DATA ANALYSIS PRESENTATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS
This chapter provides an analysis, presentation, interpretation and discussion of the results for the study on factors influencing maize production of small scale farmers of Kwanza Sub County. The main subheadings are; costs of maize production, demographic characteristics and maize production, extension services and maize production and credit accessibility and maize production.
The study sample was 202 subjects, all of which were small scale, maize farmers. According to Frankel and Wallen (2004), a response rate of above 95% of the respondent can adequately represent the study sample and offer adequate information for the study analysis and thus, conclusion and recommendations.
4.3 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
This section looked at the gender, age and education level of the respondents.
Respondents were asked to indicate their gender and. The results were presented in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1: Gender Distribution of the Respondents
| Gender | Frequency | Percentage |
| Male | 104 | 51.50 |
| Female | 98 | 48.50 |
| Total | 202 | 100 |
Table 4.1 showed that 104 (51.5%) of the 202 respondents were men, while 98 (48.5%) were women. Part of the reason for male dominance in the study is their higher time availability to participate in the study. Additionally, most females shied off from the interviews, referring the researcher to the males who are regarded as the household head and the ‘owners’ of the farms.
The study sought to estimate the range of Age of the small scale farmers involved in maize production. The results are shown in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2: Age distribution of the respondents
| Age bracket | Frequency | Percentage |
| 18 – 20 | 5 | 2.48 |
| 20 – 30 | 29 | 14.36 |
| 30 – 40 | 58 | 28.70 |
| 40 – 50 | 53 | 26.24 |
| 50 – 60 | 34 | 16.83 |
| 60 – 70 | 20 | 9.9 |
| Above 70 | 3 | 1.49 |
| Total | 202 | 100 |
It was found that 2.48% were between 18 – 20 years old, 14.36% were between 20 – 30 years old, 28.70% were between 30 – 40 years old, 26.24% were between 40 – 50 years old, 16.83% were between 50 – 60 years old, 9.9% were between 60 – 70 years old, and 1.49% were above 70 years old. The majority of the farmers were between 30 and 60 years. These findings showed that young people are better placed in the adoption of new technologies than older adults.
4.3.3 Respondents by education level
The respondents were asked to indicate their level of education they had attained. The findings are shown in Table 4.3
Table 4.3: Education Level of the respondents
| Educational level | Frequency | Percentage |
| Primary | 46 | 22.77 |
| Secondary | 76 | 37.62 |
| College | 53 | 26.24 |
| University | 19 | 9.41 |
| Postgraduate | 8 | 3.96 |
| Total | 202 | 100 |
The Table shows that 22.77% of the farmers had attained primary school education, 37.62% of the farmers had attained secondary school education, 26.24% of the farmers had attained college level education, of the farmers had attained university level education 9.41% of the farmers had attained post graduate level education and 3.96% . The study revealed that majority of the farmers had attained basic up to college level education.
4.4 Costs of production and maize production
This section attempts to look at the extent to which cost of inputs influences maize production among small scale farmers and presents the responses to various items, their frequency and percentages.
The respondents were asked to indicate sources of power on their farms. Table 4.5 shows various sources of power that farmers use on their farms.
| Type of labour | Frequency | Percentage |
| Unpaid family labour | 81 | 40.10 |
| Hired manual labour | 25 | 12.38 |
| Animal draught power | 76 | 37.62 |
| Mechanical power | 20 | 9.90 |
| Total | 202 | 100 |
From the Table 4.5, the study revealed that 40.10% of the respondents used unpaid family labour; followed by 37.62% that used animal draught power 12.38% used hired manual labour and only 9.90% used mechanical power in maize production. These findings showed that most farmers used unpaid family labour and animal draught power.
4.4.2 Modern methods of farming
The respondents were asked to indicate if they used or had heard of irrigation, minimum tillage, dry planting, use of herbicides and use government subsidized fertilizer. The findings are shown in Table 4.6.
Table 4.6: Modern methods of farming
| Frequency | Percentage | |||
| Yes | No | Yes | No | |
| I carry out irrigation at times | 74 | 128 | 36.63 | 63.37 |
| I practice minimum tillage | 71 | 129 | 27.72 | 63.86 |
| You have heard of dry planting | 146 | 56 | 72.28 | 27.72 |
| I practice dry planting | 52 | 150 | 25.70 | 74.30 |
| I have heard of herbicides | 180 | 22 | 89.11 | 10.89 |
| I use government subsidized fertilizer | 96 | 106 | 47.52 | 52.48 |
| Total | 202 | 100 | ||
From the Table 4.6, only 36.63% of the farmers used irrigation on their farms at times while 63.37% did not, only 27.72% used minimum tillage while 63.86% did not, 72.28% had heard of dry planting while 27.72 did not, only 25.70% practiced dry planting while 74.30% did not, 89.11% had heard of herbicides while 10.89% had never heard of herbicides and 47.52% used government subsidized fertilizer and 52.48% did not use it. These findings showed that a good number of farmers did not use government subsidized fertilizer, did not practice dry planting, did not practice minimum tillage neither did they irrigate their crops. This showed that most farmers do not use modern technologies in crop production.
4.4.3 Costs of maize production.
The respondents were asked to indicate if they had knowledge on minimum tillage and fertilizer use in maize production and use of herbicides in lowering cost of producing maize. The findings are shown in Table 4.7.
| Likert scale | Frequency | Percentage |
| Strongly agree | 154 | 76.24 |
| Agree | 38 | 18.81 |
| Uncertain | 4 | 1.98 |
| Disagree | 4 | 1.98 |
| Strongly disagree | 2 | 0.99 |
| Total | 202 | 100 |
From Table 4.7, 76.24% and 18.81% of the farmers strongly agreed and agreed respectively that minimum tillage lowers the cost of maize production. This showed that farmers are knowledgeable about minimum tillage as a modern technique in farming that saves costs in land preparation and weeding.
The respondents were asked to indicate if they had knowledge on fertilizer use in maize production. The findings are shown in Table 4.8
| Likert scale | Frequency | Percentage |
| Strongly agree | 159 | 78.71 |
| Agree | 38 | 18.81 |
| Uncertain | 3 | 1.49 |
| Disagree | 0 | 0 |
| Strongly disagree | 2 | 0.99 |
| Total | 202 | 100 |
From Table 4.8, 78.71% of the farmers strongly agreed that fertilizer use increase returns from maize production. These findings showed that farmers were aware of the importance of using fertilizer in maize production and that when adequate amounts are applied, yields are increased.
The respondents were asked to indicate if they had knowledge on use of herbicides in the lowering cost of producing maize. The findings are shown in Table 4.9.
| Likert scale | Frequency | Percentage |
| Strongly agree | 155 | 76.73 |
| Agree | 37 | 18.32 |
| Uncertain | 5 | 2.48 |
| Disagree | 2 | 0.99 |
| Strongly disagree | 3 | 1.48 |
| Total | 202 | 100 |
From table 4.9, 76.73% of the farmers strongly agreed that use of herbicides lower the cost of maize production. These findings showed that farmers were knowledgeable on the importance of using herbicides as an alternative and a cheaper way of ploughing a farm or weeding maize.
Respondents were asked to indicate the most costly input in maize production. The findings are shown in Table 4.10.
Table 4.10: The most costly input
| Input | Frequency | Percentage |
| Land preparation | 28 | 13.86 |
| Planting | 1 | 0.49 |
| Fertilizer acquisition | 164 | 81.19 |
| Seed acquisition | 7 | 3.47 |
| Weeding | 2 | 0.99 |
| Total | 202 | 100 |
From Table 4.10, 81.19% of the farmers indicated that fertilizer acquisition is the most costly input in maize production followed by 13.86% of the farmers that cited land preparation. This showed that most farmers still cannot afford fertilizer due to high prices despite government subsidized fertilizer being available. Also this might mean that that access to the subsidized fertilizer is low.
4.5 Demographic characteristics and maize production.
This section shows which age, level of education that can easily adopt new technology in maize production and how the sex of the household and farm size influence fertilizer use on the farm.
Respondents were asked to indicate the age bracket that easily adopts new technology. The findings are shown in Table 4.11.
Table 4.11: Age and new technology
| Age Bracket | Frequency | Percentage |
| 20 – 30 years | 154 | 76.24 |
| 30 – 40 years | 44 | 21.78 |
| 40 – 50 years | 3 | 1.49 |
| 50 – 60 years | 1 | 0.49 |
| Total | 202 | 100 |
From Table 4.11, 76.24% of the farmers indicated that the age bracket of 20 – 30 easily adopts new technology followed by 21.78% of Age between 30 and 40, 1.49% suggest 40 – 50, 0.49% say 50 – 60 and none suggests above 60 years. These findings showed that young people are better placed in adoption of new technologies than old people.
4.5.2 Education level and new technology
Respondents were asked to indicate the education level that easily adopts new technology.
The findings are shown in Table 4.12.
Table 4.12: Education level and new technology
| Education level | Frequency | Percentage |
| Primary | 2 | 0.99 |
| Secondary | 7 | 3.47 |
| College | 11 | 5.44 |
| University | 27 | 13.37 |
| Post graduate | 155 | 76.73 |
| Total | 202 | 100 |
From Table 4.12, it shows that 76.73% of the respondents said that farmers with post graduate level of education can easily adopt new technology, followed by 13.37% that said farmers with university level of education can easily adopt new technology. The results showed that farmers with either university or post graduate level of education easily adopt new technology unlike the ones with less education levels.
In this section respondents were asked to indicate if male headed households and larger farm sizes apply more fertilizer.
Respondents were asked to indicate if male headed household apply more fertilizer than their female counterparts. The findings are shown in Table 4.13.
Table 4.13: Male headed households and fertilizer application
| Likert scale | Frequency | Percentage |
| Strongly agree | 57 | 28.22 |
| Agree | 72 | 35.64 |
| Uncertain | 40 | 19.80 |
| Disagree | 15 | 7.43 |
| Strongly disagree | 18 | 8.91 |
| Total | 202 | 100 |
From Table 4.13, it showed that more than half of the respondents agreed that male headed households apply more fertilizer than their female counterparts and 19.80% were uncertain. These results showed that male headed households apply more fertilizer than their female counterparts. This could be due to the fact that men are more mobile and seek information more than women on agricultural issues.
Respondents were asked to indicate if farmers with larger farm sizes apply more fertilizer than their female counterparts. The findings are shown in Table 4.14.
Tables 4.14: Farm size and fertilizer application
| Likert scale | Frequency | Percentage |
| Strongly agree | 97 | 48.02 |
| Agree | 71 | 35.15 |
| Uncertain | 22 | 10.89 |
| Disagree | 2 | 0.99 |
| Strongly disagree | 10 | 4.95 |
| Total | 202 | 100 |
From Table 4.14, 35.15% and 48.02% agreed and strongly agreed respectively that farmers with larger farm sizes apply more fertilizer than those with small farms accounting for 83.17% of the respondents. These findings showed that farmers with larger farm sizes apply more fertilizer than those with small farm sizes. Cultivation of large farm sizes makes it more economical for farmers to apply fertilizers. Also, the larger the size of farm cultivated and therefore output produced, the more commercialized the farm would be.
4.6 Agricultural extension services and maize production
This section shows the responses of respondents regarding access to extension services, belonging to farmer groups and soil testing.
4.6.1 Attendance of field days
Respondents were asked to indicate if they attend field days. The findings are shown in Table 4.15.
Table 4.15: Attendance of field days
| Frequency | Percentage | |
| Yes | 64 | 31.68 |
| No | 138 | 68.32 |
| Total | 202 | 100 |
From Table 4.15, 68.32% do not attend field days while 31.68% do attend. This showed that most farmers do not attend field days. Visits by extension agents to farmers and participation of the latter in field days, tours, agricultural shows or seminars are cost effective ways of reaching out with new maize technology. This explained why there were low adoption rates of new methods of farming in the Sub County.
4.6.2 The last field day attended
Respondents were asked to indicate if the last field day they had attended. The findings are shown in Table 4.16.
Table 4.16: The last field day attended
| Frequency | Percentage | |
| Within the last half year | 42 | 20.79 |
| Within the last one year | 15 | 7.42 |
| Within the last two years | 7 | 3.47 |
| Total | 64 | 31.68 |
From Table 4.16, of those that admitted attending a field day, 20.79% had attended within the last half year, 7.42% within the last one year and 3.47% within the last two years. This showed that the number of farmers attending field days is increasing over the last two years but at a very slow pace. Visits by extension agents to farmers and participation of the latter in field days, tours, agricultural shows or seminars are cost effective ways of reaching out with new maize technology. This explained why there were low adoption rates of new methods of farming in the Sub County. Unraveling the reasons for low technology adoption among farmers requires that the factors that influence their decisions to adopt or not to adopt modern agricultural production technologies be identified.
4.6.3 Extension visits and soil testing
Respondents were asked to indicate if they had been visited by extension officers on their farms or as a farmer group and if they had ever heard of soil testing or had tested their soils. The findings are shown in Table 4.17.
Table 4.17: Extension visits and soil testing
| Frequency | Percentage | |
| Yes No | Yes No | |
| Your farm or farmer group has been visited by an extension officer. | 92 110 | 45.54 54.46 |
| You have ever heard of soil testing or tested your soil. | 77 125 | 38.12 61.88 |
| Total | 202 | 100 |
From Table 4.17, 54.46% of the respondents had never been visited by extension officer on their farms or in a farmer group while 45.54 had been visited. The results showed that most farmers had never been visited by agricultural extension officers. From this Table the results showed visits both on the farm and in farmer groups. In farmer groups more farmers are always reached than individual visits. 61.88% of the respondents had never heard or tested their soils while 38.12% have had heard or tested their soils. The results indicated that most of the farmers had never heard nor tested their soils. Therefore farmers that test their soils are in a better position to increase maize production on their farms.
4.6.4 Importance of extension services
Respondents were asked to indicate if extension services play a significant role in influencing the use of fertilizer. The findings are shown in Table 4.18.
Table 4.18: Importance of extension services
| Frequency | Percentage | |
| Strongly agree | 158 | 78.21 |
| Agree | 36 | 17.82 |
| Uncertain | 5 | 2.48 |
| Disagree | 2 | 0.99 |
| Strongly disagree | 1 | 0.5 |
| Total | 202 | 100 |
From Table 4.18, 78.22% strongly agreed and 17.82% agreed that extension visits play a significant role in influencing the use of fertilizer. The results indicated that most farmers are aware of the importance of agricultural extension visits to their farms.
4.6.5 Improved agricultural practices
Respondents were asked to indicate if farmers who adopt improved agricultural services realize higher yields. The findings are shown in Table 4.19.
Table 4.19: Improved agricultural practices
| Frequency | Percentage | |
| Strongly agree | 169 | 83.66 |
| Agree | 30 | 14.85 |
| Uncertain | 2 | 0.99 |
| Disagree | 0 | 0 |
| Strongly disagree | 1 | 0.5 |
| Total | 202 | 100 |
From Table 4.19, almost all farmers 98.51% agreed that farmers who adopt improved agricultural practices realize higher yields. The findings showed that almost all farmers agree to the fact that farmers who adopt improved agricultural practices realize higher yields.
4.6.6 Availability of arable land
Respondents were asked to indicate if with limited availability of arable land, increase in maize yields can only be achieved using modern technologies. The findings are shown in Table 4.20.
Table 4.20: Availability of arable land
| Likert scale | Frequency | Percentage |
| Strongly agree | 169 | 83.66 |
| Agree | 30 | 14.85 |
| Uncertain | 5 | 2.48 |
| Disagree | 0 | 0 |
| Strongly disagree | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 202 | 100 |
From Table 4.20, 98.51% agreed that given limited availability of arable land, increase in maize yields can only be achieved using modern technologies. These findings showed that farmers are aware of the need for modern farming methods in order to improve their maize yields, given the small farm sizes they have.
4.6.7 Agricultural Extension Officers
Respondents were asked to indicate if extension workers can help farmers calculate their farm inputs, identify where to buy inputs, organize group transport of their produce, to obtain credit and to save money to buy farm inputs for following season. The findings are shown in Table 4.21.
Table 4.21: Agricultural Extension Officers
| Frequency | Percentage | |
| Yes No | Yes No | |
| Calculate their farm input needs | 194 8 | 96.04 3.96 |
| Identify where to buy their inputs | 190 12 | 94.06 5.94 |
| Organize group transport | 189 13 | 93.56 6.44 |
| Obtain credit | 184 18 | 91.09 8.91 |
| Save | 192 10 | 95.05 4.95 |
| Total | 202 | 100 |
From Table 4.21, 96.04% of the farmers agreed that agricultural extension officers can help farmers calculate their farm inputs, 94.06% agreed that agricultural extension officers can help farmers identify where to buy inputs, 93.06% agreed that agricultural extension officers can help farmers organize group transport of their produce, 91.09% agreed that agricultural extension officers can assist farmers to obtain credit and lastly 95.05% agreed that agricultural extension officers can assist farmers to save money to buy farm inputs for following season or expand their enterprises.
4.7 Credit accessibility and maize production
Respondents were asked to indicate whether they had once received credit from a financial institution or not. The findings are shown in Table 4.22.
Table 4.22: Those who had ever received credit
| Frequency | Percentage | |
| Yes | 23 | 11.39 |
| No | 179 | 88.61 |
| Total | 202 | 100 |
From Table 4.22, 88.61% respondents had never received credit from a financial institution while only 11.39% had ever received credit. The responses showed that generally farmers do not access credit services for their farms. This could be lack of information, fear of defaulting to repay the loan or lack of collateral.
Respondents were asked to indicate if they had once received credit from a financial institution or not. The findings are shown in Table 4.23.
Table 4.23: Last credit obtained
| Frequency | Percentage | |
| Within the last one year | 16 | 7.92 |
| Within the last two years | 5 | 2.48 |
| Within the last three years | 1 | 0.5 |
| Four years and above | 1 | 0.5 |
| Total | 23 | 11.4 |
From Table 4.23, out of 11.40% of the farmers that had ever received credit, only 7.92% had obtained within the last one year. These findings showed that the percentage of farmers receiving credit is negligible. These findings explained why most farmers in the Sub County do not adopt modern technologies and why they do not commercialize their agricultural enterprises.
Respondents were asked to indicate if they belonged to an active farmer group. The findings are shown in Table 4.24.
| Frequency | Percentage | |
| Yes | 64 | 31.68 |
| No | 138 | 68.32 |
| Total | 202 | 100 |
From the Table 4.24, 68.32% of the farmers did not belong to an active farmer group or cooperative while 31.68% did. These findings showed that most farmers do not have or belong to active farmer groups. These findings explained why most farmers find it hard to access credit.
4.7.4 National and county governments
Respondents were asked to indicate if the National and County governments can help farmers easily access affordable credit. The findings are shown in Table 4.25.
Table 4.25: National and county governments
| Frequency | Percentage | |
| Yes | 182 | 90.10 |
| No | 20 | 9.90 |
| Total | 202 | 100 |
From Table 4.25, 90.1% of farmers believed that the county and national governments could assist them to easily access affordable credit while only 9.9% did not think so. These findings showed that both the National and County governments have a vital role to play in assisting small scale farmers to easily access affordable credit.
4.7.5: Access to credit and the decision to use inorganic fertilizer
Respondents were asked to indicate if access to credit influences the decision to use inorganic fertilizer. The findings are shown in Table 4.26.
Table 4.26: Access to credit and the decision to use inorganic fertilizer
| Frequency | Percentage | |
| Strongly agree | 96 | 47.52 |
| Agree | 68 | 33.66 |
| Uncertain | 33 | 16.34 |
| Disagree | 4 | 1.98 |
| Strongly disagree | 1 | 0.50 |
| Total | 202 | 100 |
From Table 4.26, 47.52% of the farmers strongly agreed that access to credit influences the decision to use inorganic fertilizer, 33.66% agreed, 16.34% were uncertain, 1.98% disagreed, while 0.50% strongly disagreed. The results showed that access to credit influences the decision to use inorganic fertilizer.
Respondents were asked to indicate if barter arrangements with input suppliers can help farmers exchange their maize or other crops for required inputs. The findings are shown in Table 4.27.
Table 4.27: Barter arrangements
| Frequency | Percentage | |
| Strongly agree | 92 | 45.54 |
| Agree | 87 | 43.07 |
| Uncertain | 21 | 10.40 |
| Disagree | 2 | 0.99 |
| Strongly disagree | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 202 | 100 |
From Table 4.27, 45.54% and 43.07% strongly agreed and agreed respectively that farmers could have barter arrangements for their produce in exchange for inputs from suppliers. These findings showed that barter arrangements can assist farmers obtain inputs in time and lead to early planting of maize.
Respondents were asked to indicate if farmer associations can assist in the supply of inputs and credit to individual association members, market their produce through a collective marketing mechanism. The findings are shown in Table 4.28.
| Frequency | Percentage | |
| Agree | 84 | 41.58 |
| Uncertain | 8 | 3.96 |
| Disagree | 0 | 0 |
| Strongly disagree | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 202 | 100 |
From Table 4.28, 54.46% strongly agreed, 41.58% agreed that farmer associations can assist in the supply of inputs and credit to individual association members, market their produce through a collective marketing mechanism, while 3.96% were uncertain. These findings showed that farmer associations can assist in the supply of inputs and credit to individual association members, market their produce through a collective marketing mechanism.
Respondents were asked to indicate if saving surplus cash at harvest time can be used to purchase inputs for the following season. The findings are shown in Table 4.29.
Table 4.29: Saving surplus cash
| Frequency | Percentage | |
| Strongly agree | 104 | 51.48 |
| Agree | 80 | 39.60 |
| Uncertain | 16 | 7.92 |
| Disagree | 1 | 0.5 |
| Strongly Disagree | 1 | 0.5 |
| Total | 202 | 100 |
From Table 4.29, 51.48% and 39.60% of the respondents strongly agreed and agreed respectively that saving surplus cash at harvest time can be used to purchase inputs for the following season. 7.92% were uncertain and 0.5% for both strongly disagreed and disagreed. These results showed that farmers agree to the fact that saving cash at harvest time can be used to purchase inputs for the following season. This showed that agricultural extension agents play an important role in attaining food security.
The respondents were asked to indicate if perennial maize shortage in the Sub County would be a thing of the past if small scale farmers are given incentives to increase production. The findings are shown in Table 4.30.
| Frequency | Percentage | |
| Strongly agree | 116 | 57.12 |
| Agree | 67 | 33.17 |
| Uncertain | 17 | 8.41 |
| Disagree | 1 | 0.5 |
| Strongly disagree | 1 | 0.5 |
| Total | 202 | 100 |
From Table 4.30, 57.42% and 33.17% of the respondents strongly agreed and agreed respectively that perennial maize shortage in the Sub County would be a thing of the past if small scale farmers were given incentives to increase production, while 8.41% were uncertain. From this Table most small scale farmers still require incentives to attain food security in the Sub County.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter is organized into the following subheadings: summary of the study, conclusions of the study, recommendations of the study and suggestions for further studies in line with the research questions.
The study sought to investigate factors influencing maize production among small scale farmers of Bungoma Central Sub County with an aim of suggesting correcting measures so as to improve maize yield to attain food security and improve income levels among households. In this sub section the researcher outlines summary of findings based on objectives of the study.
The researcher sought to investigate the extent to which cost of inputs influences maize production among small scale farmers. As pertains sources of power on their farms, 40.10% of the respondents used unpaid family labour; followed by 37.62% used animal draught power, 12.38% used hired manual labour and only 9.90% used mechanical power in maize production. The study showed that most farmers used unpaid family labour and animal draught power. Only 36.63% of the farmers used irrigation on their farms at times while 63.37% did not, only 27.72% used minimum tillage while 63.86% did not, 72.28% had heard of dry planting while 27.72 did not, only 25.70% practiced dry planting while 74.30% did not, 89.11% had heard of herbicides while 10.89% had never heard of herbicides and 47.52% used government subsidized fertilizer and 52.48% did not use it. These findings showed that a good number of farmers did not use government subsidized fertilizer, did not practice dry planting, did not practice minimum tillage neither did they irrigate their crops. This showed that most farmers do not use modern technologies in crop production. On modern technologies; over 95% of the farmers agreed that minimum tillage lowers the cost of maize production. This showed that farmers are knowledgeable about minimum tillage as a modern technique in farming that saves costs in land preparation and weeding. 78.71% of the farmers strongly agreed that fertilizer use increase returns from maize production. This showed that farmers were aware of the importance of using fertilizer in maize production and that when adequate amounts are applied, yields are increased. 76.73% of the farmers strongly agreed that use of herbicides lower the cost of maize production. This indicated that farmers were knowledgeable on the importance of using herbicides as an alternative and a cheaper way of ploughing a farm or weeding maize. Over 80% of the farmers indicated that fertilizer acquisition is the most costly input in maize production followed by 13.86% of the farmers that cited land preparation. This showed that most farmers still cannot afford fertilizer due to high prices despite government subsidized fertilizer being available.
Concerning the age bracket that easily adopts new technology, 76.24% of the farmers indicated that the age bracket of 20 – 30 easily adopts new technology followed by 21.78% of Age between 30 and 40, 1.49% suggest 40 – 50, 0.49% say 50 – 60 and none suggests above 60 years. These findings showed that young people are better placed in adoption of new technologies than old people. On the education level that easily adopts new technology, 76.73% of the respondents said that farmers with post graduate level of education can easily adopt new technology, followed by 13.37% that said farmers with university level of education can easily adopt new technology. The results showed that farmers with either university or post graduate level of education easily adopt new technology unlike the ones with less education levels. To the respondents, male headed household apply more fertilizer than their female counterparts. More than half of the respondents agreed that male headed households apply more fertilizer than their female counterparts. These results showed that male headed households apply more fertilizer than their female counterparts. This could be due to the fact that men are more mobile and seek information more than women on agricultural issues. On farm size, over 80% agreed that farmers with larger farm sizes apply more fertilizer than their female counterparts. These findings showed that farmers with larger farm sizes apply more fertilizer than those with small farm sizes. Cultivation of large farm sizes makes it more economical for farmers to apply fertilizers. Also, the larger the size of farm cultivated and therefore output produced, the more commercialized the farm would be.
On attendance of field days, 68.32% did not attend field days .This showed that most farmers do not attend field days. On when the last field day they had attended, 20.79% had attended within the last half year, 7.42% within the last one year and 3.47% within the last two years. This showed that the number of farmers attending field days is increasing over the last two years but at a very slow pace. On extension visits, 54.46% of the respondents had never been visited by extension officer on their farms or in a farmer group. The results showed that most farmers had never been visited by agricultural extension officers. On the role of extension services, over 90% agreed that extension visits play a significant role in influencing the use of fertilizer. The results indicated that most farmers are aware of the importance of agricultural extension visits to their farms. On farmers adoption of improved agricultural services, almost all farmers; 98.51% agreed that farmers who adopt improved agricultural practices realize higher yields. The findings showed that almost all farmers agree to the fact that farmers who adopt improved agricultural practices realize higher yields. Also over 90% of the respondents agreed that extension workers can help farmers calculate their farm inputs, identify where to buy inputs, organize group transport of their produce, to obtain credit and lastly to save money to buy farm inputs for following season or expand their enterprises. This showed that farmers understand the importance of agricultural extension services not only in maize but crop production in general.
The study also established that, 88.61% respondents had never received credit from a financial institution. The responses showed that generally farmers do not access credit services for their farms. Also on membership to farmer groups, 68.32% of the farmers did not belong to an active farmer groups or cooperatives. This could be lack of information, fear of defaulting to repay the loan or lack of collateral. These findings showed that the percentage of farmers receiving credit is negligible. These findings explained why most farmers in the Sub County do not adopt modern technologies and why they do not commercialize their agricultural enterprises. Over 90% of farmers believed that the county and national governments could assist them to easily access affordable credit and over 80% agreed that access to credit influences the decision to use inorganic fertilizer. On barter arrangements, over 78% agreed that barter arrangements with suppliers can help them get inputs from suppliers. These findings showed that barter arrangements can assist farmers obtain inputs in time and lead to early planting of maize. Concerning farmer associations over 90% agreed that farmer associations can assist in the supply of inputs and credit to individual association members, market their produce through a collective marketing mechanism, while 3.96% were uncertain. These findings showed that farmer associations can assist in the supply of inputs and credit to individual association members, market their produce through a collective marketing mechanism. On saving surplus cash at harvest time over 90% respondents agreed that saving surplus cash at harvest time can be used to purchase inputs for the following season. Over 80% of the respondents agreed that perennial maize shortage in the Sub County would be a thing of the past if small scale farmers were given incentives to increase production. These findings showed that most small scale farmers still require incentives to attain food security in the Sub County.
The researcher sought to investigate the extent to which cost of inputs influence maize production among small scale farmers. The study showed that most farmers used unpaid family labour and animal draught power, a good number of farmers did not use government subsidized fertilizer, did not practice dry planting, did not practice minimum tillage neither did they irrigate their crops. Although most farmers are aware of the importance of minimum tillage which lowers the cost of maize production, they did not practice it on their farms. Therefore it was concluded that adoption of modern farming methods is still very low in the Sub County, leading to low maize yields. Most farmers agreed that fertilizer use increase returns from maize production. This showed that farmers were aware of the importance of using fertilizer in maize production and that when adequate amounts are applied, yields are increased. Fertilizer acquisition remains the most costly input in maize production followed by land preparation. This showed that most farmers still cannot afford fertilizer due to high prices despite government subsidized fertilizer being available leading to low maize yields.
Concerning the age bracket that easily adopts new technology, most farmers indicated that the age bracket of 20 – 30 easily adopts new technology followed by the Age between 30 and 40 and none suggested above 60 years. These findings showed that young people are better placed in adoption of new technologies than old people. On the education level that easily adopts new technology; most respondents said that farmers with post graduate level of education can easily adopt new technology, followed by those with university level of education. The results showed that farmers with either university or post graduate level of education easily adopt new technology unlike the ones with less education levels. More than half of the respondents agreed that male headed households apply more fertilizer than their female counterparts. Therefore it was concluded that male headed households apply more fertilizer than their female counterparts. This could be due to the fact that men are more mobile and seek information more than women on agricultural issues. On farm size, most respondents agreed that farmers with larger farm sizes apply more fertilizer than their female counterparts. These findings showed that farmers with larger farm sizes apply more fertilizer than those with small farm sizes. Cultivation of large farm sizes makes it more economical for farmers to apply fertilizers. Also, the larger the size of farm cultivated and therefore output produced, the more commercialized the farm would be. Therefore it was concluded that small farm sizes limit commercialization of maize production in the Sub County.
On attendance of field days, the findings showed that most farmers do not attend field days. It was concluded that either field days are not held regularly or they are never properly publicized or the ones held were not relevant to the farmer’s needs. On extension visits, most of the respondents had never been visited by an extension officer on their farms or in a farmer group. This could be due to few agricultural extension officers, or less facilitation or incompetence on the part of the officers. Also farmers may not be seeking the services of the extension officers. On the role of extension services, almost all respondents agreed that extension visits play a significant role in influencing the use of fertilizer. The results indicated that most farmers are aware of the importance of agricultural extension visits to their farms. The findings also showed that almost all farmers agree to the fact that farmers who adopt improved agricultural practices realize higher yields. Also most respondents agreed that extension workers can help farmers calculate their farm inputs, identify where to buy inputs, organize group transport of their produce, to obtain credit and lastly to save money to buy farm inputs for following season or expand their enterprises. Given that access to agricultural extension services is low, this has limited adoption of new farming methods and consequently contributed to low maize production.
The study also established that, most respondents had never received credit from a financial institution. The responses showed that generally farmers do not access credit services for their farms. This could be due to lack of information, fear of defaulting to repay the loan or lack of collateral. Also on membership to farmer groups, most farmers did not belong to an active farmer group or cooperative. These findings explained why the percentage of farmers receiving credit is negligible. These findings explained why most farmers in the Sub County do not adopt modern technologies and why they do not commercialize their agricultural enterprises. It also became clear that farmers believe that the county and national governments could assist them to easily access affordable credit and that access to credit influences the decision to use inorganic fertilizer. Most respondents agreed that barter arrangements with suppliers can help them get inputs from suppliers. These can assist farmers obtain inputs in time and lead to early planting of maize. Most respondents agreed that farmer associations can assist in the supply of inputs and credit to individual association members, market their produce through a collective marketing mechanism. These findings showed that farmer associations can assist in the supply of inputs and credit to individual association members, market their produce through a collective marketing mechanism. On saving surplus cash at harvest time most respondents agreed that saving surplus cash at harvest time can be used to purchase inputs for the following season. Most of the respondents agreed that perennial maize shortage in the Sub County would be a thing of the past if small scale farmers were given incentives to increase production. These findings showed that most small scale farmers do not access credit, therefore limiting the use of inorganic fertilizer, adoption of modern farming methods and commercialization of agricultural enterprises.
Farmers should use mechanical power that is faster and more efficient than unpaid family labour and animal draught power. Farmers should use government subsidized fertilizer that is cheaper than buying from commercial shops, this will enable them to apply adequate amounts of fertilizer that will lead to increase in maize yields. Also farmers should practice dry planting and practice minimum tillage, this will increase maize yield and lower the cost of producing maize.
Young people should be encouraged to fully embrace maize farming given that they are better placed in adoption of new technologies than old people. Also deliberate efforts have to be made by both county and national governments to lure people with university education and post graduate levels into maize farming given that farmers with either university or post graduate level of education easily adopt new technologies unlike the ones with lesser education levels. Female headed households should be encouraged to seek more information fertilizer application rates given that male headed households apply more fertilizer than their female counterparts.
National and county governments should come up with the minimum land size that should be sub divided in order to have larger farm sizes because the findings showed that farmers with larger farm sizes apply more fertilizer than those with small farm sizes. Also, the larger the size of farm cultivated the more output is produced, the more commercialized the farm would be, leading to increased maize yields.
Agricultural extension officers should hold field days regularly, properly publicize them and they should be relevant to the farmers’ needs especially on modern farming methods to enhance their adoption. County governments should employ adequate agricultural extension officers and facilitate them adequately for them to disseminate agricultural information properly to most farmers through extension visits. Also incompetent agricultural officers should be replaced. Also farmers should be encouraged to seek the services of the extension officers. This will promote adoption of improved agricultural practices and farmers will realize higher maize yields. Also agricultural extension officers should help farmers calculate their farm inputs, identify where to buy inputs, organize group transport of their produce, obtain credit and lastly to save money to buy farm inputs for following season or expand their enterprises. This will lead to commercialization of maize production.
Farmers should form associations to enable them market their produce collectively and help them obtain credit. County and national governments should assist farmers to easily access affordable credit. This will assist farmers to commercialize their agricultural enterprises. Farmers should be encouraged to come up with barter arrangements with suppliers to help them get inputs from them. These can assist farmers obtain inputs in time and lead to early planting of maize. Farmers should be encouraged on saving surplus cash at harvest time to purchase inputs for the following season. County and national governments should give incentives to small scale farmers in order to improve maize production.
5.5 Suggestions for further research
The following areas are recommended for further research;
Since the study was limited to one Sub County, there is need for a replication of this study in other sub counties that might have different situations that can elicit different responses.
Further research on low attendance of field days and extension services in general need to be undertaken to ascertain the underlying causes of low dissemination of information.