Strathmore University

SU+ @ Strathmore
University Library

Electronic Theses and Dissertations

2019

Factors affecting maize production among

registered small scale farmers in Trans-Nzoia
County, Kenya

Crispus Njogu
Strathmore Business School (SBS)
Strathmore University

Follow this and additional works at [Link]

Recommended Citation
Njogu, C. (2019). Factors affecting maize production among registered small scale farmers in

Trans-Nzoia County, Kenya (Thesis, Strathmore University). Retrieved from [Link]

[Link]/handle/11071/6674

This Thesis - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by DSpace @Strathmore University. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DSpace @Strathmore University. For more
information, please contact librarian@[Link]
Factors Affecting Maize Production among Registered Small Scale Farmers in
Trans-Nzoia County, Kenya

Crispus Njogu

Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master in

Public Policy Management (MPPM) at Strathmore University

The Institute for Public Policy and Governance

Strathmore University

Nairobi, Kenya

May, 2019

This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright
material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper
acknowledgement
 DECLARATION

Declaration

I declare that this work has not been previously submitted and approved for the award
of a degree by this or any other University. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the
thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except
where due reference is made in the thesis itself.

© No part of this thesis may be reproduced without the permission of the author and
Strathmore University

Crispus Wangombe Njogu

……………………………

……………………………

Approval
The thesis of Crispus Wangombe Njogu was reviewed and approved by the following:

Name of Supervisor: Dr. Simon Wagura Ndiritu, PhD, MA, [Link]

School Name: Strathmore University Business School

Dean: Dr. George N. Njenga, PhD, MGCI, MBA, BSc, CPA (K)
School Name: Strathmore University Business School

ii
 ABSTRACT

The agricultural dynamics are changing. Today, food security is a top priority among
under-developed and developing countries, especially and particularly in Africa and
Sub-Sahara region. The fight against hunger is a topic that has been in line of discussion
since time immemorial. Early scholars like Malthus and Smith tried to explain the
relationship among food security, food production and the involved production factors,
in their ‘Malthusian Theory’ and ‘Theory of Production,’ but still no substantive
solution is feasible to date. Studies by various scholars and entities including FAO
shows that among the various agricultural products entrusted with the fight against
hunger, maize production has the largest share segment and contributes to 30% of
world’s food calories. In Kenya, maize production accounts to 65% of 18% formal
employment, and it is the stable food year round. Despite of such utility precedence,
maize production among these maize-dependent countries, Kenya included, remains to
be low and the respective economies dependent on maize importation. This clearly
undermines their inherent food security strategies, calling for holistic evaluations on the
maize production situation. Among the key areas upon which the evaluation is highly
and likely to be based on is the maize production factors. In Kenya, these factors are
critical to maize production and require attention. This study therefore sought to
undertake on this evaluation, narrowing the focus down to registered small-scale maize
farmer in Trans-Nzoia County. Guided by the general objective of establishing the
production and institutional factor that affect maize production, a survey was carried
out in the five sub-counties of Trans-Nzoia County. The study equally intended to
establish the effect that the factors have on the number of maize bags produced. Using
stratified sample size of 196 respondents, the study used self-administered questionnaire
to collect data. Data was collected from 195 respondents and analysed using descriptive
and inferential statistics and findings presented accordingly. From analysis, it was
established that land size, use of machinery in ploughing and use of chemicals had a
positive influence on maize production. Land size was the most significant of factors.
Extension services was also found to influence maize production but with a negative
coefficient. Seed application and fertilizer application were found to have no influence
on maize production. The study successfully obtained its objective. However, limitation
on the pool of factors was identified as other insightful factors were missing. The
ecological and climatic conditions were also found to limit the relevancy of the study
to other regions due to disparity on maize production potential. The study therefore
suggest for a further study that will seek to harmonise these limitations.

Key words: Maize Production, Registered Small Scale, Farmer, Optimum

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION......................................................................................................... ii

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................ iii

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................. vii

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................... viii

ABREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .................................................................... ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...........................................................................................x

DEDICATION............................................................................................................ xi

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................1

1.1 Background of the Study ......................................................................................1

1.1.1 Registered Small Scale Maize Farmers in Trans-Nzoia County ...................4

1.1.3 Overview of Trans-Nzoia County .................................................................5

1.2 Problem Statement ...............................................................................................6

1.3 Research Objectives .............................................................................................8

1.3.1 General Objective ..........................................................................................8

1.3.2 Specific Objectives ........................................................................................8

1.4 Research Questions ..............................................................................................8

1.5 Significance of the Study .....................................................................................8

1.6 Scope of the Study................................................................................................9

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW .........................................................10

2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................10

2.2 Theoretical Background .....................................................................................10

2.2.1 Malthusian Theory.......................................................................................10

2.2.2 Theory of Production ...................................................................................12

2.3 Empirical Review ...............................................................................................13

2.3.1 Production Factors .......................................................................................13

iv
 2.3.2 Institutional Factors .....................................................................................16

2.4 Knowledge Gap ..................................................................................................17

2.5 Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................18

2.6 Chapter Summary...............................................................................................19

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ........................................20

3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................20

3.2 Research Design .................................................................................................20

3.3 Population Size and Sampling Technique ..........................................................20

3.4 Data Collection Method .....................................................................................21

3.5 Data Analysis .....................................................................................................22

3.6 Research Quality ................................................................................................22

3.7 Ethical Considerations........................................................................................23

CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS .................24

4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................24

4.2 Response Rate ....................................................................................................24

4.3 Respondents Profile............................................................................................25

4.4 Production and Institutional Factors ..................................................................28

4.5 Descriptive Statistics ..........................................................................................31

4.6 Inferential Analysis ............................................................................................33

4.7 Enhancing Production and Institutional Factors ................................................36

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMENDATIONS ..............................................................................................37

5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................37

5.2 Discussion ..........................................................................................................37

5.3 Conclusion..........................................................................................................41

5.4 Recommendations of the Study .........................................................................41

5.5 Limitations of Study ...........................................................................................42

v
 5.6 Suggestion for Further Study .............................................................................42

REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................43

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................51

Appendix I: Questionnaire .......................................................................................51

Appendix II: Trans-Nzoia Sub-Counties..................................................................55

Appendix III: SPSS Output ......................................................................................58

vi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Conceptual Framework ............................................................................ 19

Figure 4.1: Total Response Rate ................................................................................. 24

Figure 4.2: Sub-County Response Rate ...................................................................... 25

Figure 4.3: Distribution of Farm Size ......................................................................... 26

Figure 4.4: Average Income per Sub-County ............................................................. 28

Figure 4.5: Occurrence of Factors of Production ....................................................... 29

vii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1: Type of Technology Used in Maize Farming ............................................ 30

Table 4.2: Descriptive Statistics.................................................................................. 32

Table 4.3: Model Summary ........................................................................................ 34

Table 4.4: ANOVA ...................................................................................................... 34

Table 4.5: Regression Coefficient ............................................................................... 35

viii
 ABREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

U&D - Under-Developed and Developing Countries

FAO - Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations

ADSA - Agricultural Department of South Africa

OECD - Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

IMWC - International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre

SSA - Sub-Sahara Africa

HHSC - Hystra Hybrid Strategies

NCPB - National Cereals and Produce Board

CGIAR - Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research

MT - Malthusian Theory

KEPHIS - Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service

ix
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

My foremost gratitude to Almighty God for guiding and enabling this academic step.

My supervisor Dr. Simon Wagura Ndiritu for his unconditional guidance and
invaluable advice that contribute a great deal in the preparation of this paper.

Special thanks to all maize farmers in Trans-Nzoia County.

Sincere thanks to all my friends.

x
 DEDICATION

I dedicate to my parents who have supported me through the entire journey of

pursuing this level of education.

To my wife for providing all-round support.

God Bless You All

xi
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

The drive towards food security in the 21st century has seen the global rise of
commissions of inquiry in various agricultural sub-sectors. In under-developed and
developing (U&D) countries, this tendency is highly experienced to the extent that food
security forms part of most governments’ top agenda (FAO, 2014). Although from a
global perspective indicating that food security is meant to outline the sustainability
position of all consumables and in respect to health productions (Blanca, 2017), in
developing countries it is highly stretched towards sufficiency and distribution. These
U&D countries face numerous challenges spanning along the whole food value chain;
from production to marketing and consuming dynamics. On top of the U&D countries
food chart, we have the maize crop which according to the Agricultural Department of
South Africa (ADSA) (2003) serves as cash crop and staple diet and consumed directly
by many as first meal option. ADSA further argue that to these consumers, challenges
to maize production pronounce adverse effects not only on their nutritional and social
wellbeing but also on their economic soundness as well. In furtherance towards food
security, it is therefore prudent to ascertain the possible factors that affect maize
production.

The World Food Programme (2007) indicates that the first step to analysing maize
production as a food security determinant is to understand the inherent relationship with
the involved factors. To provide this understanding, Jhingan (2007) advocates for a
production function approach in which the involved factors are combined and compared
to the final result. This result is modelled as output or production as depicted in this
study. In an integrated farming system the output includes the total physical product
(Gaspard, 2017), whereby foliage is fed to the livestock as food. In maize farming, the
system allows complete utilization of the entire maize plant; the foliage which includes
the maize trunk is used as animal feed and or as green manure as the maize grains are
taken as the primary product direct for human consumption. This study however focuses
only on maize grain production.

1
Maize is the most important crop (Abate, Mugo, De Groote & Regassa, 2015) and the
main staple food crop (Ojala, Nyangweso, Mudaki, Evusa, Kiano, Kisinyo & Chachar,
2014) in Kenya. A study carried out by FAO between 2011 and 2013 shows that out of
the 5.3 million hectares of crops in Kenya, a 2.1 million coverage area that represented
40 percent was occupied by maize. In spite of this dominance, trends indicate a
declining production capacity. For example, Abate et al. (2015) asserts that Kenya’s
average yield reduces by a significant 1 kilogram per hectare per year (kg/ha/yr). The
rate is extremely high compared to South Africa’s growth of 146 kg/ha/yr, Ethiopia’s
120 kg/ha/yr and the continent’s average of positive 31 kg/ha/yr. Accordingly, resulting
adverse effects have further categorized Kenya among maize importers whose net
imports keep increasing from time to time since 1960s, to notable figure of 1.5 million
tons in 2009. The poor performance perennial trend is also justified by the formation of
a commission of inquiry into the maize shortage and misappropriation back in 1965 by
the then first president of the Republic of Kenya.

Maize production involves the process of regenerating maize grains (OECD-FAO,

2014) through the interaction of various factors and natural plant reproduction science
(Gaspard, 2017). Maize grain is cereal produce crop that is grown in warm weather with
temperatures of not less than 19 degrees Celsius (0C) and that average at not less than
230C. The higher side is supposed to be 32 0C. According to ADSA (2003), the maize
plant requires frost-free temperatures for a period of 120 days to 140 days so as to
prevent damage. In terms of water consumption, per hectare yield of 3152kg requires
350 to 450 mm per annum. These conditions are based on averages as variation from
place to place and from times is a major incontrollable. In addition to climatic and
weather conditions, the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (IMWC)
(2008) enlists the interaction of human, technological, legal and political factors as
major determinant of the maize production levels.

Together with wheat and rice, maize production contributes to 30% of the world’s food
calories. Ignaciuk and Mason-D’Croz (2014) argues that the 30% calories is based on
over 94 developing countries and a population of over 4.5 billion people. Maize alone
contributes to 20% of calories. Early studies by Shiferaw, Hellen and Muricho (2011)
and Prasanna (2014) indicate that maize production is highly concentrated in Sub-
Sahara Africa (SSA) and Central America. In these regions, maize production is not
2
only based on a food security approach but also a large source of employment in rural
areas. In Kenya, maize production activity(s) accounts for 65% of 18% formal
employment in the agri-business and almost 30% of informal employment (Olwande,
2012). Together with other agricultural practices, maize production is a major income
earner to many rural households.

