Working PaperPDF Available
Drought Tolerant Maize for Africa (DTMA) Country report: Zimbabwe. December, 2014
.
Adoption of Drought Tolerant
Maize Varieties in Zimbabwe
This report is presented without a thorough peer review with the main
purpose of making data and information rapidly available to research teams
and partners in the Drought Tolerant Maize for Africa (DTMA) project
and for use in developing future, peer-reviewed publications. Readers are
invited to send comments directly to the corresponding author(s). The views
expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reect
opinions of CIMMYT, other partners, or donors.
3
The International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, known by its Spanish
acronym, CIMMYT, is the global leader on publicly funded maize and wheat research
and related farming systems. Headquartered near Mexico City, Mexico, CIMMYT works
with hundreds of partners throughout the developing world to sustainably increase the
productivity of maize and wheat cropping systems, thus improving global food security
and reducing poverty. CIMMYT is a member of the CGIAR Consortium and leads the
CGIAR Research Programs on MAIZE and WHEAT. The Center receives support from
national governments, foundations, development banks and other public and private
agencies.
The Drought Tolerant Maize for Africa (DTMA) Project is jointly being implemented by
CIMMYT and the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA). It is funded by the Bill
& Melinda Gates Foundation.. The project is part of a broad partnership also involving national
agricultural research and extension systems, seed companies, non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), community-based organizations (CBOs), and advanced research institutes, together
known as the DTMA Project. Its activities build on longer-term support by other donors,
including the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), the German Federal
Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), the International Fund for
Agricultural Development (IFAD), and the Eiselen Foundation. The project aims to develop
and disseminate drought tolerant, high-yielding, locally-adapted maize varieties to reach 30–
40 million people in sub-Saharan Africa.
© International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) 2013. All rights reserved.
The designations employed in the presentation of materials in this publication do not imply the
expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of CIMMYT or its contributory organizations
concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city, or area, or of its authorities, or
concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The views expressed in this report
are those of individual scientists and do not necessarily reflect the views of the donor, the
DTMA project, or the authors’ institutions. CIMMYT encourages fair use of this material.
Proper citation is requested.
Correct Citation: Chikobvu, S., G. T. Kassie and R. W. Lunduka. 2014. Country Report
DT Maize Adoption Monitoring Survey- Zimbabwe. Socio-Economics Program Working
Paper Mexico DF CIMMYT
4
SOCIO-ECONOMICS
Country Report – DT Maize Adoption
Monitoring Survey- Zimbabwe
Drought Tolerant Maize for Africa (DTMA) Project
Shamiso Chikobvu1, Girma Kassie2and Rodney Lunduka2*.
December, 2014
1Department of Agricultural, Technical and Extension Services (AGRITEX).
Harare, Zimbabwe
2CIMMYT Harare, Zimbabwe, CIMMYT.
*Corresponding Author:
P. O. Box 163. 12.5 Km Peg, Mazowe Road, Harare, Zimbabwe.
E-Mail: r.lunduka@cgiar.org.
i
Acknowledgements
This work is part of Drought Tolerant Maize for Africa (DTMA) project, funded by the
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The authors wish to thank Debrah Maleni, Miriro
Matungamire and Rebecca Phiri for their input in data collection, entry, and analysis and
report formatting. Many thanks are due to all the households in the study who spared
their time to give us their responses to the questionnaires.
ii
List of Acronyms
AGRITEX
BMZ
CBOS
DT
DTMA
IFAD
IPCC
Kg
NGOs
OPVs
SADC
SDC
t/ha
Agricultural Technical and Extension Services
German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development
community-based organizations
Drought tolerant
Drought Tolerant Maize for Africa
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
kilograms
Non-Governmental Organizations
Open pollinated varieties
Southern Africa Development Community
Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation
tons per hectare
iii
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1.0: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................VII
CHAPTER 2.0: STUDY AREA AND METHODS .............................................................................. 1
2.1 Description of the stuDy area..................................................................................................1
2.2 sampling anD Data collection .................................................................................................1
CHAPTER 3.0: DESCRIPTIVE RESULTS ......................................................................................... 3
3.1 Demographic characterization of householDs ........................................................................3
3.1.1 Household characteristics .............................................................................................3
3.1.2 Households access to information and rural credit ........................................................4
3.1.3 Drought risk .................................................................................................................7
3.2 maize proDuction anD consumption ........................................................................................7
3.2.1 Maize production in the study districts .........................................................................7
3.2.2 Maize subsistence consumption by households ...........................................................9
3.2.3Maize Marketing ..........................................................................................................11
CHAPTER 4.0: ADOPTION OF IMPROVED MAIZE VARIETIES ................................................... 12
4. 1 types of maize varieties grown ..............................................................................................12
4. 2 sources of maize varieties .....................................................................................................13
4.3 Distribution of maize seeD use by District ................................................................................13
4.4 maize seeD recycling anD aDoption intensity ...........................................................................14
4.5 maize traits anD farmer preferences for varieties being grown ..................................................14
4.6 maize traits anD farmer preferences when selecting varieties ....................................................15
CHAPTER 5.0: REGRESSION AND RESULTS ............................................................................... 18
5.1 maize self-insufficiency .........................................................................................................18
5.2 Drought tolerant maize varieties- awareness anD aDoption .....................................................20
5.3 level anD Determinants of likelihooD of Dt maize aDoption ....................................................21
5.4 sources of information on Dt varieties .................................................................................23
5.4 reasons for not growing Dtm varieties ...............................................................................25
5.5 reasons for interest .............................................................................................................26
5.6 reasons for lack of interest ..................................................................................................27
5.7 willingness to pay ...............................................................................................................27
CHAPTER 6.0: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................... 28
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 29
iv
List of Tables
table 1: survey Districts ...............................................................................................................1
table 2: householD Demographics ................................................................................................3
table 3: mean livestock numbers ...................................................................................................4
table 4: sources of information on new maize varieties ...................................................................6
table 5: creDit accessibility by genDer of householD (hh) heaD .....................................................7
table 6: number of Drought years as perceiveD by farmer ................................................................7
table7: maize proDuction .............................................................................................................8
table 8: no. of months householD (hh) ran out of maize after 2011/12 season ..........................10
table 9: types of maize varieties being grown across Districts ........................................................12
table 10: most commonly grown maize varieties ..........................................................................13
table11: Quantity of maize seeD useD per hectare across Districts ..................................................14
table 12: positive traits for maize varieties being grown ...............................................................14
table 13: negative traits for maize varieties being grown ..............................................................15
table 14: most important trait when choosing a variety ..............................................................15
table 15: seconD most important trait when choosing a maize variety ...........................................16
table 16: thirD important trait when choosing a maize variety .....................................................17
table 17: maize self-insufficiencytwo parts moDel results ........................................................19
table 18: factors influencing the likelihooD of aDopting Dt maize varieties ..................................22
table 19: sources of information on Dt varieties .........................................................................23
table 20: Dt varieties grown in the 2011/12 season (% hh) .........................................................24
table 21: reasons for not growing Dt maize varieties (% of hh) ..................................................25
table 22: reasons for the willingness to try Dt maize varieties (% hh) ..........................................26
table 23: reasons for lack of interest in Dt varieties ...................................................................27
table 24: mean price of hybriD anD opv farmers are willing to pay (us$/10kg bag) ......................27
v
List of figures
figure 1: proportion of householDs who haD receiveD extension on new maize varieties ...................5
figure 2: survey Districts across zimbabwe ....................................................................................2
figure 3: likelihooD access to creDit .............................................................................................6
figure 4: irrigation anD fertilizer usage .........................................................................................9
figure 5: maize self-sufficiency within Districts ............................................................................10
figure 6: moDe of transport ......................................................................................................11
figure 7: proportion of householDs who were aware of Dt maize varieties ...................................20
figure 8: experience growing Dt varieties ....................................................................................24
vi
Abstract
Maize is a very important crop in Zimbabwe both for food and income. Even though
Zimbabwe is one of the countries with highest adoption rates of hybrid varieties, threats
from climate change and other stresses have been responsible for a reduction in maize
productivity. Given the importance of maize not only in Zimbabwe but the whole sub-
Saharan Africa, CIMMYT under the Drought Tolerant Maize for Africa (DTMA) project
has been developing Drought tolerant (DT) maize varieties to reduce maize production
vulnerability to climate change and improve food security. This study aims to assess
the levels of adoption of the new DT maize varieties by smallholder farmers and draw
lessons on the constraints that are affecting farmers to adopt these new maize varieties.
