Market chain analysis of maize in Gamo and Gofa zone in case of Arbaminch zuria and Demba

Gofa woreda
By: Duge Galtsa.,Kusse Kamaylo., Kassa Tarekegn Markos Dukamo., Tsebaye Tsalla., and
Endrias Oyka
Abstract
The study was conducted in four maize producing kebeles (kola shelle, zeysewozeka, borda and
zanga dormale) of Arbaminch zuria woreda(Gamo zone) and Demba Gofa woreda(Gofa Zone)to
analyze market chain of maize. A total of 151 households were selected from the four kebeles
randomly. To analyse the collected data both descriptive statistics and double hurdle
econometrics model was used. The results of the study indicated that out of the total maize
produced by sampled households, 35.88 % of maize were marketed. According to the
econometric results total family size, land allocated for maize production, market information
and extension contact have significantly affect quantity of maize supplied to market at 5%
significance level. There were less market linkage between the actors and the market information
were inaccurate, based on this result we recommend that the responsible organization would
strength the market and market related issues to recover this gap.

Key words maize production, Channel, Maize marketing, participation

 INTRODUCTION

Back ground and justification introduction

Small-scale subsistence agriculture remains by far the most important sector in Ethiopian
economy and directly supports about 85% of the population in terms of employment and
livelihood; contributes about 50% of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP); and supplies
around 73% of row material requirement of agro-based domestic industries. It is also the major
source of food for the population and hence the prime contributing sector to food security. In
addition, agriculture is expected to play a key role in generating surplus capital to speed up the
country’s overall socio-economic development, (Hassen, 2006).

Maize (Zea mays L.) is one of the major cultivated cereal crops in Ethiopia. It is internationally
superior to most of the other cereals about its nutrient contents, as its grain has greater nutritional
value as it contains 72% starch, 10% protein, 4.8% oil, 8.5% fiber, 3.0% sugar and 1.7% ash
(FAO, 2011, Essubalew et al., 2016).
It is most important cereal commodity, both as a source of food for consumers and as a source of
income for farmers. It is an important crop for food security because it provides the highest share
of caloric intake, accounting for 17-20 percent of the total caloric intake. In addition, the cost is
roughly one half that of wheat and teff, making it particularly important for poor households
(FAO, 2015; Berhane et al., 2011; Rashid, 2010) Maize flow begins with producers who, after
harvest, decide how much to store for household consumption, seed and payment in kind and sell
the remaining food grain (market supply) to a trader or consumer in order to settle debts and
contributions, taxes and to purchase consumer good (Rashid S. et al, 2010). Ethiopia is the fourth
largest maize producing country in Africa, and first in the East African region (FAO, 2012).
Maize is the single most important crop in terms of both number of farmers engaged in
cultivation and crop yield (Shahidur et al., 2010). The smallholder farmers that comprise about
80 percent of Ethiopia’s population are both the primary producers and consumers of maize
(Dawit et al., 2008)

Improved information and marketing facility enables farmers to plan their production more in
line with market demand, to schedule their harvest at the most profitable time, to decide which
market to sell their produce to and negotiate on a more even footing with traders and it also
enables traders to move their produce profitably from a surplus to deficit market and to make
decisions about the economics of storage, where technically possible. Provision of improved and
high yielding varieties, chemical fertilizer, pesticides and insecticides may favor the farmer in
increasing production; however, this is not an end by for itself. Therefore, Khuls and Uhl, (2002)
without modern marketing system, including communications, transportation, storage facilities
and financial arrangement this is not possible.

In the rural areas of Ethiopia, farmers do not have the opportunity to sell their products at
competitive prices. Important inputs, such as fertilizer, improved seed and chemical, are either
unavailable or their prices are usually high making them very costly and unprofitable to farmers
to use. Limited resources, low levels of adoption and use of improved technologies and lack of
adequate infrastructure and institutions that support agricultural development are the major
factors

behind low productivity of small-scale agriculture in Ethiopia that lead to production patterns
dominated by the satisfaction of subsistence requirements and food insecurity at both household
and national levels (Fufa, 2004).

