• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Copyright
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 List of Figures
 Acronyms and abbreviations
 Acknowledgement
 Executive summary
 Introduction
 Maize research and development...
 Maize production technology...
 Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics...
 Maize production, crop practices,...
 Farmers' adoption/disadoption of...
 Credit extension services for farmers...
 Factors affecting adoption of agricultural...
 Conclusions and recommendation...
 Reference
 Appendix 1






Title: Adoption of mazie production technologies in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania
CITATION PDF VIEWER PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00077539/00001
 Material Information
Title: Adoption of mazie production technologies in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Bisanda, Shekania
Mwangi, Wilfred
Verkuijl, Hugo
Moshi, Alfred J.
Anandajayasekeram, Ponniah
Publisher: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT)
Publication Date: 1998
 Subjects
Subject: Africa   ( lcsh )
Farming   ( lcsh )
Spatial Coverage: Africa -- Tanzania
Africa
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00077539
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: African Studies Collections in the Department of Special Collections and Area Studies, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: isbn - 970-648-013-7

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

SouthHighlTnz ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front cover
    Title Page
        Page i
    Copyright
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
    List of Tables
        Page iv
    List of Figures
        Page v
    Acronyms and abbreviations
        Page vi
    Acknowledgement
        Page vii
    Executive summary
        Page viii
        Page ix
        Page x
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
    Maize research and development in Tanzania and the study area
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
    Maize production technology recommendations
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
    Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of maize farmers in the study area
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
    Maize production, crop practices, and marketing in the Southern Highlands
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
    Farmers' adoption/disadoption of improved maize
        Page 24
        Page 25
    Credit extension services for farmers in the Southern Highlands
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
    Factors affecting adoption of agricultural technologies in the study area
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
    Conclusions and recommendations
        Page 34
        Page 35
    Reference
        Page 36
        Page 37
    Appendix 1
        Page 38
Full Text





Adoption of Maize


Production Technologies


in the Southern


Highlands of Tanzania


Shekania Bisanda,
Wilfred Mwangi,
Hugo VerkuijI,
Alfred J. Moshi,
and Ponniah Anandajayasekeram

October 1998


/ C


S0


I1
CIMMYT
Sustainable
Maize and Wheat
Systems for the Poor


Funded by the
European Union










Adoption of Maize Production


Technologies in the Southern


Highlands of Tanzania





By
Shekania Bisanda,


Wilfred Mwangi,
Hugo Verkuiji,
Alfred J. Moshi,


and Ponniah Anandajayasekeram


October 1998



*Shekania Bisanda is with the Ministry of Agriculture Research and Training Institute, Uyole, Mbeya, Tanzania.
Wilfred Mwangi and Hugo Verkuijl are with the Economics Program of the International Maize and Wheat
Improvement Center and are based in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Alfred J. Moshi is with the Ministry of Agriculture
Research and Training Institute, Ilonga, Tanzania. Ponniah Anandajayasekeram is with the Southern African
Centre for Coordination of Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Training, Gaborone, Botswana.
The views presented in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect policies of their
respective institutions.












CIMMYT is an internationally funded, nonprofit scientific research and training organization. Headquartered in
Mexico, the Center works with agricultural research institutions worldwide to improve the productivity and
sustainability of maize and wheat systems for poor farmers in developing countries. It is one of 16 similar centers
supported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). The CGIAR comprises over
50 partner countries, international and regional organizations, and private foundations. It is co-sponsored by the
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, the International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development (World Bank), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP).

Financial support for CIMMYT's research agenda currently comes from many sources, including governments and
agencies of Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, France,
Germany, India, Iran, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, the
Philippines, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the United Kingdom, Uruguay, and the
USA, along with (among others) Cornell University, the European Union, the Ford Foundation, Grains Research and
Development Corporation, the Inter-American Development Bank, the International Development Research Centre,
International Fund for Agricultural Development, Kellogg Foundation, Leverhulme Trust, Nippon Foundation, OPEC
Fund for International Development, Rockefeller Foundation, Sasakawa Africa Association, Stanford University,
Tropical Agriculture Research Center (Japan), UNDP, University of Wisconsin, and the World Bank.

International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) 1998.

Printed in Mexico.

Correct citation: Bisanda, S., W. Mwangi, H. Verkuijl, A.J. Moshi, and P. Anandajayasekeram. 1998. Adoption
of Maize Production Technologies in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania. Mexico, D.F.: International Maize and
Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), the United Republic of Tanzania, and the Southern Africa Centre for
Cooperation in Agricultural Research (SACCAR).

Abstract: This report of the adoption of maize production technologies in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania
forms part of a larger study to evaluate the impact of maize research and extension throughout Tanzania over the
past 20 years. Using a structured questionnaire, researchers and extension officers interviewed farmers in June
November 1995. Survey data were grouped by agroecological zone: the intermediate zone and highlands. A tobit
analysis was used to analyze factors affecting the adoption of land allocated to improved maize varieties and the
amount of inorganic fertilizer used. The tobit analysis showed that the proportion of land allocated to improved
maize varieties was significantly influenced by zone (intermediate), extension, and numbers of livestock units. The
tobit analysis also showed that farm size, hand hoe use, and farmers' experience were significant factors affecting the
amount of fertilizer used. Future maize research should address the problem of stalk borers, cutworms, and maize
streak virus by developing tolerant varieties, and these new varieties should be developed and promoted through
participatory on-farm research. Extension services should increase their educational contacts with farmers, especially
on topics such as herbicide and oxen use, because appropriate technologies could reduce the labor bottlenecks
confronting farmers during land preparation and weeding. With rising input prices, it becomes increasingly
important to ensure that farmers have access to credit, and policy makers and bankers should seek ways of providing
loans to small-scale maize farmers in ways that will ensure a high rate of loan recovery and low cost of credit. More
information should be provided to farmers about credit schemes, and the requirements for collateral should be
reviewed. Finally, policy makers should continue to encourage and support the private sector to invest in input
acquisition and distribution so that inputs are available when farmers need them.

ISBN: 970-648-013-7
AGROVOC descriptors: Tanzania; Maize; Zea mays; Varieties; Plant production; Seed production; Seed industry;
Production factors; Production economics; Input output analysis; Socioeconomic environment; Development
policies; Marketing policies; Credit policies; Demography; Land resources; Land use; Cultivation; Cropping
patterns; Cropping systems; Crop management; Mechanization; Plant breeding; Drought resistance; Disease
resistance; Pest resistance; Pest control; Weed control; Inorganic fertilizers; Fertilizer application; Herbicides;
Prices; Diffusion of research; Extension activities; Economic analysis; Economic viability; Technology transfer;
Innovation adoption; Small farms; Highlands; Environments; Research projects
Additional keywords: Southern Tanzania; Agroecological zones; CIMMYT; SACCAR; Ministry of Agriculture,
Research and Training Institute; Tobit analysis
AGRIS category codes: E16 Production Economics, E14 Development Economics and Policies
Dewey decimal classification: 338.16










Contents

T ab les ............................................................................................................................ iv
F ig u res ............................................................................................................................ v
Abbreviations and Acronyms ......... ......... ......... ......... ................................................ vi
A cknow ledgm ents .......................................................................................................... vii
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... viii
1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Motivation and Objectives for This Study......................................................................... 1
1.2 T he S tudy A rea .............................................................................. ....................... . 2
1.3 M methodology .................................................................. ....................................... . 3
2.0 Maize Research and Development in Tanzania and the Study Area ............................ 6
2.1 M aize Research in Tanzania ................................................... .................................. 6
2.2 Maize Research in the Southern Highlands.................................................... .............. 7
2.3 The Maize Seed Industry in Tanzania ............................ ...... ................................... 7
3.0 Maize Production Technology Recommendations ...................................................... 9
3.1 Varieties .............................................. ............... 9
3 .2 Planting R ecom m endations ................................................................................. ............... 9
3.3 Fertilizer Type and Time and Method of Application .................................................... 10
3.4 W eed C control .... ............................... .... .... .... .... ....... ............ .. .. 10
3.5 Pest and Disease Control ................................... .......................... .............. 10
3.6 Suggested Sequence of Maize Production T. I. ,_c. Innovations..................................... 11
4.0 Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics of Maize Farmers in the Study Area 12
4.1 Demographic Characteristics ...................... ........................... .................. .......... 12
4.2 Land Resources and Allocation ................................................ .............................. 13
4.3 Livestock Ownership .................... ... ..... ............ 13
4.4 Farm M echanization ...... ................................................. .............................. 14
5.0 Maize Production, Crop Practices, and Marketing in the Southern Highlands .......... 15
5.1 Crops and Cropping Systems ................................................................... ........... 15
5.2 M aize Crop M anagem ent Practices ................................................................ ......... ..... 15
5.3 Maize H i ii,. Transportation, and Storage ................... ................... ............... 21
5.4 Maize Seed Availability, Selection, and Recycling ......................................................... 22
5.5 M aize M marketing ...... .............. ............. .... .... .... .... .. ...... ........... ..... 23
6.0 Farmers' Adoption/Disadoption of Improved Maize......... ......................................... 24
6.1 Varieties C currently G row n ............................................................................................ 24
6.2 Preferred Improved Maize Materials and Reasons for Farmers' Preferences ....................... 24
6.3 Farmers' Disadoption of Improved Maize ........................................ ..................... 15
7.0 Credit and Extension Services for Farmers in the Southern Highlands ..................... 26
7.1 Credit Availability .................. ................... .. .. .. .. .. .. ..................... 26
7.2 Extension Services .................. .................. .... ... ... ... .................... 27
8.0 Factors Affecting Adoption of Agricultural Technologies in the Study Area ................ 29
8 .1 D efin itio ns ................................................................................................ 2 9
8.2 Rate of Adoption of Improved Maize and Fertilizer ....................................................... 29
8.3 Tobit Analysis of Improved Maize and Fertilizer ............................................ ................. 30
9.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................ 34
9 .1 C o nclusions .................... ................................. ....... ........... ..... 3 4
9 .2 R ecom m endations ............................................................................... 35
R references ............................................................................................................... 36
Appendix 1 Calculation of Probability of Adoption and Amount of Land Allocated to
Improved Maize Varieties ...................................................................... ............... 38




iii










Tables


Table 1. Characteristics of improved varieties for the Southern Highlands.................. .............. 9
Table 2. Recommended spacing and seeding rates ........................................................................... 9
Table 3. Effect of different weeding regimes on maize grain yield ........................... .............. 10
Table 4. Suggested sequence of innovations ................................... .... ..................................... 11
Table 5. Potential yield (t/ha) of high and midaltitude maize varieties in the Southern Highlands ........ 11
Table 6. Demographic characteristics of sample households ..................................................... 12
Table 7. Percentage of farmers hiring labor for various farm operations, by zone ............................. 12
Table 8. Livestock ownership by zone, Southern Highlands, Tanzania ........................................ 14
Table 9. Number of farm implements owned, Southern Highlands, Tanzania .................................. 14
Table 10. Farmers' crop allocation by plot, Southern Highlands, Tanzania.................. ........ ....... 15
Table 11. Time and methods of land preparation, Southern Highlands, Tanzania ................................ 16
Table 12. Farmers' major agronomic practices, Southern Highlands, Tanzania ............................... 17
Table 13. Fertilizer use by sample households, Southern Highlands, Tanzania ................................ 18
Table 14. Fallowing and crop rotation practices of sampled farmers, Southern Highlands, Tanzania ..... 19
Table 15. Management of crop residues by sampled farmers, Southern Highlands, Tanzania ............. 20
Table 16. Major pests and diseases and their control, Southern Highlands, Tanzania ......................... 21
Table 17. Maize 1, i, -1 i, transportation, and storage ............................................. .. ............... 22
Table 18. Seed selection criteria, seed storage methods, and seed sources of
sampled farmers, Southern Highlands, Tanzania ............................................. ................. 22
Table 19. Average amount of maize (in 100 kg bags) sold or consumed, 1974-94,
Southern Highlands, Tanzania ................... .................................................... ....... 23
Table 20. Maize varieties planted in the 1994/95 season, Southern Highlands, Tanzania ................. 24
Table 21. Preferred improved maize materials, Southern Highlands, Tanzania ................................. 24
Table 22. Farmers' reasons for preferring different maize materials, Southern Highlands, Tanzania ...... 25
Table 23. Varieties no longer grown by farmers, and reasons for disadoption,
Southern Highlands, Tanzania ............ ....................................................... ............. .. 25
Table 24. Farmers' sources and use of credit, Southern Highlands, Tanzania ............................... 26
Table 25. Farmers' sources and adoption of maize production information t. .1111 .,,
Southern Highlands, Tanzania ........................... ........................................... ........ 27
Table 26. Tobit model estimates for land allocated to improved maize varieties................................ 31
Table 27. Predicted probabilities of adoption and expected amount of land allocated to
improved maize, Southern Highlands, Tanzania ................ ... ..................................... 32
Table 28. Tobit model estimates of amount of fertilizer used (kg/acre) by farmers in the
Southern H highlands, Tanzania ..................... ..... ... ....... .......... .................... .... 32
Table 29. Predicted probabilities of adoption and amount of fertilizer used (kg/acre),
Southern Highlands, Tanzania ........................... ........................................... ........ 33










Figures


Figure 1. Southern H highlands, Tanzania........................................................................ ............... 2
Figure 2. Agroecological zones of the Southern Highlands, Tanzania ................................................. 2
Figure 3. Trends in farm size, intermediate zone and highlands, Southern Highlands, Tanzania .......... 13
Figure 4. Trends in maize area, intermediate zone and highlands, Southern Highlands, Tanzania ......... 13
Figure 5. Adoption of improved maize, intermediate zone and highlands,
Southern Highlands, Tanzania ............................ .......................................... ........ 30
Figure 6. Adoption of inorganic fertilizer, intermediate zone and highlands,
S southern H ighlands, Tanzania ..................................................................................... ....30









Acronyms and Abbreviations


CAN Calcium ammonium nitrate
CIMMYT Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo
(International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center)
DALDO District Agricultural and Livestock Development Officer
DAP Di-ammonium phosphate
DRT Department of Research and Training
FSR Farming systems research
FYM Farm yard manure
ICW Ilonga Composite White
MARTI Ministry of Agriculture Research and Training Institute
MASL Meters above sea level
MIP Maize Improvement Programme
MOA Ministry of Agriculture
MSV Maize streak virus
NAFCO National Agricultural and Food Cooperation
NGO Non-governmental organization
NMRP National Maize Research Programme
NPK Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium
RALDO Regional Agricultural and Livestock Development Officer
SA Sulfate of ammonium
SACCAR Southern African Centre for Coordination of Agricultural and
Natural Resources Research and Training
SARI Selian Agricultural Research Institute
TANSEED Tanzania Seed Company
TFA Tanganyika Farmers' Association
TMV 1 Tanzania Maize Variety 1
Tsh Tanzanian Shilling
TSP Triple super phosphate
UCA-St Ukiriguru Composite A-Streak resistant
URT United Republic of Tanzania
VEO Village Extension Officer










Acknowledgments


We are grateful to all the individuals and institutions that enabled this study to be undertaken.
Specifically, we are grateful to the Ministry of Agriculture, SACCAR, and CIMMYT for providing
financial and logistical support to the authors and the survey team. We would like to thank F.M.
Shao (former Commissioner for Research and Training in the Ministry of Agriculture, Tanzania),
T.N. Kirway (Assistant Commissioner FSR, Tanzania), M.A. Msabaha (Zonal Director of Research
and Training, MARTI, Uyole), and N.G. Lyimo (Zonal Maize Improvement Programme head and
study team leader) for logistical and technical support during the survey and report writing period.
Specifically we are indebted to N.G. Lyimo and A.E.M. Temu (Maize agronomist, MARTI, Uyole)
for proofreading drafts of this report.