Maize production in normally evaluated using productivity index (FAO, 2014) and
behaviour trend mapping that is normally used in Mexico (Blanca, 2017). The outcome
can be either low production or high production. On national level, high production
means that the country’s produce is high enough to sustain household consumption and
local trade. However, on international level, high production further provides for
surplus produce that can be exported to earn foreign exchange. This variation on
production levels is responsible for creating the low and high production and is
influenced by a number of factors. Gaspard (2017) categorizes this factors into socio-
economic (experience, education and demographics), production (land, labour and
technology) and institutional factors (government support and funds). In addition to
these factors we also have influence from health (Kilonzi, 2011), other economic
activities and culture (Chumo, 2013) and extension services (Simiyu, 2014). Specific
combination of the factors vary from place to place based on awareness, readiness and
production measure already put in place.

From a global perspective, maize production is categorized in three units: Yellow maize
and white maize production; small scale and large scale maize production; registered
and unregistered maize farming. According to Chumo (2013), yellow maize is
genetically and biologically similar to white maize and the only difference is the yellow
pigment in the yellow maize. The pigment is caused by carotin oil which is not present
in the white maize. All other factors like cultivation technology and production
conditions are constant in this two maize categories, as argued by Martinez (2000) and
Meyer (2006). In terms of scale or cultivation squares, maize production is based on
either large or small scale. The distinction between the two varies from one region and
country to another due to land availability factor. Another important category is the
registration factor. Every country with significant dependence on maize registers
farmers, especially those whose cultivating intentions go beyond personal consumption.

3
The motive behind the registration is to facilitate cereal boards feeding and strategizing
towards food security. This study utilizes the scale and registration categories.

1.1.1 Registered Small Scale Maize Farmers in Trans-Nzoia County

Maize farming scales in Trans-Nzoia County are unevenly distributed across sub-
counties, with some regions having more intense maize farming than other regions.
Equally, as Hystra Hybrid Strategies Consulting (HHSC) (2015) points out, as there
exists regions in Kenya that do not cultivate maize at all, some areas of Trans-Nzoia
County either produce low units or do not produce at all. However, the low and non-
producing areas are small and insignificantly distributed. A report by Nyoro, Kirimi and
Jayne (2015) indicates that the determinant of whether the maize farmers take a small-
scale or large-scale aligns to the region in which they are undertaking their cultivation.
Their argument was that most of the regions that seem to practice large scale farming
are equally characterized by low and sparsely distributed population that translate to
large and continuous tracks of land. OECD-FAO (2014) refers to these farming
distribution as agro-ecological zones. Using availability of land and the population
factors, the agro-ecological zoning determine the scale of maize production to be termed
as small-scale or large scale.

In Trans-Nzoia County and Kenya in general, small scale maize farming is based on a
group of 0-10 acres of land while large and medium scale involves the use of more than
10 acres of land. This scale definition is provided by the Tegemeo Institute of
Agricultural Policy and Development, and the Regional Agricultural and Expansion
Support (2003). However, this study will take a further step to include single farming
done by an individual or group of individuals on pieces of land located in different
geographical locations but whose total land-track sums to not more than 10 acres. Nyoro
et al. (2015) post that a high mix of small and large scale maize farming in Kenya is
mostly experienced in high-potential maize zone which includes Uasin Gishu, Bomet,
Kericho, Trans-Nzoia, Nakuru and upper Kakamega. These regions are also termed as
the National Cereals and Produce Board (NCPB) of Kenya anchor base. Farmers in
these regions not only produce for barter and sale as well as household use, but equally
supply to the NCPB as registered maize farmers.

4
Maize farmers in Trans-Nzoia County are registered by the National Cereal and Produce
Board (NCPB) of Kenya. NCPB is a national state corporation that was established in
1985 by the Parliamentary Act, Cap 338 (Government of Kenya, 2012). According to
the Act, the corporation is mandated to effect strategic grain reserve, commercialize the
grains and implement the famine relief through facilitating the buying, storing,
maintaining and distribution of relief food under the national relief programme. NCPB
tracks and maintains cereals production and consumption capacity in Kenya. The
corporation also distributes subsidized fertilizer to registered farmers (NCPB, 2018).
Registration of maize farmers is restricted to farmer only and not traders. According to
Business Daily Africa (2016) and Citizen Digital (2018), the corporation receives maize
from registered farmers and corporations only. High-potential maize zone form the
majority of NCPB registered farmers. This study focuses on Trans-Nzoia County as
high-potential maize zone.

1.1.3 Overview of Trans-Nzoia County

Trans-Nzoia County is a devolved functional government jurisdiction forming part of
the 47 Counties of the Republic of Kenya (Constitution of Kenya, 2010). Trans-Nzoia
County is located in the Great Rift Valley and borders five (5) counties and an
international boundary. The county borders Kakamega and Bungoma Counties to the
South, Uasin Gishu and Elgeyo Marakwet Counties to the South East, West Pokot
County to the East, and Uganda border to the West (Trans-Nzoia County Integrated
Development Plan, 2013-2017). Trans-Nzoia County 2018-2022 Integrated
Development Plan ranks the County at position 37 out of 47 in terms of size; with squire
coverage of 2495.6 kilometres. The County headquarter is situated in Kitale
Municipality. The Kenya Bureau of Statistics (2018) projects a current population of
1,111,686 and 1,265,797 by end of year 2022. The County’s boundaries are provided
and maintained by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission of Kenya
and protected by the Constitution of Kenya (2010) and Devolution Act (Cap. 11).

Guided by the vision “to be an outstanding agro-industrialised county with high quality
of life for residents,” the county considers maize production as the backbone of its
economy. This is evident in the 2013-2017 integrated development plan which contains
a picture of maize and maize farming portrait and a phrase reading –Kenya’s bread
basket. Apart from the maize philosophy, the county is also interested in tourism, trade,
5
education and literacy, employment, natural and nature conservation, industrial
development and health and nutrition. The climatic, land topology and ecological
conditions of Trans-Nzoia County fit within the provisions provided by ADSA (2003)
as sustainable conditions for a maize plant to be productive. The experienced ecological
dispersion segments the county into three zones: Upper highland, upper midland and
lower highland zones. Rainfall receives by the County ranges from 1000mm to 1700mm
and distributed as shown in appendix IIIc.

The upper highland representing 16% of the total county land is occupied by Mt. Elgon
National Park and limited to dairy and sheep farming. The upper midland represents
50% and full supports cultivation farming. The upper midland is the County’s major
maize zone. The lower highland on the other hand contains a fair mix of livestock and
agricultural activities. It is notable that the lower highland has the poorest road network
–a factor highly contributing to the area’s economic activity approach. The County
Integrated Strategic plan (2018-2022) indicates that out of a total food crop area of
157,068 hectares, 68.12% at 107,000 hectares is covered by Maize. The other
significant food crop is beans with a coverage of 45,600 hectares. In spite of the existing
natural conditions supporting maize cultivation in Trans-Nzoia County, a number of
factor are equally factored in when analysis production and productivity levels. Some
of the factors that are derived from the two integrated strategic development plans
(2013-2017; 2018-2022) include road network, land size, input economics and access,
marketing and market forces, legal frameworks and people and farming culture.

1.2 Problem Statement

Maize production is a major concern to under-developed and developing countries,
especially the SSA and the Central America countries. These countries, Kenya included,
highly depended on maize as a staple food and maize production as a source of
employment (Muthaura, 2015; CGIAR, 2016; Gaspard, 2017). The cereal is indicated
by FAO (2013) and CGIAR (2016) as the world’s leading in terms of production. Most
of these countries that depend on it experience climatic and weather conditions that fit
within the inherent production requirements, perhaps dictating such dependence. As a
result, a large spectrum of food security is aligned to maize production. Ironically,
statistics show that most of these maize-dependent countries are also the leading in

6
maize importation as blames weigh towards maize production and diverse pool of
influential factors (Prasanna, 2014; HHSC, 2015; Nyoro et al., 2015).

In Kenya, the trend is rather worrying as statistics from the ever first commission of
inquiry into the maize shortage was formed in 1966 providing a comprehensive and
sufficient but unproductive report. Measures have been put in place, including
streamlining the sector and introducing the NCPB which is mandated to track and help
maintain cereals production in Kenya. The high-potential maize zone areas that include
Uasin Gishu County have also expanded exponentially over the past decades but still
production per hectare keeps deteriorating. As a drive towards solution finding, it is
prudent that all influential factors that affect maize production be analysed.

Various scholars have undertaken substantial research on maize farming and

production. Internationally, Blanca (2017) on preferences of farmers and the factors that
influence their maize crop improvement decisions, sought to analyse the attitude and
opinion of farmers towards the adoption of improved seeds. Findings indicated that
young farmers had high regards for innovation and technology. Gaspard (2017) enlists
improved seeds, land size and labour as major factors influencing efficiency and
productivity of maize. Issa, Kagbu and Abdulkadir (2016) established that land
preparation, manual weeding and seed dressing include the major factors that influence
the adoption of improved maize production practices. Other relevant studied include
FAO (2012; 2013); Idrisa, Shehu, Ngamdu (2012); Joshi, Singh, Singh, Gerpacio and
Pingali (2005).

In Kenya, Muthaura (2015) on maize growth and yield variability and selected limited
nutrients conclude that land conversion rate and use of manure highly influence the
variability of potassium and nitrogen nutrients. Ojala et al. (2014) sought to establish
how small-scale maize farmers are affected by socio-economic factors. Simiyu (2014)
established that poor and inadequate land preparation and costly fertilizer are the main
factor affecting small scale farmers. Kamoni et al. (2013) used former Kandara District
as a case study while analysing on food security. Their findings indicated that enhancing
productivity per unit area through the use of recommended fertilizers and seedling is
the only way to boost the district’s food security. Other studies include Kilonzi (2011),
Adijah et al. (2011) and Olwande (2012).

7
As analysed, it is evident that substantial evaluation on maize farming and production
has been carried out locally and internationally. However there exists limited research
on Trans-Nzoia County, or those that link Trans-Nzoia County as part of a wider sample
context. Simiyu (2014) whose study contains a conceptual link lacks on contextual base,
but provides for this study the basis upon inferencing and conclusions. It is also
important to note that farmers are sensitive to the context within which production is
recommended as approaches and priorities vary from one region to another due to
ecological and farming conditions. Trans-Nzoia County is then subject to having its
own experiences that are unique from those exhibited by other counties and regions.
This study sought to bridge this research gap.

1.3 Research Objectives

This study intended to fulfil the following objectives

1.3.1 General Objective

The general objective of this study was to establish the factors affecting maize
production among registered small scale farmers in Trans-Nzoia County.

1.3.2 Specific Objectives

i. To establish the production factors and their effects on maize production among
registered small scale maize farmers in Trans-Nzoia County.
ii. To establish the institutional factors and their effect on maize production among
registered small scale maize farmers in Trans-Nzoia County.

1.4 Research Questions

i. Which production factors are involved in maize production and what effect do
they have among registered small scale maize farmers in Trans-Nzoia County?
ii. Which institutional factors are involved in maize production and what effect do
they have among registered small scale maize farmers in Trans-Nzoia County?

1.5 Significance of the Study

Researchers and academicians in the line of crop production will draw benefit from this
study as they will find it a useful instrument in providing information that will provide
great contribution to reviews on literature. The study will also further enhance their

8
academic reporting and research approach and writing skills which in turn they can use
to further the field of academic research and solution findings.