Fair prices for producer can encourage farmers to adopt new technologies, increase production,
to have high income (Woldy, 1994). The possible increment in output resulting from the
introduction of improved technology could not be exploited in the absence of well-functioning
marketing system. An efficient, integrated, and responsive market mechanism is of critical
importance for optimal allocation of resources in agriculture and in stimulating farmers to
increase their output (James, 1972, as cited in Mohammed, 2011). A well-functioning marketing
system is not limited to motivation but it also increases production by seeking additional output.
InArbaminch zuria and Demba Gofa woreda maize is produced as part of major crops and
farmers face high market problem with the commodities. However, marketing chain analysis and
their characteristics have not yet been studied and analysed. Therefore, this study was done to the
purpose of investigating maize marketing chains analysis which identify the information gap and
contribute to better understand on improved strategies for reorienting marketing system for the
benefit of smallholder farmers and traders and point out valuable intervention areas for support
service providers.

Objective

General objective
The general objective of this study is to undertake maize market chain analysis

Specific Objectives
1. To describe maize production and marketing
2. To identify and map major actors along the market chain
3. To investigate profitability of maize production
4. To identify factors that determines maize supply to the market
5. To identify opportunity and constraints along the market chain

METHODOLOGY

Description of the study area

The study was conducted in two districts of Gamo and Gofa zone.

Demba Gofa is one of the woredas in the Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples'

Region of Ethiopia, Part of the Gofa Zone, Demba Gofa is bordered on the south by Uba
Debretsehay and Oyda, on the west by Geze Gofa, on the northwest by Melokoza, on the north
by the Dawro Zone, on the east by Kucha woreda, and on the southeast by Zala woreda. Sawla is
surrounded by Demba Gofa. Demba Gofa was part of former Gofa Zuria woreda. Based on the
2007 Census conducted by the CSA, this woreda has a total population of 81,165, of whom
40,342 are men and 40,823 women; none of its population are urban dwellers. The majority of
the inhabitants were Protestants, with 65.02% of the population reporting that belief, 27.19%
practiced Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity, 4.27% practiced traditional beliefs, and 1.38%
was Muslim. 

Arba Minch Zuria (Amharic "Greater Arba Minch Area") is one of the woredas in the Southern
Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples' Region of Ethiopia. A part of the Gamo Zone located in the
Great Rift Valley;Arba Minch Zuria is bordered on the south by the Derashe special woreda, on
the west by Gerese, on the north by Gachobaba and Chencha, on the northeast by Mirab Abaya,
on the east by the Oromia Region, and on the southeast by the Amaro special woreda. This
woreda also includes portions of two lakes and their islands, Abaya and Chamo. Nechisar
National Park is located between these lakes.

Source and Method of data collection

Both primary and secondary sources were utilized to undertake this study. Primary data sources
incorporate the entire situation of the path from the crop production up to the consumer.
Secondary data on demographic information, trend of crop production, infrastructure
development, market access and other relevant market information were collected from different
stakeholders such as government offices, and literature reviews. Data collection methods used
during the investigation periods includes group discussion with key informant interview. Using
the questioner interviews were conducted through socioeconomics researchers gather data on
household’s socioeconomics and demographic characteristics, farm information, production,
marketing and market access, information service, market actors, maize production and
marketing, marketing channels, challenges and opportunities of maize production, marketing and
consumption.

