• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Preface
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 List of Figures
 Acknowledgement
 Definitions
 A note on the data
 Introduction
 A review of world production, trade,...
 Direct maize consumption in the...
 Indirect maize consumption patterns...
 Maize feed use among the major...
 Conclusion
 Appendix A. Review of regression...
 Appendix B. Country data on maize...
 Reference
 Back Cover














Group Title: CIMMYT economics program working paper ; no. 04/84
Title: Maize food and feed consumption in the developing world
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00080095/00001
 Material Information
Title: Maize food and feed consumption in the developing world
Series Title: CIMMYT economics program working paper
Physical Description: vii, 72 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Rohrback, David
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center
Publisher: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center
Place of Publication: México D.F. México
Publication Date: 1984
 Subjects
Subject: Corn industry -- Developing countries   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (p. 71-72).
Statement of Responsibility: David Rohrback.
General Note: 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).
Funding: CIMMYT economics program working paper ;
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00080095
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 13079995

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Preface
        Preface
    Table of Contents
        Page i
    List of Tables
        Page ii
    List of Figures
        Page iii
    Acknowledgement
        Page iv
    Definitions
        Page v
        Page vi
    A note on the data
        Page vii
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
    A review of world production, trade, and consumption trends
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
    Direct maize consumption in the developing countries
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
    Indirect maize consumption patterns in the major producers
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
    Maize feed use among the major importers
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
    Conclusion
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
    Appendix A. Review of regression results
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
    Appendix B. Country data on maize production, consumption, and imports in 52 major developing country producers
        Page 69
        Page 70
    Reference
        Page 71
        Page 72
    Back Cover
        Back Cover
Full Text















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.










PREFACE


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








Contents


Page

List of Tables ii
List of Figures iii
Acknowledgements iv
Definitions v
A Note on the Data vii

Introduction 1
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
Conclusions 59

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

References 70








List of Tables


Page


Distribution of World Maize Trade.
Evolving Maize Utilization Patterns
World Per Capita Maize Production and Consumption
Regional Patterns of Direct Maize Consumption
(1978-80)
Direct Cereal Consumption Patterns by Income and
Expenditure Class
Income or Expenditure Elasticities for Direct
Cereal Consumption
Production and Consumption Characteristics for
Countries with Greater or Lesser Dependence
on Maize Calories
Income and Expenditure Elasticities for Livestock
Products
Importance of Relative Feed Grains, 1980
Characteristics of Maize Feed Users, 1978-80
Average Utilization Characteristics of Major
Developing Country Users for Maize Feed


Table
Table
Table
Table


Table 5.

Table 6.

Table 7.


Table 8.

Table 9.
Table 10.
Table 11.








List of Figures


Page


World Maize Area, Yield and Production Growth
(Percent/Year), 1970-82
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


Figure 1.


Figure
Figure


Figure 4.








Acknowledgements


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.









Definitions


The terms and regional aggregates used in this report are defined as
follows.


Imports -


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
grain equivalents.

Indirect Consumption Consumed indirectly as animal feed. Quantities are
calculated on basis of the weight of the commodity
as consumed.

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).


DEVELOPING COUNTRIES


Africa

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
the west.

Near East


North Africa:


Morocco to Egypt.


Middle East: Turkey to Afghanistan.

Far East

South Asia: Pakistan to Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.

Southeast Asia and Pacific: Burma to Philippines, Indonesia, and
Pacific Islands.

East Asia: China, Korea DPR, and Republic of Korea.








Asian Centrally Planned Economies: China, Korea DPR, Viet Nam.

Latin America

Mexico, Central America and Caribbean: Mexico to Panama and Caribbean
Islands.

Andean: Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru, Surinam and
Venezuela.

Southern Cone: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay.

DEVELOPED COUNTRIES

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

final.

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


Introduction

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

derived.

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

Production Growth

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).

4





Figure 1. World Maize Area, Yield and Production G3rowtn (Percent/Year), 1970-82

Annual
Growth
Rate 6.1
6.0 -X

X1
:. .-< -
-5.0 4.9 \ -.
0

4.2 K
4.0 3.8

S 3.4
S 3.2
3. 3.1 3.1
3.0 .8 X
2.61 2.61
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















(7)
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
S(14)


0 S Andean
-2.0 ((

Source: FAO Data Tapes, 1983.
-a/Number of countries in region.










