a l fa c to rs.
The r e g r e s s i o n
re su lts
showed t h a t the e f f e c t o f farm s i z e on n u t r i e n t
a p p lic a tio n
was n e g a t i v e and i n s i g n i f i c a n t a t the 5
p ercent l e v e l o f s ig n if ic a n c e
D istric ts.
f o r K i s i i and Kakamega
The c a l c u l a t e d t - r a t i o was l e s s than 2.0,
the
c ritic a l
t r a t i o a t th e 5 p e rc e n t l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e .
The f a c t
t h a t th e c o e f f i c i e n t was i n s i g n i f i c a n t means
that s t a t i s t i c a l l y ,
t h e r e was no l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p
between t o t a l farm s i z e and the rate o f a p p l i c a t i o n o f
n u trie n ts,
that i s ,
from z e r o .
Thus,
th e c o e f f i c i e n t was not d i f f e r e n t
a t 5 p e rc e n t l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e ,
n u l l h y p o t h e s i s can n o t be re je c te d .
the
I n T ra ns N z o ia
D istric t,
farm s i z e was i n s i g n i f i c a n t a t 5 per c e n t.
la n d s i z e
c o e f f i c i e n t was however p o s i t i v e . S i n c e the t
r a t i o f o r la n d s i z e was l e s s than 2 . 0 ,
the n u l l
The
82
h y p o t h e s i s t h a t la n d
s i z e does not i n f l u e n c e
ra te o f
f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n ca n n o t be r e j e c t e d ,
b)
The se c o n d
in flu e n c e
u3)
n u ll
h y p o t h e s i s th a t l o c a t i o n does not
the r a t e o f
n u t r i e n t s used by fa rm e rs
was t e s t e d a g a i n s t the a l t e r n a t i v e
(u, = u, =
h y p o th e sis th a t
lo c a tio n
i n f l u e n c e s r a t e o f n u t r i e n t s used by fa rm e rs
(Not a l l
ut are e q u a l ) ,
where utJ u2, and u3 are the mean
n u t r i e n t s i n k i l o g r a m s a p p l ie d i n K i s i i ,
T ra n s N z o i a D i s t r i c t s
re sp e c tiv e ly .
The n u l l h y p o t h e s i s
assumed t h a t th e r e was no d i f f e r e n c e i n
fe rtiliz e r
Kakamega and
the r a te of
use based on d i f f e r e n c e s i n l o c a t i o n o f the
th r e e d i s t r i c t s .
The r a t i o n a l e b e h in d th e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was t h a t s i n c e
the d i s t r i c t s f a l l
in
most f a r m e r s use l a t e
the same a g r o e c o l o g i c a l zone and
m a tu rin g maize v a r i e t i e s ,
the
r e s p o n s e o f maize to f e r t i l i z e r use was expected to be
sim ila r.
The F s t a t i s t i c
was used to t e s t the n u l l
h y p o t h e s i s a t the 5 p e r c e n t l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e .
T a b le
20 p r e s e n t s the r e s u l t s o f the a n a l y s i s o f v a r ia n c e f o r
e f f e c t o f l o c a t i o n on f e r t i l i z e r use w h i l e the
c o m p u t a t i o n s o f the a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e are p re se n t e d i n
a p p e n d ix
1.
83
Table 20: One w ay AN O V A for effect of location on rate of fertilizer use.
V a ria tio n
Sum o f
squares
df
Mean
sq ua re
F - ra tio
E x p la in e d by
L o c a tio n
(Between
Columns)
55057.2
C-1 = 2
27528.6
10.28
E r r o r or
U n e x p la in e d
(W itn in
colum ns)
313290.9
( r - 1 ) c = 117
2677.7
T o ta l
36 834 8.1
re = 119
From th e M a t h e m a t ic a l t a b l e s ,
of sig n ific a n c e
is
v a lu e o f F,2 n7), a t 5% l e v e l
3 . 0 7 . S in c e the c a l c u l a t e d F i s
g r e a t e r t h a n the t a b u l a r value,
not accepted,
Thus,
c)
the
the n u l l h y p o t h e s is i s
t h a t th e p o p u la t io n means a re the same.
ra te o f f e r t i l i z e r use v a r i e s w ith d i s t r i c t .
The t h i r d
n u l l h y p o t h e s i s th a t the v a l u e o f t o t a l farm
s a l e s d o e s not i n f l u e n c e the ra te o f f e r t i l i z e r s use
p o sit iv e ly
(B5aieg = 0) was t e s t e d a g a i n s t the a l t e r n a t i v e
h y p o t h e s i s t h a t the v a lu e o f farm s i z e
r a t e o f f e r t i l i z e r use p o s i t i v e l y
zero),
i n f l u e n c e s the
(B3ale3 i s
not e q ual t o
w here Bsala, i s th e slop e c o e f f i c i e n t f o r the
v a ria b le ,
the n u l l
v a lu e o f t o t a l farm s a l e s .
h y p o t h e s i s was th a t s in c e a h i g h valu e o f t o t a l
farm s a l e s i n d i c a t e s a h ig h l i q u i d i t y
farm ers.
The r a t i o n a l e b e hin d
I t was t h u s assumed c e t e r i s
p o s i t i o n o f the
p a r ib u s th a t farm ers
w it h h i g h e r l i q u i d i t y l e v e l s c o u ld p u r c h a s e more
fe rt iliz e rs
and v ic e v e r s a and hence th e
between f e r t i l i z e r use and valu e o f t o t a l
c o u l d be p o s i t i v e .
The v a lu e o f the t
re la tio n sh ip
farm s a l e s
r a t i o c o rre sp o n d in g
84
t o the v a r i a b l e ,
t o t a l farm s a l e s o b t a i n e d from r e s u l t s
o f the r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s were used a s a t e s t f o r the
h y p o th e sis.
The t e s t was done a t the 5 p e rce nt l e v e l o f
sig n ific a n c e .
R e g re ssio n
of to ta l
r e s u l t s showed t h a t the c o e f f i c i e n t o f v a lu e
farm s a l e s f o r T ra n s N z o ia D i s t r i c t was p o s i t i v e
and s i g n i f i c a n t a t the 5 p e rc e n t l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e .
The com puted t - r a t i o was g r e a t e r than the 2.0.
at th is
le v e l of sig n ific a n c e ,
T herefore
the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s t h a t
farm s a l e s does n o t i n f l u e n c e the r a te o f f e r t i l i z e r use
was r e j e c t e d .
E sse n tia lly ,
fa rm e rs w it h h ig h farm s a l e s
used more f e r t i l i z e r t h a n those w ith lo w o r no farm
sa le s.
T h i s r e s u l t i s c o n s i s t e n t w ith t h e o r e t i c a l
e x p e c ta tio n s.
m arketed
T h is i s
because f a r m e r s w it h g r e a t e r
s u r p l u s would most l i k e l y have more own s a v i n g s
compared t o th o se w it h o u t . Some o f t h e s e
s a v i n g s c o u ld
th e n be i n v e s t e d i n f a r m in g .
However,
f o r Kakamega and K i s i i D i s t r i c t s
farm s a l e s were
s t a t i s t i c a l l y i n s i g n i f i c a n t a t the 5 p e r c e n t l e v e l o f
s i g n i f i c a n c e a lt h o u g h s t i l l
p o sitiv e .
T h i s c o u ld p a r t l y
be e x p l a i n e d by the f a r m e r s ’ m ajor o b j e c t i v e o f g r o w in g
m aize,
t h a t is,
w h e th e r s u b s i s t e n c e o n l y o r both
s u b s i s t e n c e and c a s h .