Sampling technique and sample size

A multi-stage sampling technique was employed. In the first stage, the study woreda were
selected purposively based on availability of maize production. In the second stage, four
participant kebeles were also purposively selected based on the secondary data of the woreda and
consulting experts of the respective woreda office. Sample size was determined based on the
following formula given by Yamane (1967) at 8% level of precision
N
n= n=4494 /1+ 4494( 0.08)2 ˷151
1+ N ( e 2)
Where n- is smaple size
N- Is selected areas population (farmers).
e- Is level precision (8%)

Data analysis
Both descriptive and appropriate econometric model were used.
The descriptive statistics used to analyse the demographic characteristics, maize production, and
marketing. While for econometric analysis, Double hurdle model was used to identify factors
that determine market participation of maize and maize supply to the market. Cragg’s Double
hurdle model (Cragg, 1971) involves two-step estimation procedures. The models use the Probit
model in the first step to determine the probability of participation in the market and the second
stage uses a truncated model to evaluate factors influencing the quantity of maize sold in the
market. The two decisions are, therefore, whether to participate in the market and level of
participation.
Dependent variable: - market participation and the amount of maize supplied to the market
Independent variables: - the factors that affect the maize supply to the market. Those are size of
maize land, total family size, educational level of household, distance to nearest market from
their residence, frequency of extension service, access to market information, utilization of
inorganic fertilizer and improved seed.
The model specification for the double hurdle model is as follows:
The participation stage:
𝑦∗𝑖1= 𝛽1𝑋𝑖1 + 𝜀𝑖1 Participation decision
𝑦∗𝑖2= 𝛽2𝑋𝑖2 +𝜀𝑖2 maize amount marketed
𝑦𝑖 = 𝛽𝑖𝑥1 + 𝛽𝑖𝑥2 + 𝛽𝑖𝑥3 + 𝛽𝑖𝑥4 +𝛽𝑖𝑥5 +𝛽𝑖𝑥6 + 𝛽𝑖𝑥7 + 𝛽𝑖𝑥8 + 𝛽𝑖𝑥9 +𝜀𝑖2 … If 𝑦∗𝑖1> 0 and
𝑦∗𝑖2> 0
The first equation defines the participation decision and non-participation decision model where
𝑦∗𝑖1 takes the value of one if a household made a decision to participate and zero if no
participation. The second equation defines the amount of maize marketed. Where𝑦∗𝑖2 is the
amount of maize marketed. 𝛽1 and 𝛽2 define socio-economic and institutional factors that affect
the discrete probability of participation or non-participation and amount of maize marketed
respectively. 𝜀𝑖1and 𝜀𝑖2 are the error terms of estimation in the participation and amount of
maize marketed respectively.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Descriptive results

As Table 1 depicts, the age of maize producing sample respondents’ ranged from 20 to 75 years,
with a mean age of 39.74 years. Based on categorization of education, the data indicated that
13.25% of the sample respondents had no formal education, 43.71 % attained formal education
ranging from grade 1 to 4, while 36.42% had formal education from grade 5 to 8, 4.64% attained
education level ranging from grades 9 to 10. The remaining 1.99% attained education level
above grade 10. The average family size of the respondents was 6.47 with a minimum and
maximum family size of 2 and 15 persons respectively
Table 1 Demographic characteristics
Variables Producers n=151 Percent
Sex Male 149 98.68
Female 2 1.32
Education level No formal education 20 13.25
Grade 1-4 66 43.71
Grade 5-8 55 36.42
Grade9-10 7 4.64
Grade 10 and above 3 1.99
Mean Family size 6.47
Mean age of HH 39.74
Marital status Married 150 99.34
Single 1 0.66
Source: own survey 2019/2020
Maize production and marketing
Land is the single most important factor of production in the study area. The survey result
indicates that the land allocated for maize production of households ranged from 0.125 to 2.5
hectares with mean average of 0.88 hectare The average production of maize was 23.25
quintal/ha. From the total produced only average of 7.5 Qt marketed in local and district market.

Table 2 Land allocated for maize, production and marketed,

Variable Mean Std. Dev Min Max

Maize land ha 0.8870 0.61071 0.125 2.50
Average maize 23.25 10.998 6 60
produced qt per ha
Amount Marketed
7.5 0.00 40.00
(qt) per HHH 7.148239
Source: own survey 2019/2020
In study area as the respondents respond that from the total of their land resource the 35 % is
allocated for maize production

maz_lnd
35%

tland_ha
65%

Figure 1 land allocated for maize in percent.