This study was carried out in 6 of 60 districts in Zimbabwe. This covered ve (out of
eight) provinces namely Masvingo, Midlands, Matebeleland North ,Mashonaland East
and Mashonaland Central. The study has shown that maize productivity is low across all
districts and there is limited irrigation in communal area. There is also limited fertilizer
use across all districts except for Chivi and Umguza given the types of the soils that exist
in these areas. In terms of food self- sufciency, results show that households are not
self-sufcient in maize and a high proportion of the households did not produce maize
to last them at least 12 months.
The study found out that 20.2% of sampled farmers had started growing DT maize
varieties in 2010. It was interesting to note that there was a varied definition DT maize
varieties. There was a high proportion of farmers who thought DT maize were
varieties that were able to tolerate dry spells (39%) while others thought DT
varieties tolerate dry spells and mature early (40%). Only 20% thought that they were
varieties with early maturity period. Such diversity on knowledge of the DT maize
varieties has implication on the adoption decision of the households. The
importance of information on new maize seed was found to be positive and highly
significant (p < 0.001) in influencing adoption. Other important factors affecting
adoption of the new DT maize varieties were availability of the new varieties on the
market and high cost of the seed that made the varieties unfordable.
The key issue emerging from this study is that people are interested in using the DT
maize but there seems to be a gap in knowledge on these varieties that are available
on the market. There is need for increased information dissemination on the DT maize
varieties that have been released to date. Price reduction could be addressed by
increasing number of seed companies thereby increasing competition and efciency of
seed production. This is likely to lower the seed prices on the market.
vii
Chapter 1.0: Introduction
Agriculture plays a pivotal role in the economy of Zimbabwe. According to the Zimbabwe
Comprehensive Agriculture Policy Framework 2012-32, agriculture contributes between
15% and 18% of the Gross Domestic Product, over 40% of nation export earnings and 60%
of raw materials to agro-industries. In addition, about 70% of the population derives
their livelihoods from agriculture.
Even though a variety of crops are grown both by large commercial and smallholder
farmers, maize is Zimbabwe’s most widely grown cereal crop. Production of maize
in Zimbabwe spread widely across the country in all the agroecological zones1. Apart
from the crop being grown in all the regions and being a staple food, maize stood out
among the different cereals as the easier-to-process and market crop (Smale and Jayne,
2011). In terms of consumption, maize constitutes 76% of the cereal diet and 46% of the
whole diet (Grant et al., 2012).
Maize covers about 80% to 90% of the total cereal area, with the area under the crop
exceeding 1 million hectares annually over the last 13 years. However, with the current
climate change threats, maize production is being hampered by the frequent dry spells
and erratic rainfall, which is resulting in severe cases of food insecurity at household and
national level. Given the importance of maize not only in Zimbabwe but the whole sub-
Saharan Africa, CIMMYT under the Drought Tolerant Maize for Africa (DTMA) project
developed 205 DT maize varieties between 2007 and 2014. Through national agricultural
research systems and private seed companies, new DT varieties have been tested in
experimental and farmers’ elds in Zimbabwe and other countries in the region. On-
farm trials revealed that DT maize varieties yield much more than popular commercial
checks by 83-137% (controlled drought), 26-47% (random drought), and 25-56% (optimal
rainfall conditions) (CIMMYT 2013). Therefore by developing drought-tolerant and
higher-yielding maize seed varieties presents a high potential to reduce vulnerability
and improve food security. This can only be achieved by farmers adopting these new
varieties currently available on the market. This study follows these DT maize varieties
that are currently on the market and estimates how many smallholder farmers have
adopted while understanding the constraints faced by the non-adopters.
Zimbabwe’s maize breeders were the rst in the world to produce hybrids, which
boasted high yield advantages and greater uniformity. Although hybrid maize seeds
were intended for annual purchases- and non- recycle and demanded high levels of
management skills, they still performed well under smallholder farmer management
where recycling is a common practice. Using these hybrids, total smallholder maize
production tripled between 1980 and 1988 (Smale and Jayne, 2011). This is supported by
1 Zimbabwe is divided into ve agro-ecological regions, known as natural regions, on the basis of
the rainfall regime, soil quality and vegetation among other factors. These are a) zone 1- > 1 000mm. Rain in
all months of the year, relatively low temperatures, b) zone 2- 700-1 050mm. Rainfall conned to summer,
c) zone 3- 500-800. Relatively high temperatures and infrequent, heavy falls of rain, and subject to seasonal
droughts and severe mid-season dry spells, d) zone 4- 450-650mm. Rainfall subject to frequent seasonal
droughts and severe dry spells during the rainy season and e) zone 5- < 450. Very erratic rainfall.
viii
a study by Chikobvu et al (2010) that highlighted the increasing adoption of improved
maize varieties is no longer a matter of concern as nearly all farmers are growing improved
maize varieties (Chikobvu et al., 2010; Kassie et al., 2012). A large percentage of maize is
produced for household consumption. However, there has been no net increase in maize
productivity in the country. The report by the Government of Zimbabwe/United Nations
Team (2010) shows that maize production and productivity has been declining since
2000 despite the efforts of the breeders. From a surplus producer of maize, Zimbabwe
has become a net maize importer. Average maize yield has been uctuating between 0.7
tonnes and 2 t/ha.
The agricultural sector’s reliance on seasonal, rain-fed cultivation makes the sector
particularly vulnerable to climate variability and change (UNDP/ALM, 2011).
According to IPCC (2001), climate change is expected to pose a particular challenge to
food production. More frequent and prolonged droughts and increases in temperature
can seriously reduce crop yield, especially maize, which is a staple crop in Zimbabwe,
increasing incidences of food insecurity in the country. Vulnerable households making a
living from maize in marginal areas, particularly smallholder farmers, who derive their
livelihoods from smallholder agriculture and other rural activities, are most severely
affected (Ericksen, 2008).
With the evidence of climate change, the farmers have seen the need to grow DT
varieties. Unlike in the early 1980s, when appropriateness of the technology led to
adoption, coupled with state policies, the current economic conditions pose challenges to
accessibility, affordability, and thus uptake of new technologies. The Food and Nutrition
Implementation Matrix also highlighted the need for farmers to use drought tolerant
crops and varieties to increase productivity and production hence household level food
and nutrition security (Government of Zimbabwe, 2013).
The need for farmers to access high quality, authentic seed, and complementary inputs
has the potential to enhance and stabilize yields among smallholder farmers. In view
of the aforementioned, there has been production, dissemination, and promotion of
drought tolerant maize varieties by researchers, agricultural extension institutions, and
seed companies. A household survey was undertaken in ve provinces of Zimbabwe
with the aim of assessing the levels of penetration of the DT maize varieties so far
released in the country into smallholder farming systems.
Specically, the study was aimed at measuring the extent to which the DT maize varieties
have disseminated in the farming systems and to describe key factors associated with
farmer uptake of drought tolerant maize varieties.
1
Chapter 2.0: Study area and methods
2.1 Description of the study area
The study was carried out in 6 of 60 districts in Zimbabwe. This covered ve (out of
eight) provinces namely Masvingo, Midlands, Matabeleland North, Mashonaland East
and Mashonaland Central. In terms of natural regions, the districts fell in Natural Region
II to Natural Region V (Table 1). Maize is the staple food in all the districts. In terms of
maize production, all the districts produce maize and all are drought prone.
Table 1: Survey districts
Province District Wards Natural regions/Zone
Masvingo Bikita 12 & 15 III & III
Masvingo Chivi 14 & 15 V & IV/ V
Midlands Zvishavane 10 & 15 IV & IV/ V
Matabeleland North Umguza 12 & 13 IV & IV
Mashonaland East Hwedza 5 & 6 IIb & IIb
Mashonaland Central Shamva 6 & 15 IIb & III
2.2 Sampling and data collection
The multi-stage sampling approach was used. Sample selection combined purposive
and random sampling. Purposive sampling was done in 6 districts namely Bikita,
Chivi, Hwedza, Shamva, Umguza and Zvishavane (Figure 1) in consultation with seed
companies, extension officers, DTMA scientists, and country team members.
The next two sampling stages involved random sampling. Two wards in each district
were randomly selected, and from each sampled ward, ve villages were also randomly
picked. Hence, 10 Villages were randomly selected in each sampled district, based on a
complete list of villages in the district. A total of 50 households were randomly chosen
and interviewed in each ward. Altogether 600 households were interviewed.
A structured questionnaire was used to collect the data in the survey. SPSS and Stata
software packages were used in the analysis. The survey ran from the 3rd to the 16th of
June 2013. Below is a map of Zimbabwe and the different survey districts.