The research will be useful to the registered small scale farmers and all other farmers in
Trans-Nzoia County as it will provide them with information on the specific factors
affecting maize production in the county. Possible solutions to these factors will also be
recommended by this study, providing an opportunity for the farmers to be aware of
their options and correctly implement preventive and corrective action plans. The
farmers will also be able to correctly relate their registration to the production factors
they experience.

The study will also be of great importance to the ministry of agriculture, the National
Cereals and Produce Board and the government in general as it will inform them
effectively on the factors affecting maize production in Trans-Nzoia County. Thorough
such, these bodies can then obtain insight on diagnostic requirements and regulations
towards ensuring that maize production in Trans-Nzoia County is secured and
approached objectively. The study will boost the food security agenda and go an extra
mile towards providing substantial solution on maize importation problem.

1.6 Scope of the Study

This study contains two dimensions of scope. The first one is the conceptual scope and
the second one is the contextual scope. The conceptual scope confines this study into
maize production and the involved factors. This means that the study will only conduct
research within the dynamics of maize production and the involved factors. Any other
crops that might find their way into the study will only be so if findings express a
perception that the so said crops act as a factor affecting maize production. As far as
contextual scope is concerned, the study will confine itself to Trans-Nzoia County and
the registered small scale maize farmers. No unregistered, medium and large scale and
non-maize producing farmer will make to the population target of this study.

9
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the literature review from previous studies on factors affecting
maize production. The chapter involves a review on the foundational theories, factors
affecting maize production, knowledge gap and chapter Summary, and the conceptual
framework.

2.2 Theoretical Background

This study is based on Malthusian Theory and the Theory of Production. The theories
are discussed with an aim of illustrating the existence of influential factors and
establishing the importance attached to maize production.

2.2.1 Malthusian Theory

Malthusian Theory (MT) was developed by Malthus (1798) in the first essay on An
Essay on the Principle of Population. The second essay version combining of four
editions ranging from 1806, 1817, 1826 and 1830 refined the first edition to produce
what is today known as Malthusianism philosophy. The theory argues that the power of
population growth is higher than the one responsible for food production. The theory
further add that food insecurity will always be an issue as long as population growth
rate exceeds the rate of food production and technology. Although the theory is
applicable in various scenarios pertaining population and resource distribution as
indicated by Quamrul and Oded (2008) and Weisdorf (2007), MT’s originality is based
on food security and population factor. The Malthusianism philosophy spreads over two
centuries spanning from 1798-to date, but still relevant and even more applicable in
contemporary perspective as illustrated by Khalil and Amjad (2016).

In the first edition of the second version created in 1806, Malthus argue that human
population increases in geometric progression while food production increases by
means of arithmetic progression. Leufstedt (2012) defines the geometric progression as
a sequence in which the each term is established by multiplying the previous one by a
constant number that is not zero and called a common ratio. Meaning, if the current

10
population is 50 units and the common ratio is 5, then the second and third population
generation will be 250 and 1250 respectively. On the hand, Agarwal (2018) defines the
arithmetic progression as a sequence whereby the variance within a series is constant.
This means that if the current produce is 50 and the variance is 5, then production will
increase to 55 and 60 respectively. MT theory then asserts that the 55 to 60 increment
in food production in relation to the 250 to 1250 increment in population automatically
creates a food insecurity situation.

Malthus insists in the third edition of 1817 that there exists no immediate solution to
this growth gaps and further predicts that the principle will finally spread to every useful
resource to human. Elhrich and Elhrich (2009) supports Malthus’ assertion, adding that
the battle against hunger is bound to fail. In the subsequent editions of An Essay on the
Principle of Population, Malthus refines the population control aspect as a control
measure. His argument is that the situation will get better after attaining the apex of its
worse. The Malthusian catastrophe, as he calls it, which includes feminine, wars and
natural disasters will express natural and positive checks on the gap. Most importantly,
MT suggests the use of preventive measure which include population growth controls
and relooking on means and technology to enhance crop and general food production.

Quinn (1997) argued against MT, suggesting that the increasing world population is
instigated by food production and supply. This argument against MT is also supported
by Hopfenberg (2003) who demonstrates that through measuring future agricultural and
food dynamics, the world’s population can be projected and estimated correctly. This
kind of measure indicator is used by FAO in estimating population. Odds against MT
include the Western Europe population that grows much slower than food production.
However, the situation in SSA, including Kenya, and Central America countries directly
aligns to Malthusianism. It is therefore important for this study to consider maize
production to be as a result of various factors that include population. The MT then
anchored to the first specific objective which looks at production factors that affect
maize production. The theory is based on the effect of demographics as a production
factor, essentially the influence brought about by household size.

11
2.2.2 Theory of Production
The Theory of Production originates from the classical work of Smith (1776). The first
classical illustrative writing depicting the theory was developed in the article The
Wealth of Nations. The classical approach of the theory looks at the physical resources
that are directly involved in production and on which value and cost can then be
appropriated. The contemporary approach goes beyond physical resources to include
technological progress, and intellectual and social capital (Daly & Ferley, 2011). The
theory of production argues that all outcomes depend on a choice of involved factors,
their perceived and exhibited optimal combination.

According to Darshan Institute (n.d), Battese and Coelli (2005) and Ojala et al. (2014),
the theory drives the profit notion in terms of maximum production levels. They argue
that with complete understanding of all involved factors and their individual
contribution and group dynamics, correct combinations can be executed at a balanced
costing system. The decision making is aided by modelling factor behaviour under a
production function approach as Y = (X1, X2, X3…, Xn). From the model, Y represents
the outcome or output while X1 to Xn represents the individual inputs. Sometimes,
depending on the objectives behind the modelling, X1 to Xn may include all involved
factor; whether direct or indirect and whether controllable or not.

In maize production, the output of the model represents high or low maize production
which is denoted by ‘Y’ (Ojala, 2014) while the factors include access to land (X1),
seeds (X2) and fertilizer (X3), demographics (X4) use of extension services (X5), use of
machines (X6) and use of chemicals (X7). Use of machines and chemicals are grouped
under use of technology. The choice on the best and optimal scenario option varies
from region to region. This is because some of the factors might happen to be naturally
optimized in some regions known as zone belts, requiring focus only on those factors
that are not and that are necessary for improving output. For high maize production, the
most competitive factor combination scenario must be selected and focus based on how
to effectively exploit each factor. In this study, the theory of production outlines the
foundation of maize production. It provides an understanding that high
production/yields are realized at the expense of many factors which include access to
land, seedlings and fertilizer; climatic changes; demographics; extension services; and

12
technology. The theory provides an understanding of the relationship between maize
production and the involved factors.

2.3 Empirical Review

This section reviews existing information on maize production practices and how the
practices influence the real production levels. It focuses on the studies that have directly
and indirectly dealt with the production factors. In these reviews, this study applies
multidimensional context approach. As indicated by the theoretical background, maize
production is a function of various factors. According to Kilonzi (2011), Chumo (2013),
Simiyu (2014) and Gaspard (2017), these factors include access to land, access to seeds
and fertilizer, human demographics, extension services and Technology. These factors
are categorized into production factors as well as institutional factors.

2.3.1 Production Factors

The involved maize production factors include access to land, technology and
demographics. Together with the influence of other categories of factors, production
factors determine the outcome of maize production through yields levels.

[Link] Access to Land

Access to land is a major factor affecting maize production. CGIAR (2016) argue that
land distribution especially in the productive areas of the SSA countries is a problem.
In Kenya, high-potential maize zones are distributed along densely populated areas
(Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, 2018). The high population translates
to small pieces of land which in most cases end up within the real estate docket as
housing projects are elevated to meet the shelter demand. As a result productive land,
including lands that are outside residential zones, becomes expensive to acquire. On the
other hand, Ahmed, Suleiman and Aminu (2013) indicate that sometimes the sizes of
land can be influenced by the inherent economic and social foundations. They add that
in a social and economically stable environment, the land utilization patterns favour
farming of continuous pieces of land. However, that is not the case in most areas.

Ojala et al (2014) looks at this problem as the creation of poor government planning
and settlement culture. Their argument is that with proper planning, human settlement
is expected to happen in less productive regions and areas so as to free high-potential

13
zones and allow easy access to agri-productive land. The study agrees with the argument
of Mignouma, Mutabakazi, Senkondo and Manyong (2010) who insist that large land
size is associated with operational efficiency due to increased economies of scale. They
also indicate that land tracks encourage mechanization which normally aligns with
optimized costs. Population distribution figures produced by the Trans-Nzoia County
Integrated Development Plan, 2018-2022 (2018) indicates that the upper midland region
which is highly productive has the highest population count. This kind of settlement
translates to poor access on productive land therefore exposing farming to lands that
have poor soil content and insufficient and unreliable maize production conditions.

[Link] Human Demographics

Human demographics are based in the social-economic category and include gender,
age, household size, level of education, general wealth and other farming activities
involved by the farmers. Together, all demographics influence maize production. An
early study by Nkonya et al. (1997) indicate that weak sets of demographic factors
highly affect the uptake on institutional factors and competitive information that can
lead to high yields, and the ability to seek for credit. The level of education for example
is very important as it enables farmers to exhibit a critical and an alert mind. Education
enhances the ability of the farmers to allocate decisions effectively and in an optimal
manner. The farmers’ ability to analyse on the most feasible seed variety was also found
by Fufa and Hassan (2006) to be resting on their level of education.

The adoption of maize production and general farming technology is also determined
by the level of education and age. Un-educated farmers normally fall short of
information on farming technology. This is so especially because they are not aware of
where to look for the information and at the same time even if they get the information,
they cannot interpret and comprehend accordingly. From Roger (2003) and CGIAR
(2016) we can deduce that young farmers are likely to absorb new maize production
technology more than older farmer due to the schooling they underwent and to the fact
that their attitude to change is much softer. In Kenya, a large number of farmers belong
to the older category whose level of education is minimal and farming decision are not
flexible to change and new technology. The average household size in those high-
potential maize zones is also on the higher end, making maize production to focus on
household consumption.
14
[Link] Technology
In a study carried by CGIAR (2017), the top significant difference that was found to
exist between maize production in Mexico and that of SSA countries was production
technology. To realize the extent of this difference, a comparison of seed technology
used in Kenya and illustrated by Abate (2015) to that used in Mexico as illustrated by
CGIAR (2017) reveals that Kenya used hybrid and free pollinated seeds only as opposed
to Mexico’s rapid deployment of synthetic varieties. An in-depth performance analysis
of the synthetic varieties by Blanca (2017) indicate that due to the foreign gene
introduced, these varieties have a capability of excelling beyond the normal ecological
and conditions necessary for maize crop production. The varieties require less
monitoring as they resist effect from normal deceases and weeds. Vallejo et al. (2008)
argued that synthetic varieties represent the future of maize production as their
development takes less time and many types can be developed at a go. This variation of
variety of seed technology has also been noticed by The United Nations’ World Food
Programme, who state in Challinor et al. (2016) that only around 50% of the total maize
fields represent modern varieties in developing countries as opposed to an average of
100% in developed countries.

This trend in the use of seed varieties is also reflected in other maize production
technology that include land preparation, crop support practices and harvesting
mechanisms. In developing countries that include those in SSA, the process of land
preparation, crop support practices and harvesting processes are high depended on
human labour while in most of developed countries these processes are mechanized
(Araus & Cairns, 2014). The obvious downfall for using human labour is that it lacks
uniformity in standardization of quality. Quality in land preparation, crop planting
process, crop support practices and to some extent in harvesting. Mechanization of these
processes equally ensures that the cost of maize production is minimized in the long
run. Timing and time utilization is also major functional factor that is optimizable with
farm mechanization (CGIAR, 2016). For Kenya to realize high yields, mechanization
in maize production must be considered and factored. This study looks technology from
the perspective of using machines in ploughing and use of chemicals in maize plant
treatment.