We are equally indebted to A.N.K. Mussei and J. Mwanga, economists at MARTI, Uyole, for
taking part in analyzing some of the data in this study.


We also thank the survey team (M. Mkoma, F. Mosses, D. Ndegeulaya, A. Mrema, R. Salum, and
A. Shimwela), who interviewed all farmers albeit the scorching sun during the survey. Our thanks
also go to all RALDOs, DALDOs, and VEOs in the four regions who worked with us. This study
would not have been possible if farmers had not been willing to provide the required information.
We thank them for tolerating those long interview periods at the expense of their other
important activities.


We also appreciate the work of Miguel Mellado (CIMMYT) and his design team in laying out and
producing this report and Kelly Cassaday (CIMMYT) for editing it. Last but not least, we thank
Sister Winlady Mushi of MARTI, Uyole, and Aklilewerk Bekele of CIMMYT for typing this report
within the shortest time, and we are grateful to our families for tolerating the loneliness of life
during our absence. To all others who rendered any assistance but whose names could not
appear here, we say thank you very much.










Executive Summary


Maize provides 60% of dietary calories and more than 50% of utilizable protein to the Tanzanian population. The
crop is cultivated on an average of two million hectares, which is about 45% of the cultivated area in Tanzania.
Recognizing the importance of the maize crop to the lives of Tanzanians, the government has committed human
and financial resources to developing the industry. A National Maize Research Programme (NMRP) was started in
1974 with the broad objective of developing cultivars suitable for major maize-producing areas. The NMRP and
maize extension services have made a considerable impact in increasing food production.


This report forms part of a larger study to evaluate the impact of maize research and extension in Tanzania over
the past 20 years. The Department of Research and Training (DRT) conducted the study in collaboration with the
Southern Africa Coordination Centre for Agricultural Research (SACCAR) and the International Maize and Wheat
Improvement Center (CIMMYT). To increase data validity and reliability, researchers and experienced extension
officers using a structured questionnaire for interviewing farmers. Interviews were conducted in all seven
agroecological zones of the country between June and November 1995. This report covers survey findings in the
Southern Highlands, which includes Iringa, Mbeya, Rukwa, and Ruvuma regions. Data collected in the survey
were grouped into two agroecological zones, the intermediate zone and the highlands. These are the most
important zones for maize production and therefore the most important categories for analysis. A tobit analysis
was used to analyze factors affecting the adoption of land allocated to improved maize varieties and the amount of
inorganic fertilizer used.


Maize research activities in the Southern Highlands Zone are undertaken at the Ministry of Agriculture Research
and Training Institute (MARTI), Uyole. The major varieties released and developed in collaboration with national
and international research centers were H614, H632, H6302, and TMV2 for the highlands and Ukiriguru
Composite A (UCA), Kilima, and TMV1 for the intermediate zone. Kito was released for the lowlands.


The mean age of household heads was 44 years in the intermediate zone and 41 years in the highlands. The
educational level of the household head averaged five years of formal training for both zones. Sample households
had about nine and eight family members comprising at least two male and female adults and five (four) children
in the intermediate zone and highlands, respectively. Land is mainly a constraint in the highlands, where the
average farm size (8.0 acres) was lower compared to the intermediate zone (9.2 acres). Livestock ownership is
more common in the intermediate zone. Farmers owned an average of 8.5 cattle in the intermediate zone
compared to the highlands (4.3). The hand hoe was the major farm tool used in both zones.


Maize is the chief food and cash crop in the study area. Intercropping of maize with beans or sunflower was
common in both zones. Maize monocropping, however, was the strategy most preferred by farmers (83% in the
intermediate zone and 58% in the highlands). Land preparation depended on the onset of the rains in each zone.
The hand hoe was the major tool used in land preparation. Maize was mostly planted in rows and most farmers
used the recommended spacing. Maize plots were weeded at least twice. The first and second weeding depended
on date of sowing and onset of the rains. Sixty-five percent of the farmers in the intermediate zone and 79% in
the highlands reported using inorganic fertilizer. Fertilizer use was constrained by lack of cash. Virtually all farmers
in both zones (96%) used organic fertilizer. Other soil fertility management activities were also carried out. About
42% of the farmers in the intermediate zone and 50% in the highlands fallowed their land, while crops were
rotated, mainly with legumes, by about 68% of farmers in the intermediate zone and 53% in the highlands.











Stalk borers were the most serious field pests of maize for 93% and 99% of the farmers in the intermediate and
highland zones, respectively, and most farmers used chemical control methods. Maize streak virus (MSV) was the
most important disease for 94% and 78% of the farmers in the intermediate and highland zones, respectively.
Most farmers used roguing to control for diseases.


Most maize was harvested in June/July in the intermediate zone (84.7%) and from August to September in the
highlands (66.2%). In the intermediate zone most farmers (62.5%) used ox-carts to transport maize, and in the
highlands most farmers (62.8%) used head loads. Most farmers in both zones stored their food maize in a I il n .
and selected their seed maize at home (about 69% of intermediate zone farmers and 75% percent of highland
zone farmers). A big cob was the most important seed selection criterion for most farmers. About 97% and 90%
of the farmers in the intermediate and highland zones, respectively, purchased seed every year.


In the 1994/95 cropping season, about 36% of the farmers in the intermediate zone and 51% of those in the
highlands grew improved maize. H614 was the preferred variety in the intermediate zone (75%) and highlands
(60%), mainly because of its high yield. In both zones, farmers had stopped growing H6302 and H614, mainly
because seed was unavailable or too costly, or because the varieties were susceptible to diseases and yielded
poorly.


About 20% of the farmers in both zones obtained credit, and the main source of credit was non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) (60%). Lack of knowledge and lack of collateral were the major constraints to obtaining
credit. Most farmers had received information on improved maize practices such as improved seed, weeding, use
of fertilizer, planting dates, pest management, and storage methods. Less information was disseminated about
herbicides, ox-drawn implements, and disease control methods. Extension was farmers' most important source of
information.


The tobit analysis showed that the proportion of land allocated to improved maize varieties was significantly
influenced by zone (intermediate), extension, and numbers of livestock units. Extension increased the probability
of growing improved maize at the means by 10%. Farmers in the intermediate zone were less likely to allocate
land to improved maize varieties (the probability decreased by about 4%). An increase in livestock numbers by two
units increased the probability of using improved maize varieties by 1%.


The tobit analysis also showed that farm size, hand hoe use, and farmers' experience were significant factors
affecting the amount of fertilizer used. An increase of farm size by 5 acres decreased the probability of adopting
fertilizer by 1%, and a ten-year increase in farming experience decreased the probability of adopting fertilizer by
1%. The use of the hand hoe as a land preparation method increased fertilizer adoption by 1%.


New varieties should be developed and promoted through participatory on-farm research. Research should
address the problem of stalk borers, cutworms, and MSV by developing tolerant varieties. TMV1 variety, which
resists MSV, has been developed, but this variety has not yet reached the farmers. Similar efforts should be
concentrated on developing tolerant varieties for stalk borer and cutworm.











Extension services should increase their educational contacts with farmers, especially on topics such as herbicide
and oxen use, because appropriate technologies could reduce the labor bottlenecks confronting farmers during
land preparation and weeding. Only 10.5% of the farmers in the intermediate zone and 27.6% in the highlands
have received information on using herbicides and oxen; only 19.6% in the intermediate zone and 36.4% in the
highlands use these new technologies. Maize streak virus is a serious disease, yet only 33.3% and 24.7% of the
farmers in the intermediate and highland zones, respectively, have received information on how to control maize
diseases. Extension should continue to extend messages through farmer groups and on-farm demonstrations to
reach more farmers quickly and at a relatively low cost.


The formal credit market is hardly involved in supplying credit to farmers, but rising input prices make it
increasingly important to ensure that farmers have access to credit. Policy makers and bankers should direct more
effort to providing loans to small-scale maize farmers in ways that will ensure a high rate of loan recovery and low
cost of credit. More information should be provided to farmers about credit schemes, and the requirements for
collateral should be reviewed.


Policy makers should continue to encourage and support the private sector to invest in input acquisition and
distribution so that inputs are available when farmers need them. Credit and efficient import regulations should be
provided to private traders to avoid unnecessary delays in the importation of inputs. Also, farmers who plant
during the dry season should receive inputs during that time of the year. Finally, government policy should
strengthen the input delivery system if the smallholder sector, which produces more than 85% of Tanzania's
maize, is to maintain its productivity.









Adoption of Maize Production Technologies

in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania


Shekania Bisanda, Wilfred Mwangi, Hugo Verkuijl, Alfred J.Moshi,
and Ponniah Anandajayasekeram


1.0. Introduction

1.1. Motivation and Objectives for This Study

Maize is the major cereal in Tanzania. Annual per capital consumption of maize in Tanzania is
estimated at 112.5 kg, and national maize consumption is estimated to reach three million tons per
year. Maize accounts for 60% of the dietary calories of Tanzanian consumers (FSD 1996) and more
than 50% of utilizable protein, whereas beans contribute 38% (Due 1986).

Recognizing the importance of the maize crop to the lives of Tanzanians, the government has
committed human and financial resources to developing the industry. Maize research and extension
efforts began in 1960, and breeding during the 1960s resulted in the release of Ukiriguru Composite
A (UCA) and Ilonga Composite White (ICW). A National Maize Research Programme (NMRP) was
started in 1974 with the broad objective of developing cultivars suitable for major maize-producing
areas.

Maize is an important food and cash crop in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania. The zone
comprises four regions, namely Iringa, Mbeya, Rukwa, and Ruvuma (Figure 1) and produces about
46% of national maize production. Furthermore, the Southern Highlands account for nearly 90% of
the maize purchased for the National Food Security Granary (Mussei and Shiyumbi 1992; Moshi and
Nnko 1989). Over 80% of the maize produced in the region is grown by smallholders under a wide
range of management practices, climatic conditions, and socioeconomic circumstances.

Previous studies have shown that maize production in the Southern Highlands Zone started early this
century in Iringa. In the 1950s it expanded to other regions, especially Mbeya and Ruvuma, and in
the 1970s to Rukwa (Mussei and Shiyumbi 1992). Maize has completely replaced traditional coarse
grains such as finger millet and sorghum, which were the dominant food crops.

Maize research in the Southern Highlands started during the 1970/71 cropping season at the
Ministry of Agriculture Research and Training Institute (MARTI), Uyole. In collaboration with national
and international research institutes and technology transfer agents, a number of improved
technologies were tested, adapted, and released to suit various agroecological zones of the Southern
Highlands. Although these recommendations have been used for the past 20 years, there is still a
wide gap between farmers' yields (1.5 t/ha) and potential yields for most of the hybrids that are
available (7 t/ha) (Lyimo and Temu 1992). In part to determine the reasons for this yield gap, the
Department of Research and training (DRT), in collaboration with the Southern Africa Coordination
Centre for Agricultural Research (SACCAR) and the International Maize and Wheat Improvement












Center (CIMMYT) conducted a national survey to evaluate the impact of maize research and
extension. The study was conducted between June and November 1995. This report covers the
survey findings from the Southern Highlands. Specifically, the study was undertaken to describe the
maize farming systems of the Southern Highlands, evaluate the adoption of improved maize
production technologies in the region, and define future research needs in light of the findings of the
study.


1.2. The Study Area


The Southern Highlands are located between latitudes 70 and 11.5S and longitudes 30 and 38E
(Figure 1) (URT 1985). The population is about 4.1 million (1988 census), of which about 90%
engage in agriculture. The Southern Highlands cover an area of about 250,000 km2 (28% of the
mainland area of Tanzania), and elevation ranges between 400 and 3,000 masl. The climate varies
from tropical to temperate in areas higher than 2,000 masl. Temperatures are warm in the lowlands
and cool in the highlands. The mean annual rainfall ranges from 750 to 3,500 mm. The rainfall
pattern is usually unimodal, from November to May. The soils are highly weathered and leached,
frequently acidic and of relatively low fertility. This range of climatic and other conditions explains the
diversity of agroecological zones in the Southern Highlands, which have been classified into ten
agroecological zones (Figure 2). More than 70 crops, including fruits and vegetables, are grown, and
smallholder farmers keep several different livestock species. The major farming systems include the
maize-based farming system, the rice-based farming system, agropastoral farming systems, and
coffee/banana-based farming systems.


T I i


RWANDA





Rukva
T11.111


... KENYA
L.I.L VICTORIA
".%


Figure 1. Southern Highlands, Tanzania.


Regional HQ-
No. 1
SNo. 2
SNo. 3
F No. 4 i ,,
SNo. 8 I
No. 9
No. 11 MOZAMBIQUE
No. 16
No. 18
No. 14
Figure 2. Agroecological zones of the Southern
Highlands, Tanzania.










The maize-based farming system is found in all regions, at elevations ranging from 700 to 2,900
masl. Under normal climatic conditions, maize is planted from the second week of November and the
second week of December and harvested between June and July, depending on the weather and the
variety grown. Other crops grown in these areas include beans, sunflower, potatoes, finger millet, and
assorted vegetables.

The rice-based farming system is found in isolated areas of the zone where the altitude is
between 400 and 700 masl, such as Kyela, Usangu, Pawaga, Mbinga (along Lake Nyasa), Kirando,
Karema, and Lake Rukwa Valleys, all of which are found in the great East African Rift Valley. Also a
substantial amount of rice is produced in Tunduru District. With the exception of Usangu, where both
small- and large-scale irrigation and rainfed farming are practiced, in all other areas rice is produced
under rainfed conditions. Other crops in these areas include cassava, maize, groundnuts, bananas,
nuts, and legumes.