2
Figure 1: Survey districts across Zimbabwe
3
Chapter 3.0: Descriptive results
3.1 Demographic characterization of households
3.1.1 Household characteristics
From the sampled households, 73% were male-headed household, while only 27% were
female-headed households. Most of the respondents (68.8%) were household heads
while the remaining were spouses of the household heads. Summary statistics of the
districts reveal that the mean age of the respondents was around 53 years ranging from
51.5 years in Bikita to 56.9 years in Umguza. The mean household size was 5.65 with the
lowest gures observed in Bikita and Hwedza. Shamva had the highest household size
as well as the number of household members who are involved in agriculture. In terms
of education, household heads in Hwedza had a higher average number of schooling
years, whilst Shamva had the least. Table 2 below shows a summary of the household
demographics of the sampled households.
Table 2: Household demographics
Whole
sample Bikita Chivi Hwedza Shamva Umguza Zvishavane
Age (years) 53.43 50.53 51.47 56.81 50.96 56.87 53.93
% male headed 73 69 72 77 76 74 70
% female headed 27 31 28 23 24 26 30
Proportion of HH
head respondents
(%)
68.8 57 68 74 80 67 67
Household size 5.7 5.2 5.7 5.2 6.5 5.6 5.7
HH members
involved in
agriculture
3.4 3.1 3.5 3.2 3.9 3.2 3.7
Mean schooling
years 7.5 7.9 7.8 8.2 6.8 7.0 7.6
N 600 100 100 100 100 100 100
Mean cattle ownership for the sampled households was four. Umguza district had the
largest cattle herd per household and Chivi district had the least mean cattle numbers per
household (Table 3). An analysis of ownership of horses and donkeys among households
revealed that Zvishavane, Umguza and Chivi had a mean of 1 donkey per household
while the rest in other districts had none. This result was consistent with the 2013 Crop
and Livestock Assessment (2013) that showed that there were more donkeys in the
Masvingo, Midlands, and Matabeleland provinces than in any other district. On average
a household had 3 sheep and goats except for Shamva, which had a mean of one sheep
or goat per household. High poultry numbers were seen across all districts.
4
Table 3: Mean livestock numbers
District Cattle Horses & donkeys Sheep & goats Poultry
Bikita Mean 3 0 3 8
Std. Deviation 3.26 0.61 3.29 7.60
Zvishavane Mean 4 1 3 7
Std. Deviation 4.39 1.64 3.38 7.03
Chivi Mean 2 1 3 6
Std. Deviation 2.63 1.37 2.99 5.78
Umguza Mean 7 1 3 9
Std. Deviation 9.96 1.84 3.83 10.19
Hwedza Mean 4 0 3 11
Std. Deviation 4.67 0.00 2.91 23.76
Shamva Mean 3 0 1 11
Std. Deviation 3.52 0.41 2.20 11.76
Total Mean 4 0 3 9
Std. Deviation 5.51 1.26 3.20 12.65
3.1.2 Households access to information and rural credit
Hwedza had the highest number of households with a member that had received
information on new maize varieties from different sources of extension services. Shamva
had the highest number of households that had not received advice on new varieties.
However, overall, there seemed to be nearly the same number of households that had
received information and those that had not received information on new maize varieties.
This is a clear indication that information on new maize varieties is not well disseminated
such that not all households have access to it. An analysis by gender of household head
indicated that more male-headed households (54.6%) had received information on new
maize varieties when this is compared to female headed households (43.2%). Figure 2
below shows the proportion of households that had received information on new maize
varieties in the different districts.
5
Figure 2: Proportion of households who had received extension on new maize varieties
The study has also revealed that there are different sources of information for farmers
with varying degrees of accessibility and relevance for farmers. Government agricultural
extension topped the list with all districts having more than 50% of households pointing
out extension as one of their major source. In Zimbabwe, governement extension is
provided by AGRITEX, a department within Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanisation
and Irrigation Development. Of late the department reduced extension to farmer ratio
by employing more extension workers per ward. This information shows that there is an
improvement in the farmer-extension ofcer contact hence the high frequency.
Other important sources of agricultural extension services are private companies and
NGOs. These players have geographical bias as they tend to concentrate in areas where they
have interests. Results from the survey show that less than 5% of the sample households
received information from private agricultural extension sources. Agricultural extension
courses are ranked second in terms of providing information on new varieties. Each
district had at least some households that had received information from agricultural
extension course. Only two districts had households who had accessed information from
NGO and lead farmers. Electronic media seems to be gaining in popularity as all districts
had at least some households who had accessed information, although the numbers are
still low in comparison to government based sources.
An analysis by gender of household head shows that the three top sources of information
on new maize varieties were the same namely governement extension services,
agricultural extension courses and farmer eld days respectively. Table 4 below shows
the proportion of households in each district that recieved information on new maize
varieties from various sources.
6
Table 4: Sources of information on new maize varieties
Bikita
%
Zvishavane
%
Chivi
%
Umguza
%
Hwedza
%
Shamva
%
Whole
sample %
Gvt agric extension 61.02 53.06 58.70 76.47 59.02 76.74 63.80
Pvt agric extension 6.78 8.16 6.52 1.64 6.98 4.90
NGO 5.08 2.33 1.30
Farmer field days 3.39 10.20 13.04 6.56 4.65 6.10
Agric extension
course 16.95 22.45 10.87 5.88 4.92 2.33 10.70
Lead farmers 5.88 1.64 1.3
Agric coops/
farmers’ groups 1.64 0.6
Other farmers 1.69 4.08 2.17 16.39 2.33 5.5
Electronic media 1.69 2.04 6.52 11.76 3.28 4.65 4.2
Paper media 3.39 2.17 1.64 1.0
Input shop 3.28 0.6
A look into the perceived likelihood of access to rural credit by sample households showed
that ‘extremely unlikely’ was the most frequent response in all districts. Zvishavane
had the highest proprtion of households (6%) that indicated that credit was extremely
likely to be accessed. This information shows that in many communinties, rural credit
is difcult to access thus this can compromise agriculture production as it is a very
important component of agriculture production. Figure 3 below shows a diagrammatic
representation of the responses of households concerning access to credit.
Figure 3: Likelihood access to credit
An analysis by gender of household head reveals that slightly more male-headed
households could easily access credit compared to female-headed households. Table 5
below summarizes the accessibility of credit by gender of household head.
7
Table 5: Credit accessibility by gender of household (HH) head
Female-headed HH % Male-headed HH %
Can access (likely) 11 15
Neutral 11 15
Cant access (unlikely) 78 70
3.1.3 Drought risk
The mean frequency of drought occurance as reported by farming households across
districts ranges from 2 to 5 years with a mean of 3.84 years. This is despite some
households indicating that they had not experienced drought, whilst others were saying
they had experienced it in all the 10 years. Table 6 below summarizes the mean drought
frequency across the districts.
Table 6: Number of drought years as perceived by farmer
District Mean St. Dev Min Max
Bikita 4.05 2.69 0 10
Zvishavane 4.89 2.97 0 10
Chivi 5.51 2.69 0 10
Umguza 4.12 2.50 0 10
Hwedza 2.54 1.56 0 10
Shamva 2.01 1.23 0 6
Total 3.83 2.65 0 10
3.2 Maize production and consumption
3.2.1 Maize production in the study districts
Despite the aridity of the areas, almost every household in the survey districts had a
plot of maize. From the household sample, total plot sizes ranged from 1.4 hectares in
Hwedza to 2.3 hectares in Umguza. The mean plot size for the whole sample is 1.68
hectares. On land allocated to maize, plot size ranged from 0.66 hectares in Chivi to 1.16
hectares in Umguza. Shamva had the highest mean maize yield of 814.25 kg per hectare
whilst Umguza had the least (82.43kg/ha) and was about ten times less of Shamva. Table
7 below shows the summary statistics of the total plot size, area put under maize and
maize yield in the 2012/13 season.
8
Table7: Maize production
Total plot size
for 2012/13
season (Ha)
Area put under
maize in 2012/13
(Ha)
Maize yield in
2012/13 (kg/ha)
Bikita Mean (Std. Dev) 1.46 (0.862) 0.93 (0.620 ) 266.98(261.23)
Zvishavane Mean (Std. Dev) 1.42 (0.814 ) 0.69 (0.444 ) 133.51(180.20)
Chivi Mean (Std. Dev) 1.44 (0.802 ) 0.66 (0.445 ) 173.15(221.82)
Umguza Mean (Std. Dev) 2.30 (1.449 ) 1.16 (0.776 ) 82.43(134.62)
Hwedza Mean (Std. Dev) 1.40 (0.858 ) 0.92(0.427 ) 311.44(234.8)
Shamva Mean (Std. Dev) 2.07 (1.505 ) 0.92(0.573 ) 814.25(680.41)
Total Mean (Std. Dev) 1.68 (1.168 ) 0.88(0.584 ) 190.47 (246.48)
In terms of irrigation and fertilizer usage across districts, very few people seem to have
access to irrigation. Only 2.5% of the total sample indicated that they had irrigated their
crop in 2012/13 season. However, none of the sampled household had irrigated their
crop in Umguza and Chivi, the two driest districts among the six districts surveyed.