T hus,
f o r the two d i s t r i c t s ,
the
n u l l h y p o t h e s i s t h a t v a l u e o f farm s a l e s does not
in flu e n c e
ra te o f f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i e d p o s i t i v e l y was n o t
r e j e c t e d a t the 5 p e r c e n t l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e ,
d)
The f o u r t h
n u l l h y p o t h e s i s th a t the p r e s e n c e o f o f f - f a r m
em ployment does n o t i n f l u e n c e the r a t e o f f e r t i l i z e r
use
85
p o s it iv e ly
(Boff = 0) was t e s t e d a g a i n s t the a l t e r n a t i v e
h y p o t h e s i s t h a t the p re se n c e o f o f f fa rm employment
i n f l u e n c e s the ra te o f f e r t i l i z e r use p o s i t i v e l y
n ot e q u a l t o z e r o ) ,
f o r the
v a ria b le ,
L ik e th e
th ird
where, Bofr i s the s lo p e c o e f f i c i e n t
o f f - f a r m employment.
h y p o th e sis,
presence o f o f f farm
em ployment i m p l i e s im p ro v e d l i q u i d i t y
farm ers.
Hence,
p o s i t i o n o f the
w ith im proved l i q u i d i t y
assumed t h a t more f u n d s were a v a i l a b l e
p u rc h a s e
p o sitio n ,
p o s s i b l y to
The v a lu e o f the t r a t i o s c o r r e s p o n d in g t o
the v a r i a b l e ,
o f f - f a r m employment, was used to t e s t the
h y p o t h e s i s a t the 5 p e r c e n t l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e .
r a t i o s were p o s i t i v e
th e
i t was
f e r t i l i z e r s and s u b s e q u e n t ly use i t i n maize
p ro d u c tio n .
Thus,
(B iff i s
The t
but in s ig n if ic a n t in a ll d is t r i c t s .
n u l l h y p o t h e s i s th a t o f f fa rm employment d oe s
not i n f l u e n c e f e r t i l i z e r use p o s i t i v e l y 'was not r e je c te d .
86
CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 SU M M A RY , C O N C L U S IO N S AND RECO M M EN DATIO N S
T h i s c h a p t e r g i v e s a summary o f the r e s e a r c h o b ] e c t i v e s ,
m ethodology and
r e s u l t s o f the study.
C o n c l u s i o n s and
recom m e ndations are th e n drawn on f e r t i l i z e r use i n the l i g h t
o f e x p e r i e n c e s from K i s i i ,
Kakamega and T r a n s Nzoia D i s t r i c t s .
5.1 Summary and Conclusions
M a iz e i s
the main s t a p l e food f o r the people o f Kenya.
In c r e a s e i n m aize p r o d u c t i o n i s t h e r e f o r e c e n t r a l i n a t t a i n i n g
food s e c u r i t y which i s a m a jo r food p o l i c y o b j e c t i v e of the
governm ent o f
Kenya.
R e s e a r c h i n maize p r o d u c t io n i s
recommended a s a way o f a c h i e v i n g t h i s o b j e c t i v e .
research,
it
be a c h ie v e d
Through
h a s been found t h a t y i e l d i n c r e a s e in maize can
by t i m e l y la n d
p e st c o n t r o l .
I t can a l s o
h y b r i d maize
p r e p a r a t io n ,
p la n tin g ,
be a c h ie v e d th r o u g h in c re a s e d Uoe of
seed and use o f f e r t i l i z e r s .
use o f h y b r i d
weeding and
Of the se methods,
maize seed h a s most been a dopted by farm ero and
f e r t i l i z e r u se l e a s t among the p u rc h a sa b le i n p u t s
1974, H a s s a n e t a l,
19 94b ). A lth o u g h ,
the
(G e rh a rt,
r o l e of f e r t i l i z e r
in in c re a s in g
maize p r o d u c t i o n has been documented i n Kenya
(A lla n ,
G erhart,
1971;
w i d e l y w it h
i t s use v a n e s
(1990) a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t th e amounts of
use d were below l e v e l s recommended by A g r i c u l t u
R esearch C e n tre s.
fe rtiliz e r
1 9 9 4 ),
r e g i o n s and e ven w it h i n farm s. A stu d y by R u ig u
and S c h u l t e r
fe rtiliz e rs
1975 and FURP,
The r e a s o n s f o r the s u b - o p t i m a l l e v _ l s
u se are,
however,
not known. T h u s,
f o r m u l a t e d w i t h th re e m ajor o b j e c t i v e s .
th is
stu d y
87
a)
D e sc rib e
th e f e r t i l i z e r
use p a t t e r n s among s m a llh o ld e r
maize f a r m e r s i n W e s t e r n Kenya.
b)
Id e n t ify
th e m ajor d e t e r m i n a n t s o f f e r t i l i z e r use among
the same f a r m e r s .
c)
D e te rm in e
in
fa cto rs
re s p o n sib le f o r in te r-fa rm d iffe re n c e s
f e r t i l i z e r use i n m aize.
I n o r d e r t o a c h ie v e t h e s e o b j e c t i v e s ,
d ata were c o l l e c t e d
using a s t r u c t u r e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e o v e r the 1995 main maize
growing s e a s o n .
The s t u d y c o l l e c t e d data on f e r t i l i z e r use
from a random sample o f 40 f a r m e r s each from K i s i i ,
and T r a n s N z o i a D i s t r i c t s .
D e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s and
r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s were u se d to a n a ly z e the data.
fo llo w in g i s
Kakamega
a summary o f t h e
The
r e s u l t s and c o n c l u s i o n s drawn.
Fertilizer use patterns and inter-farm differences in fertilizer use.
The d e s c r i p t i v e a n a l y s i s
r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d th a t
f e r t i l i z e r u se i n maize v a r i e d w i t h i n the t h r e e d i s t r i c t s
stu d ie d a c c o r d i n g to r e s o u r c e
farm ers,
a c c e s s to e x t e n s i o n
base,
liq u id it y
p o s i t i o n o f the
s e r v i c e s and m arkets.
The h i g h e s t
le v e l o f f e r t i l i z e r n u t r i e n t use was 8 7 .3 kg/ha in T ra n s N z o ia
D i s t r i c t w h ile
the lo w e s t a v e r a g e was i n K i s i i D i s t r i c t
e stim a te d a t 3 5 . 5 kg/ha.
The e stim a te d mean amount o f n u t r i e n t
f e r t i l i z e r u se i n Kakamega d i s t r i c t was 5 4 . 3 kg/ha.
of use p a r t l y
crop,
r e f l e c t the im p o rta n c e o f maize a s a c om m e rc ia l
i n T r a n s N z o ia D i s t r i c t and L u k u y a n i D i v i s i o n o f
Kakamega D i s t r i c t ,
i t i s grow n f o r
but i t
The r a t e s
maize i s
grown a s a c om m e rcia l c r o p w h i l e
su b siste n c e
i n the r e s t o f Kakamega D i s t r i c t
i s a se m i com m ercial c r o p i n K i s i i D i s t r i c t .
D e sp ite
88
the d i f f e r e n c e s i n the
r a t e s o f use,
most f a r m e r s i n these
regions have te n d e d t o m a i n t a i n the l e v e l s o f f e r t i l i z e r use
over time p a r t l y
b ecause t h e y b e lie v e t h a t the amounts used
are adequate and p a r t l y b e ca u se o f the p e r c e iv e d high
fe r t iliz e r p ric e s.
I t was a l s o
shown t h a t i n the s t r i g a
prone a re a s n o t a b ly
Khwisero and M um ias D i v i s i o n s i n Kakamega D i s t r i c t ,
impacts n e g a t i v e l y on the r a t e o f f e r t i l i z e r
of h y b r id m aize .
d e fic it
use and grow in g
T h i s d u a l n e g a t iv e im pact l e a d s to low
p rod uction o f m aize.
in the f u t u r e ,
the weed
If
the s t r i g a i n f e s t a t i o n goes unchecked
th e n t h e s e a r e a s w i l l become major maize
re g io n s.