Agropastoral farming systems are relatively new in the zone. The migrant Wasukuma have
introduced it from the Lake Zone during the last 20 years. These migrants, who own large herds of
cattle, settled in Usangu and Lake Rukwa Valleys and Chunya in search of pasture for their animals.
In addition to keeping cattle, goats, and sheep, these people produce crops such as maize, sorghum,
sweet potatoes, pulses, and pumpkins. In the drier eastern part of Iringa District, the migrant Maasai
practice both crop and livestock production as well.

The coffee/banana-based farming system is important for cash crop production. It is found in
Rungwe and Mbozi Districts in Mbeya region and in Mbinga District in Ruvuma region, where the
climate is cool and rainfall reliable. Other crops in these areas include legumes, maize, and
horticultural crops. In Rungwe District, tea is also produced in the same system. Other areas where
tea is produced (mainly on a large scale) are Mufindi and Njombe Districts in Iringa region. One
important characteristic of the coffee/banana-based farming system is land scarcity, which is the
result of population pressure arising when land is taken for coffee and banana production.

1.3. Methodology

1.3.1. Sampling procedure
As mentioned previously, this report is part of a national survey covering all research zones of
Tanzania. The number of farmers interviewed in each zone was determined by the importance of
maize production in the area. About 1,000 maize farmers were interviewed nationwide. The
Southern Highlands were allocated 396 farmers or approximately 40% of the national sample.
Farmers were sampled from the districts in the zone that are important in maize production.
Production figures from the statistical unit of the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) were used to establish
each district's importance for maize production. Eleven districts were purposively sampled. At the
district level, villages that are important in maize production were selected with the help of extension
staff. Multistage, purposive sampling procedures were used to select 22 villages for this study. From
each village, approximately 18 farmers were randomly sampled from the register of households. To
increase data validity and reliability, farmers were interviewed by researchers and experienced










extension officers using a structured questionnaire developed by a panel of the zonal farming systems
research economists, economists from CIMMYT and SACCAR, and national maize breeders and
agronomists. As noted earlier, farmers were interviewed between June and November 1995. To
maintain uniformity, data from all zones were compiled at Selian Agricultural Research Institute (SARI
and then returned to the respective zones for analysis and completion of the zonal reports.

1.3.2. Analytical framework
Factors influencing the adoption of new agricultural technologies can be divided into three major
categories: farm and farmers' associated attributes; attributes associated with the technology (Adesina
et al. 1992; Misra et al. 1993); and the farming objective (CIMMYT 1988). Factors in the first
category include a farmer's education, age, or family and farm size. The second category depends on
the type of technology (e.g., the kind of characteristics a farmer likes in an improved maize variety).
The third category assesses how different strategies used by the farmer, such as commercial versus
subsistence farming, influence the adoption of technologies. For this study, a tobit model was used to
test the factors affecting the allocation of land to improved maize varieties and amount of fertilizer
used in kg N/ha (intensity of adoption). The tobit (Maddala 1983) model that tests the factors affecting
incidence and intensity of adoption can be specified as follows (Shakya 1985):

E(Y I) = I*F(I l) +o* f(I I),

where:
E(Y I) = expected amount (e.g., of fertilizer use or land allocated to improved maize varieties) at a
given stimulus level I;
o = standard error of estimate;
II = standardized index level;
F(I I ) = tobit probability of choosing the event, calculated from the cumulative normal distribution
(Z-tables);
f(I o) = normal density function of the index at Z= (I I).

I is the index reflecting the combined effect of X independent variables that prevent or promote
adoption. The index level Ican be specified as (Shakya 1985):

I, = bo + bX +....+ bX, +Ei

where:
I = ADIS (amount of land allocated to improved maize varieties in acres);
I2 = NRATE (rate of nitrogen applied, kg/acre);
bo = constant;
X1 = FARMS (farm size, in acres);
X2 = EXP (household head's experience of farming, in years);
X3 = EDUC (education level of household head, in years);
X4 = LUNIT (livestock units; index where livestock numbers are aggregated using following
weighing factors: cow=0.8; goat=0.4; sheep=0.4);
X5 = IVAR (farmer received information on improved maize varieties; IVAR= 1 if farmer
received information; 0 otherwise); or FERTR (farmer received information on the use of
fertilizer; FERTR= 1 if farmer received information; 0 otherwise);










Xg = LABOR (family labor; index where family members are aggregated using following
weighing factors: male and female adults above 16 years= 1; children between 12-15
years=0.5);
X7 = MLP1 (method of land preparation, MLP1 =1 if farmers uses hand hoe; 0 otherwise);
X, = MLP2 (method of land preparation, MLP2=1 if farmers uses ox-plow; 0 otherwise);
X9 = AEZ1 (AEZ1=1 if the farmer is in the intermediate zone, 0 otherwise); the highlands
zone (AEZ2) was not included in the model to avoid multicollinearity (Griffiths et al.
1993; Green 1993);
X1o = HLAB (hired labor: HLAB= 1 if farmer used hired labor, 0 otherwise);
X1 = CREDIT (farmer used credit; CREDIT= 1 if farmer used credit; 0 otherwise); and
E = error term.

The dependent variable is either the amount of land allocated to maize varieties or the quantity of
fertilizer used. The model was estimated using the maximum likelihood method of Shazam
Version 7.0.

Formation of the model was influenced by a number of working hypotheses. It is hypothesized that a
farmer's decision to adopt or reject new technologies at any time is influenced by the combined
effect of a number of factors related to the farmer's objectives and constraints (CIMMYT 1993).
Several variables were hypothesized to influence the adoption of improved maize varieties and
fertilizer. Farm size is an indicator of wealth and perhaps a proxy for social status and influence
within a community. It is expected to be positively associated with the decision to adopt improved
maize technology. Farm size can also encourage farmers to intensify their production, then larger
farm size will be negatively related to adopting improved maize technology. The experience of
farmers can generate or erode confidence; in other words, with more experience, a farmer can
become more or less risk-averse to new technology and thus this variable can have a positive or
negative effect on a farmer's decision to adopt improved maize technology. Exposure to education
will increase a farmer's ability to obtain, process, and use information relevant to the adoption of
improved maize technology. Education thus is thought to increase the probability that a farmer will
adopt an improved maize technology. Ownership of livestock is hypothesized to be positively
related to adoption of improved maize technologies. Agricultural extension services provided by
the MOA are the major source of agricultural information in the study area. It is hypothesized that
contact with extension workers will increase farmers' likelihood of adopting improved maize
technologies. Large households will be able to provide the labor that might be required by improved
maize technologies. Thus, household size would be expected to increase the probability of
adopting improved maize technologies. The use of the hand hoe or ox-plow as a method of land
preparation can influence adoption either positively or negatively. Farmers in the intermediate zone
have less access to input sources, which is expected to have a negative impact on adoption.
Hiring labor is hypothesized to be positively related to the adoption of improved maize
technologies. Farmers who have access to credit can relax their financial constraints, and in some
cases, access to credit is tied to a particular technological package. It is expected that access to credit
will increase the probability of adoption.









2.0. Maize Research and Development in Tanzania and the Study Area

2.1. Maize Research in Tanzania

About 85% of the maize produced in Tanzania is grown by peasants whose farms are less than 10
ha. Ten percent of maize production occurs on medium-scale commercial farms (10-100 ha), and the
remaining 5% occurs on large-scale commercial farms (>100 ha). Between 1961-65 and 1985-95,
national maize production is estimated to have grown by 4.6%, of which 2.4% can be attributed to
growth in area and 2.2% to growth in yield. Despite this yield growth, average yields are less than
1.5 t/ha, although grain yields tend to be higher in high-potential areas such as the Southern
Highlands (Moshi et al. 1990).

Maize breeding and agronomy trials have been conducted in Tanzania for more than 20 years. The
improved open pollinated varieties (OPVs) ICW and UCA were developed, tested, and released in the
1960s and are still widely used. During the same period, a few research stations undertook
agronomic research, which later formed the basis for recommendations that were applied to the
entire country.

In 1974, the NMRP was launched to coordinate maize research and encourage the better utilization
of research resources. The program is responsible for coordinating all phases of maize research, from
varietal development and maize management research on station to verification on farmers' fields.
The NMRP has divided the country into three major agroecological zones for varietal
recommendations:
* The highlands (elevations above 1,500 masl), with a growing period of 6-8 months.
* The intermediate zone (900-1,500 masl), which is further subdivided into "wet" (>1,100 mm
rainfall, with a 4-5 month growing period) and "dry" subzones (<1,100 mm rainfall, with a 3-4
month growing period).
* The lowlands (0-900 masl), with a 3-4 month growing period.

To date, several breeding populations have been developed and are being improved through recurrent
selection for specific traits. Since 1974, two hybrids and six OPVs have been released. In 1976,
Tuxpefo was released for the lowland areas. Hybrids H6302 and H614, suitable for the highlands,
were released in 1977 and 1978, respectively. In November 1983, three OPVs were released: Kito,
Kilima, and Staha. Staha is characterized by its tolerance to maize streak virus (MSV) disease,
whereas Kilima was recommended for the midaltitude zone. Kito is an early maturing variety adapted
to both lowland and midaltitude zones. In 1987 two OPVs, TMV1 and TMV2, were released. TMV1
is a white flint, streak resistant variety with intermediate maturity. It is recommended for the lowland
and midaltitude zones. TMV2 is also white flint and is recommended for the high-altitude and high-
potential maize-producing areas.

In 1994, the NMRP released versions of Kilima, UCA, Kito, and Katumani that are resistant to MSV:
Kilima-St, UCA-St, Kito-St, and Katumani-St. Around the same time, two foreign seed companies,










Cargill and Pannar, introduced or released seven hybrids for commercial use. For improvement of
husbandry practices, the NMRP conducted off-station agronomy trials that in 1980 resulted in maize
production recommendations specific to 11 regions. The recommendations related to choice of
variety, plant spacing, plant density, fertilizer rate, weeding regime, and pesticide use.

2.2. Maize Research in the Southern Highlands

Maize research in the Southern Highlands started during the 1970/71 cropping season at MARTI,
Uyole under the Tanzania-NORDIC Agricultural Project. Before 1974 research on maize was limited
and uncoordinated. Following the initiation of the NMRP in 1974, research at Uyole widened
tremendously, especially in village trials, which facilitated the verification of agronomic packages
under farmers' conditions while serving as demonstration plots (Lyimo and Temu 1992).

In 1985 maize research at Uyole expanded under the Southern Highlands Maize Improvement
Programme (MIP). Essentially the objectives of the MIP were to (Marandu et al. 1989):
* develop varieties suitable for the environment and farming conditions of the Southern
Highlands;
* maintain and improve parental lines of all current commercial hybrids used in the country;
* develop agronomic practices suitable for all agroecological zones and farming systems in the
Southern Highlands; and
* monitor pest and disease problems affecting maize production and recommend control
measures.

2.3. The Maize Seed Industry in Tanzania

The hybrid CG4141 is multiplied and distributed by Cargill Hybrid Seed Ltd., which is based in
Arusha. Farmers in the Southern Highlands mainly grow the locally bred hybrids, H614 and H6302.
Locally bred cultivars have flint grain, good pounding and storage qualities, and yield as well as
CG4141. They are marketed mainly by the Tanzania Seed Company (TANSEED), which has not
done well in the newly competitive seed industry. This has contributed to reduced adoption of locally
bred hybrids, mainly in the other agroecological zones of Tanzania. Before input markets were
liberalized in 1990, locally bred varieties were almost the only improved maize seed planted in
Tanzania.

After market liberalization, private companies not only engaged in seed multiplication but conducted
trials to evaluate the adaptability of imported varieties to the local environment. The varieties deemed
suitable are subsequently released to farmers. CG4141 is competing aggressively with the locally
bred cultivars multiplied and sold by TANSEED. Pannar started producing and marketing maize seed
in 1995. The new companies have recruited chains of stockists who sell their seed in villages and
towns, and TANSEED has followed suit. Farmers have reported that seed sold by private companies
is purer, more uniform, and higher yielding than seed from TANSEED, which has reduced demand
for TANSEED products.










The drawbacks of the new varieties sold by Cargill and Pannar are their high price, poor storability,
poor pounding quality, and unsatisfactory taste. Pounded maize is used to make a local dish prepared
from grains from which the seed coat has been removed (kande). Some farmers also pound their
maize before milling to make a whiter and softer dough (ugali. When pounded, maize seed with a
soft seed coat breaks, and flour losses before milling are greater. This underscores the importance of
the flint trait in farmers' varietal preferences.

The latest development in the maize seed industry is the resumed importation of a once-famous
hybrid, H511, from Kenya, by the Tanganyika Farmers' Association (TFA). H511 yields as well and
matures as early as CG4141; its advantage over CG4141 is its flinty grain. The 1994/95 price for
Cargill maize seed (CG4141) and Pannar seed (PAN 6481) was Tanzanian shillings (Tsh) 650/kg,
while Kilima, a composite, sold at Tsh 450/kg. The high prices of maize seed have forced many
farmers to recycle hybrid seed.

Before market liberalization, quasi-governmental institutions and cooperative unions monopolized
input marketing. These institutions were inefficient in delivering inputs to farmers. They suffered
from chronic liquidity problems, because they depended on borrowing money for buying inputs. This
led to delayed input supply and chronic shortages that served as a disincentive to farmers (Mbiha
1993; Nkonya 1994). Market liberalization has led to a rapid increase in the number of private
businesses that engage in input marketing. Farmers could obtain inputs from village stockists who are
located much closer to them than prior to 1990. Inputs have also become readily available on time in
villages. As expected, the price of inputs has increased sharply, wiping out the shortages that existed
before.










3.0. Maize Production Technology Recommendations


3.1. Varieties


The choice of variety is determined by a farmer's objectives, the length of the growing season,
elevation, and amount of rainfall. Table 1 shows characteristics of some commercial varieties, some
of which were developed through the combined efforts of Uyole and other national and international
research institutes and adapted to the Southern Highlands.

