The Managerial Factors Influencing Sugarcane Production by ...

The Managerial Factors Influencing Sugarcane Production by

Farmers of Mayoni Division, Mumias Sugar Company in Kenya

Everlyn A. Dindi

Reg. No:D53/OL/3408/04

A Research Project Submitted to the School of Business in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters in

Business Administration (Human Resource ), Department of

Business Administration,

Kenyatta University.

APRIL 2013

DECLARATION

I declare that this research proposal is my original work and has not been submitted to any

other University for award of any degree.

EVERLYN A. DINDI Signature ---------------------------------

REG. NO: D53/OL/3408/04 Date----------------------------------------

APPROVAL BY THE SUPERVISOR

MRS E. GITONGA Signature ---------------------------------

Lecturer, Business Administration Department. Date --------------------------------------

APPROVAL BY THE CHAIRMAN

DR. STEPHEN MUATHE Signature ----------------------------------

Business Administration Department Date ----------------------------------------

ii

DEDICATION

I dedicate this study work to my family the Dindis‟ that is Charles, Harris, Caren and Lilian

who always encouraged and motivated me to carry on. Through their un-wavering love and

enormous support I was able to successfully complete this study.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am sincerely grateful to my Supervisor, Mrs. Esther Gitonga who through her valuable

advice, support and encouragement enabled me to successfully complete the research study.

I also appreciate the support of Director of Agriculture of Mumias Sugar Company,

Mr. Moses Nyongesa who approved use of past data and staff in carrying out the research

study. And I thank Mumias Sugar Company staff for the valuable time and data that was used

in filling the questionnaires.

And to my secretary Mrs. Carolyne Nyadiang‟a, I appreciate her for the great skills and

support in production of the paper-work.

I am also grateful to the sugarcane farming community of Mayoni division of Mumias Sugar

who took their time to give information and data required in the questionnaire. If it were not

for their support, this study would not have been successful.

And finally I am grateful to my husband Charles for the great financial and moral support he

accorded me during entire period of the research study.

iv

ABSTRACT

Management is the cornerstone of organizational effectiveness. People‟s efforts are co-

ordinated and guided towards achievement of organizational objectives through management

processes. People are usually motivated to carry out the management processes in order to

satisfy needs either inherent or from the external. Mumias Sugar Company (MSC) is a large-

scale organization and hence is controlled by bureaucratic structures. MSC supplies 60% of

the sugar consumed in Kenya, but its survival is uncertain due to the decline in sugarcane

productivity on the farms. Reports show that 92% of the sugarcane milled in MSC is supplied

by contracted farmers. Over the years, there has been a continuous decline in sugarcane

productivity in outgrowers contracted farms which has declined from a high of 137 tons cane

per ha (TCH) in 1973 to 58 TCH in 2010. This has adversely affected mill-cane requirement

by Mumias Sugar Company. It‟s in view of this problem that the objectives of the study were

to determine the influence of managerial factors of extension services, contract sugarcane

production, food security and financial factors on sugarcane production by farmers.

The literature review explored the various managerial factors that have influenced crop

production in Kenya and other parts of the world. Descriptive study design was used to

investigate into factors influencing sugarcane production by contracted cane farmers.

Purposive sampling was used to select a sample of 262 farmers from a target population of

2619 contracted cane farmers.The data collection instruments included self-administered

semi-structured questionnaire for farmers. Secondary data was obtained from Agricultural

reports of Mumias Sugar Company. Data was analysed using both qualitative and

quantitative means. Descriptive analysis was used to organize, summarize and describe the

research data. The data was computed using Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS).

A summary of study findings revealed that bureaucratic system of contract farming was

lengthy and hence de-motivated farmers from engaging into sugarcane farming. The findings

also revealed that MSC was not honoring their management responsibility of providing food

seeds and payment of sugarcane income to farmers within 30 days. Food insecurity was

negatively affecting sugarcane management hence production. And some of the

recommendations in the study included MSC management; to review her contract farming

processes to reduce the time taken and motivate farmers into farming, to engage business

partners that can provide food grains to address food insecurity.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Title----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------i

Declaration-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ii

Dedication-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------iii

Acknowledgement---------------------------------------------------------------------------------iv

Abstract ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------v

Table of contents-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------vi

Acronyms and Abbreviations--------------------------------------------------------------------viii

List of tables-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ix

List of figures----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ix

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION--------------------------------------------------------- 1

1.0: Overview of the chapter-----------------------------------------------------------------------1

1.1: Background to the study----------------------------------------------------------------------1

1.2: Statement of the problem---------------------------------------------------------------------4

1.3: Objectives of the study -----------------------------------------------------------------------4

1.4: Research Questions----------------------------------------------------------------------------5

1.5: Justification of the study ---------------------------------------------------------------------5

1.6: Significance of the study ---------------------------------------------------------------------6

1.7: Scope of the study------------------------------------------------------------------------------7

1.8: Limitations--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7

1.9: Definitions of terms----------------------------------------------------------------------------8

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW-----------------------------------------------10

2.1: Introduction------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10

2.2: Mangement of Sugarcane--------------------------------------------------------------------10

2.3: Food security--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13

2.4: Financial factors----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14

2.5: ExtensionServices--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18

2.6: Conceptual framework---------------------------------------------------------------------- 23

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY----------------------------------25

3.1: Introduction-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------25

3.2: Research design------------------------------------------------------------------------------25

3.3: Target population----------------------------------------------------------------------------25

3.4: Sampling design------------------------------------------------------------------------------25

3.5: Sampling size---------------------------------------------------------------------------------26

3.6: Data collection instrument------------------------------------------------------------------26

3.7: Data collection process----------------------------------------------------------------------26

3.8: Data analysis----------------------------------------------------------------------------------27

3.9: Expected outcome----------------------------------------------------------------------------27

vi

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS AND DATA ANALYSIS-----------------------------28

4.1: Introduction ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------28

4.2: Demographic information------------------------------------------------------------------28

4.3: Effect of bureaucratic management-------------------------------------------------------31

4.4: Effect of food security----------------------------------------------------------------------34

4.5: Management of extension services--------------------------------------------------------43

4.6: Management of financial factors----------------------------------------------------------48

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS---------------57

5.1: Introduction-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------57

5.2: Summary of study findings-----------------------------------------------------------------57

5.3: Conclusions-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------57

5.4: Recommendations----------------------------------------------------------------------------61

5.5: Recommendations for further research----------------------------------------------------64

REFERENCES-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------65

APPENDICES-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------69

Appendix 1: Introductory letter ------------------------------------------------------------------69

Appendix 2: Questionnaire------------------------------------------------------------------------70

Appendix 3: Budget--------------------------------------------------------------------------------78

Appendix 4: Work plan----------------------------------------------------------------------------79

vii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

MSC: Mumias Sugar Company Limited

MOA: Ministry of Agriculture

MOCO: Mumias Outgrowers Company Limited.

BOCO: Busia Outgrowers Company Limited.

KESREF: Kenya Sugarcane Research Foundation.

KSB: Kenya Sugar Board

FAO: Food Agriculture Organisation

COMESA: Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa

viii

LIST OF TABLES PAGE

Table 4.2.1: Respondents‟ gender-----------------------------------------------------------28

Table 4.2.2: Level of education--------------------------------------------------------------29

Table 4.2.3: Age bracket----------------------------------------------------------------------30

Table 4.3.1: Bureaucratic system------------------------------------------------------------31

Table 4.3.2: Motivation to be farmer--------------------------------------------------------32

Table 4.3.3: Sugarcane production statistics-----------------------------------------------33

Table 4.3.4: Timely inputs supply-----------------------------------------------------------33

Table 4.3.5: Delayed inputs supply---------------------------------------------------------34

Table 4.4.1: Acres under sugarcane---------------------------------------------------------35

Table 4.4.2: Acres under food crops--------------------------------------------------------35

Table 4.4.3: Advice on food crops acreage------------------------------------------------37

Table 4.4.4: Education on food by MSC---------------------------------------------------38

Table 4.4.5: Supply of dairy animals-------------------------------------------------------38

Table 4.4.6: Seeds supply by MSC---------------------------------------------------------39

Table 4.4.7: Effect of cane on food---------------------------------------------------------40

Table 4.4.8: Effect of food on cane---------------------------------------------------------42

Table 4.5.1: Advice on field operations----------------------------------------------------43

Table 4.5.2: Extension methods-------------------------------------------------------------44

Table 4.5.3: Technology adoption----------------------------------------------------------46

Table 4.6.1: Fertilizer sales (diversion)----------------------------------------------------49

Table 4.6.2: Sugarcane income--------------------------------------------------------------50

Table 4.6.3: School fees as priority---------------------------------------------------------51

Table 4.6.4: Other business as priority-----------------------------------------------------51

Table 4.6.5: Family house as priority------------------------------------------------------52

Table 4.6.6: Employment income----------------------------------------------------------52

Table 4.6.7: Farmer loyalty to MSC-------------------------------------------------------53

Table 4.6.8: Sugarcane payment period---------------------------------------------------54

Table 4.6.9: Farmers‟ response to costs recovery----------------------------------------55

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4.5(d): Technology adoption by farmers----------------------------------------46

Figure 4.5(e): Farmer-MSC staff relationship-------------------------------------------47

Figure 4.5(f): Effect of relationship-------------------------------------------------------48

Figure 4.6(a): Sugarcane as income source----------------------------------------------50

Figure 4.6(b): Farmers‟ loyalty to MSC--------------------------------------------------53

Figure 4.6(c): Sugarcane payment period------------------------------------------------54

Figure 4.6(d): Farmers‟ response to costs recovery-------------------------------------56

ix

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.0: Overview of the chapter

This chapter gives an overview of the background to the study, the statement of the problem,

the objectives, justification and significance of the study, the scope and limitations. The

definitions of major terms that will be used in the project have also been explained.

1.1: Background to the study

Management is the cornerstone of organizational effectiveness and is concerned with

arrangements for carrying out organization processes and execution of work. Organization

effectiveness is determined by achievement of objectives which ultimately determine the

success and survival of organizations (Mullins, 1990). It‟s through management process that

people‟s efforts are co-ordinated, directed and guided towards achievement of organizational

objectives. Without people there can be no organization and no meaningful activity. The

relevance of farmers‟ role in Agriculture is very crucial in the long-term growth and

sustenance of the sugar industry. The farmers‟ knowledge and skills in sugarcane production

are very closely related to the management of the organizations processes and activities

(KSB, 2008). Performance is a product of ability level and motivation and usually requires

availability of factors of production (capital, machinery, land and human resource). Of these

factors, human resource is the most important resource in organizational production since it

has control over all the other resources. Human resource at all levels can make or break any

kind of business organization (Laurie, 1990). And human motivation is an important

dimension of effective human relations in an organization and performance since it is the

force that causes people to behave in a certain way.

Agriculture is a leading sector in the Kenyan economy accounting for 26% of the country‟s

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and 27% indirectly through linkages with agro-based and

associated industries (KESREF, 2009). The agricultural sector absorbs over 50% of the labor

force and is dominated by small scale farmers who account for approximately 75% of total

agricultural output. The sugar sub-sector is the third most important contributor to the GDP

after tea and coffee and supports at least 6 million Kenyans directly or indirectly. The sub-

sector is a source of livelihood for about 200,000 small scale farmers in Kenya (KSB, 2008).

Kenya‟s annual sugar production ranges from 450,000 to 550,000 metric tons of sugar. This

does not meet the country‟s annual demand and consequently sugar is imported. Domestic

demand for sugar is 760,000 tonnes, which leaves a deficit of up to 200,000 tonnes that is met

by imports from regional sugar producers. Increased regional trade and the opening up of

borders to allow sugar imports from both the East African Community and the Common

Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) have hurt Kenyan sugar producers. In

July 2008, the Kenyan government cancelled the licenses of all its 55 sugar importers citing

miss-use of import licenses, tax evasion and that imports were hurting local farmers. Kenya

is a signatory to COMESA economic block. In this trade agreement, Kenya has been allowed

to import tax-free sugar up to 200,000 tons annually till March 2012 (MSC, 2008).

Commercial sugarcane production is traced back to the establishment of Kenya as a British

Colony when in 1922, Miwani Sugar Company was set up (KESREF, 2006). Later on,

Mumias Sugar scheme was envisaged in the Kenya Government National Development Plan

of 1970-1974. In the plan, the Government intended to be self-sufficient in sugar production,

promote import saving industries, raise agricultural production, increase employment

opportunities, provide a source of income to farmers, stem rural-urban migration and trigger-

off economically depressed rural areas which predominantly depended on subsistence

agriculture (MSC, 1970). The Government of Kenya contracted Booker Agricultural

Holdings Ltd( commonly known as Booker Tate) a United Kingdom based Agricultural firm

to carry out a feasibility study of Mumias Sugarcane scheme. Booker Tate suggested

production of cane by contracted farmers and a small acreage under company owned Nucleus

Estate. The report was adopted and Mumias Sugar Company (MSC) scheme was set up in

1973. The farmers enthusiastically responded to the prospect of commercial cane cultivation

and voluntarily registered their land for contract cane farming. MSC scheme has since then

expanded from 5731 hectares with 3710 contracted cane farmers in January 1973 to

58,000hectares with 104,000 cane farmers in 2010 (MSC, 2010). The area under sugarcane

cultivation has shown an increasing trend in comparison to food crops over the years (Kidula,

2007).

There has been a decline in cane production per given unit area and hence an increase in

poverty for approximately 6 million people who depend on sugarcane farming either directly

or indirectly (KSB, 2008). Contracted cane farmers supply 90% of the total sugar cane to the

Kenyan sugar factories. The majority of these are small-scale growers, whilst the remaining

is supplied by factories Nucleus Estates. Therefore contracted cane farmers are an important

entity in sugarcane production. MSC being a large-scale organization operates under a

bureaucratic form of structures. Weber, M (1964) concept of bureaucratic management in

organizations will be used to determine how contract farming has influenced sugarcane

production. The farmer and the company have each management obligations that affect

sugarcane production; therefore the researcher investigated the managerial factors (functions)

that influenced sugar cane production by contracted sugarcane farmers.

1.2: Statement of the Problem

The Kenyan sugar industry sugarcane yield stands at 65tonnes of cane per hectare, which is

way below the potential yield of 100 tonnes of cane per hectare under rain-fed conditions

(KESREF, 2009). In MSC, cane yield has continuously declined from the high yield of 137

tonnes of cane per ha in 1973 to the current yield of 58 tonnes of cane per hectare (MSC,

2010). A study by Wawire, Kahora, Shiundu, Kipruto &Omolo (2006) revealed that farmers‟

poor attitude towards contract sugarcane farming was one of the causes of declining trend in

cane production. Under contract sugarcane production, the farmer and the milling company

have each management obligations of ensuring improved sugarcane productivity. MSC being

a large-scale organization has most of the processes managed under bureaucratic structures. It

is against the background of declined cane yields and the bureaucratic management structures

that the researcher undertook to investigate the factors that influenced sugarcane production

by contracted cane farmers.

1.3: Objectives of the Study

The broad objective of the study was to investigate the managerial factors (functions) that

influenced sugarcane production by farmers in Mayoni division of Kakamega County in

Western Kenya.

The specific objectives were:

a) To determine how bureaucratic management of contract farming had affected

sugarcane production.

b) To determine how food security affects sugarcane production.

c) To determine how management of extension services had influenced cane production.

d) To explore how management of financials had influenced sugarcane production

1.4: Research Questions

The following research questions guided the study;

a) How had management of contract farming affected sugarcane production?

b) How does food security affect cane production?

c) What influence had management of extension services on sugarcane production?

d) How does management of financials influence sugarcane production?

1.5: Justification of the study

Contracted cane farmers supply more than 90% of the cane milled in Kenyan sugar factories.

In MSC, farmers‟ supply 92% of the cane and Nucleus Estate supplies the balance of 8% of

cane milled in the factory every financial year (MSC, 2010). There has been decline in cane

supply to the factory due to decline in sugarcane productivity by farmers from 137 tones

cane/ha (TCH) in 1973 to the 58TCH in 2010. Sugarcane is the raw material in sugar

production, molasses for ethanol production and bagasse for co-generation of electricity.

Mumias Sugar Company (MSC) strategic plan is to produce all these products. MSC requires

at least 2.4million tones of sugar-cane every financial year but has a major business challenge

of declining cane yield per hectare in contracted cane farms. Under sugarcane contract

farming, MSC and the contracted farmer have management roles in ensuring achievement of

high sugarcane productivities. So what are these factors that influence sugarcane

productivities by contracted sugarcane farmers?

1.6: Significance of the study

Kenyan Sugar Industry supports almost 250,000 small scale farmers and an estimated

6million Kenyans derive their livelihoods directly or indirectly from the Industry (KSB,

2008). The Industry also saves Kenyan government an excess of Kshs 19.3 billion in foreign

exchange annually and contributes tax revenues to the exchequer (KSB, 2008). In Kenya,

sugar-cane is the only raw material used in the sugar industry for sugar production, molasses

for ethanol production and bagasse for electricity generation. In other countries like the

European Union countries, sugar-beet is also a source of raw material for the sugar industry.

The Kenyan sugar industry is faced with decline in sugar-cane production and hence the

information generated will be of great significance to the following; cane farmers in

understanding factors influencing sugarcane production and hence search means to address

them, MSC management in understanding factors influencing cane production and hence

formulate policies to mitigate them, Kenyan Sugar Industry to lobby the Kenyan Government

in formulating Agricultural and Economic policies that affect sugarcane production by

farmers and the sugar Industry. Information generated from the study will be of significance

to the Kenyan government in formulating policies that favor farmers in the sugar industry.

The information will also guide in formulation and enactment of Laws/Acts that affect

Kenyan Sugar Industry farmers and promote the sugar industry products diversification plans

that will give the industry competitive advantage over external producers.

1.7: Scope of the study

The study took place in Mayoni division of Mumias district in Kakamega County. The

divison lies entirely within the sugarcane zone of Mumias sugar company. The inhabitants of

the division are Wanga community, who are a sub-tribe of the Luhya tribe. The study area

has 3537 sugarcane farmers and a population of 14292 people (Central Bureau of statistics,

2009 population census). The division was selected for the study because the contracted sugar

cane farmers have been this farming business since MSC‟s inception in 1973. Therefore

Mayoni farmers have a better and long period understanding of the factors that influence

sugar cane production.

1.8: Limitations

1. Lack of adequate time due to pressure of work at work-place affected time dedicated to the

study. This led to a longer period of time to complete the study.

2. Poor road network within the sugar cane zone affected mobility to reach farmers to collect

data. Farmers live within the sugar cane farms which have poor feeder roads and hence this

required use of combined means of transport such as vehicles, motor-bikes, bicycles and even

walking in order to access the study population.

3. Scarcity of funds since the study was self-sponsored affected project completion. This

affected preparation of questionnaires, travel to meet farmers, payment to casuals who

assisted in data collection, data analysis and final report writing. Therefore the researcher

requested friends and relatives to give financial support towards the study.

1.9: Definition of Operational Terms

For the purpose of the study, the following terms shall be used as they apply to the study.

Motivation: is the force that causes people to behave in a certain way. In this study

motivation will refer to any factor that has caused the farmers to behave in a certain way in

cane production.

Contract farming: is an agreement between farmers and an Organization for the production

and supply of agricultural products under forward agreements, frequently at pre-determined

prices. In this study it will refer to agreement between cane farmers to produce sugarcane and

Mumias Sugar Company to buy sugarcane at a specified price.

Contracted cane farmer: will refer to the farmer with an agreement with MSC to produce

sugarcane and has access to farm inputs, extension services and other services offered by

MSC and farmer organizations.

Food Security: refers to a condition of having access to sufficient and nutritious food supply

at all times to maintain a healthy and active life, without Government subsidy. It will refer to

main staple food such as maize, cassava and others such as beans, vegetables and milk.

Block: will refer to MSC farmers in a given neighborhood. The contracted cane farmers are

usually organized into groups which make it easier for supply of inputs, extension services

and other agricultural activities.

Extension service: is a service offered to rural farmers to improve their farm productivity. In

this study it will refer to provision of farm inputs and technical advice to contracted

sugarcane farmers by extension staff.

Extension staff: Is an individual/group involved in the practice of passing new ideas,

information, and innovations to farmers to improve their farming practices and livelihood.

They will include MSC, MOCO, KESREF and Government extension officers.

Productivity: In industries, it refers to efficiency measured by comparing the amount of

product produced with the time taken or resources used to produce it. In the study it will be

used to refer to amount of sugarcane (tons) produced per unit area in hectares.

Financial factors: will refer to management of money and other issues related to money, and

in this study such as pricing, prices of farm inputs and services, utilization of sugarcane

proceeds.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1: Introduction

This chapter presents a review of literature related to the study. Some of the management

theories applied in this project are Weber‟s theory on bureaucratic management, and theories

on people motivation ,such as social learning theory of Bandura, Maslow‟s ,Mayo. The

chapter covers management of sugarcane production under contract farming, food security,

financials of sugarcane production and extension services that affect sugarcane productivity.

The chapter also covers conceptual framework.

2.2: Management of Sugarcane production under Contract farming

Contract farming has been in existence for many years as a means of organizing the

commercial agricultural production of large and small-scale farmers (Eaton & Shepherd,

2001). Contract farming is an agreement between farmers and an Organization for the

production and supply of agricultural products under forward agreements, frequently at pre-

determined prices. According to Singh (2001), contract farming is best promoted through

small growers rather than corporate bodies undertaking large scale farming on their own. The

type of contract used depends on a number of factors such as the nature of the product, the

primary processing required, if any, and the demands of the market in terms of supply and

reliability. Contracts for short-term crops such as vegetables are issued and renegotiated on

seasonal basis, whereas crops such as tea, coffee and sugarcane require long-term contracts

that can be amended periodically. Mumias Sugar Company‟s feasibility study carried out by a

United Kingdom based Agricultural firm, Booker Agricultural Holdings Ltd suggested

production of cane by contracted farmers and a small acreage under company owned Nucleus

Estate (MSC, 1970). The report was adopted and Mumias Sugar Company was established

and started crushing cane in 1973. Farmers‟ enthusiastically responded to the prospect of

commercial contract cane cultivation and voluntarily registered their land for cane farming.

Since then, MSC scheme has expanded from 5731 hectares with 3710 contracted cane

farmers in January 1973 to 58,000 hectares with 72,000 contracted cane farmers (Kidula,

2007). Contracted cane farmers supply 92% of sugar-cane milled at Mumias sugar factory

hence a large population of Western province depends on MSC.

MSC is a large-scale organization and operates under a bureaucratic form of management.

Weber, M. (1964) pointed out that large-scale organizations work under bureaucratic

structures that have clearly defined tasks and responsibilities within the structure of

management that give raise to permanent administration and standardization of work

procedures. Stewart,R.(1986) summarized bureaucracy under four features of; specialization

to the job, hierarchy of authority that makes for sharp distinction between administrators and

the administered (workers), system of rules that provide for efficient and impersonal

operation and impersonality that aims at allocation of privileges‟ and exercise of authority in

accordance with laid down system of rules. However critics of bureaucratic systems, point

out it has a disadvantage of over-emphasis on rules and procedures, record keeping and paper

work which may become more important in its own right than as a means to an end.

Therefore the researcher sought to find out how the bureaucratic system has influenced

contract farming in MSC.

Sustainable contract farming arrangements are only possible when the various parties are

involved in a relationship that is beneficial to all parties (Eaton & Shepherd, 2001). MSC has

a long-term contract of five years with the contracted cane farmers. A major attraction of

contract farming for farmers is the availability of credit provided either directly by the

company or through a third party. Contract farming is integrated with other aspects of

technology transfer such as input supply, and other agric-services, and must also have good

links with both researchers and the farmers for it to succeed (Swanson et al., 1984). Delay in

supply of farm inputs and services by the company can severely affect crop production under

contract farming. In sugarcane contract farming, MSC provides contracted farmers with

inputs and services such as land preparation, seed-cane and fertilizer supply, extension

services, harvesting, transport of sugarcane and transfer of research findings. The contracted

farmers‟ obligation in the contract is to plant the sugarcane, apply fertilizer, weed the

sugarcane and guard against any damage till it‟s harvested and transported by MSC for

milling.

However farmers can face considerable indebtedness if they are confronted with production

problems, advances or company fails to honor the contract. FAO reports that in one venture

dropout rates were high as farmers thought contract farming did not pay (FAO- Partnerships

for growth). And Sorre (2005) also revealed that contracted farmers lacked commitment, sold

supplied farm inputs and didn‟t weed their cane leading to heavy cane losses. This is further

supported by FAO‟s report on contract farming which revealed that contract farmers used

inputs supplied under contract on other cash and subsistence crops or sold them. Wawire et

al, (2002) reports that farmers‟ poor attitude towards cane contracts was one of the causes of

declining trend in sugarcane production as supplied farm inputs were mis-used.

2.3: Food security

Food security is described in terms of food access, food availability and food utilization

(USAID, 1995). Food access refers to household and all the individuals in the household

having adequate resources (income, food prices and income distribution) to obtain adequate

food. Attempts to satisfy these needs seemingly affect most aspects of human activities

(Adair, 1990). Alderfer (1972) reveals that a person who becomes chronically short of food

becomes dominated by the desire to eat and drink, their concern for other needs is swept

away. Income is a major determinant of food quality and quantity (Connelly and Chaiken,

1989). In developing countries, the poor devote a high proportion of their income on food:

thus money generally means a better diet (Berg, 1973). However, an increase in income may

not be proportional to income spend on food. The Engel‟s law states that as income rises,

expenditure on food also rises but the proportion of income spent on food decreases (Dewey,

1968). Thandee (1986) in his study revealed that the main factor affecting decisions by

farmers is household needs, particularly food for home consumption. At the inception of

MSC scheme, it was envisaged that contract cane farming would improve general

management skills of the farmers and that sugarcane income would be ploughed back into

increasing food production (Owour, 1995). A study by Lihanda (2003) revealed that Mumias

region was underdeveloped, and the farmers grew small areas of subsistence food crops with

large areas under bush and rough grazing land. However studies by Mwadhili (1995)

concluded that introduction of sugarcane contract farming negatively affected food

production. MSC sugarcane contract has a clause that recommends a third of the farmer‟s

land to remain for food production while the rest be used for sugarcane farming. The contract

has a clause that states that the company has an obligation to provide food security

programmes to the farmer. However, it has been impossible for the contracted sugarcane

farmer to set aside land for subsistence food crop production, thus infringing on the farmers

ability to obtain adequate food supplies and diversify income source (Wawire, Nyongesa &

Kipruto, 2002). In Kenya the land sizes have relatively become small due to fragmentation

and redistribution. A study by Wawire et al., (2002); Odenya et al (2008) revealed that as

household increases, there was a general trend of land diminishing. The study in Nyando

region revealed that the average family size of 4 persons reside on 2 acres of land hence in-

adequate land for sugarcane and food production.

According to Parsons (2004), contracted sugarcane farmer often plants sugarcane in all their

land to fulfill their responsibilities to the miller and suffer severe lack of food and cash

income, while waiting for the sugarcane maturity at 18-24 months. Sugarcane farming

engages family labor at the expense of food crop production. The survey report by MOCO

(1990), found out that cane farmers with small holdings leased their cane and sold supplied

farm inputs in order to get money to buy food. Some contracted farmers‟ even barter fertilizer

for food. Kidula (2007), in her study revealed that income from sugarcane was spent mainly

on food purchase. And Sorre (2005) revealed that most families with no foodstuff did not

maintain their cane farms. A study in Ntumeni in S.Africa reported that farmers engaged in

sugarcane production as an important livelihood strategy to generate badly needed income to

support their households (Mahlangu & Lewis, 2008). The study revealed that, there was

shrinking yields and hence financial returns which could not meet household needs. This led

to some farmers to sell supplied farm inputs (such as fertilizers) to get cash to cover

household expenses.

2.4: Financial factors of Sugarcane production

Profitability is of great consideration in any business and is affected by several factors.

Declining profitability in cotton farming in Malawi led to decline in cotton production

(Kumwenda & Madola, 2005). Effective profitability results are obtained when management

creates conditions workers perceive as beneficial to them and productivity gains are shared

with workers (Fein, 1974). The economic performance of contracted cane farmers is affected

by several transaction costs incurred during the exchange process (farming to milling). Under

sugarcane contract farming, MSC has the obligation to supply on credit farm inputs and

agric-services such as land preparation, seedcane and fertilizer, harvesting and transport.

Agricultural inputs and services take about 60% of the cane price (KESREF, 2009). The

inputs and services are charged interest of 12% per annum deducted from sugarcane

proceeds. In commercial production, costs of inputs have a great bearing on adoption of

farming practices and recommendations. Olwande, Sikei & Mathenge (2009) in their study

revealed that fertilizer use was higher in major cash crops such as sugarcane, tea and coffee

due to organized input credit schemes which allow farmers to acquire inputs on credit and

repay through deductions made on deliveries of the produce. Taylor (1917) in his scientific

management theory put forward the idea that high wages provided motivation for efforts in

production. Masuku (2011), in his study on sugar-cane profitability in Swaziland reported

that farmer‟s profitability was significantly affected by the yield per ha, farmer‟s experience

and the distance between the mill and the farm (transport cost). The study revealed that

farmers closer to the mill made more profit compared to those further away and those farmers

with more land under sugarcane production had gross profit increased. A survey carried out

in Kenya by Wawire et al., (2007) showed that the net income to the farmer was 42% of the

sugarcane revenue at harvest time after all deductions.

Work is a means of earning money through which to satisfy outside demands and interests

(Newstrom, 1993). Therefore contracted sugarcane farmers are engaged in sugarcane

production to earn money for various uses. Maslow (1943) further confirms that “the

fundamental purpose of a wage or salary is to provide the means of satisfying the basic

needs”. The study by Odede (1992) reported that sugarcane farmers employ various

techniques e.g sale of fertilizer, lease of cane in order to settle demands for school fees, and

other subsistence expenses. In the process of satisfying these requirements for cash and socio-

economic factors cane yields have been affected. Mumias Sugar Company endeavors to

address contracted farmers‟ financial constraints through partnering with some financial

institutions (MSC farmers bulletin, 2011). Some of the institutions are; Kenya Commercial

Bank which offers the following loan facilities; cane advance, crop advance and dairy

development loans: Equity Bank whose loan facilities are advance(overdraft) and Kilimo

Super loans(Miwa loans): Agricultural Finance Corporation Development offers Loans for

cane development; Sukari Sacco also offer advance payment on harvested sugarcane. Action

Aid-Kenya (2005, reported that sugarcane income was used as collateral in getting loans from

friends and relatives. MSC also pays school fees to learning institutions using irrevocable

letters presented by contracted farmers. The amount of money paid as school fees is deducted

from sugarcane proceeds upon payment. This is supported by Kidula (2007), in her study

who reported that sugarcane is a security and acts as collateral for loans. She further

explained that expected proceeds from sugarcane payments was used by farmers as some

form of insurance in hospitals for treatment of family members and in schools for payment of

fees. FAO reported that in one contract farming venture, “compassionate” advances for

school fees, weddings and alimony resulted in many farmers receiving no payments at the

end of crop season, leading to high dropout rates (FAO- Partnerships for growth).

In economic analysis of the farm supply response study, price was a critical economic factor

that determined farmers‟ production decision (Anwar & Naeem, 2008). In Kenya, the

sugarcane pricing formula is used to determine the sugarcane price per ton. The pricing

formula is recognized in the Sugar Act 2001. The sugarcane pricing formula is reviewed by

the sugarcane pricing committee chaired by Kenya Sugar Board (Ingara, 2009). The formula

used is as follows;

Sugarcane price =average price of ton sugar(prevailing month)*farmer‟s sharing ratio (50%)

/10.

But sometimes the formula is not used due to the market forces of supply and demand, sugar

imports and competition between mills for sugarcane. Introduction of new sugar mills like

Butali in Western Kenya, Sukari and Transmara in South Nyanza have brought stiff

competition in the Sugar Industry affecting use of the pricing formula in purchase of

sugarcane from farmers.

Generally higher prices are expected to result in a larger output per area and increase in area

of production. Yanagida & Bhartti (1990), revealed that official procurement price for

sugarcane at mill gate and relative returns to alternative uses of sugarcane were principal

factors affecting sugarcane supply. This is further supported by Ramulu (1994) who

concluded in his study that there was significant and positive influence of price and

yield/acreage in cane production in Andhra Pradesh state of India.

Sugar Act (2001), stipulates that sugarcane payment should take place 30 days after delivery

to the factory. But a study by Action Aid-Kenya (2005) revealed that delay in payment for

delivered cane, particularly affected contracted farmers through loss of livelihood, and

increased poverty levels. The sugar industry is intricately weaved into the rural economy of

most areas in Kenya (KSB, 2010). In Western Kenya and Nyanza sugar belt, farm households

and rural business depend on the injection of funds derived from the sugar industry. The

survival of small towns and market places in these regions is dependent on the income from

the sugar industry. A study in Nyando sugar belt revealed that cane farming is a major source

of income to the farmers (Odenya et al. 2009). In the study, 81.3% of the Nyando farmers

derived income from cane farming, 16% from cane farming and business and only 2.7% from

employment and other businesses. Sorre (2005) revealed that sugarcane income enabled

farmers raise sugarcane on both their own farms, leased plots and also enabled them to invest

in other businesses. According to Oniango (1987), introduction of sugarcane led to buying of

land from non-cane farming families by cane farming families in order to increase their

income.

Sorre (2005) revealed that the desire to satisfy growth needs led farmers in MSC scheme to

use cane income to build houses. This is further supported by Oniango‟o (1987) who revealed

that in MSC scheme, 29.3% of houses were constructed from sugarcane proceeds. He further

confers that apart from a few salaried employees, there are very few alternative income

sources for house construction in Mumias sugar zone other than cane proceeds.

Therefore the researcher sought to investigate the various financial factors that influence cane

production by contracted farmers.

2.5: Management of Extension Services

Communication as a managerial tool is the most critical element of extension services.

Communication is the sharing of ideas, facts, opinions, information and understanding, and in

agro-based industries it is done by extension staff. Extension staff is an individual/group

involved in the practice of passing new ideas, information, and innovations to farmers for

purposes of improving their farming practices and livelihood.

According to Peter Drucker (2008), good communication and interpersonal relationship are

imperative to overall business performance and sustainability. He further asserts that 60% of

all management problems are as a result of poor communication. Mayo (1933) also revealed

that good communication between managers and workers helped improve productivity.

Communication failure is usually due to barriers between the receiver and the sender. The

barrier can be; semantic usually caused by a word or symbol meaning different things to

different people: psychological barrier which depends on emotional or psychological status of

either the receiver or sender: and organizational barrier which is due to status or hierarchy

within an organization. Schultz (1966) maintains that there are three interpersonal human

needs - inclusion, control and affection that cause one to establish and maintain relations with

others. Therefore they are at play in extension services.

Extension staffs employed in contract farming ventures are usually the key link and the direct

interface between the sponsor's management and farmers. They require a number of key

skills that include: A good comprehension of the crop(s) or animals under contract, a

sensitive and empathetic understanding of the social customs, language and farming practices

of the communities they work with, an ability to communicate effectively with farmers,

organize and administer cropping schedules and buy proceeds honestly and impartially. They

must also possess an understanding of agronomy, farm management techniques and the

potential capabilities of the farmers with whom they work. Extension staff must first obtain

the credibility and trust of the farmers they advise in order to successfully implement the

policies of the sponsor. In 1999, the Kenya Tea Development Authority experienced serious

unrest amongst its growers, reportedly due to the Authority‟s inefficient extension services

(FAO, 2010). Therefore the extension officer must have expert power to be able to pass

professional knowledge to the farmers. Nuthall & Padilla (2009) in their study found out that

extension education was an effective way of improving technical efficiency in the production

of sugar-cane in Philippines. They recommended targeting of farmers with long farming

experience and young farmers who lacked farming experience. Training of farmers can take

place through routine farm inspection visits by extension staff, formal and regular meetings

with farmer groups that concentrate on the relevant activity at the time, e.g. seed sowing,

transplanting, fertilizing, pest and disease control or harvesting (Swanson & Claar, 1984).

The deployment of extension staff varies considerably in different regions. And the degree of

responsibility of field extension staff depends on the project's structure whereas the extension

worker to farmer ratio mainly depends on the type of venture. In the Pacific, a company

buying maize, tobacco, vegetable crops and papaya allocated one field officer to every 55

farmers. In a rice project in West Africa, each extension officer supervised 300 farmers.

Sugar cane and cereal crops require a lower ratio. FAO reported that South Nyanza Sugar

Company (SONY) deploys one extension officer to 65 sugarcane growers. In the Kenyan

sugar Industry, contracted cane farmers at field level in the same locality are organized in

blocks. In the Hawthorne studies by Mayo (1933), it was found out that feeling of

togetherness by workers and attention paid by superiors resulted in improvement in their

work performances. The formations of blocks and farmer organizations have given farmers a

sense of belonging. Learning through social networks are also important determinants of

technology adoption. Social learning theory of Bandura (1977) states that; “there is a

continuous reciprocal interaction between the person, environment and behavior”. Cane

farming has provided an opportunity for teamwork and social interaction where farmers

interact during block meetings to discuss issues affecting them. Padilla et al. (2001) reported

that small scale farmers in Phillipine were involved in sugarcane farming primarily as a

means of gaining membership into larger group known as „sugarcane planters‟ whom they

perceived as being prestigious or powerful. A study by Perera et al (2010) in Sri Lanka

revealed that adoption of recommended technologies was significantly influenced by being a

member of social association among other things. Gasson (1973) in a study on Camridgeshire

and Suffolk farmers revealed that farmers with a predominantly social orientation were

farming for the sake of interpersonal relationships in work. Maslow‟s hierarchy of needs

(1943) theory identified social needs as one of the human needs. Therefore poor interpersonal

relationship with superiors, subordinates and peers usually has great effect on activities of

work and can be so powerfully de-motivating as to sap the will to work.

The introduction of technologies by field extension staff can cause cultural adaptation

problems for small-scale farmers. Therefore management can organize training programmes

for extension staff and farmers in the form of regular lectures, field days and demonstration

plots. These has been done in South Nyanza Sugar Company (SONY) which promotes farmer

training programmes and organized field days to demonstrate sugar-cane production methods

to farmers (FAO, 2010). Olwande et al (2009) recommended enhanced extension efforts to

ensure sensitization of farmers on use of fertilizer and enhanced fertilizer distribution for

improved productivity. Anwar et al (2008) recommended effective extension services

programs for improved awareness of new technologies in Charsadda district could lead to

improved productivity. Muhammad et al. (2001) observed that non-adoption of recommended

agricultural technologies was responsible for low per hectare crop yields in Pakistan. Masuku

(2011) in his study on cane growers in Swaziland concluded that farmers required training

and motivation to be commercially oriented in order to improve cane yields. Karanja, Jayne

& Strasberg (1998) in their study on determinants of fertilizer adoption and use in Kenya

revealed that farmer education was one of the factors that influenced fertilizer use on maize.

A study by Muhammad, Garforth & Malik (2001), revealed that relatively innovative and

expensive practices are less adopted compared to traditional and those that involve less

finances. Farmers will only accept new techniques if the adoption results in higher yields

and/or improved quality and if the cost of such techniques is more than offset by higher

returns. Suri (2005),in her study on maize technology adoption in Kenya showed that

technology profitability, farmer learning and observed differences among farmers and across

farming systems were major determinants of adoption. Perera et al (2010) revealed that

adoption of recommended technologies was significantly influenced by the monthly income

and farmers visit by extension officers.

Therefore the researcher will investigate how the extension services have affected sugarcane

production by contracted farmers.

2.6: Conceptual Framework.

Sugarcane production refers to sugar cane growing by contracted cane farmers. Under

contract agreement, the company (MSC) and the farmer have different obligations to fulfill

that affects in one way or sugarcane productivity. Sugarcane farmers engage into cane

production with a motivation to satisfy certain needs. The factors motivating farmers into

cane production can either be within or from the environment. Fifty percent of motivation

comes from within a person and fifty percent from his or her environment (Adair, 1990).

Below are the various variables and how they influence each other in this research study.

Independent variables Dependent variables

Food security & income

Land sub-division

Labour

Extraneous Variables

Source: Researcher, Dindi, E. (2012).

Cane production is a dependent variable because its production varies as a result of the

independent variables. The desire to satisfy the independent variables creates tension in the

farmers, and the tension motivates them into sugar-cane farming. The independent variables

are evaluated with respect on how they affect the dependent variable. In Sugarcane contract

farming, the contracted farmer and the company have obligations in one way or another that

Sugarcane contract

farming

Food security

Financial factors

Extension services

Extension services

Sugarcane

productivity

(Cane yield/ha)

Climate/weather

Soil fertility

Politics

affect sugarcane productivity. Food security determines the availability of a dependent and

adequate food supply that is important for maintaining good health and provides energy for

external work like cane production. Financial factors determine availability of money to

contracted farmers and determine cash payment. Other independent variables are extension

services in terms of dissemination of technology, adoption of technology and relationship

between farmers and extension staff. Extraneous variables influence the relationship between

independent and dependent variables. And in this study, they were weather, soil fertility and

politics but they are not being examined.

In summary, the chapter covered several factors that influenced sugarcane production in

Kenya and in other countries in the world. The factors covered included; Sugarcane

production under contract farming, conditions/terms under which contracts were issued and

how they affected crop production. Food security was covered and issues raised cover the

farmers and the company‟s contribution towards food security and how sugarcane production

was affected by food security. In the financial factors, areas covered included MSC‟s credit

facilities to contracted sugarcane farmers, MSC‟s partnership with some financial institutions

to address farmers‟ financial constraints, sugarcane pricing and utilization of sugarcane

income by farmers. The chapter also covered technology transfer by extension staff, the skills

required by the staff and their employment, transfer and effect of different technologies.

Conceptual framework was also covered.

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1: Introduction

The chapter gave a description of procedures used to carry out the study.

3.2: Research Design

Descriptive research design was used to determine which factors affected sugar-cane

production in Mayoni division. The design was used for collecting information about

attitudes, habits and activities on social issues in their physical settings (Saunders et al, 2003).

The design was relevant since the study targeted sugarcane farming activities in their physical

setting.

3.3: Target population

The study was conducted in Mayoni division in Kakamega County of Western Kenya. The

target population was 3537 sugarcane farmers, of which 2619 farmers were actively involved

in contracted cane farming. The rest of the sugarcane farmers had no contracts with MSC.

This is one of the divisions where sugarcane farming has been taking place since inception of

Mumias Sugar Company scheme in 1973.

3.4: Sampling design

Purposive sampling was used to select contracted cane farmers of Mayoni division. The

sampling design was used to select 262 contracted sugarcane farmers with at least ten years

cane production experience and therefore had an in depth understanding of the issues in the

study. Purposive sampling is best used when selected sample has needed information

(Fraenkel and Wallen, 2000), hence was relevant for the study. Purposive sampling also

helps improve the representativeness of farmers. Convenient sampling was also used to select

the nearest contracted farmer who may not have been in cane production for at least ten years

and field assistants from MSC.

3.5: Sampling size

Using purposive sampling a total of 262 farmers were selected from 2619 contracted sugar

cane farmers of Mayoni. To give a good representation of various factors affecting cane

production, all the farmers in the selected fields (blocks) answered the questionnaire. This

gave a good representation of farmers who had managed their cane farms well and those who

had not managed their cane farms well.

3.6: Data collection instrument

The instrument used to obtain data from contracted farmers was a questionnaire. This was

appropriate since questionnaires are used to collect basic information from a sample. Each

item in the questionnaire was developed to address specific research objectives. The

questionnaire contained both open and close-ended questions.

3.7: Data collection process

An introductory letter seeking permission and staff assistance in data collection was written

to the Director of Agriculture department, Mumias Sugar Company. The researcher carried

out a pilot test administered to 5 respondents from not selected blocks with the objective of

adjusting the questionnaire where necessary. A brief explanation about the study was given to

the cane farmer (respondent) before the questionnaire was given. Both open and close-ended

questions were used to allow for in-depth information gathering on factors influencing cane

production in Mayoni division. The researcher/research assistant gave a self administered

semi-structured questionnaire to cane farmers in the selected blocks. The respondents‟ were

given two weeks to fill in and submit back the questionnaire. Secondary data was collected

from past Agricultural reports in Mumias Sugar to give an insight on past performance on

cane production.

3.8: Data analysis

Data was analysed by both qualitative and quantitative methods. Collected data was coded

and captured in frequency and percentile tables by use of Statistical Packages for Social

Sciences (SPSS). Descriptive statistics was used to summarize collected data while inferential

statistics was used to generalize the findings to the study population. Qualitative analysis was

used to derive information from explanations and interpret findings on descriptions in the

questionnaire. And quantitative analysis was used to derive information from numerical

values.

3.9: Expected outcome

The expected outcome comprised the various factors affecting cane production by contracted

cane farmers in Mayoni division. The outcome helped in determining the extent to which

various factors have influenced contract cane farming and bridged the knowledge gap .The

outcome will enable MSC management understand these factors and seek ways to address

them in order to improve cane farming and hence improve cane yields in the scheme. The

study report will also be used by the Sugar Industry to lobby for Economic, Legal and food

security policies that will benefit the farmers.

CHAPTER FOUR

FINDINGS, DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1: Introduction

This chapter presents data analysis, results interpretation and discussion from 200

respondents representing 76.3% of the targeted sample population. Qualitative data was

analysed using descriptive statistics including percentages and frequency counts. The analysis

was summarized and presented using descriptive statistical tools through the use of tables and

figures.

This chapter presents the findings under the following sub-headings as guided by the research

objectives;

a) Demographic information of respondents;

b) Effect of bureaucratic management of contract farming on sugarcane production;

c) Effect of managerial functions on food security on sugarcane production;

d) Influence of management of extension services on sugarcane production;

e) Influence of financial management on sugarcane production.

4.2: Demographic information

The demographic information of the respondents was presented and discussed based on

gender, age and level of education. The information on gender is presented in table 4.2.1

below.

Table 4.2.1: Respondents’ Gender

Gender Frequency Percent Cumulative

Percent

Male 143 72 72

Female 57 28 100.0

Total 200 100.0

From the findings, 143 (72%) of the respondents were male while 57 (28%) were female. The

presence of many male in the study population could be explained by the fact that culturally

in the Luhya community; men are the leaders of the family and mostly take up family

decisions which include sugarcane cash crop farming. The findings on male: female ratio

agrees with Osore‟s (2005) report on the sugarcane farming community of the Bakhayos who

are a sub-tribe of the Luhya community.

Table 4.2.2 below shows that 23(11.5%) of the respondents had no formal education,

76(38%) had primary level, 75(37.5%) had secondary level of education while 26(13%) had

tertiary level of education. That means the majority in the study population did not have

relevant skills for formal employment in urban centre hence most of them stay back in the

rural areas where they are involved in carrying out sugarcane farming as a source of income.

Table 4.2.2: Level of education

Education level

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

No formal education

23 11.5 11.5 11.5

Primary 76 38 38 49.5

Secondary 75 37.5 37.5 87

Tertiary 26 13.0 13.0 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

These research findings manifest low educational level within the study population which

hence translates into a semi-skilled labour-force that is largely confined to rural settings. Lack

of skills due to level of education doesn‟t allow the study population to compete for available

formal employment in Kenya and are hence confined to rural setting where they are engaged

in sugarcane production.

Age of the respondent was also one of the important demographic characteristic sampled.

From table 4.2.3 below, the sample population falls under the following age brackets; age 20-

30 years were 11(5.5%), age 31-40 years were 38(19%), age 41-50 years were 79(39.5%),and

above 50 years were 72(36%).

Table 4.2.3: Age bracket

Age bracket (years) Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

20-30 11 5.5 5.5 5.5

31-40 38 19 19 24.5

41-50 79 39.5 39.5 64.0

51 and above

72 36 36 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

From the table, it was clear that people aged above 40 years were the majority in the sample

population. According to Oucho (2000), in his report on population and development in

Kenya, age brackets are sub-divided into young(less than 30 years), middle age (31-55 years)

and old (above 55years). From table 4.2.3, the majority in the sample population falls within

middle age. The study hence confirms the findings by Oucho and Odipo(2002) on estimation

of Internal migration in Kenya. Their study found out that those districts contributing to rural-

urban migration experienced net gains in male population after age 40 years. This therefore

explains the presence of 39.5% of age 41-50 years and 36% of 51 years and above in the

study population.

4.3: Effect of bureaucratic management on contract cane production

The handling of contract farming by Mumias Sugar Company was discussed and presented

based on bureaucratic system of management, motivation of sugarcane farmers, length of

time to supply farm inputs, and the effect of delayed input supply on sugarcane production.

The information on bureaucratic system of management is presented in table 4.3.1 below.

The findings show that 57.1 % of the respondents were affirmative that bureaucratic system

of management affected contract cane farming.

Table 4.3.1: Bureaucratic system of management

Effect of bureaucracy Frequency

Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Yes 45 22.5 57.1

No 34 17.0 42.9

Total 79 39.6 100.0

Missing Responses 121 60.4

Total 200 100.0

Processing of contract cane farming should take at most three months according to service

level agreements within Mumias Sugar Company, but results of farmers interviewed

indicated that it takes between 3 to at least 12 months with an average of 8 months. The

findings show that the various processes carried out as from contract listing and signing, land

preparation ,inputs supply to finally planting of sugarcane so as to affirm contract farming

between Mumias Sugar company and the farmer takes a long time. And this is due to

bureaucratic system of management and its effect on contract cane farming as shown by valid

respondents in table 4.3.1, in which 22.5% of 39.5% who indicated bureaucratic system

affected them. This can be explained by a lot of red tapes involved in the system before

certain processes can take place.

From the findings in table 4.3.2 below, it seems the bureaucratic system of management has

negatively affected most farmers‟ motivation towards sugarcane production.

Table 4.3.2: Motivation to be sugarcane farmer

Motivated to be farmer frequency percent Valid Percent Cumulative percent

Valid yes 21 10.5 39.6 39.6

No 32 16.0 60.4 100.0

Total 53 26.5 100.0


Total 200 100

From table 4.3.2 above, 60.4% of the valid respondents indicated that they are not motivated

into sugarcane production by bureaucratic system of management and 39.6% indicated that

they are motivated to be sugarcane farmers. Out of the 200 respondents, 147(73%) did not

give any feedback to the question of motivation towards bureaucratic system of management.

The poor response was because most farmers have low level of education (see table 4.2.2)

and hence didn‟t understand the meaning of the system. The researcher also didn‟t

interview/explain to them about the bureaucratic system of management. But as seen from

table 4.3.2., poor motivation towards sugarcane farming contracts by farmers led to lack of

commitment, sale of supplied farm inputs and lack of weeding as will be seen elsewhere in

this study. These all lead to poor cane and hence poor (low) cane production.

Table 4.3.3 shows decline in sugarcane production in Mayoni division over the past five

years.

As seen from table 4.3.3 below, there has been a continuous decline in tons per hectare,

which is from 72.1 tons/ha in 2007/08 to 52.2tons/ha in 2011/12 and at the same time there

has been decline in tones delivered to MSC factory.

Table 4.3.3: Sugarcane production (Source: Agriculture reports of MSC)

Period(Financial year) Tons cane/ha(TCH) Tons delivered to MSC

2007/08 72.1 2,047,924.00

2008/09 67.7 1,981,761.57

2009/10 56.5 2,106,364.00

2010/11 64.8 2,066,142.00

2011/12 52.2 1,428,325.27

The respondents were requested to indicate whether inputs/services were timely supplied by

MSC management. The results of the respondents are indicated in table 4.3.4 below.

Table 4.3.4: Timely Inputs/services supply

Timely supply of inputs


Percent

Valid yes 57 28.3 29.4 29.4

no 136 67.9 70.6 100.0

Total 193 96.2 100.0


Total 200 100.0

The findings in table 4.3.4 above indicate that 70.6 % of the valid respondents indicated that

the inputs were not timely supplied by MSC management, while 29.4% indicated that inputs

and services were supplied on time. Swanson et al.(1984) reported that contract farming

must be integrated with timely inputs and agriculture services supply for it to succeed. From

this findings late inputs supply negatively affected sugarcane production.

The results in table 4.3.5 show the effect of delayed input supply on sugarcane production.

Table 4.3.5: Effect of delayed Inputs supply on sugarcane production

Effect of delayed inputs supply


Percent

Valid

Increased cane

production 22 11.3 14.0 14.0

Decreased cane

production 117 58.5 72.1 86.1

No effect 23 11.3 13.9 100.0

Total 162 81.1 100.0


Total 200 100.0

The findings in the table show that 72.1% of the valid respondents were of the opinion that

delayed input supply by MSC management led to reduced sugarcane production.

4.4: Effect of Food Security on Sugarcane production

Under MSC contract farming, one of the MSC management‟s responsibilities is to address

farmers‟ food security (MSC cane contract, 2005). Sugarcane production competes with food

crops for available land. Research findings in table 4.4.1 and table 4.4.2 indicate that there is

competition between food crop and sugarcane production on the available land.

Table 4.4.1: Acres under sugarcane per individual farmer

Acres under cane

Frequency Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Under 1 acre

49 24.5 24.5 24.5

Between 1 & 2 acres

102 50.9 50.9 75.5

Between 2 & 3 acres

19 9.4 9.4 84.9

Above 3 acres

22 11.3 11.3 96.2

Missing 8 3.8 3.8 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

Table 4.4.2: Acres under food crops per individual farmer

Acres under food

crop Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Less than 1acre

72 35.8 35.8 35.8

Between 1 & 2 acres

49 24.5 24.5 60.3

Between 2 & 3 acres

41 20.8 20.8 81.1

Above 3 acres

19 9.4 9.4 90.5

missing 19 9.5 9.5 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

Findings from table 4.4.1 indicate that 50.9% of the respondents have between 1 and 2 acres

of land under sugarcane production, while table 4.4.2 shows that 24.5% of the respondents

have similar acres of between 1 and 2acres under food crops. From the two tables, more

farmers have dedicated more of the available land to sugarcane production compared to food

crop production. The findings agree with Wawire et al.(2002) who reported that contracted

sugarcane production had made it impossible for farmers to set aside land food crop

production.

Figure 4.4(a): Acres under food crops per individual farmer.

Figure 4.4(a) from research findings depict that more farmers have less than one acre of their

land under food crop production, and hence food from that area is not adequate to feed their

family. During the interview with the farmers, it came out clearly that some had to source

some food from the markets or relatives to satisfy the family requirements. And some of the

farmers had to work as farm laborers, sale fertilizers or lease their sugarcane in order to get

money to purchase food for their families. The findings concur with Mahlangu et al. (2008 )

study in Ntumeni –South Africa and Kidula (2007) study in Nyando zone, both of which

showed that farmers in both areas diverted farm inputs (such as fertilizers) to get funds to

purchase food stuffs.

During land selection exercise for contract cane farming by MSC staff, farmers are advised to

leave out a third of their land holding for food crop production. The findings in table 4.4.3

indicate that 56.9% of the valid respondents agreed that they were advised while 43.1%

farmers declined that they were advised by MSC staff.

Table 4.4.3: Advice to leave a third of land for food crop production

Advised –leave a third of land for food


Percent

Valid

Yes 109 54.7 56.9 56.9

no 83 41.5 43.1 100.0

Total 192 96.2 100.0


Total 200 100.0

Figure 4.4(b): Advice by MSC staff to farmers to leave a third of land for food production.

According to the sugarcane farming, MSC has also a responsibility of educating farmers on

food security during the extension meetings. Findings in table 4.4.4 below indicate that

58.3% of the valid respondents said that it‟s less frequently handled and 33.3% indicated its

most frequently handled.

Table 4.4.4: MSC addressing food security by education

Advise on food security Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent

Valid

less frequent 79 39.6 58.3 58.3

frequent 12 5.6 5.6 61.1

moderately 8 3.8 5.6 66.7

most frequent 45 22.6 33.3 100.0

Total 136 67.9 100.0


Grand total 200 100.0

Another of MSC obligations in handling food security is by providing dairy animals and

grains (beans &maize) by using sugarcane as collateral. Table 4.4.5 and 4.4.6 indicate

respondents result on MSC provision of those inputs. Table 4.4.5 shows that 60.0% of the

valid respondents were of the view that MSC management less frequently provided dairy

animals and 22.9% that MSC most frequently provided dairy animals.

Table 4.4.5: MSC addressing food insecurity on providing dairy animals

Provision of dairy animals


Percent

Valid

less frequent

79 39.6 60.0 60.0

Frequent 23 11.3 17.1 77.1

most frequent

30 15.1 22.9 100.0

Total 132 66.0 100.0


Total 200 100.0

Figure 4.4 (c): MSC providing dairy animals to farmers.

Research findings in table 4.4.6 revealed that MSC less frequently (76.5%) addressed food

security by providing maize/beans to farmers. And 20.6% of the valid respondents indicated

that MSC most frequently addressed food security.

Table 4.4.6: MSC addressing food insecurity by providing maize/bean seeds

Providing Maize/beans Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid less frequent

98 49.1 76.5 76.5

frequent 4 1.9 2.9 79.4

most frequent

26 13.2 20.6 100.0

Total 128 64.2 100.0


Total 200 100.0

The study also sought to understand effect of sugarcane on food security. Research findings

in table 4.4.7 revealed that contracted sugarcane production had negative impact on food

production in the family. From the table 107(52.8%) of the respondents indicated food

availability had reduced while 65(32.1%) revealed that sugarcane production led to increased

food availability. The negative impact findings agree with Mwadhili(1995) who reported that

introduction of sugarcane contract farming negatively affected food crop production.

Table 4.4.7: Effect of sugarcane management on food availability

Effect of sugarcane on food security Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid positively (increased food availability)

65 32.1 34.0 34.0

negatively (reduced food availability)

107 52.8 56.0 90.0

no change at all 16 7.5 10.0 100.0

Total 188 94.3 100.0


Total 200 100.0

In the Luhya community, it‟s the females‟ responsibility to ensure that there is adequate food

for the family by tilling the land. Some of the female respondents who were interviewed

during this research said that most of the rural setting women were mostly engaged in

sugarcane weeding and working as farm labor to earn some income for the family hence

affecting food availability.

Figure 4.4(d): Effect of sugarcane production on food availability.

Interviews with the respondents during this study revealed that food was not adequate for the

family members as seen from the above figures and tables. This left family members in a

weak state that they had little energy to work in the sugarcane farms. Poor sugarcane

management coupled with diversion of fertilizer (as seen in 4.3 above) has led to decline in

sugarcane production.

Research findings in table Table 4.4.8 reveal that 65.3% of the valid respondents indicated

that availability of food had negatively contributed (reduced) sugarcane production.

Figure 4.4(e) also depicts that food availability had negatively affected sugarcane production.

Table 4.4.8: Contribution of food security towards sugarcane productivity

Effect of food security Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid increased sugarcane productivity

64 32.1 34.7 34.7

reduced sugarcane productivity

121 60.4 65.3 100.0

Total 185 92.5 100.0


Total 200 100.0

Figure 4.4(e): effect of food security on sugarcane production.

Therefore this is the most important time that MSC management addressed farmers‟ food

security in order to improve on sugarcane production.

4.5: Influence of management of extension services on cane production

Extension services are a communication tool under the various managerial functions of an

organization. Communication is an important managerial function and is responsible 60% of

the management problems as stated by Drucker (2008). Provision of Extension services by

extension staff has a direct bearing on crop productivity. This sub-section seeks to find out

the influence of these services on sugarcane production by farmers.

Research findings in table 4.5.1 and figure 4.5(a) revealed that the respondents received

advice on the following activities; 32.1 % on weeding of sugarcane, 28.3% on planting of

sugarcane, 11.3% on fertilizer application and 5.7% on trash lining.

Table 4.5.1: Operations advised on by MSC extension staff

Operations advised on by MSC staff Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid planting of sugarcane

57 28.3 36.6 36.6

fertilizer application

23 11.3 14.6 51.2

weeding of sugarcane

64 32.1 41.5 92.7

trash lining of sugarcane

11 5.7 7.3 100.0

Total 155 77.4 100.0


Total 200 100.0

Figure 4.5(a): Activities advised on by extension staff

The implementation of these activities i.e. proper planting, fertilizer application, timely

weeding and trashlining determine yield in sugarcane, therefore they are key in sugarcane

production.

Research findings in Table 4.5.2 represent results on different extension methods that farmers

feel are appropriate for improving sugarcane productivity.

Table 4.5.2: Appropriate extension method for improving sugarcane productivity


Percent

Valid farm visits by MSC employees

83 41.5 44.0 44.0

extension meetings

57 28.3 30.0 74.0

visit contact farms

30 15.1 16.0 90.0

classroom training

15 7.5 8.0 98.0

5 2 1.9 2.0 100.0

Total 189 94.3 100.0


Total 53 100.0

Figure 4.5(b): Appropriate Extension method

Respondents revealed that the different methods were effective in the order of: 41.5% on

farm visits by MSC employees, 28.3% on extension meetings, 15.1% on visit of contact

farmers and 7.5% on classroom training. From the research finding, the most appropriate

extension method is farm visits by MSC employees followed by extension meetings. The

least appropriate is classroom training.

The respondents were asked if they had adopted any new technology released by MSC in the

past five years. Table 4.5.3 has the results, 34(17%) of the respondents have adopted new

technology while 158(79.2%) have not adopted new technology.

Table 4.5.3: Level of technology adoption by farmers.

Adoption of technology Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid yes 34 17.0 17.6 17.6

no 158 79.2 82.4 100.0

Total 192 96.2 100.0

Missing Respon-ses

8 3.8

Total 53 100.0

Figure 4.5(d): Farmers adopted new technology

The respondents had various reasons why they had not adopted new technology. The most

sited reason was that new technology was expensive. Other reasons included lack of

knowledge by both the staff and farmers (not aware), lack of skills to execute (herbicide

spraying), and the materials are not available.

Good interpersonal relationship is important for business performance (productivity) and

sustainability (Drucker, 2008; Mayo, 1933). Therefore the respondents were asked what kind

of relationship they had with MSC extension staff. Research findings in figure 4.5 (e)

indicated that 50.9% of the respondents had friendly relationship, 39.6% was casual and 5.7%

experienced hostile relationship.

Figure 4.5(e): Type of relationship with MSC extension staff

Findings in figure 4.5(e) show that 39.6% of the respondents revealed that they have casual

relationship with the MSC staff, while 50.9% had friendly relationship. Inter-personal

relationships usually have effect on productivity. Therefore the researcher further asked the

respondents whether the relationship had affected the farming activities negatively. Research

findings in figure 4.5(f) below revealed that 52.8% of the respondents stated yes (it affected)

while 39.6% stated no (it didn‟t affect).

Figure 4.5(f): Relationship negatively affected farming activities

The respondents were asked to give suggestions on ways MSC management could use to

improve the casual relationship. The farmers‟ suggested MSC to improve their services by;

treating the farmer as the most important customer (give first priority), be friendly, respect

farmers and good public relations, frequently visits their farms to give advice, improve in

timely input supply and harvesting, solve problems faster, and give loans to farmers against

their sugarcane crop.

4.6: Influence of management of financials on sugarcane production

Work is a means of earning money (income) through which to satisfy outside demands and

needs, therefore sugarcane farmers are engaged in sugarcane production in order to earn

money to satisfy their various needs and demands. The sub-section sought to find out source

of income/money for the farmers, how the farmers spend the sugarcane proceeds, how long

MSC took to pay the farmers, whether higher prices in competitor companies such as West

Kenya Sugar Company would entice the farmers and the farmers‟ response on inputs cost

recovery.

Research findings in table 4.6.1 revealed that 43.4% of the respondents‟ source of income is

from sale of fertilizer and lease of sugarcane. This means that most of the fertilizer supplied

by MSC is sold by farmers to earn some income to support farmers‟ household needs. The

respondents said sugarcane takes a long time (18-20months) to mature and hence they are in

dire need of some cash during that period to support their household requirements. This

research findings agree with Mahlangu et al.(2008) study report on farmers of Ntumeni in

South Africa who also sold fertilizer to earn some income.

Table 4.6.1: Source of income from lease of sugarcane/sale fertilizer

Sugarcane/fertilizer sales as source of income Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid less frequent

83 41.5 48.9 48.9

most frequent

87 43.4 51.1 100.0

Total 170 84.9 100.0


Total 200 100.0

Cash crop production has been viewed by farmers as a source of income over years. Research

findings in Table 4.6.2 revealed that 45.8 % of the valid respondents viewed sugarcane

farming as an important source of income while 43.8% viewed it as least important source.

The reports from MSC offices revealed that on average farmers earned kshs.60, 000/= per

hectare which is 40% of the total sugarcane proceeds after inputs recovery. This findings

agree with Wawire et al.(2007) who reported that the net income from sugarcane farming was

42% of the gross. some farmers felt they were being robbed by MSC management after

waiting for 18-20 months, only to earn such little income.

Table 4.6.2: Source of income from sugarcane farming

Sugarcane proceeds as source of income Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid least important 79 39.6 43.8 43.8

atleast important

8 3.8 4.2 47.9

averagely important

11 5.7 6.3 54.2

most important 83 41.5 45.8 100.0

Total 181 90.6 100.0


Total 200 100.0

Figure 4.6(a) depicts how the respondents rate the importance of income from sugarcane

farming.

Figure 4.6(a): Rating of importance of sugarcane income

Income from sugarcane farming is spent in carrying out various house-hold requirements as

revealed in tables 4.6.3(expenditure on school fees), table 4.6.4(expenditure on setting up

businesses) and table 4.6.5(expenditure on building houses). Research findings in table 4.6.3

revealed that 64.2% of the respondent‟s stated that paying school fees using sugarcane

income was most important priority expenditure. And 20.8% stated that it was least

important.

Table 4.6.3: Income expenditure on paying school fees

Priority of school fees expenses Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid least priority 41 20.8 22.0 22.0

atleast priority 4 1.9 2.0 24.0

average priority 4 1.9 2.0 26.0

important 11 5.7 6.0 32.0

most important priority

128 64.2 68.0 100.0

Total 189 94.3 100.0


Total 200 100.0

The expenditure of income from sugarcane farming on investing in family business is

represented in table 4.6.4. Research findings reveal that 62.3 % of the respondents viewed

expenditure on business as of least priority. This can be explained by low educational level of

the community which has led to semi-skilled labour –force as already seen elsewhere.

Table 4.6.4:Sugarcane Income expenditure on other business

Sugarcane income expenses on other business Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent


At least important

11 5.7 6.1 73.5

important 8 3.8 4.1 77.6


42 20.8 22.4 100.0

Total 185 92.5 100.0


Total 200 100.0

Table 4.6.5:Sugarcane Income expenditure on building family house

Sugarcane income on family house Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent


At least important

4 7.6 8.0 82.0

important 1 1.9 2.0 84.0


8 15.1 16.0 100.0

Total 50 94.3 100.0


Total 53 100.0

Table 4.6.5 represents study finding of expenditure by respondents on building family house.

From the research findings, 69.8% of the respondents treated expenditure on housing with

least priority.

The research findings in table 4.6.6 revealed that 1.9% of the respondents viewed income

from employment as the most important source of income. This is because the respondents

are mainly of semi-skilled labor-force and are engaged in sugarcane farming rather than

formal employment as a source of income.

Table 4.6.6: Source of income from employment

Employment as source of income Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid least important

79 39.6 47.7 47.7

At least important

8 3.8 4.5 52.3

Averagely important

75 37.7 45.5 97.7

Most important

4 1.9 2.3 100.0

Total 166 83.0 100.0


Total 200 100.0

The respondents were also tested on their loyalty to MSC. Research findings are represented

in Table 4.6.7 and they reveal that 69.8% of the farmers are loyal to MSC while 24.5% are

not loyal to MSC. The majority of the respondents revealed that even if West Kenya Sugar

Company increased their sugarcane prices the respondents would still sell their sugarcane to

MSC.

Table 4.6.7: Effect of Increase of sugar prices in West Kenya Sugar Company.

Not loyal to MSC Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid yes 49 24.5 24.5 24.5

no 140 69.8 69.8 94.3

Miss respon-ses

11 5.7 5.7 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

Figure 4.6(b): Farmers’ loyalty to Mumias Sugar Company

The research findings agree with Yanagida et al.(1990) findings that official procurement

price of sugarcane at mill gate affected sugarcane supply.

The Sugar Act (2001) stipulates that sugarcane farmers should be paid within 30days (one

month) after sugarcane delivery to the factory. Research findings in Table 4.6.8 revealed that

35.8% of the respondents stated that they were paid after 2months, 28.3% within 2 months

and 32.1% within 30days as stipulated by the Sugar Act.

Table 4.6.8: Duration of cane payment after delivery to MSC

Period of cane proceeds payment Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid within 30 days

64 32.1 33.3 33.3

within 2 months

57 28.3 29.4 62.7

after 2 months

72 35.8 37.3 100.0

Total 192 96.2 100.0


Total 200 100.0

Figure 4.6(c): Duration of farmers’ payment after cane delivery to MSC.

These findings agree with Action Aid-Kenya (2005) which reported that there was delay in

payment which affected farmers‟ livelihood and increased poverty level. Respondents‟

interviewed said they were unable to trashline and weed the sugarcane because of late

payments and this has negatively affected sugarcane production (yields).

Another area of interest was farmers‟ response to costs recovery on inputs supplied by MSC

management. Research findings in table 4.6.9 revealed that 79.3% of the respondents were

not encouraged to carry on with cane farming due to inputs cost recovery while 18.9% were

encouraged.

Table 4.6.9: Inputs costs recovery -encouraged cane farming

Encouraged into cane farming due to inputs recovery Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid yes 38 18.9 19.2 19.2

no 158 79.3 80.8 100.0

Total 196 98.1 100.0

Missing Respon-ses

4 1.9

Total 200 100.0

Figure 4.6(d): Response to cane farming due to inputs costs recovery.

The respondents felt the costs on inputs and interest charged were high hence cane farming

wasn‟t profitable to them. And they said it was one of the main reasons they were not

managing the sugarcane well.

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1: Introduction This chapter presents conclusions and recommendations from the research findings of this

study. These were based on the objectives of the research study.

5.2: Summary of research study

The study was to investigate the managerial factors influencing sugarcane production by

contracted sugarcane farmers in Mumias Sugar Company. The objectives of the study were to

determine how the following factors had affected sugarcane production; that is bureaucratic

management of contract farming, food security, management of extension services and the

management of financials by the contracted farmer and Mumias Sugar Company. The data

was collected from 200 respondents. Descriptive statistics using frequencies and percentile

distribution was used to analyse the data. And the research findings revealed that most of the

respondents were male compared to females and had low educational level which translated

into semi-skilled labor-force.

5.3: Conclusions

The conclusions were based on the research findings which were addressing the research

objectives.

5.3.1: Bureaucratic system of management.

The first objective was to determine how bureaucratic system of management by MSC has

affected contract sugarcane production. The findings revealed that management of contract

listing, signing and planting to affirm the agreement was lengthy. The lengthy bureaucratic

system de-motivated farmers from engaging into contracted sugarcane production because it

took a lot of their time to finalise the process and left their available land with no meaningful

source of income for long. The findings also revealed that inputs/services in this system of

management were not timely supplied. Poor motivation of the respondents as revealed from

the findings and coupled by delayed inputs supply resulted into reduced sugarcane

production.

5.3.2: Effect of food security on sugarcane production The second objective of this study was to determine how management of food security by

MSC has affected contract sugarcane production. The findings revealed that both MSC

management and farmers have roles in addressing food security. The findings revealed that

there is competition between food crop and sugarcane production on the available land with

farmers committing more of their land to sugarcane production at the expense of food

production. Most farmers had at least two acres under sugarcane with most less than one acre

under food crops.

From findings also revealed that MSC management had carried out her managerial role of

communicating to the farmers the importance of food security by advising the farmers to

leave land for food production and education on food security. The findings revealed that

farmers had not taken food security as a priority. The findings also revealed that MSC

management had not effectively implemented the policy on support to farmers by providing

dairy animals and the grains (beans & maize). The findings revealed that sugarcane farming

negatively affected food production and hence reduced food availability to the household.

The low availability of food had negative impact on sugarcane farming as revealed by the

study.

5.3.3: Management of extension services

Communication is a managerial tool that is used in extension services and 60% of the

management problems are caused by ineffective communication (Drucker, 2008). Findings of

the study revealed that extension services in MSC were not effectively communicated to the

farmers. The findings showed that not any of the most important activities in sugarcane

farming received 50% extension services attention, with advice on cane weeding receiving a

highest score of 32%. The worst hit of the critical activities was advice on fertilizer

application which was at 11.0%.

Lack of fertilizer in the crop hinders growth leading to poor sugarcane production. In fact this

explains why there is a continuous decline in sugarcane yields.

Some of farmers appreciated that the advice received from extension staff had assisted them

in improving the sugarcane stand and the yield; therefore the farmers are positive about the

role of extension services. The findings revealed that the most appropriate extension method

was farm visits because the farmer received undivided attention from the extension staff and

this enhanced the inter-personal relationship between the farmer and the staff. The second

appropriate method was extension meetings (barazas). The findings also revealed that

extension staff (field asisitants) was managing between 350-600 ha against an average

requirement of 300ha (FAO report). The findings also revealed that adoption of new

technology by farmers was poor. Most farmers felt that new technology was expensive while

other farmers felt that the facilitators (extension staff) lacked the knowledge and skills on the

new technology.

And finally, 46% of the respondents reported that the relationship with the extension staff

was casual to hostile. As revealed from the findings, the relationship had negatively affected

sugarcane production. Half of the respondents reported that friendly relationship had

positively imparted on sugarcane production.

5.3.4: Management of financial factors of sugarcane production

This sub-section dealt with how MSC management was handling financial factors of

sugarcane production and the farmers‟ response to it. The findings revealed that the net

earnings per hectare after 2 years when sugarcane was harvested were low. The farmers

revealed that the low income forced them to sell supplied farm inputs such as fertilizer to

support their household financial needs and demands. Almost half of the valid respondents

revealed that income from sugarcane farming was the most important source of income. This

is supported by the findings somewhere else in this study that the majority of the study

population was semi-skilled hence most were not in formal employment but were involved in

sugarcane farming. Payment of school fees was the most important expenditure of the

sugarcane income, with investment in businesses being given least priority. The findings also

revealed that farmers felt that the input costs and interest were high and hence the recoveries

didn‟t motivate them to manage their sugarcane. Whereas the Sugar act stipulates payment

within 30 days, the findings revealed that most sugarcane payments (63%) were received

after 30 days. The findings revealed that 43 % of the respondents were paid after 2months

hence affecting farmers‟ source of income. The findings also revealed that 25% of the

farmers would sell their sugarcane to West Kenya Sugar Company due to high sugarcane

prices while 70% would not. That means most contracted sugarcane farmers are loyal to

MSC even with lower sugarcane prices offered to them.

5.4: Recommendations

This section will deal with recommendations that arose from the findings and conclusions of

the study. The recommendations will be based on the research objectives of the study.

From the background information findings, MSC should sponsor the secondary school

leavers to undertake courses in tertiary colleges/ or support set up of tertiary colleges as part

of their Corporate Social Responsibility in order to improve on the community‟s educational

level. As revealed from the findings, farmers gave priority to school fees from sugarcane

income. Therefore the farmers‟ should be encouraged to sign an agreement during

contracting so that deductions are made from sugarcane income towards tertiary college fees.

5.4.1: Bureaucratic System of management

The findings revealed that the system was slow, lengthy, with red tapes that delayed supply

of inputs/services. This in effect de-motivated sugarcane farmers to carry out farming.

Therefore, there is need to mainstream the contract farming processes and provision of

inputs/services by MSC management. This can be done by improving on the various

managerial functions of planning, organizing, co-ordination, controlling and implementation

in order to hasten the process. The processes have to be reviewed in line with various

managerial functions in order to remove the various red tapes that are an obstacle towards

provision of inputs/services to contracted sugarcane farmers. MSC should introduce Strategic

system of management and impart critical business skills to the staff. The processes should be

closely monitored and feedback given to top management since Sugarcane production is

critical to sustainability and business growth of MSC.

5.4.2: Effect of food security on sugarcane production

MSC management needs to review the use of Sugarcane as collateral in provision of food

crop inputs. MSC should prepare a budget and engage staff that can effectively plan, organize

and implement the food security programme for sugarcane farmers. Over the years, the

programme has been handled by sugarcane extension staffs who have not effectively

managed it. Farmers on the other hand should implement the information received on food

security. The findings also revealed that inadequate food had a negative effect on sugarcane

production since hungry farmers can‟t manage their cane well hence low sugarcane yields.

One of the requirements is that sugarcane must be well managed; therefore poor sugarcane

can‟t be used as collateral for food crop inputs. Therefore both MSC management and

sugarcane farmers need to realize the importance of both sugarcane and food security in their

business and work in a win-win kind of business. MSC management should also endeavor to

search for partners in addressing farmers‟ food security by partnering with the Non-

Governmental Organizations and Ministry of Agriculture and livestock.

5.4.3: Management of extension services.

MSC management needs to review its current extension tool and come up with a planning,

implementation, monitoring extension services tool. They should also devise a feedback

mechanism from farmers on how the various critical activities are being handled by extension

staff. Of immediate interest is a extension tool on fertilizer application management since it‟s

the worst hit critical activity.

The findings revealed that each field assistant is handling a big area and many farmers and

hence not effective in offering of extension services. MSC management should recruit more

field assistants and deploy them to reduce area managed per individual field assistant. All the

field assistants should undergo refresher course based on reviewed extension tool. Farm visits

by extension staff should be engrained into the reviewed extension tool since farmers

revealed it as the most appropriate extension method.

The lukewarm casual relationship between staff and farmers should be addressed by MSC

management training the staffs on customer care services. MSC should introduce policies that

will enforce good customer care rules and conduct Quarterly customer care surveys that will

monitor and give feedback on the relationship. Corrective and preventive action should then

be carried out based on customer care survey feedback.

5.4.4: Management of financial factors of sugarcane production

The long duration between the earnings and low income per given harvest de-motivated

farmers into sugarcane farming. MSC should therefore introduce and train farmers on an

activity such as dairy animals that will compliment sugarcane farming and also be a source of

income to farmers as the wait for sugarcane income. The farmers should also be trained on

best sugarcane farming practices with the introduction of improved extension tool; for them

to improve on yields and hence income.

MSC management has the good will of most of the farmers; they should therefore devise

means to gain the loyalty of the other 25% of the respondents. Delayed payments outside the

stipulated 30days in the Sugar Act have affected farmers‟ morale towards sugarcane

production. MSC management should review the management process of farmers‟ payment

and ensure farmers‟ payment within 30days after sugarcane delivery.

5.5: Recommendations for further research

The findings revealed that bureaucratic system of management was not appropriate for

sugarcane contract farming. Further research should therefore be carried out in finding out the

most appropriate management system that can be introduced in sugarcane contract farming.

The objective should be to find a management system that will motivate farmers into

sugarcane farming.

References

Action-Aid International Kenya. (2005). Impact of Sugar Import Surges on Kenya.

Adair, J. (1990). Understanding motivation. The Talbot Adair press, England.

Alderfer,C.P.(1972). Existense,Relatedness and Growth. C. Macmillan Press.

Anwar, H & Naeem-ur-Rehman, K. (2011). Economic analysis of sugarcane crop in district

Charsadda- Pakistan. Journal of Agriculture Resources, 49(1), 2011.

Bandura , A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Prentice-Hall: Engelwood –Cliffs.

Berg, A. (1973). The Nutrition factor. Washington: The Brookings Institutions.

Chaikan,M.S. (1989). Land, Labour and Livestock: the impact of intense population pressure

on food security in Western Kenya. Paper presented at a meeting of American

Anthropological Association, November 18th

-22nd

, Chicago.

Davison,J.,(1998). Agriculture,women and land. The African experience. Boulder London:

Westview Press.

Dewey, K.(1978). The Impact of Agricultural change on diet and nutrition in Tabasco,

Mexico. Paper presented at a Symposium on Mexican food system in Historical perspective,

November 14th

-18th

, Los Angels.

Drucker,P.(2008). Five common communications mistakes. Corn and soybean

digest.com,Penton media,Inc.

Eaton,C. & Shepherd, A.W.(2001). Contract Farming-Partnership for growth.

FAO. (n.d). Contract farming-Partnerships for growth. Retrieved on December 17, 2011 from

http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/y0937e/y0937e03.htm

Fein,M.(1974) . Rational approaches to raising Productivity, the University of Michigan

Press

Fuhs, F.W. (1979). Labor utilization and farm income in rural Thailand: Results of case

studies in rural villages (1969-1970).

Ingara, F. (2009). Kenyan sugarcane payment system. Kenya sugar board presentation.

Karanja,D.D., Jayne,T.S & Strasberg,P.(1998). Maize productivity and Impact of Market

Liberalization in Kenya. Tegemeo working paper: Tegemeo Institute, Egerton University.

KESREF.(2005). Kenya Sugar Research Foundation Strategic Plan 2005-2009.

KESREF.( 2009) .Kenya Sugar Research Foundation Strategic Plan 2009-2014.

KSB. (2008). Kenya Sugar Board Yearbook of 2008.

KSB.(2010). Kenya Sugar Industry Strategic Plan 2010-2014.

Kidula,L.L.(2007). Influence of women’s involvement as laborers in sugarcane contract

farming on household food production in Mumias division. (Unpublished Master‟s

Thesis).Egerton University, Kenya.

Kumwenda, I & Madola, M. (2005). The status of contract farming in Malawi;

Food,Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network.

Laurie, J. M. (1990). Management and Organizational behavior. Second edition.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/y0937e/y0937e03.htm

Lihanda, A.M. (2003). Rural Industrialization and the food problem; The case of Mumias

Sugar Scheme. Kenya Society of Sugarcane Technologistics, Proceedings of the 11th

Biennial

Congress. Nairobi,Kenya

Mahlangu, I & Lewis, F. (2008). Social and institutional constraints to the production of

sugarcane by small-scale growers in the Amatikulu catchment of South Africa. Proc. S.Afr

Sug Technol Ass (2008) 81: 128-132.

Maloa, M. B. (2001). Sugar cane: A Case as Development crop in South Africa; A paper

presented on Land Reform and Poverty Alleviation in South Africa –Pretoria.

Masuku, M.B. (2011). Determinants of Sugarcane Profitability: The Case of Smallholder

Cane Growers in Swaziland. Asian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 3(3): 210-214, 2011.

ISSN: 2041-3890.

Muhammad,S.,Garforth,C. & Malik,H.N. (2001). Factors affecting the adoption of

recommended sugarcane technologies by farmers. Pak. J. Agric. Sci.38 (1-2):78-80.

Maslow. A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review 50(4): 370-96

Maslow. A. (1954). Motivation and Personality. Third edition. Harper and Row publishers.

Mayo, E. (1933). The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization, Viking: New York.

Mwandihi,L.A.(1995). Rural Industrialization and food problem, University of Nairobi

MSC. (1970). Mumias Sugar Company Feasibility study report 1965-66

MSC. (2008). Annual Report and Financial Statements for year ended 30 June 2008.

MOCO, (1990). Mumias Outgrowers Company annual report, 1990.

Nuthall, P.L & Padilla-Fernandez, D.M. (2009). Technical Efficiency in the production of

sugar-cane in Central Negros area, Philippines: An application of Data Envelopment analysis.

Journal of ISSAAS Vol. 15 No. 1: 77-90 (2009).

Nuthall, P.L & Padilla-Fernandez, D.M (2001). Farmers’ Goals and Efficiency in the

Production of Sugarcane: The Philippine Case. Lincoln University.

Odede, S.O. (1992). Requirements to arrest the downward economic trends of the Kenya

Sugar Industry into the 21 century. Proceedings of Kenya Society of Sugarcane

Technologists.

Odenya, J.O., Ochia, C.O., Korir, C., & Bor, G.K. (2009). Adoption of Improved sugar-cane

varieties in Nyando sugar-cane zone, Kenya. Kenya sugar Research Foundation –Kisumu.

Olwande, J., Sikei, G & Mathenge, M. (2009). Agricultural Technology Adoption:A panel

Analysis of Smallholder Farmers’ fertilizer use in Kenya. Contributed paper prepared for

presentation at the African Economic Research Consortium Conference on Agriculture for

Development, May 28th

and 29th

, Mombasa, Kenya.

Oniang‟o, C . (1987). Socio-Economic profile of Outgrowers in Mumias Sugar scheme.

Owour,J.O.(1995). The effect of Sugarcane growing on maize production and its implications

for household food security in Mumias sub-division, Kenya. Egerton University.

Orodho,J.A. (2004). Elements of Education and social sciences- Research methods.

Paitoon, C., Auansakul,A and Decha, S. (2001). Assessing the Transportation problems of the

sugarcane Industry in Thailand. Transport and Communications Bulletin for Asia and the

Pacific No. 70, 2001.

Perera M.S., Abeynayake, N.R & Peiris, T.D.G.J. (2010). Socio-economic factors affecting

the technology adoption level of sugarcane in rain-fed sector in Sevenagala, Sri Lanka.

Retrieved from http://environmentlanka.com/blog.2010.

Ramulu, M. (1994). Supply Response of Sugarcane in Andhra Pradesh, India. Finance India

Vol X No.1, pages 116-122.

Saunders, M.,Lewis,P.,&Thornhill,A.(2003). Research Methods for Business Students. Third

edition.

Schutz, W.C. (1966). The Interpersonal underworld Science and Behaviour Books: Palo Alto.

Sorre, B.M. (2005). Effects of Sugarcane production on food security and nutritional status

in Nambale division, Busia district, Kenya. (Unpublished Master‟s Thesis). Moi University,

Kenya.

Swanson, B.E;& Claar,J.B.(1984). The history and development of Agricultural Extension:

FAO reference Manual.

Suri, Tavneet (2005). “Selection and Comparative Advantage in Technology adoption”,

Department of Economics, Yale University, Mimeo.

Swynnerton,R.J.,(1953). A Plan to intensify the Development of African Agriculture in

Kenya. Nairobi: Government Printer.

Taylor,E. B.,(1871). Primitive Culture. London: J. Murray.

Taylor,F.W. (1917). The Scientific Management Theory.

Thandee, D. (1987). Socio-economic Factors and Small scale Farmers in Southeast Asia

Thandee, D. (1978). The role of communication in occupational development of rural

inhabitants: a study of a village in Thailand.

Wawire, N.W, Nyongesa, D.P, & Kipruto, K.B. (2002) The effect of continuous land sub-

division on cane production in Kenya . KESREF Technical Bulletin.

Wawire,N.W,Kahora,F, Shiundu,S.M,Kipruto,K.B & Omolo,G (2006). Cost reduction

strategies in sugar cane production in Kenya. KESREF Technical Bulletin.

http://environmentlanka.com/blog.2010

Yanagida, J.F & Bhatti, M.Y.(1990). Factors affecting farmer‟s sugarcane supply response in

Pakistan. Pak. J. Agric. Soc. Sci. ¾ (1/2):67-72.

APPENDICES

Appendix 1

Introductory letter

Everlyn Dindi,

Kenyatta University,

Reg. No. D53/3408/04,

27/08/2012.

Director of Agriculture,

Mumias Sugar Company Limited,

P.O. Private Bag,

MUMIAS.

Dear Sir,

REF: REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE.

I am an MBA student at Kenyatta University. I am due for the Research study and the topic

of the study is; To Investigate the factors influencing Sugarcane production by farmers of

Mayoni division, Mumias Sugar Company . I kindly request to use Agricultural field staff in

Mayoni divison to assist in primary data collection from contracted cane farmers. I also

request to use the available secondary data on contracted cane farmers of Mayoni division.

Yours faithfully,

Everlyn Dindi.

Appendix 2

QUESTIONNAIRE

Dear Respondent,

I am a Masters‟ student at the Department of Business Studies, Kenyatta University carrying

out a research study on factors influencing sugarcane production by farmers of Mayoni

division. I kindly request you to answer the questions below. All responses will be handled

confidentially.

Thank you,

Everlyn Dindi.

Part A: Background information

1. Gender (Tick the appropriately)

Male ( ) Female ( )

2. What is your marital status?

Married ( ) Single ( )

Widowed ( ) Separated/divorced ( )

3. What is your age set in years? (Tick appropriately)

20-30yrs ( ) 31-40 yrs ( ) 41- 50 yrs( ) Above 50yrs ( )

4. What is your highest level of education?

No formal education ( ) Primary ( )

Secondary ( ) Tertiary ( ) University ( )

Part B: Sugarcane management under contract farming

5. On average how long did MSC management team take between last harvest and planting of

new sugarcane crop under contract farming? Do you think the bureaucratic system of

management has affect on contracted sugarcane farming?

---------------------months. Yes--------------- No----------------------

6. Has MSC bureaucratic management of contract farming motivated you to be a sugarcane

farmer?

a) Yes-------------- b) No--------------------

7. If yes, how has it motivated you? Please indicate reasons below.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. If not motivated by contract farming, please indicate reasons below.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Are farm inputs/services supplied at the right time by Mumias Sugar management team?

a) Yes ------------- b) No---------------------------

10. If No. , how has late inputs supply affected your sugarcane production under contract

farming? a) Increased------------------------ b) reduced---------------------- c) no effect------------

-----

How old is your cane--------------months and how many weedings have you carried out since

last harvesting-----------------times.

11. Rank below ways in which you use MSC inputs such as fertilizer and seedcane supplied

under contract farming. Rank 4 being most and number 1 being least.

Ways of usage Ranking 1-4

On sugarcane farming

On maize farming

Sale to others

Others eg barter, give relatives

Part C: Food Security

12. What is the estimated size of your land?

-------------------------------acres

13. How many acres of your land are under the following?

a) Sugarcane farming --------------------------acres

b) Food crops ---------------------------------acres

c) Fallow (pasture) -------------------------------acres

d) Homestead ------------------------------acres

14. Has MSC management advised you to leave a third of your total land area for food crop

production? Please indicate below

a) Yes--------------- b) No-----------------------

15. Tick below how management of sugarcane farming has affected food availability in your

family over the years

a) Positively (increased food availability)----------------

b) Negatively (reduced food availability)----------------

c) No change at all --------------------------------

16. In what ways has Mumias Sugar Company management contributed towards achieving

food security in your family, please rank 1-4. Rank 4 for most frequent and 1 for less

frequent.

MSC ways on addressing food insecurity Ranks

Provide dairy animals

Provide maize/bean seeds

Education on food security

None

17. Rank below the source of food to your family. Rank 4 - most frequent and 1- less

frequent.

Source of food rank

Fully production from farm

Buy from market

Borrow from relatives and neighbors

Sleep hungry(no meal)

18. And if you buy from the market, what is the source of money? (No. 4 major source while

no. 1 is least important).

Source of money Rank

Employment/business

Proceeds from sugarcane

Lease sugarcane/sale fertilizer

Work as farm laborer

19. In your own view, how has food security contributed towards sugarcane productivity?

a) Increased sugarcane productivity ------

b) Reduced sugarcane productivity---------

Part E: Financial factors

20. What is the main source of income for your family; please rank below indicating no. 4 for

the most important and no.1 for the least.

Source of income Rank

Sugarcane farming

Employment

Business

Food crops

21. Do you know about sugarcane pricing formula? a) yes--------------- b) No-------------------

-

22. With competition for sugarcane by different companies eg West Kenya sugar company,

do you think if West sugar increased prices you will supply your cane to Mumias Sugar

company?

a) Yes--------------------- b) No----------------

23. Please give how much money in Kshs you earned from last sugarcane farming harvested.

Kshs. Per hectare -----------------------------.

24. How long did the sugarcane proceeds take to be paid after harvesting and delivery to

MSC.

Days between delivery to MSC and payment Tick appropriately

Within two weeks

Within 30 days

Within two months

After two months

25. Have the deductions from inputs supplied to you encouraged you to engage in contract

sugarcane farming? a) yes---------------------- b) No---------------------------

If no, please briefly indicate why.---------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----26.Please indicate below how you spend income from sugarcane farming, indicating the

most important priority as no. 5 and the least as no.1

Income expenditure priority

Pay school fees

Invest in business

Buy family food

Build family house

Others

28. Name some institutions MSC management is partnering with to address your financial

requirements such as loans, school fees, medical treatment, food security etc. by using your

sugarcane as collateral

Institution Financial requirement

Part D: Extension Services

30 .How many times has the MSC extension staff visited your farm within the past one

month, please indicate below. -------------- Times

31. What activities did s/he advice you on, please tick below.

a) Planting of sugarcane

b) Fertilizer application

c) Weeding of sugarcane

c) Trash lining of sugarcane

d) Any other (specify)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

32. How many extension meetings (barazas) have the farmers in your block held with MSC

extension staff within the past one month, please indicate ------------- times. And what topics

were discussed------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

33. Which method of extension services do you think is effective in helping improve

sugarcane productivity, please tick below as many responses as you think are good?

a) Farm visits by MSC employees ( )

b) Extension meetings (barazas) ( )

c) Visit contact model(best) farmers ( )

d) Classroom training ( )

34. Have you adopted/used new technologies released by MSC, such as use of herbicides on

weed control, varieties? A) yes------------------------ b) No---------------------------

If no, why are you not using, please indicate below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-

35. What kind of relationship do you have with MSC extension staff?

a) Friendly ( ) b) Casual ( )

c) Indifferent ( ) c) Hostile ( )

36. Has this relationship affected cane farming activities in your farm?

a) Yes ( )

b) No ( )

37. If yes, in which way has it affected your cane farming activities? -----------------------------

-----

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

38. If the relationship is not good, suggest ways in which MSC management can use to help

improve the relationship. Please indicate below.-------------------------------------------------------

----

Thank you for completing the questionnaire successfully.

Appendix 3 BUDGET

S/No. Activity Amount(kshs)

1. Proposal preparation

a) Stationery 2000/=

b) Typing & printing 50 pages @30/= a page 1500/=

c) Photocopying @3/= a page 150/=

d) Binding at 100/= a copy 200/=

e) Transport to consult supervisor*3 12000/=

f) Flash disk 1000/=

2. Data collection


b) Preparation of questionnaires 7000/=

c) Transport to sites and back 9000/=

d) Wages to two data collectors 10000/=

3. Data analysis and project write-up


b) Typing and printing of 4copies 8000/=

c) Binding @300/= a copy 1200/=

Sub-total 57,050/=

Contingency @10% of sub-total 5,700/=

Grand total 62,750/=

Appendix 4

WORKPLAN

Activity Time

Proposal writing January 2010-July 2010

Presentation and Correction September 2010-April 2012

Defence and corrections May 2012

Data collection and coding May 2012-July 2012

Writing of draft and submission July 2012-August 2012

Revision of draft January 2013-April 2013

Project defence May 2013

The Managerial Factors Influencing Sugarcane Production by ...

Documents

Transcript of The Managerial Factors Influencing Sugarcane Production by ...