I t i s w i d e l y a c kn o w le d ge d th a t a v a i l a b i l i t y of c r e d i t
enhances the l i q u i d i t y
the f a r m e r s ’ a b i l i t y
complementary i n p u t s .
p o s i t i o n o f f a r m e r s and hence i n c r e a s e s
t o p u r c h a s e f e r t i l i z e r and o t h e r
However,
120 fa rm e r s i n t e r v i e w e d ,
fo r maize p r o d u c t i o n i n
farmers f o r t h i s
the s t u d y r e v e a le d t h a t o f the
none o f them g o t i n s t i t u t i o n a l c r e d i t
1995. Some o f the r e a s o n s advanced by
f a i l u r e i n c l u d e d l a c k o f knowledge o f the
c r e d it f a c i l i t i e s ,
l a c k o f c o l l a t e r a l and i l l e g i b i l i t y due t o
small farm s i z e s owned.
The A g r i c u l t u r a l F in a n c e C o r p o r a t i o n
(AFC) r e q u i r e s a minimum o f two h e c t a r e s f o r a farm e r to
q u a lify f o r se a so n a l c r e d it .
Thus,
it
was n o t p o s s i b l e to
determine the e f f e c t o f c r e d i t on f e r t i l i z e r use.
Determinants of fertllzer use.
The r e s u l t s o f th e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s i n d i c a t e d t h a t the
fe rtiliz e r
- m aize p r i c e
r a t i o was the o n l y im p o r t a n t
89
determinant of f e r t i l i z e r use which cut a c ro ss a l l the three
d i s t r i c t s , th o u gh i t was not h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t i n Trans Nzoia
D i s t r i c t . T h is f i n d i n g r e i n f o r c e s the g e n e r a lly accepted notion in
a g r i c u l t u r a l econom ics l i t e r a t u r e that the r e l a t i v e p r o f i t a b i l i t y
of use o f the in p u t w i l l enhance the adoption or use of inp uts or
new te c h n o lo g y .
The study found a stro n g li n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between
f e r t i l i z e r use and t o t a l farm s a l e s in Trans Nzoia d i s t r i c t , a
commercial maize dominant are a. Thus, commercial maize farming i s a
najor determ inant of f e r t i l i z e r use in Kenya.
The o th e r im portant determ inants of f e r t i l i z e r use 'were use of
FYM (« =0.01) i n K i s i i D i s t r i c t ,
land s iz e (« =0.1) in Kakamega
D istric t,
(« =0.1) in T ra ns-N zoia D i s t r i c t
i n i t i a l so il f e r t ilit y
and e x t e n s io n c o n ta c t (« = 0 . 1
and - = 0.01 r e s p e c t iv e ly )
in K i s i i
and T ra n s-N z o ia D i s t r i c t s . The use of Farm Yard Manure a c t s as a
complementary in p u t and th e r e fo r e enhances f e r t i l i z e r use
p a rtic u la rly b a s a l f e r t i l i z e r s .
Land siz e in flu e n c e d the use of
f e r t i l i z e r n e g a t i v e l y i n Kakamega D i s t r i c t at 10 percent le v e l of
s ig n if ic a n c e .
The in v e rse r e l a t i o n s h i p r e f l e c t s a case where the
use of land e x t e n s i v e l y a c ts a s a su b stitu te f o r f e r t i l i z e r s . The
inherent s o i l f e r t i l i t y was i n s i g n i f i c a n t at the 10 percent l e v e l
in K i s i i and Kakamega D i s t r i c t s . S t a t i s t i c a l l y , t h i s means that
the 10 percent l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e there was no lin e a r
r e l a t i o n s h i p between inherent s o i l f e r t i l i t y and rate of f e r t i l i z
use. However, in h e re n t s o i l f e r t i l i t y s i g n i f i c a n t l y influenced
rate of f e r t i l i z e r use i n v e r s e l y at 10 percent l e v e l of
s ig n if ic a n c e i n Trans Nzoia D i s t r i c t .
The in v e r s e r e l a t i o n s h i p
shows t h a t in h e r e n t s o i l f e r t i l i t y reduces the ra te of use of
fe rtiliz e rs .
T h i s i s p la u s i b le because the h ig h e r the f e r t i l i t y
level of the s o i l the l e s s f e r t i l i z e r s are re q u ir e d
90
to enhance f e r t i l i t y
found to i n f l u e n c e
and v i c e
ve rsa .
E x t e n s i o n c o n t a c t s were
the r a t e o f f e r t i l i z e r use p o s i t i v e l y
i n d i c a t i n g t h a t a v a i l i n g i n f o r m a t i o n to f a r m e r s about the
b e n e f it s r e a l i s e d
from f e r t i l i z e r s can enhance i t s use.
In v ie w o f the e x p e c te d f i n d i n g s t h a t h i g h f e r t i l i z e r
price and lo w maize p r i c e
n e g a t i v e l y a f f e c t f e r t i l i z e r use
among s m a l l h o l d e r maize f a r m e r s ,
estim ate o p t i m a l f e r t i l i z e r
price l e v e l s .
However,
i t c o u ld have been u s e f u l to
use l e v e l s f o r d i f f e r e n t maize
such an a n a l y s i s had been done by
M u g u n ie ri ( 1 9 9 7 ) .
5.2 Recommendations
The f i n d i n g s o f t h i s s t u d y in d ic a t e d t h a t a wide range o f
f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c e d the ra te o f f e r t i l i z e r use and t h a t the
im portance o f t h e s e f a c t o r s v a r ie d from p la c e t o p la c e .
th e r e fo r e means t h a t e f f o r t s
c o n s t r a i n t s f a r m e r s fa c e i n
a p p r o p r ia t e
so lu tio n s
f e r t i l i z e r use i s
T h is
shou ld be ta k e n to understand the
the use o f the f e r t i l i z e r s and
s p e c ific
to the r e g i o n implemented i f
to be enhanced. S p e c i f i c a l l y ,
the f o l l o w i n g
recom m endations a re g iv e n ;
a)
R esearch
s h o u ld
a g r o n o m ic
be i n t e n s i f i e d
p ra c tic e s,
i n an e f f o r t to improve
p a rtic u la rly s t r ig a
c o n t r o l b e fo re
a n y a d v a n c e s are made t o fa rm e rs to u se f e r t i l i z e r i n
a ffected
b)
areas.
S i n c e th e
s t u d y r e v e a le d th a t a t the 10 p e rc e n t l e v e l o f
s i g n i f i c a n c e a p a r t from p r i c e s ,
fa ctors
u se ,
is
the
a number o f n o n p ric e
such as e x te n sio n contacts,
fa rm s i z e and FYM
p la y e d a major r o l e i n f e r t i l i z e r
use by fa rm e r s ,
recommended t h a t th e government s h o u l d
it
s t r e n g t h e n the
a g r i c u l t u r a l e x t e n s i o n programme to e n s u r e t h a t the
91
n e c e s s a r y i n f o r m a t i o n on f e r t i l i z e r use i n
th e se f a c t o r s i s
t i m e l y made a v a i l a b l e
o r d e r to i n c r e a s e
I t was a l s o
r e l a t i o n to
t o farm ers in
maize p ro d u c tio n .
r e p o r t e d t h a t the major r e a s o n by farm ers f o r
m a i n t a i n i n g the u s u a l r a t e s of f e r t i l i z e r use, was the
h ig h f e r t i l i z e r c o s t .
o f the f e r t i l i z e r
The f e r t i l i z e r c o s t i s a summation
p u rc h a se p ric e and the t r a n s p o r t a t i o n
co st a farm er in c u rs.