3.2. Planting Recommendations


In the Southern Highlands there are two planting seasons. Most maize is planted during the wet
season, although farmers in high-altitude areas can plant during the dry season utilizing residual
moisture. Information was available for time of planting in the wet season only. For the wet season,
maize should be planted immediately after the rains begin, which is normally after 15 November in
most parts of the Southern Highlands, and not later than 15 December. However, for the past four
years the rainfall pattern has shifted, affecting the time of planting. Rains start during the second half
of December, and this is when farmers should start planting. It is estimated that timely planting and
weeding can raise yields from 700 kg/ha to 1,200 kg/ha (Lyimo and Temu 1992). Studies in Kenya
showed that 70 kg of grain/ha/day were lost when planting was delayed for two days (Cooper and
Law 1976). In the Southern Highlands of Tanzania, the grain yield loss from late planting of
recommended hybrids was 62 kg/ha for a delay of one day after the first rains (Lyimo and Temu
1992). Row planting is recommended to achieve the recommended plant population, facilitate
weeding, and-most important-to achieve optimum yield. In fertile soils, the optimum plant
population is about 45,000 plants/ha, whereas in soils with low fertility the population ranges
between 22,000 and 33,000 plants/ha. Plant population is also determined by spacing and seeding
rate. Table 2 shows the recommended spacing and seed rates.


Table 1. Characteristics of improved varieties for the Table 2. Recommended spacing and seeding rates
Southern Highlands


Yield Maturity
Year potential time
Variety released (t/ha) Altitude (days)

H6141 1977/79 7.0 High 180-200
H6302 1977 8.0 High 180
H632 1965 6.0 Intermediate/high 170-180
UCA 1966 4.5 Intermediate 140
Kilima 1983 4.8 Intermediate 140
Kito2 1983 3.5 Low 90-100
TMV13 1987 3.7 Low/intermediate 130
TMV2 1987 7.0 High 170

Source: N. Lyimo, Maize Breeder, MARTI-Uyole (pers. comm.).
1 Released twice (in 1977, using EC 573 C5 as the male parent in
the final cross, and in 1979, using EC 573 C5 as the male parent).
2 Recommended for areas of dry-low to intermediate elevation,
such as some parts of Ileje District in Mbeya region.
3 Resistant to maize streakvirus.


Spacing (cm) Seeds/hill Method suitable for:

75 cm x 30 cm 1-1-1-1 Using a planter
75 cm x 60 cm 2-2-2-2 Using a hand hoe
75 cm x 90 cm 3-3-3-3 Using a hand hoe
90 cm x 25 cm 1-1-1-1 Using a planter
90 cm x 50 cm 2-2-2-2 Using a hand hoe

Source: Temu (1991).










3.3. Fertilizer Type and Time and Method of Application


Nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) are the major limiting nutrients for maize production in the
Southern Highlands. Studies have shown that improved varieties require substantial quantities of
mineral nutrients for their vegetative and grain development. For instance, a crop that produces 5-6
t/ha will have removed 100-150 kg of N and 40-60 kg of P205/ha from the soil by harvest (Prasad
1978). The use of both inorganic and organic fertilizers can lead to high yield. Research conducted at
Uyole showed that 7.1 t/ha were realized using 20 t/ha farm yard manure (FYM) supplemented with
40 kg/ha N and 20 kg/ha P, compared to 4.03 t/ha when the same rates of N and P were applied
alone and 5.12 t/ha when FYM was applied alone at 20 t/ha (Lyimo and Temu 1992). Fertilizer
recommendations are based on soil type and nutrient deficiency. For basal application, P at a rate of
20-40 kg/ha is recommended. For top dressing, N at a rate of 50-60 kg/ha is recommended.

3.4. Weed Control

Weed control in maize is important to reduce competition for water, soil nutrients, and light. It has a
positive effect on yield performance (Table 3). Studies in Ethiopia showed that yield losses caused by
weeds ranged between 30% and 88% of potential yield (Sidorov et al. 1985). In Zambia weed trials
have shown yield reductions of up to 63% (Nkhoma 1985), while in the Southern Highlands Zone of
Tanzania yields were reduced between 50% and 100% of potential yields (Croon et al. 1984; UAC
1992, 1993). Similar trials at Ilonga in the Eastern Zone recorded a yield loss of 25% when the first
weeding was delayed until four weeks after planting, while in the Lake Zone, delaying weeding for six
weeks resulted in a 65% yield reduction (Matowo et al. 1988). It is recommended to weed at least
twice using either hand hoes, cultivators, or herbicides. The first weeding should be done two to
three weeks after emergence, and the second should be done when plants are at waist height (90-
100 cm). Crop rotation can also control some weeds, especially Striga spp. The following herbicides


are recommended for pre-emergence application:
atrazine, Alachlor, and 2-4D amine.

3.5. Pest and Disease Control

Major insect pests in maize in the Southern
Highlands are cut worms and stalk borers.
Diseases are head smut, MSV, and blights.
Troublesome vermin include birds, rats, and
monkeys. Like weeds, insect pests and diseases
can cause severe yield losses. In Malawi diseases
have been reported to cause up to 10% yield loss
(Ngwira 1989); and in Kenya the yield loss can
range between 13% and 70% (Ochor et al.
1989). In Zimbabwe, MSV causes serious yield
losses of up to 43% (Mguni 1989). In Tanzania,
Mduruma et al. (1988) observed that plants


Gesaprim, Atrazine, Atrazine Metalachlor, Lasso-



Table 3. Effect of different weeding regimes on maize
grain yield

Increase
Yield over
Weeding regime (t/ha) control (%)

No weeding 2.29 100
One weeding at 10 cm stage 4.17 183
One weeding at 30 cm stage 3.88 170
One weeding at 50 cm stage 4.09 179
Two weedings at
10 and 50 cm stages 5.32 233
Two weedings at
30 and 70 cm stages 5.41 237
Three weedings at
10, 50, and 90 cm stages 5.42 238

Source: Lyimo and Temu (1992).











infected with MSV less than a week after germination produced no yield, and when infection
occurred at three weeks, only half the potential yield was realized. Infection at eight weeks after
germination, however, resulted in little yield reduction. Yield losses thus depended on the age of the
plant at infestation. As for pests, especially stalk borers, the damage may be as high as 20% (Lyimo
and Temu 1992). The recommended method of control is to apply Thiodan-EC35, Cypermethrin, or
Sumicombi against stalk borers and cutworms. A local herb called "Utupa" (Tephrosia vogelil) is also
recommended. Timely planting and crop rotation can reduce the damage caused by pests and
diseases. Scaring and trapping are effective control methods for birds and vermin.


3.6. Suggested Sequence of Maize Production Technology Innovations


Table 4 summarizes various management practices and their respective impacts on yield. If all
recommended practices are followed, a maximum yield of 7.2 t/ha can be attained. Table 5 shows
the potential yield of high and intermediate altitude maize varieties in the Southern Highlands.



Table 4. Suggested sequence of innovations

Management practice Characteristic Estimated yield (kg/ha)

Zero management Extremely low 300
One timely weeding 2-3 weeks after planting 700
Timely planting At optimum time (2 weeks after rains) 1,200
Fertility improvement 20 kg/ha P + 40-50 kg N/ha (basal application) 2,100*
Optimum plant population 75 x 60 cm, 2 plants per hill 2,700
Improved seed Hybrid/composite 3,800
Further fertility improvement 50kg N/ha + second weeding 6,000
Pest control Control of stalk borers 7,200

Source: Lyimo and Temu (1992).
a Assumes soil fertility is low.



Table 5. Potential yield (t/ha) of high- and midaltitude maize varieties in the Southern Highlands

High altitude (>1,500 masl) Midaltitude (1,000-1,500 masl)
Variety 10 year mean 1990/91 season Variety 5 year mean 1990/91 season

H6302 7.6 8.3 H632 3.9 3.7
H614 7.4 8.5 Kilima 4.6 4.2
TMV21 6.7 9.5 TMV1 4.5 5.4
UCA 4.2 5.3
Source: Lyimo and Temu (1992).
1 Mean based on six years' results.









4.0. Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics of Maize
Farmers in the Study Area


4.1. Demographic Characteristics

Table 6 shows the family characteristics of households in the Southern Highlands. The average age
of household heads in the intermediate zone was about 44 years, significantly older than farmers in
the highland zone (41 years). The farming experience in the intermediate and highland zones was
19.3 and 18 years, respectively. This difference was not statistically significant.

The level of education among the sampled farmers was generally low, but 29 farmers had received 8-
13 years of schooling. Farmers went to school for an average of 5.0 years in the intermediate zone
and 5.3 year in the highlands.

Mean household size was between eight and nine persons. The numbers of men and of children were
significantly higher in the intermediate zone than the highlands. About 75% of the farmers in the
highlands and 70% in the intermediate zone used hired labor, mainly for land preparation and
weeding (Table 7). About 74% of the male household heads in the highlands hired labor, compared
to 83% of their female counterparts. In the intermediate zone, about 71% and 61% of male and
female household heads, respectively, hired labor for various farm operations.


Table 6. Demographic characteristics of sample households

Intermediate zone Highlands
Characteristic Mean Standard deviation Mean Standard deviation t-value

Age of household head (yr) 43.8 11.8 41.1 10.7 2.1**
Number of male adults 1.9 1.4 1.7 1.0 1.7***
Number of female adults 2.0 1.4 2.0 1.3 0.2 (NS)
Number of children 4.7 2.8 4.0 2.5 2.3**
Education of household head (yr) 5.0 2.6 5.3 2.5 1.2 (NS)

Note: NS = not significant; *** = significant at 10% level; ** = significant at 5% level.



Table 7. Percentage of farmers hiring labor for various farm operations, by zone

Intermediate zone Highlands
Activity Number of farmers Percentage of farmers Number of farmers Percentage of farmers

Hire labor 149 69.6 134 74.9
Prepare land for maize 77 35.8 77 42.8
Plant maize 16 7.4 5 2.8
Weed maize 101 47.0 104 57.8
Harvest maize 40 18.5 3 1.7
Process maize 15 6.9 48 26.7
Other 17 7.9 2 1.1











4.2. Land Resources and Allocation


Land is the most important resource among farm households. Each of the surveyed households
owned land, though in differing amounts. Land is usually allotted by the village government or by
household heads who redistribute family land to other family members who need it. Land may also
be acquired by renting, buying, inheriting, or as a gift. Village governments usually allot land free of
charge, whereas land acquired in other ways may be acquired under certain conditions, such as
payment in kind. Land sales are uncommon in the Southern Highlands.


Farmers owned about three plots of land covering 10 acres, of which 6.6 acres were cultivated. A
total of 2,245 acres were owned by sampled farmers in the intermediate zone, of which 1,588 were
cultivated. Farmers owned 1,716 acres in the highlands and cultivated 1,058 acres. A comparison of
farm size and maize area between zones showed that farmers in the intermediate zone had larger
maize areas than those in the highlands (Figures 3 and 4), although the difference is not significant.
Land has become increasingly scarce in the highlands because of population pressure. Farmers were
asked about their future plans for their maize area. About 38% of farmers in both zones intended to
keep their maize area constant, while about 34% of the farmers in the highlands and 47% in the
intermediate zone intended to increase their maize area. Farmers' major reasons for changing maize
area were changes in the demand for food or the need to earn more money.


4.3. Livestock Ownership


Different types of livestock are kept in all regions of the study area (Table 8). Farmers keep goats
(44.2%), sheep (11%), and cattle (46.7 o), along with lesser numbers of poultry, swine, donkeys, and
petty animals. Donkeys are largely kept in Rukwa region, where they are used for transportation.
The average number of cattle was 8.4 in the intermediate zone and 4.3 in the highlands (significant
at P = 0.01). Low numbers of cattle at higher elevations might be the result of land pressure.


Acres Acres
10 5.0
Intermediate zone
9 ------------------8- ---- 4.5
Intermediate zone
8 - - - -- ----------------- ----

7 ------------- ---- 3.5 -----------
SHighlands
6 - - ----------- 3.0 -- - - - - - -

5 -- -- -- --- -- -- --- -- 2.5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
Highlands
4 ------------------------ 2.0 ------- -----

3 F 1.5
1974 1984 1994 1974 1984 1994

Figure 3. Trends in farm size, intermediate zone and Figure 4. Trends in maize area, intermediate zone and
highlands, Southern Highlands, Tanzania. highlands, Southern Highlands, Tanzania.











Farmers could be compelled to keep fewer animals, which are either tethered or zero grazed.
Farmers in Mbeya region had the smallest mean number of cattle (3.8), while Iringa farmers had the
highest (8.9).


4.4. Farm Mechanization


Table 9 shows the number of farm implements owned by sample farmers. All sampled farmers used
hand hoes to perform one or more farm operations. The average number of hand hoes owned by
households was about five, which was an average of 2.5 hand hoes for each full-time farm worker for
both zones. The second most important farm implement was an ox-plow. Most farmers who owned
plows (71.2%) were in the intermediate zone, while only 34 (18.9%) farmers in the highlands owned
ox-plows. The low number of ox-plows in the highland zone might be related to the hilly terrain.
About 32% of farmers in the intermediate zone and 26% in the highlands hired implements.


The average rate of hiring ox-plows was about Tsh 5,587 and Tsh 4,628 per acre in the intermediate
and highland zones, respectively. This difference was significant at P = 0.01. In Rukwa region,
farmers hired ox-plows and paid in kind, and for a long time oxen have been used for various farm
operations. The average number of plows owned per household in Rukwa region was two, while in
all other regions it was one. Other implements owned included cutting tools such as machetes,
sickles, and axes. The mean number of these tools was two in Rukwa and Mbeya regions and three in
Iringa and Ruvuma regions. Only 19 farmers in the highlands hired tractors, at a rate of about Tsh
6,158/acre.


Table 8. Livestock ownership by zone, Southern
Highlands, Tanzania

Intermediate zone Highlands
Type of Standard Standard
livestock Mean deviation Mean deviation t-value

Goats 4.2 2.8 4.5 3.1 0.66 (NS)
Cattle 8.5 12.3 4.3 5.5 3.1*
Sheep 3.3 3.4 4.9 5.2 1.19 (NS)
Other 10.2 11.0 7.6 6.4 2.0**

Note: NS = not significant; ** = significant at 5% level;
=significant at 1% level.


Table 9. Number of farm implements owned, Southern
Highlands, Tanzania

Intermediate zone Highlands
Type of Standard Standard
implement Mean deviation Mean deviation t-value

Hand hoe 4.7 2.3 4.6 2.6 0.41 (NS)
Cutting tools 2.8 1.8 3.1 2.7 0.62 (NS)
Ox-plow 1.6 1.0 1.3 0.6 1.35 (NS)
Tractor 1.0 -
Cartsa 1.0 1.0 -

Note: NS = not significant.
a = only a few farmers.