15
2.3.2 Institutional Factors
Institutional factors include access to seeds, extension services and access to fertilizer.
Together with production factors and other dynamics, the involvement of institutional
factors influence the number of bags in yield per specified size of land. These factors
are important and highly influential.

[Link] Extension Services

An extension service is identified by Kilonzi (2011) as a programme organized by the
farmers’ management unit at the ministry of agriculture level or a group of farmers. The
service is meant to enable farmers get updated practices in form of assistance from
experts. He further argues that the experts are meant to advice on the relevant type of
fertilizer to use and the most feasible intercropping system as well as the quality of seeds
meant for specific regions and conditions in subject. Ojala (2014) post that extension
service are important to maize production especially now that the changes in climatic
conditions are unpredictable. Early, Yaron et al. (1992) posted that extension services
play a major role in the adoption of maize production technology, especially in regions
where majority of farmers lack formal education.

In Kenya, extension service is not a technical term, many farmer are aware of such
services but the problem is that the services are not offered to maize farmer. This
knowledge on extension service is only based on the assistance platforms established in
the tea planting sector and the early assistance accorded to the coffee farmer way before
the fall of the coffee sector. As indicated by Olubandwa, Kathuri and Wesonga (2011),
extension services are supposed to be a drive directly under the country’s ministry of
agriculture, livestock and fisheries. Judging by the current position of the government
of Kenya and maize security; specifically on the big 4 agenda and the fact that maize is
the country’s stable food, it is apparent that extension services can enhance maize
production. An example of where extension services have directly resulted in better
yield is given by Minten and Barrett (2008) who carried out a study on The Green
Revolution in Asia. Their argument is that, the revolution is a success due to
involvement of the relevant ministries majorly through extension services. We expect
the same results if Kenya can adopt the same approach.

16
[Link] Access to Seeds and Fertilizers

Access to seeds and fertilizer in Kenya is a major factor determining maize production
(Kilonzi, 2011). The Government of Kenya through the Ministry of Agriculture,
Livestock and Fisheries has provided for this factor but still challenges are experienced.
The provision entails the creation of the National Cereals and Produce Board (NCPB)
and Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service (KEPHIS). The two bodies are mandated
with the task of ensuring that services to farmers are paramount. KEPHIS is expected
to ensure no counterfeit seeds get to the farmers through enforcing certification and
quality on seed producers and distributors. According to the National Cereals and
Produce Board Act, chapter 338 (Government of Kenya, 2012), NCPB is expected to
distribute certified seeds and fertilizer alongside other certified bodies. Lack of access
to certified hybrid seed by most farmers have resulted to rampant use of recycled seeds.
A study by Crowley and Carter (2000) indicates that maize farmers in Kenya are still
using basic varieties (recycled seeds) as their main seedling. Those farmers that access
and strictly use the hybrid ones are few and observation indicate that most of them are
registered ones.

Abate et al. (2015) indicate that out of the 14 new and subsequent improved hybrids
released between 2007 and 2014, most maize farmers are only familiar with those
released in 2007 to 2012. Compared to Mexico, Kenya is still far behind in terms of
ensuring the production through the support of seedling. According to Blanca (2017),
Mexico’s main seedling combination is made of hybrid varieties, free pollinated and
synthetic varieties. Their use of free basic breeds is somewhat limited to small scale
farmers who constitute less than 20 percent. These farmers are also said to use free
pollinated breeds. The dynamics involved in the distribution of fertilizer is also similar
to that involving improved seeds. Nyoro et al. (2015) indicate that maize supporting soil
contents is highly depleted when crop rotation is not adequate, a practice (crop rotation)
not common to most of the Kenya Maize farmers.

2.4 Knowledge Gap

The empirical literature reviewed reveals extensive coverage on maize production and
the inherent influential factors. The review, based on the causative theoretical
foundation, focuses on local and international research and brings into perspective the

17
involvement of various maize production factors. Various dimensions have been
explored, but specific knowledge on factors affecting maize production among
registered small-scale farmers has not been directly been addressed: Especially in areas
that exhibit similar characteristics to those in Trans-Nzoia County. However, the much
done provide leeway to effective positioning of the prospective factors.

Many studies have grouped the factors into bundles of related aspects, coming up with
socio-economic, political and legal, climatic and technological and even ecological.
Such studies include Nkonya (1997), Michele (2001) and Ojala et al. (2014)). The
review also reveals studies on variant outputs including Gaspard (2017) that focus on
productivity and Blanca (2017) that focus on improved decision making among farmers
rather than production level. Other studies include Issa et al. (2014) that focus on
improved maize production practice and Muthaura (2015) that looks at soil nutrients
and how they affect maize production. The review also establishes a study by Simiyu
(2014) for partial knowledge gap due to its focus on factors affecting maize production
among small-scale farmers. Simiyu’s study exploits a significant stretch as per this
proposed study but fails to incorporate the registration of farmers’ aspect as well as a
contextual alignment. Another factor validating a knowledge gap include argument that
different zones and regions experience different factors and their extents: A factor that
all reviewed studies including Simiyu’s fail to address.

Unlike the reviewed literature, this study will focus on multi-dimensional factors that
include extension services and technology factors, which have been extensively
ignored, among others. In summary therefore it is apparent that many studies have
looked at the factors that influence maize production. However, neither is based on
Trans-Nzoia County as a high maize yield potential area nor evaluated among others
the use of technology and extension services. It is thus prudent that this study analyses
upon this knowledge gap.

2.5 Conceptual Framework

According to Mugenda and Mugenda (2003), a conceptual framework is a construct
model representing the interaction between various attributes. Independent and
dependent variables form the major categories of the model and they exhibit a causative
relationship. Figure 2.1 illustrates the variable involved in this study.

18
Figure 2.1: Conceptual Framework
Independent Variables Dependent Variables
Factors Affecting Maize Production
Production factors
Access to Land
Technology
Use of machines (Tractors)
Use of Chemicals
Maize Production
Demographics
Number of maize bags
Institutional factors
Extension Services
Access to Seeds
Access to Fertilizer

Source: Researcher (2019)

Based on the objectives of this study, figure 2.1 shows that the independent variables
directly determine the outcome of the dependent variable. This means that if farmers
can find a way of optimizing the use of technology and extension services, access hybrid
seeds and sustainable amount of fertilizer, align demographics and access reasonable
sizes of land at a reasonable cost, then high maize production in terms of maximum
number of bags will be realized. The figure shows that when both production and
institutional factors are fully instituted and operationalized, maize production increases:
more maize bags are realized.

2.6 Chapter Summary

Using Malthusian Theory and Theory of Production to analyse on factors affecting
maize production, diverse literature shows the positioning of the relationship in various
regions around the world. Evidence shows that that there already exists statistical base
for high maize production if most the factors are optimized. The literature also brings
out the difference in levels of production vis-à-vis the approach to the considered factors
in two different regions: The Sub-Sahara Africa against Mexico. With the support
provided by the Government of Kenya via The Big Four Agenda, it is worth singling-
out these factor based on the various regions to enable optimized approaches.

19
 CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction
This chapter outlines the research methodology that will be used in conducting this
study. It comprises of research design, sampling technique and sample size, data
collection methods, data analysis, research quality and ethical issues.

3.2 Research Design

This study used a survey research design. A research design is defines by Kothari (2004)
as a specified procedural approach to data collection and analysis. He further add that
the main aim of a research design is to ensure data collected is procedurally economical
and relevant, and that analysis is done as per objectives and expectation. Survey design
is deemed appropriate for this study as it enable in-depth analysis and understanding of
the factors affecting maize production. The survey design-related circumstances as
involved in this study are justified by McLeod (2014) who post that survey design
approach is effective in establishing status of a large social or economic process.

3.3 Population Size and Sampling Technique

The area of study includes the entire Trans-Nzoia County. The target population
comprise all registered small scale maize farmers in the County. Stratified sampling
technique was used to determine the sampling size. Stratified sampling technique
divides the entire population into strata also known as subgroups (Molenberghs, n.d.;
Alvi, 2016). The subdivision was based on Trans-Nzoia Sub-County boundaries as
exhibited by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission of Kenya and
expressed by Trans-Nzioa County’s Integrated Development Plan 2018-2022
(Appendix, IIIb). The five sub-counties exhibited heterogeneous characteristics.

To obtain the right sample size, the study used Cochran (1977) sample size formula.
The Cochran formula enables the determination of the sample size given the desired
confidence level, a desired level of precision and an estimate of the population (Lani,
2009). Due to the maize growing culture expressed by the Trans-Nzioa County, the
infinite population was expected to be large therefore informing an estimated proportion
of 30%.
20
The Cochran formula is represented as;

Z^2 ∗ (P) ∗ (1 − P)
𝑆𝑆 =
C^2

Where;
SS=Sample Size
Z = Z-Value
P = Estimated proportion making the sample size
C = Confidence interval (expressed in decimal)

Therefore;
1.96^2 ∗ (0.3) ∗ (0.7)
𝑆𝑆 =
0.0025
𝑆𝑆 = 322
The sample size is based on the assumption that the number of small scale farmers in
Trans-Nzoia County is infinite.

Modification of the Cochran (𝑺𝑺𝒏)

𝑆𝑆
𝑆𝑆𝑛 =
𝑆𝑆 − 1
1+( N )

322
𝐒𝐒𝐧 =
322 − 1
𝟏+( )
500

𝐒𝐒𝐧 = 196 (modified sample size)

N = 500 is based on the number of NCPB registered small scale maize farmers.

3.4 Data Collection Method

This study used primary data. Collection of the data was done through the use of
questionnaires. The questionnaire contained an optimal mix of closed and open-ended
questions so as to allow the respondents to express more opinions on the factors that
affect maize production in Trans-Nzoia County. This means that the data collected
exhibited both quantitative and qualitative aspects. The researcher used research

21
assistants who in turn expressed and explained the requirements of each question to
each respondent in order to assure on objectivity and relevancy of responses. This
prompted the method of administration to be self-administration. The questionnaire
were divided into five so that each of the five sub-counties got 39 questionnaires. One
questionnaire was used to re-capture on re-test scenario to ensure reliability of the tool.

3.5 Data Analysis

Obtained data was coded and analysed accordingly. Descriptive statistics and inferential
analysis was be engaged. A non-parametric F-test at 0.05 significance level was
performed on the analysis tools. Preliminaries were analysed accordingly. To obtain the
first objective and second objective, obtained data in support of both questions were
analysed using descriptive statistics and inferential analysis. Descriptive statistics was
based on mean and standard deviations and presented in a table while inferential
statistics was based of regression. The following regression model was used.

Y=W0+β1X1+ β2X2+…+ɛ

Key:
Y = Maize Production (Number of Maize Bags)

X1 = Access to Land
X2 = Access to Hybrid Seeds
X3 = Access of Fertilizer
X4 = Demographics
X5 = Extension Services
X6 = ploughing using machines
X7 = chemical treatment

W0 = Coefficient of intercept (Constant)

β1… β6 = Coefficient of variable X1… X7

3.6 Research Quality

Research quality pertains the originality of the field research undertakings as opposed
to the proposed guidelines that inform such undertakings. To ascertain research quality,
the researcher ensured that objectivity and validity were observed as suggested by
Kothari (2004). According to Sekaran and Bougie (2013), objectivity includes the
22
interpretation of findings relative to personal interpretation while validity and reliability
represent the degree in which tools and process used measure the intended aspects.

To ensure objectivity of the results, the researcher took reflexive approach upon the
interpretations and further detached from the bias of owning constructs by accepting
self-perceived impossible responses.

To ensure validity and reliability of the research tool, partial triangulation was carried
out on one of the farmers. The process was carried out through the use of one of the
questionnaires. As evidence for involving skills, data collection was appropriated by the
preparedness of the researcher and the well trained research assistants.