An analysis by gender of household head only showed that 2.7% of the male-headed
households had irrigated their maize crop, whilst only 1.9% of female-headed households
had used irrigation.
Fertilizer usage was high in Shamva where about 90% of the households reported to
have applied chemical fertilizers in their maize crop. Fertilizer usage was low in Chivi
and Umguza where only about 51% of the sampled households said they had used
chemical fertilizer in the 2012/13 season. Results from Chivi and Umguza should be a
cause for concern to all development partners in the maize subsector because a maize
crop requires sufcient nutrients for maximum productivity. A gender based analysis
on the household head showed that 48.8% of the female-headed households had applied
fertilizers whilst 51.8% of the male-headed households had also used fertilizers.
9
Figure 4: Irrigation and fertilizer usage
3.2.2 Maize subsistence consumption by households
With regard to maize self-sufciency, only about 15% of the households in Chivi, Umguza,
and Zvishavane reported to have produced enough maize in 2011/12 season to feed their
households until the next season. For Chivi and Umguza, lack of self-sufciency may be
linked to low usage of chemical fertilizers and the aridity of the areas. However, out of
the whole sample only 34% of the households indicated that they had produced enough
maize grain for their households in the 2011/12 season. There were more male-headed
households (35.2%) than female-headed households (29.6%) who had produced enough
maize grain for their households in the 2011/12 season.
10
Figure 5: Maize self-sufficiency within districts
An analysis on the number of months a household ran short of maize after the 2011/12
season indicated that 25.1% (the highest frequency of houeholds) faced maize shortages
for all the 12 months in a year. About 13% of the households reported running short
of maize for 10 months. Only 0.8% of the housheolds indicated that they had enough
maize for 11 months. Table 9 below presents the proportion of households that had run
out of maize after the 2011/12 season.
Table 8: No. of months household (HH) ran out of maize after 2011/12 season
No. of months
HH ran out of
maize
Proportion of HH who
had run out of maize
%
Proportion from the
female-headed HH %
Proportion from the
male-headed HH %
1 0.8 0.9 0.7
2 3.8 1.8 4.6
3 7.3 7.9 7.0
4 5.3 7.0 4.6
5 2.5 1.8 2.8
6 7.5 6.1 8.1
7 6.5 6.1 6.7
8 9.8 6.1 11.3
9 9.8 11.4 9.2
10 12.6 14.0 12.0
11 9 8.8 9.2
12 25.1 28.1 23.9
11
3.2.3 Maize marketing
Mean proportion of maize sales were very low in all the districts and ranged from 1%
to 19%. Shamva (19%) had the largest, followed by Hwedza 7%, Bikita 6%, Chivi 2%,
Umguza 1%, and Zvishavane 1%. From the whole sample 76.8% did not sell maize.
Specically, 97.4% o f the households in Zvishavane, 93.7% in Chivi, 93.4% in Umguza
, 80.3% in Bikita, 76% in Hwedza and 55.2% in Shamva had not sold any of their maize
produce in the 2011/12 agricultural season.
In terms of distance to the market households were asked the time they took to walk to the
market. Umguza had the furthest distance in terms of minutes. On average, the walking
distance in Umguza to the market was about 110 minutes. Majority of the households in
this district also highlighted that their main mode of transport was the train (other -67%)
that passed through the district from Bulawayo to Victoria falls and back on a daily basis.
Bikita followed with an average of 76 minutes and the most common mode of transport
was walking on foot (63%). This was the same case with Chivi which had an average
73 minutes. The districts which had the nearest market were Zvishavane (40 minutes)
followed by Hwedza (44 minutes) and Shamva (55 minutes). The average distance for
the whole sample was 66 minutes. Figure 4 below shows the different modes of transport
for the districts.
Figure 6: Mode of transport
12
Chapter 4.0: Adoption of improved maize varieties
In terms of adoption of improved maize varieties, Zimbabwe as a country is far well
off. Previous adoption studies reveal that adoption rates of Zimbabwe is over 80% and
households in Zimbabwe mainly grow hybrid seed.
4. 1 Types of maize varieties grown
Farmers were mainly growing hybrid maize seed varieties. According to the farmers
they were growing mainly hybrids. Ninety one percent of the sample had used a hybrid
maize variety, 2% local varieties, 2% OPV and 1% had recycled hybrid in the 2011/12
season. Only 4% did not know the type of maize variety they had grown. The results
were similar across all districts. Local varieties were available but in small quantities.
Across the districts, in Bikita 94% had used hybrids and Chivi, Umguza and Hwedza
had the least number of household who had grown hybrid (88%). Hwedza and Umguza
had the highest frequency of households that used local varieties and OPV. This is in
line with results that were found on the level of recycling seed and the intensity, where
Hwedza and Umguza were highest in terms of number of years the seed had been re-
used. Table 9 below shows a summary of the different types of maize varieties grown
across the districts.
Table 9: Types of maize varieties being grown across districts
Bikita
%
Zvishavane
%
Chivi
%
Umguza
%
Hwedza
%
Shamva
%
Total
%
Local 1 2 1 3.1 4 0 1.8
OPV 1 0 2 3.1 4 2 2
Hybrid 94.0 92.9 88.0 87.8 88.0 93.0 90.6
recycled hybrid 2 1 3 0 0 2 1.3
don’t know 2 4.1 6 6.1 4 3 4.2
The most commonly grown variety across all districts was SC513. PAN413 was also
common among households. Table 10 below shows some of the mostly grown varieties
across the districts.
13
Table 10: Most commonly grown maize varieties
Variety Frequency
SC513 47.7
PAN413 11.5
SC403 6.9
R201 4.8
PHB3253 4.6
PHB30G19 3.7
PAN53 2.5
SC627 2.5
SC401 2.1
4. 2 Sources of maize varieties
The main sources of improved maize seed for the whole sample were agro-dealers
who supply seed to about 33.4% of the households. This was followed by governent
programmes, which contributed about 26.7% of the crop, shops contributed 13.6%
and local markets supplying 11.6%. Very little seed came from NGOs (1.7%), private
traders (1.5%) and savings from last season (0.7%). The remainder of the seed came from
neighbours, relatives and seed companies. This information shows that the agro-dealers
are playing a signicant role in bringing maize seed to communities hence the need for
them to be strenghtened and capacitated for improved service delivery.
Looking at the districts, the picture is basically the same for Bikita and Zvishavane
although the rural shops were contributing signicantly as much as agro-dealers in
Zvishavane. In Chivi, its the same, however, with neighbours and NGOs contributing
signicantly.The situation in the four most dominating sources of seed was the same
for Umguza, Hwedza and Shamva however, governement was dominating the seed
provision. In Shamva savings from previous season were also important. This may
be because most government input programmes come very late such that households
tended to save that seed for the following season.
4.3 Distribution of maize seed use by district
Results from the analysis show that Umguza district used more maize seed than other
districts. This is in line with the mean area that was put under maize, which was slightly
above 1 hectare (Table 11). The seeding rate across all the districts is within the range of
about 25 kg per hectare. Table 11 below shows the mean quantities of maize seed used
across the districts.
14
Table11: Quantity of maize seed used per hectare across districts
District N Mean (kg) St. Dev
Bikita 100 18.89 10.421
Zvishavane 100 17.14 9.650
Chivi 100 15.81 11.651
Umguza 100 31.18 20.880
Hwedza 100 23.57 11.961
Shamva 100 23.34 16.118
Total 600 21.65 14.866
4.4 Maize seed recycling and adoption intensity
The issue of maize seed recycling was not a major problem. This may be because majority
of households are growing hybrids and they are aware of poor yields from recycling
seed. An analysis of the number of years maize seed was recycled showed that Umguza
had the highest number of years (4 years), although only ve households indicated that
they had recycled seed. This is in line with the eld experience that revealed a popular
local variety (bhabhadla). Chivi district had the highest number of farmers (seven) that
were recycling maize seed . However, the mean number of years the seed was recycled
was only 2 years. In Zvishavane only one household had recycled seed for 3 years. Bikita,
Hwedza and Shamva districts had about four households that indicated recycling maize
seed for about 2 years, 3 years, and 3 years, respectively. The most common recycled
maize seed varieties were the local types such as bhabhahla in Umguza and hickory king.
However, some hybrids such as PAN413, R201, R215 and SC513 were being recycled
though at a small scale.
4.5 Maize traits and farmer preferences for varieties being grown
Drought-tolerance, grain yield and early maturity are the leading positive traits farmers
highlighted for the maize varieties they had grown. The other traits that were highlighted
by a number of households included grain size and cob size. These results show that
farmers indeed prefer varieties that are drought-tolerant, have high grain yield, bigger
grain size and that mature early. Table 12 below gives a summary of the positive traits of
maize varieties they that households had grown.