5.0. Maize Production, Crop Practices, and
Marketing in the Southern Highlands

5.1. Crops and Cropping Systems

Nearly all crops produced in other parts of Tanzania are found in the Southern Highlands. Maize is
the most important food crop and is produced in all regions and districts of the zone. All sampled
farmers were full-time maize producers, and for most people maize served as both a food and cash
crop. Other crops produced in the zone include beans, coffee, bananas, tea, peas, finger millet,
sorghum, groundnuts, and sunflower, as well as cocoa, tobacco, cassava, rounds and sweet potatoes,
wheat, paddy, pyrethrum, and a wide variety of horticultural crops. Crop allocation on different plots
is determined by the relative importance of the crop in each farming system. Table 10 shows which
crops are allocated to the first four plots cropped by farmers in the zone.

Both monocropping and intercropping are practiced. About 83% of the sampled farmers in the
intermediate zone and 58% in the highlands grew maize in pure stand, while about 17% in the
intermediate zone and 40% in the highlands intercropped maize, mainly with beans and sunflower.
The major reason for intercropping in the highlands was land scarcity (42%), while the major reason
in the intermediate zone was that it was the traditional way of cropping (38%). Other reasons
included soil fertility management, food security, and risk avoidance.

5.2. Maize Crop Management Practices

5.2.1. Land preparation
In the Southern Highlands there are two planting seasons and consequently two land preparation
seasons. In higher areas such as Rungwe and Mbeya Districts, maize is planted during the dry season
(i.e., from June) on residual moisture. One of the survey sites was purposively chosen in Rungwe
District so as to capture data on dry-season maize. In all other districts surveyed, maize was planted
during the wet season (i.e., in November-December), depending on the onset of the rains. Table 11
shows the time and methods of land preparation.

About 56% and 45% of the farmers in the intermediate and highland zones, respectively, prepared
land between August and October, whereas about 43% of the farmers in both zones prepared land
between November to December. Most farmers prepared land at the recommended time. Farmers

Table 10. Farmers' crop allocation by plot, Southern Highlands, Tanzania

Plot Plot 2 Plot 3 Plot 4
No. % No. % No. % No. %
Crop farmers farmers farmers farmers farmers farmers farmers farmers

Bean-maize intercrop 103 26.0 54 13.6 27 6.9 9 2.3
Maize monocrop 260 65.7 118 29.8 63 15.9 22 5.5
Bean monocrop 5 1.3 69 24.2 51 12.9 30 7.6
Coffee/banana intercrop 10 2.6 24 6.1 24 6.1 25 6.3
Tubers 18 4.5 13 3.3 7 1.8










who did not follow the recommendation mentioned labor constraints and late rains as their reasons
for preparing land at a different time.

All farmers who planted maize during the dry season performed land preparation between July and
August; only two farmers prepared their land in June. Again this is an appropriate time for these
areas. The reasons for preparing land during this season were that if maize is planted during the wet
season it will mature when there are heavy rains and the whole crop will suffer from cob rot. Also,
dry season planting is a mechanism to avoid labor competition with other farm activities.


Land was mainly prepared using hand hoes in the intermediate zone (48.1%) and the highland zone
(63.1%); fewer farmers used ox plows (38.8% in the intermediate zone and 24.4% in the highlands).
None of the sampled farmers in the mountainous coffee/banana-based farming systems used oxen or
tractors. In the less mountainous areas of Rukwa region, nearly all sampled households used oxen to
prepare land.

5.2.2. Seedbed type, planting pattern, and weeding
Table 12 shows farmers' major agronomic practices. About 73% of the farmers in the intermediate
zone and 76% in the highlands used a flat seedbed. Other types of seedbeds included ridges (24% of
farmers in the intermediate zone, 18% in the highlands). One farmer in Rukwa region used mounds.
Eighteen farmers in Mbinga district planted maize in Matengo pits (ngoro). Mounds and Matengo pits
are indigenous seedbed types used by the Wafipa and Wamatengo groups in Sumbawanga and
Mbinga Districts, respectively. Pits and mounds are said to be effective for maintaining soil fertility
and controlling soil erosion. Eleven of the 18 farmers who planted maize in pits were from Miyau
Village, while seven were from Mbangalla Village in Mbinga District. A study by Temu and Bisanda
(1996) showed that Matengo pits are dug by nearly 90% of the farmers in central parts of Mbinga
where Miyau Village is located. Farmers in the eastern part of the district where Mbangalla Village is
located are slowly abandoning the pits in favor of ridges, because the area is less steep. Matengo pits
are dug along the steep slopes of mountains to control soil erosion and water run-off while
maintaining soil fertility. Ridges, on the other hand, are a traditional practice in Ruvuma region, and



Table 11. Time and methods of land preparation, Southern Highlands, Tanzania

Intermediate zone Highlands
Number of farmers Percentage of farmers Number of farmers Percentage of farmers

Time of land preparation
August-October 120 56.1 81 45.0
November-December 92 42.8 77 42.9
January-March 2 1.1 22 12.1
Method of land preparation
Hand hoe 103 48.1 111 63.1
Ox-plow 83 38.8 43 24.4
Tractor 2 0.9 5 2.8
Hand hoe + oxen 23 10.7 13 7.4
Zero tillage 1 0.5 1 0.6
Other 2 0.9 3 1.7











most farmers who planted maize on ridges were from Songea and Mbinga Districts, all of which are
in Ruvuma region.


Farmers in the Tukuyu highlands generally plant dry-season maize, sowing the crop between June
and August. About 95% of the farmers in the intermediate zone and 89% in the highlands planted
maize between November and December at the recommended time. Most farmers planted at that
time because it was during the onset of rains or the recommended time of planting in their areas. As
noted earlier, the rains have started later than usual during the last three or four years, and some
farmers who planted during the first and second weeks of November were compelled to replant their
maize to cope with the effects of late rains. Maize was planted in rows by all farmers in both zones,
because it eased management of the field. Row planting in the Southern Highlands has a long
history; the first farmers adopted row planting in 1960.


About 44% of the farmers in the intermediate zone and 45% in the highlands used a spacing of 90
cm between rows; a 30 cm spacing between hills was favored by about 82% and 90% of the farmers
in the intermediate and highland zones, respectively. The average number of seeds per hill was 1.7
in the intermediate zone and 1.4 in the highlands. This difference was significant at p = 0.01.


Table 12. Farmers' major agronomic practices, Southern Highlands, Tanzania


Intermediate zone
Number of farmers Percentage of farmers


Highlands
Number of farmers Percentage of farmers


Agronomic practice
June-October
November-December
January
Planting method
Row
Spacing between row
60 cm
75cm
90 cm
Other
Spacing between hills
30 cm
60 cm
Other
Time of weeding
First weeding
August-November
December-January
February-March
Second weeding
October-November
December-January
February-March


Number of seeds per hill
Number of weedings


5
205
6

197

33
40
84
33

160
20
16


4
151
34


38
128
Mean
1.7
2.0


2.4
94.9
2.8

100.0

17.4
21.1
44.2
17.3

81.6
10.2
8.2


1.9
82.3
15.8


22.8
77.1
Standard deviation


19
160
1

156

32
38
68
13

140
8
8


19
134
26

17
12
119
Mean
1.4
2.1


10.6
88.8
0.6

100.0

21.2
25.2
45.0
8.6

89.7
5.1
5.2


10.2
74.9
14.9

11.4
8.1
80.5
Standard deviation
0.5
0.7










Most of the farmers in both zones weeded at least twice. The first weeding was done in December
and January by about 82% of farmers in the intermediate zone and 75% in the highlands. The
second weeding was mainly done between February and March. Hand hoes were the most important
weeding implements in both the intermediate zone (97.7%) and highlands (100%). About 3% of the
farmers in the intermediate zone used either ox-drawn weeders or ox-drawn weeders together with
hand hoes. None of the sampled farmers used herbicides during the first weeding.

Besides hand hoes, 37 farmers in the intermediate zone (17%) and 2 in the highlands (1.1%) used
herbicides for the second weeding. Six farmers in the two zones used hand weeding while six farmers
from intermediate altitudes used ox-drawn weeders. Very few farmers carried out three weedings.

5.2.3. Type of fertilizer, method of application, and quantity
Soil nutrient depletion in the Southern Highlands is high because of high rainfall, leaching, and
continuous maize cultivation. About 100-150 kg/ha N and 40-60 kg/ha P205 is lost at a yield level
of 5-6 t/ha (Prasad 1978). Nutrient supplementation is needed to maintain maize production.
Farmers apply organic and inorganic fertilizers, rotate crops, fallow, and intercrop to restore
declining fertility. Farmers in both the intermediate zone (65%) and highlands (79%) used inorganic
fertilizer (Table 13) (in order of importance: urea, sulfate of ammonium, and calcium ammonium
nitrate). The major reason that farmers did not use fertilizer was the lack of cash to purchase it.
Nearly all farmers (about 97% in the intermediate zone and 95% in the highlands) used organic
fertilizer, however; farmers who did not use organic fertilizer generally had no livestock.

Most farmers received information about organic fertilizer from neighboring farmers (reported by
62% of the farmers in the intermediate zone and 89% in the highlands). Most farmers used FYM. A
few farmers in the intermediate zone used a green manure crop, such as a legume. About 49% of
the farmers in the intermediate zone and 86% in the highlands obtained FYM from other farmers.




Table 13. Fertilizer use by sample households, Southern Highlands, Tanzania

Intermediate zone Highlands
Number of farmers Percentage of farmers Number of farmers Percentage of farmers

Use inorganic fertilizer (IF) 141 65.3 143 79.4
Use organic fertilizer (OF) 37 97.4 37 94.9
Reason for not using IF
No money 84 94.4 37 90.2
Not available 1 1.1 4 9.8
Other 4 4.5 -
Reason for not using OF
No livestock 65 56.5 106 85.5
Never received message 19 16.5 7 5.6
Bulky 9 7.8 7 5.6
Other 22 19.2 4 3.7










Almost all farmers in the sample applied basal fertilizer (average 55 kg/ha) from November to
January. The average price of basal fertilizer during the 1993/94 cropping season was about Tsh
8,700/50 kg in the intermediate zone and Tsh 7,700/50 kg in the highlands. This difference was
not significant at p = 0.1. Most farmers used triple super phosphate (TSP) or di-ammonium
phosphate (DAP) as basal fertilizers and almost all farmers made holes in the soil to apply basal
fertilizer. Just over half of the farmers in the intermediate zone (around 52%) and nearly one-third of
the farmers in the highlands (30%) bought fertilizer at the stockist, while 40% and 61% in the
intermediate zone and highlands, respectively, bought it from the cooperative society.

About 14% percent of highland farmers applied the first top-dressing between October and
December. The remaining 86% applied the first top-dressing between January and March, which is
when all of the farmers in the intermediate zone applied it. About 29% of the farmers in the
intermediate zone and 51% in the highlands used urea, whereas calcium ammonium nitrate (CAN)
was used by 25% and 18%, respectively. The first top-dressing averaged about 60 kg/ha for both
zones. The second top-dressing was mainly applied between February and March by about 90% of
the farmers in both zones. Forty-one percent of intermediate zone farmers and 65% of highland
farmers used urea, whereas 35% and 30%, respectively, used CAN. The second top-dressing
averaged 58 kg/ha in the intermediate zone and 60 kg/ha in the highlands. The major reason that
some farmers did not apply a second top-dressing was lack of cash.

Eighty-five percent of intermediate zone farmers and 95% of highland farmers said that fertilizers
were available on time. The only constraint was their high price, which is the result of the gradual
removal of subsidies on agricultural inputs. Fertilizers are usually sold by private stockists, the
Tanzania Farmer's Association (TFA), and primary cooperative societies that have taken up the role
of stockists. Farmers did not travel long distances to purchase fertilizers sold by cooperative societies,
in contrast to fertilizers sold by private traders and the TFA; most TFA shops and private traders are
stationed in urban centers. A study by Bisanda and Mwangi (1996) in Mbeya region revealed that
39% of the sampled farmers traveled over 4 km to purchase fertilizers in urban centers, while only
12% traveled less than 1 km to where cooperative societies have taken up the role of stockists (that
is, within the village).



Table 14. Fallowing and crop rotation practices of sampled farmers, Southern Highlands, Tanzania

Intermediate zone Highlands
Number of farmers Percentage of farmers Number of farmers Percentage of farmers

Fallow maize 90 41.9 90 50.0
Reason for fallowing
Replenishes soil fertility 88 96.7 88 98.9
Other 3 3.3 1 1.1
Crop rotation 145 67.8 95 52.8
Reason for crop rotation
Replenishes soil fertility 136 99.3 89 97.8
Other 1 0.7 2 2.2










5.2.4. Fallowing and crop rotation
Land was fallowed by about 42% of intermediate zone farmers (4 years) and 50% of highland
farmers (3 years) (Table 14). The difference in the time of the fallow in each zone was significant at P
= 0.05. Almost all farmers fallowed their land to replenish soil fertility. After fallow, about 66% of
intermediate zone farmers and 49% of highland farmers grew legumes, reportedly because the
legumes need less fertilizer after fallow. Land scarcity was farmers' main reason for not fallowing.
About 68% of intermediate zone farmers and 53% of highland farmers rotated their crops, largely to
replenish soil fertility. Maize was rotated with legumes by about 87% of intermediate zone farmers
and 57% of highland farmers. In the intermediate zone, 32.8% of the farmers did not practice crop
rotations because they were not aware of the benefits, while about 19% reported that they
intercropped or had fertile soils. In the highlands, about 37% reporting intercropping, although 35%
said they did not have enough land to do so.

5.2.5. Crop residue management
The recommended management practice for crop residues is to plow them under to avoid soil
mining. Table 15 shows that more than half of the farmers in both zones burn their crop residues,
however, while 41% of intermediate zone farmers and 26% of highland farmers feed the residues to
cattle. Only 5% and 18% of the farmers in the intermediate zone and highlands, respectively,
followed the recommendation.

5.2.6. Pest and disease control
Pests and diseases (listed in Table 16) are serious production constraints. Nearly all farmers in the
sample rated stalk borers as the most serious field pest. The second most important field pest was
cutworms. Farmers mainly used chemical means to control these pests. Intermediate zone farmers
used Thiodan (12.4%) and DDT (37.3%); highland farmers used Thiodan (32.6%), Sumithion
(18.5%), DDT (16.3%), and Novathion (8.9 %). On average, farmers in the intermediate zone
applied 1.3 L/acre of chemicals; their counterparts in the highlands applied 1.5 L/acre. DDT is
prohibited in Tanzania and it was not established whether what farmers called "DDT" was truly DDT
or some other chemical. Farmers paid Tsh 1,790 per unit of chemical in the highlands and Tsh
2,390 in the highlands (this difference was significant at p = 0.05). Ash or local control methods
were favored by about 30% of intermediate zone farmers and 10% of highland farmers. Chemicals
were usually readily available and the extension services in the MOA were farmers' main source of
information about them.




