• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Preface
 Objectives of the survey
 Methodology
 Background data on maize in the...
 External circumstances of...
 Maize in the farming system
 Maize production practices
 Implications for further research/extension...
 Appendix: Draft questionnaire for...
 List of available CIMMYT economics...














Group Title: Maize in the Mampong-Sekodumasi area of Ghana : results of an exploratory survey
Title: Maize in the Mampong-Sekodumasi area of Ghana
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00080093/00001
 Material Information
Title: Maize in the Mampong-Sekodumasi area of Ghana results of an exploratory survey
Physical Description: 27, 7 p. : ill., 1 map ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Bruce, Kwasi
Publisher: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center
Place of Publication: Mexico
Publication Date: 1980
 Subjects
Subject: Corn -- Ghana   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
Spatial Coverage: Ghana
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Statement of Responsibility: by Kwasi Bruce, Derek Byerlee, G.E. Edmeades.
General Note: "1980 working paper."
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00080093
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 23943879

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents
    Preface
        Preface
    Objectives of the survey
        Page 1
        Page 1a
    Methodology
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Background data on maize in the Mampong-Sekodumasi area
        Page 4
    External circumstances of farmers
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
    Maize in the farming system
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
    Maize production practices
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
    Implications for further research/extension in the area
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
    Appendix: Draft questionnaire for a survey of maize in the Mampong Sekodumasi area
        Page A-1
        Page A-2
        Page A-3
        Page A-4
        Page A-5
        Page A-6
        Page A-7
    List of available CIMMYT economics working papers
        Page A-8
Full Text

32~ // '7Y


CENTRO INTERNATIONAL DE MEJORAMIENTO DE MAIZ Y TRIGO
INTERNATIONAL MAIZE AND WHEAT IMPROVEMENT CENTER
Londres 40, Apdo. Postal 6-641, Mexico 6, D.F. Mexico


ECUMUNCS FIRCUR&M




















MAIZE IN THE MAMPONG-SEKODUMASI


AREA OF GHANA;

RESULTS OF AN EXPLORATORY SURVEY
by
Kwasi Bruce
Derek Byerlee
G.E. Edmeades
1980 Working Paper























The authors are respectively, Development Officer, Grains and Legumes
Development Board, Ghana; Economist, CIMMYT, Mexico; and Joint Coordi-
nator, Grains Development Project, (CIDA/CIMMYT), Ghana. The views
expressed in this working paper are not necessarily those of CIMMYT.


INTERNATIONAL MAIZE AND WHEAT IMPROVEMENT CENTER
Londres 40, ler, Piso, Mexico 6, D.F. M6xico













CONTENTS


SECTION PAGE

I OBJECTIVES OF THE SURVEY 1

II METHODOLOGY OF THE SURVEY 2

III BACKGROUND DATA ON MAIZE IN THE
MAMPONG-SEKODUMASI AREA 4

IV EXTERNAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF FARMERS 5

4.1 Agro-Climatic Circumstances 5
4.2 Socio-Economic Circumstances 7

V MAIZE IN THE FARMING SYSTEM 11

VI MAIZE PRODUCTION PRACTICES 14

VII IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER MAIZE
RESEARCH AND EXTENSION IN THE
AREA 22









PREFACE


In cooperation with researchers in many national agricultural research
programs, CIMMYT has sought to develop procedures which help to focus agricul-
tural research squarely on the needs of farmers. The process involves colla-
boration of biological scientists and economists to identify the groups of
farmers for whom technologies are to be developed, determining their circumstan-
ces and problems, screening this information for research opportunities, and
then implementing the resulting research program on experiment stations and on
the fields of representative farmers.

CIMMYT's Economics Program has emphasized developing procedures for the
first stage of this process, through to establishing research opportunities.
The evolution of the procedures, now synthesized in a manual "Planning Technol-
ogies Appropriate to Farmers: Concepts and Procedures" has been strongly in-
fluenced by collaborative research with many national programs and with CIMMYT's
wheat and maize training programs. Our efforts with national programs began in
1974 with Zaire's national maize program, then moved to work in Tunisia, Pakistan,
and Egypt. The pace of work accelerated notably in 1976 with assignment of
regional economists stimulating similar work in Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia,
Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Panama, El Salvador, and India. Cooperation with still
other national programs is now underway. We believe that the resulting procedures
offer cost effective and robust guidelines to national programs.

We are now preparing reports that illustrate the implementation of these
procedures in various national programs. While not all such work can be reported,
we take this opportunity to thank all of those who have collaborated with us.


This report describes work undertaken with the Ghanaian maize program in
an important maize producing region. It emphasizes the exploratory survey
-- undertaken by Ghanaian and CIMMYT professionals -- and relates information
gathered in the survey to several apparently promising lines of research for
improved maize technologies.

Donald L. Winkelmann
Director, Economics Program








MAIZE IN THE MAMPONG-SEKODUMASI AREA OF GHANA
RESULTS OF AN EXPLORATORY SURVEY


I. OBJECTIVES OF THE SURVEY

The CIDA/Ghana Grains Development Project has a basic objective of in-
creasing production and incomes of small-holder maize producers. Effective
strategies for achieving this objective can only be designed by considering
the present circumstances of these small-holders. That is, strategies must
address problems presently limiting farmers'production and incomes and must be
appropriate to the agro-climatic environment, input and output prices, resource
endowments, and objectives of small-holders.

Various methods are available for obtaining this type of information on
farmer circumstances. They range from informal dialogue of researchers and
farmers to formal surveys using trained interviewers and a questionnaire. This
report presents results from a low cost rapid approach called an exploratory
survey in which researchers employ informal interviewing techniques to elicit
information from farmers and observe farmers' fields../ This exploratory survey
was conducted in October, 1979 over a five day period in the Mampong-Sekodumasi
area of the Ashanti Region.(See Figure 1) The objectives of the survey were:

(a) To provide information to design a set of on-farm experiments for
developing improved maize technologies for the region. Information was
sought on current maize practices and factors limiting production to
identify technologies to include in experiments.

(b) To refine the methodology for conducting exploratory surveys in the
Ghanaian context and thereby lay the basis for the extension of the work
to other maize producing areas of Ghana.

(c) To provide necessary background for the design of a formal survey
of maize producers in the region to provide more quantitative infor-
mation on maize production and practices in the region.


1/ Further information on the methodology underlying this survey is given in
Byerlee, Derek, .Collinson, Michael, et al, "Planning Technologies Appro-
priate to Farmers; Concepts and.Procedures", CIMMYT, Mexico, 1980
















Miles
0 25 50
0 25 50
Kilometers


o Tamale


IVORY
COAST


80 N


TOGO


70 N


GULF OF
GUINEA


Fig. 1. Map of Ghana Showing the Geographic Position
of the Research Area ( )









II. METHODOLOGY OF THE SURVEY

The team consisting of economists and agronomists traversed different
parts of the area during a five day period. Information was obtained from the
following sources:

(a) Individual farmers were informally interviewed in both short and
in-depth interviews about their maize production practices and farming system.
These farmers were identified by chance (e.g., farmers in their fields) or
because they were or had been co-operators in maize demonstrations of the Grains
& Legumes Development Board (GLDB).

(b) Groups of farmers usually including the chief farmer- were infor-
mally interviewed about general maize production practices and farming systems
in the village.

(c) Maize fields and maize in store were observed often in conjunction
with interviews with individual farmers.

(d) Officials of the GLDB, Ministry of Agriculture, the Food Production
2/
Corporation (FPC), the Ghana Commercial Bank in Mampong, millers, kenkey makers/
and marketing agents were interviewed about maize in the area and input distri-
bution, marketing and processing.

Table 2.1 summarizes the total number of interviews conducted. Most
effort was placed on talking to farmers either as individuals or in groups.
In addition relevant background data on the area from published and unpublished
reports was assembled from Mampong, Kumasi and Accra.

On the whole we learned much in the exercise but because of time limi-
tations, much of the information reported here represents impressions and hypoth-
eses which could be verified through further exploratory survey work or a formal
survey. The information is also biased toward villages along motorable roads.



1/ In Ghana, most villages have the office of chief farmer who is elected by
the farmers of the village to their spokesman.

SKenkey is prepared from maize dough, moulded into ball and boiled with maize
husks or plantain leaves covering them. It is commonly eaten with fried
fish, prepared fresh pepper, onions and tomatoes.












Summary of Information Sources Used in the Exploratory Survey


Individual Farmers
Interviewed Chief Farmer/ Fields
Village Briefly In depth Group Interview Other Inspected
Briefly In depth


East of Mampong

Nkwabirim
Kwamang
Atonsu
Mpantuasi
Ankumadua
Asare Nkwanta
Aframso

Sekodumasi Area

Afrante
Sekodumasi
Juaho


West of Mampong
Asaam
Kofiase

Mampong


Miller












GLDB Supervisor
Miller









MOA/UNDP Project
Ghana Comm. Bank
Kenkey Makers
FPC Representatives
Miller


T O TAL 10 4 6 8 24


Table 2.1








III. BACKGROUND DATA ON MAIZE IN MAMPONG-SEKODUMASI AREA

The Mampong-Sekodumasi area was chosen for this survey for four reasons.

(a) It is an important maize producing area and is particularly important
as a maize surplus area.

(b) It is an area of concentration of the GLDB Demonstrations and the
UNDP/Ministry of Agriculture Fertilizer Project and therefore provides an
opportunity to review farmers acceptance of improved maize technology.

(c) It is convenient to Kumasi, headquarters of the Grains Development
Project.

(d) It is an important maize producer in the minor season and therefore
provided an opportunity for field observation during the time of the survey.

The area covered by the surveyconsists of 2,500 km2 extending east and
west of the Mampong Ejura main road. It includes the most populated portion
of Mampong District and the eastern edge of Western Kumasi District. In the
1970 Census of Agriculture (Ministry of Agriculture 1972) 14,980 hectares
(37,000 acres) of maize were planted in Mampong District. It was one of the
few areas of Ghana where minor season (second season) plantings were almost as
important as major season (main season) plantings. Eighty percent of major
season maize was intercropped usually with root crops while over fifty percent
of minor season maize was sole cropped. In 1970, 57 percent of farmers in
Mampong District grew maize with an average of 0.65 ha (1.6 acres).. These
figures exclude the important maize producing area around Sekodumasi which is
in the Western Kumasi District.

The 1970 census data indicate that the other main crops in terms of area
were-cocoa 64,370 ha (159,000 acres), plantain 43,320 ha (107,000 acres),
Cocoyam 28,340 ha (70,000 acres), Cassava 12,550 ha (31,000 acres) and Yam 4,050 ha
(10,000 acres).-/

IV. EXTERNAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF FARMERS

This section summarizes information on the environment or external cir-
cumstances in which the farmer makes decisions. These can be further disaggre-
gated into agro-climatic factors (e.g., rainfall and soils) and socio-economic
factors (e.g., markets and land tenure).

1/ Note that these areas overlap because of the widespread practice of inter-
cropping.








III. BACKGROUND DATA ON MAIZE IN MAMPONG-SEKODUMASI AREA

The Mampong-Sekodumasi area was chosen for this survey for four reasons.

(a) It is an important maize producing area and is particularly important
as a maize surplus area.

(b) It is an area of concentration of the GLDB Demonstrations and the
UNDP/Ministry of Agriculture Fertilizer Project and therefore provides an
opportunity to review farmers acceptance of improved maize technology.

(c) It is convenient to Kumasi, headquarters of the Grains Development
Project.

(d) It is an important maize producer in the minor season and therefore
provided an opportunity for field observation during the time of the survey.

The area covered by the surveyconsists of 2,500 km2 extending east and
west of the Mampong Ejura main road. It includes the most populated portion
of Mampong District and the eastern edge of Western Kumasi District. In the
1970 Census of Agriculture (Ministry of Agriculture 1972) 14,980 hectares
(37,000 acres) of maize were planted in Mampong District. It was one of the
few areas of Ghana where minor season (second season) plantings were almost as
important as major season (main season) plantings. Eighty percent of major
season maize was intercropped usually with root crops while over fifty percent
of minor season maize was sole cropped. In 1970, 57 percent of farmers in
Mampong District grew maize with an average of 0.65 ha (1.6 acres).. These
figures exclude the important maize producing area around Sekodumasi which is
in the Western Kumasi District.

The 1970 census data indicate that the other main crops in terms of area
were-cocoa 64,370 ha (159,000 acres), plantain 43,320 ha (107,000 acres),
Cocoyam 28,340 ha (70,000 acres), Cassava 12,550 ha (31,000 acres) and Yam 4,050 ha
(10,000 acres).-/

IV. EXTERNAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF FARMERS

This section summarizes information on the environment or external cir-
cumstances in which the farmer makes decisions. These can be further disaggre-
gated into agro-climatic factors (e.g., rainfall and soils) and socio-economic
factors (e.g., markets and land tenure).

1/ Note that these areas overlap because of the widespread practice of inter-
cropping.









4.1 Agro-Climatic Circumstances

(a) Rainfall: The climatic maps of Ghana for agriculture indicates
that the mean annual rainfall over a period of 30 years (1936-65) for the
Mampong-Sekodumasi area lies between 1400mm and 1500mm (55 inches and 60 inches).

Figure 2 shows the monthly distribution of rainfall in Mampong. Clearly,
the major growing season begins in March and major season maize planted then can
be harvested by June. There is then a rainfall trough in August. Farmers usually
then plant minor season maize toward the end of August which allows two months of
reliable rainfall, September and October for maize growth. However rainfall then
falls off quite rapidly in November, the grain filling stage of the minor season
crop. There is however some risk of rains finishing before the end of October
causing moisture stress in the minor season crop at the crucial flowering stage.

(b) Topography: Most of the area is relatively elevated and undulating
with an altitude over 200 meters and as high as 600 meters. Soil erosion is
potentially a serious problem.

(c) Soils: Soils in the area are characterized by four types of series.
Forest Ochresols (Ultisols) are found in areas of high forest which also forms
a larger proportion of the soils in the area. Forest Lithosols fEntisols
(Aquents; Lithic) are found north of the Forest Ochrosols. Further north in
the study area are Savannah Lithosols kEntisols (Ustents)) and Savannah Ochrosols
(Oxisols Inceptisols). Generally the forest soils have a better water holding
capacity. Erosion hazard in the area ranges from slight to moderate sheet and
gully erosion.

(d) Vegetation: The area is generally in the transition from forest
to savannah. Areas of high forests as well as grassland savannah were noted
interspersed throughout the area. Most farmers distinguish forest and savannah
land although we were often unable to see marked differences in vegetation type.
Much of the savannah area is subject to annual bushfires.

4.2 Socio-Economic Circumstances

(a) Population and People: The area has a population of with
a density of square km. The dominant ethnic group are the Ashantis
with some settled migrants particularly from the north.

















Montly Rainfall Distribution in Mampong
(Average 1966-75)


J F M A M J J A S 0 N D


Month


Figure 2.


Monthly
Rainfall
(mm)








(b) Land Tenure: Communal land tenure predominates. With the permission
of the local chief it is possible to gain access to land. In the savannah area
the user maintains that right only as long as the land is planted. In the forest
area where clearing costs are high the user retains rights to the land even after
it has gone to fallow. A share tenancy system is also common where the owner of
a piece of land receives one third of the produce and the renter two thirds.

Median farm size in the area is probably 2-4 ha (5-10 acres) al-
though some farmers particularly in the Sekodumasi area farm much larger areas
(over 40 ha).

(c) Capital Market: The Ghana Commercial Bank (GCB) operates in the
area but coverage of the farming population is low in spite of the existence
of the Commerbank Farmers Association, which was initiated in 1977. The objec-
tive of this scheme is to help small-scale farmers who cultivate grains and
vegetables with loans ranging from (200.00 to 500.00-1/ at an interest rate of
13% per annum. The scheme encountered some problems at the onset with discour-
aging pay-back rates, and had to be discontinued. During the survey only three
farmers (around Aframso, east of Mampong) confirmed having had assistance from
the bank to cultivate groundnuts.

Capital can also be obtained in the informal money market at
interest rates over 100% per annum. For example, one farmer quoted the interest
on a loan of p1,000.00 as the repayment of 8-10 bags of maize valued at (80.00
p100.00 per bag. We did not attempt to find out in what months farmers expe-
rience most acute cash shortages.

(d) Labour Market: There is an active labor market in the area with
most farmers hiring labor for many operations. The supply of labor varies
seasonally as a result of: (i) seasonal migration from the north from December/
January to April/May and (ii) seasonal availability of school children in July/
August, December/January, and April.



1/ 02.7 = U.S. $1.00 at the time of the survey.
2/ Most children in the area attend at least primary school but do become
available during vacations to assist parents and other relatives on their
farms in July and August when major season crops are harvested and minor
season crops planted.








In terms of farm operations this means that labor is available from
migrants for clearing and planting in February and March and to a lesser extent
from school children for harvesting in July and planting again in August/September.
But in neither the major or minor season does the seasonal availability of labor
correspond to the weeding periods in May/June in the major season and October in
the minor season and almost all farmers experienced a labor bottleneck in weeding.
Farmers also tend to reduce minor season plantings because of a lack of migrant
labor in that season.

The daily wage rate is about (7.00/day plus the value of meals which
would increase the wage to about glO.00/day. However most farmers prefer to
pay labor at a contract rate per acre or field.

(e) Input Distribution: Fertilizer is the principal purchased input
used by farmers. However, only two distribution points, Mampong and Ejural-
are available in the area. This means that farmers often have to travel a
considerable distance to obtain fertilizer and the resulting transport cost
may add 50 percent to the cost of the fertilizer. More importantly, either
because of a lack of transport or a lack of fertilizer in store, most farmers
complain of non-availavility of fertilizer at distribution points, particularly
sulphate of ammonia. Fertilizer is sold at a control price (910.00/50 kg bag
of 15-15-15 and 28.50/50 kg bag of sulphate of ammonia). There was however
very tentative evidence that black market prices may add 50 percent or more
to these prices.

Seed of improved maize varieties is distributed through the GLDB
and the Ministry of Agriculture. Most farmers were able to obtain seed.
Similarly insecticides are available through the Ministry of Agriculture and
chemical companies operating in the area, e.g., Shell Ghana Limited.

(f) Mechanical Services: A small proportion of farmers mostly in the
Sekodumasi area are using tractor services for ploughing. Private contractors
who predominate charge from (60-0100/acre while UNDP/MOA working with block
farms charge g40/acre. GLDB and large growers also provide mechanical shelling
services for 96.00 98.00 per 100 kg bag (g60-080/ton). There are also many
small mills in the area widely used for making maize flour at a cost of 920 per
100 kg bag or 90.20/kg.


/ Ejura, 40 km north of Mampong is outside the study area but exerts a sub-
stantial influence on the northern parts of the Mampong-Sekodumasi area.









(g) Maize Marketing: Most maize is sold through private traders. These
traders, both men and women travel mostly from Kumasi and Mampong to the villages,
buy maize from the farmers and transport it back for sale in the urban centers
(e.g., Kumasi, Accra, Takoradi and Mampong). One trader interviewed had four
five-ton trucks and handled on the average a thousand bags (of 100 kg/bag) every
week. He buys all types of maize so long as they are not weevily and/or mouldy.
He encountered problems of lack of spare parts and tires for his vehicles, and
particularly this year lack of fuel.

The Ghana Food Distribution Corporation (GFDC) also operates in
area, but buys only a small amount of maize at harvest when prices are low.
Seasonal price swings are large varying from about (100 per 100 kg bag immediately
after harvest up to Z200 per 100 kg bag in April/May.

(h) Processors of Maize: Commercially and domestically maize is processed
into various food forms in the area. The commonest forms are kenkey, banku,
porridge and maize dough-nuts "Awiesu" in that order. Two kenkey makers, both
women, were interviewed during the survey. These women prefer white maize for
making kenkey and buy all kinds of white maize so long as it is not weevily or
mouldy. One of them who produces fanti Kenkey used three bags (100 kg/bag) every
week while the other making GA Kenkey used one bag over the same period. Yellow
kenkey(i.e., kenkey made out of yellow maize) does not attract consumers unless
there is an acute shortage of white maize. At home banku and porridge is commonly
prepared. In the Northern parts of the area Yellow Porridge is preferred in
the homes of the migrant settlers from the North.

(i) Extension: Both the GLDB and UNDP/MOA are active in the area.
GLDB has run approximately 200 farm demonstrations since 1974. UNDP/MOA have
run a set of maize trials followed by demonstrations.

UNDP/MOA are now also working with co-operatives and block farms
in the area. The recommendations promoted for maize in the area are shown in
Table 4.1.

V. MAIZE IN THE FARMING SYSTEM

5.1 Crops Produced

The major foodcrops in the area are cassava, plantain and cocoyam
in the forest area and yams, groundnuts, cassava, cowpeas and rice in the












Table 4.1 Recommendations Maize Production Practices of the GLDB and UNDP/MOA
For the Sekodumasi Area


GLDB UNDP/MOA
PRACTICE Recommendation Recommendation


1. Planting Method
2.a. Row distance
b. Plant distance
3. Seeds per hill
4. Seeds/hill after thinninc
5. Fertilizer

6. Rates of Fertilizer and
time of application.




7. Weeding






8. Harvesting


In rows with strings
90 cm
30 cm
2
1
15-15-15
Sulphate of Ammonia
4.9 50 kq baqs/ha of
15-15-15 at planting. 4.9
50 kg bags/ha of S. Ammonia
applied four weeks after
planting. (Total 88:37:37
of NPK/ha)
1st weeding 2 3 weeks
after planting
2nd weeding 6 weeks after
planting


9. Variety


rows with strings


75 cm
60 cm
3
2
15-15-15
Sulphate


of Ammonia


4.9 50 kg bags/ha of
15-15-15 at planting. 4.9
50 kg bags/ha of S. Ammonia
applied four weeks after,
planting. (Total 88:37:37
of NPK/ha)
1st weeding 2 weeks after
planting
2nd weeding,4 weeks after
planting after the applica-
tion of sulphate of ammonia.
3rd weeding:- Brushing when
cobs are filled
When cobs are just beginning
to droop.
La Posta and Composite 4


La Posta









savannah areas. Maize and groundnuts are grown primarily for sale. Plantain
is also widely sold. Two varieties of cassava are grown six month variety
to provide an early source of food and the normal cassava, maturing in one year,
that is often kept in the ground as a food reserve.

5.2 Intercropping

Maize is traditionally intercropped with cassava, cocoyam and
plantain. In this system maize is planted before cassava and plantain and
utilizes available land area when the cassava and plantain are young. Some of
the area may be only sparsely planted to cassava and plantains to allow some
maize to be also planted in the minor season. The following year cocoyam and
cassava are harvested and with further planting of plantains the field may then
be used for plantain over a 7-year period. That is the field moves from
predominantly maize to cocoyam/cassava to plantain.
In the savannah areas maize is often intercropped with cassava and
sometimes with groundnuts and cowpeas. Sole cropping of maize and groundnut is
increasingly common in the savannah. In large part this reflects the fact that
with maize as a cash crop and with an improved variety and use of fertilizer,
four crops of maize and/or groundnuts in a two year period is more profitable
than one crop of maize and one of cassava or cocoyam in the same two year period.
Nonetheless farmers planting sole cropped maize will usually have another farm
for food crops -- cassava, cocoyam and plantains -- on which maize is intercropped
in the first season.

5.3 Rotations

Extremely varied patterns of rotations are practiced. On the one
hand there was the maize cassava cocoyam plantain system where the field
was eventually converted to plantain. On the other hand there were fields that
had been continuously cropped to maize twice a year, for several years. Maize/
groundnuts rotations were common with groundnuts either in the major or minor
season. Because groundnuts are a shorter season crop this rotation gives more
flexibility in case of a late start or early finish of the rains. Some relay
planting is also practiced with minor season maize planted in the maturing crop
of the major season maize. This happens with a late start to the major season
rains. Minor season maize must be planted by mid to late August to avoid high
risks of crop failure. Planting of minor season maize is less dependent on
the beginning of the rains because of residual moisture in the soil from the
major season.









In general minor season plantings are less because of higher risks
of rains finishing early and because labor is a constraint at planting time.

5.4 The Fallow System

As with rotations the length and frequency of fallow is very varied.
In the forest area land may be cropped three years or more before reverting to
fallow for 3 to 7 years or more. In the savannah areas continuous cropping is
now common particularly where fertilizer is used.

VI. MAIZE PRODUCTION PRACTICES

6.1 Variety and Seed Selection

There are two major varieties of maize used in the area./ The so
called local variety is a genetically heterogeneous late white dent. Because of
the practice of mixing improved and local varieties it is quite probable that
this local variety contains material from Diacol 153 (white flint) and composite
2 (white dent) introduced in the 1960's. The major improved variety is La Posta,
introduced in 1974 by GLDB and UNDP/MOA. Most farmers knew of La Posta and many
grew it but sometimes mixed with local material. Many farmers also grow both
local and La Posta in separate fields. La Posta has been widely accepted because
of its relative earliness (2 weeks earlier than the local) and its yielding
ability. The earliness of La Posta is important in ensuring two crops per year.
With a late start to the rains La Posta can still be harvested in time for
planting the minor season. In the minor season the local maize runs a high risk
of an early finish to the rains. However a major problem of La Posta mentioned
by almost all farmers is its storability. Farmers have experienced serious
problems with weevil infestation. Some farmers attributed this to the poorer
husk cover but softer endosperm is probably also a factor. La Posta is also
somewhat taller than the local and probably suffers more lodging. Maize is
only a supplementary food in the area and farmers seem to accept La Posta for
making local foods.



1 There are also small amounts of composite 4 and "40 day" local yellow maize
from the north grown in the area.









Seed is often obtained at harvest from clean, large kernelled cobs
and stored in a dry place e.g., over the cooking area. Many farmers choose a
variety of kernel types from dents to flints in seed selection. In this way it
seems that farmers have often mixed La Posta with the local ears to preserve
variability. In some ways this may represent an insurance strategy especially
given the poor storability of La Posta.

6.2 Land Preparation

Most maize farms are prepared by hand usually by a slash and burn
system during the months of February and March or much earlier (e.g., December-
February) depending on the size of land to be prepared. Labor required is about
20 40 mandays/ha depending on the type of bush. Tractor cultivation is used
by about 10 percent of farmers usually the larger farmers in savannah areas.
Costs are comparable to the slash and burn system but tractors are often not
available on time, particularly this year with the fuel shortage.

6.3 Planting

The traditional method of planting is haphazard planting in hills
about 1 meter apart using a cutlass or hoe to make holes and placing 2 3
seeds/hole to give a planted density of about 25,000 plants/ha. In intercropped
stands the density falls to 10 20,000 plants/ha. One chief farmer said he
uses a pointed stick to make holes while other farmers in his area employ methods
which vary from the use of a cutlass to the use of the heel to make holes. The
last method is common among the migrant settlers from the north who intercrop
yam with maize in the savannah area.

Those who use cutlass use two methods of making holes.

(i) Thrust of the cutlass into the soil at an angle of about 90, slap the soil
to the left then right, drop seeds into the hole and slap to the left again to
cover the seed.

(ii) Cut at an angle of about 25 to the ground lift cutlass, pop seed under,
withdraw cutlass, let soil cover.









The first method is the more commonly used in the area although covering is
relatively poor. Planting with sticks results in a hole of about 7 cm deep.
Seeds are then dropped and covered with the foot, usually by a second person
walking behind.-/

GLDB recommended planting practice is to use a marked string and
plant 2 seeds/hole in holes 30 cm apart and rows 90 cm apart and then thin to
one plant/hill for a density of 37,000 plants/ha. In practice We observed all
shades of planting methods from the traditional to the recommended. Very few
farmers even those who have been GLDB co-operators follow the recommended
practice. One farmer who uses both the traditional and recommended practice
estimates that the traditional planting method uses 5 mandays/ha against 10
mandays/ha for the recommended method. Most farmers who know the recommended
method have adjusted it by planting more seeds/hill in fewer hills and then
not thinning. This reflects farmers conviction that the change in yields
associated with closer spacing (at the same density) does not warrant the
increase in cost at planting time. In fact experience elsewhere also suggests
that spacing one plant/hill is only worthwhile when machine planting is
introduced. The practice of planting in lines usually with a string does seem
to have been fairly widely adopted.

Densities observed in sole cropped fields varied from 20,000-45,000
plants/ha with a median around 25,000 plants/ha. Stand problems were evident
and farmers complained of problems of birds and lizards reducing stands in the
major season. Seed treatment was not a widespread practice although replanting
may be done depending on the amount of land to be replanted and availability of
labor and/or cash. One farmer in adopting a measure to reduce seed losses to
birds plants more seeds on the outside of his field. Others try to plant a field
in a short time period to reduce these losses. One chief farmer noted that better
stands are obtained by planting with sticks probably because the seed is planted
deeper.2/



1/ We were unable to observe planting done.by the heel by migrants north of the
River Afran since we were unable to cross the river due to heavy rains.
2/ This same farmer also emphasized that root lodging is reduced when fields are
planted with sticks.









6.4 Fertilizer Use

Most farmers are aware of the benefits of fertilizer use but because
of availability problems probably less than half the farmers are using it on
maize. We also concluded that it is the larger farmers (four hectares of more
of maize) who are now receiving most of the limited fertilizer supplies. We
noted many fields of maize of small farmers deficient in nitrogen. This year
too, even larger farmers are having difficulty in obtaining sulphate of ammonia
for top dressing probably because of the fuel shortage.

Most farmers, including past co-operators were applying less than
the recommended dose usually 1 to 1.5 50 kg bags each of 15-15-15 and sulphate
of ammonia per acre (i.e., up to 70-27-27 kg/ha NPK). Usually farmers followed
recommendations of applying 15-15-15 at planting and top dressing after weeding
just before tasselling. Generally fertilizer was placed on each hill but not
covered as recommended.

6.5 Weeding

Generally farmers weed only once at six weeks after planting. In
intercropped maize a second weeding may be done but too late to be of any benefit
to the maize. Weeding is usually done with a cutlass and requires an average
of 15 mandays/ha.

Farmers experience two important weeding problems. First, because
of the labor bottleneck in the weeding period noted above, difficulties are
experienced in completing weeding on time with resultant yield losses. Secondly,
there are some grassy weeds in the savannah areas which are difficult to control.
In particular we noted several fields with a serious infestation of Imperata.
This usually occurred with continuous cultivation of maize. Tractor ploughing
was recognized as one means of control. Farmers also noted that rotation with
groundnuts which requires a thorough hoeing helps to control this grass. How-
ever because groundnuts are a labor intensive crop relative to maize it is
difficult to establish an effective maize/groundnut rotation.

6.6 Insects and Diseases

Stemborers were recognized as a problem in the minor season and may
have caused up to 20 percent loss in one field we observed. Heavy rains are said
to aggravate the problem and fertilizer use was noted to reduce the problems









confirmedd by observation). Streak was observed in many fields but was not
serious enough to cause losses. Farmers recalled attacks of leaf rust years
ago.

Overall there does not seem to be any serious insect and disease
problem in the area that would warrant immediate research emphasis.

6.7 Harvesting and Shelling

Harvesting is done by hand requiring 9-12 mandays/ha depending on
yields. Shelling requires 0.3 mandays/100 kg bag (3 mandays/ton) or is some-
times done by machine (06-8/bag.)

6.8 Production and Marketing

Yields in the 1979 major season varied from as low as 2 bags/acre
(0.5 ton/ha) up to 10 bags/acre (2.5 tons/ha) with a median around 5 bags/acre
(1.25 tons/ha). Yields of maize in intercropped fields seemed lower.

Most maize is sold, usually to private traders. Some is stored for
home consumption. Up to20% of the crop may be harvested green and boiled and/or
roasted both for home consumption and sales.

Because of large seasonal price swings farmers like to store maize
until after the low post-harvested prices. Usually maize is stored in the husk
in wooden barns raised off the ground. Some farmers particularly those planting
La Posta dip the cobs (tips and base) in a DDT solution to reduce storage losses.
Others sprinkle a solution of DDT in the barns before storing. In the absence
of chemicals a farmer might spread ash on the floor of the barns and its walls
before storage.

6.9 Estimates of Labor Requirements and Returns to Labor

Because labor is one of the major limiting factors on crop production
in the area, it is instructive to summarize labor requirements for the traditional
and recommended maize practices. It should be emphasized that the estimates
given are only very approximate.

Table 6.1 gives a breakdown of labor requirements for traditional
and recommended practices. For preharvest operations:they are expressed in
















Table 6.1 Estimates of Labor Inputs/ha for Maize-Sole Cropped in Mampong-
Sekodumasi Area on Land Cropped in the Previous Cycle


Traditional Recommended
Practice Practice
mandays/ha


Slashing
Burning
Planting
First Fertilizer Application
Second Fertilizer Application
Thinning
First Weeding
Second Weeding
Harvesting
Transportation from field
Shelling
Total Labor/ha-/
Total Planting-Weeding Labor/ha


10
2.5
2.5
5 (?)
16
16


5 mandays/ton
5 mandays/ton.(?)
5 mandays/ton.


(?) Indicates considerable uncertainty in the estimates.


1/Assumes average yields (see Table 6.2) of 1.1 ton/ha and 2.04 ton/ha for
traditional and recommended practices respectively.









mandays/ha and for harvest and post-harvest operations in mandays/ton since labor
for these operations (when done by hand) tends to vary directly with yields ;
Overall then the recommended practices increase labor requirements by about 75
percent. But even more importantly, during the critical labor bottleneck
period of planting and weeding labor requirements are increased by about 150
percent. Drawing up a roughcbudget then in Table 6.2, it is not surprising to
find that the return to labor for the recommended practice is very little
different to that for the traditional practices although both are above the
average wage rate in the area (lO/day). These figures go a long way to explain
farmers only partial adoption of the recommendations (discussed in the next
section).

VII. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH/EXTENSION IN THE AREA

Many of the findings from the exploratory survey have implications
for future research/extension work aimed at increasing maize production and
incomes of small-holders in the area. These implications are discussed with
reference to the current recommendations or maize productions in the area,
future on-farm experimental and survey work for the area, and broader implica-
tions for maize breeding and agricultural pol.icy.

7.1 Implications for Current Maize Recommendations and Extension
Demonstrations

GLDB recommendations for maize production are incorporated into
the GLDB demonstration plots which have been widely sown in the area. These
demonstrations have played a valuable role in diffusing knowledge about improved
maize practices in the area. Farmers in most cases know about La Posta variety
and fertilizer use and many have adopted these practices. Nonetheless, farmer
experience with these recommended practices have implications for research and
extension in the area as the following observations and crude cost-return
calculations shows.
Variety: La Posta is well accepted except for its storage problems.
The practice of mixing local and improved seed will make varietal improvement
slow although probably less risky to farmers.

Fertilizer: When available, farmers want to apply fertilizer except
on new land. However, application rates are well below recommended levels say
50-20-20 NPK versus the recommended 90-40-40 NPK. To pay for the recommended










Rough Estimates of Returns to Labor for Traditional
and RecommendeA Maize Practices Mampong-Sekodumasi Area


Traditional
Practice


Recommended
Practice


Yield (ton/ha)1/
Gross Revenue (W/ha)-/
Cost of Fertilizer-/(V/ha)
Gross Income (W/ha)
Cost of Capital on Purchased Inputs /(0/ha)
Returns to Labor and Land (V/ha)
Cost of Land Rental (V/ha)5/
Returns to Labor (V/ha)6/
Total labor inputs-/(manday /ha)
Returns to labor (V/manday)


1.10
1,100

1,100

1,100
366 (?)
734
61
12


2.04
2,040
192
1,848
96
1,752
366
1,386
106
13


-/Estimated from average yields on demonstrations in the Sekodumasi area in
1978 of 1.3 and 2.4 tons/ha for traditional and recommended practices.
These yields were discounted by 15 percent to allow for generally higher
yields on demonstration plots compared to farmers yields (Perrin tt al,
1976).

2/Price of Maize 01000/ton

3/Assumes farmers price lO/bag (95/bag for black market price plus 05/bag
transport to farm) above official retail price.

4/Fifty percent of cost of fertilizer

5/We have no estimate of land rental rates. However a common traditional
system of a third share to land owners provides a rough guide. The same
value has been used for valuing land under recommended practices.

6/ Includes hired labor. Estimates are obtained from Table 6.1.


Table 6.2








dose of fertilizer, Table 7.1 indicates that farmers would need to recieve
about 0.4 tons/ha additional yield. An increase of about 0.65 tons/ha would
be needed to cover the unsubsidized cost of fertilizer.

Given average yield increases of 1.1 tons/hal/ in the demonstra-
tions in the Sekodumasi area and assuming most of this is due to variety and
fertilizer, this fertilizer cost (subsidized or unsubsidized) could be covered
even discounting demonstration yields by 15 percent-/. However, these figures
consider average returns. At the margin, the last bag of fertilizer will give
lower returns which explains farmers' lower application rates.

Planting: Most farmers who saw the demonstrations had adopted
"line" planting and probably also higher densities. However, they had
rejected the recommendation for closer spacing (1 plant/hill) and for
thinning. These two practices may add each 2 mandays/acre or a total of 10
mandays/ha to planting labor. That is, total added costs are 0150/ha (10
mandays x l10/day x 1.50 capital cost) and an extra 0.18 tons/ha (150/850/ton)3/
are needed to cover this cost. On a 2 ton/ha crop this is about a 10 percent
increase in yields and is the maximum that could be expected from closer spacing
and thinning versus planting more seeds in fewer hills. Moreover, the real cost
may occur if the farmer faces a shortage of labor and/or cash to hire labor at
planting and weeding and the closer spacing slows down and delays termination
of planting and weeding operations.

Weeding: Farmers generally rejected the recommendation of a second
weeding. Assuming 16 mandays/ha for weeding, this would add Z240/ha to costs
(16 x l10/day x 1.50 cost of capital). That is, yields would need to increase
by 0.3 ton/ha to cover the cost of the second weeding. This is a substantial
amount given that labor is critically short at this period.

Total Package: The total recommended package therefore needs about
0.9 tons/hal/ extra yield to cover farmers' costs or a little under the increased

1 See GLDB "Maize Demonstrations Programs, Major Season, 1978".

2/ Yields in demonstrations are usually higher than actual farmers' yields
because of more intensive management of small plots and earlier harvesting
which reduces field losses. See Perrin et al (1976).

3/ Assume maize field price 0850/ton see footnote 5, Table 7.1.
4/ Fertilizer .43 tons/ha, Planting .18/tons/ha, Weeding .30 tons/ha.











Table 7.1 Approximate Costs of Recommended Fertilizer Practices


Official price 15-15-15
S. of Ammonia
Farmer price- 15-15-15
S. of Ammonia
Total cost recommended levels-/
Cost of labor (5 mandays/ha for
two applications
Total cost fertilizer and labor
Cost of capital 50% to farmers
25% to country
Total cost with capital

Approximate yield increase needed
to pay fertilizer cost/


Subsidized

%10.50/bagl/
8.00/bag
21.00/bag
18.00/bag
192.00/bag

50.00/ha
242.00/ha
121.00/ha

0363.00/ha


.40 tons/ha


Unsubsidized

037.002//bag
24.002//bag
42.00 /bag
29.00 /bag
384.00 /ha


50.00
434.00


109.00 /ha
0543.00 /ha


.65 tons/ha


/A bag of fertilizer is 50 kg

2/Crude estimate based on CIF prices at Tema in 1978 of US$100/Ton sulphate ammonia
and $US 200/ton 15-15-15 plus a high 0.62/ton/ km internal
handling and distribution costs over a distance of 320 km).

3/Based on a "black market" mark-up of q5/bag for subsidized fertilizer plus
V5/bag transport cost to the farm.

4/Recommendedlevels 4.9 bags/ha of each type of fertilizer.

5Field price of maize of 0850/ton calculated as 1l000/ton post-harvest price
minus 00 (5 days)/ton harvesting minus M50/ton shelling minus Z50/ton handling
and transportation.









yields in demonstration (1.1 tons/ha increase in yields in 1978 demonstrations
discounted 15 percent gives .93 ton/ha). Seed costs for the improved variety
are negligible. Considering unsubsidized prices of fertilizer, the extra yield
needed is about 1.10 tons/ha (.65 + .18 + .30) and is above actual yield
differences measured in the demonstrations. However, in practice, farmers'
returns for using recommended practices are likely to be much higher if:
i) farmers can store maize after harvest and benefit from higher maize prices
later in the season-/ and ii) farmers adopt the most profitable portions of
the package variety and a moderate dose of fertilizer.

In summary, maize demonstrations should be continued as they are valuable
in disseminating information about varieties and other practices. There are still
villages in the Mampong area where maize is widely grown and which have not been
targets of either GLDB or UNDP/MOA demonstration programs.

Consideration should however be given to the following immediate changes
in the recommendations:

i) Spacing/Thinning: A wider spacing would save planting labor, increase time-
liness of planting and facilitate weeding. It is likely that spacings up to
80 cms 1 meter between rows and hills would not appreciably affect yields.
For example, the density of 35,000 plants/ha under present recommendations
could be established by planting 3 seeds/hill, 65 cm apart in 90 cm rows and
allowing for an average loss of 30% of seeds due to germination and predators.
ii) Fertilizer: Fertilizer recommendations should be reconsidered in light of
substantially changed domestic and international prices of maize and fertilizer
since the current recommendations were established. The on-farm fertilizer
trials data from CRI and UNDP/MOA could be re-analyzed for this purpose. How-
ever, care should be taken to use costs and prices relevant to farmers. That is,
experimental yields should be adjusted, transport and capital costs included in
fertilizer prices and harvest costs of extra yield deducted (see Perrin et al
1976 and Byerlee and Harrington, 1979).
iii) Weeding: The problem of weeds and weeding will be addressed in on-farm
experiments in the area (see below). This, hopefully, will provide a better
alternative to a second weeding which most farmers are not in a position to do.


1/ This again underlines the importance of the storage problem with La Posta.









7.2 Implications for On-Farm Experimental Work

During the exploratory survey, both farmers' opinions and our
observations pointed to three high priority problems limiting maize production
and farmers' incomes in the area and which given existing knowledge offer
potential for improved technology through a program of on-farm experimentation.
These areas are: a) maize storage, b) maize stand establishment, and c) weed
control. In addition, potential for introducing newer varieties from the CRI
maize breeding program, also warrants on-farm varietal experiments.

a) Maize storage: Storage of the improved maize variety, La Posta, appears to
be a universal problem in the area and one preventing the wider use of La Posta
which is otherwise favored for yield and earliness relative to the local variety.
Storage problems of improved maize prevent most farmers from benefiting from
higher prices for maize several months after harvest and indeed are probably
a factor contributing to the wide seasonal price swings observed. Moreover,
ability to store maize over a longer period may allow greater flexibility in
managing food supplies; maize now is largely used for home consumption in the
immediate post-harvest period.

Storage problems of La Posta might arise from relatively late
harvesting if for some reason farmers have not adjusted harvesting dates to
the relative earliness of La Posta or they might arise form poorer husk cover
or softer endosperm or some combination of these.

It is proposed that a storage experiment be set to measure storage
losses under four conditions imposed in a factorial design: i) variety (La Posta
vs local), ii) harvest date (brown husk stage vs one month later), iii) husk
cover (husk vs dehusk), and iv) chemical treatment (Actellic powder vs no control).
These treatments should be imposed on groups of ears stored in typical farmers'
barns which had no previous fumigation treatment.

b) Stand establishment: The aim of this experiment would be to find the most
economic means of arriving at better (i.e., more uniform) maize stands. At
present, traditional methods (shallow planting using a cutlass and light
covering) suffer from poor stands due to losses from predators. The recommended
practice (over-planting and thinning) results in better stands but requires
substantial additional labor which competes with the other important activities
such as weeding.









This experiment would investigate the following factors in a fac-
torial design: i) oversowing and thinning vs sowing the exact number of seeds
per hill, ii) seed treatment vs none, iii) sowing method (e.g., cutlass hole
loosely covered vs holes made with planting stick and well covered) and,
iv) sowing depth (shallow vs deep).

c) Weed control: There appears to be little flexibility in the current system
for improved weed control because of the labor bottleneck at that period.
Other crops (e.g., groundnuts) also require weeding at the same time and given
current crops and varieties there does not seem much scope for altering planting
dates to stagger weeding. Farmers could of course improve weed control by
reducing the area planted but are clearly electing to increase incomes through
increased area rather than increased yields.

It is therefore proposed that experiments be established to inves-
tigate the economics of chemical weed control compared to one or two hand weedings.
CRI agronomists have already conducted fairly extensive on-station experiments
on chemical weed control which will guide the choice of chemicals and treatment
level for the on-farm experiments. At this stage, herbicides for maize are
only occasionally available to growers through commercial outlets in Kumasi,
Accra and Tamale so introduction of herbicides to small holders in the area
will also require changes in the distribution system.

There is likely to be considerable interaction of quantity and type
of weeds with crop rotation and land preparation. For this reason, considerable
care will be needed in choice of sites for these weed control experiments. Since
the large majority of farmers do not have access to tractor ploughing, emphasis
should be given to fields prepared by traditional slash and burn methods. More-
over, the fields should represent both farmers who are rotating maize with
other crops, especially groundnuts and those who grow continuous maize. It is
in the latter fields prepared by slash and burn methods where the weed Imperata
is likely to be most troublesome and where current herbicides will be least
effective.

A weed control experiment would screen a number of herbicides
currently available in Ghana in comparison with handweeding. A later trial
would examine rates of only one or two of the most promising of these. A
second trial should examine the relationship between several levels of weed
control and response of the crop to nitrogen, in order to determine optimal
fertilization levels under different levels of weed control.









At present it appears that no single chemical herbicide offers
total weed control in maize in this area. At best the chemical will replace
the first weeding and slightly reduce the labour requirement of the second
weeding.

d) Variety: The screening of varieties for the area should continue with
emphasis on yield and storability but also considering earliness and shortness.
A variety earlier than La Posta would enable greater flexibility in planting
during the major season and also reduce risks from an early finish of rains
in the minor season. Farmers would also prefer a variety which withstands
lodging better than La Posta.

7.3. Implications for Further Survey Work

Although the exploratory survey has clearly provided much useful
information, we recommend that a formal survey of farmers in the area be
conducted in the next cropping season. This survey would aim to quantify the
extent of some key practices used by farmers (e.g., planting methods, seed
selection, time of weeding) and opinions expressed by farmers. General impres-
sions were obtained during the.exploratory survey but because of the limited
time period and the considerable variation in the area, we did not feel confident
in quantifying the extent of various farmer practices and opinions.

Our recommendations for the design and conduct of the survey are
as follows:

a) Population of Farmers of Interest: A convenient definition would be the
area, largely defined by rainfall, where minor season maize is widely grown.

b) Sample Size: Experience from elsehwere suggest that 100 farmers is adequate
to represent the variability in this area. This variability mainly relates to
sole cropping v intercropping of maize, location relative to past maize demon-
stration programs, savannah v forest land, and hand v tractor land preparation -
the latter strongly co-related to farm size.

c) Sampling Frame: The sampling frame used by the economics and statistics
unit, MOA, seems to be a convenient starting point. It lists farmers for
randomly selected census enumeration areas (EA's) and also the crops grown by
each farmer. The accuracy of the frame in terms of coverage could be checked
with the chief farmer for one or two villages.









d) Sampling Method: Depending on the nature of the above sampling frame,
farmers could be either drawn at random from all farmers listed or EA's first
drawn at random and then farmers drawn at random within each selected EA. The
idea would be to have at least 10 EA's represented. More than 15 EA's would
present logistical problems in transportation and establishing cooperation
through chief farmers.

e) Enumerators: Two sources of enumerators are possible:

a) As a first choice, sons of local farmers with say a Form III education
or above and other desirable characteristics of enumerators. A budget
would be required to hire and transport 3-4 such persons for 4 weeks.

b) GLDB field supervisors could be used provided that i) they are
carefully screened for quality, ii) they work in areas outside of
their normal jurisdiction, and iii) they do not think of the survey
as an evaluation of their work.

f) Timing: The survey could begin in say late May or early June when the peak
weeding period has passed. This would also enable field observations on stand,
weeds, etc. to be made. With three to four enumerators, four weeks will be
needed to complete the survey.

g) Questionnaire: A preliminary draft of the questionnaire is included in the
Appendix. Note that information on farmer practices is obtained for only one
field (farm). Normally farmers we met had only intercropped fields or had
most maize sole-cropped with perhaps a small field intercropped. This method
of questioning then would obtain information on farmer practices for both
intercropped and sole-cropped fields but avoids the time consuming task of
obtaining information on practices in each field or for each cropping system.
The questionnaire should be carefully tested and refined before the survey
begins.

7.4 Broader Implications Arising from the Survey

A number of issues were tentatively identified in the survey which
have implications beyond the proposed on-farm research/demonstration program in
the Mampong-Sekodumasi area. These issues might merit specific research projects
or policy actions if they were found to be common across several important maize
producing areas.









a) Fertilizer Distribution: Fertilizer use by small farmers is limited by the
short supply of fertilizer and the small number of distribution points. The
supply problem this year is probably to some extent a result of the fuel shortage.
Nonetheless, farmers often had to travel considerable distances and incur sub-
stantial costs to obtain fertilizer at one of the two distribution points serving
the area. These increased costs of fertilizer use to some extent reduce the
effectiveness of the current subsidy.

b) Maize Marketing: Many farmers are selling maize in the immediate post-harvest
period when prices are only about one half of prices later in the season.
Although the Food Distribution Corporation operates in the area neither the
price paid or the quantity bought is sufficient to have any significant effect
on these seasonal price changes.

c) Breeding for Storability: To the extent that there is potential for improved
maize storability through breeding a special project in the CRI maize breeding
program might be set up to select for maize storability. This, of course,
would depend on definition of the current problems with La Posta; whether
storage problems relate to poor husk cover or soft endosperm.






APPENDIX

DRAFT QUESTIONNAIRE FOR A SURVEY OF MAIZE FARMERS IN THE MAMPONG SEKODUMASI AREA


1. Inventory of Maize Farms
la. What farms did you plant with maize this major season?


Other Crops Date Maize
AArea (acs) in Farm Sown


Farms with Maize Alone


Farm 1
Farm 2
Farm 3

Farms with Maize Intercropped


Farm A
Farm B
Farm C


______________________ I ________________________


______________________ I ________________________


1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4


1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1234
1234
1234


1234
1234
1234


C=Cassava Insert month
CY=Cocoyan and circle
GN=Groundnut week
P=Plantain
CP=Cowpeas


lb. (If farmer does not know area) Which of these farms is the largest?
Farm N


2. Practices for Maize


Production


(Enumerator; Choose


the largest farm from the above list for the following


questions).


Farm N


Area








2a. What crops were planted in this farm in?


Major Season Minor Season

1979

1978_

1977 ________

1976 _____
M=Maize, G=Groundnuts, CY=Cocoyams, C=Cassava, P=Plantain,
CP=Cowpeas, F=Fallow ..


2b. In what year was this farm last cleared (after fallow)?

How long was the fallow period? years

2c. How did you obtain this land?


Own Land


Chiefs' Permission Share Tenant Other (sp)


2d. Practices in this Farm

(Enumerator; complete the following information for this farm)


Operation
nDnn


Date of
Onpratinn


Method of
Onperatinn


If manual
manday/acre
or/farm


S1 VI. ..


Felling, Clearing, Stumping
Slashing
Burning
Ploughing
Harrowing
Planting Maize
Cassava*
S Plantain*
Other (sp )*
Replanting
Thinning
First Weeding
Second Weeding
First Fertilizer Application
Second Fertilizer Application
Harvesting Maize
Harvesting Maize /Weeding*
hpll inn


Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N

Y/N
Y/N

Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N
Y/N

Y/N


1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
-1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234


C/T


H/T

C/T





C/H
C/H


Manual/Mach.


Operation


If machine
cost of
rental


/ac

/ac
/ac





/ac
/ac
__/ac


/bag


* Y=Yes write in C=Cutlass
Intercropped fields only N=No month & H=Hoe
_circle wk T=Tractor


baq/day'








3a. Which variety did you plant in this

Local (white)

Local (yellow) __

La Posta .

3b. Which other varieties did you also


Sfarm (selected farm) this major season?

Composite 4

Composite 2

Other (sp)

plant (i.e. in other farms)?


3c. What, other varieties do you know?

a. Local (white)

b. Local (yellow)

c. La Posta

3d. Which of these do you think is th

Why do you think it is best?

Yield

Early Maturing

3e. (If farmer did not grow this best

variety this year?


Composite 4

Composite 2

Other (sp )

best variety for you?


Stores better

Other (Sp___

variety? ) Why did you not plant this


3f. Of these varieties which do you think yields best when rains are normal
yields best when rains finish early
stores longest
matures earliest
lodges most
3g. (If farmer plants La Posta) How long have you planted this Variety? years
Where did you obtain your seed?

3h. When did you last buy new seed of La Posta? year. Price paid /kg.

3i. When selecting seed for planting, have you ever mixed ears of improved varieties
and local varieties to plant in the same field? Yes/No.
If so, why did you mix them?


e







4. Planting

(Enumerator; For the selected farm (i.e. largest) obtain the following information)

4a. Can you tell us how you plant maize?

Haphazard In lines_
(If Hazphazard) Distances between hills
Seeds planted/hill

(If in Lines) Distances between lines
Distance between hills
Seeds planted/hill
4b. (If planted in lines) when did you begin planting in lines? years.
Do you use a string? Yes/No

4c. Which method do you use for planting maize?
cutlass to make hole cutlass to lift soil only
pointed stick heel machine other (sp

5. Fertilizer
(Enumerator; Again refer only to the selected maize farm)
5a. Did you apply fertilizer to this farm this year? Yes/No
(IF FARMER APPLIED FERTILIZER)

5b. How much did you apply of:
15-15-15 bags per acre/farm
Sulphate of Am. bags per acre/farm

5c. How do you apply fertilizer? to each hill
Broadcast Lines Other (sp )

5d. Do you cover after application? Yes/No

5e. Where did you obtain the fertilizer?

5f. How much did you pay this year?

15-15-15 Ammonia Transport Other Charges
/bag /bag /bag /bag
5g. Is there any difficulty obtaining fertilizer when you need it? Yes/No
If yes, what type of difficulty do you have?







Which type of fertilizer is difficult to obtain?

5h. In what year did you begin applying fertilizer to maize?

(IF FARMER HAS NEVER USED FERTILIZER ON MAIZE)

5g. Which types of fertilizer do you know?

15-15-15 Ammonia Other

5j. Why do you not apply fertilizer to maize? -


year.


(sp)


6. Production Problems

6a. Of the following which do you
in this area?


consider serious problems in producing maize


Sometimes a
Problem


Not a
Problem


If serious, specify
nature of problem


Planting on time

Loss of seed to birds/animals

Insect damage

Weeding on time

Major season rains start late

finish early

Minor season rains start late
S finish early


6b. Of these problems, which do you consider to be the most serious?


6c. What can


you do to reduce this problem?


7. Production, Storage and Marketing

7a. Last year, how much maize did you produce (including maize harvested green?)

Major season sole cropped bags from acres


Serious







Major season mixed bags from _acres
Minor season sole cropped bags from ___ acres
mixed bags from acres
Total bags of ears in husk/unhusked ears/shelled grain.
7b. Of this amount, how much did you consume at home
feed to animals
sell
other (sp____ ___
7c. How long did you store most of your maize?
for selling months
eating __months
7d. How was the maize stored?
i) Special Earn In House
ii) In Husk Dehusked __
iii) With Insecticide No insecticide
7e. At what price did you sell most of.your maize $ /kg in _
7f. To whom did you sell this maize?
Trader FDC
Other (sp )

8. Farming System
8a. Besides your farms where you plant maize, what other farms does your
household have?
Farm Acres Crops on Farm
1


month.


--








8b. Of the crops you grow, what are most important for:

Crops
Food

Cash

8c. In the whole year, what months are the busiest months for farm work?


Month Work to be done*
i.

2.

Specify crop and job

8d. Which jobs do you feel are not being completed on time?

Job/Crop Time completed Best Time
this year



8e. Do you normally hire labor for farm work?

8f. (If yes) In what months do you hire labor?
What wages are paid cash $ /day
food $ /day

Where do these laborers came from?

Migrants School children Other farmers

8g. In what months do you have difficulty hiring labor?

Why?

8h. In what months can you easily hire labor?

Why?

8i. For expenses in farming, what is your usual source of funds?

Self Bank Money lender Friends & Relatives

8j. If you borrow $1000 in February from a private lender, how much would you

pay back at harvest? $


bags of maize









LIST OF AVAILABLE CIMMYT ECONOMICS WORKING PAPERS


Edith Hesse de Polanco and Peter Walker, "A Users Guide to FASAP A Fortran
Program for the Analysis of Farm Survey Data".


Edith Hesse de Polanco and Peter Walker, "Manual Para los Usuarios de FASAP
Un Programa de Fortran Para El Analisis de Datos de Encuestas de Agri-
cultores".


Kwasi Bruce, Derek Byerlee and G.E. Edmeades, "Maize in the Mampong-Sekodu-
masi Area of Ghana; Results of an Exploratory Survey".


Alan Benjamin, "An Agro-Economic Evaluation of Maize Production in Three
Valleys of the Peruvian Andes".


Derek Byerlee, Larry Harrington and Paul Marko, "Barley Production Practites,
Problems and Research Opportunities in the Calpulalpan/Apan Valley,
Mexico".




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