3.7 Ethical Considerations

The study observed two ethical considerations: The research only and only conducted
the questionnaire administration if the respondent(s) voluntarily allowed their
participation, and that personal identification of the respondents were kept anonymous
and confidential. In this case, any respondent who was approached and did not want to
respond to the questionnaire was duly briefed on the intention of the study and assured
of secure data and anonymity of his/her participation. If s/he/they insisted not to
participate, then s/he/they was excluded and replaced by another respondent. An
identity number was assigned to each questionnaire with sub-county prefix to ensure
anonymity.

23
 CHAPTER FOUR

PRESENTATION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS

4.1 Introduction
This chapter contains findings from the field. It presents research findings. The
collected data exhibits both qualitative and quantitative aspects. The collected data was
categorised into three sections which include preliminary; production and institutional
factors; factors and maize production. Section one exposes the capabilities and general
exposure of the respondents to maize farming. Section two looks at the characterization
of the factors under consideration. Section three looks at the relationship between the
factors and maize production. Data was collected from registered small-scale famers in
Trans-Nzoia County.

4.2 Response Rate

The study was subjected to a sample size of 196 respondents within Trans-Nzoia
County. A total of 196 questionnaires were presented to the field, 195 subjected to
respondents while one was used to validate the responses provided. The data recapture
for validity was done by a different research assistant and an accuracy of 94%
established. Out of the 195 questionnaires administered and regained, 184 fully were
found to be compliant with the set acceptance level. This translate to a response rate of
94% as indicated in figure 4.1 below.

Figure 4.1: Total Response Rate

Response Rate

6%

Complete Responses

Incomplete Responses

94%

Source: Researcher (2019)

24
Based on Mugenda and Mugenda (2003) who indicate that a response rate of more than
70% is excellent while one at 50% and above is adequate, it can be concluded that a
response rate of 94% is excellent.

Figure 4.2: Sub-County Response Rate

Sub-county Response Rate

Total Response Response Rate

39
39

39

39

39

39
38

37
36

34
97.40%

94.90%
92.30%

87.20%
100%

Saboti K i mi n i n i C h e r e n ga n y Endebess K w a n za

Source: Researcher (2019)

As per sub-counties, response rates of 100%, 97.4%, 92.3%, 87.2% and 94.9% for
Saboti. Kiminini, Cherengany, Endebess and Kwanza Sub-Counties respectively. All
the five sub-counties provided excellent response rates. The responses from the four
sub-counties with less than 100% response rate is based on the fact that some
respondents did not fulfil the minimum accepted response quality. The high response
rate shows the readiness of the farmers to provide accurate and substantive information.

4.3 Respondents Profile

The provisions for the respondents profile is based on section one of the questionnaire.
A spread sheet statistic for every response was generated and subjected to relevant
computations. Statistical mode, mean, maximum and minimum was executed in order
to provide the dominating characteristics. To establish the dominant characteristics and
those that rank next, the countif formula was used appropriately. The outcome of the
statistical analysis is depicted herein.

The respondents were asked to provide the accurate age in the preliminary section. The
information intendent to provide the average position on whether those involved in
25
maize farming are the youth or the old members of the society. Supported by an average
of 40.5, a statistical mode of 40 years was established meaning that most of the
respondents are classified as old (mature) members of the society. The highest age for
the respondents was established to be 89 years old while the youngest respondent was
20 years old. This skewed spread in age indicates that maize farming the prioritized by
the older members of the Trans-Nzoia County society.

The respondents were asked to indicate the size ranges within which their maize farms
belong. Three categories were provided: 1 for 1 to 3 ha; 2 for 4-6 ha; 3 for 7-10 ha. Out
of 184 respondents, a response mode of 1 was provided by 65% (120) respondents, 2
was provided by 23% (42) respondents, and 3 was provided by 12% (22) respondents.
This means that 120 registered farmer own land measuring 1 to 3 hectares and 42 of
them own land that measures 4 to 6 hectares while the rest (22) own farms that measure
between 7 and 10 hectares of land.

Figure 4.3: Distribution of Farm Size

Farm Size

12%

1-3 Ha
23%
4-6 Ha
7-10 Ha
65%

Source: Researcher (2019)

In terms of marital status and number of dependants, the study intended to establish the
support status and the motivational drive within the family level. Out of the 184, 141
respondents indicated that they were married, 29 indicated that they were single while
14 indicated that they were divorced. Another measure on the number of dependants
indicate that 30 farmers have dependants, 82 have between 1 and 4 dependants, 53 have
between 5 and 7, while 19 have 8-10 dependants. These statistics indicate that most of

26
the respondents are married and have high chances of receiving both psychological and
physical support from their family members in terms of effecting maize farming.

The respondents were also asked to name any other crop they planted a part from maize
and if they carried out any other economic activity other than crop farming. More than
8 crops were named, whereby bananas took the highest share at 100 respondents,
followed by vegetables, beans, a combination of beans and bananas and potatoes at 29,
15, 11 and 10 respondents respectively. Other crops noted therein include coffee
planting, sorghum and millet, sugarcane and peas. In response to other economic
activity(s), most of the respondents indicated that they conducted assorted business,
kept animals and did poultry farming, while others did nothing at all and others are
employed elsewhere at 76, 48, 28, 16 and 11 respondents respectively.

The last provision for section A of the questionnaire required the respondents to provide
their consolidated monthly income: including income from all other sources that may
exist. Provision for this section intended to establish the level of financial support that
maize farming receives, whether by taking maize farming as the core activity in the
farmer’s family or as a supportive activity. From the statistical analysis, Ksh.900000
was established to be the highest income and recorded by one farmer who had category
3 farm size and conducted multiple businesses. Five (5) farmer with the lowest income
received Ksh.15000 each. It was further established that these five farmers belong to
the least farm size category and had either no any other source of income or had many
dependants.

It is also important to note that most of the low income farmers with small sizes of land
were youths. As provided by the [Link] in excel, most of the farmers earn an
average of Ksh.70000, with county average of about Ksh.117000. The distribution
shows that Saboti Sub-County had an income average of Ksh.158000, Kiminini had the
least at Ksh.50000, Cherengany had Ksh.103000, Endebess had Ksh.142000 and
Kwanza had Ksh.133000 as figure 4.4 shows. This shows that Saboti Sub-County has
the highest income among registered small scale maize farmers, consequently followed
by Endebess, Kwanza, Cherengany and Kiminini Sub-Counties respectively.

27
Figure 4.4: Average Income per Sub-County

Average Income per Sub-County

23% Saboti
27%
Kiminini
Cherengany
8% Endebess
24%
Kwanza
18%

Source: Researcher (2019)

From the statistic above, it is apparent that more financial support towards maize is
highly likely to be possible in Kiminini Sub-County, followed by Endebess, Kwanza,
Cherengany and Kiminini Sub-Counties respectively. The high income is likely to
support the mitigation of the negative maize farming trends that are exhibited within the
factors that affect maize production. To be specific, high income boosts the propensity
to use improved maize seeds, graded fertilizer and use of extension services.
Theoretically, it is therefore anticipated that Saboti Sub-County be the leading Sub-
County in maize production. It is equally important to note that sometimes high income
means less dependency on farming, meaning reduced that maize production.

4.4 Production and Institutional Factors

The study sought to establish the occurrence of the individual factor affecting maize
production in Trans-Nzoia County. The investigation was anchored in section B of the
questionnaire which dealt with production and institutional factors. The respondents
were asked to state yes or no on the characterization of the factors and further asked to
provide the extents if their answers pertaining rainfall and service extension were yes.
The technology factor was given more concern by widening its scope. The responses
provided on access to hybrid seeds, access to graded fertilizer, change of rainfall pattern
and extension services are represented in figure 4.5

28
Figure 4.5: Occurrence of Factors of Production

Occurence of Factors of Production

120.00%

100.00% 96.20% 96.20%

83.15%
80.00%

60.00% Yes
No
40.00%
16.85%
20.00%
3.80% 3.80%
0.00%
Hybrid Seeds Graded Fertilizer Extension Services

Source: Researcher (2019)

From table 4.5 above, (96.2%) 177 respondents indicated that they used
improved/hybrid maize seeds in the previous maize planting season while the remaining
3.8% (7) respondents indicated otherwise. The same number of respondents with partial
difference in individualism also indicated that they used graded fertilizer during the
same planting season. The responses shows that access to hybrid maize seeds is not an
impermeable challenge, and so is the access to graded fertilizers. It is then expected that
the contribution of these two factors, access to hybrid maize seeds and graded fertilizer,
will be paramount. The questionnaire further required those farmers who used graded
fertilizer to indicate whether they acquired the fertilizers in full or in subsidized prices.
141 of the 177 farmers indicated that the fertilizer they used was acquired under full
prices while the rest indicated otherwise.

In the next question the respondents were asked to indicate if they had received
extension services in the last maize planting season. 83.15% (153) of the respondents
indicated that they did not received any extension service during the last maize season
while 16.85% (31) of them indicated otherwise. To further understand the extent at
which the factor was practiced, the respondents were further provided the option to
indicate how many times they did get extension services in that very same season. 16
respondents indicated that they received extension services once in that particular

29
season, 12 respondents indicated that they received extension services twice while 3
respondents indicated that they received the services thrice.

Concerning technology, the questionnaire focused on the use of tractor, direct human
labour and use of chemicals in ploughing, planting and tilling. For irrigation, it was
assumed that there only exists the option of either irrigating or not. Those irrigating
were then bound to using an irrigation pump. Table 4.1 represents the findings.

Table 4.1: Type of Technology Used in Maize Farming

Technology Ploughing Planting Tilling Irrigation

Tractor/ use of 69.02% 15.76% 22.83% 1.63%
Pump for Irrigation
Manpower 30.98% 84.24% 73.37% 0.00%

Chemicals 0.00% 0.00% 3.80% 0.00%

Totals 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1.63%

Source: Researcher (2019)

As indicated in table 4.1, 69.02% of the respondents use tractor while 30.98% of them
use manpower in ploughing. 15.76% of the respondents use tractors while 84.24% of
them use manpower in planting. While tilling for the maize crops, the responses indicate
that 22.83% of them use tractors and any other form of machinery, 73.37% use
manpower and 3.8% use chemicals. Irrigation is one factor that nearly all farmers were
found not to practice, only 1.63% of the respondents did. The three farmers indicated
that they use a pump for do the irrigation. However, as they further argued, the irrigation
was only done for the period when the maize was planted to the germination.

The respondents were also required to declare if the land they used in maize farming
was owned by them or it was leased to them. They were then asked to tick between
owned and leased. Out of the 184 respondents, 123 indicated that the land they planted
maize was their own while the rest indicated that the land was leased to them. The
assumption behind this question was that leased land tend to be effectively utilized
compared to lands that are fully owned by the farmers. The perspective also determines
if the farmer performs soil testing, a factor that was equally in question. In the responses
concerning the factor, 18 respondents indicated that they performed soil testing. Of the
30
18 respondents, 5 indicated that they performed soil testing once in the last five years,
as 11 respondents indicated performing the testing twice and 2 respondents having
performed the testing three times. From the findings, it can be noted that the act of
performing regular soil testing is not common but at least it is a practice considered
among a few farmers.

4.5 Descriptive Statistics

Section C of the questionnaire intended to establish the exact relation of the dependent
variables (land size, amount of seeds, applied fertilizer, household size, extension
services, use of machines in ploughing and chemical treatment) to the independent
variable (number of maize bags produced). Unlike section A of the questionnaire which
categorized the characteristics of the factors, in Section C, the respondents were asked
to provide the exact size of land in hectares, seeds used in kilograms, number of
household dependants, cost in shillings of chemicals used, cost in shillings that went to
use of machinery in ploughing and the exact number of bags of maize harvested. The
statistics was pulled from the year 2017 and 2018, and an average provided. The
findings were coded and analysed according. The results were as follows.