Table 15. Management of crop residues by sampled farmers, Southern Highlands, Tanzania

Intermediate zone Highlands
Number of farmers Percentage of farmers Number of farmers Percentage of farmers

Plow under 11 5.1 32 17.8
Burn 110 50.9 101 56.2
Feed cattle 88 40.7 46 25.6
Other 7 3.2 1 0.6











Maize streak virus was the most important disease for about 94% of farmers in the intermediate
zone and 78% in the highlands. Cob rot was a problem for 20% of the farmers in the highlands.


Vermin were controlled by scaring or trapping.


In a study conducted in one of the high-altitude areas of Mbeya region, Nalitolela (1990) reported
cob rot as a major problem, especially among hybrid maize varieties. In the intermediate zone, about
28% of the farmers did not use any form of disease control. Chemicals were used by only 3% of
intermediate zone farmers and 6% of highland farmers, whereas 69% and 94% of the farmers,
respectively, simply uprooted the infected plants, especially for MSV and head smut.

5.3. Maize Harvesting, Transportation, and Storage


Because there are two planting seasons in the survey area, there are two different harvesting
seasons. Maize planted in the dry season was harvested between February and April (Table 17).
Farmers in the highlands harvested their maize later compared to farmers in the intermediate zone,
perhaps because differences in rainfall and temperature regimes delay physiological maturity of
highland maize.


The most common method of harvesting maize was to remove the ears and carry them home for
processing. Most farmers in the intermediate zone transported maize to the homestead using an ox-
cart (62.5%), while about 63% percent of highland farmers used head loads. The most common
storage method for maize was to shell it and store it in a kihenge. About 89% of the farmers in both


Table 16. Major pests and diseases and their control, Southern Highlands, Tanzania

Intermediate zone Highlands
Number of farmers Percentage of farmers Number of farmers Percentage of farmers

Field pests
None 2 1.0 1 0.6
Stalk borers 189 93.1 168 98.8
Cutworms and termites 9 4.4 -
Vermin 3 1.5 1 0.6
Method of control
Thiodan 19 12.4 44 32.6
DDT 57 37.3 22 16.3
Ash/local method 46 30.1 14 10.4
Sumithion 6 3.9 25 18.5
Novathion 16 10.5 12 8.9
Other 9 5.8 18 13.3
Field diseases
Maize streak virus 74 93.7 47 78.3
Cob rot 4 5.1 12 20.0
Other 1 1.3 1 1.7
Method of control
None 8 27.6 -
Rogue 20 69.0 31 93.9
Other 1 3.4 2 6.1











zones used a chemical treatment on their stored maize; if they did not do so, it was because they
lacked cash or thought seed treatment was not needed.


5.4. Maize Seed Availability, Selection, and Recycling


When farmers selected seed for the next cycle, they mostly selected it at the homestead (69% of
intermediate zone farmers and 75% of highland farmers), although some (30.8% and 25.2%,
respectively) selected seed in the field. Seed was usually selected right after the harvest, and a big cob
was the most important seed selection criterion (mentioned by 96% of farmers) (Table 18). When
farmers purchased seed for the next cycle, they mainly acquired it from stockists (76.4% of
intermediate zone farmers and 97.2% of highland farmers). The great majority of farmers purchased
seed every year (97% in the intermediate zones, 90% in the highlands), and all reported that seed


Table 17. Maize harvesting, transportation, and storage

Intermediate zone Highlands
Number of farmers Percentage of farmers Number of farmers Percentage of farmers

Months of harvest
June-July 183 84.7 44 24.4
August-October 32 15.3 119 66.2
February-April 17 9.5
Method of transportation
Head load 72 33.3 113 62.8
Bicycle 6 2.8 1 0.6
Ox-cart 135 62.5 66 36.7
Pick-up 3 1.4 -
Maize storage
Shell and store in kihenge 191 89.7 129 72.1
On cribs 6 2.8 14 7.8
Gunny bags 5 2.3 15 8.4
Other 11 5.2 21 11.7


Table 18. Seed selection criteria, seed storage methods, and seed sources of sampled farmers, Southern
Highlands, Tanzania

Intermediate zone Highlands
Number of farmers Percentage of farmers Number of farmers Percentage of farmers

Selection criterion
Big cob 126 96.2 102 96.2
Mature grain 5 3.8 4 3.8
Method of seed storage
Shelled with chemical in bags 73 56.2 68 63.0
Kihenge 35 26.9 30 27.8
Other 6 16.9 8 9.2
Source of seed
Cooperative union 10 11.2 2 2.8
Stockist 68 76.4 70 97.2
Other 11 12.3 -










was readily available. Farmers in the Southern Highlands are the largest consumers of commercial
maize seed in Tanzania. In 1981/82, the zone accounted for 41% of all seed distributed through
formal systems, while in 1989/90 it consumed 44% of total maize seed distributed in Tanzania (URT
1992). The average price of seed during the survey season was about Tsh 580/kg in the intermediate
zone and Tsh 553/kg in the highlands.

5.5. Maize Marketing


Most smallholders grow maize for food and cash. Each year, farmers set aside a certain amount of the
maize harvest for household food security and sell the remainder. In places where there are no other
cash crops, such as Sumbawanga, Nkansi, Iringa, Songea, Mufindi, and Njombe Districts, maize is the
most dependable source of cash.


Farmers were asked to provide information regarding the amount of local and improved maize that
was sold and/or retained for home consumption. However, many farmers did not keep such records,
and it was difficult for some farmers to recall these details of their harvests. In some places farmers did
not provide this information at all, whereas in other places, where maize is stored without shelling, it
was difficult to estimate actual yields. Another factor was that some farmers sold or consumed small
quantities of maize whenever they needed cash or food. Under such circumstances, it was difficult to
estimate total maize sold or consumed. Consumption patterns of sampled farmers are shown Table
19.


Table 19 shows that farmers sold more maize than they retained for household food security and kept
more improved varieties than local varieties for home consumption. Also, farmers tend to sell more
improved varieties than local ones to obtain household income. Given the mean household size of
eight persons, households retained 175 kg of maize per person per year, which is relatively sufficient
to sustain each individual through the year. In 1994, the total production of improved maize varieties
was about 35 bags/ha for the intermediate zone and 26 bags/ha for the highlands. This difference
was significant at P = 0.05. Total production of local varieties was about 24 bags/ha in the
intermediate zone and 18 bags/ha in the highlands, a difference that was also significant at P = 0.05.


Table 19. Average amount of maize (in 100 kg bags) sold or consumed, 1974-94, Southern Highlands, Tanzania

1974 1980 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

Local maize sold
Intermediate zone 13.0 13.5 15.9 17.8 16.7 16.0 15.7 15.4
Highlands 15.2 17.7 17.2 15.5 16.9 14.6 16.3 20.2
Local maize retained for food
Intermediate zone 10.2 11.7 9.8 12.8 13.0 12.8 12.3 13.0
Highlands 10.6 13.4 10.9 12.2 13.0 12.3 12.2 12.7
Improved maize sold
Intermediate zone 18.6 20.0 14.7 22.0 18.8 19.2 19.4 24.8
Highlands 23.8 27.2 19.5 23.0 18.8 20.3
Improved maize retained for food
Intermediate zone 14.2 15.9 12.8 14.4 15.0 15.4 14.6 15.2
Highlands 13.7 13.9 12.7 11.6 13.3 13.5 12.9









6.0. Farmers' Adoption/Disadoption of Improved Maize


6.1. Varieties Currently Grown

Both local and improved maize was grown in the zone. Local varieties were known only as local or
traditional varieties, but improved varieties were identified by their actual names or origins. For
instance, some hybrids (probably H614 or H6302) were known as "Njombe" or "Kenya," referring
to their supposed place of origin. Similarly, another improved variety (probably SR52) was called
"Malawi" or "Zimbabwe." Other improved varieties known in the zone included H632, UCA,
Katumani, CG4141, CG4142, TMV2, and TMV1. The CG materials are multiplied and distributed
by Cargill, while all other materials were developed either nationally, locally, and/or through
collaboration with international research institutes, and multiplied and distributed by seed farms and
seed companies or their agents. In the 1994/95 cropping season, about 64% of farmers in the
intermediate zone and 49% in the highlands grew local varieties (Table 20). However, recent studies
in the zone indicated that it was very difficult to find pure local varieties in the field (Nalitolela 1990;
Bisanda and Mwangi 1996). The maize varieties that farmers regard as local varieties are improved
varieties that have deteriorated after several years of seed recycling. Recycled hybrid maize seed loses
its purity and ceases to preserve some of its original traits, most notably its yielding ability.


About 36% of intermediate zone farmers and 51% of highland farmers grew improved varieties. In
both zones H614 was the most popular improved maize variety. As mentioned earlier, farmers
obtained improved seed from stockists such as TFA, traders, TANSEED, or cooperative societies.
About 41% of the sampled farmers said that following market liberalization seed was readily available,
though prices were high.

6.2. Preferred Improved Maize Materials and
Reasons for Farmers' Preferences

The preferred improved maize materials are shown in Table 21. H614 tops the list, which confirms
earlier reports (Bisanda and Mwangi 1996) of a high preference of H614 in Mbeya region. Farmers
in both zones valued H614 and H6302 for their high yield, while UCA was preferred for its drought
resistance (Table 22).


Table 20. Maize varieties planted in the 1994/95 season, Table 21. Preferred improved maize materials, Southern
Southern Highlands, Tanzania Highlands, Tanzania


Intermediate zone Highlands
Number of Percentage Number of Percentage
Variety farmers of farmers farmers of farmers

Local variety 138 63.9 88 48.9
H6302 6 2.8 23 12.8
H614 54 25.0 46 26.2
UCA 7 3.2 17 9.4
TMV2 1 0.6
CG4141/4142 5 2.3 2 1.1
H632 6 2.8 2 1.1


Intermediate zone Highlands
Number of Percentage Number of Percentage
Variety farmers of farmers farmers of farmers

H6302 14 9.7 38 29.9
H614 108 75.0 63 49.6
UCA 8 5.6 20 15.7
TMV 1 0.8
CG4141 4 2.8 2 1.6
SR52 1 0.7 1 0.8
H632 9 6.3 2 1.6











6.3. Farmers' Disadoption of Improved Maize


More than half of the farmers in each zone reported disadopting improved maize (about 59% of
intermediate zone farmers and 57% of highland farmers. In the intermediate zone, 65.3% of farmers
had disadopted H614 and 19.4% had disadopted H6302. In the highlands, 50.7% of the farmers no
longer grew H614, 30.4% no longer grew H6302, and 11.6% no longer grew UCA. The main
reason for disadopting H614 was its high price (Table 23). H6302 was disadopted in the
intermediate zone because of its unavailability, while its susceptibility to pests and diseases was the
main reason that farmers in the highlands no longer grew it. High seed costs and unavailability of
seed were also the primary reasons for disadoption reported by Bisanda and Mwangi (1996). Most
farmers disadopted improved maize between 1988 and 1994. This period coincides with the gradual
removal of subsidies on agricultural inputs, which may have contributed to the high disadoption rates
during this period.


Table 22. Farmers' reasons for preferring different maize materials, Southern Highlands, Tanzania

Reason for preference (% farmers)
Altitude Variety High yield Drought resistance Good standability

Intermediate zone H6302 100.0 -
H614 99.1 0.9
UCA 37.5 62.5 -
Highlands H6302 100.0 -
H614 98.4 1.6 -
UCA 25.0 75.0 -



Table 23. Varieties no longer grown by farmers, and reasons for disadoption, Southern Highlands, Tanzania

Reason for disadoption (% farmers)
Low Susceptible Not High
Altitude Variety yield to pests available cost Other

Intermediate zone H6302 22.2 22.2 44.4 10.0
H614 13.6 6.8 8.5 62.7 8.4
Reason for disadoption (% farmers)
Low Attacked by Late High
Altitude Variety yield storage pests maturity cost Other

Highlands H6302 5.3 36.8 15.8 26.3 15.8
H614 23.3 16.7 3.3 36.7 20.0









7.0. Credit and Extension Services for Farmers in the

Southern Highlands


7.1. Credit Availability

Agricultural credit is extremely important in stimulating increased agricultural productivity, especially
where farmers lack capital to purchase inputs. The provision of appropriate credit for seed and
fertilizer to smallholders tremendously increased maize production in the Sasakawa-Global 2000
project area of Tanzania (Quifones et al. 1992). Some few years ago, cooperative societies used to
be the most dependable source of credit, but because of poor management these arrangements are
no longer available. Most cooperative unions faced serious liquidity problems, some of which were
administrative and some of which arose from farmers' failure to repay loans. As a result, farmers no
longer have any reliable source of credit.

Only 22% of farmers in the intermediate zone and 20% in the highlands reported having received
credit (Table 24). Almost all farmers reported that credit was not readily available. The main source
of credit was non-governmental organizations (NGOs). About 60% of the farmers in both zones used
NGOs as a credit source, mainly Sasakawa-Global 2000. The major drawbacks of credit provided by
Sasakawa-Global 2000 were its short-term nature (three years) and weak credit administration, which
increased the number of loan defaulters when credit was extended to a large number of farmers
(Nkonya 1994). In the intermediate zone, about 36% of farmers reported lack of collateral as the
main impediment to receiving credit, and 35% reported lack of knowledge as the main difficulty. In
the highlands, these reasons were cited by 52.8% and 18.3% of farmers, respectively.

Credit was used only to purchase seed and fertilizers. About 21% of intermediate zone farmers and
17% of highland farmers used credit to buy fertilizer, and only 7% of intermediate zone farmers and
4% of highland farmers used credit to purchase seed.



Table 24. Farmers' sources and use of credit, Southern Highlands, Tanzania
Intermediate zone Highlands
Number of farmers Percentage of farmers Number of farmers Percentage of farmers
Access to credit 47 22.2 36 20.0
Source of credit
NGO 28 60.9 20 58.8
Bank 1 2.2 3 8.8
Cooperative Union 17 37.0 11 32.4
Availability of credit
Difficult 209 98.1 179 99.4
Not difficult 4 1.9 1 0.6
Constraint
No collateral 76 35.8 95 52.8
Lack of knowledge 74 34.9 33 18.3
Bureaucracy 24 11.3 42 23.3
Other 38 18.0 10 5.5











7.2. Extension Services


A study in Mbeya region revealed that unreliable sources of information may be a constraint to the use
of new technologies (Bisanda and Mwangi 1996). Experience with Sasakawa-Global 2000 showed
that with close extension interaction, farmers could increase their crop yields tremendously (Quifones
et al. 1992).


In this study, 83% of farmers in the intermediate zone and 86% in the highlands said they had
received information on improved maize technologies. Most farmers in both zones had received
information on improved maize varieties, planting methods, fertilizer use, weed management, pest
management, and post-harvest maize storage (Table 25).