According to the survey result presented in Table 3 below, about 79.47% of the sampled
households produce maize for both consumption and market. The remaining 20.53% of the
sampled produce maize for only consumption purpose. This indicates that maize production in
study area is both for consumption and income generating activity for the majority of producers.
The purpose is based on their land resource and production, there is more production they were
sold maize to market otherwise they use only for consumption.

Table 3 Purpose of maize production

Variable Valid Percent

Consumption 20.53
Both or sale and consumption 79.47
Source: own survey 2019/2020
Inputs used for maize production and production seasons
Inorganic fertilizer is one of the most important agricultural production inputs mostly used by
maize farmers in the study area. Moreover, proper application of the recommended fertilizer rate
is important to obtain the required yield and the marketable surplus. Most of the maize farmers
used the inorganic fertilizer, as showed below 56.95%, 58.94% and 21% of sampled respondents
used NPS, Urea and improved seed respectively, with the average rate of 47.96 kg, 42.98 kg and
9.15 kg. As shown in below the most farmers use inorganic fertilizer application for maize
production but they cannot used in recommended rate per hectare.
Table 4 Input uses
Variables 2010/2011
Percent Mean
Fertilizer NPS kg/ha 56.95 47.96 kg
Urea kg/ha 58.94 42.98 kg
Herbicides L/ha 7.1 1.00L
Pesticides /insecticides L/ha 6.7 0.77L
Improved seed kg/ha 21 9.15kg
Source: own survey 2019/2020
In the study area /district/ the maize produced in two seasons, belg and meher. As survey result
indicated that the 57% of sampled maize producers produce maize in both belg and meher, 40%
in belg season and 3% of sampled farmer produce only in meher.
 production season
belg meher both

40%
57%

3%

Figure 2 production season of maize in the study area.

The table 5 shows that the 47.26% , 37.67% , 13.01% , 2.05% of sampled respondents were
stored the maize in sack, local gotera, both in sack and local gotera and other storage method
respectively with mean storage duration of 5.85 month. The sampled respondent expressed that
the 40.40% stored for the purpose of consumption, 24.50% expecting better price, 23.84%
for other purpose including for seed and emergency time the remaining and 11.26% of sampled
respondent stored for saving purpose.
Table 5 Storage methods, reasons to store and mean length of storage

Variable Percent Variable Percent

Storage method Mean expecting better
24.50
price
Sack 47.26 Purpose of saving 11.26
Gotera Purpose of
37.67 40.40
consumption
Both 13.01 Other 23.84
Other 2.05
Storage duration 5.85
in month
Source: own survey 2019/2020
The amount of marketable surplus primarily depends on amount of production, and access to
market information. The role of market information is crucial to reduce information gaps and
uncertainties that exist in the agricultural sector. It is required by producers in their planning of
production and way of marketing the product. 35.23% of respondents got market information
from their personal observation; 31.82 % from other farmer, and 30.68 % from local traders.

As indicated the majority of respondents in the study area got market information from their
personal observation informally before they sell their product. They had travel an average
distance of 41.60 minutes to sell their maize product and they travel average of 27.04 minute to
extension service.

Table 6Access to Market and other service access

Percent Mean
Market Other farmers 31.82
information Local collectors 30.68
Personal observation 35.23
Other 2.27
Distance to nearest market in minute 41.60
Distance to extension service in minute 27.04
Credit access (yes) 21
Source: own survey 2019/2020

Based on the survey data the maize grain marketed in farm gate, local market, district market and
other market (zone market). 63.5% of product was marketed in local market, 20.3% of product
marketed in woreda and zone market and during harvesting time 16.7% of product marketed in
farm gate. During maize marketing 53.5% of price setting run by buyers /traders and the
remaining 46.5 % were demand and supply of market.
Table 7. market place and price setting
Place of market percent Price setting Percent
Farm gate 16.2 Buyer 53.5