Table 12: Positive traits for maize varieties being grown
Positive traits Varieties pointed out to be exhibiting the trait
Grain yield SC513, SC627, SC635, PAN413, PAN53, PHB30G19, PHB3253
Grain size SC513, SC627, R201, R215, hickory king
Drought tolerance SC513, SC401, SC403, PAN413, PHB3253, hickory king, red cork
Cob size SC513, PAN413, red cork
Early maturity SC513, SC401, SC403, PAN413, PHB3253, R201
15
Table 13 below highlights some of the negative traits that were exhibited by the varieties
households had grown. A closer look at the results shows that the popular SC513
exhibited all the negative traits that were at the top of the list. This may be as a result of
the different climatic condition that make the traits positive in one area become negative
in the other area. In some areas it was pointed out to be drought-tolerance and very big
grain size whilst in other areas it was not drought -tolerance and the grain size was small.
Table 13: Negative traits for maize varieties being grown
Trait Varieties that exhibited the negative traits
Poor drought tolerance SC513, SC501, SC403, PAN413, PHB30G19,
Poor field pest resistance PAN413, R201, SC401, SC403, SC513, SC635, CG4141, PAN53,
PHB30B50, PHB3253, SC411
Poor drought tolerance SC513, SC501, SC403, PAN413, PHB30G19
Grain size PAN413, SC403, PAN6777, SC513
High fertilizer requirements PAN413, PHB30G19, SC513
4.6 Maize traits and farmer preferences when selecting varieties
Grain yield was ranked the most important trait overally that the farmers consider when
selecting a variety followed by drought-tolerance and early maturity (Table 14). However
in Chivi the majority of households (37%) pointed out they they consider the earliness
to maturity and drought-tolerance (34%) of the variety. Umguza had only three most
common traits among households,which were drought-tolerance (32.3%), grain yield
(24.2%) and early maturity (21.2%). This was the same picture with the whole sample as
these three traits dominated.
Table 14: Most important trait when choosing a variety
Bikita
%
Zvishavane
%
Chivi
%
Umguza
%
Hwedza
%
Shamva
%
Total
%
Grain yield 28 26 15 24.2 43 49 30.9
drought tolerance 20 22 34 32.3 20 19 24.5
early maturity 21 33 37 21.2 17 14 23.9
grain size 8 3 1 4 9 2 4.5
cob size 3 4 3 1 5 7 3.8
performance under
low fertility 4 3 1 1 3 0 2
Other 16 9 9 16 3 9 10.5
Others include eld pest-resistance, storage pest-resistance, sadza quality, fertilizer
requirements, disease-resistance, grain price, cobs per plant, perfomance under low soil
moisture, green maize quality and husk quality. These were traits that had a frequency
of less than 2%. The second most important traits indicated by farmers were not very
different from the rst most important traits. Drought-tolerance, early maturity and grain
16
yeild were the three most common for the entire sample as the second most important
traits when choosing maize varieties. Table 15 below shows the second most important
traits farmers consider when selecting maize varieties.
Table 15: Second most important trait when choosing a maize variety
Bikita
%
Zvishavane
%
Chivi
%
Umguza
%
Hwedza
%
Shamva
%
Total
%
drought tolerance 26.8 34.4 30.3 30.8 20.2 14.9 26.3
early maturity 12.4 21.9 20.2 28.6 13.8 14.9 18.6
grain yield 18.6 12.5 13.1 12.1 16.0 19.1 15.2
field pest resistance 6.2 4.2 5.1 4.4 16.0 12.8 8.1
cob size 4.1 5.2 7.1 3.3 11.7 6.4 6.3
grain size 6.2 6.3 4.0 2.2 7.4 9.6 6.0
performance under
low soil moisture 1.0 1.0 2.0 7.7 2.1 2.1 2.6
performance under
low fertility 3.1 3.1 3.0 1.1 3.2 2.1 2.6
disease resistance 4.1 2.1 1.0 1.1 2.1 3.2 2.3
storage pest
resistance 3.1 3.1 3.0 2.2 1.1 1.1 2.3
fertilizer requirements 5.2 1.0 3.0 1.1 0 2.1 2.1
sadza quality 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.2 3.2 2.1 2.1
Other 8.1 4.1 5.0 3.3 3.2 9.6 5.8
The other trait in this case include marketability, cobs per plant, green maize quality,
lodging resiatnce, grain price, husk cover, unoform maturity, stover yield, green maize
taste, other and don’t know. All these had mean frequency of less than 2%.
On the analysis of the third most important trait when chosing maize varieties, grain
yeild, drought tolerance and early maturity topped the list. These three tables show
that most households consider grain yield, drought tolerance and earliness to maturity
when choosing a maize variety for planting. However issues such as perfomance under
low fertility and low soil moisture were also coming out yet mentioned by very few
households. Table 16 below shows the third important trait that households considered
when selecting maize varieties.
17
Table 16: Third important trait when choosing a maize variety
Bikita
%
Zvishavane
%
Chivi
%
Umguza
%
Hwedza
%
Shamva
%
Total
%
grain yield 9.1 22.1 29.8 36.4 15.8 11.3 20.3
early maturity 12.5 16.9 13.1 21.2 10.5 8.5 13.6
drought tolerance 11.4 16.9 8.3 10.6 15.8 9.9 12.1
storage pest resistance 8.0 9.1 6 1.5 15.8 16.9 9.5
cob size 11.4 9.1 13.1 4.5 3.9 12.7 9.3
field pest resistance 3.4 6.5 4.8 4.5 7.9 16.9 7.1
grain size 8.0 2.6 6 3 6.6 4.2 5.2
performance under low
fertility 6.8 3.9 3.6 1.5 2.6 4.2 3.9
fertilizer requirements 5.7 2.6 2.4 3 2.6 4.2 3.5
performance under low
soil moisture 2.3 7.8 1.2 0 1.3 4.2 2.8
sadza quality 3.4 1.3 2.4 6.1 2.6 0 2.6
disease resistance 4.5 1.3 1.2 0 3.9 2.8 2.4
Other 13.4 0 8.4 7.5 10.4 4.2 7.4
The other traits mentioned included cobs per plant, husk cover, green maize quality,
grain price, marketability, sadza taste, stover for livestock, grain colour, uniformity in
maturity, lodging resistance, stover yield, green maize taste, our to grain ratio and
don’t know.
18
Chapter 5.0: Regression and results
5.1 Maize self-insufficiency
Maize self-sufciency is an important livelihood objective of the farming communities
in rural Zimbabwe. We estimated a two parts model to identify factors that inuence the
likelihood of a household running out of maize before the next harvest and the number
of months the household runs out of maize from own production. The results of the
models show that the number of times the household was affected by drought over the
last ten years and lack of access of rural credit, increase the likelihood of maize shortage
whereas cattle wealth, poultry wealth, irrigation use, and access to agricultural extension
on improved maize seed were found to reduce the likelihood of maize self-insufciency
(Table 17).
At the second stage of the model regression of intensity of maize self-insufciency
on the selected covariates, age of household head was found to have a quadratic
relationship with the number of months the household runs out of maize grain from own
production. This shows that younger household heads have less intensity of maize food
self-insufciency, but when household heads are aged 70 years and above the intensity
of the insufciency increases.
The proportion of land allocated to maize was also negatively related to the intensity
of maize self-insufciency. As the proportion of land allocated to maize increases the
number of months of maize self-insufciency decline. On the contrary, the number of
years of drought that households have reported to have affected them over the last 10
years was positively related to the intensity of maize self-insufciency of the households.
The higher the number of drought years that affected the household, the higher the
intensity of maize self-insufciency (Table 17).
19
Table 17: Maize self-insufficiency – two parts model results
Dep. Var: Stage 1 = Self insufficient (1=yes) Probit & Linear re-
gression TP model
Logit & Linear regression
TP model
Stage 2: # of months of maize self-insuffi-
ciency
First stage
(probit)
Second
stage
First stage
(logit) Second stage
Gender of hh head (1=female) -0.073 -0.033 -0.090 -0.033
-0.480 -0.090 -0.350 -0.090
Age of hh head (years) 0.000 -0.143 -0.004 -0.143
-0.010 -2.360 -0.090 -2.360
Age of hh head (years) squared 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001
0.130 2.250 0.230 2.250
Literacy of hh head (schooling years) 0.001 -0.072 0.003 -0.072
0.060 -1.440 0.100 -1.440
Proportion of total land allocated to maize -0.003 -0.011 -0.004 -0.011
-1.050 -1.830 -1.000 -1.830
Number of times hh affected by drought
over last 10 years
0.259 0.244 0.447 0.244
8.370 4.160 7.990 4.160
Likely to get credit when needed (1=yes) -0.075 -0.386 -0.128 -0.386
-0.660 -0.970 -0.680 -0.970
Unlikely to get credit when needed (1=yes) 0.175 0.406 0.279 0.406
1.990 1.500 1.880 1.500
Number of cattle owned by the hh -0.034 -0.015 -0.063 -0.015
-2.170 -0.530 -1.840 -0.530
Household (hh) size 0.028 -0.060 0.049 -0.060
1.230 -1.100 1.190 -1.100
Number of goats and sheep owned by the
hh
-0.006 0.062 -0.012 0.062
-0.270 1.140 -0.320 1.140
Number of poultry owned by the hh -0.017 -0.015 -0.031 -0.015
-2.020 -0.740 -1.960 -0.740
Used irrigation for maize 2012/13 (1=yes) -0.801 -0.499 -1.267 -0.499
-2.520 -0.370 -2.410 -0.370
HH member received advice on new varie-
ties of maize seed
-0.231 -0.072 -0.362 -0.072
-1.900 -0.220 -1.730 -0.220
Constant -0.156 12.588 -0.237 12.588
-0.230 7.480 -0.200 7.480
N 598 598
Ll -1300.44 -1300.64
Aic 2660.87 2661.27
Bic 2792.68 2793.08
20
5.2 Drought tolerant maize varieties- awareness and adoption
More than 50% of the sampled households were aware of the existance of DT maize
varieties. All districts had 50% or more households who knew of the existence of these
varieties. Figure 7 below is a diagramatic presentation of districts showing the proportions
of households who were aware of drought tolerant maize varieties.
Figure 7: Proportion of households who were aware of DT maize varieties
Different attributes were reported by farmers in describing the DT maize varieties, There
was a high proportion of farmers who thought DT maize varieties were maize varieties
that were able to tolerate dry spells (39%) and those who said the varieties were both
able to tolerate dry spells and early maturing (40%). However, only 20% thought that
they were varieties with short maturity period. The pattern is similar across all districts.
This information reveals that households tend to think that short season varieties are
drought-tolerant. Figure 8 below is a digramatic presentation of what households
describe DT maize varieties.
21
5.3 Level and determinants of likelihood of DT maize adoption
Results from this study and previous studies show (Chikobvu et al., 2010; Kassie et al.,
2012) that adoption rates of improved maize varieties are very high in Zimbabwe. Since
the 1980s, the majority of households in Zimbabwe have been using hybrids. OPVs
were introduced by NGOs in the last decade. Although there is a growing literature on
adoption of improved maize varieties in Zimbabwe, limited information is available on
DT maize adoption. Based on farmers’ classication of DT and non-DT, this study has
analyzed the determinants of adoption of DT maize as perceived by farmers.
The likelihood of adopting DT maize varieties given the measurements on different
covariates expected to inuence the decision to adopt/grow improved DT maize was
modelled using four econometric models. Ordinary least square (OLS), logit and probit
models along with the recently development complementary log-log regression model
were estimated (Cameron and Trivedi, 2009). All estimations consistently showed that
female headed households and households headed by people aged 30 years or above
(using complementary log-log results) are less likely to adopt DT maize varieties. On
the other hand, households headed by youngsters (<30 years), households with higher
number of members engaged in agriculture, and those who accessed information on new
maize seed were found to be highly likely to adopt DT maize varieties (Table 18).
The signs of the statistically significant variables are as expected and yet the importance
of information on new maize seed found to be positive and highly significant (p <
0.001) in influencing adoption. This above all justifies the effort put in by Agritex and
other institutions in availing information on improved maize varieties. Given the high
level of literacy in rural Zimbabwe, the potential role of timely and appropriate
information in enhancing the diffusion of improved maize varieties cannot be
overemphasized.
22
Table 18: Factors influencing the likelihood of adopting DT maize varieties
Dep. Var. = Grows DT maize Logit Probit Complementary
log-log OLS
Gender of hh head (1=female) -0.564 -0.334 -0.381 -0.083
-2.240 -2.310 -2.300 -2.050
Age of hh head (years) 0.080 0.047 0.060 0.012
1.780 1.840 2.100 1.730
Age of hh head (years) squared -0.001 0.000 -0.001 0.000
-1.750 -1.810 -2.050 -1.700
Literacy of hh head (schooling years) 0.008 0.004 -0.001 0.002
0.230 0.210 -0.050 0.290
Number of hh members engaged in agriculture 0.114 0.066 0.069 0.020
1.960 1.980 1.860 2.020
Total farm size owned (acre) 0.027 0.016 0.010 0.005
0.710 0.710 0.460 0.720
Walking distance to maize seed source
(minutes)
-0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000
-0.340 -0.360 0.030 -0.240
HH member received advice on new maize
seed
2.699 1.623 1.980 0.561
12.450 13.260 12.130 15.970
Number of times hh affected by drought over
last 10 years
0.056 0.031 0.016 0.009
1.270 1.260 0.580 1.250
Likely to get credit when needed (1=yes) -0.088 -0.048 -0.022 -0.015
-0.470 -0.430 -0.190 -0.460
Unlikely to get credit when needed (1=yes) -0.163 -0.104 -0.151 -0.026
-1.080 -1.200 -1.660 -1.040
Constant -4.229 -2.453 -3.409 -0.235
-3.290 -3.450 -4.300 -1.170
N 597 597 597 597
Ll -292.27 -292.11 -292.73 -296.09
Aic 608.55 608.23 609.46 616.18
Bic 661.25 660.93 662.16 668.88
23
5.4 Sources of information on DT varieties
The main source of information on DT maize varieties was the government agricultural
extension system. This pattern is the same for all studied districts. Umguza showed a
higher interaction with the electronic media. The electronic media included internet on
the phones and the radio. The area is not readily accessible and communities are sparsely
located. Farmer eld d ays p layed a n i mportant r ole i n d isseminating i nformation on
DT maize varieties in Chivi. Farmer eld days w ere organised b y extension a s a way
of trying to disseminate information. The method of lead farmers was pointed out in
Zvishavane and Umguza. This is an extension method that has been promoted especially
by NGOs who do not have wider geographical coverage. They try to tap on the expertise
of the farmers whom they have trained and are competent to lead other farmers. Table 19
below shows the different sources of information on the drought tolerant maize varieties.
Table 19: Sources of information on DT varieties
Source of information Bikita
%
Zvishavane
%
Chivi
%
Umguza
%
Hwedza
%
Shamva
%Total %
Government agricultural
extension 58.2 58.1 50 58.8 57.4 57.1 56.6
agricultural extension
course 19.4 14.5 8.9 7.8 3.7 12.5 11.6
farmer field days 7.5 11.3 16.1 2 11.1 8.9 9.5
other farmers 6 3.2 12.5 3.9 13 14.3 8.7
electronic media 3 1.6 3.6 17.6 7.4 5.4 6.1
private agricultural
extension 1.5 3.2 5.4 3.9 0 1.8 2.6
lead farmer 0 4.8 0 5.9 1.9 0 2
NGO 3 1.6 1.8 0 1.9 0 1.4
agricultural cooperatives/
farmers’ group 0 1.6 1.8 0 0 0 0.6
paper media 1.5 0 0 0 1.9 0 0.6
Other 0 0 0 0 1.9 0 0.3
Households were then asked whether they had grown DT maize varieties or not. More
than 70% across all districts had either grown a DT maize variety (Figure 9) or have
heard about it.An interesting point in this regard is the fact that some of the varieties
farmers consider DT are not considered so by maize breeders and vice versa. Although
the breeders and farmers can have different levels of perceptions about the attributes of
the varieties, the decisions farmers make are based on what they think and hence matters
most.
Majority of farmers (20.2%) started growing DT maize, in 2010. However, some
households in Shamva mentioned as far back as the 1970s but for all the districts, 2010
was the most common year households started growing DT maize. Figure 9 below shows
the proportion of farmers who said they had experience growing DT maize varieties.
24
Figure 9: Experience growing DT varieties
On the query to identify DT maize they had grown, farmers reported a number of
varieties. Drought tolerant maize varieties2 that have been released in Zimbabwe by
private and research organizations such as CIMMYT, DRSS and SIRDC and distributed
across the country were not among the most frequently mentioned varieties by farmers.
Short to medium season maize varieties featured most in the responses. However, most
farmers claimed to have grown the drought tolerant maize varieties but did not know
their names across all districts. Table 20 below is a summary of the drought tolerant
maize varieties farmers grew in the 2011/12 season.