The SPSS output on descriptive statistics included all the independent variable. The
output is presented in table 4.2 which includes the mean (Mean) of all the factor
variables, the standard deviation (Std. Deviation) and total data set (N).

31
Table 4.2: Descriptive Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N

Maize Production (No. of 84.1848 63.00042 184
Bags)
Land Size (Ha) 3.2935 2.43119 184
Seeds (Kg) 33.5788 25.03147 184
Applied Fertilizer (Kg) 160.7255 122.08969 184

Household Size 4.2582 2.56072 184

Extension Services (No. .3750 .94991 184
of Times)
Ploughing using 6745.3804 7214.51882 184
Machines
Chemical Treatment 3177.1467 4678.88387 184

Source: Researcher (2019)

Maize production, which is the dependent variable had a mean of 84 bags of maize and
a standard deviation of 63 bags. Such a higher spread of standard deviation means that
most of the farmers produce far less or more than 84 bags of maize. In terms of land
size, a mean of 3.3 ha and a standard deviation to 2.4 indicates that most farmers have
land that measure around 3 and 4 hectares with a disparity of about 2 hectares. Having
the same characteristics the use of seeds, household size, fertilizer application and
chemical treatment.

However, the use of chemicals indicated herein is different from that explained in
section A due to the fact that in this section respondents included chemicals used in
plant treatment as opposed to the responses in section A that included only those
chemicals used in tilling. It can also be noted that the use extension service is very rare
in that it records a mean of 0.38 and a standard deviation of 0.95. Similarly, the use of
machinery in ploughing records a mean of 6745 with a higher standard deviation of
7214; showing that the practice is not uniformly distributed but skewed towards extreme
ends.

32
4.6 Inferential Analysis
The following regression model was applied to measure the relationship between the
involved factors and maize production among registered small scale maize farmers in
Trans-Nzoia County.

The Regression model was as follows:

Y=W0+β1X1+ β2X2+…+ɛ

Key:
Y = Maize Production (Number of Maize Bags)

X1 = Access to Land
X2 = Access to Hybrid Seeds
X3 = Access of Fertilizer
X4 = Demographics
X5 = Extension Services
X6 = ploughing using machines
X7 = chemical treatment

W0 = Coefficient of intercept (Constant)

β1… β6 = Coefficient of variable X1… X7

Regression was carried out between the independent variables and dependent variable.
The independent variables that represent land size, amount of applied seeds and
fertilizers, household size, extension services, use of machinery and chemical treatment
while dependent variable represent operational performance. Average rainfall which
represented climate change was excluded from the entry variables as the respondents
were not able to adequately provide its measure. The study therefore relies on section
B for the interpretation of the rainfall variable.

The model summary indicate a correlation value of 0.996 which shows a high
relationship between independent and dependent variables. This characteristic
relationship is also shown by the determination coefficient reading at 0.991. The
coefficient of determination indicates that the regression line holds explanation for
99.1% of the total observation.
33
Table 4.3: Model Summary
Change Statistics

Std. Error of
the Estimate
Adjusted R
R Square
R

Square
Model

R
Square Sig. F
Change F Change df1 df2 Change
1 .996a .991 .991 6.07229 .991 2788.932 7 176 .000
a. Predictors: (Constant), Chemical Treatment, Extension Services (No. of Times),
Household Size, Ploughing using Machines, Applied Fertilizer (Kg), Seeds (Kg),
Land Size (Ha)
Source: Researcher (2019)

The significance of the regression model was established using ANOVA. An f-

significance value (p-value) of 0.000 was established. This shows that the regression
model has a less than 0.000 likelihood of giving an erroneous prediction: P=0.000<0.05.
The regression model is therefore termed to be sufficient in establishing and explaining
for the study’s findings and objectives. Table 4.5 shows the ANOVA Analysis.

Table 4.4: ANOVA

Sum of
Model Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 719847.131 7 102835.304 2788.932 .000b

Residual 6489.587 176 36.873

Total 726336.717 183
a. Dependent Variable: Maize Production (No. of Bags)
b. Predictors: (Constant), Chemical Treatment, Extension Services (No. of
Times), Household Size, Ploughing using Machines, Applied Fertilizer (Kg),
Seeds (Kg), Land Size (Ha)
Source: Researcher (2019)

34
Table 4.5: Regression Coefficient
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) -1.601 .994 -1.610 .109
Land Size (Ha) 26.155 2.675 1.009 9.777 .000
Seeds (Kg) -.166 .213 -.066 -.782 .435
Applied Fertilizer .034 .027 .067 1.280 .202
(Kg)
Household Size .276 .190 .011 1.451 .148
Extension -1.095 .477 -.017 -2.297 .023
Services (No. of
Times)
Ploughing using -0.00036 .00014 -.041 -2.623 .009
Machines
Chemical .00042 .00013 .031 3.206 .002
Treatment
a. Dependent Variable: Maize Production (No. of Bags)
Source: Researcher (2019)

The regression model in table 4.3 shows significance of four factors that include land
size, chemical treatment, ploughing using machinery, and extension services. Seed and
fertilizer rate, and household number were found to be statistically insignificant at 95%
confidence level with 0.435, 0.202 and 0.148 respectively. The following regression
model was obtained.

Y = -1.601 + 26.2X1 – 0.166X2 + 0.34X3 + 0.276X4 – 1.095X3 – 0.00036X4 + 0.0042 + 0.824

From the resulting model, it can be deduced that if land as a variable is held at a constant
of 1 ha and other factors kept constant, the value of maize production would be at 26.2
bags. In this regard, the study shows a significant relationship between maize
production and size of land (p=0.000), chemical treatment (p=0.002), ploughing using
machinery (p=0.009) and use of extension services (p=0.023).

However the increment indicated on chemical treatment and reduction by ploughing

using machinery might be significantly low to the relevance of the involved cost which
are associated with increasing and reducing the number of bags produced. Extension
services factor equally record a negative coefficient that is a bit higher: at -1.095. This
coefficient means that for every one unit of involved extension service, production

35
reduces by 1.095. Therefore, it is appropriate to state that the most important factor is
size of land.

4.7 Enhancing Production and Institutional Factors

The last part of Section C required the respondents to critically think and suggest to
their ability the best ways to improve the maize production factors. The questionnaire
sub-section provided six (6) factors with space for suggestions. The factors included
access to land, seeds and fertilizer, extension services and technology. All 184
respondents attempted to provide for the respective responses. To improve access to
land, most of the respondents suggested that both national and county governments
facilitate credit facility specifically for land acquisition and lease. The credit be
channelled specifically to registered maize farmers. Another substantive pool of
respondents suggested provision maize farming-loan products by banks, through the
influence of the Ministry of Agriculture.

The suggestion provided for access to seeds factor include educating farmers on the best
yield-based hybrid varieties for the five (5) sub-counties, and full subsidizing of the
seed prices by the government through NCPB and any other authorized distributor. The
same suggestions were also provided for the access to fertilizer factor. Concerning
extension services, most of the respondents suggested that all the extension services be
attached to the NCPB as the body in-charge. In this criteria, they further added that the
NCPB offices be distributed to every administrative ward to facilitate access. Lastly,
the suggestions provided on improving access to technology include providing special
loan and credit facilities for acquisition of heavy machinery and facilitating cheap
acquisition of quality chemical spraying pumps.

36
 CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS

5.1 Introduction
This chapter contains discussions, conclusions and recommendation. The chapter is
based on the analysis of the findings and the underlying objectives of the study. The
objectives include; establishing the factors involved in maize production among
registered small scale farmer in Trans-Nzoia County, and establishing the effect of the
identified factors on maize production in Trans-Nzoia County.

5.2 Discussion
The following is the discussion of the research findings upon which conclusions and
recommendation are drawn. The undertaking of the research was guided by two specific
objectives. Collection of data was done through the guide of two main research
questions that were directly obtained from the research objectives. From the analysis of
the first objective, the study indicates that all variables are important. However, Trans-
Nzoia County being a high-potential area, some variable are natural aspirated to occur
thereby consequently overshowing the occurrence of others. A good example include
the insignificance of fertilizer usage. The factor is overshadowed by the fact that the
area is a high potential maize production area with conducive soils and ecological base.
There exists a difference in the way each factor influence maize production, but this
phenomenon is only explained by the statistical and inferential analysis on both
objectives.

On preliminaries, the analysed response rate indicate the success of the study in the data
collection method as well as the ethical standards involved during data correction
period. It also shows that most of the respondents were ready to provide information on
request. The same response criteria was replicated throughout the questionnaire. It was
noted early enough that the farmers/respondents had an anticipation on rainfall as a
factor, with many seemingly suggesting that the stability in climatic conditions
contribute greatly to the zoning of Trans-Nzoia as a maize belt.

It was also established that most of the respondents indicated that they acquired fertilizer
on full selling price against the maize production strategy by the Ministry of Agriculture
37
(TIAPD & RAES, 2003) which suggest on subsidized fertilizer. This means that the
fertilizer subsidy policy by the GoK through Ministry of Agriculture has not been
successful. The respondents, 80 percent, equally showed that used hybrid seeds. The
findings contradict the findings of Crowley and Carter (200) who post that a significant
number of maize farmers in Kenya use basic varieties/recycled seeds. This equally
aligns to the objectives of Government of Kenya and the Ministry of Agriculture in the
objective of instituting NCPB and KEPHIS. NCPB and KEPHIS are mandated to ensure
distribution and use high quality seedlings by farmers in Kenya. In supporting maize
production, the seedling and fertilizer factors resolves or mitigates the soil content
problem indicated by Nyoro et al. (2015). Perhaps the county does not critically require
the use of fertilizer due to the fertility of the land, but to those ready to otherwise use
them should get the product under subsidized prices a little bit. This will go way far in
encouraging the use of fertilizer, especially in those areas experiencing diminishing
maize based nutrients. The subsidy programme by the national government should be
working.

The analysis on household size was found to be statistically insignificant to maize

production, meaning that it had no direct relationship whatsoever to the number of bags
produced. However, the use of machinery was found to be significant on a negative
though not by tangible margins. Not all respondents indicated that they were using
tractors in ploughing. Those that did use tractors indicated total machinery costs that
was way far below the expected total ploughing cost. To amalgamate the two
perspectives, it can be argued that the use of machinery like tractors stands as a
secondary mode of ploughing as opposed to the use of human manpower. This is the
same reason why the cost of ploughing using machine expresses a negative effect on
number of maize bags harvested: Because manpower was already in operation as the
primary factor while use of tractors was a secondary option that is unnecessary.
However, on hypothetical position it can argued that if machinery was intensified with
little involvement of direct human labour, the total cost will reduce due to reduction in
additional and unnecessary secondary machine usage.

Considering the argument of Ojala (2014) that production of maize in the future will
depend on the youth in the society and contrasting with the analysis of findings herein
which shows that most of the maize farmers are of an average of 40 years of age, it is
38
important to start empowering the young to embrace maize farming. The current
statistics places maize farming at the age of 40 years and even further indicates that the
distribution is skewed towards the older age. The effect equally translate to the firm size
category, with the young cultivating small pieces of land, averaging at 1 to 2 hectares.
Those with large size of large include mostly from the older and elderly members of the
society who again have higher disposable incomes. This findings conform to the
findings of Duvel, Chiche and Steyn (2003) who arguably indicate that maize farming
is for the elderly members of the society. These arguments and findings shows how
sensitization of farming to the youth has not been effective yet. It is also arguable that
compared to the old, the farming potential among the young people is high and that it
only requires motivation and consequently exploitation of the ability.

