Full Length Research Paper
ABSTRACT
Livelihoods of many rural households in the developing economies majorly depend on smallholder farming activities. Smallholder dairy farming is the single largest component of agriculture in Kenya. Uasin Gishu County is the leading milk producer in Kenya with subsistence, semi-commercialized and commercialized farmers constituting 70, 20 and 10%, respectively. Smallholder dairy farming in Kenya grows at 4.1% per annum compared to 1.2% for agriculture as a whole. Commercializing smallholder dairy value chain is therefore important in providing pathway out of poverty, and for sustainable rural development. Commercialization of smallholder dairy value chain development is variable and is not yet developed enough in the scale of commercialization index to enable producers benefit from increased income to stimulate rural development. This may be because of the influences of Socio-cultural characteristics of the smallholder producers. The objective of this study is to find out the influence of socio-cultural characteristics on commercialization of smallholder dairy value chain development. Social survey research design was used to obtain both secondary and primary data. A sample size of 384 smallholder dairy producers was studied out of a total population of 50,457 respondents. Data analysis procedures used in this study includes: mean, standard deviation, Pearson correlation coefficient, Spearman's rank correlation coefficient and multiple regressions. The results of this study showed that the socio-cultural characteristics of smallholder dairy producers have significant influence on the commercialization of smallholder dairy value chain development.
Key words: Commercialization, smallholder dairy producers, smallholder dairy value chain development, socio-cultural characteristics, Uasin Gishu County.
INTRODUCTION
METHODOLOGY
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Level of education
Correlation results of a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.820 and Spearman’s rho of 0.826 shows that there is positive relationship between respondent’s level of education and the average household commercialization index. The coefficients are highly significant at 1%. Similarly, regression results shows that level of education has a standardized coefficient of 0.148 meaning that high level of education is positively associated with higher household commercialization index and, coefficient is highly significant at 1%. A unit (one percent) increases of level of education causes an increase of HCI by 0.148 (14.8%). The results show that HCI level increases with the increase of education levels. Respondents with graduate level of training have the highest level of commercialization (69%); primary level have 28%; secondary level have 29%; diploma/certificate level have 48%whereas those with adult literacy education have the lowest commercialization level (26%). This is because the respondents with higher level of education are able to increase their dairy productivity through access to knowledge and technology, and access to market through access of market information among others issues of marketing.
Education is an important tool to escape poverty, but only if the education system reaches the right people with the right content (Heierli and Gass, 2001). Intellectual capital as captured by education is hypothesized to play a positive role in influencing market participation and HCI. Level of education gives an indication of the household ability to process information and causes some producers to have better access to understanding and interpretation of information than others. High education level is important, as it is likely to lead to the reduction of search, screening and information costs. However, the expectation may be reversed when there are competing and more remunerative employment opportunities available in the area that require skills that are enhanced by more education (Lapar et al., 2003).
Education also makes the producers to access market information, and be able to engage in trade effectively. Gebreselassie and Sharp (2008) found out in his study that coefficient for literacy of the household head is positive and significant, which implies a high probability of better production among farm households with an educated head (compared to households with illiterate heads). According to Simonyan et al. (2010), education would significantly enhance producers’ ability to make accurate and meaningful decisions. They also opined that level of education raises human capital and increases their level of managerial abilities which is an incentive for commercialization. Nmadu et al. (2012) found out that age of producers, marital status, educational status, number of years in poultry production, type of birds and system of production increased technical efficiency and HCI of commercial poultry farmers. Ele et al. (2013) found out that on average, a household head is married and has between 19 and 22 years of farming experience, and has had at least a primary school education, which indicates that they can at least read and write, an important factor in the commercialization of farming. Human capital elements such as education, experience, skills, capabilities and talents of family members are essential in commercializing smallholder agriculture. There are some individuals who inherently have better skills and capabilities to do the implicit cost-benefit analyses required and apply their talents to quickly adapt to and exploit new opportunities (Jaleta et al., 2009).