Table 20: DT varieties grown in the 2011/12 season (% hh)
Bikita Zvishavane Chivi Umguza Hwedza Shamva Total
Other 6 29 19.3 20 22.8 29.3 20.8
don’t know 22.4 4.8 17.5 22 10.5 15.5 15.4
PAN413 19.4 21 10.5 12 19.3 6.9 15.1
SC513 17.9 12.9 15.8 4 19.3 8.6 13.4
SC403 6 11.3 26.3 18 7 3.4 11.7
R201 9 8.1 5.3 6 7 8.6 7.4
SC401 6 4.8 0 0 3.5 8.6 4
PHB3253 0 1.6 0 10 1.8 1.7 2.3
Other1* 10.5
2 The list of DT maize varieties that have been released in Zimbabwe since 2008 include
ZM309, ZM401, ZS263, ZS265, ZAP51, ZAP61, AGS41, ZM527 , PGS53, PGS61, SC641 , Pris601,
PAN53, PAN3M-41 & SIRDAMAIZE 113.
25
The other 1* included variety such as AC31 and SC411 with a frequency of 0.9% each,
then PAN53, PAN6777, PGS61,PHB30G19, R200, SC521, SC627 and Hickory King each
with a frequency of 0.6%. Finally those with a frequency of 0.3% which are CG4141,
PAN6243, PGS53, PHB30B50, PHB30D79, R215, R502, SC501, SC506, SC637, ZM401,
ZM421 and ZM521.
5.4 Reasons for not growing DT varieties
The main reason that was highlighted by households for not growing DT maize varieties
was that the farmers had no resources to access the expensive seed. This may be as a result
of the introduction of the multi-currency system in Zimbabwe that has made it
difficult for households especially the communal households to access financial
resources. Three main reasons were given in Chivi: unavailable resources to purchase
the seed, farmers trying other crops and farmers have a fear of trying new
varieties. Table 21 below summaries the reasons highlighted by farmers for
abandoning DT varieties.
Table 21: Reasons for not growing DT maize varieties (% of hh)
Bikita Zvishavane Chivi Umguza Hwedza Shamva Total
cannot afford fertilizers 0 0 0 2 0 2 0.7
donations are no longer
coming 2 1 0 4 2 2 1.8
no resources to afford
expensive seed 92 94 95 84 85 75 87.5
poor traits 3 2 0 1 9 12 4.5
trying other crops and
varieties 1 2 3 3 2 5 2.7
fear of trying 2 0 2 1 1 0 0.7
area still receive enough
rains 0 0 0 0 0 3 1.5
no draft power 0 1 0 1 1 0 0.5
they are late maturing 0 0 0 4 0 1 0.2
Two main reasons were given for not growing DT maize varieties. Majority of the
households pointed out that the seed was not readily available on the market. However,
only 0.2% of the households pointed out that the seed was not suitable in their areas. This
was only pointed out in Zvishavane.
Across all districts almost all household were willing to try the DT maize varieties. Bikita
had the highest frequency (5%) of households who were not willing to try the DT maize
varieties. Figure 10 below shows the proportions across districts of households who are
willing to try the DT maize varieties.
26
Figure 10: Willingness to try DT maize varieties
5.5 Reasons for interest
The main reason that was pointed out by household for the interest in DT maize varieties
was that they had good characteristics (38.3%). Ability to tolerate dry spells featured the
most. This could be because the frequency and duration of mid-season dry spells has
been increasing and this has affected farmers greatly. Better yield was highlighted by
about 12.8% of the households. Table 22 below gives a summary of reasons why farmers
were willing to try the DT maize varieties.
Table 22: Reasons for the willingness to try DT maize varieties (% hh)
Bikita Zvishavane Chivi Umguza Hwedza Shamva Total
able to tolerate drought dry
spells 40 28 27 26 23 26 30.3
adaptable to area 2 2 3 8 2 4 3.5
for better yields 10 14 14 22 10 7 12.8
to reduce hunger 2 4 3 1 1 2 2.2
area hit by drought 6 11 9 5 6 2 6.5
want to change and try new
things 5 5 6 6 13 14 8.2
they have good
characteristics 35 36 37 32 45 45 38.3
27
5.6 Reasons for lack of interest
For those households that were not willing to try the DT maize varieties, the main reason
cited was that they are -expensive. Households pointed out that they could not afford
the high cost of the seed and hence continue growing what they are used to. Very few
households pointed out fear of losing on yield-because trying new varieties is a risk,
varieties available were unsuitable in their areas and farmers had an alternative to
grow other crops e.g. small grains that are DT. Table 23 below summarizes the reasons
pointed by households for the lack of interest in growing DT maize varieties.
Table 23: Reasons for lack of interest in DT varieties
Bikita
%
Zvishavane
%
Chivi
%
Umguza
%
Hwedza
%
Shamva
%Total %
resource constraints* 99 98 99 100 99 97 98.7
doing other crops and
varieties* 0 2 1 0 0 0 0.5
fear of losing* 1 0 0 0 1 1 0.5
not suitable in the area* 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.3
5.7 Willingness to pay
Households were asked how much they were willing to pay for a 10kg of DT hybrid
and DT OPV maize seed. The willingness to pay for the hybrids was lower than that of
the OPV across all districts. This could be attributed to the fact that for OPVs one can
buy seed and recycle it for the coming 2 – 3 seasons. All these prices farmers are willing
to pay are far below the prevailing prices of improved maize seed in the country. This
is supported by the previous comment households highlighted concerning high cost of
improved maize seeds. Below is Table 24 summarizing the farmer’s willingness to pay
for the hybrid and OPV drought tolerant maize varieties.
Table 24: Mean price of hybrid and OPV farmers are willing to pay (US$/10kg bag)
District Type Mean (US$) st dev Min (US$) Max (US$)
Bikita Hybrid 11.53 4.75 3.00 30.00
OPV 12.20 5.10 5.00 35.00
Zvishavane Hybrid 11.13 4.46 3.00 23.00
OPV 12.37 5.28 5.00 25.00
Chivi Hybrid 10.90 4.21 4.00 25.00
OPV 11.45 4.48 3.50 22.00
Umguza Hybrid 9.51 4.65 2.00 21.00
OPV 9.90 5.45 1.00 30.00
Hwedza Hybrid 11.21 6.47 2.00 35.00
OPV 11.93 7.01 3.00 45.00
Shamva Hybrid 11.36 5.43 2.00 25.00
OPV 12.81 6.29 3.00 30.00
Total Hybrid 10.94 5.07 2.00 35.00
OPV 11.78 5.71 1.00 45.00
28
Chapter 6.0: Conclusions and recommendations
Results from the study show that maize productivity is low across all districts and there is
limited irrigation in communal area. There is also limited fertilizer use across all districts
except for Chivi and Umguza given the types of the soils that exist in these areas. In
terms of food self-sufciency, results show that households are not self sufcient and a
high proportion of the households did not produce maize to last them one month in the
2011/12 season. Sales are very low across all districts and seed sources are very far. The
main mode of transport for households to the seed source was mainly on foot. Results
also indicate that extension is highly involved in disseminating information on new
maize varieties.
Many households indicated that they had expecience in growing DT maize varieties
although many of them could not remember their names. However an analysis to assess
the DT varieties they had grown revealed that many households classied short season
varieties as DT maize varieties. This is because many of the short season varieties exibit
the same characteristics as the DT varieties. Majority of households that grew DT varieties
started growing them in 2010. For those that had abandoned the DT maize varieties
cost of seed was pointed out as the main reason why the farmers chose to stop. Many
were willing to try the varieties because of their characteristics that suited their areas.
Unavailability of seed on the market was pointed out as another reason for not growing
the varieties. Lack of interest in the varieties and resource constraints were pointed out
as the main reasons behind farmer’s low use of DT varieties.
Results from the survey show that people are interested in using the DT maize varieties
but there seems to be a gap in knowledge on the DT varieties available on the market.
There is need for increased information dissemination on the DT maize varieties that
have been released to date. There is also need for increased collaboration between
breeders, seed houses and extension in the dissemination of the information on drought
tolerant varieties. In addition, there is need for capacitating local agro-dealears to bring
seed closer to comunities.
29
References
Cameron, A. C., and P. K. Trivedi. (2009). Microeconometrics with STATA. Stata Press,
Texas, United States of America.
Chikobvu, S., B. Chiputwa, A. Langyintuo, R. La Rovere and W. Mwangi. (2010).
Characterization of maize producing households in Masvingo and Bikita districts in
Zimbabwe. Country Report – Zimbabwe. Nairobi: CIMMYT.
Ericksen. S, O’Brien. K and Rosentrater. L. (2008). Climate Change and Southern Africa.
Impacts, vulnerability and adaptation. Global Environment Change and Human
Security (GECHS). Oslo.
