More than three quarters of the respondents (79.3%) were male producers while women comprised less than quarter of tomato producers (20.7%). The findings suggest that men tend to venture into production of agriculture commodities that generate sizable income (cash crops) and that are risky takers as compared to women who like to grow crops for home consumption (Venance et al., 2016).

The study revealed that the majority of the tomato farmers (90.2%) are within the age bracket of 31-52 years. This implies that most of the interviewed farmers are still within the active productive age. This result is in agreement with Simtowe (2010) who reported that middle aged farmers appear more productive.

Based on the results of their marital status, majority (95.1% of the respondents) of them were married. As a result, this could be attributed to the fact that the majority of the respondents, as stated earlier, are of reproductive age, making it obvious that they should be married.

With respect to the educational level of tomato farmers, 27.2% had post primary school education and 65.5% attended primary school education and these can safely be considered literate (Venance et al., 2016). Literate farmers are perceived to have better understanding of management practices of tomato production (Emana et al., 2017; Mwangi et al., 2015; Simtowe, 2010) and can easily understand concepts taught in different trainings consequently adopt new technologies with ease. On the other hand, 7.3% of the respondents had no formal education and this can affect adoption levels among farmers.

Majority of the farmers (54.4%) had household sizes of more than 6 persons and 45.6% of the respondents had family sizes of less than five. Results of the present survey indicate that the family size of the majority of the respondents is slightly higher than national average size in Malawi of 4.5 (NSO, 2016). However, this is a positive contribution to providing family labour for farm functions as there might be need to hire labour.

The farming experience of the farmers is expressed in the number of years the farmer has been into tomato production. Results of the present study show that 74.7% of the farmers had been into tomato production for less than 10 years and this implies that they have less experience in tomato production. This could be attributed to the fact that 90.2% of the respondents as reported above are still young hence may not be into tomato production for a longer time. Survey results reported that very few farmers (25.3%) had farming experience of 10 years and more.

Regarding major occupation of the respondents, the majority of respondents reported income from agriculture related activities (80.4% of the respondents) while only 19.6% of the respondents reported income from both agriculture and non-agriculture related activities such as casual work, building, business, tailoring and brick laying.

Farm size and ownership

Table 7 indicates that both total farm size (62.8% of the respondents) and land allocated to tomato production (99.2% of the respondents) is less than 1 ha with the average area of 1.27 ha (total) and 0.27 ha (under tomato production). These findings are partly agreeing with survey results reported by Al Wang and Siegel (1999) and Simtowe (2010) that 70% of Malawian smallholder farmers  cultivate  less  than 1.0 ha, with the median area cultivated being 0.6 ha, and devote 70% of the land to maize production, the main staple food. The present study suggests that out of total average area of 1.27 ha, about 1 ha may be devoted to maize production and other cash crops and the rest (0.27 ha) to tomato as a minor crop. If this can be the right assumption, the area allocated to tomato production is slightly lower than the area that farmers in Ethiopia allocate to tomato production (0.74 ha) (Emana et al., 2017). Table 7 indicates that majority use their own land (total = 68.5% of the respondents and land allocated to tomato production=73.1% of the respondents). Since the survey results indicate that majority of respondent are men, it may be concluded that they may have an easy access to land. Unfortunately,  the  majority   of    the    respondents (88.3%) have no title deed of their land. This may be due to the fact that land belonging to smallholder farmers is usually customary hence the land is free for use without restrictions as compared to estate farming where land is usually leased either because it is private (owned by government) or it was bought or leased from someone.

Institutional factors

Table 8 indicates institutional factors affecting tomato production and productivity. The survey results revealed that the majority of the respondents have no access to lending institutions that can help tomato farmers with funds (73.6% of the respondents) to support procurement of various inputs. However, few farmers (26.4% of the respondents) indicated that they are able to access funds from lending institutions mainly from Village Saving Loans, Vision Fund and Concern Universal Microfinance Operations. Lack of access to funds from the lending institutions may be a contributing factor to low productivity as tomato farmers may not manage to buy the necessary inputs to support tomato production. It may be deduced that tomato farmers fail to access funds since the majority (81.3% of the respondents) do not belong to any cooperative or association. Use of village cooperatives as a marketing channel could solve the problem to some extent by empowering the farmers. However, most of the cooperatives formed are not active and in most areas are non-existent (Asgedom et al., 2011).

Although there are several sources of getting information on marketing of tomatoes and its production, 40.2% of the respondents get this information from fellow farmers seconded by extension agents (37.2% of the respondents). Only 21.3% of the respondents indicated that the get the information from the radio.

Tomato production constraints

Table 9 reveals the problems that serve as major constraints to production by farmers in the study area. The major four constraints identified by farmers in our study (in order of decreasing importance) were pests, diseases, marketing and input cost. Comparative analysis of tomato value chain competitiveness in selected areas of Malawi and Mozambique by Mango et al. (2015) also identified these four parameters as major constraining factors of tomato production in Malawi.

Pests and diseases of tomato

Among the tomato pests, most farmers (19.0% of the respondents) indicated tomato red spider mite as a major pest followed by aphids (15.2% of the respondents), nematodes (13.6% of the respondents) and tomato leaf miner (Tuta absoluta) (13.5% of respondents). In importance, bacterial wilt was ranked first (23.4% of the respondents) followed by late blight (22.6% of the respondents) and early blight (22.3% of the respondents).

The study findings show that majority of respondents (59.5%) use chemicals to control pests and diseases and about 39.4% of the respondents indicated that they use a combination of different control methods (integrated pest and disease management) with the use of cultural and chemical being dominant as compared to combined use of cultural and biological or biological and chemical control. It is known that most farmers perceive the use of chemicals as the most effective method to control pests as compared to other methods  (Ddamulira  et  al., 2021).

Use of chemicals is a worrisome development as dependence on chemicals is a great hazard to the consumer. This was evident in the report by Ntow et al. (2006) in which young farmers (less than 45 years of age) manifested poisoning symptoms due to inappropriate practices in handling and use of pesticides as they did more spraying than old farmers (more than 45 years of age). Additionally, use of chemicals is not only hazardous to humans but also pollutes the environment and sub-soil and increase problem of pathogen resistance towards the pesticides. Therefore, more education is needed to reduce misuse of pesticides but an alternate is to look to pest and disease management strategies such as use of resistant varieties that reduce reliance on chemical pesticides.

Marketing constraints

Table 10 indicates marketing constraints faced by farmers in the study area. Farmers in the study area face numerous problems with marketing of tomato such as price fluctuations, distance to markets, transportation and cost, unavailability of market structures, limited market information, group conflicts over prices and limited farmer organizations. The most cited marketing constraint is price fluctuations (71.5% of respondents). Price fluctuation in tomatoes and other crops is due to seasonality of production across seasons. Farm gate prices are usually very low during the dry season (irrigated) than in rainy season. This can be attributed to increased production of the crop (supply) with irrigated farming as there is a reduction of pests and disease incidences. In addition, there is increased attention to the crop in terms of resources and time with irrigated farming as compared to off season production (Osawere, 2010). The problem of price fluctuation can be reduced by the governments providing credit or subsidizes towards inputs and greenhouse/tunnel construction materials in order to have year-round tomato production, storage facilities, and adequate transport facilities with good roads for easy movement of tomatoes.

The survey results indicate that 80.4% of the respondents sell their tomatoes through unorganized market channels and 19.6% of the respondents were able to sell through organized markets. Organized marketing of tomato is completely ignored in Malawi as the majority of the markets are predominantly informal and the market infrastructure is also very rudimentary (Nyondo et al., 2018). Considering the lack of storage facilities and that tomatoes are highly perishable; farmers are exploited by middlemen and are forced to sale their products at a low price.

The survey results further indicate that 44.8% of the respondents sell their tomatoes outside the farm but few (19.8% of the respondents) sell their tomatoes on their farms. It  can  be  deduced  that  those selling outside the

farm have no organized marketing arrangement (have no formal customers) and are forced to bring their products directly to buyers for them to sell the tomatoes before they lose quality due to its perishability and they may not have bargaining power to negotiate for a better price. On the other hand, those selling tomatoes on their farm may be the ones that have a steady marketing arrangement hence do not bother to hunt for customers since they are lest assured that their tomatoes can be bought without hassles due to prior agreement/arrangement.

Regarding distance from the farm to the markets, about half of the respondents were able  to  sell  their  tomatoes within a distance of less than 10 km. On the other hand, about 40.0% of the respondents had to travel for more than 10 km to sell their tomatoes.

Tomato inputs

Table 11 indicates availability of inputs that support tomato production, status of acquisition, problems faced in acquiring them and quality of inputs (seed and chemicals).

Farmers   use   various   inputs   in   tomato  production ranging from tomato seed, fertilizers, chemicals, sprayers and irrigation equipment such as treadle pumps and watering cans. More than half of the respondents indicate that various inputs are readily available on the market. However, although the inputs are available, majority (84.8%  of  the  respondents)  have  problems  to  acquire them mainly due to high cost of inputs (74.4% of the respondents), distance (20.7% of the respondents) and sometimes the inputs are not available at proper time (12.2% of the respondents).

Regarding quality of chemicals and tomato seed, more farmers (47 % of the respondents) are able to know viability or quality of the seed (germination). This is done by observing expiry date probably because majority of the respondents are literate and can ably read the label. 13.9% of the respondents indicated to have no knowledge on the importance of knowing the quality of seed or chemicals before use. On the hand, 39.1% of the respondents use their previous experience, try and error (by chance) and they are assured of getting quality seed or chemicals when they buy from reliable shops.

Role of input suppliers (agro-dealers)

The survey exercise also interviewed 36 input suppliers to get information regarding their experiences with selling agriculture inputs specifically for tomato (Table 12).

Demographic characteristics of input suppliers

The inputs sold by the input suppliers include various seeds including tomato, fertilizers, chemicals and various tools and equipment. Among the input suppliers, 75% of the respondents were males and 25% of the respondents were females. This trend is similar to the earlier findings in this document where male dominate as tomato farmers. 75.1% of the respondents have been selling inputs for less than 10 years and 25.0% of the input suppliers have been selling inputs for more than 10 years. Among the various reasons that prompted the input suppliers to start selling the inputs were mainly due to increase in demand for inputs in the area as a source of income. To ensure quality inputs are sold, the Pesticides Control Board in Malawi inspect the input suppliers’ outlets. The board verifies if inputs are not expired and ensures that all sellers  have  license  to  sell the inputs.

Input sales

Table 13 indicates seasonality of input sales, repackaging, source of information and major problems faced by input suppliers. In terms of variation of sales among seasons, most sales are done during irrigated/winter season (72.2% of the respondents) as compared to rainy season sales (27.8%). As reported earlier in this paper and as stated by Mango et al. (2015), most of the tomato production in Malawi is done under small-scale irrigation system in dambos (with residual moisture). Therefore, it can be suggested that more farmers purchase more inputs during the dry season compared to rainy season where few inputs are bought as farmers divert resources to other crops (Osawere, 2010). Since some inputs such as seed, fertilizers and chemicals are usually sold in larger packs which either may be more than farmers requirement or not affordable for a particular farmer, 58.3% of the respondents indicated the need to repack the input to suit their needs and financial status.

Apart from selling inputs, input suppliers also provide extra information to farmers when they are buying various inputs such as safe use of chemicals, toxicity, plant spacing and storage of pesticides. In terms of obtaining information on where to obtain inputs, input suppliers primarily rely on electronic media (Radio, Television and Newspaper) (47.2% of the respondents) followed by information sourced from fellow input suppliers (25%).

Input suppliers indicated that they face several constraints in the course of selling inputs mainly lack of capital (27.8% of the respondents), scarcity of quality inputs (19.4% of the respondents) and poor coordination between agriculture office and input suppliers (16.7%).