Local market 63.5 Market supply and 46.5

 demand
Woreda market and other 20.3

Source: own survey 2019/2020

According to the survey result table 8 below, the mean trading experience for sampled traders in
the area was 7.06 years. The general trading experience of interviewed traders ranges between 1
to 15 years. The percent of Maize traders that had marketing experience ranging from 1 to 5
years 43.3%, 6 to10 years 33.3% and 11 to 15 years were 23.3. Hence, the results revealed that
majority of maize traders in the area are with a trading experience between 1-5 years.
Table 8 Trader experience
Trader experience in Frequency Valid percent
year
1-5 13 43.3
6-10 10 33.3
11-5 7 23.3
Source: own survey 2019/2020
Income source of traders

As showed table 9, below indicated that from the sampled traders about 93% have their own source of
working capital while the remaining 7% were loans from their friends and other sources. The major loan
sources for those who have been engaged on maize trading were friends.

Table 9 income source of traders

Income source Percent

Their own 93
Friends 4
Others 3
Source: own survey 2019/2020
As indicated in the table 10, the maize traders have working capital ranged from 1500 to 167500
with mean capital of 39486.67 ETB
Table.10 Working capital of traders
Variable Observati Mean Std. Dev Min Max
s on
Working 30 39486.6 46861.2 1500 16750
capital 7 0
Source: own survey 2019/2020
The study shows that only 16.67% of maize traders reported that they had access to credit while
the remaining majority (83.33% of maize traders of sampled respondents) reported that they had
no access to credit.
Table 11. Traders access of credit.
Frequency or Percent
observation
Access to credit 5 Yes 16.67
25 No 83.33
Access to 23 Yes 76.67
market 7 No 23.33
information
Source: own survey 2019/2020
Maize marketing actors and their roles

In this study, different actors were involved in bringing maize from the point of production (farm
gate) till it reached the final destination (consumers). According to the data obtained market
participant identified in the transaction process of maize in the study area include
farmers/producers, farmer traders, urban assemblers, district wholesalers, retailers and processors
(cheka processor).

Producers/farmers: these are actors who participate both in production as well as marketing of
maize. They transport maize to the nearest markets (village market) by themselves, either using
pack animals, or animal driven carts, over an average distance of 41.23 minutes. They had
several options to sell their product, selling directly or selling through broker to assemblers (rural
and urban assemblers) and wholesalers. Alternatively, they sell to village assemblers known as
“farmer traders” who assemble maize from of farmers. Farmers also sell their products directly
to wholesalers in district markets. Some of the farmers in the sample also sold their maize to the
consumers in the district market.

collectors; Farmer traders/ are farmers or part-time traders in the assembly markets who used to
buy small quantity of maize from farmers in village markets during slack period for the purpose
of reselling it to consumers or wholesalers in either in rural or district market. They use their
financial resources and their local knowledge to buy maize from the surrounding area.
Brokers: these are agent middlemen who facilitate trades (buying and selling) between farmers
and traders (wholesalers), but do not usually physically handle products. These agents are not
permanent brokers rather their main economic activity is farming during production season of
the year. These intermediaries play important role in bringing farmers of their home residence
sell their marketable surplus to the trader whom they undertook their brokerage activity. Brokers
obtain their reward based on the amount they facilitate transaction usually 30 to 100 birr per
market day.

Wholesalers: Wholesalers are major market participants of the marketing system who usually
buy maize of larger volume than any other actors in the marketing system and resell the products
to urban retail merchants and for other wholesalers than ultimate customers.
Retailers: these are market actors they buy small quantity of maize and resell to the consumer in
the study area. They differ from the collectors by their own grain license. They had trade license
of cereal crops including maize.

Consumers: These are the final actors of the chain who buy maize for their own consumption
purpose. They buy maize directly from producers, retailers and assemblers’ to consume the
maize produced in the study area and consume maize in the form of kurukufa ,kita,
posose,injera,dabo, kolo ,genfo and other . It also includes local communities who consume local
drink called cheka or modo or borde. The maize produced in the district passes through different
channels actors to reach the hands of final consumers.
 Maize marketing channel.