Control of income
According to correlation results of a Pearson correlation coefficient of -0.733 and Spearman’s rho of -0.691 which shows that there is a negative relationship between respondent’s control of income, and the average household commercialization index. The coefficients are highly significant at 1%. Similarly, in Table 3, regression results shows that control of income has a standardized coefficient of -0.108 meaning that high level of control of income by one gender is negatively associated with lower household commercialization index and, coefficient is highly significant at 1%. A unit (one percent) increases of level of control of income by one gender causes a decrease of HCI by 0.108 (10.8%).
According to HCI results, households where income is controlled by both men and women, the commercialization level was highest (68%) and was lowest where income is controlled by only women (25%). In cases where income was controlled by men alone, HCI was 27%. This is because the money generated and controlled by both men and women is reinvested in the dairy for increased productivity hence higher HCI. Jaleta et al. (2009) reported that the impact of smallholder commercialization on the gender dimension depends on the commodity’s gender specific labor demand and on who controls the income generated. The shift from staple maize to sugarcane production in Kenya and the Philippines was associated with a significant reduction in the percentage of women’s labor use in agricultural activities, from 50.5 to 1.2% in Kenya and from 9.1 to 2.5% in the Philippines. However, in Guatemala, the shift from maize to vegetable production increased the proportion of women’s labor use from 6.1 to 21.5%. Whatever proportion of female labor is involved in cash crop production, income from these crops is usually controlled by men.
Control of assets
Pearson correlation coefficient of -0.695 and Spearman’s rho of -0.721 show that there is negative relationship between respondent’s control of assets and the average household commercialization index. The coefficients are highly significant at 1%. Similarly, regression results show that control of assets has a standardized coefficient of -0.105 meaning that high level of control of assets by one gender is negatively associated with lower household commercialization index and, coefficient is highly significant at 1% (Table 3). A unit (one percent) increases of level of control of assets by one gender causes a decrease of HCI by 0.105 (10.5%). Results of HCI indicate that respondents where assets were controlled by both men and women has commercialization index of 52%; in cases of men alone HCI was 25% and where assets were controlled only by women, commercialization index was 23%. This is due to the fact that joint control of productive assets by both gender empowers them to increase the dairy productivity and access to markets hence increased HCI.
CONCLUSION
CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
REFERENCES
Agwu NM, Anyanwu CI, Mendie EI (2013). Socio-Economic Determinants of Commercializing among Smallholder Farmers in Abia State, Nairobi.4th International Conference of the African Association of Agricultural Economists, September 22-25. Hammermet, Tunisia. |
|
Amoako KY (2003). Harnessing Technologies for Sustainable Development in Africa. International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Addis Ababa. |
|
Boogaarda BK, Oostinga SJ, Bock BB (2006). Socio-cultural issues of dairy production systems in the Netherlands assessed through farm visits with citizen panels. Wageningen Institute of Animal Sciences, Wageningen University, EAAP 2006, Session L1: Ethics of Sustainability: Book of abstracts Theatre 6. P 3. |
|
Cefer A, Riggs K, Mubichi F, Sandler L (2014). Socio-cultural perspectives on Agricultural Development within a Sub-Saharan African context: Paradigm shift and interdisciplinary engagement: University of Missouri, Columbia. Agrarian frontiers 2:1. |
|
Ele IE, Omini GE, Adinya BI (2013).Assessing the extent of Commercialization of Smallholding Farming Households in Cross River State, Nigeria. J. Agric. Vet. Sci. 4(3):49-55. |
|
Farinde AJ, Taiwo KA (2003). Moving women from subsistence to commercialization. Issues and policy imperatives. Paper presented at the workshop organised by FAO/ IITA on the gender impact of the commercialization of smallholder Agriculture. Institute for International Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan May 14-16. |