The contribution of access to land factor in maize production is enormous. As indicated

by analysis of the findings of this study, an increase in one unit of land significantly
leads to more produce. However, with the small land size distribution exhibited in
Trans-Nzoia County, farmers will always be producing small units of yields. This
occurrence agrees with CGIAR (2016) who post that land distribution in SSA countries
and especially in productive regions is a major problem. Taking Trans-Nzoia as an
example to explain CGIAR’s notion and considering the population distribution (Trans-
Nzoia County, 2013), it is the apparent that the large population leads to sub-division
of land into small sizes –whose production is limited to the small size. Small sized of
land, especially non-merged ones express high operational costs that do interfere with
economies of scale that can otherwise be expressed by large and continuous tracks of
land. The cost of using machinery will reduce, as well as dynamics of lead timing.

It terms of climatic change, Simiyu (2014) agrees with FAO (2006) that climate change
is a very important aspect and variable input to maize production. Part of the climate
changes that involve changes in maize production are mentioned by Michele (2001) as
change in humidity, temperature and rainfall. This study did not focus on climate
change. However, taking into consideration the exposed characterization on fertilizer
application which record an insignificance index of 0.202 meaning that its effects are
probably by chance, it can be assumed that the occurrence of the maize yields can
heavily be explained by the stable climate. In addition, it is worth noting that the County
is a high-potential region with adequate and consistent rains. Perhaps, the real
39
observation on the fertilizer could be if the climatic condition in Trans-Nzoia County
was not consistently potential.

The assumption that the Trans-Nzoia County is well served with rainfall is not an
abstractive idea but a conclusive reading. A reading that is justified by the Trans-Nzoia
County Integrative Development Plan 2018-2022 (Trans-Nzoia County, 2018) which
indicate that the county receives annual rainfall of about 1000mm to 1700mm. The
report equally aligns the long and short rain seasons, adequately matching the maize
planting seasons. The report equally indicates that the temperatures in the county are
optimal for maize production even when the rains fall short, meaning that humidity is
highly supportive. This findings on fertilizer can be aligned to Chumo (2013) who
indicate that rainfall pattern and humidity highly influence maize production thereby
supressing other major and important factors.

The use of technology in this study was sub-divided into the use of machinery to plough
and the use of chemicals. The study found both technologies very important in maize
production, though to a very small extent. In spite of its low influence, which has been
termed as high by Abate (2015), use of machinery in ploughing contains a positive
influence that is statistically acceptable. This findings are in agreement with Challinor
et al. (2016) who insists that the effect of technology is largely felt on the costing side
and not really on production rates. It is however important to understand the level of
production that will prudently be mechanized by technology and become effective and
efficient. For example, in large sized lands and as observed in this study, the use of
technology enhances might bring about economies of scale -which is a favourable to
production when cost is factored.

Extension service was also identified as one of the factors that influenced production,
though in a negative manner. Studied by Yaron et al. (1992) and Ojala (2014) indicate
otherwise by arguing that extension services are important especially in areas with
climatic inconsistencies and farmers who lack formal education in maize production.
However, the negative level of significance to maize production experienced in Trans-
Nzoia County means that the farmers should prudent in introducing extension services.
This is because with other factors held constant, that is, if the maize planting is done
accordingly and their happens to be no uncertainties in growth conditions, then
40
introducing extension services will only add to the total cost. It is therefore important
that maize farmers introduce extension services only when it is necessary.

5.3 Conclusion
The focus of this study was to establish the factors affecting maize production among
registered small scale farmers in Trans-Nzoia County. The study equally sought to
establish the effects of the factors on maize production. The objective was analysed
according to conclusiveness of the data collected.

All the factors were found to be important in maize production. However, the regression
coefficients indicated that only land, chemical treatment, use of machinery in ploughing
and extension services had a significant influence on maize production. But, the use of
extension services exhibited a negative influence while the other three exhibited a
positive influence. The study therefore concludes that land size, chemical treatment, use
of machinery and extension services influence maize production. Consequently it is
apparent that more focus should be directed to land size and use of machinery.
Extension services should only be used in Trans-Nzoia County if the service are
provided by the relevant institutions and are cost-free, or unless there exists a
necessitating scenario.

On equal measure, chemicals are influential to maize production but should be used
only when necessary. It is also important for farmers to consider the prevailing
conditions of their given regions: whether the ecological and climatic conditions are
sufficient and stable. This is because the preference of most of the conditioning factors
are determined by the natural occurrences. For example, it is not prudent to practice
irrigation on wet lands and so is the exploitation of other factors. Conclusively, the
registered small scale maize farmers should exclusively exploit the factors of production
based on the occurrence and the prevailing requirements.

5.4 Recommendations of the Study

Based on the finding, this study recommends that registered small scale maize farmers
in Trans-Nzoia County focus on enhancing the land size factor. This can be done
probably through making land use trade-off on other crops. The government should also
enhance the acquisition of land for maize production through provision of focused credit
and loan facilities. In an alternative suggestion, through the involvement of the ministry
41
of land, maize famers in Trans-Nzoia County should find amicable solution to the land
sub-division problem, and encourage large farm tracks. The factor of extension services
should also be approached prudently to avoid unnecessary expanses that might
negatively influence maize production. It is also recommended that farmers use
chemical treatments only when necessary. Importantly, to enhance maize production
and resolve on the issues involved, the farmer must collaborate with national and county
government institutions. It also important to empower the youth to take up the maize
farming activity from the elderly and embrace technology. As suggested by the farmers,
the local and national governments should also assist farmers in securing loans to
finance maize production and fully effect the distribution of subsidized hybrid seeds
and fertilizer.

5.5 Limitations of Study

This study contains two limitations. There exists a large pool of factors affecting maize
production other than those indicated in this study. The ones dealt with in this study
might be the most common one, but other factors like maize prices, distribution
channels and consumption trends exert substantive impact. The second limitation is
based on location and the involved ecological and climatic conditions. Trans-Nzoia
County is a high-potential region with fairly stable maize production conditions. Other
regions might not be experiencing similar stability, therefore it is essential to understand
that the findings and characterization of the factors might highly or slightly differ.

5.6 Suggestion for Further Study

This section is based on the limitations indicated in section 5.5 which underlines the
limitations of the study. This study suggest that a further research involving all possible
factors be conducted to establish the true position of maize production. If possible, the
study should exhibit a cross-county approach involving at least one low potential area.

42
 REFERENCES

Abate, T., Mugo, S., De Groote, H., & Regassa, M., W. (2015). A Quarterly Bulletin of
the Drought Tolerant Maize for Africa Project (CIMMYT-Kenya). DT Maize,
Vol. 3, Pp. 1-4.

Adijah, M., A., Kathuri, N., J., Odero-wanga, D., & Shivoga, W., A. (2011). Challenges
Facing Small Maize Farmers in Western Province of Kenya in the Agricultural
Reform Era. American Journal of Experimental Agriculture, Vol. 1(4), Pp. 466-
476.

Agarwal, P. (2018). Malthusian Theory of Population. Intelligent Economist.

Agricultural Department of South Africa (2003). Maize Production, Jean du Plessis.

Printed and Published by the Department of Agriculture, South Africa.

Alvi, M., H. (2016). A Manual for Selecting Sampling Technique in Research. MPRA
Paper, No. 70218.

Araus JL, Cairns JE (2014) Field High-Throughput Phenotyping: The New Crop
Breeding Frontier. Trends in Plant Science, Vol. 19, Pp. 52-61.

Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of

Management, 17, 99-120.

Battese, G., E., Coelli, T., J. (2005). A Model for Technical Inefficiency Effects in a
Stochastic Frontier Production Function for Panel Data. Empirical Economics,
Vol. 20. Pp. 325-332.

Blanca, I., S., T. (2017). Farmers’ Preference and the Factors Affecting their Decision
to Improve Maize Crops in Mexico. Unpublished Dissertation, Universtat
Politecnia De Catalunya.

Business Daily Africa (2016). Cereal Board Says it will only buy Maize from
Registered Farmers. [Link]
maize-from-registered-farmers/539546-3459528-y5eafuz/[Link], Accessed
on 20th September, 2018
43
CGIAR (2016). Maize Agri-Food Systems Proposal, 2017-2022. Research Program on
Maize.

Challinor, J., Koehler, K., Ramirez-Villegas, J., Whitfield, S., Das, B. (2016). Current
Warming will Reduce Yields Unless Maize Breeding and Seed Systems Adapt
Immediately. Nature Climate Change, Vol. 6(10), Pp. 954–958.

Chumo, M., K. (2013). Determining Factors that Affect Maize Production in Turbo
Constituency, Kenya. Unpublished MA Research Project, University of Nairobi.

Citizen Digital (2018). Maize Farmers to Register with NCPB in Fight against Imports.
[Link] Accessed on
20th September, 2018

Cochran, W., G. (1977). Sampling Techniques. 3rd Ed, New York. John Wiley & Sons.

Cooper, D., & Schindler, P., S. (2003). Business Research Methods (8th Ed.). New
Delhi: Tata Mcgraw-Hill Publishing Company. India.

Crowley, E., L., & Carter, S., E. (2000). Agrarian Change and the Changing
Relationships between Toil and Soil in Maragoli, Western Kenya (1900–1994).
Human Ecology, Vol. 28(3)

Daly, H., E. & Farley, J. (2011). Ecological Economics, Principles and Applications.
2nd Ed. Washington, Island Press.

Darshan Institute (n.d). Theory of Production: Engineering Economics and

Management. Institute of Engineering and Technology.

Elhrich, P., R. & Elhrich, A., H. (2009). The Population Bomb Revisited. The Electronic
Journal of Sustainable Development, Vol 1(3), Pp. 63-71.

FAO (2006). FAO Statistical Data [online]. [Link]

Accessed on 15th, November 2018.

FAO (2012). Crop Prospects and Food Situation.

[Link] Accessed on 15th
September, 2018.
44
FAO (2013). Food and Agriculture Data. [Link]
Accessed on 22nd November, 2018.

FAO (2014). Youth and Agriculture: Key Challenges and Concrete Solutions;
[Link]/3/[Link]. Accessed on 15th November, 2018.

Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D., C. (1989). Chief Executive Compensation: A Study of
the Intersection of Market and Political Processes. Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 10, Pp. 121-134.

Fufa & Hassan (2006). Small Scale Farmers in Benue State. Journal of Economic and
International Finance

Gaspard, N. (2017). An Economic Analysis of the Factors Influencing Maize

Productivity and Efficiency in Rwanda: A case of Gatsibo District. Unpublished
MSC Thesis, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology.

Government of Kenya (2012). National Cereal and Produce Board Act, Chapter 338.
Published by the National Council for Law Reporting with the Authority of the
Attorney-General.

Government of Kenya. (2010). Constitution of Kenya. Article 184; 187; Chapter 11.

Hambrick, D., C., & Mason, P., A. (1984). Upper Echelons: The Organization as a
Reflection of its Top Managers. The Academy of Management Review, Vol.
9(2), Pp. 193-206.

Hopfenberg, R. (2003). Human Carrying Capacity is determined by Food Availability.

Population and Environment, Vol. 25(2), Pp. 109-117.

Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three Approaches to Qualitative Content

Analysis. Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 15(9).

Hystra Hybrid Strategies Consulting (2015). Small-Holder Farmers and Business: I5

Pioneering Collaborations for Improved Productivity and Sustainability. A
Collaborative Paper of Hystra, Ashoka and SDC.

45
Idrisa, Y., L., Shehu, H., & Ngamdu, M., B. (2012). Effect of Adoption of Improved
Maize Seed on Household Food Security in Gwoza Local Government Area of
Borno State Nigeria. Global Journal, volume 12, ISSN 5 version.

Ignaciuk & Mason-D’Croz (2014). Modelling Adaption to Climate Change in

Agriculture, OECD Food. Agriculture and Fisheries Papers. No. 70, OECD
Publishing.