Figure 2. World Maize Yields (ton/ha), 1980-82


5.8


Yield

5.0


4.0


3.01


2.8


2.0


0.8


East Western
and Africa
Southern (24)
Africa
(188)/
Source: FAO Data


1.9


Middle
East
(8)


North
Africa
(4)


1.2


I

I


South
Asia
(7)


1.4


Southeast
Asia and
Pacific
(11)


East
Asia
(4)


Tapes, 1983.


C
A


2.1

1.7

1.4








lexico, Andean Southern
central (7) Cone
merica (5)


and
Caribbean
(19)


a/Number of countries in region.


1.0


5.3


Western
Europe,
Japan,
New
Zealand
and Israel
(14)


3.6


Eastern
Europe
and
U.S.S.R.
(8)


U.S.A.,
Canada,
Australia
and South
Africa
(4)


I '


L L- J


i J








Trade Trends

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

low.

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


Export Level
(1,000 t)
1980-82


Export Share
(percent)
1970-72


Export Share
(percent)
1980-82


Annual Growth
(percent/yr.)
1970-82


United States
Argentina
France
South Africa
Thailand
Other Developed
Other Developing
World


Import Level
(1,000 t)
1980-82


Import Share
(percent)
1970-72


Import Share
(percent)
1980-82


Annual Growth
(percent/yr.)
1970-82


European Community 11,897
Japan 13,330
USSR 12,010
Eastern Europe 6,808
China 3,947
Other Developed 11,777
Other Developing 16,622
World 76,392


Source: FAO Data Tape, 1983.


55,650
5,956
2,907
3,906
2,576
4,777
614
76,572


50.8
14.7
10.3
6.0
5.1
7.0
6.3
100.2


72.8
7.8
3.8
5.1
3.4
6.2
1.0
100.1


12.1
2.2
-1.4
7.0
4.5
7.5
-5.6
8.5


48.2
17.5
5.4
4.5
3.3
12.2
8.9
100.0


15.6
17.5
15.7
8.9
5.2
15.4
21.8
100.1


-2.8
8.5
19.2
15.4
12.9
10.9
17.5
8.5








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/


Percentage
Allocation of Maize
1978-80


Projected Percentage
Allocation of MaizeL/
1990


Africa
Latin America
Near East
Far East
Asian CPE


Developing
Developed
World


Source: FAO Data Tape, 1983.

/Consumption only.

-Based on linear extrapolation


of current growth trends.


Food

82.1
38.5
49.9
66.1
34.6


45.2
3.3
18.9


Food

76.8
35.1
33.2
47.6
22.9


Feed

17.9
61.5
50.1
33.9
65.4


54.8
96.7
81.1


Feed

23.2
64.9
66.8
52.4
77.1


36.0
2.7
15.7


64.0
97.3
84.3


~II_









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

patterns.













Table 3. World Per Capita Maize Production and Consumption


Africa
Latin America
Near East
Far East
Asian CPE

Developing
Developed
World


Annual
Production
(kg)
78-80

38.0
115.0
26.0
14.7
58.8

43.6
226.4
92.3


Annual
Percentage
Growth
68-80

-0.6
-1.0
0.2
-0.1
4.6

1.4
3.7
2.3


Annual Food
Consumption
(kg)
78-80

27.9
38.4
16.4
8.8
18.6

18.0
6.1
14.8


Annual
Percentage
Growth
68-80

-0.4
-0.4
0.4
-0.2
-2.2

-0.8
0.5
-0.4


Annual Feed
Consumption
(kg)
78-80

6.1
61.3
16.5
4.5
35.2

21.8
178.9
63.6


Annual
Percentage
Growth
68-80

2.6
1.1
7.1
7.2
2.9

2.8
2.4
1.7


Sources: FAO Production Yearbook, 1973, 1975, 1980.
FAO Data Tapes, 1983.


I








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)


Average
Annual kg.
Per Capita


Proportion
of Cereal
Calories
Composed
of Maize


Consumption
Share Among
Major
Producers


Central America
and Caribbean 6
East and Southern
Africa 12
Southeast Asia
(w/o China) 5
South Asia 4
South America 10
West Africa 10
North Africa and
Middle East 4
China 1

Total/Average 52


Source: FAO Data Tape, 1983.