It
was a l s o r e v e a le d th a t the
a v e ra g e d i s t a n c e c o v e re d by farm ers to the f e r t i l i z e r
market i n W e ste rn Kenya was 8.7 km. The s t a t e o f most
ro a d s i n
th e
re g io n i s
im p a s s a b l e d u r i n g
murram which a re
the r a i n y season.
rendered near
It i s
th e r e fo r e
recommended t h a t the road network i n th e d i s t r i c t s sh o u ld
be im p ro v e d i n o r d e r to m inim ise the f e r t i l i z e r
t r a n s p o r t a t i o n c o s t and a l s o e nsure the t im e ly su p p ly o f
fe rtiliz e rs
d)
to the
remote a re a s o f maize p ro d u c tio n ,
S i n c e f a r m e r s c o m p la in e d o f s t r i c t AFC l o a n award
c rite ria
it
is
a s a m ajor r e a s o n f o r non use o f form al c r e d i t ,
recommended t h a t the AFC and o t h e r l e n d in g
in stitu t io n s
c rite ria
s h o u ld r e v i s e t h e i r c r e d i t e l e g i b i l i t y
s o a s to make c r e d i t more a v a i l a b l e to fa rm e rs.
It i s a n tic ip a te d
t h a t t h i s w i l l im prove the l i q u i d i t y
p o s i t i o n o f the f a r m e r s and h o p e f u l l y i n c r e a s e
fe rtiliz e r
s)
use i n maize p ro d u c tio n ,
R e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s on why s t r i g a i s
not a s p r e v a l e n t in
v a l l e y b o tto m s a s opposed to the u p la n d s can e l u c i d a t e
p o ssib le
f)
w ays o f s t r i g a
co n tro l,
The s t u d y h a s shown t h a t f a c t o r s which d e te rm in e the
92
l e v e l o f f e r t i l i z e r use may be s p e c i f i c
th e re i s
and t h e r e fo r e
need to i d e n t i f y the f a c t o r s w h ic h c re a te
c o n s t r a i n t s t o f e r t i l i z e r use f o r each p a r t i c u l a r re g io n
in o r d e r t o f o r m u la t e p o l i c i e s which can overcome them,
g)
F in a lly ,
a lth o u g h t h i s
s t u d y has helped to e x p l a i n the
p a t t e r n s and d e t e r m i n a n t s o f f e r t i l i z e r
has to r e c a l l ,
however,
use i n maize, one
t h a t not a l l a s p e c t s of the
a g r i c u l t u r a l econom ic s y s t e m have been c o n s id e r e d
as l a b o u r ,
to p o g r a p h y ,
recommended t h a t f u t u r e
a d d it io n a l
ra in fa ll).
It i s
(such
therefore
s t u d i e s sh o u ld i n c o r p o r a t e these
f a c t o r s i n o r d e r to f u r t h e r im prove o u r
u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f th e sy s te m o f f e r t i l i z e r use by fa rm e rs.
93
REFERENCES
Ahn, P.M.
1974.
L a b o r a t o r y M anual f o r S o i l A n a l y s i s .
U n i v e r s i t y o f N a iro b i.
A llan, A. Y . ,
1971.
maize y i e l d
"The I n f l u e n c e s o f a gro n o m ic f a c t o r s on
in
W e st e rn Kenya
the tim e o f p l a n t i n g "
Ph.D.
w ith s p e c i a l reference to
T h e s is ,
U n i v e r s i t y o f E a s t e rn
A fr ic a .
Amukoa,
P. M.
1988.
" F e r t i l i z e r P o l i c y i n K e n y a . " IN Workshop
P r o c e e d i n g s on F e r t i l i z e r P o l i c y i n T r o p i c a l A f r i c a .
Lome,
Auer,
L.
T ogo.
and E.
Y ie ld
T e c h n o l o g y to c h a n g e s i n US Corn P ro d u c t io n ,
to 1961.
20.
0. Heady. The C o n t r i b u t i o n o f Weather and
IN W e a the r and o u r Food S u p p ly ,
CAED R e p o rt No.
C e n t r e o f A g r i c u l t u r e and Economic Development.
Baguma, S . D .
and Mose,
L.O.
(Eds).
1991.
"An In f o r m a l S u r v e y
R e p o r t on th e Farm ing S y s t e m s o f Gachoka D i v i s i o n ,
D istric t".
Chege, D.N.
C .M .R .T . R e p o r t ,
19 92.
T h e sis,
An a n a l y s i s o f e x p e r im e n t a l d a t a " .
1980.
F l e t c h e r and S o n s Ltd, Norw ich.
P la n n in g T e c h n o lo gie s A p p ro p ria te
C o n c e p t s and P ro c e d u re s .
fa rm s
Msc.
1968. S t a t i s t i c a l A n a l y s i s : W it h B u s i n e s s and
Econom ic A p p l i c a t i o n s .
J.
le v e ls,
E ge rton U n i v e r s i t y .
U n iv e r s it y of N a iro b i.
Chou, Y a - L u n .
Dayanatha,
Embu
"O p tim a l F e r t i l i z e r Use Recommendations i n
M a iz e P r o d u c t i o n :
CIMMYT.
1939
and R a k e sh ,S .
to Farm ers:
Man G r a p h ic s P r i n t e r s ,
1981.
N a iro b i.
“ An econom ic a n a l y s i s o f
p a t t e r n s , a n d d e t e r m in a n t s o f f e r t i l i z e r use o f
in
se le c te d
E c o n o m ic s program
re g io n s of
semi a r i d
T ro p ic a l
p r o g r e s s r e p o r t number 25,
In d ia ."
IC R IS A T ,
94
In d ia .
D e sa i,
G.M.
and S i n g h ,
G.
d i s t r i c t s o f In d ia .
CMA, I n d i a n
D la m in i,
S.- M.
1973. Growth o f f e r t i l i z e r use i n
Performance and p o l i c y i m p l i c a t i o n s .
In stitu te
1993.
o f Management, New D e h li,
In d ia .
“F a c t o r s a s s o c ia t e d w it h the adop tion o f
b a s a l f e r t i l i z e r s among Swazi N a tio n Land Farmers" IN
M w angi, W . , R ohrbach,
G ra in
D. and H e ise y ,
P. eds.
1993. C e re a l
P o l i c y A n a l y s i s i n the N a t i o n a l A g r i c u l t u r a l
R e s e a r c h S y s t e m s o f E a s t e r n and S o u t h e r n A f r i c a ,
A d d i s A baba. CIMMYT SA DC /ICRISA T.
CA0.
1979.
F e r t i l i z e r D i s t r i b u t i o n and C r e d i t Schemes f o r
S m a l l S c a l e Farm ers.
■ AO.
F e r t iliz e r b u lle tin ,
1985. G u id e f o r F e r t i l i z e r r e t a i l e r s ,
a d v iso ry ,
F e rtiliz e r
Developm ent and In f o r m a t io n Network f o r A s i a
and A f r i c a
Feder,
Rome.
(FANINDA),
G. and O ’Mara, G.T.
Bangkok.
1981.
"Farm s i z e and the d i f f u s i o n
o f G re e n R e v o l u t i o n T e c h n o lo g y ".
Econom ic Development and
C u l t u r a l Change. V o l 30 no.1 p p : 5 9 - 7 6 .
FURP
(1994).
F e r t i l i z e r use
D istric ts.
G erhart,
J.D .
K e n y a ".
G la d w in ,
C.
recom m endations. V a r i o u s
N a iro b i.
1974.
" D i f f u s i o n o f maize h y b r i d i n w estern
Ph. D. T h e s i s ,
1976.
Princetow n U n i v e r s i t y .
"A V ie w o f Plan P ue bla :
h i e r a r c h a l D e c i s i o n M od e ls".
58 ( 5 )
H assan,
R.
An A p p l i c a t i o n o f
A m e r i c a n J. o f Aaric_.— Ecqp .l.