Issa, F., O., Kagbu, J., H., & Abdulkadir, S., A. (2014). Analysis of Socio-Economic
Factors Influencing Farmers’ Adoption of Improved Maize Production
Practices in Ikara Local Government Area of Kaduna State, Nigeria.
Agrosearch, Vol 2, Pp. 15-24.

Joshi, P., K., Singh, N., P. Singh, N., N., Gerpacio, R., V., & Pingali, P., L. (2005).
Maize in India: Production System, Constraints and Research Priorities.
CIMMYT, Mexico.

Kamoni, P., T., Kimigo, J., Kibunja, C., N., Esilaba, A., O. & Gathaara, V., N. (2013).
Food Security: A Case of Maize Production in Kandara District, Muranga
County. Paper Presented to the Joint Proceedings of the 27th Soil Science
Society of East Africa and the 6th African Soil Science Society.

Kenya Bureau of Statistics (2018). Population Projections.

[Link]

Khalil, A., & Amjad, A. (2016). Rising Population and Food Insecurity Linkages in
Pakistan: Testing Malthusian Population Growth Theory. MPRA Paper No.
71131. [Link] Accessed on 15th November,
2018.

Kilonzi, S., M. (2011). Maize Production and Its Implication on Food Security for Small
Scale Farmers in Bukhayo West-Busia Kenya. Unpublished MMDA Research
Project, Van Hall Larenstein University.

Kothari, C., R. (2004). Research Methodology Methods and Techniques. 2nd Ed., New
Delhi: New Age International (Pty) Ltd.

46
Kothari, C., R. (2004). Research Methodology, Methods and Techniques. 2nd Ed. New
Age International, New Delhi.

Lani, J. (2009). Sample Size. Statistics Solutions.

[Link] Retrieved on 22/01/2019.

Leufstedt, S. (2012). Population or Environmental Food Crisis? The Potential of

Organic Farmimg to Sustain Human Livelihood. Unpublished Bachelors Thesis.
Lund University.

Malthus, T. (1798). An Essay on the Principle of Population. Edited by Flew, Antony

(1970). Harmondsworth.

Martinez, A. (2000). Fertilizer Use Statistics and Crop Yields. Muscle Shoals,
Alabama: IFDC.

Meyer, F., H. (2006). Model Closure and Price Formation under Switching Grain
Market Regimes in South Africa. Unpublished Phd thesis, University of
Pretoria. Pretoria.

Michele, B, (2001). Linkages between FAO Agro-Climatic Data Resources and the
Development of GIS Models for Control of Vector-Borne Diseases. Acta
Tropica Vol. 79, Pp.21–34.

Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries (2018). Crop Condition Report:

National Synthesis.

Minten, B., & Barrett, C., B. (2008). Agricultural Technology, Productivity, and
Poverty in
Madagascar. World Development, 36(5), Pp. 797–822.

Molenberghs, G. (n.d.). Survey Methods and Sampling Techniques. University of

Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Belgium.

Mugenda, O., M., & Mugenda, A., G. (2003). Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.
Research Methods Africa Center for Technology Studies (Acts) Press, Nairobi.

47
Muthaura, C. (2015). Effects of Selected Limited Nutrients on Growth and Yield of
Maize and their Variability in Smallholder Farms of Kandara, Muranga County.
Unpublished Master of Science Thesis, Kenyatta University.

National Cereals and Produce Board (2018). Registered Farmers

[Link] Accessed on 20th
September, 2018

Nkonya E, Schroeder, T., & Norman, D. (1997). Factors Affecting Adoption of

Improved Maize Seed and Fertilizer in Northern Tanzania. Journal of
Agricultural Economics Vol. 48(1), Pp. 1-12.

Nkonya, E., Schroeder, T., & Norman, D., (1997). Factors Affecting Adoption of
Improved Maize Seed and Fertilizer in Northern Tanzania. Journal of
Agricultural Economics Vol. 48(1), Pp. 1-12.

Nyoro, k., Kirimi, L., & Jayne, T., S. (2015). Competitiveness of Kenyan and Ugandan
Maize Production: Challenges for the Future. Working Paper 10, Tegemeo
Institute of Agriculture and Development, Egerton University.

OECD-FAO (2014). OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook. OECD Publishing

Ojala, D., O., Nyangweso, P., M., Mudaki, J., S., Evusa, Z., Kiano, E., K., Kisinyo, p.,
& Chachar, J. (2014). Socio Economic Factors Influencing Smallholder Maize
Farming in Migori County, Kenya. Contributed Paper. The 10th Annual
International Conference of Moi University.

Olubandwa, A., M., A., Wanga, D., O., Kathuri, N., J., & Shivoga, W., A., (2010).
Adoption of Improved Maize Production Practices among Small Scale Farmers
in the Agricultural Reform Era. [Link]
[Link]. Accessed on 15/11/2018.

Olwande, J. (2012). Smallholder Maize Production Efficiency in Kenya. Tegemeo

Institute of Agricultural Policy and Development Presentation at the Regional
Workshop on an integrated Policy Approach to Commercializing Smallholder
Maize Production, 6th-7th June, 2012. Norfolk Hotel, Nairobi.

48
Oppong, S. (2014). Upper Echelons Theory Revisited: The Need for a Change from
Causal Description to Casual Explanation. Management, Vol. 19(2), Pp. 169-
183.

Pearce, J., A. & Robinson, R., B. (2011). Strategic Management: Formulation,

Implementation and Control. (12th Ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Penrose, E., T. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, New York: Wiley.

Prassana, B., M. (2014). Maize Research-for-Development Scenario: Challenges and

Opportunities for Asia. Prasanna BM (Eds), Book of Extended Summaries.
Paper presented at the 12th Asian Maize Conference and Expert Consultation on
Maize for Food, Feed, Nutrition and Environmental Security, Bangkok, Pp. 2-
11.

Quamrul, A., & Oded, G. (2008). Malthusian Population Dynamics: Theory and
Evidence. [Link] Accessed on 15th
November, 2018.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (Fourth Edition), New York: Free Press.

Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2013). Research Methods for Business – A Skill Building
Approach, 6th Ed. West Sussex, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN:
978-1-119-94225-2.

Shiferaw, B., Hellen, J., & Muricho, G. (2011). Improving Market Access and
Agricultural Productivity growth in Smallholder Agriculture: What Roles for
Producer Organizations and Collective Action Institutions? Food Security, Vol.
3(4), Pp. 475-489.

Simiyu, S., W. (2014). Factors Influencing Maize Production among Small Scale
farmers in Kenya: A Case of Bungoma Central Sub-County. Unpublished MBA
Project, University of Nairobi.

49
Trans-Nzoia County (2013). Trans-Nzoia County Integrated Development Plan, 2013-
2017. [Link]
plans-2013-2017#

Trans-Nzoia County (2018). Trans-Nzoia County Integrated Development Plan, 2018-

2022. [Link]
development-plan-cidp-2018-2022-draft/

Weisdorf, J., L. (2007). A Malthusian Model with Seasonality. University of

Copenhagen.

World Food Programme (2007). Be Part of the Solution. WFP Organization, Division
of Communication and Public Policy Strategy.

Yaron, D., Dinar A., & Voet, H. (1992). Innovations on Family Farms: The Nazareth
Region in Israel.

50
 APPENDICES

Appendix I: Questionnaire

Identity number. (Assigned by the researcher)

…………...........................

Ensure all questions are provided for.

Section A: Preliminaries (Kindly indicate or tick where appropriate)

1. Sub-County Number
(1, 2, 3, 4 &5 for Saboti, Kiminini, Cherengany, Endebess, and Kwanza respectively)

…………………………

2. What is the size of your maize farm? Kindly provide in Hectares

A. 1-3 ha B. 4-6 ha C. 7-10 ha

3. What is your exact age?

………………………………………..

4. Marital Status.

A. Married B. Single D. Divorced

5. Number of dependants: Children and extended family directly under you.

A. 1-4 B. 5-7 C. 8-10 D. 11 and more

6. Indicate any other crop(s) planted other than Maize crop.

……………………………………………………………..

7. Which other economic activity do you practise?

………………………………………………………………

51
8. What is the total income for the whole family?

KSh…………………

Section B: Production and Institutional Factors (respond appropriately)

9. Indicate on the occurrence of each of the factors as follows (assess each

individually)

(a) Did you use improved maize seeds last season?

Yes No

(b) Did you use graded fertilizer last season?

Yes No

(c) Did you get extension services last season?

Yes No

How many times did you get service extension last season?

…………………………………………

(D) Which technology do you use in ploughing, planting, tilling and irrigation?

Ploughing…………………………………………

Planting……………………………………….......

Tilling……………………………………………..

Irrigation…………………………………………..

10. Do you own the land where you plant maize or is it on lease?
52
 A. Owned B. Leased

11. Do you acquire the fertilizers on a full retail price or are they subsidized?

A. Full price B. Subsidized

12. Do you perform soil testing?

A. Yes B. No

If yes, how many times in the last 5 years ………………………

Section C: Factors and Maize Production

This section is based on a 2-year period and each year has two planting seasons

2017 2018 Average

Factors/
Season 1

Season 2

Season 1

Season 2
All
Year
Seasons

Land size (Ha)

Seeds (Kg)

Applied fertilizer (Kg)

Average rainfall per season (mm)

Household size (number of

people per house)
Extension services per season
(number of times)
Use of machines in Ploughing
(cost per season)

Chemical Treatments (cost in

total per season)

Maize Production (no. of bags)

Note: Seeds -Hybrid seeds be registered in kilograms as recorded by the farmer.

53
 -Traditional records be established as a product of 0.75 to level with
hybrid ones.
14. How can these factors be improved to enhance maize production?
(Exclude the household factor due to its natural nature –not a subject to
manipulation)
a) Access to Land
…………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………

b) Access to Seeds
……………….…………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………

c) Access to fertilizer
…………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………

d) Extension Services
…………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………....................

e) Technology
..…………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………..........................................
..............................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................

END, THANKS

54
 Appendix II: Trans-Nzoia Sub-Counties

Appendix IIa: Location of Trans-Nzoia County in Kenya

Extracted from Trans-Nzoia County Integrated Development Plan 2018-2022

55
Appendix IIb: Sub-Counties of Trans-Nzoia County in Kenya

Extracted from Trans-Nzoia County Integrated Development Plan 2018-2022

56
Appendix IIc: Trans-Nzoia County Annual Mean Rainfall

Extracted from Trans-Nzoia County Integrated Development Plan 2018-2022

57
 Appendix III: SPSS Output

REGRESSION
/DESCRIPTIVES MEAN STDDEV CORR SIG N
/MISSING LISTWISE
/STATISTICS COEFF OUTS CI(95) R ANOVA CHANGE
/CRITERIA=PIN(.05) POUT(.10)
/NOORIGIN
/DEPENDENT Q8
/METHOD=ENTER Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7.
Regression
Notes

Output Created 28-MAY-2019 00:42:36

Comments
C:\Users\Babx\OneDrive\NEW\
Data
Output 3 [Link]
Active Dataset DataSet1
Input Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
N of Rows in Working Data File 184
User-defined missing values are
Definition of Missing
treated as missing.
Missing Value Handling Statistics are based on cases
Cases Used with no missing values for any
variable used.
REGRESSION
/DESCRIPTIVES MEAN
STDDEV CORR SIG N
/MISSING LISTWISE
/STATISTICS COEFF OUTS
CI(95) R ANOVA CHANGE
Syntax
/CRITERIA=PIN(.05)
POUT(.10)
/NOORIGIN
/DEPENDENT Q8
/METHOD=ENTER Q1 Q2 Q3
Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7.
Processor Time 00:00:00.03

Elapsed Time 00:00:00.07

Resources Memory Required 3516 bytes

Additional Memory Required for

0 bytes
Residual Plots

58