Information about the use of herbicides, ox-drawn implements, and disease control methods was not
widespread among the samples farmers. In addition, for these three technologies the farmers in the
intermediate zone had received significantly more information than farmers in the highlands. Only in
the case of storage practices had farmers in the highlands received significantly more information than
the other farmers. The main source of information for all practices in both zones was the MOA
extension service. Farmer-to-farmer interaction was also important for farmers to exchange not only
ideas but also technologies. Usually this happened when a technology was good and farmers deemed
it acceptable. This source of information became efficient where extension services were weak and
inefficient.


Table 25 also shows that most farmers received information about the improved maize varieties,
planting methods, fertilizer, weed management, pest management, and storage practices. Farmers in
the intermediate zone were significantly higher adopters of improved maize, planting methods, and
fertilizer than farmers in the highlands. The adoption of herbicides, ox-drawn implements, and disease
control measures was lower among farmers in both zones. Farmers in the intermediate zone were
significantly better adopters of herbicides and ox-drawn implements than farmers in the highlands.

Table 25. Farmers' sources and adoption of maize production information technology, Southern Highlands, Tanzania
Intermediate zone Highlands
Number of Percentage Number of Percentage
farmers of farmers farmers of farmers X2
Improved maize
Received information 174 97.8 147 95.5 1.4 (NS)
Adopted improved variety 112 63.6 67 43.5 13.4*
Source of information
Extension 130 74.3 120 82.8 ..a
NGOs 10 5.7 1 0.7 ..a
Other farmers 9 5.1 9 6.2 ..a
Other 26 14.9 14 10.3 ..a
Planting method
Received information 179 86.9 161 89.4 0.6 (NS)
Adopted planting method 170 97.1 142 92.2 4.1**
Source of information
Extension 141 81.5 112 77.8 ..a
NGOs 4 2.3 1 0.7 .a
Other farmers 9 5.2 18 12.5 .a
Other 19 11.0 13 9.0 .a
Cont'd...











Table 25. Cont'd.

Intermediate zone Highlands
Number of Percentage Number of Percentage
farmers of farmers farmers of farmers X2
Fertilizer
Received information 191 96.0 173 96.1 0.0 (NS)
Adopted fertilizer 128 76.6 132 85.7 4.3**
Source of information
Extension 125 76.6 125 83.3 ..a
NGOs 6 3.7 1 0.7 ..a
Other farmers 11 6.8 8 5.3 ..a
Other 19 11.9 16 10.7 ..a
Weed management
Received information 150 93.8 131 85.6 5.6**
Adopted weed management 148 92.5 133 91.2 0.2 (NS)
Source of information
Extension 105 71.9 76 61.3 ..a
NGOs 5 3.4 1 0.8 ..a
Other farmers 17 11.6 24 19.4 ..a
Other 19 13.1 23 18.5 ..a
Herbicide
Received information 62 41.6 16 10.5 37.9*
Adopted herbicide 33 23.4 5 3.4 25.1*
Source of information
Extension 52 70.3 15 78.9 ..a
NGOs 1 1.4 ..a
Other farmers 7 9.5 ..a
Other 14 18.8 4 21.1 ..a
Ox-drawn tools
Received information 108 67.1 42 27.6 48.8*
Adopted tools 83 53.2 29 19.6 36.9*
Source of information
Extension 50 48.1 18 54.5 ..a
NGOs 6 5.8 ..a
Other farmers 37 33.7 7 21.2 ..a
Other 13 13.4 8 24.3 .a
Pest management
Received information 147 84.5 128 83.7 0.04 (NS)
Adopted pest management 134 80.7 117 77.0 0.7 (NS)
Source of information
Extension 102 73.9 96 82.1 ..a
NGOs 4 2.9 1 0.9 ..a
Other farmers 19 13.8 18 15.4 .a
Other 13 9.4 2 1.6 ..a
Disease control measures
Received information 47 33.3 37 24.7 2.7***
Adopted measures 36 27.7 37 25.2 0.2 (NS)
Source of information
Extension 42 84.0 34 91.9 ..a
NGOs ..a
Other farmers 6 12.0 3 8.1 ..a
Other 2 4.0 ..a
Storage practices
Received information 158 93.5 150 97.4 2.8***
Adopted practices 150 89.8 132 86.3 0.9 (NS)
Source of information
Extension 97 69.3 101 76.5 ..a
NGOs 7 5.0 ..a
Other farmers 23 16.4 14 10.6 .a
Other 13 9.3 17 12.9 ..a
Note: NS = not significant; *** = significant at 10% level; *= significant at 5% level; *= significant at 1% level.
a 2 not calculated.









8.0. Factors Affecting Adoption of Agricultural
Technologies in the Study Area

8.1. Definitions

Feder et al. (1985) defined adoption as the degree of use of a new technology in a long run
equilibrium when a farmer has full information about the new technology and its potential.
Therefore, adoption at the farm level describes the realization of farmers' decision to apply a new
technology in the production process. On the other hand, aggregate adoption is the process of
spread or diffusion of a new technology within a region. Therefore a distinction exists between
adoption at the individual farm level and aggregate adoption within a targeted region. If an
innovation is modified periodically, however, the equilibrium level of adoption will not be achieved.
This situation requires the use of econometric procedures that can capture both the rate and the
process of adoption. The rate of adoption is defined as the proportion of farmers who have adopted
a new technology over time. The incidence of adoption is defined as the percentage of farmers using
a technology at a specific point in time (for example, the percentage of farmers using fertilizer). The
intensity of adoption is defined as the level of adoption of a given technology (for instance, the
number of hectares planted with improved seed or the amount of fertilizer applied per hectare).

8.2. Rate of Adoption of Improved Maize and Fertilizer

The common procedure for assessing the rate of adoption is the use of a logistic curve, which
captures the historical trend of adoption over a given time and can be used to assess the effectiveness
of agricultural institutions that have served the farming system over time. The logistic curve is
constructed using data on the proportion of farmers who have adopted an improved technical
innovation over a given period. The basic assumption is that adoption increases slowly at first but
then increases rapidly to approach a maximum level (CIMMYT 1993). Mathematically, the logistic
curve is given by the following formula:

K
t = 1 = eabt

where:
Yt = the cumulative percentage of adopters at a time t;
K = the upper bound of adoption;
b = a constant, related to the rate of adoption; and
a = a constant, related to the time when adoption begins.

8.2.1. Maize adoption over time
Figure 5 shows the rate of adoption of improved maize in the intermediate zone and highlands. In
1994, the cumulative adoption of improved varieties in the intermediate zone and highlands was
72% and 77%, respectively. The rate of adoption for the 1970-94 was 0.35 for the intermediate
zone and 0.17 for the highlands. This figure shows that farmers in the highlands used improved











units were significantly associated with the adoption of improved maize varieties and land allocated to
improved maize varieties.


Extension had a positive impact on the adoption of improved maize varieties. Farmers with frequent
extension contact are contact farmers. They have access to information about improved maize
technologies and extension agents encourage them to adopt these technologies. Contact farmers
also have access to study tours, training, and occasionally credit.


The intermediate zone had a negative effect on the adoption of improved maize. The Southern
Highlands have growing seasons of seven months in the highlands and five months in the
intermediate zone. Farmers in the highlands are aware that recommended varieties will mature
during the dry season (after July), but they prefer hybrids that mature later. Materials that mature
before July cause labor competition with other crops, especially beans. In the intermediate zone,
farmers use varieties that mature before July, because after July farming starts in the valley bottoms.
Therefore, farmers in the intermediate zone are less likely to adopt late-maturing hybrids.


Ownership of livestock is positively related to the adoption of improved maize varieties. Farmers who
own livestock are wealthier and can afford to buy imported maize seed.


The regression coefficients and the model were used to calculate probabilities of adoption of
improved maize varieties and predict the amount of land allocated to improved maize varieties (Table
27). The method for calculating the values in Table 27 is shown in Appendix 1.


The probability that an average farmer in the intermediate zone who received extension and owns
two animals would grow improved maize varieties is 48%. The area a farmer is expected to plant to
improved maize is 1.56 acre. The probability that a farmer without extension will grow improved
maize drops to 38%, and the area under improved maize varieties decreases to 1.09 acres.


Table 26. Tobit model estimates for land allocated to improved maize varieties, Southern Highlands, Tanzania

Parameter Coefficient t-statistic Standard error Mean

Constant -1.2234 2.3** 0.533
Intermediate zone -0.4584 3.4* 0.1339 -
Farm size (acres) 0.0012 0.2 0.0078 9.62
Hand hoe (no.) -0.2352 1.2 0.1929 -
Ox-plow (no.) -0.0813 0.4 0.202
Extension 1.1001 2.4** 0.457 -
Experience (yr) 0.0035 0.6 0.0063 19.63
Livestock units (no.) 0.0408 4.2* 0.0979 3.24
Labor (no.) 0.0379 1.5 0.0246 5.48
Hired labor 0.0308 0.2 0.1519 -
Credit 0.0754 0.5 0.1545
Log likelihood function -504.76
Standard error of estimate 4.1701
Wald X2 44.41 *
Sample size 314


Note: ** = significant at 5% level;


significant at 1% level.











The probability that an average farmer in the highlands would grow improved maize varieties is 52%.
The expected area under improved maize is 1.79 acre. The probability that a farmer without
extension would grow improved maize drops to 42%, and the area under improved maize varieties
decreases to 1.27 acres. Table 27 also shows that the adoption of improved maize varieties and the
area under improved maize varieties increases with the number of livestock a farmer owns.


8.3.2. Tobit analysis of amount of fertilizer used


The coefficients of the tobit model used to investigate factors affecting the adoption and quantity of
fertilizer used are shown in Table 28. The model is significant at the 1% level on the basis of the
Wald X2 statistic with 11 degrees of freedom. Farm size, hand hoe use, and years of experience were
significantly associated with adoption and quantity of fertilizer used.


Table 27. Predicted probabilities of adoption and expected amount of land allocated to improved maize,
Southern Highlands, Tanzania

Intermediate zone Highlands
Number of livestock Probability (%) Acres Probability (%) Acres

2 Extension 48 1.56 52 1.79
No extension 38 1.09 42 1.27
4 Extension 49 1.60 53 1.83
No extension 39 1.12 42 1.31
6 Extension 50 1.64 54 1.88
No extension 40 1.14 43 1.34



Table 28. Tobit model estimates of amount of fertilizer used (kglacre) by farmers in the Southern Highlands,
Tanzania

Parameter Coefficient t-statistic Standard error Mean

Constant 0.6069 1.6 0.3909
Intermediate zone -0.0546 0.4 0.1238
Farm size (acres) -0.0377 4.1* 0.0092 9.62
Hand hoe 0.3181 1.6*** 0.1960
Ox-plow .2495 1.2 .2057
Extension .3564 1.3 .2830
Experience (yr) 0.0150 2.4** .0062 9.63
Livestock units (no.) 0.0035 0.3 .0107 3.24
Labor (no.) 0.0141 0.6 0.0254 5.48
Hired labor -0.172 1.2 0.1431
Credit -0.0656 0.5 0.1457

Log likelihood function -801.5
Standard error of estimate 8.3027
Wald X2 59.4*
Sample size 314


= significant at 5% level; = significant at 1%.


Note: ** = significant at 10% level;










Fertilizer use is positively related with wealth. In the highlands, cash-producing enterprises such as
potatoes, tea, coffee, pyrethrum, and dairy farming enable farmers to purchase fertilizer. Also, these
commercial enterprises are associated with cooperatives, which formerly provided fertilizer and other
input to farmers, who became accustomed to using them. Furthermore, most highland survey sites
were located in Iringa region, where the zonal fertilizer depot of the Tanzania Fertilizer Company is
located (at Makambako). Farmers in these areas get fertilizer at relatively lower prices compared to
farmers in the intermediate zone. Also, four TFA shops are located in the area. In the highlands,
nutrient leaching is high because of the hilly terrain, and nutrient mining is high because farmers
grow late-maturing hybrids. Farmers in the highlands also have significantly fewer cattle (4.3) than
farmers in the intermediate zone (8.5) (t = 3.1; p = 0.01) and thus they have less manure to use as
fertilizer. Therefore, farmers in the highlands have to use chemical fertilizer to replenish soil nutrients.


Farmers with smaller farms have to intensify production by applying fertilizer to maximize output.
These small farms are common in highland areas, where use of fertilizer is already high. Also, the
fallow period in the highlands is shorter because of the limited farm area, and therefore fertilizers are
used to regenerate soil. In most cases younger farmers have smaller farms. These younger farmers
have gone through primary education and have learned about the benefits of soil fertility
management through the "self-reliance" programs.

The regression coefficients and the model were used to calculate probabilities of adoption of fertilizer
and predict the quantity of fertilizer used (Table 29). The method for calculating the values in Table
29 is shown in Appendix 1.


The probability that an average farmer with 10 years of experience, five acres of land, and a hand
hoe will adopt fertilizer is 52%. The amount of fertilizer used would be 3.6 kg N/ha. A farmer who
does not own a hand hoe has a probability of 51% of adopting fertilizer, and the amount of fertilizer
used drops to 3.4 kg N/ha. Both the adoption and quantity of fertilizer use decrease with increasing
farm size and experience.



Table 29. Predicted probabilities of adoption and amount of fertilizer used (kglacre), Southern Highlands, Tanzania

Farm size (acres)
5 10 15
Years of experience Probability (%) Acres Probability (%) Acres Probability (%) Acres

10
Hand hoe 52 3.6 52 3.5 50 3.4
No hand hoe 51 3.4 50 3.3 49 3.2
20
Hand hoe 52 3.5 51 3.4 50 3.3
No hand hoe 50 3.3 49 3.3 48 3.1
30
Hand hoe 51 3.4 50 3.3 49 3.2
No hand hoe 50 3.3 48 3.2 48 3.1









9.0. Conclusions and Recommendations


9.1. Conclusions

This study has provided information on maize production in the Southern Highlands, including
varieties grown and preferred by farmers, maize management practices, and factors that can
enhance adoption of improved maize. The information has some implications for priority setting and
future research themes within maize research programs.

The mean age of the household head was 44 and 41 years for the intermediate zone and highlands,
respectively. The educational level of the household head averaged five years of formal schooling for
both zones. Sample households had about nine and eight family members comprising at least two
male and female adults and five (four) children in the intermediate and highland zones, respectively.
Land is mainly a constraint in the highlands, where the average farm size (8.0 acres) was lower
compared to the intermediate zone (9.2 acres). Livestock ownership is more common in the
intermediate zone. Farmers owned an average of 8.5 cattle in the intermediate zone compared to
4.3 in the highlands. Hand hoes were the major farm tools used in both zones.