Number of
Countries






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

consumption declines.

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
MAIZE
(52 countries)


16

-7---


If'


Percent of
Countries
60,


40


20



Percent of
Countries
60


40


20




Percent of
Countries


Percent of
Countries


> -5kg -2 to -5kg -2 to 2kg 2 to 5kg


> 5kg


MILLET and SORGHUM
(37 countries/


> -5kg -2 to -5kg -2 to 2kg 2 to 5kg > 5kg


ROOTS and TUBERS
(52 countries)


> -15kg


-6 to -15kg -6 to 6kg


6 to 15kg > 15kg


WHEAT
(52 countries)



19
17 19
17


S4 .__
> -5kg -2 to -5kg -2 to 2kg 2 to 5kg > 5kg


RICE
(50 countries)-8


> -5kg
Source: FAO Data


-2 to -5kg
Tapes, 1983.


-Not all major maize producers consumed these commodities.


Percent of
Countries 60



40










Change in Commodity Composition of Diets, 1968-80


Percent of
Countries 601


01!

40,


Millet Maize
Sorghum


> 2% Decline


Little
Change


K
y x
Wheat
Rice 1


Sx



> y nc
K

2 X



> 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.


Figure 4.








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

are minor.

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

more rapidly.

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
Class
Expenditure or Income Class

Low Middle High

India (urban)
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

India (rural)
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

Indonesia (nationwide)
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

Philippines (nationwide)
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

Kenya (urban)
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

Kenya (rural)
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


Country/Region

Malawi
Kenya (Mombassa)
Mexico
East Africa
Southern Africa
West Africa
Mexico and Central America
Venezuela
Venezuela (Barcelona)
Philippines
Brazil (Rural)
Brazil (Urban)
Peru (Lima)
Indonesia
Indonesia (Rural Java)
Indonesia (Urban Java)
India
Thailand
Argentina
East Asia (Low Income)
East Asia (High Income)
North Africa/Middle East
(Low Income)
North Africa/Middle East
(High Income)


Sources:


Maize

.20
.20
-.17
.28
.35
.15


-1.60
-.94
-.04
-.15
-.50
-.13
-.93
-.80


All
Coarse
Grains
i





.10
.15








.20
.20
-.25
-
-
-









.20
.05

.10

.15


Rice

1.20
.60
.35
.58
.56
.65
.35
.15
-.10
.31
.17
.32
0.0
.45
.12
.51
.70
.10
.15
.20
.05

.20

.30


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).


Wheat

1.00
.70
.61
.51
1.46
.87
.35
.35
.30
.61
.32
.12
1.0
.55
-

.70
.20
-.10
.35
.10

.05

.25








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

substantial.


3. Urbanization

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


29







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

consumption patterns.








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,
Zambia, Zimbabwe.

-/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


Kenya (nationwide)


Meat
than
Eggs


Brazil (urban)


Brazil (urban)


Philippines (nationwide)



Brazil (nationwide)

Mexico and Central
America (nationwide)


(other
beef)


Meat and Fish
Eggs

Meat and Fish
Eggs

Pork
Poultry
Eggs

Pork


Pork


Sources: Philippines Bennagen (1982); Brazil (nationwide); Mexico (1978);
Kenya Shah (1982); Brazil (urban, rural) Gray (1982).


Low


.300
.72

.363
1.930

.413
1.150


High


.602
-1.340


.075
.144

.238
.100


Middle


.350
.488


.481
.630

.336
.603

.622
.492
.623

.400


.600






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
40








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


Africa
Latin America
Near East
Far East
Asian CPE


Maize as
Percentage
of Cereal
Feeds

33.1
56.7
18.8
20.9
51.7


Wheat/ as
Percentage
of Cereal
Feeds

24.1
11.7
30.6
19.5
18.1


Barley as
Percentage
of Cereal
Feeds

16.5
1.3
40.1
1.4
1.7


Sorghum as
Percentage
of Cereal
Feeds

6.8
24.7
2.5
2.3
3.5


Rice/ as
Percentage
of Cereal
Feeds

4.1
3.2


Millet as
Percentage
of Cereal
Feeds

12.1


3.0


51.6
19.1


2.5


Developing
Developed
World


43.3
40.4
41.1


Source: FAO Data Tapes, 1983

I includes bran.