|
Gebreselassie S, Sharp K (2008). Commercialization of smallholder agriculture in selected Tef-growing areas of Ethiopia. Agriculture and rural development division, Ethiopian Economic Policy Research Institute (EEPRI), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. |
|
Government of Kenya (GoK) (2010a). Kenya National Dairy Master Plan, Nairobi |
|
Government of Kenya (GoK) (2013b). Sessional Paper No 5 of 2013 on National Dairy Development Policy. Government Printer, Nairobi. |
|
Government of Kenya (GoK). (2013c). County Integrated Development Plan; UasinGishu County, Eldoret, Kenya. |
|
Hall JF (2005). Introduction to Economics, 2nd Edition. South Western Thomson Learning. |
|
Heierli U, Gass T (2001). Enhancing employment and income generation in rural areas. Paper submitted to the Operation Committee of the Swiss Agency for development and cooperation (DEZA). |
|
IFAD (International Fund for Agriculture Development) (2015). Smallholder Dairy Commercialization Programme Additional Financing: Updated Programme Design Report. IFAD, Rome. 54p. |
|
Jaleta M, Gebremedhin B, Hoekstra D (2009). Smallholder Commercialization: Processes, Determinants and Impact. Discussion Paper No. 18. Improving Productivity and Market Success (IPMS) of Ethiopian Farmers Project, ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya. 55 p. |
|
Jayne TS, Haggblade S, Minot N, Rasid S (2012). Agricultural commercialization, rural transformation and poverty reduction. Synthesis report prepared for the African agricultural Markets Programme Policy Symposium Alliance for Commodity Trade in Eastern and Southern Africa. April 20-22, Kigali, Rwanda. |
|
Kibiego M, Lagat J, Bebe B (2015). Competitiveness of Smallholder Milk Production Systems in Uasin Gishu County of Kenya. J. Econ. Sustain. Dev. 6(10):39-45. |
|
Kurosaki T (2003). Specialization and diversification in Agricultural transformation.The case of west Punjab, 1903-92. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 85(2):372-386. |
|
Lapar ML, Holloway G, Ehui S (2003). Policy options promoting market participation among smallholder livestock producers: Case study from the Philippines. Food Policy 28:187-211. |
|
Manfre C, Rubin D, Allan A, Summerfield G, Colverson K, Akeredolu M (2013). Reducing the Gender gap in Agricultural Extension and advisory services: How to find the best fit for men and women farmers. Modernising extension and advisory services.Brief 2. |
|
Muhammad-Lawal A, Amolegbe KB, Oloyede WO, Lawal OM (2014). Assessment of Commercialization of food crops among farming households in Southwest, Nigeria. Department of Agricultural Economics and Farm Management, University of Ilorin, P.MB 1515, Ilorin, Nigeria. Ethiopian J. Environ. Stud. Manage. 7(5):520-531. |
|
Nmadu JN, Iwuajoku RC, Jiya EZ (2012).Commercialization level of poultry production in Minna Metropolis, Niger state, Nigeria. Asian J. Agr. Ext. Econ. Sociol. 1(1):1-15. |
|
Ochola WO, Muhia RN, Mwarasomba LI (2003). Culture, Traditions and Society: The Challenges to Natural Resource Management and Development. National Soil and Water Conservation Programme/Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA), Nairobi. |
|
Omiti J, McCullough E, Otieno D, Madelon M, Nyanamba T, Murage A (2006). Participatory Prioritization of Issues in Smallholder Agricultural Commercialization in Kenya. KIPPRA Discussion Paper No. 64. 72 p. |
|
Poulton C, Poulton C, Leavy J (2008). Commercialization in Agriculture. Ethiopian J. Econ. 16(1):3-42. |
|
Randela R, Alemu ZG, Groenewald JA (2008). Factors enhancing market participation by small-scale cotton farmers. Agrekon South Afr. 47(4):451-469. |
|
Simonyan JB, Olukosi JO, Omolehin RA (2010). Socio-economic determinants of farmers participation in Fadama II Project in Kaduna State, Nigeria. J. Food Fiber Prod. 1:592-601. |
|
Tangka F, Ouma EA, Staal SJ, Shapiro B (1999). Women and Sustainable Development of Market-Oriented Dairying Evidence from East Africa.ILRI in collaboration with MOA and KARI, Nairobi. |
|
Zhou S, Minde IC, Mtigwe B (2013). Smallholder Agricultural Commercialization for Income Growth and Poverty Alleviation in Southern Africa: A Review. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 8(22):2599-2608. |
Copyright © 2022 Author(s) retain the copyright of this article.
This article is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0