Maize is the major food and cash crop in the study area. Intercropping of maize with beans or
sunflowers was common in both zones. However, maize monocropping was preferred by 83% and
58% of farmers in the intermediate zone and highlands, respectively. Land preparation depended on
the onset of rain in each zone, and the hand hoe was the major tool used to prepare land for
planting maize. Maize was mostly planted in rows at the recommended spacing and weeded at least
twice. The majority of farmers in both zones used inorganic fertilizer; the main constraint on fertilizer
use was a lack of cash. Virtually all farmers applied organic manure. Other soil fertility management
activities included fallowing and crop rotation with legumes.

Stalk borers were the most serious field pests, and most farmers used chemical control methods.
Maize streak virus was the most important disease and was controlled by roguing diseased plants.

Most maize was harvested in June/July in the intermediate zone (84.7%) and August/September in
the highlands (66.2%). Intermediate zone farmers used the ox-carts to transport maize, whereas
highland farmers used head loads. Most farmers in both zones stored their maize in a kihenge. About
69% and 75% of the farmers in the intermediate and highland zones, respectively, selected maize
seed at the homestead. A big cob was the most important seed selection criterion. About 97% of
intermediate zone farmers and 90% of highland farmers purchased seed every year.

In the 1994/95 cropping season, about 36% and 51% of the sample farmers in the intermediate
zone and highlands, respectively, grew improved maize. H614 was the most preferred variety in the
intermediate zone (75%) and highlands (60%), mainly because of its high yield. In both zones,
farmers had stopped growing H6302 and H614 because they were not available, susceptible to
diseases, had low yields, or the price of seed was too high.










About 20% of the farmers in both zones obtained credit, most often from NGOs (60%). Lack of
knowledge and lack of collateral were the major constraints to obtaining credit. Most farmers had
received information on improved maize practices such as improved maize varieties, weeding, use of
fertilizer, planting dates, pest management, and storage. Less information was disseminated about
herbicides, ox-drawn implements, and disease control methods. The main source of information was
extension.

The tobit analysis showed that living in the intermediate zone, extension contact, and numbers of
livestock units were significant factors that affected the proportion of land allocated to improved
maize. Extension increased the probability of allocating land at the means with 10%. Farmers in the
intermediate zone are about 4% less likely to allocate land to improved maize varieties. An increase
in the number of livestock by two units increased the probability of using improved maize varieties by
1%.

The tobit analysis also showed that farm size, hand hoe ownership, and the farmer's experience were
significant factors affecting the amount of fertilizer used. An increase of farm size by five acres
decreased the probability of adopting fertilizer by 1%, and an increase of experience of 10 years
decreased the probability of adopting fertilizer by 1%. The use of a hand hoe to prepare land
increased the adoption of fertilizer by 1%.

9.2. Recommendations

Research should address the problems of stalk borers, cutworms, and MSV by developing resistant or
tolerant varieties. TMV1 is resistant to MSV but has not yet reached the farmers. New varieties
should be developed and promoted through participatory on-farm research.

Extension services should increase educational contacts with farmers, especially in relation to
herbicide use and ox-powered implements, which could reduce labor bottlenecks during land
preparation and weeding. Only about 11% of farmers in the intermediate zone had received
information on herbicides, and only 28% had heard about ox-drawn implements. Maize streak virus
is a serious disease, yet only 33% and 25% of the farmers in the intermediate and highland zones,
respectively, have received information on how to control it and other maize diseases. Extension
should therefore continue to extend messages through farmer groups and on-farm demonstrations so
as to reach more farmers in a short time at a relatively low cost.

Farmers should also receive more information about various credit schemes, and the requirements
for collateral should be reviewed. About 20% of farmers received credit for maize production, largely
from NGOs. The formal credit market is hardly involved in supplying credit to maize farmers, but
rising input prices make it increasingly important to ensure that farmers have access to credit. Policy
makers and bankers should direct more effort to providing loans to small-scale maize farmers in ways
that will ensure a high rate of loan recovery and low cost of credit.











Policy makers should continue to encourage and support private sector investments in input
acquisition and distribution so that inputs are available when farmers need them. Credit and efficient
import regulations should be provided to private traders to avoid unnecessary delays in importing
inputs. Also, farmers who plant during the dry season should be supplied with inputs when they need
them. Finally, government policy should strengthen the input delivery system if the smallholder
sector, which produces over 85% of Tanzania's maize, is to maintain its productivity.



References

Adesina, A., and M. Zinnah. 1992. Adoption, diffusion, and economic impacts of modern mangrove rice varieties in
western Africa: Further results from Guinea and Sierra Leone. In Towards a New Paradigm for Farming
System Research/Extension, Working Paper for the 12th Annual Farming System Symposium. East Lansing:
Michigan State University. Pp. 443-466.
Bisanda, S., and W. Mwangi. 1996. Adoption of Recommended Maize Technologies in Mbeya Region of the
Southern Highlands of Tanzania. Addis Ababa. Ethiopia: CIMMYT/URT.
CIMMYT. 1988. From Agronomic Data to Farmer Recommendations: An Economics Training Manual. Mexico,
D.F.: CIMMYT.
CIMMYT. 1993. The Adoption of Agricultural Technology: A Guide for Survey Design. Mexico, D.F.: CIMMYT.
Cooper, J.P.M., and R. Law. 1976. The effect and importance of soil temperature in determining the early growth,
vigour and final yields of hybrid maize in the Highlands of Kenya. Paper presented at the World Meteorological
Organisation Symposium, Agri-climatology of Maize, 5-9 July, Ames, Iowa.
Croon, I., J. Deutsch, and A.E.M. Temu. 1984. Maize Production in Tanzania's Southern Highlands: Current Status
and Recommendations for the Future. Mexico, D.F: CIMMYT. Unpublished report.
Due, J.M. 1986. Summary of farming systems bean research in Tanzania, 1982-85. In: A.N. Minjas and M.P.
Salema (eds.), Bean Research. Proceedings of the 4th Bean Research Workshop held at Sokoine University of
Agriculture. Interpress of Tanzania Ltd. Pp. 146-151.
Feder, G., R.E. Just, and D. Zilberman. 1985. Adoption of agricultural Innovations in developing countries: A survey.
Economic Development and Cultural Change 33(2):255-297.
FSD (Food Security Department). 1996. Tanzania Food Security Bulletin No. 2, April/May 1996. Dar-Es-Salaam,
Tanzania: Ministry of Agriculture. Pp. 6-7.
Greene, W.H. 1993. Econometric Analysis. 2nd Edition. New York: MacMillan.
Griffiths, W.E., R. Carter-Hill, and G. Judge. 1993. Learning and Practicing Econometrics. New York: John Wiley.
Kamasho, J.A., and S.P. Msaki. 1992. Paper in J.A. Ekpere, D.J. Rees, R.P. Mbwile, and N.G. Lyimo (eds.),
Proceedings of an International conference on Agricultural Research, Training and Technology Transfer in
the Southern Highlands of Tanzania: Past Achievements and Future Prospects, 5-9 October, Mbeya,
Tanzania.
Lyimo, N.G., and A.E.M. Temu. 1992. The Southern Highlands Maize Improvement Programme: Achievements and
strategies for future research. In J.A. Ekpere, D.J. Rees, R.P. Mbwile, and N.G. Lyimo (eds.), Proceedings of
an International conference on Agricultural Research, Training and Technology Transfer in the Southern
Highlands of Tanzania: Past Achievements and Future Prospects, 5-9 October, Mbeya, Tanzania.
Maddala, G.S. 1983. Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Marandu, W.Y.F., N.G. Lyimo, A.E.M. Temu, and D. Kabungo. 1989. Maize Improvement in the Southern Highlands
of Tanzania. In B. Gebrekidan (ed.), Maize Improvement, Production and Protection in Eastern and
Southern Africa, proceedings of the 3rd Eastern and Southern African Regional Maize Workshop, 18-22
September 1988, Nairobi, Kenya.
Matowo, P.R., and W.G. Mgema. 1988. Optimum weeding in maize in the low and Intermediate areas of Tanzania.
In A.J. Moshi and J.K. Ransom (eds.), Maize Research in Tanzania: Proceedings of the First Tanzania
National Maize Research Workshop. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: TARO.
Mbiha, E.R. 1993. Effects of government intervention in maize production and marketing: Implications for
agricultural marketing and price liberalization in Tanzania. Agricultural Economics Analysis and Rural
Development 3(2).











Mduruma, Z.O., A.J. Moshi, and P.R. Matowo. 1988. Use of Carbofuran as a seed dressing insecticide for
reducing incidence of streak virus disease in maize. In A.J. Moshi and J.K. Ransom (eds.), Maize Research
in Tanzania: Proceedings of the First Tanzania National Maize Research Workshop. Dar es Salaam,
Tanzania: TARO.
Mguni, C. 1989. Effect of application methods of insecticide on maize streak virus diseases in maize. In A.J.
Moshi and J.K. Ransom (eds.), Maize Research in Tanzania: Proceedings of the First Tanzania National
Maize Research Workshop. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: TARO.
Moshi, A.J., and S.N. Nnko. 1989. Maize seed production and utilization in Tanzania. In B. Gebrekidan (ed.),
Maize Improvement, Production and Protection in Eastern and Southern Africa, proceedings of the 3rd
Eastern and Southern African Regional Maize Workshop, 18-22 September 1988, Nairobi, Kenya.
Mussei, A.N.K., and J.K. Shiyumbi. 1992. Review of the studies of the farming systems of the Southern
Highlands of Tanzania, 1970 1990. In J.A. Ekpere, D.J. Rees, R.P. Mbwile, and N.G. Lyimo (eds.),
Proceedings of an International conference on Agricultural Research, Training and Technology
Transfer in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania: Past Achievements and Future Prospects, 5-9
October, Mbeya, Tanzania.
Mussei, A.N., R.P. Mbwile, J.A. Kamasho, G.J. Ley, R.M. Mghogho, and C.M. Mayona. 1997. Agro-ecological
zones and farming systems of the Southern Highlands of Tanzania. Mbeya, Tanzania: Uyole Agricultural
Centre.
Nalitolela, A.J. 1990. A diagnostic survey report of the Uporoto-Umalila highlands of Mbeya region. Mbeya,
Tanzania: Uyole Agricultural Centre.
Ngwira, P. 1989. The status of maize disease in Malawi. In B. Gebrekidan (ed.), Maize Improvement,
Production and Protection in Eastern and Southern Africa, proceedings of the 3rd Eastern and
Southern African Regional Maize Workshop, 18-22 September 1988, Nairobi, Kenya.
Nkhoma, C. 1985. Weeds and their management in Zambia. In Proceedings of the I th East African Weed
Science Society Conference, 27-31 May, Nairobi, Kenya.
Nkonya, E.M. 1994. Adoption of the Sasakawa-Global 2000 Maize Production Package in the Marginal Areas of
Northern Tanzania. MSc thesis, Kansas State University, College of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural
Economics, Manhattan, Kansas.
Ochor, T.E., C.J. Kadera, and A.L. Ochieng. 1989. Effect of delayed harvest and host genotype on the incidence
of ear rots in Western Kenya. In B. Gebrekidan (ed.), Maize Improvement, Production and Protection in
Eastern and Southern Africa, proceedings of the 3rd Eastern and Southern African Regional Maize
Workshop, 18-22 September 1988, Nairobi, Kenya.
Prasad, R. 1978. Management practices for improving maize yields. In Technology for Increasing Food
Production. Rome, Italy: Food and Agricultural Organisation.
Quifones, M., A.M. Foster, D. Akibo-Betts, and N.P. Sicilima. 1992. Transferring improved production
technologies to small scale farmers: Methodology used by Sasakawa-Global 2000 in Africa. In J.A. Ekpere,
D.J. Rees, R.P. Mbwile, and N.G. Lyimo (eds.), Proceedings of an International conference on
Agricultural Research, Training and Technology Transfer in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania: Past
Achievements and Future Prospects, 5-9 October, Mbeya, Tanzania.
Shakya, P.B., and J.C. Flinn. 1985. Adoption of modern varieties and fertilizer use on rice in the Eastern Tarai of
Nepal. Journal of Agricultural Economics 36: 409-419.
Sidorov, V.I., S.W. Chugunov, B.V. Anisimov, and M. Mekuria. 1985. Studies in weeds control on highland
vertisols of Ethiopia. In Proceedings of the I th East African Weed Science Society Conference, 27-31
May, Nairobi, Kenya.
Temu, A.E.M. 1991. Kilimo Bora cha Mahindi. Extension Leaflet No. 35. Mbeya, Tanzania: Uyole Agricultural
Centre.
Temu, A.E.M, and S. Bisanda. 1996. Pit cultivation in the Matengo Highlands of Tanzania. In C. Reij, I.
Scoones, and C. Toulmin (eds.), Sustaining the Soil: Indigenous Soil and Water Conservation in Africa.
London, UK: Earthscan Publications.
UAC (Uyole Agricultural Centre). 1992. Annual Report. Mbeya, Tanzania: UAC.
UAC (Uyole Agricultural Centre). 1993. Annual Report. Mbeya, Tanzania: UAC.
URT (United Republic of Tanzania). 1985. Atlas mpya kwa shule za Tanzania. London, UK: George Philips and
Sons.
URT (United Republic of Tanzania). 1992. Agricultural Statistics for 1989. Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.









Appendix 1

Calculation of Probability of Adoption and Amount of Land Allocated
to Improved Maize Varieties

Consider an "average" farmer growing improved maize varieties in the intermediate zone who
receives extension and owns two units of livestock.

From Table 26 the probability that this farmer grows improved maize varieties is:

1. I = -1.2234-0.4584 (1) + 0.0012 (9.62) -0.2352 (0) -0.0813 *
(0) + 1.1001 (1) + 0.0035* (19.63) + 0.0408 (2) +
0.0379 (5.48) +0.0308 (0) + 0.0754 (0)

2. I/ = -0.21/4.1701 = -0.05

3. The area under the normal probability curve for (I/o) = -0.05 = 1-0.52 = 0.48. Therefore,
there is a 48% chance that the farmer as defined would adopt improved maize varieties, and so
F(I/) = 0.48.

4. The expected area allocated to improved maize varieties is:
E(Y/) = I* F(I/o) + (*F(I/o)
= -0.21 *0.48 + 4.1701 *0.3984
= 1.56 acres

F(I/o) is the value of the ordinate of the normal density function at 0.05.

Similar calculations can be made for fertilizer adoption and the quantity of fertilizer used.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs