Maize Food and Feed Consumption-' )
in the Developing World /p
David Rohrback *
CIMMYT Economics Program
Working Paper No. 04/84
* Research Associate, CIMMYT Economics Program
The views expressed in this paper are not necessarily those of CIMMYT.
The FAO data analyzed in this paper are under continuous review and
should not be regarded as final.
This study is a detailed analysis of trends in maize use in
developing countries. It was prepared as a background document for
CIMMYT Maize Facts and Trends. Report Two: An Analysis of Changes in
Third World Food and Feed Uses of Maize (1984) and readers of that
paper who wish more detail should find this study quite useful. The
study examines changes in maize consumption in developing countries and
also analyzes maize feed use in both producing and importing countries.
An understanding of these trends is quite important to CIMMYT as we try
to ensure that maize production is adequate to meet the varied and changing
demands of the developing world.
Donald Winkelmann, Director,
CIMMYT Economics Program
List of Tables ii
List of Figures iii
A Note on the Data vii
A Review of World Production, Trade and Consumption Trends 3
Production Growth 3
Trade Trends 7
Direct and Indirect Consumption Trends 8
Per Capita Production and Consumption 10
Direct Maize Consumption in the Developing Countries 14
Relative Importance of Maize Calories 14
Maize Consumption Trends 16
Review of Major Causes Underlying Maize Consumption Trends 21
1. Maize Availability Production and Net Imports 21
2. Income Growth 23
3. Urbanization 28
4. Food Aid 29
5. Pricing Policies 30
6. Other Government Policies 31
Continuing Reliance on Maize Among Major Consumers 33
Indirect Maize Consumption Patterns in the Major Producers 36
Maize Feed Use Levels and Trends 36
Principal Factors Influencing Maize Feed Demand 38
Future Patterns of Maize Feed Demand 47
Maize Feed Use Among the Major Importers 51
Levels and Trends of Maize Feed Use 51
Factors Influencing Maize Utilization LeVels and Growth 53
Factors Affecting the Choice of Maize as a Feed Grain 57
Likelihood of Continued Growth in Maize Feed Utilization 58
Appendix A 63
Review of Regression Results 63
Appendix B 69
Country Data on Maize Production, Consumption and Imports in 52
Major Developing Country Producers 69
List of Tables
Distribution of World Maize Trade.
Evolving Maize Utilization Patterns
World Per Capita Maize Production and Consumption
Regional Patterns of Direct Maize Consumption
Direct Cereal Consumption Patterns by Income and
Income or Expenditure Elasticities for Direct
Production and Consumption Characteristics for
Countries with Greater or Lesser Dependence
on Maize Calories
Income and Expenditure Elasticities for Livestock
Importance of Relative Feed Grains, 1980
Characteristics of Maize Feed Users, 1978-80
Average Utilization Characteristics of Major
Developing Country Users for Maize Feed
List of Figures
World Maize Area, Yield and Production Growth
World Maize Yields (ton/ha), 1980-82
Changing Food Consumption Patterns Among Major
Maize Producers, 1968-80
Change in Commodity Composition of Diets, 1968-80
Many people helped in the assembly of data for this paper. Edith
Hesse de Polanco and Pedro Santamaria managed the computer coding and
organized the computer data bases. The staff of the FAO Basic Data Unit
have generously provided updated computer listings of production, trade
and consumption data. K. Becker was particularly helpful in answering
questions about the consumption data and in providing copies of revised
data listings as these became available. Per Pinstrup-Andersen gathered
and contributed a useful set of consumption data divided by income class
collected by several of his colleagues at IFPRI. Larry Harrington con-
tributed information regarding maize consumption in Thailand and
Singapore and Ponniah Anandajayasekeram provided similar data from Kenya.
Special thanks are due to each of these individuals.
Valuable reviews of earlier drafts of this paper were provided by
Derek Byerlee and Christian Emmrich. Don Winkelmann, too, provided
useful critical advice as well as a wide ranging insightfulness essen-
tial in guiding the orientation of this analysis. The assistance of
each of these individuals is greatly appreciated.
The terms and regional aggregates used in this report are defined as
Gross imports by a country or region without taking into account
exports or re-exports
Net Imports Imports less exports.
Utilization Production plus net imports.
Direct Consumption Consumed directly as food. Quantities are calculated
on the basis of the weight of the commodity as consumed.
Flour, starch, etc.. have not been converted back into
Indirect Consumption Consumed indirectly as animal feed. Quantities are
calculated on basis of the weight of the commodity
Annual Growth Rates Compounded annual growth rates calculated as: g = 100
[In (Xt/Xtn)]/t, where Xt is the average for the three
year period t (e.g. 1978-80), Xt is the average for
the three year period t (e.g.,1968-70), and t is the
number of years between the midpoints of the two
periods (i.e., 10).
East and Southern Africa: All Sub-Saharan countries east of Angola,
Chad and Zaire but excluding South Africa.
West Africa: Angola, Chad, Zaire, and all Sub-Saharan countries to
Morocco to Egypt.
Middle East: Turkey to Afghanistan.
South Asia: Pakistan to Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.
Southeast Asia and Pacific: Burma to Philippines, Indonesia, and
East Asia: China, Korea DPR, and Republic of Korea.
Asian Centrally Planned Economies: China, Korea DPR, Viet Nam.
Mexico, Central America and Caribbean: Mexico to Panama and Caribbean
Andean: Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru, Surinam and
Southern Cone: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay.
Western Europe, Japan, New Zealand, and Israel
U.S.A., Canada, Australia and South Africa
Eastern Europe and U.S.S.R.
A Note Regarding the Data
The majority of the consumption, production and trade statistics
analyzed in this paper were kindly provided by the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO). These data are under continuous
review and subject to revision. They cannot, therefore, be regarded as
Considerable caution must especially accompany the interpretation of
country specific consumption data for the developing countries. While
consumption statistics are, by nature, highly subject to error, estimates
for many of the countries included in this analysis can only be viewed as
gross approximations. This problem is particularly burdensome with a
commodity such as maize. Relative allocations to food and feed are often
difficult to judge. Given the fact that many of the countries most
dependent on maize have the least developed data bases, even aggregate
supplies can be hard to calculate.
This assessment has been conducted, however, in the belief that an
analysis of currently available statistics provides at least an indication
of the nature of recent trends. Many of the more specific results might
best be viewed as hypotheses requiring future validation as improved
information becomes available. Yet certain broad consistencies across the
data do allow a series of general conclusions to be drawn.
MAIZE FOOD AND FEED CONSUMPTION IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD
Over the last decade, the majority of major developing country maize
producers have experienced declines in their per capital maize consumption.
This trend has most seriously affected many of the poorest producers
which tend to rely upon maize for the largest share of their staple
calories. Countries with relatively strong wheat or rice production bases
have been able to offset at least part of their maize calorie losses by
consuming more of these alternative grains. Some middle income countries
without such production capabilities have compensated by increasing
their wheat or rice imports. But a disturbing number of those countries
most dependent on maize have found themselves faced with rising staple
calorie deficits and falling total calorie consumption.
In sharp contrast, developing country maize use for animal feed, or
indirect demand, has been rapidly growing. Most of this gain has occurred
in a relatively small number of higher income countries. Two of these his-
torically have been maize exporters. Most, however, have relied heavily
on maize imports. None of these countries have used this commodity to
supply more than a minor share of their cereal calories. The most
remarkable feature of this trend is the speed with which it has brought
these countries to play a major role in world maize markets.
Recent indications suggest this rapid growth in feed demand is
beginning to broaden. Countries which have historically produced maize
as a major food staple are allocating an increasing share of their
supplies to feed. Even some countries with apparent food production
deficits seem to be moving in this direction. In such cases, the
strength of a country's rising demand for meat may be threatening the
priority generally attached to direct cereal consumption needs.
While these trends have often been noted, there has been little
detailed analysis of their scope or underlying causes. Numerous un-
answered questions hamper predictions of the future speed, or in some
instances, even the orientation of consumption patterns in individual
countries. Such foresight is.essential, however, for the establishment
of appropriately responsive government policies and research priorities.
Not only must the significance of past trends be clearly recognized, but
those factors affecting their development need to be better understood.
This report initiates this inquiry.
This study is largely a descriptive analysis of developing country
maize consumption patterns over the last ten years. After a review of the
trends themselves, factors influencing these are outlined and their
immediate significance is judged. Unfortunately, one caveat must
accompany this presentation. Due to the uncertain quality of some of the
country-specific data, the conclusions must be treated as tentative and
must be interpreted with caution. The data do, however, contain broad
enough consistencies to testify to the validity of the generalizations
The analysis begins with a description of world production, consump-
tion and trade patterns in order to outline the circumstances under which
changing developing country consumption patterns have become an issue of
critical importance. Each major trend is then evaluated in turn. Direct
maize consumption trends are examined in the context of a brief survey of
the consumption patterns associated with alternative staples. The rela-
tive importance of different explanatory factors is then assessed and
the impact of declining consumption on those countries most dependent
on maize calories is discussed.
Next, the growing importance of maize feed use among countries which
have historically allocated the dominant share of their production to
food is assessed. The relative strength of these trends is evaluated and
the key factors which seem to facilitate them are reviewed. A brief
discussion draws attention to the possible significance of increasing
levels of feed use among the poorer food deficit nations.
Finally, the rapid growth of indirect consumption among the major
developing country importers is considered. This section examines the
impact of livestock production gains on world maize markets. It concludes
with an assessment of whether these trends are indicative of future feed
use patterns among the majority of major producers.
A REVIEW OF WORLD PRODUCTION, TRADE AND CONSUMPTION TRENDS
World maize production increased at a 3.8 percent annual rate over
the last ten years (1970-72 to 1980-82) to a level of 434 million tons.
This represents a 46 percent increase in world supplies. The developing
countries led this advance with a production growth rate of 3.9 percent.
This gain was dominated, however, by the production growth of the develop-
ing world's largest producer. China posted a 6.3 percent annual rate
of increase and now accounts for over 40 percent of developing country
production. Latin America and the developing market economies of Asia
registered moderate 2.8 percent yearly production advances. In contrast,
production in sub-Saharan Africa lagged with a disappointing 0.8 percent
annual rate of growth.
In the developed countries, aggregate production grew at a 3.8
percent annual rate. This gain was similarly dominated by the grouping's
largest producer. The United States achieved a 50 percent increase in
production with a 4.1 percent growth rate. This country now produces
over 45 percent of world maize supplies. Canada registered an impressive
8.4 percent yearly production gain, firmly establishing its position as a
major world producer. Western Europe experienced a 2.8 percent rate of
production growth while a 2.4 percent annual gain was collectively
achieved by Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.
Most of this growth was obtained with yield improvements. In the
developing countries yields increased at a 2.8 percent annual rate while
area planted expanded by 1.1 percent per year. China registered the most
rapid growth in yields among major producers with a 4.3 percent rate of
gain. In sharp contrast, yields in sub-Saharan Africa declined at a 0.4
percent yearly pace. This was the only major region where area expanded
more rapidly than yields. Most of this gain occurred in Western Africa.
In the developed countries, yields grew at an average annual rate of
2.7 percent and were led by an 8.6 percent annual gain in Greece. In the
United States, yields increased by 2.0 percent per year. This country,
however, registered a 50 percent jump in area planted. Canada almost
doubled its maize hectarage. In the developed countries as a whole,
however, area planted annually grew by only 0.7 percent (Figure 1).
The dominance of the developed countries in world maize production is
clearly based on their continuing substantial advantage in yields. While
the developing countries currently account for 60 percent of area planted
to maize, they produce only 35 percent of world maize supplies. Develop-
ing country yields, averaging only 1.9 tons per hectare, are less than 40
percent of the 5.3 tons per hectare average obtained in the developed
countries. Furthermore, maize yields in sub-Saharan Africa and the Far
East remain low even by developing country standards at 1.0 and 1.3 tons
per hectare respectively (Figure 2).
Figure 1. World Maize Area, Yield and Production G3rowtn (Percent/Year), 1970-82
:. .-< -
-5.0 4.9 \ -.
3. 3.1 3.1
3.0 .8 X
2.26 21 2.4 2.4
S2.1S x x1 XU 'A
S2.0So E. -3
and i t P (C a U.S an Sot
Mdl 1.8Aortx 1i ;_ ( sr .AI
C 01.3 C and I. ael
F o ** 6 : w 0K- ^ ^ :
X X901 It Y,
''-0.2 0.4~ 0.4 0.4 I
Middle North South Southeast East '. Southern Easter U.S.A.
Eastern i^- East Africa Asia Asia and Asia Mexico Cone(5) Western and Australia
and W (8) (4) (7) Pacific (4) Central (5 esrnU.S.S.R. and South
Southrce: FA Data apanTapes, 1983.) frica
a/N er of cotri a New Zealand (4)
'19i'a (24) I. -- and israel
0 S Andean
Source: FAO Data Tapes, 1983.
-a/Number of countries in region.
Figure 2. World Maize Yields (ton/ha), 1980-82
Source: FAO Data
lexico, Andean Southern
central (7) Cone
a/Number of countries in region.
L L- J
World maize trade more than doubled over the ten year 1970-72 to
1980-82 period with an 8.5 percent annual rate of growth. This trend was
highlighted by the rapidly increasing reliance of the developing countries
on developed country exports. The developing countries imported six times as
much maize in 1981 as they did ten years previously. With a 16.4 percent
annual growth rate, they increased their share of world imports from 12.3
percent to 26.9 percent. Meanwhile, their share of the world export
market sharply declined from 26.0 to 12.2 percent.
This trend exemplifies a larger pattern of broadening world import
markets and growing concentration among world exporters. Over the last
decade, the European Community's share of world imports dropped from 48
percent to less than 16 percent. The region's maize import levels fell
at an annual rate of 2.8 percent. The import share of Japan remained
relatively constant while that for the Soviet Union increased sharply.
The rapid growth in developing country imports, however, promises to
highlight these trends in the future. While four countries--China, the
Republic of Korea, Mexico and Brazil--purchased almost one-half of
developing country imports in the 1980-82 period, the most rapid
developing country import growth rates have been achieved by a number of
the non-producing, newly industrializing countries.
The world export market became increasingly dominated by the United
States. This country registered a 12.1 percent annual rate of export
growth. Its 1981 sales were over four times those achieved ten years
earlier. Its world market share rose from 45 to over 75 percent. World
market prices, as a result, are currently largely determined by U.S.
production and stockholding policies.
Only two countries now account for over 93 percent of developing
world exports. Argentina, the world's second largest exporter, and
Thailand, the fifth largest, annually increased their sales by 2.2 and
4.5 percent respectively. But significant export declines in many other
countries caused total developing country exports to register only a
minor gain. Two countries, Mexico and Brazil, changed from an initial
status as major maize exporter to become major net importers (Table 1).
Direct and Indirect Consumption Trends
An examination of world maize consumption trends for the slightly
earlier 1968-70 to 1978-80 period discloses a pattern of generally slow
growth in food consumption and rapid gains in feed use. Growth rates in
direct world maize consumption of 1.6 percent were clearly outstripped
by a 3.7 percent average yearly gain in indirect consumption. The develop-
ing countries led both increases with annual growth rates of 1.7 percent
for food use and 5.3 percent for feed allocations. Throughout Asia and
the Near East feed utilization has grown at more than three times the
rate of food consumption. In Africa, feed use gains have been almost
twice as rapid as those for food, though feed use levels remain relatively
In the developed countries, maize feed and food use grew at annual
rates of 3.2 percent and 1.4 percent. Feed use in the Soviet Union more than
doubled with an 8.5 percent yearly rate of growth. Feed use in the world's
largest feed consumer, the United States, annually rose by only 1.7 percent.
The developing countries still account for almost 90 percent of world
maize food consumption and only 25 percent of world feed consumption.
Both of these percentage shares are increasing. At current growth rates
livestock production is rapidly becoming the dominant source of maize
Table 1. Distribution of World Maize Trade
European Community 11,897
Eastern Europe 6,808
Other Developed 11,777
Other Developing 16,622
Source: FAO Data Tape, 1983.
demand in most regions. In fact, by some estimates, the majority of
developing country maize is now allocated in this direction.- According
to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Africa and the
developing market economies of the Far East are the only major regions
still using most of their maize for food. If current rates of consump-
tion growth are maintained, by 1990, Africa will be the only remaining
region in this position (Table 2).
Per Capita Production and Consumption
The significance of these production and consumption trends becomes
particularly apparent when they are viewed on a per capital basis. The
Asian centrally planned economies represent the only developing country
grouping registering significant yearly gains in per capital production
through the 1970s. In Latin America, per capital maize production declined
at a one percent yearly rate. Sub-Saharan Africa experienced a 2.2
percent rate of annual decline.
Per capital maize food consumption declined in every developing region
except, surprisingly, the Near East. Overall yearly declines averaged
around 0.8 percent. By contrast, per capital maize feed consumption has
been increasing throughout the developing world. In the Asian market
economies and the Near East, this gain has been greater than seven percent
per year. In the developing countries as a whole, per capital feed use has
grown at an annual rate of 2.8 percent. Interestingly, the developed
countries experienced the most rapid regional growth rate in per capital
l/Again, it must be noted that this data should be interpreted with
caution. Estimates of consumption levels in countries with less developed
databases are subject to high degrees of error. This particular estimate
depends upon the judgement that China currently uses the majority of its
maize for feed.
Table 2. Evolving Maize Utilization Patternsa/
Allocation of Maize
Allocation of MaizeL/
Source: FAO Data Tape, 1983.
-Based on linear extrapolation
of current growth trends.
direct consumption and second smallest rate of growth in per capital feed
use (Table 3).
In sum, maize production in most developing countries has failed to
keep pace with rapid population growth. One reason is that area planted
to maize has declined in over one-third of those countries producing at
least 100,000 hectares of the commodity in 1980-82. In addition,
one quarter of these countries have experienced declining yields. As a
result, many countries which began the decade asimaize exporters ended it
with a growing reliance on maize and alternative cereal grain imports.
Per capital direct consumption levels necessarily suffered.
In apparent contradiction to these trends, substantial growth has
occurred in maize'allocations to feed. Most of this gain has been
achieved by a relatively small number of higher [income countries. Given
the fact that the majority of these are not major producers, this source
of demand has stimulated a large increase in developing country maize
imports. There are also indications, however, that this trend is
beginning to broaden, encompassing countries which have traditionally
relied upon maize for food.
It is impossible to understand the full significance of these
trends without a closer examination of country-specific data. A regional
transition may not be indicative to changes taking place in most of its
constituent nations if the production or consumption levels of one or two
countries make up a large proportion of the total. Also, an understand-
ing of future demand and supply prospects requires an analysis of causal
relationships and consequences for individual producers and consumers.
This assessment begins with a review of the evolution of direct consumption
Table 3. World Per Capita Maize Production and Consumption
Sources: FAO Production Yearbook, 1973, 1975, 1980.
FAO Data Tapes, 1983.
DIRECT MAIZE CONSUMPTION IN THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Relative Importance of Maize Calories
Maize is the third most important food source in the developing
world. Only wheat and rice provide a larger share of cereal calories.
Fifty-two countries planted an average of over 100,000 hectares to this
commodity over the 1978-80 period.-/ They accounted for over 99 percent
of developing country production and 98 percent of developing country
maize food consumption. This group has accordingly been identified as
the base sample of countries with which this study is concerned.
Most of these countries derive a substantial proportion of their
cereal calories from maize. This commodity is the principal food source
in 23 of the 52 major producers. It supplies over 10 percent of national
cereal calories in 40 of these countries. In many nations where wheat
or rice are the dominant national food grains, maize represents an
important regional food source. Only three countries allocate less than
ten percent of their production to food.
The highest levels of per capital direct consumption are found in
the regions of Central America and East and Southern Africa (Table 4).
The 18 major producers in this group account for approximately 27 percent
of maize food consumption in the developing countries. They consume an
estimated annual average of 68 kg per capital (1978-80). Maize represents
the principal source of cereal calories in all but two of these countries.
A relatively high level of dependence on maize calories is also
/Afghanistan, Angola, Argentina, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma,
Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia,
Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras,
India, Indonesia, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Korea DPR, Lesotho, Madagascar,
Malawi, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria,
Pakistan, Paraquay, Peru, Philippines, Somalia, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo,
Turkey, Uganda, Uruguay, Venezuela, Vietnam, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Table 4. Regional Patterns of Direct Maize Consumption (1978-80)
and Caribbean 6
East and Southern
(w/o China) 5
South Asia 4
South America 10
West Africa 10
North Africa and
Middle East 4
Source: FAO Data Tape, 1983.
found in West Africa. Maize constitutes the largest source of cereal'
calories in six of the ten major producers in this region. Estimated
annual consumption averages about 34 kg per person.
Relative levels of national dependence on maize are low in most
other parts of the developing world, though regional consumption levels
within particular countries may be high. China is estimated to account
for almost one-third of total direct developing country consumption.
Yet maize is judged to supply only 12 percent of this nation's cereal
calories. The nine remaining Asian producers account for an estimated 20
percent of direct developing world consumption, again despite the fact
that rice generally dominates cereal diets in the region. The ten major
producers in South America and four in North Africa and the Middle East
account for eight and five percent of direct developing country consumption
respectively. Maize constitutes the largest single source of cereal calories
in only one of these 24 countries, Paraguay, though it provides at least
one-quarter of the cereal calories in 6 others.
Maize Consumption Trends
Between 1968-70 and 1978-80, per capital maize consumption declined
in 29 of the 52 major developing country producers. The loss of maize
calories most seriously affected those countries placing greatest depen-
dence on this source of food. Direct per capital consumption fell in 14
of the 20 countries which, in the late 1960s, relied upon maize for at
least 50 percent of their cereal calories. In contrast, most of those
countries with low levels of maize calorie dependence either maintained or
increased their per capital consumption.
The significance of these trends is disclosed when they are compared
with the consumption trends for alternative staples in the major maize
producers. One finds that maize consumption declines have been part of a
broader pattern of falling consumption for coarse grains, roots and tubers
(Fiqure 3). As Figure 3 indicates, none of the major maize producers
registered significant increases in millet and sorghum consumption over
the period under investigation. The number of countries experiencing
rising per capital consumption levels of maize or roots and tubers was
far outweighed by those with consumption declines.
In sharp contrast, per capital consumption levels of wheat and rice
have generally remained constant or risen. Just over half of the maize
producers experienced relatively strong per capital consumption gains in
wheat. The proportion of countries with increasing consumption of rice
is only slightly lower. In each case, relatively few countries registered
The impact of these trends is indicated in a review of the shifting
composition of national staple diets (Figure 4). A major reorientation
has occurred toward greater relative reliance on wheat and rice. The
proportion of cereal calories made up of maize has declined in 60 percent
of the major maize producers. Over 80 percent of the producers consuming
significant levels of millet and sorghum have also experienced propor-
tional declines in the consumption of these commodities. The contribution
to national cereal calories of wheat and rice has risen, however, in three-
quarters of the producers. This shift shows no relationship with the level
of initial reliance on these commodities.
Declines in per capital millet and sorghum consumption have generally
reinforced falling maize consumption trends. Despite the fact that wheat
and rice represent a growing proportion of most countries' cereal diets,
per capital consumption gains in these commodities have generally not
compensated for alternative cereal calories losses. Over half of the
countries experiencing declining levels of per capital maize consumption
Figure 3. Changing Food Consumption Patterns Among Major Maize Producers, 1968-80
Change in Kilos of Staple Consumed
> -5kg -2 to -5kg -2 to 2kg 2 to 5kg
MILLET and SORGHUM
> -5kg -2 to -5kg -2 to 2kg 2 to 5kg > 5kg
ROOTS and TUBERS
-6 to -15kg -6 to 6kg
6 to 15kg > 15kg
> -5kg -2 to -5kg -2 to 2kg 2 to 5kg > 5kg
Source: FAO Data
-2 to -5kg
-Not all major maize producers consumed these commodities.
Change in Commodity Composition of Diets, 1968-80
> 2% Decline
> y nc
> 2% Increase
Change in the Proportion of Cereal
Diets in the Major Producers Made
up of Alternative Grains
Source: FAO Data Tapes, 1983.
aLess than 2% changes.
Less than 2% changes.
registered per capital cereal calorie losses. Almost half of the major
maize producers overall have experienced declining levels of cereal
calorie consumption. This includes the majority of those countries most
heavily dependent on maize calories.
By contrast, the majority of countries registering per capital cereal
calorie consumption growth had substantial production bases in wheat or
rice. Only five of the 25 major maize producers wherein one or the
other of these alternative cereal grains provide the largest share of
cereal calories experienced per capital cereal consumption declines.
In almost every country where cereal consumption increased, strong gains
in wheat and/or rice consumption occurred.
Two major conclusions can be derived from this assessment. First,
maize calorie losses appear closely related to declining levels of per
capital cereal calorie consumption. Those countries most dependent on
maize tend also to be those facing the greatest consumption constraints.
The associated loss of millet and sorghum calories only compounds these
burdens. Those maize producers with relatively large production bases
in wheat and rice have generally been hurt less. These countries have
been able to offset maize consumption losses with greater reliance on
these alternative staples.
In countries where per capital maize consumption has increased, wheat
and/or rice consumption have often advanced further. This suggests that
shifting cereal consumption patterns may not simply be a function of
domestic cereal grain availability. They are likely also being influenced
by such factors as income growth and urbanization.
Ultimately, these changing consumption patterns should be viewed as
products of both necessity and choice. Countries with declining maize
productivity may have little option but to increase their reliance on
alternative commodities. Those which have maintained their production
levels may be finding their relative consumption levels affected by
shifting tastes and preferences. Many producers are probably facing a
combination of these circumstances.
A thorough assessment of both these trends and their underlying
causes requires a disaggregated analysis of the consumption patterns
characterizing population groups differentiated by income and location
within each country. Unfortunately, little of the data necessary for this
analysis are currently available. Certain generalizations regarding causal
relationships can be derived, however, from a closer examination of major
determinants of supply and demand.
Review of Major Causes Underlying Maize Consumption Trends
1. Maize Availability Production and Net Imports
Thirty-nine of the 52 major maize producers experienced declining
levels of per capital maize production during the 1970s. This includes
17 of the 20 countries initially relying on maize for at least 50 percent
of their cereal calories. Eight of these countries have registered per
capital production declines in excess of two percent per year.
Absolute levels of production have fallen in 14 of the 52 major
producers. Average yields have decreased in 13 countries while area
planted has declined in 19. Seventeen of the 22 major producers in
Sub-Saharan Africa have experienced either area or yield declines. Paradox-
ically, production growth appears strongest among those countries least
reliant on maize for food.
Per capital maize imports have increased in 31 of the major producers
including most countries with the highest levels of maize calorie
dependence. These gains have generally not been large enough, however,
to offset production losses. Thirty-one countries have experienced
declining per capital maize availability, again, including the majority
of nations most dependent on these calories. Many of those countries
with the largest per capital import gains are allocating substantial
quantities of maize to feed. Very little of the maize sold on world
markets consists of white grain varieties, the type many of these
countries prefer for direct consumption. While some countries are mixing
imported yellow grain with locally produced white, others seem to have
turned to world wheat, or, to a lesser degree, rice markets to offset
their production deficits.
The relative consumption trends for alternative cereals in these 52
countries are similarly related to their associated production records.
Per capital production of millet and sorghum has declined in two-thirds of
the producers of these grains. These declines have also been largest
among countries most dependent on these calories. The largest production
gains have occurred in countries allocating substantial amounts of these
grains to feed. Imports of sorghum and millet for consumption as food
Per capital rice production has fallen in 21 of the 49 producers of
maize and rice. Most of these declines, however, have been small.
Growth in net imports has also been limited due to the thin and under-
developed nature of world rice markets. Yet almost 60 percent of the
major maize producers have increased their net rice imports. As a result,
most major maize producers have increased their per capital rice supplies.
Per capital wheat production has similarly declined in almost half of
the 38 maize and wheat growers. Substantial growth in per capital net
imports, however, has offset most of these losses. These have increased
in almost 70 percent of the maize producers including many of those
countries with little or no wheat production of their own. Three-quarters
of these countries have increased their per capital wheat supplies.
A clear link exists between maize production and consumption trends.
Most countries with declining per capital maize production also experienced
declining per capital consumption. Those with rising per capital production
generally registered rising consumption.
Almost every country achieving increased per capital cereal calorie con-
sumption, however, obtained these gains on the basis of strong growth in rice
and/or wheat supplies. Substantial growth in wheat imports particularly
contributed to these gains. If future large scale dependence on cereal
grain imports is to be avoided, the maize producers must reaffirm priori-
ties attached to improving their staple food production.
2. Income Growth
Rising incomes are often cited as a major cause of changing consump-
tion patterns in the developing countries. These promote the substitution
of preferred 'luxury' foods for less preferred staples. Higher levels of
meat consumption, for example, are commonly associated with declining
consumption of basic grains. This could represent one justification for
falling per capital maize consumption. Per capital meat consumption has,
in fact, increased in the majority of major producers.
This sort of trade-off may similarly occur among alternative staples.
In this case, however, the impact of rising incomes may be less pronounced.
1/For a fuller description of the growing importance of wheat consump-
tion throughout the developing world, see Byerlee, 1983.
Insofar as these commodities share a status as basic subsistence foods,
income growth can be expected to prompt a larger shift in consumption
away from rather than within this grouping. In view of the evidence of
shifting patterns of cereal consumption identified above, however, it is
worth examining the possible influence of income on the consumption of
alternative cereal grains.
An example of survey data distinguishing cereal consumption levels by
income and expenditure class is found in Table 5. This limited sample
indicates the existence of a relatively strong relationship between income
and consumption. At higher income levels individuals tend to consume less
maize. In several cases, maize consumption seems to rise through middle
income or expenditure levels. In most, however, maize consumption only
falls as expenditures increase. Only in rural Kenya is direct maize
consumption still rising at the highest income or expenditure class.
By contrast, in almost every case, wheat and rice consumption rises
with income. Also, in every country, the proportion of cereal calories
made up of these commodities increases in relation to maize. Thus, even
where maize use is still rising, wheat or rice consumption is increasing
This same relationship is evident in estimates of the income elastici-
ties of demand for the alternative cereal commodities (Table 6). In
almost every case, the elasticities for maize and coarse grains are lower
than those for wheat and rice. In a number of cases, these are negative.
In contrast, the elasticities for wheat and rice are almost all positive.
Those for Wheat are generally about the same size or slightly higher than
those for rice.
The widespread evidence of higher elasticities for wheat and rice
indicate that as incomes rise, the consumption of these commodities will
Table 5. Direct Cereal Consumption Patterns by Income and Expenditure
Expenditure or Income Class
Low Middle High
Maize (kg/month) 0.14 0.20 0.07
Wheat (kg/month) 2.00 3.28 5.25
Rice (kg/month) 1.95 4.59 5.75
Maize (kg/month) 0.76 0.91 0.73
Wheat (kg/month) 0.71 2.57 6.87
Rice (kg/month) 3.20 6.06 9.28
Maize flour (kg/month) 0.19 0.11 0.06
Maize Broken (kg/month) 2.26 1.53 0.98
Rice (kg/month) 2.95 8.67 12.50
Maize (kg/month) 1.65 0.91 0.52
Wheat (kg/month) 1.00 1.51 1.43
Rice (kg/month) 8.42 8.79 9.11
Peru (urban Lima)
Maize (kg/month) 0.14 0.11 0.07
Wheat (kg/month) 2.51 2.89 2.57
Rice (kg/month) 2.71 2.95 3.00
Maize (kg/month) 8.11 7.40 6.09
Wheat Bread (kg/month) 1.07 1.89 1.96
Wheat Flour (kg/month) 0.45 1.09 1.96
Rice (kg/month) 0.17 0.47 1.09
Maize (kg/month) 4.37 7.32 11.95
Wheat Bread (kg/month) 0.17 0.59 1.47
Wheat Flour (kg/month) 0.02 0.30 0.86
Rice (kg/month) 0.01 0.12 0.47
Sources: India Government of India (1977); Indonesia Tabor (1979);
Philippines Bovis (ND); Peru Ferroni (ND); Kenya Shah
and Frohberg (1980).
Table 6. Income or Expenditure Elasticities for Direct Cereal Consumption
Mexico and Central America
Indonesia (Rural Java)
Indonesia (Urban Java)
East Asia (Low Income)
East Asia (High Income)
North Africa/Middle East
North Africa/Middle East
Malawi', Kenya, Venezuela (Barcelona), Peru, FAO (1977); East,
West and Southern Africa Christensen et al. (1981); Mexico -
Lustig (1980); Mexico and Central America, Venezuela, India,
Thailand, Argentina, East Asia, North Africa/Middle East USDA
(1978); Philippines Bennagen (1982); Brazil Gray (1982);
Indonesia Tyers and Rachman (1981); Indonesia (Rural and
Urban Java) Dixon (1982).
increase faster than the consumption of maize or coarse grains. If income
alone affects consumption decisions, these preferred commodities should
represent a growing proportion of cereal diets. It can also be inferred
that as diets shift away from basic grains, the coarse grains are more
likely to be replaced first.
A closer examination of both the survey and elasticity data for
individual countries reveals that the strongest relationship between
consumption preferences and income are found in urban areas or those
countries with relatively larger production bases in wheat or rice. These
tend to have lower income or expenditure elasticities for maize. They
also appear to have registered the largest income induced-changes in the
surveyed consumption levels for different commodities. This suggests that
factors such as urbanization or alternative cereal grain availability may
have a larger impact on consumption patterns than income. In some cases
they may reinforce the influence of income growth, and, in others,-retard it.
Despite the survey and income elasticity statistics, there is little
discernible evidence of a relationship between income growth and changing
patterns of cereal consumption in the aggregate national data. In the 50
major producers for which data are available, per capital GNP grew at an
average annual rate of 2.0 percent over the 1960 to 1980 period. This
translates into an income gain of almost 50 percent. Income growth was
generally lower than the mean in those most dependent on maize calories.
Declines in per capital maize consumption among these countries appear more
closely related to production constraints. Several of those countries
experiencing the most rapid income growth were still increasing their per
capital maize consumption. There, similarly, appears little relationship
between shifting patterns of consumption and income levels.
There are a number of reasons why the income-consumption relationship
may not be evident in aggregate national data. Per capital GNP figures may
not accurately reflect the relative incomes of major maize consumers or the
changing incomes of those consumers whose diets are most likely to be
evolving. If, for example, the distribution of income gains strongly
favors the higher income classes, and if these make up a small proportion
of a country's population, income growth may have little impact on aggre-
gate levels of maize consumption. If income gains are more widely distrib-
uted in another country, a relatively small national growth rate could
stimulate relatively large changes in consumption patterns.
Given the range of additional factors which also influence consumption
patterns, the impact of income growth alone may simply be obscured. A
disaggregated or country-specific analysis is probably necessary to measure
the full significance of this relationship. In the context of this study,
however, the influence of income alone on maize consumption does not appear
Urbanization can lead to shifting consumption patterns for several
reasons. As producers move out of the rural areas diets may no longer be
confined within the bounds of what can be locally produced. The character
of market channels and market policies become more important determinants
of consumption opportunities. Market channels may be more highly developed,
for example, between certain regions and for particular commodities. These
can influence the quantity and quality of local food supplies as much if
not more than national production levels. They influence relative food
prices and the evolution of individual tastes and preferences.
Urban areas are often particularly affected by national import
policies. Cities that are situated along coastlines may find imports a
more consistent and less costly source of cereal supplies than domestic
production. Transport links between ports and inland cities are commonly
the most highly developed market arteries. For many countries these food
imports are more likely to consist of wheat or rice than maize.
Similarly, urban life styles commonly attach higher opportunity costs
to labor and leisure time. This promotes demand.for convenience foods
which can be quickly prepared or purchased ready for immediate consumption.
Wheat-based products such as various sorts of bread profit considerably
from this trend. Growing interest in composite flours, which include
maize, may preserve some degree of demand for this commodity. Yet accep-
tance of these alternative flours has generally been slow.
The ultimate affect of urbanization is difficult to quantify. The
link between urbanization and declining per capital consumption of maize
relative to wheat and rice, however, is commonly evident.
4. Food Aid
While some effort has been made to provide food aid in the recipient
country's principle staple, the vast majority of such assistance has been
in the form of wheat. The impact of this aid on the recipient country's
production incentives and consumption preferences is subject to debate.
Broadly based concerns have been raised, however, regarding an associated
growing dependence on wheat imports. Many countries with little or no
wheat production capabilities have significantly increased their wheat
imports following the introduction of wheat-based food assistance. This
may speed the transition in the diets of urban populations. It may also
reduce local food production incentives. A number of tropical countries
have recently expressed interest in developing their wheat production
capabilities in many cases where none previously existed. Meanwhile,
maize production records have languished.
5. Pricing Policies
Consumer price relationships among competing cereal staples may also
strongly influence consumption patterns. Commonly, these are administered
or at best strongly influenced by government policies. Reliable and
consistent retail price information is scarce. Government-set prices may
not correspond with those found in the marketplace. Prices across national
markets may differ for reasons other than storagelor transport costs.
Data may depend on the season in which it is collected. Yet a few general
observations can be made.
In the limited sample of countries for which time series price data were
available, maize prices frequently rose more rapidly than wheat and rice
prices through the 1970s. In Mexico, for example, retail maize tortilla
prices were 46 percent of those for a similar quantity of bread in 1970.
By 1982, tortilla prices had risen to 77 percent of those for bread.
In Brazil, maize prices started at 37 percent of'those for wheat in 1970,
but rose higher than those for wheat in 1979. Government-sponsored
consumer price subsidies for wheat have often simply been larger and more
consistent than those for maize. In Egypt, this distortion is said to have
advanced to such an extreme that, at least for a period, bread was being
purchased for animal feed.
The widespread occurrence of overvalued currencies has also favored
wheat. These lower the relative cost of wheat imports. They may foster
dependence on food imports and create a disincentive for local food
production. Exchange rate distortions, in addition, increase the need to
maintain foreign exchange earnings thereby stimulating greater investment
in the production of export commodities. Such investments may divert
resources away from efforts to promote maize production.
Producer price policies indirectly influence consumption patterns by
affecting production incentives, and thereby, relative cereal grain
supplies. Taxes or subsidies on various production inputs or market
operations have a similar impact. If wheat production, for example,
relies more heavily on the use of a particular input than maize, and if
the price of this input is subsidized, wheat production may, in effect,
be favored at the expense of maize. Governments, oftentimes, have
complex systems of taxes and subsidies on their agricultural sectors and
lack a clear understanding of the ultimate effect of these policies on
the production of individual commodities. If political power is unequal-
ly aligned among different sorts of producers, however, the ultimate
effect of government pricing policies may be discriminatory.
6. Other Government Policies
Pricing policies are but one means to facilitate production or
consumption objectives. The size of national research investments or
orientation of research priorities guide the development of production
opportunities. Extension investments or the quality of extension manage-
ment may influence which farmers, and indirectly which commodities,
benefit from research attention. Consumption opportunities may be influ-
enced as much by the purchasing power of impoverished populations as staple
availability. Low incomes could be a major cause of declining per capital
consumption of coarse grains. Government efforts to resolve food consump-
tion deficits may directly or indirectly stimulate a reorientation in
The impact of these manifold factors is difficult to distinguish
without an in-depth analysis of country-specific circumstances. Variables
found to hold explanatory power in one country may be relatively unimpor-
tant in another. Those which appear significant at one point in time
may be relatively insignificant a few years later.
Despite this, the analysis concluded with an attempt to formulate
a cross-sectional regression equation designed to measure the relative
strength of the relationship between direct maize consumption and income,
production, and alternative cereal commodity dependence (see Appendix A
for details). Not surprisingly, the result held little explanatory power.
The relationship between production growth and consumption changes was
positive and reasonably consistent. At this aggregate level of analysis
income growth did not appear to strongly influence maize consumption
trends, though this relationship is clearly apparent in some individual
country data. A related variable for urbanization similarly failed to
show much explanatory power. Calorie consumption gains were negatively
related to the level of dependence on maize calories. This is disturbing,
given the fact that many of those countries most dependent on maize face
cereal calorie consumption deficits.
Continuing Reliance on Maize Among Major Consumers
Seventeen major producers still rely on maize for over 50 percent of
their cereal calories. An evaluation of the relative status of these
countries with regard to several basic production and consumption indica-
tors displays the importance still held by the goal of increasing maize
productivity for meeting basic human needs. This assessment is summarized
in Table 7.
Two-thirds of what might be identified as the 17 major maize consumers
experienced declines in per capital maize consumption over the 1968 to
1980 period. Countries only moderately dependent on maize calories
registered similar declines, but those least dependent on maize calories
generally maintained or increased their per capital consumption levels.
The significance of these figures is apparent in their reflection in
cereal consumption trends. Three-quarters of the major maize consumers
experienced declining levels of per capital cereal consumption. In sharp
contrast, only 37 percent and 25 percent of the moderately maize-dependent
and least dependent countries showed such declines.
The major justification for these falling per capital consumption
levels is evident in the production records of the respective groupings.
The heavily dependent consumers experienced an average per capital produc-
tion decline of 0.9 percent. Omitting the single producer registering
strong production gains the rate of decline increases to 1.4 percent. In
contrast, those countries least dependent on maize calories showed an
average per capital production rate of loss of only 0.2 percent. Yields
in the maize-dependent consumers averaged only 60 percent of those in
maize producers primarily relying upon alternative sources of cereal
calories. Yields were declining in almost half of the consumer coun-
tries most dependent on maize calories but only 25 percent of the coun-
tries least dependent on maize.
Two sources of maize food supply are available to compensate for
the production deficits. Maize which has been previously allocated to
feed can be redirected toward food consumption. .There is some evidence
that this has in fact occurred in a number of those countries with the
largest direct dependence on maize calories. Yet these producers also
Table 7. Production and Consumption Characteristics for Countries with
Greater or Lesser Dependence on Maize Calories
Producers Wherein Maize Represents
>50% of 20-50% of <20% of
Cereal Cereal Cereal
Calories- Calories- Calories-
Number of Countries 17 19 16
Proportion with Declining
Per Capita Maize Consumption,
78-80 (%) 65 68 38
Proportion with Declining
Per Capita Cereal Consumption,
78-80 (%) 76 37 25
Average Per Capita Production
Growth, 68-80 (%/yr.) -.9 -1.9 -.2
Average Yields, 78-80 (+/ha.) 1.1 1.3 1.8
Proportion of Maize Used
as Feed, 78-80 (%) 9.3 16.7 30.5
Proportion of Countries
Importing Maize, 78-80 (%) 47 47 38
Average Per Capita GNP, 1980 ($U.S.) 636 829 1050
(16 (18 (14
countries) countries) (countries
Sources: FAO Data Tapes, 1983.
World Development Report, 1982.
/Angola, Benin, Burundi, El Salvador, Ghana, Guatemala, Honduras,
Kenya, Malawi, Mexico, Namibia, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Tanzania, Zaire,
-/Bolivia, Brazil, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Colombia,
Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Haiti, Ivory Coast, Lesotho, Mozambique,
Nepal, Peru, Philippines, Somalia, Togo, Uganda, Venezuela.
Afghanistan, Argentina, Burma, Chile, China, India, Indonesia,
Korea DPR, Madagascar, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Thailand, Turkey,
Uruguay, Viet Nam.
tend to allocate the smallest share of their production to feed to begin
with. This opportunity is accordingly limited.
Alternatively, these countries can increase their maize imports.- But
only about one percent of world maize trade consists of white grain, the
type generally preferred for direct consumption. Most of this is destined
for Europe or Japan as a source of starch. While almost one-half of the
major consumers have imported maize over the last few years, import levels
in these countries have generally been low.
Other cereals such as wheat and rice can also be imported to maintain
per capital cereal consumption levels. In fact, 70 percent of the major
maize consumers have increased their per capital wheat imports over the
1968 to 1980 period. Two-thirds of these countries increased their per
capital imports of rice. These import levels were generally low,
however, in comparison to national needs. This may be due in large
part to the fact that most of these countries have low relative income
levels and severely limited holdings of foreign exchange. In other words,
many of the producers most dependent on maize calories are also those
least able to turn to alternative sources of food supply.
INDIRECT MAIZE CONSUMPTION PATTERNS IN THE MAJOR PRODUCERS
Maize Feed Use Levels and Trends
Forty-four of the 52 major developing country maize producers
currently allocate a portion of their maize to animal feed. Over the
1978-80 period, per capital maize feed use levels in these countries ranged
from less than one kilo to more than 110 kilos per year. In general,
however, feed use levels were low. The median annual level of feed
utilization was 7 kilos per person. Per capital indirect consumption in
excess of 25 kilos was experienced in only 11 countries.
These figures are reflected in the low proportions of domestically
utilized maize allocated to feed. Among this same group of 44 countries,
maize destined for animal feed ranged from 2 to 96 percent of total
utilization. However, most of these countries allocated less than 12
percent of their maize to feed. Only 13 producers used more than one
quarter of their maize for feed.
Despite relatively low levels of production growth, half of the
major producers consistently allocating maize to feed have experienced
positive per capital feed utilization growth rates over the 1968-80 period.
Median annual feed use growth was 2.7 percent. But total maize feed use
in these countries advanced at a 4.9 percent annual rate. Growth rates
in a number of countries were remarkably high. In most countries these
growth rates still appear to be rising.
Most countries with rising per capital levels of maize feed use also
maintained rising per capital levels of direct maize and/or cereal consump-
tion. If direct maize consumption was declining, this was generally
compensated for by increasing per capital consumption of wheat or rice.
Per capital maize feed use is growing in only a few countries where maize
food consumption is falling. Over two-thirds of the 44 feed consumers
are allocating an increasing proportion of their maize to feed. Part
of this gain can be attributed to increases in production. In addition,
however, maize previously destined for direct consumption is now being
redirected to meet a rapidly growing demand for feed. Though the satis-
faction of maize food requirements is generally assumed to take priority
over feed allocations, in some producers the two consumption sources
appear increasingly competitive.
Most of the maize allocated to feed in the developing countries is
used for the production of pork, poultry, and eggs. Each of these commodi-
ties has registered strong production growth rates over the decade under
consideration. Pork is produced in 49 of the 52 major maize producers.
National production of this commodity has advanced at an average annual
rate of 3.3 percent over the 1969-81 period. Fifteen of these countries
experienced annual growth rates in excess of 5 percent. Estimates of
poultry production are available for all but one of the major maize
producers. This has averaged a 6.4 percent annual growth rate. Egg
production in all 52 maize producers averaged a yearly growth rate of
5.2 percent. This compares with 2.7 percent, 5.1 percent, and 1.9
percent production growth rates in the developed countries for each of
these respective commodities. These developing country livestock produc-
tion growth rates also seem to be rising.
The rapid growth in demand for livestock products should stimulate
large future increases in demand for livestock feed. Maize will likely
be a principal beneficiary of these trends. The developing countries as
a whole are already allocating the majority of their maize to feed. This
statistic is largely based, however, on the large quantities of maize being
imported by countries which are not themselves maize producers. In most
major producers, maize is still predominantly allocated to food consumption.
But this proportion is broadly declining. The key question now is how
rapidly and to what extent this decline will continue.
Principal Factors Influencing Maize Feed Demand
Risihg incomes are the principal determinant of feed use patterns.
Once a country achieves an income level whereby average basic cereal
calorie requirements are fulfilled and discretionary income is available
for purchases of meat, a rapid increase in the useiof maize for feed tends
to occur. This advance may initially be faster than the growth in an
individual country's income. Growth rates in meat consumption, and thereby
feed use, should eventually level off, however, at higher consumption
levels when meat is no longer a luxury good. The developing countries
now appear to be at the initial levels of this growth path. In comparison,
meat consumption in many developed countries now appears to be leveling off.
These trends are matched by indications of high income and expenditure
elasticities for pork, poultry, and egg consumption in a representative
sample of major maize producers. Table 8 lists a few examples of these.
The elasticity levels for these livestock products are on the whole much
larger than those for direct maize consumption. They suggest that a
greater proportion of a given increase in income will be used to purchase
these commodities than to purchase cereal grains. In combination with the
evidence of high livestock production growth rates, these elasticity
statistics also indicate the likelihood of continuing rapid growth in maize
feed demand in the future.
Table 8. Income and Expenditure Elasticities for Livestock Products
Income or Expenditure Class
Mexico and Central
Meat and Fish
Meat and Fish
Sources: Philippines Bennagen (1982); Brazil (nationwide); Mexico (1978);
Kenya Shah (1982); Brazil (urban, rural) Gray (1982).
Regressions were conducted (detailed in Appendix A) to test this
income-consumption relationship. These questioned the importance of income
in guiding maize feed allocation patterns and evaluated the consistency of
this apparent relationship. Several possible additional explanatory
variables were also included in this analysis to account for a
broader range of country-specific circumstances. These include the
relative level of total calorie consumption, urbanization, and the rela-
tive importance of maize production. The lack of price information pre-
cluded the attempt to calculate demand functions per se. Instead, these
equations measure demand relationships. The variable for total calorie con-
sumption accounts for the hypothesis that direct cereal consumption takes
priority over indirect consumption. The variable for urbanization measures
the impact of shifting consumption patterns associated with growing depen-
dence on purchased commodities and rapidly changing tastes and preferences.
Maize production potential accounts for the availability of maize relative
to alternative feed grains. Feed use patterns were assessed in terms of
aggregate levels of maize feed use, per capital levels of maize feed, and
the percentage of total maize utilization allocated to feed.
Several complications, however, constrain the attempt to'draw
explanations from available data. First, hypothesized relationships
between maize feed use and income must take account of the fact that
maize and maize bran make up an average of only 45 percent of total cereal
feeds among the major maize producers. Maize alone constitutes an average
of only 34 percent of cereal feed. Therefore, trends relating to the
increase in feed use and the development of a livestock industry may not
be simply reflected in increased maize or maize and maize bran feed use.
Feed use patterns in Mexico provide a good example of this. Growth
in the feed and livestock industry of this country has been primarily
based on the use of sorghum. While increasing amounts of maize have been
allocated to feed, the rates of increased usage have not matched the rates
of growth in feed use overall. Over the 1966 to 1980 period, per capital
sorghum utilization has risen at an annual rate of 5.5 percent. At the
same time, per capital maize feed use has actually declined.
Yet maize is clearly the most popular feed source in both the
developed and developing countries. It accounts for, respectively, 40
percent and 43 percent of total cereal feeds in the two groups. Wheat,
rice, sorghum and barley and their associated by-products respectively
make up a 18, 18, 8 and 7 percent of developing country cereal feeds.
The contributions of wheat and rice are largely made up of bran. Each
of these commodities must be considered as important substitutes for
maize (Table 9). This assessment was accordingly extended to also con-
sider those relationships underlying cereal feed consumption as a whole.
The analysis has primarily emphasized the allocation of maize as
opposed to both maize and maize bran for feed. Maize bran is a necessary
by-product of the milling of flour for food. It does not have any major
competing uses. Therefore, the level of bran feed usage depends largely
on levels of maize production and direct consumption rather than feed
demand per se. Measurements of the use of maize alone for feed provide a
truer indication of the transition in allocation patterns with which this
analysis is most concerned.
By the same token, however, insofar as wheat consumption is rising
as a proportion of total cereal calorie consumption, the use of wheat bran
for feed is also rising. In several countries which have become major
importers of wheat, the use of wheat bran is increasing more rapidly than
feed consumption of either maize or maize bran. Heavily subsidized wheat
prices can also lead to the use of wheat itself'for animal feed. Thus, the
labtle 9. Importance of Relative Feed Grains, 1980
Source: FAO Data Tapes, 1983
I includes bran.
increased use of wheat and rice bran may appear, at least in part, to be a
subsidiary by-product of the transition in direct cereal consumption
The attempt to generalize about overall developing country feed use
trends is also complicated by the influence of different relative
resource endowments, utilization policies, and relative cereal prices.
Countries with relatively larger barley or sorghum crops can be expected
to rely more heavily on these feed sources. Major rice producers depend
heavily on broken rice and rice bran as principal and growing feed sources.
Alternatively, in Mexico, the government has subsidized sorghum imports
while placing restrictions on maize feed use. Heavy consumer subsidies
on maize aim to ensure adequate levels of direct consumption only. In
Egypt, maize feed use has been rapidly growing, but heavy subsidies on
wheat flour and bread have motivated at least some feed use of these
commodities which would otherwise only be used for food. With only
fragmentary price and policy data, the overall impact of these variables
is difficult to distinguish. Even in the few cases where relative price
data are available, it can often be difficult to judge the relationship
between official prices and the actual relative commodity costs facing
the feed grain industry.
Questions might also be raised regarding the accuracy of the feed use
data. A review of alternative information sources reveals wide variability
in estimates of commodity levels allocated to feed. Within two of the
most comprehensive sources of data (USDA and FAO), estimates of feed use
are frequently substantial./ In many cases where feed
1/In the most extreme case, the USDA estimates that no maize is used
for feed in China. FAO estimates China allocates approximately 35 million
tons of maize, or 60 percent of its total domestic consumption, to feed.
statistics are low or not readily available, they may be calculated as a
residual following estimates of production, food use, stock charges and
waste. In others, feed calculations are based on grain conversion factors
and livestock production statistics. Yet the quality of both livestock
production data and the associated feed conversion ratios are themselves
open to question. Inquiries in one country foundithat a one kilo weight
gain for pork required anywhere from 4.5 kg to 35 kg ofmaize feed.
Much depends upon the structure and efficiency of the livestock produc-
Despite these limitations, the analysis of factors affecting feed
use still seems to have produced some important and useful information.
While the actual maize utilization trends for any particular country
remain difficult to predict, certain general andisignificant patterns of
indirect consumption are apparent.
Whether measured in terms of the percentage of maize utilization
allocated to feed or per capital maize feed use levels, a cross-sectional
analysis of major maize producers shows a strong positive relationship
between maize feed use and income levels. This relationship is highly
significant in statistical terms. Per capital maize feed use is also
closely associated with high levels of total calorie consumption. This
suggests that once a basic level of subsistence is achieved, the consump-
tion of livestock products can be expected to increase.
As expected, income levels appear even more closely associated with
levels of per capital cereal feed use. In fact, the same two variables
identified above, income and total calorie consumption, combine to explain
almost 75 percent of individual country differences in per capital cereal
feed allocations. When an additional variable.measuring per capital cereal
production levels is added, almost 88 percent of the variation is explained.
In other words, countries with strong cereal production bases, which are
more likely to experience surplus supplies once direct food demand has
been met, are also more likely to have better developed feed grains
industries. Given the range of alternative factors which influence feed
use rates, this degree of explanatory power is remarkable. Clearly,
cereal feed use is strongly related to the relative degree of advancement
of a nation's agricultural base as well as the associated level of per
capital GNP. In a sense, the per capital level of cereal feed usage can be
employed as one measure of the overall state of a country's agroeconomic
Two factors help explain the weaker relationship underlying maize feed
utilization patterns. First, there appears to be a statistically signifi-
cant negative relationship between initial levels of maize representation
among cereal calories and the percentage of maize which is allocated to
feed. This suggests that in countries more heavily dependent on maize as
a source of cereal calories, the transition to maize use for feed will be
slower. Alternatively, in countries with readily available cereal
calorie substitutes, the likelihood of shifting maize allocations is
greater. As incomes rise, the consumption of preferred cereal grains
(wheat and rice) increases and the residual maize goes to pork and poultry
Second, an analysis of changes in the feed composition of individual
countries over time indicates the importance of the relative price and
availability of competing feed cereals. In Asia, maize tends to represent
a fairly small percentage of total cereal production and cereal feeds. In
six out of seven of the major producers examined, rapid growth in wheat
consumption was associated with large increases in the percentage of cereal
feed made up of wheat bran. In five of these cases, wheat bran represents
the fastest growing source of cereal feed.
In Latin America, maize provides the dominant share of cereal feed
in five out'of seven of the countries examined. Inithree of these,
however, sorghum has been rapidly increasing its share of feed. This seems
to be a function of either rapid production growth rates or rising imports.
In one country, the percentage share of wheat bran has been growing more
rapidly than that for maize. This is similarly associated with high import
growth rates for wheat. These trends both suggest favorable price relation-
ships for these commodities. In contrast, maize production or imports
have been, relatively strong in those countries where maize represents a
rapidly growing proportion of cereal feed.
,Absolute levels of maize feed use are declining in only three of the
above cited 14 Asian and Latin American countries. In most countries,
rising levels of total cereal feed use seem to be associated.with simi-
larly stronggrowth in the feed use of maize. In some producers, however,
the use of alternative cereal feeds such as sorghum or wheat bran may be
growing even faster.
Cereal feed use in the entire group of 52 major maize producers has
registered an annual gain of 3.9 percent over the 1968-80 period. The
faster rate of growth'for maize experienced by these countries overall has
led to an increase in its representation in total cereal feeds from 35
percent to 39 percent over this period. At the same time, the share of
maize bran has declined from 6 percent to 5 percent due to a relatively
small bran use (!rowth rate of 1.2 percent. This reflects the fact that
indirect maize consumption is rising much more rapidly than direct
Future Patterns of Maize Feed Demand
Five of the 52 major maize producers allocated over 50 percent of
their maize to feed over the 1978-80 period. Fifteen countries used more
than 20 percent of their maize for feed.-/ Nineteen countries currently
use between 5 and 20 percent of their maize for feed, and 18 countries
allocate less than 5 percent of their maize for feed. Seven basic produc-
tion and consumption indicators for these last three groupings are displayed
in Table 10. This comparative assessment of feed use trends for major,
moderate and minor feed users displays several noteworthy relationships.
As the regression results indicated, both the proportion and level of
a country's feed use are closely related to its level of income. The
average income of countries allocating a relatively large proportion of
their maize to feed is more than twice the level for medium level maize
feed users and more than four times that for low level feed consumers.
Average total calorie consumption also clearly increases as greater amounts
of maize go to feed. But maize tends to represent a relatively smaller
percentage of cereal production and calories in the major feed users. This
suggests that wheat or rice are readily available as direct consumption
Two facts relevant to maize feed use growth patterns are evident in
this Table. First, the highest average feed use growth rates appear
/Argentina (96%), Chile (81%), Brazil (73%), Korea (69%), Uruguay
(64%), Paraguay (56%), China (50%), Turkey (49%), Bolivia (47%), Peru
(43%), Morocco (43%), Egypt (33%), Venezuela (28%), Ecuador (22%), Haiti
Characteristics of Maize Feed Users, 1978-80
Percentage of Maize Utilization
Allocated to Feed
Number of Countries
Per Capita Maize Feed,
Per Capita Cereals Feed,
Per Capita GNP, 1980 ($U.S.)
Total Calories, 1975-77
Maize as Percent of Cereal
Per Capita Maize Feed Growth,
Per Capita Cereal Feed Growth,
Source: FAO Data Tapes, 1983.
FAO Food Balance Sheets, 1980.
World Bank, World Development Report, 1982.
a/Benin, Burma, Burundi, Central African Republic,
Indonesia, Kenya, Madagascar, Mozambique, Namibia,
Somalia, Tanzania, Togo, Zaire, Zambia.
b/Afghanistan, Angola, Cameroon, Colombia, El Salvador, Ghana, Guatemala,
Honduras, Ivory Coast, Lesotho, Malawi, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria,
Philippines, Thailand, Uganda, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe.1
-Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Ecuador,, Egypt, Haiti, Korea
DPR, Morocco, Paraguay, Peru, Turkey, Uruguay, Venezuela.
associatedwith those countries with the highest levels of feed use.
While these statistics appear somewhat variable in the country-specific
data, they do suggest that feed grain industries can be expected to grow
even at relatively high levels of usage.
Also, on an aggregate basis, the rising relative importance of maize
is indicated by the fact that feed consumption of this commodity has grown
more rapidly than that for cereal food consumption as a whole in each of
these groupings. At low levels of feed consumption maize accounts for
only 11 percent of total cereal feeds. At high levels this proportion
increases to 42 percent. At higher levels of dependence on maize for
direct consumption, greater reliance is placed on alternative feed sources.
A large percentage of these tend to be cereal by-products. As feed indus-
tries become more developed, however, feed demand for maize rises.
The greater use of maize grain for feed, however, does not appear to
be offsetting the use of alternative feed grains. Declining levels of
alternative feed grain consumption are associated with greater maize feed
grain consumption in only three of the 52 major producers. Though maize
generally represents a rising proportion of cereal feeds, the consumption
of alternative grains is usually also growing.
Between 1968 and 1980, ten producers experienced annual maize feed
growth rates in excess of 7.5 percent.-/ There is little basis for
distinguishing why feed use in these particular countries grew as rapidly.
Each of these countries might be classified as middle income in
status. But per capital GNPs range from $420 to $3630 (U.S.). Per capital
!/Kenya (24%), Paraguay (17%), Ivory Coast (16%), Morocco (15%),
El Salvador (15%), Venezuela (13%), Egypt (13%), Cameroon (10%),
Honduras (9%), Nigeria (8%).
cereal feed levels also range quite broadly from 8.4 kilos to 114 kilos.
These countries allocate anywhere from 3 to 56 percent of their total
utilization to feed. Maize may represent either a high (85 percent) or
low (14 percent) proportion oftotal cereal feed. Maize representation
in cereal diets and production shows a similar spread. Actual production
levels are rising in some countries and falling in others. A similar
pattern describes the range of trends regarding the representation of
maize in total cereal diets.
In addition, it is interesting to note that maize grain feed use
appears to have risen in 63 percent of those producers with declining per
capital direct cereal calorie consumption. Per capital maize feed consump-
tion increased in 25 percent of these producers. Total cereals feed use
grew in all but three of the 52 major maize producers. Per capital cereals
feed use grew in 63 percent of these countries and almost half of those
with declining per capital direct cereal consumption.
These data contradict the widely held assumption that indirect demand
will not become significant until incomes have risen and most basic direct
consumption needs have been,met. Part of the gain in total cereal feed
usage resulted from greater use of grain by-products. Yet evidence also
clearly suggests that many producers with apparent food deficits were
allocating cereal grain itself to feed. Thus feed and food consumption
may, within certain bounds, be competitive. Rapid growth in the demand
for meat in one segment of a country's population may be threatening the
diets of poorer consumers who lack sufficient calories in their basic staples.
In sum, food and feed consumption trends appear surprisingly distinct.
There appears to be no clear shift from a primary dependence on maize for
food to a dependence on maize for feed. Both.food and feed consumption
are rising in most countries with rapid maize production growth rates.
While the sharpest declines in per capital direct maize consumption are
generally associated with declining per capital levels of maize or cereal
feed consumption, this relationship is sometimes contradicted. Minor
declines in per capital maize or cereal food consumption are frequently
associated with rising per capital levels of feed consumption. Aggregate
levels of feed use are clearly related to national income levels. Current
trends in feed consumption, however, often are not.
MAIZE FEED USE AMONG THE MAJOR IMPORTERS
Levels and Trends of Maize Feed Use
A comparative assessment of feed utilization trends was sought in
the analysis of maize consumption patterns in fourteen major maize
importers which are not significant maize producers.-/ These countries
were chosen on the basis of annual net import levels greater than 10 kg
per capital and maize production areas less than 100,000 hectares over
the 1978-80 period. In order to maintain a reasonable degree of simi-
larity with conditions in the major feed-using producers, countries
with populations less than one million or average incomes greater than
$8000 were omitted from this sample.
These 14 countries imported an average of 5.78 million metric tons of
maize between 1978 and 1980. This represents approximately 32 percent of
developing country maize imports and 8 percent of world imports. The
actual level of per capital net imports in these countries ranges from 11
kilos to 164 kilos. But most countries were situated on'the lower end of
the scale. The median per capital net import level was 37 kilos.
/Cuba, Dominican Republic, Hong Kong, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan,
Korea Republic, Lebanon, Malaysia, Singapore, Syria, Trinidad and Tobago,
The predominant reliance on international market purchases by the
14 major importers is indicated by the fact that these make up an
average of 90 percent of total domestic utilization. While several of
these countries maintain small maize production bases, only one nears
major producer status. Cuba's production area was maintained at between
75 and 77 thousand hectares over the 1976 to 1980 period, but this
represents a decline from a high of 126 thousand hectares in 1972. Five
of the 14 importers produce less than 100,000 hectares of total cereal
crops. In no case do maize imports appear likely to be offset by strong
domestic cereal production in the near future.
Maize imports are predominantly destined for feed in each of these
countries. Over the 1978-80 period, an average of 86 percent of total
domestic maize utilization was allocated to feed. Only just over 9
percent was used for food./ These utilization patterns are comparable to
those in the developed countries where 97 percent of domestically utilized
maize goes to feed and 3 percent to food. In most of the importers maize
food consumption is declining. If current rates of feed consumption
growth are maintained, the utilization patterns of the importers will
match those of the developed countries within five years. Thus, the
These figures, like most of those relating to consumption and
utilization patterns which follow, should be interpreted with caution.
They do seem to represent reasonable orders of magnitude. In this par-
ticular case, however, questions arise regarding whether certain food
consumption estimates may be overvalued. The data used in this analysis
suggest that in a four year period maize food consumption in Iran rose
from 17 to 51 percent of domestic utilization due to a large increase
in food use. Given that 90 percent of Iran's maize is imported, such
high levels of food consumption seem unlikely. A check on the Singapore
data also suggests that maize food consumption levels may be overesti-
mated. Reliance on this data base was maintained, however, because it
is the most complete available source of recent statistics, and few such
discrepancies were identified.
analysis of maize consumption trends in these countries largely involves
questions regarding the development of their feed grain and livestock
Over the ten year period from 1968-70 to 1978-80, net maize import
growth rates in these 14 countries have averaged 21.4 percent per year.
While these rates have ranged widely, two-thirds of these countries have
experienced annual growth rates in excess of 10 percent. The net import
growth rates of three countries exceed 30 percent. Maize feed use has
accordingly risen at an average rate of 17.2 percent per year. Per capital
maize feed use has been growing by almost 15 percent annually. If such
rates are maintained, per capital feed consumption will double within five
years. The imports of those countries will also constitute a substan-
tially larger share of the international maize market.
Strong production growth rates for pork, poultry, and:eggs are
clearly associated with these trends. These advances have been much more
rapid than the growth of meat production as a whole. Over the 1969-81
period, pork production has been growing at a 4.4 percent average annual
rate in the 14 major maize importers. This rate would be even higher if
not for religious restrictions against pork consumption in the predomi-
nantly Moslem countries. In comparison, poultry production has grown
at an 8 percent annual rate, and egg production has grown by 6.1 percent
per year. Stronger growth rates for these commodities in the Moslem
countries tend to make up in part for the reduced level of maize demand
for pig feed.
Factors Influencing Maize Utilization Levels and Growth
The principal hypothesis underlying the analysis of feed utilization
trends in the 14 major importers is that maize feed use can be expected
to be a function of income levels and of a related measure of basic
dietary sufficiency entailed in total calorie levels. A rapid growth in
meat and egg consumption is expected to follow the consumption of an
adequate subsistence level of cheaper calories from cereals.
An examination of these consumption indicators confirmed this. Both
income and total calorie consumption appear closely related to the status
of a country as a major maize importer, and, thereby, a major user of
cereal feed. While this relationship is not significant-within the
subset of importers alone, it shows up strongly when these countries are
compared with the sample of major developing country maize producers.
This comparison suggests that the use of significant amounts of feed is
largely dependent on the relative magnitude rather than the absolute level of
income or calorie consumption. A regression equation in Appendix A confirms this.
The comparison of several key variables related to feed consumption
for both the importers and the largest feed users among the major pro-
ducers displays some surprising similarities (Table 11). Both groups have
relatively high per capital incomes. The average per capital GNP for the
importers is more than 50% higher than that for the related group of
producers. But when 3 countries with incomes over $4000 are dropped
from this sample, the difference falls to 11 percent. The income level
of every country in this sample is greater than $1000.
The two groups of countries also display similar levels of total
calorie consumption. Though the figure for importers (2401 calories)
is slightly lower than that for major feed-using producers (2564 calories),
it is substantially higher than the consumption level of major producers
allocating relatively little maize to feed (2168 calories). This
difference suggests that once a country has reached some relative magnitude
of average calorie consumption, feed use grows rapidly.
Table 11. Average Utilization Characteristics of Major Developing
Country Users for Maize Feed
Percent maize utilization allocated,
to feed, 1978-80
Per capital maize feed, 1978-80 (kgs)
Per capital cereals feed, 1978-80 (kgs)
Maize as percentage of cereals
Maize feed growth rate,1968-80 (%)
Cereal feed growth rate, 1968-80 (%)
Per capital GNP, 1980 ($U.S.)
Per capital total calories
Source: FAO Data Tapes, 1983.
World Bank World Development Report, 1982.
/14 major importers.
-/15 major maize producers allocating more than 20 percent of
domestic utilization to feed.
The two groups are also surprisingly similar in their actual feed
use statistics. Average per capital levels of maize feed differ by less
than one kilo. Again, these are at levels substantially higher than for
most major producers. The per capital cereal feed levels of importers are
lower than for the feed using producers, though still almost three times
the level of the next highest class of producers allocating 5-20 percent
of their maize to feed. An interesting result is that maize represents
a higher proportion of cereal feeds for the major importers than for the
This fact is associated with the relatively larger cereal production
base in most of the major producers. This base provides a greater
quantity of alternative feeds. Higher levels of total wheat and rice
consumption associated with the generally larger populations in these
countries also provide larger amounts of bran for feed.
The average maize feed growth rate experienced by the major importers
is over three times that for the major feed using producers. This statis-
tic is particularly significant given the fact that both groups now
consume similar levels of maize feed. Once again, these rates are sub-
stantially higher than the average annual growth in the use of cereal
feed as a whole. Non-maize cereal feed growth in the major importers has
averaged less than one-third the level of maize feed growth. Maize,
accordingly, represents a rapidly growing proportion of total feed
supplies. In 1968-70, this commodity represented an average of only 33
percent of total cereal feeds. Ten years later this share had risen
to 50 percent. In 9 of the 14 importers the relative proportion of
maize feed is even higher, ranging up to 89 percent in Jamaica.
Factors Affecting the Choice of Maize as a Feed Grain
In most cases, maize is imported to supplement domestically produced
sources of feed. The rapid import growth of this single commodity raises
questions regarding what factors govern its choice as the major component
of animal diets. This issue is qualitatively different from that involved
in the indirect consumption decisions of the major producers. The composi-
tion of cereal feeds is less dependent on the nature of domestic produc-
tion opportunities. Particularly for those countries which are not major
cereal grain producers, the decision to import maize more explicitly
involves an assessment of cereal nutrient composition and relative world
In most countries, a rapid increase in maize usage has been
accompanied by increases in the use of wheat and rice bran. One or the
other of these represent the second major feed source for most minor
producers of cereals. If direct wheat consumption is rapidly increasing,
one can expect greater amounts of wheat bran to be employed for feed.
A similar relationship holds between rice consumption and rice bran
usage. Most of these gains have not been large enough, however, to allow
these commodities to increase their share of total cereal feeds.
Maize,itself, is generally preferred for feed for two reasons. The
content of total digestible nutrients (TDN) tends to be higher for maize
than for the rice and wheat bran alternatives. This may partly offset
the relatively higher costs of maize imports. The total digestible
nutrients of barley are also slightly lower than those for maize. The
other chief substitute for maize feed, sorghum, has a total digestible
nutrient level comparable to that for maize. Sorghum prices have tended
to fluctuate around those for maize. As a reuslt, sorghum
has been highly competitive with maize among a number of the major maize
producers who are importing feedstuffs. Sorghum imports in these 14
countries, however, have generally been far lower than those for maize.
Few countries use any appreciable amounts of this commodity for feed.
Maize also seems to be a preferred animal feed because of the
carotene content of the grain. This is particularly important for egg
production as it provides the yoke with its preferred deep yellow color.
While substitutes have been developed, these do not seem to be widely
favored. As long as maize maintains an international market price which
is reasonably competitive, a continuing rapid growth in demand can likely
Barley production in the Middle East and North Africa only shows
potential for partly offsetting maize imports in Iran and Tunisia. During
the last ten years, however, the relative share of barley in cereal feeds
has sharply declined in each country.
Likelihood of Continued Growth in Maize Feed Utilization
Two factors indicate that maize feed use will continue its rapid
advance in countries relying heavily on imports. First, as was found among
the maize producers, there is no apparent relationship between feed use
levels and growth rates. Among the four major importers annually using
more than 100 kg of cereal feed per capital, feed use growth rates continue
to average 7.6 percent per year. Maize feed growth rates are even higher.
In addition, per capital production levels for pork, poultry and eggs
generally remain low by developed country standards. Pork production
averaged 29 kg per person in the developed countries over the 1979-81
period. Among the developing country maize importers, only Hong Kong's
production exceeds this level. Per capital pork production levels in the
remaining non-Arab producers average approximately 7 kg per person.
Only two of the 52 major developing country maize producers have per
capital pork production levels greater than 10 kg.
Poultry production averages about 16 kg per person in the developed
countries. Only two of the 14 major developing country maize importers
have attained larger levels of production. In the remaining importers per
capital poultry production levels average approximately 7 kg. None of the
major developing country maize producers approach developed country
A review of per capital egg production records for the three groups
reveals a similar relationship. Though one of the maize importers
approaches developed country levels of per capital production, most are
still well below this average. All of the producers lie substantially
below this level.
Maize is clearly the most important feed grain in most of the large
scale importers. Given the persistence of rapid maize import growth rates,
this commodity will likely further increase its share of total cereal feed
use in these countries. Continuing strong world maize production and
relatively low international prices can only reinforce this trend.
This paper started from an interest in evaluating the character of
direct and indirect maize consumption trends and the relationship between
them. It questioned whether reliance on demand projections extrapolated
from past trends was an appropriate way to measure future consumption
requirements. The analysis discovered the two trends to be related
though in many ways quite distinct. A rapid growth in the consumption
of maize feed is linked to a broadly evidenced growth in demand for
livestock products. These trends appear likely to persist. Widespread
stagnation in the direct consumption of maize calories seems to be associ-
ated with a complex range of causal factors including produc-
tion constraints, income growth, urbanization and the relative configura-
tion of alternative cereal grain prices. The incidence and impact of
these variables differ widely across the major producers. Future direct
consumption trends thus remain difficult to predict. These findings can
be summarized in the following manner.
Strong growth rates in maize feed use are closely linked with the
incidence of rising developing country incomes. Income growth prompts
changes in the relative proportion of family budgets allocated to higher
priced 'luxury' goods as opposed to basic subsistence needs. In this case,
pork, poultry, and egg consumption have been principal beneficiaries.
This pattern of maize feed use growth has been most pronounced in
those countries with relatively lower dependence on maize for food con-
sumption. Countries which have maintained a strong dependence on maize cal-
ories are likely to experience a slower and later growth (in relation to income
advances) of maize feed demand. Also, in the initial periods of feed
consumption growth, maize will represent a smaller proportion of total feed
grains. Those with a larger production base in alternative cereal
calories, wheat and rice in particular, should alternatively make this
transition both at lower relative income levels and more rapidly. The
proportion of maize allocated to feed will rise both as maize calories
are replaced by those derived from wheat and rice and as greater feed
production is pursued for its own sake.
Insofar as feed demand grows more quickly than either maize produc-
tion, or declines in direct maize consumption, an increasing dependence on
maize imports will be required. During the last ten years the number of
developing country maize exporters has dramatically fallen while import
levels have sharply increased. The importing countries have, therefore,
become increasingly vulnerable to yearly fluctuations in world maize
supplies and prices. Sharp changes in U.S. production policies, in
particular, can significantly affect world market conditions. To date,
however, import trends among the non-producers have been relatively stable.
While developing country maize food consumption is still growing on
an absolute basis, most major producers have experienced per capital con-
sumption stagnation or declines. The reason for this is not so clearly
apparent as the justification for feed utilization trends.
Declining levels of per capital maize production have reduced the
relative availability of this cereal grain. Extremely low yields, even
by developing country standards, have severely limited the production
levels of many of those countries with the highest proportion of their diets
made up of maize calories. As a result, these nations have become
increasingly dependent on cereal grain (mostly wheat) imports, and many
have experienced declines in total calorie consumption.
In addition, the greater availability of wheat and rice in itself has
fostered a stagnation or decline in maize consumption. This stagnation
has resulted from a number of different factors. In certain countries,
the production advances associated with these grains may simply have been
stronger than those for maize. Alternative grain imports may have been
used to ensure a more consistent supply of food to a country experiencing
transport or storage constraints or fluctuating production. Wheat-
based food aid may have promoted a reorientation of consumer preferences.
Overvalued currencies and government pricing policies also tend to make
maize more expensive than wheat in many countries.
Intra-country survey data and elasticity statistics indicate that per
capital direct maize consumption will decline as incomes rise. However,
this relationship does not appear strongly evident in aggregate national
data. In fact, many of those producers with the highest relative income
levels are still registering per capital consumption gains. Most producers,
particularly those maintaining the greatest relative dependence on maize
calories, have very low incomes.
Thus, strong growth in feed consumption does not appear associated with a
major reallocation of domestic supplies from food to feed. While the
relative proportion of these allotments is changing, this trend cannot be
simply viewed as a product of evolving consumption preferences. Many of
the major producers are experiencing either rising or falling levels of
both direct and indirect consumption. In others, feed use is growing
despite evidence of basic food consumption deficits. Accordingly, these
may best be viewed as two distinct though related trends. In any individual
country, they may well be affecting different groups of consumers. In some
countries the two sources of demand may be in growing competition.
Future maize feed consumption trends are likely to be conditioned by
income growth, maize availability and relative feed grain prices. Those
countries with well established maize feed consumption patterns can probably
expect continued strong growth in this source of demand. Maize will
represent a rising proportion of feed grains even if this requires greater
dependence on feed grain imports. Many of those countries currently allocat-
ing most of their production to food will begin to experience a rapid growth
in maize feed demand.
In contrast, maize food utilization patterns appear likely to remain
variable and subject to fluctuation. They will probably continue to be
particularly sensitive to production trends as well as the intended and
unintended effects of government intervention in national cereal grain
markets. Most producers still have a large potential for growth in
direct maize consumption. The widespread relationship between maize and
total cereal calorie consumption declines suggests that greater efforts
are required to stimulate improved food production. Strong growth in
maize feed demand should not be interpreted as a sign of the reduced
importance of direct consumption requirements.
REVIEW OF REGRESSION RESULTS
Several cross-sectional regression models were used to examine
relationships underlying evolving maize demand trends. For the major
maize producers, explanations were sought for shifting patterns of direct
consumption and relative levels of indirect consumption. These data were
then combined with those for the 14 major non-producing maize importers
to test the strength of feed use models for the entire group of major
utilizers of maize.
Two qualifications should accompany the consideration of these
results. First, given questions regarding the accuracy of available
consumption statistics, the regressions should be interpreted as signify-
ing where explanatory relationships may lie rather than as strict
evidence of the strength of these relationships. While this caveat
should accompany the consideration of most regression models, the caution
seems particularly relevant in this case.
Second, a major variable underlying these sorts of demand relation-
ships has been omitted due to the lack of sufficient data. Demand is
obviously heavily influenced by relative cereal grain prices, The follow-
ing equations encompass what are perceived to be the most important non-
price variables influencing consumption trends. The coefficients of
variables correlated with prices, however, are likely to be biased.
Each of the equations was calculated with an ordinary least squares
1. Direct Consumption Among Major Maize Producers
A country was classified as a major producer if it planted an average
of over 100,000 hectares of maize over the 1979-81 period. The following
equation indicates what variables may be associated with absolute changes
in direct maize consumption. Due to the lack of income data for four
countries, only 48 observations are included in this analysis.
a. CPCMC = 1.625- .3415GNPG + .1492 CPM .0694 MCC
(.862) (-.694) (3.45)*** (-2.14)**
D.F. = 44 Corrected R2 = .30 F = 7.69***
CPCMC = Change in per capital maize consumption 1968-70 to 1978-80 (kg)
GNPG = Per capital gross national product growth 1960-1980 ($U.S.)
CMP = Change in per capital maize production 1968-70 to 1978-80 (kg)
MCC = Percentage of cereal calories made up of maize, 1968-70.
Numbers in parentheses refer to T statistics whereby
*** = significant at 1 percent level
** = significant at 5 percent level
= significant at 10 percent level
The sign on the income statistic was as expected. But this coeffi-
cient had a high standard error and is not statistically significant.
This may be due to an increase in bias associated with the lack of a
The other coefficients had the expected signs. Consumption should
increase with strong maize production growth. Greater initial dependence
on maize calories in relation to the consumption of alternative cereal
grains has generally been associated with consumption declines.
2. Indirect Consumption Among Major Maize Producers
Three distinct equations were found to reflect major feed use relation-
ships. Two assess relative levels of maize use for feed, and the third
examines a similar set of relationships for cereal feeds as a whole.
Given the fact that maize represents only one of several sources of cereal
feed, this final equation may provide a truer indication of the factors
underlying livestock industry development. A complete set of data were
available for only 49 countries.
b. MAF = 5.59 + 0.0455 GNP 0.0000087 GNP2 0.2874 MCC
(.97) (4.52)*** (-2.62)** (-3.15)***
D.F. = 45 Corrected R2 = 58.7 F = 23.77***
MAF = Percentage of domestic maize utilization (production +
imports exports) allocated to feed, 1978-80.
GNP = Per capital gross national product, 1980. ($ U.S.)
MCC = Percentage of cereal calories made up of maize, 1978-80.
*** = significant at the 1 percent level
** = significant at the 5 percent level
The sign on each variable matched expectations. The percentage of
maize allocated to feed (as opposed to food) is strongly related to a
country's per capital income level. .As incomes increase, feed use rises
sharply, though apparently at a decreasing rate. The maximum level of
feed use appears at an income level higher than any held by the countries
in this sample. This corresponds with the fact that high maize feed growth
rates are still being registered by a number of countries with high feed
The negative relationship between feed allocations and the relative
dependence on maize as a source of cereal calories reflects the prece-
dence of food over feed demand. The greater implied availability of wheat
and rice, the chief substitutes for maize calories, may allow a more rapid
growth in allocation of maize to feed. A high degree of dependence on
maize calories may slow this process.
c. PCMF = -78.0 + 0.162 GNP 0.594 MCC + 0.0344 TC + 0.664 MCP
(-1.42) (3.65)*** *-3.84)*** (3.23)*** (5.21)***
D.F. = 38 Corrected R2 = 63.9 F = 19.56***
PCMF = Per capital level of maize feed, 1978-80. (kg)
GNP = Per capital gross national product, 1980. ($ U.S.)
MCC = Percentage of cereal calories made up of maize, 1978-80.
TC = Per capital total calorie consumption, 1975-77.
MCP = Percentage of cereal production made up of maize, 1978-80.
*** = significant at the 1 percent level
The sign on each variable matched expectations. This relationship
is similar to that described in equation b. The two dependent variables
are slightly different, however. Certain countries may have a high
percentage of maize allocated to feed with a relatively low per capital
maize feed level or a relatively low percentage allocation with a higher
Again, countries with higher incomes and lower dependence on maize
calories are likely to experience higher feed levels. The strong positive
impact of total calorie levels suggests countries that are on average
better fed tend also to eat more maize-fed meat. Each of these
trends is further reinforced by the maintenance of a relatively large
maize production base. In other words, the availability of grain sub-
stitutes is important in order to facilitate shifting direct consumption.
But the demand for a strong maize production base will be maintained
with the development of a feedgrains industry.
d. PCCF = -184 + 0.0247 GNP + 0.0915 TC
(-1.43) (3.91)*** (6.09)***
D.F. = 46 Corrected R2 = 74.6 F = 71.6***
PCCF = Per capital level of cereal feeds, 1978-80. (kg)
GNP = Per capital gross national product, 1980. ($ U.S.)
TC = Per capital total calorie consumption, 1975-77.
*** = significant at the 1 percent level
The signs on both of these variables were as expected. Their importance
was confirmed in the previous equation. The strength of the relationship
with cereal feed usage as a whole, however, displays the fact that maize
feed use patterns do not necessarily reflect cereal feed use patterns as a
whole. Strong competing demands for maize as a food grain significantly
limit demand for it as a feed. The use of less preferred food grains such
as sorghum or millet may make up for this. The relative composition of
cereal feeds may also be strongly affected by relative cereal grain price
relationships. This equation confirms the significance of the general
income-feed use relationship, however.
3. Indirect Consumption Among Major Producers and Major Importers
The major importers were classified on the basis of annual per capital
imports greater than 10 kg, populations greater than 1 million,:and maize
production less than 100,000 ha over the 1979-81 period. These countries
were added to the sample of major producers to check whether the above-
described relationships would be maintained. Equations were examined
testing explanations for maize and cereal feed use.
e. PCMF = -95.2 + 0.00751 GNP + 0.0471 TC
(-1.13) (2.95)** (4.15)***
D.F. = 52 Corrected R2 = 45.4 F = 23.48***
f. PCCF = -193 + 0.0178 GNP + 0.0985 TC
(-1.37) (4.34)*** (7.36)***
D.F. = 58 Corrected R2 = 72.9 F = 83.24***
*** = significant at the 1 percent level
** = significant at the 5 percent level
PCMF = Per capital level of maize feed, 1978-80. (kg)
GNP = Per capital gross national product, 1980. ($ U.S.)
TC = Per capital total calorie consumption, 1975-77.
PCCF = Per capital level of cereals feed, 1978-80. (kg)
In both cases the relationships characterizing major producers alone
are maintained. Even without a large maize or cereals production base,
a strong level of feed demand can be generated. Demand for maize
represents an important component of overall' feed demand. As incomes
rise, greater use of maize feed can be expected.
Table B.1. Country Data on Maize Production, Consumption and Imports in 52 Major Developing Country Producers
Central African Republic
Absolute Change in Per Capita Maize
Production Net Imports Direct Consumption
(kg) (1968-80) (kg) (1968-80) (kg) (1968-80)
-24.9 3.6 -9.0
-3.6 0 2.5
-4.1 9.1 -15.7
-35.1 23.0 -9.1
-70.2 18.0 -17.1
-23.9 9.4 -4.5
-25.5 35.5 -7.1
-14.1 16.4 0.1
-35.8 30.5 5.3
-37.2 8.7 -17.2
25.1 5.6 14.4
-9.2 5.9 -5.1
13.1 0 -6.5
-1.1 4.8 1.8
-1.4 0 0.4
80.2 3.9 -0.4
-10.2 4.8 -2.7
-4.3 -2.0 2.9
6.2 0 -0.4
-21.4 15.7 -6.3
-6.9 -0.1 0.6
-21.4 0 -3.8
-13.6 33.2 -6.4
-9.2 4.4 -5.0
-0.5 0 0.3
-5.0 0 -5.3
-10.0 0 -8.1
-15.1 9.7 -12.9
14.4 2.4 11.6
-9.6 0.9 -3.4
3.2 12.3 2.8
-1.2 0 0.3
-10.7 -0.7 -8.8
-11.0 12.4 2.3
-22.7 0.2 -17.8
-4.1 24.1 -0.1
-0.6 0 -6.5
-2.0 1.4 3.3
2.8 1.6 2.7
6.7 4.4 -3.1
-4.4 -0.1 4.5
-5.7 0.3 -3.8
2.2 3.1 2.8
-8.0 5.8 -5.3
-8.1 -0.1 0.3
-0.9 0 0
-2.4 0 -1.5
7.6 -10.6 -5.3
-16.2 -19.3 1.2
+9.2 9.3 0.9
17.5 -2.7 2.4
0.3 -0.1 0.3
Change in Per
Source: FAO Data Tapes, 1983.
Table B.1 (continued)
Per Capita Per Capita
Direct Consumption Indirect Consumption
(kg) (1978-80) (kg) (1978-80)
Malawi 162.4 11.1
Namibia 84.2 0
Guatemala 96.7 19.5
Zambia 102.2 7.3
Kenya 88.1 3.7
Honduras 91.9 16.8
Mexico 107.0 21.1
Zimbabwe 89.2 38.9
Angola 45.8 3.4
Nicaragua 62.9 7.8
El Salvador 80.3 20.6
Tanzania 46.2 1.8
Benin 51.3 1.9
Zaire 18.7 0.7
Burundi 28.8 0.7
Paraguay 44.9 92.2
Ghana 27.8 1.9
Uganda 23.8 2.6
Lesotho 90.4 11.2
Mozambique 32.4 0
Togo 40.8 0
Haiti 35.1 6.2
Venezuela 34.6 28.3
Colombia 29.7 3.7
Cameroon 27.9 6.0
Bolivia 25.1 30.1
Central African Republic 10.1 0
Somalia 21.6 0
Philippines 40.6 6.3
Ecuador 18.7 6.3
Egypt 50.5 30.1
Ethiopia 31.3 0
Ivory Coast 23.2 5.2
Peru 22.0 20.2
Nepal 35.0 0
Brazil 20.1 107.2
Afghanistan 28.0 3.6
Nigeria 15.1 1.9
Indonesia 21.0 0.5
China 19.1 33.6
Uruguay 10.1 26.4
Madagascar 10.1 0.4
Viet Nam 8.3 1.0
Morocco 9.8 9.7
Turkey 7.9 14.3
Pakistan 6.8 0.6
India 6.2 0.2
Korea DPR 8.1 70.4
Argentina 3.9 110.8
Chile 4.6 50.3
Thailand 2.7 2.0
Burma 1.9 0.1
Source: FAO Data Tapes, 1983.
Ajva, Taulanonda, "The Relative Value of Fresh Cassava Roots as a Feedstuff
in Thailand", unpublished, 1980.
Alderman, H., Joachim von Braun, Sakr Ahmed Sakr, Egypt's Food Subsidy
and Rationing System: A Description, Research Report 34, IFPRI,
Washington, D.C., 1982.
Bennagen, M.E.C., "Staple Food Consumption in the Philippines", Working
Paper No. 5, IFPRI, Washington, D.C., 1982.
Buckland, R.W., "Projections of Maize Demand in Kenya", unpublished, 1981.
Buckland, R.W., "A Review of the Animal Feeds Industry in Kenya", unpublished,
Byerlee, D., "The Increasing Role of Wheat Consumption and Imports in the
Developing World", Working Paper No. 4/83, CIMMYT, Mexico, 1983.
Christensen, C., et. al., Food Problems and Prospects in Sub-Saharan Africa:
The Decade of the 1980's. Foreign Agricultural Research Report No. 166,
Economic Research Service, USDA, 1981.
CIMMYT, World Maize Facts and Trends, Report One: An Analysis of Changes
in Production, Consumption, Trade and Prices over the Last Two Decades,
CIMMYT, World Wheat Facts and Trends, Report One: An Analysis of Changes in
Production, Consumption, Trade and Prices over the Last Two Decades,
Dixon, John A., "Food Consumption Patterns and Related Demand Parameters in
Indonesia: A Review of Available Evidence", Working Paper No. 6,
IFPRI, Washington, D.C., 1982.
FAO, Food Balance Sheets 1975-77, Rome, 1980.
FAO, Production Yearbook, Rome, various issues.
FAO, Income Elasticities of Demand for Agricultural Products, CCP 72/WP
1, Rome, 1972.
FAO, Utilization of Grains in the Livestock Sector: Trends, Factors and
Development Issues, CCP: GR 80/5, Rome, 1979.
FAO, Livestock Development in Developing Countries and Implications for
Consumption and Trade of Feeds, CCP: GR 82/3, Rome, 1982.
FAO, Review of Food Consumption Surveys: Vol. 2, Africa, Latin America,
Near East, Far East, Rome, 1977.
FAO, Trade Yearbook, Rome, various issues.
Government of India, National Sample Survey: 28th Round, Oct. 73-June 74,
Department of Statistics, New Delhi, 1977
Government of Mexico, Coplamar, Alimentaci6n. Siglo Veintiuno Editores,
Gray, C.W., Food Consumption Parameters for Brazil and Their Application to
Food Policy, Research Report 32, IFPRI, Washington, D.C., 1982.
International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics, Washington,
D.C., various issues.
Levy, F., Brazil: A Review of Agricultural Policies, World Bank, Washington,
Lyons, David and Robert L. Thompson, The World Corn Economy in Perspective,
Purdue University Station Bulletin No. 163, West Lafayette, Indiana,
Oficinia de Asesores del C. President, Sistema Alimentario Mexicano,
Panayotou, Theodore, "Livestock Development in Thailand: Potential,
Constraints and Policy Choices", Paper presented at the Conference
on Livestock Development in Asia, Singapore, 1982.
Shah, M.M. and H. Frohberg, "Food Consumption Patterns Rural and Urban
Kenya", Working Paper, IIASA, Vienna, 1980.
Ramachandran, P.G., "The Present and Future for Maize in India", Lead
Paper of International Workshop on Maize Utilization, Processing and
Marketing, New Delhi, 1979.
Tyers, R. and Rachman, A., "Food Security and Consumption Diversification in
Indonesia: Results from a Multi-Commodity Stochastic Simulation Model",
East-West Resource Systems Institute WP-81-1, Honolulu, 1981.
USDA, Alternative Futures for World Food in 1985, Vol. 1 and 2, Economics
Statistics and Cooperatives Service, USDA, Washington, D.C., 1978.
USDA, Reference Tables on Wheat, Corn and Total Coarse Grains Supply -
Distribution for Individual Countries, Foreign Agricultural Service,
Washington, D.C., various issues.
Winrock International, The World Livestock Product, Feedstuff and Food Grain
System, Morrilton, Arkansas, 1981.
World Bank, World Development Report, Oxford University Press, Washington,
World Food Institute, World Food Trade and U.S. Agriculture, 1960-1982,
Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, 1983.