:8 8 1 -8 8 7 .
Lynam, J. and
Gkoth,P.
1994a.
" S p a tia l
S a m p l i n g and D e s ig n o f the maize f a r m e r s and v i l l a g e
le v e l
su rv e ys".
U n p u b lish e d , k a r i , N a i r o b i .
95
-iassan,
R. C o r b e t t ,
referenced
J. and Njoroge,
K. 1994b.
* Combining Geo-
su rv e y d ata w ith a g r o c lim a t e a t t r i b u t e s to
c h a r a c t e r i s e maize p r o d u c t io n system s i n Kenya."
U n p u b l i s h e d . KARI, N a i r o b i
I.F .D .C .
1979.
J a e tzo ld ,
R.
Kenya:
F e r t i l i z e r manual. Muscle S h o a l s , Alabama.
and Schm idt,
R.
Kenya:
IIA .
and Schm idt,
Farm Management Handbook of
N a ir o b i,
H.
1983.
Kenya.
Farm Management Handbook of
N a t u r a l c o n d i t i o n s and farm management
i n f o r m a t i o n , V o l.
J a y a n a th a ,
1982.
N a t u r a l c o n d i t i o n s and farm management
i n f o r m a t i o n , V o l.
J a e tzo ld ,
H.
J.
IIB .
and B e h ja t,
N a iro b i,
H.
s m a l l h o l d e r farm s i n
Kenya.
1993." F e r t i l i z e r use on
E a st e rn p ro v in c e ,
r e p o r t number 9 4 , I F P R I , W ashington,
Kmenta, J.
1986.
Elem ents o f E conom etrics.
M a c M illa n P u b lish in g
M a n sfie ld ,
E.
Zambia" .Research
D.C.
2"° e d it io n .
Co., New York.
1990. S t a t i s t i c s f o r B u s i n e s s and Economics:
M e th o d s and A p p l i c a t i o n s .
4 n ed. M u rra y P r i n t i n g co.
New
York.
M a rfo ,
K. and T rip p , R.
d iffu sio n
i n Ghana: Some p r e l i m i n a r y
presented for
T a n z a n ia .
MQALD,
" A stud y o f maize te c h n o lo g y
re su lts".
A paper
CAS IN /SAA/GLOBAL 20 0 0 w orksh op. A ru s h a ,
May 15-17,
1991.
1986. A n nua l R e p o rt : W estern P r o v in c e . N a i r o b i .
M u g u n ie ri,
G.
L. 1 9 9 7 . " Econom ics o f f e r t i l i z e r use
among s m a l l h o l d e r maize fa rm e rs i n K i s i i D i s t r i c t " .
T h e sis,
M u rith i,
F.M.
U n iv e r s it y o f N a iro b i.
and S h i l u l i ,
M.C.
1993.
"E f fe c t s of
Msc.
96
l i b e r a l i s a t i o n o f f e r t i l i z e r m arkets on the
d i s t r i b u t i o n o f f e r t i l i z e r on food c r o p p ro d u c t io n : A
s t u d y on Embu and Meru d i s t r i c t s o f Kenya IN Mwangi, w;
R ohrbach,
D; and H e i s e y ,
A n a ly sis in
P .(e d s).
C e re a l G r a in P o l i c y
the A g r i c u l t u r a l R e se a rc h S y s t e m s o f
E aste rn and So u th e rn A f r i c a .
Muturi, W.M.
19 89.
" F a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g the use o f F e r t i l i z e r s
among S m a l l h o l d e r f a r m e r s . A ca se o f M u r a n g ’a
d ist ric t.
Mwangi, W.M.
M.A. T h e s i s ,
1978.
U n iv e r s it y of N a iro b i.
"Farm L e v e l D e riv e d Demand R e sp o n se s f o r
F e r t i l i z e r i n K e n ya ".
Ph.D.
T h e s is ,
M ic h ig a n Sta te
U n iv e rsity .
Mwangi, W . , R o h r b a c h ,
D. and H e ise y ,
G ra in P o l i c y A n a ly s i s i n
P. e d s.
1993. C e re a l
the N a t i o n a l A g r i c u l t u r a l
R e s e a r c h S y s t e m s o f E a s t e r n and S o u t h e r n A f r i c a ,
A d d is Ababa.
Ongaro, W. A.
CIMMYT S A D C / IC R IS A T .
1988.
" A d o p t i o n o f New Farm ing Technology. A
Case S t u d y o f M a ize P r o d u c t i o n i n W e st e rn K e n ya ." Ph.D
T h e sis,
Parikh, A.
U n i v e r s i t y o f G o th e rn b u rg .
19 90.
C o u n trie s:
The E c o n o m ic s o f F e r t i l i z e r Use i n D e v e lo p in g
A Case S t u d y f o r B a n g la d e sh .
Gower
P u b l i s h i n g co. H a n ts.
Pindyck,
R.s.
Econom ic
and R u b i n f e l d ,
Fo recasts.
D .L.
1981.
2 na e d i t i o n .
E c o n o m e tric M odels and
M c G r a w - H ill Book Co.
New Y o r k .
P in stru p -A n d e rso n ,
P.
1982. A g r i c u l t u r a l R e s e a r c h and
T e c h n o l o g y i n Economic Developm ent.
L im it e d ,
London.
Longman Group
97
Republic o f K e nya .
Growth.
1986.
S e ssio n a l
Economic Management f o r Renewed
paper number 1. Government p r i n t e r ,
N a iro b i.
Republic o f K e nya.
S ta tistic s,
1990. C r o p s fo c u s s u r v e y .
N a iro b i.
R ep ublic o f K e nya.
1991. S t a t i s t i c a l A b s t r a c t .
of S t a t i s t i c s ,
R e p u b lic o f Kenya.
R e p u b lic o f Kenya.
1994a. N a t i o n a l Food P o l i c y .
and Seetharam an,
4™ .
S.
N a iro b i.
N a iro b i.
1977. Handbook on F e r t i l i z e r
M.
1 9 9 0 . " F e r t i l i z e r and seed
r e q u i r e m e n t s i n Kenya from 1981 -82 to
War Id bank
H a n s.
1985.
I n n o v a t i o n P o l i c y F o r S m a ll Farmers i n
The Econom ics o f T e c h n i c a l
A g r i c u l t u r a l Development.
Press,
Salaam, A.
1 9 9 0 -9 1 ". A
w o rk in g p a p e r .
the T r o p i c s :
fo r
In n o v a t i o n s
O xford u n i v e r s i t y
New York.
1975.
in flu e n c in g
" S o c io - e c o n o m ic and I n s t i t u t i o n a l F a c t o r s
F e r t i l i z e r use i n Punjab
(P a k ista n )"
P a k i s t a n Developm ent R e vie w v o l 14 no.
Shaw,
L. H. and D u r o s t , D.D.
1965.
1.
"The e f f e c t of y i e l d and
t e c h n o l o g y on c o r n y i e l d s i n the c o r n b e l t ,
1 9 6 2 ".
Agricultural
W a sh in g to n
S h ilu li,
1994-
e d i t i o n . Shaheed P ra k a sh a n p r e s s , New D e h l i .
Ruigu, G. M. and S c h u l t e r ,
Ruthenberg,
S e ssio n a l
1994b. N a t i o n a l Developm ent Plan,
1996. G overnm ent p r i n t e r ,
U sage.
C e n t r a l Bureau
N a iro b i.
paper number 2. Government p r i n t e r ,
Roy, R.N.
C e n t r a l Bureau o f
M.C.
1992.
DC.
1929-
E c o n o mics r e p o r t number 80.
IN
IFDC,
1979.
USDA^.
F e r t i l i z e r manual.