Grant W., Wolfaardt A. and Louw A. (2012). Maize Value Chain in the SADC Region
submitted by AECOM International Development to USAID Southern Africa,
Gaborone, Botswana
Government of Zimbabwe (GoZ), (2013). Zimbabwe Agenda for Sustainable Socio-
Economic Transformation (Zim Asset): “Towards an Empowered Society and a
Growing Economy.” October 2013- December 2018. Available at: http://www.
kubatana.net/docs/econ/goz_zimasset_1310.pdf.
Government of Zimbabwe/United Nations Team (GoZ/UN), 2010. Country Analysis
Report for Zimbabwe. Government of Zimbabwe/United Nations Country
Team. Harare, Zimbabwe. Available at: http://www.undg.org/docs/12123/
Zimbabwe-Country-Analysis-2010-Report_05-09-11.pdf
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change) .(2001). Climate change. Impacts,
adaptations and vulnerability. Technical summary of the working group two
report. Nairobi, Kenya.
Kassie, G. T., Erenstein, O., Mwangi, W., LaRovere, R., Setimela, P. & Langyintuo, A.
(2012). Characterization of Maize Production in Southern Africa: Synthesis of
CIMMYT/DTMA Household Level Farming System Surveys in Angola, Malawi,
Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Socioeconomics Program Working Paper
El Batan, Mexico: CIMMYT.
Smale M. and T. S. Jayne .(2011). Chapter 4 Breeding an “Amazing” crop, Improved maize
in Kenya, Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe, in Millions Fed: Proven Successes in
Agricultural Development, CIMMYT,
UNDP-ALM .(2012). Coping with drought and climate change in Zimbabwe:
Zimbabwe Case Study. Available at: http://www.undp- alm.org/sites/
default/les/downloads/alm_zimbabwe_case_study_v12_dec_2012_nal.pdf
... in Africa, Asia, and the USA (Chikobvu et al., 2014;Beyene and Kassie, 2015). A DT maize variety is defined as a variety that can produce ∼30% of its potential yield (1-3 t ha −1 ) after suffering water stress (Magorokosho et al., 2009). ...
Chapter
Producing crops sustainably is of enormous benefit. Sustainable crop production seeks to produce healthy food while taking care of the environment by working harmoniously with nature to minimise unsustainable demands on natural resources and the use of harmful chemical inputs. Over the years, crop production has gradually intensified, and our current food production model has been detrimental to the environment. Industrial agriculture has been implicated on a number of negative environmental impacts including anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, biodiversity loss, water pollution, just to mention a few. Sustainable crop production refers to practices that minimise harmful impacts to the environment and maximise the quality of our food. It not only deals with soil health, integrated pest management and reduction in usage of pesticides but also ensures quality and safe food. Sustainable crop production practices include a focus on soil health, irrigation and water use, seed selection, minimal chemical use, and diversifying landscapes; and if practised correctly, it has the potential to lower greenhouse gas emission and carbon footprint and contribute to improved human and environmental health. We assess the potentials and limitations of various factors that influence sustainability in crop production, the feasibility of making such factors/approaches viable, and the organisational, governance, and policy frameworks required to enable sustainability in crop production at a globally significant scale.
Article
Full-text available
Drought is a huge limiting factor in maize production, mainly in the rain-fed agriculture of sub-Saharan Africa. In response to this threat, drought-tolerant (DT) maize varieties have been developed with an aim to ensure maize production under mild drought conditions. We conducted a study to assess the impact of smallholder farmers' adoption of DT maize varieties on total maize production. Data for the study came from a survey of 200 randomly sampled households in two districts of Chiredzi and Chipinge in southeastern Zimbabwe. The study found that 93% of the households were growing improved maize varieties and that 30% of the sampled households were growing DT maize varieties. Total maize yield was 436.5 kg/ha for a household that did not grow DT maize varieties and 680.5 kg/ha for households that grew DT maize varieties. We control for the endogeneity of the DT adoption variable, by using the control function approach to estimate total maize production in a Cobb–Douglas model. The results show that households that grew DT maize varieties had 617 kg/ha more maize than households that did not grow the DT maize varieties. Given that almost all farmers buy their seeds in the market, a change in varieties to DT maize seeds gives an extra income of US$240/ha or more than nine months of food at no additional cost. This has huge implications in curbing food insecurity and simultaneously saving huge amounts of resources at the household and national levels, which are used to buy extra food during the lean season.
Technical Report
Full-text available
This report presents the synthesis of household level surveys in five intervention countries (Angola, Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia, and Zimbabwe) of the Drought Tolerant Maize for Africa (DTMA) project designed and implemented by the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA) and national research and extension institutions in 13 countries of Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). In each of the study countries, two districts were randomly selected provided that the districts fall in predetermined categories (20-40%) of probability of failed season (PFS). A total sample of 1108 households was randomly drawn with sample sizes varying country to country. The report has different sections that focus, in order, on description of the sample households, extent and determinants of poverty and inequality among the sample population, characteristics of maize production, perception and management of drought risk, and determinants of likelihood and intensity of adoption of improved maize varieties.
Book
Glossary Definition of the Subject Introduction Historical Background Two Leading Examples Causal Modeling New Directions in Structural Modeling Major Insights Bibliography
Climate Change and Southern Africa. Impacts, vulnerability and adaptation. Global Environment Change and Human Security (GECHS)
  • . S Ericksen
  • O'brien
  • L Rosentrater
Ericksen. S, O'Brien. K and Rosentrater. L. (2008). Climate Change and Southern Africa. Impacts, vulnerability and adaptation. Global Environment Change and Human Security (GECHS). Oslo.
Chapter 4 Breeding an " Amazing " crop, Improved maize in Kenya, Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe Coping with drought and climate change in Zimbabwe: Zimbabwe Case Study
  • M Smale
  • T S Jayne
  • Undp-Alm Cimmyt
Smale M. and T. S. Jayne.(2011). Chapter 4 Breeding an " Amazing " crop, Improved maize in Kenya, Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe, in Millions Fed: Proven Successes in Agricultural Development, CIMMYT, UNDP-ALM.(2012). Coping with drought and climate change in Zimbabwe: Zimbabwe Case Study. Available at: http://www.undp-alm.org/sites/ default/files/downloads/alm_zimbabwe_case_study_v12_dec_2012_final.pdf
Characterization of maize producing households in Masvingo and Bikita districts in Zimbabwe
  • S Chikobvu
  • B Chiputwa
  • A Langyintuo
  • R La Rovere
  • W Mwangi
Chikobvu, S., B. Chiputwa, A. Langyintuo, R. La Rovere and W. Mwangi. (2010). Characterization of maize producing households in Masvingo and Bikita districts in Zimbabwe. Country Report -Zimbabwe. Nairobi: CIMMYT.
Maize Value Chain in the SADC Region submitted by AECOM International Development to USAID Southern Africa, Gaborone, Botswana Government of Zimbabwe (GoZ) Zimbabwe Agenda for Sustainable Socio- Economic Transformation (Zim Asset): " Towards an Empowered Society and a Growing Economy
  • W Grant
  • A Wolfaardt
  • A Louw
Grant W., Wolfaardt A. and Louw A. (2012). Maize Value Chain in the SADC Region submitted by AECOM International Development to USAID Southern Africa, Gaborone, Botswana Government of Zimbabwe (GoZ), (2013). Zimbabwe Agenda for Sustainable Socio- Economic Transformation (Zim Asset): " Towards an Empowered Society and a Growing Economy. " October 2013-December 2018. Available at: http://www. kubatana.net/docs/econ/goz_zimasset_1310.pdf.
Zimbabwe Agenda for Sustainable Socio-Economic Transformation (Zim Asset): "Towards an Empowered Society and a Growing Economy
  • W Grant
  • A Wolfaardt
  • A Louw
Grant W., Wolfaardt A. and Louw A. (2012). Maize Value Chain in the SADC Region submitted by AECOM International Development to USAID Southern Africa, Gaborone, Botswana Government of Zimbabwe (GoZ), (2013). Zimbabwe Agenda for Sustainable Socio-Economic Transformation (Zim Asset): "Towards an Empowered Society and a Growing Economy." October 2013-December 2018. Available at: http://www. kubatana.net/docs/econ/goz_zimasset_1310.pdf.
Characterization of Maize Production in Southern Africa: Synthesis of CIMMYT/DTMA Household Level Farming System Surveys in Angola
  • G T Kassie
  • O Erenstein
  • W Mwangi
  • R Larovere
  • P Setimela
  • A Langyintuo
Kassie, G. T., Erenstein, O., Mwangi, W., LaRovere, R., Setimela, P. & Langyintuo, A. (2012). Characterization of Maize Production in Southern Africa: Synthesis of CIMMYT/DTMA Household Level Farming System Surveys in Angola, Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Socioeconomics Program Working Paper El Batan, Mexico: CIMMYT.