An Analysis on Factors Determining Maize Production among Small Scale Farmers in Chongwe District, Zambia
Authors/Creators
Description
Despite subsidies, many farmers struggle to afford fertilizers and seeds due to inflated input costs driven by market inefficiencies. Logistical and supply chain challenges further disadvantage smallholders. FISP supplies smallholder farmers with agricultural inputs at a price they cannot afford. The main objective of the study was to analyze factors determining the level of maize production among small-scale farmers in the Chongwe district in Zambia. This was a case study. The interview method of collecting data involves the presentation of oral-verbal stimuli and replies in terms of oral-verbal responses. This method was used through personal interviews. Both structured and unstructured questions will be administered to the respondents. The questions were open and flexible so as to allow greater opportunity for an individual. 100 farmers were interviewed. The results reveal a clear pattern linking technology intensity to productivity. Farmers using traditional hand tools predominantly reported lower yields, with 50% producing less than 1 tonne and the remaining 50% producing 1–2 tonnes. Those employing ox-drawn ploughs achieved slightly higher output, with 50% producing 1–2 tonnes and 50% producing 2–4 tonnes. Farmers using small tractors demonstrated increased productivity, where 75% produced 2–4 tonnes and 25% produced above 4 tonnes. Notably, all farmers using mechanized tractors with modern equipment produced above 4 tonnes, highlighting the impact of advanced technology on yield. Respondents emphasized the role of technology in their own words: “With the plough, I can prepare the land faster, and my maize grows better than with hand tools,” and another stated, “The tractor allows me to plant more hectares and harvest more maize, which I could never do by hand.” The chi-square test (χ² = 137.500, p < 0.001) confirms a statistically significant association between technology type and maize production. These findings indicate that the adoption of modern farming technologies is strongly correlated with higher maize yields, illustrating that technological variations are a critical determinant of production levels among small-scale farmers in Chongwe District. The study investigated how fertilizer use influences maize production among small-scale farmers in Chongwe District. The correlation analysis shows a strong positive relationship (r = 0.951, p < 0.01) between the type and use of fertilizers and annual maize production, indicating that farmers who apply fertilizers—whether chemical, organic, or a combination—tend to achieve higher yields. Respondents highlighted their experiences: “When I use both chemical and organic fertilizers, my maize grows healthier, and I harvest more than when I don’t use any,” reflecting the practical impact of fertilizer application on productivity. The analysis examined how different technological practices affect maize production and the resulting income among small-scale farmers in Chongwe District. The study assessed the use of irrigation among small-scale maize farmers in Chongwe District as part of technological variations impacting production. Arising from the same, the study recommends granting farmers capital to mechanize their farming, as this will increase crop production. The distribution of prices shows that 70% of farmers earn less than 9 kwacha per kilogram, which may limit their ability to accumulate savings or reinvest in production. This pricing pattern suggests that income levels for most farmers are highly dependent on prevailing market conditions, reinforcing the vulnerability of small-scale maize growers to price fluctuations. Based on this, the recommendation is that farmers need capitalization and this has to be done using minimal lending rates from financiers.
Keywords: Production, Labour, Capital, Market
Files
ABSTRACT JESTONE MHANGO sn.pdf
Files
(504.7 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:2f86a4f015b082666ed822f06c4c2291
|
504.7 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Dates
- Accepted
-
2026-03-02AGRICULTURE
References
- Anderson, J. R., & Feder, G. (2007). Agricultural extension services: Good intentions and hard realities. World Bank Research Observer, 22(1), 41–60. Banda, J. (2020). Governance challenges in Zambia's Farmer Input Support Programme. Public Policy Review, 18(3), 212-233. Chirwa, E., & Dorward, A. (2013). Agricultural input subsidies: The recent Malawi experience. Oxford University Press. Dorward, A., et al. (2004). Smallholder farming and poverty reduction. Agricultural Economics, 41(1), 135-152. Deininger, K. (2003). Land policies for growth and poverty reduction. World Bank Policy Research Report. Feder, G., & Umali, D. L. (1993). The adoption of agricultural innovations: A review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 43(3), 215-239.Conceptual Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2014). State of food and agriculture: Innovation in family farming. Rome: FAO. FAO, (2018) Smallholder Farmers and Market Access in Africa: Case Studies from Zambia and Malawi. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2021). Enhancing agricultural extension systems in developing countries. Rome, Italy: FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2006) Building on Gender, Agrobiodiversity and Local Knowledge: A Training Manual. Rome, Italy: FAO. International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). (2019). Promoting access to credit for smallholder farmers. Rome, Italy: IFAD. Kaoma, J. (2023). The Farmer Input Support Programme in Zambia: Governance and its implications for smallholder productivity. Journal of African Agricultural Studies, 12(2), 67–85. Mason, N. M., Jayne, T. S., & Mofya-Mukuka, R. (2016). Zambia's input subsidy programs. Agricultural Economics, 47(6), 661-674. Mapanje, S. K., et al. (2023). Small-scale agricultural financing in Zambia: Solutions and strategies. Development Policy Review, 41(1), e12532. Ministry of Agriculture (Zambia). (2020). Annual agricultural report 2020. Lusaka: Government Printer. Mulenga, B. P., & Hichaambwa, M. (2020). Agricultural financing challenges in Zambia. Zambian Journal of Agricultural Research, 15(4), 134-145. Pingali, P. L. (2007). Agricultural mechanization: Adoption patterns and economic impact. Outlook on Agriculture, 36(3), 167–176. Pretty, J., et al. (2001). Sustainable agriculture: Lessons for the future. Outlook on Agriculture, 30(1), 63–72. Pretty, J. (2008). Agricultural sustainability. Agricultural Ecosystems, 32(2), 44–55. Sitko, N. J., & Jayne, T. S. (2014). Exploitative relationships between traders and smallholder farmers: Evidence from Zambia. World Development, 61, 196-209. Sitko and Jayne (2014) "Land Tenure Insecurity and Its Implications for Agricultural Investment in Zambia" African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 9(3), 2 Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis. IDS Working Paper, 72. Tembo, G., et al. (2019). Traditional farming practices in Zambia: Implications for policy and development. African Development Review, 31(2), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2018). Advancing climate-smart agriculture: A global initiative. New York, NY: UNDP. Wiggins, S., & Keats, S. (2013). Smallholder agriculture's contribution to food security and nutrition. ODI Agricultural Studies. World Bank. (2019). Rural road infrastructure in sub-Saharan Africa: Challenges and opportunities. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. (2020). Investing in education for agricultural development. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Zambia Statistical Agency. (2014). Zambia Agriculture Report 2014. Lusaka: Government of Zambia