"M a iz e / B e a n s Farming S y st e m o f S a b o t i and
98
C herangani D i v i s i o n s ,
T r a n s N zoia D i s t r i c t :
In f o r m a l S u r v e y R e p o r t " .
C.M .R.T. R e p o rt,
An
E gerton
U n iv e rsity .
Sindhu, S . ,
and B aa nan te A.
C . , 1979.
M e xica n W h e at v a r i e t i e s
A m e ric a n J .
of A g ric .
“Farm l e v e l demand f o r
i n the In d ia n P u n ja b ".
Econ.
61 (3 ) : 4 5 5 -4 6 2 .
99
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Computations for One-way Analysis of Variance for effect of
location on fertilizer use (figu-es are in kg of nutrients).
K isii
Kakamega
T ra n s N zoia
32
27.5
61 .3
36
60.3
79.9
53.5
19.3
80
80
4 1 .8
4 0 .0
36.5
19.3
112.5
80
0
96 .3
32
13.8
0
32
61 .0
66 .3
3.3
0
80.0
24
4.5
80.0
1 9 .3
0
29.0
16
25.8
76.3
23.3
32
160.3
31
0
2 5 0 .0
33.5
0
133.0
45.5
106.8
0.0
17
12.8
139.3
1 9 .5
29.3
112.5
26.5
0
112.5
42.8
80
135.0
20.3
0
21 .5
20.3
0
190.0
100
37.5
0
132.0
1 0 .5
0
87
8
0
112.5
16
0
18.5
16
0
5 7 .5
16.1
40
112.5
28.4
0
3 2 .3
2.5
40
16.3
44.5
112.8
3 2 .5
32.5
178.5
112.5
1 1 4 .8
195
0 .0
61 .8
122.5
80 .0
9.5
175.5
112.5
95.5
I-----------------------------------38.8
2 1 7 .5
157.3
145
142.0
11 .3
106.8
9 5 .3
32
156.8
107.3
41
148.8
2 6 .3
Total
1341
2173.4
3490
Mean
35.5
54 .3
87.3
28 9417.2
4 2 3 5 4 5 .4
Ex2
68049.7
S
24.3
66 .3
5 5 .2
s2
590.5
4 3 9 5 .7
3047
The f o l l o w i n g
s t e p s were f o llo w e d :
a ) C a l c u l a t i o n o f the mean rate o f f e r t i l i z e r use f o r
each d i s t r i c t .
101
G e n e r a l l y mean i s g i v e n a s
L
Thus f o r K i s i i ,
I
(D
mean = 1341/40 = 35 .5;
2 1 7 3 .4 / 4 0 = 5 4 . 3
and T ra n s N z o ia ,
b) C a l c u l a t e
Kakamega,
mean =
mean = 3490/40 = 8 7 .3
the Grand Mean i s g i v e n by;
j
1341.0 - 2173.4 +3490.0
"
40(3)
rc
58.4,.....(2)
where r= number o f o b s e r v a t i o n s per sam ple,
and c =
number o f s a m p le s .
c)
E s t i m a t i o n o f the v a r i a n c e from the v a r ia n c e between
the means o r c o lu m n s.
a2 -
°x
- r
E (*r*> 2
X j,
X,
c-1
•(3)
whe r e ;
are the sam p le o r column mean,
r,
c;
the grand mean,
the number o f
o b s e r v a t i o n s i n each sample and the number o f sam ples
re sp e c tiv e ly .
From e q u a t i o n
( 3 ), a 2 = [ { ( 3 5 . 5 - 5 8 . 4 ) 2 + ( 5 4 . 3 - 4 8 . 4 )
+ (87.3-
102
38.4 ) 2} * 4 0 ]/ 2 = 2 7 5 2 8 . 6
d) E s t i m a t i o n o f p o p u l a t i o n v a r ia n c e fro m w it h i n the
samples o r c o lu m n s .
r he i n d i v i d u a l d i s t r i c t ’s p o p u l a t i o n v a r i a n c e i s estim ated
thus:
For K i s i i ,
......<0
which i s
e q u a l to:
((32-35.5 )2 +
( 3 6 .0 - 3 5 . 5 ) 2 + . . . +
( 3 2 . 0 - 3 5 . 5 ) 2 + (4 1 .0 -
3 5 .5 ) / ( 4 0 - 1 ) = 590.5
For Kakamega,
--(5)
&
sf-E
which i s
((27.5
e q u a l to :
- 5 4 . 3 ) 2 + (60.3 - 5 4 . 3 ) 2 + . . . +
1 5 6 . 8 - 5 4 . 3 ) 2 + (1 4 8 .8
5 4 . 3 ) 2) / ( 4 0 - 1 ) = 4 3 9 5 .7
For T r a n s N z o i a
„2
V .L —
which i s
((61.3
n
(6)
e q u a l to :
- 8 7 . 3 ) 2 + (79 .9 - 8 7 . 3 ) 2 + ...
(2 6 .3 -
+
8 7 . 3 ) 2 / ( 4 0 - 1 ) = 3047
The p o p u l a t i o n
in d iv id u a l
+ (10 7.3-87 .3 )
va ria n c e
(<5)2 i s then g iv e n
sa m p le v a r i a n c e s th u s:
a s the mean of t h e
( s t^ + s 22 + S32)/C = ( 5 9 0 . 5 + 4 3 9 5 .7 + 3 0 4 7 . 0 ) / 3 = 2 6 7 7 . 7
) C a l c u l a t i o n o f the F r a t i o
(V a ria n c e
m e ans)
between sample means/ V a r i a n c e w it h in sample
= ( 2 7 5 2 8 . 6 / 2 6 7 7 . 7 ) = 10.28.
104
Appendix 2.
BA R TLET T TEST FOR H ETER O SCED ASTICIT Y
-^ocedure
1. E s t i m a t e
ng
for each g r o u p o f o b s e r v a t i o n s g
= 1 , 2 , . . . G.
S 2. i s a
c o n s i s t e n t e s t i m a t e o f a 2g
2. C a l c u l a t e t h e
t e s t s t a t i s t i c S:
S -(M o g (£
.V^Ios^J/l .(1 / 3 (« -1 ))(£
fltiere: N = O b s e r v a t i o n s a v a i l a b l e f o r
±~
1).
r e g r e s s i o n model.
Ng = Number o f o b s e r v a t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the g ' n g ro u p
Yg
- M e a n o f the sample values o f Y within the g ^ group.
(a) Bartlett test for Kisii District’s Data (kg nutrients/ha).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
5.
7.
3.
9.
10.
n
Keumbu
32.0
36.0
53.5
80.0
36.5
80.0
32.0
32.0
3.3
24.0
Nvamache
19.3
16.0
23.3
31.0
33.5
45.5
17.0
19.5
26.5
42.8
519.7
U n d e r the
sta tistic
1045.8
90.5
99.9
S = - 8 35
n u l l h y p o t h e s i s t h a t o 21 i s c o n s t a n t , th e t e s t
S w ill
f o l l o w the c h i - s q u a r e d i s t r i b u t i o n w it h 3
degrees o f fr e e d o m
percent l e v e l o f
square i s
7.81.
Oaembo
44.5
32.5
114.8
6 1 .8
8.5
95.5
3 8 .8
11.3
32.0
41.0
Nvacheki
20.3
2 0 .3
3 7 .5
10.5
8.0
16.0
16.0
16.1
28.4
2.5
(Number o f g r o u p s m inus 1 ). A t the 5
sig n ific a n c e ,
Thus, we f a i l
the c r i t i c a l
v a l u e of the c h i -
t o r e j e c t the n u l l
h y p o th e sis o f
h o m o s c e d a s t i c i t y a t the 5 p e r c e n t l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e .
105
(b) Bartlett test for Kakamega District’s Data (kg nutrients/ha).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Mumias
27.5
60. 3
1 9 .3
41.6
1 9 .3
0.0
13 .6
61.0
0.0
4.5
S h in v a lu
0 .0
2 5 .8
3 2 .0
0 .0
0 .0
108.8
12.8
29.3
0 .0
80.0
Khw isero
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
.40.0
0.0
40.0
Lukuvani
112.8
178.5
195.0
122.5
175.5
217.5
145.0
106.8
156.8
148.8
1177.2
256.0
1261.5
S = - 3.93
S i n c e th e c a lc u la t e d S i s l e s s than the c r i t i c a l va
( 7 . 8 1 ) , the n u l l h y p o t h e s is o f c o n s t a n t v a r i a n c e i s not
^ r e je c t e d a t th e 5 percent l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e .
S 2.
3 4 8 .8
§ Bartlett test for Trans Nzoia District’s Data (kg nutrients/ha>
KaDomboi
S ir e n d e
Mateket
Moto I & I I
32.5
2
1
.5
2
9
.0
1.
61.3
112.5
190.0
7 6 .3
79.8
2.
0.0
132.0
160.3
80.0
3.
80.0
8
7
.0
25
0
.0
4
40.0
112.5
112.5
133.0
1 1 2 .5
5.
157.3
18.5
0.0
6.
96.3
142.0
57 .5
139.3
7.
0.0
95.3
112.5
112.5
8.
66.3
107.3
32 .3
112.5
80.0
9.
26.3
16.3
135.0
10.
80.0
2401.9
3 0 9 7 .0
4372.2
S 2g
878.2
S = - 2.62
Lik e i n (a ) and (b) above, the c a l c u l a t e d S 'was l e s s than
c r i t i c a l v a l u e 7 .8 1 ,
h o m o sc e d a stic ity i s
sig n ific a n c e .
hence the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s of
not r e je c te d a t the 5 p e rc e n t l e v e l of
106
Appendix 3: Questionnaire
E C O N O M IC S OF FERTILIZER U SE AM O NG SM A LLH O LDER MAIZE
F A R M E R S IN KENYA
Enum erator’ s
Name............................... D a t e ....................
1. Farm Identification
D istric t
................................
D iv isio n
..............
Farm Number ..........................................
2. Farmer Identification
2.1 F a r m e r ’ s Name ...................................
S e x ............
E d u c a t i o n l e v e l .................................
2 .2 S i z e o f
fa m ily
........................................
3. Farm characteristics
3.1
S iz e
o f farm .......................................( h a )
3.2
C r o p E n t e r p r i s e s on the farm ( 1 9 9 5 ) .
E n te rp rise
1
2
3
4
---- 1
Purpose
A cres
Output/
T o t a l v a lu e
a c re
(K sh )
107
3.3
L iv e sto c k e n te rp rise s
(1 9 9 5 )
L iv e sto c k
Number of
Output /
T o t a l Value
ty p e
a n im a ls
anim al
( K s h .)
1
2
3
4
5
3.4
(i)
Do yo u have la n d t i t l e
y o u r e c e iv e i t ?
(ii)
d e e d ? Yes/No.
I f Yes,
when d i d
................. ( s t a t e y e a r ).
Of th e f o l l o w i n g farm m achinery w hich o n e ( s ) do you
ow n?
. ...
T ractor
sprayer
( T ic k as
a p p ro p ria te )
3 .5 .
S p e c i f y o f f - f a r m a c t i v i t i e s the fa rm e r i s i n v o l v e d i n
(if
3.6
any)
(i)
...................................................
(ii)
...................................................
(iii)
..................................................
M a ize O u t p u t In f o r m a t io n :
( i ) W hat was p r o d u c t i o n l a s t y e a r ? .............. b ags
( i i ) What was the area under maize l a s t y e a r ?
....
(iii)
.K sh / b a g
W hat was the p r i c e o f maize l a s t
year ?
ha
108
4. Reid History
4.1
F o r m aize grown i n
1995 i n d i c a t e
s i z e o f each f i e l d
hi
field
1
...................................................................
2
4 .2
.............................................
4
.............................................
A r e the
If
4.3
3
f i e l d s owned o r r e n t e d ? I f owned, go to 4.3.
ren ted,
What a c t i v i t i e s
fie ld s
F ie ld
1
go t o 4.9.
f o r th e l a s t 3 y e a r s ?
1St
1S t
2nd
3
1St
2nd
4
1994
S e a so n
2nd
2
have you been u n d e r t a k i n g on th e se
1st
2nd
-
1993
1992
109
4.4.
D id
you use f e r t i l i z e r i n these M l z , f l # l d l u , t
If
yes,
F ie ld
7
in d ic a te .
Season
Type
Q uan tity
(Kfl)
1
1st
2nd
2
1S t
2nd
r
3
1st
2nd
4
1 st
2nd
4.5.
D id
If
you a p p l y o r g a n i c manure on these f i e l d s l a s t year ?
yes,
sp e c ify ;
F ie ld
1
Season
1s t
2nd
2
1st
2nd
3
1 st
2nd
---------------------------4
1 st
2nd
Type
Quantity
110
4.6
When d id y o u f i r s t
use f e r t i l i z e r on m a iz e ?
..
(ye ar).
Have you s i n c e i n c r e a s e d / r e d u c e d / m a in t a in e d the
fe rtiliz e r
If
r a te u s e d ? ( T i c k a s a p p r o p r i a t e )
red u c e d / in c re a se d / m a in ta in e d ,
state
reasons
4.7. Have you u n d e r t a k e n a n y o t h e r c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t y on these
fie ld s i.e .
I f Yes,
te rra c in g ,
lim in g ,
etc?
Y/N
sp e c ify ;
A c tiv ity
F ie ld
Reason
1
2
3
4
4.8. S p e c i f y a n y o t h e r
4 .9
S p e c if y the
problem you e n c o u n t e r on the se f i e l d s ,
y e a r s you have rented t h i s
fie ld
111
4. 10 W h at c r o p s have you been g ro w in g on t h i s
F ie ld
Y e a r s ren te d
season
fie ld
C r o p s grown
1
2
3
4
4.11 D id
you a p p l y f e r t i l i z e r on t h i s f i e l d
( a p p l i c a b l e o n ly i f
ta b le
F ie ld
1
2
3
4
re n te d l a s t y e a r ),
l a s t y e a r ? Y/N
if
yes, s p e c i f y i n
b e lo w
Season
F e r t i l i z e r type
Q u a n tity
112
4.12
D id
you u se o r g a n i c manure on t h i s f i e l d
( a p p lic a b le o n ly i f
th e
ta b le
F ie ld
re n te d l a s t y e a r ) ,
l a s t y e a r ? Y/N
if
ye s s p e c i f y i n
below;
S e a so n
1
Manure ty p e
Q u a n tity
•
2
3
4
4 .1 3
W hat p ro b le m s have you e x p e rie n c e d on t h e s e rented
fie ld s;
5.
Information o n maize production
5.1 W h ich m a iz e v a r i e t y
F ie ld
1
2
3
4
(ie s)
do you grow ?
V a rie ty
(ie s)
113
5.2
Do you g r o w pure sta n d o r i n t e r c r o p ?
If
in te rc ro p ,
s p e c ify
F ie ld
Type of i n t e r c r o p
hectareage(of
in te r-c ro p p e d a re a )
1
2
3
4
5.3
D id
you u se f e r t i l i z e r f o r p l a n t i n g ?
s p e c ify in
Y / N.
If
yes,
the t a b l e below:
Type o f f e r t i l i z e r used i n p l a n t i n g .
F ie ld
1
F e r t i l i z e r Type
source
p u rc h a se
d
s to c k e d
C o st o f f e r t i l i z e r
Time a p p l i e d
Amount a p p l i e d
Method of a p p l i c a t i o n
2
3
4
114
I f N,
g iv e
r e a s o n s f o r not u s i n g :
( I ) ................................................................................................