18.5
22.0
21.2


6.6
,21 .0
17.6


8.5
4.0
4.5


17.9


i









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

patterns.

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.

A' Hf








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-

tion industry.

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

development.

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

production.

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

consumption.


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

substitutes.

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
(20%).








Characteristics of Maize Feed Users, 1978-80


Percentage of Maize Utilization
Allocated to Feed
_______________________________!______________________________I


5%-20%


Number of Countries

Per Capita Maize Feed,
1978-80 (kg)

Per Capita Cereals Feed,
1978-80 (kg)

Per Capita GNP, 1980 ($U.S.)


Total Calories, 1975-77

Maize as Percent of Cereal
Production, 1978-80

Per Capita Maize Feed Growth,
1968-80 (Percent/Year)

Per Capita Cereal Feed Growth,
1968-80 (Percent/Year)


18a/


1.2


12.2


311
(17 Countries)


2134


37.2


2.3
(10 Countries)


-0.1


S 30.6


681
(18 Countries)


2201


55.2


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.


Ethiopia, India,
Nepal, Pakistan,


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.


>20%


42.1


100.0


1479


2564


29.8


Table 10.








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,
Tunisia.








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



1/
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

production industries.

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


Importers2-


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
feed, 1978-80

Maize feed growth rate,1968-80 (%)

Cereal feed growth rate, 1968-80 (%)

Per capital GNP, 1980 ($U.S.)


Per capital total calories
consumption, 1975-77


85.6

42.3

85.8


49.2

17.2

8.2

2266
(13 countries)

2401


Producers-


42.1

42.1

100.0

41.1

5.7

4.6

1479


2562


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

major producers.

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

market prices.

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

be expected.

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

production levels.

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.


CONCLUSIONS

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.


APPENDIX A

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

63








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

estimator.


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***

where

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

price variable.











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***

where

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

utilization levels.

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***

where

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

level.

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***

where

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

67








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

where

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.









Appendix B

Table B.1. Country Data on Maize Production, Consumption and Imports in 52 Major Developing Country Producers


Percent Cereal
Calories from
Maize
(1978-80)


Malawi
Namibia
Guatemala
Zambia
Kenya
Honduras
Mexico
Zimbabwe
Angola
Nicaragud
El Salvador
Tanzania
Benin
Zaire
Burundi
Paraguay
Ghana
Uganda
Lesotho
Mozambique
Togo
Haiti
Venezuela
Colombia
Cameroon
Bolivia
Central African Republic
Somalia
Philippines
Ecuador
Egypt
Ethiopia
Ivory Coast
Peru
Nepal
Brazil
Afghanistan
Nigeria
Indonesia
China
Uruguay
Madagascar
Viet Nam
Morocco
Turkey
Pakistan
India
Korea DPR
Argentina
Chile
Thailand
Burma


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
Capita Cereal
Consumption
(kg) (1968-80)

-7.1
-2.7
-10.7
-10.3
-20.2
0.9
-1.3
-15.1
0
-26.2
16.9
-1.6
-1.5
2.4
-2.1
-0.9
-6.3
-12.6
15.7
-7.0
4.4
-1.2
3.4
13.6
7.6
0
-9.3
-23.4
18.1
2.3
19.8
-18.0
7.0
4.1
-13.9
11.7
-21.3
6.5
32.3
24.2
-2.8
3.0
-22.5
7.3
0.4
13.1
4.6
40.9
2.3
10.4
-3.0
12.8


Source: FAO Data Tapes, 1983.
(continued)










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.








References


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,
1981.

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,
Mexico, 1981.

CIMMYT, World Wheat Facts and Trends, Report One: An Analysis of Changes in
Production, Consumption, Trade and Prices over the Last Two Decades,
Mexico, 1981.

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.

71








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,
Mexico, 1982.

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,
D.C., 1982.

Lyons, David and Robert L. Thompson, The World Corn Economy in Perspective,
Purdue University Station Bulletin No. 163, West Lafayette, Indiana,
1977.

Oficinia de Asesores del C. President, Sistema Alimentario Mexicano,
Mexico, 1980.

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,
D.C., 1982.

World Food Institute, World Food Trade and U.S. Agriculture, 1960-1982,
Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, 1983.







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

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