Producer 1411Qt/100%

Urban collector
Farmer trader 471(33.38%)
Wholesaler Retailer
294 (20.83%)
287 (20.34%) 179(12.68%)

Consumer 180 (12.75%)

The above channel numbers was illustrated below in different colour.

Channel I

Channel II

Channel III

Channel IV

Channel V

Figure 3: Maize marketing channel for different actors

Channel I producer-consumer 180(12.75%)

Channel II producer-farmer trader-wholesaler-retailer-consumer 294(20.83%)

Channel III producer- wholesaler-retailer-consumer 287(20.34%)

Channel IV producer- retailer –consumer179 (12.68%)

Channel V producer-urban collector-consumer 471(33.38%)

Accordingly from total amount of maize supplied to market 1411 quantal, largest volume or
33.38% of maize passed through channel V which is about 471 quantal in the study area in year
2019/2020 production year. The second large volume of maize passed through channel II and III
respectively. In the remaining channel the flow maize transaction is low below 20% compared
with other market channel flow.

Maize production costs and profitability

The total revenue obtained from the production of maize per hectare was simply estimating the
amount of maize produced multiplied by a corresponding average price a farmer received in the
production year. The total revenue a sample farmer owned from hectare of land from production
of maize was Birr 15234.33

Subtracting the average production costs from the value of total revenue it would reach positive net
revenue of Birr 7293.56/year. This showed the profitability of farm business Higher productivity and
profitability made maize production more competitive implying that the need for encouragement of maize
production in the study area from economic as well as food security perspective.
Table 12. Maize production costs and profitability of producer

Items Average cost per ha in year

Costs and benefits
Land rent 1100
Land preparation 1833.82
Seed 395.73
NPS 737.46
Urea 689.27
Herbicide 480.00
Earthing up 903.44
Harvesting 686.29
Threshing 426.43
Weevil killer 243.33
Transport 445.00
Total cost 7940.77
Average yield per hectare 23.25
Selling price per quintal 655.24
Revenue from hectare 15234.33
Profit 7293.56 ETB
Source: own survey result 2019/2020
Econometric result
The result of probit regression model indicates that inorganic fertilizer and extension contact
are statistically significant decision variables that influenced the probability of maize market
participation in the study area (Table 13).
The marginal effects of the model, which was calculated as the partial derivatives of the non-
linear probability function evaluated at each variable sample mean was used for interpretations
(Greene, 2008).
Table 13. probit regression result
Probit Coef. Std.err .z Mfx
Total family size -.056325 .466124 -1.21 -.0181396
Maize land -.3663475 .2861551 -1.28 -.1179829
Inorganic .7966084 .3216321 2.48 .2791684
fertilizer
Improved seed .609 .3090867 1.97 .2127182
Market .0823856 .2779984 0.30 .0267119
information
Extension .0950306 .091522 0.97 .0306048
contact
Distance to -.0218215 .032649 -0.67 -.0070276
market
Source own survey result 2019/2020
Use of Inorganic fertilizer influences the maize market participation positively at 1%
significance level. This can be because of the fact that if the producers use properly inorganic
fertilizer then they produce in huge volume and participated in the market.
Extension contact. The extension contact influences significantly and positively the market
participation of maize. The result shows as extension contact increases by a day, the probability
of maize market participation increase by 9.5% holding other explanatory variable constant.
Households who have extension contact at required time have more favour to participate in the
market. Ali (2017)
Table 14 truncated model result.
Market supply Coef. Std. err .z p>|z
Total family -.6088853 .1721954 -3.54 0.000
size
Maize land 3.416558 .7988219 4.28 0.000
Inorganic 1.597381 1.761607 0.91 0.365
fertilizer
Improved seed 2.298474 1.388708 1.66 0.098

Market 2.120282 .9645994 2.20 0.028

information
Extension 2.399657 .2618655 9.16 0.000
contact
Distance to -.0251011 .1189706 -0.21 0.833
market
_cons 1.768699 2.361973 -0.75 0.454

Note: *** and *** significance at 1 % and 5% respectively

Total family size : Family size was influence the level of maize market market participation
negatively at 1% significance level. The family number increase by 1 member ,the volume of
maize supplied to market decreased by 3.54 quantal holding other explanatory variables
constant.This can be because of the fact that if the family number increases the the maize
produced is more consumed in home and the volume of maize supplied to market decrease. The
study of Ali (2018), Ayantu (2018) and Nugasa (2018) agrees with ‘this result.
Land allocated for maize (ha): The land allocated for maize influences the level of maize
market participation positively at 1% significant level. The land allocated for maize production
increased by 1 hectare the volume of maize supplied to market is increased by 4.28 quintals
holding other explanatory variables constant.
Market information: Access to market information influences the level of maize market
participation positively at 5% significant level. Compared households who have no access to
market information, households who have access to market information increases supply of
market by 2.8%, all other variables held constant.
Extension contact Number of days extension contact affects the level of market participation of
maize positively at a significant level of 1% holding all other explanatory variables constant. The
result confirms as extension contact increases by a day, the level of participation in maize market
increase by 2.4%.

Constraints and opportunities along the chain

Constraints
Production and marketing problems of maize producers/farmers
The problems of farmers are usually associated with unstable price for the commodity and low
income sources. Despite the current volume of maize produced and supplied to the market,
farmers face a number of problems in the production and marketing process. Based on farmers
perception the major production and marketing problems reported were rain failure/ the
production is irrigation based, prevalence of American boll worm and folly worms, lack of
access to credit, lack of market information or the information flow from traders to producer
lacks accuracy, consistency, quality and relevancy, limited seed varieties, late
distribution/delivery of inputs ,transportation problems and absence of maize variety pioneer jaba
in/ Demba Gofa woreda/ and higher input price are the major problems associated with the
production and marketing of maize.
Marketing problem of traders
The major marketing problems sample traders faced in the study area were capital shortage, lack
of credit access, poor product quality of the maize, absence of written contracts among actors,
high licence fee, improper levelling/ranking/ of traders without considering their annual income
and unfair competition with unlicensed traders are the major problems faced maize marketing
traders in the study area.

Opportunity
The study area has not only problems associated with production and marketing there is also
many opportunities. Consequently, production and marketing efficiency and effectiveness could
be increased. Among the different opportunities that prevailed, the majors are tried to be
mentioned as follows. Suitability of the area for production; it is the area endowed with fertile
soil type for agriculture and farmers having better land holding relative to the average Ethiopian
farmer are some of natural endowment opportunities. These opportunities are important for the
growth of grain crops like maize, vegetables and other perennial crops like fruits. Furthermore,
as a mixed farming experiencing area the above mentioned opportunities also have potential
contribution for livestock production.
Compared with other marketable commodity maize trade is easy to start and opens the way to
trading. The presence of agricultural research centre which provides agricultural technologies to
the farmers by pre-extension demonstration.
 CONCLUSION
The study was conducted in order to identify production and marketing of maize, identify and
map major actors along the market chain, investigate profitability of maize production, identify a
factor that determines maize supply to the market and finally identify opportunity and constraints
along the market chain.
Production of maize in the study area is both for consumption and market purpose. In the area,
the average land allocated for the production of maize per household was 0.9 hectare. The
respective average production of maize per household head was 23.25 quintals per hectare.The
productivity of maize in study area was low compared with productivity identified at national
level. The average quantity rate of NPS and Urea fertilizer applied for the production of maize
were 47.96 and 42.98 kg per hectare. Some of the reasons for sample respondents to deviate
from the recommended rate of fertilizer per hectare were partly due to lack of financial capacity
of farmers to apply the fertilizer in accordance with the recommended rate. In the study area,
during the year under the study, out of the total maize produced by sample farmers 35.88 %
(1411 quintals) of maize were supplied to the market. The remaining 64.12% of maize hold by
farmers for consumption, repayment for borrowed seed and as source of seed for the next
production year. Rain failure, higher cost of fertilizer and delayed delivery, lack of credit access,
and prevalence of crop worms like America boll worm.

Results of econometric model indicated the relative influence of determinants of different

variables on marketable supply of maize in the study area. A total of seven explanatory variables
were included in the double hurdle model .Of the total seven variables, four variables had shown
significant relationship with marketable supply of maize and two variables had shown
significantly influence the market participation. Accordingly, land allocated for maize
production, access to market information and access to extension contactof the household head
were found to have positive and significant influence on marketable supply of maize and total
family size of the household head was negative and significant influence on marketable supply of
maize. Use of improved seed and fertilizer application were significantly and positively
influence the market participation of maize.
 RECOMMENDATION
Based on the result discussed above the following recommendation forwarded;-

 The agro ecological based recently released varieties of maize would be introduced to
producers to enhance the production.
 In the part of econometric result the family size affects the market participation and
amount of maize supply to market negatively; hence to enhance the maize market supply
the health extension should give awareness to family plan.
 Provision of extension service has to be strengthened so as to improve farmer's access to
information and extension advices through training and other related supports
 Awareness to be given on use of recommended rate of fertilizer.
 Major maize disease and pests should be controlled by strengthening the present crop
protection services.
 To strength the market integration among the actors, the trade and industry bureau should
work with respective offices in the lower level.

REFERENCES
Ali, T. (2017). Value Chain Analysis of Milk: The Case of DessieZuria District, South Wollo
Zone, Northern Ethiopia. Master’s thesis, University of Jimma, Jimma, Ethiopia. p. 136

Ayantu, L. (2018). Value Chain Analysis of Sheep in Tiyo District of Arsi Zone, Oromia
National Regional State. Master’s thesis, University of Haramaya, Haramaya, Ethiopia. p. 94.

Berhane, G., Z. Paulos, K. Tafere, and S. Tamiru. 2011. Food Grain Consumption and Calorie
Intake Patterns in Ethiopia. Ethiopia Strategic Support Program II Working Paper 23. Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia: International Food Policy Research Institute.

Cragg, J. (1971). Some statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to the
demand for durable goods. Econometrica, 39(5), 829-844. https://doi.org/10.2307/1909582
DawitAlemu, Wilfred Mwangi, MandefroNigussie and David J.Spielman, April, 2008, The
maize seed system in Ethiopia: challenges and opportunities in drought prone areas, African
Journal of Agricultural Research Vol. 3 (4), pp. 305-314

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2015. Food Balance Sheets. FAOSTAT. Rome.
(http://faostat3.fao.org/download/FB/FBS/E).

FAO, (2012), Analysis of Incentives and Disincentives for Maize in Ethiopia, Draft version,
October 2012
Hassen R.2006, The climate change and African agriculture: measuring the economic impact of
climate change on the Ethiopian agriculture. Discussion papers no 21, CEEPA, University of
Pretoria, 1-7p.
Kohls, R.L. and J.N. Uhl, 2002. Marketing of Agricultural Product, 9 Edition. Prentice-Hall of
India PLC, New Delhi

Nugusa, A. (2018). Analysis of Maize Value Chain: The Case of Guduru Woreda, Horro Guduru
Wollega Zone of Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia, MSc Thesis. Haramaya University, Ethiopia.
p. 107.
Rashid, S. 2010. Staple Food Prices in Ethiopia. Food Security Collaborative Working Papers
97032, Michigan State University, Department of Agriculture, Food, and Resource Economics.

WoldayAmha (1994), ‗Food grain Marketing Development in Ethiopia after the Market Reform
1990‘: A Case Study of AlabaSiraro District‘, PHD dissertation, Berlin, VerlagKoster