( i i ) ...................................................
( i i i ) .................................................
(iv )
5.4
..................................................
D id
If
F ie ld
you use O r g a n ic m anure? Y/N
ye s,
sp e c ify
Type
1
2
3
4
Q u a n t it y
115
5.5
Top d r e s s i n g :
(I)
(ii)
F ie ld
Do yo u t o p d r e s s ? Y/N
If
yes sp e c ify :
F e rtiliz e r
C o st of
Amount o f
u se d
F e rtiliz e r.
fe rtiliz e r
used
1
2
3
4
(iii)
(ie
(iv )
W h ich method d id you use i n f e r t i l i z e r T o p - d r e s s i n g ?
b a n d in g ,
Why d i d
a lo n g the rows,
b ro a d c a stin g ,
o th e rs-sp e c ify )
you use the method you have mentioned i n
above?
tic k
-It
i s the recommended method
-It
i s la b o u r sa vin g
- a n y o t h e r r e a so n ( s p e c i f y )
(iii)
116
6.
Fertilizer use biformation:
6 .1
Do you a p p l y f e r t i l i z e r to o t h e r c r o p s on the fa rm ?
Y/N
c ro p
fe r tiliz e r
ty p e
6.2
If
source
Reason f o r
a p p ly in g
y o u d o n ’t a p p ly f e r t i l i z e r to a l l c ro p s ,
y o u r reasons f o r a p p ly in g o r not a p p lyin g
what a r e
117
6 . 3 F e r t i l i z e r source
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
D i s t a n c e fro m farm
(km)
C o o p e ra t iv e
Local S to c k ist
KGGCU
M idd le m e n a t Farmgate
(N e ig h b o u rs)
Open M a rk e t
O ther
(sp e c ify )
6 . 4 What i s
the s t a t e o f the road
ta rmac/ mu r ra m / o th e r( s p e c i f y ) ...............................
(tic k
one a p p l i c a b l e )
6 . 5 How much fa re do you pay from here t o where you
purchase
f e r t i l i z e r ? ....................................
118
6 .6
What i s
the t r a n s p o r t c o s t f o r f e r t i l i z e r from your
p u rc h a sin g c e n tre ?
F e rtiliz e r
s p e c i f y i n th e t a b l e below;
bag s i z e ( K g )
C o st o f t r a n s p o r t
10
25
50
other
6.7
Of the
f e r t i l i z e r p a c k a g in g s i z e s ,
w h ic h one do you
p r e f e r t o buy?
T j< ?k
10Kg
.................
25Kg
.................
50 Kg
.................
a n y o t h e r ( s p e c i f y ) .............................................
6 .8
Is the
"rig h t"
package s i z e
n o rm a lly a v a ila b le ?
Yes/No
6 . 9 G iv e
6.10
r e a s o n s f o r y o u r answ er i n g above;
Have you e v e r g o t c r e d i t to p u rc h a s e f e r t i l i z e r ?
Yes/No
I f Yes,
when? ............................
s o u r c e ............................
r a t e o f i n t e r e s t ............................
119
I f No,
If
why?
No, what are y o u r so u r c e s o f f i n a n c e f o r maize
p r o d u c t io n i n p u t s such a s f e r t i l i z e r :
Crop s a l e s ...............
L iv e sto c k
s a l e s .......
O f f - f a r m a c t i v i t i e s ..............
O t h e r .....................
(sp e c ify )
6 .1 1
How f a r i s
i t from your home to the n e a re st
m a rk e t c e n t r e where th e re i s a bank o r AFC?
......................................................... Km.
6 . 12 W hat was the p r i c e o f f e r t i l i z e r t h i s season ?
F ill
ta b le as a p p ro p ria te .
Type of f e r t i l i z e r
F e r t i l i z e r bag
siz e
C o s t o f the f e r t i l i z e r
120
7.
W h at c o n s t r a i n t s do you face in f e r t i l i z e r use on m a ize ?
Constraint
(I)
Rank eg 1.2.3.etc
F e r t i l i z e r n o t a v a i l a b l e .................
(ii)
R i g h t f e r t i l i z e r package u n a v a i l a b l e .................
(iii)
(iv )
H i g h p r i c e o f f e r t i l i z e r ........................
La ck o f c r e d i t ...............................
( v ) W e a th e r not g o o d .............................
(v i)
Low p r i c e o f m a iz e .................................
(v ii)
S o i l f e r t i l i t y a d e q u a te .................
(v iii)
(ix )
Labour a v a i l a b i l i t y
....................
O thers
( s p e c i f y ) ..............................................................
8 . H ave you e v e r r e c e iv e d e x t e n s i o n a d v ic e on maize
p ro d u c tio n ?
If
yes,
Y e s / N o ........................
s p e c i f y below;
Advice received
la n d
Year and Season
p r e p a r a t i o n m ethod.................
type o f
seed t o
use.
................
..............
................
t y p e o f f e r t i l i z e r to use
in
p la n tin g
.................
................
..............
................
to p -d re ssin g .
..............
................
p la n t
..............
..................
q u a n tity of f e r t i l i z e r
to u s e .
fe rtiliz e r
to u se i n
sp a c in g
haikobi
UNivnwfT*
KA1ETE
library
121
any o t h e r
9
..............
..................
Manure Treatment
How do you t r e a t FYM b e fo re a p p l i c a t i o n i n the f i e l d ?
.................... a p p l i e d
d ecom p ose
fre sh
................ heaped o u t o f boma to
before a p p lic a t io n
..............c o n t i n u o u s heaping u n t i l
tim e o f a p p l i c a t i o n ................. d i r e c t d r o p p in g i n f i e l d by
liv e sto c k
10
If
you had l i m i t e d
grow c o u ld
them )
11
............. o t h e r .
to which o f the c ro p s you
you a p p l y th e f e r t i l i z e r t o ? ....................
and g i v e
If
fe rtiliz e r,
(lis t
r e a s o n s f o r y o u r c h o i c e ........................
you had l i m i t e d c a sh ,
where c o u ld you i n v e s t i t i n ?
...........P u r c h a s e o f P f e r t i l i z e r
...........P u r c h a s e o f N f e r t i l i z e r
...........P u r c h a s e o f e i t h e r o f the above
...........P u r c h a s e o f h y b r id M a iz e seed
...........P u r c h a s e o f o t h e r a g r o c h e m i c a ls eg p e s t i c i d e s f o r
sta lk
12
b o r e r and ro d e n t c o n t r o l
Maize marketing ^formation
fa rm e r has so ld
12.1
(to be answered whether
maize o r n o t ) .
What w as the p r i c e o f one bag o f m a iz e ? ................
122
12.2
In d ic a te
where you have been s e l l i n g
y o u r maize i n the
y e a r s i n d i c a t e d below;
1991
D ista n c e
1993
1992
1994
1995
o f m a rk e t
u s e d fr o m home f o r
re s p e c tiv e years
N .C .P.B .
L o c a l m arke t
M id d le m e n a t
farm gate
c o o p e ra tiv e
O ther
If
C o o p e ra tiv e ,
Do th e y o f f e r you c r e d i t to buy
f e r t i l i z e r ? Y e s /No.
f e r t i l i z e r or cash ?
12.3
If
yes,
do t h e y g i v e you
....................................
How do y o u t r a n s p o r t y o u r maize to the m arke t?
....... T r a c t o r / T r u c k ;
.......... C a rt/ d o n k e y ;
........... Head ; ...................... Other.
..........B i c y c l e
123
1 2 .4 S t a t e ,
if
any, problems you face when marketing maize
( i ) ................................................. .
( i i ) ...................................................
( i i i ) ..................................................
«W »B>
g^ftETE